Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Mystery:Did George Orwell Become a Conservative?

2008-11-17T00:08:32Z

Alexjohnc3:

Wasn't Orwell, in general, just against totalitarianism, whether from the left or the right? And, especially, he showed how it could come about from either "side"? [[User:Human|Human]] 03:37, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:*The viewpoint of leftists is that totalitarianism can come about from either side, but they give no examples (except maybe Hitler, whose attempt failed). Leftists will do anything to justify socialism and communism, but taking away people's freedom will not bring about peace, lasting prosperity or any kind of ideal world. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:58, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

::Suharto. - [[User:EAB|EAB]] 19:08, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::[[Suharto]]'s [[Indonesia]] is another good example of an [[Authoritarian]] regime which permitted [[emigration]] and [[religious freedom]]. If you want to start a debate about what form of government is best, that's what the [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics]] are for. You won't fool any conservatives here with that one. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:45, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Are you serious? Suharto killed close to 20,000 people in East Timor alone, not counting all those who died of starvation and disease (around 84,000) due to his invasion.

: No such things as conservative totalitarianism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:56, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
::Ever heard of Francisco Franco, Andy? He was the definition of conservative. religious, in favor of the old style of government. Strongly backed by the Church. sure i know you all like to pretend fascists aren't right wing, but compared to the nazis or mussolini, Franco had no socialist background nor beliefs. and he killed tens of thousands of people after he'd consolidated power, not to mention trhose exterminated behind fascist lines during the civil war. ever heard of Frederico Lorca? how about Guernica?

::Surely Augusto Pinochet of Chile leaned to the conservative side of things? In fact, the Independent Democrat Union, a party founded under his direct influence, is the largest conservative party in Chile today. - [[User:EAB|EAB]] 17:01, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Thatcher is a big fan of Pinochet. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/304516.stm] --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 17:08, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::EAB, are you saying that Pinochet, who established democracy and voluntarily stepped down, was a "totalitarian"???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

::::He did have one heck of a "disappearing" act... - [[User:EAB|EAB]] 18:30, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly, did you just praise Pinochet? Democracy didn't come to Chile until the 80's, Pinochet was in power from the 70's. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 18:34, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Pinochet is the poster boy (or whipping boy) for Western leftists. Supposedly he is the great example of being "right wing" and "anti-democratic". Others say that his anti-socialist coup (of 1973) ultimately preserved democracy.

He's only hated because he prevented Communism from taking over. They only criticize the "disappearances" he allegedly perpetrated, but not the murders carried out by Che Guevara or Fidel Castro, so it's actually an outstanding example of the leftist [[double standard]].

Leftists pretend praise democracy, but they really want to take away other people's power. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:55, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

: Right, Ed. I'd add that [[leftists]] have hated Pinochet for decades because he defeated them. It's analogous to how the [[leftists]] hate other people who beat them, such as [[Nixon]] (who exposed [[Alger Hiss]]) and [[Joe McCarthy]]. [[Leftists]] do hold grudges, big time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
:: The two of you would do well to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet%27s_arrest_and_trial [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 19:18, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

So, I'm a communist 'cause I think Pinochet was a brute. I guess my ancestors ''escaping'' from Russia was just to ''bring'' communism to the US. I dislike Pinochet because of the:
*Leftists who would "disappear" and never be heard from again.
*Torture
*Arbitrary detention etc.
These anger me as a ''human'' not as a leftist. And since we're using cheap shots. Back in the 30's, people on the right admired Mussolini and Hitler for their "efficient" systems of government. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:32, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:So far, the only time I've heard you express anger over human rights abuses is with respect to a few cases in a government which (1) had US support and (2) transitioned peacefully to [[democracy]]. I wonder how you feel about [[Communist]] countries which have done 100's and 1,000s of times more . . . --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:52, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
:: 1) and 2) don't make the human rights abuses go away. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:54, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:Your silence about Communism's proven millions of murders is louder than your profession of outrage over Pinochet's alleged thousands. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:47, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Uh, I think the point is that totalitarianism and dictatorship come from either side of the spectrum. Nobody's denying the communist atrocities.

As for Orwell expressing Conservative as well as anti-authoritarian views in 1984 and Animal Farm, I don't think so. So in 1984 Wintson's having sex with prostitutes, having a love affair in strict contradiction of the state's suppression of extra-marital affairs for purposes other than reproduction, talking about how victory can only come with a proletarian revolution and so on. In animal farm the farmers represent conservatism and capitalism in Romanov's Russia and the West - and the (Communists) evil is measured by their similarities with the farmers. I mean, the ending of the book is that the west is just as bad as the east. I don't think he expresses particularly anti-conservative views in the texts, but he certainly doesn't express pro-conservative views. Some of the arguments that are presented for why his views are particularly conservative are also quite incorrect. Wanting a wealthier society isn't strictly conservative, Marx for example advocated Communism because he thought it would produce a wealthier society. Patriotism is also hardly something Conservatism has a monopoly on, again if you want to go to the extreme other end of the section you'll find Stalin talking about the Great Patriotic War, Mother Russia, etc. It's worth adding that where he expresses his most patriotic views is probably in The Lion and the Unicorn, in which he outlines quite clearly that in order to be a patriot (at this point in time meaning wanting to defeat Hitler) one had to be a socialist, a new kind of patriot. That is earlier on in his career (1941) but it's still noteworthy when considering what he means by being a patriot.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 23:15, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

'''Response to Ed Poor's comments in order''': I express my anger over ''these'' violations because some editors ''seem'' to be ''defending''(!) Pinochet. '''US Support''': So what? It wasn't the first time the CIA meddled in another country causing chaos. Salvador Allende was a '''democratically elected''' leader, but since he was guilty of the indefensible crime of being a Socialist, the Nixon administration supported a military coup. (If I remember right, Colin Powell once referred to this act as a bad moment in our history). '''Transitioned to Democracy''': Almost two decades later.... '''Communists''': Much of my ancestry fled from Russia to come to the United States, so rest assured, I most certainly am angry about the human rights violations that happened (and are still happening...) there. Why than haven't I mentioned it? Because nobody here has defended Stalin... [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 08:54, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

It's obvious [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] and [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] aren't replying because their dishonesty (or perhaps inanity?) has been shown.
"Your silence about Communism's proven millions of murders is louder than your profession of outrage over Pinochet's alleged thousands."
Uh, well maybe he was silent "about Communism's proven millions of murders" because that was ''irrelevant''. He should be asking you why you're silent on Pinochet's atrocities. You two are the ones with the double standards. [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 19:08, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia:Editing etiquette

2008-09-28T16:45:24Z

Alexjohnc3: Compromise

Wiki editors have found that good '''editing etiquette''' can reduce the arguments that frequently occur between editors with opposing viewpoints.

== Edit or discuss first? ==

An editor will often chastise another editor for not discussing an alteration to an article before altering the article, yet will often edit an article themselves without discussing it first. Does this make them hypocrites? Sometimes, yes, but often it's because the circumstances are different.

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Edit an article without discussing your changes first, if you have a reasonable expectation that other editors will accept your change.'''

But how would you know what other editors will accept? Here's some ideas:
* You are removing vandalism.
* You are correcting spelling or grammar (but don't change American spelling to British spelling, etc. except where appropriate. As a general rule, that would be if the article is about something related to that country).
* If you are inserting an undisputed fact. For example, ''[[Australia]] is in the southern hemisphere''.
* If you properly reference your "facts". Another editor is less likely to remove your edit if you have references to show that your facts are correct.
* If you put your "facts" in neutral terms. For example, ''[[Evolutionist]] geologists and [[atheists]] believe that the world is 4.5 billion years old'' is better than ''The world is 4.5 billion years old.''
* You explain your edits. This can be done in an edit comment (Summary edit field) or on the article's talk page. In the latter case, putting "See talk" in the edit comment will alert other editors to the fact that you have discussed your edit on the talk page.
Notwithstanding the above, a case can also be made sometimes that it is better to see a proposed edit in the context of the article rather than in isolation on the talk page.

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Favour improving another person's edits over deleting them.'''

This follows naturally from the previous rule. If another editor thinks that his change should be in there, then clearly you cannot have a reasonable expectation that the first editor, at least, will accept you deleting his edit. So improving his edit (perhaps from ''The world is 4.5 billion years old'' to ''Secular geologists believe that the world is 5.6 billion years old'') is better than simply deleting.

If you think that the edit really should come out, explain why in the edit comment or on the talk page. If your reasons are good enough, chances are the first editor will see your point and accept his change being removed.

If you question other editor's facts, then instead of just deleting them, put a {{tl|fact}} tag after the claimed fact, to give him an opportunity to support his edit. If the original editor fails to support his fact in a reasonable time (e.g. a week), then you have better justification for removing his "fact".

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Avoid edit wars.'''

An '''edit war''' is when two editors keep undoing the other editor's changes. Such a situation is totally unproductive and serves only to raise tempers. They are also against the [[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks|Conservapedia Guidelines]].

If you cannot agree on a change even after discussing it, ask other editors for their opinions or a Sysop to mediate.

== Use the appropriate page for discussions ==

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Discuss an article on that article's talk page.'''

When discussing changes to an article with another editor, have the discussion on the article's talk page, where other editors can see it and contribute if they wish, rather than on one of the editors' talk pages, where the discussion is unlikely to be seen by other editors.

This is also useful for ''later'' editors looking to see why something in the article is the way it is. They can expect to look on the article's talk page, not somewhere else entirely.

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Discuss off-topic discussions elsewhere.'''

Sometimes discussions about an article lead off to other matters. If the discussion is no longer about the article, move the discussion elsewhere. Conservapedia has more options for this than Wikipedia. Here are some of the options:
* Discuss it on one of your user talk pages.
* Create a [[debate topics|debate page]] for discussing that issue.
* Create an [[essay]] for putting down your own thoughts on an issue.

== Edit histories ==
Edit histories allow other editors to see how an article was changed, and who changed it. Editors can also "step through" the edit histories to follow a series of changes.

Following are some guidelines for making this easier on other users.

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Use the "Show preview" button.'''

Using the Show preview button to check how your edit will look will reduce the number of changes to the article, keeping the edit history shorter. It can be irritating to other editors to have to step through a lot of very minor changes that could have been avoided if the Show preview button was used.

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Don't make massive changes in one go.'''

When you make massive changes in one edit, it makes it hard for other editors to see what was actually changed. Consider breaking your edits into smaller steps, particularly when moving paragraphs around. Changing ''and'' moving a paragraph in the one edit can make it difficult for the software to highlight the differences properly.

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Use edit summaries.'''

When you make a change, please put a brief (or not so brief) comment in the Summary box to explain your edit.

Common comments include:
* ''Revert'' (or ''Rv'')
* ''Spelling'' (or ''Sp'')
* ''Grammar''
* ''copyedit'' (indicating that there were changes like a newspaper editor might make, to improve the spelling, grammar, or wording, but not changing the meaning nor deleting nor adding information).
* If your change cannot be explained briefly, an edit comment of ''see talk'' will alert other editors that you have explained (or will explain) your edit on the talk page.
In your user preferences, you can select to have the software remind you if you don't include an edit comment.

Nineteen Eighty-Four

2008-09-22T00:26:22Z

Alexjohnc3: Removed redundancy

[[Image:1984first.jpg|right|thumb|First edition of ''Nineteen Eighty-Four'' published in Britain, 1949.]]
'''''Nineteen Eighty-Four'''''<ref>
The title is spelled out, in words, in the original 1949 editions, both as published in England by Secker and Warburg[http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=87&ti=76,87&Search%5FArg=Orwell%2C%20George&Search%5FCode=NAME%5F&CNT=25&PID=11284&SEQ=20070323140446&SID=1] and in the United States by Harcourt, Brace[http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=86&ti=76,86&Search%5FArg=Orwell%2C%20George&Search%5FCode=NAME%5F&CNT=25&PID=11284&SEQ=20070323140446&SID=1]. It is sometimes presented numerically, in digits – '''''1984''''', in modern reprints and derivative works such as screenplays.</ref>
is a novel by [[George Orwell]]. While generally viewed as a critique of [[leftism]], [[communism]], and the [[Soviet Union]], it may also be viewed as a criticism of any state where the government has too much control over its citizens; see [[totalitarianism]].

It was originally to be titled ''The Last Man in Europe'', but the title was changed at the publisher's suggestion. <ref>It is often suggested that "eighty-four" is a reversal of "forty-eight", the year in which the book was written, but this has never been confirmed.</ref>

Orwell was influenced by Jack London's novel ''The Iron Heel'', and Yevgeny Zamyatin's ''We''.

== Plot Summary ==
Oceania is, roughly, the English-speaking world: the [[United States]], [[Canada]], [[Britain]], [[Australia]], and [[South Africa]]. It is perpetually at war with Eurasia or Eastasia and allied with the other. The book describes a dystopia where the government monitors and controls nearly all aspects of every individual's life.

The [[protagonist]], Winston Smith, works in the Ministry of Truth, altering records to fit the Party's current version of history. However, Smith gradually grows to disagree with the Party and what it stands for. Eventually, he and his lover Julia are captured by the thought police and tortured to the point where they once again love the party.

Much of the novel is taken up with discussions of the nature of power and societal control, and words and mottos from the novel – "doublethink", "We have always been at war with Eastasia", "the memory hole" and many more – have become standard shorthand in political discussions, while terms such as "thought police", "Room 101" and "[[Big Brother]]" have entered the language.

== Background of Novel ==
The environmental background to the action of the story is a satirical portrayal of late-1940s London, a city where war damage was still very evident, and rationing and shortages a way of life. The Ministry of Truth, as described by Orwell in the novel, is based upon the Senate House building of London University, at the time one of the tallest buildings in the capital, and home during the Second World War to the Ministry of Information.

==Online version==
*[http://orwell.ru/library/novels/1984/ Orwell library]

==Notes and references==
<references/>

[[Category:Novels]]

User talk:Alexjohnc3

2008-09-21T23:59:41Z

Alexjohnc3: /* Nineteen Eighty-Four‎ */

{{welcome}}

==[[Nineteen Eighty-Four‎]]==
Can you show me an example of conservative communism? Libertarian communism? If not, then please undo our edit. It's redundant. John McCain's campaign email should have no impact on a George Orwell novel. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 19:54, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:When I say "liberal communism", I'm not saying that there's "conservative communism" or "libertarian communism" as well. "Liberal" can be used for emphasis like Rick Davis did [http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/02/25/camp-mccain-takes-on-angry-liberal-left/ here]. I was using that as an example where "liberal" was added to something that was already obviously referring to something leftist for emphasis. [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 19:59, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

User talk:Alexjohnc3

2008-09-21T23:59:24Z

Alexjohnc3: /* Nineteen Eighty-Four‎ */

{{welcome}}

==[[Nineteen Eighty-Four‎]]==
Can you show me an example of conservative communism? Libertarian communism? If not, then please undo our edit. It's redundant. John McCain's campaign email should have no impact on a George Orwell novel. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 19:54, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:When I say "liberal communism, I'm not saying that there's "conservative communism" or "libertarian communism" as well. "Liberal" can be used for emphasis like Rick Davis did [http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/02/25/camp-mccain-takes-on-angry-liberal-left/ here]. I was using that as an example where "liberal" was added to something that was already obviously referring to something leftist for emphasis. [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 19:59, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Doublethink

2008-09-21T23:53:27Z

Alexjohnc3: It

Someone needs to either explain the relevance of the quote about "Newspeak" to the topic Doublethink or remove it. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:49, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Doublethink

2008-09-21T23:52:16Z

Alexjohnc3: JBrereton vandalized the page by removing what Ed Poor wrote.

