Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

The Daily Show

2009-12-25T01:36:35Z

Yoritomo: couldn't find confirmation for intended audience on the show's site, source needed

'''''The Daily Show''''' since 1996 has been a [[satire|satirical]] program geared towards [[public school]] students{{fact}} which airs on cable network [[Comedy Central]]. The show's news team presents, "news like you've never seen it before -- unburdened by objectivity, journalistic integrity or even accuracy."<ref name=aboutdailyshow>''Comedy Central's The Daily Show''. [http://www.thedailyshow.com/about About the show]</ref> ''The Daily Show'' was created by Lizz Winstead and Madeleine Smithberg in 1996, hosted by Craig Kilborn until 1999 when [[Jon Stewart]] took over the anchor's chair.<ref name=aboutdailyshow/> [[Liberal]]s have recognized the [[leftist]] slant of the show by giving it a [[Peabody Awards|Peabody Award]] and nine [[Emmy]]s.<ref>IMDb - Awards for The Daily Show [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115147/awards]</ref><ref name=aboutdailyshow/>

== Jon Stewart on ''The Daily Show'' ==
Jon Stewart, a [[liberal]], is currently the host of ''The Daily Show''. In the past he often satirized [[George W. Bush]], the war in [[Iraq War|Iraq]], Congress, and American foreign policy.<ref>[http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20060711_jon_stewart_bush_diplomacy/ Jon Stewart Mocks Bush’s Claims on Diplomacy], July 11, 2006.</ref> Stewart will display video clips, sound bites, and news stories in which Republicans and other conservative politicians are made to look silly, using clips which are often edited or taken out of context so that they appear to be contradicting themselves. The sound bites of clips are typically edited to make Senate speeches appear ridiculous. However, due to Stewart's political values, he has typically provided an easy ride to President [[Obama]] and most other liberals.

Jon's interviews have ranged from semi-serious policy discussions, with [[Barack Obama]] and [[John Kerry]], to comedic conversations with comedians like [[Don Rickles]] and [[Steve Martin]], to verbal "smack-downs" of those in the media such as [[Jim Cramer]] and [[Chris Matthews]].<ref>''Comedy Central''. [http://blog.indecisionforever.com/2009/03/10/cnbcs-jim-cramer-responds-to-jon-stewarts-response-to-cnbcs-jim-cramer/ CNBC's Jim Cramer Responds to Jon Stewart's Response to CNBC's Jim Cramer], March 10, 2009.</ref> Stewart occasionally analyzes upcoming or newly released [[books]] with their respective [[author|authors]].<ref name=aboutdailyshow/>

== Audience ==
''The Daily Show'' is known for catering to an audience of [[public school]] teenagers, more than 60% of whom, a study of one school district found, watch television for over three hours a day.<ref>[http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/dec/01/memphis-youth-make-progress-on-risky-behavior/ Memphis youth make progress on risky behavior], December 1, 2008.</ref> As one study explained, "Nearly half of high school students say they also get news and information from entertainment programs like ''The Daily Show'' and others at least once a week."<ref>[http://www.knightfoundation.org/news/press_room/knight_press_releases/detail.dot?id=136169 Teens Tune In to News on the Internet], September 22, 2006.</ref>

== Correspondents ==
The comedians can be seen as showing a [[liberal bias]] while performing their "news" stories. The segments are usually aimed at poking fun at and satirizing the political parties in power. Thus, Stewart began by [[mockery|mocking]] [[Republicans]], but now makes fun of [[Democrats]], as well as other topics in the news. Some argue that he demeans [[conservative]] positions, such as the [[Second Amendment|Right to Bear Arms]] and the Pro-Life Movement, or [[Christianity]].<ref> Ada Calhoun. [http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/08/28/daily-show-billboard-mocks-republicans/ 'Daily Show' Billboard Mocks Republicans], August 28, 2008.</ref> One segment in particular, "This Week In God", satirizes [[religious]] values while mocking [[God]].<ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=72342</ref><ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=72182</ref> During the episode aired June 27, 2007, [[Lewis Black]] compared Conservapedia's "[[Homosexuality]]" article to [[Wikipedia]]'s, sarcastically describing it as "way more interesting," mainly because Conservapedia's article described it far more graphically. In their coverage of the [[United States Presidential Election, 2008|2008 U.S. presidential election]], most of the guests have been liberal, such as former president [[Bill Clinton]], first lady [[Michelle Obama]] and former [[British]] [[Prime Minister]] [[Tony Blair]].

== References ==
<references/>

==External Links==
[http://www.thedailyshow.com The official ''The Daily Show with Jon Stewart'' website]

{{DEFAULTSORT: Daily Show, The}}
[[category:Television Shows]]

Algebra

2009-12-25T01:11:37Z

Yoritomo: /* Basic Algebra */ minor improvements

'''Algebra''' is a major branch of [[mathematics]] that analyzes the relationships between quantities or items. In higher math the principal fields of algebra are [[linear algebra]], which focuses on matrices, and [[group theory]].<ref>The name algebra comes from the [[Arabic]] word ''al jebr'', which means reduction or "reunion of broken parts" [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/algebra Algebra] as mentioned in a book ''Hisab al-jabr w'al-muqabala'' translated as ''Science of the Reunion and the Opposition''. This text was written in in about 830 AD by [[Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī| Mohammad ibn-Musa al-Khwarizmi]] of [[Baghdad]]. See the [http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/Museum/alkhwa.html Biography of Al-Khwarizmi]</ref>

== Basic Algebra ==

Algebra is a generalization of [[arithmetic]] in which letters stand for numbers in order to accomplish this purpose. Ordinary arithmetic deals with ''specific'' numbers, treated individually: 4 + 7 = 11.

Algebra generalizes these operations by using variables or letters instead of specific numbers. These letters are called [[unknown]]s. For example,

:x + y = 11

By using unknowns, algebra can go beyond individual number facts and express general relationships between ''sets'' of numbers. Thus, the equation above represents ''every pair'' of numbers that add up to 11:
*x could be 4 and y could be 7,
*x could be 5 and y could be 6,
*x could be 10 and y could be 1.

There are 12 such pairs of non-negative integers, but an infinite number of solutions to this equation.

==Notes and references==
<references/>

[[Category:Algebra]]
[[Category:Mathematics]]

Design

2009-12-24T00:55:49Z

Yoritomo: reword: what's "classical" about Dawkins' Darwinism?

'''Design''' is the purposefully made enhancement of an animate object or [[artifact]] by a planned process. In the context of the [[evolution]] vs. [[creation]] controversy, "design" often refers to [[intelligent design]], the [[scientific theory]] that life carries traits which could not have arisen absent purposeful direction towards a goal.

*[[Darwinism|Evolutionary biologists]] such as [[Francisco Ayala]] and [[Richard Dawkins]] assert much more. Dawkins, for example, acknowledges that living organisms "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." But, he argues that this appearance of design is completely misleading because undirected Darwinian processes — random mutations and natural selection — can produce the features of living systems that look designed. In Ayala's words, natural selection produces "design without a designer." [http://www.discovery.org/a/4522]

* [[Charles Darwin]] said his [[theory of evolution]] had disproved design in nature. He declared that [[natural causes]] could explain life. Although the world looked designed, he said, it actually was produced by the blind action of the environment on [[random variations]] in [[organisms]]. [http://www.beliefnet.com/story/172/story_17214_1.html]

== See also ==
* [[List of Intelligent Design Theorists]]''

[[category:science]]

Michael Ledeen

2009-12-24T00:51:53Z

Yoritomo: probably wrong image

'''Michael Arthur Ledeen''' (Born Aug 1, 1941 in Los Angeles, California) is a journalist, author, [[neoconservative]] activist, [[American Enterprise Institute]] resident scholar, one of the funders of the [[Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs]] and a national security adviser to former president [[Ronald Reagan]].

==Education==
Michael Ledeen received his B.A. in 1963 from Pomona College in Claremont, California; his M.S. and Ph.D. in History and Philosophy from the University of Wisconsin. He served as a professor at the University of Rome from 1975 to 1977, and as a Professor at Washington University from 1967 to 1974.

==Books==
: ''The War Against the Terror Masters: Why It Happened. Where We Are Now. How We’ll Win''
: ''Tocqueville on American Character: Why Tocqueville’s Brilliant Exploration of the American Spirit is as Vital and Important Today as it was Nearly Two Hundred Years Ago''
: ''Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli’s Iron Rules are as Timely and Important Today as Five Centuries Ago''
: ''Freedom Betrayed: How America led a Global Democratic Revolution, Won the Cold War and Walked Away''

==References==
:[http://www.nndb.com/people/210/000099910/ NNDB profile of Michael Ledeen]

==See Also==
:[http://www.pajamasmedia.com/xpress/michaelledeen/ Faster, Please!], Michael Ledeen's blog.

{{DEFAULTSORT: Ledeen, Michael}}
[[Category:Historians]]
[[category:authors|Ledeen, Michael]]
[[category:journalists]]
[[Category:Neoconservative]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]

Supergiant

2009-12-24T00:15:05Z

Yoritomo: typo

[[Image:Redgiants.png|thumb|right|250px|Comparison of the size of the supergiant [[Antares]] to the giant [[Arcturus]] and our [[Sun]], a main sequence dwarf.]]

'''Supergiants''' are a class of star that are among the most massive and luminous [[star|stars]] found. The Yerkes spectral classification place supergiants with the luminosity classes of '''1a''' (luminous supergiants), '''1ab''' (intermediate luminous supergiants), or '''1b''' (less luminous supergiants). The largest and most luminous supergiants are termed '''hypergiants''' with a luminosity class of 0, although the term is loosely defined. Supergiants also vary greatly in their radius, ranging from 30 times the diameter of the [[sun]] to over 1000 times.

Supergiants form initially the same way other regular stars do, from a cloud of [[hydrogen]] gas and interstellar dust that compresses under its gravitational attraction until the center of the cloud is hot enough to fuse hydrogen at its core. What determines if a star will become a supergiant is the amount of mass the star contains. A star needs to contain at least ten solar masses in order to evolve into a supergiant.<ref>http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761587630/Supergiant_%28star%29.html</ref>

==Types of Supergiants==

The two most common types are supergiants are blue supergiants, such as [[Rigel]], and red supergiants, such as [[Betelgeuse]]. However supergiants can range from [[Star#Spectral_types|spectral type]] cool, red class M stars to very hot, blue class O stars.

===Red Supergiants===

Red supergiants are the largest stars in the universe in terms of their volume, and are classified as [[Star#Spectral_types|spectral type]] M or K. These stars form when stars with more than 10 solar masses evolve off the main sequence and expand to their supergiant phase during the helium-burning phase. This phase causes the star's outer layers to expand rapidly, cooling the surface to around 3500-4500 K, causing the expanding giant to redden. Depending on the mass of the supergiant, they will continue to fuse heavier and heavier [[elements]] in their core, the most massive fusing elements up to [[iron]]. The entire red supergiant phase of a star's life is very brief, lasting only a few hundred thousand to a million years. The most massive of these stars are believed to evolve into [[Wolf-Rayet star|Wolf-Rayet stars]]. Eventually, all but the least massive of these stars will end their lives in a type II [[supernova]].

===Blue Supergiants===
[[Image:Gamma_Orionis_Algol_B_Sun.png|thumb|right|300px|Interpretation of [[Gamma Orionis]] (left), [[Algol|Algol B]] (right), the [[Sun]] (center), and a [[brown dwarf]] and planets of our [[solar system]], to show the differences in size.]]
Blue supergiants are among the hottest and brightest stars in the universe, they are classified as spectral class O or B. They have surface temperatures between 20,000K and 50,000K. Typically they are not as large as red supergiants and their radii virtually never exceed 25 solar radii in size.<ref name="illinois"> http://www.astro.illinois.edu/~jkaler/sow/star_intro.html#highmass</ref> Because of their extreme luminosity, such stars are highly represented in the night sky from [[Earth]] even though they are very scarce. Because of their large mass and intense temperature, they have very short lifespans and are typically observed in [[open cluster|open clusters]], [[irregular galaxy|irregular galaxies]], or the arms of [[spiral galaxy|spiral galaxies]].

Blue supergiants form from the slowing nuclear reactions of a sufficiently massive star that has used all its [[hydrogen]] core fuel. The slightly slower nuclear reactions cause the star to contract. With a smaller surface area, the nuclear reactions in the core heat the surface far more than in a red supergiant. A red supergiant may evolve into a blue supergiant if the nuclear reactions at the core slow for whatever reason.<ref name="illinois"> http://www.astro.illinois.edu/~jkaler/sow/star_intro.html#highmass</ref>

===Yellow and White Supergiants===

Yellow supergiants are a supergiant star of spectral class G, while white supergiants are those of the spectral class F.<ref>p. 366, The evolution of massive stars with mass loss, Cesare Chiosi and Andre Maeder, Annual review of astronomy and astrophysics 24 (1986), pp. 329–375. Bibcode: 1986ARA&A..24..329C. doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.24.090186.001553</ref> These are typically older supergiants that swing between blue and red phases as they consume elements through fusion in their cores. Some of these are massive enough to be yellow hypergiants, such as [[Rho Cassiopeiae]].

==Hypergiants==

The stars with the greatest luminosity and mass are generally referred to as '''hypergiants''' (luminosity class 0). Although the term is used loosely, the criterion used to separate supergiants from hypergiants is that the latter are stars with an absolute magnitude greater then -7. Because of this, hypergiants do not have to be the more massive than other supergiants, but the most massive stars are still generally seen as hypergiants.<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A%26ARv...8..145D</ref> Like supergiants, these most luminious of stars can have a spectral type ranging from class A to M.

Hypergiants are so luminous that they sit very close to the point where radiation from the interior of the star would overcome the inward force of gravity. This theoretical upper limit for the luminosity of a star is called the '''Eddington limit'''. Any star that exceeds this limit will be blown apart from its own immense radiation.

==End of Supergiants==

All spectral types of supergiants can end their lives as [[supernova]] if their cores' mass exceed 1.4 solar masses (known as the [[Chandrasekhar limit]]).<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ApJ...323..140L</ref> It was once thought that only red supergiants could end their lives this way. This was disproved with occurrence of Supernova 1987A in the [[Magellanic_Clouds#Large_Magellanic_Cloud|Large Magellanic Cloud]] on February 23, 1987, when it was discovered the progenitor star was a B3 class, blue supergiant.<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/arXiv:0705.3066</ref> Supergiants that have a core mass of less then 1.4 solar masses will end their lives as a [[white dwarf]].

==See Also==
*[[red giant]]
*[[supernova]]

[[Category:Astronomy]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

Bolivar

2009-12-23T16:16:50Z

Yoritomo: repair double redirect

#REDIRECT [[Simón Bolivar]]

Talk:Homosexual denial

2009-12-22T17:14:16Z

Yoritomo: needs sources

I believe this article should be restructured or, as it appears now, deleted, simply on the grounds on the Conservapedia Commandments: "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages." This article got many personal opinions, most notably "No conclusion can be drawn from the premises". The article is also against both "Everything you post must be true and verifiable" and "Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain", as it got no sources/references/citations at all. [[User:Efloean|Efloean]] 14:10, 20 December 2009 (EST)
:I do not think that this is a personal opinion. The logic, I think, is like this:
:*P1. A iff B and C
:*P2. B is true
:*P3. A = D
:*P4. Not A
:*C1. Not C
:(Hope the notation is right) Maybe it should be put in another article, or in an essay. But the logic is fine.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 15:05, 20 December 2009 (EST)
::Then I suggest to move it to the essay namespace. My answer came a bit late as I can't edit this wiki for very much of the time when I'm awake. [[User:Efloean|Efloean]] 10:36, 22 December 2009 (EST)

If it is to remain an article, it could use some sources indicating that it is a significant phenomenon. I never before heard of such reaoning being used "by homosexuals trying to seduce same-sex partners". For example I'd assume that what happens in prison often isn't seduction but rape. But that's just my personal opinion, too; I don't really know any statistics about homosexuality in prison. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 12:14, 22 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Walt Disney

2009-12-21T00:34:24Z

Yoritomo: explain content removal

*The stuff about Eisner, et.al. and the strife, there is about a 10 year gap between Walt's death and all of that...so it isn't very accurate. Roy O. Disney ran it for years after Walt died. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 12:28, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

::I worked at ABC for 8 years, and I also read some books about Walt Disney and The Walt Disney Company. There was strife and factionalism, Terry. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:32, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
*Bows to Ed Poor's greater knowledge and personal experience. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:47, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

"Gay Days" are not a Disney-sponsored event. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 14:43, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
:True. That really shouldn't be on there. A better example would be their extension of medical benefits to "domestic partners" of their employees. --[[User:BirdieA|Birdie]] 13:07, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

:I just removed the "strife" paragraph. On the one hand, it's long after Walt Disney's death and doesn't belong here, but into the [[The Walt Disney Company]] article, if at all. Furthermore, ''Mulan'' was released and Gay Days began while Roy Disney still was "chairman of Feature Animation", not as a consequence of any "era of bottom-line corporate thinking" ushered in by Roy Disney's departure. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 19:34, 20 December 2009 (EST)

Walt Disney

2009-12-21T00:23:58Z

Yoritomo: remove irrelevant and partly wrong paragraph, see talk

'''Walt Disney''' (1901-1966) was [[United States|America]]'s greatest [[cartoon]] animator and a pioneer in the [[movie]] and [[theme park]] industries. His [[Disneyland]] in [[California]] spawned similar ventures in [[Florida]] ([[Walt Disney World]]), [[Tokyo]], [[Hong Kong]], and [[Paris]].

In 1925, Disney hired a young woman named Lillian Bounds to ink and paint celluloid. He was soon taken with his new employee and they would often go for drives together in the hills of Los Angeles. While on a date he asked her if he should buy a new car or a ring for her finger. They were married on July 15, 1925, and, unlike many Hollywood marriages, theirs lasted for over 40 years.<ref>http://www.hollywoodusa.co.uk/GlendaleObituaries/waltdisney.htm</ref>

Disney is perhaps best known for creating [[Mickey Mouse]].

Famous Disney animations include:
* ''[[Steamboat Willie]]'' (first appearance of Mickey Mouse)
* ''[[Snow White and the Seven Dwarves]]''
* ''[[Cinderella]]''
* ''[[Bambi]]''
* ''[[Dumbo]]''
* ''[[Fantasia]]''

Live action hits include:
* ''[[Old Yeller]]''
* ''[[Mary Poppins]]''

== External Links ==
[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000370/ IMDB Website]

==References==
<References/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Disney, Walt}}

[[Category:Directors]]

Disney

2009-12-21T00:12:21Z

Yoritomo: repair double redirect

#REDIRECT [[The Walt Disney Company]]

HMS Java

2009-12-18T00:52:05Z

Yoritomo: recategorize

The [[France|French]]-built [[frigate]] ''Renommée'' was taken by the [[UK|British]] near [[Madagascar]] and renamed '''''HMS Java'''''. She carried 38 guns and was under the command of Captain [[Harry Lambert]] during the [[War of 1812]], when she met the American frigate [[USS Constitution|USS Constitution]] of 44 guns off the coast of [[Brazil]], in what would be her last battle, which lasted for three hours on [[December 29]], [[1812]]. HMS Java was a new frigate, well supplied and manned, and proved to be well handled and well fought. She was carrying additional personnel for other ships at the time and included another ship's commanding Captain in transit. In any case she proved to be a tougher opponent than [[HMS Guerriere]] did for the USS Constitution. After the surrender she was deemed unfit for repair and subsequently burned.<ref name="USnavy">http://www.history.navy.mil/docs/war1812/const6.htm</ref>

==The Action==
USS Constitution sighted 2 sails in the [[Atlantic Ocean]] off the coast of [[Brazil]] and wore about to intercept. Both HMS Java and USS Constitution made private signals to identify the other. Failing that both ships raised Jacks and raised sails to intercept one another. HMS Java had the weather gauge and used it to attempt to rake USS Constitution. The opening phase of the action comprised both ships attempting to rake the other with little success. Captain Bainbridge wore USS Constitution to a matching course and opened fire with a broadside at 1/2 mile. This broadside accomplished nothing and forced Captain Bainbridge to risk raking to close HMS Java. Both ships began firing broadsides but HMS Java had a mast falling over her starboard side that prevented most of her guns from firing. USS Constitution's accuracy of fire and greater weight and number of her broadside put the smaller HMS Java at a large disadvantage. Within 1 hour and 55 minutes of the 1st exchange of broadsides HMS Java was a floating wreck and burned since she could not be salvaged.<ref name="USnavy">http://www.history.navy.mil/docs/war1812/const6.htm</ref>

==Journal of Commodore William Bainbridge==

*Note that this is a transcription from the Captain of the USS Consititution and does contain both spelling errors and spelling conventions that are correct for 1812 and incorrect now... Please do not spell correct.

''Extract from Commodore Bainbridge's Journal Kept on board the U. S. Frigate Constitution Tuesday 29th December 1812'': At 9 AM, discovered two Strange Sails on the weather bow, at 10. AM. discovered the strange sails to be Ships, one of them stood in for the land, and the other steered off shore in a direction towards us. At 10.45. We tacked ship to the Nd & Wd and stood for the sail standing towards us,-At 11 tacked to the Sd & Ed hauld up the mainsail and took in the Royals. At 11.30 AM made the private signal for the day, which was not answered, & then set the mainsail and royals to draw the strange sail off from the neutral Coast. Wednesday 30th December 1812, (Nautical Time) Commences with Clear weather and moderate breezes from E.N.E. Hoisted our Ensign and Pendant. At 15 minutes past meridian, The ship hoisted her colours, an English Ensign, --having a signal flying at her Main Red Yellow-Red At 1.26 being sufficiently from the land, and finding the ship to be an English Frigate, took in the Main Sail and Royals, tacked Ship and stood for the enemy At 1 .50. P.M, The Enemy bore down with an intention of rakeing us, which we avoided by wearing. At 2, P.M, the enemy being within half a mile, of us, and to wind ward, & having hawled down his colours to dip his Gafft, and not hoisting them again except an Union Jack at the Mizen Mast head, (we having hoisted on board the Constitution an American Jack forward Broad Pendant at Main, American Ensign at Mizen Top Gallant Mast head and at the end of The Gafft) induced me to give orders to the officer of the 3rd Division to fire one Gun ahead of the enemy to make him show his Colours, which being done brought on afire from us of the whole broadside, on which he hoisted an English Ensign at the Peak, and another in his weather Main Rigging, besides his Pendant and then immediately returned our fire, which brought on a general action with round and grape. The enemy Kept at a much greater distance than I wished, but Could not bring him to closer action without exposing ourselves to several rakes.-Considerable Manoeuvers were made by both Vessels to rake and avoid being raked. The following Minutes Were Taken during the Action At 2.10. P.M, Commenced The Action within good grape and Canister distance. The enemy to windward (but much farther than I wished).
*At 2,30. P.M, our wheel was shot entirely away
*At 2.40. determined to close with the Enemy, notwithstanding her rakeing, set the Fore sail & Luff'd up close to him.
*At 2,50, The Enemies Jib boom got foul of our Mizen Rigging
*At 3 The Head of the enemies Bowsprit & Jib boom shot away by us
*At 3.5 Shot away the enemies foremast by the board
*At 3.15 Shot away The enemies Main Top mast just above the Cap
*At 3.40 Shot away Gafft and Spunker boom
*At 3.55 Shot his mizen mast nearly by the board
*At 4.5 Having silenced the fire of the enemy completely and his colours in main Rigging being [down] Supposed he had Struck, Then hawl'd about the Courses to shoot ahead to repair our rigging, which was extremely cut, leaving the enemy a complete wreck, soon after discovered that The enemies flag was still flying hove too to repair Some of our damages.
*At 4.20. The Enemies Main Mast went by the board.
*At 4.50 [Wore] ship and stood for the Enemy
*At 5.25 Got very close to the enemy in a very [effective] rakeing position, athwart his bows & was at the very instance of rakeing him, when he most prudently Struck his Flag.
Had The Enemy Suffered the broadside to have raked him previously to strikeing, his additional loss must have been extremely great laying like a log upon the water, perfectly unmanageable, I could have continued rakeing him without being exposed to more than two of his Guns, (if even Them) After The Enemy had struck, wore Ship and reefed the Top Sails, hoisted out one of the only two remaining boats we had left out of 8 & sent Lieut [George] Parker 1st of the Constitution on board to take possession of her, which was done about 6. P.M, The Action continued from the commencement to the end of the Fire, 1 H 55 m our sails and Rigging were shot very much, and some of our spars injured-had 9 men Killed and 26 wounded. At 7 PM. The boat returned from the Prize with Lieut. [Henry D.] Chads the 1st of the enemies Frigate (which I then learnt was the Java rated 38 - had 49 Guns mounted--)-and Lieut Genl [Thomas] Hislop-appointed to Command in the East Indies,-Major Walker and Capt Wood, belonging to his Staff. -Capt [Henry] Lambert of the Java was too dangerously wounded to be removed immediately. The Cutter returned on board the Prize for Prisoners, and brought Capt [John] Marshall, Master & Commander of The British Navy, who was passenger on board, as also Several other Naval officers destined for ships in the East Indies. The Java had her whole number complete and nearly an hundred supernumeraries. The number she had on board at the commencement of the Action, The officers have not candour to say; from the different papers we collected, such as a muster book, Watch List and quarter Bills, she must have had upwards of 400 souls, she had one more man stationed at each of her Guns on both Decks than what we had The Enemy had 83 wounded & 57 Kill'd. The Java was an important ship fitted out in the compleatest manner to [carry out] the Lieut. Genl & dispatches. She had Copper &c. on board for a 74 building at Bombay, and, I suspect a great many other valuables, but every thing was blown up, except the officers baggage when we set her on fire on the 1st of January 1813 at 3 P.M. Nautical Time.<ref>National Archives, Record Group 45, Captain's Letters, 1813, Vol.1, No.8 1/2.</ref>

==Lieutenant Henry D. Chads, Royal Navy, to Secretary of the Admiralty John W. Croker==

*Lieutenant Chads was the senior surviving officer of HMS Java, her Captain's wound being mortal.

