Talk:Main Page/archive86

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Howard Zinn revealed to be Communist

In response to a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request by Cliff Kincaid, Editor of Accuracy in Media, on July 30, 2010, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) released a 423 page file on Howard Zinn.The FBI file reveals that while Zinn denied being a member of the CPUSA, several reliable informants in the party identified Zinn as a member who attended party meetings as many as five times a week. [2] Daniel1212 17:06, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

The problem is that there is no good way to stop historians with agendas from writing books because no one has figured out how to make a law that stops that. Maybe instead of stopping historians with agendas from writing books we could make laws that stop them from having agendas? because if they take a test and it shows they have a biases then they can just not have their books published. -Justin Connors-Driftmeier.

The way is to overcome evil with good; lies with truth. (Rm. 12:21) Daniel1212 21:55, 12 August 2010 (EDT)

please help

Hello. Please excuse my English. I am reading two articles I do not understand. Essay: The transitional animal the flying pig? and Essay: The transitional species the flying dog?. I am not thinking these are correct in an encyclopedia. I can not find a way to make questions of them in the talk page. How do I make questions of them?--RobertoCuestion 15:48, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

Siguiendo lo que entiendo, los articulos de que usted habla son lo que piensan los escritoras. No son que opina Conservapedia. To the editors: I apologize if this is inappropriate in any way. What I wrote says "following what I understand, the articles you talk about are what the writers think. They aren't what Conservapedia thinks." Also, how do you sign your name?

You sign your name by placing four tildes (like so: ~~~~) after whatever you type on a talk page. Tyler Zoran Talk 17:32, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

Thank you JoseR 18:38, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

OK. Understand. But why is not possible edit the talk page of the essay?--RobertoCuestion 16:22, 7 August 2010 (EDT)
If I have comment about the essay should I make it here?--RobertoCuestion 14:21, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

Typo on mainpage

...prevent you from obtain one of these license plates..." already fixed, nevermind :) JoeFerguson 22:07, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

Baby comes back to life, dies

Good news is premature. [3] --Jpatt 13:10, 7 August 2010 (EDT)

Still an extraordinary story, but could be removed from the Main Page if and when you think appropriate. If the health care system had not given up on the child initially, then maybe the child would not have eventually died.--Andy Schlafly 13:29, 7 August 2010 (EDT)
Hospital negligence is so frightening common. I will update mainspaceleft. --Jpatt 13:41, 7 August 2010 (EDT)
Hospital negligence IS common, however I think that the fact that a country has limited resources to deal with nearly infinite problems plays a role too. This must be particularly true for less rich countries. I spent a lot of time in hospitals - I've had health problems in the past - and I met doctors that hadn't had any sleep in 40 hours. "And of course, if we make a mistake, we get sued", they would say. It might be true that it was negligence, perhaps the doctors were playing cards in a backroom, everything is possible, but it might also be true that the health care system "gave up" on the child simply because very limited resources were needed elsewhere. Sadly, you can't keep every person pronounced dead in observation for 48 hours, in case it shows signs of being alive. --MarcoT2 15:33, 7 August 2010 (EDT)

Fortunately Jesus Christ doesn't give up that easily on us, nor does he consider resource availability! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 15:57, 7 August 2010 (EDT)

Indeed! But we are talking about humans here, and humans (and their organizations) are, regrettably, hindered by such limitations! --MarcoT2 21:55, 7 August 2010 (EDT)

Unique to the 1st century in the Middle Ages

Just nitpicking here... the 1st century AD is not normally considered to be part of the Middle Ages. Traditionally, the "Middle Ages" are considered to start on 476 AD (the fall of the Roman Empire) and to end on 1492 (the discovery of America). The exact start date and the end date may vary (some, for instance, set the fall of Constantinople as the end of the Middle Ages) but the 1st century AD is not usually included. --MarcoT2 21:55, 7 August 2010 (EDT)

Excellent point. That was a mistake: the reference to the "Middle Ages" was originally to make the point that no such weave patterns have been discovered from the Middle Ages, but then I shortened the headline. Thanks for alerting pointing out the mistake.--Andy Schlafly 22:04, 7 August 2010 (EDT)

to User:Conservative

I found a really great gif here that you could perhaps use in one of your satirical "essays." I tried to post this message on your talk page but it is locked. JoeFerguson 22:22, 7 August 2010 (EDT)

Thanks, I saw it. I saw something closely resembling that before. That is too over the top for me though. I do like this new article though http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:_Atheism_is_a_clown_and_it_did_not_know_it  :) conservative 15:30, 9 August 2010 (EDT)
The idea that Dawkins' atheism may derive from "hysterical feminine thinking" (see feminism) is something to consider. His brand of atheism sets up a strawman of a vengeful, loveless God - which of course no rational person could believe in. (In fact, my first earnest prayer was to ask God if he would damn me to hell for not believing in Him: he said, "Of course not.") --Ed Poor Talk 11:15, 12 August 2010 (EDT)
Joh 16:9 "Of sin, because they believe not on me;" God does not turn away honest seekers of truth, even if they honestly express doubts, but they that are damned are those who love darkness over light, and thus they will not truly believe in the Lord Jesus of the Bible. If atheists would only ask God if He existed, and be open to that, then they could find Him, but typically they manifest an antipathy to the very concept, and antagonism toward His moral authority. They at war with the God they do not want to rule over them (just as my flesh is: Rm. 8:7), and so they must portray Him and the Bible in the worst light, while presenting themselves as morally superior, according to their own objectively baseless moral reasoning, while valid aspects of which are much owed to the Bible, even if indirectly. Thanks be to God. Daniel1212 22:11, 12 August 2010 (EDT)

Update to breaking news

Ted Stevens is now confirmed dead. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/10/national/main6760221.shtml May he rest in peace. Jjan 14:51, 10 August 2010 (EDT)

Talking Points Memo

Wouldn't it make sense to add to the TPM chart the counter examples to relativity? That is also what the article was about. They only attempted (poorly) to refute one example. JonS 16:25, 10 August 2010 (EDT)

I was wondering when and who would burn those last comments by Rama. Obviously, calling you guys "nitwits" is over the top; perhaps you should collect some such statements in your liberal namecalling section. I saw a NYT article recently talking about how people who don't believe in relativity (general or special) would not be able to successfully create a GPS system, in addition to some other stuff about scientists and the coming Singularity (not that I subscribe to the latter belief). The TPM just reminded me of the article. DanieleGiusto 23:17, 11 August 2010 (EDT)
Two points: people who know they don't have the truth generally resort to name-calling, and it's not a matter of "believing" in relativity but whether there is sufficient evidence to support it.
A hasty Google search indicates a dispute between various sources as to whether GPS calculations do or do not need to take into account relativity. --Ed Poor Talk 11:11, 12 August 2010 (EDT)

Censorship

The sort of censorship opposed by conservatives is that which penalizes whistleblowers and those who are exposing government corruption, and what not. Tabloid speculation about lurid personal details of some minor celebrity's life fall under the privacy or libel laws, which are not generally considered censorship issues. --Ed Poor Talk 11:09, 12 August 2010 (EDT)

Various math issues

It is a rare thing when comments on the main page directly involve my field of research, but now there are two. Grigori Perelman isn't an example of someone outside academia accomplishing something. Perelman was a researcher at Stony Brook and later Berkeley and then at the Steklov Institute. His proof of the Poincare conjecture worked by proving aspects of a conjecture due to William Thurston at Cornell University, following the program laid out by Richard Hamilton at Columbia University. By Perelman's own description, as much credit is due to Hamilton as it is due to him. Now, regarding Deolalikar's work, the idea that professors have piled onto Deolalikar is simply missing the point: Lots of very smart people put aside a lot of their time over the last few days to look at his proof. That's well beyond basic courtesy. The fact is that the proof turned out to be flawed in multiple ways. That's just life. Aaronson is his usual blunt self about the situation. There's also nothing remarkable at this point in circulating manuscripts via the internet before they are sent for peer review. This has nothing to do with people being "conservative" or not. Moving on, "Expect liberals to award the Fields Medal -- the highest honor in mathematics -- to a woman for the first time on August 19th."- I'm wondering if anyone is willing to back that up with a wager. Andy posted that on the front page. I'm inclined to make the following wager: Andy and I each pick a charity. If there are any females who win a fields medal this year I will donate $50 to Andy's charity (I don't know if Andy has set up a 501c3 to help run Conservapedia but if so that would be the most logical choice), and if there are no females who win the Fields medal this year, Andy donates $50 to my charity. I'm wondering if Andy (or anyone else for that matter) is willing to put their money on Andy's prediction. JoshuaZ 18:24, 15 August 2010 (EDT)

As to your first point, Perelman was gracious in giving Hamilton credit but no one at this point would credibly deny Perelman the lion's share of the credit. Perelman was also plainly ostracized by the establishment and could not get a professorship in the U.S. Perelman was far brighter and accomplished far more than the professors who denied him equal status.
I don't believe in gambling and will decline your offer of a bet, and don't see the point of it. Are you denying that the Fields Medal is becoming politicized and that an affirmative action award to a woman is imminent?--Andy Schlafly 18:36, 15 August 2010 (EDT)