'''Doublethink''' in [[George Orwell]]'s [[dystopia|dystopian]] novel ''[[1984]]'' is the practice of keeping two contradictory thoughts in one's own mind.

In [[formal logic]], it is considered disproof of a [[premise]], if it implies two contradictory [[statement]]s. So in Orwell's nightmare political vision, citizens participate actively in their own [[indoctrination]], willingly accepting false government [[propaganda]]. Indeed, the main character of ''1984'' is a man whose job is to falsify historical documents in the government [[archive]]s.

Douglas Kellner writes:

:In 1984, "Newspeak" is the new [[totalitarian]] language which replaces "Oldspeak" (English as we know it) The aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought so that an individual could not even think critical or [[subversion|subversive]] thoughts. Potentially critical terms like "freedom" are formally defined into their conceptual opposites ("[[freedom]] is [[slavery]]"), or are simply eliminated from the [[dictionary]] and everyday [[language]]. In this manner, critical language would wither away as the number of words which allow differentiation and critique was increasingly reduced. <ref>http://www.uta.edu/huma/illuminations/kell13a.htm</ref>

[[Communists]] and other [[godless liberal|godless]] [[leftists]] are known to use [[Official English|language]] in a way which verges on doublethink. Like Winston of ''[[1984]]'', conservatives and other true Americans fight against the [[Liberal bias|liberal media]] and other liberals who use doublethink to further their agendas.

==See Also==
*[[double standard]]
*[[hypocrisy]]
*[[intellectual dishonesty]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Logic]]

Nineteen Eighty-Four

2008-09-21T23:48:26Z

Alexjohnc3: "Liberal left" is more "redundant", and yet the campaign manager for President McCain said it in an official fundraising e-mail. It's for emphasis.

[[Image:1984first.jpg|right|thumb|First edition of ''Nineteen Eighty-Four'' published in Britain, 1949.]]
'''''Nineteen Eighty-Four'''''<ref>
The title is spelled out, in words, in the original 1949 editions, both as published in England by Secker and Warburg[http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=87&ti=76,87&Search%5FArg=Orwell%2C%20George&Search%5FCode=NAME%5F&CNT=25&PID=11284&SEQ=20070323140446&SID=1] and in the United States by Harcourt, Brace[http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=86&ti=76,86&Search%5FArg=Orwell%2C%20George&Search%5FCode=NAME%5F&CNT=25&PID=11284&SEQ=20070323140446&SID=1]. It is sometimes presented numerically, in digits – '''''1984''''', in modern reprints and derivative works such as screenplays.</ref>
is a novel by [[George Orwell]]. While generally viewed as a critique of [[liberal]] [[communism]] and the [[Soviet Union]], it may also be viewed as a criticism of any state where the government has too much control over its citizens; see [[totalitarianism]].

It was originally to be titled ''The Last Man in Europe'', but the title was changed at the publisher's suggestion. <ref>It is often suggested that "eighty-four" is a reversal of "forty-eight", the year in which the book was written, but this has never been confirmed.</ref>

Orwell was influenced by Jack London's novel ''The Iron Heel'', and Yevgeny Zamyatin's ''We''.

== Plot Summary ==
Oceania is, roughly, the English-speaking world: the [[United States]], [[Canada]], [[Britain]], [[Australia]], and [[South Africa]]. It is perpetually at war with Eurasia or Eastasia and allied with the other. The book describes a dystopia where the government monitors and controls nearly all aspects of every individual's life.

The [[protagonist]], Winston Smith, works in the Ministry of Truth, altering records to fit the Party's current version of history. However, Smith gradually grows to disagree with the Party and what it stands for. Eventually, he and his lover Julia are captured by the thought police and tortured to the point where they once again love the party.

Much of the novel is taken up with discussions of the nature of power and societal control, and words and mottos from the novel – "doublethink", "We have always been at war with Eastasia", "the memory hole" and many more – have become standard shorthand in political discussions, while terms such as "thought police", "Room 101" and "[[Big Brother]]" have entered the language.

== Background of Novel ==
The environmental background to the action of the story is a satirical portrayal of late-1940s London, a city where war damage was still very evident, and rationing and shortages a way of life. The Ministry of Truth, as described by Orwell in the novel, is based upon the Senate House building of London University, at the time one of the tallest buildings in the capital, and home during the Second World War to the Ministry of Information.

==Online version==
*[http://orwell.ru/library/novels/1984/ Orwell library]

==Notes and references==
<references/>

[[Category:Novels]]

User talk:Alexjohnc3

2008-09-21T23:42:46Z

Alexjohnc3:

User talk:Alexjohnc3

2008-09-21T23:42:06Z

Alexjohnc3: Sorry, I'm not adding silliness to articles unless you consider Conservapedia silly. That's YOUR opinion though.

Conservapedia:Editing etiquette

2008-09-21T15:35:25Z

Alexjohnc3:

Wiki editors have found that good '''editing etiquette''' can reduce the arguments that frequently occur between editors with opposing viewpoints.

== Edit or discuss first? ==

An editor will often chastise another editor for not discussing an alteration to an article before altering the article, yet will often edit an article themselves without discussing it first. Does this make them hypocrites? Sometimes, yes, but often it's because the circumstances are different.

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Edit an article without discussing your changes first, if you have a reasonable expectation that other editors will accept your change.'''

But how would you know what other editors will accept? Here's some ideas:
* You are removing vandalism.
* You are correcting spelling or grammar (but don't change American spelling to British spelling, etc. except where appropriate. As a general rule, that would be if the article is about something related to that country).
* If you are inserting an undisputed fact. For example, ''[[Australia]] is in the southern hemisphere''.
* If you properly reference your "facts". Another editor is less likely to remove your edit if you have references to show that your facts are correct.
* If you put your "facts" in neutral terms. For example, ''[[Liberal|liberal]], [[Atheism|atheist]] geologists believe that the world is 4.5 billion years old'' is better than ''The world is 4.5 billion years old.''
* You explain your edits. This can be done in an edit comment (Summary edit field) or on the article's talk page. In the latter case, putting "See talk" in the edit comment will alert other editors to the fact that you have discussed your edit on the talk page.
Notwithstanding the above, a case can also be made sometimes that it is better to see a proposed edit in the context of the article rather than in isolation on the talk page.

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Favour improving another person's edits over deleting them.'''

This follows naturally from the previous rule. If another editor thinks that his change should be in there, then clearly you cannot have a reasonable expectation that the first editor, at least, will accept you deleting his edit. So improving his edit (perhaps from ''The world is 4.5 billion years old'' to ''Secular geologists believe that the world is 5.6 billion years old'') is better than simply deleting.

If you think that the edit really should come out, explain why in the edit comment or on the talk page. If your reasons are good enough, chances are the first editor will see your point and accept his change being removed.

If you question other editor's facts, then instead of just deleting them, put a {{tl|fact}} tag after the claimed fact, to give him an opportunity to support his edit. If the original editor fails to support his fact in a reasonable time (e.g. a week), then you have better justification for removing his "fact".

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Avoid edit wars.'''

An '''edit war''' is when two editors keep undoing the other editor's changes. Such a situation is totally unproductive and serves only to raise tempers. They are also against the [[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks|Conservapedia Guidelines]].

If you cannot agree on a change even after discussing it, ask other editors for their opinions or a Sysop to mediate.

== Use the appropriate page for discussions ==

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Discuss an article on that article's talk page.'''

When discussing changes to an article with another editor, have the discussion on the article's talk page, where other editors can see it and contribute if they wish, rather than on one of the editors' talk pages, where the discussion is unlikely to be seen by other editors.

This is also useful for ''later'' editors looking to see why something in the article is the way it is. They can expect to look on the article's talk page, not somewhere else entirely.

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Discuss off-topic discussions elsewhere.'''

Sometimes discussions about an article lead off to other matters. If the discussion is no longer about the article, move the discussion elsewhere. Conservapedia has more options for this than Wikipedia. Here are some of the options:
* Discuss it on one of your user talk pages.
* Create a [[debate topics|debate page]] for discussing that issue.
* Create an [[essay]] for putting down your own thoughts on an issue.

== Edit histories ==
Edit histories allow other editors to see how an article was changed, and who changed it. Editors can also "step through" the edit histories to follow a series of changes.

Following are some guidelines for making this easier on other users.

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Use the "Show preview" button.'''

Using the Show preview button to check how your edit will look will reduce the number of changes to the article, keeping the edit history shorter. It can be irritating to other editors to have to step through a lot of very minor changes that could have been avoided if the Show preview button was used.

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Don't make massive changes in one go.'''

When you make massive changes in one edit, it makes it hard for other editors to see what was actually changed. Consider breaking your edits into smaller steps, particularly when moving paragraphs around. Changing ''and'' moving a paragraph in the one edit can make it difficult for the software to highlight the differences properly.

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Use edit summaries.'''

When you make a change, please put a brief (or not so brief) comment in the Summary box to explain your edit.

Common comments include:
* ''Revert'' (or ''Rv'')
* ''Spelling'' (or ''Sp'')
* ''Grammar''
* ''copyedit'' (indicating that there were changes like a newspaper editor might make, to improve the spelling, grammar, or wording, but not changing the meaning nor deleting nor adding information).
* If your change cannot be explained briefly, an edit comment of ''see talk'' will alert other editors that you have explained (or will explain) your edit on the talk page.
In your user preferences, you can select to have the software remind you if you don't include an edit comment.

Intellectual dishonesty

2008-09-21T15:31:15Z

Alexjohnc3:

'''Intellectual dishonesty''' is lying about or concealing one's own beliefs. [[Liberals]], and those on the [[leftist|left]], are far more inclined to this form of [[deceit]] than conservatives.

[[Charles Murray]] provides an example of [[liberal]] intellectual dishonesty:
:In their heart of hearts, intellectual elites, especially [[liberal]] ones, have two nasty secrets regarding [[IQ]]. First, they really believe that IQ is the be-all and end-all of human excellence and that someone with a low IQ is inferior. Second, they are already sure that the black - white IQ difference is predominantly genetic and that this is a calamity -- such a calamity indeed that it must not be spoken about, even to oneself. To raise these issues holds a mirror up to the elites' most desperately denied inner thoughts. <ref>http://www.eugenics.net/papers/mssel.html</ref>

==References==

<References/>

[[category:politics]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

Doublethink

2008-09-21T15:29:32Z

Alexjohnc3:

Doublethink

2008-09-21T15:28:48Z

Alexjohnc3: Changed back to Ed Poor's version

'''Doublethink''' in [[George Orwell]]'s [[dystopia|dystopian]] novel ''[[1984]]'' is the practice of keeping two contradictory thoughts in one's own mind.

In [[formal logic]], it is considered disproof of a [[premise]], if it implies two contradictory [[statement]]s. So in Orwell's nightmare political vision, citizens participate actively in their own [[indoctrination]], willingly accepting false government [[propaganda]]. Indeed, the main character of ''1984'' is a man whose job is to falsify historical documents in the government [[archive]]s.

Douglas Kellner writes:

:In 1984, "Newspeak" is the new [[totalitarian]] language which replaces "Oldspeak" (English as we know it) The aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought so that an individual could not even think critical or [[subversion|subversive]] thoughts. Potentially critical terms like "freedom" are formally defined into their conceptual opposites ("[[freedom]] is [[slavery]]"), or are simply eliminated from the [[dictionary]] and everyday [[language]]. In this manner, critical language would wither away as the number of words which allow differentiation and critique was increasingly reduced. <ref>http://www.uta.edu/huma/illuminations/kell13a.htm</ref>

[[Communists]] and other [[godless liberal|godless]] [[leftists]] use [[Official English|language]] in a way which verges on doublethink. Like Winston of ''[[1984]]'', conservatives and other true Americans fight against the [[Liberal bias|liberal media]] and other liberals who use doublethink to further their agendas.

==See Also==
*[[double standard]]
*[[hypocrisy]]
*[[intellectual dishonesty]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Logic]]

Nineteen Eighty-Four

2008-09-21T04:28:51Z

Alexjohnc3:

[[Image:1984first.jpg|right|thumb|First edition of ''Nineteen Eighty-Four'' published in Britain, 1949.]]
'''''Nineteen Eighty-Four'''''<ref>
The title is spelled out, in words, in the original 1949 editions, both as published in England by Secker and Warburg[http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=87&ti=76,87&Search%5FArg=Orwell%2C%20George&Search%5FCode=NAME%5F&CNT=25&PID=11284&SEQ=20070323140446&SID=1] and in the United States by Harcourt, Brace[http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=86&ti=76,86&Search%5FArg=Orwell%2C%20George&Search%5FCode=NAME%5F&CNT=25&PID=11284&SEQ=20070323140446&SID=1]. It is sometimes presented numerically, in digits – '''''1984''''', in modern reprints and derivative works such as screenplays.</ref>
is a novel by [[George Orwell]]. While generally viewed as a critique of [[liberal]] [[communism]] and the [[Soviet Union]], it may also be viewed as a criticism of any state where the government has too much control over its citizens; see [[totalitarianism]].

It was originally to be titled ''The Last Man in Europe'', but the title was changed at the publisher's suggestion. <ref>It is often suggested that "eighty-four" is a reversal of "forty-eight", the year in which the book was written, but this has never been confirmed.</ref>

Orwell was influenced by Jack London's novel ''The Iron Heel'', and Yevgeny Zamyatin's ''We''.

== Plot Summary ==
Oceania is, roughly, the English-speaking world: the [[United States]], [[Canada]], [[Britain]], [[Australia]], and [[South Africa]]. It is perpetually at war with Eurasia or Eastasia and allied with the other. The book describes a dystopia where the government monitors and controls nearly all aspects of every individual's life.

The [[protagonist]], Winston Smith, works in the Ministry of Truth, altering records to fit the Party's current version of history. However, Smith gradually grows to disagree with the Party and what it stands for. Eventually, he and his lover Julia are captured by the thought police and tortured to the point where they once again love the party.

Much of the novel is taken up with discussions of the nature of power and societal control, and words and mottos from the novel – "doublethink", "We have always been at war with Eastasia", "the memory hole" and many more – have become standard shorthand in political discussions, while terms such as "thought police", "Room 101" and "[[Big Brother]]" have entered the language.

== Background of Novel ==
The environmental background to the action of the story is a satirical portrayal of late-1940s London, a city where war damage was still very evident, and rationing and shortages a way of life. The Ministry of Truth, as described by Orwell in the novel, is based upon the Senate House building of London University, at the time one of the tallest buildings in the capital, and home during the Second World War to the Ministry of Information.

==Online version==
*[http://orwell.ru/library/novels/1984/ Orwell library]

==Notes and references==
<references/>

[[Category:Novels]]

Professor values

2008-04-28T19:23:26Z

Alexjohnc3: Theory emphasized

'''Professor values''' refer to the common value system embraced by a large percentage of professors, just as [[Hollywood values]] refers to the common value system of many in Hollywood.

