Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Hearsay society

2015-11-25T17:37:08Z

CPalmer: /* Notable examples */ I don't think Philip Roth should be above Jesus

[[Image:Jdfu6r7.JPG|right|thumb|''Sapere aude!'' The Enlightenment thinker [[John Locke]].]]
The '''hearsay society''' is a term used to describe a prevailing current of thought, stemming in large part from the popularity of [[Wikipedia]], that discourages making statements unless a reference can be found to others having said them already; and if a reference is found, then the statements are considered true regardless of whether the reference consists of unreliable [[hearsay]]. This is a form of [[intellectual cowardice]], and can lead to the propagation of misleading, incorrect or deliberately untrue information, while some individuals abandon even the attempt at using their own [[logic]] or thinking for themselves. In the hearsay society the use of [[hearsay]] is so rampant that participants can lose the ability to recognize the difference between what is hearsay, and what is not.

==Notable examples==
*When confronted with the logic and even miracles performed by [[Jesus]], [[Pharisees]] insisted that Jesus cite "authorities" for his truths. Imagine listening to the [[Prodigal Son]] and then asking the absurd question, ''do you have any references for this?''

*Philip Roth: An absurd situation took place at [[Wikipedia]] when author Philip Roth was trying to correct a serious misstatement that his novel “The Human Stain” was “inspired by the life of the writer Anatole Broyard.” This alleged allegation was in no way substantiated by fact as the novel was inspired, rather, by an unhappy event in the life of author's late friend Melvin Tumin, professor of sociology at Princeton. The correction was refused on grounds that Roth, was not a credible source: “I understand your point that the author is the greatest authority on their own work,” wrote the Wikipedia Administrator—“but we require secondary sources.”<ref name="Open letter"/> Consequently, author Philip Roth had to publish an open letter in The New Yorker to satisfy the editors of Wikipedia<ref name="The Guardian">{{cite web |author=Cory Doctorow|title=Why Philip Roth needs a secondary source|publisher=The Guardian|date=19 September 2012 |accessdate=03-June-2013|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/sep/19/why-philip-roth-needs-secondary-source|quote=Author Philip Roth had to publish a letter in The New Yorker to satisfy the editors of Wikipedia...}}</ref> while complaining that items entering Wikipedia are not from the world of truthfulness but from the babble of literary gossip—there is no truth in it at all.<ref name="Open letter">{{cite web |author=Philip Roth|title=An Open Letter To Wikipedia|date=September 7, 2012|accessdate=03-June-2013|url=http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-wikipedia.html|quote=Dear Wikipedia, I am Philip Roth. I had reason recently to read for the first time the Wikipedia entry discussing my novel “The Human Stain.” The entry contains a serious misstatement that I would like to ask to have removed. This item entered Wikipedia not from the world of truthfulness but from the babble of literary gossip—there is no truth in it at all.}}</ref>

==Wikipedia's role==
The online encyclopedia [[Wikipedia]] is fundamentally based on a form of [[hearsay]]. Assertions made in Wikipedia articles are required to be supported by references; this superficially gives an impression of rigor, but in practice it leads to a [[parrot]]ting of the opinions of others and a negation of the individual's ability to use his intelligence to make connections and insights based on [[logic]]. Wikipedia typically dismisses logical inferences as original research; according to Wikipedia policy, this is contrary to the aspiration (itself highly problematic) that articles should present topics from a neutral point of view. As a result, such inferences are swiftly deleted, regardless of their insight or obvious truth.

While original research is permitted on other Wikimedia projects, such as [[Wikiversity]] and [[Wikibooks]], these sites are typically obscure and have negligible impact compared to Wikipedia. They may even have been established deliberately to channel original thought away from the mass exposure it would receive on Wikipedia.

Thanks to the growth and popularity of Wikipedia, the flawed expectation that all statements must be referenced has spread elsewhere, both in online communities and wider society, to the point where many are reluctant to express any view unless others have said it first. The result is a '''hearsay society''', where popularly-espoused "facts" are repeated and circulated endlessly, while truths and new insights are shut out, ignored or actively [[censorship|censored]]. Influenced by Wikipedia, some individuals will vehemently demand references in all kinds of situations where it is patently unnecessary or even absurd to do so.

===Degradation of standards===
An insistence that all statements must be referenced also leads to a gradual lowering of standards for what references are acceptable. For example, a contributor might want to add obvious statement A to an article, but has difficulty finding a reference. He eventually finds statement A made in source B, which is of questionable quality; he adds the reference and the source is allowed to pass in that instance because of a commonsense desire among those involved to have statement A in the article. But future contributors can then take that use of source B as a precedent and use it to reference other, more questionable statements. Over time, this flawed system inevitably leads to progressively worse and worse sources being used, resulting in ever more hearsay and misleading or wrong information diluting the usable content.

==Comparison with the Enlightenment==
[[Image:392.jpg|right|thumb|180px|[[Voltaire]]: An opponent of [[censorship]] who would not have approved of the hearsay society.]]
Ironically, this subservience to hearsay and the authority of others is antithetical to the spirit of the [[Enlightenment]] which gave birth to the first encyclopedia and the [[scientific method]] - even though many of its most diligent proponents would claim to be scientists themselves. The motto of the Enlightenment was ''Sapere aude!'' - ie "Dare to know [for yourself]!" rather than uncritically accept what you are told. This has been twisted out of all recognition by today's self-proclaimed "scientific community" and other groups, as they claim to idolize the great scientific thinkers while rejecting the spirit of inquiry that brought them their success.

The hearsay society attitude also compares unfavorably with [[Voltaire]]'s famous maxim "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the [[death]] your right to say it." Those who insist on censoring obvious truths on the pretext that no one can be found to have said them before are effectively saying the exact opposite: "I do not necessarily dispute what you say, but I am nevertheless going to try to stop you from saying it."

==Comparison with Declaration of Independence==
One of the founding documents of the [[United States of America]], the [[Declaration of Independence]], begins by asserting certain truths as "self-evident". The [[Founding Fathers]] who wrote it did not see the need to look for references or other parties who had made the assertions before, and that tone of self-reliance and confidence chimes throughout the rest of the Declaration, and indeed has informed the US's enterprising and pragmatic spirit in the centuries that followed.

This example shows how Wikipedia and the hearsay society are at odds with the approach taken by history's great men - including those with great practical achievements as well as thinkers. The hearsay society might even be considered "un-American".

Conversely, [[socialist]] and other left- or [[liberal]]-leaning societies have been characterized by a deference to authority, even when those in authority are clearly mistaken or deliberately acting against the interests of the society in question. This deferential tendency is of a piece with the attitudes that drive the hearsay society - supposed authorities, whether scientific, political, social or trivial, are taken as arbiters of truth regardless of their real credentials, and even when individuals' own logic ought to guide them otherwise.

==Biblical commentary==
===Pharisees===
The similarities between the hearsay society and the [[Pharisee]]s who opposed [[Jesus]] are marked. As a group, the Pharisees were characterised by a petty and inflexible adherence to rules whose observance had long been divorced from their original purpose; and by a scandalized reaction to anyone who dared to think for himself rather than accept the views of authorities who they saw as beyond question.

The hearsay society is perhaps the most common modern manifestation of both of these Pharisee-like tendencies. Where the Pharisees ignored or tried to suppress truths because they came from Jesus (a carpenter by trade) rather than the priests of the temple, the hearsay society similarly censors or refuses to acknowledge anything not recycled from a limited pool of approved sources. Where the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus for spurious violations of the [[Sabbath]], so the hearsay society censors through recourse to rules on citation, regardless of how badly they might be misapplied, or how irrelevant they might be to the case in question.

===Jesus's teaching===
[[Jesus]] also touched more directly on the topic of hearsay when speaking to his disciples. [[Gospel of Mark|Mark]] chapter 8 contains the following (verses 27-29):
{{cquote|And Jesus went out with His disciples into the towns of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way He asked His disciples, saying unto them, “Who do men say that I am?”

And they answered, “[[John the Baptist]]; but some say [[Elijah]], and others, one of the prophets.”

And He said unto them, “But whom say ye that I am?” And [[Peter]] answered and said unto Him, “Thou art the [[Messiah|Christ]]."}}

There was a great deal of hearsay circulating about Jesus himself, much of it apparently unfounded speculation about his identity. Jesus warns his disciples to put what they have heard second-hand to one side, and instead make their own interpretation of the evidence they have seen: not "who do men say" but "whom say ye". Disregarding the hearsay, [[Peter]] then finds that he can provide the correct answer - despite its surprising and challenging nature, and despite his own lack of scholarly education.

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Wikipedia]]
[[Category:Epistemology]]
[[Category:Censorship]]

Things named after places

2014-09-29T20:35:46Z

CPalmer: hat

*[[France|French]] {{s2|french|fries}}
*[[Frankfurt]]er - a [[hot dog]] named after the German city but not often eaten there
*[[Wien]]er - a [[hot dog]] sausage named for, Vienna, the capital of Austria (German: Wien)
*[[Hamburg]]er - a [[hamburger|sandwich]], named after the German city
*[[Ebola River]] [[Ebola virus|virus]]
*[[Panama]] {{s2|Panama|hat}} - not made in Panama (according to Ripley's ''Believe It Or Not'')

*[[Buffalo, New York|Buffalo]] [[Buffalo wings|wings]] - style of deep fried [[chicken]] wings invented at the Anchor Bar in Buffalo, New York
*[[Bermuda]] [[Bermuda shorts|shorts]]
*[[Canada|Canadian]] [[Canadian bacon|bacon]]
*[[Netherlands|Dutch]] [[dutch oven|oven]]
*[[England|English]] [[English muffin|muffin]]
*[[Hollywood Values]] - anti-Christian deceit foisted upon us by the liberal elite
* Wiener Schnitzel - a fried veal cutlet called "Viennese Schnitzel" in German
*Milanesa - a fried meat cutlet made in the "Milanese" style popular among Mexican-Americans
*[[Parma]] [[Parma ham|ham]]
*[[Champagne]] - named after [[Champagne (France)|Champagne]], a region in France
*[[Mayon]]naise - [[mayonnaise]] after Mayon in Menorca
*[[Denmark|Danish]] [[Danish pastries|pastries]] - called Viennese Pastries there
*[[Vaudeville]] [[vaudeville|theater]]
*[[Belgium|Belgian]] [[Belgian waffles|waffles]]
*[[Shanghai]] - a [[darts]] term meaning to hit the single, double and treble of the same number in three darts.
*Bombay mix - named after the old name for [[Mumbai]].
*[[Bikini]] bathing suit - this was being promoted just after a hydrogen bomb test in the Bikini atoll in the [[Pacific]], and that word was in the news. The promoters of the bathing suit thought that it would be a good name.
*[[Panama]] hat
[[Category:Items]]

Internet slang

2013-04-19T16:45:03Z

CPalmer: /* List of Abbreviations */ fix typo

'''Internet slang''' is slang that Internet users have created and used, often in instant messaging and forum discussions. They are frequently acronyms (often contain three letters), designed to save keystrokes in an attempt to speed up communication.

According to [[Harvard]] professor and conservative sociologist Steven Shapin, Internet Slang is an interpretation of language that people have found neccesary to create to confuse the "older" generation. [http://www.internetisseriousbusiness.com]

== List of Abbreviations==

*'''2:''' Substitution for to, too, and two.
*'''4:''' Substitution for for and four.
*'''AFAICT:''' As far as I can tell.
*'''AFAIK:''' As far as I know.
*'''AFAIR:''' As far as I recall/remember.
*'''AFAIAW:''' As far as I am aware.
*'''AFK:''' Away from keyboard.
*'''ASL:''' A request for Age, Sex, and Location.
*'''ATM:''' At The Moment.
*'''BBL:''' be back later.
*'''BBIAB:''' be back in a bit.
*'''bewbs:''' breasts.
*'''BRB:''' Be Right Back.
*'''btw:''' By the way.
*'''ch00b:''' Person who acts like a n00b, but has skill levels or a kill/death ratio of someone who is considered 1337. Typically spends time bragging, flaming, and asking question he or she should know.
*'''D00d:''' [[L33tsp43k]] spelling of "dude".
*'''ftw:''' For the win.
*'''GDR:''' Grinning, Ducking and Running. Usually typed right after making a groan-inducing joke.
*'''g2g:''' got to go, gotta go.
*'''gg:''' Good game. Somtimes an 'a' is added to make gga: good game all.
*'''gl:''' Good luck.
*'''IANAL:''' Sometimes IANALB, "I am not a lawyer (but)" said right before (usually) poor legal advice.
*'''IIRC:''' If I remember correctly.
*'''IRL:''' In Real Life.
*'''IM:''' Abbreviation for Instant Messaging.
*'''IMHO''' In My Humble Opinion, or just "IMO" - In my opinion
*'''l8r:''' later.
*'''1337''' Leet. Usually means good, but some say it stands for Elite. Also the name for turning letters into numbers and symbols.
*'''LMAO''' Laughing My A** Off
*'''LOL:''' Laugh Out Loud.
*'''lvl:''' Level.
*'''m8:''' Mate.
*'''Newb''' Person is unskilled at whatever task they are trying to perform due to lack of experience.
*'''Noob''' Person is unskilled at whatever task they are trying to perform due to lack of experience and refuse to acknowledge their difficulty with the task.
*'''Omgwtfbbq''' is an internet slang term used in many MMORPG games like World of Warcraft. It is used as an expression of confusion and when someone asks an absurd newbie question. It is usually meant to be taken sarcastically. Although it can occasionally be used when someone is utterly confused by something that was said. Its various parts stand for, respectively, "Oh My G_d," "what the f___," and "barbecue," each of which can also appear individually, although "bbq," alone, is not actually considered internet slang.
*'''POS:''' Parent Over Shoulder. Usually used in IM conversations to alert the other participant of the presence of an adult/parent, and thus to avoid saying something inappropriate.
*'''Pwn:''' Defeat someone, misspelling of "own".
*'''Pwnt:''' If someone "pwns" you, you have been pwnt. Usually spelled with an 'ed' rather than a 't'.
*'''ROFL:''' Rolling On The Floor Laughing.
*'''Roflcopter:''' An extreme version of "rofl," or, "rolling on the floor laughing." Originated on World of Warcraft forums.
*'''ty:''' Thank You
*'''TMI:''' Too much information.
*'''U:''' Substitution for you.
*'''Ur:''' Substitution for your, you're, you are.
*'''WTF:''' exclamation of great bewilderment. Acronym for What The F***
*'''WYSIWYG:''' What you see is what you get, also a word processing editor type.
*'''ZOMG:''' An extreme version of "Oh my God!"

==List of Terms==
*Troll
*leet

==Symbols==

These are viewed by turning one's head sideways to the left.

* :-) is a smile - eventually known as a "smiley" and first posted 27 years ago by Scott E. Fahlman
* ;-) is a wink
* :-( is a frown
* XD is laughter

There are many variations on the above symbols (which are also known as 'emoticons'). Some symbols are called emoticons but are really examples of sideways ASCII art.

[[category:internet culture]]

George Clinton (musician)

2012-09-26T08:11:20Z

CPalmer: more songs

'''George Clinton''' is a seminal figure of American Funk music. He has been making [[music]] since the 1970s with Parliament, Funkadelic, P-Funk, and George Clinton and the P-Funk All-Stars.

His popular songs include Atomic Dog, Up for the Down Stroke, We Want the Funk, Give Up the Funk, Knee Deep (In the Funk), Doctor Funkenstein, and P-Funk (Wants To Get Funked Up).

==External Links==
*http://www.georgeclinton.com

{{DEFAULTSORT:Clinton, George}}
[[category:musicians]]

Chedorlaomer

2012-09-21T16:15:35Z

CPalmer: cats

King of Elam in the time of [[Abraham|Abram]]. When the city of [[Sodom]] rebelled against his rule, he attacked them with his army and carried the citizens of Sodom off as captives, including [[Lot]], Abram's nephew. See Genesis 14:1-17.<ref>http://www.weseejesus.com/bibledictionary/chedorlaomer.html</ref>

Some inscriptions have been found with the name of KHUDUR-LAGAMAR king of Elam, which is supposed to be the same as Chedorlaomer.

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Monarchs]]
[[Category:Biblical Persons]]

Climategate emails

2012-09-21T16:14:02Z

CPalmer: cat

The following are some of the controversial [[ClimateGate]] emails, grouped by category, main source is the list at WattsUpWithThat.com[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/06/250-plus-noteworthy-climategate-2-0-emails/]. Key points are in bold:

==Dendrochronology==
{{cquote|Because '''how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data ‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it! If we write the Holocene forum article then we’ll have to be critical or our paper as well as Crowley’s!'''
...
Also '''we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were'''

'''Also, we set all post-1960 values to missing''' in the MXD data set (due to decline), and the method will infill these, estimating them from the real temperatures – another way of “correcting” for the decline, though may be not defensible![Tim Osborne][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/in-case-you-missed-it-damning.html]}}
{{cquote|ddate: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 17:58:49 +100 from: hleusch@gwdg.de subject: Kelly-paper to: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>

Keith, I now found the time to read the paper more carefully, together with the figures. I think except of my basic critics (no regard of replication) the results are astonishing good. '''The trick to substract pdsi-values and to calculate significance in comparison to the previous year does pretty nice hide the information how many of the negative signature years in the 20th century had really been dry years''' - at least in 1956 the opposite is true. However astonishing interesting results, especially for me the 3-4 years ring widt suppressions following cold winters which you explain by climatic reasons and which I see as medium term reaction on damage in cold winters. So - from my side no hints for changes in the hurry (this week I am overbusy with an everyday course in Dendrochronology for students) but the hope that we will one day find the time to repeat the study a bit more carefully. Cheers Hubert Dr. Hanns Hubert Leuschner Univ. Goettingen -Labor f. Dendrochronologie u. Dendroklimatologie- Von-Siebold-Str. 3a D-37075 Goettingen Phone: +49-551-3912153[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/2002-climategate-email-to-keith-briffa.html]}}
{{cquote|The main point to make, one that Richard seems to be totally oblivious to, is that there is no evidence for loss of sensitivity prior to the 20th century in a large-scale NH sense like that seen in the 20th century. On the other hand, there is evidence that there was not a loss of sensitivity in a large-scale NH sense in my QSR paper (Fig. 6). I acknowledge the weakness in the data prior to about 1200, but even so the regional comparisons only show divergence between north and south in the 20th century, with none indicated during the putative MWP. [Ed Cook]
...
'''I do think that if Richard is suspect, dendro has a real problem''' [overpeck]

As you probably know, I was originally invited to give a talk on The Topic (a scientific version of the The Troubles in Northern Ireland) that Rosanne gave before the NRC panel....I recommended that Keith give a talk to the NRC panel in my place because, in my estimation, he is the only other person in the world who can discuss in a totally objective way the hockystick and other reconstructions of past temperatures at the methodological level that is really at the heart of all the controversy, e.g. the hockeystick. [Ed Cook]
...Peck--I almost sent this to Susan tonight, copied to you, but then thought I had better run it by you first, quickly. I think that Susan has to be notified--'''I fear that the tree-ring reconstructions really are in bad shape, and that the IPCC and chapter 6 have a big problem coming up.''' I'll be in the office tomorrow if you want to call--814???--but I want to notify Susan soon.--Richard[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/uh-oh-has-real-problem-fear-that-tree.html]}}
{{cquote|5) I am not sure whether it is wise to add me to the CA list, just because the reviewer is supposed to be impartial and a CA loses that appearance of impartiality if he has now been included as a CA - may want to check with Susan S. on this one to be sure - still happy to provide advice [Crowley]

My own position on this is that you are an "unofficial" referee, who has (and still is) making a significant contribution - I see no conflict [Briffa]
---
What we worry very much about, however, is that we should not produce a Figure that then conflicts with the picture of proxy evidence for Hemispheric mean warmth as a whole,shown in the main Chapter Figure. By showing a composite (as Tom has done) and scaling against another (30-90degrees N) temperature record - this is just what is done. [briffa]

ABSOLUTELY RIGHT - CAN'T HAVE CONFLICT. [overpeck]...

WHAT ABOUT THE IDEA THAT WE ONLY SHOW THE SERIES FOR THE MWP, SINCE THE COMPARISON TO THE 20TH CENTURY IS DONE WELL (AND BEST?) IN THE TEXT FIGS (WHICH I'M ATTACHING JUST IN CASE TOM DOESN'T HAVE, ALONG WITH THE TEXT - IF YOU HAVE TIME, TOM, PLEASE READ COMMENT ON ANYTHING YOU WISH, BUT CERTAINLY THE LAST 2000 YEARS BIT - ASSUME YOU'LL BE DOING THIS AT THE REVIEW STAGE ANYHOW...) '''ANOTHER THING THAT IS A REAL ISSUE IS SHOWING SOME OF THE TREE-RING DATA FOR THE PERIOD AFTER 1950. BASED ON THE LITERATURE, WE KNOW THESE ARE BIASED - RIGHT? SO SHOULD WE SAY THAT'S THE REASON THEY ARE NOT SHOWN? OF COURSE, IF WE ONLY PLOT THE FIG FROM CA 800 TO 1400 AD, IT WOULD DO WHAT WE WANT, FOCUS ON THE MWP ONLY''' [overpeck][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/overpeck-thing-that-is-real-issue-is.html]}}
{{cquote|'''We actually eliminate records with negative correlations''' (this is mentioned breifly in the GRL article,), and we investigated a variety of weighting schemes to assure the basic robustness of the composite--but I certainly endorse your broader point here. '''Many of these records have some significant uncertainties or possible sources of bias''', and this isn't the place to get into that. [Michael Mann]
...
It was a majority decision to leave the Mann and Jones 2000-year series in the Figure 1 (as it was to remove the Briffa and Osborn tree-ring based one) , and the details of the logic used to derive the Mann and Jones series is to be found in the (cited) text of their paper. Signing on to this letter , in my mind. implies agreement with the text and not individual endorsement of all curves by each author. I too have expressed my concern to Phil (and Ray) over the logic that you leave all series you want in but just weight them according to some (sometimes low) correlation (in this case based on decadal values). '''I also believe some of the series that make up the Chinese record are dubious or obscure , but the same is true of other records Mann and Jones have used (e.g. how do you handle a series in New Zealand that has a -0.25 correlation?) . Further serious problems are still (see my and Tim's Science comment on the Mann 1999 paper) lurking with the correction applied to the Western US tree-ring PC amplitude series used (and shown in Figure 2). There are problems (and limitations ) with ALL series used. At this stage , singling out individual records for added (and unavoidably cursory added description) is not practical.''' [Keith Briffa][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/mann-actually-eliminate-records-with.html]}}
{{cquote|1. '''There are few tree-core series that extend beyond the early 1980s. This is because many of the sites we're using were cored before the early 1980s. So most tree-ring records just don't exist post 1980.''' [Phil Jones]
...
If you look at the figure in the attached article in Science by Briffa and Osborn, you will note that tree-ring temperature reconstructions are flat from 1950 onward. I asked Mike Mann about this discrepancy at a meeting recently, and he said he didn't have an explanation. '''It sounded like it is an embarrassment to the tree ring community that their indicator does not seem to be responding to the pronounced warming of the past 50 years.''' Ed Cook of the Lamont Tree-Ring Lab tells me that there is some speculation that stratospheric ozone depletion may have affected the trees, in which
case the pre-1950 record is OK. But alternatively, he says '''it is possible that the trees have exceeded the linear part of their temperature-sensitive range, and they no longer are stimulated by temperature. In this case there is trouble for the paleo record.''' Kieth Briffa first documented this
late 20th century loss of response.

'''Personally, I think that the tree ring records should be able to reproduce the instrumental record, as a first test of the validity of this proxy. To me it casts doubt on the integrity of this proxy that it fails this test.'''

Sincerely, Jeff [Severinghaus][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/01/why-did-trees-allegedly-stop.html]}}
{{cquote|If you examine my Fig 1 closely you will see that the Campito record and Keith's reconstruction from wood density are extraordinarily similar until 1850. After that they differ not only in the lack of long-term trend in Keith's record, '''but in every other respect - the decadal-scale correlation breaks down.''' I tried to imply in my e-mail, but will now say it directly, that '''although a direct carbon dioxide effect is still the best candidate to explain this effect, it is far from proven. In any case, the relevant point is that there is no meaningful correlation with local temperature. Not all high-elevation tree-ring records from the West that might reflect temperature show this upward trend.''' It is only clear in the driest parts (western) of the region (the Great Basin), above about 3150 meters elevation, in trees old enough (>~800 years) to have lost most of their bark - 'stripbark' trees. As luck would have it, these are precisely the trees that give the chance to build temperature records for most of the Holocene. I am confident that, before AD1850, they do contain a record of decadal-scale growth season temperature variability. '''I am equally confident that, after that date, they are recording something else.''' [Malcolm Hughes][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/in-case-you-missed-it-hockey-stick-co.html]}}
{{cquote|date: Mon Nov 13 09:29:49 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Mitrie to: "Nanne Weber"

Between you and I , I believe '''there may be problems with the analysis of the Bristlecone data.''' We can talk by phone about this Keith[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/more-settled-science-keith-briffa-2006.html]}}

==Ice Cores==
{{cquote|Hi Keith,
Of course, I agree with you. We both know the probable flaws in Mike's recon, particularly as it relates to the tropical stuff. Your response is also why I chose not to read the published version of his letter. It would be too aggravating. The only way to deal with this whole issue is to show in a detailed study that his estimates are clearly deficient in multi-centennial power, something that you actually did in your Perspectives piece, even if it was not clearly stated because of editorial cuts. It is puzzling to me that a guy as bright as Mike would be so unwilling to evaluate his own work a bit more objectively.
Ed [Cook]

I have just read this lettter - and I think it is crap. I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature representative ) tropical series. He is just as capable of regressing these data again any other "target" series , such as the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbage he has produced over the last few years , and ... (better say no more) Keith [Briffa]

At every meeting I go to where Mike gives a talk, he always presents more on why his series is correct. Honestly, most people I talk to think that he is being way too defensive (as we all know too well). In any case, he is coming out with a new NH reconstruction. It will be interesting to see what it looks like. One problem is that he will be using the RegEM method, which provides no better diagnostics (e.g. betas) than his original method. So we will still not know where his estimates are coming from. Cheers, Ed [Cook]

[Met Office/Hadley's Simon Tett]
'''1) Didn't see a justification for use of tree-rings and not using ice cores -- the obvious one is that ice cores are no good -- see Jones et al, 1998. 2) No justification for regional reconstructions rather than what Mann et al did (I don't think we can say we didn't do Mann et al because we think it is crap!)'''[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/climategate-scientists-on-michael-mann.html]}}
{{cquote|Solution 1: fudge the issue. Just accept that we are Fast-trackers and can therefore get away with anything. [Mike Hulme]

'''In any simple global formula, there should be at least two clearly identifiable sources of uncertainty. One is the sensitivity (d(melt)/dT) and the other is the total available ice. In the TAR, the latter never comes into it in their analysis (i.e., the 'derivation' of the GSIC formula) -- but my point is that it *does* come in by accident due to the quadratic fudge factor.''' The total volume range is 5-32cm, which is, at the very least, inconsistent with other material in the chapter (see below). 5cm is clearly utterly ridiculous.[Tom Wigley, 2004]

'''I will press on with trying to work out why the temperature needs a 'fudge factor' along with the poorer modelling for winter.''' [Colin Harpham, UEA, 2007]

With GCMs the issue is different. '''Tuning may be a way to fudge the physics.''' For example, understanding of clouds or aerosols is far from complete - so (ideally) researchers build the "best" model they can within the constraints of physical understanding and computational capacity. Then they tweak parameters to provide a good approximation to observations. It is this context that all the talk about "detuning" is confusing. How does one speak of "detuning" using the same physical models as before? A "detuned" model merely uses a different set of parameters that match observations - it not hard to find multiple combinations of parameters that give the similar model outputs (in complex models with many parameters/degrees of freedom) So how useful is a detuned model that uses old physics? Why is this being seen as some sort of a breakthrough? [Milind Kandlikar]

We had to remove the reference to "700 years in France" as I am not sure what this is , and it is not in the text anyway. '''The use of "likely" , "very likely" and my additional fudge word "unusual" are all carefully chosen where used.''' [Keith Briffa, 2004]

Either the scale needs adjusting, or '''we need to fudge the figures'''... [Elaine Barrow, UEA, 2005][[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/climategate-emails-oh-fudge.html]]}}

==Coral Dating==
{{cquote|cc: Malcolm Hughes
date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 13:55:44 -0500
from: “Michael E. Mann”
subject: [Fwd: Re: Trees]
to: Jonathan Overpeck , Keith Briffa

FYI, Mike

From: “Michael E. Mann”
Reply-To: mann@psu.edu
Organization: Dept. of Meteorology, Penn State University
To: Richard Alley
Subject: Re: Trees References:

Hi Richard,
Thanks, that sounds reasonable. Let me respond to one point, though. I rebuked Cuffey for
asking the wrong question.
I pointed out to him that '''we certainly don’t know the GLOBAL mean temperature anomaly very well''', and nobody has ever claimed we do (this is the question he asked everyone). There is very little information at all in the Southern Hemisphere on which to base any conclusion. So I told him that of course the answer to that question is *no* and it would be surprising if anyone answered otherwise. But, as I proceeded to point out, that’s the wrong question. I pointed out that a far more sensible question is, “do we know the relative temperature anomaly for the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE to within that accuracy, and that we almost certainly do know that. I pointed to a comparison of about a dozen different reconstructions, at least one of them based entirely on non-tree ring information, all of which agree within about 0.2 C on average temperature of the 11th century relative to the late 20th century, and suggested that this reflects a reasonable estimate of the uncertainty, though some of the reconstructions are not entirely independent, so the non-independence needs to be taken into account in estimating the true uncertainty–but that this is almost certainly smaller than about 0.2C given the multiple estimates that roughly agree. I then pointed out that we don’t need the global temperature to draw conclusions about the relative roles of different natural and anthropogenic forcings, because the models tell us that the NH alone is a good proxy for the response of the climate system to estimated forcings over the past 1000 years, and that the simulations (also about a dozen now) look very much like the reconstructions, within estimated uncertainties. I could be wrong, but I thought I sensed that the panel was quite satisfied with my answer (and my correction of Cuffey) and that they also probably recognized, in the context of my explanation, that Cuffey had been asking speakers the wrong question! I must confess I was not impressed by Cuffey’s questions. I thought the other panel members asked more insightful questions. But that’s just my view.
talk later,
mike
The question by Richard Alley wrote:

Mike–Thanks. Comments embedded, I hope.
On 3/19/06 4:53 PM, “Michael E. Mann” [1] wrote:

Hi Richard,
Thanks for your email, and for your earnest views. There was indeed considerable discussion of thes issues on friday, the day after your talk. Both Malcolm Hughes and I discussed these issues in some detail with the committee. Please feel free to take a look at the presentation I gave to the committee: [2]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/lectures/lectures.html
Quite nice. Thanks.
There is no doubt that '''there are issues with the potential non-stationarity of tree responses to climate, and this introduces caveats.''' As I pointed out to the committee, these issues were actually stressed in our ’99 article which produced the millennial temperature reconstruction, the title of which was (emphasis added) “Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations“. '''The underlying assumption of our own work has always been that each of the proxies have their own potential problems''', and “multiproxy” approaches are probably the most robust. I don’t have a particular axe to grind about any particular proxy, and recognize that '''there are some pretty serious potential problems with all proxies, including ice core delta o18 (as you’re aware, these are not clean paleotemperature proxies at all), and Sr/Ca or o18 from corals.''' There is a good discussion of the strengths and weaknesses in all of the proxies in Jones and Mann (2004): Jones, P.D., Mann, M.E., Climate Over Past Millennia, Reviews of Geophysics, 42, RG2002, doi: 10.1029/2003RG000143, 2004.
Agreed completely on value of multiproxy. And yes, '''a lot of my earlier work was on figuring out how much of the isotopic signal in ice cores is temperature and not other things.''' The reassuring result was that all the big stuff is temperature, although with a rather bizarrely unexpected calibration. Of the little stuff, '''stack several cores and you get up toward order of half of the variance being temperature with the rest left for something else. The devil is in the details of when big meets little, as well as what calibration to use.''' But, there is a pile of data from the 3% of the globe that is ice sheets that have not been assembled properly. I’ve been trying in a quiet way to do what is possible so that the recommendations are forward-going; if the recommendations are appropriate, who knows, maybe money will become available to get someone to pull the data together.