Andrew, I don't know where you got the idea that Perelman was "plainly ostracized by the establishment" Perelman had repeated offers of professorships at major universities from when he proved to the Soul conjecture until much later in the early 2000s. Offers came from among other schools including Princeton. He turned down all those offers. I don't know how that amounts to being ostracized.
I think your labeling an offer to donate money to a charity of your choice as "gambling" to be rather strange. Gambling is generally what people do when they have a chance to win money or resources. In this case, it would be a question of what good cause gains money. As to the point of such an event, a useful way of seeing whether humans actually believe what they claim to believe is whether they are willing to risk something connected to it, or indeed to just put resources to something. For example, one sees a bit of hypocrisy in many liberals who favor large amounts of welfare but don't donate much to charity. Monetary risk is a useful way of checking such claims (which is connected for example to why we tie bonuses into performance in many industries or give salesman commissions).
As to the notion that the Fields Medal is being politicized, I'm not aware of any evidence that it is more politicized than it ever has been. I don't expect an "affirmative action award" because of the political issues that they do care about that's not one of them. There are a number of very prominent female mathematicians some of whom could plausibly get a Fields Medal on their own work. But there are a fair number of people in that category who aren't female also, so I don't put the probability of such a win to be very high at this point in time. By a similar token, I'd be surprised if a female didn't win in the next 20 years. But again, that has nothing to do with affirmative action. JoshuaZ 18:55, 15 August 2010 (EDT)
Joshua, Perelman was offered low-level positions that were inappropriate for someone capable of the greatest mathematical breakthrough of the century. He should have been offered a professorship or professor-track position suitable to the level of his work, which was indisputably far higher than the work of people who are professors.
Gambling is gambling, Joshua, and I don't participate in it. Your proposed bet also has the effect of suspending discussion until the bet is resolved. That has the effect of censoring open discussion. If you don't think the Fields Medal will be given to a woman on Thursday as you claim, then please explain why you feel that way.
Math faculties are markedly more liberal now than a decade ago, and that influences the Fields Medal award. Four years ago, the Medal awards showed signs of politicization. One of the surprise recipients subsequently endorsed Obama, and Perelman's achievement was diluted by maxing out in the number of other recipients.
Obama's too old to receive the award. Instead, it will go to a woman for political reasons.--Andy Schlafly 21:06, 15 August 2010 (EDT)
What makes you think that Perelman was only offered "offered low-level positions"? He was offered a tenure track position at Princeton. It doesn't get any better than that. Moving on to your claim that Perelman's work was "as indisputably far higher than the work of people who are professors"- there's no question that Perelman's work was of the highest quality, but simply put, one cannot easily distinguish people at the very top especially when they don't even work in the same field. To pick professors at Princeton, one cannot reasonably compare John Conway, Andrew Wiles and Perelman. They do different types of work. It isn't even meaningful to talk about that level of work being higher than other work at that level (you can be pretty sure their work is all much more impressive than anything most mathematicians will do but that's not the same claim at all).
I don't know what evidence you have for the claim that math faculties now are more liberal than they were a decade ago, but I'd be curious to see it. John Derbyshire is I think generally considered a conservative commentator and at least as of five years ago he didn't note any particular political pattern in mathematicians.[4]. Note also that given the nature of tenure it is very difficult for the general establishment to change much in 10 years. Between one 10 year period and the next the vast majority of people with tenure will be the same, and the people who were postdocs 10 years before will be the people just getting tenure now. There's not much room for things to change that much in 10 years unless you believe that the politics of people who already have tenure is changing. As to the claim that the Fields Medal four years ago showed signs of politicization, I really don't see how you are getting that. People in all professions endorse candidates all the time. Most of them have no reason to actually be listened to. That one of them would do so after he had the Fields Medal isn't evidence of politicization. I presume incidentally that you are talking about Terence Tao. If that is the case, then I have to correct the notion that his award was a surprise in any definite way. In general, there are a lot of people who could plausibly win a Fields Medal (maybe 20 or 30), and if anyone had been making lists Tao would almost certainly have been on those lists. His work is close enough to my area that I can say, speaking in a professional capacity, his work deserved a Fields Medal. Note also that every single Fields Medal has always had at least two recipients and that every single one except 02 and 74 since 1966 has had at three people, and that 90,94,98 all had four recipients. So it is very hard to understand the claim that giving out the award to four people somehow was a special thing to dilute Perelman's award.
I don't know how you think that such a bet would "have the effect of suspending discussion until the bet is resolved" and I'm curious as to why you think one couldn't discuss matters once such a bet was down. As to why I doubt a female will be selected this time, I've already explained and this shouldn't be that complicated: There aren't many females in the age range who would reasonably have done enough work to justify winning a Fields Medal, and I don't see any evidence of the politics you claim exists (and I'm pretty sure I'm much more involved in the mathematical community than you are) so I expect a roughly random selection from the 30-40 people who might get it, hence there's a less than 50% chance that one will be a female. JoshuaZ 22:09, 15 August 2010 (EDT)
Even if Perelman were offered a "tenure-track" position at Princeton (I see no proof of that claim), he would still be subjected to the increased politics and vagaries of lesser minds when he would have come up for tenure. It could easily have been a fool's errand at best. And were there any other respectable offers? None commensurate with his prodigious abilities.
The bottom line is that lesser minds but more liberal politics run universities, including math departments, today. Pure political power plays, like those in Congress, are the rule rather than the exception now. No problem: conservatives will cut government funding from universities and there will be less propping these liberals up in the future.--Andy Schlafly 23:35, 15 August 2010 (EDT)
Joshua, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to give us your input. I feel close to the issue because I grew up in Cambridge, Massachusetts and hung out at MIT while my mom was getting her masters there. Of course, I spent more time in the swimming pool and at the sailing club, but I also got the chance to speak with professors like Papert and Minsky.
The issue of when something complex (and abstruse?) has been proven true or false is my main interest. I'm influenced by ideas my mother exposed me to in my teens, from authors like Polya [5] and Popper (see falsifiablity).
When someone finally solved the Four-Color Problem, using a computer program to check all the possible cases, that was a big day in my "math life"! So if someone can prove or disprove Deolalikar's work I'm also interested.
There are many cases of outsiders trying to get their ideas accepted. I'm not sure whether more or fewer such ideas are correct, but there certainly have been too many incidents of premature rejection of an idea simply because it came from a person of low social status. I don't have to remind of how they kicked around Semmelweis, do I?
And please don't think (or say!) that we are engaging in censorship here at Conservapedia, as you guys at Wikipedia do. We do follow Jimbo and Larry's original NPOV policy of "describing all viewpoints fairly". It doesn't require censorship to show that a bad idea is bad. Unless you can show at least one diff, where a senior editor censored something ... merely because it disagreed with some conservative shibboleth ... than you ought to stop saying this. I address this not so much to you, as to those who follow you or travel alongside you.
The point is to learn as much about reality as possible, and to share this knowledge with others. We can do this best when we tolerate viewpoints we disagree with, rather than dismissing them out of hand. (It's okay to call someone a crackpot, I guess, but only if you first summarize his views and the evidence and arguments he gives in support of them.) --Ed Poor Talk 13:59, 16 August 2010 (EDT)
Er, Ed, I can't parse almost any of your comment. I find it deeply confusing since discussion of censorship occurred by Andy above, so I don't know what you are talking about. As long as I'm still commenting here, I presume that Andy's latest addition about a "communist" mathematician is about Ngo Bao Chau, who could very well deserve a Fields Medal. The media isn't talking about this much (although if you Google you'll find a handful of articles) not out of some agenda but simply because it doesn't cover math much at all. It would be nice if math were so popular that speculation about who was going to win a Fields Medal was news in the same way that sports teams drafts are news, but we don't live in that world. I doubt the media would make much of a big deal about the Fields Medal going to a "communist-trained mathematician" given that around half the Fields Medals have gone to people who fit that characterization since so many went to people who worked or were trained in the USSR. And now I'm really done on this and will wait to see what actually happens. JoshuaZ 22:29, 16 August 2010 (EDT)
Joshua, it's liberal style to insist on the last word and then depart. I didn't censor you or anyone else here. There is an obvious political element in giving the prize to a communist Vietnam-trained mathematician.
Your explanation for the lack of media attention on this upcoming award does not explain the lack of chatter on math blogs, which are outspoken on many issues. The reason for the paralysis on the math blogs is obvious: political correctness has a chilling effect on candid discussion. No one dares put forth the names deserving the prize based on merit, given the likelihood that politics will govern.
By the way, Joshua, why was Ben Green insulted by giving the prize to Tao for a theorem they jointly developed? More liberal politics at work?--Andy Schlafly 22:54, 16 August 2010 (EDT)
I don't have a huge amount to add to this, other than a few points. Terence Tao was the favourite in 2006 by a long shot, and is still generally regarded as the most accomplished mathematician in the world at the moment. Probably more so than even Perelman, although he wasn't working in the right mathematical field (differential geometry) to give him a decent crack at Poincare's conjecture (number theory is more his particular thing).
There is some speculation as to the next Field's medal (http://mathoverflow.net/questions/4877/potential-2010-fields-medalists and http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=2255, for example). There wouldn't be any obvious politics in giving it to Ngo. He really is the only candidate who really shines ahead of the rest in the current cycle, and is pretty much a certainty for the work that he's done on the fundamental lemma (really brilliant stuff). After him, there's a group of about 10-15 mathematicians who could feasibly win it (Artur Avila is probably the most deserving from this group, but being only 30, probably won't win it in this cycle - put a cheeky bet on him getting it in 2014, I suspect). In that group are a handful of women, notably Matilde Marcolli (who I suspect may pick up a medal), who would certainly not look out of place with a Field's medal on their shelf. Certainly not undeserving at all.
As for the Ben Green thing, Ben Green wasn't really insulted (and would be the first to say that Tao deserved the medal more than anyone). Tao contributed significantly more to the field in which the theorem was proven, and has a larger body of work over a more diverse range of topics. As I mentioned, he's still probably regarded as the most accomplished mathematician floating around. Interestingly, he's very supportive of the Best of the Public idea that you have suggested. He and Timothy Gowers (one of many brilliant British mathematicians) recently looked at a Wiki-style method of approaching mathematical research called the Polymath Project, which is explained in layman's terms for non-mathematicians here: http://numberwarrior.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/a-gentle-introduction-to-the-polymath-project/).
As for the question of Perelman being the Best of the Public, I don't want to get too drawn in. It's worth noting that he did his best research work while affiliated with a university (Berkeley and the Stekelov Institute). Most of his current rage against the system originates from his treatment at the hands of Shing-Tung Yau (Chinese-American Fields medallist, and probably the best differential geometer in the world) who tried to claim more credit than Perelmen felt he was due. If he'd done his best research while unaffiliated, I'd think that you'd have a very good point at describing him as BotP (although more so if the research was collaborative and done by a large number of people online, such as the aforementioned Polymath Project), but as it is, he was definitely working in his capacity as a professional academic mathematician when he proved both the Soul and Poincare conjecture.
I know this looks like talk, talk, talk, but I have tried to address a number of points. If you only take a couple of things away from here, I think those would be that both Tao and Ngo were very accomplished mathematicians who deserve the accolades that they have and will receive, that the Polymath Project allows the BotP approach that you champion to be realised, and that Perelman was probably a professional academic mathematician when he produced his best work. PStevens 09:31, 17 August 2010 (EDT)