An extremely high percentage of professors disagree with [[conservative]] principles.<ref>"90 percent of United States professors called themselves liberal or moderate .[http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss1/art2/]</ref><ref> [http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=s1153nnhjkhr407r6ng6gjg8pvc8g2s8]</ref> Professors' common value system typically includes [[atheism]],<ref>For example, the vast majority of philosophy professors are [[atheists]], even after an alleged uptick in [[faith]] [http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=s1153nnhjkhr407r6ng6gjg8pvc8g2s8]</ref> [[censorship]], [[socialism]], unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge (for example, the dogmatic promotion of the [[Theory of Evolution|theory of evolution]]),<ref>For example, a $100,000 "environmental" prize was awarded for work on a [[politically correct]] "theory of convergent evolution." [http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/4/4/briefBiologyProfAwardedEnvironmentalAchievementPrize]</ref> [[liberаl|liberal]] beliefs,<ref>"90 percent of professors called themselves liberal or moderate." [http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=s1153nnhjkhr407r6ng6gjg8pvc8g2s8]</ref> [[liberal grading]], [[liberal bias]],<ref>http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2005/08/26/johnson</ref> anti-patriotism, lack of productivity, [[bullying]] or discouraging [[conservative]] students (for example, homeschoolers),<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032101451.html</ref><ref>http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/488/NCliberalbiasagnstcons060104.htm</ref> and promotion of sexual immorality.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2001/oct_2001_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/1998/october_1998_1.html</ref>
In a Zogby poll, 58% of [[Americans]] said that the bias of professors is a serious problem, while 39% said it is a "very serious" problem.<ref name="zogby">http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1334</ref> The survey demonstrated further that "an overwhelming majority also believe that job security for college professors leaves them less motivated to do a good job than those professors who do not enjoy a tenured status - 65% said they believe non-tenured professors are more motivated to do a good job in the classroom."<ref name="zogby" />

Professors block the granting of a tenured professorship to anyone who:

* criticizes the [[theory of evolution|''theory'' of evolution]]
* criticizes [[feminism]] and/or [[abortion]]
* opposes the [[homosexual agenda]]

Politicians, including [[liberаl|liberal]] ones, are routinely given high-ranking academic positions. Examples include:

* [[Al Gore]]<ref>Beginning early in 2001, "Gore will be [at UCLA] to develop a new curriculum for family-centered community building, a multidisciplinary approach that brings together authorities from such fields as education, business and public policy to work on problems that ail our society and affect our children. ... He also will be teaching at three other universities - Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro and Fisk University in Nashville - in addition to his teaching and research work at UCLA." [http://spotlight.ucla.edu/special-guests/al-gore_teach/]</ref>
*[[Michael Dukakis]]
*[[Gary Hart]]
*[[Bob Kerrey]]
* [[Tony Blair]]
*[[Tom Kean]]

`

== Crimes by Professors ==

* "A [[South Korea]]n court Monday sentenced a former university art professor to 18 months in jail for forging her [[US]] degree certificates, officials said. The Seoul District Criminal Court found Shin Jeong-Ah guilty of forging undergraduate and master's degrees from the [[University of Kansas]] and [[Yale University]] to secure a job at Seoul's Dongguk university."<ref>http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jCfPQ1_mqM2VaXzQUSy-mXwQIvXQ</ref>

* [[Villanova University]] professor Edward R. Ritter was arrested on March 21, 2008, and charged with selling marijuana to undercover police officers, and a subsequent search of his home uncovered 19 bags of marijuana.<ref>http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/pa/20080322_Villanova_professor_arrested_on_drug_charges.html</ref>

* Kansas State University English professor Thomas Murray was a popular teacher, but he was convicted of murdering his ex-wife with 17 stab wounds and blunt trauma to her head. She "was found dead in her bedroom atop a dresser."<ref name="ctv">http://www.courttv.com/trials/murray/backgrounder_ctv.html</ref> Professor Murray had written several books, including "The Language of Sadomasochism."<ref name="ctv" /> He did not testify in his defense and spoke only at sentencing, where he called the state's case a "fairy tale."<ref>http://www.kansaspublicradio.org/newsstory.php?itemID=5892</ref>

* Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine Anatomy associate professor Peter Alan Rogers, 59, was arrested on Apr. 21, 2008 on a charge of possession of child pornography on a school laptop computer.<ref>http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/2008/04/24/professor_0425.html</ref>

* Shortly after the end of the school year and his contract, Marshall University Psychiatry associate professor John M. Adams burglarized and murdered Bobby Burns on July 2, 2003, and then kidnapped two women and forced them to drive him across the Ohio River.<ref>http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/07/29/loc_ohprofessor29.html</ref>

* University of South Florida professor Sami al-Arian pled guilty to "aiding a terrorist group" and was "sentenced to 57 months in prison."<ref name="nysun">http://www.nysun.com/article/72228</ref><ref>http://www.mysuncoast.com/Global/story.asp?S=7961089&nav=menu577_2_1</ref> He then "spent more than a year in civil contempt after refusing to appear before two grand juries investigating Islamic charities in Northern Virginia."<ref name="nysun">

* Claremont McKenna College visiting professor Kerri Dunn was sentenced to a year in state prison after she was found guilty of staging a phony [[hate crime]], in which she "spray-painted her car with racist and anti-Semitic slurs and then reported a hate crime on campus."<ref>http://www.knbc.com/education/3998600/detail.html</ref>

* University of Hawaii professor Marc Fossorier was arrested and later convicted and sentenced to one year in jail for attempting a sex crime with a girl apparently only 15 years old.<ref>http://kgmb9.com/main/content/view/4582/40/</ref>

* A [[New Jersey]] Cumberland County College professor "was arrested on charges of harassment, trespassing and stalking."<ref>http://www.thedailyjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080305/NEWS01/80305019/1002</ref>

* University of Central Florida political science professor Michael Shawn Reichert was arrested for having "a stash of more than 100 child pornography pictures on his work computer," "plus three pornographic movies."<ref>http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_local_orlandocrime/2007/07/ucf-professor-a.html</ref>

* [[University of Wisconsin]] adjunct professor Victor M. Zamudio-Taylor resigned after being charged with viewing child-pornography in a campus computer laboratory.<ref>http://badgerherald.com/news/2002/03/19/uwmilwaukee_professo.php</ref>

* A [[British]] university professor was jailed for ten months for plotting to defraud a hospital trust. <ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20010626/ai_n14398964</ref>

* [[French]] [[Marxist]] [[structuralist]] [[philosopher]] Professor [[Louis Althusser]] (1918-1990) killed his wife in 1980 and was afterwards confined to a psychiatric hospital.

* Professor Daniel Storm, of the University of Washington, flushed 4 litres of the flammable solvent ethyl ether down the sink, rather than pay the safe disposal fees. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Oesterle said that his using an axe to open the containers was particularly dangerous because a spark could easily have ignited the ether. <ref>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003607035_uwprof08m0.html</ref>

* An Associate Professor at Youngstown State University was locked up and fined $50 after baring his buttocks in front of children at a county fair. <ref>http://www.thejambar.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=38283b71-1223-4e85-929f-ba0f932d5366</ref>

== Immoral, Unethical or Bizarre Behavior ==

*Emory University History Professor of History [[Michael Bellesiles]], a [[gun control]] advocate, wrote a book entitled ''Arming America, The Origins of a National Gun Culture'' (2000). Gary Wills gave it a glowing review in ''The New York Times'', but admitted later that "I was took. The book is a fraud."<ref>Jonah Goldberg, [http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/guests/s_501644.html ''Reports of the 2nd Amendment's death have been greatly exaggerated ...''] Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Apr. 8, 2007.</ref> Bellesiles resigned from his position as Professor of History when an independent committee of scholars examined his work and concluded that "his scholarly integrity is seriously in question."<ref>http://hnn.us/articles/1069.html</ref>

*According to one columnist, 88 Duke professors -- more than 10 percent of the Duke professorial faculty - endorsed and published an advertisement hurtful to students who had been wrongly accused of rape during a lacrosse team party, which "helped create the lynch-mob atmosphere."<ref>http://www.nypost.com/seven/03232007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/duke__who_wont_pay_opedcolumnists_john_podhoretz.htm</ref>

* When student Rebecca Beach circulated an email at Warren Community College in New Jersey disclosing that decorated Iraq war hero Lt. Col. Scott Rutter would be visiting, English professor John Daly replied: "Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors."<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47461</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

== Sources ==

* [http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_178.asp?referrer=list National Center for Educational Statistics, "Table 178, Historical Summary of faculty, students, degrees, and finances in degree-granting institutions: Selected years, 1869-70 through 2005-06"]

[[Category:Academics]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

Talk:Professor values

2008-04-28T19:13:23Z

Alexjohnc3: For those who don't know who he is.

...does [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] fall into this category as well? For example, ''"Liberal politicians are routinely given high-ranking academic positions despite a lack of a doctorate."'' [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:03, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:No, because he's not a politician, and he does have a doctorate (two, actually, I think). And since you bring it up...Gary Hart also has a doctorate. And, while Dukakis only has a Harvard law degree, his academic work has been in fields where he can most reasonably be considered an expert (public policy). The same can be said of Al Gore (and his have hardly been "high-ranking academic positions"--"visiting" professorships, and non-credit courses). And, finally, Kerrey is an administrator, not an academic.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 20:35, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
::He's not a politician, but he is an [[atheistic]] (and [[liberal]]) figurehead. And I wouldn't be too certain about those doctorates; [[Richard_Dawkins#Position_at_Oxford|it's debatable whether Dawkins is even a real professor]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:10, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:I removed Hart and Kerrey as examples of "liberal politicians (who) are routinely given high-ranking academic positions despite a lack of a doctorate", because (as noted above), Hart has a doctorate, and Kerrey is an administrator (not an academic).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:18, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
::I don't know enough about those politicians in particular to confirm your edits, but your reasoning sounds legitimate. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:33, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Alternately, I suppose, one could add Hart/Kerrey back to the list and change the wording of the defining phrase to something like, "...given university positions over better-qualified candidates."--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:46, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
::Actually, yes, I agree with that. These examples certainly shouldn't be removed on a technicality or a meaningless distinction when the point still stands; changing the wording of the phrase is a much better idea. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:56, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== What is this about? ==

'''What?''' Another article based on an '''unheard-of phrase''' plucked out of the air? This certainly does not look like an encyclopedia article - cf. [[Hollywood values]], [[Liberal friendship]], [[Second generation atheist]], [[Liberal grading]], [[Embraced deceit]], etc. None of these belongs in an encyclopedia. Apart from anything else, who on earth is likely to look up a phrase like "professor values"? Shouldn't an encyclopedia consist of articles on topics that users are likely to look for, not on opinion pieces by its editor-in-chief? What point are you trying to make, exactly? Who is the target of this latest attack? This is the sort of thing I would expect from a blog or a hate-based website, not from a family-friendly and '''trustworthy''' encyclopedia. This sort of thing is making Conservapedia look ridiculous. Or would you like articles on [[Doctor values]], [[Taxi-driver values]] and [[Lawyer values]] as well? If so, I'd be happy to draft them for you! There must be lots to be said about the misdemeanors of all sorts of groups. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:15, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

: I agree that this kind of article could bring legitimate criticism against CP. The major premises are not documented. While some contributers to this article, including those who have made those assertions, say that it is a work in progress and welcome others to document the supposed many examples, there are a pitiful few, some old, some from other countries, and some for extremely prevalent crimes of marijuana possession. I took a long time to find the best possible supporting source for educational stats, and my guess is that the more than 1,200,000 professors currently working in colleges and universities are responsible for a disproportionately SMALL number of crimes. Until I find statistical support for that statement, I won't post it in the article.

: For a collaborative resource like this, I believe it is imperative that any contributor making an assertion, especially critical ones (as opposed to trivia, added dates, etc. -- which ideally should be supported, too), document them appropriately. If not, that sends a poor message to other contributors, editors, and sysops -- to say nothing of users, potential users, and CP critics. It is hardly the kind of example to provide for home-schooled kids learning about proper scholarship. I have looked and looked and find no reliable studies that support the argument that professors are more likely than anybody else to do bad things. Also, no evidence that liberal professors are worse than conservative ones. There are news and blog reports that repeat certain cases, but unless one does an exhaustive search, no conclusions can be drawn. If this article remains, then there should be additional coverage for politicians, clergy, other professions, etc. and they should include misdeeds by conservatives and liberals alike, according to the actual data. Leaving out crimes by conservatives does no one a service. I understand that this is a conservative encyclopedia, but some traits of it purportedly include truthfulness (I'd argue that it is dishonest to tell only partial truths), and to avoid misrepresentation and sensationalism. [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 8:26, 27 March 2008 (CDT)

== Head's up - this isn't as simple as it may seem ==

As I was doing some admittedly "Google-esque" research, I did find that there are well over 4000 colleges and universities and probably many more than 1,250,000 current faculty. If we work backwards a generation or two, the number increases, of course, which makes it difficult to substantiate the claim that professors are disproportionately likely to commit crimes or other misdeeds, especially if all we cite are fewer than 20 examples of such misdeeds. Looking at campus statistics, many more campus crimes (by far) were committed by students, to say nothing about the many thousands of crimes committed by the general public. So I started doing some informal Google searches for crimes committed by different professions, using -- for lack of a more efficient search method -- "professor arrested," "faculty arrested," etc. along with other professional categories. Combining "faculty" or "professor" and "crime" didn't work well (too many useless hits).
The highest, in that combination alone, was "teacher" (over 190,000 hits), but "mayor" still had more hits (over 27,000) than "faculty" or "professor" (about 14,000). Unfortunately, hits for "pastor," "minister," and "priest," added up to an uncomfortably high number, over 100,000, but then again, if we don't know how many pastors, etc. are out there, we have no percentage to compare them with faculty or other groups. My methodology is rudimentary, but I didn't see any demographic or statistical reports that covered this topic. So, unless we can document this so-called high rate of crime among faculty, perhaps the article should remain mute on the number, relative to other professions. After seeing some statistics about the correlation between educational level and prison population, it also seems like the prison population is much more likely to have no or little education. There are very few PhDs in prisons. Likewise, after seeing these figures, I would guess that the more one is educated, the less likely one is to get felonies or misdemeanors.

So, my question is: do any other contributors to this article have any data at all on this? Is it only anecdotal? If facts can't be documented, then they don't belong in these articles. Especially if the article is questioning the integrity of professors, including their intellectual integrity (like the Korean scientist who established his reputation on cooked data - about which I can find documentation), this article's information should be sound. It is still full of undocumented assertions and sensationalism. [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 8:01, 27 March 2008 (CDT)

== Tony Blair ==

Huh? How is this not relevant to the article? He has no doctorate, he has been appointed to teach at Yale and he is a liberal politician. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:19, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: That appears simply to be a guest lecture appointment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:: You mean just like Al Gore?--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:54, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Since you don't seem to mind guest lecturers being added to this list, I will put Tony Blair back.
== Really? ==

I just did a google search, and the first few pages of the 735 results don't have any signinifigance to subject at hand. So, here's my question: Did you just make this term up Andy? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:07, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: There's a great deal of bias out there, DLerner. That's a reason why we're here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:10, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Yes, Andy. But the problem is, there's a great deal of bias here too. Are there any articles critical of conservatives on this site? Believe me conservatives aren't perfect. You didn't answer my question, where is the term "Professor values" from? I know there are a lot of stupid people/policies on colleges (just watch the Penn & Teller episode on [[censorship]]) but that isn't the point. Where is the term from? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:16, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Why are you critical of a neologism which points out a legitimate area of concern, DLerner? Examine the case studies, and perhaps you will appreciate why this article is a necessary one. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 12:34, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Koba, the problem with making up a phrase like this is that it's really not meaningful, unless backed up by statistically valid evidence to justify it. Do Charlton Heston and John Wayne fit the profile of "Hollywood Values" as defined here? The examples mentioned in this article are as representative of professors as a category (i.e. a few out of thousands around the world), as they are of males. If this is the encyclopedic standard CP holds to, then I can create a page called "Right-handed values", describing the bad traits of right-handed people and backed by examples of the criminal behavior of some cherry-picked right-handed people, and it would pass muster based on examples like this page that ASchafly endorses.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:31, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

''The phrase Professor values refers to the lack of morals and values in the culture of college faculties, which is characterized by atheism, censorship, socialism, unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge, advocacy of liberal beliefs, liberal grading, liberal bias, anti-patriotism, plagiarism, false claims of credentials, lack of productivity, and promotion of sexual immorality.''

