Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Cape Horn

2012-07-14T04:42:53Z

AndreaM:

'''Cape Horn''' is a promontory at the southern tip of [[South America]], located on Isla Hornos, a small island considered to be part of the [[Tierra del Fuego]] archipelago. The fierce storms and raging seas that are a feature of the local environment have made 'rounding the Horn' between the [[Atlantic]] and [[Pacific]] Oceans a fearsome undertaking for sailors.

It was named in 1616 after Hoorn, the Dutch home town of [[Willem Cornelisz Schouten]] one of the captains of an expedition looking for a route between the [[Atlantic]] and [[Pacific]] Oceans without using the treacherous [[Straits of Magellan]].{{fact}}

Cape Horn is part of [[Chile]].

[[Category:Geography]]

Template:Seligman-dissent

2012-06-13T22:22:00Z

AndreaM: Adding quotation marks so it is not misconstrued as an original contribution

"Going back at least to [[Freud]], the world of the [[research]] psychiatrists has been dominated by a handful of despots who treat dissenters like invading barbarians usurping their domain." [http://www.shearonforschools.com/learned_optimism.htm]

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2012-06-12T21:47:49Z

AndreaM: /* It Really Is Amazing... */ new section

'''[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]''' 
'''[[/archive2 | Archive 2 ]]''' 
'''[[/archive3 | Archive 3 ]]'''
----

== Additional liberal terms? ==

What about "ethnocentrism" (1905-1910) and "multiculturalism" (1960-1965)? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 09:34, 16 January 2011 (EST)

: Superb suggestions. Please add as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:37, 16 January 2011 (EST)
==Refudiate==
Even though liberal dictionaries added this word, Palin admitted it was an error on her part. If it stays then we must add Corpse men for lib terms.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:01, 23 January 2011 (EST)
:Not necessarily--no dictionaries made "corpse man" a [http://www.execdigital.com/business/leader/who-s-laughing-now-sarah-palin-s-refudiate-oxford-s-top-word-2010 word of the year]. Moreover, the word seems to be getting some leverage and use on its own terms. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 14:43, 23 January 2011 (EST)

::Perhaps time will tell. The term "Big Bang" was born of mockery also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:15, 23 January 2011 (EST)
:::Andy, could that explain the perceived scarcity of conservative words dating from the 21st century? Because I think the notion that a word can "mature" to be conservative is a fascinating and powerful insight. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:10, 4 February 2011 (EST)

== Charisma? ==

I have doubts that charisma, despite its etymology, is a conservative term. It seems to elevate style over substance -- a definite [[liberal]] trait. Nowhere does the Bible refer to Jesus as having charisma.

I suspect the original meaning of charisma was for religious charisma.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 4 February 2011 (EST)
:I would suggest, (if we do ''indeed,'' keep it), to change the phrasing to something more on the order of:
::'''literally "a gift from God", charisma is the quality of a person imbued by God to leadership, often found in [[conservative]] public figures.'''
:This nixes the "magic" from the sentence since as wonderful as a gift from God is, it isn't "magic". [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 20:20, 4 February 2011 (EST)
::Andy, that's a good point. I prefer to think of charisma as ''the style of substance'', but that's definitely not the case for everyone (especially liberals). While the etymology is undoubtedly conservative, perhaps "difficult to classify" may be a better resting place for charisma. Devon, either way, definitely an improvement on your part, thanks. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 22:21, 4 February 2011 (EST)
==New words added==

Hi, I have added 4 new words: deference (1660), idealist (1701), god-fearing (1835) & Rogue state (1993). If everyone accepts these, they will fill out the doubling pattern for those centuries. Shall I change the numbers in the summary at the top of the page?

I have also added 'liberal creep' (2008). [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 01:08, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

:All your additions look superb except "deference," which I'm not sure is [[conservative]]. Please do update the counts the top (I already did increment the 1800s count for "God-fearing").--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:05, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

::I added 'deference' because CP has 'giving those in authority due respect' listed as a [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_values Conservative Value]. I will tweak the definition a bit to emphasis the necessary legitimacy of the superior. Thanks for the positive feedback. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 02:21, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

:::But look at the remainder of the chat quote: "giving those in authority due respect, but not to the point of accepting orders or assertions that are contrary to logic or morality."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:34, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

:::: Let's continue this discussion later Monday morning. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:40, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

Hi again. Firstly, let me tell you that I am an Aussie and my timezone is GMT+10. This makes me 12-15 hours ahead of you. Our conversations may be a bit disjointed because of this. Right now it is my bedtime, so I will post this comment & then go, leaving it for your consideration. (Editing has been switched off for a while, is that correct? I realise that you do this most nights. I didn't expect it to be on again tonight.)

To return to 'deference': to me the word embodies respect and consideration which I would regard as being conservative values, but not necessarily 'giving in'. However, I do not have the right American nuances to interpret this as you do and will not push this strongly and am happy to remove it from the list.

I have a couple of alternatives for consideration:

atheistic (1625-35) An adjective pertaining to or characteristic of atheists or atheism; containing, suggesting, or disseminating atheism.

secularize (1611) To make secular; to transfer from ecclesiastical to civil or lay use, possession, or control

To me, these are useful words for conservatives. They do not describe conservatives. My reading of the list suggests that useful words are acceptable eg alarmist. Anyway, goodnight for now, catch up with you tomorrow. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 08:32, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

: "atheistic" is good. Let's go with that. I didn't see why "patriarchy" was conservative, so I removed that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 18 March 2011 (EDT)
::No worries. I'll add 'atheistic'. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 22:36, 18 March 2011 (EDT)

== "Copacetic" ==

I'm not sure how conservative this word is. There's no reasoning given for its inclusion, apart from the fact that Bojangles Robinson supposedly created it (and even that is extremely weak evidence and I'm not sure what it adds. I'm going to remove it from the list if no one raises any opposition. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:37, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

: "Copacetic" is the very satisfactory result of conservative values. It is associated with good and honest living. I do object to removal of this conservative term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

== Moral Majority - A suggestion ==

Andy, I saw your addition "silent majority" and it made me immediately think of "Moral Majority". [http://www.answers.com/topic/moral-majority This page credits it to Jerry Falwell in 1979]. Although in it's strictest sense it describes a movement it is still has greater symbolism. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:30, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

:Great suggestion. Please included it ... and increment the total near the beginning for the 1900s.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
::Done! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:22, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

== Obambulate ==

Maybe it's just my public school education at work, but I fail to see how obambulate is conservative. Apart from its obvious similarities with "Obama", it simply means "to walk around". I know that Obama has been bumbling and whatnot, but it's an innocuous word that is being assigned a special significance due to coincidence. I'm not sure it belongs on this list. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:05, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:It is probably as a result of it being mentioned on Rush Limbaugh's show and the liberal reactions to it during the past week. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:08, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::What was the reaction? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:14, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

:::Denny, your comment is a valid one, but the modern usage of the term "obambulate" is to criticize the directionless wandering characteristic of liberal leadership. None of the terms in the list should be viewed in a vacuum independent of their usage.

::: Hey, my response used another candidate: "directionless". ''Trying to find its date of origin next ....''--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:35, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

== Agitprop ==
Sorry if I get the etiquette wrong, first time commenting. I was just wondering if there was a source for Agitprop? I always understood it to be derived from Soviet Russian institutions, so would be quite keen to see the conservative routes of it. Everything I have tried so far has turned up the term as being derived from Russian e.g. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=agitprop&searchmode=none , and I would be surprised if the internal machinations of the USSR would come up with something conservative, so would be keen to find out the alternative you uncovered"[[User:JTpldl|JTlpdl]] 09:18, 28 March 2011 (EDT)"

== Page dividing ==

Due to the success of this essay, it's really slow, so can I split it into pages by century of origin? This would allow the page to load faster and be easier to navigate. Any thoughts on the idea? [[User:BenDylan|BenDylan]] 20:09, 14 April 2011 (EDT)
:I'd like to see it be broken up by century and automatically numbered. I'm not sure that breaking it up into many pages would facilitate more than inconvenience. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:55, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

==Audit==
I'm getting 25,48,100,201,17 as the counts. If so, this wouldn't be the first time I've seen them wrong. As I mentioned above, we should consider breaking the list up by century to help avoid counting errors. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 18:37, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

== Word for 1700's ==
Could belittle be the word we are looking for to perfect the list? It was coined in 1785 by Thomas Jefferson himself, and is certainly a way to describe an action often done by liberals to protect their ideas. [[User:JoshuaL|JoshuaL]] 19:34, 28 April 2011 (EDT)
:Joshua, I'm inclined to agree, as Jefferson likely coined the term in response to critics trying to deceptively minimize issues he raised. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 02:07, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

::Not sure "belittle" is conservative. But how about "axiomatic"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:20, 30 April 2011 (EDT)
If you're still looking for an 18th century word, 'nationalist' would fit well - it's a core conservative value, synonymous with 'patriot', the antithesis of 'internationalist', and one of the defining features of the 18th century. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:17, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

== Liberal creep ==

How do we reconcile this with liberal creep? If language is becoming more conservative, why is opinion and perception becoming more liberal? Do liberals or conservatives dictate the terms of the national conversation? If someone could take a look at the two phenomena and find out what makes one move in one direction and the other in the opposite, it would make a great essay. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 15:05, 8 May 2011 (EDT)
:I've also brought this up for discussion [[Talk:Essay:Conservapedia's_Law#Putting_Conservapedia.27s_Law_in_perspective|here]]. Conservapedia's Law, the observation that conservative insights double over time, is clearly incomplete, perhaps even flawed. I agree that there could be a complex relationship between liberal creep and Conservapedia's Law and it is worth investigating. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 15:15, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

== Graph of words over time ==

While I was drawing graphs, I wrote a quick script to generate a graph of the data in this page. [http://static.inky.ws/image/405/image.jpg This graph] shows the growth in conservative terms year-by-year, rather than just per-century. The red line is the data from this page, the green line is a quadratic curve. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:59, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:Wow, that's a spectacular graph! Can you give permission for me to include it in the entry page?

:The graph disproves the theory that there were bursts of new words during certain periods. I'll remove that from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
::Please do use the graph as you see fit. I can generate new graphs from the latest data with no trouble at all, so if you'd like it can be updated periodically. I'm currently trying to find a suitably analogous source of data for liberal words/ideas, which would allow comparative analysis. This kind of data is very interesting as it seems to avoid the short-term political cycles which characterize much of popular discourse, focusing on the really significant point of the growth of ideas. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:59, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

:::I posted the graph and your idea is marvelous. However, I don't think the graph is completely accurate: the curve for the actual data should intersect the predicted curve at each turning of the centuries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:45, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

:::*Is the green curve really a fit for the data according to Aschlafly's theory? I mean, Jcw says ''the green line is a quadratic curve'' - at best it's a second approximation for the geometric curve...
:::*Personally, I find quite hard to judge the existance of ''bursts'' from a [[cdf]]. Perhaps Jcw could create a histogram - perhaps for decades?
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:30, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
::::You both raise valid points, which hopefully will be answered soon. Andy and August both mention that the x^2 curve isn't a perfect fit - it certainly isn't, and I'm pretty sure a 2^x curve with appropriate constants will fit better; I'm planning to do that tonight. August mentions different ways of representing the data - I'll happily produce a histogram of the data if that'd be interesting, but the reason for plotting it as I have is to produce a curve that I can use for my more grandiose scheme, of which more later. My background is not so much in statistics - although I've done a fair bit of that - but in purer maths, so my thinking is mostly based around the relationships between smooth(-ish) functions. That may not be the best way to deal with these data qua data, but to extract patterns for further, more abstract work, it's ideal. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:43, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
::::[http://static.inky.ws/image/412/image.jpg Et voila], a better fit. This is an exponential curve fitted to the same data. Note that it fits much better in the region with the most words, but is a bit out for the earlier period where there are fewer words in the list. This is because we can more easily find suitable words from more recent periods, so naturally the pattern is most exact there. No doubt if we could go through a large, representative corpus and extract words uniformly, it would fit nicely all the way along. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:25, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::'''@Aschlafly: ''' Could you recount the words? My count gave me 26-51-103-210-18 (Sum: 408) instead of 26-52-103-208-18 (Sum: 407). Perhaps a fourth column for the century (or even better, the decade) could be added? That would make it much easier to keep track of the numbers!

:::::'''@Jcw: ''' I don't think that your ''better fit'' is the function which Aschlafly has in mind: it should be <math>F_{theo}(t) = \frac{\#words }{15}</math><math>(2^{\frac{t-1599}{100}}-1)</math>, where ''#words'' is the number of words created before 2000, i.e., 390. This function touches/intersects the empirical cdf at the turn of each century, a fact which betrays the biased method of looking for these words.

:::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:12, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::August, so you've constructed a function which you claim 'betrays the biased method of looking for these words'? I'd be interested to see a more thorough explanation of that point. Another editor has attempted a similar argument above, but without success. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:42, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::::August, I have an open mind about this. I don't see how we could so easily find [[conservative]] words that double by century if the underlying pattern were not there. But please explain if you think that is in error.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:27, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

I hope we can agree on the function ''Ftheo'' - it should be uncontroversial:

*one layer exists from 1 - 2 - 4 - 8 words, i.e., 20, 21,22 and 23
*the partial sums are 1 - 3 - 7 - 15, i.e., 21-1, 22-1, 23-1, and 24-1
*so, with the turn of the n-th century, there should be 2n+1-1 words
*for K layers, the number is K * (2n+1-1). Each layer has 15 words, thus, if there are '''N''' feasible words, the number of layers is '''N'''/15
*now adjust for years instead of centuries, and don't start with the first, but with the 17th, and you get the formula <math>F_{theo}(t) = \frac{\#words }{15}</math><math>(2^{\frac{t-1599}{100}}-1)</math>.

'''@jcw: ''' ''Another editor has attempted a similar argument above, but without success.'' I read the sections above, and I ''was'' convinced by the argument.

'''@Aschlafly:''' ''I don't see how we could so easily find [[conservative]] words that double by century if the underlying pattern were not there.'' The effects of the miscount ([[Talk:Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words#PERFECTION: 20-40-80-160 BY CENTURY]]) have shown that you are able to match any pattern you were looking for.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:11, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

August's contrary theory aside, here's an interesting consequence of this trend: [http://static.inky.ws/image/421/image.jpg this graph] shows the curve from above in green, an hypothetical linear growth of liberalism ([liberal creep], in blue) and the effect of the latter on the former (in red). Note how the red line - the net effect of liberal and conservative ideas - falls for a while, reaching a minimum in the twentieth century before shooting up. This is because the exponential growth of conservatism is slower at first that the linear growth of liberalism, but gets very much faster later on, easily overtaking the linear function and increasing to infinity. Obviously the liberalism line is hypothetical, but it's interesting nonetheless. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:41, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

:That's remarkably insightful. In other words, the combination of linear [[liberal creep]] and the geometric growth rate of [[Best New Conservative Words]] results in a liberal trend for a while (until the [[Great Depression]]), and then a rapidly increasing conservative trend thereafter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:16, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

::Exactly. The precise shape of the final curve depends on the values assumed for the [[liberal creep]] line, but any reasonable values give a final curve with much the same shape. It agrees rather remarkably with the observed facts, especially as nothing in the calculations refers to historical events at all. Purely linguistic inputs produce an undeniably historical result, demonstrating the power of language very clearly. As ever, feel free to use the graph however you please. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:48, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

::: I am skeptical that the complexities of human society and political philosophies can be summed up simply as an exponential function minus a linear function. What evidence is there that this [[liberal creep]] is linear? How is that even quantified? Does this hypothesis make any specific predictions, in order to make it [[falsifiable]] and thus scientific? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 02:09, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: Good questions. I'll consider them (as others probably will also) and reply after some thought.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:15, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: Good questions indeed. The immediate answer is 'no': of course all the complexities of human society can't be summed up as simply as this. Quantifying complex abstract phenomena is a very rough business, most especially on a short timescale. The goal of my graphs isn't to present concrete mathematical laws, or anything like them, but just to illustrate a conceptual relationship using mathematics.
:::: To answer your specific questions:
:::: * 'how is that even quantified?': Crudely and by guesswork, like many first attempts in all sciences, especially those relating to human activity. The crude guess is justified by the answer to:
:::: * 'Does this hypothesis make any specific predictions...': In one way, the hypothesis is supported by the same kind of evidence as is used to defend evolution - the hypothesis I've produced now gives results which agree with events in the past. As we all agree, that's not the best kind of evidence, but in this case it's rather compelling. Secondly, it does make concrete predictions - indeed, it makes an inescapable prediction which can't be fudged or avoided - the 'conservatism' curve increases very rapidly to infinity, rather than going up and down or settling into a steady state. This suggests a discontinuity in the future, where the level of conservatism rises to something quite outside our experience. I'm not sure what that would look like, but I think we'd recognize it if we saw it. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:49, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: In furtherance of Jcw's remarks, it is perhaps easier to study the development of language and politics, which are closely related to each other, than it is to study and predict ... the weather. Nobody had a problem with [[Al Gore]] trying to predict the weather, so why object when a simpler task is undertaken?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:01, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::: @Jcw How specifically does your graph "agree with events in the past"? Also, the claim that "the level of conservatism rises to something quite outside our experience" is not a specific prediction. I'm not even sure what that means. Finally, in [http://static.inky.ws/image/421/image.jpg your graph] what does the y-axis represent? Words? Aschlafly above links the exponential function to the growth of conservative terms. If so, why is [[liberal creep]] linear? Is there any empirical or theoretical reason to believe this? Looking at [[Essay:New_Liberal_Terms|liberal terms]] by century it seems like liberal terms are also growing exponentially, even though the article claims they don't grow "geometrically" and are "heavily influenced by culture". In any case, it doesn't look linear. Wouldn't the diminishing intelligence of humans mean liberal terms would be growing quickly?
:::::: @Aschlafly Weather and climate are distinct things. I don't think anyone believes Al Gore is a climate scientist qualified to make scientific predictions, only a spokesman. Many people do have a problem with him and the whole idea of climate change.
:::::: Also, human beings are extremely complicated and it isn't obvious to me that accurately predicting and quantifying the political philosophy of a complex society is much simpler than either meteorology or climatology. Even if the development of politics and language are closely related (I'm not sure they are), why would studying them be necessarily be a simpler task than studying climates?--[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:39, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

(unindent)Matthew: now you're asking questions that have already been answered or are clear from the context. I note that your edits on this site are almost exclusively to talk pages; may we assume that you are here simply to argue rather than to contribute? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:44, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

The interesting question is, what would an (effectively) infinite level of conservatism look like? I'm afraid I don't know enough about the US to answer that: over here 'conservatism' looks a great deal like US liberalism... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:32, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

: One characteristic of infinite conservatism might be when it is impossible to notice a difference in the level of service and attitude between government and a perfectly competitive industry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:18, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
:: In a perfectly conservative society, would there be any need for government as we now know it? I suppose there are limits to how conservative a society can be in a fallen world... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:52, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Conservatives aren't [[libertarian]]s or [[anarchist]]s, so a '''''limited''''' government would exist ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:48, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: I'm sorry, I still don't understand what 'infinite conservatism' means. Perhaps an article detailing how conservatism can be quantified and what happens in the limit as it approaches infinity would help. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 21:32, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: That's an interesting idea, Matthew. I think that in the US conservatism is closely correlated with Evangelical Christianity, which is not at all the case here in the UK, where our conservatives are more likely to belong to the Church of England - a decidedly liberal institution by US standards. Andy's suggestion above is concise, but if you think about it it's a very acute description of a hypothetical perfectly conservative government. I shudder to think what a perfectly liberal government would be like. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:33, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Jcw, your description of US conservatism compared with the UK is interesting, and I've thought about it. While certainly there are more evangelicals here than there, not all are conservative. Moreover, the cause-and-effect is less than clear: does the conservative nature of America allow evangelicalism to develop more fully than in a liberal nation? If so, there still remains an underlying mystery of why America is more conservative than the UK.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, a very interesting question. Our two nations have a great deal of shared history, but today are vastly different in fundamental ways. I think the Reformation is particularly important in this context - the UK experienced it directly, while the nascent US only experienced the aftereffects; the US was never a Catholic nation in the Mediaeval sense. Another - perhaps related - aspect is the persistence of monarchy in the UK compared to its outright rejection by the US. There's a lot to be said on this topic, so I'll begin an essay with some of my thoughts and see how it compares with a US view. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:39, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Please do start an essay on this, hopefully here so that I can contribute to it too! Religious differences between the US and the UK are surely part of the explanation for the political differences, but I think there is more to it than that. [[Federalism]], for example, prevents [[liberals]] from gaining control over the US, while that protection does not exist in the UK. I will say this: the UK media is much more free with respect to American politics than the American press is!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:13, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

'''@Jcw: ''' What are the parameters of your interpolating function? And how did you calculate them? Could you also display:

:<math>F_{theo}(t) = \frac{\#words }{15}</math><math>(2^{\frac{t-1599}{100}}-1)</math>

And why not use these paramaters - they are the direct result of applying Aschlafly's rule of doubling-by-century...

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:08, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

August, if you'd like to do those calculations, please feel free - the data isn't kept secret, it's right there on the page. If you'd like to see another presentation of it, go ahead. I'm very happy to explain things - and to justify my choices! - to well-meaning editors with genuine questions, but you seem to be on the wrong side of every argument around here, as if you're deliberately disagreeing for the sake of it. The amount of time and attention you're willing to give to criticizing other people's ideas is remarkable. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:35, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

: Well put, Jcw. Actually, the entries begin with the year 1612, after the publication of the [[KJV]] and the completion of nearly all of [[Shakespeare]]'s works. So August's date in his exponent appears wrong, but your graph is correct in show an intersection with the x-axis over a decade after 1600.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:45, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

'''@Jcw:''' ''August, if you'd like to do those calculations, please feel free - the data isn't kept secret, it's right there on the page.'' I can't reproduce your calculations as there is not enough data: You say that it is a fit, but you don't explain how you fitted it:
::#How did you treat words like ''atheistic'' (1625-1635), ''deadweight loss'' (1930s) and ''design by committee'' (before 1958)
::#Which kind of fit did you use? For me, Maximum-Likelihood would be an obvious choice.
::#Which family of functions did you look at? Obviously a*2^x. Why not a*2^x+b?
::#Did you use any weights? Which ones (or why not)?
All these choices result in different interpolating functions. So, which choices did you make and what was your result?

''If you'd like to see another presentation of it, go ahead. I'm very happy to explain things - and to justify my choices! - to well-meaning editors with genuine questions'' Obviously I won't promise ''not'' to criticize your choices. Does this make me a not-well-meaning editor?

''You seem to be on the wrong side of every argument around here'' I seem to be constantly on the other side than you are. Doesn't make my side always wrong!

'''@Aschlafly: ''' ''Well put, Jcw.'' Do you condone the policy to share data only with those who you expect not to criticize it? When reading [[Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog]] and its talk page, I got quite another impression!

''So August's date in his exponent appears wrong, but your graph is correct in show an intersection with the x-axis over a decade after 1600'' Jcw's graph (the green line!) doesn't intersect the x-axis at ~1610. I doubt that it intersects the x-axis at all! The red line shows the empirical data, so of course it begins at 1612 with the first word found - though ''obambulate'' (1600) is the oldest word in the table, and seems to be always counted in the ''perfect counts''. OTOH, the graph which I proposed intersects the x-axis at the turn of the 16th century, and crosses the empirical curve at the turn of each century (whether you shift the function by 1599 or 1600 is just a matter of taste...).

== Americanadians ==

How about 'Americanadians'? I've observed many good Americans being influenced by the blatant propaganda of our socialist neighbors, and starting to espouse their flawed line of thought. What do others think? Let me know.

== Claptrap ==

I suggest "claptrap." I'm surprised it's not on the list already. --[[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 00:20, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:Superb suggestion! I'll add it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:45, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

::It was already on the list. I added an 1800s term instead.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:10, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== free speech ==

Perhaps I simply fail to understand the context you provided, but is free speech really a "conservative word?" Terms like "political correctness" and "obamacare" are undeniably conservative (to the point where liberals won't use them), but free speech is at best non-partisan, and at worst (I am attempting to write from a conservative viewpoint- I may fail miserably at this) a term co-opted by liberals to justify their perversions and excesses. </attempt to write from conservative viewpoint>--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 01:20, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:You raise a valid point. But isn't it the conservatives who protect, for example, corporate and many other types of expenditures in elections as "free speech"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:28, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
::Indeed, you are correct. But I think it's fair to say now that it is a word used by conservatives as well as liberals to represent their agendas. I do not know how this factors into this particular list--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 02:13, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:::I'll continue to think about your valid criticism. Maybe I can search Supreme Court opinions and see who is using the term "free speech" most. I don't think [[liberals]] are using it as much as [[conservatives]] are today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== Decades ==

I added a column for the decades (rather than for the centuries). I hope this will help to keep the count of the words up-to-date.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:05, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

:I'm not sure how that will help - surely the decade is already contained in the 'year' column? If you'd like a more accurate count, I suggest doing what I do - use a perl script to parse the wikitext and print out whatever information you want. To me the decade column looks annoyingly redundant, but perhaps I've missed something... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:27, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::I wanted to facilitate the count: as some of the dates are not purely numeric (1950s, before 1958, 1625-1635), it's hard to sort the table by the column ''date''. If there is a purely numeric column, the table can be easily copied into a spreadsheet and recounted even by those who don't know anything about regular expressions.

::If you have a script, please use it to keep an eye on the count: I'm surprised that you didn't spot the miscount earlier on.

::I'll add the column for the decades again, this time at the last place. This should be more pleasing...

::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:07, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

I don't know how to upload a picture, so here is an ascii-graphic for the distribution by decades:

*1600: *
*1610: ****
*1620: *****
*1630: *
*1640: ******
*1650: ****
*1660: **
*1670:
*1680: **
*1690: *
*1700: *
*1710: ***
*1720: *****
*1730: ****
*1740: ****
*1750: *****
*1760: ******
*1770: ******
*1780: ********
*1790: *********
*1800: ********
*1810: *********
*1820: ***************
*1830: ***************
*1840: *********
*1850: **********
*1860: **********
*1870: *******
*1880: ************
*1890: **********
*1900: ***********************
*1910: ***********************
*1920: **********************
*1930: *******************
*1940: ***************************
*1950: **************************
*1960: *************************
*1970: ****************
*1980: **********************
*1990: ******
*2000: ***************
*2010: ***

1820/1830,1900/1910, and 1940/1950 seem to be decades in which significantly more conservative terms were created than one would have expected... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:15, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

== Suggested additions ==

Eurabia - what Europe will become if people don't stand up for themselves.

Islamofascism - repressive muslim shariah regimes/totalitarian islamism.

[[User:MeganH|MeganH]] 01:01, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

: Go ahead and add if you have some dates of origin, even if only approximate. I hadn't heard of the first one ("Eurabia") before.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

== Dumpster diving ==

Was 'dumping diving' added because food is not going to waste, or am I misunderstanding why it's conservative? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 09:54, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

:I'll take a stab at it. Conservative words can describe liberal actions. I am not saying dumpster divers are liberal, those poor folks maybe hungry. Dumpster Diving is not limited to food. It's also a method to get trade secrets from companies or dig up dirt against somebody. Most likely, Dumpster Diving is used for deceitful purposes for example gaining a social security number from discarded bills used for the creation of fraudulent IDs. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:06, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

::Great points. This is a list of [[conservative]] terms, often insightful, about activities that may be conservative or liberal, harmful or helpful, or none of the above. Evidently this term was developed by small businessmen to describe an unhelpful activity outside their restaurants and other stores. Dumpster diving may sometimes be the equivalent of recycling or getting a hungry person some food, but in any event '''the term''' is a perfect description of the activity. And once there is a good term for something, then the activity can be understood and addressed better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:39, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

::: Good analysis. But is dumpster diving a conservative act? --[[User:GeorgeZ|GeorgeZ]] 15:53, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Read Andy's post. He specifically says that that does not matter. It was created by conservatives. Therefore it is a conservative word. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:12, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Right that it does not matter whether it is a conservative act. In the case of dumpster diving, whether it is ever conservative depends on what the purpose and effect are. It also doesn't matter if a conservative coined it; a liberal can sing a [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs|conservative song]]. The point is whether the insight is conservative. In this case, small businessmen (a conservative line of work) coined the term to criticize how homeless people were digging through their trash.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:19, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::I see Andy. Thanks for explaining. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:22, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Indeed, one might suggest that liberals have indirectly contributed to the increase in conservative terms by constantly inventing new ways to avoid work and personal responsibility. Conservatives are then, naturally, obligated to develop terms for these behaviors. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:18, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

== 2000s ==
It's fascinating how the new Conservative words and insights do seem to grow geometrically by century, but I'm curious as to why the 2000s seem to be pretty far behind. We're 11 years in, so you'd expect there to be roughly 40 new words so far, but we've got less than half that many. With the rise of the TEA Party, I'd expect to be much closer. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:06, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

: Excellent point. Possible reasons could include that it is too soon to recognize new words in the most recent decade ... or maybe there has been a short-term decline in conservative intellectualism? At any rate, I've been meaning to add the term "Tea Party" itself with its etymology in the last decade!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:12, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

::I have to agree with you, Andy. Even though we're in 2011 now, it might be too early to be able to fully appreciate all the new conservative words created last decade. I think "Tea Party" might just be one of the most important words to add and I think the movement itself will produce a lot of new, conservative words in its own right! [[User:BobSherman|BobSherman]] 19:58, 20 July 2011 (EDT)

:::Very perceptive, Andy. It takes time for the gatekeepers of knowledge to acknowledge the validity of new terms; therefore, while the public production of new conservative insights and terms may be quite rapid, the assimilation of those insights and terms into formal reference works is likely to be much slower. This is, I would suggest, exacerbated by reliance on archaic forms of knowledge dissemination such as print dictionaries.