PStevens, Tao is an outspoken Obama supporter and it's not persuasive for you to repeat, over and over, that you think Tao is somehow such a genius. I'm not certain if you're also an Obama supporter, but I do know that liberals often promote other liberals. An objective look at Tao's achievements and credentials reveals that they are not far above everyone else. In some ways Tao's academic status is weaker than other leading mathematicians (he's a professor at ... UCLA???).
Your lavish praise of Ngo falls flat for similar reasons. It's the political factor that will result in giving the Fields Medal to Ngo, not a best-in-the-world math achievement.
And despite all your talk, are you going to downplay the main point about politics likely resulting in a grant of the Medal to an underachieving woman on Thursday? Surely you should concede that a woman is not among the top four contenders based on merit.--Andy Schlafly 10:12, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

(realigning the text)

I'm curious. You've looked at the work of Tao and Ngo? You seem at least familiar with the work that they've produced, however to really understand their work (in particular that of Ngo, who works in a field that is virtually impenetrable to the layman) and the impact that it has on mathematics as an edifice requires a significant degree of mathematical proficiency.

I guess I should address them individually. Firstly, it's not like Tao has only won the Field's medal. He won the Salem, Bocher and Clay prizes, all before he and Green proved the Green-Tao theorem in 2004. That demonstrates a body of achievement that goes far above merely one influential work. Even so, the Green-Tao theorem is probably the most important advance in number theory in the last twenty years. What made it so special was that it was such a huge advance over the previous state of knowledge. It tells us more about the structure of the primes (essentially the "building blocks" of numbers) than we thought we could ever hope to know. In the end, rather than judging him by his institution (although UCLA have a mathematics department that is disproportionately strong compared to it's standing as a university), it is best to measure him by his mathematical work alone. I also must confess to being rather surprised to find that you haven't commented on the Polymath Project, given that it seems to fit quite nicely with your BotP ideals. In the end, you may not like his politics (I'm not from the US, and don't have strong views on your politics; it is merely mathematics which I have strong views about - I am well aware of my limitations), but that shouldn't take away his incredible mathematical achievements.

As for Ngo, well, the proof of the fundamental lemma in 2009 is certainly the single most significant mathematical advance of the last 4 years (and by some margin). It is critical to the Langlands program, which has been the biggest single driving force in pushing forward modern mathematics, championed by such luminaries as Hilbert, Grothendieck, Artin and Weil. Even if he did nothing else in his entire career, this would certainly put him at the top of the list of contenders. Being still under the age of 40 (as all Fields medal contenders are), he still has more to contribute, but to push forward the Langlands program to the extent that he has? That's something really quite special. Again, I don't know his personal politics at all, but allow his mathematics to speak for him.

And I don't think any of the women in that 10-15 group of mathematicians are underachievers. I can see no reason to assume that the likes of Marcolli or Dinur would be undeserving. On the contrary, Dinur is probably the strongest contender for the Nevalinna Prize, and could very well go two for two with the Fields medal as well (although I'd probably lead towards Marcolli for her work in noncommutative geometry, which is incredibly insightful). Do I think that the decision could end up being political? I wouldn't imagine so. Or more to the point, I think it's insulting to accomplished mathematicians like Marcolli and Dinur to assume that this is the case. If it was decided that either of those two were in the top four contenders, based on what I know of their work, I would not be shocked at all.

Now, I can understand why people may think that these decisions are political, but the best solution to resolve this is to become familiar with the mathematical work that they have produced, and the impact it has had in the wider world of mathematics. I would say that I am familiar with the work of Marcolli and Tao, and at least conversant in the impact of the work of Ngo and Dinur. From what I know, I would be shocked if Ngo didn't win the medal (it would be a mathematical travesty, at the very least), and not surprised at all to find that one of the two female mathematicians were awarded the medal.

Again, I apologise for the talk, talk, talk. Mathematics is my passion (I was drawn to post because of the speculation on the medal recipients, which is something I find very interesting), but politics really isn't my thing. I'm not fussed as to who produces the mathematics, as long as it's good mathematics.

PStevens 10:43, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Congratulations to Cédric Villani , Elon Lindenstrauss, Ngô Bảo Châu and Stanislav Smirnov. So, the unlikely event, downplaying the main point, really has happened! RonLar 08:31, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

A Real Math Prize?

If Ngo's proof of the Langlands fundamental lemma doesn't cut it as best-in-the-world, who do you (ASchlafly) think is the best? Who would win the Fields medal if it were awarded by Conservapedia? --KyleT 10:39, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

You've sparked an interesting idea, Kyle. Perhaps Conservapedia should give rival awards based on merit, now that math and science have been overrun by liberal distortions.
Would you like to suggest some merit-based nominees, without the liberal bias?--Andy Schlafly 11:43, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
Frankly my opinion is that Ngo is the obvious merit-based nominee. Since you disagree, I'm wondering who you view as an alternative? --KyleT 11:55, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
Ngo is definitely the most obvious name (by some margin), with Avila the "next-best", in my opinion. Avila is unlikely to receive the Fields medal in this cycle, however, due to his particularly young age, but he'll definitely win it at some stage. Cedric Villani is a name that is coming up a lot in discussion for his work on partial differential equations, and I'd go so far as to say that I'd expect him to win the medal on Thursday. Lurie, Brendle, Bhargava, Marcolli, Kedlaya, Lovasz, Dinur and half a dozen others are very all reasonable contenders, from a combination of what I understand of their work (which is quite little in some cases!) and the buzz that I've been hearing and reading.
The only mathematician who seems to have put forward too strong a case to ignore is Ngo, for his work on the Langlands fundamental lemma. PStevens 13:07, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
PStevens, yes, I agree completely. In fact, the names everyone mentions for the Fields are the same ones I would suggest for a Conservapedia award. As the case of Ngo indicates, CP has vastly overstated the political side of things. The notion that Ngo would be chosen for political reasons is ridiculous. Are we missing some better nominees here, ASchlafly? --KyleT 14:01, 17 August 2010 (EDT)