Has anyone else seen this "phrase" before? I looked for it. If it's a study, it belongs in an essay not in a article. Personally, I think Andy made it up. (It's a nice slogan though...)

If anyone can make up a term then write an article about it, how's this? "The phrase '''Criminal values''' refers to the lack of respect for the law..." [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:59, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:Indeed - see my comment under "What is this about?", above - which nobody has seen fit to reply to. The proliferation of these flimsy articles is making a mockery of Conservapedia. The latest such nonsense is [[Liberal drivel]], which I assume is a parody - but it's getting harder and harder to distinguish parody from real content. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== Um... ==
This article serves no purpose... It should be an essay or opinion at the very most --[[User:Helps|Helps]] 11:14, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

What '''statistical''' evidence is there in this article of atheism, plagiarism, socialism
, censorship etc. This article makes unfounded claims. [[User:Angband|Angband]] 13:18, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

: Help find the support for those observations. It's not difficult to find. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:: That is the wrong way to answer a legitimate question, and does a disservice to the students you want using Conservapedia as a legitimate reference source. When a so-called encyclopedic article makes irrational assertions and offers no cited evidence to support them, people are going to question its validity. Your response, "The supporting evidence is out there, help us to find it.", is basically an endorsement of unacademic postings by biased individuals as long as the bias is conservative, and an insult to the moderates who want a Conservative Encyclopedia to be, well, encyclopedic. My suggestion is that if it's not that hard to find the supporting evidence, then the page should be removed until the author can find it him/herself and post it. I'm sure I'll be accused of "Liberal Denial" or "Liberal Apology", or some other "Liberal ---" behavior that's used in place of an academic response, but fair-minded people need to speak up about this.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:31, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:I've never been to College in my long life but I must agree. This article is sensationalist tabloidism at its very best. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 13:49, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== First paragraph of article is not adequately supported ==

I do think the listing of the growing problem of professors misdeeds section in the latter part of the article was very informative.

However, I don't think the footnote in the first paragraph adequately supports the first paragraphs contentions. Is plagiarism truly a professor value? If it is, there is absolutely no support for the contention. I don't think that plagiarism is a common value of professor although there may be certainly instances of it. I have read the scientific fraud in the way of fudging experimental results is a significant problem but I have not heard the same regarding plagiarism. I do know that puffing up ones resume is a significant problem in the USA, however, the contention that professors often do it was not supported.

In short, I think the initial paragraph does not follow the conservapedia commandments in regards to proper citation and support. I don't think it is reasonable to ask the reader to do the research for that is getting the cart before the horse. It is the writers job to support the material.

I do recommend the following conservative website in order to help provide adequate support for the article: Accuracy in Academia at http://www.academia.org/

In the meantime, I suggest the article to be pulled from the popular articles at Conservapedia until adequate support is given and that the article have a citation template put on it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:16, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

: This is a work-in-progress with 24 references already. There have been numerous instances of plagiarism by professors without any punishment, and those citations will be easy to fill in, and I welcome assistance. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:57, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:::It does appear as if liberals are over represented in academia with 90% of professors describing themselves as being liberals or moderates. [http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=s1153nnhjkhr407r6ng6gjg8pvc8g2s8] Therefore, there does appear to be less conservatives in academia. So one would expect there to be more atheist in academia. At the same time , atheism is not a professor value as about 25% of philosophy professors are theist. [http://www.rzim.org/slice/slicetran.php?sliceid=880] In the business and engineering departments the percentage of professors being theist is probably higher given that they are more conservative. In regards to plagiarism being a professor value, many instances of professors committing this act does not necessarily constitute it being a professor value. There are a lot of professors in the USA and abroad so the real question what percentage of professors have engaged in plagiarism. In other words, you can can find many instances of men beating their wives in the United States but is wife beating a "male value"? I don't think it is. Again, it comes down to the percentage issue. So to sum up, I think the opening paragraph needs to be less expansive in its claims or provide additional support. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:Even if 25% of philosophy professors were theists, wouldn't this still be lower than the rate of theism in the population as a whole? I do agree with your post in that it should be examined by specific departments. At least at my school, some departments, such as Economics and Geography, do not seem particularly liberal, while a number of others clearly are. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:03, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:::DanH, thank you for your polite and kind reply. I do think that liberal ideology and liberals are over represented in academia. However, to call something a "professor value" or "male value" while a significant portion of the population in question does not share a particular value would be over reaching in my estimation. And I do think, for example, that 25% of a given population not sharing a value would be a significant amount of people and be justification for saying a given characteristic was not a value of the population as a whole. However, you can fairly say that a certain value is over represented in a population as a whole if in fact it is. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:14, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Good cites, Conservative. I've added them. This entry is ranked #1 on Google and is emerging as a significant insight. Professors share a common value system, not unanimously, but in higher percentages of agreement than even some churches. It's enlightening to described the [[professor value]]s and note the harm caused by them. Ideas obviously do have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: I have a feeling that the majority of the professors at Liberty University might take exception to this article, since by definition these descriptors apply to them. Also, being ranked #1 in this case has more to do with the topic not being recognized as a commonly-used term. If I wrote an article titled "Liberal Klingon Values" it would rank #1 for that search in no time, without being any more relevant.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:29, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

What constitutes "a relatively high" number of instances of crimes or other misdeeds? Compared to other professions? If so, then we'd need to document those comparisons. If there are over 1,200,000 professors currently active in the US alone, then the total cited cases here is an extremely small 0.00125% of that population, about 1.25 evildoers per 100,000 faculty -- and some cited were from former generations or from other countries. Given stats from the National Center for Educational Statistics, the total population of professors would easily be in the multiple millions (depending how far back we'd want to go), making the percentage of the population amazingly miniscule. Some of the crimes or other behavior in the list refers to things that the general public is probably even more likely to do, including stalking family, drug possession, etc. -- in other words, not things that are unique to professors at all. I'd say the % of pastors and other religious leaders who have gotten themselves into hot water is embarrassingly high (sexual immorality, misuse of church funds, etc.) and perhaps higher than that of the professoriate. Maybe comparing the professors to the general population would show that professors are more or less likely than the general population to commit crimes. Also, to be fair and honest according to the Commandments, this article should report the academic/moral/financial misdeeds -- some very high profile -- of conservative academics, including events at several Christian colleges and universities, indluding former faculty and university presidents. Making unfounded statements in an encyclopedia article, especially if the statements are inflammatory, is antithetical to the whole idea of honest scholarship -- which is ironic, considering the topic of this article! [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 09:25, 26 March 2008 (CDT)

== Title of the article should be "liberals and academia" and not "professor values" ==

I do believe upon sound research that people are not going to find this article based on a search of "professor values".

Here are the Google results of "professor values" and you will notice that all 715 results have nothing to do with the article we have: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Professor+Values%22&hl=en&start=10&sa=N

On the other hand if you do a search on "liberals in academia" you will get 8,450 results and all are related to our article: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22liberals+in+academia%22&btnG=Search

While I do think it is great to have a #1 Google entry in terms of getting exposure to Conservapedia I do think you have to begin with the end in mind and bring people to Conservapedia who are interested in a particular issue. I do realize that it is sometimes beneficial to pursue long tail marketing and dominate less competitive search queries over a long period of time, however, it does not appear as if anyone is typing in "professor values" to find the subject material of our article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:33, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

I hesitate to point this out again (I mentioned it above), but what of crimes and other misdeeds committed by conservative academics? A number of leaders of Christian colleges and universities have, for example, abused authority, horribly misused funds for private -- and sometimes extravagant -- entertainment, travel, or shopping, or have had immoral sexual affairs. Not including information about these instances, or even acknowleding their existence, is a serious and dishonest error of omission. [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 09:28, 25 March 2008 (CDT)

==Professor Values on Wikipedia==

Seems the article was put up on Wikipedia and is now up for deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Values

This thing really doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 07:18, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:Not on wikipedia, maybe (not least, because it was ''plagiarized'' from here!) - but it seems perfectly at home in this encyclopedia. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:21, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:: I bet you think [[Hollywood values]] should be censored also!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Actually, yeah, that's a dumb article too. --[[User:DJBlair|DJBlair]] 14:20, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, I think any article that is just 'made up' is neither trustworthy or encyclopedic. I wouldn't let my kids near this site (or Wikipedia for that matter, but thats a story for another day) [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 20:20, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

::In a strange bout of irony the WP ''Professor Values'' article now ranks higher than the CP version. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 08:24, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

::: It didn't take long for the [[liberals]] on Wikipedia to delete its entry! It's gone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:03, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

==Catholic schools==

Should abuse by priests in catholic schools deserve its own article entitles, [[Priest Values]]? Of course not, because the abuse committed by some priests is not indicative of the entire group. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 20:42, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
:You're making a big mistake, you think this "encyclopedia"  is governed by logic and reason, it isn't. -- '''[[user:DLerner|D L e r n e r]]''' [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DLerner Articulate] 20:48, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:: DLerner was blocked for his repeated derogatory comments, and "LeaningRight" you should be blocked for your 90/10 [[rule]] violation against talk, talk, talk.

:: This [[professor values]] lists the commonly held values and consequences of those values. Your suggestion does not fit that model, and your suggestion is ludicrous.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:17, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:Whatever. By the way, check my contributions, specifically to the India article. I have not broken any rules that I know of. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 13:31, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
:This is a link to my mainspace contributions: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=LeaningRight&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=0 [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 13:33, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:: LeaningRight, you wrote, "I have not broken any rules that I know of." That is known as [[deliberate ignorance]], and it's not an excuse. Your last ten contributions have been all talk, and that violates the 90/10 [[rule]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:32, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:Please have a little respect and don't talk to me like a child. I'm a middle aged man with children and I find that highly disrespectful. Have a glance at my contributions. I wasn't even aware of this 90/10 rule until you brought it up so its ignorance, but not 'deliberate'. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 15:26, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:: You responded to my citation to our very simple set of [[rules]] with "Whatever" and "I have not broken any rules that I know of." Your response was ''after'' I directed you to the very simple set of rules.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:10, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:Go and meet someone who doesn't agree with what you believe. I can guarantee you it will be quite refreshing. I'm taking a week off before I lose any faith I have ever had in the American people. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 16:15, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

::You really ought to watch how you talk to good editors, Andy. Your attitude isn't helping Conservapedia one bit. [[User:ShaggerNorris|ShaggerNorris]] 18:30, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Andy, if you hope to gain the respect of the mainstream, and avoid being an object of ridicule at RW and everywhere else, provide a solid case instead of anecdotes [[User:Innsmouth1|Innsmouth1]] 19:09, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
: What's RW? [[User:Alberti|Alberti]] 10:19, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== Removal of bias ==
The bias that was removed should have been kept in. It was a fair point and was correct.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:55, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

:But it wasn't conservative. This isn't liberalpedia. Why is that so hard for you to understand? --[[User:FrankRingo|FrankRingo]] 17:59, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Are you kidding? A fact is a fact. A fair and correct point is not aligned with politcal leanings. Why is that so hard to understand?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:01, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

: What specifically do you think was fair? The stuff I removed was unjustified liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

"However, because the professoriate is so large and varied (more than 1,200,000 in the United States alone, in public and private institutions) it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than others groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeed"
Its not bias, it is fact. It is not valid that professors are more likely to commit crimes (at least the validity has not been proven here) and by removing this section it sounds more and more like opinion as opposed to an encyclopedia entry. I know you wont budge on this though and any attempt in me to argue or revert will be meet with an arbitary block so I'll turn my attention to less volitile entries.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:09, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

:Aden, something is not a fact just because it is written down somewhere. Liberal journalists that quote liberal studies that are furnished by liberal organizations do not produce fact - they produce nonsense. Please keep your gibberish out of this site. Perhaps you would feel more comfortable talking about your "facts" over at [[Wikipedia]]. --[[User:FrankRingo|FrankRingo]] 18:12, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

AdenJ, people sharing common values do tend to act in similar ways. Ideas do matter. Surely you don't think all the problems in Hollywood are purely coincidental with [[Hollywood values]]!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

My quibble was not whether ideas or shared values matter, it was that factual and relevant material was removed as bias.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:45, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

:Aden, your "facts" were discussed already. We know you can read, so quit playing stupid. --[[User:FrankRingo|FrankRingo]] 18:50, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks Frank.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:52, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, people who disrespect the law are more likely to commit crimes. That's logic, and does not require a citation. [[Professor values]] include a disrespect for rule of law, among other things.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Again, and for the last time before I slam my head on the table, I was querying why good stats were removed from this article which show that crime amoung professors is not disproportionate. Apparently its not factual, according to you and Frank. End of discussion.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:08, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

: What statistics are you describing? Merely an estimate of the total number of professors? That doesn't demonstrate anything about proportionate crime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:14, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
:: The stats I cited, which were removed by you, were from a standard statistical source (see the original citation) and the very high number of professors that exist make the isolated examples provided in the article statistically insignificant. It would be interesting to compare relative crime rates for various professions -- then we'd be able to say that professors are more likely or less likely to commit crimes. I spent a lot of time tracking down those stats and was surprised that you removed them because of "liberal" bias. As my contributions to this Talk page show, I felt uncomfortable seeing ungrounded assertions about professors being disproportionately likely to commit crimes. The few examples are incidental and anecdotal -- they are not statistically significant and one cannot use them to justify the conclusion that professors are more likely to commit crimes than others. Plenty of crimes are committed by teachers, pastors, politicians, business people, and so on -- but no evidence has been supplied to show that they commit crimes less often than professors. I believe my statement was taken away not because it is inherently liberal -- it is attitude neutral -- but rather because the data seriously challenged the validity of the premise of the whole article. After a lot of reading on this in support of my since-removed contributions, I would imagine that, taken as a group, professors are much less likely to commit crimes than many other professions. To prove that, I'd have to do more research and document it well, which I don't have the time to do. The same should be done if one wanted to document that they are MORE likely to commit crimes, but for now those assertions in the article remain unsupported except by isolated examples. That is a very bad example to set for any students, home-schooled or not. My contributions attempted to raise the research standard of the article and I believe the data I supplied were inappropriately removed. [[User:CPlantin|Cplantin] 20:48, 21 April 2008 (CDT)

: I looked for, but could not find, the edit you're describing above. But note that the frequency of crime is not the only issue; the nature of the crimes also matters. Also, it's meaningless to compare wealthy, pampered, highly educated professors to the general population in terms of crime. Any comparison would have to factor in demographic, privilege, and background info.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:56, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:: If it is, as you say, "meaningless to compare wealthy... professors to the general population in terms of crime," then we should remove the entire block of "Crimes by Professors." The number cited is incredibly small, compared with the total number of professors out there, and unless you are positing that they commit crimes with disproportionate frequency (which the article seems to be implying), then it really doesn't have a purpose. We might as well start sections with anecdotal evidence about crimes for several professions. Actually, crime would be the easiest of the categories mentioned in the article to prove. Bullying, etc. may well take place, and some professors are true jerks, but there is not official documentation about instances of promoting immorality, bias against conservatives in classrooms, etc. Anyway, the problem I see with this article is that readers may notice that there is no support of the major assertions except for a handful of examples, some from other countries, one more than 25 years old, and one about a professor being fined $50 for mooning a child. I would suggest that we find documentation to support this article's assertions, call the article an editorial, or delete it entirely. If we look at the nature of the crimes, as you suggest, there are some murders, but also marijuana possession, mooning, attempting to defraud a hospital trust, stalking, possession of child porn, and others -- but not even close to what happens in one major city in one day. Attempting to smear an entire profession based on these examples and no real data is not scholarship. Conservapedia can do better and it should, if it is to be taken seriously. [[User:CPlantin|Cplantin] 1:48, 22 April 2008 (CDT).