I won’t try to defend Rosanne D’Arrigo’s analysis, because frankly many in the tree-ring community feel it was not very good work.You should be aware that her selection criteria were not as rigorous as those used by other researchers, and the conclusions she comes to reflect only the data and standardization methods she used–they don’t speak for many other, in my mind, more careful studies. If you want the views of the leading experts in this community, I would refer you to my colleagues Malcolm Hughes and Keith Briffa, who have been carefully researching these issues for decades. With your permission, I’d like to forward your email to them for a more informed response–would that be ok? My comments may not be ideally suited for Keith. When I sent inquiry to Overpeck (who coincidentally happens to be one of the convening lead authors of the IPCC paleoclimate chapter), he promptly sent it to several others including Keith. Keith’s reassurances were among those that I found less than reassuring–Rosanne probably screwed it up, there are some unpublished data that make it look better. (Unfortunately, in my switch from my old Sun to my new G4, I can’t find that message and a couple of related ones. I fear that I will repeat this statement a few times in the near future–what was supposed to be an afternoon changeover took three weeks, and a lot of things were in limbo during the interim. I’m now trying to adapt a file system that developed on Suns since 1988 to a different computer…). Ed Cook was also on the list; I can’t for the life of me remember whether Malcolm was or not. So fine to send there, and to Keith if you’d like, but it will probably insult him, and I would hate to do that.
>From the questions asked by the community, I really only sensed from one individual the sort of extreme tree-ring skepticism that you describe. And I frankly think the individual proved himself to be not especially informed. The committee appeared to be convinced by the responses I provided to that individual. In short (and please see my presentation for further information) I made the following points:
1) multiproxy reconstructions that don’t use tree-ring information at all for the long-term variability (Moberg et al, 2005) agree w/ all other (roughly a dozen now) reconstructions that late 20th century warmth is anomalous in the context of the past 2000 years at the hemispheric scale. This is one key point (i.e, the take home conclusion doesn’t depend on tree-rings at all!). Another point I made is that the criticism (by some) that tree-rings underestimate the low-frequency variability is seriously challenged by the fact that temperature reconstructions based on data such as northern hemisphere glacier mass balance inversions (i.e. Oerlemans et al, 2005) show less hemispheric LIA cooling than many of the purely tree-ring based reconstructions. Another point I made in response to this line of criticism is that many of the long-term tree-ring series used in these reconstructions (see e.g. the recent Science article by Osborn and Briffa) show late 20th century conditions that are unprecedented in at least a millennial context. That is to say, if there is some upper temperature threshold in the past beyond which trees do not record, they do not appear to have encountered that threshold prior to the late 20th century, because the most positive anomalies in more than a thousand years are encountered in the last 20th century for most regions. The Osborn and Briffa science paper (attached) shows that the conclusion of anomalous 20th century warmth is spatially robust in a pan-hemispheric data set, it does not just reflect one region (in fact, they show that their conclusion of anomalous late 20th century warmth is robust to the elimination of any three data series used). Of course, Lonnie Thompson comes to the same conclusion using composites of his tropical ice cores. i.e., that the late 20th century behavior is anomalous in a greater-than-millennial context. Of course, tropical ice core delta o18 is difficult to defend as a purepaleothermometer too, but in this case it is difficult to see where non-climatic impacts
could enter into the anomalous late 20th century behavior. I had read Osborn and Briffa with great interest when it came out. I attach my talk; Lonnie’s data figured prominently. '''His isotopic ratios have always worried me; he personally is coauthor on a paper pointing out that whatever they are, they probably aren’t temperature.''' I am more optimistic than that, but not much. And his beautiful stack that looks so much like the instrumental record is almost entirely a couple of cores. But what he does have are i) the loss of annual layering in Quelccaya after more than a millennium; ii) the appearance of melt at the top of Kilimanjaro after more than 10 millennia; and iii) the appearance of organic matter from one of the outlets of Quelccaya after more than 5 millennia. Unfortunately, (iii) is not published yet, (ii) is not as well published as it should be (he noted the appearance of melt in the paper, but the slide I showed is from him and not published, and the details of the physical nature of the cores are not out there), and (iii) is also not published–his papers note the existence of the annual layers and then their loss in isotopes, but the actual deepest level reached is not in the papers but given as a personal communication. The difficulty of spending your life at high altitude or publishing Science papers is that the mundane parts don’t come out so easily.
So, in short, while the issues you mention are real (and have been emphasized by those actually working in this area for decades, as well as by us in all of our key publications), the primary conclusions (i.e. that late 20th century warmth is robust in at least a millennial context) appears robust, and is common to reconstructions whether or not they use tree-rings to reconstruct the low-frequency variability. . There is yet another study (embargoed right now in Science) that comes precisely to this same conclusion yet again.
I’ll actually be quite surprised if the committee comes to a *different* conclusion from that. Nonetheless, I appreciate your comments and your concerns, and your message does highlight a few issues which would be useful for us to clarify for the committee in case there is still any misunderstanding of the key points I have raised.
I surely hope you’re right, but I would wager a beer that they are less favorable than you’d like. I don’t know how you answered, but all the people I heard were asked the same thing: Do we know the temperature of a millennium ago within 0.5 C? All gave some qualified version of “no”.
As I said, I’d like to be able to forward your message to Keith and Malcolm, if this is ok w/ you, so that they can provide a perhaps even better informed response to the criticisms you raise. So please let me know if that would be ok…
As noted above, I want to get the science right, and if you think appropriate, go ahead. But, I fear that Keith will view them as insulting, and I don’t want to do that.
thanks,
mike
Thank you. Also as noted above, I don’t have time for this… But it is interesting.
–Richard

–
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University email: [3]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013[4]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm[http://junkscience.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0-mann-says-true-temp-anomaly-not-known-well/]}}
==Global Warming Methodology==
{{cquote|the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about <100 year extra-tropical NH temperature variability (at least as far as we believe the proxy estimates), '''but honestly know f***-all about what the >100 year variability was like with any certainty''' (i.e. we know with certainty that we know f***-all).[Ed Cook][http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/04/the-contextual-collection-of-climategate-2-0-quotes/]}}
{{cquote|The odd periods are the 1920s and the period from 1940-60. For the latter '''if the SSTs were adjusted they would look much better.''' The 1900s, 1910s for some reason look amazingly good.[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/phil-jones-for-1940-1960-period-ssts.html]}}
{{cquote|Sorry for sounding a bit testy here. I've been fielding a whole raft of questions, comments, and criticisms from Mike Mann, Tom Crowley, and Malcolm Hughes. Some of them useful, many of them tiresome or besides the point. '''I never wanted to get involved in this quixotic game of producing the next great NH temperature reconstruction''' because of the professional politics and sensitivities involved...I should also say that the amount of ignorance about tree rings in the global change/paleo/modeling community is staggering given what has been published. Like it or not, they simply don't read our papers.).
...
'''This all reinforces my determination to leave this NH/global temperature reconstruction junk behind me once I get this paper submitted.''' It's not worth the aggravation. [Ed Cook][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/warmist-ed-cook-all-reinforces-my.html]}}
{{cquote|'''I am increasingly unconvinced by the majority of climate impact studies - including some of those I am involved in - and feel we are not really giving the right message to our audiences.'''[Mike Hulme][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/great-quote-by-uea-warmist-mike-hulme.html]}}
{{cquote|'''All methods strongly underestimates the amplitude of low-frequency variability and trends. This means that it is almost impossible to conclude from reconstruction studies that the present period is warmer than any period in the reconstructed period.'''[Bo Christiansen][http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/04/the-contextual-collection-of-climategate-2-0-quotes/]}}
{{cquote|in the past five years, '''climate researchers have growing increasingly aware of how little they really know about the natural variability from which they must pick out the "signal" of human influence.'''[Fred Pearce][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/damning-quote-from-warmist-fred-pearce.html]}}
{{cquote|From: GIORGI FILIPPO To: Chapter 10 LAs -- Congbin Fu , GIORGI FILIPPO , Bruce Hewitson , Mike Hulme , Jens Christensen , Linda Mearns , Richard Jones , Hans von Storch , Peter Whetton Subject: On "what to do?" Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 16:58:02 +0200 ???(MET DST)

...First let me say that in general, as my own opinion, '''I feel rather unconfortable about using not only unpublished but also un reviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions''' (or any conclusions). I realize that chapter 9 is including SRES stuff, and thus we can and need to do that too, but the fact is that in doing so the rules of IPCC have been softened to the point that in this way '''the IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science''' (which is its proclaimed goal) but production of results. The softened condition that the models themself have to be published does not even apply because the Japanese model for example is very different from the published one which gave results not even close to the actual outlier version (in the old dataset the CCC model was the outlier). Essentially, '''I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes.''' I think this will set a dangerous precedent which might mine the IPCC credibility, and I am a bit unconfortable that now nearly everybody seems to think that it is just ok to do this. Anyways, this is only my opinion for what it is worth.[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/01/don-miss-this-devastating-criticism-of.html]}}
{{cquote|Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, '''if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip. I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately.''' This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. '''My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this''', so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. '''It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip".''' [Tom Wigley, to Phil Jones and Ben Santer][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/climategate-email-warmist-tom-wigley.html]}}
{{cquote|[David Thompson] As for the dip in 1945. After iterating with John Kennedy, it appears that the dip in 1945 corresponds to a sudden drop in US measurements in Aug 1945 (the US measurements were known to be biased warm, so the cooling is consistent with the loss of US data). But it is also now clear that the SST is fraught with many instrument changes between the 30s and 1961. So a conclusion we'll likely make is that the trend in SSTs between 1900 and the present is
reliable, but the behavior of the time series from the 1930s to the 1960s is not. '''That the
data are so unreliable between the 30s and 60s means we don't know for sure what happened
in terms of global-mean temperatures during that period.''' In fact, if you blank out the data
from the 30s to the 60s, you can actually imagine the globe warming weakly but continuously
during that period...
Hence, '''the only real evidence we have of a midcentury about-turn in global warming comes
from the land data'''.[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/2007-email-sst-data-are-so-unreliable.html]}}
{{cquote|Date: Thu Mar 27 16:46:23 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Truncating tem series before filtering to: Mike Salmon

Mike, Good. '''I doubt if any of them will notice.''' Cheers Phil
At 16:44 27/03/2008, you wrote:

Hi Phil, [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ '''now has the final year removed if incomplete'''. Batten hatches and prepare for Skeptix! Mike

Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 ??? School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 ??? University of East Anglia Norwich Email ???@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/email-3288-mike-salmon-cru-temperature.html]}}
{{cquote|What has struck me is how different an impression one gets of the 20th century change if one puts one's finger over the war year results--just '''seems very suspicious, and my recollection is that you are already making some pretty large adjustments over that period to things like nighttime marine air temperature''' (due to more measurements being near the wheelhouse instead of at the bow of the ship, etc.). [Mike MacCracken]

I think there was also an important and unfortunate psychological result of the 1940s high pointnamely it hid the early human influences and so let the argument be made that natural variability (internal and external) was larger than it has been, so the problem was not as bad as it really is. I have for quite a number of years asked people to put their finger over the WWII period and then look at the global record, and one gets a quite different impression of hat has been happening and its relation to human activities, etc. '''Basically, now, it will seem much more evident that human activities started earlier.''' [Mike MacCracken][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/maccracken-have-for-quite-number-of.html]}}
{{cquote|'''With 243 stations needing adjustments''', and 728 used, I presume the other 485 were considered to be OK without adjustment.[Phil Jones][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/phil-jones-2008-243-stations-needing.html]}}
{{cquote|Many of us were pleasantly surprised that our leading scientific societies have recently adopted such strong statements as to the reality and seriousness of anthropogenic climate change. There really is a scientific consensus, and it cannot be refuted or disproved by attacking any single data set.

I also think people need to come to understand that the scientific uncertainties work both ways. '''We don't understand cloud feedbacks. We don't understand air-sea interactions. We don't understand aerosol indirect effects. The list is long.''' Singer will say that uncertainties like these mean models lack veracity and can safely be ignored. What seems highly unlikely to me is that each of these uncertainties is going to make the climate system more robust against change. It is just as likely a priori that a poorly understood bit of physics might be a positive as a negative feedback.[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/2004-email-from-richard-somerville-don.html]}}
{{cquote|cc: "Folland, Chris" <chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk>, Hans.von.Storch@gkss.de, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>, "Brohan, Philip" <philip.brohan@metoffice.gov.uk>, Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 12:29:03 +0100 from: Hans.von.Storch@gkss.de subject: Re: FW: More on the "Hocky Stick" to: "Tett, Simon" <simon.tett@metoffice.gov.uk>

Simon, I think one should list three publications which have stirred some disucsions, namely ours, the one by Anders Moberg and colleagues and Steve Mcintyre's in GRL. I would assign the following significance ot these articles (just among us, please): -- ours: methodical basis for hockey stick reconstruction is weak; discussion was unwisely limited by IPCC declaring MBH to be "true". (Stupid, politicized action by IPCC, not MBH's responsbilkity. IPCC did one more of these silly oversellings - by showing the damage curve by Munich Re without proper caveat in the fig caption); -- Moberg: an alternative suggestion - this may turn out to be more or lesa accurate at a later time, but it is at least a serious hypothesis, which is consistent with the independent bore hole reconstruction and our model simulations. -- Mc&Mc: As far as I can say (we did not redo the analysis, but Francis Zwires did) '''the identfied glitch is real'''. One should not do it this way. ...Cheers Hans Hans von Storch
...
Keith/Hans/Chris, Defra do ask the impossible! Can you help me? Are there other papers I should be aware of? Hans/Chris are the statistical criticisms of Mackintyre and McKitrick OK? Philip -- do you have any thoughts? [Beyond that '''the paleo community cannot do stats!'''] (Keith/Hans we can claim to the EU that SOAP is informing policy now!) Simon Dr Simon Tett Managing Scientist, Data development and applications. Met Office Hadley Centre (Reading Unit)[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/climategate-email-politicized-action.html]}}
{{cquote|[Phil Jones] I've shown that the borehole data in Europe agree well with the long instrumental data in both the UK and Europe. The biggest differences/problems seem to come with the North American borehole data, which show the 16/17/18th data much cooler than the European/Asian/African data in the 16/17th century. I'm still reminded by the potential effects of land-use changes, principally in the eastern US, which could be making your North American series too cool. '''I realise you've taken great care with the selection, but this is a nagging doubt and will be picked up by the few skeptics trying to divide us all about the course of change over the last millennium.'''[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/phil-jones-on-inconvenient-data-realise.html]}}
==Freedom of Information Act Sidestepping==
{{cquote|[Phil Jones] '''When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions - one at a screen, to convince them otherwise''' showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, '''everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school - the head of school and a few others) became very supportive.'''

...At 01:17 03/12/2008, Ben Santer wrote:

...One of the problems is that I'm caught in a real Catch-22 situation. '''At present, I'm damned and publicly vilified because I refused to provide McIntyre with the data he requested. But had I acceded to McIntyre's initial request for climate model data, I'm convinced (based on the past experiences of Mike Mann, Phil, and Gavin) that I would have spent years of my scientific career dealing with demands for further explanations, additional data, Fortran code, etc.''' (Phil has been complying with FOIA requests from McIntyre and his cronies for over two years). And if I ever denied a single request for further information, McIntyre would have rubbed his hands gleefully and written: "You see - he's guilty as charged!" on his website.You and I have spent over a decade of our scientific careers on the MSU issue, Tom. During much of that time, we've had to do science in "reactive mode", responding to the latest outrageous claims and inept science by John Christy, David Douglass, or S. Fred Singer. For the remainder of my scientific career, I'd like to dictate my own research agenda. I don't want that agenda driven by the constant need to respond to Christy, Douglass, and Singer. And I certainly don't want to spend years of my life interacting with the likes of Steven McIntyre.

I hope LLNL management will provide me with their full support. If they do not, I'm fully prepared to seek employment elsewhere.[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/phil-jones-on-not-responding-to-foi.html]}}
{{cquote|'''Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.'''[Phil Jones][http://junkscience.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0-department-of-energy-involved-in-hiding-temperature-data/]}}
{{cquote|'''I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process'''[Phil Jones][http://junkscience.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0-jones-advises-e-mail-deletion-to-avoid-foia/]}}
{{cquote|Dear Phil I am sorry that Peter was so aggressive rather than just sharp. Not really like that as you know. I think he got overenthusiastic because of the nature of some of the CCSP exchanges on vertical temperature trends between other scientists which have not helped the cause of gentlemanly conduct or clear thinking for that matter. Not a good example! '''The job of an IPCC reviewer at the ZOD stage is to make positive suggestions to help the Strawman along and not to be too critical.''' In the IPCC TAR at the ZOD stage we were fortunate that this was realised, though '''we did try and create this atmosphere in covering emails.''' I will have a look at the chapter soon. Cheers Chris Professor Chris Folland
...
[Peter Thorne] There is little effective communication in the main text of the uncertainty that is inherent in these measures due to the poor quality of the underlying data and metadata and to the choices made - "structural uncertainty". It seems that a decision has been made that RSS and the Fu et al. method are "right" or at least "most right" and this is what we will put forward as gospel truth almost. Other datasets are given a cursory once over almost. This completely ignores legitimate concerns that "structural uncertainty" is large aloft - seemingly reasonable choices made as to how you homogenise and then analyse the data can have very large effects. This is not at all clearly communicated in the current draft.[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/2005-ipcc-reviewer-peter-thorne-writes.html]}}
{{cquote|'''FOI is causing us a lot of problems in CRU''' and even more for Dave, as he has to respond to them all. '''It would be good if UEA went along with any other Universities who might be lobbying to remove academic research activities from FOI.''' FOI is having an impact on my research productivity. I also write references for people leaving CRU, students and others. If I have to write a poor one, I make sure I get the truth to the recipient in a phone call. I'm also much less helpful responding to members of the public who email CRU regularly than I was 2-3 years ago. I've seen some of what I considered private and frank emails appear on websites. '''Issue here is blogsites have allowed these climate change deniers to find one another around the world.''' Cheers Phil[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/email-856-phil-jones-is-causing-us-lot.html]}}
{{cquote|From: Phil Jones To: "Tas van Ommen" Subject: Re: FW: Law Dome O18 Date: Mon Feb 9 09:23:43 2004 Cc: ???@virginia.edu

Dear Tas, Thanks for the email. Steve McIntyre hasn't contacted me directly about Law Dome (yet), nor about any of the series used in the 1998 Holocene paper or the 2003 GRL one with Mike. I suspect (hope) that he won't. '''I had some emails with him a few years ago when he wanted to get all the station temperature data we use here in CRU. At that time, I hid behind the fact that some of the data had been received from individuals and not directly''' from Met Services through the Global Telecommunications Service (GTS) or through GCOS.[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/01/phil-jones-admits-hiding-behind.html]}}
{{cquote|Dave,
Do I understand it correctly – if he doesn’t pay the £10 we don’t have to respond?

'''With the earlier FOI requests re David Holland, I wasted a part of a day deleting numerous emails and exchanges with almost all the skeptics. So I have virtually nothing. I even deleted the email that I inadvertently sent.''' There might be some bits of pieces of paper, but I’m not wasting my time going through these.

Cheers
Phil

Two years ago, someone hacked into a University of East Anglia server and anonymously posted thousands of emails from climate scientists. Quickly dubbed "Climategate", global warming deniers jumped on this, trying to show that these scientists were engaging in fraudulent activities. However, it was clear to anyone familiar with how research is done that this was complete and utter bilge; the scientists were not trying to hide anything, were not trying to trick anyone, and were not trying to falsely exaggerate the dangers of climate change.

Mike,
This is for YOURS EYES ONLY. Delete after reading - please ! I'm trying to redress the
balance. One reply from Pfister said you should make all available !! Pot calling the kettle
black - Christian doesn't make his methods available. I replied to the wrong Christian
message so you don't get to see what he said. Probably best. Told Steve separately and to get
more advice from a few others as well as Kluwer and legal.
'''PLEASE DELETE''' - just for you, not even Ray and Malcolm

Cheers
Phil[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/climategate-2_8905.html]}}
{{cquote|It is distressing to read that American Stinker item. But Keith does seem to have got himself into a mess. As I pointed out in emails, Yamal is insignificant. And you say that (contrary to what M&M say) Yamal is *not* used in MBH, etc. So these facts alone are enough to shoot down M&M is a few sentences (which surely is the only way to go -- complex and wordy responses will be counter productive). But, more generally, (even if it *is* irrelevant) how does Keith explain the McIntyre plot that compares Yamal-12 with Yamal-all? And '''how does he explain the apparent "selection" of the less well-replicated chronology rather that the later (better replicated) chronology?''' Of course, I don't know how often Yamal-12 has really been used in recent, post-1995, work. I suspect from what you say it is much less often that M&M say -- but where did they get their information? I presume they went thru papers to see if Yamal was cited, a pretty foolproof method if you ask me. Perhaps these things can be explained clearly and concisely -- but I am not sure Keith is able to do this as he is too close to the issue and probably quite pissed of. And '''the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons -- but many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something, and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is being hidden.''' I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this. '''I'd be willing to check over anything he puts together.''' Tom.[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/2009-tom-wigley-to-phil-jones-does-seem.html]}}
{{cquote|They've [McKitrick et al] been making threats against NSF about supposed data policies and even against Ray, Tom Crowley, and others too, claiming that they have a right to all of our data and computer programs (the hubris!). Confidentially, '''NSF lawyers have found their threats baseless as well as obnoxious, and will be telling them formally that NSF policy in no way legally requires funded scientists to provided their data (let alone computer codes!) for public access, but scientists are *encouraged* to provide their data. NSF will be telling them to stop pestering them.''' I'm forwarding a formal email (based on numerous informal discussion w/ Dave Verardo) to NSF, which is confidential (!), that provides some more information.... As we all know, we had made all of our data available previously, so the accusations by these bozos are baselss, though we agree that we would have given more care to the completeness of documentation had we known a stunt like this was to be pulled by the contrarians..[Michael Mann][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/2003-mann-policy-in-no-way-legally.html]}}
{{cquote|Wei-Chyung, Tom,
I won't be replying to either of the emails below, nor to any of the accusations on the Climate Audit website.

I've sent them on to someone here at UEA to see if we should be discussing anything with our legal staff.

The second letter seems an attempt to be nice to me, and somehow split up the original author team.

'''I do now wish I'd never sent them the data after their FOIA request!'''

Cheers
Phil[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/2007-phil-jones-do-now-wish-i-never.html]}}

==Ethics Breaches==
{{cquote|[2009 email, Mike Mann to Phil Jones] On a completely unrelated note, '''I was wondering if you, perhaps in tandem w/ some of the other usual suspects, might be interested in returning the favor this year''' ;) '''I've looked over the current list of AGU fellows''', and it seems to me that there are quite a few who have gotten in (e.g. Kurt Cuffey, Amy Clement, and many others) '''who aren't as far along as me in their careers, so I think I ought to be a strong candidate.''' anyway, I don't want to pressure you in any way, but if you think you'd be willing to help organize,I would naturally be much obliged. Perhaps you could convince Ray or Malcolm to take the lead? The deadline looks as if it is again July 1 this year. looking forward to catching up w/ you sometime soon, probably at some exotic location of Henry's choosing ;) mike[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/01/i-scratched-your-back-you-scratch-mine.html]}}
{{cquote|BUT this must be done calmly , and in the meantime a restrained statement but out saying we have full confidence in Mike's objectivity and independence - which we can not say of the sceptics.

In fact I am moved tomorrow to contact Nature and urge them to do an editorial on this . The political machinations in Washington should NOT dictate the agenda or scheduling of the work - but some cool statement can be made saying we believe the "prats have really f***ed up someway" - and that the premature publication of their paper is reprehensible . Much of the detail in Mikes response though is not sensible (sorry Mike) and is rising to their bate. Keith At 11:55 AM 10/30/03 -0500, raymond s. bradley wrote:

Tim, Phil, Keef: I suggest a way out of this mess. Because of the complexity of the arguments involved, to an uniformed observer it all might be viewed as just scientific nit-picking by "for" and "against" global warming proponents. However, '''if an "independent group" such as you guys at CRU could make a statement as to whether the M&M effort is truly an "audit", and if they did it right, I think that would go a long way to defusing the issue'''... a quick and forceful statement from The Distinguished CRU Boys would help quash further arguments, although here, at least, it is already quite out of control.....yesterday in the US Senate the debate opened on the McCain-Lieberman bill to control CO2 emissions from power plants. Sen Inhofe stood up & showed the M & M figure and stated that Mann et al--& the IPCC assessment --was now disproven and so there was no reason to control CO2 emissions.....I wonder how many times a "scientific" paper gets reported on in the Senate 3 days after it is published.... Ray[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/yipes-as-climate-hoax-insiders-struggle.html]}}
{{cquote|'''Sexing-up evidence is so easy to do, isn't it? Reading your letter in the EDP today makes me wonder who your source inside the Tyndall Centre was supplying you with such exaggerated evidence? Surely it wasn't me, was it?''' Treating Dick Lindzen with the esteem of flat- earthers; could this claim have been inserted by politicians seeking to make a dramatic point to their audience? Or was it really what the experts in the Tyndall Centre think? Perhaps we need an enquiry. Don't worry - '''I'm not thinking of committing suicide should I be exposed as the source of this story; but then again, it couldn't have been me, could it?''' I didn't say that after all; all I said was that we are well aware of Dick Lindzen and his arguments (in fact, Dick Lindzen is a pretty smart meteorologist who just takes a more cautious view of the scientific evidence for human causes of global warming; similar in caution in some ways to David Kelly even).

Yes, sexing-up is so easy to do. Be warned.
Mike[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/warmist-mike-hulme-evidence-is-so-easy.html]}}
{{cquote|From: Joseph Alcamo <alcamo@usf.uni-kassel.de> To: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, Rob.Swart@rivm.nl Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100 Reply-to: alcamo@usf.uni-kassel.de

Mike, Rob,

Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.

I would like to weigh in on two important questions --

Distribution for Endorsements -- '''I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say "1000 scientists signed" or "1500 signed". No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones''', but that is a different story.

Conclusion -- Forget the screening, forget asking them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those names!

Timing -- I feel strongly that the week of 24 November is too late. 1. We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there was a sag in related news, but in the week before Kyoto we should expect that we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate. 2. '''If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I am afraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have any time to pay attention to it.''' We should give them a few weeks to hear about it. 3. If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn't be so bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a diffeent day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two very different directions.
---------------------------------------------------- Prof. Dr. Joseph Alcamo, Director Center for Environmental Systems Research University of Kassel Kurt Wolters Strasse 3 D-34109 Kassel Germany[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/1997-email-to-uea-mike-hulme-good.html]}}

==Censorship==
{{cquote|'''We want to avoid any accusation that you are trying to get people fired because they disagree with you.''' Best, Annie...Annie Ogden, Head of Communications, University of East Anglia
...'''Since Sonja retired I am a lot more free to push my environmental interests without ongoing critique of my motives and supposed misguidedness''' - I've signed my department up to 10:10 campaign and have a taskforce of staff and students involved in it.... Every now and then people say to me sotto voce with some bemusement, 'and when Sonja finds out, how will you explain it to her...!' '''The thought is whether we should follow the same course with these two at Anglia Ruskin and Oxford?''' I'm away tomorrow and Mon/Tues next week. Cheers Phil[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/phil-jones-2009-sonja-retired-i-am-lot.html]}}
{{cquote|[Santer] John Christy is not a good scientist. I'm not a religious man, but I'm sure willing to thank some higher authority that Dr. John Christy is not the"gatekeeper" of what constitutes sound science.