Our awards will be based on merit, not "names everyone mentions" or "most obvious name" or any of the other talk, talk, talk above. It's amazing how much someone can say without really saying anything of substance.--Andy Schlafly 14:39, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Fine, but can you give an example of a candidate for the CP awards who is not also discussed as a serious contender for the Fields? --KyleT 14:43, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
KyleT, is it not enough you have been given the criteria? Do you want a specific name so you can pre-judge? Liberals type lots of words, yet when they get direct answers that isn't enough for them because they just want to argue and provoke. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 15:40, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
Ngo Bao Chau's proof was tremendously elegant and well done. I am not one to judge, but I would assume that Andy Schlafly doesn't understand what automorphic forms are, what the FL says, or have any standing to comment on a mathematical proof. Andy believes that Ngo doesn't deserve the award because he's Vietnamese, is that true? If it is, that's the most horrible, bigoted thing I have ever heard. Otherwise, please explain what it is about Ngo's proof that you do not think was quality, or another mathematician/area of study that is more deserving.
And for the record, mathematics is my area, and I am prepared to give specific reasons why Ngo deserves the FM, and also give other quality candidates. 21:07, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
Tao solved a lemma that did not even exist 50 years ago, but was generated by the Langlands program, which itself has dubious significance. As to your attempt to imply that someone is a racist rather than argue in an intelligent way, that liberal trick #20 doesn't work here.--Andy Schlafly 22:39, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
I presume that you mean Ngo? The age of a problem is irrelevant. The vast majority mathematicians are working on mathematics that didn't exist 50 years ago. And the few that do solve older problems (Fermat's theorem, Poincare's theorem) do so using very modern mathematical techniques. Interestingly, these older problems are often the least helpful to solve, because the results themselves don't really push mathematics forward. There aren't really proofs that depend on either of those two results. It was the mathematics used to solve them (modular forms and Ricci flow, respectively) that is of more interest to mathematicians.
The fundamental lemma, however, is different. There are fifty years worth of important mathematical ideas that being with "Assuming the fundamental lemma...". In one fell swoop, not only did he prove a foundational concept of modern mathematics, but he confirmed the truth of thousands of other mathematical ideas. Both the result itself and the mathematics used to reach it are extremely important to mathematicians.
As for the importance of the Langlands program, well, it's an attempt to understand the bigger picture of mathematics. It directly led to the link between modular forms and elliptic curves (which you'll recognise as the idea that led to the proof of Fermat's theorem). Langlands is simply not dubious. It's a driving force in modern mathematics, and has been since it was proposed. It has produced good results (the proof of Fermat's theorem was a direct result, for example) and a great deal of insight into the large edifice that is mathematics.
Again, I apologise. I'm not sure that I really fit in here, given my apathy towards politics, but I find mathematical discussion incredibly stimulating, and appreciate the opportunity to do so. I hope you continue to tolerate me in this discussion, even if you disagree with me. PStevens 06:00, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
Perhaps I should rephrase myself then. Ngo is, on mathematical work alone, the most deserving contender for the Fields medal in 2010. He should win, and I don't think it's a particularly well-kept secret that he probably will win. If you want another contender, you'd be best to look at Artur Avila (who probably won't win... this time) or Cedric Villani (who probably will). PStevens 06:01, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
A quick Google search for conservative mathematicians found the following interesting blog: [6], written by a conservative professor teaching at a liberal school. In other postings he speaks of gender bias as well as women in mathematics, and I was struck by the following statement: "Mathematics itself is fundamentally apolitical." I would suspect that, while acknowledging the pervasiveness of liberal bias among professors and other university employees, most conservative mathematicians appreciate and respect the still-coveted Fields Medal. DanieleGiusto 14:44, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

Suggestion

Now that we have an article on the Ground Zero Mosque, why not have our news items link to it instead of Ground Zero and Mosque separately? Likewise I think the article could use some input and additions from other Conservapedians. There must be a lot to be said on this topic! AngusT 11:35, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

Corrected. Karajou 11:43, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

Bombing of Hiroshima

I'm a bit confused, as the headline on the main page seems to suggest that the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 18th. Wasn't it August 6th? Am I missing something? --Benp 18:23, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

You're right. I think the "exactly" referred to the number of years, not "exactly today." I made the edit without removing the entire headline, which does seem to have educational value.--Andy Schlafly 19:33, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

Radio waves

I've checked into this very carefully, and none of the following are harmful:

  • the radio waves that your cell phone transmits
  • WiFi used in computers
  • "high tension" power lines that deliver electricity

If you need me to beef up our articles on these non-issues, let me know. But they're just run of the mill health scares. We need an article on Health scares, I guess. --Ed Poor Talk 22:46, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

LOL...Professor Poor, perhaps you should have read the entire article? It goes through the current scientific evidence pretty exactly, thus you could have spared the time of checking it all....it merely is topical and provocative as our news items are supposed to be. The contradicting quote is this:
Susan Clarke, a former research consultant to the Harvard School of Public Health who studies radio-frequency's bioeffects and was invited to speak to the parents in Simcoe County last week, is not as sure as her colleagues that the radiation is harmless. "A child’s brain absorbs this radiation maximally," she told the parents, according to reports. "Children also absorb microwave radiation more readily than adults because they have thinner skulls." Clarke reportedly told the parents she believes that such exposure can cause a slew of neurological and cardiac symptoms, including the ones Palmer described.
I should also note that the article says "Public concerns have even pushed Sweden to recognize the ailment as an official disability."
So I think that the cited news item does a better job than most at giving all sides on this issue, and have returned it. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 01:19, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

CNN news item

Russell Simmons is the founder of Def Jam Records, not a reporter for CNN. He was on Larry King's show when he made his idiotic statements. JoeFerguson 12:36, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Seriously, somebody please fix this. It's all right there in the cited article, all you have to do is actually read it. JoeFerguson 13:55, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
Read the actual article being cited? You mean, in full??? Where exactly do you think you are? Paul 15:27, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
There's no way that anyone could possibly read the cited article and think that Russell Simmons was a reporter for CNN. Either you guys are really sloppy with the news items, or you are actively engaged in deceit. Either way it makes the conservative movement look ridiculous. Admins: please be more careful in the future. JoeFerguson 01:09, 20 August 2010 (EDT)
More careful? The news items are just that: News items. What is there for us to be careful about, Joe? I saw the item way before I saw this discussion, and I have to tell you it didn't confuse me like you are talking about. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 01:50, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

Benefits of reading the Bible

In regards to the Main page's asserting that the Benefits of reading the Bible is "many divided by 0", are you implying that the benefits are undefined? Because, as any good mathematician will tell you, x/0 has no answer (other than "undefined"), and is not "infinity", as I think you are implying. What I think you mean to say is "Benefits of reading the Bible = limit (many/x as x approaches Relativity scientific foreknowledge)".

(I know sarcasm doesn't come across in type, but this was meant to be math-nerdy-funny) Paul 15:26, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Fields Medal recipients

I have a strong feeling I'm going to be given a "does not count due to liberal trick #20", but...

"Half of the recipients of this morning's Fields Medal are communist-trained mathematicians. None of the highest-achieving American or British mathematicians was selected" = "I find fault in mathematics based on the geographical location in which the mathematician was born and lived" Paul 15:32, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

"An atheist trying to stop Christianity"

Should we really be using this image? If I understand correctly, the metaphor is that Christianity is an out of control fire, burning people's homes? And that atheists are firemen trying to douse the flames in order to save lives? :) RBrydon 11:14, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

I think it's a perfectly fitting image, given the type of Christianity we see on Conservapedia: The very logical, fair, honest kind that simply cannot be stopped, of course. JacobPope14 13:40, 20 August 2010 (EDT)
And what is the "logical, fair, honest kind" honest kind of Christianity you refer to? Is it the liberal kind, where sin is "A-OK" with the Lord? Karajou 14:18, 20 August 2010 (EDT)
The fireman in the picture doesn't seem to be trying too hard. :) Maybe he is a union fireman and not a volunteer fireman. :) If the Christian Chuck Norris were a volunteer fireman, he would guzzle down some water and expel it from his body with such force it would immediately put out the fire. That is because Chuck Norris has something Richard Dawkins lacks - machismo! conservative 15:54, 26 August 2010 (EDT)

USS Pueblo - wiki link needed

Just an FYI - I created a page for USS Pueblo, which is still a work in progress, but if desired a wiki link to the page can now be added to the front page news article. :-) DerekE 12:50, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

Thanks. Done!--Andy Schlafly 12:54, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

God bless you all

I have seen so much great work that you have all been doing that I decided to come here and help myself! I don't know if this is the best place to introduce myself, I don't know if there is a place for new users to "say hi" and get up to speed with what needs doing most in this project, but as I have worked in schoolteaching and education, I will probably start in some of the articles I am most familiar with. I also have some other suggestions that have come out of my experience of using the site as an educational resource - real simple practical editorial suggestions, not just abstract academic/philosophical chit-chat! - but I don't know where is the best place to suggest them. I edited at Wikipedia for a little while but soon learned better of it! I don't know what the equivalent of their "village pump" is here. Right, I'm going to go and improve some articles now, but I'd really appreciate it if people can explain to me what this site's main priorities right now are so I can help more effectively and where the best place for editorial suggestions is. God bless you all for your hard work on this project! JReynolds 18:57, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