::: You didn't respond to my points. The nature of the crimes is as important as their volume, perhaps more so. And, no, we're not going to limit ourselves here to what is recognized by [[liberal]] newspapers and censored journals. Conservapedia reaches beyond what is already widely available, and we're not going to fall for the [[deliberate ignorance]] that plagues less useful resources.

::: Finally, your statement that "some professors are true jerks" obviously misses the point. The problem is not the "jerks", but the "values".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:56, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: I thought I'd addressed the main points you'd asked about, but I'll try again. Frequency of crime is indeed an issue if this article is trying to assert that professors commit crimes proportionally more than those in other specific professions, other professions in general, the general public -- you name it. To prove that they commit more crimes than other groups based on the tiny number of examples is ridiculous. Yes, frequency is not the only issue and the nature of the crimes also matters. But as my comment above shows, the crimes cited in the article, as bad as they are, are not all as bad as, say, murder. Besides murder, there is pot possession, the mooning of a child, stalking, possession of child porn, attempting to defraud a hospital trust. So, to the extent that all crime is bad, then all of those are bad things and I trust that the perps got their just desserts. But are those crimes any more heinous than those committed by any number of people of all kinds of professions, by the rich, by the poor, by politicians, etc. If we do factor in "demographic... and other background info," how would the picture look? Well, we don't really know, do we, because we know of no such studies, if there are any out there. So until we have some kind of actual data to go on, this article should remain silent on the issue (or not exist) or else it will look to readers more like an editorial rather than an encyclopedia article based on factual sources. You'd also asked about the source for my stats. I searched for a long time to find good, reliable numbers regarding professors and other employees in colleges and universities in the United States. Here is the quote you removed, along with the citation:
::::: "However, because the professoriate is so large and varied (more than 1,200,000 in the United States alone, in public and private institutions) it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than others groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeeds.<ref>National Center for Educational Statistics, "Table 178, Historical Summary of faculty, students, degrees, and finances in degree-granting institutions: Selected years, 1869-70 through 2005-06" [http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_178.asp?referrer=list]</ref>"
:::: Looking at it again, I should have been clearer by adding something to the effect that "because the professoriate is so large, it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than other groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeeds based on a small sample of reported crimes unless the group and its crime rates are compared with those of other professionals or the general public." I also should have place the stats citation right after I mentioned the number of professors. The source supports that information and not the rest of the sentence. While I could have been clearer, the statement should not have been removed because you were "cleaning out liberal bias." What is liberal about that statement? I was trying to make the article more substantial and accurate. There are clearly claims in the article that are unsupported and therefore in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments, and I was doing research to find accurate data about the population under discussion. It was only a start and I was enjoying the research, but having my contribution yanked was like getting an unwarranted suckerpunch. In a sense, you did what you accuse professors of doing: you bullied someone you thought had an opposing point of view. Trying to verify facts and add documentation is neither liberal nor conservative - it is research. [[User:CPlantin|Cplantin] 22:51:48, 23 April 2008 (CDT)

== [[Debate:Are Liberals fundamentally evil?|Liberal]] professor [[PZ Myers]] just linked to this article ==

[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/a_temporary_palliative.php Here]. Be on the watch for vandals. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:20, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Westboro Baptist Church

2008-03-22T17:50:45Z

Alexjohnc3:

I don't think that the Westboro Baptist Church qualifies as a liberal activist group especially since they oppose evolution, abortion, and the homosexual agenda, three things that liberals push for heavily. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 12:37, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Phelps wouldn't be that bad if he only protesting homosexuality, its his disrespect of American troops that makes me mad. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 12:38, 28 October 2007 (EDT)
:Of course the WBC isn't a liberal group. They are living proof that anything, even religious conservatism, can be taken to the most extreme, and out of its original context. [[User:Bruce1|Bruce1]] 21:19, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
::So why are they still called liberal activists and why is the page locked? [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 11:56, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Of course they're liberal. They hate America. They say "God Hates America". Who cares if they also say that God hates fags? Who cares if they're also doing God's work by picketing fag churches? Hatred of America is liberal, period. The admins were right to lock the page. You seem to forget that children are reading this site, and they might be confused if we give then too much conflicting information. MissAmerica 11:00, 24 November 2007 (EST)

Osama bin Laden also hates America. Does that make him liberal? Do you even know what liberal means?
--[[User:Incide|Incide]] 19:12, 12 December 2007 (EST)
:Possibly; [[bin Laden]] leads a national liberation movement against [[West]]ern oppression, [[imperialism]], and the [[Church]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:12, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Are you a parodist? This is a second prime example of it at any rate. I've studied Fred Phelps in great detail sir - no other conclusion can be brought out of this article other than that you are writing parody articles. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 16:52, 14 December 2007 (EST)
:*''I've studied Fred Phelps in great detail sir ...''
::*I see. Hmmm. I do not doubt you, sir, for an instant. Now, why are you directing personal comments at me, then, and not discussing the issue? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:45, 14 December 2007 (EST)
You may have studied his inflammatory comments or read an anti-Christian slanted expose or three, but you haven't pointed out a single specific inaccuracy in the article. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:48, 14 December 2007 (EST)
:'''[[bin Laden]] leads a national liberation movement against [[West]]ern oppression, [[imperialism]], and the [[Church]].'''

:I was responding to that (He is implying that Phelps is a Liberal there, and in the Phelps article he is called a 'Leftist Liberal Democrat'. Doesn't take a genius to work out that that is plain false. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 20:07, 14 December 2007 (EST)
::It's not false, how could it be? I mean it says "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" and it has an AMERICAN flag right there at the top-left hand side of the page. Are you anti-America or something?! (Just kidding, by the way. I know that sometimes you can't tell if these type of people are kidding or not so I thought I should note that.) [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 18:29, 15 December 2007 (EST)

I'm conservative but even I can admit that this group is neither liberal nor conservative. It is just simply a hate group --[[User:StephenHarper|StephenHarper]] 20:33, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church are not liberal by any stretch of the imagination. --[[User:Richardhead|Richardhead]] 17:40, 20 December 2007 (EST)
:Maybe they're so conservative that they're liberal. Like they go around the whole political spectrum? Or maybe, just maybe, this "encyclopedia" is just a load of BS written "[[Creationists|conservatives]]" who are upset that their beliefs all too often don't match up with reality so they need their own little sand box where they can censor any dissenters and tell themselves they're trustworthy and honest all they want without the threat of having their (crazy) beliefs mocked or criticized by anyone. [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 13:50, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Edward R. Murrow

2007-12-15T23:57:03Z

Alexjohnc3:

[[Image:Murrowcbs.jpg|170px|thumb|Edward R. Murrow on [[CBS News]].]]
'''Edward R. "Ed" Murrow''' (April 25 1908 - April 27 1965) was a [[Left-wing]] [[United States|American]] [[journalism|journalist]] and television figure. He first came to prominence with a series of [[radio]] news broadcasts during [[World War II]], which were followed by millions of listeners in the United States and Canada. Secular and liberal media historians consider him among journalism's greatest figures being considered one of the first journalists who would editorialize the news instead of just reporting the news. Murrow produced a series of TV news reports that lead up to the censure of a pro-America Senator named [[Joseph McCarthy]].

==Murrow's ''See It Now'' attack on Senator McCarthy==

One of the most prominent attacks on Senator McCarthy was an episode of the TV documentary series ''See It Now'', hosted by [[Edward R. Murrow]], which was broadcast on March 9, 1954.<ref>Murrow, Edward R. (May 31, 2005). [http://www.honors.umd.edu/HONR269J/archive/Murrow540309.html ''The Edward R. Murrow: The McCarthy Years'']. New Video Group.</ref> By the time Murrow produced his ''See It Now'' assault on Senator McCarthy in 1954, the senator had been under almost constant vicious attack for four years. According to McCarthy biographer Arthur Herman, Murrow and his staff had spent two months carefully editing film clips to portray McCarthy in the worst possible light. There were no clips showing McCarthy in a professional manner. Despite Murrow's claims, this "was not a report at all but instead a full-scale assault, employing exactly the same techniques of 'partial truth and innuendo' that critics accused McCarthy of using."<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Herman
| first = Arthur
| title = Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator
| publisher = Free Press
| date = 1999
| pages = page 253
| id = ISBN 0-684-83625-4 }}
</ref>

The episode consisted largely of clips of McCarthy in the most unflattering context, including "belching and picking his nose".<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Herman
| first = Arthur
| title = Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator
| publisher = Free Press
| date = 1999
| pages = page 253
| id = ISBN 0-684-83625-4 }}
</ref>
In these clips, McCarthy accuses the [[Democratic Party]] of "twenty years of treason" because of the Democratic Party's concessions to the [[Soviet Union]] at the [[Yalta conference]] and [[Potsdam conference]], describes the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] as "listed as 'a front for, and doing the work of,' the Communist Party," and berates General Zwicker for Zwicker's claim that he would protect any other general who promotes Communist's within the military. Murrow also portrays a Pentagon coding room employee, [[Annie Lee Moss]] as an innocent victim of McCarthy even though it was later established that the F.B.I. had warned the Army and the Civil Service Commission about her [[Communist Party]] connection.<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Herman
| first = Arthur
| title = Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator
| publisher = Free Press
| date = 1999
| pages = pgs. 333-337
| id = ISBN 0-684-83625-4}}</ref>
[[Image:Murrowemmyaward.jpg|250px|thumb|Murrow, left, receiving an [[Emmy Award]] for wining the 1956 Best News Commentary category.]]
However, even some McCarthy critics were outraged by this one-sided presentation. Consistent McCarthy critic, John Cogley of ''[[Commonweal]]'', "sharply attacked Murrow and his producers for their distorted summary and selected use of video clips."<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Herman
| first = Arthur
| title = Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator
| publisher = Free Press
| date = 1999
| pages = page 253
| id = ISBN 0-684-83625-4}}
</ref> Cogley commented that a different selection of footage could have easily portrayed McCarthy in an extremely positive light and, then further warned against the misuse of television in this fashion. He and another McCarthy critic from the ''[[Saturday Review]]'' agreed that it "was not a proud moment for television journalism".<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Lately
| first = Thomas
| title = When Even Angels Wept
| publisher = Morrow
| date = 1973
| pages = page 466
| id = ISBN 0-688-00148-3}}</ref>

To counter the negative publicity, McCarthy appeared on ''See It Now'' on April 6, 1954, and presented his case in order to clarify the misconceptions that Murrow had televised. McCarthy countered that his committee, "has forced out of government, and out of important defense plants, Communists engaged in the Soviet conspiracy." McCarthy went on to say, "For example, 238 witnesses were examined [in] public session; 367 witnesses examined [in] executive session; 84 witnesses refused to testify as to Communist activities on the ground that, if they told the truth, they might go to jail; twenty-four witnesses with Communist backgrounds have been discharged from jobs [in] which they were handling secret, top-secret, confidential material, individuals who were exposed before our committee." McCarthy also exposed Murrow's left-wing background and previous associations with Communist organizations.<ref>Murrow, Edward R. (May 31, 2005). [http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/murrowmccarthy2.html ''The Edward R. Murrow: The McCarthy Years'']. New Video Group.</ref>

The Murrow report, together with the televised Army-McCarthy hearings of the same year, and four years of consistent anti-McCarthy media reporting were the major causes of a nationwide popular opinion backlash against McCarthy. However, well-known broadcaster Eric Sevareid said the Murrow assault "came very late in the day. The youngsters read back and they think only one person in broadcasting and the press stood up to McCarthy and this has made a lot of people feel very upset, including me, because that program came awfully late."<ref>Bates, Michael M. (November 15, 2005). [http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/bates/051115 ''Murrow, McCarthy, and the Media'']. Renew America.</ref>

Even Murrow discounted his role in the decline of Senator McCarthy's popularity. Murrow stated, "My God, I didn't do anything. (Times columnist) Scotty Reston and lot of guys have been writing like this, saying the same things, for months, for years. We're bringing up the rear."<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Bayley
| first = Edwin R.
| title = Joe McCarthy and the Press
| publisher = University of Wisconsin Press
| date = 1981
| id = ISBN 0-688-00148-3}}</ref>

Nevertheless, despite the deceptive nature of the ''See It Now'' program and the late date in which it appears, anti-McCarthy, anti-America historians have credited and celebrated Murrow as playing a major role in damaging Senator McCarthy's campaign to remove security risks from the U.S. government.

==Notes==
<references/>

==References==
#Bates, Michael M. (November 15, 2005). [http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/bates/051115 ''Murrow, McCarthy, and the Media'']. Renew America.
#Bayley, Edwin R. (1981). ''Joe McCarthy and the Press''. University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 0-688-00148-3.
#Herman, Arthur (1999). ''Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator''. Free Press. ISBN 0-684-83625-4.
#Lately, Thomas (1973). ''When Even Angels Wept''. Morrow. page 466. ISBN 0-688-00148-3.

==External Links==
*[http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/bates/051115 ''Murrow, McCarthy, and the Media'']. (November 15, 2005). Renew America.
*[http://www.honors.umd.edu/HONR269J/archive/Murrow540309.html ''See It Now, Edward R. Murrow report on Senator McCarthy'']. (March 9, 1954). CBS-TV. Retrieved on 8/21/07.
*[http://www.honors.umd.edu/HONR269J/archive/Murrow540406.html ''See It Now, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy's Reply to Edward R. Murrow'']. (April 6, 1954}. CBS-TV. Retrieved on 8/21/07.

==See Also==
*[[Bill O'Reilly]]

*[[Joseph McCarthy]]

*[[Keith Olbermann]]

*[[Conservative Links]]

[[Category:Biographies]]
[[Category:Journalists]]
[[category:Broadcasters]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Murrow R., Edward}}

Edward R. Murrow

2007-12-15T23:37:33Z

Alexjohnc3:

[[Image:Murrowcbs.jpg|170px|thumb|Edward R. Murrow on [[CBS News]].]]
'''Edward R. "Ed" Murrow''' (April 25 1908 - April 27 1965) was a [[Left-wing]] [[United States|American]] [[journalism|journalist]] and television figure. He first came to prominence with a series of [[radio]] news broadcasts during [[World War II]], which were followed by millions of listeners in the United States and Canada. Secular and liberal media historians consider him among journalism's greatest figures being considered one of the first journalists who would editorialize the news instead of just reporting the news. Murrow produced a series of TV news reports that lead up to the censure of a pro-America Senator named [[Joseph McCarthy]].