Triplicate

United States Frigate Constitution
off St Salvador Decr 31st 1812

Sir, It is with deep regret that I write you for the information of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty that His Majesty's Ship Java is no more, after sustaining an action on the 29th Inst for several hours with the American Frigate Constitution which resulted in the Capture and ultimate destruction of His Majestys Ship. Captain Lambert being dangerously wounded in the height of the Action, the melancholy task of writing the detail devolves on me. On the morning of the 29th inst at 8 AM off St Salvador (Coast of Brazil) the wind at NE. we perceived a strange sail, made all sail in chace and soon made her out to be a large Frigate; at noon prepared for action the chace not answering our private Signals and backing towards us under easy sail; when about four miles distant she made a signal and immediately tacked and made all sail away upon the wind, we soon found we had the advantage of her in sailing and came up with her fast when she hoisted American Colours. she then bore about three Points on our lee bow at 1:50 PM the Enemy shortened Sail upon which we bore down upon her, at 2:10 when about half a mile distant she opened her fire giving us her larboard broad-side which was not returned till we we were close on her weather bow; both Ships now manoeuvered to obtain advantageous positions; our opponent evidently avoiding close action and firing high to disable our masts in which he succeeded too well having shot away the head of our bowsprit with the Jib boom and our running rigging so much cut as to prevent our preserving the weather gage At 3:5 finding the Enemys raking fire extreemly heavy Captain Lambert ordered the Ship to be laid on board, in which we should have succeeded had not our foremast been shot away at this moment, the remains of our bowsprit passing over his taffrail, shortly after this the main topmast went leaving the Ship totally unmanageable with most of our Starboard Guns rendered useless from the wreck laying over them At 3:30 our Gallant Captain received a dangerous wound in the breast and was carried below, from this time we could not fire more than two or three guns until 4:15 when our Mizen mast was shot away the Ship then fell off a little and brought many of our Starboard Guns to bear, the Enemy's rigging was so much cut that he could not now avoid shooting ahead which brought us fairly Broadside and Broadside. Our Main yard now went in the slings both ships continued engaged in this manner till 4:35 we frequently on fire in consequence of the wreck laying on the side engaged. Our opponent now made sail ahead out of Gun shot where he remained an hour repairing his damages leaving us an unmanageable wreck with only the mainmast left, and that toterring; Every exertion was made by us during his interval to place this Ship in a state to renew the action. We succeeded in clearing the wreck of our Masts from our Guns. a Sail was set on the stumps of the Foremast & Bowsprit the weather half of the Main Yard remaining aloft, the main tack was got forward in the hope of getting the Ship before the Wind, our helm being still perfect. the effort unfortunately proved ineffectual from the Main mast falling over the side from the heavy rolling of the Ship, which nearly covered the whole of our Starboard Guns. We still waited the attack of the Enemy, he now standing toward us for that purpose. on his coming nearly within hail of us & from his manouvre perceiving he intended a position a head where he could rake us without a possibility of our returning a shot. I then consulted the Officers who agreed with myself that on having a great part of our Crew killed & wounded our Bowsprit and three masts gone, several guns useless, we should not be justified in waisting the lives of more of those remaining whom I hope their Lordships & Country will think have bravely defended His Majestys Ship. Under these circumstances, however reluctantly at 5:50 our Colours were lowered from the Stump of the Mizen Mast and we were taken possession a little after 6. by the American Frigate Constitution commanded by Commodore Bainbridge who immediately after ascertaining the state of the Ship resolved on burning her which we had the satisfaction of seeing done as soon as the Wounded were removed. Annexed I send you a return of a killed and wounded and it is with pain I perceive it so numerous also a statement of the comparative force of the two Ships when I hope their Lordships will not think the British Flag tarnished although success has not attended us. It would be presumptive in me to speak of Captain Lamberts merit, who, though still in danger from his wound we still entertain the greatest hopes of his being restored to the service & his Country. It is most gratifying to my feelings to notice the general gallantry of every Officer, Seaman & Marine on board. in justice to the Officers I beg leave to mention them individually. I can never speak too highly of the able exertions of Lieuts. [William A.] Herringham & Buchanan and also Mr. [Batty] Robinson Master who was severely wounded and Lieuts Mercer and Davis [David Davies] of the Royal Marines the latter of whom was also severely wounded. To Capt Jno Marshall RN who was a passenger I am particular]y obliged to for his exertions and advice throughout the action. To Lieutt Aplin who was on the Main Deck and Lieutt Sanders who commanded on the Forecastle, I also return my thanks. I cannot but notice the good conduct of the Mates, & Midshipmen. many of whom are killed & the greater part wounded. To Mr T. C. [Thomas Cooke] Jones Surgeon and his Assistants every praise is due for their unwearied assiduity in the care of the wounded. Lieutt General [Thomas] Hislop, Major Walker and Captain [J. T.] Wood of his Staff the latter of whom was severely wounded were solicitous to assist & remain on the quarter Deck I cannot conclude this letter without expressing my grateful acknowledgement thus publicly for the generous treatment Captain Lambert and his Officers have experienced from our Gallant Enemy Commodore Bainbridge and his Officers. I have the honor to be [&c.]

W [H] D Chads, 1st Lieut
of His Majestys late Ship Java

To John Wilson Croker Esquire
Secretary
Admiralty.

PS. The Constitution has also suffered severely, both in her rigging and men having her Fore and Mizen masts, main topmast, both main topsailyards, Spanker boom, Gaff & trysail mast badly shot, and the greatest part of the standing rigging very much damaged with ten men killed. The Commodore, 5 Lieuts and 46 men wounded four of whom are since dead.<ref>British Public Record Office, Admiralty 1/5435.</ref>

==In popular fiction==

There is a fictional, but well-researched and historically accurate, account of this incident in [[Patrick O'Brian]]'s novel ''[[The Fortune of War]]'' (1979).<ref name="USnavy">http://www.history.navy.mil/docs/war1812/const6.htm</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Warships]]
[[category:United States Navy]]

Social contract

2009-12-18T00:35:43Z

Yoritomo: add Locke to See Also

A '''social contract''' is an implied agreement between people and their [[government]], whereby the people give up some rights to government in exchange for protection. The concept of the social contract was proposed during the [[Enlightenment]], and became influential in political conflicts such as the [[French Revolution]].

This concept was used by the [[founding fathers|founders]] of the [[United States]] to declare that the ruler (the [[king]]) had broken the "contract" and therefore independence is justified.

==See Also==
*[[Thomas Hobbes]]
*[[John Locke]]

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Talk:Same-sex marriage

2009-12-18T00:02:48Z

Yoritomo: /* "One man, one woman" God-given? */ reply

{{Talk:Same-sex marriage/pov }}

=="The rationale goes like this" is completly wrong==
"The rationale goes like this:

Marriage is good.
No one can criticize what is good.
A same-sex union, defined as marriage, is good.
Therefore, no one can criticize same-sex unions."

That is ''not'' the Liberal rationale for legalizing gay marriage, if that is going to remain there there should be at least a few sources as to which Leberal said that.

The ''actual'' liberal rational:

* Marriage, like '''all''' institutions of the law, should not be defined by ''one'' or ''any'' specefic religion, or religion all together.

* The fact that the legallity of Gay marriage is the debate proves its a matter of law, automatically disqualifing any given religions say on it. ''See also: [[seperation of church and state]]''

* Atheists can and do get married, further proof it isn't a religious establishment.

* A homosexuals person's life has nothing to do with ''yours'', and because homosexuallity does not violate any human rights, ''you'' should not have the right to tell them they cannot get married.

I realize this is conservapedia and you guys would rather have untruthful things that make you sound right, but reality is better than ''sounding'' right if you ask me.

==Bias==
I do not feel the article is from a neutral point of view. This article seems to be obviously against gay marriage. I also propose that the statistics for spousal abuse in heterosexual relationships are put up beside the homosexual statistics for a comparison. I personally believe not allowing homosexual marriage is not allowing equal freedoms for all people. Also I do not think the reason for not allowing gay marriage should be the bible, as not only should there be a complete separation between church and state, but Athiests and Agnostics are not stopped from getting married, neither should homosexuals.[[User:Strata|Strata]] 23:40, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree completely that there is bias here. It's one thing to be against same-sex marriage, but it's ridiculous to insinuate that same-sex marriage as an attack on heterosexual marriage. [[User:Forthewin827|Forthewin827]] 15:22, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

==Is page protected?==
B/c I wanted to edit it, but I can't.
[[User:Won4tide1|Won4tide1]] 17:41, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, it is. Please post your suggested changes here first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== Addition to Rationale ==

<big>There is another rationale used by proponents of same sex marriage.</big>

Essentially it is as follows: 

Marriage exists as both a religiously and legally defined entity in the United States. 

Marriage confers certain legal benefits upon those married. Additionaly marriage has social value in that it is used as a signifier of individuals' commitment to one another 

There is a legal tradition in this country which holds that sexual orientation is not a valid status upon which one may deny legal rights or protections. 

The refusal to recognize same sex marriage constitutes such a denial of legal rights and protections. Since those in a same sex marriage are, by definition, homosexual- this constitutes a denial of legal rights and protections based upon sexual orientation. 

Refusing to recognize same sex marriages essentially violates long standing legal traditions. 

The most logical remedy to this situation is to allow the recognition of same sex marriages. 

<big>There is also a philosophical justification that same sex marriage does not destroy the institution of marriage in society.</big>

In most religious traditions, marriage exclusively recognizes the sacred bond of love between a man and woman. 

However society has a more general definition of marriage as an institution that recognizes the profound (and one could still say sacred) bond of love existing between two individuals- traditionally a man and woman. 

Recognizing same sex marriage recognizes the legitimacy of the bond of love between same sex partners. 

However the religious definition of marriage is still unique in that it specifically focuses upon the devine blessing of the union between a man and a woman. Thus this traditional sense of marriage retains its unique character. 

I think that it is important to add these rationales because these are the ones that you are most likely to encounter in the discourse on gay marriage. Those looking for information on the subject would be best served by being able to read the most commonly used rationales.

== Adding mores links ==

The article seems fine at this point, but it could use some more links to other Conservapedia articles after the introduction. I thought it was a little odd that editing was disabled in this article, or else I would have added the links myself. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 16:52, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

== What? ==

Why is this marriage in inverted commas (quotes)? And why does it say that the purpose of same-sex marriage is to "destroy the sanctity of marriage"? In what doctrine supporting same sex marriage is that said?
:I think they are saying that that is liberals' true purpose (intention), even if the people supporting same-sex marriage don't actually say it and openly admit it. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 16:50, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

==Supporting Gay Marriage==

By and large proponents of Gay Marriage only support removing the states role in prohibiting marriage; they still cannot force religious institutions to marry homosexuals. In other words, even if the Government deemed gay marriage to be ok, the religious institutions would still have all the power. After all, marriage is a union between a man and a woman under God - Why should the State have its neck involved in that? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:49, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*I agree with you here, Graham. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:27, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*From what I know the proponents of gay Marriage do ''not'' seek to force religion to do ''anything'', and while religious practices may change in the long run just as society changes... In my mind an alternative to gay marriage, a ''better'' alternative (Also since the United States separates church from state and marriage is religious)

Would be civil unions for ANY arrangement, i.e. MM,FF,MF, and make marriage a religious ceremony. Thus any two people could have the legal benefits of marriage, but under legal (state) terminology while if two people want to get married. The local Pastor, Rabbi, or Imam can do that and discriminate in who they partner up.

All these people want is to be happy, part of that is mutual trust and security, and that comes from Civil Unions, Marriage, whatever you want to call it. But seriously, this would work to keep marriage 'sacred' while Homosexuals could unionize with their partner. [[User:Nateland|Nateland]] 19:05, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

The Unitarian church, among others, performs same sex weddings.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:05, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

:I don't get it. People can be friends, with mutual trust and all that. I can even give my unmarried fried a [[power of attorney]] to handle things like me being in a coma and needing decisions about medical care. What does marriage have to do with "legal privileges for adults"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

== This sentence is gramatically wrong... ==

"It is also referred to as "[[homosexuality|gay]] marriage" or "[[homosexuality|homosexual]] marriage", is the official certification in jurisdictions that allow a union between two people of the same sex."

and since I just got yelled at, maybe someone else can fix it. [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 00:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)

==Tremendous pressure... needs revision==
<blockquote>Combined with hate speech rules and hate crime laws, a government certification of "same-sex marriage" will place tremendous pressure on people who criticize homosexuality, oppose the gay agenda, or believe in the sanctity of marriage.[Citation Needed] "How do you know we're not married?" would be the simplest of rejoinders. Or, "How dare you criticize my spouse!" (see fighting words).</blockquote>

Same-sex marriage is already legal in Massachusetts and in several other countries, so if this assertion of "tremendous pressure" is true, it should be easy to find cite-able examples of it. I've had no luck thus far, so perhaps someone else should try... if not, we'll have to remove this section, because the article is seriously weakened by assertions we can't justify. Also, we need a working definition of the sanctity of marriage -- I'm sure that many people, churches, groups, etc. consider same-sex marriage perfectly sanctified, so we need to be more specific. I'm removing the language for now, and please, if you put it back in, clarify what is meant by 'sanctity.' Also, the 'fighting words' link appears to be dead, so I'm removing it.

Cheers!
[[User:Mermaid|Gabe]] 14:58, 13 January 2008 (EST)

==Sauce for you.==
For the homosexual violence statement in the box beneath the spiffy graphic on the upper-right corner of the page: [http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=5a6dc0ec-3807-4f5c-a5ad-c50855986682&k=55181&p=2] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:04, 16 January 2008 (EST)

That article also says that common law relationships (IE live-in but not formally married) are 5 times more likely to experience violence and is the only category seeing growth in violence. Thus, allowing gay marriage would, statistically speaking, reduce domestic violence among homosexual couples. This article actually supports gay marriage from a statistical standpoint....[[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 19:28 16, January 2008 (EST)

:Yeah... But let's ignore the facts. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::What facts? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::What the study shows. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:45, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:Non sequitur. It isn't saying that abusive people who get married will suddenly stop being abusive, which seems to be your argument. A more logical conclusion is that abusive people are less likely to get married in the first place. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)

==Move?==
Seriously, that would be a good idea. It's called same sex marriage throughout the article, why isn't it titled correctly? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:13, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:Yes, no? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== A counterfeit counterfeit ==

The following is unintentionally amusing:

Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family refers to the phrase same-sex 'marriage,' with quotation
marks around the word marriage, to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as
well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that he therefore
believes that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."

Why did the author put quotation marks around the word counterfeits? Is it to call attention to his belief that "Dr." Dobson's views on counterfeits are themselves counterfeit? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:23, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:I see what you're saying, but I think that's just there to show that it's his words, not Conservapedia's. That's something you do with all quotes, agqain, just to show that it's his word(s). --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 13:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Graphic ==

Even if the claim beneath the graphic is true: 1) violence is not a defining characteristic of homosexual marriage--therefore the graphic shouldn't be so prominently displayed here; and 2) the purported cycle of violence is not specific to homosexual relationships--therefore it is inappropriate in an article specifically dedicated to homosexual marriage. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:09, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:I was unaware that "homosexual marriage" had '''any''' defining characteristics. It's only a counterfeit, a sham aimed at destroying real marriage. This article is not "dedicated" to homosexual marriage; rather, it exposed the counterfeiting of marriage which [[gay rights]] activists are using to destroy marriage.

:We have no obligation here to respect sin - don't even try that line of argument. Homosexuality is sinful - and it makes people miserable. Why should we respect it? Do your "respect" the "choice" of adults to have sex with children? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:13, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:: If homosexual marriage is legal somewhere, does it not therefore exist? I fail to see how the argument of respect (which somewhat disingenuously equates homosexuality and pedophilia) has anything to do with whether it exists or not. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:36, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Laws permitting this sham are on the books in various places. But giving one thing the same name as another thing doesn't validate it. Once again, the article is not about homosexuals "marrying" - or should not be.

:::It should be about the laws and their purpose. It should illuminate the goals of the [[gay rights movement]] and compare their reasoning with the reality of their purpose, as well as the effect those laws are having.

:::The pathetic attempt to gain love from a sexual partner of the some gender is at the root of this. As [[Richard Cohen]] pointed out - drawing of course on the work of better-educated scientists like Socarides - it's a [[same-sex attachment disorder]]. And by the way, voting [[homosexuality]] out of the manual of psychiatric disorders doesn't change the fact that it's a disorder and a perversion.

:::Legalizing sin and craziness doesn't make it good, any more than calling spoiled food wholesome. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:11, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

It's really sad to see people like Ed be so bigoted. I take comfort in the fact that by the end of my lifetime, gays will have equal rights.

== move page ==

Can this page be moved to [[Homosexual marriage]], which is a better term for this -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 22:53, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
:Same-sex marriage seems more precise. Bisexual people can marry a person of the same gender, so "Homosexual marriage" is a bit of a misnomer. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 14:21, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

== Out of Date. ==

This article is out of date. Norway allows gay "people" to have equal marriage rights as well. -- Dollfuss.

== I have a question ==

I'm only 16, and maybe there is some sort of generational gap on this issue, but I'm curious to know why people care so much about the homosexual marriage issue? I just haven't ever found the arguments for or against it compelling or relevant. Any thoughts? Questions, maybe? {{Unsigned|Hedgy}} -- 21:23, 13 May 2009

*Welcome, Hedgy. [[Marriage]] isn't a generational issue, nor one between Conservative's and Liberals. Conservapedia's own article on [[Marriage]] states it plainly:

<blockquote>
The unity between a man and a woman in marriage is an expression of the relationship that [[God]] desires to have with his creation. The first marriage occurred nearly 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden, in the area of the world that we now know as the Middle East. The first couple was Adam and Eve.
</blockquote>

:[[Barack Obama]], [[Hillary Clinton]], [[John McCain]], [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[Dinesh D'Souza]] all agree on the matter, that Marriage should be exclusively defined as a union between a man and a woman. Check out the link I have made here to "Marriage" to read more about this. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:43, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
But why do people care so much? Why don't people live and let live on this issue? Why don't we create a separate institution specifically for gay people who want to be married. I don't know what we could call it, I'll think of that later. I've never understood why people care so much on this issue. Personally, I couldn't care less if gay people are allowed to be married, I just hate it when gay people try to flaunt their sexuality and act all offended when you get angry at them. It's a private thing.

Well to respond to your earlier statement, to create a separate institution specifically for gay unions and nothing else would violate the strikedown of "separate but equal" established in Brown V. Board in the 1960s. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:50, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Same-sex marriage is just a way to confuse and mislead [[public school]] students as young as kindergarteners and first graders about marriage. In Massachusetts, the public schools immediately began teaching propaganda to young students once same-sex marriage was adopted there, and courts rejected a legal challenge to it. Same-sex marriage is also a way to censor the Bible and call it "hate speech."

: Smoking reduces lifespan by several years. The [[homosexual]] lifestyle reduces average lifespan by even more than smoking does, yet this information is withheld from students.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:49, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: But doesn't denying the rights of homosexuals just undermine the choice we have as humans? I mean, if we don't have moral choice, then we aren't people, are we?--[[User:Hedgy|Hedgy]] 22:45, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

==Outing==
''One type of emotional abuse--threatening to "out" a partner to family, friends, or employers--is unique to homosexual and bi-sexual relationships. Legalization of so-called "gay marriage" still would not end this type of abuse. Although communication between married partners would be classified as privileged and any given partner would be legally obligated to refuse to disclose information without the consent of his/his mate [16], anonymous leaking to the media has been known to happen and the prospect of suffering a "Haggardesque" [17] fate is sufficient to allow manipulative tactics such as blackmail.'' 
Maybe it's just because I've had a long day, but I'm not seeing what outing has to do with same-sex marriage. Civil marriage is a matter of public record, isn't it? So anyone entering into a gay marriage would do so with the understanding that it might lead to others being aware that the members of the couple are gay, right? So how does outing fit in? And blackmail seems very much a stretch - who would pay to prevent someone talking about a matter of public record? Why would anyone wanting to keep a homosexual relationship a secret decide to get married? Is there something I'm missing? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:48, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

*Tired or not, your point is well taken. I removed that part. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:54, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

Thanks [[User:TK|'''₮K''']]! One more statement jumped out at me: ''Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners. (2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005)'' How would getting married make someone seek more partners? Isn't it just the opposite, at least ideally? (It certainly is for my marriage!) I was hoping the reference would enlighten me, but it didn't include a link. I searched and came up with [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/051124/dq051124b-eng.htm two] [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/050714/dq050714a-eng.htm sites], neither of which said anything at all about gay marriage. After more looking, I found [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-570-x/85-570-x2006001-eng.pdf this], which noted that "spousal violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples: 15% and 7% respectively. It was not possible to calculate
rates of spousal violence for male and female couples separately due to low sample sizes." That's something to be concerned about, but it doesn't relate to the statement that ''Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners.'' (As an aside, Canada legalized gay marriage in 2005, and the reference was to a 2004 study, so the couples in question were not married couples.) --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:11, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

==Issues==
I've got a lot of concerns about the information in this paragraph. Most of these claims either have no relevance to same-sex marriage, are heavily biased or poorly documented. I'd like to give some examples:

1. The Dobson/Kurtz quote constitutes a baseless accusation against proponents of same-sex marriage. According to the author, their motive is not to seek equal rights, but to destroy the institution of marriage per se. Where is there any evidence of this? If homosexual couples didn't really want to marry, why did they turn out in huge numbers to do so in every state that gave them the opportunity to do so? In my opinion, this is nothing more than an unfounded conspiracy theory.

2. How does the fact that adopted children are being raised by homosexual couples constitute an "issue"? Care to elaborate?

3. Even if it were a fact that incidences of partner abuse are more common among homosexual couples, how would allowing them to marry have any effect on this? And according to the posting in the "outing" section, the claim about "allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners" is both undocumented and counterintuitive.

I hope you won't mind addressing these concerns. In my opinion, this whole paragraph lacks any merit and should be deleted and rewritten from scratch. -- Hubertus

: Yes, the Dobson/Kurtz quote is an opinion, but it is a commonly held belief on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. It is clearly labeled as opinion. Even if it is a conspiracy view, it is a relevant view. Adoption is relevant because adoption by homosexual couples is frequent cited by both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. Some say that marriage provides stability for those adopted kids. Others say that the homosexual couple should not be adopting kids anyway. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:29, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

OK then, would anybody mind if I edit the article to flag this quote as a completely unfounded conspiracy view, which seems to be something that we agree on? And while I'm at it, I would amend the paragraph about adoptions to allow listing of pro- and contra-opinions. Finally, I'd remove the line about "allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners", because apparently, nobody has been able to back it up with any evidence since Hsmom inquired about it almost a month ago. -- Hubertus

*You have a lot of nerve, coming here as a troll to try and cast doubt/throw dirt on our conservative POV, "Hubertus". You have made no other edits to this encyclopedia, and only posted to this one topic, to dispute a narrow item. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:51, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

:: I do not agree that the quote is a "completely unfounded conspiracy view". Much of it is clearly true. I do agree with removing the statement: "Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners." There is a source for it, but it seems unlikely to me and requires explanation at the least. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:26, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

== I just want to know. ==

I really do not understand this.

The reasons that conservatives object to same-sex marriages don't make sense. Over the years I've heard:

*It is a sin against God according to the Bible.
**Same-sex marriage is currently a governmental issue. According to the separation of church and state, biblical texts have no weight in legal matters.

*It hurts the institution of marriage.
**If your marriage were to feel less meaningful to you if gays were to marry, then that is an problem with the confidence of you and your partner's relationship, not the institution of marriage.

*It is unhealthy.
**There are the same health risks as with heterosexual marriage. STDs can be passed between heterosexual couple too.

I am not angry, I just want to know why conservatives feel the way they do. (unsigned by Dacheatbot)

::Point 1, same-sex marriage is an attempt to discredit the Bible. The homosexual lifestyle is anti-marriage. The attempt by the homosexual movement to co-opt marriage is an attempt to marginalize the Bible, which flatly prohibits and warns against endorsement of the lifestyle. Also, there is "separation of church and state," which is an example of liberal [[deceit]].

::Point 2, same-sex marriage hurts the institution just as polygamy would. Are you saying you'd support polygamy too? Both devalue marriage in culture.

::Point 3, the homosexual lifestyle is less healthy, much less healthy, than the heterosexual lifestyle. The homosexual lifestyle shortens lifespan significantly. Why should society encourage that? It shouldn't.

::Open your mind and look at this objectively. The logic is hard to dispute.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:10, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::1. How is homosexual marriage "anti-marriage"? It IS marriage. Marriage is not all about having kids. It is the union of two people who love each other. If you think differently, then you don't understand marriage well enough to block people from engaging in the institution.
:::2. I made absolutely no comments on polygamy. I do however have no qualms with polygamy as long as:
::::1. All members of the marriage are of sound mind and agree whole-heartedly
::::2. All members of the marriage do feel love for each other and that is the sole reason for marriage.
:::Those statements are why people get married.
:::3. How does homosexuality shorten lifespan? True, gays are more likely to contract STDs if they go without protection, but so are heterosexuals.
:::--[[User:Dacheatbot|Dacheatbot]] 19:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::Thanks for asking, Dacheatbot. On the first point, because it's a sin against God, we want to discourage people from sinning in this manner. What's more, with the current anti-discrimination laws, Christians will be prevented from treating homosexual couples differently from opposite-sex married couples. (Example: Catholic Charities was forced to stop its adoption services in Massachusetts after they refused to place children with homosexual "married" couples.)
:::I agree with Andy: homosexual "marriage" hurts traditional marriage just like calling any other non-marriage "marriage" would. When you've heard a name three thousand times to describe something not that good, it seems less worthwhile to you. Example: After Scandinavia legalized homosexual "marriage", all marriage rates plummeted.
:::Again, though I don't have any good sources at the moment, Andy's described the health risks exactly right.
:::If you have any more questions, please don't hesitate to ask politely like you've done.--[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 19:23, 15 December 2009 (EST)
::::Evan, as I said before, biblical texts do not have any basis for law. Strictly following the rules of one religion makes a government that does not separate itself from the church, as a government needs to be in order to be fair. I'm not against the freedom of religion, as everyone has the right to believe what he or she chooses. However, imposing your religious values upon others violates their religious freedom.
DaCheatBot, besides ignoring our naming conventions, you've also made a number of illogical points here. First, you're assuming what you are attempting to prove: that homosexual "marriage" is marriage. You can't use that claim to support your argument, because that's what you want to prove, not a fact accepted by all sides. Gay "marriage" isn't marriage anymore than a pet rock is a real pet. Second, you endorse polygamy, which frankly leaves me astounded. Why not allow people to marry animals? Why not allow people to kill and steal? Are you against the entire Bible, or just most of it? Which brings me to your third point - that the Bible has no place in law. Believe what you want, but the Bible is the origin of all law. I suggest you read it sometime. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 15 December 2009 (EST)
I apologize for the name, I was not aware that it was a violation.