Welcome! The site's main priority is this: meritocracy. That's not a mobocracy like at Wikipedia. Post the equivalent of a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to learn from your edits.--Andy Schlafly 19:26, 20 August 2010 (EDT)
I'd really appreciate it if someone can check out my new article - the Confessions by Augustine. There might be too many quotations in it but I think his words are really powerful, they're taken from a Public Domain translation so no copyright issues. I think it's best to let his distinctive voice be heard since it's an article about his book, rather than fill it with stuff that his scholars and critics have said and not let readers have a flavor of the great man!
Okay, suggestion-time. Sorry if this sounds a little odd but I think this is a valuable idea. There is a huge amount of liberal pseudoscience in existence, partly because liberals have taken control over so many of the (formerly) great institutions of learning. And some of that is about in Conservapedia. In fact I would argue against removal of it all, since many young conservative students are going to need to take exams in this stuff and we want them to pass! (Ideally, we want them to be able to pass the exams while also being able to identify what is liberal claptrap and what stuff is real.) But I wonder whether it might be worth having a "banner" at the top of pages that are written primarily from the liberal "scientific" point of view, just to flag them up as such, and which links to an appropriate article either documenting the dispute between different positions (e.g. for things that depend on whether you buy into Young Earth/Old Earth creationism) or downright disproving the liberal position (in cases like evolution, relativity, etc). This is not a perfect analogy, but when I was interested in how the wiki model can be adapted for different purposes, I came across the Star Trek fan wiki Memory Alpha, and they have a pretty mature operation that has some interesting features that the big name wikis (Wikipedia, Citizendium, Conservapedia) don't. One of them is the "point of view" banner - while most of their articles are written from a point of view inside the Star Trek universe, some articles like this one are marked as being written from a "real world" point of view. I guess I'm proposing the opposite, and suggesting putting banners on articles that might be subtly pushing a liberal point of view! For instance, there are lots of articles that could be written about dinosaurs (I noticed Tyrannosaurus already) and in the section about its age, there's going to be mention of the dispute between Young Earth and evolutionist viewpoints. Probably it's worth putting both viewpoints in any dinosaur article, but it seems pointless to put in as much detail as there is in the T. rex article (e.g. the part about birds, particularly for dinosaurs that evolutionists think aren't on the evolutionary pathway towards birds), into all the other dinosaur articles that will eventually be written. Imagine doing a schoolproject and having to read dozens of articles on dinosaurs, and the merits of the evolution/young earth debate being repeated in each one... I think it would be better simply to have a standard banner at the top warning that "Other encyclopedias will only show you the atheist evolutionist myths about dinosaurs, click here for why they're wrong". Then the article content can just say "evolutionists claim this species died out x million years ago while Young Earth creationists believe it became extinct at some point since the Great Flood, around 4500 years ago" without fleshing out the merits of the argument at every page.
Similarly for liberal physics claptrap. Sometimes it sneaks into places where it shouldn't be e.g. Classical mechanics actually has a section explaining that classical mechanics stops working near the speed of light because of the theory of relativity!! At the very least, there ought to be some mention that this is hotly disputed and many saner scientists don't believe a word of it. Other articles are written about things that really are just liberal pseudoscience so obviously some explanation of the liberal viewpoint is necessary for the article to make sense, ideally that pseudoscience should then be demolished. This is done effectively at Dark matter, but not so effectively at Black hole (where the theory of relativity and other errors seem to be simply accepted although the fact that liberal writers get unduly excited about the idea gets mentioned) or Wormhole. Then there are articles like Quantitative Introduction to General Relativity which seem to be written entirely from the liberal point of view! But actually that's to be expected - there is a lot of math needed to understand General Relativity and an article about that math is just explaining what the theory says and will naturally appear "in universe"; it takes another article to prove the theory is liberal baloney. I noticed somebody found a decent way of dealing with this at Theory of relativity - just putting a small link to the "Counterexamples" at the top. The Special Relativity and General Relativity articles could also do with something like this as they are also written mostly from the liberal perspective and of course it is pointless to write a whole refutation of relativity at every page that mentions it! But I think the idea of the little link should be extended to something closer to a Memory Alpha-style "point of view" banner warning: something like "Parts of this article are written from the perspective of the Theory of Relativity. Click here to see counterexamples that prove relativity is part of liberal pseudoscience" perhaps? Does this idea sound any good, I think it would save having to write refutations of evolution and relativity at a whole bunch of pages while making it clear e.g. to homeschoolers which parts of scientific knowledge are real and which are just made-up by atheists and heretics. JReynolds 21:24, 20 August 2010 (EDT)
Thanks for your insights. Your entry on Confessions looks superb and I've already learned from it.
As to your suggestion of using banners stating a point of view, I'm not sure that is the best approach, but I welcome further discussion. A more direct explanation of the truth -- like that found in the Bible -- seems more effective.--Andy Schlafly 22:04, 20 August 2010 (EDT)
Thanks! Perhaps not so much stating a point of view, as warning that one might be present, and if it is possibly non-Christian or controversial within Christianity, a link to resources to counter it... personally I thought the little "counterexamples to relativity" link at the top of Theory of Relativity was a nice touch, and perhaps something more standardized than that might work for other things as well. For instance, does it really make sense to rerun the whole creation/evolution dispute on every page about dinosaurs? The same points are going to be made each time. Scenarios where there are going to be potentially lots of articles with the same liberal pseudoscience repeated, and the arguments against the pseudoscience being persuasive but relatively lengthy, seem to me good times to direct the reader to a more thorough debunking article. Another scenario is when the article is of necessity written from the liberal point of view. Quantitative Introduction to General Relativity is like that - currently it's very good for college students who have to pass exams in the topic, but not very good for getting to the truth that Jesus wants them to hear. Rather than taking up space in that complex and technical article to debunk the liberal myths about relativity, I think a fairly prominent link at the top of the article, warning them of the dangers of believing in pseudoscience and explaining that there are reasoned objections to relativity, would be a neater solution. Or maybe just a subtle link at Theory of Relativity... at any rate it makes the encyclopedia look contradictory when Quantitative Introduction to General Relativity spreads the lies that Counterexamples to Relativity disproves, and there should at least be a small notice to readers to take it with a pinch of salt? JReynolds 22:29, 20 August 2010 (EDT)
I have an open mind about your suggestion, but wonder what it would mean in practice. We don't allow name-calling, so I don't think a banner of "pseudoscience" would be appropriate. Entries about theories, such as Quantitative Introduction to General Relativity, seem fine as they are, because mathematical theories can be properly studied without worrying about physical reality.--Andy Schlafly 22:41, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

Sometimes the term "pseudoscience" is appropriate and not name-calling (e.g. phrenology) but I can understand it's more controversial to call out evolution or relativity or black holes for what they really are. Some pages already have the following template:

{{Relativity}}

Should that be toned down so that "liberal pseudoscience" isn't used as the label for black holes and wormholes? I also agree with your point that Quantitive Introduction articles don't need to have rebuttals - as you say, it's possible to examine the math for the theory, without believing it represents physical reality - but I do think readers should be protected by pointing out that the theory is disputed and liberals misuse it (e.g. to support moral relativism).JReynolds 11:27, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

The template applies that term only to very specific and highly dubious claims by liberals. As a general matter we do not censor the work of others as long as it comports with basic and indisputable rules, and the template does not cross the line.--Andy Schlafly 11:40, 21 August 2010 (EDT)
Thanks for your explanation, I am still new in these parts I hope you'll appreciate it takes time to understand rules and standards and expectations. Would it be a breach of the commandments to use a warning banner like this, to make readers aware they are reading an article containing specific and highly dubious claims?

{{Template |1='''This article incorporates material based on the controversial [[Theory of Relativity]] and is best read with an [[open mind|open]] and [[critical thinking|critical]] mind.''' |2=This theory is often [[liberal deceit|misused]] by liberals who [[Scientific Illiteracy and Liberals|do not understand it]], and despite what some textbooks claim, not all scientists accept it is physically real. [[Counterexamples to Relativity|Click here to see why!]] |background=#FFCCFF |color=#330000 |category=Pages Incorporating Relativity }}

I don't think that would be name-calling against scientists or relativity, just acknowledging that it's controversial, that liberals can misuse it (e.g. moral relativism) and readers shouldn't believe it's all true just because there are some big equations or pretty artist's impressions (i.e. made up pictures!). JReynolds 12:44, 21 August 2010 (EDT)
No, I'm not overly impressed by this suggestion. We don't preach here, for starters. Also, banners are favored at Wikipedia and they often distract.
More generally, JReynolds, I've emphasized that we're a meritocracy and so structural changes like the one you suggest will carry more influence after you've contributed more substantively. I look forward to learning from your substantive edits. Thanks and Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 13:00, 21 August 2010 (EDT)
It does look distracting I'll accept; I was trying to make it non-preachy but having an open mind, I must be prepared to accept that my own opinions are biased about that. That's okay, there are plenty of articles in my sights anyway. I noticed that Church fathers is missing an article at the moment... I know that this site is largely written from the perspective of Protestants and Catholics, but I think it's important that Eastern Orthodox views on the Church fathers are represented too, is that appropriate here? JReynolds 13:15, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

Biblical Contradictions

Hello there. I wanted to make a page discussing alleged biblical contradictions, however I know that this is a controversial topic. Essentially, i'm looking for the go-ahead to start writing the article where hopefully atheistic claims of bible contradictions can be put to rest. Any thoughts from anyone? --JasonN 16:52, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

Newsweek's List of Best Countries

Newsweek has published their first-ever "list of best countries." Unsurprisingly, the top spot went to atheist, socialist Finland, while the United States was rated eleventh. One wonders when the senior staff of Newsweek...who seem to overwhelmingly reside in the United States...will be packing their bags and moving to Finland. --Benp 18:37, 22 August 2010 (EDT)

Newsweek is by far the most liberal and pro-atheist weekly mag, which thought Obama is sort of like God, and Gore an eco-prophet, and tried to make the Bible pro homosexual, even as they lose money and staffers. Daniel1212 11:42, 23 August 2010 (EDT)

The CIA World Factbook says Finland has a largely free-market economy and that over 80% of Finns are Lutherans: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fi.html Rafael 18:16, 26 August 2010 (EDT)Rafael (forgive me if I've signed off wrongly!)