[Christy] '''This gets to the issue that the "consensus" reports now are just the consensus of those who agree with the consensus. The government-selected authors have become gatekeepers rather than honest brokers of information. That is a real tragedy, because when someone becomes a gatekeeper, they don't know they've become a gatekeeper - and begin to (sincerely) think the non-consensus scientists are just nuts (... it's more comfortable that way rather than giving them credit for being skeptical in the face of a paradigm).'''[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/john-christy-gets-to-issue-that-reports.html]}}
{{cquote|Thanks Mike
It seems to me that this "Kinne" character's words are disingenuous, and he probably
supports what De Freitas is trying to do. It seems clear we have to go above him.
'''I think that the community should, as Mike H has previously suggested in this eventuality,
terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels--reviewing, editing, and
submitting, and leave it to wither way into oblivion and disrepute,'''
Thanks,
mike[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/2003-michael-mann-on-what-community.html]}}
{{cquote|[Phil Jones]Susan offered John Mitchell some advice, but that was all. '''She did get tough with McIntyre when he began requesting in press/submitted papers that were referred to in AR4 drafts - saying he couldn't do an adequate review without seeing them. He stopped once she threatened to remove him from the reviewer's list.'''
---
What will amuse is the paragraph about structured archiving. As you both know Keith and me work on the sedimentary sequence approach to filing![http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/2008-jones-says-that-susan-solomon-got.html]}}
{{cquote|I responded to [Chris Landsea's] earlier message in a fairly low key fashion.''' I think he has behaved irresponsibly and ought to be fired by NOAA for not have an open
enough mind to even consider that climate change might be affecting hurricanes.''' I am quickly becoming outraged by this and I hope it backfires on him!!!!
Kevin [Trenberth][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/how-debate-evidently-works-in-climate.html]}}
{{cquote|PS Re CR, I do not know the best way to handle the specifics of the editoring. Hans von Storch is partly to blame -- he encourages the publication of crap science 'in order to stimulate debate'. One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word 'perceived' here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about -- it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.

I think we could get a large group of highly credentialed scientists to sign such a letter -- 50+ people.

Note that I am copying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones. '''Mike's idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work -- must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc.''' I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so the above approach might remove that hurdle too. [Tom Wigley][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/wigley-writes-to-hulme-and-jones-get.html]}}
{{cquote|In my personal opinion, '''Michaels should be kicked out of the AMS, the University of Virginia, and the scientific community as a whole.''' He cannot on the one hand engage in vicious public attacks on the reputations of individual scientists (in the past he has attacked Tom Karl, Tom Wigley, Jim Hansen, Mike Mann, myself, and numerous others), and on the other hand expect to be treated as a valued member of our professional societies.

The sad thing here is that Phil Jones is one of the true gentlemen of our field. I have known Phil for most of my scientific career. '''He is the antithesis of the secretive, "data destroying" character the CEI and Michaels are trying to portray to the outside world.''' Phil and Tom Wigley have devoted significant portions of their scientific careers to the construction of the land surface temperature component of the HadCRUT dataset. They have conducted this research in a very open and transparent manner - examining sensitivities to different gridding algorithms, different ways of adjusting for urbanization effects, use of various subsets of data, different ways of dealing with changes in spatial coverage over time, etc. They have thoroughly and comprehensively documented all of their dataset construction choices. They have done a tremendous service to the scientific community - and to the planet - by making gridded surface temperature datasets available for scientific research. They deserve medals as big as soup plates - not the kind of crap they are receiving from Pat Michaels and the CEI.[Ben Santer][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/warmist-ben-santer-email-deleter-phil.html]}}
{{cquote|David - here are some relevant excerpts from an essay recently published by von Storch:

"...there is indeed a serious problem for the natural sciences: namely, the public depiction and perception of climate change. Research has landed in a crisis because its public actors assert themselves on the saturated market of discussion by overselling the topic....

...'''The costs of stirring up fear are high'''... A scarce resource - public attention and trust in the reliability of science - is used up without being renewed by the practice of positive examples...

...'''The concealment of dissent and uncertainty in favor of a politically good cause takes its toll on credibility, for the public is more intelligent than is usually assumed. In the long term, these allegedly so helpful dramatizations achieve the opposite of that which they wish to achieve.'''"[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/von-storch-concealment-of-dissent-and.html]}}
{{cquote|Susan Solomon was here on Tuesday getting an honorary degree. She says we will
have to deal with all these crackpots in the IPCC ! There will be a number in the atmos
obs, paleo and in your chapter I suspect - will likely be the hardest bits to write.
Still awaiting from you a revised draft to comment for IDAG.
As for your email, there was some press activity related to this skeptic [Timo Hämeranta?] below, '''but managed to talk the BBC out of doing anything.'''[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/phil-jones-2004-was-some-press-activity.html]}}

==Solar Warming==
{{cquote|Simon Tett and I went to conference that the press releases relates to. This was in Tenerife last week. The conference was entitled solar variability and climate, but climatologists were very thin on the ground...'''Many in the solar terrestrial physics community seem totally convinced that solar output changes can explain most of the observed changes we are seeing.''' The far-sighted ones are begining to doubt with the rapid rate of recent warming, however.
...
There was nothing new at the conference, but the solar terrestrial group are not going to go away. '''The next IPCC report may keep them quiet for a while, but trying to downplay solar influences in thier mind will probably be impossible.''' As with the greenhouse skeptics they are so set in their ways and have little comprehension of our literature beyond what they read in Science and Nature.[Phil Jones][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/2000-warmist-phil-jones-goes-to.html]}}
{{cquote|The range of scientific opinion is quite broad on the topic of how much climate variability and change is driven by solar variations. Nevertheless, as more observational data and improved statistical analysis techniques become available, '''it is becoming increasingly obvious that solar variations are important. For temperature, many scientists now feel that natural solar variations were the main contributor to the early 20th century warming that occurred between about 1910 and 1950.''' The dramatic warming since 1980, however, cannot be explained by changes in solar output. [UEA's Tim Osborn, Nov 2000][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/uea-tim-osborn-is-becoming-increasingly.html]}}
==Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age==
{{cquote|But '''it will be very difficult to make the MWP [Medieval Warm Period] go away in Greenland.'''[Pollack][http://junkscience.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0-medieval-warm-period-tough-to-erase/]}}
{{cquote|date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 14:07:38 -0400
from: Ed Cook
subject: Oroko Swamp
to: Keith Briffa

Hi Keith,

Here is the Oroko Swamp RCS chronology plot in an attached Word 98 file and actual data values below. '''It certainly looks pretty spooky to me with strong "Medieval Warm Period" and "Little Ice Age" signals in it.''' It's based on substantially more replication than the series in the paper you have to review (hint, hint!)...[Ed Cook][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/01/ed-cook-certainly-looks-pretty-spooky.html]}}
{{cquote|It is important to learn about past climate change, especially over the past 1000 years, but it is even important to use new and improved evidence from proxy sources ('''i.e. not to cling to outdated concepts of the past such as the MWP and LIA'''). How can we ever hope to progress if we have conform to incorrect concepts? On the early mid-20th century warming - look at the figures in Ch 9. The decrease from 1940-75 didn't happen if you look at global records. '''MBH was published in 1998 and wasn't just a tree-ring study.''' [Phil Jones][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/2007-phil-jones-says-it-important-to.html]}}
{{cquote|Hi Phil, Kevin, Mike, Susan and Ben - I'm looking for some IPCC-related advice, so thanks in advance. The email below recently came in and I googled "'''We have to get rid of the warm medieval period'''" and "Overpeck" and indeed, there is a person David Deeming that attributes the quote to an email from me. He apparently did mention the quote (but I don't think me) in a Senate hearing. His "news" (often with attribution to me) appears to be getting widespread coverage on the internet. It is upsetting.

I have no memory of emailing w/ him, nor any record of doing so (I need to do an exhaustive search I guess), nor any memory of him period. '''I assume it is possible that I emailed w/ him long ago, and that he's taking the quote out of context''', since know I would never have said what he's saying I would have, at least in the context he is implying.

Any idea what my reaction should be? I usually ignore this kind of misinformation, but I can imagine that it could take on a life of it's own and that I might want to deal with it now, rather than later. I could - as the person below suggests - make a quick statement on a web site that the attribution to me is false, but I suspect that this Deeming guy could then produce a fake email. I would then say it's fake. Or just ignore? Or something else?[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/warmist-overpeck-writes-to.html]}}
[[Category:Environmentalism]]

Crash (film)

2012-09-21T16:13:34Z

CPalmer: cat

'''''Crash''''' is a 2004 [[film]] that won the [[Academy Award]] for best picture. It is most notable for beating out ''[[Brokeback Mountain]]'', a film about [[homosexual]] [[cowboy]]s that the [[liberal media]] claimed was a shoe-in for best picture, for the Oscar. The film proved that filmmakers don't have to promote the ever-encroaching and society-degrading [[homosexual agenda]] to get proper recognition for their work.

==External links==
*[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0375679/ IMDb: ''Crash'']
[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Flash mob

2012-09-21T16:11:10Z

CPalmer: cat

A '''flash mob''' is a hastily assembled group of protesters or stunt performers, often with a silly or innocuous purpose. A significant part of the fun for the group is the quick assembly and/or dispersal. Sometimes they meet in a staging area first; other times they coordinate by email or cell-phone text messages.
[[Category:Sociology]]

Category:Shooting

2012-09-07T13:55:25Z

CPalmer: ADD CATEGORIES

[[Category:Guns]]
[[Category:Sports]]

Category:Skiing

2012-09-07T13:55:11Z

CPalmer: ADD CATEGORY

[[Category:Sports]]

Biathlon

2012-09-07T13:55:01Z

CPalmer: ADD CATEGORIES

A ''''biathlon''' is a sporting event that involves cross country skiing and shooting.
[[Category:Sports]]
[[Category:Skiing]]
[[Category:Shooting]]

Far right

2012-09-07T13:53:45Z

CPalmer: ADD CATEGORIES

"'''Far right'''" is one of those ambiguous political terms (like "[[homophobic]]") which means one thing literally, but is used instead in a loose sense to mean something almost completely different - typically in an effort to disparage someone's character and/or position.

Historically the chief "far right" politician of the twentieth century was fascist warmonger [[Adolf Hitler]], leader of the National Socialist Party (see [[Nazis]]). The main difference between Hitler and other totalitarians (like the [[Josef Stalin]] of the [[Soviet Union]] is that they were war enemies. The systems of government and economy they imposed on their respective empires had more similarities than differences.

In the US, Europe, and the Middle East opponents of democracy typically apply the term "far right" to anyone who criticizes their human rights record or plans to replace the [[free market system]] with [[socialism]]. The idea behind this sort of name-calling is to associate the critics with the "worst mass murderer ever" (i.e., Adolf Hitler). This is erroneous, if only because both Stalin and [[Mao Tse-Tung]] killed at least six times more innocent people.
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Fascism]]
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]

Category:New Zealand Politics

2012-09-07T13:52:44Z

CPalmer: ADD CATEGORIES

[[Category:International Politics]]
[[Category:New Zealand]]

Category:New Zealand Political Parties

2012-09-07T13:52:28Z

CPalmer: ADD CATEGORIES

[[Category:New Zealand Politics]]
[[Category:Political Parties]]

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand

2012-09-07T13:52:08Z

CPalmer: ADD CATEGORIES

The '''Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand''' is a New Zealand political party. It is currently the third largest in parliament with 14 seats.

==Ideology==
The Green party has a strong focus on environmental issues, and is generally left-wing in economic and social policy. The party's Charter 'accepts Te Tiriti o Waitangi [the Treaty of Waitangi] as the founding document of Aotearoa New Zealand', recognises the [[Maori]] position as Tangata Whenua and states the four 'Principles' of 'Ecological Wisdom', 'Social Responsibility', 'Appropriate Decision Making' and 'Non-Violence'.<ref>http://www.greens.org.nz/charter</ref> The 2005 'Anti-Smacking' bill, introduced by Green MP Sue Bradford, proved widely unpopular but was passed after a compromise made it less easy to prosocute.<ref>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10440080</ref>

==History==
The Green party was founded in 1990. Many of the founding members of the party had previously been involved in the Values Party, which had been set up in 1972 and was the world's first national 'Green Party' (though one had previously contested the state elections in Tasmania).<ref>http://www.greens.org.nz/page/history-green-party</ref> From 1992 to 1997 the Green Party stood candidates as part of the 'Alliance' of four left-wing parties (Greens, New Labour Party, Democrat and Mana Motuhake, later joined by the Liberals). In the 1999 elections (the first run as an independent party) the Greens won the electorate of Coromandel and 5.2% of the list votes, giving them seven MPs.<ref>http://www.greens.org.nz/page/history-green-party</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:New Zealand Political Parties]]
[[Category:Environmentalism]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Ethic and racial

2012-09-07T13:51:40Z

CPalmer: delete

Black clergy

2012-09-07T13:50:47Z

CPalmer: ADD CATEGORIES

'''Black clergy''' in the USA are not merely [[black]] members of the [[clergy]] but are seen as a political and social force. Largely [[Democratic Party|Democratic]], a few are [[conservative]] - and often persecuted by [[liberal]] blacks. Black clergy primarily cater to predominantly black congregations, although their willingness to include non-blacks tends to exceed the willingness of white congregations to include blacks.
[[Category:United States Politics]]
[[Category:Religious Leaders]]
[[Category:Race Relations]]

American Idiot

2012-09-07T13:49:44Z

CPalmer: ADD CATEGORIES

'''''American Idiot''''' (2004) is the name of a song by the [[liberal]] band [[Green Day]]. The song, which was written and sung by [[bisexual]]<ref>[http://www.spinner.com/2010/03/25/green-day-billie-joe-armstrong-bisexual/ Spinner: Green Day's Billie Joe Armstrong Says Bisexuality Shouldn't Be an Issue] March 25, 2010</ref> and liberal musician [[Billie Joe Armstrong]], is a series of shameful, baseless attacks on the [[United States]], its institutions, and its people. ''American Idiot'', which joins a number of other [[anti-American]], [[anti-Christian]] songs on an album of the same name, also contains [[profanity]] among its hateful lyrics. The song was originally written out of spite for [[George W. Bush]]'s [[election|reelection]] as [[POTUS|President]] and presumably out of spite for the country, its institutions, and its people as well.<ref>[http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=3937 Song Facts: ''American Idiot'' by Green Day]</ref>

Six years after the song's release, a musical was made about the [[controversy|controversial]] album.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-207_162-6415632.html CBS News: Green Day Takes Broadway with "American Idiot"] June 4, 2010</ref> Unsurprisingly, the musical's first shows were in [[California]]'s [[San Francisco Bay|bay area]].

==Examples of anti-Americanism<ref>[http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/greenday/americanidiot.html AZ Lyrics: Green Day's ''American Idiot'']</ref>==
*''"All across the alien nation / Where everything isn't meant to be okay"''
*''"I'm not a part of a redneck agenda / Now everybody do the propaganda / And sing along to the age of paranoia"''
*''"One nation controlled by the media / Information age of hysteria / It's calling out to idiot America"''

==Footnotes==
<references/>
[[Category:Songs]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]

The Hobbit

2012-08-31T15:09:43Z

CPalmer: /* Plot */ I don't think Rivendell is a city!!

[[Image:Hobbit_cover.JPG|thumb|right|Cover of first edition of ''The Hobbit'', from a design by Tolkien.]]
'''''The Hobbit''''', or ''There and Back Again'', is a book by [[J.R.R. Tolkien]], published in 1937. It was followed by ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]''.

The story is about the [[hobbit]] [[Bilbo Baggins]], who is taken from his simple life by the [[Wizard (fiction)|wizard]] [[Gandalf]], to go on an adventure. Together with a group of [[Dwarves (Middle-earth)|Dwarves]] they travel to the Lonely Mountain, to reclaim the Dwarves' home and treasure from the [[dragon]] Smaug.<ref name="thehobbit">J.R.R. Tolkien, ''The Hobbit'', Houghton Mifflin 1937.</ref>

== Creation ==
''The Hobbit'' was conceived by Tolkien as a story for his children. It became his first published fiction book. When asked for more stories about the hobbits, he began to write a sequel, which would later become ''The Lord of the Rings''.

''The Hobbit'' was at first not part of his [[Middle-earth]] world. Having begun to write the sequel, Tolkien set both the ''Hobbit'' and ''Lord of the Rings'' stories into his Middle-earth world. Because of this he made some changes in later editions, mostly concerning [[Gollum]] and the [[One Ring (Middle-earth)|Ring]]. In the story of the Middle-earth legendarium, ''The Hobbit'' as Bilbo's story of his journey and the finding of the Ring, and ''The Lord of the Rings'' as Frodo's later additions from the ''War of the Ring'' together form the ''[[Red Book of Westmarch]]''.

Although Tolkien imagined the ''Hobbit'' as a tale for his children, the book became popular for children and adults alike.

== Plot ==
The [[hobbit]] [[Bilbo Baggins]] is used to living a quiet and peaceful life. One day the wizard [[Gandalf]] comes to him, who introduces him to a group of thirteen [[Dwarves (Middle-earth)|Dwarves]]: the leader [[Thorin Oakenshield]], his two nephews Fíli and Kíli, Óin, Glóin, Balin, Dwalin, Dori, Nori, Ori, Bifur, Bofur, and Bombur. From them he learns their story: A long time ago their people lived in the [[Erebor |Lonely Mountain]], rich and prosperous, ruled by the ''King under the Mountain'', Thorin's grandfather. But then the [[dragon]] [[Smaug]] came to the Lonely Mountain, killed most of the dwarves, and took their treasures and their home for himself. Years later, Thorin now wants to return to the Lonely Mountain, to reclaim what's rightfully theirs; Gandalf recommended Bilbo to the dwarves as a "Burglar" to take on their quest. Bilbo is confused and adverse to leaving his home, but is later convinced to follow the group.

Gandalf, the dwarves, and Bilbo set out towards the east on their journey to the Lonely Mountain. Along the way they are captured by three trolls, but Gandalf saves them. In the troll's hideout they find some gold and swords, and Gandalf, Thorin, and Bilbo each take one. The group continues to the [[Elf (Middle-earth)|Elven]] dwelling [[Rivendell]], where its master, [[Elrond]], provides them with valuable information.

As the group travels over the [[Misty Mountains]], [[Orc (Middle-earth)|goblins]] attack and capture them, taking them into their caves under the Mountains. Gandalf, who had evaded capture, comes to their rescue, but the group loses Bilbo on their flight. Wandering through the dark, Bilbo stumbles upon a ring, which he puts in his pocket. By an underground lake Bilbo meets the creature [[Gollum]], who offers to show him the way out if he can best him in a game of riddles, otherwise he will eat him. Running out of riddles to ask, Bilbo absentmindedly finds the ring in his pocket and wonders aloud: "What have I got in my pocket?". Gollum, believing it to be a riddle, is unable to answer, and loses the game. But Gollum, angry and unwilling to help, goes off to fetch his "birthday present": a magical ring, which turns its wearer invisible. Unable to find it, he believes Bilbo has it, and chases Bilbo. While running away and falling, the ring slips on Bilbo's finger and he becomes invisible, causing Gollum to run past him towards the way out of the caves. Bilbo realizes both and follows Gollum. When he finds Gollum blocking his way out, he thinks he might have to kill the creature who still cannot see him. But Bilbo has pity on him, and with a great effort manages to jump over Gollum's head, sparing his life and yet managing to save his own. Out of the caves, Bilbo rejoins Gandalf and the dwarves.

While moving away from the Mountains the group is attacked by goblins and wargs but saved by the Great [[Eagle]]s, who fly them to their eyries and later away from the Mountains. The group comes to the home of Beorn, a big man able to shapeshift into a bear; after a short stay they continue to the forest [[Mirkwood]]. At the border, Gandalf unexpectedly bids them good-bye, and the group has to go on alone. After having traveled for a time the dwarves are attacked and captured by giant [[spider]]s, but with the help of the ring and his sword, Bilbo can free them, after which he names his sword ''[[Sting (Middle-earth)|Sting]]''. But immediately after, the dwarves are captured by Wood-elves and taken to their underground home. Using the ring, Bilbo frees the dwarves from the dungeons and puts them into barrels used to trade goods. The barrels are let swim down a river out of Mirkwood, made into a float, and then come to the Long Lake near the Lonely Mountain. The group are welcomed by the people of the human settlement [[Esgaroth|Lake-town]].

The dwarves and Bilbo travel up the Lonely Mountain, and manage to find and open the secret door leading into it. Calling him on the job he has been hired for, the dwarves send a terrified Bilbo into the mountain. Bilbo comes to the dragon's lair, takes a golden cup, talks to the dragon, and learns his one weak spot. Smaug, believing the people of Lake-town responsible for helping the intruders, sets out to destroy it. A thrush who had overheard Bilbo telling the dwarves, reports the dragon's vulnerable spot to Bard the Bowman, who is able to shoot Smaug, although a great part of Lake-town is destroyed.

The dwarves are rejoicing in retaking their old home, and send messages to others of their people to join them. Bilbo finds and takes the [[Arkenstone]], a gem greatly valued by Thorin. But the peace is short-lived as soon the people from Lake-town and an army from Mirkwood arrive, both parties laying claim to part of the dwarves' treasure. Thorin refuses them, and the humans and elves start a siege of the Lonely Mountain. The situation becomes even more tense after the arrival of Thorin's relative Dáin II Ironfoot with an army of dwarves. Bilbo sneaks off at night to give the sieging party the Arkenstone as a bargaining chip, hoping to prevent bloodshed. When he is offered the Arkenstone in exchange for part of the treasure, Thorin remains adamant and furiously rejects and curses Bilbo.

Just when there seems no way out, Gandalf reappears to warn of an approaching army of Goblins and Wargs. The dwarves, men, and elves band together against their common enemy, resulting in the ''Battle of Five Armies'', which they manage to win, with the help of the Eagles and Beorn. Thorin's nephews Fíli and Kíli are killed, and Thorin himself is mortally wounded. He dies after the battle, but lives long enough to reconcile with Bilbo, whom he now holds in high regard and as a dear friend. Dáin becomes ''King under the Mountain'', and parts of the dwarves' treasure are rewarded to the involved parties. In the end Bilbo returns home, richer and grown for his experiences, and lives happily thereafter.<ref name="thehobbit"/>

== References ==
{{reflist|1}}

== See also ==
*''[[The Lord of the Rings]]''

{{Middle-earth}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Hobbit, The}}
[[Category:Middle-earth]]
[[Category:Novels]]

Grim reaper

2012-08-31T15:03:08Z

CPalmer: create redirect

#REDIRECT [[Death]]

Talk:Essay:Worst Liberal TV Shows

2012-08-17T13:49:04Z

CPalmer: /* "Essay"? */ some of the best content

I think each entry should have a brief description what makes the show liberal and what makes it particularly egregious. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 18:14, 16 March 2012 (EDT)
:I agree. Each entry does need an explanation of why it is liberal.--[[User:GOPFan2011|GOPFan2011]] 22:26, 16 March 2012 (EDT)
:::I agree also. And the page should be renamed "'''Most''' Liberal TV Shows". Some are good shows, even if one disagrees with their alleged liberal-ness. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 15:36, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

Funny, what about [[Doctor Who]]? Jk, this whole essay is bunk. you could say the same about almost everything.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:39, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

== Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert ==

How are they particularly liberal? Yes, they mock conservative politicians, but they mock liberal politicians too. That's why they're parodies of political talk shows. And didn't Colbert support Cain in the election until he dropped out? Stewart's a liberal, but that doesn't make his show liberally-biased. As long as they parody conservative and liberal politicians equally, I don't think they belong here. Otherwise, we would have to include SNL and virtually every single late-night comedy show. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 18:03, 14 May 2012 (EDT)

== "Essay"? ==

All I see is a list. Where is the essay? [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 16:49, 16 August 2012 (EDT)
:It's listed as an essay because it is just a list, and not an article. Some people are very, very fond of lists. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 17:25, 16 August 2012 (EDT)
::So if I understand correctly on Conservapedia every text that doesn't constitute a proper article is classified as an essay? [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 08:38, 17 August 2012 (EDT)
:::I guess so. But you overthink things. Try it out. Write an essay. You may like it. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 08:40, 17 August 2012 (EDT)
::::Yes, "essay" denotes content that is personal opinion and not necessarily encyclopaedic. Perhaps this could be made clearer to new users. But not in a way that devalues these pages, because some of the best content on Conservapedia is designated "essays".

User talk:CPalmer

2012-08-15T13:51:54Z

CPalmer: /* Joke sports */ to give an example...

Archive: [[User talk:CPalmer/Archive2008|2008]] | [[User talk:CPalmer/Archive2009a|Jan-Apr 2009]] | [[User talk:CPalmer/Archive2009b|May-Dec 2009]]

== Basic rights only ==

12:14, 23 January 2008 LowKey (Talk | contribs) New user account ‎ {{unsigned|LowKey}}

:::Added. Congratulations to you!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:56, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

== Categorizing ==

Thanks for adding categories to some of my entries (Urim and Thummim, Mary Celeste). I seem to have a mental block about creating categories; I constantly forget to do it. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 15:55, 8 February 2011 (EST)
:No problem, Morris!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:14, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

== Hey ==

Thanks for doing all the work on cats and stuff.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 10:10, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
:No problem - thank you for noticing. There are still just under 1000 uncategorised pages, so there's plenty more to do.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:20, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
::Don't worry. I may not have the time I did 2 years or so ago, but I can help with those categories. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 14:11, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
I just wanted to give you kudos too for all the work you've been doing in adding the cats! Great job! --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 12:54, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Thanks for your kind words, though of course my slow, steady progress is its own reward.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:34, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
==Username==
Hi! What's wrong with it? It's the Italian for "God is abundance", isn't it? Is there a word problem? --[[User:Dioporco|Dioporco]] 11:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:I think it means "God pig". So you can see why I thought it was blasphemous. "Porco" certainly means "pig" - perhaps someone has been having a joke at your expense?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:23, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== Thanks for the re-add ==

Thanks for re-adding me to your accursed list...:) [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 09:45, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Granted extra privileges ==

Your account has been granted the extra privileges of blocking rights and SkipCatcha. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:29, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks! I'll try and put them to good use.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:30, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::Congrats! I guess you're not the fourth longest-running basic rights user anymore.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 10:54, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::No, that honour will pass to someone else.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:00, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

You broke your record, but congrats! RE emails - I created a CP only email and posted the address on my user page. That way, if anyone wants to get a hold of me they can. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:07, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

==Working together==

Thanks for the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Role_3&diff=908095&oldid=908093 cats] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Role_3&diff=908096&oldid=908095 links] to [[Role 3]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:18, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:No problem. Good work creating the content, which is the greater part of the work.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:36, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

== Great block! ==

Great block!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:05, 10 October 2011 (EDT)
:Thank you! It seemed quite a clear-cut case.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:16, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

== Comment erroneously posted on main user page ==

You know that Benp has now quit? --[[User:NickCope|NickCope]] 12:17, 11 October 2011 (EDT)

:It doesn't really matter for the purposes of the list. I still like him, and he will remain there until I am inspired to add other people. Of course, if he is still absent the next time I make an addition, that will count against him and he may be in line for removal!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:35, 11 October 2011 (EDT)
::And now it seems that you yoruself are no longer with us. Sic transit.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:25, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

== Spam ==

Hi CPalmer. I posted a comment on [[User talk:Billyclark123|this talk page]] because I'm worried that user might be a spam program trying to piggyback off the site to get hits to the advertising link he posted on his user page. See my comment for the details. Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 08:45, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:I see what you are saying but as far as I know, there is no rule against posting links on one's user page. If the user were to start spamming on other pages, that would certainly be unacceptable.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:56, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
::My only concern would be that a search engine would index it, see that the exact same content has been posted elsewhere, and flag this site as a spam site (or at least a site where spammers have free reign). Yes, it's not fair, but I've read about Google's PageRank algorithm taking similar procedures to protect against malware and JavaScript vulnerabilities that edit page content. [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 12:38, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

==Back==

Are you "Dr. Pal" from the old days? :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:50, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:No - I don't know a Dr Pal. I've always been CPalmer.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:51, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

::Sorry, I guess I was thinking of "PalMD". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:31, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

== Categories ==

Kudos: That was a herculean task! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:19, 18 November 2011 (EST)
:Thanks! Though technically I think it is a Sisyphean task, since people do keep on creating new pages...--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:40, 18 November 2011 (EST)

Thanks for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pregnancy_test&diff=prev&oldid=939223 the cat]. Don't kill it! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:39, 21 November 2011 (EST)

== Talk page fix ==

Thanks for reverting the code breakage on my page; I had undone the problem on Mr. Schlafly's page, but I could not block the troublesome user so he was free to continuing breaking pages. Thanks for the help! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 08:51, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== You're welcome ==

You're welcome re: the promotion - it is well-deserved!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:17, 23 March 2012 (EDT)

:Thanks again!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:28, 23 March 2012 (EDT)

== Wikipedia independent thought/hearsay ==

Wikipedia...intelligent thought? Surely that is a joke! :)--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 11:45, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

== No hearsay template ==

Your "no hearsay" template is very interesting!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:28, 16 April 2012 (EDT)

:Thanks - I haven't added it to any articles as yet but I think it's something that could be useful here, either for essays or for sections of articles that go against prevailing online consensuses. Just because a reference can't be found for something doesn't mean it's not true - and any original insight will by definition be impossible to find a reference for.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:45, 16 April 2012 (EDT)

== Template quotes ==

Thanks for categorizing my category - it's the first one I created on this wiki, I think.

I tried to identify some of the quotes, which isn't easy: the names are quite arbitrary. I hope that [[User:Ed Poor]] will be able to spot them all. When the quotes are categorized, I think the best thing will be to have a list of their contents, too - I'm not sure whether this can be done on the page of the category itself or has to be done separately.