An interesting side project might be to evaluate dictionaries (both online and print) to see how rapidly they accept and incorporate new conservative words versus new liberal words. In this way, it might be possible to determine which dictionaries are reliable and which are liberally biased. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:19, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

== Help! ==

I tried to archive the page - at least the parts which were from last year, but I totally botched it: my browser can't handle long pages, I have difficulties with the captchas & I created the wrong page for an archive [[Archive 3]] instead of [[Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words/Archive 3]] ([[Archive 3]] should be moved there...)

So I give up... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:58, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:I archived 2010... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:44, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

::Thank you - I had problems with the captchas! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:26, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== Maybe these two ==
Here's two possibilities I found in [[Federal debt limit]], "leveraged loss" and "debt spiral", but I'm not sure how to fit them in. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:01, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== More possibilities... ==

Constructionist (1835-45)
Inalienable (1635-45)
Hubris (1880-1885)
Scientism (1875-1880)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:11, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== Trickle-down? ==

As a descriptor for the trickle-down theory of economics, it dates to 1950-1955. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:43, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

: I think "trickle-down" is pejorative, and thus more a [[liberal]] term than a [[conservative]] one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::If trickle-down is the pejorative would the standard, conservative, phrase be "supply-side"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:53, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Yes, it would - and "supply side" is already on the list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::::ah, excellent. my work here is done! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:00, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

== Civil body politic ==

"Civil body politic" is an interesting bit of history but does not seem to have caught on as widely used term, and hence would not seem to warrant inclusion in this list. Does anyone disagree?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:43, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Medal of Honor (and other proper names) ==

I'm not sure that a proper name given to an award is inherently conservative-- the Medal itself reflects conservative values of course, but would do so even if had been called, say, the Award of Bravery or the Citation of Courage. "Coolant," "transistor" and "greasy spoon" are all truly conservative both in terms of content and syntax. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 19:50, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:Your point is valid. Perhaps it does not fit this particular list, but I'm reluctant to delete it. Isn't there something conservative about simply recognizing "honor", and calling the medal after the concept, rather than after, say, a liberal politician?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:15, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

==alcoholism ?==
Could you please explain how alcoholism is a conservative word ? Alcoholism is more of a liberal trait.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:24, 17 November 2011 (EST)

:"Alcoholism" is a criticism of excessive drinking, and thus is a conservative word. Words that end in "ism" are often pejoratives, as in "alarmism" and "collectivism" (which are also on the list).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:41, 17 November 2011 (EST)
:: And do you feel the same way about the word "liberalism"?--[[User:JeanB|JeanB]] 21:49, 17 November 2011 (EST)
::: Word that end in -ism are not always pejorative, capitalism is good. And when the words socialism or communism were invented, they were meant to be good.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:53, 17 November 2011 (EST)

==Handout==
1882, I wanted to add this to best new conservative words as it describes a liberal policy of government giveaways. But it also could be the conservative position of helping the poor through charity. Either way it is a conservative word but the proper way to describe alludes me. Op?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 09:28, 25 November 2011 (EST)

:That would a superb addition! It would also leave the list only two 20-century words shy of another perfect doubling by century.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:48, 25 November 2011 (EST)

== Level Playing Field ==

I added the term "level playing field" for two main reasons: 1) It is an intuitive metaphor used in its [http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/228650.html first recorded use] to describe how markets usually work best when they are fair for all participants and free of interference. 2) The term has since been used by liberals to describe policies such as affirmative action, progressive taxation, and government handouts, but it obvious to anyone who looks at these policies objectively that they actually distort the playing field.

I believe that is enough for the term to stand on its own merits, but it looks even more conservative if we compare it to other words on the list such as "motivation," "quantify," or "coolant."

Maybe I have overlooked something and the word does not belong on the list. Comments are welcome. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 21:03, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

:As you point out, the term is often used by liberals, so that makes it a doubtful candidate for "best" new conservative words. The term seems to imply that government is needed to level the playing field. Level playing fields rarely occur in nature, for example. The term almost sounds like the famous "life's not fair" expression ... which is not conservative either.

:"Motivation" is a far more conservative term - one can find motivation whether the playing field islevel or not. "Quantify" is logic, which is an essential difference between conservative and liberal approaches. "Coolant" is an essential part of nuclear energy -- which liberals loathe.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:51, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

== A.M. ==

This entry is an abbreviation for ''ante meridiem'', which originates from 1563 [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ante%20meridiem]. I'm not clear on whether the abbreviation is being claimed as a new conservative word or the phrase for which it stands. Additionally, it is unclear where the given date of origin in the article of 1762 comes from. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:43, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

:The online etymology dictionary gives a date of 1762. Perhaps it's referring to common usage.

:While you're right that the "A" in A.M. is from a Latin word that is different from the "A" in A.D., the popularity of "A.D." could have led to the popularity of "A.M."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:37, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
::Just seen this catch my attention on the mainpage. I highly doubt that the two could be related in any conservative sense. Of course "AD" refers to "In the year of our lord". But back in the 18th century, Latin was still being routinely taught in schools (especially in [[Britain]]), bring us many other Latin abbreviations, such as eg, etc, ie, RIP (from 'requiescat in pace', and later backronymed into 'rest in peace'). I highly doubt the link between any apparent 'popularity' of AD spurred the formation of AM, and personally I'd remove it. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 15:57, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

== It Really Is Amazing... ==

It really is amazing that the pattern of perfect doubling by century is so strong that almost every "layer" is complete before the next layer starts, even though words are added to the list pretty much randomly whenever a user thinks of one. --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 17:47, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2012-04-25T23:46:06Z

AndreaM: /* External Link Suggestion */ new section

[[Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2|Archive 2]]

==Answers to 15 questions==
The debate page on the 15 Questions actually has answers to all of the questions. I think this article should reflect that fact. Something like, "Editors on Conservapedia, however, have been able to provide answers to all of the questions, putting their usefulness, and the validity of the Question Evolution Campaign, into serious doubt." [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 23:57, 11 January 2012 (EST)

== "Question Evolution" Link ==

Under the "Notes" section, the first link is supposed to bring the user to the Question Evolution! page on the Creation Ministries website, correct? Currently, the link is broken. It should say, "creation.com/question-evolution," whereas right now it says "creation.com/question-evIolution."

Note the "I" between "v" and "o" in "evolution." I cannot fix this link, so someone with that power may wish to do so. [[User:JHunt1487|JHunt1487]] 14:51, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:::Fixed thinks.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:35, 2 December 2011 (EST)

== Seven Questions Creationists Can't Answer! ==

The Bible has quite a few dates and talks about lots of old men who supposedly lived for 900 years. Using these dates and records, Christian apologist Bishop Ussher created the most commonly accepted chronology that claims that the Earth was created in 4004 BC. Most Christian Fundamentalists still accept this date or at least a very similar one. Here are seven reasons that they are wrong!
#The Pyramids Everyone knows that they are there. Even Southern Baptist apologists can't deny their existence. So how does their very existence destroy Biblical inerrantism? Because every single one of them was built hundreds of years before the Bible says that the Flood supposedly wiped out humanity. The Great Pyramid of Khufu in Giza was built around 2550 BC according to Egyptian records. That is 200 years before the flood. Embarrassingly, God's miles high flood made no mark on the pyramids or their contents. The mummies and artifacts inside are still dry and in great shape. If there really had been enough water to cover the Earth, it would have exerted a force of at least 1.8 million pounds per square foot on the Pyramids (assuming that the water was high enough to cover the entire Earth and all the mountains as the Bible says). This amount of pressure would have completely destroyed the antiquated architecture and mummies.
::''Where did you come up with your Flood date?''
#Tree Rings Dendrochronology, the study of tree rings, is an interesting and informative science that can tell us much about history. Every year, each tree creates a new growth ring. The size of this ring depends on the conditions of that year. Scientists can take cores of these trees and count the number of tree rings in order to give the age of the tree. Each year has a distinctive pattern depending on the local conditions. Amazingly, we have a species of tree, known as Bristlecone Pines, that provide a record of tree rings that extends back 11,000 years to 9,000 BC. This is an obvious problem for those that believe that the Earth was still "matter unorganized" back then. We even have a tree, known as Methuselah, that has now been alive for 4,842 years and counting as shown by its rings. That means that the tree was born in 2831 BC. This tree (and many others) kept living right on through the Flood that supposedly killed everything in 2350. The lowly Bristlecone Pine has toppled the Holy Bible simply by living when it should have died.
::''5,000 years ago is when the Flood happened, and bristlecone pines have been shown to be younger than that. Where is this 11,000 year tree-ring record you speak of?''
#Carbon Dating Radiometric dating is one of the strongest killers of Biblical literacy and one that creationists love to hate. Basically, radiometric dating measures the amount of an isotope and its decayed products are present in a given sample. It is based on the universally admitted fact that radioactive things decay at a certain rate. Through simple math, one can figure out the age of the sample. Radiometric dating is important because it proves that fossils are much older than a few thousand years old. This data shows that the Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years which obviously destroys the Ussher Chronology. Creationists often claim that "decay rates may have changed" or "I carbon dated my dead cat and the answer was off, so..." I have heard all kinds of silly attempts to discredit radiometric dating. The fact remains that we have used this method with not only carbon-14, but with more than 50 other isotopes to confirm the dates. Each of these 50 isotopes decays at a different rate. Yet, they all agree that the Earth is more than 4.5 billion years old. This is important. The half-lives for isotopes range from 70*10-18 seconds for Be-8 to 2.28*1024 years for Te-128. This is a huge range of time. That means that God would have had to speed up each of the 50 isotope's half-lives by vastly different factors in order to fool us into thinking that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. How ridiculous. My question is: why do creationists make insane claims about basic laws of physics in order to defend a Bronze Age myth?
::''You can believe what you want to believe, but there are major flaws based around the word "assumption" in regards to radiometric dating; too many people have too many problems with it to be reliable.'' [http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometric%20Dating,%20and%20The%20Age%20of%20the%20Earth.htm]
#Egyptian Hieroglyphs and Sumerian Before 2250 BC and the Tower of Babel, according to Biblical mythology, the only language on the planet was Adamic. All of the other languages, including Egyptian and Sumerian, were created by the confusion of tongues. Therefore, it is devastating that we have found hundreds of examples of writing that date to a thousand years before the Tower of Babel. Egyptian writings are also powerful evidence against Biblical literalism. The first known Egyptian hieroglyphic inscription was the Narmer Palette which is a collection of writing that dates to 3200 BC. This writing existed 1,000 years before the Tower of Babel when the Egyptian language was supposedly created. The first examples of Sumerian Cuneiform date to 3300 BC. Obviously, two completely different languages existed long before the Tower of Babel "created" them all and neither of them was Adamic.
::''For years scholars have been stating that written language is no older than 5,000 years (the Flood date again!), and recently things began to change. Could this change have been connected with militant atheism and a hostility towards the Bible?''
#Egyptian Dynastic Records Thanks to a well-developed system of record keeping and well-preserved papyri (which oddly enough, survived the Flood), we know an amazing amount about the Egyptian dynasties of the Old Kingdom. We know the exact years that each pharoah rose to power and then was replaced beginning with the Pharoah Zanakht, who rose to power in 2649. This line continues unbroken until the Pharoah Unas (2356-2323 BC) who obviously survived the "Global Flood" in 2349. This line continues until Nemtyenmzaf (2255-2246 BC) who reigned while God was changing everyone's language. Luckily, God forgot Egypt existed and no major disruptive linguistic change occurred during those few centuries when the Tower of Babel suppposedly happened.
::''Are you stating here that Pharoah Zanakht is the first Egyptian king? And are you sure about those dates? David Rohl did some checking and found out the scholars were wrong by about 350 years.'''
#Kangaroos, Lemurs, Frogs, and Emus Besides the obvious absurdity that Noah crammed 2 of each of the more than 5,000 mammal species, 10,000 bird species, 1,000,000 insect species, and 9,000 reptile species in a 450 foot long boat, there are other biological problems with the Bible. Leaving aside all the evidence for evolution, we can look at current animal distribution to see that Noah's Ark is bunk. Supposedly, Noah collected 2 of each animal into his boat and rode the Flood out for a year until he disembarked and released all of these animals from one point on Earth (legend says in Turkey). They then reproduced and spread out to where they are now. If this were true, animals would be present wherever they could have migrated since the Flood. Animals go where they can survive. That would mean that there would not be the kind of differences that we see in the world. Why are most Marsupials in Australia? Are we really expected to believe that all the Kangaroos got off the Ark and made a beeline for Australia without leaving one behind on the mainland? Why did all the Lemurs head for Madagascar? Why are the platyrrhines only found in the Western Hemisphere and catarrhines only in the Old World? How did all those animals get to Australia or any other island at all? Frogs cannot survive in salt water, so how did they get to Australia? I could list such problems in animal distribution forever. These questions are all easily answered by evolution, but they really make no sense if we accept Genesis.
:''Those questions are easily answered by Genesis, and an order by God that they go to their appointed places after the Flood. After all, how did people migrate out from the Old World to the New? Did they cross land bridges? And did they take several thousand years to do it...or did they actually do it in a few months? Wasn't the island of Krakatoa repopulated with animal and plant life within a couple years after an 1883 eruption which killed off everything, including bacteria?''
#Oil and Coal Every time a creationist drives he is benefitting from the fact that he is wrong. Petroleum only exists because the Earth is billions of years old. As most know, it is formed when the remains of phytoplankton and zooplankton settle to the bottom of the sea and are compressed and decomposed in anaerobic conditions. There is no other way to make petroleum. Enormous amounts of heat, pressure, and time are require to create petroleum. Only geologic time could do it. The gas in your car is great proof that Christian Fundamentalists are wrong when they said that the Earth was 6,000 years old.
::''What exactly do you mean by "as most know?" When phytoplankton and zooplankton settle on the bottom of the sea they are disposed of by scavengers before any sort of burial takes place, and this little fact is observable. And it isn't just dead animal and plant life that is being consumed; try looking at the remains of an iron-hulled ship that used to be called "Titanic". Courtesy of the recent oil well blow out in the Gulf of Mexico, we have the news from several sources that there are biological critters which eat oil. So, where is the oil coming from if it's being eaten away every time an animal dies?''

Unless all 7 of these questions can be answered, Creationism must be dismissed as pseudoscience. [[User:FRodgers|FRodgers]] 23:20, 1 December 2011 (EST)
::Basically, FRodgers, all those questions were answered, and they were answered too many times by too many people with a lot of evidence to back it all up. The first thing you had better do is to disprove the existence of God beyond all doubt; then you can talk about why we should not believe in what you call "pseudoscience". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:09, 2 December 2011 (EST)

::FRodgers, I see the evolutionists are getting desperate because they still can't the 15 questions. Second, the fluff you put forth certainly should not be taken seriously. For example, "Peter Clayton remarked that “it may come as a surprise to realize that it is extremely difficult to fix true or absolute dates in Egyptian chronology” (1994, p. 12, emp. added). Sir Alan Gardiner, the foremost Egyptologist of the twentieth century, spoke of “lamentable gaps” and “many a doubtful attribution,” finally exclaiming: “What is proudly advertised as Egyptian history is merely a collection of rags and tatters” (1961, p. 48, emp. added). Noting that our present knowledge of Egyptian chronology is “far from satisfactory,” Olaf Toffteen, curator of the Hibbard Egyptian Library in Chicago, explained that the deficiency can be attributed “not to the scarcity of material, but rather to its abundance. This material...exhibits so many contradictions that Egyptologists and historians differ radically in their theories on Egyptian chronology” (1907, 1:149). This indefiniteness does not remove all validity from the chronology, but it must be recognized that the ancient chronology of Egypt, though well established, is far from infallible."[http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=92] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:38, 1 December 2011 (EST)
Here is some addition information: "The uncertainty to which these scholars refer, results from the shaky foundation upon which Egyptian chronology is built. Manetho, the source of “the basic structure or skeleton of Egyptian chronology that we use today” (Clayton, p. 9), is unreliable and inaccurate. In the introduction to his translation of that historian, W.G. Waddell suggested “there were many errors in Manetho’s work from the very beginning” (1997, p. xxv). Further indicting this ancient source, Breasted confessed: “Wherever he can be controlled, Manetho is generally wrong in his figures, and any chronology based on his data is hopelessly astray” (1927, 1:32). Whatever the reason for Manetho’s untrustworthiness, one immediately sees the unreliability of a system whose “basic structure” is “hopelessly astray.”"[http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=92] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:44, 1 December 2011 (EST)
:::And the Question Evolution! campaign relies entirely on quote mining, misrepresentation of science, extremely flawed assumption, critical misinterpretation of evolutionary theory, and outright lies. I don't see your point. While there is some dissent about dates regarding Egypt, the consensus is that Egypt formed pre-flood and survived until the Greeks moved in. You can't explain that. [[User:FRodgers|FRodgers]] 00:25, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:Don't you have any recent references? You can find some good stuff at my YouTube video, "More analysis of the Flood myth" or on my channel, voiceoftruth2006. I'm happy to debate you, by the way. --[[User:VOT2011|VOT2011]] 23:48, 1 December 2011 (EST)
Evolutionists, all your evolutionist jargon, evolutionist whining/kvetching and evolutionist consensus doesn't amount to a hill of beans. This campaign will throw creationist sabots into the machinery of evolutionary indoctrination. Get used to the Question evolution! campaign because you are not going to stop it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:17, 2 December 2011 (EST)

==Archiving==
Archiving shouldn't be used as a tool for [[last wordism]]! I un-archived those arguments to which someone contributed less than a day ago. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:43, 2 December 2011 (EST)

== Third-party coverage ==

I'd like it if the article showed some coverage from outside the Question Evolution! blog network. Can anyone point to such sources? [[User:RandRover|RandRover]] 18:52, 30 December 2011 (EST)
:Just Google it. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 19:30, 30 December 2011 (EST)
::Everything on the first page appears to be either content from the QE! campaign network reposted to other pages or twaddle critical of the campaign posted by atheists. Isn't there some positive publicity that wasn't created by the people running the campaign? [[User:RandRover|RandRover]] 18:47, 31 December 2011 (EST)
:::Third party coverage and press is given in the article. I suggest actually reading the article before commenting on the talk page. I guess it's true that atheists have a hard time finding evidence because they don't want to see it or look for it. "Maybe the atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman." - Francis Thomson. see: [[Atheism Quotes]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:02, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::::That was uncalled for; please do not accuse me of being an atheist. I want this article to be strong and while it's true that I missed a short few lines in the middle of the article, I was looking in the references which by and large fit the pattern I mentioned above (38 of 44 are to either ShockofGod's YouTube channel or to one of the campaign's creators; the other 6 do not mention the campaign at all). Those pages are all dated before September 1; is the media simply ignoring us? Surely a local paper or similar has run an article. [[User:RandRover|RandRover]] 16:53, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::Rand, If it is important for you to know if there has been media coverage, then ask your locale librarian to help you do a search on newspapers coverage. Since the only thing that is necessary for the campaign to be effective is for students to ask their teachers the 15 questions in class and for people to examine the questions with an open mind, I don't see why media coverage is paramount though at this early stage. For example, the Question evolution blog (network) has only been around a month, as can be seen [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2011-11-23T22:11:00-08:00&max-results=7 HERE]. The Traditional Values Coalition seemed to jump in right around the beginning of school in late August based on their website and the WND story which cited their website.[http://www.wnd.com/2011/08/337937/] That is only 3 months ago. Maybe it is just me, but Christians tend to be more patient and tenacious and don't expect instant results nor do they expect mainstream media validation. Plus, there are so many ways now to get the word out without the use of mainstream media. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if social movements go through stages and some preparation, recruiting and organizing is involved before deciding to seek attention from press outlets in a significant way. Plus, although some social movements probably start out with a book/movie/video, I am guessing the converse also happens and social movements develop material as they go along. I would think that books/movies/videos tend to attract more media attention. I know that impatient people like the fire, aim, ready approach, but I personally think the ready, aim, fire approach has more wisdom. :) However, I can see how a person who comments on a talk page before carefully reading an article would feel differently. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:12, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::There's no reason for the snark. Please refrain. [[User:RandRover|RandRover]] 18:35, 4 January 2012 (EST)

==Who is this campaign aimed to ?==
Is it aimed to students ? Is it aimed to people who are hesitant about creationism/evolution ? 
I ask this question because the only reactions I could see are from militant creationists. Therefore, even if the goal seems laudable, I am not optimistic about the success of this campaign. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 18:20, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::::What is the campaign called? Question evolution! isn't it? It seems obvious to me what the purpose of the campaign is, but maybe I am not thinking hard enough. :) I loved the first video with Pastor Carl Gallup especially the line "Didn't your teacher teach you to question everything?" It seems to me though that the evolutionists/atheists don't like their dogman/religion questioned though and I think Pastor Gallups was suggesting that they are hypocritical.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:43, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Hi Conservative, I understand pretty well the purpose, I am just wondering about the target. Do you know if some people abandoned their belief in evolution because of this campaign ? If evolutionists don't like their religion to be questioned, I suppose this campaign does not target them. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 18:48, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::::Again, I think that obvious too. The campaign is called Question evolution! so people with with an open mind. Generally, dogmatic/opinionated people such as militant atheists/evolutionists probably tend not to question their beliefs although Charles Darwin was plagued with doubt about evolution and even late in life and often had overwhelming thoughts the world was designed[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html] so who knows what goes on inside so called dogmatic evolutionists heads. (see: [[Charles Darwin]]). The Question evolution blog posters have indicated several times that they would like to reach young people plus develop curriculum for young people which is not surprising since young people tend to be less dogmatic and opinionated. [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/search?q=teachers] I really don't think this is rocket science. I don't see this very young social movement doing anything radically different than others before them. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:57, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::::::How can you speak about open mindedness while you "''Never read more than a few words or sentences of inane and socially challenged atheist/evolutionist comments before deleting them''" ? (I am not an atheist but I believe in listening) --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 20:47, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::Did I write that? Second, how much time a day do you pour over the material of "inane, socially challenged atheists/evolutionists"? Is it a hobby of yours? Maybe you should consider engaging in other hobbies. Just a thought. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::::Well played, Conservative ;) I have to admit that I usually don't listen to "insane, socially challenged atheists/evolutionists" ! But I sometime have a chat with sane, socially admitted atheists/evolutionists ! --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:38, 4 January 2012 (EST)

==What goals will you try to achieve in 2012 ?==
As you wrote on the main page and probably on the blog as well: 
''An advocate of the Question evolution! campaign believes that as the campaign continues to gain new fans and spread across the globe in 2012 that these desperate rants of atheist crybabies may reach a feverish pitch''. 
So what objectives did you define for 2012 ? Do you define goals by number of conversions, by number of crying atheists, by number of the campaign followers, or by the number of bullied atheists ? --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:12, 18 January 2012 (EST)
:Did "you define"? Please explain. Who are you referring to? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:00, 18 January 2012 (EST)
::Seeing how much you promote the campaign on CP, I thought you were one of the leaders of the campaign. Am I wrong ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:41, 19 January 2012 (EST)
:::Philip, very early on as an editor at Conservapedia, I established a policy of asking that my critics address my content at this wiki and try to point out factual errors in my content. Of course, given my articles which are brimming with facts and well cited this has been very frustrating for them. :) As part of this policy, I said I would not entertain any of their speculations about any internet activities outside of this wiki that they wish to speculate about in terms of confirmations or denials by myself. I/we do realize that some people have [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] and are obsessed with Conservapedia and some of its sysops/administrators, yet my/our policy remains firm. :) By the way, to date no true skeptic declares whether [[User:Conservative|I/we]] are one person or many. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:09, 20 January 2012 (EST)

Let's cut the word-games: it is secondary whether the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]] has leaders, or only leading members or possibly only more and less prolific contributors. Judging from the activity on this wiki alone, you are the most prolific observer(s) of the QE!C here at Conservapedia - and perhaps the only one(s) who met members of this campaign in real life (Have you? Has anyone else encountered an activist of QE!C in RL? Or at least got a pamphlet which he hasn't printed out himself? )

Therefore it makes sense for PhilipN to address his questions to you, though he could have phrased them a little bit differently:

*User:Conservative, as someone who seems to know quite a bit about the campaign what objectives do you think the campaign will have for 2012 ?
*Do you think that the campaign will result in actual conversion of atheists? Has it done so over the last six months?
*Do you think that the campaign will have a measurable influence on the ''atheist crybabies''? How do you propose to measure it? Has it have such an influence over the last six months? If not, why not?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:35, 20 January 2012 (EST)
:::AugustO, the campaign is the campaign of [[Creation Ministries International]] (CMI). The CMI website describes the [[Question evolution! campaign]] thusly: "The campaign involves people empowering people to stand firm together against the evolutionary indoctrination so rampant in our schools, universities and media. You can encourage your friends to ‘Question evolution’ — especially if you are a student who is being force-fed evolutionary dogma. What good questions can you ask? Our exciting ‘Question evolution’ tract, 15 Questions for Evolutionists, provides 15 critically important questions that evolutionists cannot adequately answer. Share them with your friends, family and fellow students. These attractive tracts [view / order] are very affordable, or print your own from our downloadable PDF document [plain A4-size, plain letter-size]... here is a [http://creation.com/15-questions web page of the complete 15 Questions] including links to further reading and references."[http://creation.com/question-evolution] That's the campaign. It's a simple campaign that's easy to get involved with. I know you can't adequately answer the questions so get involved in the Question evolution! campaign. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:40, 20 January 2012 (EST)

:::: Since you don't define "adequately," CMI can simply ignore any answer given, even a thorough one that really does answer the question, as "inadequate." The 15 questions are almost all basic questions about evolutionary biology that were all covered in my sister's 10th grade biology class. They HAVE been answered, by many people, and your continued insistence that they have not been answered, even as the answer sits in every biology textbook AND on the debate page for the 15 questions, is wrong. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 12:18, 20 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::You post was rather humorous to many Conservapedians no doubt who are familiar with what Harvard evolutionist [[Stephen Jay Gould]] confessed about biology textbooks (see: [[Atheism and deception|Biology textbooks]]). By the way, I know you can't adequately answer the questions so get involved in the Question evolution! campaign. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:37, 20 January 2012 (EST)

So, no clear objective that you are aware of ? --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:25, 22 January 2012 (EST)
== 95 Theses against Evolution ==
I suggest to include into "See also" the [[95 Theses against Evolution]].--[[User:AK|AK]] 18:07, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

== External Link Suggestion ==

It's not from CMI and is not officially part of the campaign, but it's quite similar: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKA6vHx1Ur4 21 Facts that Evolutionists CAN'T ANSWER!] It certainly seems to have stuck a nerve with YouTube atheists! --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 19:46, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

Blackpool

2012-04-12T23:09:27Z

AndreaM: Pleasure Beach

Blackpool is a seaside town located on the coast of Lancashire in the [[United Kingdom]]. It is best known for it's many unique tourist attractions which include the Blackpool Tower, three piers and the Pleasure Beach amusement park which had, for a while, the tallest, fastest and steepest roller coaster in the world.
[[Category:Towns in England]]

Talk:Theory of relativity

2012-04-12T23:03:50Z

AndreaM: /* GPS and Relativity */

{| style=" width:95%; text-align:left; background:{{{background}}}; color:{{{color|black}}}; border:3px solid black; clear:both " align="center"
|-
|width="2%" style="text-align:center" cellpadding="5"|'''!'''
|'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''

'''Raising arguments which have been discussed before wastes the time of valuable editors and repeatedly doing so violates [[90/10]].'''