The idea that gay marriage is marriage is not an illogical idea. It is the union of people who love each other. That is what marriage is. And just to respond to your analogy, a pet rock is not the same as a real pet because it does not fit the qualifications. Gay marriage does because it fits the idea that I said before on that it is based on love. A person marrying an animal is not love (Not romantic love anyway) because the animal is not able to give consent of sound mind. Killing and stealing also cause great harm to others, unlike gay marriage, which does absolutely nothing to others. Lastly, the bible may have been the foundation of law, but we have made many, many changes. While certain may have been right all along, such as murder and stealing, others are not because they follow a culture that is thousands of years old. The same way that the original American Constitution is not used in a court of law, but the amended version, the one that defines men and women as equals as well as whites and blacks as equals.(unsigned by Dacheatbot)

:Dacheatbot, please sign your comments by clicking the signature bar (10th one in from the left) at the end, or simply write your name, so we can see who said what.

:Polygamy is based on love also. Marrying a family member could be also. And, yes, people love animals too. The homosexual movement is essentially anti-marriage, and it is only in the past 15 years that it made "marriage" a priority. Why? Because it enables them to legitimize a lifestyle that is essentially anti-marriage. It is also an anti-Bible movement, part of a desire to marginalize and demonize the Bible. If you support same-sex marriage, then I bet you don't read the Bible anymore. The concept is effective at alienating people from the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:35, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::The rhetoric above, critiquing traditional marriage and promoting same-sex unions, are rich fields of ideas. Let's mine them for their actual content.

::The [[Gay rights movement]] is well-financed and eminently clever. I suggest we analyze, digest and describe their arguments. Here's an example.

::#If people love each other, it's okay for them to marry.
::#Therefore, a parent and his child may marry. Or a brother and sister may marry.

::However, this violates the [[incest]] rule which has traditionally forbade sexual relations between persons who are too closely related to be married.

::[[Gay rights]] advocates want the old rules to be discarded, but they are too clever to come right and say, "We don't care what the Bible says; we're simply going to fornicate, right or wrong." Rather their strategy has been to convince Christians that the Bible "doesn't really forbid" homosexual relations. It is our job here to expose and critique this campaign. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:33, 17 December 2009 (EST)

==[[Homosexual denial]]==

Here's an example of propaganda:

* Proponents of same-sex marriage do not have any one single view of their efforts that would unify them as a "movement."

It is common for homosexuality advocates to deny the existence of the [[gay rights movement]] and/or to pretend that they are not part of it. Let's confront this denial by exposing it and telling the truth.

Better to say that there are various views on same-sex marriage amongst its proponents. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:24, 17 December 2009 (EST)

== "One man, one woman" God-given? ==

Our own article on polygamy states that while the Bible forbids polyandry (several men marrying the same woman), polygyny (several women marrying the same man) is explicitly allowed and was practiced throughout much of Biblical history. I don't think that we can draw the conclusion that the "one woman" part is God-given. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 10:34, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:Sorry, I was generalizing from [[Unificationism|my own religion]] to Christianity as a whole. Let's research what various Christians and/or churches say about "one man, one woman".

:The Old Testament has a number of cases where a man of God - seen as an outstanding example of goodness and a role model (of sorts) - has multiple wives or concubines.
:*Abraham, when childless, used [[Hagar]] to pass on the lineage
:*Jacob had two wives; the second gave birth to [[Joseph]]

:When did the idea that marriage should be only two people (one male, one female) come about? Who says it's of God, and who says otherwise? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:07, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::I think if you check your Bible, you'll find that each man should have his own '''wife''', and each woman her own husband. That's 1 Corinth. 7:2. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 17:29, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:::That's not a commandment (1 Corinth. 7:6), and Paul would actually prefer people not to marry at all (that's where the Roman Catholics get priesthood celibacy from). On the other hand, bishops are explicitly required to be married to just one wife in both 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6, indicating that non-bishops may have had several wives. In fact the source our polygamy article cites for the biblical prohibition of polyandry strongly argues that polygyny is not forbidden by God. I'd assume the change in sentiment was probably due to greco-roman ideas of family and marriage. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 19:02, 17 December 2009 (EST)

=="Interesting" law against Polygamy==

I would like to point out that defining marriage as being between two people and two people only is not "an interesting consequence" that outlaws polygamy, as the introduction states. Marriage was defined that way specifically to outlaw polygamy, which has been practiced by several religious sects in the United States. I would like to delete this sentence, as it makes it sound like outlawing polygamy was just a happy coincidence due to the framing of the law, which is a completely erroneous conclusion. [[User:JEMBenton|JEMBenton]] 11:58, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:You may be thinking of another law, but the article explicitly mentions the [[Defense of Marriage Act]], which was enacted in 1996. At that point, polygamy already was illegal throughout the United States (for about a hundred and fifty years, I believe), so outlawing it probably wasn't the DOMA's purpose. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 14:36, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::This is exactly my point. That the DOMA is worded to exclude polygamy is not an "interesting coincidence", it is a reflection of the established law of the land since before Utah joined the Union. (Specifically, *because* Utah wanted to join the Union.) [[User:JEMBenton|JEMBenton]] 15:26, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Unificationist

2009-12-17T20:21:26Z

Yoritomo: repair double redirect

#REDIRECT [[Unificationism]]

Moonies

2009-12-17T20:20:59Z

Yoritomo: repair double redirect

#REDIRECT [[Unificationism]]

Talk:Same-sex marriage

2009-12-17T19:36:30Z

Yoritomo: /* "Interesting" law against Polygamy */ probably coincidence indeed

{{Talk:Same-sex marriage/pov }}

=="The rationale goes like this" is completly wrong==
"The rationale goes like this:

Marriage is good.
No one can criticize what is good.
A same-sex union, defined as marriage, is good.
Therefore, no one can criticize same-sex unions."

That is ''not'' the Liberal rationale for legalizing gay marriage, if that is going to remain there there should be at least a few sources as to which Leberal said that.

The ''actual'' liberal rational:

* Marriage, like '''all''' institutions of the law, should not be defined by ''one'' or ''any'' specefic religion, or religion all together.

* The fact that the legallity of Gay marriage is the debate proves its a matter of law, automatically disqualifing any given religions say on it. ''See also: [[seperation of church and state]]''

* Atheists can and do get married, further proof it isn't a religious establishment.

* A homosexuals person's life has nothing to do with ''yours'', and because homosexuallity does not violate any human rights, ''you'' should not have the right to tell them they cannot get married.

I realize this is conservapedia and you guys would rather have untruthful things that make you sound right, but reality is better than ''sounding'' right if you ask me.

==Bias==
I do not feel the article is from a neutral point of view. This article seems to be obviously against gay marriage. I also propose that the statistics for spousal abuse in heterosexual relationships are put up beside the homosexual statistics for a comparison. I personally believe not allowing homosexual marriage is not allowing equal freedoms for all people. Also I do not think the reason for not allowing gay marriage should be the bible, as not only should there be a complete separation between church and state, but Athiests and Agnostics are not stopped from getting married, neither should homosexuals.[[User:Strata|Strata]] 23:40, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree completely that there is bias here. It's one thing to be against same-sex marriage, but it's ridiculous to insinuate that same-sex marriage as an attack on heterosexual marriage. [[User:Forthewin827|Forthewin827]] 15:22, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

==Is page protected?==
B/c I wanted to edit it, but I can't.
[[User:Won4tide1|Won4tide1]] 17:41, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, it is. Please post your suggested changes here first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== Addition to Rationale ==

<big>There is another rationale used by proponents of same sex marriage.</big>

Essentially it is as follows: 

Marriage exists as both a religiously and legally defined entity in the United States. 

Marriage confers certain legal benefits upon those married. Additionaly marriage has social value in that it is used as a signifier of individuals' commitment to one another 

There is a legal tradition in this country which holds that sexual orientation is not a valid status upon which one may deny legal rights or protections. 

The refusal to recognize same sex marriage constitutes such a denial of legal rights and protections. Since those in a same sex marriage are, by definition, homosexual- this constitutes a denial of legal rights and protections based upon sexual orientation. 

Refusing to recognize same sex marriages essentially violates long standing legal traditions. 

The most logical remedy to this situation is to allow the recognition of same sex marriages. 

<big>There is also a philosophical justification that same sex marriage does not destroy the institution of marriage in society.</big>

In most religious traditions, marriage exclusively recognizes the sacred bond of love between a man and woman. 

However society has a more general definition of marriage as an institution that recognizes the profound (and one could still say sacred) bond of love existing between two individuals- traditionally a man and woman. 

Recognizing same sex marriage recognizes the legitimacy of the bond of love between same sex partners. 

However the religious definition of marriage is still unique in that it specifically focuses upon the devine blessing of the union between a man and a woman. Thus this traditional sense of marriage retains its unique character. 

I think that it is important to add these rationales because these are the ones that you are most likely to encounter in the discourse on gay marriage. Those looking for information on the subject would be best served by being able to read the most commonly used rationales.

== Adding mores links ==

The article seems fine at this point, but it could use some more links to other Conservapedia articles after the introduction. I thought it was a little odd that editing was disabled in this article, or else I would have added the links myself. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 16:52, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

== What? ==

Why is this marriage in inverted commas (quotes)? And why does it say that the purpose of same-sex marriage is to "destroy the sanctity of marriage"? In what doctrine supporting same sex marriage is that said?
:I think they are saying that that is liberals' true purpose (intention), even if the people supporting same-sex marriage don't actually say it and openly admit it. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 16:50, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

==Supporting Gay Marriage==

By and large proponents of Gay Marriage only support removing the states role in prohibiting marriage; they still cannot force religious institutions to marry homosexuals. In other words, even if the Government deemed gay marriage to be ok, the religious institutions would still have all the power. After all, marriage is a union between a man and a woman under God - Why should the State have its neck involved in that? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:49, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*I agree with you here, Graham. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:27, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*From what I know the proponents of gay Marriage do ''not'' seek to force religion to do ''anything'', and while religious practices may change in the long run just as society changes... In my mind an alternative to gay marriage, a ''better'' alternative (Also since the United States separates church from state and marriage is religious)

Would be civil unions for ANY arrangement, i.e. MM,FF,MF, and make marriage a religious ceremony. Thus any two people could have the legal benefits of marriage, but under legal (state) terminology while if two people want to get married. The local Pastor, Rabbi, or Imam can do that and discriminate in who they partner up.

All these people want is to be happy, part of that is mutual trust and security, and that comes from Civil Unions, Marriage, whatever you want to call it. But seriously, this would work to keep marriage 'sacred' while Homosexuals could unionize with their partner. [[User:Nateland|Nateland]] 19:05, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

The Unitarian church, among others, performs same sex weddings.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:05, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

:I don't get it. People can be friends, with mutual trust and all that. I can even give my unmarried fried a [[power of attorney]] to handle things like me being in a coma and needing decisions about medical care. What does marriage have to do with "legal privileges for adults"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

== This sentence is gramatically wrong... ==

"It is also referred to as "[[homosexuality|gay]] marriage" or "[[homosexuality|homosexual]] marriage", is the official certification in jurisdictions that allow a union between two people of the same sex."

and since I just got yelled at, maybe someone else can fix it. [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 00:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)

==Tremendous pressure... needs revision==
<blockquote>Combined with hate speech rules and hate crime laws, a government certification of "same-sex marriage" will place tremendous pressure on people who criticize homosexuality, oppose the gay agenda, or believe in the sanctity of marriage.[Citation Needed] "How do you know we're not married?" would be the simplest of rejoinders. Or, "How dare you criticize my spouse!" (see fighting words).</blockquote>

Same-sex marriage is already legal in Massachusetts and in several other countries, so if this assertion of "tremendous pressure" is true, it should be easy to find cite-able examples of it. I've had no luck thus far, so perhaps someone else should try... if not, we'll have to remove this section, because the article is seriously weakened by assertions we can't justify. Also, we need a working definition of the sanctity of marriage -- I'm sure that many people, churches, groups, etc. consider same-sex marriage perfectly sanctified, so we need to be more specific. I'm removing the language for now, and please, if you put it back in, clarify what is meant by 'sanctity.' Also, the 'fighting words' link appears to be dead, so I'm removing it.

Cheers!
[[User:Mermaid|Gabe]] 14:58, 13 January 2008 (EST)

==Sauce for you.==
For the homosexual violence statement in the box beneath the spiffy graphic on the upper-right corner of the page: [http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=5a6dc0ec-3807-4f5c-a5ad-c50855986682&k=55181&p=2] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:04, 16 January 2008 (EST)

That article also says that common law relationships (IE live-in but not formally married) are 5 times more likely to experience violence and is the only category seeing growth in violence. Thus, allowing gay marriage would, statistically speaking, reduce domestic violence among homosexual couples. This article actually supports gay marriage from a statistical standpoint....[[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 19:28 16, January 2008 (EST)

:Yeah... But let's ignore the facts. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::What facts? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::What the study shows. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:45, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:Non sequitur. It isn't saying that abusive people who get married will suddenly stop being abusive, which seems to be your argument. A more logical conclusion is that abusive people are less likely to get married in the first place. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)

==Move?==
Seriously, that would be a good idea. It's called same sex marriage throughout the article, why isn't it titled correctly? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:13, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:Yes, no? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== A counterfeit counterfeit ==

The following is unintentionally amusing:

Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family refers to the phrase same-sex 'marriage,' with quotation
marks around the word marriage, to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as
well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that he therefore
believes that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."

Why did the author put quotation marks around the word counterfeits? Is it to call attention to his belief that "Dr." Dobson's views on counterfeits are themselves counterfeit? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:23, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:I see what you're saying, but I think that's just there to show that it's his words, not Conservapedia's. That's something you do with all quotes, agqain, just to show that it's his word(s). --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 13:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Graphic ==

Even if the claim beneath the graphic is true: 1) violence is not a defining characteristic of homosexual marriage--therefore the graphic shouldn't be so prominently displayed here; and 2) the purported cycle of violence is not specific to homosexual relationships--therefore it is inappropriate in an article specifically dedicated to homosexual marriage. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:09, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:I was unaware that "homosexual marriage" had '''any''' defining characteristics. It's only a counterfeit, a sham aimed at destroying real marriage. This article is not "dedicated" to homosexual marriage; rather, it exposed the counterfeiting of marriage which [[gay rights]] activists are using to destroy marriage.

:We have no obligation here to respect sin - don't even try that line of argument. Homosexuality is sinful - and it makes people miserable. Why should we respect it? Do your "respect" the "choice" of adults to have sex with children? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:13, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:: If homosexual marriage is legal somewhere, does it not therefore exist? I fail to see how the argument of respect (which somewhat disingenuously equates homosexuality and pedophilia) has anything to do with whether it exists or not. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:36, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Laws permitting this sham are on the books in various places. But giving one thing the same name as another thing doesn't validate it. Once again, the article is not about homosexuals "marrying" - or should not be.

:::It should be about the laws and their purpose. It should illuminate the goals of the [[gay rights movement]] and compare their reasoning with the reality of their purpose, as well as the effect those laws are having.

:::The pathetic attempt to gain love from a sexual partner of the some gender is at the root of this. As [[Richard Cohen]] pointed out - drawing of course on the work of better-educated scientists like Socarides - it's a [[same-sex attachment disorder]]. And by the way, voting [[homosexuality]] out of the manual of psychiatric disorders doesn't change the fact that it's a disorder and a perversion.

:::Legalizing sin and craziness doesn't make it good, any more than calling spoiled food wholesome. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:11, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

It's really sad to see people like Ed be so bigoted. I take comfort in the fact that by the end of my lifetime, gays will have equal rights.

== move page ==

Can this page be moved to [[Homosexual marriage]], which is a better term for this -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 22:53, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
:Same-sex marriage seems more precise. Bisexual people can marry a person of the same gender, so "Homosexual marriage" is a bit of a misnomer. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 14:21, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

== Out of Date. ==

This article is out of date. Norway allows gay "people" to have equal marriage rights as well. -- Dollfuss.

== I have a question ==

I'm only 16, and maybe there is some sort of generational gap on this issue, but I'm curious to know why people care so much about the homosexual marriage issue? I just haven't ever found the arguments for or against it compelling or relevant. Any thoughts? Questions, maybe? {{Unsigned|Hedgy}} -- 21:23, 13 May 2009

*Welcome, Hedgy. [[Marriage]] isn't a generational issue, nor one between Conservative's and Liberals. Conservapedia's own article on [[Marriage]] states it plainly:

<blockquote>
The unity between a man and a woman in marriage is an expression of the relationship that [[God]] desires to have with his creation. The first marriage occurred nearly 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden, in the area of the world that we now know as the Middle East. The first couple was Adam and Eve.
</blockquote>

:[[Barack Obama]], [[Hillary Clinton]], [[John McCain]], [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[Dinesh D'Souza]] all agree on the matter, that Marriage should be exclusively defined as a union between a man and a woman. Check out the link I have made here to "Marriage" to read more about this. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:43, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
But why do people care so much? Why don't people live and let live on this issue? Why don't we create a separate institution specifically for gay people who want to be married. I don't know what we could call it, I'll think of that later. I've never understood why people care so much on this issue. Personally, I couldn't care less if gay people are allowed to be married, I just hate it when gay people try to flaunt their sexuality and act all offended when you get angry at them. It's a private thing.

Well to respond to your earlier statement, to create a separate institution specifically for gay unions and nothing else would violate the strikedown of "separate but equal" established in Brown V. Board in the 1960s. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:50, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Same-sex marriage is just a way to confuse and mislead [[public school]] students as young as kindergarteners and first graders about marriage. In Massachusetts, the public schools immediately began teaching propaganda to young students once same-sex marriage was adopted there, and courts rejected a legal challenge to it. Same-sex marriage is also a way to censor the Bible and call it "hate speech."

: Smoking reduces lifespan by several years. The [[homosexual]] lifestyle reduces average lifespan by even more than smoking does, yet this information is withheld from students.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:49, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: But doesn't denying the rights of homosexuals just undermine the choice we have as humans? I mean, if we don't have moral choice, then we aren't people, are we?--[[User:Hedgy|Hedgy]] 22:45, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

==Outing==
''One type of emotional abuse--threatening to "out" a partner to family, friends, or employers--is unique to homosexual and bi-sexual relationships. Legalization of so-called "gay marriage" still would not end this type of abuse. Although communication between married partners would be classified as privileged and any given partner would be legally obligated to refuse to disclose information without the consent of his/his mate [16], anonymous leaking to the media has been known to happen and the prospect of suffering a "Haggardesque" [17] fate is sufficient to allow manipulative tactics such as blackmail.'' 
Maybe it's just because I've had a long day, but I'm not seeing what outing has to do with same-sex marriage. Civil marriage is a matter of public record, isn't it? So anyone entering into a gay marriage would do so with the understanding that it might lead to others being aware that the members of the couple are gay, right? So how does outing fit in? And blackmail seems very much a stretch - who would pay to prevent someone talking about a matter of public record? Why would anyone wanting to keep a homosexual relationship a secret decide to get married? Is there something I'm missing? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:48, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

*Tired or not, your point is well taken. I removed that part. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:54, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

Thanks [[User:TK|'''₮K''']]! One more statement jumped out at me: ''Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners. (2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005)'' How would getting married make someone seek more partners? Isn't it just the opposite, at least ideally? (It certainly is for my marriage!) I was hoping the reference would enlighten me, but it didn't include a link. I searched and came up with [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/051124/dq051124b-eng.htm two] [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/050714/dq050714a-eng.htm sites], neither of which said anything at all about gay marriage. After more looking, I found [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-570-x/85-570-x2006001-eng.pdf this], which noted that "spousal violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples: 15% and 7% respectively. It was not possible to calculate
rates of spousal violence for male and female couples separately due to low sample sizes." That's something to be concerned about, but it doesn't relate to the statement that ''Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners.'' (As an aside, Canada legalized gay marriage in 2005, and the reference was to a 2004 study, so the couples in question were not married couples.) --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:11, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

==Issues==
I've got a lot of concerns about the information in this paragraph. Most of these claims either have no relevance to same-sex marriage, are heavily biased or poorly documented. I'd like to give some examples:

1. The Dobson/Kurtz quote constitutes a baseless accusation against proponents of same-sex marriage. According to the author, their motive is not to seek equal rights, but to destroy the institution of marriage per se. Where is there any evidence of this? If homosexual couples didn't really want to marry, why did they turn out in huge numbers to do so in every state that gave them the opportunity to do so? In my opinion, this is nothing more than an unfounded conspiracy theory.

2. How does the fact that adopted children are being raised by homosexual couples constitute an "issue"? Care to elaborate?

3. Even if it were a fact that incidences of partner abuse are more common among homosexual couples, how would allowing them to marry have any effect on this? And according to the posting in the "outing" section, the claim about "allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners" is both undocumented and counterintuitive.

I hope you won't mind addressing these concerns. In my opinion, this whole paragraph lacks any merit and should be deleted and rewritten from scratch. -- Hubertus

: Yes, the Dobson/Kurtz quote is an opinion, but it is a commonly held belief on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. It is clearly labeled as opinion. Even if it is a conspiracy view, it is a relevant view. Adoption is relevant because adoption by homosexual couples is frequent cited by both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. Some say that marriage provides stability for those adopted kids. Others say that the homosexual couple should not be adopting kids anyway. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:29, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

OK then, would anybody mind if I edit the article to flag this quote as a completely unfounded conspiracy view, which seems to be something that we agree on? And while I'm at it, I would amend the paragraph about adoptions to allow listing of pro- and contra-opinions. Finally, I'd remove the line about "allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners", because apparently, nobody has been able to back it up with any evidence since Hsmom inquired about it almost a month ago. -- Hubertus

*You have a lot of nerve, coming here as a troll to try and cast doubt/throw dirt on our conservative POV, "Hubertus". You have made no other edits to this encyclopedia, and only posted to this one topic, to dispute a narrow item. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:51, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

:: I do not agree that the quote is a "completely unfounded conspiracy view". Much of it is clearly true. I do agree with removing the statement: "Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners." There is a source for it, but it seems unlikely to me and requires explanation at the least. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:26, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

== I just want to know. ==

I really do not understand this.

The reasons that conservatives object to same-sex marriages don't make sense. Over the years I've heard:

*It is a sin against God according to the Bible.
**Same-sex marriage is currently a governmental issue. According to the separation of church and state, biblical texts have no weight in legal matters.

*It hurts the institution of marriage.
**If your marriage were to feel less meaningful to you if gays were to marry, then that is an problem with the confidence of you and your partner's relationship, not the institution of marriage.

*It is unhealthy.
**There are the same health risks as with heterosexual marriage. STDs can be passed between heterosexual couple too.

I am not angry, I just want to know why conservatives feel the way they do. (unsigned by Dacheatbot)

::Point 1, same-sex marriage is an attempt to discredit the Bible. The homosexual lifestyle is anti-marriage. The attempt by the homosexual movement to co-opt marriage is an attempt to marginalize the Bible, which flatly prohibits and warns against endorsement of the lifestyle. Also, there is "separation of church and state," which is an example of liberal [[deceit]].

::Point 2, same-sex marriage hurts the institution just as polygamy would. Are you saying you'd support polygamy too? Both devalue marriage in culture.

::Point 3, the homosexual lifestyle is less healthy, much less healthy, than the heterosexual lifestyle. The homosexual lifestyle shortens lifespan significantly. Why should society encourage that? It shouldn't.

::Open your mind and look at this objectively. The logic is hard to dispute.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:10, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::1. How is homosexual marriage "anti-marriage"? It IS marriage. Marriage is not all about having kids. It is the union of two people who love each other. If you think differently, then you don't understand marriage well enough to block people from engaging in the institution.
:::2. I made absolutely no comments on polygamy. I do however have no qualms with polygamy as long as:
::::1. All members of the marriage are of sound mind and agree whole-heartedly
::::2. All members of the marriage do feel love for each other and that is the sole reason for marriage.
:::Those statements are why people get married.
:::3. How does homosexuality shorten lifespan? True, gays are more likely to contract STDs if they go without protection, but so are heterosexuals.
:::--[[User:Dacheatbot|Dacheatbot]] 19:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::Thanks for asking, Dacheatbot. On the first point, because it's a sin against God, we want to discourage people from sinning in this manner. What's more, with the current anti-discrimination laws, Christians will be prevented from treating homosexual couples differently from opposite-sex married couples. (Example: Catholic Charities was forced to stop its adoption services in Massachusetts after they refused to place children with homosexual "married" couples.)
:::I agree with Andy: homosexual "marriage" hurts traditional marriage just like calling any other non-marriage "marriage" would. When you've heard a name three thousand times to describe something not that good, it seems less worthwhile to you. Example: After Scandinavia legalized homosexual "marriage", all marriage rates plummeted.
:::Again, though I don't have any good sources at the moment, Andy's described the health risks exactly right.
:::If you have any more questions, please don't hesitate to ask politely like you've done.--[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 19:23, 15 December 2009 (EST)
::::Evan, as I said before, biblical texts do not have any basis for law. Strictly following the rules of one religion makes a government that does not separate itself from the church, as a government needs to be in order to be fair. I'm not against the freedom of religion, as everyone has the right to believe what he or she chooses. However, imposing your religious values upon others violates their religious freedom.
DaCheatBot, besides ignoring our naming conventions, you've also made a number of illogical points here. First, you're assuming what you are attempting to prove: that homosexual "marriage" is marriage. You can't use that claim to support your argument, because that's what you want to prove, not a fact accepted by all sides. Gay "marriage" isn't marriage anymore than a pet rock is a real pet. Second, you endorse polygamy, which frankly leaves me astounded. Why not allow people to marry animals? Why not allow people to kill and steal? Are you against the entire Bible, or just most of it? Which brings me to your third point - that the Bible has no place in law. Believe what you want, but the Bible is the origin of all law. I suggest you read it sometime. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 15 December 2009 (EST)
I apologize for the name, I was not aware that it was a violation.

The idea that gay marriage is marriage is not an illogical idea. It is the union of people who love each other. That is what marriage is. And just to respond to your analogy, a pet rock is not the same as a real pet because it does not fit the qualifications. Gay marriage does because it fits the idea that I said before on that it is based on love. A person marrying an animal is not love (Not romantic love anyway) because the animal is not able to give consent of sound mind. Killing and stealing also cause great harm to others, unlike gay marriage, which does absolutely nothing to others. Lastly, the bible may have been the foundation of law, but we have made many, many changes. While certain may have been right all along, such as murder and stealing, others are not because they follow a culture that is thousands of years old. The same way that the original American Constitution is not used in a court of law, but the amended version, the one that defines men and women as equals as well as whites and blacks as equals.(unsigned by Dacheatbot)

:Dacheatbot, please sign your comments by clicking the signature bar (10th one in from the left) at the end, or simply write your name, so we can see who said what.