Another improvement would be a more unified look of the quotes and their sources - that is something to be left for [[User:Ed Poor]], too.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:42, 14 June 2012 (EDT)

:That's no problem. One of the things I do here is try to keep control of the number of uncategorized categories - currently below 50, I believe, which is manageable.
:On the other hand, this quotes issue led me to start looking around at templates and there are an absolute mountain of those that have no categories as yet. Any categories that get added as a result of this tidying up of quotes will be a very welcome drop in that ocean, apart from any other benefits, so thank you. You are doing good work!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 05:37, 14 June 2012 (EDT)
::Thanks! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:00, 14 June 2012 (EDT)

== Joke sports ==

It seems to me you're expending a lot of "unnecessary effort" to include as many sports as you can in the list, and to disparage the efforts of the athletes who train in these sports. Why? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 12:17, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:Not so - not at all. I have made only three additions to the list - a small minority of what is on there. There have been various removals that I have not opposed, and indeed I made two removals myself.
:It's also not my intention to denigrate anyone's efforts. I know that it takes a great deal of dedication, toil and inherent talent to win an Olympic medal in any discipline. People and governments are guided in the sports they choose, or choose to fund, by the decisions of the IOC and other bodies, and I think it's the sports governing bodies who need to change their approach so that the athletes' hard work is directed into something that is as worthwhile as possible.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:24, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

::And who is to set themselves up as judge and jury to decide what is "worthwhile" or not? If an athlete enjoys the sport, who are we to decide that the sport is a "joke", or that it is a waste of time for that athlete? Millions of dollars are spent in American football every year- and its point is? When I was little, and my dad watched football on TV, I thought the point was to see how many men could end up stacked in a pile. As an adult, to me it seems like it's just a chance for grown men to inflict violence on each other while chasing a ball around the field without facing legal ramifications. It's no more "worthwhile" in my eyes than the backstroke is in yours, but I'm not out there trying to justify its inclusion in the "joke sport" category. If you don't like the sport, then don't watch. Simple as that. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 12:42, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::The IOC is the judge and the jury. They already do include some sports and exclude others, and they choose to allow different numbers of events in different sports. What I and others are saying is that we don't agree with some of the IOC's decisions. Maybe the term "joke sports" is unnecessarily inflammatory, but I wasn't the first to use it. That aside, what is so wrong with questioning or disagreeing with the IOC?
:::To give an example. The IOC allows FINA to award 34 gold medals for swimming, but restricts the UCI to only ten for track cycling. Why? The UCI would love to enlarge its program, there are lots of events it could include that seem more distinct than current swimming events, but it isn't allowed to - swimming is deemed 3.4 times more worthwhile a sport. So it's all very well you defending your hard-training, dedicated, deserving backstroke swimmers, but what about 1km cycling time triallists? What about individual pursuit riders? What about pairs who were hoping to compete in the Madison? An unquestioning acceptance of the IOC's diktat doesn't do much for their Olympic dreams.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 06:01, 15 August 2012 (EDT)

Talk:2012 Summer Olympics

2012-08-15T13:45:41Z

CPalmer: /* Medal weighting */ per-athlete capping? relays?

== "1 Nations That Impose Same-sex marriage/ 2 Nations that are increasingly atheistic/ 3 Sports that have been ravaged by feminist Title IX in the U.S." ==

Nice. Great way to cover all your bases. When the US does well, you can crow about the same-sex marriage and the atheism. When the US doesn't do well, you can pile on Title IX and the feminists. Win-Win. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 10:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:Also, it's curious that you are focused on reasons for failure, not reasons for success. Why not divide up the matrix by, say, "Countries with a record of supporting young athletes"/"Countries with a strong cultural tradition of teamwork" or "Countries with a strong tradition of individual accomplishment"/"Countries where fitness is held as an important value"? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 11:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

::Category 3 is sports-specific in the [[U.S.]], so there is no contradiction with categories 1 and 2, which are nation-specific.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:54, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::Which is exactly why your matrix allows you to frame both US victories and US defeats in terms of your political agenda. It's an awesome rhetorical move. But I'm still curious as to why you are more focused on reasons for failure than on reasons for success. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:15, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

::::There is nothing "rhetorical" about this. Ideologies obviously have consequences, and this is a prediction of those consequences beforehand, with an evaluation as the results occur. Surely we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, and every ideology is a winner too? (Except, of course, [[Christianity]], which [[liberals]] never want to credit).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:22, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::Of course it's a rhetorical move--you are narrowing your analysis to focus on the political points that you are most interested in. Of course we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, so why not focus on reasons why people win, as opposed to why they lose--and surely Christianity is not the only reason, otherwise Jews, Muslims, atheists, Shintoists, Mormons, Moonies, Buddhists etc would never win any medals. It would be worthwhile to account for non-divine, or at least non-Christian reasons for success. Your focus on failure is really disheartening. Do you enjoy pointing out other's shortcomings, or are you projecting? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:29, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:::::::I'm fine with focusing on the winners - a entire entry called [[Greatest Conesrvative Sports Stars]] has been doing that for months. If you'd like to add a section to [[Olympics 2012]] that focuses on winners, that would be welcome. In fact, I'll start it for you now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:46, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::::Again, a great rhetorical move on your part--what about the non-conservative winners? If they're not conservative, they can't be winners. If they're winners, they must be conservative. If Tim Thomas doesn't lead the Boston Bruins to another Stanley Cup, hockey falls off the front page of the website; if the Miami Heat win, it's because they were somehow "taught a lesson" by a team they went on to beat soundly. Well played, sir. Well played. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::::Your objection reminds me of the editor who thought it significant that [[Tim Tebow]], after winning a spectacular upset in the first game of last year's [[NFL]] playoffs, then lost in the second round to a much stronger team. My response then is similar to now: people usually don't look for a miracle to occur ever single time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

== Euro 2012 ==
Slightly off-topic, I admit, but I was wondering, whether Andy had any comments on the final of the European Cup final (soccer) that takes place tonight between Spain and Italy? Maybe even a prediction who might win? If you haven't followed the tournament so far, atheistic England went out in the quarter finals, while the liberal Netherlands didn't make it past the first round (same as catholic, pro-life Poland, incidentally). --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 13:31, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Netherlands]] is a big [[same-sex marriage]] country, so no surprise there. Both [[Spain]] and [[Italy]] are very [[liberal]], so that's a tough choice. Poland was under communist martial law until about 20-25 years ago, so I don't think it's far to expect it to do as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
::So gay marriage, political culture, and form of government matter more that the relative skill of the players, their histories in recent match-ups, their style of play, the depth of their squads, coaching, or any other soccer-related questions? So when you sit down to watch a given sports contest, you analyze the game through the lens of politics and religion, and not through the lenses of ability, strategy, or any other sports-related concept. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:::Deny it all you like, but ideologies do have consequences. Show me a sports team of atheists and I'll show you a team that's not going to win the championship.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:20, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::So all of those Soviet medal wins in the Olympics, or in international hockey, all of the medal wins by Chinese teams--they were all believers of one sort or another? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:26, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
Also, if Spain and Italy are both "very liberal", that means a liberal team is guaranteed to win the championship. Guess it pays to be "very liberal!" [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:30, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
::::: Meh.... In the first Euro championship (1960), the USSR, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia finished 1-2-3 respectively. All were communist. At least two communist nations made the semifinals for each of the next 3 Euros. In 1980, the Czechoslovakians finished third. In 1984, no Communist nations finished in the Top 4, but that was the only time that happened. The Soviets came in second in 1988, and then the communists fell. Since then (6 Euros), the Czechs have two Top 4 apppearances, the Russians have one, and other communist nations or their successor states have none. Of course, this is misleading because a combined Yugoslavia team consisting of the Serbian, Montenegrin, Croatian, etc. teams might have done well, and of those nations, only Croatia qualified and they did fairly well considering they were in a group with Italy and Spain. Most of the Yugoslavian players were Serbian, and most of the Soviet players were Russian. So it appears Serbia and Russia suffered. But Croatia and Montenegro have done well since independence (and a unified Serbia and Montenegro team qualified for the World Cup in 2006, but was placed in the group of death and eliminated in the first round. It also didn't help that the World Cup was held after the two nations separated). Also, Bosnia and Herzigovina has improved, coming within a playoff against Portugal of qualifying for both the World Cup and Euro, but they lost both.
Additionally, Ukraine has improved significantly since the USSR breakup. Although they only qualified this year because they were hosts, they qualified for the World Cup in 2006 and almost again in 2010. Latvia qualified for Euro 2004, even though there were pretty much no Latvian Soviet soccer players. Estonia also came within a playoff of qualifying for Euro this year, a marked improvement over their Soviet days, but lost. Same with Bosnia-Herzigovinia and Montenegro. Additionally, either Slovakia or the Czech Republic has qualified almost always for the World Cup and Euro, and a combined team would likely have done better. In team sports, it is hard to compare stats from before and after, because while the USSR may have done better than any of the new nations, we don't know how the new nations would do if they competed together as they did when they were the USSR. Andre Szevchenko is one of the best players in Europe for Ukraine, but he doesn't have much support. If he had the support of Russian players, Estonian players, and Latvian players on his team, then that team would probably have done better. The same could be said of a combined team for Czech Republic and Slovakia.
As an example of the opposite, the new German team has done far better than the old East German team, including some players from Berlin who would have competed for East Gemrany 25 years ago. Their performance is slightly better than the West German performance, although this is probably just because they have more people now, since they were both capitalist.
Also, Germany is the only country in the Netherlands' group that does not have same-sex marriage (Portugal and Denmark also do). At least one of them by rule HAD to advance (Portugal did), but it was the Germans who won the group with a perfect record. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 05:20, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

== Evidence that Christianity increases a countries Olympic medals while atheism and liberalism reduce gold medals won ==

Andy, although it is true that Communist/authoritarian countries have gone out of their way in the past to pour money in the Olympic gold winning efforts (Soviet Union)[http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=econ_honproj&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dgdp%2520population%2520freedom%2520and%2520olympic%2520medals%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CEoQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.iwu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1004%2526context%253Decon_honproj%26ei%3DbsLwT5fpO-Hq0gHpidj6Ag%26usg%3DAFQjCNGA2tePIDTqdOmM8p42uwGhpzkVhA#search=%22gdp%20population%20freedom%20olympic%20medals%22], it is also true that a higher population size and a higher GDP positively affect the number of gold medals that a country wins.[http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/andrew.bernard/olymp60restat_finaljournalversion.pdf]

Atheism reduces a countries population size while religiosity increases a countries birth rate: http://conservapedia.com/Decline_of_atheism#Decline_of_atheism_in_terms_of_global_adherents_is_expected_to_accelerate See also: [[Decline of atheism]]

In the journal article ''Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications'' psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on self-control/self-regulation.[http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/Relig_self_control_bulletin.pdf][http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19210054] Athletes with more self-control have more mental toughness.[http://www.nmnathletics.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=8800&ATCLID=926652] Athletes with more mental toughness tend to perform at higher levels.[http://vimeo.com/23328555] See also: [[Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism]]

Also, all other things remaining equal, religion in the Western world tends to promote more self-discipline and healthier behaviors when it comes to mental and physical health: See: [[Atheism and health]] and [[Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism]] and [[Atheism and obesity]]

Also, while it is true that a country that is doing well can have "fat and sassy" atheists as a result. On the other hand, if there is religious freedom in a country a country can have high levels of religiosity even with high incomes such as the United States. See effects of prosperity on rates of atheism: http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative/atheism-research#Effect_of_prosperity_on_rate_of_atheism

I am sure you can find data to support that capitalism causes a country to have higher incomes than socialism/liberalism over the long term.

Next, liberalism promotes abortion and small family sizes where conservative religion does not.

Summary: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPLEAWsX0qk Jesus is the winnamon and Christians are on the winning side!] Christians are winners and atheists tend to lose again!

Go for the gold America! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! (where atheists are the least trusted group of individuals. See: [[Views on atheists]]) :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:07, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
=== No doubt Bible believers achieve more gold medals than atheists all other things being equal ===

In a study listed in Who's Who in Who's Who, it took 5,000 Presbyterian ministers to produce one child listed in Who's Who. Among lawyers the ratio was 5,000 to 1; dentists 2,500 to 1. But for every seven Christian missionary families from the United States, one of their children would be listed in Who's Who.[http://www.wentworthbaptist.ca/old/sermontexts/Leaving%20the%20past%20behind_Phil%203.1-14_071230.htm] See also: [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and health]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:33, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
::Do you have a link to that actual study? One in seven seems high. How big is this "Who's Who" list and how many missionary families are there in the USA?
::::Come on, everybody knows the formula to winning the gold. Preparation and conceive, believe and achieve! :) Doubters have a harder time believing than believers! Atheists are pessimists and have higher rates of depression. See: [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]. Bible believers who are realists and optimists are more upbeat and win more gold medals. Plus, conservative Bible believing Protestants with the Protestant work ethic, are more able to outwork atheists and achieve more gold medals. Secular Europe is filled lazy doubters who love socialism. Lazy people are less likely to win gold medals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:08, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::yeah, that's good, really I just want to see how the study explains it
::::::::We know that per capita GDP increases Olympic medals. Therefore, when the shortsighted measures holding together the [http://www.care2.com/causes/euro-zone-crisis-banks-lower-rates-but-confidence-stays-low.html troubled Eurozone economy] stop working, they will win less gold medals than countries which were more prudent. The lazy secular Europeans should have listened to the Bible about hard work and not getting heavy into debt. The gold medal counts of secular Europe are going to be lower than they needed to be in 2016. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:24, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/10394-public-debt-by-country.html#axzz1zqxAoMmm
:::::::::I think it is self explanatory that those who have faith will have the discipline and the belief to achieve something extraordinary--[[User:OconnorM|OconnorM]] 12:46, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I do know that post 1950 the USA became more secular and United States became less financially prudent. Socialism and communism do not have great track records over the long term and atheists have tended to like these systems more. Countries which adopted a Protestant work ethic have benefited and even those with a legacy of a Protestant work ethic culture have benefited.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/oct/31/economics-religion-research] The Bible also mentions sharpening the axe (Ecclesiastes 10:10), good stewardship of resources and orderliness. [http://www.openbible.info/topics/orderliness] No doubt the legacy of Protestantism in the country of Germany (birth place of Protestantism), helped to create the efficiency and orderliness that their society is known for. Athletes who train more efficiently using the best methods and get better nutrition, gain more medals. See also: [[Christianity and science]]. Christianity has one of the highest rates of creationism in the world and despite Darwinist persecution of creationists and intelligent design proponents (see: [[Expelled]]) manages to be leader in technological innovation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:48, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

== One fair way to analyze ==

In order to give a fair analysis, information needs to be compiled before the Games for the countries/sports listed for both pre/post same-sex marriage/girls playing sports and then add this year's results. As far as I can see, that would be the only way to objectively assess any trend regarding medals/performance. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:14, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:It would still make no case for any causal relationship between same-sex marriage, atheism etc. and performance at the Olympics. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 19:54, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== Baseball not an Olympic sport in 2012 ==

Baseball is removed from the list, because both baseball and softball have been dropped for the program for the 2012 Olympics. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/08/sports/08iht-oly.html?_r=1 [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

== Baseball being removed from list ==

Maybe baseball (and softball) have been removed because they are not included in the 2012 Olympics. [http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/8504326/] "They'rrre out! Olympics drop baseball, softball: Sports eliminated for 2012 Games, but could win way back in 2016" AP, nbcsports.com, July 9, 2005, retrieved July 2, 2012. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

:[[Baseball]] was dropped from the 2012 Olympics??? That's a disappointment! Is the sport considered too [[conservative]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::If it is, why did [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_at_the_Summer_Olympics#Medal_table Cuba win most of the gold medals?] (And the most medals overall?) [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

== Same sex marriage and underachievement. ==

While a rationale is given for the relationship between atheism and underperformance, none is given for the relationship between same sex marriage and underperformance. Can somebody who understands the relationship please provide a rationale in the relevant section? Thanks. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:25, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::A factor in winning gold medals is the population size of a country. How does same sex marriage help increase the population size of a country? The Russians seem to think that it doesn't. Also, Olympic athletes have to be in top physical condition. See: [[Homosexuality and health]]. In addition, mental toughness is important in sports and "Nancy boys" lack this characteristic! Also, there is the issue of [[Homosexuality and obesity]]. If you could show us that the town of Ereses on the Greek Island of [[Lesbos]] has produced an inordinate amount of Olympic women gymnasts instead of higher incidence of obese lesbians, it would be greatly appreciated (See: [[Lesbianism and obesity]]).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:16, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I think the town is called Eresos (Greek: Ερεσός), no? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:21, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::Thanks! Corrected. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:26, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

:::This isn't a good argument against same-sex marriage, you know. It's just not logical. If a marriage is for population growth, then why are marriages that can't/won't produce children permitted? My dad's on his second marriage since my mother passed away - no half-siblings yet. You need to think through your arguments. If these non-productive marriages ''are'' permitted, under what reason? Companionship? That can be applied to same-sex couples as well. Tax benefits? Ditto. The argument doesn't stand up very well.
:::Oh, and there you go - you just can't get away from negatively portraying fat people. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:24, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::Why an ancient Greek myth should be applicable to today is something only you would know.
::::As for homosexuals at the Olympics - and "nancy boys" is a very derogatory term, much like using the n-word. One would think a site like this would be above that sort of thing, but obviously not - how about Mark Spitz (7 gold) and Greg Louganis (4 gold), who was also the the most outstanding amateur athlete in the United States in 1984.
::::Once again, your tired old arguments don't hold any water - obese people - gay or straight are hardly likely to be participating at the games, so trying to make a correlation between a country's political decisions and the performance of individual athletes is - quite frankly - stupid. But I have a feeling that you still can't grasp the idea. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:26, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::There's a legal precedent - "He Who Asserts Must Prove"... so, let's see your proof that a government passing same-sex marriage laws affects individual sportsmens' performance. Hint: the drivel you wrote above is not proof. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:34, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::Homosexuality related tourism occurs in this town today. Second, re: lower amount of mental toughness issue: [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]] Third, the birth rate of heterosexual marriages will always exceed homosexual "marriages" [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:37, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::Your first point - totally not relevant. What the hell does tourism have to do with athletes at the Olympic Games? Second people - people who are not mentally tough - gay or straight wouldn't last at any level of competitive sport and thus wouldn't appear at the Games, so your point is invalid. Third point is equally invalid - birth rates have nothing to do with how individuals perform at the Games. Care to try again? [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:40, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
It is relevant: Homosexuality related tourism occurs in the Greek town today. In 1976, Gwen J. Proude and Sarah J. Green published a study in the journal Ethnology which showed a positive correlation between cultures which accepted or ignored homosexuality in their cultures and cultures which were more likely to have homosexuality be more common. (see: [[Homosexuality]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::Birth rates, already covered above: "A factor in winning gold medals is the population size of a country. How does same sex marriage help increase the population size of a country? The Russians seem to think that it doesn't." [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:::Nope. Still has absolutely no relevance to the performance of individual athletes at the Games. In fact, on rereading your reasons, you seem to be stuck on the thought that countries that allow same-sex marriage would only send gay athletes to the Games. That is bizarre.
:::Just how many people of the same gender do you think are going to be married? To say it'll affect a country's population growth is double bizarre. Japan's population growth is going backwards and they don't have same-sex marriage. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:49, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
Your [[last wordism]] isn't impressing anyone - especially since you conveniently ignored the [[Homosexuality and health]] issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:08, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
[[File:Chuck norris.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|It is no coincidence that the fit and healthy Bible believing martial artist [[Chuck Norris]] lives in the state of [[Texas]] and not the city of San Francisco! Chuck Norris is no "Nancy boy" and he is the embodiment of mental toughness. ]]
{{clear}}
:::: Wouldn't there be just as many homosexuals whether same-sex marriage is legal or not? Legalizing same-sex marriage wouldn't turn the existing athletes into homosexuals. So we're barking up the wrong tree here. Even if there were a correlation between homosexuality and athletic performance, it would have nothing to do with the legal status of same-sex marriage. Tim Tebow will be playing his home games in New York next year (ok, fine, New Jersey, but I'm a Jets fan and I consider them to be from New York). Same-sex marriage is legal in New York. It was not legal in Colorado or Florida. It is ridiculous to suggest that this would somehow hurt Tebow's performance. He will be just as faithful, Christian, and heterosexual as he ever was. Even if the NFL adds a franchise in atheistic London (as they are foolishly considering) and Tebow winds up there, nothing will change. Even if the Bills move to Toronto and Tebow plays for them, nothing will change. So supposing there is a correlation, we're looking for it in the wrong place, in my opinion. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 07:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::To be fair, legalization of homosexual relationships may be a proxy for a jurisdiction's attitudes for homosexuality. I don't think it's a very good proxy; it would probably be a better idea to examine sexual orientations of athletes themselves rather than attitudes about homosexuality held by residents the places they represent. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::: But it's not the ''attitudes'' of the athletes that [[User:Conservative]] says are relevant. It's the actual ''orientation'' of the athletes. He posted a number of references to homosexuality and health problems. Without commenting one way or the other on their merits, they only apply if the athlete himself is a homosexual. So I'm inclined to agree with GregG here. Perhaps Conservative's theory is right, but if it is, he's going about proving it the wrong way. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:08, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

=== Evidence pointing to same sex marriage acceptance negatively affecting Olympic medal counts ===

We know that bigger populations tend to gain more Olympic medals.[http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/andrew.bernard/olymp60restat_finaljournalversion.pdf] Show me that societies which accept homosexuality tend to have higher birth rates.

We know that atheists are more accepting of homosexuality and also more liberal (see: [[Atheism and morality]]). We know that liberals are more accepting of homosexuality. See: [[Views on Homosexuality]]. We also know atheists tend to have lower birth rates. See: [[Decline of atheism]]. My educated guess is that liberal countries have lower birth rates (abortion, birth control, etc.). [http://erlc.com/article/death-of-liberalism/] There is also evidence pointing to societies which accept homosexuality having more of it. In 1976, Gwen J. Proude and Sarah J. Green published a study in the journal Ethnology which showed a positive correlation between cultures which accepted or ignored homosexuality in their cultures and cultures which were more likely to have homosexuality be more common. (see: [[Homosexuality]]). My educated guess therefore is that societies accepting of same sex marriage have lower birth rates and achieve less medals as a result. I do understand that societies which have more material wealth can grow morally lax and thus more accepting of homosexuality and those societies tend to be more prone to falling (Roman Empire for example). Therefore, we should not confuse higher GDP per capita and achieving more medals and a societies acceptance of homosexuality.

Athletes with higher degrees of mental toughness achieve more. I would think that societies with higher degrees of mental toughness would have lower suicide rates. We know that atheists tend to be more accepting of homosexuality (plus more liberal) and they have higher suicide rates than the general population. See: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]. Also, compare the suicide rates of countries and their acceptance of homosexuality as a possible benchmark for the mental toughness of the societies. Of course, you would have to do statistical analysis to examine the relationship between societies accepting homosexuality and their suicide rates so you do not count other factors which cause suicides.

Alternatively, show me societies accepting of homosexuality tend to score high on mental toughness tests such as Peter Cough's test. Also, [http://psychology.about.com/library/quiz/bl_eq_quiz.htm Emotional intelligence (EQ) test] score and a person's [http://www.winstonbrill.com/bril001/html/article_index/articles/501-550/article517_body.html "Adversity quotient"] test score would be possible benchmarks as far as measuring mental toughness, but obviously the latter would be better. EQ is popular in management circles and perhaps different societies have been measured in terms of their EQ test scores. My guess is that perhaps EQ is only somewhat popular in the USA and Spain perhaps.[http://danielgoleman.info/2008/can-there-be-an-emotionally-intelligent-society/] With that being said, I think there is far more detailed information on suicide rates of countries and that is probably a better benchmark of mental toughness. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:13, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:Canada's medal haul went UP by 50% after they allowed same-sex marriage. (12 in 2004, 18 in 2008) [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 08:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
::Anecdotal and too tied to them hosting the Olympics and starting a drive to win more gold. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:58, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::They didn't host the Olympics in 2008, and anyways, the medal drive was focused on the winter games, not the summer games. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 09:03, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
It takes time to develop winning programs and I am guessing they knew in advance they were going to host the Olympics. 09:13, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:Caribbeans have low suicide rates.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate] They must be pretty mentally tough and not worry. :) Mental toughness increases performance. Hey mon, don't worry, be happy! Hey mon, I think I am going to kick back on a Caribbean beach and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTW0ifgY9zc&playnext=1&list=PLAA6853EB17004E8E listen to Caribbean music] while conservative, Bible believing families (which don't approve of homosexuality) keep winning more gold medals per family because they have more kids and have more mental toughness! :) And remember, conservative Bible believers with the Protestant work ethic, work harder to win gold medals than lazy, liberal, obese homosexuals with knee problems on welfare! See: [[Homosexuality and obesity]] and [[Lesbianism and obesity]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::HAHAHA they do talk funny
:::: That may be so, [[User:Conservative]], but you are still miscorrelating. A conservative Canadian family wouldn't be made liberal by the legalization of same-sex marriage. If anything, the decline in medals should come ''before'' the legalization of same sex-marriage, since liberalization would come ''before'' the legalization of same-sex marriage. So, perhaps a better study would be looking at a country's attitudes towards homosexuality over time (both before and after legalization of same-sex marriage) and try to correlate that. But I honestly doubt the actual act of legalizing same-sex marriage has a magic wand effect. Which is why the evidence shows you are wrong even though your logic may be perfectly correct. It's only your conclusion that's flawed. Liberalization and shift in views on homosexuality take time to occur. They don't happen overnight upon legalization of same-sex marriage. There would only be evidence of what you're saying if it was a magical overnight shift. And it's not. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:16, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

=== More evidence that homosexuality leads to lower medal counts and Bible believing enables more medals to be won ===

Homosexuals have higher suicide rates than the general population (see: [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]]). Historically, Christians have faced a lot of persecution, but they don't commit suicide. They know that God wants Christians to be strong and not commit suicide and the Bible has many verses about being courageous plus the Bible is against suicide. Bible believers are more mentally tough than homosexuals. Mental toughness increases athletic performance. Therefore, Bible believers, all other things remaining equal, are able to win more Olympic medals than homosexuals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:52, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

=== Math'd -- Gay marriage ===

A subject about quantifying something?? I accept your challenge.

For the following, I am trying to determine the effect of pro-gay legislation on Olympic Medals. Since different countries have hugely different factors, I thought we could use the states of the USA to observe any effects (being labs of democracy, and all). What I did was find a list of all 2008 Olympic Medalists. Then, I got rid of any groups, leaving only individual medalists. Then, I mapped these medalists to their home state. Then, I figured out, based on population, how many medals each state should win out of the total USA medals. Then, I matched states with their same-sex marriage legislation (I assumed if same-sex couples could marry or engage in civil unions, this was a "Pro-Gay" state. No marriage or civil unions, an "Anti-Gay" state.) Then I summed up expected and actuals by these two categories. Here's what I got....

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! State Type
! Expected Medals
! Actual Medals
! Over/Under
|-
| Pro-Gay
| 29.8
| 45
| 15.2
|-
| Anti-Gay
| 42.2
| 27
| -15.2
|-
| Total
| 72.0
| 72
| 0
|}

If we look just at Gold Medals...

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! State Type
! Expected Golds
! Actual Golds
! Over/Under
|-
| Pro-Gay
| 8.3
| 14
| 5.7
|-
| Anti-Gay
| 11.7
| 6
| -5.7
|-
| Total
| 20.0
| 20
| 0
|}
(Please note that if a medalist is from another country, they were excluded. Same with two obscure athletes I couldn't find information on)

As you can see, "Pro-Gay" states outperform their expected total medal results by over 50%. Conversely, "Anti-Gay" states underperform by 36%.

The picture is more extreme only looking at Gold medals - "Pro-Gay" outperformes %69%, while "Anti-Gay' under perform by almost half.

In conclusion, do I think "imposing" gay marriage has anything to do with Olympic results? Probably not, since states, along any group of people in the Olympics, have a huge number of factors affecting their outcomes. But, to say that gay marriage destroys Olypmic results...well, that just goes against the data.
[[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 15:49, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I think you are going to have to do regression analysis to isolate the homosexuality issue. It seems as if the wealth and population size are important variables to winning medals as noted above. Cultures which have significant wealth often get morally complacent history shows. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:00, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

1) This is a regression based on population size. But I don't think a regression could be done on wealth, since it's hard to track the socio-economic movements of dozens of medalists, many of whom are relatively unknown. Also, if you want me to regress based on a group of large, poor states that allow gay marriage...my sample size isn't going to be even close to credible. I agree though, it would be very interesting.

2) You didn't provide isolation of the homosexuality issue in your hypothesis, so that's what I based my refutation on.. You said countries with gay marriage would underperform. Not that a country with gay marriage would underperform an identical country without gay marriage.