For older discussions, see the archive [[Talk:Theory of relativity/index|index]]. 
|valign="top" style="text-align:right"|[[Image:Conservlogo.png|65px]]
|}


== Mass depending on direction ==

The article states:
:''There is a logical difficulty, however, to an increase in relativistic mass. Such increase would only exist in the direction of motion, and the rest mass would remain intact with respect to a force applied in a direction orthogonal to velocity. Neither mass nor energy is a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is illogical.''

As [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] on 8 July 2007 (EDT): ''This paragraph is nonsense [..] The relativistic mass applies no matter what the direction of the force is.''

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:45, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Neutrinos now obey speed limit ==

The observation sited in the first sentence of this article has been discredited. [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp] It appears that a loose fiber-optics cable is to blame for the misreadings. I suggest editing this first sentence, and any other mention of this in the article.--[[User:CarloP|CarloP]] 18:51, 2 March 2012 (EST)

:Issues concerning the neutrino experiment are not yet fully resolved. No problam: I replaced it with another counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:12, 2 March 2012 (EST)

== Why does Conservapedia seek to discredit Relativity ==

Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?

Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:''Conservapedia'' seeks the truth, not merely what the [[lamestream media]] claim is the truth. Moreover, once one accepts a logical fallacy, then anything false can be proven from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:: Ahh.... But the fact that the conclusion is false does not necessarily render the basis false. I could say "Andy Schlafly founded Conservapedia and therefore I am a pig monkey." I am not a pig monkey, and even if I were, that has nothing to do with you founding this website. But you still did. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:58, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:When looking around the internet, it is obvious that Conservapedia's classification of relativity as [[pseudoscience]] is a source of some amusement and contempt. Aschlafly, could you please answer the two questions I raised above? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:27, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, liberal peer pressure from "around the internet" does not illuminate the truth. If what liberals on the internet said made a dime's bit of difference, then the [[Bible]] would not be the best selling book (by far) and the percentage of people who are [[conservative]] would not be growing (as it does).

::"Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?" Because it's false, it confuses people, it misleads people into stop reading the Bible, and its orthodoxy interferes with the advancement of science for the benefit of all. Other than that, it's not a bad theory!

::"Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition?" The only bias is by liberals who shout down any criticism of the theory. If the theory were so clearly true, then there would be no need for some liberals to rely on [[censorship]] in propping it up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:10, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== GPS and Relativity ==

I note that anyone using a GPS is relying on the Theory of Relativity being true, since calculations derived from Relativity are used within a GPS. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:GPS does '''''not''''' rely on the [[Theory of Relativity]], and this has been thoroughly explained on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

::Hi Aschlafly, I've located at least some of the discussion re GPS in the archives of this talk page, and there a lot of references for me to examine before I can make any further serious comments; certainly there are some references which appear to state that GPS relies on relativity. Can you perhaps draw my attention to what you consider the most important (half-dozen or so) references which indicate that the GPS system does NOT rely on relativity so that I have somewhere to start from? In the meantime I'll continue editing and improving less controversial articles as I have been doing for the last two months (my talk page lists nearly 40 articles I can usefully contribute to). [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:17, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:::This note 7 is on [[Counterexamples to Relativity]]:

::::Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”

:::The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing: the small effects claimed by the special and general theories nearly cancel each other out for orbiting satellites. From an engineering perspective, it makes far more sense simply to adjust the clocks using synchronization rather than relying on (dubious) theoretical claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Another false claim because of sloppy reading: In the same source by The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, you can find how the authors Fliegel and DiEsposti describe what is happening to the clocks in the satellites:
''Since GPS receivers work in the time and not in the frequency domain, they handle the velocity, gravity, and acceleration shifts differently than described above. First, each GPS space vehicle (SV) clock is offset from its nominal rate by about -4.45 × 10-10 (= -38 microseconds per day) to allow for the relativistic offsets between the differences between the SV and the ground. Of this -38 microseconds per day, about -45 are due to the gravitational potential difference between the SV at its mean distance and the earth's surface, and +7 to the mean SV speed, which is about 3.87 km/sec. (p. 193).

The text is about the necessity of ''further'' corrections by the ''operational control system'' - there are corrections ''already'' installed in the clocks!

''The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing:'' This sentence is wrong. It has shown to be wrong a couple of times, so it starts to become a lie. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:12, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Theory of Relativity]] was not used to develop GPS, nor would it be sensible to waste time and money doing so. Synchronization is cheaper, simpler, and more reliable. The above quote does not contradict this obvious truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:32, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

::The fact that these offsets are implemented in the clocks '''in accord with the theory of relativity''' as you can read in the very source you quoted shows that the [[Theory of Relativity]] is used in the GPS - and this from the very beginning of the project! Please, start to read your sources - completely! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:37, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Please, before we get into any more debate, could someone supply some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:41, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly took his quote from [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] by Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond S. DiEsposti (though he probably isn't aware of this). The paper is about relativistic effects due to moving GPS-'''''receivers''''' (or GPS-receivers in high altitudes) and comes to the conclusion, that at the moment, they don't have to include additional relativistic corrections.

:Aschlafly interprets this as if ''no'' relativistic corrections are implemented in the GPS.
:However, in the paper itself, you will find the section I quoted above, where the authors describe such very corrections within the clocks of the satellites.
:I'm afraid that Aschlafly won't come up with ''some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS'' as there aren't any.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:53, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Folks, the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the [[Theory of Relativity]] was used to design GPS. That burden includes describing who, when, where, how, and why. It didn't happen. And if it did, the person who wasted time and money on such a frivolous approach should explain the mistake, because engineers can simply synchronize the clocks far more accurately than the theory ever could.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:It looks to me as if you are trying to put impossible conditions prior to any debate. To avoid a lengthy debate all you have to do is produce some actual references which support your point of view. Is this too much to ask?

:If it didn't happen then you should be able to produce some evidence of this, so '''some actual references please'''. The only 'evidence' you have produced so far is an out-of-context quote from a paper which is concerned primarily with GPS receivers (that same paper mentions the use of relativity-related adjustments to the clocks on the GPS satellite transmitters). Surely you must have more than this. Will you accept evidence from engineers and companies involved in designing and building the GPS system? If not, why not? Who would you accept evidence from? The US Department of Defense? Do you seriously expect a member of the public to be able to access internal design documents as your "who, when, where, how, and why" statement implies?

:If you care to check my contribution history you will see that I am actively contributing non-controversial information to articles. This discussion re GPS etc. is only a small part of my activities on Conservapedia. Since I've barely started on considering and consolidating what evidence there is re GPS I would rather have a week or so to look at the evidence before getting into a debate. This should give you ample time to come up with some references to support the separation of GPS and relativity. Simple searches via Google turn up numerous instances where relativity is claimed to be relevant to GPS, but I can't find anything to the contrary and '''I need your help to do so'''. I would really like to see evidence from '''both sides''' of the discussion before entering the debate, so '''some actual references please'''. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 19:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, you're requesting proof that something didn't happen. Moreover, someone with an engineering background (such as myself) would not expect it to have happened. It is like asking for a reference that no green cheese was found on the Moon. No such scientific reference is likely to exist, nor would anyone expect such a reference to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:28, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:: Every single article on GPS says that relativistic adjustments are made to the satellite clocks. Some give the formulas and some give quantitative data on the adjustments. Textbooks explain why the adjustments are necessary. I don't see any reason to doubt that GPS uses relativistic adjustments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:52, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::GPS does make synchronizing adjustments. Call them whatever you like, but those adjustments are not made based on predictions by the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Indeed, it would be a silly waste of time and money to synchronize in such a manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::: Unless you drive the flying Delorean from ''Back to the Future'', relativity would say that its effect on your car when you're driving at normal speeds is so small it need not be accounting for. The normal error for GPS (about 40 feet) is many magnitudes higher than the error relativity would cause. Now, the GPS in the Flying DeLorean would be another issue. But until that's invented, let's not worry about it, ok? Of course, if you were orienteering, your speed would be even slower than if you were driving. Indeed, if you were moving at any normal speed (even a supersonic jet), relativity would be incredibly small (assuming that it exists as scientists explain it). [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:14, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::''GPS does make synchronizing adjustments'' Not only simple synchronizing: read the specifications for the GPS, read the sources ''in full'' which you are quoting, and you will see that all these engineers and scientists don't give a damn that you think that they are wasting ''time and money''.
:::::Aschlafly, your position is only tenable as you are willing to ignore most of the data which is presented to you. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:12, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, please correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you believe very firmly that relativity has nothing to do with GPS, even though you are unwilling to present any evidence to support this belief, and wish to put severe restrictions on what 'proof' of the relationship other folks may present. I raised some five questions above as to what sort of evidence you might consider. Could you please answer these questions.

::I'd like to ask Mr. Schafly if he could explain what the clock adjustments on GPS satellites are for, the article is not clear, and neither is anything on this talk page.--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:44, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Cahnkj, herewith a summary of the clock-adjustment situation as I (RolandPlankton) see it. Newton's equations of motions say nothing about how clocks keep time. Einstein's equations of relativity imply that identical clocks will vary in their timekeeping (tick at different rates) if they are travelling at different speeds, or if they are at different heights in a gravitational field, or if they are subject to different accelerations; see [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview]. Now the satellites used in the GPS system require very accurate clocks which are in step with ground-based clocks. The paper just quoted provides the various relativistic equations which apply - the satellites are travelling faster than a ground-based receiver, and are at a different height in a gravitational field. Prior to launch the clocks in the GPS satellites are deliberately set to a different tick rate from ground-based clocks, so that when they are in orbit the clocks will appear to tick at the same rate; the difference in tick rates is about 38 nanoseconds per day, and this adjustment can be calculated from the relevant relativistic equations.

:::But the problem is that Aschlafly rejects the Theory of Relativity, and hence rejects any calculation based on that. The only serious argument he has put forth on this current talk page (see preceding section) is an appeal to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Truth the truth]; the quote he provides above is also demolished above. You may wish to consult [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], which is rebutted point by point in [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]].

:::Hope this doesn't add too much to the confusion. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 12:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::Mr. Schlafly states above that "the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the Theory of Relativity was used to design GPS." (This is a fair requirement, and it seems as this has been done when AugustO referred to the Fliegel and DiEsposti paper above.)

::::But really, isn't the burden of proof on anyone who claims ''anything'' on this site, since Conservapedia Commandment #1 states that "everything you post must be true and verifiable" and Commandment #2 states that users should "always cite and give credit to <nowiki>[their]</nowiki> sources?" --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 19:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

===A Separate Question for Mr. Schlafly About References===

::Aschlafly, as a separate issue, in view of of your apparent attitude to references, could I ask you to have a look at the articles I have been working on over the last two months: [[Pi]], [[Programming language]], [[Compiler]], and the work-in-progress [[Chomsky hierarchy]]. Obviously I'm only asking you to consider the changes I have made. In particular, can you check if the references are acceptable to you, and can you also check that the general style and level of writing is in accordance with Conservapedia's aims? The next article I intend to turn my intention to is [[Context-Free Grammar]], since it seems to me that this fails to satisfy [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Style]] "Articles on complex topics need an introduction which assumes little or no previous knowledge". [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:03, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Roland, your good edits are appreciated and I've seen no complaints about them. I agree that the [[Context-Free Grammar]] would benefit from a better introduction and look forward to reading what you add there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== Why are adjustments needed to GPS? ==

A good question was raised above: if synchronization to GPS is not due to the [[Theory of Relativity]], then what is it due to?

And the answer is simply this: [[quantum mechanics]]. There are fundamental uncertainties, and those uncertainties will lead to clock differences. Otherwise a [[perpetual motion machine]] would be possible. It isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:Well, this is progress indeed. Could you please provide references to support the contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects?

:Also, as an aside, how do you say that fundamental uncertainties described by quantum mechanics relate to the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine? Not sure I follow you there. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 23:36, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::It's basic logic. Unless someone denies [[quantum mechanics]] and the fundamental uncertainties it describes -- and many [[Relativists]] do deny it -- then synchronization will be required as a logical result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Do you have any references? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::I haven't looked ... nor is it necessary to. I wouldn't look for references to confirm any logical statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:14, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Really? Is it fair to say then that this contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects is not something that you have read about but rather something that you yourself concluded from your own knowledge of quantum mechanics and GPS systems? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::P.S. As a result of this discussion I found a couple of articles which appear to confirm that GPS satellites have their clocks adjusted by about 38,000 nanoseconds per day before launch in compliance with relitavistic predictions (both Special and General Relativity are taken into account). The articles are [http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp here] and [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html here]. Is there really any question that this is what is happening? I would think that if these sources are to be questioned that some sort of reference should be provided. A mere assertion that the adjustments are as a result of quantum mechanical effects and that it is a matter of logic would not usually be enough for any serious encyclopedia. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::The references are [[hearsay]]. Logic is far more compelling, more efficient, and more likely to lead to the correct result.

::::::To take the analogy mentioned above, if you agree that [[perpetual motion machines]] are impossible, what is the reason?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:45, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Quantum mechanics gives a probabilistic model of phenomena. Indeed, the page you linked for quantum mechanics states:
::"If we measure such an observable, generally the wave function does not predict exactly which value we will obtain. Instead, the wave function gives us the probability that a certain value will be obtained."
:If this is the case, that means that Quantum mechanical phenomena are ''unpredictable''. How is it that clock adjustments can be made based on unpredictable events, ie, probabilities?
:I'd also like to know how the GPS system is affected by these phenomena.
:--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 01:51, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Logic is a nice thing. But engineers like to calculate. So could you give us a Ballpark estimate for the quantum mechanic effects which come into play here? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:59, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:(Edit conflict x2) Andy, as a lawyer I can assure you that hearsay is a [[legal]] concept which is of little use in this sort of scientific discussion. Whilst I understand that non-legally trained people sometimes confuse the nature and applicability of the concept, I can confirm that it has no relevance here.

:The difficulty here arises from your wanting to assert the truth of a matter without providing either references or even the basis for you own logic. Just saying "quantum mechanics" is hardly enlightening. Do you deny that GPS satellite clocks are adjusted by approximately 38,000 nanoseconds as referred to in the references that I provided? If not, do you say that there is a quantum calculation that accounts for that adjustment? What is that quantum calculation and what is it based on? I am really having difficulty in understanding the basis for all of this. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 02:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, this reference [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] has been pointed out to you several times already. Since it is published by folks actually working on the GPS system, I hardly think that it qualifies as 'hearsay'. It contains all the relevant relativistic equations, which are not really that complicated, and derives the 38 nanosecond figure quoted above. An assertion on scientific matters without any evidence can't really be taken seriously. Can we please see the quantum mechanical equations and calculations which come up with the same or similar result? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 09:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, I'm inclined to suspect that your disbelief in relativity is so strong that you are unwilling to consider any evidence which might indicate that relativity could be correct, and are hence flailing around looking for some other explanation as to what actually happens (GPS clock adjustment by 38 ns). Would you care to comment on my suspicion? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 09:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Quote: "A logical statement is a declarative sentence that is either true or false." [http://www.ontotext.com/factforge/logical-statement].

So Aschlafly, why don't you need a reference to confirm a logical statement? Just because a statement is logical doesn't mean that it is true. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

: It would be helpful to have a more modern reference. GPS switched to a system of daily updates to the satellites. Maybe those relativistic formulas cause errors that require daily clock synchronizations to correct. Not likely. But to prove the point we ought to find a reference that says that the satellites still use the 38 ns/day relativistic adjustments, and that the daily corrections are much smaller than that. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:18, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::The best I've found so far is [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf] from Physics Today, May 2002. This confirms the initial adjustment and mentions further on page 7: "Additional small frequency offsets arise from clock drift, environmental changes, and other unavoidable effects such as the inability to launch the satellite into an orbit with precisely the desired semimajor axis. The satellite clock frequencies are adjusted so that they remain as close as possible to the frequency of the Naval Observatory's clock ensemble." Unfortunately it doesn't give the actual size of the adjustments, thought the word 'small' does indicate it as being much less than the initial adjustment. I rather like the last sentence of this paper: "Ordinary users of the GPS, though they may not need to be aware of it, have thus become dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time." [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:26, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

== Logic and the GPS ==

*Atomic watches work on the Earth quite fine
*[[Quantum mechanics]] describe the physics of ''very small length and energy scales''
*Satellites are macroscopic objects.
*Even a precision of 1cm on the surface of the Earth isn't a very small length.

So which kind of logic tells us that quantum mechanical effects influence the synchronization of the clocks? Why are not only the scientists involved lying, but also their calculations?

For me it seems to be a logical conclusion that you, Aschlafly, are even more knowledgeable of Greek than of Science! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:He's trying to apply the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle to satellites? Are you kidding me? That principle is used for things at the ATOMIC LEVEL! Using ANYTHING with regards to quantum mechanics in an argument about satellites is absurdism and/or ignorance of the subject matter! Seriously Andy, I know you hate the Theory of Relativity, but you should really leave science to those who understand it. [[User:JanSmuts|JanSmuts]] 16:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Ronald Wilson Reagan

2012-04-02T23:43:12Z

AndreaM: /* Miscellaneous Facts */

{{Officeholder
|name=Ronald Wilson Reagan
|image=Reagan large 4.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse= Jane Wyman Nancy Davis Reagan
|religion=[[Presbyterian]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=40th
|terms=January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989
|vp=[[George H. W. Bush]]
|preceded=[[Jimmy Carter]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[George H. W. Bush]]
}}
{{Officeholder/governor
|number=33rd
|state=California
|terms=January 2, 1967 – January 6, 1975
|preceded=Edmund G. "Pat" Brown, Sr.
|former=y
|succeeded=Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown, Jr.
}}
}}
'''Ronald Wilson Reagan''' (February 6, 1911 - June 5, 2004), served as the 40th [[President of the United States of America]] from 1981 to 1989. He was the 33rd Governor of [[California]] (1967–1975), following a successful career in film and television. He has been widely recognized as one of the greatest American Presidents and the main inspiration for the conservative movement from the 1970s to the present.

Reagan was a [[movement conservative]], and succeeded in moving the nation to the right in terms of reducing federal regulation and lowering taxes--and indeed in promoting the conviction that government was the problem and private enterprise the solution. He cut taxes but despite his proposals, spending and the federal deficit went up. After a short sharp recession early in his first term, the economy was strong by 1984. Proclaiming "It's Morning Again in America", Reagan carried 49 of 50 states to win reelection. He moved the [[Supreme Court]] and the federal courts to the right with his appointments.

Reagan's [[Supply-side economics|supply-side economic]] policies were based on the libertarian ideas of [[Milton Friedman]] and the [[Chicago School of Economics]]. "Reaganomics" was based on the idea that tax cuts will spur savings and investment. Reagan was strongly opposed to the concept of big government, advocating a reduction in the size and budget of the federal government. During his terms in office, he faced a divided Congress split between Republican and Democratic control for six of his eight years as President. Reagan was known for forging alliances with "[[Blue Dog]]" (conservative) Democrats to overcome the apparent majority led by Democratic Speaker [[Tip O'Neill]].

In foreign affairs Reagan rejected détente with the [[Soviet Union]], but not with [[China]]. His massive defense buildup forced the Soviets to confront their crumbling financial base. He rejected the legitimacy of Communism and in the [[Reagan Doctrine]] systematically challenged and eventually destroyed Soviet strength in the Third World. After 1986 the new leadership of [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] who tried desperately to rescue Communism by cutting its losses; they came to terms with Reagan; the Communist empire collapsed in 1989 a few months after Reagan left office, and Communism was abolished (and Gorbachev repudiated) by Russia in 1991. Reagan is thus credited with achieving victory in the Cold War.<ref> Knopf (2004)</ref>

Always distrustful of nuclear weapons, Reagan proposed SDI, a space-based system to defend against nuclear missiles. The inability of the Soviet Union to match this new technological breakthrough forced it to agree to Reagan's terms for ending the Cold War. In leading the rollback of Communism in Europe, he battled powerful liberal forces that called instead for détente (peaceful relations) with Communism. As the Soviet system faltered and Gorbachev accepted Reagan's terms, ensured an unprecedented level of nuclear disarmament. His signature phrase in dealing with Communists was "trust, but verify."

In his most famous challenges to Communism, Reagan went to the Berlin Wall and gave the Soviets the American terms for ending the Cold War: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" The Soviets were forced to agree, and watched their empire collapse overnight in late 1989, a few months after Reagan was succeeded as president by his Vice President [[George H.W. Bush]].

As a great communicator, and leader of the Republican party, he added a new base of "Reagan Democrats" (blue collar workers who were social conservatives), religious [[evangelical]]s, and [[neoconservative]]s; his success became the model for Republicans into the 21st century.

Not only was Ronald Reagan a smart individual on the surface, he also contributed many new [[insight]]s to the general public not yet available before.<ref>Tear Down This Wall, Laffer Curve, etc. See [[conservative insights]]</ref>

== Reagan's Conservatism ==
In a speech, immediately after assuming the presidency in 1981, he outlined his philosophy. After listing "intellectual leaders like Russell Kirk, Friedrich Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Milton Friedman, James Burnham, Ludwig von Mises" as the ones who "shaped so much of our thoughts," he discussed only one of these influences at length:

*It's especially hard to believe that it was only a decade ago, on a cold April day on a small hill in upstate New York, that another of these great thinkers, [[Frank Meyer]], was buried. He'd made the awful journey that so many others had: He pulled himself from the clutches of "The [communist] God That Failed,'' and then in his writing fashioned a vigorous new synthesis of traditional and libertarian thought -- a synthesis that is today recognized by many as modern conservatism.

*It was Frank Meyer who reminded us that the robust individualism of the American experience was part of the deeper current of Western learning and culture. He pointed out that a respect for law, an appreciation for tradition, and regard for the social consensus that gives stability to our public and private institutions, these civilized ideas must still motivate us even as we seek a new economic prosperity based on reducing government interference in the marketplace.

*Our goals complement each other. We're not cutting the budget simply for the sake of sounder financial management. This is only a first step toward returning power to the States and communities, only a first step toward reordering the relationship between citizen and government. We can make government again responsive to the people by cutting its size and scope and thereby ensuring that its legitimate functions are performed efficiently and justly. <ref>[http://acuf.org/issues/issue13/040606news.asp Ronald Reagan's Conservative Legacy, ACUF]</ref>

==Early Life==
[[File:Reagan_graduation.jpg|right|160px|thumb| 1932 photo taken after his graduation from Eureka College]]
Reagan was born in Tampico, [[Illinois]], the second son of John (Jack) Edward and Nelle Wilson Reagan. The family finally settled in Dixon, Illinois in 1920 after years of moving from town to town. Jack Reagan nicknamed his younger son “Dutch", claiming he looked like “a fat little Dutchman.”<ref> http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/reference/facts.html</ref> Reagan's father was a working class Irish Catholic, and an active Democrat. Unemployed during the [[Great Depression]], Jack Reagan held a minor position in the [[WPA]] during the [[New Deal]]. Reagan recalled numerous alcoholic episodes that cost his father many job opportunities. Nelle Reagan, a devout member of the [[Disciples of Christ]], greatly influenced her son, who remained a lifelong Protestant.

He attended [[Eureka College]], a small Disciples school where he developed a reputation as a "jack of all trades", excelling in campus politics, sports and theater. Reagan was a member of the football and track teams, the basketball cheerleading squad, captain of the swimming team, yearbook editor and was elected student body president. Reagan was a political liberal at that point and led a student revolt against the college president. In his first year at Eureka, the president of the college tried to cut back the faculty. Reagan helped organize a student strike. He received his degree in economics in 1932.

To pay for college, Reagan worked many low wage jobs such as cooking hamburgers and washing tables. He also worked as a lifeguard at Lowell Park on the Rock River in Dixon for seven summers, where he saved seventy-seven swimmers from drowning.<ref> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/timeline/reagan/ Timeline of Ronald Reagan’s Life</ref>

After college Reagan became a radio sports announcer in Iowa. Although he was originally only hired to announce the [[University of Iowa]] football games, he became so popular in the Midwest he began covering Chicago Cubs baseball games at Wrigley Field. He also wrote sports columns in the Des Moines ‘’Dispatch’’.

===Reagan as Disciple===
Reagan took religious values into the presidency that he learned from his [[Disciples of Christ]] background at home and at Eureka College, a Disciples school. He was strongly influenced by Ben Hill Cleaver, the minister of the First Christian Church<ref>The formal name of the denomination is the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).</ref> in Dixon, Illinois, during the 1920s, and by Reagan's mother, Nelle, an active member of the church. At many points the positions taken by the Disciples Church of Reagan's youth coincided with the words, if not the beliefs of the latter-day Reagan. These positions included faith in Providence, the association of America's mission with God's will, belief in progress, trust in the work ethic and admiration for those who achieved wealth, an uncomfortableness with literature and art that questioned the family or challenged notions of proper sexual behavior, the presumption that poverty is an individual problem best left to charity rather than the state, sensitivity to problems involving alcohol and drugs, and reticence to use government to protect civil rights for minorities. Reagan's experiences in the church and with the Cleavers provided early training in public speaking and offered a way of learning in which acting played a central part. Reagan's use of the jeremiad and his fusing of Judeo-Christianity and patriotism into a civil religion also have their roots in this early period. For her part, Nelle was a pillar of the church and the one who provided stability to the shaky Reagan family when the head was drunkard and a poor provider. She helped spark her son's interest in acting and believed the stage could be a force for noble purposes.<ref> Stephen Vaughn, "The Moral Inheritance of a President: Reagan and the Dixon Disciples of Christ." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 1995 25(1): 109-127. 0360-4918 </Ref>

==Hollywood==
[[File:Reagan1953.jpg|thumb|left|250px|1953 film starring Reagan and Dorothy Malone]]
In 1937 Reagan traveled to [[Hollywood]] to cover the Chicago Cubs's spring training games and look at prospects in the film industry. Warner Brothers studio offered him a one year contract with a starting salary of $200 a week. He then became famous starring in numerous "B" movies, where he typically played a supporting character rather then the leading role. In 1941 Reagan gave a well received performance in the [[Academy Award|Oscar]] nominated film ''Kings Row''. During the war Reagan was in the Air Force; he was assigned to make training films. He resumed his Hollywood career on release in 1946.

Reagan's movie career faded in the late 1940s but he made a successful transition to television, especially as a host, and became a celebrity on the speakers' circuit. He traveled the country as a motivation speaker for General Electric, attracting highly appreciative audiences for his polished, witty speeches based on a wide reading in current events and libertarian economic principles. Reagan also starred in the 1960s television series Death Valley Days. By 1964 he had appeared in over 50 films.

===Union president===
Reagan jumped into union politics, and was elected to five terms as president of the [[Screen Actors Guild]], a labor union for movie actors and part of the [[AFL]]. As SAG President he traveled across the country giving speeches on behalf of actors. Until the 1950s Reagan was an avid liberal Democrat who strongly supported the [[New Deal]] of [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] and the [[Fair Deal]] of [[Harry S. Truman]]. He often campaigned on behalf of the [[New Deal Coalition]]. There was talk of running Reagan for president of the AFL itself.<ref> Ronald Reagan, [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0743400259/ref=sib_dp_srch_bod?v=search-inside&keywords=truman ''An American Life'' (1990) p 132]</ref>

Reagan was thus the only president to lead a [[labor union]], a bastion of liberalism. Reagan himself was a registered Democrat well into the 1950s, but as head of the Screen Actors Guild he fought against Communist infiltration. In 1947 he testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee. Peggy Noonan wrote, "Even in his zeal to purge the communist influence from [[Hollywood]], he fought those who engaged in witch hunts and defended those who had been falsely accused of involvement."

While remaining a Democrat Reagan became increasingly conservative in the 1950s. After actively supporting [[Richard Nixon]]'s campaign for president in 1960, Reagan switched political parties and officially became a Republican in 1962. He realized that he had diverged greatly from the tax-and-spend liberalism of the Democratic Party.

