:As to the objection that the words are not conservative, I don't see how that can seriously doubted. And, indeed, one Conservapedia visitor ran an analysis of political speeches and confirmed that conservatives use these words more than liberals do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:40, 30 June 2013 (EDT)
::I think your critics might give you more credit if you provided a meaningful definition of what constitutes a conservative word. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:37, 30 June 2013 (EDT)
:::A conservative word is an expression of a conservative insight or value. E.g., "accountability" is a conservative word because it expresses the value of individual responsibility and not blaming others as liberals often do (e.g., Obama blaming Bush years later).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:24, 30 June 2013 (EDT)
::::Is there some way to program a computer or otherwise write objective standards for a panel to judge (1) whether a string of characters constitutes a "word" and (2) whether such a string qualifies as "conservative"? This would greatly enhance the project, as then a computer can comb through the entire dictionary to determine the prevalence of conservative words by century, rendering the random sampling problems (and they are big problems) moot. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 22:52, 30 June 2013 (EDT)
:::::I think that would be nearly impossible to do - to write a computer program to recognize the political connotations of a word.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:53, 30 June 2013 (EDT)
=== Another thought ... ===
Does anyone want to count the words from 1650-1749, 1750-1849 and 1850-1949? if the doubling holds true then we should find the same pattern in these periods. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:21, 1 July 2013 (EDT)
== Vandal vs. Vandalism ==
Andy, would you please explain why "vandal" is not a Conservative word? Also, what difference is there that qualifies "vandalism" in its place? [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 19:56, 30 June 2013 (EDT)
:"Vandal" is a pejorative name for an individual. Conservative words are about ideas and practices, not some bad apples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:58, 30 June 2013 (EDT)
::No worries. In that case we should change "idealist" to "idealism" and correct the date. Incidentally, the date listed was for philosophical idealism, ie. the believe that reality is made up of nothing more than ideas. Idealism in the sense of representing things in their "ideal" form came much later. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 21:55, 30 June 2013 (EDT)
== conservative word hypothesis falsified - the word "conservatism" appears to have dropped in usage since the 1960s ==
The word "conservatism" appears to have dropped in usage in books since the 1960s according to the massive database of 500 billion words in Google books: [http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=conservatism&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share= Google engram data - conservatism].
This would appear to falsify the conservative words hypothesis.
But given the massive debt run up by liberals, the swell of liberalism since the 1960s will likely dry up when severe fiscal austerity hits the Western World because the present economic system in the West is unsustainable. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:31, 7 September 2013 (EDT)
:"-ism" is usually a pejorative ending, as in "isolationism". Hence the decline in use of "conservatism" supports the thesis that conservative words are rapidly increasing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:36, 8 September 2013 (EDT)
::Since the mid 1960s use of the word "conservative" stopped growing percentage wise in usage and then post 2000 use of the word started to fall as can be seen [http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=conservative&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share= HERE]. The world "conservative" though can be used outside of politics. But there is some correlation to someone who is "conservative" in their spending habits (and other habits) and them being a political conservative though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:55, 9 September 2013 (EDT)
:::Check out the usage of the word "Schlafly" [http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=schlafly&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share= HERE]. Is Schlafly a conservative word? :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:00, 9 September 2013 (EDT)
I'm not sure I'm following the logic here. According to Mr. Schlafly's hypothesis, the total number of conservative words are increasing over time, not necessarily the individual usage of a particular word. Also as the number of words that describe the same concept increase, odds that a particular word will be employed would be expected to decrease. It's possible that certain words fall in and out of favor regardless of the concept they embody. I think it's unwise to announce the falsification of a hypothesis based on the results of a Google analysis. After all, the same tool also shows a sharp decline in "heliocentrism". --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 09:55, 9 September 2013 (EDT)