3) Most importantly, why should ''I'' isolate the homosexuality issue? ''You'' should be the one supporting your premise, or at least refuting my data. I spent the time showing why your idea was wrong, now it's your turn to either show where I am wrong, or adjust or reject your hypothesis.
[[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 16:13, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::The liberals are not being realistic and fighting an uphill battle here. You are never going to have people associate homosexuality with athleticism/health. This is a Pickett's charge to say the least - especially at Conservapedia (see: [[Homosexuality and health]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:36, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::So...nothing about the Olympics then? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 16:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::You still haven't shown me that the homosexual population can clear Olympic hurdles as well as the heterosexual population. See: [[Homosexuality and obesity]] and [[Lesbianism and obesity]]. Are you saying that overweight people are better hurdlers? If so, I have a hard time believing this. Also, nations with bigger populations earn more medals. How does homosexuality promote procreation? After all, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:37, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::And kudos to you, User:Conservative. You once again can't resist bringing up us evil fat people as your argument. And lo and behold, it's even completely off-topic to the above comments. Color me surprised... '''''NOT!''''' [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 13:38, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::: [[User:Conservative]], you make valid points, but you are confusing two statistical populations. There is the homosexual population, and if your statistics are correct, they should perform worse. Let's assume that you're right for the purpose of this discussion. However, that would only effect athletes who are homosexual themselves, not entire countries. Legalizing same-sex marriage won't magically make the entire population into homosexuals. So you should be looking at the sexual orientation of the athletes themselves if you want to prove your point. Whether the country/state legalizes same-sex marriage is irrelevant to your point, one way or the other. I'd be interested in seeing your new study which focuses on the athletes themselves and not on the whole country. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

Conservative, you said that legalizing gay marriage leads to a country under-performing in the Olympics. I showed that the evidence does not support that, at least in America. I didn't say fat gays make good hurdlers. But, the Olympics usually doesn't draw athletes from the 'out-of-shape' population... [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 22:45, 8 July 2012 (EDT)

== Expected Medals ==

Hello all,
I think it would be fun to track "expected vs actuals" with regards to medals. I was thinking of adding a table giving each partipating country an expected value. However, I'm having trouble deciding it it would be better to do it on a "per capita" basis, or a "per GDP" basis. Any thoughts? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 17:09, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

:I think ranking on a "per GDP" basis would be fairer. Competitive sports is an activity of affluent nations. Any thoughts on this by others?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:14, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

::I added a table, proportioning medals by nominal GDP. I notice that I'm predicting 200 medals for America, which seems high. I wonder why that could be? My thought is that there are a ton of countries with less than 1 medal expected, but a lot of them will probably get one. I'll leave the table, but please let me know if you have any thoughts on modifications. It's a least something to get us thinking! [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 13:43, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

== Added info re same-sex marriage ==

I added more info on same-sex marriage being allowed in certain political subdivisions of a country. I clarified that there are two US States that have legalized same sex marriage but there is a citizen's referendum about it, but that one of them (Washington) already had civil unions. I also noted that in Mexico, same-sex marriage is legal in Mexico City, a Federal District similar to Washington, DC. Also, I noted that several overseas territories of the Netherlands will compete separately and also have different laws regarding same-sex marriage. Aruba does not perform them, but per the Kingdom's requirements must recognize those performed elsewhere. Same with Curacao and Sint Maarten, who will compete as "Independent Olympic Participants" under the Olympic flag after the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles and the loss of recognition for their Olympic committee. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 19:29, 3 July 2012 (EDT)

== Joke sports ==

I'm going to remove beach volleyball from the list, as it's a very physically demanding sport. Also, while I agree that synchronised swimming is a bit of a joke, I disagree with the description that these are "sports that allow underachieving nations to pad their medal totals". The USA has won (usually multiple) medals in beach volleyball every year it has been included in the Olympics, synchronised swimming medals ''most'' times and half of all the BMX medals ever awarded! In fact, the only weak nation that has ever won a medal in any of these events (ever) was a Latvian who won the first BMX gold. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:00, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

:I realize that the U.S. wins many of these "joke" medals. I was being objective and fair to other nations in criticizing these medals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

::Ok fair enough. So what are your thoughts on beach volleyball? What makes it joke...ish? [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:19, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

:::I think it's mainly because it's a relatively recent creation, arrived at by taking an existing sport and just playing it on a beach. (I know that teams are smaller and the rules are a bit different etc, but that's basically it.) Why not have beach tennis, beach archery, beach baseball and beach cricket as well??? That and the requirements by the sport's governing body specifying the skimpiness of female competitors' attire.
:::This isn't to say that it's not demanding to play at the top level, but do the Olympics really need to have two different kinds of volleyball? Regular volleyball is hardly a blue riband event as it is!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:33, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::: Beach volleyball and regular volleyball have different rules. The idea is the same, but the rules are pretty different. A similar situation would be rugby. Starting in 2016 rugby sevens will be in the Olympics. If they also added rugby league (which is fairly similar to rugby sevens, but has a lot of differences too) as well, then that would be too similar. But it just makes them redundant, it doesn't make one of them a "joke". [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:04, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

== Are the nations of Japan increasingly atheistic or increasingly theistic and/or christian? ==

Are the nations of Japan increasingly atheistic or increasingly theistic and/or christian?

Gallup poll: Christianity growing in Japan: http://www.breakingchristiannews.com/articles/display_art.html?ID=2278

Pastor Lee in Korea, 2007 - BBC: ""Our church is still growing, so sooner or later Christianity will be the major religion in Korea. All Christians are praying for that right now."[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8322072.stm]

== Move page ==

Can we move this page to [[2012 Olympics]]? That's a more natural title. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 07:16, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:How bout a redirect?[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 11:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

::The redirect works. It's a close call which title is better, but to me starting an entry with a number seems less efficient in conveying meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:24, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::You have to have something indicating summer. I retitled the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:04, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
::::I agree. Even though Summer and Winter Olympics never occur in the same year anymore, they historically were both held in the same year. Having this naming convention will ensure consistency with other Olympics articles we may create. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:11, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
::::: I agree. 2012 Olympics may not be ambiguous but [[1984 Olympics]] would be. (Los Angeles Summer Games or Sarajevo Winter Games). Also, with regards to Andy's concern, virtually all press releases refer to these as the 2012 (Summer) Olympics, and/or use the official name "Games of the XXX Olympiad". (XXX is Roman Numeral 30, not a placeholder) However, since the official Olympiad name is never used except in official releases, and it is commonly referred to as 2012 Summer Olympics everywhere else, I say keep it this way. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:01, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

Agree with Greg. Thirtieth Olympiad is too obscure for a generation that regards 3 month old music as outdated. Better call it the 2012 Olympics. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:26, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== Tables for medals ==

I'm going to add tables showing medals won, and indicate in the table when same-sex marriage was recognized, for each country listed. This will make it easier to identify trends from before and after legalization. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:54, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== This page is preposterous ==

I can't believe that nearly everything you have to say about this year's Olympic games revolves around your overweening obsession with homosexuality and atheism. Even conservatives--well, normal conservatives--would want more substantive information. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 19:51, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:That's not enough to qualify as trying to improve this page. Are you saying there's no correlation, or are you indirectly registering an objection to this project's campaign against homosexuality and atheism? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:25, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
::In my opinion, the way to improve this page would be to delete all the content and start over. I understand that the project is against homosexuality and atheism. But that doesn't mean those things have to be the main focus of ''every'' article. And yes, I ''am'' saying that there is no known correlation between same-sex marriage, homosexuality or atheism and Olympics success, and even if one were demonstrated, it would not establish causality, which is clearly what you are after. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 21:20, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:::Ideas do have consequences on productivity, achievement, happiness, etc. A high percentage of successful [[NFL]] quarterbacks are devout [[Christians]]. Why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:17, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

::::Is that so? What is the percentage? --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 23:57, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== Where is the UK... ==

...in the expected medals section? --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 21:02, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:Whoops, I had it listed as Great Britain. Which I should have known better than to do - I lived in London for a couple years, and got yelled at every time I got the terms wrong... [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 23:18, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

::Aaargh! I checked UK and Britain but neglected to check Great Britain. Silly me. --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 23:23, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== GDP ==

If GDP "may be a fair proxy" in relation to how many medals a country will win then why is the main part of the article all about how atheism and gay marriage are going to have such an influence over the results? --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 21:04, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:I wanted to have a start point for comparisons and trend-spotting. It is my hypothesis that homosexuality and atheism have nothing to do with a country's athletic performance, and the table is my first step in testing. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 23:21, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

::I am inclined to agree with you. Unfortunately it makes the article a little schizophrenic (if I may use that term in such an inaccurate manner). The top of the article asserts that homosexuality and atheism are solid indicators of Olympic performance for reasons, whereas your section is intended to show otherwise. An internal tension, if you will.
::I get the feeling from the ''Nations that are increasingly atheistic'' section that there is supposed to be some reason that atheists are incapable of acting as members of a team (the reason is not explained). Beyond that, the article is not only utterly unsupported by any study or even by any observations made by eminent persons in the appropriate field, it doesn't even contain a hypothesis as to the means by which the asserted connections operate. I would suggest deleting and starting again but I have read Ed Poor's comments above and I assume any such similar request from myself would be resisted. --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 23:36, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
::: We have explained those connections elsewhere, including on this talk page. Perhaps make separate articles and link to them? If we put all the explanations in this article, I think it would get a bit too busy. Also, we'd have to copy them for every future Olympics, which seems like a waste if we can just link to them. What does everyone else think? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 12:04, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

== Rowing -> soccer ==

I see Andy that you have reverted my edit which asserted that rowing was the sport requiring the most teamwork. Apparently soccer is the sport that requires most teamwork (for reasons that are mysterious to me).

Why is that Andy? Why not (field) hockey, for example? Or American football? I would still assert that rowing is far and away the paramount team sport. Your edit comment that it is "emulating a machine" really does nothing to detract from that assertion. So what? If that means that each crew member must move their body in perfect time with each other then my point is all the stronger isn't it?

Obviously if this is a conservative insight then clearly I must be wrong, but if there is an actual reason that soccer is the ultimate team sport over rowing then I would be interested to hear it. --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 23:52, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:There is no dynamic teamwork of any consequence in rowing - no passing a ball from one player to another, no reactions to defenders, and no mental strategy. Rowing is great exercise for those who have access to expensive equipment and placid lakes, but it's not dynamic teamwork as soccer is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

::Ok, so it's "dynamic teamwork" that atheists can't perform? They are capable of acting in perfect harmony with each other in a rowing shell but cannot pass a ball to each other or perform mental strategy? Interesting. Is there any evidence to support any of this? If so, why is it that atheists are incapable of such activities?

::P.S. I performed a couple of Google searches on which (rowing or soccer) is more commonly referred to as "the ultimate team sport": [https://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22rowing+the+ultimate+team+sport%22&oq=%22rowing+the+ultimate+team+sport%22&gs_l=serp.3..0i30.71845.74333.0.74873.2.2.0.0.0.0.220.429.2-2.2.0...0.0...1c.IPtkh8308qI&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=862d766996523d9f&biw=1201&bih=678 rowing] or [https://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&pq=soccer%20the%20ultimate%20team%20sport&cp=32&gs_id=e&xhr=t&q=%22soccer+the+ultimate+team+sport%22&pf=p&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&oq=%22soccer+the+ultimate+team+sport%22&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=862d766996523d9f&biw=1201&bih=678 soccer]. I think that the hit numbers speak for themselves. --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 00:57, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

:::Rowing is obviously a rich-man's sport, which gives an unfair advantage to a few nations like the [[U.K.]] While physically challenging, rowing is the only sport where the contestant should think as little as possible and simply act like a robot.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:12, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
:::: In rowing, don't you have a coxswain telling you when to row? It requires everyone rowing together, yes, but as long as they all act like robots (as Andy put it) and row when the coxswain says row, that's the only teamwork required. I won't deny it's a difficult sport, but it doesn't require much teamwork when there's a coxswain. The reason it's the ultimate team sport is that, more so than in any other sport, the chain is only as strong as the weakest link. If you put me on a soccer field with the 10 best players in the world (assuming they're of different positions), we could win, even though I'm a terrible soccer player. If you put me in a four-man boat with the three best rowers in the world, we would do terrible, because I'm a terrible rower. That's the difference between rowing and other team sports. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 05:35, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

::::::I row 3 times a week and I am a coxswain. It is certainly not a "robot" sport, and it requires intense concentration from the rowers to make sure that the crew is in time, running on perfect technique and drawing through together. A physically stronger crew will often lose to a weaker but more technical crew. The reason that our crews look like robots are because they are concentrating as hard as they can to keep everything technical, and to work against what the body is intuitively telling you to make every single inch of pressure on the water count.
::::::
::::::As for being a rich man's sport, I can sympathise. Those boats are bloody expensive, and are often donated through philanthropy. However many of us, myself included, come from very underprivileged backgrounds and are fortunate enough to row in university teams. But getting to Olympic level requires training from a young age, which usually means being brought up at a very expensive private school that has rowing equipment. So I agree to an extent there, but one must not forget the huge benefits that philanthropy gives to broadening the pool of rowers, which is a conservative virtue as far as this website is concerned. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 11:16, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

:::: (edit conflict) Doesn't the above data prove my point? The wealthiest nations in the world have won nearly all of the rowing medals.

:::: Rowing is a grueling sport - I rowed for a bit myself. But it is a rich man's sport, and it is the only sport that does not use the brain.

:::: In reply to Greg's insight comments, I doubt a soccer team with 25% terrible players could win either, if the coaching by the opposing side is good.

:::: In reply to HumanGeographer's good comments, I agree that concentration is required and that the sport is terrific exercise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
::::: Andy, soccer teams have 11 players (including goalie). So it would be 9% poor players. And considering that teams have won 10-on-11 after an early red card, it's not inconceivable. But in rowing, it would be impossible. That's where the "team sport" mantra comes from. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 15:05, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

Greg, you have missed Andy's point. If you are one out of the four rowers you now have 25% of a team being terrible, whereas in soccer, as you have put it, missing one player means only 9% of the team is terrible. What Andy is suggesting is that the better comparison would be if a soccer team had 3 of their players essentially non-effective, and his point in that regard is well-taken. A soccer team playing 8 against 11 would not fare well either.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 15:23, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

== The Olympics and Economics 2012 ==

[[Goldman Sachs]] has some thoughts on the matters discussed above: [http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/topics/global-economic-outlook/olympics-and-economics-.pdf pdf]
{{cquote|Britain has quite high per capita spending on elite sports for a western democracy. Sailing is a perfect example— boats are very costly. For equestrianism, you need a horse. For rowing, you need a boathouse, boats and oars. For track cycling, you don’t really have a chance without a wind tunnel, a velodrome. It’s different with running, where you just need a pair of shoes. There is a dramatic difference between sports that only a tiny group of countries can afford to invest in and the others.|||Matthew Syed, British journalist}}
They have a forecast for Gold and Total medals, too.
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 05:50, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

== During the Modern Olympic Games, the pagan origins of the Olympics have been replaced by faith-based achievement by the participating athletes ==

This seems to be wishful thinking: the Olympics were for quite a time dominated by nations which didn't allow their athletes the comforts of faith. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 05:59, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

== Group of Left ==

For those who don't get the "Group of Left" reference, it's a play on the phrase "Group of Death", which refers to an unusually strong group. I doubt Tunisia will finish in the top two and go to the medal round, but anything other than last place would be overperforming for them. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 18:21, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

== Women's Soccer ==

Why would the US women's soccer team be expected to underachieve? They're not one of the atheist nations, same-sex marriage is only legal in six states, and if Title IX effected them in any way, it would have helped them (albeit at the expense of men's sports). We should either explain it or remove it. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 18:35, 22 July 2012 (EDT)
:As I understand it, women's soccer is very strong in the US. Still, the nature of Soccer means that results are more unpredictable than other sports. Very often the best team is not able to win. Its a funny sport in that respect. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 18:44, 22 July 2012 (EDT)
:: I know that. But that still doesn't answer the question. We could say the same about any of the favorites. There's no reason given to expect the US team specifically to underperform. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 08:49, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
:::It seems as though "underperformance" and "failing to live up to expectations" are a preferred theme of the website's management. Maybe it's just a case of projection. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 09:22, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
:::: Possibly. If that's all it is, we should remove it. But I'm going to wait and see if anyone has a better explanation before I do so. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 18:07, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

:::::[[Politically correct]] teams often underachieve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:03, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::: Very well. I removed the part about the coach being a foreigner, since surprisingly it isn't an unusual practice to do something like that. About half the women's soccer coaches this year are from another country (i.e. not the one they coach). And Jurgen Kingsman of Germany coaches the men's US national team, although it's unlikely he'd have coached at the Olympics even if they did qualify, since men's soccer at the Olympics is primarily Under-23 teams. However, I kept the rest of the footnote. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 21:10, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

::::::: I don't think it's that common for a prominent sport like soccer. Germany, of course, has a very strong soccer program. But a coach from Sweden for the women's team???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::::: Ahhh.... Good point. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 21:50, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
The coach in question was the coach when the US won gold in 2008. She took the job in 2007. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 00:14, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::::: Early goal for France in Game 1 for the USA. 1-0. Plenty of time for us to come back. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 12:13, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::::: 2-0 France, less than 20 minutes in. A loss wouldn't eliminate the US, but a big loss would make it hard to go through in a tough group. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 12:15, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::::: 2-1. US goal came on a corner kick, which requires a lot of teamwork, against, atheist France. Still not even a quarter of the way through. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 12:20, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
So let me get this straight: If France loses, it's because of atheism. If the US loses, it's because their coach is a foreign-born lesbian, even though she led the team to gold in 2008. Is that correct? [[User:RayM|RayM]] 12:29, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::: It's only one game. And one of them had to win (or it could be a tie, I suppose). Let's see how the tournament progresses. It looks like they'll both go to the quarterfinals, but with 8 of the 12 teams advancing, that's not unexpected. Let's see how they do there. Then we can discuss this. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:51, 29 July 2012 (EDT)
:The US girls have won the gold medal! [http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2012/08/09/us-beats-japan-for-third-straight-olympic-gold-in-women-soccer/] --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 17:40, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

=="No Religion" in census response==
There are three possible explanations for a citizen refusing to state a religious preference on a government census form: no self-identification with one of the listed denominations, fear of government recording of religious preferences, or protest against government intrusion into a citizen's private spiritual life. Do we know which is the case in Australia? I know that if the government were to knock on my door, I would be in the third group. We don't know if Australia is in a religious decline based on census data, when there are better measures, including church service attendance and audience ratings for religious radio and TV broadcasts. Are there better data sources for this article? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:08, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

Over 11% of Australians refused to answer the religion question on their census forms. These people could have a faith. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 08:22, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

== Beckham and the Olympic torch ==

I suggest not adding whether Beckham lights the Olympic cauldron until after it airs on NBC, even though we should know around 7:30 PM ET whether he has or not. Some people might not know and might want to not know until NBC shows it on tape delay. It's only a few hours, and since most of our users are American and won't have seen the cauldron lighting yet, I think it's a reasonable courtesy. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 06:41, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Black Power salute controversy ==

I don't see a connection between the Black Power salute controversy, which was an act of political defiance on the medal stand that hardly anyone remembers (and which the Olympic committee forgave participants for) and [[Tebowing]]. Also, why would the comment be in the "TBD" column anyway?
:I think that athletes may (understandably) refrain from engaging in overt religious activity due to the precedent set by Smith and Carlos. The Olympics are a major event, and being banned from them (even wrongly) can seriously affect athletes, especially those competing in sports whose major competition is the Olympics. That's why I think that athletes will at least think twice before engaging in such behavior.
:The column where I added my explanation is headed "Answer," and my explanation is certainly an answer. Of course, it's just my insight, and maybe it will be proven wrong. But even if no one does end up doing Tebowing, we can rest assured that Christian athletes have Jesus' words in mind:
{{cquote|And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.|||Matthew 6:5-8|NIV}}
:[[User:GregG|GregG]] 14:42, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

::The "answer" is presumably provided by the results, as for the other issues, all of which is "TBA". [[Tebowing]] is not something that would likely be done during the medal ceremony, not even by Tebow himself. It's done before or after the athletic event, as in the American marathon medalist in 2004 who did the Sign of the Cross right after crossing the finish line.

::As to the quote from the [[Bible]], the context for that quote is clear: people should not pray in a hypocritical manner like the liberal Pharisees. There is nothing hypocritical about [[Tebowing]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:08, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I think the precedent still applies, or at least it has an ''in terrorem'' effect, to all such displays, regardless of whether they are during a medals ceremony or before or after an event. I know that this is my opinion, but Tebowing seems to me to be nothing more than a gimmick, a practice designed to whack people over the head with the "HEY, IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW, I'M CHRISTIAN!" hammer. Such efforts, no matter how sincere they are, are misguided, and Jesus tells us that this sort of public display is not at all required by Christians, just as Jesus goes on to criticize people who make a public display out the pious practice of fasting. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 15:41, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Reformat ==

Can someone with better formatting skills than me please make the table into a better, cleaner format? It's very hard to read right now. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 15:42, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

== Public Schools ==

Is the public schools example really that good? There are certain private schools in America that are infamous for training its students like athletes rather than students. More so in basketball and (American) football than other Olympic sports, though. Public schools don't do that. Nor should schools do that, it's called "school", not "training". I should point out that certain colleges are legendary for that too, including my own school, which is a public college under the State of Connecticut. But don't think that's why we're banned from the tournament next year - we're actually banned for not doing enough to game the system. And half the women's basketball Olympic team went to UConn. We actually care about academics for our women's basketball team, and do very well academically. But don't get me started on that, because it's irrelevant.
Anyway, assuming you mean public high schools (or below), I think it doesn't present a very conservative argument. Private primary schools should not exist for the purpose of training athletes. The fact that some do indicates something is wrong with the system, not that the system is good. Not saying that's enough to make the whole system bad - the vast majority of private schools are very good academically. But these aren't the ones that produce the superstar athletes, for the most part. Also, other than basketball, it wouldn't apply to any of the Olympic sports, since football isn't in the Olympics. And there are only 12 American men's basketball players. I don't know how many of them went to the sham private schools whose main purpose is athletics, but I know LeBron is one of them. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 15:49, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

== The Swiss tweet in question. ==

[http://www.totalprosports.com/2012/07/30/swiss-soccer-player-michel-morganella-sent-home-olympics-racist-tweet/ Here is a link to an image of the tweet]. As you can easily read for yourself, it's directed at "les coréens," et non pas contre "l'équipe coréen" ou quelque chose de même. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 18:33, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

: "South Korean" is not a race, and there is no evidence that the tweet was racist as the [[liberals]] claim. Rather, this incident shows how much liberals oppose [[free speech]], and will NOT defend the rights of others to speak their minds.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:40, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
::So, just for the record, you do defend the right of a person to call an entire nation of people "mentally handicapped retards" and think that he should face no consequences for doing so while representing his own country at an international event? [[User:RayM|RayM]] 18:48, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

:::For the record, I do support [[free speech]], even for statements with which I disagree. The tweet was not racist and athletes should be able to vent on twitter, just as they do vocally during games. Fans do also, by the way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:13, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

::::Do you believe a private, non-profit organization such as the Swiss and/or Greek Olympic committees has the right to demand and/or expect behavior from its members that reflects well on the organization, and that organization should be allowed to sanction a participant when behavior does not meet those expectations? If you do, where do you think the line is drawn? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:27, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

:::::No, I don't think the organizations you mention should be expelling athletes based on what they say on Twitter (and I question whether the organizations are truly private, rather than publicly funded).

:::::There was no evidence that the tweets embarrassed the nations in any way. Rather, this is [[liberal censorship]] run amok. Thirty years ago, liberals and the ACLU would have sided with the athletes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:39, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::: The only NOC that is 100% privately funded is the American one, although the vast majority of them are funded privately in part. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:01, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

== Atheistic Brits ==

I wonder...what percentage of the underachieving, God-hating British Olympians are actually Atheists? [[user:Willingham77|Willingham77]] 17:03, 31 July 2012

:The better question is what percentage of the Brits are subjected to an increasingly atheistic media and culture? Unfortunately, nearly 100%.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:11, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

::The better better question is why does an "atheistic" country have an established religion (COE)? Should all of us God-fearing Americans want the same for Christianity?[[User:Emmerich|Emmerich]] 23:23, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

:::[[Great Britain]] has an established '''''church'''''. That is something the [[Founders]] opposed - a state supported '''''church'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:42, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

::::Wow Andy, you should use that statement as an example in a Conservapedia article entitled "Non sequitur". [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 15:43, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
==Proposed table entry==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Sport
!Political issue
!Answer
|-
|Netball
|Will Netball be played at the 2012 and 2016 Summer Olympics? Wikipedia claims that Netball is an "Olympic sport"<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Olympic_sports|title=Category:Olympic sports|accessdate=Aug. 3, 2012}}</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics/Archive_12#Category:Olympic_sports</ref> played "at the Olympics".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_at_the_Olympics&action=history</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics/Archive_12#Olympic_recognised_sports</ref>
|Feminists have been demanding equality in Olympic participation. As a result, women have been playing the same game as men -- five-players-on-each-side basketball in the Olympics since 1976, rather than a watered-down version designed for Victorian women called Netball.
|}
If there are no objections, I will move this to the table in the article. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 11:19, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
: That's not really a question about the Olympics, more a commentary on Wikipedia. Stick it in [[Bias in Wikipedia]], not here. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 17:11, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
: Also, Wikipedia no longer claims Netball is an Olympic sport, only an "Olympic recognized sport", which is correct. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 17:17, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
::With all due respect to my friend Gregkochuconn, I just looked at the Wikipedia netball article and it is still in category "Olympic sports." I admit that the Wikipedia article "Netball and the Olympic Movement" is in category "Olympic recognised sports" but the radical feminists have insisted that Netball stay in the former category. Please see for yourself. The table entry was an assertion: We say netball will not be played in 2012 and 2016, Wikipedia says it is already an Olympic sport and keeps deleting statements that it could not possibly be added to the Olympic Programme before 2024.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&diff=502656544&oldid=502573324] [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:00, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
:::Its a bit hard to see exactly what the issue is. It is not hard to see that this issue is one for the Wikipedia page and not for the Olympics 2012 page. Whether or not it is deservedly and "Olympic Sport" or an "Olympic Recognised Sport" (these terms are not synonymous) is an issue for a general Olympics page, and whether Wikipedia is somehow censoring conservative thought is an issue for the Wikipedia page. Frankly I doubt very many of you even know what netball is. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:52, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
:::: That edit seems to be adding the 2024 information, not deleting it. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:24, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::Promptly reverted.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&diff=next&oldid=502668446] [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 03:52, 5 August 2012 (EDT)
::::: Probably because it was in the article about the sport at the Olympics, and didn't belong in the main article. The main article doesn't make any claim one way or the other. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 17:54, 5 August 2012 (EDT)
:::: Also, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netball_at_the_Olympics current version of the page] includes that information. So what you are saying is wrong. In any case, this is not the place for it, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the 2012 Olympics. Wikipedia makes no claim that it will be contested at the 2012 Olympics, even if it is an "Olympic sport", seeing as that category includes present Olympic sports, past Olympic sports, and Olympic recognized sports. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:27, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
::::::: Note that the article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squash_(sport) squash], which has a far more significant chance of being added to the Olympic program than squash, also does not mention that it could be added no sooner than 2024. As I said above, the article on Netball and the Olympic Movement does mention that it can't be added until 2024. The fact doesn't belong in the main article for the sport, by WP standards, and other articles on Olympic-recognized sports don't mention it either. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 15:17, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
<references/>
::::::: Comparing medals from last olympics and expecting a country to get the same amount at the next olympics is pretty futile and a pointless exercise for a number of reasons. The biggest reason why it is pointless is due to the retirement of older and successful medal winning athletes and the emergence of the new generation of athletes in that sport. This is one of the main reasons why australia didn't win as many medals in 2012 as it did in 2008. The non swimming medal tally was pretty much the same, however the swimming team is going through a major generational change with a lot of the great athletes from 2008 retiring (or retiring and then failing to come back) that generation of swimming talent was a bit of a "bumper crop" similiar to what you have with phelps and locte. There was also a fair number of athletes who had ongoing injury concerns which doesn't help but that does happen in every team.

Funding is also a big factor as olympic sport has got to the level that if you don't put large resources into your athletes your not going to have a very big chance at rating in the top 5 in an event. The funding for althletes in a lot of european countries from both the government and the private sector has dried up due to the economic conditions. Spain did really well considering this however thier performance in rio is likely to suffer as funding is unlikely to increase. For example the womens 6m team from spain that won gold, barely made it to the olympics as there was bugger all funding for it. --[[User:Nacacube|Nacacube]] 09:20, 15 August 2012 (EDT)--[[User:Nacacube|Nacacube]] 09:20, 15 August 2012 (EDT)--[[User:Nacacube|Nacacube]] 09:20, 15 August 2012 (EDT)

== Oh no, the tennis! ==

Look what's happening! One of the greatest conservative sports stars just lost the bronze medal match to an Argentinian who no doubt supports gay marriage, and an overrated Brit is smashing one of the all-time greats in the gold! What is going on?? Not only that, but we all just watched home-schooled gymnast Makayla Maroney underperform, right onto her bum! This page may need a re-write ... [[User:AlanA|AlanA]] 10:43, 5 August 2012 (EDT)

:While expressing doubt about your guess as to the Argentinian star's political views, I welcome further review of the predictions in the entry as more results pour in ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:45, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
:: The predictions represent things that are "likely" to happen, not things that are guaranteed to happen. Murray also had the advantage of the home fans, and Federer was tired from his marathon match with Del Potro. Of course, Del Potro should have been tired too.