[[Image:Reagantheater.jpg‎|right|thumb|225px|Ronald Reagan and General Electric Theater. 1954-62.]]

==1964==

Conservatives nationwide saw Reagan as their new star when his campaigning for Senator [[Barry Goldwater]] in 1964 was better received than Goldwater's own speeches. He raised an unprecedented eight million dollars for Goldwater. Despite Goldwater's defeat, Reagan's 1964 "[[Time for Choosing]]" speech helped launch his political career and made him became a probable candidate for governor of California.

==Governor of California (1967-1975)==

[[Image:Reagangovernor.jpg‎|left|thumb|275px|Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan at the Victory celebration for California Governor at the Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles, California 11/8/66.]] In the 1966 gubernatorial campaign, conservatives generally supported Reagan over George Christopher, the Republican mayor of [[San Francisco]]. Reagan defeated Christopher, and incumbent [[liberal]] [[Democrat]] [[Pat Brown]] in the general election, taking fifty-three of California's fifty-eight counties. Reagan's strategists wanted to emphasize libertarian support for smaller government and less taxation, as the state verged on a revolt against high property taxes. As student and black unrest exploded in the headlines, Reagan's call for [[Law and order]] won the votes of former liberals. Reagan's victory marked the end of New Deal liberalism in California.<ref> Dallek, Matthew. "Liberalism Overthrown." ''American Heritage'' (1996) 47(6): 39+ Fulltext online at Ebsco </ref>

Reagan inherited an enormous budget deficit from the Brown administration. In his first year as Governor, Reagan froze government spending and cut ten percent of the spending budget in each department of the government. At the end of his two terms the $194 million deficit had been transformed into a $550 million dollar surplus. The ''San Francisco Chronicle'' editorialized, "We exaggerate very little when we say that Reagan has saved the state from bankruptcy.<ref>http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1980</ref>

When coming into office there was a growing number of anarchist protesters at the University California at Berkeley over the United States' involvement in the [[Vietnam War]]. The protests would become violent. Reagan sent the state police and later the national guard to handle the riots. It allowed him to showcase his populist themes of morality, [[Law and order]], strong leadership, and defense of traditional values. Reagan was reelected in 1970, after firing the president of the state university and sending in armed force to confront student demonstrators. Reagan's handling of this crisis helped to make him into a national politician known for strength and courage. <ref> Gerard DeGroot, "Reagan's Rise." ''History Today'' (1995) 45(9): 31-36. Issn: 0018-2753 Fulltext online at Ebsco</ref>

Governor Reagan briefly tested the presidential waters in 1968, but drew back when he saw [[Richard Nixon]]'s strength.

Welfare spending was a major issue in the 1970 election; with 10% of the nation's population, California had 16% of its welfare recipients. Reagan promised to cut the welfare spending by rooting out fraud and abuse, by requiring recipients to take jobs, and by collecting from dead-beat fathers. Democrats in the legislature supported a much more liberal bill, which advocated the welfare rights of the poor. Reagan personally worked out a compromise that passed and won considerable praise and some criticism. Its savings to taxpayers proved small, but it represented an important political achievement for both parties. Reagan benefited as well, emerging from the compromise as a more experienced and effective politician.<ref> Burbank (1991)</ref>

Reagan supported and signed laws to liberalize [[abortion]] in California (before the Supreme Court issued ''[[Roe v. Wade]]''), but later turned strongly against abortion.

Reagan's gubernatorial style, which carried over into his presidency, was expansive in looking only at the big picture, and choosing talented staffers who were given the power to handle all the details. Reagan seldom paid attention to the minute details of his own policies. Reagan was a powerful communicator, through press conferences and public appearances, with an uncanny knack for precise timing to make the maximum impact.<ref> Hamilton and Biggart, (1984); Ritter (1992)</ref>

Liberals across the country were puzzled by Reagan, and decided that he was a weak reactionary who would be easy to defeat if he ran for president. California liberals explained they were all wrong, that Reagan was the most formidable Republican since Eisenhower.

In 1970, he was re-elected by a landslide. But in 1974, he chose not to seek a third term and was succeeded by liberal Democrat [[Jerry Brown]].

===Highlights as governor===
*Called in the [[National Guard]] to restore order when People's Park protesters began attacking police, and restored order to California's chaotic university campuses.<ref>http://police.berkeley.edu/about_UCPD/ucpdhistory.html#anchor178048</ref> Reagan authorized the use of violent force against the peaceful protesters in Berkeley,<ref>University of California, Berkeley - Police Department. [http://police.berkeley.edu/about_UCPD/ucpdhistory.html#anchor178048 History Topic: People's Park] August 2006</ref> saying, "If there has to be a bloodbath, then let's get it over with."<ref> ''San Francisco Chronicle'', early morning edition, May 15 1969</ref> In the resulting chaos, police fired buckshot into the crowd, fatally wounding one bystander and blinding another, and injuring hundreds of others.

*Led a comprehensive and far-reaching revision of California's massive public assistance programs, actually increasing benefits to the truly needy.

*Worked well with the Democrats to forge consensus on a variety of issues.

*Legalized the shooting of illegal Immigrants, though the law was soon overturned by democrats after he left

==Presidential Campaigns==

===1976===

''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 1976]]''

After [[Richard Nixon]]'s resignation in 1974, the weak [[Gerald Ford]] became president, and Reagan challenged him in the 1976 Republican Party primaries. The main issue was détente with the Soviets as promoted by Ford and Secretary of State [[Henry Kissinger]]. Ford won the first 13 primaries, then Reagan came roaring back. He criticized the federal government and politicians for being too large, too powerful, and too involved in American society. Reagan, however, named liberal eastern Senator Richard Schweiker as his running mate. Control of the convention came down to the Mississippi delegation, which swung the nomination to Ford. However, given how difficult it is to run against an incumbent President in a Primary, Reagan's campaign was surprisingly strong. After Ford was defeated in the general election, Reagan retired to his ranch in California and continued to give speeches across the country. There was little doubt that Reagan was the dominant Republican for the next election, and he easily won the nomination in 1980.

===1980===

''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 1980]]''

Before the general election, Reagan faced a Republican primary challenge from the more moderate [[George H. W. Bush]]. Bush was highly established and respected as having served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, ambassador to People's Republic of China and the United Nations, former chairman of the National Republican Committee, and two-term Congressman from [[Texas]]. Bush referred to Reagan's economic policies as "voodoo economics." After Bush won a surprising victory in the [[Iowa]] State primary, Reagan surged ahead after he outwitted Bush in the New Hampshire debate. He later won the primary, and ironically named George H. W. Bush as his running mate.

Reagan was able to crusade against the failures of incumbent Democrat, President [[Jimmy Carter]]. There was runaway [[stagflation]], soaring [[interest rates]], persistent [[unemployment]], a series of humiliations abroad, and a weakened [[military]] in the face of growing Soviet superpower. As Reagan put it, "I'm told I can't use the word depression. Well, I'll tell you the definition. A recession is when your neighbor loses his job; depression is when you lose your job. Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his." The most pressing foreign policy crisis was that [[Iran]]ian President [[Ayatollah Khomeini]] was holding fifty- two Americans hostage. All of Carter's diplomatic attempts had failed.

Reagan feared that the [[Soviet Union]]'s military had become much more powerful then the United States'. He proposed stronger defense systems and a larger military. Carter fought back, lashing out at Reagan as a dangerous radical who would unleash nuclear war. A liberal Republican [[John Anderson]] ran a third party campaign which received 7% of the popular vote. Reagan won a landslide victory - receiving 51% of the popular vote and winning 44 of 50 states. In the 20th century, only two presidents received a larger electoral majority: Franklin Roosevelt in 1936 and Richard Nixon in 1972. <ref>[http://www.trivia-library.com/c/biography-of-us-president-ronald-reagan-part-8-campaign.htm Biography of U.S. President Ronald Reagan]</ref> His long coattails brought in the first Republican Senate in years, but the Democrats still controlled the House. The election marked the last hurrah of the New Deal era, the final collapse of the [[New Deal Coalition]] and indeed the end of liberalism as a coherent policy.<ref> Busch 2005</ref>

==Presidency (1981-1989)==
[[Image:Reaganfamily-red-rr-.jpg|right|thumb|325px|President & Mrs. Reagan with their extended family.]]

Ronald Reagan was sworn in as the 40th President of the United States on January 20, 1981. On that same day Ayatollah released the hostages after keeping them in captivity for 444 days.

Once in office, Reagan showed he was playing hardball. When the Federal [[Air Traffic Controllers]] struck illegally, Reagan gave them 48 hours before he fired all who hadn't gone back to work (11,359).

Reagan rebuffed liberals who complained he was killing the New Deal. Noting that he voted for FDR in 1932, 1936, 1940 and 1944, as well as Truman in 1948, Reagan said he was trying to repeal the "[[Great Society]]'' enacted by liberals in the mid-1960s.<ref>David Gergen, [http://books.google.com/books?id=68rBxuO7EsMC&pg=PA351&dq=reagan+%22great+society%22+roosevelt+truman&lr=&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES ''Eyewitness to Power'' (2000) p 351]</ref>

===Administration===

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Office
! Name
! Term
|-
| [[President]]
| Ronald Reagan
| 1981-1989
|-
| [[Vice President of the United States of America|Vice President]]
| [[George H.W. Bush]]
| 1981-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of State]]
| [[Alexander Haig]]
| 1981-1982
|-
|
| [[George Shultz]]
| 1982-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Treasury]]
| [[Donald Regan]]
| 1981-1985
|-
|
| [[James Baker]]
| 1985-1988
|-
|
| [[Nicholas Brady]]
| 1988-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Defense]]
| [[Caspar Weinberger]]
| 1981-1987
|-
|
| [[Frank C. Carlucci]]
| 1987-1989
|-
| [[Attorney General]]
| [[William Smith]]
| 1981-1985
|-
|
| [[Edwin Meese III]]
| 1985-1988
|-
|
| [[Richard Thornburgh]]
| 1988-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of the Interior]]
| [[James G. Watt]]
| 1981-1983
|-
|
| [[William P. Clark, Jr.]]
| 1983-1985
|-
|
| [[Donald Hodel]]
| 1985-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Agriculture]]
| [[John Rusling Block]]
| 1981-1986
|-
|
| [[Richard E. Lyng]]
| 1986-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Commerce]]
| [[Howard M. Baldrige, Jr.]]
| 1981-1987
|-
|
| [[C. William Verity, Jr.]]
| 1987-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Labor]]
| [[Raymond J. Donovan]]
| 1981-1985
|-
|
| [[William E. Brock]]
| 1985–1987
|-
|
| [[Ann Dore McLaughlin]]
| 1987-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Health and Human Services]]
| [[Richard S. Schweiker]]
| 1981–1983
|-
|
| [[Margaret Heckler]]
| 1983-1985
|-
|
| [[Otis R. Bowen]]
| 1985-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Education]]
| [[Terrel Bell]]
| 1981-1985
|-
|
| [[William Bennett]]
| 1985-1988
|-
|
| [[Lauro Cavazos]]
| 1988-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Housing and Urban Development]]
| [[Samuel R. Pierce, Jr.]]
| 1981-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Transportation]]
| [[Drew Lewis]]
| 1981-1983
|-
|
| [[Elizabeth Dole]]
| 1983-1987
|-
|
| [[James H. Burnley IV]]
| 1987-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Energy]]
| [[James B. Edwards]]
| 1981-1982
|-
|
| [[Donald Paul Hodel]]
| 1982-1985
|-
|
| [[John S. Herrington]]
| 1985-1989
|-
|}

===Assassination Attempt===

On March 30, 1981, Reagan was shot near the heart after giving a routine speech.<ref> The assassin was [[John Hinckley]], a mentally disturbed man who didn't shoot Reagan for political reasons, but instead did to impress an actress he had never met.</ref> Surgeons at George Washington University Hospital saved his life and despite his age he recovered quickly. White House Press Secretary [[James Brady]] was shot in the head, became permanently disabled; Brady then became an icon of the anti-gun movement.

The assassination attempt came at a critical moment and disarmed the opposition in Congress, enabling Reagan to pass his major legislation even though the Democrats controlled the House.

===1984 Reelection===

''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 1984]]''

In 1984, Reagan was re-elected in a landslide, winning every state except Mondale's home state of Minnesota and the District of Columbia, creating a record 525 electoral vote total (of 538 possible), and received 58.8%. of the popular vote. <ref>[http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/scores.html#1984 National Archives]</ref> <ref>[http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?f=0&year=1984 Leip, David: 1984 Presidential Election Results.]</ref>

During his second term, he helped end the Cold War with the help of Margaret Thatcher and some assistance from Pope John Paul II and Mikhail Gorbachev by recognizing the weakness of the Soviet economy, and spent them out of existence by their not being able to compete with defense spending.

==Domestic policy==
===Economy===
[[Image:Reagan_desk.jpg‎|left|thumb|275px|President Reagan working at his desk in the oval office, 05/06/82.]]
As President, Ronald Reagan enacted his theory of "[[Reaganomics]]." His four major policy objectives were the following<ref>http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Reaganomics.html</ref>:

*Reduce the growth of government spending.
*Reduce the marginal tax rates on income from both labor and capital.
*Reduce government regulation of the economy.
*Control the money supply to reduce inflation.

Fueled by an over spending [[Congress]] that steadfastly refused Reagan's budget proposals, the national debt increased 160% during his two terms in office. However, the economic growth that resulted from tax cuts made deficits as a percentage of [[GDP]] lower than what they had been in during the previous decade of stagflation. The period of high [[inflation]] and [[unemployment]] when Reagan took office was over after eight years of his Presidency. In 1986 Reagan signed the [[Tax Reform Act]], which obtained an overhaul of the income tax code and eliminated many deductions and exempted millions of people with low incomes. The [[income tax]] rates of the top personal tax bracket dropped from 70% to 28% in 7 years. At the end of his administration, the Nation was enjoying its longest recorded period of peacetime prosperity without [[recession]] or [[depression]].<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html</ref>

====PATCO Strike====
[[File:Time-8-17-81.jpg|thumb|250px| ''Time'' Aug 17, 1981. [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,949316,00.html read story]]]On 3 August 1981, 13,000 air traffic controllers, members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO), walked off the job. PATCO had supported Reagan in the 1980 election but now was making exorbitant demands regarding high raises, early retirement, and reduced hours. The Federal Aviation Administration made a generous offer but PATCO said no and called a strike. PATCO assumed it would shut down all air traffic and paralyze the economy, forcing the government to surrender, but they misjudged Ronald Reagan. Under federal law, the strike was illegal. Reagan ordered the strikers as a group to return to work. Some returned but most did not; he ordered individual strikers to return, and again most refused. Reagan was ready; secretly the Transportation Secretary Drew Lewis had readied military replacements. It was the first time in over 50 years in a major strike that replacements were used. Two days later, the president fired 11,000 strikers, and they never were rehired. The planes were flying and labor unions suffered their worst defeat since the 1920s. Reagan's dramatic action energized corporations to resist union demands, and sped up the rapid decline in union membership and the political power of union bosses.<ref>"Turbulence in the Tower," [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,949316,00.html ''Time'' Aug. 17, 1981]; Paul L. Butterworth, et al., "More than a Labor Dispute: The PATCO Strike of 1981," ''Essays in Economic & Business History'' 2005 23:125-139</ref>

===Social Security Reform 1983===
Mounting concerns that rising Social Security benefits were causing a long-term deficit and were growing too fast resulted in a bipartisan compromise in 1983. Brokered by conservative [[Alan Greenspan]] and liberal [[Claude Pepper]], the agreement lowered benefits over the next 75 years and brought the system into balance. Key provisions included a gradual increase over 25 years in the retirement age from 65 to 67, to take account of longer life expectancy. (People could retire younger, but at a reduced rate of benefits.) Millions of people were added to the system, especially employees of state governments and of nonprofit organizations.<ref> 1983 Greenspan Commission on Social Security Reform (1983) [http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/gspan5.html online version]; "Claude Pepper and Social Security Reform - 1981-1983," [http://www.claudepeppercenter.fsu.edu/webexhibits/socialsecurityreform/socialsecurityreform1981to1983.htm online exhibit]; Paul Charles Light, ''Artful Work: The Politics of Social Security Reform'' (1985)</ref>

===Supreme Court Appointments===
Reagan had maintained the promise he made in his 1980 presidential campaign to appoint the first women to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]. On July 7, 1981, he named little-known Arizona judge [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Liberals, who had been ready for a knock-down battle, were stunned and meekly voted for her. Some Pro-Life groups were worried about her abortion position, which was unknown. She was confirmed by the Senate by a 99–0 vote on September 21 and took her seat September 25.

In 1987, Reagan nominated conservative judge [[Robert Bork]] to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice [[Lewis Powell]]. Senate liberals attacked Bork as being too conservative. Senator [[Ted Kennedy]] criticized him, saying,
:''"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is -- and is often the only -- protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy."''<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE5DF1E3EF936A35754C0A961948260</ref>

The U.S. Senate rejected Bork's confirmation on a 42-58 vote. Reagan turned to the much less controversial Californian [[Anthony Kennedy]] he was confirmed on a 97-0 vote.

===War on Drugs===
As President, Reagan declared a "war on drugs", which would be policies put forward by the United States and other countries to reduce illegal drug trade. In 1986, President Reagan signed the very prominent Anti-Drug Abuse Act which granted $97 million to build new [[prison]]s, $200 million for drug [[education]] and $241 million for treatment. Overall, $1.7 billion to fight the drug crisis.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/cron/</ref> First Lady [[Nancy Reagan]] started a slogan, "Just Say No" to drug use. The term was used in television advertising, and today there are many "Just Say No" drug clinics. As a result of the policies, [[marijuana]] use dropped from 33% of high-school seniors in 1980 to 12% in 1991.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/interviews/kleber.html</ref>

==Foreign policy==

===Strategic Defense Initiative===

Reagan's 1983 [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] became popularly known as "[[Star Wars]]", the name given to it by critics because they thought it was pure fantasy like the popular [[George Lucas]] films. This plan was never fully instituted. Although billions of dollars were spent on development, no space-based missile defense was tested successfully during Reagan's terms in office. However, the main goal was achieved of forcing the Soviets to realize they could no longer compete in the Cold War.

The threat the Soviet Union felt from the SDI initiative forced them to negotiate an end to the arms race, according to many involved with diplomacy at the time and can be seen by following Gorbachev's repeated public insistences that the SDI program be discontinued. [[Henry Kissinger]] wrote:
:''I know it's an axiomatic view of the Left around the world that missile defense is sinful, and that it's desirable to keep each nation as vulnerable as possible. But that's a debatable premise. The U.S. must defend itself against ''whoever'' has missiles that would threaten the United States. And you don't have to be able to name an enemy.''<ref>[http://www.doublestandards.org/dreifus1.html]</ref>

Reagan was president at the time of the shooting down of [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]]. He termed the shootown of an innocent straying passenger plane with 269 passengers and crew, including Congressman [[Larry McDonald]], a "massacre" and the ensuing rage over the tragedy both world-wide and in the U.S. provided support for the deployment of cruise and Pershing ll missiles in West Europe- just six minutes flying time from Moscow.

===Soviet Union===
Shortly after taking office in 1981 Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive 11-82, (NSDD 11-82), that explicitly made U.S. defense spending a form of economic warfare against the Soviets. The directive was known more unofficially as the Reagan Initiative.
[[Image:Photo 4 250.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Reagan and Gorbachev at Reykjavik]]
The United States would "exploit and demonstrate the enduring economic advantages of the West to develop a variety of [arms] systems that are difficult for the Soviets to counter, impose disproportionate costs, open up new areas of major military competition and obsolesce previous Soviet investment or employ sophisticated strategic options to achieve this end. Reagan's [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] (SDI), or "Star Wars" as the media referred to it, was a costly high tech research and development program designed to make arms spending a "rising burden on the Soviet economy."<ref>Peter Schweizer , [http://www.reason.com/news/show/28929.html ''Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism''], New York: Doubleday, 2002.</ref>
The Reagan Initiative was also concerned with aiding nations in active conflict with the Soviet Union. One such group was the [[mujahideen]] of Afghanistan who were given anti-aircraft missiles to fight the Soviet invaders.

A report by the CIA of the critical domestic economic problems and social discontent Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev provided a look what the sources of his principal dilemma-the very reforms needed to deal with the problems would threaten preservation of the [[nomenklatura]] and put at risk Gorbachev’s ability to maintain the power to bring about [[Perestroika]].<ref>CIA Assessments of the Soviet Union: [https://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/russia/enter.html Chapter 5, Enter Gorbachev ], Douglas J. MacEachin, CIA Publications, 1996.</ref> Gorbachev requested a Summit with Reagan in Reykjavik in October 1986 to discuss the stresses competition from the Reagan’s defense posture was having on Soviet military spending and economy, and Gorbachev’s ability to carryout his plans of restructuring Communist control. Gorbachev told the [[Politburo]] in preparation for the Summit, "Our goal is to prevent the next round of arms race. If we do not do this ... will pulled into an arms race beyond our power, and we will lose this race, for we are presently at the limit of out capabilities."<ref>Notes of Politburo Meeting 4 October 1986, [http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/22/documents/reykjavik/ Gorbachev's instructions for the group preparing for Reykjavik]</ref>
===Dealing with the Soviets===
Gorbachev, weakened by his nation's economic malaise, frightened by SDI, and committed to reforming the Soviet system before it collapsed, realized he had to end the Cold War to save Communism. Reagan proved willing to deal, but had to face three sources of criticism inside the U.S. The political right represented by the ''[[National Review]]'' and columnists such as [[George F. Will]] feared it was all a Soviet trap. Reagan used his enormous influence within the conservative movement to disarm these critics before disarming the Russians. Second were the "realists", led by Nixon and Henry A. Kissinger, who thought Reagan was going too far. The third group comprised segments of the intelligence community and military; they did not believe that the Soviet Union was as weak as Reagan and secretary of state, George P. Shultz, believed. Reagan, reelected in a landslide and at the peak of his power, pushed ahead with a series of agreements that effectively weakened the Soviet Empire and made it clear America had the initiative.<ref>James Mann, ''The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan'' (2009)</ref>

By the late 1980s, the Soviet Union began unilateral force cuts and troop withdrawals from Eastern Europe, and by May 1989 an unprecedented series of disclosures by senior Soviet officials revealed actual reductions in defense spending for the 1986-1990 and 1991-1995 Five Year Plan periods.<ref> Christopher Wilkinson NATO Review, [http://www.nato.int/docu/review/1991/9102-4.htm Soviet Defense Spending], NATO's Economics Directorate No. 2 - April 1991, Vol. 39 p. 16-22</ref> Genrikh Grofimenko, a former adviser to [[Leonid Brezhnev]], said "Ninety-nine percent of the Russian people believe that [the US] won the Cold War because of your president's insistence on SDI".<ref>Peter Schweizer, ''Reagan’s War''.</ref>

===[[Containment]] and the Iranian initiative===
[[Image:C26887-26.jpg|right|250px|thumb|President Reagan being sworn in for second term in the rotunda at the U.S. Capitol, 1/21/85]] In 1985, after Reagan won reelection to his second term, the focus turned from reviving the domestic economy to several foreign policy matters which had been lingering throughout the decade. One such matter involved Iran, a long time ally of the Western Allies since 1941 that had experienced an Islamic Revolution in 1979 after President Carter announced [[Human Rights]] had superseded [[Containment]] as the primary focus of American foreign policy. Since 1980, Iran had been enmeshed in a brutal trench war with neighboring Iraq which was emerging as a potent military threat in the region to other allies. Members of the National Security Council staff, along with CIA Director [[William Casey]], persuaded Reagan much could be gained and several problems could be addressed simultaneously with an overture to Iran to restore relations.

The objective of the plan was fourfold:
#Take steps to restore good relations with the [[Islamic Republic of Iran]] which was becoming increasingly hostile to the West;
#Take measures to convince Iran that Israel could become a friend and ally;
#Insurance against Iraq becoming too strong which would become a threat to [[Kuwait]] or [[Saudi Arabia]];
#Provide funding for other operations to continue the policy of containment in the Western Hemisphere, most notably [[Nicaragua]], and the violence the Soviet/Cuban/Nicaragua connection was creating in [[El Salvador]] and [[Honduras]].

There were humanitarian aspects to the proposal as well; (1) the [[Iran-Iraq War]] had stalemated for nearly six years and Reagan was advised that he was in the unique position as President to help facilitate bringing a senseless war with much suffering to an end; (2) the suffering of the people of the Central American Republics at the hands of Soviet-inspired subversion which had in the decade of the '80s established a beachhead in North America; (3) Iran perhaps could be persuaded to use its good offices to influence hostage takers in [[Lebanon]] who had held several Western prisoners, many of them Christian Missionaries, for several years.

Reports had filtered back to Reagan that children as young as nine years old had been used by Iran to clear minefields.<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), ''Iraqi Retreats, 1982-84''], Globalsecurity.org, retrieved 20 March 2007.</ref> In weighing Iraq's delicate Sunni/Shia balance and the growing threat of Iranian-sponsored terrorism, the NSC staff and Casey recognized the dangers of an Iraqi collapse as well as the urgent need to dissuade Iran from continuing its ruthless and inhumane tactics.<ref>[http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq53.pdf NSDD 139, 5 April 1984].</ref>

The [[Boland amendment]], a Vietnam era-style Congressional impingement on the legitimate foreign policy prerogatives of the Executive via the power of the purse, was used to deny Reagan's recommitment to the [[Truman Doctrine]] which had been adhered to by every President, Democratic and Republican alike since Truman, with the exception of [[President Carter]] whose [[human rights]] policy had brought one of the active belligerents, the [[Ayatollah Khomeini]], to power. In three of the active Soviet fronts, [[Afghanistan]], [[Nicaragua]], and [[El Salvador]], some Congressional Democratic leaders were openly sympathetic to Soviet foreign policy.<ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/591eifow.asp ''One Weekend in April, A Long Time Ago ... What John Kerry thought about the Sandinista in Nicaragua''], Hugh Hewitt, The Weekly Standard, 09/09/2004.</ref><ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20060331222819/www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/7/234527.shtml ''Kerry: 'I'm Proud I Stood Against Reagan''] Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff, 7 June 2004.</ref> So the decision was made to fund [[Containment]] of Soviet objectives on an active front in North America with sales of TOW missiles to Iran. Israel provided the TOWs because the [[Boland Amendment]] forbade direct US funding and it was a welcome opportunity for Israel to build bridges to a much needed friend in the Middle East.

The operation was known as the "[[Iran-Contra affair]]." After word got out about the operation in November 1986, investigations were made, leading to the convictions of several members of the Reagan administration. President Reagan himself testified before the Tower Commission that he had poor recollection of the details of the operation due in part to the heavy pain medications he had been on in that period.

===Cold War victory===
[[Image:300px-ReaganBerlinWall.jpg‎|right|275px|thumb|"Mr.Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"]] Reagan is credited for ending the [[Cold War]] in victory for the United States. Historian Tony Judt in ''Postwar'' credits Soviet leader [[Mikhail Gorbachev]], while the political scientist Jan Kubik presents a viewpoint that credits [[Pope John Paul II]].<ref>[http://praguepost.com/articles/2007/02/28/letters-to-the-editor.php]</ref> Other historians contend structural weaknesses within the Communist bloc meant Reagan's actions were inconsequential to the end of [[communism]]. This is the view adopted by [[Russia]]ns themselves, and many political historians, citing ''[[perestroika]]'' and ''[[glasnost]]'' as beginning an inevitable slow fading of central power, and a collapse by irreconcilable differences between the central Soviet [[Politburo]] and the constituent republics, especially the [[Ukraine]].<ref>David Remnick, "Lenin's Tomb</ref> In the end, the consensus seems to point to all of the above, that hastened the demise of the Soviet Union; Internal factors, religious pressure brought by the Pope, Gorbachev's "Perestroika" and the united front of Ronald Reagan and [[Margaret Thatcher]], leading [[NATO]] and [[the West]] to embed a [[SDI|missile defense system]] in [[Western Europe]], and the economic superiority of [[Capitalism]], which simply out-spent and out-performed that of the Communist one.