:Polygamy is based on love also. Marrying a family member could be also. And, yes, people love animals too. The homosexual movement is essentially anti-marriage, and it is only in the past 15 years that it made "marriage" a priority. Why? Because it enables them to legitimize a lifestyle that is essentially anti-marriage. It is also an anti-Bible movement, part of a desire to marginalize and demonize the Bible. If you support same-sex marriage, then I bet you don't read the Bible anymore. The concept is effective at alienating people from the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:35, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::The rhetoric above, critiquing traditional marriage and promoting same-sex unions, are rich fields of ideas. Let's mine them for their actual content.

::The [[Gay rights movement]] is well-financed and eminently clever. I suggest we analyze, digest and describe their arguments. Here's an example.

::#If people love each other, it's okay for them to marry.
::#Therefore, a parent and his child may marry. Or a brother and sister may marry.

::However, this violates the [[incest]] rule which has traditionally forbade sexual relations between persons who are too closely related to be married.

::[[Gay rights]] advocates want the old rules to be discarded, but they are too clever to come right and say, "We don't care what the Bible says; we're simply going to fornicate, right or wrong." Rather their strategy has been to convince Christians that the Bible "doesn't really forbid" homosexual relations. It is our job here to expose and critique this campaign. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:33, 17 December 2009 (EST)

==[[Homosexual denial]]==

Here's an example of propaganda:

* Proponents of same-sex marriage do not have any one single view of their efforts that would unify them as a "movement."

It is common for homosexuality advocates to deny the existence of the [[gay rights movement]] and/or to pretend that they are not part of it. Let's confront this denial by exposing it and telling the truth.

Better to say that there are various views on same-sex marriage amongst its proponents. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:24, 17 December 2009 (EST)

== "One man, one woman" God-given? ==

Our own article on polygamy states that while the Bible forbids polyandry (several men marrying the same woman), polygyny (several women marrying the same man) is explicitly allowed and was practiced throughout much of Biblical history. I don't think that we can draw the conclusion that the "one woman" part is God-given. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 10:34, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:Sorry, I was generalizing from [[Unificationism|my own religion]] to Christianity as a whole. Let's research what various Christians and/or churches say about "one man, one woman".

:The Old Testament has a number of cases where a man of God - seen as an outstanding example of goodness and a role model (of sorts) - has multiple wives or concubines.
:*Abraham, when childless, used [[Hagar]] to pass on the lineage
:*Jacob had two wives; the second gave birth to [[Joseph]]

:When did the idea that marriage should be only two people (one male, one female) come about? Who says it's of God, and who says otherwise? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:07, 17 December 2009 (EST)

=="Interesting" law against Polygamy==

I would like to point out that defining marriage as being between two people and two people only is not "an interesting consequence" that outlaws polygamy, as the introduction states. Marriage was defined that way specifically to outlaw polygamy, which has been practiced by several religious sects in the United States. I would like to delete this sentence, as it makes it sound like outlawing polygamy was just a happy coincidence due to the framing of the law, which is a completely erroneous conclusion. [[User:JEMBenton|JEMBenton]] 11:58, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:You may be thinking of another law, but the article explicitly mentions the [[Defense of Marriage Act]], which was enacted in 1996. At that point, polygamy already was illegal throughout the United States (for about a hundred and fifty years, I believe), so outlawing it probably wasn't the DOMA's purpose. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 14:36, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Same-sex marriage

2009-12-17T19:20:59Z

Yoritomo: link DOMA

'''Same-sex "marriage"''' is a proposed redefinition or variation on the traditional concept of [[marriage]], granting [[same-sex union]]s the same legal status as heterosexual marriage. Like [[polygamy]], it replaces the pattern of "one man, one woman" which is considered a divine mandate by most modern religious people. The proposal is outrageously unacceptable to most adherents of Christianity, Judaism and Islam because it uses the force of law to justify what scripture has clearly labeled a sin: i.e., [[homosexual]] relations. [[Hate speech]] rules and laws are already in place which restrict criticism of same-sex unions (see also [[hate crime]]).

Campaigns advocating it are at the forefront of the [[gay rights movement]]'s attempt to normalize the rights of homosexuals with those of heterosexuals, overturning centuries of established tradition whereby homosexuals were required to keep their blasphemous acts hidden, protecting society from their immorality. Some opponents of efforts to normalize same-sex marriage claim its purpose is to destroy the [[family]] as an institution, merely to secure a legal basis for [[sexual freedom]]. According to some opponents of same-sex marriage, the primary purpose of marriage is to bring joy to society as much as to safeguard the development of happy families, and it is not for individual glory. They believe that unrelated people living together make each other miserable and harm society. Among the many reasons homosexuals might advocate same-sex marriage are the ability to make emergent healthcare decisions for a loved one in the absence of a durable power of attorney or living will, the alteration of the laws of intestate succession to include gay partners, and equal tax treatment as heterosexual married couples.

United States law defines "marriage" as "one man, one woman" for purposes of the federal [[Defense of Marriage Act]], which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if permitted under state law, and permits a state to disregard a same-sex marriage entered into in another state. An interesting consequence of the federal definition of "marriage" is that it specifically rules out [[polygamy]]. 

__TOC__
==Morality==
Social conservatives regard same-sex marriage as immoral, and argue that use of the word "[[marriage]]" is a misnomer, because the [[Form of Solemnization of Matrimony|marriage services]] of Christian denominations define marriage as the union of a man and a woman,Some social liberals will try to use this debate as a excuse to take the socially conservative view of marriage out of the law. In some Christian marriage ceremonies,the wedding will begin with a statement along the lines of: "Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony." <ref>''The Book of Common Prayer,'' Episcopal Church, The Church Hymnal Corporation and the Seabury Press, 1979: "The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage," p. 423</ref> a definition which was also written into United States federal law in 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000007----000-.html US Code - Title 1, section 7]</ref>

Dr. [[James Dobson]]'s [[Focus on the Family]] organization prefers the phrase ''same-sex 'marriage,''' with quotation marks around the word ''marriage,'' to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that he therefore believes that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."<ref>[http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000464.cfm Same-Sex 'Marriage' and Civil Unions], ''Focus on the Family's'' website</ref>

Use of the term "same-sex marriage" was unheard of a few decades ago; however, these unions are now among a number of issues advocated by [[liberal]] activists.

Some advocates of same-sex marriage view marriage as a purely civil matter, which in the history of the United States is a position taken particularly strongly by Puritan colonists, who viewed the interjection of religion into the franchise of marriage as scandalous to Christ's Church.

== Background ==
In the United States, marriage is primarily governed by each individual state and marriage laws differ from state to state. Several states allow [[civil union]]s between two people of the same sex, and five, [[Massachusetts]], [[Connecticut]], [[Vermont]], [[New Hampshire]], and [[Iowa]], currently issue same-sex marriage licenses. These marriage licenses are not recognized by the Federal government.

In 1996 Congress recognized the likelihood that [[liberal]] activists would soon seek changes to the laws in some states that pertain to homosexuals. It considered the possibility of test cases reaching the Supreme Court, and of the court conceivably ruling that a state—even though it prohibits same-sex marriage itself—must honor same-sex marriages performed in another state pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. The Defense of Marriage act, which was passed and signed by President Clinton, prevents this possibility, and also prevents the Federal Government from recognizing marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman. Its Constitutionality has not yet been tested under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Equal Protection Clause of the 5th Amendment, or the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment.

In 1999 a Vermont court ruled that under its constitution, it was not required to allow same-sex marriage but was required to make provisions to grant same-sex couples legal rights identical to those provided by marriage. Vermont responded by creating "civil unions," which are legally distinct from marriages but convey the same rights. In 2009, the Vermont legislature overrode the governor's veto to pass a bill allowing same-sex marriage.

In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that under Massachusetts' constitution, same-sex couples could not be denied Massachusetts marriage licenses, making Massachusetts the first state to issue same-sex marriage licenses. As of April 2009, same-sex marriage was legal in four states, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa. <ref>''Vermont Legislature Makes Same-Sex Marriage Legal'' [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/us/08vermont.html?_r=1&hp]</ref><ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_re_us/connecticut_same_sex_marriage Conn. high court rules gay couples can marry]</ref>

Beginning in 2008, the states of [[Washington]], and [[Oregon]] also provide for same-sex unions. [[Hawaii]] provides certain benefits to same sex couples. <ref>[http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--civilunions-optio0531may31,0,341613.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut Newsday]</ref> The State of New Hampshire issued civil unions until the summer of 2009, when it passed a bill approving same-sex marriage <ref>"New Hampshire Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage" [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/04marriage.html]</ref> The state will begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses in January, 2010.

In the fall of 2009, a same-sex marriage bill was introduced to the [[D.C.|Washington, DC]] city council by At-Large Council Member David Catania (who is openly gay.) After two days of testimony involving nearly 250 witnesses <ref>''D.C. Council hears from both sides in gay marriage debate'' [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/D_C_-Council-hears-from-both-sides-in-gay-marriage-debate-8442433-66188647.html]</ref>, the council voted to approve the bill, 11-2. If signed by the Mayor, which he has pledged to do, the bill will then go to Congress for a mandatory [[DC Home Rule|30-day review period]]. While opponents of the bill have vowed to fight it in Congress<ref>"DC Council Approves Same-Sex Marriage" [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/15/AR2009121500945.html]</ref> it is expected to pass, and will become law in 2010.

Same-sex marriages were legal for a brief period in the state of [[California]], but the people of that state voted to repeal the law in the fall of 2008<ref>"California Votes for Prop 8"[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122586056759900673.html]</ref>, through a ballot initiative known as [[Proposition 8]]. The legislature of [[Maine]] approved a same-sex marriage bill in May of 2009 <ref>"Lawmakers approve same-sex marriage in N.H., Maine" [http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/maine.same.sex.marriage/index.html]</ref> but opponents lobbied to have the bill put up to a popular vote, and it was defeated by the voters in the fall of 2009.<ref>"Maine rejects same-sex marriage law" [http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/04/maine.same.sex/index.html]</ref>

Same-sex marriage is legal in seven countries: [[South Africa]], [[Spain]], [[Canada]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Belgium]], [[Norway]] and [[Sweden]]. Other countries, such as [[France]], [[Germany]], and the [[United Kingdom]], recognize [[civil unions]] and [[domestic partnership]]s.<ref>[http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-03/05/content_311998.htm Countries worldwide address gay marriage]</ref>

Some opponents of same-sex marriage believe that the religious ceremony of marriage is governed by each denomination and is unaffected by laws passed by civil authority. Same-sex marriage is forbidden in Orthodox Judaism, Catholicism, and most mainstream Protestant denominations. In Massachusetts, however, about 6% of all marriages are same-sex marriages, so this does not appear to be a problem. <ref>[http://www.massequality.org/news/news_story.php?id=273]</ref><ref>http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fnchs%2Fdata%2Fnvss%2Fmarriage90_04.pdf&images=yes</ref>

Public attitude toward same-sex marriage parallels attitude toward homosexuality. In general, it is opposed by social conservatives and outside of this group, support is split down the middle leaning to opposition.<ref>[http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html Same Sex Marriage Poll from ABC News]</ref>

== Issues ==
[[Image:Cycle.gif|thumbnail|200px|right|A recent study by the [[Canada|Canadian]] government states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with [[heterosexual]] couples".<ref>http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/85-570-XIE/2006001/findings/risk.htm Aforementioned Canadian Study.</ref>]]
[[James Dobson]] cites Stanley Kurtz to argue that the motivation of those advocating same-sex marriage is not to secure the benefits of marriage for gay couples, but to destroy the institution of marriage itself:
:...most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.<ref>Stanley Kurtz, "Beyond Marriage," The Weekly Standard, August 4/August 11, 2003. - cited in [http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000771.cfm Marriage on the Ropes], Dr. James Dobson, retrieved from ''Focus on the Family'', 15 May 2007. </ref>

According to a March, 2007 report, there are 65,000 adopted children in the U.S. being raised by same-sex couples. The same report says 14,100 foster children were being raised by one or more gay or lesbian foster parents.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/gay.adoption/index.html Gay adoption: A new take on the American family]</ref>

In Great Britain, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has expressed its full support to the stand taken by the Catholic Church opposing regulations on gay adoption. The Catholic Church sought to be exempt from the new law. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams of the Church of England, supports the Catholic Church's efforts declaring that the rights of conscience cannot be subject to laws. Catholic leaders have already said that its teachings prevent its agencies placing children with homosexuals and they will have to close if bound by the rules. The MCB, the UK's leading Muslim umbrella group embracing over 400 affiliated organizations, said that while it supported anti-discrimination laws, homosexuality is forbidden in Islam. <ref>[http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/menu-234/0701266670200554.htm UK Muslim group backs Christian opposition to gay adoption rules London], Islamic republic News Agency, Jan 26, 2007.</ref>

Studies indicate that homosexual couples have higher rates of promiscuity than heterosexual couples.<ref>[http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02 Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples]</ref> Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners.<ref>2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005</ref> In addition, studies report that [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior]].{{fact}} These studies are not surprising given what pathologists have stated regarding the [[Homosexuality and Murders|commonness and brutality of homosexual murders]].{{fact}} The prevalence of violence and emotional abuse in gay domestic partnerships.  One survey found 53% of gays felt if the high incidence of violence against partners in homosexual relationships was known and understood by the heterosexual population, it would hinder the drive for gay rights.

Domestic abuse is divided into two categories, emotional abuse and physical abuse. While gay domestic abuse has not been studied to the extent that heterosexual relationships have, [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|preliminary studies indicate a much higher level of abuse]].

==See also==
*[[Anti-Defamation League]]
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Bible]]
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]

==Reference==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp Gay Marriage: Why Would It Affect Me? Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage], NoGayMarriage.com
*[http://www.robgagnon.net/homoPresbyTodayArticle.htm Why “Gay Marriage” Is Wrong, by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.]
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]

Communicative rationality

2009-12-17T15:39:45Z

Yoritomo: add umlaut to German name

'''Communicative rationality''' is a leftist concept advocated by philosopher Jürgen Habermas.
<ref>[http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405106795_chunk_g97814051067954_ss1-124 definition]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.usfca.edu/philosophy/discourse/8/moore.html endorsement]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.envplan.com/abstract.cgi?id=a301975 critique]</ref>

==Notes==
<references />

[[Category:Leftist thought]]

Talk:Same-sex marriage

2009-12-17T15:34:04Z

Yoritomo: /* "One man, one woman" God-given? */ new section

Same-sex marriage

2009-12-17T15:29:49Z

Yoritomo: remove redundancy: polyandry is a subset of polygamy

'''Same-sex "marriage"''' is a proposed redefinition or variation on the traditional concept of [[marriage]]. Like [[polygamy]], it replaces the God-given pattern of "one man, one woman". What makes it outrageously unacceptable to most adherents of Christianity, Judaism and Islam is that it uses the force of law to justify what scripture has clearly labeled a sin: i.e., [[homosexual]] relations.

Campaigns advocating it are at the forefront of the [[gay rights movement]]'s attempt to normalize the rights of homosexuals with those of heterosexuals, overturning centuries of established tradition whereby homosexuals were required to keep their blasphemous acts hidden, protecting society from their immorality. Some opponents of efforts to normalize same-sex marriage claim its purpose is to destroy the [[family]] as an institution, merely to secure a legal basis for [[sexual freedom]]. According to some opponents of same-sex marriage, the primary purpose of marriage is to bring joy to society as much as to safeguard the development of happy families, and it is not for individual glory. They believe that unrelated people living together make each other miserable and harm society. Among the many reasons homosexuals might advocate same-sex marriage are the ability to make emergent healthcare decisions for a loved one in the absence of a durable power of attorney or living will, the alteration of the laws of intestate succession to include gay partners, and equal tax treatment as heterosexual married couples.

United States law defines "marriage" as "one man, one woman" for purposes of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if permitted under state law, and permits a state to disregard a same-sex marriage entered into in another state. An interesting consequence of the federal definition of "marriage" is that it specifically rules out [[polygamy]]. 

__TOC__
==Morality==
Social conservatives regard same-sex marriage as immoral, and argue that use of the word "[[marriage]]" is a misnomer, because the [[Form of Solemnization of Matrimony|marriage services]] of Christian denominations define marriage as the union of a man and a woman,Some social liberals will try to use this debate as a excuse to take the socially conservative view of marriage out of the law. In some Christian marriage ceremonies,the wedding will begin with a statement along the lines of: "Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony." <ref>''The Book of Common Prayer,'' Episcopal Church, The Church Hymnal Corporation and the Seabury Press, 1979: "The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage," p. 423</ref> a definition which was also written into United States federal law in 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000007----000-.html US Code - Title 1, section 7]</ref>

Dr. [[James Dobson]]'s [[Focus on the Family]] organization prefers the phrase ''same-sex 'marriage,''' with quotation marks around the word ''marriage,'' to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that he therefore believes that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."<ref>[http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000464.cfm Same-Sex 'Marriage' and Civil Unions], ''Focus on the Family's'' website</ref>

Use of the term "same-sex marriage" was unheard of a few decades ago; however, these unions are now among a number of issues advocated by [[liberal]] activists.

Some advocates of same-sex marriage view marriage as a purely civil matter, which in the history of the United States is a position taken particularly strongly by Puritan colonists, who viewed the interjection of religion into the franchise of marriage as scandalous to Christ's Church.

== Background ==
In the United States, marriage is primarily governed by each individual state and marriage laws differ from state to state. Several states allow [[civil union]]s between two people of the same sex, and five, [[Massachusetts]], [[Connecticut]], [[Vermont]], [[New Hampshire]], and [[Iowa]], currently issue same-sex marriage licenses. These marriage licenses are not recognized by the Federal government.

In 1996 Congress recognized the likelihood that [[liberal]] activists would soon seek changes to the laws in some states that pertain to homosexuals. It considered the possibility of test cases reaching the Supreme Court, and of the court conceivably ruling that a state—even though it prohibits same-sex marriage itself—must honor same-sex marriages performed in another state pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. The Defense of Marriage act, which was passed and signed by President Clinton, prevents this possibility, and also prevents the Federal Government from recognizing marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman. Its Constitutionality has not yet been tested under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Equal Protection Clause of the 5th Amendment, or the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment.

In 1999 a Vermont court ruled that under its constitution, it was not required to allow same-sex marriage but was required to make provisions to grant same-sex couples legal rights identical to those provided by marriage. Vermont responded by creating "civil unions," which are legally distinct from marriages but convey the same rights. In 2009, the Vermont legislature overrode the governor's veto to pass a bill allowing same-sex marriage.

In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that under Massachusetts' constitution, same-sex couples could not be denied Massachusetts marriage licenses, making Massachusetts the first state to issue same-sex marriage licenses. As of April 2009, same-sex marriage was legal in four states, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa. <ref>''Vermont Legislature Makes Same-Sex Marriage Legal'' [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/us/08vermont.html?_r=1&hp]</ref><ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_re_us/connecticut_same_sex_marriage Conn. high court rules gay couples can marry]</ref>

Beginning in 2008, the states of [[Washington]], and [[Oregon]] also provide for same-sex unions. [[Hawaii]] provides certain benefits to same sex couples. <ref>[http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--civilunions-optio0531may31,0,341613.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut Newsday]</ref> The State of New Hampshire issued civil unions until the summer of 2009, when it passed a bill approving same-sex marriage <ref>"New Hampshire Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage" [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/04marriage.html]</ref> The state will begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses in January, 2010.

In the fall of 2009, a same-sex marriage bill was introduced to the [[D.C.|Washington, DC]] city council by At-Large Council Member David Catania (who is openly gay.) After two days of testimony involving nearly 250 witnesses <ref>''D.C. Council hears from both sides in gay marriage debate'' [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/D_C_-Council-hears-from-both-sides-in-gay-marriage-debate-8442433-66188647.html]</ref>, the council voted to approve the bill, 11-2. If signed by the Mayor, which he has pledged to do, the bill will then go to Congress for a mandatory [[DC Home Rule|30-day review period]]. While opponents of the bill have vowed to fight it in Congress<ref>"DC Council Approves Same-Sex Marriage" [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/15/AR2009121500945.html]</ref> it is expected to pass, and will become law in 2010.

Same-sex marriages were legal for a brief period in the state of [[California]], but the people of that state voted to repeal the law in the fall of 2008<ref>"California Votes for Prop 8"[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122586056759900673.html]</ref>, through a ballot initiative known as [[Proposition 8]]. The legislature of [[Maine]] approved a same-sex marriage bill in May of 2009 <ref>"Lawmakers approve same-sex marriage in N.H., Maine" [http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/maine.same.sex.marriage/index.html]</ref> but opponents lobbied to have the bill put up to a popular vote, and it was defeated by the voters in the fall of 2009.<ref>"Maine rejects same-sex marriage law" [http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/04/maine.same.sex/index.html]</ref>

Same-sex marriage is legal in seven countries: [[South Africa]], [[Spain]], [[Canada]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Belgium]], [[Norway]] and [[Sweden]]. Other countries, such as [[France]], [[Germany]], and the [[United Kingdom]], recognize [[civil unions]] and [[domestic partnership]]s.<ref>[http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-03/05/content_311998.htm Countries worldwide address gay marriage]</ref>

Some opponents of same-sex marriage believe that the religious ceremony of marriage is governed by each denomination and is unaffected by laws passed by civil authority. Same-sex marriage is forbidden in Orthodox Judaism, Catholicism, and most mainstream Protestant denominations. In Massachusetts, however, about 6% of all marriages are same-sex marriages, so this does not appear to be a problem. <ref>[http://www.massequality.org/news/news_story.php?id=273]</ref><ref>http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fnchs%2Fdata%2Fnvss%2Fmarriage90_04.pdf&images=yes</ref>

Public attitude toward same-sex marriage parallels attitude toward homosexuality. In general, it is opposed by social conservatives and outside of this group, support is split down the middle leaning to opposition.<ref>[http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html Same Sex Marriage Poll from ABC News]</ref>

== Issues ==
[[Image:Cycle.gif|thumbnail|200px|right|A recent study by the [[Canada|Canadian]] government states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with [[heterosexual]] couples".<ref>http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/85-570-XIE/2006001/findings/risk.htm Aforementioned Canadian Study.</ref>]]
[[James Dobson]] cites Stanley Kurtz to argue that the motivation of those advocating same-sex marriage is not to secure the benefits of marriage for gay couples, but to destroy the institution of marriage itself:
:...most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.<ref>Stanley Kurtz, "Beyond Marriage," The Weekly Standard, August 4/August 11, 2003. - cited in [http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000771.cfm Marriage on the Ropes], Dr. James Dobson, retrieved from ''Focus on the Family'', 15 May 2007. </ref>

According to a March, 2007 report, there are 65,000 adopted children in the U.S. being raised by same-sex couples. The same report says 14,100 foster children were being raised by one or more gay or lesbian foster parents.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/gay.adoption/index.html Gay adoption: A new take on the American family]</ref>

In Great Britain, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has expressed its full support to the stand taken by the Catholic Church opposing regulations on gay adoption. The Catholic Church sought to be exempt from the new law. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams of the Church of England, supports the Catholic Church's efforts declaring that the rights of conscience cannot be subject to laws. Catholic leaders have already said that its teachings prevent its agencies placing children with homosexuals and they will have to close if bound by the rules. The MCB, the UK's leading Muslim umbrella group embracing over 400 affiliated organizations, said that while it supported anti-discrimination laws, homosexuality is forbidden in Islam. <ref>[http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/menu-234/0701266670200554.htm UK Muslim group backs Christian opposition to gay adoption rules London], Islamic republic News Agency, Jan 26, 2007.</ref>

Studies indicate that homosexual couples have higher rates of promiscuity than heterosexual couples.<ref>[http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02 Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples]</ref> Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners.<ref>2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005</ref> In addition, studies report that [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior]].{{fact}} These studies are not surprising given what pathologists have stated regarding the [[Homosexuality and Murders|commonness and brutality of homosexual murders]].{{fact}} The prevalence of violence and emotional abuse in gay domestic partnerships.  One survey found 53% of gays felt if the high incidence of violence against partners in homosexual relationships was known and understood by the heterosexual population, it would hinder the drive for gay rights.

Domestic abuse is divided into two categories, emotional abuse and physical abuse. While gay domestic abuse has not been studied to the extent that heterosexual relationships have, [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|preliminary studies indicate a much higher level of abuse]].

==See also==
*[[Anti-Defamation League]]
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Bible]]
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]

==Reference==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp Gay Marriage: Why Would It Affect Me? Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage], NoGayMarriage.com
*[http://www.robgagnon.net/homoPresbyTodayArticle.htm Why “Gay Marriage” Is Wrong, by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.]
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]

Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem

2009-12-17T15:15:18Z

Yoritomo: why mention criticism later retracted?

The first computer program I wrote - between high school and college - generated solutions to the Pythagorean Theorem. I guess I should have programmed it to count them, too. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:25, 20 December 2007 (EST)

== Axiom of choice ==

Any proof which uses the [[axiom of choice]] can be transformed into a proof that doesn't. Granted, it will be a somewhat more complicated proof, but it always works, and that's a fact. That is the reason that AC is much less controversial these days than it was, in the early 1900s.

There is a complete explanation of the process and the proof that it's reliable [http://web.unicam.it/matinf/aila/Scuola%20AILA/sulla%20varieta%20dei%20metodiAC_sem02.pdf here].

Also, the profoundly intuitive [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichotomy_%28mathematics%29 trichotomy] is equivalent to AC, so be careful what you call controversial. [[User:BenjB|BenjB]] 20:29, 27 January 2008 (EST)

"Any proof which uses the axiom of choice can be transformed into one that doesn't"?! Lol. If C is the axiom of choice, then C (vacuously) proves C. By your assertion, that proof can be 'transformed' into a proof not using C, which means you can prove C from ZF, which is a contradiction. Really, lol. [[User:Tomkup32|Tomkup32]] 09:26, 9 December 2009 (EST)

==Marilyn vos Savant==
Is there any purpose in the last few sentences mentioning Marilyn vos Savant's criticism that she retracted a few years later? I don't think her mistaken criticism is relevant to Fermat's theorem. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 10:15, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Conservapedia

2009-12-17T02:29:06Z

Yoritomo: Undo revision 733804 by Cgregory2209 (Talk): vandalism

{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #c0c0c0; background: #e0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Previous_Breaking_News/Conservapedia| Previous Breaking News: Conservapedia]]
|}

'''Conservapedia''', launched on November 21, 2006, is a [[conservative]], [[family-friendly]] [[Wiki]] [[encyclopedia]]. It was founded by [[teacher]] and [[attorney]] [[Andrew Schlafly]] with the help of several students from his fall 2006 World History class. In May 2008, Schlafly and some of his [[homeschooling|homeschooled]] students appeared on the [[CBC]] news program The Hour (see: [[Videos on Conservapedia]] ).