Fmr. Lt. General Boykin: Islam’s primary objective is conquest

...he’s an outspoken and unapologetic Christian, who believes America can succeed in the war on terror, but some serious mistakes – not the least of which is a public ignorance of who the enemy is – must be corrected.

These jihadists are committed, suicidal – in many cases – zealots that really believe their calling from Allah is to destroy Western democracy, kill infidels, and establish a caliphate that will ultimately usher in the reign of the Mahdi. You are not going to defeat an organization like that by killing them all. They just continue to reproduce because this is based on a theology, not holding a piece of ground or a particular objective. We’re talking about a war of ideas here, and that idea is not going to go away.

We need to remember that Islam is not a religion, but a totalitarian way of life with a religious component. [7] Daniel1212 11:52, 23 August 2010 (EDT)

I appreciate this information, Daniel, and I'd like to offer a slightly different idea based on my interreligious and ecumenical perspective. I think Islam is a cultural sphere or civilization (see Toynbee) centered on a religion. Like all civilizations and cultures, Islam has its share of extremists. Not all Christians support the bombing of abortion clinics and the extrajudicial killing of doctors who perform abortions. There were also excesses committed during The Crusades.
It is unfortunate that Islamic terrorists have capture media attention, as this diverts us from focusing attention on the many common good aspects that Christians and Muslims cherish in their respective religions.
Islam is split between those who justify and support anti-American & anti-Israeli terrorism, and those who deplore or condemn it. I hope you will join me in clarifying this split. --Ed Poor Talk 12:16, 23 August 2010 (EDT)
Islam isn't a religion? What on earth? We need to remember that Islam is one of the largest religions in the world, with ~1.5 billion followers. Argue whatever you may like about its radical nature, but please accept the fact that it is a religion. Ed is right here; the large majority of Muslims are not fundamentalists, nor do they adhere to a "totalitarian way of life." Please do not automatically assume that Muslims are jihadists. DanieleGiusto 15:45, 23 August 2010 (EDT)
I would argue it is both. As Doctor Charles Krauthammer penned last week:
Radical Islam is not, by any means, a majority of Islam. But with its financiers, clerics, propagandists, trainers, leaders, operatives and sympathizers -- according to a conservative estimate, it commands the allegiance of 7% of Muslims, i.e., more than 80 million souls -- it is a very powerful strain within Islam. It has changed the course of nations and affected the lives of millions. It is the reason every airport in the West is an armed camp and every land is on constant alert.

--ṬK/Admin/Talk 15:56, 23 August 2010 (EDT)

Philadelphia starts taxing blogs

Found this article today: Pay Up -danq 16:29, 23 August 2010 (EDT)

Absolutely disgusting. Evidently there are no limits on liberals hunger for taking other peoples money! I am pretty certain they never once considered that since she isn't selling a product, they have exactly zero authority to tax thoughts and ideas. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:42, 23 August 2010 (EDT)

Problem editing talk pages

Hi. I have been reading some of your excellent satirical articles and wished to comment and add some suggestions. However clicking on the 'talk page' tab takes me to another article (such as 'atheism'). Is there a bug in the software on the server or do I have a problem with my browser? Is anyone else experiencing this? Thanks. FionaN 18:33, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

New species of bacteria eating oil in Gulf

[8]

How can someone NOT see the hand of Divine Providence in this? How can such things be dismissed as "coincidence?" --Benp 11:57, 25 August 2010 (EDT)

Liberals will doubtless give their stock answer, "evolution did it," conveniently ignoring the powerful counterexample to evolution that this new microbe provides. DavidE 13:58, 25 August 2010 (EDT)

I suppose it makes up for what he did to Pakistan MickeyD 15:24, 25 August 2010 (EDT)

Your consistency argument is superficial and does not withstand scrutiny. Flooding is disorder, while the oil-eating bugs are highly ordered. The two examples are not similar, but opposite. Disorder is the absence of order, not similar to it.--Andy Schlafly 16:51, 25 August 2010 (EDT)
The "evolution did it" argument does not hold up here due to the relatively incredibly small timescale of the event. Statements like "I suppose it makes up for what he did to Pakistan" assume and understand of the motives and methods of God, something infinitely beyond our comprehension --LucyB 17:29, 25 August 2010 (EDT)
"I suppose it makes up for what he did to Pakistan".
Interesting that you take the same illogical tact as most liberals and atheists, MickeyD. Instead of looking at it that way, would it take any extra effort on your part to ask what is the more pertinent question, "What has man (or the Pakistanis) not done to prevent such wide-spread devastation"? Imagine what the damage would have been like if instead of wasting billions of dollars on nuclear weapons and maintaining them, and giving millions to the Taliban and terrorists, they had invested in their own people, invested in flood control projects!
God gave man free will. Put the blame where it belongs. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:34, 25 August 2010 (EDT)
I want to thank Lucy for her insight above: arguments that presume the motive or methods of an infinitely greater intellect (God) -- rather than simply observing the designer's results -- are logically suspect. I don't know how Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa, but I can marvel at its intelligent design.--Andy Schlafly 17:45, 25 August 2010 (EDT)
Are there any studies I can look up, or research maybe to show coralations between the factors in accidents like this to see what God is looking for? For a example, why here but not the Exon Valdez spill from Alaska? Maybe its cause the catastrophe was worse here? But I was watching news when the spill was still flowing and they said that there was another spill in the gulf back in the 70s. But Ive never heard if there were microbes there too. And if God could make microbes out of nothing to eat the oil, why not just stop physics and make the oil stop coming out the leak in the pipe? But anyway I was just wondering if there are studies like that for people likeme who want to know what they to be looking for? - Justin Connors-Driftmier
It's entirely possible that the microbes were there in the other spills, and were simply not discovered. Why would God simply make the microbes out of nothing? He has provided us with a wonderful, highly-complex world and finely-tuned natural laws, and I think He works His will within those laws, most of the time. That may be why so many are dismissive of miracles today; we can see the mechanisms whereby some of those miracles are enacted, and thus, skeptics claim that no miracle took place. I seem to recall that, at one point, someone "proved" that Christ's healings were not miraculous, because the well He used had a very high natural penicillin content. My question, of course: "You don't think that someone using antibiotics two thousand years before their discovery is miraculous?" --Benp 20:10, 25 August 2010 (EDT)
I never thought about it like that before and you make good points. But why wouldn't he make the microbes in the water (from the other spills) appear to us so that we could see them and know that he made them? And i just read about the spill i heard of, its called ixtoc from 1979. I believe in miracles fromGod but if Jesus Christ used water with medicine in it, then he must have either known about it before or used it on acident. but the only way he couldknow is if God told him, which would be like if my math teacher told me the answer to a question and then still gave me points on the test for it. If he did it on acident then there was nothing delibrate going on. I am trying to understand this and I know you need faith to get it but its very confusing. Because you said yourself he used antibiotics 2000 years before they were discovered, so speaking technically he himself would have to wait 2000 years to know what they are. So if Jesus didnt know then its just an acident right? but if he did know then why didnt he tell everyone there about the medicine? I'm sorry if I missed the point but like I said this can get frustrating - Justin Connors Driftmier
My little brother wrote the post above and he asked me if I could rephrase some of his questions because he is a little unsure about his spelling and grammar. So forgive me if it against policy to use another person's account. I have only used Wikipedia before so I do not know the rules here. But to the point: If the water (which seems to have taken on the role of a metaphor for the oil spill microbes, miracles in general, and so on) contained penicillin, which you seem to have no problem granting as the premise for this conversation, and the issue has become whether using penicillin before the advent of modern medicine constitutes a miracle, then doesn't it stand to reason that the water would have had healing properties when used by anyone? I admit that I have some doubts therein but I do consider myself a Christian and that to break it down logically isn't an attempt on my part to be heretical, only to use the brain God gave me to it's fullest capacity for analysis. My brother's question is pertinent to the issue, and he is trying very hard to grasp the concepts laid out here, so please try to help him out. I will let him continue the rest of the thread, but this does seem to be a very cool site for trading views and philosophies so, who knows, maybe you'll see me on here pretty soon. - Aaron Connors-Driftmier

Justin, it may just be that we didn't have the technology or knowledge to look for said microbes in the previous oil spills. It's very difficult to make humanity aware of something that he cannot detect without the aid of technology. It seems that most of our miraculous (for lack of a better term) discoveries have just been stumbled upon by sheer dumb luck—much like penicillin. After all, man does have free will to explore what we so choose and looking for microbes while trying to deal with a catastrophic oil spill may have been the least of our concerns, though I obviously can't speak from first-hand experience.