One thing that cannot be quantified is Reagan's ability to give [[hope]], his never-ending optimism that good would indeed triumph over evil. Many see that as key to bringing extra confidence to those locked behind the "[[Iron Curtain]]" to press even harder for reforms.

Columnist Cal Thomas wrote about it like this:

{{cquote|'''''He proved he was right about the big things.'' Faced with editorial denunciations at home and massive demonstrations in [[Europe]] against his plan to put missiles there to offset a [[Soviet]] threat, Reagan went ahead and did it anyway. The Soviets could not keep pace with the buildup or Reagan's proposed missile defense system (derided by insincere and dangerous critics as "[[Star Wars]]"). ''When those critics could not bring themselves to admit they were wrong, they unpersuasively claimed the Soviet Union fell under its own weight.'' More accurately, Reagan pushed it onto "the ash heap of history," with the able assistance of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and [[Pope John Paul II]]. What Reagan did more than anything else - and it will be his lasting legacy - is replace [[despair]] with hope. Most people, even his detractors, felt a glow from being in his presence.

'''''He was the kindest, most gracious president I have met, and I have met them all since JFK. In his presence you felt he was interested in you and not himself. He was a good man.''''' <ref>[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2004/06/07/ronald_reagans_wonderful_life]</ref>}}

[[Brian Mulroney]], the [[Canada|Canadian]] Prime Minister, Eulogized Reagan at his state funeral:
{{cquote|'''Some in the West during the early 1980s believed communism and democracy were equally valid and viable. This was the school of "[[moral equivalence]]." In contrast Ronald Reagan saw Soviet Communism as a menace to be confronted in the genuine belief that its squalid underpinning would fall swiftly to the gathering winds of [[freedom]]. Provided, as he said, that NATO and the industrialized democracies stood firm and united. They did. ''And we know now who was right.'''''<ref>[http://reagan2020.us/eulogies/mulroney.asp]</ref>}}

Former Reagan speech writer [[Peggy Noonan]] paid tribute to the fallen president in a [[Wall Street Journal]] editorial. In it, Noonan noted:
{{Cquote|'''Ronald Reagan told the truth to a world made weary by lies. He believed truth was the only platform on which a better future could be built. He shocked the world when he called the Soviet Union ‘evil,’ because it was, and an 'empire,' because it was that, too. He never stopped bringing his message to the people of the world, to Europe and China and in the end the Soviet Union. And when it was over, the Berlin Wall had been turned into a million concrete souvenirs, and Soviet communism had fallen. But of course, it didn’t fall. It was pushed. By Mr. Know-Nothing-Cowboy-Gunslinger-Dimwit. ''All presidents should be so stupid...'''''<ref>[http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=1679]</ref>}}

===Thatcher on Reagan===

Upon his death, [[Margaret Thatcher]], in very ill health from a series of strokes, insisted upon traveling to America to bid farewell to her old friend, and taped a stirring tribute to him:
{{cquote|'''As Prime Minister, I worked closely with Ronald Reagan for eight of the most important years of all our lives. We talked regularly both before and after his presidency. And I have had time and cause to reflect on what made him a great president. Ronald Reagan knew his own mind. He had firm principles - and, I believe, right ones. He expounded them clearly, he acted upon them decisively. ''When the world threw problems at the White House, he was not baffled, or disorientated, or overwhelmed. He knew almost instinctively what to do.'''''

'''When his aides were preparing option papers for his decision, they were able to cut out entire rafts of proposals that they knew 'the Old Man' would never wear. When his allies came under Soviet or domestic pressure, they could look confidently to Washington for firm leadership. And when his enemies tested American resolve, they soon discovered that his resolve was firm and unyielding. ''Yet his ideas, though clear, were never simplistic. He saw the many sides of truth.'' Yes, he warned that the Soviet Union had an insatiable drive for military power and territorial expansion; but he also sensed it was being eaten away by systemic failures impossible to reform. Yes, he did not shrink from denouncing Moscow's 'evil empire'.'''

'''But he realized that a man of goodwill might nonetheless emerge from within its dark corridors. So the President resisted Soviet expansion and pressed down on Soviet weakness at every point until the day came when communism began to collapse beneath the combined weight of these pressures and its own failures. And when a man of goodwill did emerge from the ruins, President Reagan stepped forward to shake his hand and to offer sincere cooperation. ''Nothing was more typical of Ronald Reagan than that large-hearted magnanimity - and nothing was more American.'''''<ref>[http://reagan2020.us/eulogies/thatcher.asp]</ref>}}

==Post-presidency==
[[Image:5.jpg|left|thumb|250px|President Bush presents the Medal of Freedom Award to Former President Ronald Reagan in the East Room of the White House, 01/13/93]] Reagan retired to California. He would occasionally involve himself in politics, including a speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention. On January 13, 1993 President George H. W. Bush awarded Reagan the Presidential [[Medal of Freedom]]. Reagan was becoming increasingly forgetful. In November 1994, he announced that he had been diagnosed in August with [[Alzheimer's disease]], a degenerative nerve disorder that annihilates the victim's mental capacity.

[[See Reagan's letter to the American people regarding his disease.]])

He died at his [[Los Angeles|Bel Air]] home on June 5, 2004 at age 93, making him the second-longest lived president in history after [[Gerald Ford]]. Reagan was buried at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library, located in Sima Valley, California, on June 11, 2004.<ref>[http://www.reaganfoundation.org/listviewf.aspx?session_args=NCrq/CB0Nbp/onw6gOr7mg==&p=LM2002EX&tx=13&h1=7&h2=3&sw=lm_exhibit&lm=libraryandmuseum&args_a=cms&args_b=32&argsb=N Exhibitions]</ref>

==Legacy==
There is growing consensus among scholars, both conservative and liberal, that he was the most influential president since Franklin D. Roosevelt. Reagan left a major imprint on American politics, diplomacy, culture, and economics.<ref>"As of this writing, among academic historians, the Reagan revisionists—who view the 1980s as an era of mixed blessings at worst, and of great forward strides in some renditions—hold the field," reports Doug Rossinow, "Talking Points Memo," in American Quarterly 59.4 (2007) p. 1279. For more historiographical support see: Troy (2009); Hayward (2009); Wilentz (2008); also Charles L. Ponce de Leon, "The New Historiography of the 1980s" in ''Reviews in American History,'' Volume 36, Number 2, June 2008, pp. 303-314; Whitney Strub, "Further into the Right: The Ever-Expanding Historiography of the U.S. New Right," ''Journal of Social History,'' Volume 42, Number 1, Fall 2008, pp. 183-194; Kim Phillips-Fein, "Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and Making of History," ''Enterprise & Society'', Volume 8, Number 4, December 2007, pp. 986-988. </ref>

==Family==
In 1940 Reagan married actress Jane Wyman, who won an Oscar for her 1948 movie ''Johnny Belinda''. They had three children together: Maureen Elizabeth Reagan (1941-2001), who passed away from malignant [[melanoma]] within months of diagnosis, at age 60; Michael Edward Reagan(b. 1945-)<ref>Michael Reagan is the adopted son of Wyman and Reagan. See conservapedia.com: "[[Michael Reagan]]"</ref>, and Christine Reagan (June 26 & 27, 1947). She was born prematurely and survived only one day. The baby's death traumatized Wyman and she divorced Reagan in 1948.

In 1952 he married actress [[Nancy Reagan|Nancy Davis]] (b. 1921), whom he met in 1949. They remained married until his death in 2004. Together they had two children, Patricia "Patti" Ann Davis (b. 1952) and Ronald Prescott Reagan (b. 1958).

==Miscellaneous Facts==
*Reagan was the first and only divorced president.
*Reagan was the first president to break the so-called "[[Curse of Tippecanoe]]", ie, the first president elected in a twenty year cycle who did not die in office (although an attempt was made on his life in 1981).
*At 69, Reagan was the oldest man elected to the presidency for a first term.
*Reagan loved [[jelly bean]]s.<ref>http://www.jellybelly-uk.com/pages/q&a/trivia.shtml</ref> The blueberry flavor was made in his honor. [[Jelly Belly]] even created a [http://www.jellybelly-uk.com/pages/q&a/bean_art_gallery.shtml Ronald Reagan [[portraits|portrait]] out of jelly beans.]
*After his death, some of his closest supporters wished to put him on the $10 bill.<ref>http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/08/news/economy/reagan_hamilton/index.htm</ref>
*Reagan played college football player [[George Gipp]] in the film ''Knute Rockne: All American'' (1940), and was affectionately known as "The Gipper" ever since.<ref>[http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp]</ref>
*Reagan signed Proclamation 5018 declaring 1983 the [[Year of the Bible]].

== Quotes ==
*"I have wondered at times what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the US Congress." <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=tzR2IgNgRK4C&pg=PA160&dq=I+have+wondered+at+times+what+the+Ten+Commandments+would+have+looked+like+if+Moses+had+run+them+through+the+US+Congress&ei=8GsPSrrnOI_CzATl8sGMCw Chapter 9 Page 160] The United States Congress by Ross M. English</ref>
*"The house we hope to build is not for my generation but for yours. It is your future that matters. And I hope that when you are my age, you will be able to say as I have been able to say: We lived in freedom. We lived lives that were a statement, not an apology." - January 20, 1981
*"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." - January 20, 1981
*"We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look." - January 20, 1981
*"I've learned in Washington, that that's the only place where sound travels faster than light." - December 12, 1983
*"The challenge of statesmanship is to have the vision to dream of a better, safer world and the courage, persistence, and patience to turn that dream into reality." - March 8, 1985
*"I have only one thing to say to the tax increasers: Go ahead, make my day." - March 13, 1985, in a speech threatening to veto legislation raising taxes.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3638320/</ref>
*"A leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets rough." - December 5, 1990
*"If you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here, to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." —Speech at the Berlin Wall, June 12, 1987<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3638320/</ref>
*"...I know it's hard when you're up to your armpits in alligators to remember you came here to drain the swamp." - February 10, 1982
*"There is no question that we have failed to live up to the dreams of the [[Founding Fathers]] many times and in many places. Sometimes we do better than others. But all in all, the one thing we must be on guard against is thinking that because of this, the system has failed. The system has not failed. Some human beings have failed the system." - June 21, 1973
*"The work of volunteer groups throughout our country represents the very heart and soul of America. They have helped make this the most compassionate, generous, and humane society that ever existed on the face of this earth." - October 16, 1973
*"In America, our origins matter less than our destination, and that is what democracy is all about." - August 17, 1992<ref>http://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan/quotes/default.asp</ref>
*"It is freedom itself that still hangs in the balance, and freedom is never more than one generation from extinction." - Commencement address to The Citadel, 1993
*"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born."<ref>New York Times, September 22, 1980</ref>
*"Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.”
*"If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under" - Aug. 23, 1984<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=ViUb1DLpnS4C&pg=RA1-PA373&dq=%22ever+forget+that+we+are+One+Nation+Under+God%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES William J. Federer, ed. ''Treasury of Presidential Quotations'' p 373</ref>
*"If you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat." <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=Xn4JEGVh-bYC&pg=PA93&dq=When+you+can%27t+make+them+see+the+light,+make+them+feel+the+heat.&ei=tvAlSsrrKZOCygS9_qycBw
Ronald Reagan: how an ordinary man became an extraordinary leader‎ - Page 93] by Dinesh D'Souza</ref>
*"I, too, have always believed that God's greatest gift is human life and that we have a duty to protect the life of an unborn child." <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=65Sd1VzUBacC&q=We+have+the+duty+to+protect+the+life+of+an+unborn+child&dq=We+have+the+duty+to+protect+the+life+of+an+unborn+child&ei=rf5USpawCZnkygTa8LyVBw Ronald Reagan] by Office of the Federal Register</ref>
*"Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty." <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=aF8YAAAAIAAJ&dq=Concentrated+power+has+always+been+the+enemy+of+liberty&ei=FE6PSuHhCYuSygSV-fCzBw War and conflict quotations P.105, by Michael C. Thomsett, Jean F. Thomsett]</ref>
*"The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program."
*"some years ago, the federal government declared war on poverty, and poverty won."

==Also See==
*[[How Ronald Reagan won the Cold War]]
* [[Ronald Reagan's First Inaugural Speech]]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/Ronald_Reagan%27s_speech_on_KAL_007#Text_of_the_speech Ronald Reagan's Speech on KAL 007]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]]
*[[U.S. Peace Council]]

==Further reading==
see Bibliography for much more detailed guide.
* Berman, Larry, ed. ''Looking Back on the Reagan Presidency'' (1990), essays by academics
* Busch, Andrew E.; "Ronald Reagan and the Defeat of the Soviet Empire" in ''Presidential Studies Quarterly''. Vol: 27. Issue: 3. 1997. pp 451+. [http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=HhHYNGdT18XmGxylZNJQhdSjrtry2j8zYD2pLstvcnSLFqC9JzvF!-313427117?docId=5000522864 online edition] by conservative
* Cannon, Lou. ''President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime '' Public Affairs. (2nd ed 2000) 948 pp. best full-length biography [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=88989671 online edition]
* Cannon, Lou. ''Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power'' detailed biography
* Flamm, Michael and John Ehrman. ''Debating the Reagan Presidency'' (2009), key issues explained; includes primary sources
* Berman William C. ''America's Right Turn: From Nixon to Bush.'' (1994).
* Brownlee, W. Elliot and Hugh Davis Graham, eds. ''The Reagan Presidency: Pragmatic Conservatism and Its Legacies'' (2003)
* Campagna; Anthony S. ''The Economy in the Reagan Years: The Economic Consequences of the Reagan Administrations'' Greenwood Press. 1994 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28144725 online edition], by conservative
* Cannon, Lou. ''Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio''. (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101553874 online edition]
* Ehrman, John. ''The Eighties: America in the Age of Reagan.'' (2005), by conservative historian
* Griscom Tom. "Core Ideas of the Reagan Presidency." In Thompson, ed., ''Leadership,'' 23-48.
* Hayward, Steven F. ''The Age of Reagan, 1964-1980: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order'' (2001)
* Hayward, Steven F. ''The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counterrevolution: 1980-1989'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Age-Reagan-Conservative-Counterrevolution-1980-1989/dp/1400053579/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258861343&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hulten Charles R. and Isabel V. Sawhill, eds. ''The Legacy of Reaganomics: Prospects for Long-Term Growth.'' (1994).
* Jones, Charles O. ed. ''The Reagan Legacy: Promise and Performance'' (1988) essays by political scientists
* [http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/aug/knopfAUG04.asp Jeffrey W. Knopf, "Did Reagan Win the Cold War?"] ''Strategic Insights'', Volume III, Issue 8 (August 2004)
* Kyvig, David. ed. ''Reagan and the World'' (1990), scholarly essays on foreign policy
* Langston, Thomas S. "Reassessing the Reagan Presidency," ''Presidential Studies Quarterly,'' Vol. 34, 2004 [http://www.questia.com/read/5006516145?title=Reassessing%20the%20Reagan%20Presidency online edition]
* Levy, Peter B. ''Encyclopedia of the Reagan-Bush Years'' (1996), short articles [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77341841 online edition]
* Matlock, Jack. ''Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended.'' (2004) by the conservative US ambassador to Moscow
* Pach, Chester. "The Reagan Doctrine: Principle, Pragmatism, and Policy." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly''(1): 75-88. Fulltext in SwetsWise and Ingenta; Reagan declared in 1985 that the U.S. should not "break faith" with anti-Communist resistance groups. However, his policies varied as differences in local conditions and US security interests produced divergent policies toward "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Mozambique, Angola, and Cambodia.
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore.'' (2005), standard scholarly synthesis of the era
* Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) short, favorable biography by historian [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=49534236 online edition]
* Reagan Ronald. ''An American Life.'' (1990). his second autobiography
* Reeves, Richard. ''President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination'' (2005) detailed analysis by historian
* Sullivan, George.''Mr. President'' (1997). for middle schools
* Schmertz, Eric J. et al eds. ''Ronald Reagan's America'' 2 Volumes (1997) articles by scholars and officeholders [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15343830 vol 1 online][http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28729700 vol 2 online]
* Schweizer, Peter. ''Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism'' (2002), by conservative
* Thomas, Tony. ''The Films of Ronald Reagan'' (1980)
* Troy, Gill. ''Morning in America: How Ronald Reagan Invented the 1980s'' (2004). Study of Reagan's image.
* Troy, Gill. ''The Reagan Revolution: A Very Short Introduction'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-Revolution-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0195317106/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258861138&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Wilentz, Sean. ''The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008'' (2008), major narrative history by liberal historian who says Reagan transformed America

==Detailed Bibliography==
===Biographies===
* Benze, Jr. James G. ''Nancy Reagan: On the White House Stage'' (2005), [http://www.amazon.com/Nancy-Reagan-White-Modern-Ladies/dp/070061401X/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317375&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Benze James G. "Nancy Reagan: China Doll or Dragon Lady?" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 20 (fall 1990): 777-90
* Cannon, Lou. ''President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime '' Public Affairs. (2nd ed 2000) 948 pp. full-length biography [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=88989671 online edition]
* Diggins, John. ''Ronald Reagan‎'' (2008), 528 pages, by leading conservative historian.
* D'Souza, Dinesh. ''Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader'' (1999), popular. [http://www.amazon.com/Ronald-Reagan-Ordinary-Became-Extraordinary/dp/0684848236/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317303&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Evans, Thomas W. ''The Education of Ronald Reagan: The General Electric Years'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Education-Ronald-Reagan-Conversion-Conservatism/dp/0231138601/ref=sr_1_5/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317183&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
* Morris, ''Edmund. Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan'' (1999), includes fictional material [http://www.amazon.com/Dutch-Memoir-Ronald-Edmund-Morris/dp/0375756450/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317223&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) short biography by historian [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=49534236 online edition]
* Reeves, Richard. ''President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination'' (2005) detailed analysis by historian
* Sullivan, George.''Mr. President'' (1997). for middle schools
* Sutcliffe, Jane. ''Ronald Reagan‎'' (2008) 48 pages; for elementary school; [http://books.google.com/books?id=_H_u21ebGcsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:reagan&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=2007&as_maxm_is=12&as_maxy_is=2009&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES excerpt and text search]

===Reagan before 1981===
* Brennan Mary C. ''Turning Right in the Sixties: The Conservative Capture of the GOP.'' University of North Carolina Press, 1995
* Burbank, Garin. "Governor Reagan and California Welfare Reform: the Grand Compromise of 1971." ''California History'' 1991 70(3): 278-289. Issn: 0162-2897
* Burbank, Garin. "Governor Reagan's Only Defeat: The Proposition 1 Campaign in 1973." ''California History'' 72 (winter 1993-94): 360-73.
* Burbank, Garin. "Speaker Moretti, Governor Reagan, and the Search for Tax Reform in California, 1970-1972" ''The Pacific Historical Review'' Vol. 61, No. 2 (May, 1992), pp. 193-214 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-8684%28199205%2961%3A2%3C193%3ASMGRAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E online in JSTOR]
* Cannon, Lou. ''Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power'' Public Affairs. detailed biography [http://www.amazon.com/Governor-Reagan-His-Rise-Power/dp/1586480308/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317275&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Dallek, Matthew. ''The Right Moment: Ronald Reagan's First Victory and the Decisive Turning Point in American Politics.'' (2004). Study of 1966 election as governor.
* DeGroot, Gerard J. "'A Goddamned Electable Person': the 1966 California Gubernatorial Campaign of Ronald Reagan." ''History'' 1997 82(267): 429-448. Issn: 0018-2648 Fulltext: in Swetswise, Ingenta and Ebsco
* DeGroot, Gerard J. "Ronald Reagan and Student Unrest in California, 1966-1970." ''Pacific Historical Review'' 1996 65(1): 107-129. Issn: 0030-8684 Fulltext: in Jstor
* Drew, Elizabeth. ''Portrait of an Election: The 1980 Presidential Campaign.'' (1981).
* Ferguson, Thomas and Joel Rogers, eds. ''The Hidden Election: Politics and Economics in the 1980 Presidential Campaign,'' 1981.
* Germond, Jack W. and Jules Witcover. ''Blue Smoke & Mirrors: How Reagan Won & Why Carter Lost the Election of 1980''. (1981). Detailed journalism.
* Hayward, Steven F. ''The Age of Reagan, 1964-1980: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order'' (2001)
* Hayward, Steven F. ''The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counterrevolution: 1980-1989'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Age-Reagan-Conservative-Counterrevolution-1980-1989/dp/1400053579/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258861343&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hamilton Gary G., and Nicole Woolsey Biggart. ''Governor Reagan, Governor Brown: A Sociology of executive Power.'' (1984).
* Moore, Glen. "Ronald W. Reagan's Campaign for the Republican Party's 1968 Presidential Nomination." ''Proceedings and Papers of the Georgia Association of Historians'' (1992) 12[i.e., 13]: 57-70. Issn: 0275-3863

===Politics and Domestic issues ===
* Aldrich, John H., and David W. Rohde. ''Change and Continuity in the 1984 Elections.'' (1987)
* Amaker Norman C. ''Civil Rights and the Reagan Administration.'' Urban Institute Press, 1988
* Berman, Larry, ed. ''Looking Back on the Reagan Presidency'' (1990), essays by academics
* Berman William C. ''America's Right Turn: From Nixon to Bush.'' Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
* Birnbaum Jeffrey H., and Alan S. Murray. ''Showdown at Gucci Gulch: Lawmakers, Lobbyists, and the Unlikely Triumph of Tax Reform.'' 1987.
* Boskin Michael J. ''Reagan and the Economy: The Successes, Failures, and Unfinished Agenda.'' ICS Press, 1987.
* Brownlee, W. Elliot and Hugh Davis Graham, eds. ''The Reagan Presidency: Pragmatic Conservatism and Its Legacies'' (2003)
* Busch, Andrew E. ''Reagan's Victory: The Presidential Election of 1980 and the Rise of the Right,'' (2005) [http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1103/article_detail.asp online review by Michael Barone]
* Campagna; Anthony S. ''The Economy in the Reagan Years: The Economic Consequences of the Reagan Administrations'' Greenwood Press. 1994 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28144725 online edition]
* Cannon, Lou. ''Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio''. Public Affairs. (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101553874 online edition]
* Cook, Daniel M. and Polsky, Andrew J. "Political Time Reconsidered: Unbuilding and Rebuilding the State under the Reagan Administration." ''American Politics Research''(4): 577-605. ISSN 1532-673X Fulltext in SwetsWise. Argues Reagan slowed enforcement of pollution laws and transformed the national education agenda.
* Derthick Martha, and Paul J. Quirk. ''The Politics of Deregulation.'' Brookings Institution, 1985
* Detlefsen, Robert R. ''Civil Rights under Reagan'' Institute for Contemporary Studies, 1991 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=85749844 online edition]
* Eads George C., and Michael Fix, eds. ''The Reagan Regulatory Strategy: An Assessment.'' Urban Institute Press, 1984
* Ehrman, John. ''The Eighties: America in the Age of Reagan.'' (2005)
* Evans Rowland, and Robert Novak. ''The Reagan Revolution.'' 1991.
* Ferguson Thomas, and Joel Rogers, ''Right Turn: The Decline of the Democrats and the Future of American Politics'' 1986.
* Germond Jack W., and Jules Witcover. ''Wake Us When It's Over: Presidential Politics of 1984.'' 1985.
* Marshall R. Goodman; ''Managing Regulatory Reform: The Reagan Strategy and Its Impact'' Praeger Publishers, 1987 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=43165555 online edition]
* Greider William. ''The Education of David Stockman and Other Americans.'' 1982. Stockman was Reagan's budget chief
* Griscom Tom. "Core Ideas of the Reagan Presidency." In Thompson, ed., ''Leadership,'' 23-48.
* Hulten Charles R. and Isabel V. Sawhill, eds. ''The Legacy of Reaganomics: Prospects for Long-Term Growth.'' C.: Urban Institute Press, 1994.
* Johnson, Haynes. ''Sleepwalking through History: America in the Reagan Years'' (1991) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104836392 online edition]
* Jones, Charles O. ed. ''The Reagan Legacy: Promise and Performance'' (1988) essays by political scientists
* Karier, Thomas. ''Great Experiments in American Economic Policy: From Kennedy to Reagan'' (1997) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15083874 online edition]
* Laham, Nicholas. ''The Reagan Presidency and the Politics of Race: In Pursuit of Colorblind Justice and Limited Government'' 1998. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14220230 online edition]
* Levy, Peter B. ''Encyclopedia of the Reagan-Bush Years'' (1996), short articles [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77341841 online edition]
* Minarik Joseph J. ''Making America's Budget Policy. From the 1980s to the 1990s.'' M. E. Sharpe, 1990.
* Palmer, John L., and Isabel V. Sawhill. ''The Reagan Record,'' 1984. economics and sociology
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore.'' (2005), standard scholarly synthesis.
* Rayack; Elton. ''Not So Free to Choose: The Political Economy of Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan'' (1987) hostile critique[http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24670801 online edition]
* Sahu, Anandi P. and Ronald L. Tracy; ''The Economic Legacy of the Reagan Years: Euphoria or Chaos?'' Praeger Publishers, 1991 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=59361760 online edition]
* Salamon Lester M., and Michael S. Lund. eds. ''The Reagan Presidency and the Governing of America'' 1985. articles by political scientists
* Schmertz, Eric J. et al eds. ''Ronald Reagan's America'' 2 Volumes (1997) articles by scholars and officeholders [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15343830 vol 1 online][http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28729700 vol 2 online]
* Shirley, Craig. ''Reagan's Revolution: The Untold Story of the Campaign That Started It All'' (2005) on 1976 campaign; [http://www.amazon.com/Reagans-Revolution-Untold-Campaign-Started/dp/0785260498/ref=pd_cp_b_1?pf_rd_p=413864201&pf_rd_s=center-41&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0700614087&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0SWJK392VVCTPEDPDKJE excerpt and text search]
* Weatherford, M. Stephen and Mcdonnell, Lorraine M. "Ronald Reagan as Legislative Advocate: Passing the Reagan Revolution's Budgets in 1981 and 1982." ''Congress & the Presidency'' (2005) 32:1 pp 1-29. Fulltext in Ebsco; Argues RR ignored the details but played a guiding role in setting major policies and adjudicating significant trade-offs, and in securing Congressional approval.