==Murrow's ''See It Now'' attack on Senator McCarthy==

One of the most prominent attacks on Senator McCarthy was an episode of the TV documentary series ''See It Now'', hosted by [[Edward R. Murrow]], which was broadcast on March 9, 1954.<ref>Murrow, Edward R. (May 31, 2005). [http://www.honors.umd.edu/HONR269J/archive/Murrow540309.html ''The Edward R. Murrow: The McCarthy Years'']. New Video Group.</ref> By the time Murrow produced his ''See It Now'' assault on Senator McCarthy in 1954, the senator had been under almost constant vicious attack for four years. According to McCarthy biographer Arthur Herman, Murrow and his staff had spent two months carefully editing film clips to portray McCarthy in the worst possible light. There were no clips showing McCarthy in a professional manner. Despite Murrow's claims, this "was not a report at all but instead a full-scale assault, employing exactly the same techniques of 'partial truth and innuendo' that critics accused McCarthy of using."<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Herman
| first = Arthur
| title = Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator
| publisher = Free Press
| date = 1999
| pages = page 253
| id = ISBN 0-684-83625-4 }}
</ref>

The episode consisted largely of clips of McCarthy in the most unflattering context, including "belching and picking his nose".<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Herman
| first = Arthur
| title = Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator
| publisher = Free Press
| date = 1999
| pages = page 253
| id = ISBN 0-684-83625-4 }}
</ref>
In these clips, McCarthy accuses the [[Democratic Party]] of "twenty years of treason" because of the Democratic Party's concessions to the [[Soviet Union]] at the [[Yalta conference]] and [[Potsdam conference]], describes the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] as "listed as 'a front for, and doing the work of,' the Communist Party," and berates General Zwicker for Zwicker's claim that he would protect any other general who promotes Communist's within the military. Murrow also portrays a Pentagon coding room employee, [[Annie Lee Moss]] as an innocent victim of McCarthy even though it was later established that the F.B.I. had warned the Army and the Civil Service Commission about her [[Communist Party]] connection.<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Herman
| first = Arthur
| title = Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator
| publisher = Free Press
| date = 1999
| pages = pgs. 333-337
| id = ISBN 0-684-83625-4}}</ref>
[[Image:Murrowemmyaward.jpg|250px|thumb|Murrow, left, receiving an [[Emmy Award]] for wining the 1956 Best News Commentary category.]]
However, even some McCarthy critics were outraged by this one-sided presentation. Consistent McCarthy critic, John Cogley of ''[[Commonweal]]'', "sharply attacked Murrow and his producers for their distorted summary and selected use of video clips."<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Herman
| first = Arthur
| title = Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator
| publisher = Free Press
| date = 1999
| pages = page 253
| id = ISBN 0-684-83625-4}}
</ref> Cogley commented that a different selection of footage could have easily portrayed McCarthy in an extremely positive light and, then further warned against the misuse of television in this fashion. He and another McCarthy critic from the ''[[Saturday Review]]'' agreed that it "was not a proud moment for television journalism".<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Lately
| first = Thomas
| title = When Even Angels Wept
| publisher = Morrow
| date = 1973
| pages = page 466
| id = ISBN 0-688-00148-3}}</ref>

To counter the negative publicity, McCarthy appeared on ''See It Now'' on April 6, 1954, and presented his case in order to clarify the misconceptions that Murrow had televised. McCarthy countered that his committee, "has forced out of government, and out of important defense plants, Communists engaged in the Soviet conspiracy." McCarthy went on to say, "For example, 238 witnesses were examined [in] public session; 367 witnesses examined [in] executive session; 84 witnesses refused to testify as to Communist activities on the ground that, if they told the truth, they might go to jail; twenty-four witnesses with Communist backgrounds have been discharged from jobs [in] which they were handling secret, top-secret, confidential material, individuals who were exposed before our committee." McCarthy also exposed Murrow's left-wing background and previous associations with Communist organizations.<ref>Murrow, Edward R. (May 31, 2005). [http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/murrowmccarthy2.html ''The Edward R. Murrow: The McCarthy Years'']. New Video Group.</ref>

The Murrow report, together with the televised Army-McCarthy hearings of the same year, and four years of consistent anti-McCarthy media reporting were the major causes of a nationwide popular opinion backlash against McCarthy. However, well-known broadcaster Eric Sevareid said the Murrow assault "came very late in the day. The youngsters read back and they think only one person in broadcasting and the press stood up to McCarthy and this has made a lot of people feel very upset, including me, because that program came awfully late."<ref>Bates, Michael M. (November 15, 2005). [http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/bates/051115 ''Murrow, McCarthy, and the Media'']. Renew America.</ref>

Even Murrow discounted his role in the decline of Senator McCarthy's popularity. Murrow stated, "My God, I didn't do anything. (Times columnist) Scotty Reston and lot of guys have been writing like this, saying the same things, for months, for years. We're bringing up the rear."<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Bayley
| first = Edwin R.
| title = Joe McCarthy and the Press
| publisher = University of Wisconsin Press
| date = 1981
| id = ISBN 0-688-00148-3}}</ref>

Nevertheless, despite the deceptive nature of the ''See It Now'' program and the late date in which it appears, anti-McCarthy historians have credited and celebrated Murrow as playing a major role in damaging Senator McCarthy's campaign to remove security risks from the U.S. government.

==Notes==
<references/>

==References==
#Bates, Michael M. (November 15, 2005). [http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/bates/051115 ''Murrow, McCarthy, and the Media'']. Renew America.
#Bayley, Edwin R. (1981). ''Joe McCarthy and the Press''. University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 0-688-00148-3.
#Herman, Arthur (1999). ''Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator''. Free Press. ISBN 0-684-83625-4.
#Lately, Thomas (1973). ''When Even Angels Wept''. Morrow. page 466. ISBN 0-688-00148-3.

==External Links==
*[http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/bates/051115 ''Murrow, McCarthy, and the Media'']. (November 15, 2005). Renew America.
*[http://www.honors.umd.edu/HONR269J/archive/Murrow540309.html ''See It Now, Edward R. Murrow report on Senator McCarthy'']. (March 9, 1954). CBS-TV. Retrieved on 8/21/07.
*[http://www.honors.umd.edu/HONR269J/archive/Murrow540406.html ''See It Now, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy's Reply to Edward R. Murrow'']. (April 6, 1954}. CBS-TV. Retrieved on 8/21/07.

==See Also==
*[[Bill O'Reilly]]

*[[Joseph McCarthy]]

*[[Keith Olbermann]]

*[[Conservative Links]]

[[Category:Biographies]]
[[Category:Journalists]]
[[category:Broadcasters]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Murrow R., Edward}}

Edward R. Murrow

2007-12-15T23:37:01Z

Alexjohnc3:

[[Image:Murrowcbs.jpg|170px|thumb|Edward R. Murrow on [[CBS News]].]]
'''Edward R. "Ed" Murrow''' (April 25 1908 - April 27 1965) was a [[Left-wing]] [[United States|American]] [[journalism|journalist]] and television figure. He first came to prominence with a series of [[radio]] news broadcasts during [[World War II]], which were followed by millions of listeners in the United States and Canada. Secular and liberal media historians consider him among journalism's greatest figures being considered one of the first journalists who would editorialize the news instead of just reporting the news. Murrow produced a series of TV news reports that lead up to the censure of a pro-American Senator named [[Joseph McCarthy]].

==Murrow's ''See It Now'' attack on Senator McCarthy==

One of the most prominent attacks on Senator McCarthy was an episode of the TV documentary series ''See It Now'', hosted by [[Edward R. Murrow]], which was broadcast on March 9, 1954.<ref>Murrow, Edward R. (May 31, 2005). [http://www.honors.umd.edu/HONR269J/archive/Murrow540309.html ''The Edward R. Murrow: The McCarthy Years'']. New Video Group.</ref> By the time Murrow produced his ''See It Now'' assault on Senator McCarthy in 1954, the senator had been under almost constant vicious attack for four years. According to McCarthy biographer Arthur Herman, Murrow and his staff had spent two months carefully editing film clips to portray McCarthy in the worst possible light. There were no clips showing McCarthy in a professional manner. Despite Murrow's claims, this "was not a report at all but instead a full-scale assault, employing exactly the same techniques of 'partial truth and innuendo' that critics accused McCarthy of using."<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Herman
| first = Arthur
| title = Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator
| publisher = Free Press
| date = 1999
| pages = page 253
| id = ISBN 0-684-83625-4 }}
</ref>

The episode consisted largely of clips of McCarthy in the most unflattering context, including "belching and picking his nose".<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Herman
| first = Arthur
| title = Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator
| publisher = Free Press
| date = 1999
| pages = page 253
| id = ISBN 0-684-83625-4 }}
</ref>
In these clips, McCarthy accuses the [[Democratic Party]] of "twenty years of treason" because of the Democratic Party's concessions to the [[Soviet Union]] at the [[Yalta conference]] and [[Potsdam conference]], describes the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] as "listed as 'a front for, and doing the work of,' the Communist Party," and berates General Zwicker for Zwicker's claim that he would protect any other general who promotes Communist's within the military. Murrow also portrays a Pentagon coding room employee, [[Annie Lee Moss]] as an innocent victim of McCarthy even though it was later established that the F.B.I. had warned the Army and the Civil Service Commission about her [[Communist Party]] connection.<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Herman
| first = Arthur
| title = Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator
| publisher = Free Press
| date = 1999
| pages = pgs. 333-337
| id = ISBN 0-684-83625-4}}</ref>
[[Image:Murrowemmyaward.jpg|250px|thumb|Murrow, left, receiving an [[Emmy Award]] for wining the 1956 Best News Commentary category.]]
However, even some McCarthy critics were outraged by this one-sided presentation. Consistent McCarthy critic, John Cogley of ''[[Commonweal]]'', "sharply attacked Murrow and his producers for their distorted summary and selected use of video clips."<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Herman
| first = Arthur
| title = Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator
| publisher = Free Press
| date = 1999
| pages = page 253
| id = ISBN 0-684-83625-4}}
</ref> Cogley commented that a different selection of footage could have easily portrayed McCarthy in an extremely positive light and, then further warned against the misuse of television in this fashion. He and another McCarthy critic from the ''[[Saturday Review]]'' agreed that it "was not a proud moment for television journalism".<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Lately
| first = Thomas
| title = When Even Angels Wept
| publisher = Morrow
| date = 1973
| pages = page 466
| id = ISBN 0-688-00148-3}}</ref>

To counter the negative publicity, McCarthy appeared on ''See It Now'' on April 6, 1954, and presented his case in order to clarify the misconceptions that Murrow had televised. McCarthy countered that his committee, "has forced out of government, and out of important defense plants, Communists engaged in the Soviet conspiracy." McCarthy went on to say, "For example, 238 witnesses were examined [in] public session; 367 witnesses examined [in] executive session; 84 witnesses refused to testify as to Communist activities on the ground that, if they told the truth, they might go to jail; twenty-four witnesses with Communist backgrounds have been discharged from jobs [in] which they were handling secret, top-secret, confidential material, individuals who were exposed before our committee." McCarthy also exposed Murrow's left-wing background and previous associations with Communist organizations.<ref>Murrow, Edward R. (May 31, 2005). [http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/murrowmccarthy2.html ''The Edward R. Murrow: The McCarthy Years'']. New Video Group.</ref>

The Murrow report, together with the televised Army-McCarthy hearings of the same year, and four years of consistent anti-McCarthy media reporting were the major causes of a nationwide popular opinion backlash against McCarthy. However, well-known broadcaster Eric Sevareid said the Murrow assault "came very late in the day. The youngsters read back and they think only one person in broadcasting and the press stood up to McCarthy and this has made a lot of people feel very upset, including me, because that program came awfully late."<ref>Bates, Michael M. (November 15, 2005). [http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/bates/051115 ''Murrow, McCarthy, and the Media'']. Renew America.</ref>

Even Murrow discounted his role in the decline of Senator McCarthy's popularity. Murrow stated, "My God, I didn't do anything. (Times columnist) Scotty Reston and lot of guys have been writing like this, saying the same things, for months, for years. We're bringing up the rear."<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Bayley
| first = Edwin R.
| title = Joe McCarthy and the Press
| publisher = University of Wisconsin Press
| date = 1981
| id = ISBN 0-688-00148-3}}</ref>

Nevertheless, despite the deceptive nature of the ''See It Now'' program and the late date in which it appears, anti-McCarthy historians have credited and celebrated Murrow as playing a major role in damaging Senator McCarthy's campaign to remove security risks from the U.S. government.

==Notes==
<references/>

==References==
#Bates, Michael M. (November 15, 2005). [http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/bates/051115 ''Murrow, McCarthy, and the Media'']. Renew America.
#Bayley, Edwin R. (1981). ''Joe McCarthy and the Press''. University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 0-688-00148-3.
#Herman, Arthur (1999). ''Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator''. Free Press. ISBN 0-684-83625-4.
#Lately, Thomas (1973). ''When Even Angels Wept''. Morrow. page 466. ISBN 0-688-00148-3.

==External Links==
*[http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/bates/051115 ''Murrow, McCarthy, and the Media'']. (November 15, 2005). Renew America.
*[http://www.honors.umd.edu/HONR269J/archive/Murrow540309.html ''See It Now, Edward R. Murrow report on Senator McCarthy'']. (March 9, 1954). CBS-TV. Retrieved on 8/21/07.
*[http://www.honors.umd.edu/HONR269J/archive/Murrow540406.html ''See It Now, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy's Reply to Edward R. Murrow'']. (April 6, 1954}. CBS-TV. Retrieved on 8/21/07.

==See Also==
*[[Bill O'Reilly]]

*[[Joseph McCarthy]]

*[[Keith Olbermann]]

*[[Conservative Links]]

[[Category:Biographies]]
[[Category:Journalists]]
[[category:Broadcasters]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Murrow R., Edward}}

Talk:Westboro Baptist Church

2007-12-15T23:30:33Z

Alexjohnc3:

I don't think that the Westboro Baptist Church qualifies as a liberal activist group especially since they oppose evolution, abortion, and the homosexual agenda, three things that liberals push for heavily. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 12:37, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Phelps wouldn't be that bad if he only protesting homosexuality, its his disrespect of American troops that makes me mad. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 12:38, 28 October 2007 (EDT)
:Of course the WBC isn't a liberal group. They are living proof that anything, even religious conservatism, can be taken to the most extreme, and out of its original context. [[User:Bruce1|Bruce1]] 21:19, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
::So why are they still called liberal activists and why is the page locked? [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 11:56, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Of course they're liberal. They hate America. They say God Hates America. Who cares if they also say that God hates fags, {{tl|Remove personal remark}} Who cares if they're also doing God's work by picketing Fag churches? You seem to forget that children are reading this site, and they might be confused if we give then too much conflicting information. [[user:MissAmerica|MissAmerica]] 11:00, 24 November 2007 (EST)

Osama bin Laden also hates America. Does that make him liberal? Do you even know what liberal means?
--[[User:Incide|Incide]] 19:12, 12 December 2007 (EST)
:Possibly; [[bin Laden]] leads a national liberation movement against [[West]]ern oppression, [[imperialism]], and the [[Church]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:12, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Are you a parodist? This is a second prime example of it at any rate. I've studied Fred Phelps in great detail sir - no other conclusion can be brought out of this article other than that you are writing parody articles. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 16:52, 14 December 2007 (EST)
:*''I've studied Fred Phelps in great detail sir ...''
::*I see. Hmmm. I do not doubt you, sir, for an instant. Now, why are you directing personal comments at me, then, and not discussing the issue? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:45, 14 December 2007 (EST)
You may have studied his inflammatory comments or read an anti-Christian slanted expose or three, but you haven't pointed out a single specific inaccuracy in the article. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:48, 14 December 2007 (EST)
:'''[[bin Laden]] leads a national liberation movement against [[West]]ern oppression, [[imperialism]], and the [[Church]].'''