When a student handed in her paper using the date-markers “[[BCE]]” and "CE” from [[Wikipedia]], Schlafly realized that Wikipedia, despite its claim of neutrality, contained bias against the achievements of [[Christianity]] and conservatism. Other occasions of [[liberal bias]], including the reversion of factual edits about the 2005 Kansas Evolution Hearings, led to the creation and launch of Conservapedia.

Though Conservapedia originally contained mostly [[history]] articles, it has grown over two years to be a general reference, with information about history, [[math]], [[science]], [[politics]], [[religion]] and other topics. It also contains [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics|debates]], [[essays]] and [[Conservapedia:Index|educational resources]].

In March 2007 it was picked up by the media, and faced a barrage of [[vandalism]] (See [[Essay:Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant"|Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant"]]). Ever since then, it has continued to grow, and now has [[Special:Statistics|tens of millions of page views]], and enjoys prominence on search engines.
== Rapid Expansion of Web Traffic Relative to Many Conservative Websites==
[[File:TrafficGraph.png|right|300px]]
Conservapedia was listed in May of 2009 as one of the 50 most popular conservative websites in terms of web traffic by the [[conservative]] blog Right Wing News.<ref name=popular50>[http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/03/the_50_most_popular_websites_o.php The 50 Most Popular Conservative Websites], ''Right Wing News'', March 16, 2009.</ref> Considering that Conservapedia was only about 3 years old in May of 2009 and was doing better in web traffic than some veteran conservative websites, the rise in web traffic for Conservapedia during its existence has been quite favorable. In May of 2009, the website Right Wing News determined with the help of [[Alexa]] data that Conservapedia was ranked 37 out of 50 in terms of its website traffic relative to other popular conservative websites.<ref name=popular50/> Conservapedia is looking forward to greatly spreading awareness of Conservapedia via the significant expansion of its [[YouTube]] channel subscriber base at [http://www.youtube.com/user/conservapediavideos Conservapediavideos]. [[Conservapediavideos]] will likely soon feature a multitude of excellent conservative videos.

==Leadership==
Unlike Wikipedia, which bills itself as a [[democratic]] system and ends up functioning as a [[mobocracy]], Conservapedia employs a hierarchy based on a [[Meritocracy|merit system]].

Andrew Schlafly is the chief administrator and is the most prolific editor, followed by bureaucrats, administrators, and regular editors. Editors who contribute substantial content may be promoted to administrator and bureaucrat, or gain extra user rights such as blocking power and uploading images.

==Educational atmosphere==
Due to the existence of essays and debates on Conservapedia, and conventions such as the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|"90/10 rule"]] and the use of real names, Conservapedia successfully fosters an [[education]]al environment. Because liberal bias is not allowed, much information that would be elsewhere censored can be found on Conservapedia; often it is one of the only places to find such information in one place.

==Promoting Original Scholarship ==
Many pages tagged as essays are really more like projects, or are otherwise thought-provoking, giving Conservapedia some characteristics of a [[think tank]]. See [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|Best New Conservative Words]], [[Essay:The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America|The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America]], [[Essay:Top Causes of Rejecting Conservativism|Top Causes of Rejecting Conservativism]], [[Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?|Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?]], [[Disputed Biblical Translations]], and [[Linguistic Analysis of Candidates]].

=== Conservative Bible Project ===
On August 12, 2009, Conservapedia began an enormous scholarly enterprise, the [[Conservative Bible Project]], which endeavors to retranslate scripture into modern English while emphasizing Biblical insights and counteracting liberal bias. As of Oct. 29, 2009, this project has translated about 30% of it, or about 2400 verses.

The project has been the subject of extensive discussion and debate throughout television, radio, and print media, as well as on the internet, and has succeeded in encouraging even its most strident liberal critics to read the bible in their efforts to refute it!

==Differences with Wikipedia==
Conservapedia strives to keep its articles concise, informative, family-friendly, and true to the [[fact]]s, which often back up conservative ideas more than [[liberal]] ones. Rather than claim a neutral point of view and then insert bias, Conservapedia is clear that it seeks to give due credit to conservatism and Christianity. Schlafly said in regard to the point of view issue, "It's impossible for an encyclopedia to be neutral. I mean let's take a point of view, let's disclose that point of view to the reader." <ref>Robert Siegel. [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8286084 Conservapedia: Data for Birds of a Political Feather?], npr.org, November 29, 2009.</ref>

Wikipedia articles may contain [[trivia]], [[gossip]], profanity, and even [[Pornography|pornographic]]/sexually explicit images. The latter three are prohibited on Conservapedia and trivia is largely discouraged.

The administrative hierarchy prevents Conservapedia from being hijacked by a faction, and thus preserves it from mobocracy, as discussed above.

==Influential editors and users==
*[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] is the username of the aforementioned founder of Conservapedia, Andrew Schlafly. He has contributed massively to Conservapedia since the beginning, authored many articles including the [[World History Lectures|student lectures]], and is the final authority on article content and user conduct.

*[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], active at Conservapedia for over a year, and at Wikipedia for seven years, was the first elected bureaucrat at Wikipedia and has been extremely influential at both sites. At Conservapedia, he has primarily aimed at accuracy, rationality, and user cooperation.

*[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] has contributed the majority of content to the extremely popular [[evolution]], [[atheism]], and [[homosexuality]] articles. The first two articles were featured as articles of the year at Conservapedia.

*[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] has contributed a large amount of content about the [[art]]s, such as pages on [[literature]], [[sculpture]], and [[painting]]. He created the [[Painting Masterpieces|galleries of artwork]] which are featured on Conservapedia's [[Main_Page|Main page]] as the "Masterpiece of the Week". His work has helped beautify the encyclopedia.

*[[User:Jpatt | Jpatt]] another hardcore conservative contributor despised by liberals.

*[[User:TK|TK]] has made many substantive contributions since coming to Conservapedia over two years ago, and is known for his vigilance against vandals.

*[[User:DeanS|DeanS]] helped found the Conservapedia news project, and he is its main contributor. He has also worked on articles related to [[Mormonism]].

*[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] has been an editor since the very beginning of Conservapedia, and was interviewed and quoted in a newspaper article to explain and defend the project.

*[[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] works on maintenance, and in addition to neutral contributions has created the popular article [[Essay:Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant"|Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant"]], as well as the Conservapedia article itself.

*[[User:RobSmith|RobSmith]] Created some of Conservapedia's most acclaimed articles, and was a tireless vandal fighter and researcher on the [[Socialist]] and [[Communist]] agendas.

*[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] has a PhD in American Studies and has been a professor of history and political science at numerous schools. Professor Jensen has made significant contibutions to Conservapedia's historical articles.

==Testimonies and Impact==
Conservapedia has been praised and ridiculed in the [[media]], on [[blog]]s, and on rival sites. Critics claim that it contains fringe viewpoints, and supporters note that it simply provides another viewpoint and an alternative to liberal bias.

*Conservapedia provides information about the [[American]] people that liberal critics would rather hide: for example, nearly 50 percent of Americans reject evolution and embrace [[creationism]], and even more want creationism taught alongside evolution in school. <ref>Bootie Cosgrove-Mather. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution], ''CBS News'', November 22, 2004.</ref> Another example is the fact that atheists- often claiming to be more equipped to help their fellow men than religious people- actually give less to charity than believers, even when church giving is excluded.

*Search results for controversial subjects such as [[atheism]] and [[evolution]] contain Conservapedia links within a few searches and often on the first page.<ref>[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS293US293&q=atheism&btnG=Search atheism - Google Search]</ref><ref>[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS293US293&q=theory+of+evolution&btnG=Search theory of evolution - Google Search]</ref>

*Many biographical articles contain religious references and information about the person’s religion, much more so than Wikipedia. Editor and college student Tasha Jones, ([[User:Taj|Taj]]) said of this aspect, “It gives me a better understanding of how people feel religion relates to our lives.” <ref>Stephanie Simon. [http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/19/nation/na-schlafly19 A conservative's answer to Wikipedia], ''Los Angeles Times'', June 19, 2007.</ref>

*Conservapedia is active in political advocacy. For example, it [[charter]]ed a bus for the 2009 [[March for Life]].

*Conservapedia is currently developing a blog for the [[Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation]]. The blog in its prototype form can be found here: http://mindszentyfoundation.blogspot.com/

==See Also==
*[[Conservapedia:Commandments|Conservapedia Commandments]]
*[[Conservapedia:About|About Conservapedia]]
*[[Conservapedia:Articles mentioning Conservapedia]]
*[[Videos on Conservapedia]]
*[[Special:ListUsers/Siteadmin|List of Site Admins]]
*[[Conservative Links]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Conservapedia]][[Category:Conservative]][[Category:Websites]][[Category:Wikis]]
contributions

Schroedinger

2009-12-17T02:25:22Z

Yoritomo: repair double redirect

#REDIRECT [[Erwin Schrödinger]]

Schrödinger

2009-12-17T02:24:42Z

Yoritomo: repair double redirect

#REDIRECT [[Erwin Schrödinger]]

Quebec Liberation Front

2009-12-17T02:24:13Z

Yoritomo: repair double redirect

#REDIRECT [[FLQ]]

Gameboy

2009-12-17T02:23:21Z

Yoritomo: repair double redirect

#redirect [[Nintendo]]

GAMEBOY

2009-12-17T02:23:03Z

Yoritomo: repair double redirect

#REDIRECT [[Nintendo]]

Shogun

2009-12-16T22:40:47Z

Yoritomo: expand

The '''Shogun''' was the military ruler of [[Japan]] in the middle ages. There were three distinct episodes: The [[Kamakura]] shogunate of the Minamoto clan, reigning from 1192 till 1333, the Ashikaga shogunate which ruled from 1336 till 1573, and the Tokugawa shogunate which ruled from 1603 till 1868 when Imperial authority was reestablishend by [[Emperor Meiji]].

==Kamakura shogunate==
When the Minamoto clan won the Gempei war agains the rival Taira clan, Minamoto no Yoritomo was invested with the title of Shogun and governed Japan from his seat in Kamakura. The Imperial court remained in [[Kyoto]], but had no power. After Yoritomo's death in 1199, the Hojo clan, the family of Yoritomo's wife, seized power and became hereditary Regents for the Minamoto Shoguns, who were as powerless as the Emperors.

==Ashikaga shogunate==
In the wake of the Mongol attempts at invasion in 1274 and 1281, resentment against the shogunate grew due to a lack of rewards and the Hojo's monopoly on power. In 1333 [[Emperor Go-Daigo]] ordered the vassals to rise against Hojo rule and to reestablish Imperial authority. The Hojo ordered Ashikaga Takauji to crush the rebellion, but the Ashikaga instead joined the rebels. When the tides turned against the Hojo, the last 870 Hojo samurai, including the last three Regents, committed suicide at the Hojo family temple in Kamakura. In 1336, Ashikaga Takauji himself became Shogun. He established his capital at Kyoto.

The Ashikaga shogunate lost power in the Onin war (1467 - 1477), initially a dispute of succession succession to the shogunate. Kyoto was ruined, and fighting spilled over to the provinces, where local warlords (''Daimyo'') would establish ''de facto'' independence from the shogunate and fight amongst each other. While Ashikaga Shoguns would still reside in Kyoto, they became puppets of whoever controlled the capital.

In 1573 the last Ashikaga Shogun was driven from Kyoto by Oda Nobunaga, the most powerful warlord to emerge after a century of near-constant civil war.

==Tokugawa shogunate==
After Oda Nobunaga's death, power was seized by his most influential general, Toyotomi Hideyoshi. Hideyoshi had risen through the ranks and was not of noble birth. He attempted to be adopted by the last Shogun who lived in exile, but chose to instead be adopted into the Fujiwara family of court nobility, a family which had held powerful positions at the Imperial court during the [[Heian Period]]. Under Oda Nobunaga and Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Japan had been united under one ruler for the first time since the Onin war.

After Hideyoshi's death, Tokugawa Ieyasu, who had been an ally of both Oda Nobunaga and later Toyotomi Hideyoshi, seized power. He defeated a coalition of opposing warlords at the Battle of Sekigahara in 1600. Three years later he was appointed Shogun and established his capital at Edo, modern [[Tokyo]].

The Tokugawa shogunate was the most stable, with various policies implemented to confine the power of the ''Daimyos''. It was an era of peace and prosperity, but also of isolation, with foreign trade strictly controlled and limited to Chinese and Korean traders and a small Dutch trading post. Christianity, which had taken root in western and southern Japan, was forbidden and severely persecuted, and a Christian revolt in Shimabara (western [[Kyushu]]) was crushed in 1638, one of the very few instances of serious unrest during Tokugawa rule.

The Tokugawa shogunate came to an end when it failed to control incursions by European powers such as Commodore [[Matthew Perry]]'s [[Black Ships]]. Conservative samurai came to see the shogunate as weak and conspired to restore the Emperor to power. They were successful in 1867 when the 15th Tokugawa Shogun, Tokugawa Yoshinobu, resigned and [[Emperor Meiji]] took control of the government.

==Trivia==
''Shogun'' is also the title of a book by [[James Clavell]], and a subsequent mini-series.

[[Category:Japanese History]]

User talk:Yoritomo

2009-12-16T18:39:25Z

Yoritomo: reply

{{welcome|sig=[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:23, 27 November 2009 (EST)}}

==Japanese articles==
How about adding some material to the Japanese articles??? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 19:14, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:Actually I intended to add articles on the missing Confederate generals next, [[Samuel Cooper]], [[Albert Sidney Johnston]], Beauregard (where I'm not sure what combination of given names and initials would make for the best article title), [[Edmund Kirby Smith]] and [[John Bell Hood]]. While the Japanese articles definitely also need help, I don't even know where to start. I did a little work on [[History of Japan]] and [[Heian Period]], but they need much more work. I also don't know good English books on Japanese topics and would thus be hard-pressed to properly cite my additions. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 13:39, 16 December 2009 (EST)

User talk:Yoritomo

2009-12-16T18:29:55Z

Yoritomo: Undo revision 733476 by Yoritomo (Talk): rv self, apparently the same user

{{welcome|sig=[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:23, 27 November 2009 (EST)}}

How about adding some material to the Japanese articles??? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 19:14, 14 December 2009 (EST)

User talk:Yoritomo

2009-12-16T18:28:26Z

Yoritomo: Undo revision 733429 by JMR10 (Talk): revert manipulation of Joaquín Martínez' comment

{{welcome|sig=[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:23, 27 November 2009 (EST)}}

How about adding some material to the Japanese articles? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 19:14, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:American entry into World War I

2009-12-16T16:52:07Z

Yoritomo: /* Undemocratic, militaristic state */ new text is good

==Undemocratic, militaristic state==
The article stated that Wilhelm siding with the military instead of the civilian government was proof "that Germany was indeed an undemocratic militaristic state". Not so. Germany indeed was militaristic and undemocratic, but Wilhelm's decision is not proof. He was the head of the executive and commander in chief; deciding against his subordinates in the civilian government was within his constitutional rights. Just because the U.S. President sometimes sides with the military and not with his Secretary of Defense the U.S. does not become militaristic. One might say that a constitution that allows such rights to a non-elected person is proof of an undemocratic state, but that's off-topic for this article. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 20:14, 15 December 2009 (EST)
::to side with the miltary against the elected government is militarism. Yes it was constitutional, which is why the US demanded the German constitution be changed and the system ended. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:37, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:I disagree. The military might have the better arguments, for example. Siding with them on a given issue is not necessarily militarism. Besides, in the German Empire the civilian government wasn't elected either. The Chancellor was appointed by the Kaiser, and parliament had no say in that matter. As I said, Germany certainly was undemocratic and militaristic, but Wilhelm's decision on unrestricted submarine warfare isn't proof. For example, I can't imagine Roosevelt's Secretary of State having been too happy with the decision to sink all ships in Japanese waters in WWII - but that doesn't make the US militaristic.
:If the military is able to dictate a course of action to the civilian government, that's militarism, and indeed at that point in the war Hindenburg and Ludendorff demanding a course of action might have been sufficient to make the Kaiser's opinion on the matter irrelevant. But that's not the point we were making.
:As an aside, I believe you're confusing the post-WWII changes in Germany with the post-WWI changes. The US had no say in the Weimar constitution. The ''Reichspräsident'', as an ersatz Kaiser, still was commander in chief, and if Weimar Germany had been involved in a war, he would still have been able to decide such matters against the rest of the civilian government, which, by the way, still wasn't elected but appointed by the President (though by then parliament could force it out of office).
:As a further aside, I don't think mention of Germany's militarism or lack of democracy in the submarine section is helpful at all. It certainly influenced US opinion of Germany and thus the US decision to enter the war, but I don't think the submarine policy was a major issue in US opinion on the German lack of democracy (compared to having a ruling Kaiser in the first place.)[[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 22:17, 15 December 2009 (EST)
::I think the Kaiser in 1914-18 was a nonentity who was controlled and manipulated by the military. In Oct 1918 Wilson demanded end of the Kaiser system and the Germans obliged with their revolution that created a republic. Most historians argue that the submarine policy was the #1 cause of the US entry into the war (as Germany expected it would be). Germany's militarism was the underlying factor, as Wilson himself said. And indeed as German historians like Fischer have demonstrated. The president under Weimar was elected by the people.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:16, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:I like the new version of Kaiser-military relations, it makes the relevant points much clearer than the previous text. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 11:52, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:American entry into World War I

2009-12-16T03:17:45Z

Yoritomo: /* Undemocratic, militaristic state */ still disagree, explain

Talk:American entry into World War I

2009-12-16T01:14:38Z

Yoritomo: explain removal of off-topic comment

American entry into World War I

2009-12-16T01:04:06Z

Yoritomo: remove wrong reasoning, see talk

American '''entry into World War I''' came in April 1917, after 2 1/2 years of efforts by President [[Woodrow Wilson]] to keep the United States neutral.

==Early Policy==
Americans had no inkling that a war was approaching in 1914. Over 100,000 were caught unawares when the war started, having traveled to Europe for tourism, business or to visit relatives. Their repatriation was handled by [[Herbert Hoover]], an American private citizen based in London. The U.S. government, under the firm control of President [[Woodrow Wilson]], called for neutrality "in thought and deed." Apart from an Anglophile element supporting Britain, public opinion went along at first. Wilson kept the economy on a peacetime basis, and made no preparations or plans for the war. He insisted on keeping the army and navy on its small peacetime bases. Indeed, Washington refused even to study the lessons of military or economic mobilization that had been learned so painfully across the sea.
==Submarine issue==
The most important indirect strategy used by the belligerents was the blockade: starve the enemy of food and the military machine will be crippled and perhaps the civilians will demand an end to the war. The Royal Navy successfully stopped the shipment of most war supplies and food to Germany. Neutral American ships that tried to trade with Germany (which international law clearly allowed), were seized or turned back. The strangulation came about very slowly, because Germany and its allies controlled extensive farmlands and raw materials, but it eventually worked because Germany and Austria took so many farmers into their armies. By 1918 the German cities were on the verge of starvation; the front-line soldiers were on short rations and were running out of essential supplies. The Allied blockade had done its job. The Germans also considered a blockade. "England wants to starve us," said Admiral [[Alfred von Tirpitz]], the man who built the German fleet and who remained a key advisor to the Kaiser. "We can play the same game. We can bottle her up and destroy every ship that endeavors to break the blockade."<ref> Ernest May, ''The World War and American Isolation, 1914-1917'' p.115 quote from Dec 1914</ref> Unable to challenge the more powerful Royal Navy on the surface, Tirpitz wanted to scare off merchant and passenger ships en route to Britain. He knew from his close reading of Captain [[Alfred Thayer Mahan]] that a blockade would not itself win the war. But he reasoned that since the island of Britain depended on imports of food, raw materials and manufactured goods, scaring off even half the ships would effectively undercut its long-term ability to maintain an army on the Western Front. While Germany only had nine long-range U-boats at the start of the war, it had ample shipyard capacity to build the hundreds that would be needed. The problem was that the U.S. demanded Germany respect international law, which protected neutral American ships on the high seas from seizure or sinking by either belligerent. (Other neutral nations made the same point; Berlin was probably more solicitous of Italy in than the US because Italy had an army.) Furthermore, Americans insisted that the drowning of innocent civilians was barbaric and grounds for a declaration of war. The British frequently violated America's neutral rights by seizing ships, but they did not drown anyone.<ref>Charles Cruttwell, '' A history of the great war, 1914-1918‎'' (1940) p 191 </ref> As Wilson's top advisor, [[Colonel House]] commented, "The British have gone as far as they possibly could in violating neutral rights, though they have done it in the most courteous way." When Wilson exploded in protest at British violations of American neutrality, the British backed down (or the American ambassador, notoriously biased toward Britain, softened his chief's angry words.) German submarines torpedoed ships without warning, and some sailors and passengers drowned. Berlin explained that submarines were so vulnerable that they dare not surface near merchant ships that might be carrying guns, and anyway the subs were so small they could not rescue crews. Military "necessity" again.

Britain armed most of its merchant ships with medium calibre guns that could sink a submarine, making an above-water attacks too risky. In February, 1915, the U.S. sharply warned Germany about misuse of submarines but on May 7, the British passenger liner ''[[Lusitania]]'' was torpedoed with the loss of 1,198 civilians, including 128 Americans. The American outcry was far more intense than would accompany the deliberate shooting down or sabotage of a civilian airliner in the 1980s or 1990s, but not as sharp as the response to the [[9-11 Attack]] in 2001. The ''Lusitania'' sinking was the event that decisively swung American opinion. Washington gave Berlin an ultimatum--never do that again! Berlin acquiesced, ordering its submarines to avoid passenger ships. But by January 1917 Generals [[Hindenburg]] and [[Ludendorff]] decided that unrestricted submarine blockade was the only way to break the stalemate on the Western Front. They demanded that Kaiser [[Wilhelm II]] order unrestricted submarine warfare be resumed. Berlin knew that meant war with the United States, but they gambled that they could win before America's potential strength could be mobilized. They vastly exaggerated how many ships they could sink and how much that would weaken Britain; they did not figure out that convoys would defeat their efforts. They were correct in seeing that the United States was so weak militarily that it could not be a factor on the Western Front for more than a year. The civilian government in Berlin objected, but the Kaiser sided with the military.<ref> Ernest May, ''The World War and American Isolation, 1914-1917'' p 414</ref>

Wilson believed that peace would never come to a world that contained aggressive, powerful, non-democratic militaristic states. Peace required a world based on free democracies. There was never a possibility for compromise between these polar situations. America had to fight for democracy, or it would be fighting perpetually against ever-stronger evil enemies (stronger because they would gobble up weak neighbors whenever they could.) Was the American dedication to neutral rights and opposition to submarines sincere? In the 1920s and 1930s the world repeatedly condemned unrestricted submarine warfare. After [[Pearl Harbor]] in 1941, however, President [[Franklin Roosevelt]], who held the key role as Assistant Secretary of the Navy throughout the first war, did not recognize any neutrality. He ordered his submarines to sink on sight all ships in Japanese waters, with no regard to passengers. (Indeed, thousands of American prisoners of war were drowned.) Despite this later reversal, in 1915-1917 Washington and the American people were dead serious about their opposition to unrestricted submarine attacks on neutral ships. They clearly told Germany they would fight for the principle.

==Development of Public Opinion==
A surprising factor in the development of American public opinion was how little the political parties became involved. They seemed fearful that discussion of war-related issues would distract the electorate from their tried-and-true platforms focused on economic issues. The Socialist party, which won 2% of the 1916 vote for [[Eugene V. Debs]], blamed the war on capitalism and pledged total opposition. "A bayonet," it said, "was a weapon with a worker at each end." When war began, however half the Socialists supported it; the rest, led by Debs, became die-hard opponents.<ref> Nick Salvatore, ''Eugene V. Debs: Citizen and Socialist'' (2007) ch 9</ref>

Nationwide at all times the dominant voice was held by old-stock white Americans. The largest old-stock Protestant denominations (Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Disciples of Christ, Congregational and some Lutheran groups) loudly denounced the war at first: it was God's punishment for sin. Their moralism was aggressively focused on banishing evils (like saloons) from the face of the earth through [[Prohibition]], and if they could be shown that German militarism was a similar evil, they would throw enormous weight. Wilson, the intensely religious son of a prominent theologian, knew exactly how to harness that moralism in his attacks on the "Huns" who threatened civilization, and his calls for an almost religious crusade on behalf of peace.<ref>John F. Piper, ''The American Churches in World War I'' (1985)</ref>

Upwards of four-fifths of America's social, political, and economic leaders were of English or Scottish descent (usually Episcopalian or Presbyterian); they clearly wanted Britain to win, though at first not to the point of American entry. Magazine editors, newspaper reporters, book publishers, college professors, intellectuals, artists, and writers were overwhelmingly pro- British. [[Samuel Insull]], one of Chicago's richest and most influential industrialists, had been born in England. He organized publicity, propaganda, and relief work, and assisted young men to join the Canadian army to go and fight.<ref> Forrest McDonald, ''Insull'' (2004)</ref> Chicago and the Midwest generally was isolationist and opposed to war, primarily because the large German and Scandinavian populations were strongly opposed to American entry. (Almost no one proposed the U.S. enter the war on Germany's side.)

The working class was relatively quiet, and tended to divide along ethnic lines; farmers generally ignored the war. A cosmopolitan group of upper and upper-middle class businessmen based in the largest cities took the lead in promoting military preparedness and in defining how far America could be pushed around before it would fight back.