===Foreign affairs===
* Arnson, Cynthia J. ''Crossroads: Congress, the Reagan Administration, and Central America'' Pantheon, 1989.
* Baucom Donald R. ''The Origins of SDI, 1944-1983.'' University Press of Kansas, 1992.
* Bell Coral. ''The Reagan Paradox: American Foreign Policy in the 1980s.'' Rutgers University Press, 1989.
* Beschloss Michael R., and Strobe Talbott. ''At the Highest Levels: The Inside Story of the End of the Cold War.'' 1993
* Busch, Andrew E.; "Ronald Reagan and the Defeat of the Soviet Empire" in ''Presidential Studies Quarterly''. Vol: 27. Issue: 3. 1997. pp 451+.
* Dobson, Alan P. "The Reagan Administration, Economic Warfare, and Starting to Close down the Cold War." ''Diplomatic History''(3): 531-556. Fulltext in SwetsWise, Ingenta and Ebsco. Argues Reagan's public rhetoric against the USSR was harsh and uncompromising, giving rise to the idea that his administration sought to employ a US defense buildup and NATO economic sanctions to bring about the collapse of the USSR. Yet many statements by Reagan and Shultz suggest they desired negotiation with the Soviets from a position of American strength, not the eventual demise of the USSR.
* Draper, Theodore. '' A Very Thin Line: The Iran-Contra Affair'' (1991)
* Fitzgerald, Frances. ''Way Out There in the Blue: Reagan, Star Wars and the End of the Cold War''. political history of S.D.I. (2000). ISBN.
* Ford, Christopher A. and Rosenberg, David A. "The Naval Intelligence Underpinnings of Reagan's Maritime Strategy." ''Journal of Strategic Studies''(2): 379-409. Fulltext in Ingenta and Ebsco; Reagan's maritime strategy sought to apply US naval might against Soviet vulnerabilities on its maritime flanks. It was supported by a major buildup of US naval forces and aggressive exercising in seas proximate to the USSR; it explicitly targeted Moscow's strategic missile submarines with the aim of pressuring the Kremlin during crises or the early phases of global war. The maritime strategy represents one of the rare instances in history when intelligence helped lead a nation to completely revise its concept of military operations.
* Garthoff, Raymond L. ''The Great Transition: American-Soviet Relations and the End of the Cold War'' (1994), detailed narrative by a hostile critic [http://www.questia.com/read/29069917?title=The%20Great%20Transition%3a%20American-Soviet%20Relations%20and%20the%20End%20of%20the%20Cold%20War online edition]
* Haftendorn, Helga and Jakob Schissler, eds. ''The Reagan Administration: A Reconstruction of American Strength?'' Berlin: Walter de Guyer, 1988. by European scholars
* Hall, David Locke. ''The Reagan Wars: A Constitutional Perspective on War Powers and the Presidency'' Westview Press, 1991 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=87551275 online edition]
* [http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/aug/knopfAUG04.asp Jeffrey W. Knopf, "Did Reagan Win the Cold War?"] ''Strategic Insights'', Volume III, Issue 8 (August 2004)
* Kyvig, David. ed. ''Reagan and the World'' (1990), scholarly essays on foreign policy
* Lagon, Mark P. ''The Reagan Doctrine: Sources of American Conduct in the Cold War's Last Chapter'' (1994) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=9161896 online edition]
* LeoGrande, William M. ''Our Own Backyard: The United States in Central America, 1977-1992'' (1998)
* Matlock, Jack. ''Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended.'' (2004) by the US ambassador to Moscow [http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-Gorbachev-How-Cold-Ended/dp/0679463232/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194316986&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Pach, Chester. "The Reagan Doctrine: Principle, Pragmatism, and Policy." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 2006 36(1): 75-88. Issn: 0360-4918 [http://www.questia.com/read/5015817882?title=The%20Reagan%20Doctrine%3a%20Principle%2c%20Pragmatism%2c%20and%20Policy online edition]
* Salla, Michael E. and Ralph Summy, eds. ''Why the Cold War Ended: A Range of Interpretations'' (1995). [http://www.questia.com/read/22889072 online edition]
* Schmertz, Eric J. et al eds. ''Ronald Reagan and the World'' (1997) articles by scholars and officeholders
* Shultz, George P. ''Turmoil and Triumph My Years As Secretary of State'' (1993)
* Schweizer, Peter. ''Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism'' (2002)
* Suri, Jeremi. "Explaining the End of the Cold War: A New Historical Consensus?" ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' - Volume 4, Number 4, Fall 2002, pp. 60-92 in [[Project Muse]]
* Thomas W. Walker; ''Reagan Versus the Sandinistas: The Undeclared War on Nicaragua'' (1987) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=65710540 online edition]
* Wallison, Peter J. ''Ronald Reagan: The Power of Conviction and the Success of His Presidency.'' (2003). 282 pp.
* Wapshott, Nicholas. '' Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher: a political marriage‎'' (2007) 336 pages [http://books.google.com/books?id=5HOuTL508F0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:reagan&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=2007&as_maxm_is=12&as_maxy_is=2009&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES excerpt and text search]
* Wills, David C. ''The First War on Terrorism: Counter-Terrorism Policy during the Reagan Administration.'' 2004.

===Rhetoric, media and values===
* Aden, R. C. "Entrapment and Escape: Inventional Metaphors in Ronald Reagan's Economic Rhetoric." ''Southern Communication Journal'' 54 (1989): 384-401
* Dallek, Robert. ''Ronald Reagan: The Politics of Symbolism.'' (1999)
* Denton Jr., Robert E. ''Primetime Presidency of Ronald Reagan: The Era of the Television Presidency'' (1988) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=23088126 online edition]
* Diggins, John Patrick. ''Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and the Making of History'' (2007) Reagan as follower of Emerson, by leading historian of ideas
* Jane Feuer; Seeing through the Eighties: Television and Reaganism'' Duke University Press, 1995 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98148093 online edition]
* FitzWater, Marlin . ''Call the Briefing! Bush and Reagan, Sam and Helen, a Decade with Presidents and the Press''. 1995. Memoir by Reagan's press spokesman.
* Goodnight, G. Thomas. "Ronald Reagan's Re-formulation of the Rhetoric of War: Analysis of the 'Zero Option,' 'Evil Empire,' and 'Star Wars' Addresses." ''Quarterly Journal of Speech'' 72 (1986): 390-414.
* Greffenius, Steven. ''The Last Jeffersonian: Ronald Reagan's Dreams of America''. June, July, & August Books. 2002.
* Hertsgaard, Mark. ''On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency'' 1988. criticizes the press
* Hoeveler, J. David. ''Watch on the Right: Conservative Intellectuals in the Reagan Era.'' University of Wisconsin Press, 1991.
* Houck, Davis, and Amos Kiewe, eds. ''Actor, Ideologue, Politician: The Public Speeches of Ronald Reagan'' (Greenwood Press, 1993) [http://www.questia.com/SM.qst?act=adv&contributors=Davis W. Houck&dcontributors=Davis+W.+Houck online edition]
* Jones, John M. "'Until Next Week': The Saturday Radio Addresses of Ronald Reagan" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly.'' Volume: 32. Issue: 1. 2002. pp 84+.
* Kengor, Paul. ''God and Ronald Reagan: A Spiritual Life'' Regan Books, 2004. ISBN.
* Kiewe, Amos, and Davis W. Houck. ''A Shining City on a Hill: Ronald Reagan's Economic Rhetoric, 1951-1989.'' 1991.
* Lewis, William F. "Telling America's Story: Narrative Form and the Reagan Presidency", ''Quarterly Journal of Speech''): 280–302
* Longley, Kyle, Jeremy D. Mayer, Michael Schaller, and John W. Sloan. ''Deconstructing Reagan: Conservative Mythology and America’s Fortieth President,'' (M.E. Sharpe, 2007. xviii, 150 pp. isbn 978-0-7656-1591-6.)
* Meyer, John C. "Ronald Reagan and Humor: A Politician's Velvet Weapon", ''Communication Studies'' 41 (1990): 76-88.
* Moore, Mark P. "Reagan's Quest for Freedom in the 1987 State of the Union Address." ''Western Journal of Communication'' 53 (1989): 52-65.
* Muir, William Ker. ''The Bully Pulpit: The Presidential Leadership of Ronald Reagan'' (1992), examines his speeches
* Noonan, Peggy. ''When Character Was King: A Story of Ronald Reagan'' (2001) memoir by a Reagan speechwriter
* Ormanm John. ''Comparing Presidential Behavior: Carter, Reagan, and the Macho Presidential Style'' Greenwood Press, 1987 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15388519 online edition]
* Ritter, Kurt W. ''Ronald Reagan: The Great Communicator.'' Greenwood, 1992. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29047567 online edition]
* Shogan, Colleen J. "Coolidge and Reagan: The Rhetorical Influence of Silent Cal on the Great Communicator", ''Rhetoric & Public Affairs'' 9.2 online at Project Muse; argues that Coolidge and Reagan shared a common ideological message, which served as the basis for modern conservatism. Even without engaging in explicitly partisan rhetoric, Reagan's principled speech served an important party-building function.
* Stuckey, Mary. ''Getting Into the Game: The Pre-Presidential Rhetoric of Ronald Reagan.'' Praeger, 1989
* Stuckey, Mary. ''Playing the Game: The Presidential Rhetoric of Ronald Reagan.'' Praeger, 1990. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24414026 online edition]
* Thomas, Tony. ''The Films of Ronald Reagan'' (1980)
* Troy, Gill. ''Morning in America: How Ronald Reagan Invented the 1980s'' (2004). Study of Reagan's image.
* Michael Weiler and W. Barnett Pearce; ''Reagan and Public Discourse in America'' University of Alabama Press, 1992 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=59353372 online edition]
* Wills, Garry. ''Reagan's America: Innocents at Home''. (1987)

===Primary sources===
* [http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/ERP/ Council of Economic Advisors, ''Economic Report of the President'' (annual 1947- )], complete series online; important analysis of current trends and policies, plus statistcial tables
* Reagan Ronald, and Richard G. Hubler. ''Where's the Rest of Me?'' (1965). first autobiography
* Reagan Ronald. ''An American Life.'' (1990). second autobiography [http://www.amazon.com/American-Life-Ronald-Reagan/dp/0743400259/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317128&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Reagan Ronald. ''The Creative Society: Some Comments on Problems Facing America.'' 1968.
* Reagan Ronald. ''Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation.'' 1984.
* Reagan Ronald. ''Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Ronald Reagan. 1981-1989.'' 8 vols. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1982-91.
* Reagan, Ronald. ''Reagan, In His Own Hand: The Writings of Ronald Reagan That Reveal His Revolutionary Vision for America'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0743219384/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Reagan, Ronald. ''The Reagan Diaries: Extended Selections‎'' ed. by Douglas Brinkley (2007)
* Skinner, Kiron K. et al, eds. ''Reagan's Path to Victory: The Shaping of Ronald Reagan's Vision: Selected Writings'' (2004), 450 radio talks from late 1970s

====Primary sources by Reagan associates====
* Anderson, Martin. ''Revolution: The Reagan Legacy'' (1990)
* Haig, Alexander. ''Inner Circles: How America Changed the World'' (1994). Haig was Secretary of State 1981-82
* Deaver, Michael, and Mickey Herskowitz. ''Behind the Scenes''. 1987. Memoir by a top aide.
* Meese Edwin. ''With Reagan: The Inside Story.'' Regnery Gateway, 1992.
* Niskanen William A. ''Reaganomics: An Insider's Account of the Policies and the People.'' Oxford University Press, 1988.
* Reagan, Nancy. ''My Turn: The Memoirs of Nancy Reagan'' (1989)
* Reagan Maureen. ''First Father, First Daughter: A Memoir.'' 1989.
* Reagan Michael and Joe Hyams. ''On the Outside Looking In.'' 1988.
* Regan Donald T. ''For the Record. From Wall Street to Washington.'' 1988; Treasury Secretary and Chief of Staff
* Shultz, George P. ''Turmoil and Triumph My Years As Secretary of State'' 1993) Schulz was Secretary of State 1982-89
* Stahl, Lesley. "Reporting Live" (1999) memoir by TV news reporter
* Stockman David A. ''The Triumph of Politics: How the Reagan Revolution Failed.'' 1986. Stockman was Budget Director in 1981-82
* Thompson Kenneth W., ed. ''Foreign Policy in the Reagan Presidency: Nine Intimate Perspectives.'' University Press of America, 1993.
* Thompson Kenneth W., ed. ''Leadership in the Reagan Presidency: Seven Intimate Perspectives.'' 1992.
* Thompson Kenneth W., ed. ''Leadership in the Reagan Presidency, Part II: Eleven Intimate Perspectives.'' University Press of America, 1993.
* Weinberger, Caspar. ''In the Arena: A Memoir of the 20th Century'' (1991), by the Defense Secretary

===Government documents===
* Council of Economic Advisors. ''Economic Report of the President,'' (annual, 1981-1988), detailed analysis of economic issues
* U.S. Census Bureau, ''Statistical Abstract of the United States'' annual compilation of over 1000 tables of data.

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040614-646317,00.html Time Magazine Article on ''The All-American President'']
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html White House Official Page]
*[http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?tab=1&pid=537924&agid=2 The Passing of a Conservative] - by Alfred Regnery
*[http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/ Reagan's Presidential Library]
*[http://imdb.com/name/nm0001654/ Actor Bio At IMDB]
*[http://www.ronaldreaganmemorial.com/ Official Memorial]
*[http://www.reagan.navy.mil/index.html USS ''Ronald Reagan'' CVN 76 official website]
*[http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Ronald_Reagan Quotations by Ronald Reagan]
*[http://reagan2020.us/ Reagan 2020] Reagan 2020 is the Internet's most comprehensive resource on Ronald Reagan.
*[http://www.acuf.org/principles/p_philos.asp "Our Philosophy of Government"] Speech by President Ronald Reagan, March 2, 1981
*[http://www.nationalreview.com/document/reagan200406101030.asp Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation] While president, Ronald Reagan penned this article for The Human Life Review, unsolicited.
{{DEFAULTSORT:Reagan, Ronald Wilson}}
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
{{USPresidents}}
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:California Governors]]
[[Category:Republican Governors]]
[[Category:Cold War]]
[[Category:United States History]]
{{Conservatism}}
[[category:1960s]]
[[category:New Deal]]
[[category:Actors]]
[[category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:United States Veterans]]
[[Category:Fiscal Conservatives]]
[[Category:Tax Revolts]]
[[Category:Former Liberals]]
[[Category:Irish-Americans]]
[[category:Democrats]]

Jelly bean

2012-04-02T23:40:45Z

AndreaM: Created page with "The '''jelly bean''' is a bean shaped candy that comes in various flavors. Artificial fruit flavors are most common, but companies such as Jelly Belly make a wide variety of gour..."

The '''jelly bean''' is a bean shaped candy that comes in various flavors. Artificial fruit flavors are most common, but companies such as Jelly Belly make a wide variety of gourmet flavors. [[President Reagan]] was a well-known jelly bean aficionado.

Talk:E=mc²

2012-04-01T02:03:46Z

AndreaM: /* A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockroft and Walton */

==I'm Finding This a Little Hard to Understand==
First off, E = mc2 describing a relationship between energy and matter is only one corollary. It is also part of a well known problem in chemistry... Or is isotopic mass not less than the sum of it's parts? The equation itself HAS been derived from the Theory of Relativity, and is a direct consequence of the energy momentum four vector for an object with 0-momentum. The quote you provide from the paper states that the theory is not enough for a rigorous PROOF, but it never tries to deny the derivability of the equation. Derivation and proof are two entirely different things.

==This Article Could Use Sources or Better Explanation==
Wow. Classic Andy. Unsourced statements supposedly contradicting well-established theories of physics. No real proof other than "the Bible says it's not true," even though this is an extremely uncommon interpretation Genesis. --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 01:06, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:It's a start for now, and will expand over time. That's how wikis work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:18, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::Doesn't it relate energy to mass? The speed of light is just a constant here. [[User:IanR|IanR]] 02:22, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

== Humbug ==

The phrase ''meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement '' (as used in the article) fits the first paragraph to a t.

Aschlafly, please try to refute the explanation of the experiments of John Cockroft and Ernest Walton, which is accepted generally under physicists. And try to give some sources - or if not, some of your own calculations!

If not, just erase the first section.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:23, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

== Nobel Lecture ==

I took out the link to the Nobel lecture, it can be found in the short summary. But be aware that John Cockroft is using the dreaded formula with ease (but without stating so explicitly - why should he, it's already generally accepted!) An astute reader, who not only searches for the formula finds e.g., the formulation:

:'''This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass units.'''

Indeed, these are the ≈ 17MeV!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:51, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

==Irrelevant claims==
Are these claims of so called "experimental verification" valid or useful? If you look at enough so-called science you can find people claiming anything. --[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 12:59, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:''you can find people claiming anything'' Indeed - and that's why there is a difference between the unsubstantiated claims in the first section, and the actual experiments in the following paragraphs. If you have a good explanation of the outcome of these experiments (some math would be nice), feel free to add your personal ''claim''.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:03, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::Why do you feel that I need to do that? I understand that you may wish to believe relativity is true, but that is no reason to impose your personal beliefs on others.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 13:40, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::Thinking that all claims have the same validity seems not a very conservative position. I don't expect you to accept my personal beliefs, but there is a tendency in physics that the claims which are backed up by those willing to do the experiments and the maths have a greater following than random insights. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:47, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::I don't understand why your personal beliefs are even included in the article.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 13:58, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::*Because they are bolstered by experiments...
:::::*...and they aren't just my beliefs - in fact it will be very hard to find a physicist who doesn't share them. And that's something which shouldn't be easy to ignore in an article on a physical subject.
:::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::If science is your religion then you will find scientists who share your views. I still don't see why they should be hosted here. The introduction makes the Biblical position clear.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 14:07, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Religion is my religion, science is my hobby. And just because there is one single interpretation of a few verses of Genesis out there which you think to contradict the experiments of the physicists doesn't shatter my religious beliefs nor my trust in physics. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::::Then why do you insist with this anti-religious pseudoscience?--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 14:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
← Now you have intrigued me: what's your definition of pseudoscience? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:45, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

Pssst! DavidEdwards! You're trying waaaaay too hard. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 21:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:Too hard about what?
:As far as the pseudoscience question is concerned - "science" which is used to promote a worldview which has no basis in moral reality is pseudoscience. Science which is designed to suggest that morality is relative clearly falls into this category.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 18:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

==Question==
This snipet of sentence appears in the introduction: "...''a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory.''" Let's compare that to the entire sentence it was lifted from: "'''''Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally,''' a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory.''" One can't help but notice that the part of the sentence that states that the theory has been observed to be valid in real world experimentation, has been surgically removed. Why is this? Is it because it stands in contradiction to the claim the lead author of this article is trying to promulgate? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 20:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:Peer-reviewed journals won't publish a criticism of relativity. That's obvious. Although I don't have a copy of the full paper, I doubt it attempts to fully support the [[hearsay]] that was excluded, and I would not be surprised if it was included simply to safeguard against complaints for what followed. It adds nothing to the basic point that follows and is quoted here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::Why won't a peer-reviewed journal publish a criticism of SR or GR? Liberal conspiracy? Also, do you not accept that mass and energy are interchangeable or is it a problem with this specific equation? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 21:24, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::JoshuaB, do you accept the possibility that the [[Theory of Relativity]] may be false, and would you approve a well-written paper that criticized it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Yes. We already know the Theory of Relativity is an incomplete model of our universe. So yes, the theory may be "false", but the one that takes it's place will most likely have many of the same properties. Secondly, would I approve of a "well-written paper that criticized it"? I don't know what that means. I'm not a physicist, so I don't see what difference my "approval" of said paper would make. Now that I've been so kind as to answer your questions, would you return the courtesy and answer the ones I posted above? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 22:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::The qualifications on your answer render it almost meaningless. I'm not asking whether your approval of a paper would make a difference, or your opinion about whether you think the replacement of the [[Theory of Relativity]] will "most likely" be another theory of relativity. The question was simple and straightforward, referring to a paper critical of the theory of relativity without any appeasement to those who insist on believing in it. An unqualified answer is requested.

:::::Also, did you ever answer my simple question on [[Talk:Main Page]] about how much time you've spent reading the [[Bible]] this month?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::Come off it Schlafly. This article is not about my Bible reading, is it? No. Does my opinion of the publishing criteria of physics academia have any bearing on the assertions you are trying make? No. Again: Do you not accept that mass and energy are interchangeable or is it a problem with this specific equation? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 23:11, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::Andy, do you accept the possibility that the Theory of Relativity may be correct, and would you approve a well-written paper or book that supported it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:28, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Some points ==

*''Misplaced claims of experimental verification'': if you want to put on the disclaimer ''misplaced'', please explain the results of the experiments in another way.
*''Why won't a peer-reviewed journal publish a criticism of SR or GR?'' But they do: remember the neutrino thing? Or the papers of H. Ives? In fact the first event has shown that especially the publication of experiments (seemingly) violating currently accepted theories gets attention!
*Taking only the second half of ''"Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."'' makes you looking deceptive. Take the whole sentence and try to explain the motivation of the first half. Otherwise anyone who looks the quote up will suspect an ulterior motive!
*The whole first section is a train wreck.
*''[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of [[gravity]].'' Only when you accept the general theory of relativity it is, otherwise inertial mass and gravitational mass are quite different animals.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:46, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::I have attempted to clarify the last point on the [[Mass]] page, and also removed the fact template from the first paragraph, since the explanation is given later on. As it stood, the "citation needed" banners following important points tended to undercut the authority of the article.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:29, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::The problem is not a confusion of weight and mass, but the conflation of gravitational and inertial mass. In the classical theory, there is no reason why both should be the same, it's just an experimental fact.
::So, I'm sorry, your new entry didn't help.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::But they always are the same, aren't they? I don't see why knowing or not knowing the reason (yet) has any bearing on the question.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:43, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly writes: ''Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of gravity. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity.''
::::E=mc² isn't about gravity, to invoke it here is a deflection. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:49, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::::: OK. But bear in mind that this page clearly exists to provide a counterweight to certain liberal views. To do that, clarity of message is needed, and a "citation needed" banner has a deflating effect on the strength of that clarity. So perhaps you could suggest a wording that might be acceptable without the "citation needed" bit?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:03, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

No, I can't. Frankly, I don't see the clarity in this piece: at the moment, it is still sadly missing. So I hope, that Aschlafly taking care of the fact-tags (other then trimming them away) will add to this clarity! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:13, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman ==

Try to explain a complicated formula in 1-2min, then have a single sentence of this soundbit taken out. You can bet that this may sound meaningless. That's no fault of the formula. I'll change the title back. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:58, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:The quotes (and others that could be added) illustrate how meaningless the formula is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::The quotes illustrate how difficult it is to explain the concept to a layman. Take a look [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/expe-text.html here], where you can find the quotes in context. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:16, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::The quotes were solicited to describe the meaning of the equation to laymen, not to illustrate how difficult that is. The difficulty arises from the meaningless nature of the equation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::Actually the meaning of the equation is very clear: the total energy contained in matter is its mass multiplied by the speed of light in a vaccum squared. Experiment after experiment, and nuclear reactor after nuclear reactor, has clearly demonstrated that the total energy released by a reaction is the lost mass multiplied by c2. Therefore whether the theories of relativity are true or not, E=mc2 is true. Equally, even if classical Newtonian mechanics was false, the kinetic energy of a moving mass would still be accurately described by Ek=1/2mv2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:34, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::::Indeed. Internet quotes are really not very useful. A skilled researcher can always find someone saying something to justify their position however bizarre or immoral. This is a typical weakness (and response!) of those who have no real moral or religious basis for their convictions. --[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 19:04, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Aschlafly, could you give us... ==

... your interpretation of the results of the experiment by Cockroft and Walton? Cockroft describes in his Nobel Lecture how the kinetic energy of the alpha-particles could be provided by ''diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass
units.'' (p. 170). Please take into account that this isn't about energy in form of electromagnetic waves!

If you don't address the results of the actual experiments, all your claims are just meaningless verbiage.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:39, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:Cockcroft (please spell his name correctly) does not even cite E=mc2 in his Nobel lecture.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::You don't think that it is ''implied'' by the quote that AugustO provided? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::No, I don't. E=mc2 is supposedly a general truth of universal applicability. The case for it, if true, needs to be far stronger than what is quoted above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:15, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

From the lecture: ''It was obvious then that lithium was being disintegrated into two α-particles with a total energy release of 17.2 million volts. This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass
units.''

Aschlafly, your ignorance is showing:
17.2 MeV /c² = 1.602*10-19kg m²/s² *17.2 *109/(3*108 m/s)² = 3.0616 * 10-29kg = 0.0184 amu

In fact as this is such a ''general truth of universal applicability'', J. Cockroft could take it for granted that his scientifically literate audience would be able to make this calculation.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:26, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::One question, though: We have four protons and four neutrons on the left hand side of the equation, and four protons and four neutrons on the right hand side. So why the difference in mass?
:::Also, forgive my ignorance, but why is the 'energy' measured in volts? Volts are not a measure of energy.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

*Bainbridge measured the mass of 7Li directly, using mass spectrometry.
*Indeed, three protons and four neutrons weight less than a 7Li - kernel
*Energy is measured in this cases in [[Electron-Volts]]. One electron volt is the energy of an electron which passed through a potential of 1 Volt.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:54, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:AugustO, please contribute something substantive instead of talking up a storm. Thanks.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 11:56, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::James Wilson, please don't interfere in interesting and substantive discussions. Thank you! [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 12:12, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::"Baobab", please state what substance is coming out of this conversation. You have had a history of engaging in hefty talk. Please start contributing. I have had some great insights contributing in a few articles today and will continue to do so. Many thanks for your future contributions.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 12:47, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::"James Wilson", AugustO is clarifying things and giving us some great insights, as CPalmer's latest reply shows. Discussions will often lead to better articles, which is why your interference was totally uncalled for. I guess your only motive was to defend Mr. Schlafly, but he can take care of himself and really doesn't need your help. Regards, [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 13:30, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::Thanks, AugustO. Relativity or no relativity, I am learning a lot from this discussion.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:00, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::You are posing excellent questions! Indeed it should be of interest for Aschlafly, too:
:::'''Aschlafly, two protons (1.0073amu) and two neutrons (1.0087amu) have a combined mass of 4.0320 amu. An alpha-particle - existing from two protons and two neutrons - has a mass of 4.0015 amu. How do you explain this diminution of mass?
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:42, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::What real evidence do you have that these particles even exist? No doubt you've read it in a book or some "qualified person" has said it is true. In reality you accept these things on the word of somebody else - in other words your belief in the existence of these particles is a matter of scientific faith in something which you have no personal knowledge. There is obviously no problem with believing things on faith, but please don't pretend it's "true because science says it's true". Christians get their real truth from a higher authority.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 18:49, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::I find Mr O's position to be rather odd. He insists that Mr Schlafly - and only Mr Schlafly answers his questions. Yet at the same time Mr O steadfastly ignores comments specifically directed at him.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 16:11, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::If you're referring to your question about how he knows that protons and neutrons really exist, I suspect he thought it wasn't worth answering. I tend to agree. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:15, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

@DavidEdwards: Sorry, [[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]], I didn't want to ignore you. I hadn't caught up after the databank mishap, I'm afraid.
So, to answer your questions: At school, we performed a couple experiments -there were teltron tubes, the Millikan the photo-electric effect, the Millikan Oil Drop experiment, de Broglie's electron diffraction experiments, etc. These experiments confirmed my persuasion that the electrons, protons and neutrons are physically real entities. The proposed theories explained these effects - and sitting in front of a computer, I'm surprised that you aren't willing to accept the theories behind semi-conductors. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:25, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
@SamCoulter: There is some truth in your statement, too: it's like asking a priest: ''let's talk about your religion without mentioning Jesus''... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:28, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

== Restoration ==

I could restore this page to the last version which I had edited. I don't know whether there were more entries. This should help to restore the article: perhaps one positive effect could be that Aschlafly marvels about the questions in the previous section for a while and rethinks his position! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:36, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Instead of the source - tag ==

*''E=mc² is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate all matter to light.''
It relates matter to energy, the square of the speed of light is just the conversation factor
*''In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism).''
It isn't about gravitational mass, but about inertial mass. To identify both means to invoke the General Theory of Relativity
* ''Simply put, E=mc² is liberal claptrap. ''
How so? It works!
* ''Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis.''
So, physicists should just give up looking for it? I dare to say that there are many Christian physicists - they may just not follow your special interpretation of Genesis!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:29, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

== A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockroft and Walton ==

I'd appreciate an answer by Aschlafly (and him alone) to the following questions:

'''1.''' Do you accept that the mass of the Lithium-kernel (7Li), of alpha-particles (4He) and of protons (1H) can be measured fairly accurately, as these are charged particles?

'''2.''' Do you accept the measurements for the mass of the particles as used by Cockroft and Walton, i.e.
:::{|
!particle
!mass
|-
|1H||1.0072 amu
|-
|4He||4.0011 amu
|-
|7Li||7.0130 amu
|}
If not, which values do you think to be right?

'''3.''' Do you agree that before the reaction the mass of the particles involved was 8.0202 amu?

'''4.''' Do you agree that after the reaction the mass of the particles involved is 8.00220 amu?

'''5.''' Do you agree that there is a mass decrease of 0.0180 amu?

'''6.''' Before the experiment, the Li was at rest and the proton had a kinetic energy of less than 1MeV. Do you accept these values?

'''7.''' After the experiment, a pair of alpha-particles was observed, both having an kinetic energy of 8.6MeV. Do you think that this value is correct?

'''8.''' Can you tell me where the mass went? Can you tell me where the energy came from?

'''9.''' If your answer to question 8. is ''no'' in both accounts, than my answer is that there is a theory which explains the conversion of mass to energy, even if you don't like it!

As this theory works for this experiment, and for all the other fissions and fusions, it isn't liberal claptrap, but a meaningful theory. And you can't blame physicists for using it! Of course, you can blame journalist to abuse the formula - but this isn't the result of ''liberal physics'', but of ''bad reporting'', as an abuse of the dictum ''1+1=2'' doesn't reflect badly on number-theorists, but only on the person misattributing it.

Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:04, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:AugustO, chemical reactions can release energy, typically based not on the size of their mass but on the electrostatic energy prior to the reaction. Cockcroft's own paper accepting the Nobel Prize does not claim that his work proved that '''''E=mc2'''''. Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula, or else we'd have seen far more claims of experimental verification of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:20, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly, you haven't answered any of the questions above! Instead you are talking about something completely different:
*We are not talking about a ''chemical'' reaction! You should know the difference.
*Cockroft claims that the energy comes from the loss of mass - and he calculates it according to ''E=mc²''. Please read (and understand!) his lecture.
*Please give a list of a few (or at least a single) experiment which contradicts the formula. This should be easy, as you stated that ''Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula''. Oh, wait, you made that up...
*Please answer the questions 1 to 9: all the question are covered in Cockroft's lecture, so I'd be interested in your explanation!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:32, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
:AugustO, if you cannot even spell Cockcroft's name properly, how can Andy take anything you say seriously? --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 22:03, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

== Move ==

Could you please move this article to [[Essay:E=mc²]]? Then I could ignore all the misleading and outright wrong statements in the first section! Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:57, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

== Experimental Facts ==

Aschlafly, on the one hand side, you state that ''no experiment distinguishes between "gravitational" and "inertial" mass'' - and that seems good enough for you. On the other hand side, you have a problem with the statement that E=mc² ''continues to be affirmed experimentally''. Do you spot the inconsistency? Indeed, I could write: ''the equivalence between inertial mass and gravitational mass has never been mathematically derived from first principles in classical mechanics, indeed, a rigorous proof of this equivalence is probably beyond the purview of classical theory.''

BTW, omitting the first part of the sentence ''"Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally..."'' makes you look very disingenuous (even if you have good motives) to anyone who looks up the link to the abstract!

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:07, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:It's hair-splitting jargon of doubtful significance. 99% of people know what mass is, and it's directly related to weight, not electrostatic energy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:38, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::And the remaining percent are the physicists which draw such distinctions with good reason! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]]
:::Even more confusing is that the article states mass is a measure of inertia. Inertia is resistance to acceleration, and that has nothing to do with gravity at all. The article as it stands is simply inaccurate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:51, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly: ''....may not even have any justification in the paper''
::::Aschlafly, havn't you read the paper? Here is a part of the conclusion:
:::::''Einstein produced about 18 virtuoso derivations and demonstrations all aimed at establishing the mass-energy principle. We have shown that although each of them gave evidence for the applicability of E0 = mc² to a particular set of circumstances, no one derivation, or collection of them taken together, succeeded in providing a definitive proof of its complete generality. That should not be surprising because the same situation occurs, for example, with F = ma, which is a different kind of relation than E0 = mc². Even so, 300 years of successful theoretical work have not proven the correctness of F = ma. Indeed, relativity showed that this expression, one of the bedrocks of classical mechanics, holds only approximately.
::::Here is another excerpt, on mass, electromagnetism etc:
:::::''In the 19th century, a number of European physicists, including the leading theoretician of the time, Hendrik Lorentz, were working to establish that mass was, in whole or in part, electromagnetic. There were primarily two competing theories, one by Lorentz, the other by Max Abraham. Both agreed that depending on the relative direction of its velocity and acceleration, an “electron” a generic charged particle moving through the aether could manifest both transverse and longitudinal speed-dependent mass components. There was even experimental evidence that seemed to confirm as much. Electromagnetic theory was then at the center of physics.''
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:56, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::(May I add that I think one shouldn't make such fundamental statements as ''E=mc² has no meaning'', if one only skims a few abstracts! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]])

Aschlafly, maybe you have not the time (or the access) to read the actual papers - as you should when drawing conclusions. But perhaps you can take a look at [http://www.lbl.gov/abc/Basic.html Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's ABC of Nuclear Science] to refresh the basics?Even there, they use ''Einstein's famous equation...''... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:44, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== ...purports to relate all matter to light ==

When I write that for iron I get:
::V [cm³] * 7.874 g/cm³ = M [g]
I don't relate the mass to 7.8474, but to the volume. So, similarly Einstein's equations says that mass is proportional to energy, not light. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:38, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:But the constant applied in this case is the (square of the) speed of light! Are you saying that that is a coincidence? If so, why not just say "E=mc"?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:57, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
::no, of course not, but we could write, e.g., Eε0 = m/μ0: the relationship is given between mass and energy... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:04, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:::But the relationship itself is somehow connected to light. Or maybe, the relationship is connected with some third factor that also determines the speed of light.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:58, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
::::yes, but the c² is a constant. Does the equation E/c²=m relate all energy to light? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:18, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::Yes - the equation in any form relates mass, energy, and the speed of light. I think the article doesn't emphasise the light-energy relationship because it's the mass-energy relationship that appears absurd once the theory of relativity is discounted.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:22, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Even if you discount the theory of relativity, the experimental facts remain: in experiments where mass is deleted or created, this happens with the release or absorption of energy. And this energy is given by ≈8.99*1016m²/s² times the mass... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:31, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== Misleading footnote ==

::(Your footnote about the units is bogus. SI units are not arbitrary, since eg Joules can be derived from other SI units including kilograms, metres and seconds. Therefore, the relationship to light ''is'' (purported to be) a natural one.)--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:00, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Which footnote about units? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:04, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Ah, I see, no, not ''my'' footnote. The text was inserted by [[User:GregG/RSS_6#Mon.2C_26_Mar_2012_18:05:11_GMT_.28edit_by_MihailD.29_2|MihailD]], and obviously the equation holds in other systems, too. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:10, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

I took out the main part of the footnote: it should be obvious that in a physical equation only compatible physical units can be used, and that otherwise conversion factors have to be introduced. But there is no problem, if we have c in feet/h, m in pounds, and E in pound*feet²/h²
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:30, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

:I see - my apologies. I thought you had added the footnote in order to try and make the point above. I agree that in any sensible unit system the equation will work (assuming the theory is right of course).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:32, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

:Looks like [[User:MihailD|MihailD]] received a lifetime block for this and related edits, so he'll be unable to explain or justify his comments. --[[User:JasperK|JasperK]] 08:58, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::That's a pity! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:38, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== We will, we will, we will ==

Generally I enjoy the great contribution of SamHB. My only rub: the ''royal we'' - ''we will dispel'', ''we will show'', ''we don't do''. I don't think that this is the best way to phrase an encyclopedic article, and I'd like to see alternatives. For the moments, I just commented out some of the occurrences which in my opinion spoiled the fun of reading the article....

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:38, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:It is a bit chatty. The first one could be rephrased "This article sets out to...". I have reworded two of the others, and the rest might possibly be omitted entirely.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:44, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== I don't understand... ==

Why you guys destroyed a wonderful original piece of work by Mr. Schlafly. There are hundreds of books and web sites that explain relativity, why did you feel the need to reproduce that content here? --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:18, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
:Perhaps because they are right and he is wrong? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, you still haven't answered my [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|reasonable questions abouts this subject]]. To be ignorant on a subject isn't that big a deal, but to willfully stay ignorant while lecturing about it, that is! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:32, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

BTW, the ''wonderful original piece of work'' was not destroyed - you find it embedded in the text. A blanket reversion of the work of a couple of editors should be a no-no, please give reasons for reverting at least for each paragraph! And answer the [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|questions!]] [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:42, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== Protection of the Article ==

Stated reason: ''(with reluctance, and repeated reversions; for now, post specific suggestions for edits on the talk page)''

Aschlafly, this must be one of these definitions of irony, as I asked for specific reasons for your deletions of material. Isn't that censorship? BTW, you still haven't replied to the [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|sections above]], and frankly I'm starting to call your knowledge on this matter in question! Ignorance is not always bliss!

And if you are not willing to address the points made above by various contributors, are you at least willing to read and answer to ''specific suggestions for edits on the talk page''? Or is this a sham to force-feed your view to the readers?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:The lead focus of the entry was converted into a parade of [[hearsay]] rather than logical analysis. Simply put, the entry had denigrated into the ''antithesis'' of the truth-seeking integrity expected of ''Conservapedia''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:41, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
::And what about the current entry? The fact is that E=mc2 is a perfectly valid equation demonstrating the equivalence of matter and energy and it has been thoroughly verified; the energy a piece of matter contains DOES equal its mass times ''c'' squared. This has been repeatedly demonstrated by experiments, which consistently show that the energy released by a reaction is equal within measuring limits to the overall mass lost. It's perfectly reasonable to reject any claim that this demonstrates the truth of moral relativism, atheism or anything else, but to criticise the equation itself as "meaningless" or "liberal claptrap" demonstrates no truth-seeking or integrity. E=mc2 is no more liberal than d=vt or 1+1=2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:53, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::The entry explains how nonsensical the formula is as a general principle -- and how it has never been derived as a matter of logic or demonstrated in any general, meaningful manner. Reliance on [[hearsay]] is not a serious alternative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::But it ''isn't'' a general principle. It's a mathematical expression of matter-energy equivalence and it's perfectly valid. Whether or not it's ever been derived as a matter of logic or not is irrelevant because it's been repeatedly demonstrated to be true in the most meaningful manner possible: if you turn matter into energy the amount of energy that comes out is always equal to the lost mass times ''c'' squared. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:59, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::You restate the claim as though its repetition would make it true. It doesn't. If someone gains one pound in weight, then it is preposterous for anyone to claim that his energy has thereby increased in proportion to the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::Yes, it would be absolutely preposterous. In fact his energy would have increased by a number of foot-pounds equal to one pound times ''c''2 in feet per second. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:11, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::::To explain that further, his energy would have increased in proportion to his '''weight''', not to the speed of light. If a person who weighed 150lb gained 1lb the energy contained in their mass would increase from 1.4467x1017 ft lb to 1.4564x1017 ft lb. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::::The formula '''E=mc2''' does assert that his energy for a fixed gain in weight would increase in proportion to the speed of light squared and, as you say, that is preposterous.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::No, his energy for a fixed gain in weight will increase in proportion to his '''weight'''. In my example of a 150lb man gaining 1lb, his new energy content will be 0.6667% higher, '''as will his weight'''. ''c''2 is just a constant. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:52, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::::::Andy seems to imagine that this energy should be immediately available for sports or doing work around the house, and that we should all be superheroes after having eaten a bar of chocolate. This is, of course, not so. The energy is still locked up in the mass, and it would require nuclear or particle reactions to convert even small parts of it into useful forms of energy. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:28, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
''The lead focus of the entry was converted into a parade of [[hearsay]] rather than logical analysis''. Then let's get factual: just answer a [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|few questions]]. Shouldn't be difficult, as you are so insightful. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:26, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

== Bare links ==

I noticed that [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&diff=971455&oldid=971446 this edit] removed publication information about the references. Personally, I think this information is useful for two reasons: it helps Conservapedia editors locate the references from other sources if (and when) the links go dead, and it helps who print out Conservapedia articles and wish to look up the references offline. (Of course, I'm not suggesting that the URLs be removed, but this could be in addition to the publication information). Of course, there may be perfectly good reasons for removing the publication information of which I am not aware, but I otherwise think that the publication information should be included again (and I plan to do this once the protection expires). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:17, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:Great point. I retrieved and added many of the citations back. If I missed any then I'd be happy to add them also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

Talk:E=mc²

2012-03-25T05:06:45Z

AndreaM: Created page with "==This Article Could Use Sources or Better Explanation== Wow. Classic Andy. Unsourced statements supposedly contradicting well-established theories of physics. No real proof othe..."

==This Article Could Use Sources or Better Explanation==
Wow. Classic Andy. Unsourced statements supposedly contradicting well-established theories of physics. No real proof other than "the Bible says it's not true," even though this is an extremely uncommon interpretation Genesis. --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 01:06, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

Clarence Thomas

2011-12-18T06:23:46Z

AndreaM: /* Personal life */

{{Officeholder
|name=Clarence Thomas
|image=Thmas.jpg
|party=
|spouse=Kate Ambush Thomas (div.) Virginia Lamp Thomas
|religion=Roman Catholic
|offices=
{{Officeholder/Supreme Court Justice
|role=Associate
|nominator=[[George H. W. Bush]]
|terms=October 19, 1991-present
|preceded=[[Thurgood Marshall]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
}}
'''Clarence Thomas''' (b. 1948) is an [[Associate Justice]] of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]. He was born in Savannah, [[Georgia]], which he often mentions in referencing his roots, such as in his book, ''My Grandfather's Son''. His most prominent decisions include his decision for the Court in favor of after-hours religious school clubs in ''Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch.'', 533 U.S. 98 (2001), his decision for the 5-4 Court invalidating a federal government seizure of property as a violation of the [[Eighth Amendment]] in ''United States v. Bajakajian'', 524 U.S. 321, 324 (1998) and his stirring dissent from the 5-4 invalidation of term limits passed in an Arkansas referendum with respect to its congressmen, in ''U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton'', 514 U.S. 779 (1995) (Thomas, J., dissenting).

Justice Thomas is a leader on the Court in urging limits or elimination on incorporating the [[Establishment Clause]] against the States, because that clause was ratified as a federalist provision for protecting States against the new federal government.<ref>''See, e.g.'', ''Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow'', 542 U.S. 1, 45-46 (2004) (Thomas, J., concurring) (“[T]he Establishment Clause is a federalism provision, which, for this reason, resists incorporation.”); ''Zelman v. Simmons-Harris'', 536 U.S. 639, 677-680, and n. 3 (Thomas, J., concurring).</ref> He is also highly respected by legal scholars for adhering to an interpretation of the [[U.S. Constitution]] based on its original text, meaning and understanding, which has included limiting federal powers. His judicial doctrine finds no basis in the [[U.S. Constitution]] for [[abortion]], [[Roe v. Wade]], [[homosexual]] rights, federal interference with state sovereignty, the [[Dormant Commerce Clause]] and constitutional limits on punitive damages.

Thomas has a straightforward writing style that presents his principled approach in a clear manner and his judicial temperament is undisputed. He has an unblemished record of service on the Court since 1991 and has never had to recuse himself from a case due to activity off the bench or investments. Over the course of his distinguished career, he has trained more [[conservative]] law clerks than any other Justice.

== Early Life ==
Thomas was born on June 23, 1948. His earliest stages of life were in [[Pinpoint]], [[Georgia]], until his mother took him and his younger brother, Myers Lee Thomas, to live in [[Savannah]]. However, his mother couldn't afford to take care of them, so she gave them to her father, Myers Anderson. Anderson raised them up on his farm, where Thomas and his brother were raised to be very hardworking.<ref>[[My Grandfather's Son]], by Clarence Thomas, 2007, pp. 1 - 13.</ref>

== Comparison with Justice Scalia ==
Thomas is most often compared to Justice [[Antonin Scalia]], both support overturning ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'', both reject the existence of a [[Negative Commerce Clause]], both feel that the only restriction on how prisons treat inmates is what actually constitutes [[Cruel and Unusual Punishment]] under the [[Eighth Amendment]], and both support strong [[sovereign immunity]] for states by virtue of the [[Eleventh Amendment]].<ref>''Cent. Va. Cmty. College v. Katz'', 546 U.S. 356 (2006) (Thomas and Scalia, JJ., dissenting).</ref>

But these Justices have significant differences. Through the 2006-2007 term, Thomas had written 252 concurrences or dissents, of which Scalia had joined about 2/3rds. Conversely, Scalia had written 480 concurrences or dissents (he has served more years on the Court), of which Thomas had joined about half.

Thomas sided with [[free enterprise]] and wrote the opinion for the [[U.S. Supreme Court|Court]] in upholding an [[FCC]] rule that placed broadband cable services outside of the regulatory definition for "telecommunications service", despite how the [[FCC]] rejected a contrary ruling by a Court of Appeals.<ref>''[[Nat'l Cable and Telecomms. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs.]]''</ref> Scalia dissented in a forceful manner, and thereby defended general judicial authority at the expense of [[free enterprise]].

Scalia typically rejects the use of legislative history more often than Thomas does. Scalia also rejects the important line of cases establishing a constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, ''see [[Pierce v. Society of Sisters]]'', while Thomas has not rejected that line of cases or a constitutional right of parents in some limited cases.<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Troxel v. Granville]] (2000).</ref>

Thomas takes a broader view of state sovereignty over intrastate activities against encroachment by the federal government. In ''[[Gonzales v. Raich]]'', 545 U.S. 1 (2005), Thomas dissented from the Court opinion that upheld a federal law that interfered with California's legalization of marijuana for alleged medical purposes. In other words, Thomas felt that the federal government lacked the power to interfere with state sovereignty over this intrastate activity. Scalia, in contrast, joined the majority of the Court in upholding application of federal law to destroy marijuana plants grown lawfully under California law.

Thomas also has taken more [[conservative]] positions than Scalia has. Thomas alone embraced a [[conservative]] view of the [[Second Amendment]]. In ''[[Printz v. United States]]'', Thomas wrote a concurrence strongly suggesting a [[conservative]], individual-rights view of the [[Second Amendment]]. No other Justice on the Court joined that concurrence. Only Thomas has expressed disagreement with the "aggregation principle" used to expand [[federal]] power based on the [[Commerce Clause]].<ref>United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 600, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626, 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1995) (concurring opinion).</ref>

Justices Thomas and Scalia differ on the issue of free speech and pornography. Thomas provided the crucial fifth vote in ''United States v. Playboy Entm't Group'', 529 U.S. 803 (2000), which rejected indecency regulation of cable television in part because "[t]he question is whether an actual problem has been proved in this case. We agree that the Government has failed to establish a pervasive, nationwide problem justifying its nationwide daytime speech ban."<ref>529 U.S. at 822-23.</ref> Scalia dissented, expressly his view that the government has broader powers under the [[First Amendment]] to regulate indecency on cable television.

Thomas again provided the key fifth vote in ''Ashcroft v. ACLU'', 542 U.S. 656 (2004), which invalidated as unconstitutional a federal law criminalizing the posting on a commercial website of pornography harmful to minors unless there were protections against access by minors. The 5-4 Court placed the burden on parents to keep their children away from pornographic sites, rather than allowing Congress to place the burden on pornographers to limit access to their sites. Scalia, Justice [[William Rehnquist]], Justice [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] and Justice [[Stephen Breyer]] dissented.

Thomas tends to oppose government power more often than Scalia does. In a 5-4 decision written by Thomas, from which Scalia dissented, Thomas held that the [[United States]] was wrong to seize $357,144 in cash from a traveler simply because he failed to report it as required by law. Thomas, writing for the Court, held that such a forfeiture "would violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the [[Eighth Amendment]] ... because full forfeiture of respondent's currency would be grossly disproportional to the gravity of his offense."<ref>''United States v. Bajakajian'', 524 U.S. 321, 324 (1998).</ref>

Thomas is more likely than Scalia to enforce a statute that is wrong as a matter of policy, as Thomas is more likely to hold that [[Congress]] alone can fix its own law.<ref>''[[Volvo Trucks N. Am., Inc. v. Reeder-Simco GMC]], Inc.'', 546 U.S. 164 (2006).</ref>

Thomas has called for ending a right of [[free speech]] for students in [[public school]], and stated his view that ''[[Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist.]]'', 393 U.S. 503 (1969), "is without basis in the Constitution" and should be overruled.<ref>Morse v. Frederick, 127 S. Ct. 2618, 2630 (2007) (Thomas, J., concurring).</ref> Neither Scalia nor any other [[conservative]] has yet supported this position of Thomas.

On the [[Negative Commerce Clause]], Thomas is more reliable than Scalia in defending state laws that discriminate against out-of-state companies. Thomas, for example, wrote the dissent in the 5-4 decision invalidating a Michigan law that limited shipments by out-of-state wineries.<ref>''[[Granholm v. Heald]]''</ref> Scalia split from Thomas and surprisingly joined the more [[liberal]] majority in that case, which was presented using the issue of the [[Negative Commerce Clause]] but then decided based on slightly different grounds.

On the issue of compelled speech, Thomas stronger than Scalia in defending a [[First Amendment]] right not to pay for something with which one disagrees:<ref>[[United States v. United Foods]], 533 U.S. 405, 418-19 (2001) (Thomas, J., concurring)</ref>

:I write separately, however, to reiterate my views that "paying money for the purposes of advertising involves speech," and that "compelling speech raises a First Amendment issue just as much as restricting speech." Id. at 504 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Any regulation that compels the funding of advertising must be subjected to the most stringent First Amendment scrutiny.

Scalia did not join Thomas's concurrence above.

Justice Thomas favors reviving the "[[Privileges and Immunities Clause]]."

== Former Clerks ==
As a [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice, Thomas has mentored over 60 clerks. They include:

*Laura Ingraham, [[conservative]] talk radio host<ref>http://www.lauraingraham.com/pg/jsp/general/aboutlaura.jsp;jsessionid=5436967F38FA6C73A4D5804B1F165ABE</ref>
*Wendy Long, senior legal advisor and vice chair of [[Mitt Romney]]'s National Faith and Values Steering Committee.<ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11799</ref>
*Professor Steven McAllister, [[University of Kansas]] School of Law

== Appointment to the United States Supreme Court ==
In 1991, upon the retirement of Justice [[Thurgood Marshall]], President [[George H.W. Bush]] nominated Thomas to fill the newly vacant seat. Supporters of [[abortion]] desperately opposed his nomination.

Radical [[leftist]]s attempted to block Thomas' nomination to the High Court through a persistent series of public [[guilt by association]] smears.<ref>[http://www.theroc.org/roc-mag/textarch/roc-07/roc07-13.htm ''A Few Facts About Clarence Thomas,''] Chip Berlet, Political Research Associates, Cambridge MA, 1997. [[Chip Berlet]] of [[Political Research Associates]] noted that Thomas was on the editorial board of the ''Lincoln Review'', a quarterly black conservative publication of the Lincoln Institute. Berlet issued a rather dubious ''ad hominem'' attack which claimed "it is a far right group that has worked in coalition with… fascist and anti-Semitic groups," and goes on to "link" Lincoln Institute head J. A. Baker with the Indiana Ku Klux Klan by virtue that Baker is on the board of the Council for National Policy and another board member is supposedly a former Klan member. </ref> Sen. [[Joseph Biden]] agreed to hold a series of [[racism|racially motivated]] hearings dubbed "the Anita Hill hearings" which have been described as a "high tech lynching for uppidy blacks."<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2yfARRF9Co Clarence Thomas Hearings: Biden Questions Thomas 1]</ref>

In a flagrant violation of the rules of the [[United States Senate|Senate]]<ref>[http://www.loc.gov/rr/law/nominations/thomas/debates.pdf Congressional Record -Senate, 102nd Congress, October 7, 1991], Vol 137, Part 18, p. 25706.</ref>, staff members<ref>[http://www.uiowa.edu/~030116/153/articles/brock01.htm ''The Real Anita Hill''], David Brock, Harper Collins, 1993.</ref> for a sitting [[Democratic]] member of the Judiciary Committee leaked a routine confidential FBI background report to [[Nina Totenberg]] of [[National Public Radio]] (NPR)<ref>[http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/92/1/thomas.asp The Clarence Thomas Hearings], by William Boot, ''Columbia Journalism Review'', January/February 1992.</ref> which contained a vicious defamatory smear intended to mar Thomas for life. The accusation was known to be false, and was concocted to publicly intimidate an African-American Republican from accepting an appointment to the nation's High Court, and derail his nomination. None of the allegations could be substantiated. The deliberate falsehoods did however persuade former [[Ku Klux Klan]] [[Democrat]]ic [[Senator]] [[Robert Byrd]] to change his vote from "yes" for confirmation to "no".

Thomas was confirmed by the Senate with a vote of 52-48, which was at the time the narrowest confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee in history.

==Views on racism==
ABC News wrote:

:He is adamantly opposed to [[affirmative action]], but for entirely different reasons than white conservatives who drive the debate by arguing it's unfair to white people. Thomas says affirmative action instead has hurt blacks. It not only sends them into environments in which they are doomed to struggle instead of soar, but it also perpetuates negative stereotypes that whites hold today that all blacks are inferior to them and don't belong — just as whites in the South assumed 50 years ago.<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=3664143&page=2</ref>

== Personal life ==
Clarence Thomas is married to [[Virginia Lamp Thomas]]. As of the beginning of 2011, Virginia has earned over $680,000 working at the [[Heritage Foundation]], a conservative think tank. Clarence has illegally omitted this information on his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms.<ref>http://abovethelaw.com/2011/01/clarence-thomas-and-his-wifes-680000-of-unreported-income/</ref>

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/clarence_thomas.html ''Clarence Thomas''], Real Clear Politics, October 9, 2007 
*[http://www.hillsdale.edu/hctools/imprimis_archive/2007/10/2007_10_Imprimis.pdf ''A Conversation with Justice Clarence Thomas''] - [[Hillsdale College]] interview with Justice Thomas conducted in his [[chambers]] at the [[U.S. Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] in [[Washington, D.C.]], on September 19, 2007.

{{Supreme Court|rehnquist=y|roberts=y}}

{{DEFAULTSORT: Thomas, Clarence}}

[[category:United States Supreme Court Justices]]
[[category:Conservatives]]
[[category:Reagan Era]]
[[category:Black History]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]
{{Conservatism}}

User talk:TerryH

2011-12-18T06:16:34Z

AndreaM: /* Administrative Office */

[[File:Usa new year 2010.jpg|240px]]
--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 00:22, 31 December 2009 (EST)
----

Talk to me! Am I right? Wrong? Any suggestions? --[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:24, 5 March 2007 (EST)

*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_1|Archive 1]]
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive2|Archive 2]]
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_3|Archive 3]]

== Administrative Office ==
The door is always open. Please place questions, suggestions, complaints, ''et cetera'', here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think you're right and glad you ain't left. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, Terry, you are wrong about a lot of things. But I think your blind allegiance to Biblical cannon will prevent you from realizing this. You actively ignore or deny solid scientific evidence that conflicts with your beliefs. (I know you have a slew of counterarguments against mainstream science, but they have no basis in reality and actually seem to be purposefully deceitful.) --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 01:16, 18 December 2011 (EST)

== Templates ==

Terry,

Instead of typing out <tt>'''<nowiki><nowiki>{{Essay}}</nowiki></nowiki>'''</tt>, you can instead type <tt>'''<nowiki>{{tl|Essay}}</nowiki>'''</tt>. This is less effort and produces a similar result, except that it includes a link to the template: {{tl|Essay}}.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

In response to Terry's statements concerning Jesus and how he might live today I feel it is quite simple. The best teachers lead through example and Jesus was sent here to, 'teach', to show us the way to God, so what better way to get there? The most practical of lessons are learned an enacted through specific actions, therefore to follow Christian doctrine and to live the life of a true Christian is to walk, talk, and act as Jesus did. So if we are to attempt to live as Jesus did we are by definition living the life of an extreme liberal. So if you want to get closer to God and be promised eternal salvation you should watch your step and begin as they say to, 'Walk the Walk and Talk the Talk'. copyright 2010, ©baltimoremd

As wordnetweb.princeton.edu/ defines 'liberal',

-broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"
-having political or social views favoring reform and progress
-tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
-a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
-big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"
-a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
-free: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem"

== 66.212.16.194 ==

I may be wrong about this, and this may be encyclopedia policy, but I noticed you banned [[User:66.212.16.194]] for an infinite period of time. It seems somewhat illogical to ban an IP address infinitely, because somebody else may end up with that IP and be unable to create an account.--[[User:Tmcfulton|Tmcfulton]] 20:37, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:That's not how IP addresses work. A little probabilistic math ought to convince anyone that the hazard you describe is a virtual non-issue.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:46, 13 November 2007 (EST)

::You're correct, I guess. I was thinking of the way they do it on Wikipedia, but I guess Conservapedia isn't popular enough for this to be an issue.--[[User:Tmcfulton|Tmcfulton]] 20:50, 13 November 2007 (EST)

==[[Jesse MacBeth]]==
The phony soldier himself. All we need is a pic. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 06:04, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== Reply ==

Capitalism essentially becomes the practice of making the rich richer and the poor poorer. I do not see why the failure of one or two states that pretended to be communist so they could garner the support of the masses makes capitalism any less abhorrent. And Terry, spouting the occasional occasional fragment of fortune-cookie wisdom does not improve your argument, nor does it compensate for the unequivocally unamicable tone of your response. I mean no offense, I simply didn't expect to be greeted with such open hostility in response to what was intended as a partially fatuous comment. --[[User:AngryCommunist|AngryCommunist]] 23:03, 4 January 2008 (EST)
:You are too late. My opinion of Communism is obviously widely shared. And if it is "unamicable" to say that Communism is bad, then you will see in me the least amicable person you are likely ever to meet on the Internet. Let that suffice.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 07:27, 5 January 2008 (EST)

== Examples of Bias in Wikipedia ==

I know I'm new here and I haven't made many edits, but could you please give me an explanation for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=366421&oldid=366407 reverting] my edit to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]? I didn't delete that example just because I felt like it. One of the sources in the Wikipedia article really does mention something about extrapolation, making our allegation false. I'm not trying to censor anything, I just don't want this site filled with the same kind of lies and inaccuracies that pervade Wikipedia. Best, [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 22:36, 9 January 2008 (EST)

:Explain what? Do you deny it?
:Do you deny that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than is the American public?
:In fact, [[Jimbo Wales]] is proud of that statistic. Proud! He seems to think that we "Yanks" are too busy playing cowboys and Indians to be truly enlightened.
:If you are prepared to show that that entry is in error--show me. Do it on the Talk page of the article in question, so that everybody who takes as active an interest as I do, will see it as well.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:29, 9 January 2008 (EST)

== Schlafly ==
You objected to speculation, I removed it. Now you are censoring my opinion in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 11:35, 2 February 2008 (EST)
==Help!==
Hey Terry - I hate to have to ask - but I saw that your online and you had just done a template a bit ago, so I assume you're good with templates. Would you mind helping me out on [[Template:USState]]? I can't get it to work properly - I think the problem is {{tl|!-}}. Thanks--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:38, 9 February 2008 (EST)
:Oh btw - see the talk page for the visual on the problem--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:39, 9 February 2008 (EST)
Oh hey - I figured it out! It was just a weird thing with the spacing - I'll fix it now--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:49, 9 February 2008 (EST)
:Well now the only problem is that there's a ton of spaces under "capital" if the parameters aren't filled in - but hopefully I can figure out how to fix this - thanks for your help--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:52, 9 February 2008 (EST)

== CreationWiki ==

Is there something wrong with CreationWiki right now? That seems to happen a lot; it's been going on for several weeks in a row now. I try to access the site and it always tells me "Internet Explorer Cannot display the webpage". I figured you'd know something since you're an admin, please help me out here '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 09:52, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:Thanks! I was getting kind of worried there. I Pray it's up again soon. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 21:18, 14 February 2008 (EST)

::I'm hearing a lot of crap about the God of the OT being infanticidal. How should I respond? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 10:00, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:Yeah, they're talking about God's directives for the Israelites' enemies. "Why would God command them to kill the babies too?" (God tells them to kill the men, women and children and animals) '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 10:12, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:: For questions such as this, a good site is http://www.tektonics.org. You can search for keywords (as you can on many sites), or you can look up particular verses. With a quick look I found [http://www.tektonics.org/gk/guess2much.html this] page that touches on your question. I also found another page that pointed to a different site with [http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html this article], which I haven't read, but I think might be quite useful to you. With a better search, you might be able to find more. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:24, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Headline text ==
Terry, it's a lot quicker to go look at my contributions, hit the "rollback" button, then hit "back" on your browser and go up the list. By the way, ask Andy if he got my email yet! --[[User:HelpfultipsforTerryH|HelpfultipsforTerryH]] 12:00, 15 February 2008 (EST)

== Hai ==

Terry,

Those last two ethereal apparitions of vandals were not me, but I totally endorse what they did. Seems as though I have some admirers!