==Statistical approach==
Perhaps we could find a number of English dictionaries compiled at various times in history and graph the total number of dictionary entries in comparison with the number of conservative words at those points in time. A better measure might be the ratio of conservative words/total number of dictionary entries rather than the absolute number of conservative words. One theory is that there were fewer words in the English language, and words had not yet entered the language to describe economic concepts which were still evident and accepted as fact. There is no reason to believe that society in the 1600s and 1700s were less conservative than today, but rather they did not have specialized words to discuss the issues of that day. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:33, 10 September 2013 (EDT)
:The problem, as I see it, keeps returning to the same point: what is a conservative word? Despite repeated requests for clarification, no coherent definition of what constitutes a conservative word has been forthcoming. There appears to be no objective filter that can be readily applied. The only filtering agent seems to be Mr. Schlafly's imagination. To be fair, Schlafly could be applying a very rigorous methodology behind-the-scenes... but to date he has been somewhat reticent in sharing his criteria with the rest of us. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 11:09, 10 September 2013 (EDT)
::In response to Wschact, he presents a hypothesis, but I don't think it comports with the evidence. The English language does grow, but it doesn't double in size per century, as conservative terms have. It would not be possible to discover the geometric growth in conservative terms if there was not such a rapid expansion. And this growth is consistent with the growth in percentages of those who self-identify as conservative, and in amazing conservative victories on issues liberals expect to win (such as [[gun control]]).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:30, 10 September 2013 (EDT)
::In response to DonnyC, choosing conservative words is not a precise science, but it is more scientific than most of what liberals consider to be science. The conservative nature of nearly every term on the list can hardly be disputed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:33, 10 September 2013 (EDT)
:::Thank you for your thoughts. However, suppose there was a considerable increase in English word vocabulary from 1600 to 2010. As the leisure time expanded and the literature expanded, society became more refined in its thinking. Just as Eskimos developed 100 different words for snow, economic theory and social commentary grew more refined, and the number of words relevant to talking about conservatism grew. So, we need to control for the total number of English words in active use. For example, suppose someone developed a list of "liberal words" over time. It could be that the number of conservative words and the number of liberal words both grew between 1600 and 2010 because the total number of English words grew during that time. What would be more relevant was whether the ratio of conservative words/total words grew faster than the ratio of liberal words/total words. In response to DonnyC, one could use other measures of the growth in public acceptance of conservative thought instead of classifying words. For example, one could look a public opinion polling data, or election results where self-identified conservative candidate ran, or the enactment of key conservative policies over time. Thanks. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:36, 10 September 2013 (EDT)
::::The English language as a whole does grow over time, but not at a geometric rate. Yet conservative terms do grow geometrically, which demonstrates that the ratio of conservative to non-conservative words is increasing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:07, 12 September 2013 (EDT)
:::::Mr. Schlafly stated "...''choosing conservative words is not a precise science, but it is more scientific than most of what liberals consider to be science.''" For the sake of brevity, I'm only going to respond to the first part of this statement. I fully accept the fact that the identification of conservative words and phrases is not an "precise science". Frankly it doesn't appear to be much more than a unsubstantiated assertion at this point. If this phenomenon was so obvious and undisputed, dictionary entries would look like this:
:::::*'''charisma''' \kə-ˈriz-mə\ ''conservative noun'' - a personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm...
:::::*'''cheapskate''' \ˈchēp-ˌskāt\ ''liberal noun'' - a pejorative word to describe the thrifty spending habits of fiscally responsible conservatives...