== Will countries that have implemented same-sex marriage underperform? ==

Will someone please explain where the expected total medals figures in this section come from? Thanks. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 15:41, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
: The table lower down in the article. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:59, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
::Oh, you mean the one based on GDP, which "cannot be used as a fair proxy". In other words, they're meaningless. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 22:15, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
::: Find a better proxy and we can use that. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:17, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
::: I have changed the proxy to medals won at the last (Summer) Olympics prior to implementing same-sex marriage. The expected total is virtually unchanged. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:28, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
:::: Better, but expected numbers should be corrected for any significant differences in total number of medals available and in a country's number of athletes competing between the base estimate year and 2012. Also, since it's conceded that it's too early to tell how these countries will ultimately perform, the +/- figures are premature. With about 59% of events concluded, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, South Africa and Sweden are on track to meet or exceed their medal count for the base year. The Netherlands and Norway could easily do so as well by the games' end. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 10:53, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
::::: Hence "too early to tell". It's unlikely (though not impossible) for the Netherlands and Spain to overperform, while Denmark and Sweden have overperformed already. The rest are too early to tell. That being said, I will remove the +/- totals until the Games are over - they are misleading at this point. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 11:00, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
::::: Also, there are only a few more medal events (out of over 300) being contested in 2012 than in previous years, so that shouldn't matter. I think there were 301 in 2008 and 2004 and 302 this year. Insigificant. Since the theory centers around how many exceptional athletes these countries produce, adjusting for the number of athletes is incorrect. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 11:02, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
::::::What is "the theory"? [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 09:37, 8 August 2012 (EDT)
::::::: See [[User:Conservative]]'s rant somewhere above on this page. It's confusing, and I don't feel like repeating all of it, especially since I don't think it's accurate (though as an empiricist, I'm willing to put it to the test). [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:23, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
Seems that the highly promiscous gay diver has been eliminated, news article said he has been spending to much time at gay rallies instead of training [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 12:33, 11 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::::: I did not just say that about the gay diver. Who signed my name to that comment? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:53, 11 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::::: Looking through the edit history, it appears to be [[User:Nacacube]], who for some reason decided to affix my username to his comment. I don't even know how he did it, since he obviously didn't copy and paste - the time is different. Strange. Message left on his talk page. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:55, 11 August 2012 (EDT)

Originally, the "developed nations" took most of the medals in the Modern Olympics. In fact, because of transportation challenges, the host country had a big advantage in the early years of the Modern Olympics. Since that time, there has been a long-term trend of spreading the medals to countries throughout the world. Over time, the portion of the medals going to smaller countries has increased and the number of medals going to France, UK, and Germany have declined. So, if one had to explain a 4% decline in Olympic medals, could one look to this long-term trend rather than to the gay marriage factor? Thanks [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 12:26, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
: 4% isn't a significant difference anyway, unless it continues. One sample showing a 4% change doesn't really prove anything by itself. You could be right, but we'd have to analyze it long-term, rather than just one year, given the small change. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:14, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
: Assuming GregG calculated the p-value correctly, he is correct in that there is no statistical significance just from this one test. Generally, you would need a p value of 0.05 or less for it to be significant (or by stricter standards, 0.01). 0.73 is nowhere near that. I'm not going to verify the calculations, but it seems right. And assuming it's right, GregG is correct that it is not significant. However, if repeated tests showed a 4% decrease, that would be significant. We can run it again in 2014 and 2016, and beyond. And possibly we would have more nations to work with in those years. Keep in mind that the Winter Olympics (2014) have fewer total medals, so a 4% drop would be less significant, by itself. But if demonstrated, it could show significance of the trend. Something inonsistent with the 4% decrease, such as a small increase, would indicate no correlation. Bottom line is that this one sample test can't disprove the correlation by itself, but it doesn't prove it either. I'm an actuarial science major at school, so I'm pretty knowledgeable about this stuff. A repeated 4% decrease would be significant. But for the moment, it's not. I'm going to retroactively analyze the 2008 medal data, although we'll have fewer countries. When I'm done, I'll post the results. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:26, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
: Here is the medal data from previous years from the original post, omitting any countries that legalized same-sex marriage after 2008
Belgium - 5 in 2000, 2 in 2008
Canada - 12 in 2004, 18 in 2008
Netherlands - 25 in 2000, 16 in 2008
Norway - 6 in 2004, 9 in 2012
South Africa - 6 in 2004, 1 in 2008
Spain - 19 in 2004, 18 in 2012
Total - 73 expected, 64 actual

This is a decrease of 9 medals out of 73, a 12.3% decrease.

Let's look at the countries that legalized same-sex marriage between 2000 and 2004, as far back as we can go.

Belgium - 5 in 2000, 3 in 2004
Netherlands - 25 in 2000, 22 in 2004
Total - 30 in 2000, 25 in 2004
This is a 16.7% decrease, but with far too small a sample size to be significant by itself. [[User:GregG]], care to run the significance test?
Also of note, there appears to be something going on with the Belgians and Dutch, who have seen a consistent decline, while the rest of the nations have not, apparently. Since they are geographically and culturally close, this may be relevant. Ignoring them, we have no data for 2004, a 4.6% INCREASE in 2008, and again a 4.6% increase in 2012, neither of which is statistically significant by itself, and probably still not together. (Note: 4.6% increase is just as statistically significant as 4.6% decrease. In this case, not very) Of course, we can't just kick the two lowest samples out of the data set. But there seems to be some factor that has steadily brought the Dutch and Belgian totals down, without influencing anyone else. Was something else going on in Belgium and the Netherlands at the same time? Or was the 2000 medals we're using as the baseline simply an anomaly? I'm guessing the latter. 2000 was the Dutch's best Olympics EVER. It wasn't the Belgians', but even the 40% decrease from 2000 to 2004 isn't significant when they only had 5 to begin with. I'm going to rerun this data when I have more time, using totals from the three previous summer Olympics, and totals from all Olympiads thereafter, multiplying the latter by 3 or 1.5 if necessary, where there are fewer years, although I'll note where so as not to effect the significance test. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:41, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
: Going in alphabetical order,
Belgium - 14 from 1992-2000, 8 from 2004-2012 (no reweighting necessary)
Canada - 48 from 1996-2004, 36 from 2008-2012, multiply by 1.5 to weight as if there were 3 Olympics = 54 weighted total
Denmark - 21 from 2000-2008, 9 in 2012, reweights as 27
Iceland - 2 from 2000-2008, 0 in 2012, reweights as 0
Netherlands - 59 from 1992-2000, 58 from 2004-2012, no reweighting necessary
Norway - 23 from 1996-2004, 13 in 2008-2012, reweight as 19.5 due to lack of future data
Portugal - 7 from 2000-2008, 1 in 2012, reweights as 3
South Africa - 17 from 1996-2004, 7 from 2008-2012, reweight as 10.5
Spain - 47 from 1996-2004, 35 from 2008-2012, reweights as 52.5
Sweden - 24 from 2000-2008, 8 in 2012, reweights as 24
Total - 262 "baseline", 256.5 actual+projected, decrease of 5.5, or 2.1%. Smaller percentage, but with a larger sample size, it could have a higher significance. Or the two could cancel out. I can't do the math in my head. [[User:GregG]], do you mind doing the calculations again? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:52, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
::First, for countries that implemented same-sex marriage before 2008, I am going to use the 2004 total medals awarded for both 2000 and 2004 (there isn't much of a difference: 928 medals in 2000, 929 in 2004). The pre-same-sex-marriage proportion of medals won is 7.858%, the post proportion won is 6.681%. The p-value is 0.3244, which indicates no significance at any common alpha level.
::Second, for countries implementing same-sex marriage before 2004, we have the proportion of medals won in 2000 by those countries as 3.233%, and the proportion of medals won in 2004 by those countries is 2.691%. The p-value is 0.4912, which indicates no statistical significance at any common alpha level.
::I will take a look at how to proceed with your final set of data. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 17:10, 13 August 2012 (EDT)

:::One would expect some time period before the adoption of the [[same-sex marriage]] and its harmful effect, so I don't think it's meaningful to go back to 2004 and 2000. The trend line from 2008 to this year is probably a better indicator.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:15, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
::::Using the data for countries that implemented same-sex marriage between 2008 and 2012 (Denmark, Iceland, Portugal, Sweden):
:::::Those countries won 15 medals out of 958 in 2008.
:::::Those countries won 18 medals out of 962 in 2012.
::::The proportion of medals won by those countries actually went up from 2008 to 2012 (1.566% to 1.871%); the p-value, though, is 0.6068, which indicates no statistical significance at any common alpha level. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 17:21, 13 August 2012 (EDT)

:::::The shortness of time between the adoption of same-sex marriage by those nations and their medals at the 2012 Games renders that particular analysis less meaningful. More significant, I think, would be nations that adopted same-sex marriage before 2008 and how they then trended lower in medal count from 2008 to 2012.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:49, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
::::::Using the data for countries that implemented same-sex marriage before 2008 and the medal counts for 2008 and 2012 (Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain)
:::::::Belgium: 2 in 2008, 3 in 2012
:::::::Canada: 18 in 2008, 18 in 2012
:::::::Netherlands: 16 in 2008, 20 in 2012
:::::::Norway: 9 in 2008, 4 in 2012
:::::::South Africa: 1 in 2008, 6 in 2012
:::::::Spain: 18 in 2008, 17 in 2012
:::::::Total: 64 in 2008, 68 in 2012
::::::Again, the proportion of medals won went up from 2008 (6.68%) to 2012 (7.07%). The p-value is 0.7369, which indicates no statistical significance at any common alpha level. And, since this data set is rather scant (and, to be fair, we are having to make assumptions that might not exactly hold water but should be good approximations, like the number of medals won being a binomial distribution, in order to draw any conclusions from the data), I would surmise that you're not going to be able to get much evidence from just these data. Perhaps we will have to wait and see at the 2016 Summer Olympics. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:57, 13 August 2012 (EDT)

:::::::Netherlands and South Africa seem to distort the results here. Removing those anomalies results in a decline from 47 to 42 - more than a 10% decrease. For example, it appears that Netherlands did unusually poorly in 2008, which may result in its analomous increase.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:27, 14 August 2012 (EDT)
::::::::Now it looks like you're just cherry-picking the data to get the conclusion you want. ''A priori'', we would expect that such issues would average out. In fact, you suggested comparing 2008 medal counts to 2012 medal counts.
::::::::Also, I haven't run the numbers, but I think that even if you exclude the Netherlands and South Africa, you would still not have statistical significance due to the low number of successes that are expected by those countries. As an example, if we flip a fair coin 10 times, a result of 3 heads is not statistically significant at any common alpha (p=11/32). Yet 3 heads is 40% fewer heads than the 5 we would expect. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:50, 14 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::If the Netherlands and South Africa are to be excluded then we should exclude Norway as well. I think that leaves 38 and 38? No change. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 02:15, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::The data are worth analyzing before drawing final conclusions. I spent some time studying South Africa and the issue, and concluded it should not be in the list. I explain this in a footnote in the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:40, 14 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::::Well there are several problems, the most fundamental of which is that you are selecting data points to exclude on the basis of the dependent variable (2012 medals won), as opposed to an independent variable, which leads to bias. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 02:09, 15 August 2012 (EDT)
We should be comparing two sets of countries - those that implement same-sex marriage and those that prohibit same-sex marriage. When comparing sets with similar economies and populations, one could find that medal counts when down for both groups. The question is whether there is a statistically significant difference in the drop in medal count between the same-sex marriage and no same-sex marriage countries. I would guess that there are so many other factors that have a larger effect on the medal count, that any difference would be insignificant, but I welcome someone to run the numbers. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 18:35, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
::Nancy boys don't have kids which contributes to decline of populations as does pro-abortion/anti-life policies. see: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZeyYIsGdAA Demographic winter] In 2008, there were 70 countries with sub-replacement levels of fertility. So we look at trend of medals won by countries which adopt same sex marriage. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:06, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
:::Male homosexual couples not being able to have children the natural way is a biological fact. It doesn't depend on them being married or not. [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 02:21, 14 August 2012 (EDT)
:::: Also, not many 8-year olds win Olympic medals, so regardless there would be no data for at least a decade or so. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:57, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

== Medal weighting ==

It's been pointed out at [[talk:Main Page]] that some sports, notably swimming, are vastly over-rewarded in terms of the number of medals available. We would get a better representation of which nations were actually the best, sporting-wise, if we took this into account in our medals tables. One simple way would be to discount multiple medals won by the same individual, or perhaps to cap the number of medals counted in the same sport at, say, five. What do people think?

(Sadly the nation most affected by this would currently be that titan of the swimming pool, the USA.)--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:37, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
: That would be hard to do, though. And nearly impossible to keep updating during the Games. I propose keep the current system for now, and discuss further when the Games are over. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 10:53, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

:: Capping at five gold medals per sport wouldn't be too tricky. The only countries affected are:
::*USA - 11 in track and field, 16 in swimming
::*China - 6 in diving
::*GB - 8 in cycling
::*Russia - 8 in track and field.
::Something to think about. It wouldn't have a huge effect on the ordering of the table as it happens.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 06:16, 15 August 2012 (EDT)

::: Capping it at 5 medals for athletics would be pretty pointless as pretty much all the events have their own set of athletes, with the only overlaps in athletes either being track guys competing in similar groups of races (like bolt in 200 and 100 and farah in 10k and 5k) and atheltes competing in their respective relay teams. Then there are the decathletes and heptathletes who comptete in individual events as opposed to the decathlon and heptathlon, however the top 10 athletes in each of these are pretty much outsiders to get a medal for the single events. In the cycling the events are very different with specialists in each event and most athletes only competed in one or two events + the team events.

::::How about counting only one medal per athlete, then? That's harder to calculate because of relays, though - I suppose a relay gold would only be discounted if every member of the team was also an individual medalist?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:45, 15 August 2012 (EDT)

== Team Sports ==

I don't really have the time to finish off this nicely, but I just did a quick count-up of medals across handball, hockey, basketball, volleyball and football. as these are probably the sports best described as '''team''' sports (ie. multiple players on a field working together and reacting to each other). Could someone do it for me and add it to the main page perhaps?
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Country
! Medals
! Status
|-
| United States of America
| 4
| Christian
|-
| Brazil
| Christian
| 3
|-
| Australia
| Increasingly Atheist
| 2
|-
| France
| Increasingly Atheist
| 2
|-
| Japan
| Atheist
| 2
|-
| Netherlands
| Atheist
| 2
|-
| Russia
| Christian
| 2
|-
| Spain
| Christian
| 2
|}
Countries with only 1 medal in team sports are Argentina, Canada, Croatia, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Korea, Mexico, Montenegro, Norway and Sweden.
[[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 02:51, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

:: The criteria seems pretty vague. Water polo? Tenis? Going out on a limb, cycling, and triathlon (The Brits certainly worked as a team to get gold and bronze). [[User:Nine|Nine]] 21:23, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

:::That's a fascinating table. I wouldn't describe Japan as atheist, however. Shinto, perhaps, although there is a Christian population as well. I cannot think of a single prominent Japanese atheist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

:::: I would also class some sailing events as team sports as you need perfect team work to do well in sailing. non communication between helmsman and the other crew members will result in a pretty poor performance ! If there are no major breakaways road cycling is also a team sport. --[[User:Nacacube|Nacacube]] 09:27, 15 August 2012 (EDT)
--[[User:Nacacube|Nacacube]] 09:27, 15 August 2012 (EDT)

== A bit confused ==

Recent edits seem to downplay the US women's gold in soccer/football, despite the fact that it seems this site should trumpet every accomplishment by Americans. It seems to imply that Canada should have beat the US in the semifinals, despite the fact that Conservapedia earlier predicted that Canada should underperform in Olympics because of socialism and same sex marriage. Likewise Japan, which should underperform by this site's standards, as it's been ranked [http://www.infobarrel.com/25_Most_Atheist_Countries_in_the_World the #5 most atheist country in the world]. Furthermore, this idea that the US advanced unfairly seems to contradict the idea that the Olympics is a prime example of the best of the public, in which winners are decided by pure skill and performance alone, and not by some committee of so-called "experts". Are the Olympic games not an example of the best of the public after all? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 00:12, 15 August 2012 (EDT)

Talk:2012 Summer Olympics

2012-08-15T10:16:31Z

CPalmer: /* Medal weighting */ capping

== "1 Nations That Impose Same-sex marriage/ 2 Nations that are increasingly atheistic/ 3 Sports that have been ravaged by feminist Title IX in the U.S." ==

Nice. Great way to cover all your bases. When the US does well, you can crow about the same-sex marriage and the atheism. When the US doesn't do well, you can pile on Title IX and the feminists. Win-Win. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 10:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:Also, it's curious that you are focused on reasons for failure, not reasons for success. Why not divide up the matrix by, say, "Countries with a record of supporting young athletes"/"Countries with a strong cultural tradition of teamwork" or "Countries with a strong tradition of individual accomplishment"/"Countries where fitness is held as an important value"? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 11:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

::Category 3 is sports-specific in the [[U.S.]], so there is no contradiction with categories 1 and 2, which are nation-specific.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:54, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::Which is exactly why your matrix allows you to frame both US victories and US defeats in terms of your political agenda. It's an awesome rhetorical move. But I'm still curious as to why you are more focused on reasons for failure than on reasons for success. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:15, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

::::There is nothing "rhetorical" about this. Ideologies obviously have consequences, and this is a prediction of those consequences beforehand, with an evaluation as the results occur. Surely we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, and every ideology is a winner too? (Except, of course, [[Christianity]], which [[liberals]] never want to credit).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:22, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::Of course it's a rhetorical move--you are narrowing your analysis to focus on the political points that you are most interested in. Of course we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, so why not focus on reasons why people win, as opposed to why they lose--and surely Christianity is not the only reason, otherwise Jews, Muslims, atheists, Shintoists, Mormons, Moonies, Buddhists etc would never win any medals. It would be worthwhile to account for non-divine, or at least non-Christian reasons for success. Your focus on failure is really disheartening. Do you enjoy pointing out other's shortcomings, or are you projecting? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:29, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:::::::I'm fine with focusing on the winners - a entire entry called [[Greatest Conesrvative Sports Stars]] has been doing that for months. If you'd like to add a section to [[Olympics 2012]] that focuses on winners, that would be welcome. In fact, I'll start it for you now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:46, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::::Again, a great rhetorical move on your part--what about the non-conservative winners? If they're not conservative, they can't be winners. If they're winners, they must be conservative. If Tim Thomas doesn't lead the Boston Bruins to another Stanley Cup, hockey falls off the front page of the website; if the Miami Heat win, it's because they were somehow "taught a lesson" by a team they went on to beat soundly. Well played, sir. Well played. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::::Your objection reminds me of the editor who thought it significant that [[Tim Tebow]], after winning a spectacular upset in the first game of last year's [[NFL]] playoffs, then lost in the second round to a much stronger team. My response then is similar to now: people usually don't look for a miracle to occur ever single time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

== Euro 2012 ==
Slightly off-topic, I admit, but I was wondering, whether Andy had any comments on the final of the European Cup final (soccer) that takes place tonight between Spain and Italy? Maybe even a prediction who might win? If you haven't followed the tournament so far, atheistic England went out in the quarter finals, while the liberal Netherlands didn't make it past the first round (same as catholic, pro-life Poland, incidentally). --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 13:31, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Netherlands]] is a big [[same-sex marriage]] country, so no surprise there. Both [[Spain]] and [[Italy]] are very [[liberal]], so that's a tough choice. Poland was under communist martial law until about 20-25 years ago, so I don't think it's far to expect it to do as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
::So gay marriage, political culture, and form of government matter more that the relative skill of the players, their histories in recent match-ups, their style of play, the depth of their squads, coaching, or any other soccer-related questions? So when you sit down to watch a given sports contest, you analyze the game through the lens of politics and religion, and not through the lenses of ability, strategy, or any other sports-related concept. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:::Deny it all you like, but ideologies do have consequences. Show me a sports team of atheists and I'll show you a team that's not going to win the championship.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:20, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::So all of those Soviet medal wins in the Olympics, or in international hockey, all of the medal wins by Chinese teams--they were all believers of one sort or another? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:26, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
Also, if Spain and Italy are both "very liberal", that means a liberal team is guaranteed to win the championship. Guess it pays to be "very liberal!" [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:30, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
::::: Meh.... In the first Euro championship (1960), the USSR, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia finished 1-2-3 respectively. All were communist. At least two communist nations made the semifinals for each of the next 3 Euros. In 1980, the Czechoslovakians finished third. In 1984, no Communist nations finished in the Top 4, but that was the only time that happened. The Soviets came in second in 1988, and then the communists fell. Since then (6 Euros), the Czechs have two Top 4 apppearances, the Russians have one, and other communist nations or their successor states have none. Of course, this is misleading because a combined Yugoslavia team consisting of the Serbian, Montenegrin, Croatian, etc. teams might have done well, and of those nations, only Croatia qualified and they did fairly well considering they were in a group with Italy and Spain. Most of the Yugoslavian players were Serbian, and most of the Soviet players were Russian. So it appears Serbia and Russia suffered. But Croatia and Montenegro have done well since independence (and a unified Serbia and Montenegro team qualified for the World Cup in 2006, but was placed in the group of death and eliminated in the first round. It also didn't help that the World Cup was held after the two nations separated). Also, Bosnia and Herzigovina has improved, coming within a playoff against Portugal of qualifying for both the World Cup and Euro, but they lost both.
Additionally, Ukraine has improved significantly since the USSR breakup. Although they only qualified this year because they were hosts, they qualified for the World Cup in 2006 and almost again in 2010. Latvia qualified for Euro 2004, even though there were pretty much no Latvian Soviet soccer players. Estonia also came within a playoff of qualifying for Euro this year, a marked improvement over their Soviet days, but lost. Same with Bosnia-Herzigovinia and Montenegro. Additionally, either Slovakia or the Czech Republic has qualified almost always for the World Cup and Euro, and a combined team would likely have done better. In team sports, it is hard to compare stats from before and after, because while the USSR may have done better than any of the new nations, we don't know how the new nations would do if they competed together as they did when they were the USSR. Andre Szevchenko is one of the best players in Europe for Ukraine, but he doesn't have much support. If he had the support of Russian players, Estonian players, and Latvian players on his team, then that team would probably have done better. The same could be said of a combined team for Czech Republic and Slovakia.
As an example of the opposite, the new German team has done far better than the old East German team, including some players from Berlin who would have competed for East Gemrany 25 years ago. Their performance is slightly better than the West German performance, although this is probably just because they have more people now, since they were both capitalist.
Also, Germany is the only country in the Netherlands' group that does not have same-sex marriage (Portugal and Denmark also do). At least one of them by rule HAD to advance (Portugal did), but it was the Germans who won the group with a perfect record. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 05:20, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

== Evidence that Christianity increases a countries Olympic medals while atheism and liberalism reduce gold medals won ==

Andy, although it is true that Communist/authoritarian countries have gone out of their way in the past to pour money in the Olympic gold winning efforts (Soviet Union)[http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=econ_honproj&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dgdp%2520population%2520freedom%2520and%2520olympic%2520medals%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CEoQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.iwu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1004%2526context%253Decon_honproj%26ei%3DbsLwT5fpO-Hq0gHpidj6Ag%26usg%3DAFQjCNGA2tePIDTqdOmM8p42uwGhpzkVhA#search=%22gdp%20population%20freedom%20olympic%20medals%22], it is also true that a higher population size and a higher GDP positively affect the number of gold medals that a country wins.[http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/andrew.bernard/olymp60restat_finaljournalversion.pdf]

Atheism reduces a countries population size while religiosity increases a countries birth rate: http://conservapedia.com/Decline_of_atheism#Decline_of_atheism_in_terms_of_global_adherents_is_expected_to_accelerate See also: [[Decline of atheism]]

In the journal article ''Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications'' psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on self-control/self-regulation.[http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/Relig_self_control_bulletin.pdf][http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19210054] Athletes with more self-control have more mental toughness.[http://www.nmnathletics.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=8800&ATCLID=926652] Athletes with more mental toughness tend to perform at higher levels.[http://vimeo.com/23328555] See also: [[Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism]]

Also, all other things remaining equal, religion in the Western world tends to promote more self-discipline and healthier behaviors when it comes to mental and physical health: See: [[Atheism and health]] and [[Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism]] and [[Atheism and obesity]]

Also, while it is true that a country that is doing well can have "fat and sassy" atheists as a result. On the other hand, if there is religious freedom in a country a country can have high levels of religiosity even with high incomes such as the United States. See effects of prosperity on rates of atheism: http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative/atheism-research#Effect_of_prosperity_on_rate_of_atheism

I am sure you can find data to support that capitalism causes a country to have higher incomes than socialism/liberalism over the long term.

Next, liberalism promotes abortion and small family sizes where conservative religion does not.

Summary: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPLEAWsX0qk Jesus is the winnamon and Christians are on the winning side!] Christians are winners and atheists tend to lose again!

Go for the gold America! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! (where atheists are the least trusted group of individuals. See: [[Views on atheists]]) :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:07, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
=== No doubt Bible believers achieve more gold medals than atheists all other things being equal ===

In a study listed in Who's Who in Who's Who, it took 5,000 Presbyterian ministers to produce one child listed in Who's Who. Among lawyers the ratio was 5,000 to 1; dentists 2,500 to 1. But for every seven Christian missionary families from the United States, one of their children would be listed in Who's Who.[http://www.wentworthbaptist.ca/old/sermontexts/Leaving%20the%20past%20behind_Phil%203.1-14_071230.htm] See also: [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and health]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:33, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
::Do you have a link to that actual study? One in seven seems high. How big is this "Who's Who" list and how many missionary families are there in the USA?
::::Come on, everybody knows the formula to winning the gold. Preparation and conceive, believe and achieve! :) Doubters have a harder time believing than believers! Atheists are pessimists and have higher rates of depression. See: [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]. Bible believers who are realists and optimists are more upbeat and win more gold medals. Plus, conservative Bible believing Protestants with the Protestant work ethic, are more able to outwork atheists and achieve more gold medals. Secular Europe is filled lazy doubters who love socialism. Lazy people are less likely to win gold medals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:08, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::yeah, that's good, really I just want to see how the study explains it
::::::::We know that per capita GDP increases Olympic medals. Therefore, when the shortsighted measures holding together the [http://www.care2.com/causes/euro-zone-crisis-banks-lower-rates-but-confidence-stays-low.html troubled Eurozone economy] stop working, they will win less gold medals than countries which were more prudent. The lazy secular Europeans should have listened to the Bible about hard work and not getting heavy into debt. The gold medal counts of secular Europe are going to be lower than they needed to be in 2016. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:24, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/10394-public-debt-by-country.html#axzz1zqxAoMmm
:::::::::I think it is self explanatory that those who have faith will have the discipline and the belief to achieve something extraordinary--[[User:OconnorM|OconnorM]] 12:46, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I do know that post 1950 the USA became more secular and United States became less financially prudent. Socialism and communism do not have great track records over the long term and atheists have tended to like these systems more. Countries which adopted a Protestant work ethic have benefited and even those with a legacy of a Protestant work ethic culture have benefited.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/oct/31/economics-religion-research] The Bible also mentions sharpening the axe (Ecclesiastes 10:10), good stewardship of resources and orderliness. [http://www.openbible.info/topics/orderliness] No doubt the legacy of Protestantism in the country of Germany (birth place of Protestantism), helped to create the efficiency and orderliness that their society is known for. Athletes who train more efficiently using the best methods and get better nutrition, gain more medals. See also: [[Christianity and science]]. Christianity has one of the highest rates of creationism in the world and despite Darwinist persecution of creationists and intelligent design proponents (see: [[Expelled]]) manages to be leader in technological innovation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:48, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

== One fair way to analyze ==

In order to give a fair analysis, information needs to be compiled before the Games for the countries/sports listed for both pre/post same-sex marriage/girls playing sports and then add this year's results. As far as I can see, that would be the only way to objectively assess any trend regarding medals/performance. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:14, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:It would still make no case for any causal relationship between same-sex marriage, atheism etc. and performance at the Olympics. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 19:54, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== Baseball not an Olympic sport in 2012 ==

Baseball is removed from the list, because both baseball and softball have been dropped for the program for the 2012 Olympics. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/08/sports/08iht-oly.html?_r=1 [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

== Baseball being removed from list ==

Maybe baseball (and softball) have been removed because they are not included in the 2012 Olympics. [http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/8504326/] "They'rrre out! Olympics drop baseball, softball: Sports eliminated for 2012 Games, but could win way back in 2016" AP, nbcsports.com, July 9, 2005, retrieved July 2, 2012. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

:[[Baseball]] was dropped from the 2012 Olympics??? That's a disappointment! Is the sport considered too [[conservative]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::If it is, why did [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_at_the_Summer_Olympics#Medal_table Cuba win most of the gold medals?] (And the most medals overall?) [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

== Same sex marriage and underachievement. ==

While a rationale is given for the relationship between atheism and underperformance, none is given for the relationship between same sex marriage and underperformance. Can somebody who understands the relationship please provide a rationale in the relevant section? Thanks. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:25, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::A factor in winning gold medals is the population size of a country. How does same sex marriage help increase the population size of a country? The Russians seem to think that it doesn't. Also, Olympic athletes have to be in top physical condition. See: [[Homosexuality and health]]. In addition, mental toughness is important in sports and "Nancy boys" lack this characteristic! Also, there is the issue of [[Homosexuality and obesity]]. If you could show us that the town of Ereses on the Greek Island of [[Lesbos]] has produced an inordinate amount of Olympic women gymnasts instead of higher incidence of obese lesbians, it would be greatly appreciated (See: [[Lesbianism and obesity]]).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:16, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I think the town is called Eresos (Greek: Ερεσός), no? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:21, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::Thanks! Corrected. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:26, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

:::This isn't a good argument against same-sex marriage, you know. It's just not logical. If a marriage is for population growth, then why are marriages that can't/won't produce children permitted? My dad's on his second marriage since my mother passed away - no half-siblings yet. You need to think through your arguments. If these non-productive marriages ''are'' permitted, under what reason? Companionship? That can be applied to same-sex couples as well. Tax benefits? Ditto. The argument doesn't stand up very well.
:::Oh, and there you go - you just can't get away from negatively portraying fat people. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:24, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::Why an ancient Greek myth should be applicable to today is something only you would know.
::::As for homosexuals at the Olympics - and "nancy boys" is a very derogatory term, much like using the n-word. One would think a site like this would be above that sort of thing, but obviously not - how about Mark Spitz (7 gold) and Greg Louganis (4 gold), who was also the the most outstanding amateur athlete in the United States in 1984.
::::Once again, your tired old arguments don't hold any water - obese people - gay or straight are hardly likely to be participating at the games, so trying to make a correlation between a country's political decisions and the performance of individual athletes is - quite frankly - stupid. But I have a feeling that you still can't grasp the idea. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:26, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::There's a legal precedent - "He Who Asserts Must Prove"... so, let's see your proof that a government passing same-sex marriage laws affects individual sportsmens' performance. Hint: the drivel you wrote above is not proof. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:34, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::Homosexuality related tourism occurs in this town today. Second, re: lower amount of mental toughness issue: [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]] Third, the birth rate of heterosexual marriages will always exceed homosexual "marriages" [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:37, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::Your first point - totally not relevant. What the hell does tourism have to do with athletes at the Olympic Games? Second people - people who are not mentally tough - gay or straight wouldn't last at any level of competitive sport and thus wouldn't appear at the Games, so your point is invalid. Third point is equally invalid - birth rates have nothing to do with how individuals perform at the Games. Care to try again? [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:40, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
It is relevant: Homosexuality related tourism occurs in the Greek town today. In 1976, Gwen J. Proude and Sarah J. Green published a study in the journal Ethnology which showed a positive correlation between cultures which accepted or ignored homosexuality in their cultures and cultures which were more likely to have homosexuality be more common. (see: [[Homosexuality]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::Birth rates, already covered above: "A factor in winning gold medals is the population size of a country. How does same sex marriage help increase the population size of a country? The Russians seem to think that it doesn't." [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:::Nope. Still has absolutely no relevance to the performance of individual athletes at the Games. In fact, on rereading your reasons, you seem to be stuck on the thought that countries that allow same-sex marriage would only send gay athletes to the Games. That is bizarre.
:::Just how many people of the same gender do you think are going to be married? To say it'll affect a country's population growth is double bizarre. Japan's population growth is going backwards and they don't have same-sex marriage. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:49, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
Your [[last wordism]] isn't impressing anyone - especially since you conveniently ignored the [[Homosexuality and health]] issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:08, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
[[File:Chuck norris.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|It is no coincidence that the fit and healthy Bible believing martial artist [[Chuck Norris]] lives in the state of [[Texas]] and not the city of San Francisco! Chuck Norris is no "Nancy boy" and he is the embodiment of mental toughness. ]]
{{clear}}
:::: Wouldn't there be just as many homosexuals whether same-sex marriage is legal or not? Legalizing same-sex marriage wouldn't turn the existing athletes into homosexuals. So we're barking up the wrong tree here. Even if there were a correlation between homosexuality and athletic performance, it would have nothing to do with the legal status of same-sex marriage. Tim Tebow will be playing his home games in New York next year (ok, fine, New Jersey, but I'm a Jets fan and I consider them to be from New York). Same-sex marriage is legal in New York. It was not legal in Colorado or Florida. It is ridiculous to suggest that this would somehow hurt Tebow's performance. He will be just as faithful, Christian, and heterosexual as he ever was. Even if the NFL adds a franchise in atheistic London (as they are foolishly considering) and Tebow winds up there, nothing will change. Even if the Bills move to Toronto and Tebow plays for them, nothing will change. So supposing there is a correlation, we're looking for it in the wrong place, in my opinion. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 07:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::To be fair, legalization of homosexual relationships may be a proxy for a jurisdiction's attitudes for homosexuality. I don't think it's a very good proxy; it would probably be a better idea to examine sexual orientations of athletes themselves rather than attitudes about homosexuality held by residents the places they represent. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::: But it's not the ''attitudes'' of the athletes that [[User:Conservative]] says are relevant. It's the actual ''orientation'' of the athletes. He posted a number of references to homosexuality and health problems. Without commenting one way or the other on their merits, they only apply if the athlete himself is a homosexual. So I'm inclined to agree with GregG here. Perhaps Conservative's theory is right, but if it is, he's going about proving it the wrong way. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:08, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

=== Evidence pointing to same sex marriage acceptance negatively affecting Olympic medal counts ===

We know that bigger populations tend to gain more Olympic medals.[http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/andrew.bernard/olymp60restat_finaljournalversion.pdf] Show me that societies which accept homosexuality tend to have higher birth rates.