:I was responding to that (He is implying that Phelps is a Liberal there, and in the Phelps article he is called a 'Leftist Liberal Democrat'. Doesn't take a genius to work out that that is plain false. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 20:07, 14 December 2007 (EST)
::It's not false, how could it be? I mean it says "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" and it has an AMERICAN flag right there at the top-left hand side of the page. Are you anti-America or something?! (Just kidding, by the way. I know that sometimes you can't tell if these type of people are kidding or not so I thought I should note that.) [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 18:29, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Talk:Westboro Baptist Church

2007-12-15T23:29:24Z

Alexjohnc3:

I don't think that the Westboro Baptist Church qualifies as a liberal activist group especially since they oppose evolution, abortion, and the homosexual agenda, three things that liberals push for heavily. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 12:37, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Phelps wouldn't be that bad if he only protesting homosexuality, its his disrespect of American troops that makes me mad. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 12:38, 28 October 2007 (EDT)
:Of course the WBC isn't a liberal group. They are living proof that anything, even religious conservatism, can be taken to the most extreme, and out of its original context. [[User:Bruce1|Bruce1]] 21:19, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
::So why are they still called liberal activists and why is the page locked? [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 11:56, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Of course they're liberal. They hate America. They say God Hates America. Who cares if they also say that God hates fags, {{tl|Remove personal remark}} Who cares if they're also doing God's work by picketing Fag churches? You seem to forget that children are reading this site, and they might be confused if we give then too much conflicting information. [[user:MissAmerica|MissAmerica]] 11:00, 24 November 2007 (EST)

Osama bin Laden also hates America. Does that make him liberal? Do you even know what liberal means?
--[[User:Incide|Incide]] 19:12, 12 December 2007 (EST)
:Possibly; [[bin Laden]] leads a national liberation movement against [[West]]ern oppression, [[imperialism]], and the [[Church]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:12, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Are you a parodist? This is a second prime example of it at any rate. I've studied Fred Phelps in great detail sir - no other conclusion can be brought out of this article other than that you are writing parody articles. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 16:52, 14 December 2007 (EST)
:*''I've studied Fred Phelps in great detail sir ...''
::*I see. Hmmm. I do not doubt you, sir, for an instant. Now, why are you directing personal comments at me, then, and not discussing the issue? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:45, 14 December 2007 (EST)
You may have studied his inflammatory comments or read an anti-Christian slanted expose or three, but you haven't pointed out a single specific inaccuracy in the article. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:48, 14 December 2007 (EST)
:'''[[bin Laden]] leads a national liberation movement against [[West]]ern oppression, [[imperialism]], and the [[Church]].'''

:I was responding to that (He is implying that Phelps is a Liberal there, and in the Phelps article he is called a 'Leftist Liberal Democrat'. Doesn't take a genius to work out that that is plain false. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 20:07, 14 December 2007 (EST)
::It's not false, how could it be? I mean it says "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" and it has an AMERICAN flag right there at the top-left hand side of the page. Are you anti-America or something?! [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 18:29, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Gravitation

2007-12-15T23:25:10Z

Alexjohnc3: Made more appropiate for Conservapedia, if you think these edits are inappropiate for some reason, please tell me

'''Gravitation''' is a [[phenomenon]] which attracts all objects within the [[universe]] to each other <ref>New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd Edition</ref>. In modern [[physics]], it is explained by the secular [[Theory of relativity|General Theory of relativity]]. Before general relativity, gravitation was described by [[Sir Isaac Newton|Isaac Newton's]] naturalistic law of universal gravitation in his [[Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica|''Principia Mathematica'']], which is still useful in most situations.

Everything in the universe that has mass attracts every other thing that has mass. How much depends on the size of the masses and the distance between them. For normal objects, this pull is minute, but you can measure the pull between a very large object like the [[Earth]] and another object like you by standing on the scales. Your [[weight]] is the measure of the pull of gravity between you and the planet you are standing on. This [[force]] depends on your [[mass]] and the mass of that planet, but it also depends on your [[distance]] from the center of the planet. The further you are from the planet's center, the weaker the pull between it and your body. If you double your distance, the force is one quarter. At ten times the distance, the force is one hundredth. It drops off with the square of the distance. This is called the [[Inverse Square Law.]] <ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html</ref>The force never becomes zero, no matter how far you travel.

The law itself states that each particle in the universe attracts another particle with a force directly [[proportion|proportional]] to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the [[exponentiation|square]] of the distance between them<ref>Serway and Beichner, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, Fifth Edition</ref>, or:

:<math>F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}</math>

Where:

''F'' is the magnitude of the gravitational force.

''m''1 and ''m''2 are the object's masses.

''r'' is the distance that separates the objects' centers of mass.

''G'' is the [[gravitational constant]]: 6.67428x10-11 N m2 Kg -2

Gravitation is responsible for making objects accelerate towards each other as well as for the formation of the [[Earth]] and [[Sun]], the [[stars]] and the [[planets]].

An objects escape speed is the velocity required to escape the gravitational pull of a another object, usually a planet. It ca be expressed as:

:<math>v = \sqrt \frac{2 G M}{R}</math>

Where:

''v'' is necessary velocity

''M'' is the mass of the planet

''R'' is the radius of the planet

''G'' is the [[gravitational constant]]: 6.67428x10-11 N m2 Kg -2

==Gravity and Modern Physics==
Newton's [[Theory of Gravity]] was one of the earliest triumphs of modern [[physics]]. It now stands as both one of the most successful and most mysterious areas of that field. On one hand, the [[Theory_of_Relativity|General theory of Relativity]] is one of the most successful [[Scientific_Theory|scientific theories]] to date. On the other hand, how General Relativity might be reconciled with [[Quantum_mechanics|quantum physics]] during the first few milliseconds of the [[Big Bang]] remains an open question, and is one of the hotly contested areas among modern theoretical physicists. In the 1980s [[string theory]] was seen by many physicists as a more likely path towards a particular unification of gravity with the other fundamental forces (electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces), but the theory has been a failure.

==See also==
*[[gravitational gradient]]

== References ==
<div class="references-small">
<references />
[[category:physics]]

Talk:Liberal

2007-12-15T23:20:59Z

Alexjohnc3:

{{protected|Aschlafly}}
 

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]
 


This entry is really quite pathetic. If you're going to lock an entry, at least clean it up first. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:49, 11 November 2007 (EST)

:Sorry to say it, but I have to agree. I was going to add some content here but of course I can't. This article is really quite bad, not to mention very incomplete. It would be better to deal with vandalism manually than to prevent the article (which really is quite important, is it not?) from being developed. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:25, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Westboro Baptist Church?

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
:Why? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:35, 5 November 2007 (EST)

::It's because [[Fred Phelps]] is a [[liberal|liberal activist]] (see the discussion on the [[Talk:Fred Phelps|talk page]] for an explanation).

::By the way, it appears the link is broken anyway. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:34, 5 November 2007 (EST)

== Different definitions of Liberal ==

Just wanted to add a line pointing out that in some countries such as Australia, the term Liberal is actually used to refer to the conservative view. See the Liberal Party of Australia as an example. This could be worth pointing out as it will prevent them being tarnished by the comments here aimed towards the left wing type Liberals.

That list of (supposed) liberal positions at the beginning is at best a half-truth. Many liberals (including me) DO NOT SUPPORT a number of them.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 10:43, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, but the plural of "antidote" is "antidotes," not "data." The list stays. [[User:J2xl|J2xl]] 22:00, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

And just what is so wrong about taxpayer-supported government schools? If it weren't for them, many people, including my parents, wouldn't have been able to get an education. By the way, does the stance of Aschlafly et al against this mean that they would be willing to voluntarily support the education of children not their own whose parents couldn't afford to?[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:38, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

== Pathetic Article ==

The formatting is abysmal, the content laughable. I thought Conservapedia was a serious movement to write articles from a right-wing intelligent viewpoint... but i see it's dominated with weak, stolen political jokes. JOKES in an apparently "informative" article. If this is just an oversight, i retract everything.
:I agree with the comment above and have reinstated it despite someone (I think Karajou's?) deletion of it. However it should have been signed. I think it's Silvanus', but I'm a bit of a newbie at this. Does anyone know a way of adding a signature to someone else's comment? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:02, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::IMHO, liberalism is like silly putty, you can make of it whatever you want to. Like Hillary going for the Christian vote or Kerry for the NRA. Next they'll be going after the cigarette smoker vote. All else is extraneous. But that is probably too simple a definition. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:19, 19 November 2007 (EST)
:::Well, I certainly agree that the editors are applying that attitude to this article. It's generalised, bigoted and unencyclopedic. Yours is not a humble opinion, it's a pompous and largely unfounded diatribe. This isn't trolling, I'm just disappointed and frustrated that the admins are stonewalling any revision of this article, when it's such an important topic. 'Know thine enemy', at the very least. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 16:07, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::We could unlock it and put today's DNC talking points in. Of course then we'd have to revise it tomorrow to say something completely opposite to accomodate tomorrows talking points. Call this a [[stable version]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:26, 21 November 2007 (EST)

== Liberal Failures ==

[[Rush Limbaugh]] had a section in the December 2007 [[Limbaugh Letter]] called "Liberal Failures". At rushlimbaugh.com, Rush says he got the idea for his article from an article by Jeffrey Lord: [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters - American Spectator].

Rush lists several examples of liberal failures under each of these categories:

*Economy/Taxation
*Health Care
*Law/Criminal Justice
*Environment
*Education
*Immigration
*Culture
*National Security

Rush says "''Liberalism doesn't work''. It fails, every time it's tried." <ref>Nailing the Left - Liberal Failures, [[Rush Limbaugh]], ''The [[Limbaugh Letter]]'', December 2007, pp. 13-15</ref>
 
Jeffrey Lord lists examples of these liberal disasters:

* Forced School Busing
* Welfare
* Luxury Tax
* Alternative Minimum Tax
* Bringing Peace to Vietnam and Cambodia
* Free Love
* Drugs

"TOO SUM UP: Whether it was education policy, welfare policy, economic policy, foreign policy or social policy, time after time after time what became the guiding lights of modern American liberalism proved to be utter disasters. <ref>[http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters] Jeffrey Lord, ''The American Spectator'', 11/6/2007</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

We could create a new page called [[Liberal Failures]] or incorporate it into one of our existing liberal articles. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:41, 9 December 2007 (EST)

==Denial of gender differences by liberals==
"denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as wanting men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)"

Should we also note that liberals think women should be able to vote too, even though the conservatives throughout history have fought against women's suffrage? [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 18:20, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia talk:Editing etiquette

2007-12-15T23:11:39Z

Alexjohnc3: /* My reversion of Alexjohnc3's edits */

== My reversion of Alexjohnc3's edits ==

Alexjohnc3 removed quote marks and the word "secular" in the example sentence "Secular geologists believe that the world is 5.6 billion years old", with the edit comments:
* ''What's with adding the word "secular" to "geologist"? It makes Conservapedia look like it's run by a bunch of Creationists or something.''
* ''No need for quotes around the word "facts". Use a different word, like "statements" if you feel like it.''
As the author of this page, I thought I'd explain my rationale for the way it was, and thus why I have reverted it.

Alexjohnc3 unwittingly provides a good example of why the quote marks were there. He changed the sentence to read "Geologists believe that the world is 5.6 billion years old", presumably believing that statement to be factual. And that's the point. When an editor includes a statement that he ''considers to be'' factual, it doesn't mean that it actually is. The quote marks around the word "fact" were to indicate that, at the point in time when the editor includes the statement, whether or not the statement is factual is not something that has been agreed. It may be factual, but it may be that he ''thinks'' it's factual when it's not, so the quote marks are to indicate that the supposed "fact" may not be a fact, just as have used quote marks around one use of the word in this sentence.

The reason that the word "secular" was there was in an attempt to make the statement factual, i.e. correct, because it is ''not'' correct to make the statement that "geologists believe..." if this indicates that there is unanimity on the issue. For the record, many of the people running Conservapedia ''are'' creationists, and Alexjohnc3's edit comment insinuating that this is something undesirable is offensive.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:11, 4 November 2007 (EST)
:I doubt every single "secular" geologist believes Earth is over a billion years old. There's probably a few who believe that the world doesn't actually exist and is really just a simulation, just as there are some Creationist geologists. I didn't mean to be offensive, but you might as well have said, "secular evilutionists believe the world is 4.5 billion years old and that we're all monkeys!" Putting the world "secular" before words like "geologist," "scientist," etc. is a technique often used to imply that scientists don't have actual reasons for accepting the validity of a view. [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 18:11, 15 December 2007 (EST)

== Protection.... ==

Since this page is linked to throughout Conservapedia, I have protected it from general editing. That does not mean who don't encourage suggested changes! It does mean it needs to be protected from potential vandals and mischief makers. Please post your suggestions for inclusion here, and an Administrator will be happy to open it for you, or discuss your ideas here. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:25, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia talk:Editing etiquette

2007-12-15T23:11:23Z

Alexjohnc3: /* My reversion of Alexjohnc3's edits */

== My reversion of Alexjohnc3's edits ==

Alexjohnc3 removed quote marks and the word "secular" in the example sentence "Secular geologists believe that the world is 5.6 billion years old", with the edit comments:
* ''What's with adding the word "secular" to "geologist"? It makes Conservapedia look like it's run by a bunch of Creationists or something.''
* ''No need for quotes around the word "facts". Use a different word, like "statements" if you feel like it.''
As the author of this page, I thought I'd explain my rationale for the way it was, and thus why I have reverted it.

Alexjohnc3 unwittingly provides a good example of why the quote marks were there. He changed the sentence to read "Geologists believe that the world is 5.6 billion years old", presumably believing that statement to be factual. And that's the point. When an editor includes a statement that he ''considers to be'' factual, it doesn't mean that it actually is. The quote marks around the word "fact" were to indicate that, at the point in time when the editor includes the statement, whether or not the statement is factual is not something that has been agreed. It may be factual, but it may be that he ''thinks'' it's factual when it's not, so the quote marks are to indicate that the supposed "fact" may not be a fact, just as have used quote marks around one use of the word in this sentence.