In regards to the second vandal's tips, it's sound advice. I'd feel sorry for you (that's a lie - maybe a small bit of pity, of definitely not sorry) if one of those WillyOnWheels vandals from last year showed up when you were the only sysop on patrol. Advice is advice, take it from where you can. But, in your defense, it is hard to teach an <s>old dog</s> dinosaur new tricks.

Also, consider archiving those two pages.

You should be looking forward to the next RDubya project - It's an article which systematically compares Conservapedia to your very own definition of extremism! I can't wait for it to be the shining gem of the internet.

By the way, please tell Andy to check his email - I have an important message waiting for him.

Please feel free to email me, the link on my deleted userpage should still be active.

Regards,
-Hojimachong

== CreationWiki ==

Re-install MediaWiki. I use PHP5 on my Mac with Apache2 to run the software for my personal use, and have never had a problem. I understand the base is heavily hacked, but that's life. Alternatively, you might want to consider replacing all of the <code>include</code> directives with <code>include_once</code> directives. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 10:17, 16 February 2008 (EST)
==[[Io]]==
Wow, Terry, amazing job!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:53, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Comment ==

In my short time here I've noticed two blocks, one with an accompanying IP block. I understand that IP blocks are good site policy for persistent vandals, but absent a showing that the targeted vandal is in fact a persistent, repeat offender, is there any reason to block permanently, other than to suppress dissent? Isn't it conceivable that you just blocked a public computer, or a public WiFi net, meaning now legitimate users can't visit? Seems to me like a poor compromise between security and freedom.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 14:07, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:Hmmm, I appreciate your reasons, although I continue to think they're overbroad. I guess we disagree, but you're free to run your own site (into the ground...?). Further, I did not appreciate the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3APhoenixWright&diff=397970&oldid=397934 threatening tone, here.] In fact, I think it's counterproductive. I was not aware that wikis were autocracies. My experience at (dare I say it? - Wikipedia) was different. I see you're different from them, though, in many significant ways, this not the least. Cheers nonetheless.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:19, 3 March 2008 (EST)

==The horror...==
Hey, are you online? Could you please block ZebraSofa? I think I'm the only one who noticed his recent vandalism rampage. He seems to have sort of cooled down, but he could just be regrouping on the savannah. Thanks.[[User:Jellyfish|Jellyfish]] 12:27, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

I second to that, look at Recent Page. Someone stop the idiot that living his own shell

Edit- By the way, good job for defense, Jellyfish.
--[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 12:33, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:I got him. Thanks again Jellyfish. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:44, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== Oops ==

(blush) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:20, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

300.2 million > 3.2 million [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=436643&oldid=436641] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:22, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Opinion requested ==

Could you please weigh in on the discussion [[Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style#City/town/county names as article titles?|here]]? We're looking for more opinions and hope to arrive at some sort of style definition. Thanks. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 19:42, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

== bamboozled ==

Why don't you think Fox News is a major media organization? --[[User:DeanSa|DeanSa]] 17:38, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:The edit isn't about size - it is about liberal bias. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 17:39, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

== quick note ==

I replied to your planet suggestion and would be most happy to review the material and provide any input that I think I would be beneficial. I also sent you an important email. I am hoping to get things rolling as soon as possible and would appreciate your input in regards to my proposal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:27, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

==Regarding removal of my articles==

Is there any person I can contact regarding removing my articles? I see you reverted my deletion notices. Regards. [[User:LChriosa|LChriosa]] 10:22, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

#No need to spam the wiki like this. You are heard.
#They are not "your" articles; you donated them without any strings attached.
#I deleted a couple already. Your article on [[Machiavellianism]] was worthless drivel. I can't believe a professor would use such material as course notes.
#If (by some awkward chance) you are really a professor, email me your credentials and we can talk by phone. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:02, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:They weren't course notes; they were introductory articles. Quite a difference. I have nothing to prove to you, I don't care if you think I am a professor or not (I amn't by they way, I was a lecturer who taught in England and Ireland for many years, and never attained the title of 'professor') and am not going to Email you and am most certainly not going to let a random person on the internet ring me. What aspect of the Machiavelli article didn't you like? Was it above you? [[User:LChriosa|LChriosa]] 11:39, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

== Redheads ==

Why does it need to be deleted? Sure, the first article I posted was intended to be sarcastic (not against Conservapedia, but against the cruel views with which Redheads are looked upon in England (a trend that stems from bigotry against the Scots, Irish, and Scandinavians).

This has manifested itself in the following forms:

-The Chapman family in Newcastle was forced to move MULTIPLE TIMES due to taunts directed to both parents and children

-We have been beaten up, and one man was stabbed in an alley

-Skinheads are organizing against us

-A waitress was harassed on multiple occasions

-Some of us (though not me, personally) are brought to indignation upon hearing the word "ginger", which isn't much when compared to things like "Firecrotch"

-Countless men, women, and children have been taunted, often resulting in suicide attempts

-Over here in Texas, I, along with a few people I know, have also been the target of obsceneties

-This issue has gained the attention of the press from Austin to Aberdeen, along with being the focal topic of an episode of Southpark, along with countless British media and recent literature.

(pardon my bad spelling; I'm only 16)

My second post sought to explain this. It did not have any liberal bias- only pro-ginger bias (my own). It does not concern conservatism or liberalism*. Besides, I thought this is the place to be biased... isn't it?

<nowiki>*</nowiki>Liberalism traditionally refers to free-market capitalism and relaxed social restrictions similar to Libertarianism. Only in recent years has it been misconstrued to refer to left-wing politics.

{{unsigned|GLA}}

==== Vaccines ====
Why did you revert my edits? The article that's cited as a source explicitly states that it has not been conclusively proven that Gardasil caused or was even implicated in those deaths. -- Aaronp

==Principal's Resignation?==

Terry,

Thought you might be interested in this story.

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/575/story/458733.html

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:49, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

==Aggrieved's Talk Page Debate==

Terry, you came to my Talk page and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aggrieved&diff=prev&oldid=474283 demanded] that I "had better: 1) Provide a citation for your allegation that a significant proportion of Guantanamo detainees have turned out to be innocent of the war crimes imputed to them; 2) Retract your last comment and apologize to me; and 3) Prepare to face blockage for contempt of the administration."

My response:

1) - Multiple citations provided. It is duly noted you never provided a single citation to back up your own false claim; 2) - Not a chance; 3) - No problem. This dialog will be in the record and your willingness to disregard fact, remain uninformed about current affairs, and aggressively police your own mistruths will be duly noted. Martyrdom in the name of truth can be my legacy.

In response to your failure to prove your case, and my success in proving mine, I now demand you:
1. Withdraw your claim on Main:Talk Page that "to a man, every one of those released detainess has turned up doing exactly the same thing again", publicly.
2. Apologize to me, publicly, for your aggressive tone and ill-informed opinion.

Thank you. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 21:04, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

==Hi==
Just pointing out, you accidentally blocked Leda for a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ALeda month] instead of a day. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:39, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:No accident, neighbor. She'd already been blocked a number of times before, so she rated what she got.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:58, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Delete and protect ==

I believe the new policy/custom is to use actual salting instead of using some "deletedpage" placeholder. You should be able to protect non-existent pages (or specify protection during deletion, I don't know for sure). See also [[Special:Protectedtitles]] for a list of what has been salted already. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 15:12, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

PS: Thanks a lot for the unblock. I'm still struggling with the mail confirmation, so I had to rely on somebody seeing my block. :) --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 17:13, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==My talk page==

Thanks for sweeping up around my castle when the moat overflowed. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:53, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

== Looks like someone had a friend show up ==

*shrug* Thanks. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:44, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

== Lsit ==

Thanks for the correction. [[User:Memory|Memory]] 15:31, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

==Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Archives==
Terry, Thanks for contributing news items. When your suggested news items have been completed, they will be archived under your name so we can keep the suggestions page clear for new items. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:10, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== News suggestions ==

Terry, since you post to the "In the news" section of the Main page, I'm requesting your help with the News suggestions. So far, 54 of these suggestions have already been posted to the Main page and moved to the suggestion archives. With your help, we can continue to receive and post positive suggestions from our editors.

Please review the suggestions. If you like one (or more of them), please post the article(s) on [[Template:Mainpageright]] and add a note that you posted their suggestion. If you don't like a suggestion, add a comment and the suggestion will be moved to the suggestions talk page. I will take care of the rest (archiving, updating counts, etc). Thanks for your assistance. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:20, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== rhea article ==

Hi, great article. Now the bad news :) I came across this as a Random page search and I noticed the first bit with the picture is spread beyond the normal article edge on the left. It would be a bit neater if it could be sized a fraction narrower. I have no idea on how that would be done. If you disagree thats fine ;-) [[User:Markr|Markr]] 18:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

: The problem was with the template that puts a box of information on the right. Somebody duplicated the size, and that duplicate size was uninterpretable and thus the image came through at its original size, which was ''not'' what I intended. You'll notice that the images are back to the proper size now.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:19, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:: yes thats even better [[User:Markr|Markr]] 18:37, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
::: That error was in there since July last year! Obviously the previous version of MediaWiki somehow coped with it, but the latest version is stricter. It would also explain why the info box in the Earth article was so big the other day. And there's another size duplication in the template, which I'll fix now. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

== A. Schlafly's talk page ==

Could you repair it, too? I couldn't do so. Thanks --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 08:54, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

==Parolees==

I noticed we had a [[:category:Parolees]] a few weeks ago when I was browsing the [[Conservapedia:Maintenance]] page. Since [[User:Saxplayer]] is now on parole, I thought I'd use that as a chance to revive the formal parole system. Please let me know if you object. If you don't, how long is Saxplayer's parole for? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:46, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== Slightly amused but no offense meant... ==

I'm sorry for bugging you, if you don't write [[Project:Guard dog|Guard dog]], but this block reason just cracked me up:
::''Blocked for vandalism with assistance of Conservapedia:Guard dog''
Can you tell whoever writes it they probably ought to reword that summary? When I first saw it, before I clicked the link to the page about Guard dog, I thought you were saying that the vandal was using Guard dog to ''vandalize''.

Again, sorry for bugging ''you'', but I saw you using it, and I don't know who develops it.

Thanks, and have a good day!

[[User:Samd|Samd]] 10:37, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

: Hmmmm, I wrote that. Now that you point it out, I see your point. I wonder what would be best: A comma after "vandalism"?
: And just to be overly pedantic, why would you think that the vandal was using Guard Dog to ''vandali'''z'''e'' when it actually says "vandali'''s'''m"?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:00, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
::Because I'm a stupid American? :P I don't know. I've always spelled it like that. Why do I spell my name s-a-m? (pedantics in calculus class - uuggghhhh...) A comma would probably be good. [[User:Samd|Samd]] 11:25, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
::: I won't make any nasty cracks about "stupid American" containing a redundancy. I provided the default text, but TerryH will have to change it on his settings if he wishes. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:34, 2 November 2008 (EST)

== Don't get it.... ==

''From now on, I'll have to trust you implicitly. DO NOT ABUSE MY TRUST.''

Thanks for your trust? Don't shout at me? --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 06:34, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Please, believe me, a block-notice is enough to get my attention :-)
I was editing [[Philipp Lenard]], when this bizarre ''Hitlermania'' started. I got a little bit annoyed as I'd thought that the guard-dog would act a little bit earlier - and without biting me ;-)
But I fully understand that you had no time to check my contributions to see that I'm a legit editor --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 06:42, 9 November 2008 (EST)

==New wave==

Thanks for [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:BlockIP/NicStory this], although I am faintly disappointed that you beat me to it. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:02, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Navboxes ==

Terry, I think that the text in the navboxes would look better if it was centered. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:10, 1 December 2008 (EST)

==Recent Vandalism==
I'm not sure how to undo a page back 2 edits, but in the most recent vandalism spree, ForReal edited [[Talk:Main Page]] twice and [[Talk:Barack Obama]] was edited by ForReal and then another user just after that. When you undid that last edit, it took it back to ForReal's 'contribution'. Could you take care of this, or I can do it if shown how. Thanks! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 19:46, 10 December 2008 (EST)

==[[The Simpsons]]==

Should we provide a conservative analysis of the characters on the Simpsons? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:08, 16 December 2008 (EST)

==Thanks!==

Looks like BrandonF was going to be persistent with his idea of "humor." I was going to revert him again, but you beat me to it. Thanks! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:25, 28 December 2008 (EST)

==AddisonDM block==

TerryH, I was given just now a 5 year autoblock by the Guarddog attributed to you, for suspected vandalism. I was actually installing a new template approved by Mr. Schlafly called [[Template:Bible Versions]] on all the Bible pages. I was told this was a good thing to do. Please immediately unblock me, and for proof I am not a vandal, see the 10+ new pages I have added at [[User:AddisonDM]]. 29 December 2008

== Happy New Year, Terry! ==

'''Glory to God in highest heaven,'''
'''Who unto man His Son hath given;'''
'''While angels sing with tender mirth,'''
'''A glad new year to all the earth.''' 
'''~Martin Luther''' 
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 23:38, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Help ==

Hi, thanks for helping out with that other editor earlier. I was just wondering how/where I can suggest new articles for creation? Many Thanks. --[[User:JamesDW|JamesDW]] 22:49, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== [[Subacute myelo-optic neuropathy]] ==

Would you mind taking a look at this and see what the "big dispute" is? Thanks! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:24, 12 January 2009 (EST)

== please check your email ==

Please check your email [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:06, 17 February 2009 (EST)

==Vandals==
It seems that there have been a lot of vandals with "bob" in their name. Could you edit the software to autoblock anyone with "bob" in their name for at least the next month? Thanks, [[User:JY23|JY23]] 13:47, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== help would be appreciated ==

Any help you could offer as far as this article [[Creation vs. evolution debate]] would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:56, 1 March 2009 (EST)

==Music article talk page==
Hi TerryH! I've left a long, substantial review of the popular vs. classical issue on the [[music]] talk page. I'd appreciate starting a constructive dialogue about this issue in order to strengthen this aspect of the article. Thanks! [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 07:28, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

== Guard Dog ==

The bot is going berserk. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:59, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

==Help needed==
As the editor of many Bible persons, could you weigh in on a problem mentioned here: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:RJJensen#Persons_in_the_Bible (the Hoshea to Joshua issue has been fixed) Thanks[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 08:46, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

== Great start! ==

Your edits to [[Epistle of Jude (Translated)]] are a great start to this week!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:44, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Thanks Terry (sorry for the late reply),

I have an interest in ancient Greek, daily access to a large academic library and, like everyone else, the resources of the Internet. You could describe me as an enthusiastic amateur.
Luke has always been my favorite Gospel, containing the best versions of the Parables. I have no particular plans to translate Acts, though I would welcome the opportunity. It would probably be best to regard my edits as first drafts, and I have tried to update the language and convey the intent of the verses.

[[User:JohnFraiser|JohnFraiser]] 18:58, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

== Great block and revert! ==

Great block and revert, Terry!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:30, 15 November 2009 (EST)

== Thank you! ==

and Marry Christmas!

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 08:29, 26 December 2009 (EST)

==Must be doing something right==

Do I have the honor of attracting the most user page vandalism? Anyway, thanks for watching out for me, Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:42, 26 December 2009 (EST)

== Genesis ==

Congrats on finishing Genesis! It'll be good to add to the ongoing CBP compilation. If you have input or recommendations for the compilation's design and layout, please bring them forward! [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:09, 4 January 2010 (EST)

== Ephesians ==

Well done powering through Ephesians! Here I'd planned to come home and translate a chapter, and you've finished the whole letter. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 19:07, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

== Romans 9-16 ==

Sorry for tripping over your work there, I figured I'd work a chapter ahead to avoid edit conflicts with the one you were working on. I'm out of time for today, so feel free to go ahead without me getting in the way, and have a great Easter. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 19:39, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

== Wow, inspiring achievement! ==

Wow, Terry, what an inspiring achievement! Now there are only 5 unfinished books. I'll hurry up with the Letter of James!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

:Scratch that - I see you're working on the Epistle of James. I'll work on the Epistle to the Hebrews now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:28, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

== a proposal ==

Terry,

Would you be interested in writing the following articles:

*[[Creation vs. evolution]]
*[[Evidence against evolution]]
*[[Conservapedia essay: What is evolution?]]

The reason I ask is that I think it would be a good idea for Conservapedia to launch a [[Conservapedia: Anti-Evolution Project]] down the pike. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:43, 3 May 2010 (EDT)

== Touching base ==

Hi Terry,

Rob encouraged me to stop by and try to mend fences, as it were. I'm sorry for the differences we've had in the past, probably not here, but now that I am back I wanted to get off on the right foot and I hope we don't bump heads... good luck and Godspeed with your works.

Peace, Huw. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:06, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel ==

Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel. I invited someone to edit Conservapedia and they were blocked and they should not have been. I got the block overturned. So I think there is room for improvement in Conservapedia's blocking policy. You can sign up [[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. I invited active Syops/Admins plus people with blocking rights who might wish to be Sysops. If I left anyone out, please let them know about the panel. The people with blocking rights can sign up [[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. The panel will probably convene when Iduan is back from his summer vacation or fairly soon afterwards. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:47, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

== Request for Admin assistance ==

To all senior admins and sysops. I am being repeatedly abused by user:conservative who, among other things, accuses me continuously of being an atheist simply because I point out some of the holes in his articles. See [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=113357&diff=924642&oldid=924636 here for the latest accusation]. I have asked him numerous times to desist with his sneering name calling as I find it offensive to have my faith questioned and nothing is ever done. He state’s I am atheist because I don’t agree with some of his ridiculous contentions. In actual fact it isn’t even that I disagree with him it is that I point out his shoddy research, poor scholarship and his berating, insulting and sarcastic behaviour towards others. I am of the opinion now that he is purposely calling me names because he knows I don’t like it which is unchristian, impolite and, above all, insulting. Is anyone going to teach this man some manners? Has Conservapedia become a place where Conservative is allowed to behave this way without any warning or comeuppance but all other editors and warned and blocked for minor infractions. He is in continual violation of the commandments yet NOTHING is done whereas people like myself are always watching out to avoid being banned. Well, fine, ban me if you like. I probably will be after this posting and no doubt Conservative will cackle with glee at “winning” again. But laugh Conservative, you win nothing. I post this is full knowledge that I might be blocked banned and insulted by you in my absence and I have always remained polite and civil plus I can hold my head up high. Hopefully one of you will take a stand and insist on standards of civility. But I don’t hold out much hope. Thanks, many of you were kind, decent people whom I enjoyed working with and I pray for you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:22, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

== Your articles ==

I am rather impressed with the articles you have written. I was reading the one you were working on and thought it was superb. That is a good book, too. Good job!

== What is the difference between global atheism and the Question evolution! campaign? ==

Terry, I have a question for you.

Question: What is the difference between [[global atheism]] and the [[Question evolution campaign]]?

Here is the answer: The Question evolution campaign is growing and [[global atheism]] is '''<big>currently shrinking by about 300 atheists a day!</big>'''[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/11/successful-volunteer-recriuitment-drive.html] :) Please pay special note to the words '''<big>currently shrinking by about 300 atheists a day</big>'''. :)

=== Question evolution! campaign community ===

A [[Question evolution! campaign]] online community is forming.[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/11/successful-volunteer-recriuitment-drive.html] Creation Ministries International's Question evolution! campaign is about to break the sound barrier! Volunteer recruiting is picking up steam! Click [http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/11/successful-volunteer-recriuitment-drive.html HERE] for details.
[[File:Breaking sound barrier.jpg|center|300px]][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:03, 22 November 2011 (EST)

Talk:World History Final Exam

2011-12-18T06:14:24Z

AndreaM: /* Badly Phrased Questions */

==Post your answers here==

== Comments ==

[[World History Lecture Six]] describes the crusades as a ''series of wars covering nearly 200 years, from A.D. 1096-1291'', and goes on to list five campaigns:
*First Crusade: 1096-1099
*Second Crusade: 1147-1149
*Third Crusade: 1189-1192
*Fourth Crusade: 1202-04 and
*Childrens' Crusade of 1212

According to the data of the crusades, we have '''five campaigns''' or ('''four military campaigns''' and a failed pilgrimage) covering '''more then 100 years'''.

On the other hand, the data of 1291 indicates the fall of [[Acre]], the last of the crusaders' states. This happened after the '''ninth crusade''' (1271–1272).

Not mentioned at all is e.g. the Albigensian Crusade (1209-1229), declared by Innocent III.

Now you ask in your exam:
{{cquote|The Crusades were:
:(a) two military expeditions over a 100-year period, beginning in AD 1050, by Christians to free Jerusalem and make it safe for pilgrimages
:(b) four military expeditions over a 100-year period, beginning in AD 1099, by Christians to free Jerusalem and make it safe for pilgrimages
:(c) five military expeditions over a 200-year period, beginning in AD 1001, by Christians to free Jerusalem and make it safe for pilgrimages
:(d) one military beginning in AD 1050, by Christians to conquer the world
}}

None of the answers fits the information given during your lectures (4/5 campaigns from 1096 until 1212/1291) - or what seems to be consensus under historians: from 1095-1291 they generally enumerate nine crusades to free Jerusalem.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:19, 17 December 2011 (EST)

BTW: I sent you an email & I would appreciate an answer. Thanks! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:19, 17 December 2011 (EST)

:You make good points, but the "best answer" is still the same. The other three answers are clearly wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:32, 17 December 2011 (EST)

::So the pupils have to chose the least wrong answer? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:31, 17 December 2011 (EST)

== Badly Phrased Questions ==

I think this exam needed a little copy-editing before it was released. A few of these points may seem picky, but there's nothing more unfair to students than a badly worded question.

Question 1: No one 'discovered' gravity; it's always been known about. The person in question devised a theory to predict the force of gravity between any two objects and to explain the movements of the planets through gravity.

Question 6: I think the idea of the 'original' name may cause some sniggers, as if if before the great powers went to war in 1914, they had to pick a name for it. A better phrase would be 'and earlier name'.

Question 15: The wording of this one is both uncomfortable and confusing. Just to take option a: how can 'throwing two people off of a lifeboat in order to save the remaining ten' be either true or false. Even if we allow for bad phrasing, it's not clear whether we are being asked whether we are being asked whether utilitarians believe that 'throwing two people off of a lifeboat in order to save the remaining ten' is a good thing or that it is a bad thing. The question might better read 'Utilitarianism asserts that all of the following are morally acceptable EXCEPT:'

Question 18: Queen Elizabeth needs a regnal number here. Strictly speaking, so does Queen Mary, though she has been disambiguated, albeit in a rather ugly way.

Question 35: Should really be 'Who ''first'' broke the German’s Enigma?' It was broken again and again as the Germans continued to refine the system.

Question 40: I can name 19 national leaders with the surname Romanov (and I may well have missed a few). Admittedly the whole dynasty does not overlap with any of the other answers, but I'd have thought 'The House of Romanov' would have been clear for option IV.
--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 14:22, 17 December 2011 (EST)

:Your comments are welcome, and let's look at each of your six criticisms:

:*"No one 'discovered' gravity" - I disagree. Action-at-a-distance gravity '''''was''''' discovered, and was not always known.

:*Unless you know of a common prior name for the "Great War," then it was indeed the "original" name.

:*Although you make a good point, your suggested rewording would not be an improvement in light of all the answer choices.

:*It's not necessary to give a number to the first (and most important) in a line of rulers. Queen Elizabeth did not have such a number when she ruled. No one refers to "Napoleon I"!

:*No, I don't think a "first" need be added. It is not common to say, "Who first broke the door?"

:*You have a valid point here but, again, historical names are clear enough without obscure qualifiers. Do we need to include a middle initial for Karl Marx to distinguish him from others in history who had that same name???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:19, 17 December 2011 (EST)

::*Fine, then say 'action-at-a-distance gravity' in the question. Even so, I'm not sure the word 'discovered' is best applied to a process that involved no new observation, merely the better interpretation of existing observations.

::*The article here: http://www.wordorigins.org/index.php/more/581/, attributes 'The First World War' to September 1914 and 'The Great War' to October 1914. An additional problem is that 'The Great War' also used to refer to the Napoleonic Wars. Also, H.G. Wells called the war 'The War That Will End War' in the title of a book of 1914 (not sure which month).

::*If I make a good point then there is surely a better wording, even if it's not the one I suggest.

::*"Napoleon I" gives 2.4 million hits on Google. True, QEI did not have a regnal number when she ruled, nor until 1952, but today 'Queen Elizabeth' is at best ambiguous and, if one is forced to choose' generally means the present queen. Would you have simply put 'King Edward'?

::*It would be if the door was subsequently repaired and broken again.

::*No, Marx does not need disambiguation. Tell me then, which Romanov were you clearly implying?

::As I mentioned originally, none of these issues is going to put off the confident and intelligent student for long, but they do reveal to such a student a lack of attention to detail on the question setting which I don't think sets a good example.--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 16:34, 17 December 2011 (EST)

:::Andy, just admit it... some of your questions were not as well-written as they could have been. There are other questions not mentioned by QPR that should have been reworded if the exam were properly proofread. It will reflect worse on you if you don't admit this. Also, ''"Who first broke the door?"'' What are you even trying to say? --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 01:14, 18 December 2011 (EST)