:::::But dictionaries don't look like that, do they? If this trend truly exists independent of Mr. Schlafly's own personal word selection talents, then there should be an objective standard for determining the political etymology of a word. What is that standard? --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 10:59, 12 September 2013 (EDT)
::::::I agree with Mr. Schlafly that the English language probably grows arithmetically. The question is how to control for that fact. Let's assume that English grows at 5,000 words per century:
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Century
!# Cons. Words
!# English Words
!Ratio
|-
|1600s
|32
|200,000
|.00016
|-
|1700s
|64
|205,000
|.000156
|-
|1800s
|127
|210,000
|.000648
|-
|1900s
|256
|215,000
|.00119
|-
|2000s
|27 (preliminary)
|215,500
|.0001253
|}
I am assuming that if 5,000 words are added each century, 500 would be added per decade in an arithmetic growth model. If conservative thought is taking over the hearts and minds of English speaking people, one would expect the ratio of conservative words/total English vocabulary to grow, not just the absolute number of conservative words to grow. (This is an illustration; I would need to have actual statistics on dictionary sizes through history to plot the two effects over time.) Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:44, 12 September 2013 (EDT)
:I welcome the criticism and doubts. But I think, upon reflection, that conservative terminology is expected to grow exponentially due to how conservatism is connected more closely to logic than liberalism is. How often are liberal terms of the 1960s used today? Not much, nor would one expect the self-centered liberal wording to grow over time, as selfless conservative terms do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:37, 13 September 2013 (EDT)
==Criteria for inclusion in the list==
What determines when a new word becomes an accepted part of the English language? For example, someone today added the word "Barry-cades" to the list. While any Conservative can coin a new phrase to make a political point, there is no evidence that the word has wide-spread adoption. If this is just a collection of witty Conservative phrases, then the essay is making the point that people who are making up new words are doing so at an exponential rate, without regard to the public picking up on each new turn of phrase. However, if there is a serious criteria for adoption into English, then 1) we must police the list based on some criteria on "widespread use" and 2) we must have criteria for checking the date/decade of widespread adoption. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 02:47, 6 October 2013 (EDT)
:Criteria should be is it in use. A quick Google search shows that it is. Second, is it listed in Merriam's. No it is not. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 04:32, 6 October 2013 (EDT)
==Uncertainty principle==
The notion that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle says something about general "chaos", or the "running down" of the universe, or the lifetime of humans being nearly always under 120 years, or the impossibility of perpetual motion machines is a naive misperception that has gone on for too long.
Under the Copenhagen interpretation, the uncertainty is not revealed until the wave function collapses, which, in layman's terms, means until we open Schrödinger's box and look at the cat. Until then, the wave function is exact and eternal. It does not "run down". For example, the wave function of a Hydrogen atom in the ground state is
:<math>\Psi = e^{\frac{me^2}{4\pi\varepsilon\hbar^2}r}</math>
Forever. The Hydrogen atom ''really is a perpetual motion machine''. (Except for issues involving GUT's, which are outside of Quantum mechanics ''per se''.)
Furthermore, there are animals that commonly live to be much older than 120 years, and trees that live into the thousands. The matter in living things is controlled by the same quantum mechanics, no matter what the species. Finite lifetimes arise from biological issues that have nothing to do with the uncertainty principle.
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:51, 10 January 2014 (EST)
== Baseball ==
Why is ''baseball'' a Conservative word?--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 12:20, 28 May 2014 (EDT)
:It's explained - the players and fans of baseball are overwhelmingly conservative, it's one of the few sports that is governed by rules rather than a clock, and it's an American original.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:22, 28 May 2014 (EDT)
:::What does "American original" mean? You know it's an old English game, right?--[[User:JoanneL|JoanneL]] 20:18, 29 May 2014 (EDT)
::::I'm skeptical that baseball has any meaningful British origin. Cricket, which is quite different, is the comparable sport there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:32, 29 May 2014 (EDT)
:::::Baseball was played in England in the 18th century. The pitch was a triangle but the rules were basically the same. The diamond pitch was adapted from rounders. That's another English game and baseball is a regional (Wales and north-west) variation of it.--[[User:JoanneL|JoanneL]] 21:42, 29 May 2014 (EDT)
::::::This an interesting discussion, but the following authority recounts the history and concludes that "This is not enough to conclude that the game we know today as Baseball is a British game": [http://www.ibaf.org/en/page/the-origins-of-baseball/1d4801fb-6d5e-42c9-9ca6-37e5b85396b8]--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 29 May 2014 (EDT)
:::::::Hey thanks, that's a good source! OTOH it does make clear that baseball was played in England a long time ago. It wasn't exactly the same as modern baseball, but we always change the rules. Like how football is a US version of Rugby because we changed stuff.--[[User:JoanneL|JoanneL]] 23:01, 29 May 2014 (EDT)
::::::::Britain deserves credit for lots of things, but not everything, and there should be more discussion of why Britain has declined so much.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:48, 29 May 2014 (EDT)
:::::::::I grew up on a USAF base in England but I've only been back like twice since I was a kid, so I don't know if it's declining, but it seems silly to argue that baseball didn't come from there. Yes, the modern rules developed in the US, but all games change over time.--[[User:JoanneL|JoanneL]] 00:22, 30 May 2014 (EDT)
::But there are also liberal baseball-fans.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 15:09, 28 May 2014 (EDT)
:::There are liberal fans of conservative songs and movies, too. Indeed, liberals sometimes use conservative words, but that does not make the words any less conservative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:57, 28 May 2014 (EDT)
::::Alexander Cartwright is often called the "father of baseball". He worked in the 1800s banking community which was very conservative. He later served as a merchant sea captain. Captains/bosses tend to be conservative (bosses tend to be Republicans [http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-boland/bosses-more-likely-be-republican-and-conservative]).