The reason that the word "secular" was there was in an attempt to make the statement factual, i.e. correct, because it is ''not'' correct to make the statement that "geologists believe..." if this indicates that there is unanimity on the issue. For the record, many of the people running Conservapedia ''are'' creationists, and Alexjohnc3's edit comment insinuating that this is something undesirable is offensive.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:11, 4 November 2007 (EST)
:I doubt every single "secular" geologist believes Earth is over a billion years old. There's probably a few who believe that the world doesn't actually exist and is really just a simulation, just as there are some Creationist geologists. I didn't mean to be offensive, but you might as well have said, "secular evilutionists believe the world is 4.5 billion years old and that we're all monkeys!" Putting the world "secular" before words like "geologist," "scientist," etc. is a technique often used to imply that scientists don't have actual reasons for accepting the validity of a few. [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 18:11, 15 December 2007 (EST)

== Protection.... ==

Since this page is linked to throughout Conservapedia, I have protected it from general editing. That does not mean who don't encourage suggested changes! It does mean it needs to be protected from potential vandals and mischief makers. Please post your suggestions for inclusion here, and an Administrator will be happy to open it for you, or discuss your ideas here. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:25, 4 November 2007 (EST)

User:Alexjohnc3

2007-11-04T17:31:19Z

Alexjohnc3:

This is my userpage. I'm not sure how long I've had an account here, but I think it was back in February 2007 that I signed up.

If you contest any of my edits, feel free to post on my talk page.

Gravitation

2007-11-04T17:27:57Z

Alexjohnc3:

'''Gravitation''' is a [[phenomenon]] which attracts all objects within the [[universe]] to each other <ref>New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd Edition</ref>. In modern [[physics]], it is explained by the [[Theory of relativity|General Theory of relativity]], a [[naturalistic]] theory of gravitation that employs [[methodological naturalism]] and is commonly taught in public schools and universities, despite opposition<ref>[http://www.kisol.com/science/gravity.htm The nature of Gravity]</ref><ref>[http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512 Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity]</ref><ref>[http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=f9423d744e0ef67df94e Gravity and the Existence of God]</ref>. Before general relativity, gravitation was described by [[Sir Isaac Newton|Isaac Newton's]] law of universal gravitation in his [[Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica|''Principia Mathematica'']], which is still useful in most situations.

Everything in the universe that has mass attracts every other thing that has mass. How much depends on the size of the masses and the distance between them. For normal objects, this pull is minute, but you can measure the pull between a very large object like the [[Earth]] and another object like you by standing on the scales. Your [[weight]] is the measure of the pull of gravity between you and the planet you are standing on. This [[force]] depends on your [[mass]] and the mass of that planet, but it also depends on your [[distance]] from the center of the planet. The further you are from the planet's center, the weaker the pull between it and your body. If you double your distance, the force is one quarter. At ten times the distance, the force is one hundredth. It drops off with the square of the distance. This is called the [[Inverse Square Law.]] <ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html</ref>The force never becomes zero, no matter how far you travel.

The law itself states that each particle in the universe attracts another particle with a force directly [[proportion|proportional]] to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the [[exponentiation|square]] of the distance between them<ref>Serway and Beichner, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, Fifth Edition</ref>, or:

:<math>F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}</math>

Where:

''F'' is the magnitude of the gravitational force.

''m''1 and ''m''2 are the object's masses.

''r'' is the distance that separates the objects.

''G'' is the [[gravitational constant]]: 6.67428x10-11 N m2 Kg -2

Gravitation is responsible for making objects accelerate towards each other as well as for the formation of the [[Earth]] and [[Sun]], the [[stars]] and the [[planets]].

==Gravity and Modern Physics==
Newton's [[Theory of Gravity]] was one of the earliest triumphs of modern [[physics]]. It now stands as both one of the most successful and most mysterious areas of that field. On one hand, the [[Theory_of_Relativity|General theory of Relativity]] is one of the most successful [[Scientific_Theory|scientific theories]] to date. On the other hand, how General Relativity might be reconciled with [[Quantum_mechanics|quantum physics]] during the first few milliseconds of the [[Big Bang]] remains an open question, and is one of the hotly contested areas among modern theoretical physicists. In the 1980s [[string theory]] was seen by many physicists as a more likely path towards a particular unification of gravity with the other fundamental forces (electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces), but the theory has been a failure.

== References ==
<div class="references-small">
<references />
[[category:physics]]

Conservapedia:Editing etiquette

2007-11-04T17:11:38Z

Alexjohnc3: No need for quotes around the word "facts". Use a different word, like "statements" if you feel like it.

Wiki editors have found that good '''editing etiquette''' can reduce the arguments that frequently occur between editors with opposing viewpoints.

Note this is a ''guide'' to good editing etiquette. It is not a [[Conservapedia:Commandments|commandment]].

== Edit or discuss first? ==

An editor will often chastise another editor for not discussing an alteration to an article before altering the article, yet will often edit an article themselves without discussing it first. Does this make them hypocrites? Sometimes, yes, but often it's because the circumstances are different.

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Edit an article without discussing your changes first, if you have a reasonable expectation that other editors will accept your change.'''

But how would you know what other editors will accept? Here's some ideas:
* You are removing vandalism.
* You are correcting spelling or grammar (but don't change American spelling to British spelling, etc. except where appropriate. As a general rule, that would be if the article is about something uniquely UK.).
* If you are inserting an undisputed fact. For example, ''[[Australia]] is in the southern hemisphere''.
* If you properly reference your facts. Another editor is less likely to remove your edit if you have references to show that your facts are correct.
* If you put your facts in neutral terms. For example, ''geologists believe that the world is 4.5 billion years old'' is better than ''The world is 4.5 billion years old.''
* You explain your edits. This can be done in an edit comment (Summary edit field) or on the article's talk page. In the latter case, putting "See talk" in the edit comment will alert other editors to the fact that you have discussed your edit on the talk page.
Notwithstanding the above, a case can also be made sometimes that it is better to see a proposed edit in the context of the article rather than in isolation on the talk page.

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Favour improving another person's edits rather than deleting them.'''

This follows naturally from the previous rule. If another editor thinks that his change should be in there, then clearly you cannot have a reasonable expectation that the first editor, at least, will accept your edit. So improving his edit (perhaps from ''The world is 4.5 billion years old'' to ''Secular geologists believe that the world is 5.6 billion years old'') is better than simply deleting.

If you think that the edit really should come out, explain why in the edit comment or on the talk page. If your reasons are good enough, chances are the first editor will see your point and accept his change being removed.

If you question other editor's facts, then instead of just deleting them, put a {{tl|fact}} tag after the claimed fact, to give him an opportunity to support his edit. If the original editor fails to support his fact in a reasonable time (e.g. a week), then you have better justification for removing his "fact".

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Avoid edit wars.'''

An '''edit war''' is when two editors keep undoing the other editor's changes. Such a situation is totally unproductive and serves only to raise tempers. They are also against the [[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks|Conservapedia Guidelines]].

If you cannot agree on a change even after discussing it, ask other editors for their opinions or a Sysop to mediate.

== Use the appropriate page for discussions ==

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Discuss an article on that article's talk page.'''

When discussing changes to an article with another editor, have the discussion on the article's talk page, where other editors can see it and contribute if they wish, rather than on one of the editors' talk pages, where the discussion is unlikely to be seen by other editors.

This is also useful for ''later'' editors looking to see why something in the article is the way it is. They can expect to look on the article's talk page, not somewhere else entirely.

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Discuss off-topic discussions elsewhere.'''

Sometimes discussions about an article lead off to other matters. If the discussion is no longer about the article, move the discussion elsewhere. Conservapedia has more options for this than Wikipedia. Here are some of the options:
* Discuss it on one of your user talk pages.
* Create a [[debate topics|debate page]] for discussing that issue.
* Create an [[essay]] for putting down your own thoughts on an issue.

== Edit histories ==
Edit histories allow other editors to see how an article was changed, and who changed it. Editors can also "step through" the edit histories to follow a series of changes.

Following are some guidelines for making this easier on other users.

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Use the "Show preview" button.'''

Using the Show preview button to check how your edit will look will reduce the number of changes to the article, keeping the edit history shorter. It can be irritating to other editors to have to step through a lot of very minor changes that could have been avoided if the Show preview button was used.

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Don't make massive changes in one go.'''

When you make massive changes in one edit, it makes it hard for other editors to see what was actually changed. Consider breaking your edits into smaller steps, particularly when moving paragraphs around. Changing ''and'' moving a paragraph in the one edit can make it difficult for the software to highlight the differences properly.

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Use edit summaries.'''

When you make a change, please put a brief (or not so brief) comment in the Summary box to explain your edit.

Common comments include:
* ''Revert'' (or ''Rv'')
* ''Spelling'' (or ''Sp'')
* ''Grammar''
* ''copyedit'' (indicating that there were changes like a newspaper editor might make, to improve the spelling, grammar, or wording, but not changing the meaning nor deleting nor adding information).
* If your change cannot be explained briefly, an edit comment of ''see talk'' will alert other editors that you have explained (or will explain) your edit on the talk page.
In your user preferences, you can select to have the software remind you if you don't include an edit comment.

User:Alexjohnc3

2007-11-04T17:09:55Z

Alexjohnc3:

This is my userpage. I'm not sure how long I've had an account here, but I think it was back in February 2007 that I signed up.

User:Alexjohnc3

2007-11-04T17:09:29Z

Alexjohnc3: Removed because I removed it from the editing etiquette page

This is my userpage. I'm not sure how long I've had an account here, but I think it was back in February 2007 that I signed up.

I won't commit any vandalism here though. I might every now and then make minor edits that contribute to the accuracy of Conservapedia (like if a Conservapedia article incorrectly cites what an article on another website says or a Conservapedia article has grammatical/spelling issues).

Conservapedia:Editing etiquette

2007-11-04T17:07:37Z

Alexjohnc3: What's with adding the word "secular" to "geologist"? It makes Conservapedia look like it's run by a bunch of Creationists or something.

Wiki editors have found that good '''editing etiquette''' can reduce the arguments that frequently occur between editors with opposing viewpoints.

Note this is a ''guide'' to good editing etiquette. It is not a [[Conservapedia:Commandments|commandment]].

== Edit or discuss first? ==

An editor will often chastise another editor for not discussing an alteration to an article before altering the article, yet will often edit an article themselves without discussing it first. Does this make them hypocrites? Sometimes, yes, but often it's because the circumstances are different.

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Edit an article without discussing your changes first, if you have a reasonable expectation that other editors will accept your change.'''

But how would you know what other editors will accept? Here's some ideas:
* You are removing vandalism.
* You are correcting spelling or grammar (but don't change American spelling to British spelling, etc. except where appropriate. As a general rule, that would be if the article is about something uniquely UK.).
* If you are inserting an undisputed fact. For example, ''[[Australia]] is in the southern hemisphere''.
* If you properly reference your "facts". Another editor is less likely to remove your edit if you have references to show that your facts are correct.
* If you put your "facts" in neutral terms. For example, ''geologists believe that the world is 4.5 billion years old'' is better than ''The world is 4.5 billion years old.''
* You explain your edits. This can be done in an edit comment (Summary edit field) or on the article's talk page. In the latter case, putting "See talk" in the edit comment will alert other editors to the fact that you have discussed your edit on the talk page.
Notwithstanding the above, a case can also be made sometimes that it is better to see a proposed edit in the context of the article rather than in isolation on the talk page.

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Favour improving another person's edits rather than deleting them.'''

This follows naturally from the previous rule. If another editor thinks that his change should be in there, then clearly you cannot have a reasonable expectation that the first editor, at least, will accept your edit. So improving his edit (perhaps from ''The world is 4.5 billion years old'' to ''Secular geologists believe that the world is 5.6 billion years old'') is better than simply deleting.

If you think that the edit really should come out, explain why in the edit comment or on the talk page. If your reasons are good enough, chances are the first editor will see your point and accept his change being removed.

If you question other editor's facts, then instead of just deleting them, put a {{tl|fact}} tag after the claimed fact, to give him an opportunity to support his edit. If the original editor fails to support his fact in a reasonable time (e.g. a week), then you have better justification for removing his "fact".

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Avoid edit wars.'''

An '''edit war''' is when two editors keep undoing the other editor's changes. Such a situation is totally unproductive and serves only to raise tempers. They are also against the [[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks|Conservapedia Guidelines]].

If you cannot agree on a change even after discussing it, ask other editors for their opinions or a Sysop to mediate.

== Use the appropriate page for discussions ==

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Discuss an article on that article's talk page.'''

When discussing changes to an article with another editor, have the discussion on the article's talk page, where other editors can see it and contribute if they wish, rather than on one of the editors' talk pages, where the discussion is unlikely to be seen by other editors.

This is also useful for ''later'' editors looking to see why something in the article is the way it is. They can expect to look on the article's talk page, not somewhere else entirely.

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Discuss off-topic discussions elsewhere.'''

Sometimes discussions about an article lead off to other matters. If the discussion is no longer about the article, move the discussion elsewhere. Conservapedia has more options for this than Wikipedia. Here are some of the options:
* Discuss it on one of your user talk pages.
* Create a [[debate topics|debate page]] for discussing that issue.
* Create an [[essay]] for putting down your own thoughts on an issue.

== Edit histories ==
Edit histories allow other editors to see how an article was changed, and who changed it. Editors can also "step through" the edit histories to follow a series of changes.

Following are some guidelines for making this easier on other users.

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Use the "Show preview" button.'''

Using the Show preview button to check how your edit will look will reduce the number of changes to the article, keeping the edit history shorter. It can be irritating to other editors to have to step through a lot of very minor changes that could have been avoided if the Show preview button was used.

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Don't make massive changes in one go.'''

When you make massive changes in one edit, it makes it hard for other editors to see what was actually changed. Consider breaking your edits into smaller steps, particularly when moving paragraphs around. Changing ''and'' moving a paragraph in the one edit can make it difficult for the software to highlight the differences properly.

'''Etiquette rule:'''
:'''Use edit summaries.'''

When you make a change, please put a brief (or not so brief) comment in the Summary box to explain your edit.

Common comments include:
* ''Revert'' (or ''Rv'')
* ''Spelling'' (or ''Sp'')
* ''Grammar''
* ''copyedit'' (indicating that there were changes like a newspaper editor might make, to improve the spelling, grammar, or wording, but not changing the meaning nor deleting nor adding information).
* If your change cannot be explained briefly, an edit comment of ''see talk'' will alert other editors that you have explained (or will explain) your edit on the talk page.
In your user preferences, you can select to have the software remind you if you don't include an edit comment.

User:Alexjohnc3

2007-11-04T16:59:17Z

Alexjohnc3:

This is my userpage. I'm not sure how long I've had an account here, but I think it was back in February 2007 that I signed up.

Conservapedia makes me want to call myself a liberal with [[Help:Editing etiquette|stupidity]] like, "For example, Secular geologists believe that the world is 4.5 billion years old is better than The world is 4.5 billion years old."

I won't commit any vandalism here though. I might every now and then make minor edits that contribute to the accuracy of Conservapedia (like if a Conservapedia article incorrectly cites what an article on another website says or a Conservapedia article has grammatical/spelling issues).

Talk:Westboro Baptist Church

2007-11-04T16:56:37Z

Alexjohnc3:

User:Alexjohnc3

2007-11-04T16:46:56Z

Alexjohnc3: New page: This is my userpage. I'm not sure how long I've had an account here, but I think it was back in February 2007 that I signed up.

This is my userpage. I'm not sure how long I've had an account here, but I think it was back in February 2007 that I signed up.