Aaron, though I am no Christian, I think I can reconcile that that particular incident was truly a miracle by most standards. Though Jesus couldn't explain how it worked to the common man—after all, we had absolutely no idea of the germ theory, atomic theory, or anything microscopic—perhaps an all-knowing, all-powerful god knew that if the man in question was afflicted by a certain bacterial illness, the water with a high concentration of penicillin would cure him. And if this cited miracle truly happened, who's to say that this was the only occurrence? If Jesus knew that water out of that particular well would cure a particular ailment, that implies divine knowledge. -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 21:36, 25 August 2010 (EDT)


Indeed. Aaron and Justin, you need to remember that Jesus had a slight advantage over the student taking the math test: he was God, and therefore knows everything. It took MAN another two thousand years to discover antibiotics, but not only did Christ know about antibiotics--He was the one who came up with them in the first place and PUT them in the well! Of course, you could say that He didn't know about antibiotics, claimed that He was going to heal someone with no idea of how He was going to do it, picked a completely random well with no way of knowing that it was anything other than water, and it just HAPPENED to contain a substance that allowed him to make good His promise...but how logical does that seem?
As for the water having healing properties when used by anyone, that's a good point--but keep in mind that it would only have healing properties for certain illnesses caused by bacterial infections. That makes it extremely unlikely that anyone would conclude the water had healing properties by trial and error; some people who were sick would drink from it and get well, whereas others would drink from it and still die. To the eye of someone with no knowledge of bacteria, it would look like the water from the well had no effect at all. Ah, but someone who KNEW how to diagnose bacterial infections and KNEW the water contained antibiotics could use it to effect healing. The question then becomes: who, two thousand years ago, would have that knowledge other than God? --Benp 21:50, 25 August 2010 (EDT)
Now: getting back to the current happenings, keep in mind that the Ixtoc spill was decades ago, and genetic science was considerably less advanced; it's entirely possible that the wherewithal to discover this bacterium simply didn't exist. Ditto for the Valdez spill. On the other hand, it's also possible that this spill, being so much larger and more severe, required a more drastic intervention on the part of God. Who knows? All I can say is that, when everyone is worried about the difficulty of cleaning up such a massive spill and then suddenly a new organism appears that's eating the oil, I have a very hard time believing that's purely coincidental. --Benp 22:16, 25 August 2010 (EDT)
But everyone is also worried about the economic crisis, which, all in all, required a lot more human involvement/un-involvement, and that seems to have been left in our quite incapable hands. It seems to me that if your view is that God has, or possibly has, intervened in ecological crises, than what would his message be there? God would never..."meaninglessly" clean up our messes. It also seems to me that most of the miracles addressed herein inevitably cause God to work His wonders through biological means, microbes, wind, etc. This is especially true if you look at the hurricanes which descended on New Orleans, or the floods that are ravaging Pakistan. Why is it that He chooses these means, when it would, strictly speaking, require the same amount of effort or thought on His part to make the oil simply vanish, or to make the laws of fluid dynamics and physics STOP at the leak. This would prove to a lot more people that He exists, that miracles CAN happen, as I believe they have. Because that would once and for all end the issue, and it seems the more time humans spend trying to figure out all the equations of God's work, the closer we get to questioning him at all. I have seen this pattern before, and it is a dangerous one you would be mindful to steer clear of. -Aaron Connors-Driftmier
He could in an instant make all that oil vanish, but does He have to do it that way? No, He doesn't. He's not a "genie in a bottle" that we could make a specific wish for Him to do. Karajou 19:41, 26 August 2010 (EDT)
Very true, Karajou. Aaron, consider this: if God ever ONCE caused an environmental disaster of this sort to just magically and totally vanish, what would be the reaction of humans? Would they try to be more responsible in the future, to prevent disasters? Would they work hard to fight such a disaster when it occurred? Or would they simply say, "Well, we don't have to worry about it, because God can always clean it up?" We see only a small piece of the puzzle; God sees the whole thing. --Benp 20:04, 26 August 2010 (EDT)
Karajou, of course God is not a genie in a bottle. And, no, he doesn't have to do it that way. But He never had a problem creating trillions of gallons of water to punish mankind in the deluge. It seems odd that He wouldn't, in kind, make a measly hundred million gallons of petroleum disappear as He could see the stress it was causing to our country, and the collective stress many of the hard-working fisherman of the region were suffering. If so much can be done to cause misery to the wicked and punish sin, and only delayed, time-consuming processes can be used to relieve suffering in what is a Christian nation, well, then, my initial confusions still linger. I have seen billions of dollars of damage caused by God's wrath, but I have never seen the wind reassemble the home of a righteous man. -Aaron Connors-Driftmier
Also, as a side note, many people, in fact, DO see fit to make wishes for God to fulfill. The only difference would be that a Genie is bound, by whatever forces control genies, to fulfill the wish to the best of his ability. I disagree with this practice, of course, because prayer should be a personal time to worship and honor what God has given you, rather than to give God a "to-do" list. But this, admittedly, is a lot of what you see in "Megachurches", wherein people ask God to 'personally' step into their lives (a place he has been the whole time!) and "fix"/"heal"/"cure" them, or, most direspectfully, to grant them something as trivial as material possessions or career advancement. It is woefully common and flagrantly un-Christian. -Aaron Connors-Driftmier

Aaron, you're still seeing God as someone who should be sending a message that He exists on a daily basis. The world has the Bible; if people don't want to listen to what the Bible has to say, then they won't listen to anything else; and God certainly doesn't have to do anything else. The "rich man" that Jesus tells about in this parable may have heard about the Bible; may have read it in his synagogue; may have invited his rabbi to dinner. And he may have had a flippant attitude towards it all:

There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. (Luke 16:19-31; King James Version)

It's clear from this parable that the rich man only cared about God's Word after it was too late. There's too many people in the world who have the same kind of attitude; they will end up in the same place as that rich man, and they will have no one to blame but themselves. Karajou 23:04, 26 August 2010 (EDT)

Karajou, thank you for the quotes from scripture. I am sure that everyone here can take something away from them and see a new facet on faith. When you refer to a person in Christ's parable reading "the Bible", I believe that you are referring to only the Old Testament, yes? I don't want anyone to get confused here, so any clarification there would be quite helpful, as, obviously, the bible is comprised of both the Old and New Testaments and thus the man in the tale could technically not have been reading "The Bible", as we know it today. But I digress. I do NOT believe God should make himself what we would perceive as "visible" or "known" to us on a daily level. The fact that we even exist or can rationalize his existence at all is evidence in itself, yes? I am not so childish as to say outright "Where was God's 'magic' when _______ happened?". Clearly that is not my main dig on the whole subject. It would be moreso correct to say that I am trying to gather/understand opinions on "why" these things happen. People seem more than happy to say that "sin leads to punishment", "worship leads to salvation". That's fine and dandy by me. A little too fortune cookie-esque of an encapsulation, granted, but fine nonetheless. But to take the nuances and anomalies of the universe he has created, and to claim that any single one of them is a miracle is beyond me. That is what seems wholly selfish about it to me. Because any time a plane crashes and there are survivors, or any time that a lost child is found, we must take these all as miracles. The affect it has on us humans may seem the greatest factor in how we understand it (if we can truly understand it at all, that is), but perhaps it should be the sum of trillions upon trillions of tiny little moments that are the "case" for his existence, rather than say, "Americanizing" his love. I know this sounds political; it is not. I know it sounds snide or liberal; it is not. And I know it sounds like logicl; well, I confess. --Aaron Connors-Driftmier

Korean Airlines Flight 007 shootdown 27th aniversary

Can someone post this or similar on news of Main page - Aug. 31/Sept. 1, 1983 On 6:26 am, Korean Airlines Flight 007 carrying 269 occupants, including 22 children under the age of 12 and Democratic Congressman from Georgia, Larry McDonald, was downed by a Soviet Sukhoi 15TM interceptor in between the Soviet territories of Sakhalin and Moneron Island.BertSchlossberg 22:34, 25 August 2010 (EDT)

Will do, Bert. It marks a tragic anniversary, a shameful act. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 23:59, 26 August 2010 (EDT)

Thank you!BertSchlossberg 01:17, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

Jim Cramer rips Democrats, Obama

This would make for a great front page article, written by Jim Cramer (who is liberal but forced to appreciate conservative values due to his line of work): Cramer: Bad Data Has Silver Lining

Cramer goes off on the Democrats, so much so that InstaPundit blogged jokingly wrote, "Will Jim Cramer's body be found in an alley?"