::::In addition, baseball is related to the bat, ball and running games of cricket and rounders which were pre-Charles Darwin English folk games. Unlike Darwinism, folk games are grassroots, popular activities and not imposed on the populace from liberal elitist "know-it-alls"! Pre-Darwinist England produced the King James Bible and the Christian classic Pilgrim's Progress which unlike Darwinism have stood the test of time in the quality of their workmanship.
::::Like conservatism, baseball is a very methodical, rules based, and slow moving game that honors tradition and resists radical innovations.
::::Furthermore, Pete Rose was stripped of his all time hits record after his gambling activities. Gambling is a most unconservative activity.
::::There you have it. Baseball is a conservative word! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:08, 29 May 2014 (EDT)
A final note: Baseball bats are fairly sturdy/heavy wooden implements. If baseball were a liberal sport, the bats would be much lighter in order to accommodate effete, limp-wristed liberals! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:44, 29 May 2014 (EDT)
==[[Rolling Coal]]==
I think this new form of protest (not actually a new thing) should be added to the list of conservative words. [[User:CraigF2|CraigF2]] 14:02, 16 July 2014 (EDT)
:Interesting suggestion. "Rolling coal" is not in my dictionary, and I'm not familiar with the concept. Let's see if others have an opinion about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:12, 16 July 2014 (EDT)
::I've heard about this before in automotive communities, with everyone HATING those who roll coal, and I myself was close to writing an article on it. It's basically a bunch of stupid people who feel that they're "so cool", so they attach huge pipes to their lifted trucks (almost always Big Three), and hurt their engines by blowing coal out the pipes. The EPA has called this practice illegal. However, I read on Autoblog or something that they're investigating whether rolling coal is as environmentally harmful as doing burnouts. I can find a lot of articles about rolling coal. [[User:Atum|Atum]] 17:15, 16 July 2014 (EDT)
==Parochial Schools==
Andy, you are century or two off with your “parochial schools” edit. At least as far back as the early 1600s Scotland was using a system, whereby all parishes were to operate parochial schools to teach basic literacy and Biblical knowledge to the children of the parish. As you know; “parochial” is the adjective of “parish”.
This was a long time before the concept, let alone the reality, of ‘public schools” came into being. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:22, 18 July 2014 (EDT)
:Public schools started early in colonial Massachusetts, well before the United States was formed. I don't doubt your history about Scotland, but the term "parochial school" is in contrast with "public schools." Merriam-Webster says that the term "parochial school" started in 1755, and that seems about right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:03, 19 July 2014 (EDT)
::I bow to your superior ideology. Perhaps I may ask what the term "Public school" means within the context of the 17th/18th century compared to its current "liberal" concept. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:12, 19 July 2014 (EDT)
:::I don't think it is a matter of ideology - Merriam-Webster gives the date or origin, and it is consistent with history. Public schools were not as liberal in the 17th and 18th centuries, but they were not parochial either, so a similar contrast between the two types of schools existed then, as now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 20 July 2014 (EDT)
== Typewriter ==
"Typewriter" is a great addition, but Merriam-Webster gives a date of origin of 1868, not the date earlier in the 1800s just entered here. Does anyone have more info about this?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 20 July 2014 (EDT)
:Here is the citation from OED: "1868 C. L. Sholes et al. U.S. Patent 79,265 23 June 4 Thus made, the type-writer is the simplest, most perfectly adapted to its work." [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 00:56, 21 July 2014 (EDT)
::Excellent find!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:58, 21 July 2014 (EDT)
:::[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TypewriterPatent1868.jpg Here] is an image of a page from the application. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 01:01, 21 July 2014 (EDT)
== Act of God ==
I suggest we use the 1635 origin as recorded in Merriam-Webster. Saying that it originated in law is saying that a term used used to absolve somebody of responsibility is Conservative. This is most likely liberal misuse of the previously Conservative word. I will put it back again, but if you are still in doubt I suggest moving it to one of the other lists.