==Opponents of American Entry==
American cities were polyglot concentrations of ethnic groups--in New York, Chicago, Detroit, and other great cities three-fourths or more of the voters were immigrants or sons of immigrants (women did not vote). Some British immigrants worked actively for intervention. London-born Samuel Insull, Chicago's leading industrialist, for example, enthusiastically provided money, propaganda, and means for volunteers to enter the British or Canadian armies. After US entry, Insull directed the Illinois State Council of Defense, with responsibility for organizing the state's mobilization. Immigrants from eastern Europe usually cared more about politics in their homeland than politics in the U.S. Slavic immigrants hoped that an Allied victory would bring independence for their homelands. The millions of German-Americans were ambiguous in their position. They called for neutrality, and spoke of the superiority of German culture. Increasingly, however, they spoke only to themselves, and by 1917 no one else listened.<ref> Frederick C. Luebke, ''Bonds of loyalty: German-Americans and World War I‎'' (1974)</ref>

The most effective opponents of the war were the Irish Catholics. They had little interest in the continent, but were adamant against helping the British Empire, because it continued to reject independence for Ireland. (The [[Easter Uprising]] in Dublin, 1916, was stamped out, its leaders hung.) The Irish-Americans dominated the Democratic party in most large cities, so Wilson had to take account of their views in his definition of the nation's goals. They did not prevent him from being hostile to Germany, but they did force him to keep his distance from Britain. Indeed, Irish pressure guaranteed that the US would not become a full-fledged ally of Britain, and would not be pledged to Britain's war aims, but would try to restructure the world in a liberal democratic fashion after the war was won.<ref>William M. Leary, Jr. "Woodrow Wilson, Irish Americans, and the Election of 1916." ''Journal of American History'' 1967 54(1): 57-72 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1900319 in JSTOR]</ref>
==Preparedness Movement==
see [[Preparedness Movement]]

The United States military was not at all prepared for a major war. The Army in particular was small--Greece had a larger army--and there were no serious plans or training programs to deal with the possibility of American involvement.

Antiwar forces--including churches, Irish Catholics, Germans and pacifists--strongly opposed any military preparations.

Nevertheless most Americans demanded preparedness --led by ex-president [[Theodore Roosevelt]]. The result was a compromise, whereby the navy was dramatically built up, but the army was only slightly improved. Wilson feared that a strong America would weaken his negotiating position, an interpretation rejected by most historians and all conservatives.

==Decision for War==
By 1916 a new factor was emerging--a sense of national self interest and nationalism. The unbelievable casualty figures were sobering--two vast battles caused over one million casualties each. Clearly this war would be a decisive episode in the history of the world. Every American effort to find a peaceful solution was frustrated. [[Henry Ford]] managed to make pacifism look ridiculous by sponsoring a private peace mission that accomplished nothing. German agents added a comic opera touch. The agent in charge of propaganda left his briefcase on the train, where an alert Secret Service agent snatched it up. Wilson let the newspapers publish the contents, which indicated a systematic effort by Berlin to subsidize friendly newspapers and block British purchases of war materials. Berlin's top espionage agent, debonnaire Fanz Rintelen von Kleist was spending millions to finance sabotage in Canada, stir up trouble between the US and Mexico and to incite labor strikes. The British were engaged in propaganda too, though not illegal espionage. But they did not get caught; Germany took the blame as Americans grew ever more worried about the vulnerability of a free society to subversion. Indeed, one of the main fears Americans of all stations had in 1916-1919 was that spies and saboteurs were everywhere. This sentiment played a major role in arousing fear of Germany, and suspicions regarding everyone of German descent who could not "prove" 100% loyalty.<ref> Link 3:556ff </ref>Americans felt an increasing need for a military that could command respect; as one editor put it, "The best thing about a large army and a strong navy is that they make it so much easier to say just what we want to say in our diplomatic correspondence." Berlin thus far had backed down and apologized when Washington was angry, thus boosting American self- confidence. America's rights and America's honor increasingly came into focus. The slogan "Peace" gave way to "Peace with Honor." The Army remained unpopular, however. A recruiter in Indianapolis noted that, "The people here do not take the right attitude towards army life as a career, and if a man joins from here he often tries to go out on the quiet." The Preparedness movement used its easy access to the mass media to demonstrate that the War Department had no plans, no equipment, little training, no reserves, a laughable National Guard, and a wholly inadequate organization for war. Motion pictures like "The Birth of a Nation" (1915) and "The Battle Cry of Peace" (1915) depicted invasions of the American homeland that demanded action.

The press at the time reported that the only thing the military was ready for was an enemy fleet attempting to seize New York harbor--at a time when the German battle fleet was penned up by the Royal Navy. Navy Secretary [[Josephus Daniels]], a pacifistic journalist, had built up the educational resources of the Navy and made its War College in Newport an essential experience for would-be admirals. However, he alienated the officer corps with his moralistic reforms, (no wine in the officers' mess, no hazing at Annapolis, more chaplains and YMCAs). Ignoring the nation's strategic needs, and disdaining the advice of its experts, Daniels suspended meetings of the Joint Army and Navy Board for two years because it was giving unwelcome advice, chopped in half the General Board's recommendations for new ships, reduced the authority of officers in the Navy yards where ships were built and repaired, and ignored the administrative chaos in his department. [[Bradley Fiske]], one the most innovative admirals in American naval history, in 1914 was Daniels' top aide; he recommended a reorganization that would prepare for war, but Daniels refused. Instead he replaced Fiske in 1915 and brought in for the new post of Chief of Naval Operations an unknown captain, [[William Benson]]. Chosen for his compliance, Benson proved a wily bureaucrat who was more interested in preparing for an eventual showdown with Britain than an immediate one with Germany. Daniels and Benson rejected .. Love 1:458, 483-4 March 1917: Benson told Sims he "would as soon fight the British as the Germans" proposals to send observers to Europe, leaving the Navy in the dark about the success of the German submarine campaign. Admiral William Sims charged after the war that in April, 1917, only ten percent of the Navy's warships were fully manned; the rest lacked 43% of their seamen. Light antisubmarine ships were few in number, as if Daniels had been unaware of the German submarine menace that had been the focus of foreign policy for two years. The Navy's only warfighting plan, the "Black Plan" assumed the Royal Navy did not exist and that German battleships were moving freely about the Atlantic and the Caribbean and threatening the Panama Canal. Daniels' tenure would have been even less successful save for the energetic efforts of Assistant Secretary [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], who effectively ran the Department.<ref> Coletta in SEC NAVY 2:526-41 Am Sea Power 1947:312 after EE Morison</ref>

In early 1917 Berlin forced the issue. The decision to try to sink every ship on the high seas was the immediate cause of American entry into the war. Five American merchant ships went down in March. If further evidence were needed, the German foreign minister, Arthur Zimmerman, approached Mexico for an alliance; Mexico would join Germany in a war and be rewarded with the return of lost territories in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona (but not California). Outraged public opinion now overwhelmingly supported Wilson when he asked Congress for a declaration of war on April 2, 1917. The United States had a moral responsibility to enter the war, he proclaimed, to make the world safe for democracy. The future of the world was being determined on the battlefield, and American national interest demanded a voice. Wilson's definition of the situation won wide acclaim, and, indeed, has shaped America's role in world and military affairs ever since. Wilson saw that if Germany would win, the consequences would be bad for the United States. Germany would dominated the continent and perhaps would gain control of the seas as well. Latin America could well have fallen under Berlin's control. The dream of spreading democracy, liberalism and independence would have been shattered. On the other hand, if the Allies had won without help, there was a danger they would carve up the world without regard to American commercial interests. They were already planning to use government subsidies, tariff walls, and controlled markets to counter the competition posed by American businessmen. The solution was a third route, a "peace without victory" Wilson said. He meant a peace shaped, if not totally dictated, by the United States. George H.W. Bush's rhetoric against Saddam Hussein in 1990-91 closely echoed Wilson in 1917.

==Public Opinion, Moralism and National Interest==
The story of American entry into the war is a study in how public opinion changed radically in three years' time. In 1914 Americans thought the war was a dreadful mistake and were determined to stay out. By 1917 the same public felt just as strongly that going to war was both necessary and wise. Military leaders had little to say during this debate, and military considerations were seldom raised. The decisive questions dealt with morality and visions of the future. The prevailing attitude was that America possessed a superior moral position as the only great nation devoted to the principles of freedom and democracy. By staying aloof from the squabbles of reactionary empires, it could preserve those ideals-- sooner or later the rest of the world would come to appreciate and adopt them. In 1917 this very long-run program faced the severe danger that in the short run powerful forces adverse to democracy and freedom would triumph. Strong support for moralism came from religious leaders, women (led by [[Jane Addams]]), and from public figures like long-time Democratic leader [[William Jennings Bryan]], the Secretary of State from 1913 to 1916. The most important moralist of all was President Woodrow Wilson--the man who dominated decision making so totally that the war has been correctly labelled "Wilson's War." (The closest comparison is [[George W. Bush]] as the driving force behind the war with Iraq in 2003.)

In 1917 Wilson, a Democrat, proved his political genius by winning the support of most of the moralists by proclaiming "a war to make the world safe for democracy." If they truly believed in their ideals, he explained, now was the time to fight. The question then became whether Americans would fight for what they deeply believed in, and the answer turned out to be a resounding "YES".

Some observers at the time, and since, alleged that beneath the veneer of moralism and idealism there surely must have been some sordid forces at work. Some suggested a conspiracy on the part of New York City bankers holding $3 billion of war loans to the Allies, or steel and chemical firms selling munitions to the Allies. This conspiracy interpretation was based not on evidence but on an a priori theory that wars are always caused by greedy businessmen. However, the interpretation was popular among left-wing Progressives (led by Senator [[Robert LaFollete]] of Wisconsin) and among the "agrarian" wing of the Democratic party--including the chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee of the House. He strenuously opposed war, but when it came rewrote the tax laws to make sure the rich paid the most. (In the 1930s neutrality laws were passed to prevent financial entanglements from dragging the nation into a war.) In the 1930s some journalists pointed to the British propaganda that played on exaggerated tales of German barbarism and appealed to the basically British cultural roots of most Americans. In 1916 Bryan thought that pro-British sentiment had distorted Wilson's policies, so he became the first Secretary of State ever to resign in protest.

The problem with these explanations is that they ignore the depth of American disgust with what Germany actually did, and the threat it represented to American ideals. They tell the story of Hamlet while leaving out the King. Americans set a standard for German behavior in terms of human decency, political philosophy, international law, and American national interest, and Germany flunked all the tests badly. Germany failed the human decency test because it invaded Belgium, subjecting a neutral country to the ravages of warfare simply because its territory offered a convenient invasion route. Furthermore, when the Schlieffen plan failed, the Germans did not withdraw. Belgium kept the public's sympathy as the Germans executed civilians, and English nurse [[Edith Cavell]]; [[Herbert Hoover]] led a private relief effort that won wide support. Compounding the Belgium atrocities were new weapons that Americans found repugnant, like poison gas and the aerial bombardment of innocent civilians. (Zeppelins dropped bombs on London.)

Above all, American repulsion at the Germans focused on their submarines which sank the [[Lusitania]] in 1915 and other passenger ships without warning. That appeared to Americans as a unacceptable challenge to the America's rights as a neutral country, and as an unforgivable affront to humanity. After repeated diplomatic protests, Germany agreed to stop it. But in 1917 the Germany military leadership decided that "military necessity" (i.e. a chance to win) dictated the unrestricted use of their submarines. The Kaiser gave the order knowing full well it meant war with the United States--a country that his advisors felt was enormously powerful economically but too weak militarily to make a difference. The political philosophy Americans believed in was a combination of democracy and individualized freedom of the sort exemplified in Britain and France. The alternative to their entry into the war was a world dominated by German political values, including imperialism, militarism, and the suppression of minorities--a guaranteed formula for more wars in the future. Americans wanted a world of peace and democracy; In 1917 they realized that they must fight Germany to achieve it. One stumbling block was that Czarist Russia--which almost as politically repugnant as Germany--was one of the Allies. When a liberal revolution overthrew the Czar in March 1917, this obstacle suddenly vanished. War increasingly became the only choice left.

==Bibliography==
* Ambrosius, Lloyd E., “Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush: Historical Comparisons of Ends and Means in Their Foreign Policies,” ''Diplomatic History'', 30 (June 2006), 509–43.
* Arnett, Alex Mathews. ''Claude Kitchin and the Wilson War Policies.'' 1937. Kitchen was an antiwar Democrat in the House
* Bassett, John Spencer. ''Our War with Germany: A History'' (1919) [http://books.google.com/books?id=76UTAAAAIAAJ&printsec=toc&dq=intitle:war+date:1919-1921&num=30&as_brr=1&sig=4Vx3GGygya6F24ozaNJyLzMI694#PPP10,M1 online edition]
* *Brands, H.W. ''Theodore Roosevelt'' (2001), full biography [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98669157 online edition]
* Clements, Kendrick A. "Woodrow Wilson and World War I," ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 34:1 (2004). pp 62+. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5006516101 online edition]
* Clifford, J. Garry. ''Citizen Soldiers: The Plattsburgh Training Camp Movement, 1913-1920'' (1972)
* Costrell, Edwin. ''How Maine viewed the war, 1914-1917,'' (1940)
* Crighton, John C. ''Missouri and the World War, 1914-1917: a study in public opinion'' (1947)
* Cruttwell, C. R. M. F. ''A History of the Great War, 1914-1918'' (1934), military history from British perspective
* Cummins, Cedric Clisten. ''Indiana public opinion and the World War, 1914-1917,'' (1945)
* Davis, Allen F. ''American Heroine: The Life and Legend of Jane Addams.'' 1973.
* Dodd, William Edward. ''Woodrow Wilson and His Work'' (1920) a pro-Wilson study by a leading scholar; written before the archives were opened and based on newspapers. [http://books.google.com/books?id=Fz0OAAAAIAAJ&printsec=toc&dq=intitle:woodrow+intitle:wilson&num=30&as_brr=1&sig=2PQOqfbgC9oZQtFPkJpYDeebMn4#PPR7,M1 online edition]
* Early, Frances H. ''A World without War: How U.S. Feminists and Pacifists Resisted World War I.'' 1997.
* Esposito, David M. ''The Legacy of Woodrow Wilson: American War Aims in World War I. '' (1996) 159pp [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14266596# online edition]
* Finnegan, John P. ''Against the Specter of a Dragon: The Campaign for American Military Preparedness, 1914–1917.'' (1975).
* Gibbs, Christopher C. ''The Great Silent Majority: Missouri's Resistance to World War I'' (1988)
* Grubbs, Frank L. ''The Struggle for Labor Loyalty: Gompers, the A. F. of L., and the Pacifists, 1917-1920.'' 1968.
* Herman, Sondra. ''Eleven Against War: Studies in American Internationalist Thought, 1898-1921.'' 1969.
* Higham, Robin and Dennis E. Showalter, eds. ''Researching World War I: A Handbook'' (2003), 475pp; highly detailed historiography, [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=107066504 online edition]
* Hodgson, Godfrey. ''Woodrow Wilson's Right Hand: The Life of Colonel Edward M. House.'' (2006). 335pp, popular biography
* Kazal, Russell A. ''Becoming Old Stock: The Paradox of German-American Identity.'' (2004). 390 pp.
* Kennedy, David M. ''Over Here: The First World War and American Society'' (1982), covers politics & economics & society [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=106147343 online edition]
* Koistinen, Paul. ''Mobilizing for Modern War: The Political Economy of American Warfare, 1865-1919'' (1997)
* Knock, Thomas J. ''To End All Wars: Woodrow Wilson and the Quest for a New World Order'' (1995)
* Link, Arthur S. ''Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era, 1910-1917'' (1972) standard political history of the era
* Link, Arthur S. ''Wilson: The Struggle for Neutrality: 1914-1915'' (1960); ''Wilson: Confusions and Crises: 1915-1916'' (1964); ''Wilson: Campaigns for Progressivism and Peace: 1916-1917'' (1965), the last volume of standard biography [http://www.historyebook.org/ all 3 volumes are online at ACLS e-books]
* Link, Arthur S. ''Wilson the Diplomatist: A Look at His Major Foreign Policies'' (1957) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=9422144 online edition]
* Link, Arthur S. ''Woodrow Wilson and a Revolutionary World, 1913-1921'' (1982) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104472422 online edition]
* Link, Arthur S. ''Woodrow Wilson: Revolution, War, and Peace'' (1979) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=111418063 online edition]
* Livermore, Seward W. ''Politics Is Adjourned: Woodrow Wilson and the War Congress, 1916-1918.'' 1966.
* Luebke, Frederick C. ''Bonds of Loyalty: German-Americans and World War I.'' 1974.
* McCallum, Jack. ''Leonard Wood: Rough Rider, Surgeon, Architect of American Imperialism'' (2005)
* McDonald, Forrest. ''Insull: The Rise and Fall of a Billionaire Utility Tycoon'' (2004)
* May, Ernest R. ''The World War and American Isolation, 1914-1917'' (1959) [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books], highly influential study
* Nash, George H. ''Life of Herbert Hoover: The Humanitarian, 1914-1917'' (Life of Herbert Hoover, Vol. 2) (1988)
* O'Toole, Patricia. ''When Trumpets Call: Theodore Roosevelt after the White House.'' (2005). 494 pp.
* Perkins, Bradford. ''The Great Rapprochement: England and the United States, 1895-1914'' (1968)
* Peterson, H. C. ''Propaganda for War: The Campaign Against American Neutrality, 1914-1917.'' 1968.
* Rothwell, V. H. ''British War Aims and Peace Diplomacy, 1914-1918.'' (1971).
* Safford, Jeffrey J. ''Wilsonian Maritime Diplomacy, 1913-1921.'' (1978).
* Smith, Daniel. ''The Great Departure: The United States and World War I, 1914-1920'' (1965)
* Sterba, Christopher M. ''Good Americans: Italian and Jewish Immigrants during the First World War.'' 2003. 288 pp. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103564691 online edition]
* Tucker, Robert W. ''Woodrow Wilson and the Great War: Reconsidering America's Neutrality, 1914-1917,'' (2007). 272 pp. ISBN: 978-0-8139-2629-2
* Unger, Nancy C. ''Fighting Bob La Follette: The Righteous Reformer'' (2000)
* Venzon, Anne ed. ''The United States in the First World War: An Encyclopedia'' (1995)
* Ward, Robert D. "The Origin and Activities of the National Security League, 1914–1919." Mississippi Valley Historical Review 47 (1960): 51–65. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0161-391X(196006)47%3A1%3C51%3ATOAAOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Q online at JSTOR]
* Witcover, Jules. ''Black Tom: Imperial Germany's Secret War in America'' (1989)
===Primary sources===
* [http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/catalogs/series/pw.html ''The Papers of Woodrow Wilson''] edited by [[Arthur S. Link]] complete in 69 vol, at major academic libraries. Annotated edition of all of WW's letters, speeches and writings plus many letters written to him
* [http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/whwar10h.htm Wilson, Woodrow. ''Why We Are at War'' (1917)] six war messages to Congress, Jan- April 1917
===External links===
* [http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0402.html#article NY Times main headline, April 2, 1917, ''President Calls for War Declaration, Stronger Navy, New Army of 500,000 Men, Full Cooperation With Germany's Foes'']
* [http://www.libertydollar.org/ld/federal-reserve]
* [http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/index.php/academic/americanpresident/wilson Extensive essay on Woodrow Wilson and shorter essays on each member of his cabinet and First Lady from the Miller Center of Public Affairs]
* [http://sources.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_Wilson%27s_War_Address President Wilson's War Address]

====references====
<references/>
[[Category:Progressive Era]]
[[Category:World War I]]

Memel

2009-12-15T23:05:41Z

Yoritomo: typo

The '''Memel territory''' was an important port in the eastern Baltic Sea.

The area had been conquered by the [[Teutonic Order]] in the Middle Ages. The city was founded by them in 1252. It came under control of [[Prussia]] and converted to Lutheranism in the reformation. It was a prosperous trading and shipping center for lumber and wheat, and was a major [[Hanseatic League]] city. The many wars in the region saw Memel captured several times back and forth.

In 1920 the Treaty of Versailles separated it from German East Prussia, and put it under French administration. The population was almost all German.

In 1923, [[Lithuania]] sent its military forces to seize the area during what is called the "Klaipeda revolt". The French forces put up a token resistance and left, and in 1923 the annexation of the area now called the Klaipeda region by Lithuania was confirmed by the international community. The Germans forced Lithuania to return the area in 1939 after 90% of the people voted for the Nazis.

After the German defeat in 1945 the Germans were all expelled and the area came under Lithuania, which renamed the city Klaipėda. The population is about 185,000--two thirds Lithuanians and the rest mostly Russians.

[[Category:German History]]
[[Category:Lithuania]]

Barrel

2009-12-15T22:53:29Z

Yoritomo: reword, add other liquids than oil, tempreature in Fahrenheit not mentioned by the source (and would be nonsensical since the gallon doesn't vary with temperature).

A '''barrel''' is a unit of [[volume]] whose size depends on the liquid measured. The most common use is in regard to oil, where prices and quantities are usually referred to by the barrel. In this context, the barrel equals 42 U.S. [[gallon]]s of liquid.<ref>U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration [http://www.marad.dot.gov/publications/glossary/glossary.html]</ref>
Beer and wine are sometimes also mentioned in barrels. In those contexts, the volume of a barrel may vary between 31 and 36 gallons.

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Shipping Terms]][[Category:Units of Measurement]]

Barrel

2009-12-15T22:47:56Z

Yoritomo: source doesn

A '''barrel''' is a unit of [[volume]] that equals 42 U.S. [[gallon]]s of liquid.<ref>U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration [http://www.marad.dot.gov/publications/glossary/glossary.html]</ref> A common use of the term barrel is in regard to oil, where prices and quantities are usually referred to by the barrel.

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Shipping Terms]][[Category:Units of Measurement]]

Pocket Battleship

2009-12-15T22:32:57Z

Yoritomo: add umlauts for German names

{{Ship
| name="''Pocket battleship"''
| image=H89566.jpg
| caption=
| flag-raw=[[File:Flag of Nazi Germany.png|40px]] [[Image:Nazi Germany Jack.png|40px]]
| flag-caption=
| owner=German Kriegsmarine
| built=
| authorized=
| keellaid=
| commissioned=''Deutchland'' / ''Lützow'' ''Admiral Scheer'' ''Admiral Graf Spee''
| launched=
| retired=
| status=Scuttled 
| type=Heavy cruiser
| displ=12,100 tons
| length=610 feet
| beam=71 feet
| draft=24 feet
| speed=28.5 knots
| test=
| armament=six 11 in main guns eight 5.9 inch guns six 4.1 inch guns eight 37 mm guns ten 20 mm guns eight 21 inch torpedo tubes
|aircraft= one Arado 196 seaplane
| crew=1,150 officers and men
| troops=
| pass=
|}
}}
The “'''pocket battleship'''” (''panzershiffe'': "armored ship"), was a [[German]] warship officially classified by weight as a heavy cruiser but with the firepower of a [[battleship]]. The design was meant to comply with the terms of the [[Versailles Treaty]] (which allowed post-WWI Germany only a couple of battleships over 11,900 metric tons) while providing the German Navy with more capital ships.

In all, Germany built and operated three pocket battleships: the ''Deutschland'' (later renamed the ''Lützow''), the ''[[Admiral Graf Spee (heavy cruiser)|Admiral Graf Spee]]'', and the ''Admiral Scheer''. Each had a displacement of 11,700 tons and an average crew of 30 officers and 1040 men. Main armament consisted of 6 11-inch guns in two triple turrets and 8 6-inch guns in individual turrets. Two propeller shafts, driven by diesel powerplants, gave the ships a top speed of 28 knots. In addition, each ship carried two float planes. All saw service in [[World War II]].<ref>''German Pocket Battleships'', by Gordon Williamson, Osprey Publishing, 2003</ref>

==''Deutschland''/''Lützow''==
The first of this new class of ship, the ''Deutschland'' was launched in 1931 and commissioned in 1933. She was active in Spanish waters during the [[Spanish Civil War]], evacuating refugees and escorting German ships carrying supplies to the Nationalists. In May 1937, the ship was attacked by Republican aircraft and suffered two bomb hits. 23 sailors were killed and 73 wounded. In retaliation for this attack, [[Adolf Hitler]] ordered the bombardment of the Republican-held harbor of Almeria by the ''Deutschland'''s sister ship, the ''Admiral Scheer''.

At the outbreak of World War II, the ''Deutschland'' was at sea. After a delay, she was sent into the North Atlantic to conduct commerce raiding. She sunk or captured three merchant ships (over 11,000 tons in total) before weather damage forced the ship to the safety of Kiel harbor, arriving on November 15, 1939. It was on this date that the ship was renamed. This was done partly to confuse enemy intelligence, and partly because it was felt that if a ship bearing the name of the German nation was sunk, national morale would be damaged. Consequently, the ship was renamed in honor of Adolf Freiherr von Lützow, one of Germany’s most distinguished military commanders from the Napoleonic Wars.

After a refit in the port of Danzig, the ''Lützow'' was sent north as part of Operation ''Weserubung'', the German invasion of [[Norway]]. The ship was loaded with 400 [[Wehrmacht]] troops and sent to [[Oslo]] with the heavy cruiser ''[[Blucher (ship)|Blucher]]'', the light cruiser ''Emden'', and three torpedo boats. The group succeeded in capturing the Norwegian forts in Oslofiord, but shore-based batteries sunk the ''Blücher'' and damaged the ''Lützow''.<ref>''Denmark and Norway 1940'', by Douglas C Dildy, Osprey Publishing, 2007</ref> On the way home, she was intercepted by the British submarine ''Swordfish'' and hit by a torpedo which destroyed her rudder. She was taken under tow and entered the port of Kiel in April 1940. Between the artillery and submarine attacks, the mission had cost the ''Lützow'' 35 dead and damage that would take almost a year to repair.

On June 12, 1941, the ''Lützow'', accompanied by an escort of destroyers, set out for Norway, but was hit by a torpedo from a British bomber, forcing her return to Kiel for another six months of repairs. Bombing raids and bad weather caused delays, but the ''Lützow'' sailed for Norway on May 15, 1942, to join the ''Admiral Scheer'' in [[Narvik]]. Both ships were sent to intercept Convoy PQ 17, destined for Russia. While leaving port, however, the ''Lützow'' ran aground in the fog, necessitating a return to Germany for further repairs. The ship returned to Norway in November, and was sent, with the cruiser ''Admiral Hipper'' and several destroyers, to intercept Convoy JW 51 headed for the Soviet Union. The mission was a failure; no merchant ships were sunk, and the ''Lützow'' failed to score a single hit on the enemy. Part of the reason was bad weather, and part of it was inadequate coordination between the German ships. [[Adolf Hitler]] was reportedly furious about this fiasco, and ordered that all of Germany’s heavy ships be scrapped and their guns be reassigned for use on land. The new Commander in Chief of the Kriegsmarine, [[Karl Donitz]], was able to change Hitler’s mind, although Hitler had very little confidence in his surface units from that point on.

Aside from one last sortie to Norway, the ''Lützow'' spent the rest of the war in the [[Baltic Sea]], on training exercises at first, then on escort and support missions as the German army retreated from the [[Soviet Union]]. She was still a prime target for bombing attacks, and on April 16, 1945, suffered a near miss by a “Tallboy” bomb from an [[RAF]] Lancaster. This opened a breach in her hull, causing significant flooding. The flooded areas were pumped out, but the ship was no longer fit for sea, and served as a battery in the port of Swinemünde until her ammunition ran out. After this, the ''Lützow'' was scuttled in Swinemünde harbor on May 4, 1945.