__ :-) DerekE 00:21, 26 August 2010 (EDT)

Cramer is a liberal who voted for Obama, but when Obama's goon squad turned on Cramer after Rick Santelli inspired the Tea Party movement (because Santelli himself was unimpeachable), Cramer became more of a moderate so to speak. Soho 19:44, 26 August 2010 (EDT)

Obama Praises Muslim Mosque, Sings "Take it Back"

Audio Parody: Obama Sings "Take it Back"
Source: Rush Limbaugh

Even if Obama can't see the problem with it, sometimes, ethics and merit do matter. DerekE 00:36, 30 August 2010 (EDT)

Brampton Pastor

According to the Brampton Guardian, it was the decision of his chosen medical proxy to withhold food and water. ColinS 16:29, 27 August 2010 (EDT)

He didn't choose the "proxy" is the point, the government did --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:47, 27 August 2010 (EDT)

left and right side of main page

The graphs on the left side of the main page gave me an idea. Why not have the right side of the main page be news events and then the left side of the main page concern itself with trends and things that are long lasting/eternal. You could throw in some art as well. Here is a good source of trends: http://www.trendsresearch.com/journal.html Here is another example of trends: http://www.entrepreneur.com/trends/index.html conservative 22:24, 27 August 2010 (EDT)

imbed videos on left side of main page

I also think you should imbed videos on the left side of main page. Videos are very popular. Here is an example of a wiki inbedding a video from Google video: http://www.creationwiki.org/Creation#Video The videos could be on news items, interesting topics, or the Christian faith. conservative 22:57, 27 August 2010 (EDT)

TerryH is going to need to help us out showing how to imbedd a video on left side of the main page, but perhaps other admins know as well. I believe Google video, YouTube, Tangle, and perhaps other types of videos be imbedded on a wiki. I think we will see front page view counts go up if we have engaging/educational/newsworthy videos. Here are some of my favorite YouTube channels that I think that would appeal to our audience: http://www.youtube.com/user/GeraldCelenteChannel and http://www.youtube.com/user/HumanEvents and http://www.youtube.com/user/HeritageFoundation and http://www.youtube.com/user/ConservativeNewMedia and http://www.youtube.com/user/visionvictory and http://www.youtube.com/user/misesmedia and http://www.youtube.com/user/ppsimmons (I like his anti-evolution videos) and http://www.youtube.com/user/creationclips conservative 00:43, 28 August 2010 (EDT)

700 to 1,700 extra visitors a day may be possible to the main page if you improve the left front page plus word of mouth advertising

One last thing, if you improve the left side of the main page, I think it is reasonable to assume that main page traffic would increase by 10 - 25% percent which would mean that main page traffic increases by about 700 - 1,700 visitors a day based on the current front page view counts plus any word of mouth advertising. If you had more main page viewers this would drive traffic to the popular articles at Conservapedia section. You might want to scrunch down the popular articles at Conservapedia section and eliminate some of the articles so the key articles stand out plus it would allow for more content which attracts more visitors. conservative 01:49, 28 August 2010 (EDT)

Atheist doctors shorten life

Atheist contempt for human life is confirmed by a report that 'care' by atheist and agnostic doctors can shorten life. Conservapedians will have known this for a long time, but even the leftist British press is starting to cotton on! http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/aug/26/doctors-religious-beliefs-terminally-ill

TrevS 10:25, 28 August 2010 (EDT)

Dr. Josef Mengele was strongly influenced by atheistic evolutionism and he certainly was an ethically deficient doctor.[9] conservative 13:37, 28 August 2010 (EDT)
I will incorporate your material in the main Conservapedia atheism article. In the meantime.....
Atheist doctors are more likely to hasten death.[1] Hello, I am your atheist doctor. Take two cyanide pills and call me in the morning.

Please see: Atheist doctor

Flickr photo, see: see license agreement)
conservative 18:46, 30 August 2010 (EDT)

high end housing prices and main page

I don't think that high end housing is going to escape being whacked by steep price declines. I tend to agree with Gerald Celente who thinks there is going to be a world wide depression. Also, here is some data from NYC concerning high end housing prices: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704868604575433690548860052.html Next, see what was reported in early 2009 concerning the high end housing market: http://www.cnbc.com/id/28977233/High_End_Housing_Market_Ravaged_by_Stock_Selloff In addition, look what happened to Fred Bell during the Great Depression (Fred Bell was a wealthy businessman forced to sell apples on street corners during the Great Depression): http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAwallstreet.htm I will grant you that someone with money now can weather the likely storm easier plus many wealthy people own their homes or at least own a significant portion of their homes.[10] conservative 14:17, 28 August 2010 (EDT)

I agree. However, if diversified sufficiently, those with great wealth always survive even depressions relatively unscathed. I think the point of the story was illustrative of Obama's liberal disconnect from the realities most American's face on a daily basis. Being part of the liberal elite, Obama would have the same disconnection if he were not President. In fact one could make the argument being President should render him less disconnected, if only because of the increased information flow that comes with the job. Sadly, in Obama's case, this doesn't seem to be the case..... --ṬK/Admin/Talk 15:05, 28 August 2010 (EDT)
In the last downturn, diversification didn't work too well: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/how-well-does-diversification-work/ I basically agree with Gerald Celente to have a lot of money in gold for the current crises, but I am thinking that silver might be better.[11] Peter Schiff thinks preciouos metal and Asia investing is good, but I tend to agree with Celente that the US experiencing a big downturn will probably pull all the countries down. I also think Jim Rogers is correct that various commodities are a good investment in the current crises, but commodity trading often requires you to know a lot about the commodity class you are investing in plus knowledge about commodity trading. [12]
Don't forget holding cash is important as well, in the short term, while precious metals can help long-term in case of a currency devaluation! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 23:22, 28 August 2010 (EDT)
With Ben Bernanke turning up the US printing presses, I wouldn't have too much money in the US dollar, but at the same time, it is hard to go to Kroger's grocery store and pay for groceries in gold bullion. :) Some people are advising to stock up on food stuffs. Lastly, gold and silver stocks might be better than physical gold or silver because Obama might pull a "Roosevelt" and confiscate physical gold and silver.[13][14][15] conservative...

Hitler as the main image of the main page

Anyone who enters conservapedia through the main page the first thing he will see is an picture of Hitler. Personally I don't feel this will give the best first impression. --Quetzalcoatl 21:59, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

Quetzalcoatl, did you attend public school and did your history teacher point out the socialistic aspects of Hitler's political philosophy? conservative 01:10, 30 August 2010 (EDT)

There were indeed socialistic aspects of Hitler's political philosophy. However, we are using the Webster's definition of socialism as "an economic system with state ownership or control of the all the major means of production and distribution of goods and services". The Nazis went the other way, privatizing many functions of the state and working closely with companies like AG Farber, BASF and Krupps. An interesting article on Nazi privatization policy can be found here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0289.2009.00473.x/full

Perhaps we should come up with our own definition. Any ideas? Rafael 12:36, 30 August 2010 (EDT)

What is your response to these articles: http://mises.org/daily/1937 and http://www.hourofthetime.com/socialist.htm I think we are quite safe calling Hitler's regime socialistic. Granted, it was not 100% socialism. conservative 17:55, 30 August 2010 (EDT)

Agreed.

Thanks for those links. Some argue that Hitler's iron grip on German production during the war was no different from Churchill's, but the first article shows a tendency to control way before 1939. It definitely bears further research. I'm not so sold on the second one. Rafael 19:22, 30 August 2010 (EDT)

While it might be true that some people, upon seeing an image of Hitler, would immediately leap to the conclusion that this site somehow endorses or supports him, having such people avoid the site is not necessarily a bad thing. Such snap judgments, based on the most superficial inspection, are commonplace among the most closed-minded liberals; conservatives, and those who are more open-minded, are more likely to actually read the site rather than basing judgment on a single picture. --Benp 20:09, 30 August 2010 (EDT)

Exactly, Ben. The ignorant progressives deliberately, most of the time, jump to those conclusions. But the truth is, like the Main Page story about Glenn Beck proves, it is a political device of liberals to instill such fear. And if they have no proof to back up their assertions they fabricate it, or buy it from others who do, all to trample the free speech rights of conservatives. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 20:59, 30 August 2010 (EDT)

Well organized and uncluttered mini Drudge Report section on main page

Based on Andy Schlafly's input and Sysop input, I created a "mini Drudge Report" on the main page. Please feel free to improve these resources through more clickable clinks, better formatting, better organization, and expanding the resources.

conservative 16:20, 31 August 2010 (EDT)

Personal tools