We know that atheists are more accepting of homosexuality and also more liberal (see: [[Atheism and morality]]). We know that liberals are more accepting of homosexuality. See: [[Views on Homosexuality]]. We also know atheists tend to have lower birth rates. See: [[Decline of atheism]]. My educated guess is that liberal countries have lower birth rates (abortion, birth control, etc.). [http://erlc.com/article/death-of-liberalism/] There is also evidence pointing to societies which accept homosexuality having more of it. In 1976, Gwen J. Proude and Sarah J. Green published a study in the journal Ethnology which showed a positive correlation between cultures which accepted or ignored homosexuality in their cultures and cultures which were more likely to have homosexuality be more common. (see: [[Homosexuality]]). My educated guess therefore is that societies accepting of same sex marriage have lower birth rates and achieve less medals as a result. I do understand that societies which have more material wealth can grow morally lax and thus more accepting of homosexuality and those societies tend to be more prone to falling (Roman Empire for example). Therefore, we should not confuse higher GDP per capita and achieving more medals and a societies acceptance of homosexuality.

Athletes with higher degrees of mental toughness achieve more. I would think that societies with higher degrees of mental toughness would have lower suicide rates. We know that atheists tend to be more accepting of homosexuality (plus more liberal) and they have higher suicide rates than the general population. See: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]. Also, compare the suicide rates of countries and their acceptance of homosexuality as a possible benchmark for the mental toughness of the societies. Of course, you would have to do statistical analysis to examine the relationship between societies accepting homosexuality and their suicide rates so you do not count other factors which cause suicides.

Alternatively, show me societies accepting of homosexuality tend to score high on mental toughness tests such as Peter Cough's test. Also, [http://psychology.about.com/library/quiz/bl_eq_quiz.htm Emotional intelligence (EQ) test] score and a person's [http://www.winstonbrill.com/bril001/html/article_index/articles/501-550/article517_body.html "Adversity quotient"] test score would be possible benchmarks as far as measuring mental toughness, but obviously the latter would be better. EQ is popular in management circles and perhaps different societies have been measured in terms of their EQ test scores. My guess is that perhaps EQ is only somewhat popular in the USA and Spain perhaps.[http://danielgoleman.info/2008/can-there-be-an-emotionally-intelligent-society/] With that being said, I think there is far more detailed information on suicide rates of countries and that is probably a better benchmark of mental toughness. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:13, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:Canada's medal haul went UP by 50% after they allowed same-sex marriage. (12 in 2004, 18 in 2008) [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 08:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
::Anecdotal and too tied to them hosting the Olympics and starting a drive to win more gold. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:58, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::They didn't host the Olympics in 2008, and anyways, the medal drive was focused on the winter games, not the summer games. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 09:03, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
It takes time to develop winning programs and I am guessing they knew in advance they were going to host the Olympics. 09:13, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:Caribbeans have low suicide rates.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate] They must be pretty mentally tough and not worry. :) Mental toughness increases performance. Hey mon, don't worry, be happy! Hey mon, I think I am going to kick back on a Caribbean beach and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTW0ifgY9zc&playnext=1&list=PLAA6853EB17004E8E listen to Caribbean music] while conservative, Bible believing families (which don't approve of homosexuality) keep winning more gold medals per family because they have more kids and have more mental toughness! :) And remember, conservative Bible believers with the Protestant work ethic, work harder to win gold medals than lazy, liberal, obese homosexuals with knee problems on welfare! See: [[Homosexuality and obesity]] and [[Lesbianism and obesity]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::HAHAHA they do talk funny
:::: That may be so, [[User:Conservative]], but you are still miscorrelating. A conservative Canadian family wouldn't be made liberal by the legalization of same-sex marriage. If anything, the decline in medals should come ''before'' the legalization of same sex-marriage, since liberalization would come ''before'' the legalization of same-sex marriage. So, perhaps a better study would be looking at a country's attitudes towards homosexuality over time (both before and after legalization of same-sex marriage) and try to correlate that. But I honestly doubt the actual act of legalizing same-sex marriage has a magic wand effect. Which is why the evidence shows you are wrong even though your logic may be perfectly correct. It's only your conclusion that's flawed. Liberalization and shift in views on homosexuality take time to occur. They don't happen overnight upon legalization of same-sex marriage. There would only be evidence of what you're saying if it was a magical overnight shift. And it's not. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:16, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

=== More evidence that homosexuality leads to lower medal counts and Bible believing enables more medals to be won ===

Homosexuals have higher suicide rates than the general population (see: [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]]). Historically, Christians have faced a lot of persecution, but they don't commit suicide. They know that God wants Christians to be strong and not commit suicide and the Bible has many verses about being courageous plus the Bible is against suicide. Bible believers are more mentally tough than homosexuals. Mental toughness increases athletic performance. Therefore, Bible believers, all other things remaining equal, are able to win more Olympic medals than homosexuals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:52, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

=== Math'd -- Gay marriage ===

A subject about quantifying something?? I accept your challenge.

For the following, I am trying to determine the effect of pro-gay legislation on Olympic Medals. Since different countries have hugely different factors, I thought we could use the states of the USA to observe any effects (being labs of democracy, and all). What I did was find a list of all 2008 Olympic Medalists. Then, I got rid of any groups, leaving only individual medalists. Then, I mapped these medalists to their home state. Then, I figured out, based on population, how many medals each state should win out of the total USA medals. Then, I matched states with their same-sex marriage legislation (I assumed if same-sex couples could marry or engage in civil unions, this was a "Pro-Gay" state. No marriage or civil unions, an "Anti-Gay" state.) Then I summed up expected and actuals by these two categories. Here's what I got....

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! State Type
! Expected Medals
! Actual Medals
! Over/Under
|-
| Pro-Gay
| 29.8
| 45
| 15.2
|-
| Anti-Gay
| 42.2
| 27
| -15.2
|-
| Total
| 72.0
| 72
| 0
|}

If we look just at Gold Medals...

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! State Type
! Expected Golds
! Actual Golds
! Over/Under
|-
| Pro-Gay
| 8.3
| 14
| 5.7
|-
| Anti-Gay
| 11.7
| 6
| -5.7
|-
| Total
| 20.0
| 20
| 0
|}
(Please note that if a medalist is from another country, they were excluded. Same with two obscure athletes I couldn't find information on)

As you can see, "Pro-Gay" states outperform their expected total medal results by over 50%. Conversely, "Anti-Gay" states underperform by 36%.

The picture is more extreme only looking at Gold medals - "Pro-Gay" outperformes %69%, while "Anti-Gay' under perform by almost half.

In conclusion, do I think "imposing" gay marriage has anything to do with Olympic results? Probably not, since states, along any group of people in the Olympics, have a huge number of factors affecting their outcomes. But, to say that gay marriage destroys Olypmic results...well, that just goes against the data.
[[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 15:49, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I think you are going to have to do regression analysis to isolate the homosexuality issue. It seems as if the wealth and population size are important variables to winning medals as noted above. Cultures which have significant wealth often get morally complacent history shows. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:00, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

1) This is a regression based on population size. But I don't think a regression could be done on wealth, since it's hard to track the socio-economic movements of dozens of medalists, many of whom are relatively unknown. Also, if you want me to regress based on a group of large, poor states that allow gay marriage...my sample size isn't going to be even close to credible. I agree though, it would be very interesting.

2) You didn't provide isolation of the homosexuality issue in your hypothesis, so that's what I based my refutation on.. You said countries with gay marriage would underperform. Not that a country with gay marriage would underperform an identical country without gay marriage.

3) Most importantly, why should ''I'' isolate the homosexuality issue? ''You'' should be the one supporting your premise, or at least refuting my data. I spent the time showing why your idea was wrong, now it's your turn to either show where I am wrong, or adjust or reject your hypothesis.
[[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 16:13, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::The liberals are not being realistic and fighting an uphill battle here. You are never going to have people associate homosexuality with athleticism/health. This is a Pickett's charge to say the least - especially at Conservapedia (see: [[Homosexuality and health]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:36, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::So...nothing about the Olympics then? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 16:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::You still haven't shown me that the homosexual population can clear Olympic hurdles as well as the heterosexual population. See: [[Homosexuality and obesity]] and [[Lesbianism and obesity]]. Are you saying that overweight people are better hurdlers? If so, I have a hard time believing this. Also, nations with bigger populations earn more medals. How does homosexuality promote procreation? After all, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:37, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::And kudos to you, User:Conservative. You once again can't resist bringing up us evil fat people as your argument. And lo and behold, it's even completely off-topic to the above comments. Color me surprised... '''''NOT!''''' [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 13:38, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::: [[User:Conservative]], you make valid points, but you are confusing two statistical populations. There is the homosexual population, and if your statistics are correct, they should perform worse. Let's assume that you're right for the purpose of this discussion. However, that would only effect athletes who are homosexual themselves, not entire countries. Legalizing same-sex marriage won't magically make the entire population into homosexuals. So you should be looking at the sexual orientation of the athletes themselves if you want to prove your point. Whether the country/state legalizes same-sex marriage is irrelevant to your point, one way or the other. I'd be interested in seeing your new study which focuses on the athletes themselves and not on the whole country. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

Conservative, you said that legalizing gay marriage leads to a country under-performing in the Olympics. I showed that the evidence does not support that, at least in America. I didn't say fat gays make good hurdlers. But, the Olympics usually doesn't draw athletes from the 'out-of-shape' population... [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 22:45, 8 July 2012 (EDT)

== Expected Medals ==

Hello all,
I think it would be fun to track "expected vs actuals" with regards to medals. I was thinking of adding a table giving each partipating country an expected value. However, I'm having trouble deciding it it would be better to do it on a "per capita" basis, or a "per GDP" basis. Any thoughts? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 17:09, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

:I think ranking on a "per GDP" basis would be fairer. Competitive sports is an activity of affluent nations. Any thoughts on this by others?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:14, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

::I added a table, proportioning medals by nominal GDP. I notice that I'm predicting 200 medals for America, which seems high. I wonder why that could be? My thought is that there are a ton of countries with less than 1 medal expected, but a lot of them will probably get one. I'll leave the table, but please let me know if you have any thoughts on modifications. It's a least something to get us thinking! [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 13:43, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

== Added info re same-sex marriage ==

I added more info on same-sex marriage being allowed in certain political subdivisions of a country. I clarified that there are two US States that have legalized same sex marriage but there is a citizen's referendum about it, but that one of them (Washington) already had civil unions. I also noted that in Mexico, same-sex marriage is legal in Mexico City, a Federal District similar to Washington, DC. Also, I noted that several overseas territories of the Netherlands will compete separately and also have different laws regarding same-sex marriage. Aruba does not perform them, but per the Kingdom's requirements must recognize those performed elsewhere. Same with Curacao and Sint Maarten, who will compete as "Independent Olympic Participants" under the Olympic flag after the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles and the loss of recognition for their Olympic committee. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 19:29, 3 July 2012 (EDT)

== Joke sports ==

I'm going to remove beach volleyball from the list, as it's a very physically demanding sport. Also, while I agree that synchronised swimming is a bit of a joke, I disagree with the description that these are "sports that allow underachieving nations to pad their medal totals". The USA has won (usually multiple) medals in beach volleyball every year it has been included in the Olympics, synchronised swimming medals ''most'' times and half of all the BMX medals ever awarded! In fact, the only weak nation that has ever won a medal in any of these events (ever) was a Latvian who won the first BMX gold. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:00, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

:I realize that the U.S. wins many of these "joke" medals. I was being objective and fair to other nations in criticizing these medals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

::Ok fair enough. So what are your thoughts on beach volleyball? What makes it joke...ish? [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:19, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

:::I think it's mainly because it's a relatively recent creation, arrived at by taking an existing sport and just playing it on a beach. (I know that teams are smaller and the rules are a bit different etc, but that's basically it.) Why not have beach tennis, beach archery, beach baseball and beach cricket as well??? That and the requirements by the sport's governing body specifying the skimpiness of female competitors' attire.
:::This isn't to say that it's not demanding to play at the top level, but do the Olympics really need to have two different kinds of volleyball? Regular volleyball is hardly a blue riband event as it is!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:33, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::: Beach volleyball and regular volleyball have different rules. The idea is the same, but the rules are pretty different. A similar situation would be rugby. Starting in 2016 rugby sevens will be in the Olympics. If they also added rugby league (which is fairly similar to rugby sevens, but has a lot of differences too) as well, then that would be too similar. But it just makes them redundant, it doesn't make one of them a "joke". [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:04, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

== Are the nations of Japan increasingly atheistic or increasingly theistic and/or christian? ==

Are the nations of Japan increasingly atheistic or increasingly theistic and/or christian?

Gallup poll: Christianity growing in Japan: http://www.breakingchristiannews.com/articles/display_art.html?ID=2278

Pastor Lee in Korea, 2007 - BBC: ""Our church is still growing, so sooner or later Christianity will be the major religion in Korea. All Christians are praying for that right now."[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8322072.stm]

== Move page ==

Can we move this page to [[2012 Olympics]]? That's a more natural title. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 07:16, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:How bout a redirect?[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 11:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

::The redirect works. It's a close call which title is better, but to me starting an entry with a number seems less efficient in conveying meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:24, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::You have to have something indicating summer. I retitled the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:04, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
::::I agree. Even though Summer and Winter Olympics never occur in the same year anymore, they historically were both held in the same year. Having this naming convention will ensure consistency with other Olympics articles we may create. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:11, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
::::: I agree. 2012 Olympics may not be ambiguous but [[1984 Olympics]] would be. (Los Angeles Summer Games or Sarajevo Winter Games). Also, with regards to Andy's concern, virtually all press releases refer to these as the 2012 (Summer) Olympics, and/or use the official name "Games of the XXX Olympiad". (XXX is Roman Numeral 30, not a placeholder) However, since the official Olympiad name is never used except in official releases, and it is commonly referred to as 2012 Summer Olympics everywhere else, I say keep it this way. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:01, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

Agree with Greg. Thirtieth Olympiad is too obscure for a generation that regards 3 month old music as outdated. Better call it the 2012 Olympics. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:26, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== Tables for medals ==

I'm going to add tables showing medals won, and indicate in the table when same-sex marriage was recognized, for each country listed. This will make it easier to identify trends from before and after legalization. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:54, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== This page is preposterous ==

I can't believe that nearly everything you have to say about this year's Olympic games revolves around your overweening obsession with homosexuality and atheism. Even conservatives--well, normal conservatives--would want more substantive information. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 19:51, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:That's not enough to qualify as trying to improve this page. Are you saying there's no correlation, or are you indirectly registering an objection to this project's campaign against homosexuality and atheism? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:25, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
::In my opinion, the way to improve this page would be to delete all the content and start over. I understand that the project is against homosexuality and atheism. But that doesn't mean those things have to be the main focus of ''every'' article. And yes, I ''am'' saying that there is no known correlation between same-sex marriage, homosexuality or atheism and Olympics success, and even if one were demonstrated, it would not establish causality, which is clearly what you are after. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 21:20, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:::Ideas do have consequences on productivity, achievement, happiness, etc. A high percentage of successful [[NFL]] quarterbacks are devout [[Christians]]. Why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:17, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

::::Is that so? What is the percentage? --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 23:57, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== Where is the UK... ==

...in the expected medals section? --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 21:02, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:Whoops, I had it listed as Great Britain. Which I should have known better than to do - I lived in London for a couple years, and got yelled at every time I got the terms wrong... [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 23:18, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

::Aaargh! I checked UK and Britain but neglected to check Great Britain. Silly me. --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 23:23, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== GDP ==

If GDP "may be a fair proxy" in relation to how many medals a country will win then why is the main part of the article all about how atheism and gay marriage are going to have such an influence over the results? --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 21:04, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:I wanted to have a start point for comparisons and trend-spotting. It is my hypothesis that homosexuality and atheism have nothing to do with a country's athletic performance, and the table is my first step in testing. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 23:21, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

::I am inclined to agree with you. Unfortunately it makes the article a little schizophrenic (if I may use that term in such an inaccurate manner). The top of the article asserts that homosexuality and atheism are solid indicators of Olympic performance for reasons, whereas your section is intended to show otherwise. An internal tension, if you will.
::I get the feeling from the ''Nations that are increasingly atheistic'' section that there is supposed to be some reason that atheists are incapable of acting as members of a team (the reason is not explained). Beyond that, the article is not only utterly unsupported by any study or even by any observations made by eminent persons in the appropriate field, it doesn't even contain a hypothesis as to the means by which the asserted connections operate. I would suggest deleting and starting again but I have read Ed Poor's comments above and I assume any such similar request from myself would be resisted. --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 23:36, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
::: We have explained those connections elsewhere, including on this talk page. Perhaps make separate articles and link to them? If we put all the explanations in this article, I think it would get a bit too busy. Also, we'd have to copy them for every future Olympics, which seems like a waste if we can just link to them. What does everyone else think? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 12:04, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

== Rowing -> soccer ==

I see Andy that you have reverted my edit which asserted that rowing was the sport requiring the most teamwork. Apparently soccer is the sport that requires most teamwork (for reasons that are mysterious to me).

Why is that Andy? Why not (field) hockey, for example? Or American football? I would still assert that rowing is far and away the paramount team sport. Your edit comment that it is "emulating a machine" really does nothing to detract from that assertion. So what? If that means that each crew member must move their body in perfect time with each other then my point is all the stronger isn't it?

Obviously if this is a conservative insight then clearly I must be wrong, but if there is an actual reason that soccer is the ultimate team sport over rowing then I would be interested to hear it. --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 23:52, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:There is no dynamic teamwork of any consequence in rowing - no passing a ball from one player to another, no reactions to defenders, and no mental strategy. Rowing is great exercise for those who have access to expensive equipment and placid lakes, but it's not dynamic teamwork as soccer is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

::Ok, so it's "dynamic teamwork" that atheists can't perform? They are capable of acting in perfect harmony with each other in a rowing shell but cannot pass a ball to each other or perform mental strategy? Interesting. Is there any evidence to support any of this? If so, why is it that atheists are incapable of such activities?

::P.S. I performed a couple of Google searches on which (rowing or soccer) is more commonly referred to as "the ultimate team sport": [https://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22rowing+the+ultimate+team+sport%22&oq=%22rowing+the+ultimate+team+sport%22&gs_l=serp.3..0i30.71845.74333.0.74873.2.2.0.0.0.0.220.429.2-2.2.0...0.0...1c.IPtkh8308qI&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=862d766996523d9f&biw=1201&bih=678 rowing] or [https://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&pq=soccer%20the%20ultimate%20team%20sport&cp=32&gs_id=e&xhr=t&q=%22soccer+the+ultimate+team+sport%22&pf=p&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&oq=%22soccer+the+ultimate+team+sport%22&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=862d766996523d9f&biw=1201&bih=678 soccer]. I think that the hit numbers speak for themselves. --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 00:57, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

:::Rowing is obviously a rich-man's sport, which gives an unfair advantage to a few nations like the [[U.K.]] While physically challenging, rowing is the only sport where the contestant should think as little as possible and simply act like a robot.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:12, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
:::: In rowing, don't you have a coxswain telling you when to row? It requires everyone rowing together, yes, but as long as they all act like robots (as Andy put it) and row when the coxswain says row, that's the only teamwork required. I won't deny it's a difficult sport, but it doesn't require much teamwork when there's a coxswain. The reason it's the ultimate team sport is that, more so than in any other sport, the chain is only as strong as the weakest link. If you put me on a soccer field with the 10 best players in the world (assuming they're of different positions), we could win, even though I'm a terrible soccer player. If you put me in a four-man boat with the three best rowers in the world, we would do terrible, because I'm a terrible rower. That's the difference between rowing and other team sports. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 05:35, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

::::::I row 3 times a week and I am a coxswain. It is certainly not a "robot" sport, and it requires intense concentration from the rowers to make sure that the crew is in time, running on perfect technique and drawing through together. A physically stronger crew will often lose to a weaker but more technical crew. The reason that our crews look like robots are because they are concentrating as hard as they can to keep everything technical, and to work against what the body is intuitively telling you to make every single inch of pressure on the water count.
::::::
::::::As for being a rich man's sport, I can sympathise. Those boats are bloody expensive, and are often donated through philanthropy. However many of us, myself included, come from very underprivileged backgrounds and are fortunate enough to row in university teams. But getting to Olympic level requires training from a young age, which usually means being brought up at a very expensive private school that has rowing equipment. So I agree to an extent there, but one must not forget the huge benefits that philanthropy gives to broadening the pool of rowers, which is a conservative virtue as far as this website is concerned. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 11:16, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

:::: (edit conflict) Doesn't the above data prove my point? The wealthiest nations in the world have won nearly all of the rowing medals.

:::: Rowing is a grueling sport - I rowed for a bit myself. But it is a rich man's sport, and it is the only sport that does not use the brain.

:::: In reply to Greg's insight comments, I doubt a soccer team with 25% terrible players could win either, if the coaching by the opposing side is good.

:::: In reply to HumanGeographer's good comments, I agree that concentration is required and that the sport is terrific exercise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
::::: Andy, soccer teams have 11 players (including goalie). So it would be 9% poor players. And considering that teams have won 10-on-11 after an early red card, it's not inconceivable. But in rowing, it would be impossible. That's where the "team sport" mantra comes from. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 15:05, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

Greg, you have missed Andy's point. If you are one out of the four rowers you now have 25% of a team being terrible, whereas in soccer, as you have put it, missing one player means only 9% of the team is terrible. What Andy is suggesting is that the better comparison would be if a soccer team had 3 of their players essentially non-effective, and his point in that regard is well-taken. A soccer team playing 8 against 11 would not fare well either.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 15:23, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

== The Olympics and Economics 2012 ==

[[Goldman Sachs]] has some thoughts on the matters discussed above: [http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/topics/global-economic-outlook/olympics-and-economics-.pdf pdf]
{{cquote|Britain has quite high per capita spending on elite sports for a western democracy. Sailing is a perfect example— boats are very costly. For equestrianism, you need a horse. For rowing, you need a boathouse, boats and oars. For track cycling, you don’t really have a chance without a wind tunnel, a velodrome. It’s different with running, where you just need a pair of shoes. There is a dramatic difference between sports that only a tiny group of countries can afford to invest in and the others.|||Matthew Syed, British journalist}}
They have a forecast for Gold and Total medals, too.
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 05:50, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

== During the Modern Olympic Games, the pagan origins of the Olympics have been replaced by faith-based achievement by the participating athletes ==

This seems to be wishful thinking: the Olympics were for quite a time dominated by nations which didn't allow their athletes the comforts of faith. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 05:59, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

== Group of Left ==

For those who don't get the "Group of Left" reference, it's a play on the phrase "Group of Death", which refers to an unusually strong group. I doubt Tunisia will finish in the top two and go to the medal round, but anything other than last place would be overperforming for them. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 18:21, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

== Women's Soccer ==

Why would the US women's soccer team be expected to underachieve? They're not one of the atheist nations, same-sex marriage is only legal in six states, and if Title IX effected them in any way, it would have helped them (albeit at the expense of men's sports). We should either explain it or remove it. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 18:35, 22 July 2012 (EDT)
:As I understand it, women's soccer is very strong in the US. Still, the nature of Soccer means that results are more unpredictable than other sports. Very often the best team is not able to win. Its a funny sport in that respect. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 18:44, 22 July 2012 (EDT)
:: I know that. But that still doesn't answer the question. We could say the same about any of the favorites. There's no reason given to expect the US team specifically to underperform. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 08:49, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
:::It seems as though "underperformance" and "failing to live up to expectations" are a preferred theme of the website's management. Maybe it's just a case of projection. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 09:22, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
:::: Possibly. If that's all it is, we should remove it. But I'm going to wait and see if anyone has a better explanation before I do so. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 18:07, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

:::::[[Politically correct]] teams often underachieve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:03, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::: Very well. I removed the part about the coach being a foreigner, since surprisingly it isn't an unusual practice to do something like that. About half the women's soccer coaches this year are from another country (i.e. not the one they coach). And Jurgen Kingsman of Germany coaches the men's US national team, although it's unlikely he'd have coached at the Olympics even if they did qualify, since men's soccer at the Olympics is primarily Under-23 teams. However, I kept the rest of the footnote. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 21:10, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

::::::: I don't think it's that common for a prominent sport like soccer. Germany, of course, has a very strong soccer program. But a coach from Sweden for the women's team???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::::: Ahhh.... Good point. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 21:50, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
The coach in question was the coach when the US won gold in 2008. She took the job in 2007. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 00:14, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::::: Early goal for France in Game 1 for the USA. 1-0. Plenty of time for us to come back. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 12:13, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::::: 2-0 France, less than 20 minutes in. A loss wouldn't eliminate the US, but a big loss would make it hard to go through in a tough group. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 12:15, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::::: 2-1. US goal came on a corner kick, which requires a lot of teamwork, against, atheist France. Still not even a quarter of the way through. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 12:20, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
So let me get this straight: If France loses, it's because of atheism. If the US loses, it's because their coach is a foreign-born lesbian, even though she led the team to gold in 2008. Is that correct? [[User:RayM|RayM]] 12:29, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::: It's only one game. And one of them had to win (or it could be a tie, I suppose). Let's see how the tournament progresses. It looks like they'll both go to the quarterfinals, but with 8 of the 12 teams advancing, that's not unexpected. Let's see how they do there. Then we can discuss this. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:51, 29 July 2012 (EDT)
:The US girls have won the gold medal! [http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2012/08/09/us-beats-japan-for-third-straight-olympic-gold-in-women-soccer/] --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 17:40, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

=="No Religion" in census response==
There are three possible explanations for a citizen refusing to state a religious preference on a government census form: no self-identification with one of the listed denominations, fear of government recording of religious preferences, or protest against government intrusion into a citizen's private spiritual life. Do we know which is the case in Australia? I know that if the government were to knock on my door, I would be in the third group. We don't know if Australia is in a religious decline based on census data, when there are better measures, including church service attendance and audience ratings for religious radio and TV broadcasts. Are there better data sources for this article? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:08, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

Over 11% of Australians refused to answer the religion question on their census forms. These people could have a faith. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 08:22, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

== Beckham and the Olympic torch ==

I suggest not adding whether Beckham lights the Olympic cauldron until after it airs on NBC, even though we should know around 7:30 PM ET whether he has or not. Some people might not know and might want to not know until NBC shows it on tape delay. It's only a few hours, and since most of our users are American and won't have seen the cauldron lighting yet, I think it's a reasonable courtesy. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 06:41, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Black Power salute controversy ==

I don't see a connection between the Black Power salute controversy, which was an act of political defiance on the medal stand that hardly anyone remembers (and which the Olympic committee forgave participants for) and [[Tebowing]]. Also, why would the comment be in the "TBD" column anyway?
:I think that athletes may (understandably) refrain from engaging in overt religious activity due to the precedent set by Smith and Carlos. The Olympics are a major event, and being banned from them (even wrongly) can seriously affect athletes, especially those competing in sports whose major competition is the Olympics. That's why I think that athletes will at least think twice before engaging in such behavior.
:The column where I added my explanation is headed "Answer," and my explanation is certainly an answer. Of course, it's just my insight, and maybe it will be proven wrong. But even if no one does end up doing Tebowing, we can rest assured that Christian athletes have Jesus' words in mind:
{{cquote|And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.|||Matthew 6:5-8|NIV}}
:[[User:GregG|GregG]] 14:42, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

::The "answer" is presumably provided by the results, as for the other issues, all of which is "TBA". [[Tebowing]] is not something that would likely be done during the medal ceremony, not even by Tebow himself. It's done before or after the athletic event, as in the American marathon medalist in 2004 who did the Sign of the Cross right after crossing the finish line.

