Talk:World History Lecture Fourteen

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

It is not 'English Protestants' who rule Northern Ireland, but Northern Irish Protestants who identify themselves as British - and they rule, now, in coalition with Irish nationalists. Some of the articles here on Ireland and Northern Ireland will give you more insight into the question. And your reluctance to use the term terrorism in relation to Northern Ireland is questionable. Pachyderm 08:43, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Pachyderm's comments are all correct. In addition the mortar attack on 10 Downing Street happened on 7 February 1991 - several months after Mrs Thatcher left office[1] . John Major (and the rest of the cabinet) were the targets. I think you may be confusing this attack with another one seven years prior to this where the IRA left a bomb in a Brighton hotel where Mrs Thatcher was staying during the Conservative Party conference.[2] Ferret 08:06, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

There is no bit of Ireland that is more Northerly than the most Northern parts of England, thus Ireland is not 'slightly to the North-West of England'. The IRA attack on 10 Downing Street was made from an abandoned van not with 'hand-held weapons'. MrSmith 16:20, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

It is purposeless getting into an edit war, but the section on Northern Ireland stinks. It presents a completely one-sided and inaccurate view of the situation to the extent of serving as a justification for terrorism. Pachyderm 09:26, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Having lived in Northern ireland and hailing from a Catholic background, the section is pretty much what I was taught at school. This sort of inherent bias is bad to teach children - tell them the two sides of the story. Tell them about Gordon Wilson, the Methodist who lost his daughter tragically in an IRA bomb and who immediately forgave those who caused; pleaded for reconciliation and toured the world in a pledge for peace. Both sides faced their tragedies, its only right that both sides get a fair shout. Graham 07:13, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

PS- 'But on 1919, the Irish Republic was declared through the efforts of its leader' THe Irish Republic was only declared, it did not become official until 1948. Up until then there was the Irish Free State (1921-1937) and Eire (1937-1948), which represented two constitutional changes on the road to independence. Graham 07:19, 25 September 2007 (EDT)


One word sums up most historians’ view of the world today: “globalism”. That was not even a word 20 years ago. Incorrect: the Oxford Englisgh Dictionary has 'globalism' listed in Webster in 1961 and being used in The Economist in 1965. DukeAra 06:36, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Joan of Arc

Joan of Arc was illiterate - do you really want to claim her as a poster girl for homeschooling? And please could we have citations for the home-schooled status of John the Baptist and Jesus? DukeAra 07:17, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Le Pen

I'd agree with Le Pen being racist, given that he's denied the Holocaust. DanH 07:46, 29 February 2008 (EST)


Just a simple one i noticed immediately, 'Kwanada' should of course be 'Rwanda' RobertWDP 08:43, 25 February 2009 (EST)


Teflon is often attributed to NASA or the apollo program, but that is infact not true. Teflon was discovered privately (and accidently) at a DuPoint lab in 1938 by a guy called Dr. Roy J. Plunkett. There were Teflon products on the market by 1946, before nasa was even founded. Although teflon was used in the apollo project, it wasn't even have the first major scientific use for it, the Manhattan Project made major use of teflon in the uranium enrichment process. [3] --SCarter 14:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Interesting point. Too bad your link to support this claim is broken.--Andy Schlafly 17:35, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

Reversion explained

Too much editorializing and obscure details required reversion. A good lecture is straightforward and factual, hitting the key points. Editorialize or debate the obscure on the talk page, please.--Andy Schlafly 17:35, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

I'll try to address my edits point by point so we can see if we can retain some of them.
- About the members of the European Union, I'd agree that mentioning the micronations is unnecessary, we can leave that out. I think we should mention Iceland though. Even though the population is rather small, it is (or used to be) a very rich country, nr. 1 on last years Human Development Ranking. It is also very important strategically, think of the Keflavik NATO airbase. They are discussing joining the European Union since the economic crisis, so it is a very relevant country.
- About the members of the Euro, Sweden does not use the euro, if you mention the UK and Denmark Sweden should also be mentioned.
- About CAFTA, the way it is phrased now gives the impression CAFTA was an organization that already existed when the US joined it. It's better to make that clear. (Though I'd agree with not mentioning all member countries.) The sentence above it 'These agreements Latin American countries develop economic independence from foreign powers' is grammatically incorrect, it should include a verb.
- About free trade, I think it is important to mention that different people have different reasons to oppose it. Both conservatives and Hugo Chávez disagree with free trade agreements, since Hugo Chávez obviously is not a conservative it is important to mention his reasons for opposing it.
- About oil, in the sentence 'Today petroleum constitutes 40% of Americans’ overall energy consumption in the United States' the words 'in the United States' are redundant, it already says "Americans' overall energy consumption".
- About Le Pen, well, this is probably the most controversial subject, but I don't think it's a good idea to leave out his antisemitism and Vichy ties. He called the Holocaust "a footnote in history", you can't leave that out. I think it's mistaken to consider Le Pen a conservative. He has a few conservative opinions (mostly on immigration and family values), but one or two conservative opinions do not make one a conservative. Not only would a real conservative never trivialize the Holocaust, but he is also a big supporter of welfare programs. Also the 2002 election was actually his best election result, it was the only time he managed to qualify for the second round. In any case, I can imagine it goes to far mentioning the entire debate about Le Pen in this lecture. Perhaps it would be a good idea to leave him out all together and instead mention anti immigration politicians who are not antisemites from other European countries? The UK and the Netherlands would be good options, and I think Denmark also has some.
Regards, JosephJackson 18:12, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
There's not enough of "textbook significance" for a World History Lecture to include your changes. The grammar was fixed. Beyond that, your suggestions are too tangential. You might add the point about Sweden and the Euro if other countries are also listed. A good teacher does not distract students; he provides the essence in concise form. By the way, I don't know why you imply that anyone thinks Le Pen was "a conservative."--Andy Schlafly 18:23, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
But other countries, in casu the UK and Denmark, are listed. If you don't want to list Sweden you should remove those two as well. And though you are right that nobody ever said Le Pen is a conservative, but he clearly is casted in a positive light. The only thing about his political opinions that is mentioned is his his opposition to immigration, which is of course a good thing, but the things that are objectionable about him far outweigh that. Suppose an American politician would say "The Holocaust was not that bad and there is too much immigration of Mexicans". Would you describe him foremost as a holocaust denier or as an anti-immigration activist? JosephJackson 18:30, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
I said you could add the point about Sweden and the Euro. As to Le Pen, his big issue was immigration. If you have evidence that people voted against him for other reasons, then let's see it. Exit polls are easy to find.--Andy Schlafly 19:30, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
I'm sorry, I misread the remark about Sweden, I'll add it. About Le Pen, does it really matter for which reason people voted or did not vote for him? After all, the majority is not always right. The point is that he is a Holocaust denier and that should not be glossed over. JosephJackson 19:36, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
In teaching why someone lost an election, yes it does "really matter for which reason people voted or did not vote for him." It really does.--Andy Schlafly 19:56, 7 May 2009 (EDT)