==''Admiral Scheer''==
''Admiral Scheer'' was the second ship of the class, launched in April of 1933 and commissioned into the German Navy in November 1934. Her namesake was the commander of the German fleet at the [[Battle of Jutland]]. Like the ''Deutschland'', she saw service in Spanish waters during the Spanish Civil War. On May 31, 1937, the ''Admiral Scheer'' bombarded the port of Almeria in reprisal for the Republican attack on the ''Deutschland'', causing serious damage and many casualties.

When World War II began, the ''Admiral Scheer'' was in harbor at Wilhelmshaven. On September 4, she was attacked by RAF bombers, but suffered no damage. She spent the rest of 1939 in the Baltic Sea on training exercises, then underwent a major overhaul in port. Finally, in October of 1940, she was sent out on her first major combat mission of the war, to intercept enemy shipping in the Atlantic. Over the next six months, the ''Admiral Scheer'' sank or captured 17 merchant vessels and 1 armed merchant cruiser, totaling over 113,000 tons, on a voyage that spanned the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. After returning to Germany in April, she underwent an overhaul at Kiel. Another commerce-raiding mission was planned, but after the sinking of the battleship ''Bismarck'', this was cancelled for fear of further losses.

In February 1942, the ''Admiral Scheer'' was sent north to Narvik, in Norway, and was later joined by her sister ship, the ''Lützow''. Both ships were assigned to attack the Arctic convoy PQ 17, but the ''Lützow'' ran aground, and the ''Admiral Scheer'' never made contact with the enemy. On a later mission in those waters, she had more success, sinking an icebreaker and shelling Soviet shore facilities.

In December 1942, the ship returned to Wilhelmshaven for an overhaul. Bombing attacks in port caused only minor damage to the ''Admiral Scheer'', but forced its removal to Swinemünde on the Baltic Sea. The overhaul was completed, and the ship was transferred to the Fleet Training Group, where she was used in the training of Kriegsmarine cadets through 1943 and most of 1944. In autumn of 1944, the ''Admiral Scheer'' was reassigned to provide fire support for retreating German forces on the Eastern Front. Surviving several attempts by Soviet aircraft to sink her, she continued this mission in 1945, in addition to evacuating refugees. In April, while in port in Kiel for desperately needed maintenance on her gun barrels, she was hit and heavily damaged by an RAF bombing attack, causing her to capsize soon afterward. As most of her crew was off the ship while this maintenance was taking place, the loss of life was minimal.

==''Admiral Graf Spee''==

See main article: [[Admiral Graf Spee (heavy cruiser)]]

This ship was the third ship of its class, and the most famous. It was named after a German admiral who had been killed in the First World War. The ''Graf Spee'' was launched in June 1934 and officially commissioned into the Kriegsmarine in January 1936.

When the war began, the cruiser was sent out on a commerce-raiding mission in the Atlantic. She sank her first victim off the coast of Brazil, and destroyed or captured nine more vessels before being intercepted by a British cruiser force. In the Battle of the River Platte on December 13, 1939, the Graf Spee damaged 3 cruisers, but suffered several hits and a number of casualties. The German ship made it to the port of [[Montevideo]], but the port’s neutrality meant that it could only stay for three days, not enough time to make proper repairs. Faced with what he believed to be a superior British force, the captain chose to scuttle the ship.

==see also==
* [[Battleships]]
* [[Naval guns]]
==References==
<references/>

==Links==
*[http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/panzerschiffe/index.html Pocket Battleships]

[[Category:Warships]]
[[Category:Cruisers]]
[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category:Battleships]]

Lexington-class battlecruiser

2009-12-15T22:26:17Z

Yoritomo: recategorize, reword a little

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="300" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:H41961.jpg|300px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|''Lexington''-class
|-
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|Career
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|[[Image:US Naval Jack 48 stars.png|48px|United States Navy Jack]]
|-
|-
| Class:
| ''Lexington''
|-
| Ordered:
| 1917-1919 building programs
|-
| Completed and commissioned (as aircraft carriers):
| ''Lexington'', ''Saratoga''
|-
| Cancelled:
| ''Constellation'', ''Ranger'', ''Constitution'', ''United States''
|-
! colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy;"| General characteristics
|-
| Displacement:
| 43,500 t
|-
| Length:
| 874 ft
|-
| Beam:
| 105 ft 5 in
|-
| Speed:
| 33.25 knots
|-
| Armament:
| eight 16"/50 main guns; sixteen 6"/53 secondary guns
|}
The '''''Lexington''-class battlecruiser''' was a series of six warships planned for construction during the early 1920's, but were scrapped or altered under the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty. The treaty allowed two to be converted to aircraft carriers; they saw distinguished service during [[World War II]].

==History==
The six battle cruisers of the ''Lexington'' class, authorized under the 1917-1919 building programs, were the only ships of their type ever ordered by the [[United States Navy]]. Intended as fast combat scouts for the battle fleet, these large ships had a prolonged development history. Their original 1916 design was to displace 34,300 tons with a main battery of ten 14-inch guns, rather light armor, seven smokestacks with many of the boilers above the armored deck, and a speed of 35 knots. By 1919, the plans had been recast on the basis of [[World War I]] experience to produce larger ships armed with 16-inch guns, much better protection, two smokestacks with all boilers below the armored deck, and a somewhat lower speed.

Construction of the ''Lexington''-class ships was held up by other priorities during the war, and none of them were laid down until mid-1920. The following year's naval limitations conference in Washington, D.C., had these expensive battlecruisers, and their Japanese and British contemporaries, among its main targets. Following adoption of the Washington Treaty, their construction was stopped in February 1922. The treaty allowed the conversion of two of the hulls into aircraft carriers. The other four were formally cancelled in August 1923 and scrapped on their building ways.

The ''Lexington''-class consisted of six ships, under construction at four locations:
*[[USS Lexington (CV-2)|''Lexington'']] (CC-1). Keel laid at Quincy, Massachusetts, January 1921. Became the aircraft carrier CV-2.
*''Constellation'' (CC-2). Keel laid at Newport News, Virginia, August 1920. Cancelled and scrapped.
*''Saratoga'' (CC-3). Keel laid at Camden, New Jersey, September 1920. Became the aircraft carrier CV-3.
*''Ranger'' (CC-4). Keel laid at Newport News, Virginia, June 1921. Cancelled and scrapped.
*''Constitution'' (CC-5). Keel laid at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, September 1920. Cancelled and scrapped.
*''United States'' (CC-6). Keel laid at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, September 1920. Cancelled and scrapped.

==Design characteristics (1916)==
*Displacement: 34,300 tons
*Dimensions: 874' (length overall); 90'11" (maximum beam)
*Powerplant: 180,000 horsepower steam turbines with electric drive, producing a 35 knot maximum speed
*Armament (Main Battery): Ten 14"/50 guns in two twin (turret #s 1 & 4) and two triple (turret #s 2 & 3) turrets
*Armament (Secondary Battery): Eighteen 5"/51 guns in single mountings (nine guns on each side of the ship)

==Design characteristics (1919)==
*Displacement: 43,500 tons
*Dimensions: 874' (length overall); 105'5" (maximum beam)
*Powerplant: 180,000 horsepower steam turbines with electric drive, producing a 33.25 knot maximum speed
*Armament (Main Battery): Eight 16"/50 guns in four twin turrets
*Armament (Secondary Battery): Sixteen 6"/53 guns in single mountings (eight guns on each side of the ship)

====USS ''Lexington'' (CC-1/CV-2)====
[[Image:B00395b.jpg|right|200px|thumb|A model of the CC-1 battlecruiser design is held above a model which was ultimately converted from it: the ''Lexington''-class aircraft carrier.]]
''Lexington'' was converted on the ways to a 33,000-ton aircraft carrier. Built at Quincy, Massachusetts, and commissioned in December 1927, ''Lexington'' was one of the U.S. Navy's first two aircraft carriers that were large and fast enough to be capable of serious fleet operations. During the late 1920s, through the 1930s and into the early 1940s, she took an active part in the development of carrier techniques, fleet doctrine and in the operational training of a generation of Naval Aviators.

''Lexington'' was in the Pacific when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and took part in the U.S. Navy's first wartime operation, the abortive attempt in December 1941 to relieve Wake Island. In February and March 1942, she raided Japanese positions in the southwestern Pacific, then returned to Pearl Harbor for a brief overhaul and removal of her eight-inch guns.

In early May, ''Lexington'' returned to the South Pacific in time to join [[USS Yorktown (CV-5)|USS ''Yorktown'']] in successfully countering the Japanese offensive in the [[Battle of the Coral Sea]]. On 7 and 8 May 1942 her planes helped sink the small Japanese aircraft carrier ''Shoho'' and participated in attacks on the large carriers ''Shokaku'' and ''Zuikaku''. In turn, however, she was the target of Japanese carrier planes and received two torpedo and three bomb hits. Though initial damage control efforts appeared to be successful, she was racked by gasoline explosions in the early afternoon of 8 May. When the fires raged out of control, ''Lexington'' was abandoned by her crew and scuttled, the first U.S. aircraft carrier to be lost in World War II.

====USS ''Saratoga'' (CC-3/CV-3)====
''Saratoga'' was also converted into an aircraft carrier while under construction at Camden, New Jersey. Commissioned in November 1927, as the second of the Navy's initial pair of fully capable aircraft carriers, ''Saratoga'' spent the years before World War II taking part in exercises, training aviators and generally contributing to the development of carrier techniques and doctrine. She was in the Pacific when the Japanese attacked [[Pearl Harbor]] on 7 December 1941 and took part in the abortive [[Wake Island]] relief expedition later in that month. While operating in the Hawaiian area on 11 January 1942, she was struck by a torpedo from a Japanese submarine, necessitating several months of repairs, during which her eight-inch guns were replaced by the more useful 5"/38 dual purpose type.

''Saratoga'' returned to action in June 1942, in time for reinforcement operations immediately following the [[Battle of Midway]]. She was next engaged in supporting the [[Guadalcanal]] Operation in August 1942, including participation in the [[Battle of the Eastern Solomons]]. Another enemy submarine torpedo hit on 31 August put her in the repair yard for two months.

The carrier was back in the South Pacific war zone in December 1942, spending the next year in that area. In November 1943, her planes made devastating raids on the Japanese base at Rabaul and supported the Gilberts operation later in the month. In January and February 1944 ''Saratoga'' took part in the invasion of the Marshall Islands. She then was sent to join the British Eastern Fleet in the Indian Ocean and participated in raids on Japanese positions in the [[Indonesia|East Indies]] during April and May 1944. An overhaul from June to September prepared her for employment training aviators for night operations. In February 1945, she carried night fighters during the [[Iwo Jima]] invasion and raids on the Japanese home islands. Several [[kamikaze]] suicide plane hits on 21 February caused serious damage and casualties, sending her back to the U.S. for another session in the shipyard.

''Saratoga'' returned to service in May, again taking on a training role that lasted until Japan's surrender. Beginning in September 1945, she transported servicemen from the Pacific back to the United States as part of Operation "Magic Carpet". Too old for retention in the post-war fleet, ''Saratoga'' was then assigned to target duty for the [[atomic bomb]] tests at [[Operation Crossroads|Bikini]], in the Marshall Islands. She survived the first blast, on 1 July 1946, but sank after the 25 July underwater test. USS ''Saratoga'' still lies beneath the waters of Bikini atoll, where she is occasionally visited by divers.

====''Constitution'' (CC-5)====
''Constitution'' was laid down at the Philadelphia Navy Yard, Pennsylvania, in September 1920. Her construction was suspended in February 1922, under the terms of the Washington Treaty, and after she was formally cancelled in August 1923, her hull was scrapped on the building ways. During this time of planning and construction, the original sail frigate [[USS Constitution|USS ''Constitution'']], still in existence at Boston, was renamed ''Old Constitution'' so that her name might have been borne by the battlecruiser; the cancellation of CC-5 saw the restoration of ''Old Ironsides''' original name.

{| style="width: 100%; background:transparent; border: 2px solid #000099;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"
!colspan=2 style="width: 100%; text-align: center; background-color: #000088; color: white; "|'''Copyright Details'''
|-
!style="background-color: #000088; color:white;"|License:
|style=" background-color: none;"| This work is in the [[Public Domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code
|-
!style=" background-color: #000088; color:white;"|Source:
|style="background-color: none;border-top: 2px solid black"| File available from the {{{1|[[United States Federal Government]] [http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/bb/cc1.htm]}}}.
|}

[[Category:Battlecruisers]][[Category:United States Navy]][[Category:Warships]][[Category:Aircraft Carriers]]

Talk:Golda Meir

2009-12-15T01:21:27Z

Yoritomo: remove deleted template

History of Japan

2009-12-15T01:20:11Z

Yoritomo: /* Early Japan */ expand Nara and Heian

The '''history of Japan''', the rich, powerful island nation off the coast of China and Korea, is in three stages: the period of interaction with China and East Asia, isolation, and opening to the world. For Japan today see [[Japan]].
==Early Japan==

The mythology of ancient Japan is contained within the Kojiki (Records of Ancient Matters) which records the creation myth of Japan and its lineage of Emperors to the Sun Goddess Amaratsu. Large portions of this book are Chinese mythology and the distinction of what is truly Japanese and what is Chinese is continually questioned.

In the myth of Japan's creation the two gods Isanagi and Isanami swirled the primordial soup below the bridge of heaven with a rod and when retrieving the rod the drops of liquid that formed and dropped created the first islands of Japan.

===Archaeology===
===Korean and Chinese influence===
Throughout history, Japan has gotten many influences from Korea and China. They have been modified to fit Japanese needs, in most aspects. Some include chopsticks, the Chinese writing system and Chinese-style poetry. Buddhism also arrived in Japan via Korea.

===Nara and Heian===
In early Japan, every emperor moved the capital to a place of his own choosing. The first permanent capital was established by [[Empress Gemmei]] at Heijokyo, present-day [[Nara]], in 710. When the influence of nearby Bhuddist monasteries on the capital became too large, the capital was moved and a new capital established in Heiankyo, modern [[Kyoto]], in 794. Heiankyo remained the seat of government until the end of the [[Heian Period]] in 1185 when court authority had given way to the feudal rule of warrior clans and the rise of the [[Shogun]]ate established at [[Kamakura]] by Minamoto no Yoritomo. The emperor and remnants of the court nobility continued to reside in Kyoto until the 19th century, but without any political power.

===The Fujiwara clan===
The Fujiwara clan was the most powerful family of court nobility throughout much of the Nara and Heian periods. They monopolized the position of Regent and issued edicts in the emperors' name. This system removed so much power from the emperors that by the 11th century the emperors preferred to resign and wield power as retired emperors.

===Development of Buddhism===
[[Buddhism]] had been introduced to Japan from Korea in the sixth century, but its influence was small until it was embraced by [[Emperor Shomu]] in the first half of the 8th century. Shomu's daughter who twice ruled as empress (Empress Koken and Empress Shotoken, respectively) continued to increase Buddhism's influence. At the same time, Buddhist concepts began to be associated with older elements of [[Shinto]].

==Feudal Era==
[[Kyoto]] served as Japan's imperial capital for more than a thousand years (794-1868) and in the 21st century is still one of Japan's leading cultural centers.

[[File:Kyoto1.jpg|thumb|230px]]

===Vassalage and of great military houses===
===Kamakura Military Government===
===The Ashikaga clan===
===Civil War and Unification===

==The Tokugawa Era, 1600-1868==
In 1603, the [[Tokugawa Shogunate]] (military dictatorship) ushered in a long period of isolation from foreign influence in order to secure its power. For 250 years this policy enabled Japan to enjoy stability and a flowering of its indigenous culture. [[Image:16th century East Asia.png|thumb|310px]]
===Christian missions===
===Social structure===
Japanese society had an elaborate social structure, in which everyone knew their place and level of prestige. At the top were the emperor and the court nobility, invincible in prestige but weak in power. Next came the "bushi" of shogun, daimyo and layers of feudal lords whose rank was indicated by their closeness to the Tokugawa. They had power. The "daimyo" comprised about 250 local lords of local "han" with annual outputs of 50,000 or more bushels of rice. The upper strata was much given to elaborate and expensive rituals, including elegant architecture, landscaped gardens, nō drama, patronage of the arts, and the tea ceremony.

Then came the 400,000 warriors, called "samurai", in numerous grades and degrees. A few upper samurai were eligible for high office; most were foot soldiers (ashigaru) with minor duties. The samurai were affiliated with senior lords in a well-established chain of command. The shogun had 17,000 samurai retainers; the daimyo each had hundreds. Most lived in modest homes near their lord's headquarters, and lived off of hereditary rights and stipends. Together these high status groups comprised Japan's ruling class making up about 6% of the total population.

Lower orders divided into two main segments--the peasants--80% of the population--whose high prestige as producers was undercut by their burden as the chief source of taxes. They were illiterate and lived in villages controlled by appointed officials who kept the peace and collected taxes.

Near the bottom of the prestige scale--but much higher up in terms of income and life style--were the merchants and artisans of the towns and cities. They had no political power, and even rich merchants found it difficult to rise in the world in a society in which place and standing were fixed at birth. Finally came the entertainers, prostitutes, day laborers and servants, and the thieves, beggars and hereditary outcasts.<ref> Totman (2000) 225-30</ref>

===Economy===
The Tokugawa era brought peace, and that brought prosperity to a nation of 31 million, 80% of them rice farmers. Rice production increased steadily, but population remained stable. Rice paddies grew from 1.6 million chō in 1600 to 3 million by 1720.<ref> One chō, or chobu, equals 2.45 acres.</ref> Improved technology helped farmers control the all-important flow of water to their paddies. The daimyo's operated several hundred castle towns, which became loci of domestic trade. Large-scale rice markets developed, centered on Edo and Osaka. Merchants invented credit instruments to transfer money, and currency came into common use. In the cities and towns, guilds of merchants and artisans met the growing demand for goods and services.<ref> Totman (2000) ch 11</ref>

The merchants benefited enormously, especially those with official patronage. The samurai, forbidden to engage in farming or business but allowed to borrow money, borrowed too much. The bakufu and daimyos raised taxes on farmers, but did not tax business, so they too fell into debt. By 1750 rising taxes incited peasant unrest and even revolt. The nation had to deal somehow with samurai impoverishment and treasury deficits. The financial troubles of the samurai undermined their loyalties to the system, and the empty treasury threaten the whole system of government. One solution was reactionary--with prohibitions on spending for luxuries. Other solutions were modernizing, with the goal of increasing agrarian productivity. The eighth Tokugawa shogun, Yoshimune (in office 1716-1745) had considerable success, though much of his work had to be done again between 1787 and 1793 by the shogun's chief councilor Matsudaira Sadanobu (1759-1829). Others shoguns debased the coinage to pay debts, which caused inflation.

By 1800 the commercialization of the economy grew rapidly, bringing more and more remote villages into the national economy. Rich farmers appeared who switched from rice to high-profit commercial crops and engaged in local money-lending, trade, and small-scale manufacturing. Some wealthy merchants sought higher social status by using money to marry into the samurai class.

A few domains, notably Chōsū and Satsuma, used innovative methods to restore their finances, but most sunk further into debt. The financial crisis provoked a reactionary solution near the end of the "Tempo era" (1830-1843) promulgated by the chief counselor Mizuno Tadakuni. He raised taxes, denounced luxuries and tried to impede the growth of business; he failed and it appeared to many that the continued existence of the entire Tokugawa system was in jeopardy.<ref>McClain (2002) pp 128-29 </ref>

===Edo/Tokyo ===
Edo (Tokyo) had been a small settlement for 400 years but began to grow rapidly after 1603 when Shogun [[Ieyasu]] built a fortified city as the administrative center of the new [[Tokugawa]] Shogunate. Edo resembled the capital cities of Europe with military, political, and economic functions. The Tokugawa political system rested on both feudal and bureaucratic controls, so that Edo lacked a unitary administration. The typical urban social order was composed of samurai, unskilled workers and servants, artisans, and businessmen. The artisans and businessmen were organized in officially sanctioned guilds; their numbers grew rapidly as Tokyo grew and became a national trading center. Businessmen were excluded from government office, and in response they they created their own subculture of entertainment, making Edo a cultural as well as a political and economic center. With the Meiji Restoration, Tokyo's political, economic, and cultural functions simply continued as the new capital of imperial Japan.
[[Image:Edo period architecture.jpg|thumb|290px}left|View of a Kabuki Theater, 1770.]]

===Three cultures===
Three distinct cultural traditions operated during the Tokugawa era, having little to do with each other. In the villages the peasants had their own rituals and localistic traditions. In the high society of the imperial court, daimyos and samurai, Chinese cultural influence was paramount, especially in the areas of ethics and political ideals. Neo-Confucianism became the approved philosophy, and was taught in official schools; Confucian norms regarding personal duty and family honor became deeply implanted in elite thought. Equally pervasive was the Chinese influence in painting, decorative arts and history, economics, and natural science. One exception came in religion, where there was a revival of [[Shinto]], which had originated in Japan. Motoori Norinaga (1730-1801) freed Shinto from centuries of Buddhist accretions and gave a new emphasis to the myth of imperial divine descent, which later became a political tool for imperialist conquest until it was destroyed in 1945.

The third cultural level was the popular art of the low-status artisans, merchants and entertainers, especially in Edo and other cities. It revolved around "ukiyo", the floating world of the city pleasure quarters and theaters that was officially off-limits to samurai. Its actors and courtesans were favorite subjects of the woodblock color prints that reached high levels of technical and artistic achievement in the 18th century. They also appeared in the novels and short stories of popular prose writers of the age like Ihara Saikaku (1642-1693). The theater itself, both in the puppet drama and the newer kabuki, as written by the greatest dramatist, Chikamatsu Monzaemon (1653-1724), relied on the clash between duty and inclination in the context of revenge and love.

==The Meiji Era: 1868-1912==
Following the [[Treaty of Kanagawa]] with the United States in 1854, Japan opened its ports and began to intensively modernise and industrialise. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, Japan became a regional power that was able to defeat the forces of both China and [[Russia]]. It occupied [[Korea]], [[Formosa]] ([[Taiwan]]), and southern [[Sakhalin Island]].
====Revolt====
[[Image:Perry.jpg|frame|right|American Commodore [[Matthew Perry]] forced Japan to open its ports in 1853]]
The rule of the Shoguns came to an end in the middle of the 19th century during a brief but bloody period of conflict known as the [[Meiji Restoration]], which was triggered in part by American Commodore [[Matthew Perry]]'s 1853 naval expedition to Japan. During the Restoration a large number of young [[samurai]] from minor families, tired of the government's mishandling of the country and feeling that if action was not taken Japan would be dominated by western countries, initiated an armed revolt to restore imperial rule. Most samurai from the more powerful families sided with the Shogun, fearing that the minor families would replace them if the revolt was successful. Nonetheless, the shogunate was done away with in 1867 and the imperial period began. The capital was moved to [[Edo]], which was renamed [[Tokyo]]; by the early twenty-first century, it had become the center of the world's largest urban conglomeration. In 1898, the last of the "unequal treaties" with Western powers was removed, signaling Japan's new status among the nations of the world. In a few decades, by creating modern social, educational, economic, military, and industrial systems, the Emperor Meiji's "controlled revolution" had transformed a feudal and isolated state into a world power.

====Imperialism====
The phrase "imperial period" refers to Japan competing with European powers and the [[United States]] for colonies and influence during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The high point of Japanese prestige was the [[Russo-Japanese War]] of 1904-5, in which Japan became the principal power in [[Manchuria]] and consolidated its control of [[Korea]] and over the southern portion of [[Sakhalin]] Island and Taiwan. In [[World War I]] Japan fought over a limited number of German-controlled pacific colonies as part of the Anglo-Japanese alliance, gaining control of [[Qingdao]] (Tsingtao), a German-controlled colony in China, as well as several German-controlled Pacific Islands, the most significant being [[Truk]] lagoon.
==Economy and empire; war and defeat: 1912-1950==

[[Hirohito]] was the '''Showa''' Emperor 1926-89 after serving as regent since 1921.

===1930s===
In 1931 Japan occupied [[Manchuria]] ("Dongbei"), setting up the puppet state of [[Manchukuo]]. In 1933, Japan resigned from the League of Nations. By 1936, during the reign of Emperor [[Hirohito]], the Japanese Empire adopted the catch-phrase "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere".

In 1937 Japan launched a full-scale invasion of China, seizing most of the coastline and population centers. The U.S. undertook large scale military and economic aid to China and demanded Japanese withdrawal. Instead of withdrawing Japan took over French Indochina in 1940-41; the U.S., Britain and the Netherlands cut off oil imports in 1941, which accounted for over 90% of Japan's oil supply. Desultory negotiations with the US led nowhere. Japan attacked U.S. forces at [[Pearl Harbor]] in December 1941, triggering America's entry into [[World War II]].

The increasingly powerful Japanese armed forces, came to dominate Japanese politics, assassinating politicians whom they deemed insufficiently devoted to the Emperor and nation. For the next nine years, the military leadership installed its own members (such as [[Hideki Tojo]], chief Japanese strategist of [[World War II]]) or, occasionally, civilians who were completely identified with their agenda, as prime minister. In 1937 Japan's joined the "anti-Comintern pact" with Nazi Germany, leading to (exaggerated) American fears of a close relationship. In fact Germany and Japan remained distant until the latter part of the wwar. Thus Germany refused to give Japan blueprints for advanced weapons or synthetic oil.

===World War II===
[[File:Japan42.jpg|thumb|Japan's Empire in 1942|320px]]

In a blitzkrieg operation Japan rapidly expanded at sea and land, capturing Singapore and the Philippines in early 1942, and threatening India and Australia. Meanwhile fighting in China itself largely came to standstill, and Japan remained on neutral terms with the Soviet Union. The U.S. Navy stopped Japanese expansion at two great naval battles in 1942, the [[Battle of the Coral Sea]] and the [[Battle of Midway]]. Japanese overextension resulted in defeat in the [[Guadalcanal Campaign]]. Japanese sea power was destroyed by the U.S. Navy in 1944 at the [[Battle of the Philippine Sea]] and the [[Battle of Leyte Gulf]]. The U.S. industrial economy was ten times larger than Japan's, and was manifest in warplanes and warships as two main thrusts approached Japan, one through the central Pacific and one through the Philippines.