== De Minimis ==
*Andy, you overwrote ''deregulation'': was this intentionally?
*The edit-count jumped from 300 to 302. Seems to be time for a recount.
*How on earth is this term conservative?
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:23, 13 June 2015 (EDT)
:Great catch! I added [[deregulation]] back, which is surely conservative. The 302 is the correct count because I forgot to increment the total when I added "passive-aggressive".
:"de minimis" is a conservative concept which facilitates focusing what is important (e.g., life, the [[Bible]], church) against liberal attempts to confuse priorities. [[Jesus]] made violations of the [[Old Testament]] rules excusable when de minimis. for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:44, 13 June 2015 (EDT)
::I would agree with you if this phrase had been around since the 17th or 18th century, introduced by theologians to make such a point. But you refer to the phrase as used since 1948: it was invented by lawyers, and is used in contexts like "Commission Notice on agreements of minor importance which do not appreciably restrict competition under Article 81(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (de minimis)"... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:11, 13 June 2015 (EDT)
:::I don't think the source of the word is dispositive. It is conservative to look beyond materialism to a greater truth. "[[Opportunity cost]]" is an example, which is also on the list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:36, 13 June 2015 (EDT)
::::Sorry, for a short moment I took your concept of [[Best New Conservative Words]] serious again. Then I read [[Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words#Recount]] again, and the memory came back: ''not "false", but lacking in a perfect understanding'' must be the conservative version of ''fake, but accurate''... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:39, 14 June 2015 (EDT)
== Recount, again... ==
I copied the list into a spreadsheet and counted the lines: '''592'''. The ''official'' count is '''591'''. Four years ago [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words&diff=884298&oldid=884020 I tried to add a fourth numeric column] containing the decade of the creation (or perhaps just the century) to facilitate a count, as at the moment the column ''origin date'' isn't purely numeric. This was deleted. So I'm not inclined to put any work into a manual recount. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:36, 14 June 2015 (EDT)
:Still one off... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:53, 22 June 2015 (EDT)
::I get "301" for the 1900s, but the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s are correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 22 June 2015 (EDT)
:::Again, I'd advice you to add a fourth, purely numerical columns for the decade, just to facilitate recounts. BTW, take a look [[Talk:Essay:Calming_the_Storm#Andy.2C_it.27s_your_essay.2C_correct_your_mistakes.2C_please|here]] --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:05, 22 June 2015 (EDT)
==I am confused==
I am confused by this entry. Conservatism means defending the status quo, and so is against creating anything new. Radicalism means bringing about change. Ergo, bringing about new words is being radical, not conservative. [[User:Carltonio|Carltonio]] ([[User talk:Carltonio|talk]]) 11:48, 2 August 2020 (EDT)
==Algorithm==
Why is the word "algorithm" down here, and dated as originating in 1849? I thought the word "algorithm" was much older than that, and took its name from the Islamic scholar al-Kwarismi. [[User:Carltonio|Carltonio]] ([[User talk:Carltonio|talk]]) 02:11, 3 August 2020 (EDT)
== Pelosi Pawn ==
I have no doubt that we will marvel about the [[Great Awakening]] in fifty years time. But somehow I cannot fathom talking about [[Pelosi pawns]] in a decade from now. Should such a short-lived expression really be seen as on of the '''best new conservative words'''? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 15:02, August 2, 2021 (EDT)