Systematic destruction of Japan's industrial centers began in early 1945 with the [[B-29]] raids. The Emperor refused to surrender until shocked by two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Soviet entry into the war in August 1945.

On the conventional and atomic bombings see [[Bombing of Japan]]
[[File:Abomb45.jpg|thumb|170px]]

Total Japanese military fatalities between 1937 and 1945 were 2.1 million; most came in the last year of the war. Starvation or malnutrition-related illness accounted for roughly 80 percent of Japanese military deaths in the Philippines, and 50 percent of military fatalities in China. The aerial bombing of a total of 65 Japanese cities appears to have taken a minimum of 400,000 and possibly closer to 600,000 civilian lives (over 100,000 in Tokyo alone, over 200,000 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, and 80,000-150,000 civilian deaths in the battle of Okinawa). Civilian death among settlers who died attempting to return to Japan from Manchuria in the winter of 1945 were probably around 100,000.<ref> John Dower, "Lessons from Iwo Jima," ''Perspectives'' (Sept 2007) 45#6 pp 54-56 at [http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2007/0709/index.cfm]</ref>

===U.S. occupation===
* see [[Shigeru Yoshida]]

After its defeat in World War II, Japan was occupied by the U.S. until 1951, and recovered from the effects of the war to become an economic power, staunch American ally and a democracy. While Emperor Hirohito was allowed to retain his throne as a symbol of national unity, actual power rests in networks of powerful politicians, bureaucrats, and business executives.

Japan was stripped of its overseas possessions and retained only the home islands and Okinawa. Manchukuo was dissolved, and Manchuria was returned to China; Japan renounced all claims to Formosa; Korea was occupied and divided by the U.S. and the Soviet Union; and the U.S. became the sole administering authority of the Ryukyu, Bonin, and Volcano Islands. The Soviets rehgained southern Sakhalin and took over the Kurile islands. Japan vehemently rejects Soviet control of the Kuriles, and tension over the issue continues high into the 21st century.

Japan was placed under the nominal international control of the Allies, and in actuality was ruled by one person, through the Supreme Commander, Gen. [[Douglas MacArthur]]. U.S. objectives were to ensure that Japan would become a peaceful nation and to establish democratic self-government supported by the freely expressed will of the people. Political, economic, and social reforms were introduced, such as a freely elected Japanese Diet (legislature) and universal adult suffrage. The country's new constitution took effect in May 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951 and Japan regained full sovereignty in April 1952. The 1972 reversion of Okinawa completed the U.S. return of control of these islands to Japan.

[[Shigeru Yoshida]] (1878-1967) played the central role as prime minister between 1946 and 1954 (with one interruption). His goal was rapid rebuilding Japan and cooperation with the American Occupation. He led Japan to adopt the “Yoshida Doctrine”, based on three tenets: economic growth as the primary national objective, no involvement in international political-strategic issues, and the provision of military bases to the United States. The Yoshida Doctrine proved immensely successful.

==Economic miracle: 1950-1990==
==Economic stagnation: 1990-2009==

The economy experienced a major slowdown starting in the 1990s following three decades of unprecedented growth, but Japan still remains a major economic power, both in Asia and globally.

When the worldwide [[Recession of 2008]] hit, it first appeared Japan would hold up better than other industrial countries. However exports of cars and electronics has plunged, leading to a dramatic 12% drop in GDP.
==See also==
* [[Osaka]]
* [[Tokyo]]

==Basic Further reading==
* Allinson, Gary D. ''The Columbia Guide to Modern Japanese History.'' (1999). 259 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Columbia-Guide-Modern-Japanese-History/dp/0231111444/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190394878&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Allinson, Gary D. ''Japan's Postwar History.'' (2nd ed 2004). 208 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Japans-Postwar-History-Second-Allinson/dp/0801489121/ref=sr_1_3/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190394878&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]
* Beasley, W. G. ''The Modern History of Japan'' (1963) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=10327723 online edition]
* Clement, Ernest Wilson. ''A Short History of Japan'' (1915), 190pp [http://books.google.com/books?id=mOoTAAAAIAAJ&dq=intitle:History+intitle:Japan&num=30&as_brr=1 online edition]
* Cullen, L. M. ''A History of Japan, 1582-1941: Internal and External Worlds'' (2003) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=106045491 online edition]
* Edgerton, Robert B. ''Warriors of the Rising Sun: A History of the Japanese Military.'' (1999). 384 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Warriors-Rising-Sun-Japanese-Military/dp/0813336007/ref=sr_1_3/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190395075&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]
* Gordon, Andrew. ''A Modern History of Japan: From Tokugawa Times to the Present'' (2003) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103548936 online edition]; also [http://www.amazon.com/Modern-History-Japan-Tokugawa-Present/dp/0195110617/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190394957&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hall John W. ''Japan: From Prehistory to Modern Times.'' 1970.
* Hane, Mikiso. ''Modern Japan: A Historical Survey'' (2nd ed 1992), 474pp [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=57239340 online edition]
* Huffman, James L., ed. ''Modern Japan: An Encyclopedia of History, Culture, and Nationalism.'' (1998). 316 pp.
* Hunter Janet. ''Concise Dictionary of Modern Japanese History.'' 1984.
* Jansen, Marius B. ''The Making of Modern Japan'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Making-Modern-Japan-Marius-Jansen/dp/0674009916/ref=pd_bbs_5/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188272252&sr=8-5 excerpts and search online]
* McClain, James L. ''Japan: A Modern History.'' (2001). 512 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Japan-History-James-L-McClain/dp/039397720X/ref=sr_1_8/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190394709&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]
* Perez, Louis G. ''The History of Japan'' (1998) 244pp [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=93932879 online edition]
* Perkins, Dorothy. ''Encyclopedia of Japan: Japanese History and Culture, from Abacus to Zori.'' (1991). 410 pp.
* Reischauer, Edwin O. ''Japan: The Story of a Nation.'' 1990.
* Stockwin, J. A. A. ''Dictionary of the Modern Politics of Japan.'' (2003). 291pp [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=107546295# online edition]
* Tipton, Elise. ''Modern Japan: A Social and Political History'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Japan-Political-Institute-Routledge/dp/0415185378/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205827181&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search]
* Totman, Conrad. ''A History of Japan.'' (2nd ed. 2000). 620 pp.; stress on environment [http://www.amazon.com/History-Japan-Blackwell-World/dp/1405123591/ref=sr_1_21/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188272498&sr=8-21 online excerpts and search]
==Advanced Bibliography==
===Surveys and reference===
* Allinson, Gary D. ''The Columbia Guide to Modern Japanese History.'' (1999). 259 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Columbia-Guide-Modern-Japanese-History/dp/0231111444/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190394878&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Beasley, W. G. ''The Modern History of Japan'' (1963) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=10327723 online edition]
* Clement, Ernest Wilson. ''A Short History of Japan'' (1915), 190pp [http://books.google.com/books?id=mOoTAAAAIAAJ&dq=intitle:History+intitle:Japan&num=30&as_brr=1 online edition]
* Cullen, L. M. ''A History of Japan, 1582-1941: Internal and External Worlds'' (2003) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=106045491 online edition]
* Edgerton, Robert B. ''Warriors of the Rising Sun: A History of the Japanese Military.'' (1999). 384 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Warriors-Rising-Sun-Japanese-Military/dp/0813336007/ref=sr_1_3/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190395075&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]
* Goedertier Joseph M. ''A. Dictionary of Japanese History.'' 1968.
* Gordon, Andrew. ''A Modern History of Japan: From Tokugawa Times to the Present'' (2003) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103548936 online edition]; also [http://www.amazon.com/Modern-History-Japan-Tokugawa-Present/dp/0195110617/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190394957&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hall John W. ''Japan: From Prehistory to Modern Times.'' 1970.
* Hane, Mikiso. ''Modern Japan: A Historical Survey'' (2nd ed. 1992), 474pp [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=57239340 online edition]
* Huffman, James L., ed. ''Modern Japan: An Encyclopedia of History, Culture, and Nationalism.'' (1998). 316 pp.
* Hunter Janet. ''Concise Dictionary of Modern Japanese History.'' 1984.
* Jansen, Marius B. ''The Making of Modern Japan'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Making-Modern-Japan-Marius-Jansen/dp/0674009916/ref=pd_bbs_5/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188272252&sr=8-5 excerpts and search online]
* McClain, James L. ''Japan: A Modern History.'' (2001). 512 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Japan-History-James-L-McClain/dp/039397720X/ref=sr_1_8/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190394709&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]
* Mosk, Carl. ''Japanese Industrial History: Technology, Urbanization, and Economic Growth.'' M. E. Sharpe, 2001. 293 pp.
* Najita, Tetsuo. ''Japan: The Intellectual Foundations of Modern Japanese Politics'' (1980), 200 year interpretation [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0226568032/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Perez, Louis G. ''The History of Japan'' (1998) 244pp [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=93932879 online edition]
* Perkins, Dorothy. ''Encyclopedia of Japan: Japanese History and Culture, from Abacus to Zori.'' (1991). 410 pp.
* Reischauer, Edwin O. ''Japan: The Story of a Nation.'' 1990.
* Reischauer, Edwin O., and Albert M. Craig. ''Japan, Tradition and Transformation'' 1978.
* Sims, Richard. ''Japanese Political History since the Meiji Renovation, 1868-2000.'' (2001). 395 pp.
* Stockwin, J. A. A. ''Dictionary of the Modern Politics of Japan.'' (2003). 291pp [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=107546295# online edition]
* Tipton, Elise. ''Modern Japan: A Social and Political History'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Japan-Political-Institute-Routledge/dp/0415185378/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205827181&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search]
* Totman, Conrad. ''A History of Japan.'' (2nd ed. 2000). 620 pp.; stress on environment [http://www.amazon.com/History-Japan-Blackwell-World/dp/1405123591/ref=sr_1_21/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188272498&sr=8-21 online excerpts and search]
* Totman, Conrad. ''Early Modern Japan'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Early-Modern-Japan-Conrad-Totman/dp/0520203569/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212928849&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Umesao, Tadao. ''An Ecological View of History: Japanese Civilization in the World Context.'' Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press, 2003. 208 pp.
* Van Sant, John, Peter Mauch, and Yoneyuki Sugita. ''Historical Dictionary of United States-Japanese Relations'' (2007) 344 pp. [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=23063 online review]

===to 1860===
* Hall, John W. ed. ''Cambridge History of Japan, Vol. IV, Early Modern Japan.'' (1991). 831pp
* Hane, Mikiso. ''Premodern Japan: A Historical Survey'' (1991)
* Hayami, Akira; Saito, Osamu; and Toby, Ronald P., eds. ''The Economic History of Japan, 1600-1990. Vol. 1: Emergence of Economic Society in Japan, 1600-1859.'' (2004). 420 pp.
* Jansen, Marius B., ed. ''The Cambridge History of Japan. Vol. 5: The Nineteenth Century.'' (1989). 828 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521484057/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Sansom, Sir George B. ''A History of Japan,'' 3 vols. 1963, in dense, sophisticated prose [http://www.amazon.com/History-Japan-1334-George-Sansom/dp/0804705232/ref=pd_bbs_sr_6/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188272252&sr=8-6 excerpts and search vol 1 to 1334], [http://www.amazon.com/History-Japan-1334-1615-George-Sansom/dp/0804705259/ref=pd_bbs_10/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188272252&sr=8-10 excerpts and search vol 2 to 1615] [http://www.amazon.com/History-Japan-1615-1867-George-Sansom/dp/0804705275/ref=pd_bbs_11/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188272252&sr=8-11 excerpts and search vol 3 to 1867]
* Totman, Conrad. "Tokugawa Peasants: Win, Lose, or Draw?" ''Monumenta Nipponica'', Vol. 41, No. 4. (Winter, 1986), pp. 457-476. in English; [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0027-0741%28198624%2941%3A4%3C457%3ATPWLOD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K in JSTOR]
* Wilson, George M. ''Patriots and Redeemers in Japan: Motives in the Meiji Restoration.'' (1992). 201 pp.
* Yamamura Kozo, ed. ''Cambridge History of Japan, Vol. III. Medieval Japan.'' (1990).
* Yamamura, Kozo. "Toward a Reexamination of the Economic History of Tokugawa Japan, 1600-1867." ''Journal of Economic History'' 1973 33(3): 509-546. Issn: 0022-0507 Fulltext: [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0507(197309)33%3A3%3C509%3ATAROTE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D in Jstor]

===1860 to 1945===
* Cohen, Jerome B. ''Japan's Economy in War and Reconstruction'' (1949) 545 pp. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=97828044 online edition]
* Dower, John W. ''War without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War.'' Pantheon, 1986. 398 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/War-Without-Mercy-Power-Pacific/dp/0394751728/ref=sr_1_6/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190395020&sr=1-6 excerpt and text search]
* Duus, Peter, ed. ''The Cambridge History of Japan: Vol. 6: The Twentieth Century.'' (1989). 866 pp.
* Ericson, Steven J. ''The Sound of the Whistle: Railroads and the State in Meiji Japan.'' (1996). 506 pp.
* Iriye, Akira. ''Power and Culture: The Japanese-American War, 1941-1945'' (1981),
* Jansen, Marius B. and Rozman, Gilbert, eds. ''Japan in Transition, from Tokugawa to Meiji.'' (1986). 485 pp. modernization models
* Keene, Donald. ''Emperor of Japan: Meiji and His World , 1852-1912.'' (2002). 928 pp.
* LaFeber, Walter. ''The Clash: A History of U.S.-Japan Relations.'' (1997). 544 pp.
* Sims, Richard. ''Japanese Political History since the Meiji Renovation, 1868-2000.'' Palgrave, 2001. 395 pp.
* Sugihara, Kaoru. ''Japan, China, and the Growth of the Asian International Economy, 1850-1949 - Vol. 1'' (2005) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=110053108 online edition]

====Occupation: 1945-1952====
[[Image:Yoshida2.jpg|thumb|290px]]
* Buckley, Roger. ''Occupation Diplomacy: Britain, the United States and Japan, 1945-1952.'' (1982). 294 pp.
* Cohen, Jerome B. ''Japan's Economy in War and Reconstruction'' (1949) 545 pp. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=97828044 online edition]
* Cohen, Theodore. ''Remaking Japan: The American Occupation as New Deal.'' (1987). 526 pp.
* Dower, John W. ''Empire and Aftermath: Yoshida Shigeru and the Japanese Experience, 1878-1954'' (1988), the major scholarly study [http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Aftermath-Experience-1878-1954-Monographs/dp/0674251261/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239037339&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Dower, John W. ''Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II.'' (1999). 688 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Embracing-Defeat-Japan-Wake-World/dp/0393320278/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190395020&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Eldridge, Robert. ''The Origins of the Bilateral Okinawa Problem: Okinawa in Postwar US-Japan Relations, 1945-1952'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Bilateral-Okinawa-Problem-Relations/dp/0815339488/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205828639&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search]
* Finn, Richard B. ''Winners in Peace: MacArthur, Yoshida, and Postwar Japan.'' (1992). 413 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Winners-Peace-MacArthur-Yoshida-Postwar/dp/0520202139/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205828562&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hane, Mikiso. ''Eastern Phoenix: Japan since 1945'' (1996)
* Harvey, Robert. ''American Shogun: General MacArthur, Emperor Hirohito, and the Drama of Modern Japan.'' (2006). 480 pp.
* Hellegers, Dale M. ''We, the Japanese People: World War II and the Origins of the Japanese Constitution.'' (2 vol. 2002). 826 pp.
* Hewes Jr., Laurence I. ''Japan -- Land and Men: An Account of the Japanese Land Reform Program, 1945-51'' 154 pgs. (1955) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=55646740 online edition]
* Hirano, Kyoko. ''Mr. Smith Goes to Tokyo: The Japanese Cinema under the American Occupation, 1945-1952.'' (1992). 400 pp.
* Koseki, Shoichi. ''The Birth of Japan's Postwar Constitution.'' (1997). 257 pp [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=82298292 online edition]
* Koshiro, Yukiko. ''Trans-Pacific Racisms and the U.S. Occupation of Japan.'' (1999). 295 pp.
* Molasky, Michael S. ''The American Occupation of Japan and Okinawa: Literature and Memory.'' (1999). 244 pp.
* Moore, Ray A. and Robinson, Donald L. ''Partners for Democracy: Crafting the New Japanese State under MacArthur.'' (2002). 409 pp.
* Orbaugh, Sharalyn. ''Japanese Fiction of the Allied Occupation: Vision, Embodiment, Identity.'' (2007). 515 pp.
* Sandler, Mark, ed. ''The Confusion Era: Art and Culture in Japan during the Allied Occupation, 1945-52.'' (1998). 112 pp.
* Schonberger, Howard B. ''Aftermath of War: Americans and the Remaking of Japan, 1945-1952'' (1989)
* Schaller, Michael. ''The American Occupation of Japan: The Origins of the Cold War in Asia'' (1987) [http://www.amazon.com/American-Occupation-Japan-Origins-Cold/dp/0195051904/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205828760&sr=8-2 excerpt and text searcj]
* Shibata, Masako. ''Japan and Germany under the US Occupation: A Comparative Analysis of Post-War Education Reform.'' (2005). 212 pp.
* Sodei, Rinjiro. ''Dear General MacArthur: Letters from the Japanese during the American Occupation.'' (2001). 308 pp., primary sources
* Takemae, Eiji. ''Inside GHQ: The Allied Occupation of Japan and Its Legacy.'' (2002). 800 pp.
* VanStaaveren, Jacob. ''An American in Japan, 1945-1948: A Civilian View of the Occupation.'' (1995). 286 pp. primary course
* Ward, Robert E. and Yoshikazu, Sakamoto. ''Democratizing Japan: The Allied Occupation.'' (1987). 456 pp.
* Williams, Justin, Sr. ''Japan's Political Revolution Under MacArthur: A Participant's Account.'' (1979). 317 pp. primary source
* Yoshida, Shigeru. ''The Yoshida Memoirs: The Story of Japan in Crisis'' 1961, primary source [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=34588784 online edition]

===Since 1952===
* Allinson, Gary D. ''Japan's Postwar History.'' (2nd ed 2004). 208 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Japans-Postwar-History-Second-Allinson/dp/0801489121/ref=sr_1_3/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190394878&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]
* Duus, Peter, ed. ''The Cambridge History of Japan: Vol. 6: The Twentieth Century.'' (1989). 866 pp.
* Hane, Mikiso. ''Eastern Phoenix: Japan since 1945'' (1996) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=9049214 online edition]
* LaFeber, Walter. ''The Clash: A History of U.S.-Japan Relations.'' (1997). 544 pp.
* Ohtsu, Makoto. ''Inside Japanese Business: A Narrative History, 1960-2000.'' (2002). 459 pp.
[http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=96705936 online edition]
* Sims, Richard. ''Japanese Political History since the Meiji Renovation, 1868-2000.'' Palgrave, 2001. 395 pp.
* Sugihara, Kaoru. ''Japan, China, and the Growth of the Asian International Economy, 1850-1949 - Vol. 1'' (2005) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=110053108 online edition]
* Sumiya, Mikio, ed. ''A History of Japanese Trade and Industry Policy.'' (2000). 662 pp.

===Cultural history===
* Dumoulin, Heinrich. ''Zen Buddhism: A History. Vol. 2. Japan.'' (1989). 509 pp.
* Duus, Peter, ed. ''The Japanese Discovery of America: A Brief History with Documents.'' (1997). 226 pp.
* Earhart, H. Byron. ''Japanese Religion: Unity and Diversity'' (1974).
* Guttmann, Allen and Thompson, Lee. ''Japanese Sports: A History.'' (2001). 368 pp.
* Harootunian, Harry. ''History's Disquiet: Modernity, Cultural Practice, and the Question of Everyday Life.'' (2000). 182 pp.
* Keene, Donald. ''Japanese Literature: An Introduction for Western Readers'' (1955)
* Morris, Ivan. ''The World of the Shining Prince: Court Life in Ancient Japan'' (1964)
* Kitagawa Joseph M. ''Religion in Japanese History.'' 1966.
* Kuitert, Wybe. ''Themes in the History of Japanese Garden Art'' (2002). 283 pp.
* Leiter, Samuel L. ''A Kabuki Reader: History and Performance.'' (2002). 430 pp.
* Mason, Penelope. ''History of Japanese Art.'' (1993). 431 pp.
* Morris-Suzuki, Tessa. ''A History of Japanese Economic Thought'' (1991) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108793096 online edition]
* Munsterberg, Hugo. ''The Arts of Japan: An Illustrated History'' (1957)
* Roberts, Laurance P. A. ''Dictionary of Japanese Artists.'' Tokyo: 1976.
* Sansom, Sir George B. ''Japan, A Short Cultural History.'' 1978. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=23172776 online edition]
* Siever, Sharon ''Flowers in Salt: The Beginning of Feminine Consciousness in Modern Japan'' (1983)
* Standish, Isolde. ''A New History of Japanese Cinema: A Century of Narrative Film.'' (2005). 452 pp.
* Wakabayashi, Bob Tadashi. ''Modern Japanese Thought.'' (1998). 403 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Japanese-Thought-Bob-Wakabayashi/dp/0521588103/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205827181&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]

===Historiography===
* Allinson, Gary D. ''The Columbia Guide to Modern Japanese History.'' (1999). 259 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Columbia-Guide-Modern-Japanese-History/dp/0231111444/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190394878&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Beasley W. G., and E. G. Pulleyblank, eds. ''Historians of China and Japan.'' 1961. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=96362768 online edition]
* Hardacre, Helen and Kern, Adam L., eds. ''New Directions in the Study of Meiji Japan.'' (1997). 782 pp.

===Primary sources===
* Cook, Haruko Taya and Cook, Theodore F. eds. ''Japan at War: An Oral History.'' (1992). 504 pp., World War II homefront [http://www.amazon.com/Japan-at-War-Oral-History/dp/1565840399/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205827662&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Huffman, James L. ed. ''Modern Japan: A History in Documents'' (2004)
* Tsunoda, Ryusaku, W. T. de Bary, and Donald Keene, eds. ''Sources of Japanese Tradition.'' 1958.
* Yoshida, Shigeru. ''The Yoshida Memoirs: The Story of Japan in Crisis'' 1961, on Occupation, 1945-51 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=34588784 online edition]

====notes====
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Japanese History]]
[[Category:Japan]]
[[category:Asian History]]

Heian Period

2009-12-15T00:50:15Z

Yoritomo: link Tale of Genji and author

The '''Heian period''' was is a period in [[Japan]]ese history running from 794 to 1185. It is named after the capital Heiankyo, today's Kyoto. Japan was ruled by the [[Heian Court]] during this time. While the Emperors remained the ''de jure'' ruler of Japan throughout the period, they lost power to court nobility, especially the Fujiwara clan. The Fujiwara leaders became hereditary Regents for the Emperors.

Court authority declined whith the rise of the provincial warrior nobility of the Taira and Minamoto clans. The end of the Heian period was the establishment of the [[Shogun]]ate by [[Minamoto no Yoritomo]] and the shift of power from the Imperial seat Heiankyo to the Shogun's seat at [[Kamakura]] near today's Tokyo, the beginning of the [[Kamakura period]].

The Heian period was an era of peace and prosperity for central and western Japan. Court culture flourished, poetry was highly regarded and one of the world's first novels, the ''[[The Tale of Genji|Genji monogatari]]'', was written in the early eleventh century by [[Murasaki Shikibu]].

[[Category:Japanese History]]

Murasaki Shikibu

2009-12-15T00:43:35Z

Yoritomo: not name, but court title

'''Murasaki Shikibu''', also called Lady Murasaki, lived from AD 973 to 1025. She was a writer who lived in [[Japan]] during the [[Heian Period]]. Her story, ''[[The Tale of Genji]]'' is considered the first philosophical novel. Murasaki Shikibu is not a name, but a court title. She probably belonged to the Fujiwara clan.

[[Category:Japanese People]]
[[Category:Women Authors]]

Heian Period

2009-12-15T00:38:59Z

Yoritomo: expand

The '''Heian period''' was is a period in [[Japan]]ese history running from 794 to 1185. It is named after the capital Heiankyo, today's Kyoto. Japan was ruled by the [[Heian Court]] during this time. While the Emperors remained the ''de jure'' ruler of Japan throughout the period, they lost power to court nobility, especially the Fujiwara clan. The Fujiwara leaders became hereditary Regents for the Emperors.

Court authority declined whith the rise of the provincial warrior nobility of the Taira and Minamoto clans. The end of the Heian period was the establishment of the [[Shogun]]ate by [[Minamoto no Yoritomo]] and the shift of power from the Imperial seat Heiankyo to the Shogun's seat at [[Kamakura]] near today's Tokyo, the beginning of the [[Kamakura period]].

The Heian period was an era of peace and prosperity for central and western Japan. Court culture flourished, poetry was highly regarded and one of the world's first novels, the ''Genji monogatari'', was written in the early eleventh century by Murasaki Shinbun, a noblewoman probably belonging to the Fujiwara.

[[Category:Japanese History]]

Forbidden fruit

2009-12-15T00:19:29Z

Yoritomo: repair link

The Forbidden Fruit grew on the [[Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil]].

After being tempted by [[Satan]] (in the form of a snake) [[Eve]] persuaded [[Adam]] to eat of the fruit.

After [[God]] discovered what they had done he cast them our of the garden and cursed mankind.

Traditionally, the Forbidden Fruit has been depicted in art and other visual media (movies, cartoons, etc.) as an apple, though the Bible does not identify it as such.

[[category:creationism]]
[[category:bible]]

Cherub

2009-12-15T00:18:40Z

Yoritomo: remove deleted template

'''Cherubim''' (singular: Cherub) are a kind of angel.

They are a very powerful type of supernatural being coming only after the [[Seraphim]] in terms of power. After [[Adam]] and [[Eve]] were expelled from the [[Garden of Eden]] a cherub with a flaming sword guarded the east side of Eden.

[[Category:bible]]

Forbidden fruit

2009-12-15T00:17:54Z

Yoritomo: remove deleted template

The Forbidden Fruit grew on the [[Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil]].

After being tempted by [[Satan]](in the form of a snake) [[Eve]] persuaded [[Adam]] to eat of the tree.

After [[God]] discovered what they had done he cast them our of the garden and cursed mankind.

Traditionally, the Forbidden Fruit has been depicted in art and other visual media (movies, cartoons, etc.) as an apple, though the Bible does not identify it as such.

[[category:creationism]]
[[category:bible]]

Talk:Sophocles

2009-12-15T00:14:34Z

Yoritomo: remove deleted template

Talk:Pussywillow

2009-12-15T00:14:25Z

Yoritomo: remove deleted template