::As to the quote from the [[Bible]], the context for that quote is clear: people should not pray in a hypocritical manner like the liberal Pharisees. There is nothing hypocritical about [[Tebowing]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:08, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I think the precedent still applies, or at least it has an ''in terrorem'' effect, to all such displays, regardless of whether they are during a medals ceremony or before or after an event. I know that this is my opinion, but Tebowing seems to me to be nothing more than a gimmick, a practice designed to whack people over the head with the "HEY, IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW, I'M CHRISTIAN!" hammer. Such efforts, no matter how sincere they are, are misguided, and Jesus tells us that this sort of public display is not at all required by Christians, just as Jesus goes on to criticize people who make a public display out the pious practice of fasting. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 15:41, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Reformat ==

Can someone with better formatting skills than me please make the table into a better, cleaner format? It's very hard to read right now. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 15:42, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

== Public Schools ==

Is the public schools example really that good? There are certain private schools in America that are infamous for training its students like athletes rather than students. More so in basketball and (American) football than other Olympic sports, though. Public schools don't do that. Nor should schools do that, it's called "school", not "training". I should point out that certain colleges are legendary for that too, including my own school, which is a public college under the State of Connecticut. But don't think that's why we're banned from the tournament next year - we're actually banned for not doing enough to game the system. And half the women's basketball Olympic team went to UConn. We actually care about academics for our women's basketball team, and do very well academically. But don't get me started on that, because it's irrelevant.
Anyway, assuming you mean public high schools (or below), I think it doesn't present a very conservative argument. Private primary schools should not exist for the purpose of training athletes. The fact that some do indicates something is wrong with the system, not that the system is good. Not saying that's enough to make the whole system bad - the vast majority of private schools are very good academically. But these aren't the ones that produce the superstar athletes, for the most part. Also, other than basketball, it wouldn't apply to any of the Olympic sports, since football isn't in the Olympics. And there are only 12 American men's basketball players. I don't know how many of them went to the sham private schools whose main purpose is athletics, but I know LeBron is one of them. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 15:49, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

== The Swiss tweet in question. ==

[http://www.totalprosports.com/2012/07/30/swiss-soccer-player-michel-morganella-sent-home-olympics-racist-tweet/ Here is a link to an image of the tweet]. As you can easily read for yourself, it's directed at "les coréens," et non pas contre "l'équipe coréen" ou quelque chose de même. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 18:33, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

: "South Korean" is not a race, and there is no evidence that the tweet was racist as the [[liberals]] claim. Rather, this incident shows how much liberals oppose [[free speech]], and will NOT defend the rights of others to speak their minds.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:40, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
::So, just for the record, you do defend the right of a person to call an entire nation of people "mentally handicapped retards" and think that he should face no consequences for doing so while representing his own country at an international event? [[User:RayM|RayM]] 18:48, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

:::For the record, I do support [[free speech]], even for statements with which I disagree. The tweet was not racist and athletes should be able to vent on twitter, just as they do vocally during games. Fans do also, by the way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:13, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

::::Do you believe a private, non-profit organization such as the Swiss and/or Greek Olympic committees has the right to demand and/or expect behavior from its members that reflects well on the organization, and that organization should be allowed to sanction a participant when behavior does not meet those expectations? If you do, where do you think the line is drawn? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:27, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

:::::No, I don't think the organizations you mention should be expelling athletes based on what they say on Twitter (and I question whether the organizations are truly private, rather than publicly funded).

:::::There was no evidence that the tweets embarrassed the nations in any way. Rather, this is [[liberal censorship]] run amok. Thirty years ago, liberals and the ACLU would have sided with the athletes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:39, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::: The only NOC that is 100% privately funded is the American one, although the vast majority of them are funded privately in part. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:01, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

== Atheistic Brits ==

I wonder...what percentage of the underachieving, God-hating British Olympians are actually Atheists? [[user:Willingham77|Willingham77]] 17:03, 31 July 2012

:The better question is what percentage of the Brits are subjected to an increasingly atheistic media and culture? Unfortunately, nearly 100%.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:11, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

::The better better question is why does an "atheistic" country have an established religion (COE)? Should all of us God-fearing Americans want the same for Christianity?[[User:Emmerich|Emmerich]] 23:23, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

:::[[Great Britain]] has an established '''''church'''''. That is something the [[Founders]] opposed - a state supported '''''church'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:42, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

::::Wow Andy, you should use that statement as an example in a Conservapedia article entitled "Non sequitur". [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 15:43, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
==Proposed table entry==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Sport
!Political issue
!Answer
|-
|Netball
|Will Netball be played at the 2012 and 2016 Summer Olympics? Wikipedia claims that Netball is an "Olympic sport"<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Olympic_sports|title=Category:Olympic sports|accessdate=Aug. 3, 2012}}</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics/Archive_12#Category:Olympic_sports</ref> played "at the Olympics".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_at_the_Olympics&action=history</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics/Archive_12#Olympic_recognised_sports</ref>
|Feminists have been demanding equality in Olympic participation. As a result, women have been playing the same game as men -- five-players-on-each-side basketball in the Olympics since 1976, rather than a watered-down version designed for Victorian women called Netball.
|}
If there are no objections, I will move this to the table in the article. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 11:19, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
: That's not really a question about the Olympics, more a commentary on Wikipedia. Stick it in [[Bias in Wikipedia]], not here. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 17:11, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
: Also, Wikipedia no longer claims Netball is an Olympic sport, only an "Olympic recognized sport", which is correct. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 17:17, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
::With all due respect to my friend Gregkochuconn, I just looked at the Wikipedia netball article and it is still in category "Olympic sports." I admit that the Wikipedia article "Netball and the Olympic Movement" is in category "Olympic recognised sports" but the radical feminists have insisted that Netball stay in the former category. Please see for yourself. The table entry was an assertion: We say netball will not be played in 2012 and 2016, Wikipedia says it is already an Olympic sport and keeps deleting statements that it could not possibly be added to the Olympic Programme before 2024.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&diff=502656544&oldid=502573324] [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:00, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
:::Its a bit hard to see exactly what the issue is. It is not hard to see that this issue is one for the Wikipedia page and not for the Olympics 2012 page. Whether or not it is deservedly and "Olympic Sport" or an "Olympic Recognised Sport" (these terms are not synonymous) is an issue for a general Olympics page, and whether Wikipedia is somehow censoring conservative thought is an issue for the Wikipedia page. Frankly I doubt very many of you even know what netball is. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:52, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
:::: That edit seems to be adding the 2024 information, not deleting it. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:24, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::Promptly reverted.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&diff=next&oldid=502668446] [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 03:52, 5 August 2012 (EDT)
::::: Probably because it was in the article about the sport at the Olympics, and didn't belong in the main article. The main article doesn't make any claim one way or the other. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 17:54, 5 August 2012 (EDT)
:::: Also, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netball_at_the_Olympics current version of the page] includes that information. So what you are saying is wrong. In any case, this is not the place for it, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the 2012 Olympics. Wikipedia makes no claim that it will be contested at the 2012 Olympics, even if it is an "Olympic sport", seeing as that category includes present Olympic sports, past Olympic sports, and Olympic recognized sports. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:27, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
::::::: Note that the article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squash_(sport) squash], which has a far more significant chance of being added to the Olympic program than squash, also does not mention that it could be added no sooner than 2024. As I said above, the article on Netball and the Olympic Movement does mention that it can't be added until 2024. The fact doesn't belong in the main article for the sport, by WP standards, and other articles on Olympic-recognized sports don't mention it either. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 15:17, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
<references/>

== Oh no, the tennis! ==

Look what's happening! One of the greatest conservative sports stars just lost the bronze medal match to an Argentinian who no doubt supports gay marriage, and an overrated Brit is smashing one of the all-time greats in the gold! What is going on?? Not only that, but we all just watched home-schooled gymnast Makayla Maroney underperform, right onto her bum! This page may need a re-write ... [[User:AlanA|AlanA]] 10:43, 5 August 2012 (EDT)

:While expressing doubt about your guess as to the Argentinian star's political views, I welcome further review of the predictions in the entry as more results pour in ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:45, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
:: The predictions represent things that are "likely" to happen, not things that are guaranteed to happen. Murray also had the advantage of the home fans, and Federer was tired from his marathon match with Del Potro. Of course, Del Potro should have been tired too.

== Will countries that have implemented same-sex marriage underperform? ==

Will someone please explain where the expected total medals figures in this section come from? Thanks. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 15:41, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
: The table lower down in the article. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:59, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
::Oh, you mean the one based on GDP, which "cannot be used as a fair proxy". In other words, they're meaningless. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 22:15, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
::: Find a better proxy and we can use that. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:17, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
::: I have changed the proxy to medals won at the last (Summer) Olympics prior to implementing same-sex marriage. The expected total is virtually unchanged. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:28, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
:::: Better, but expected numbers should be corrected for any significant differences in total number of medals available and in a country's number of athletes competing between the base estimate year and 2012. Also, since it's conceded that it's too early to tell how these countries will ultimately perform, the +/- figures are premature. With about 59% of events concluded, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, South Africa and Sweden are on track to meet or exceed their medal count for the base year. The Netherlands and Norway could easily do so as well by the games' end. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 10:53, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
::::: Hence "too early to tell". It's unlikely (though not impossible) for the Netherlands and Spain to overperform, while Denmark and Sweden have overperformed already. The rest are too early to tell. That being said, I will remove the +/- totals until the Games are over - they are misleading at this point. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 11:00, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
::::: Also, there are only a few more medal events (out of over 300) being contested in 2012 than in previous years, so that shouldn't matter. I think there were 301 in 2008 and 2004 and 302 this year. Insigificant. Since the theory centers around how many exceptional athletes these countries produce, adjusting for the number of athletes is incorrect. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 11:02, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
::::::What is "the theory"? [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 09:37, 8 August 2012 (EDT)
::::::: See [[User:Conservative]]'s rant somewhere above on this page. It's confusing, and I don't feel like repeating all of it, especially since I don't think it's accurate (though as an empiricist, I'm willing to put it to the test). [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:23, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
Seems that the highly promiscous gay diver has been eliminated, news article said he has been spending to much time at gay rallies instead of training [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 12:33, 11 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::::: I did not just say that about the gay diver. Who signed my name to that comment? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:53, 11 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::::: Looking through the edit history, it appears to be [[User:Nacacube]], who for some reason decided to affix my username to his comment. I don't even know how he did it, since he obviously didn't copy and paste - the time is different. Strange. Message left on his talk page. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:55, 11 August 2012 (EDT)

Originally, the "developed nations" took most of the medals in the Modern Olympics. In fact, because of transportation challenges, the host country had a big advantage in the early years of the Modern Olympics. Since that time, there has been a long-term trend of spreading the medals to countries throughout the world. Over time, the portion of the medals going to smaller countries has increased and the number of medals going to France, UK, and Germany have declined. So, if one had to explain a 4% decline in Olympic medals, could one look to this long-term trend rather than to the gay marriage factor? Thanks [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 12:26, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
: 4% isn't a significant difference anyway, unless it continues. One sample showing a 4% change doesn't really prove anything by itself. You could be right, but we'd have to analyze it long-term, rather than just one year, given the small change. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:14, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
: Assuming GregG calculated the p-value correctly, he is correct in that there is no statistical significance just from this one test. Generally, you would need a p value of 0.05 or less for it to be significant (or by stricter standards, 0.01). 0.73 is nowhere near that. I'm not going to verify the calculations, but it seems right. And assuming it's right, GregG is correct that it is not significant. However, if repeated tests showed a 4% decrease, that would be significant. We can run it again in 2014 and 2016, and beyond. And possibly we would have more nations to work with in those years. Keep in mind that the Winter Olympics (2014) have fewer total medals, so a 4% drop would be less significant, by itself. But if demonstrated, it could show significance of the trend. Something inonsistent with the 4% decrease, such as a small increase, would indicate no correlation. Bottom line is that this one sample test can't disprove the correlation by itself, but it doesn't prove it either. I'm an actuarial science major at school, so I'm pretty knowledgeable about this stuff. A repeated 4% decrease would be significant. But for the moment, it's not. I'm going to retroactively analyze the 2008 medal data, although we'll have fewer countries. When I'm done, I'll post the results. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:26, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
: Here is the medal data from previous years from the original post, omitting any countries that legalized same-sex marriage after 2008
Belgium - 5 in 2000, 2 in 2008
Canada - 12 in 2004, 18 in 2008
Netherlands - 25 in 2000, 16 in 2008
Norway - 6 in 2004, 9 in 2012
South Africa - 6 in 2004, 1 in 2008
Spain - 19 in 2004, 18 in 2012
Total - 73 expected, 64 actual

This is a decrease of 9 medals out of 73, a 12.3% decrease.

Let's look at the countries that legalized same-sex marriage between 2000 and 2004, as far back as we can go.

Belgium - 5 in 2000, 3 in 2004
Netherlands - 25 in 2000, 22 in 2004
Total - 30 in 2000, 25 in 2004
This is a 16.7% decrease, but with far too small a sample size to be significant by itself. [[User:GregG]], care to run the significance test?
Also of note, there appears to be something going on with the Belgians and Dutch, who have seen a consistent decline, while the rest of the nations have not, apparently. Since they are geographically and culturally close, this may be relevant. Ignoring them, we have no data for 2004, a 4.6% INCREASE in 2008, and again a 4.6% increase in 2012, neither of which is statistically significant by itself, and probably still not together. (Note: 4.6% increase is just as statistically significant as 4.6% decrease. In this case, not very) Of course, we can't just kick the two lowest samples out of the data set. But there seems to be some factor that has steadily brought the Dutch and Belgian totals down, without influencing anyone else. Was something else going on in Belgium and the Netherlands at the same time? Or was the 2000 medals we're using as the baseline simply an anomaly? I'm guessing the latter. 2000 was the Dutch's best Olympics EVER. It wasn't the Belgians', but even the 40% decrease from 2000 to 2004 isn't significant when they only had 5 to begin with. I'm going to rerun this data when I have more time, using totals from the three previous summer Olympics, and totals from all Olympiads thereafter, multiplying the latter by 3 or 1.5 if necessary, where there are fewer years, although I'll note where so as not to effect the significance test. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:41, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
: Going in alphabetical order,
Belgium - 14 from 1992-2000, 8 from 2004-2012 (no reweighting necessary)
Canada - 48 from 1996-2004, 36 from 2008-2012, multiply by 1.5 to weight as if there were 3 Olympics = 54 weighted total
Denmark - 21 from 2000-2008, 9 in 2012, reweights as 27
Iceland - 2 from 2000-2008, 0 in 2012, reweights as 0
Netherlands - 59 from 1992-2000, 58 from 2004-2012, no reweighting necessary
Norway - 23 from 1996-2004, 13 in 2008-2012, reweight as 19.5 due to lack of future data
Portugal - 7 from 2000-2008, 1 in 2012, reweights as 3
South Africa - 17 from 1996-2004, 7 from 2008-2012, reweight as 10.5
Spain - 47 from 1996-2004, 35 from 2008-2012, reweights as 52.5
Sweden - 24 from 2000-2008, 8 in 2012, reweights as 24
Total - 262 "baseline", 256.5 actual+projected, decrease of 5.5, or 2.1%. Smaller percentage, but with a larger sample size, it could have a higher significance. Or the two could cancel out. I can't do the math in my head. [[User:GregG]], do you mind doing the calculations again? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:52, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
::First, for countries that implemented same-sex marriage before 2008, I am going to use the 2004 total medals awarded for both 2000 and 2004 (there isn't much of a difference: 928 medals in 2000, 929 in 2004). The pre-same-sex-marriage proportion of medals won is 7.858%, the post proportion won is 6.681%. The p-value is 0.3244, which indicates no significance at any common alpha level.
::Second, for countries implementing same-sex marriage before 2004, we have the proportion of medals won in 2000 by those countries as 3.233%, and the proportion of medals won in 2004 by those countries is 2.691%. The p-value is 0.4912, which indicates no statistical significance at any common alpha level.
::I will take a look at how to proceed with your final set of data. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 17:10, 13 August 2012 (EDT)

:::One would expect some time period before the adoption of the [[same-sex marriage]] and its harmful effect, so I don't think it's meaningful to go back to 2004 and 2000. The trend line from 2008 to this year is probably a better indicator.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:15, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
::::Using the data for countries that implemented same-sex marriage between 2008 and 2012 (Denmark, Iceland, Portugal, Sweden):
:::::Those countries won 15 medals out of 958 in 2008.
:::::Those countries won 18 medals out of 962 in 2012.
::::The proportion of medals won by those countries actually went up from 2008 to 2012 (1.566% to 1.871%); the p-value, though, is 0.6068, which indicates no statistical significance at any common alpha level. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 17:21, 13 August 2012 (EDT)

:::::The shortness of time between the adoption of same-sex marriage by those nations and their medals at the 2012 Games renders that particular analysis less meaningful. More significant, I think, would be nations that adopted same-sex marriage before 2008 and how they then trended lower in medal count from 2008 to 2012.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:49, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
::::::Using the data for countries that implemented same-sex marriage before 2008 and the medal counts for 2008 and 2012 (Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain)
:::::::Belgium: 2 in 2008, 3 in 2012
:::::::Canada: 18 in 2008, 18 in 2012
:::::::Netherlands: 16 in 2008, 20 in 2012
:::::::Norway: 9 in 2008, 4 in 2012
:::::::South Africa: 1 in 2008, 6 in 2012
:::::::Spain: 18 in 2008, 17 in 2012
:::::::Total: 64 in 2008, 68 in 2012
::::::Again, the proportion of medals won went up from 2008 (6.68%) to 2012 (7.07%). The p-value is 0.7369, which indicates no statistical significance at any common alpha level. And, since this data set is rather scant (and, to be fair, we are having to make assumptions that might not exactly hold water but should be good approximations, like the number of medals won being a binomial distribution, in order to draw any conclusions from the data), I would surmise that you're not going to be able to get much evidence from just these data. Perhaps we will have to wait and see at the 2016 Summer Olympics. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:57, 13 August 2012 (EDT)

:::::::Netherlands and South Africa seem to distort the results here. Removing those anomalies results in a decline from 47 to 42 - more than a 10% decrease. For example, it appears that Netherlands did unusually poorly in 2008, which may result in its analomous increase.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:27, 14 August 2012 (EDT)
::::::::Now it looks like you're just cherry-picking the data to get the conclusion you want. ''A priori'', we would expect that such issues would average out. In fact, you suggested comparing 2008 medal counts to 2012 medal counts.
::::::::Also, I haven't run the numbers, but I think that even if you exclude the Netherlands and South Africa, you would still not have statistical significance due to the low number of successes that are expected by those countries. As an example, if we flip a fair coin 10 times, a result of 3 heads is not statistically significant at any common alpha (p=11/32). Yet 3 heads is 40% fewer heads than the 5 we would expect. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:50, 14 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::If the Netherlands and South Africa are to be excluded then we should exclude Norway as well. I think that leaves 38 and 38? No change. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 02:15, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::The data are worth analyzing before drawing final conclusions. I spent some time studying South Africa and the issue, and concluded it should not be in the list. I explain this in a footnote in the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:40, 14 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::::Well there are several problems, the most fundamental of which is that you are selecting data points to exclude on the basis of the dependent variable (2012 medals won), as opposed to an independent variable, which leads to bias. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 02:09, 15 August 2012 (EDT)
We should be comparing two sets of countries - those that implement same-sex marriage and those that prohibit same-sex marriage. When comparing sets with similar economies and populations, one could find that medal counts when down for both groups. The question is whether there is a statistically significant difference in the drop in medal count between the same-sex marriage and no same-sex marriage countries. I would guess that there are so many other factors that have a larger effect on the medal count, that any difference would be insignificant, but I welcome someone to run the numbers. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 18:35, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
::Nancy boys don't have kids which contributes to decline of populations as does pro-abortion/anti-life policies. see: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZeyYIsGdAA Demographic winter] In 2008, there were 70 countries with sub-replacement levels of fertility. So we look at trend of medals won by countries which adopt same sex marriage. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:06, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
:::Male homosexual couples not being able to have children the natural way is a biological fact. It doesn't depend on them being married or not. [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 02:21, 14 August 2012 (EDT)
:::: Also, not many 8-year olds win Olympic medals, so regardless there would be no data for at least a decade or so. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:57, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

== Medal weighting ==

It's been pointed out at [[talk:Main Page]] that some sports, notably swimming, are vastly over-rewarded in terms of the number of medals available. We would get a better representation of which nations were actually the best, sporting-wise, if we took this into account in our medals tables. One simple way would be to discount multiple medals won by the same individual, or perhaps to cap the number of medals counted in the same sport at, say, five. What do people think?

(Sadly the nation most affected by this would currently be that titan of the swimming pool, the USA.)--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:37, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
: That would be hard to do, though. And nearly impossible to keep updating during the Games. I propose keep the current system for now, and discuss further when the Games are over. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 10:53, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

:: Capping at five gold medals per sport wouldn't be too tricky. The only countries affected are:
::*USA - 11 in track and field, 16 in swimming
::*China - 6 in diving
::*GB - 8 in cycling
::*Russia - 8 in track and field.
::Something to think about. It wouldn't have a huge effect on the ordering of the table as it happens.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 06:16, 15 August 2012 (EDT)

== Team Sports ==

I don't really have the time to finish off this nicely, but I just did a quick count-up of medals across handball, hockey, basketball, volleyball and football. as these are probably the sports best described as '''team''' sports (ie. multiple players on a field working together and reacting to each other). Could someone do it for me and add it to the main page perhaps?
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Country
! Medals
! Status
|-
| United States of America
| 4
| Christian
|-
| Brazil
| Christian
| 3
|-
| Australia
| Increasingly Atheist
| 2
|-
| France
| Increasingly Atheist
| 2
|-
| Japan
| Atheist
| 2
|-
| Netherlands
| Atheist
| 2
|-
| Russia
| Christian
| 2
|-
| Spain
| Christian
| 2
|}
Countries with only 1 medal in team sports are Argentina, Canada, Croatia, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Korea, Mexico, Montenegro, Norway and Sweden.
[[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 02:51, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

:: The criteria seems pretty vague. Water polo? Tenis? Going out on a limb, cycling, and triathlon (The Brits certainly worked as a team to get gold and bronze). [[User:Nine|Nine]] 21:23, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

:::That's a fascinating table. I wouldn't describe Japan as atheist, however. Shinto, perhaps, although there is a Christian population as well. I cannot think of a single prominent Japanese atheist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

== A bit confused ==

Recent edits seem to downplay the US women's gold in soccer/football, despite the fact that it seems this site should trumpet every accomplishment by Americans. It seems to imply that Canada should have beat the US in the semifinals, despite the fact that Conservapedia earlier predicted that Canada should underperform in Olympics because of socialism and same sex marriage. Likewise Japan, which should underperform by this site's standards, as it's been ranked [http://www.infobarrel.com/25_Most_Atheist_Countries_in_the_World the #5 most atheist country in the world]. Furthermore, this idea that the US advanced unfairly seems to contradict the idea that the Olympics is a prime example of the best of the public, in which winners are decided by pure skill and performance alone, and not by some committee of so-called "experts". Are the Olympic games not an example of the best of the public after all? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 00:12, 15 August 2012 (EDT)

User talk:CPalmer

2012-08-15T10:01:07Z

CPalmer: /* Joke sports */ why can't the IOC be questioned?

Archive: [[User talk:CPalmer/Archive2008|2008]] | [[User talk:CPalmer/Archive2009a|Jan-Apr 2009]] | [[User talk:CPalmer/Archive2009b|May-Dec 2009]]

== Basic rights only ==

12:14, 23 January 2008 LowKey (Talk | contribs) New user account ‎ {{unsigned|LowKey}}

:::Added. Congratulations to you!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:56, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

== Categorizing ==

Thanks for adding categories to some of my entries (Urim and Thummim, Mary Celeste). I seem to have a mental block about creating categories; I constantly forget to do it. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 15:55, 8 February 2011 (EST)
:No problem, Morris!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:14, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

== Hey ==

Thanks for doing all the work on cats and stuff.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 10:10, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
:No problem - thank you for noticing. There are still just under 1000 uncategorised pages, so there's plenty more to do.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:20, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
::Don't worry. I may not have the time I did 2 years or so ago, but I can help with those categories. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 14:11, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
I just wanted to give you kudos too for all the work you've been doing in adding the cats! Great job! --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 12:54, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Thanks for your kind words, though of course my slow, steady progress is its own reward.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:34, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
==Username==
Hi! What's wrong with it? It's the Italian for "God is abundance", isn't it? Is there a word problem? --[[User:Dioporco|Dioporco]] 11:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:I think it means "God pig". So you can see why I thought it was blasphemous. "Porco" certainly means "pig" - perhaps someone has been having a joke at your expense?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:23, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== Thanks for the re-add ==

Thanks for re-adding me to your accursed list...:) [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 09:45, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Granted extra privileges ==

Your account has been granted the extra privileges of blocking rights and SkipCatcha. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:29, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks! I'll try and put them to good use.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:30, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::Congrats! I guess you're not the fourth longest-running basic rights user anymore.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 10:54, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::No, that honour will pass to someone else.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:00, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

You broke your record, but congrats! RE emails - I created a CP only email and posted the address on my user page. That way, if anyone wants to get a hold of me they can. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:07, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

==Working together==

Thanks for the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Role_3&diff=908095&oldid=908093 cats] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Role_3&diff=908096&oldid=908095 links] to [[Role 3]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:18, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:No problem. Good work creating the content, which is the greater part of the work.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:36, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

== Great block! ==

Great block!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:05, 10 October 2011 (EDT)
:Thank you! It seemed quite a clear-cut case.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:16, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

== Comment erroneously posted on main user page ==

You know that Benp has now quit? --[[User:NickCope|NickCope]] 12:17, 11 October 2011 (EDT)

:It doesn't really matter for the purposes of the list. I still like him, and he will remain there until I am inspired to add other people. Of course, if he is still absent the next time I make an addition, that will count against him and he may be in line for removal!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:35, 11 October 2011 (EDT)
::And now it seems that you yoruself are no longer with us. Sic transit.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:25, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

== Spam ==

Hi CPalmer. I posted a comment on [[User talk:Billyclark123|this talk page]] because I'm worried that user might be a spam program trying to piggyback off the site to get hits to the advertising link he posted on his user page. See my comment for the details. Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 08:45, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:I see what you are saying but as far as I know, there is no rule against posting links on one's user page. If the user were to start spamming on other pages, that would certainly be unacceptable.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:56, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
::My only concern would be that a search engine would index it, see that the exact same content has been posted elsewhere, and flag this site as a spam site (or at least a site where spammers have free reign). Yes, it's not fair, but I've read about Google's PageRank algorithm taking similar procedures to protect against malware and JavaScript vulnerabilities that edit page content. [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 12:38, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

==Back==

Are you "Dr. Pal" from the old days? :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:50, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:No - I don't know a Dr Pal. I've always been CPalmer.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:51, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

::Sorry, I guess I was thinking of "PalMD". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:31, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

== Categories ==

Kudos: That was a herculean task! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:19, 18 November 2011 (EST)
:Thanks! Though technically I think it is a Sisyphean task, since people do keep on creating new pages...--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:40, 18 November 2011 (EST)

Thanks for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pregnancy_test&diff=prev&oldid=939223 the cat]. Don't kill it! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:39, 21 November 2011 (EST)

== Talk page fix ==

Thanks for reverting the code breakage on my page; I had undone the problem on Mr. Schlafly's page, but I could not block the troublesome user so he was free to continuing breaking pages. Thanks for the help! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 08:51, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== You're welcome ==

You're welcome re: the promotion - it is well-deserved!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:17, 23 March 2012 (EDT)

:Thanks again!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:28, 23 March 2012 (EDT)

== Wikipedia independent thought/hearsay ==

Wikipedia...intelligent thought? Surely that is a joke! :)--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 11:45, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

== No hearsay template ==

Your "no hearsay" template is very interesting!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:28, 16 April 2012 (EDT)

:Thanks - I haven't added it to any articles as yet but I think it's something that could be useful here, either for essays or for sections of articles that go against prevailing online consensuses. Just because a reference can't be found for something doesn't mean it's not true - and any original insight will by definition be impossible to find a reference for.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:45, 16 April 2012 (EDT)

== Template quotes ==

Thanks for categorizing my category - it's the first one I created on this wiki, I think.

I tried to identify some of the quotes, which isn't easy: the names are quite arbitrary. I hope that [[User:Ed Poor]] will be able to spot them all. When the quotes are categorized, I think the best thing will be to have a list of their contents, too - I'm not sure whether this can be done on the page of the category itself or has to be done separately.

Another improvement would be a more unified look of the quotes and their sources - that is something to be left for [[User:Ed Poor]], too.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:42, 14 June 2012 (EDT)

:That's no problem. One of the things I do here is try to keep control of the number of uncategorized categories - currently below 50, I believe, which is manageable.
:On the other hand, this quotes issue led me to start looking around at templates and there are an absolute mountain of those that have no categories as yet. Any categories that get added as a result of this tidying up of quotes will be a very welcome drop in that ocean, apart from any other benefits, so thank you. You are doing good work!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 05:37, 14 June 2012 (EDT)
::Thanks! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:00, 14 June 2012 (EDT)

== Joke sports ==

It seems to me you're expending a lot of "unnecessary effort" to include as many sports as you can in the list, and to disparage the efforts of the athletes who train in these sports. Why? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 12:17, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:Not so - not at all. I have made only three additions to the list - a small minority of what is on there. There have been various removals that I have not opposed, and indeed I made two removals myself.
:It's also not my intention to denigrate anyone's efforts. I know that it takes a great deal of dedication, toil and inherent talent to win an Olympic medal in any discipline. People and governments are guided in the sports they choose, or choose to fund, by the decisions of the IOC and other bodies, and I think it's the sports governing bodies who need to change their approach so that the athletes' hard work is directed into something that is as worthwhile as possible.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:24, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

::And who is to set themselves up as judge and jury to decide what is "worthwhile" or not? If an athlete enjoys the sport, who are we to decide that the sport is a "joke", or that it is a waste of time for that athlete? Millions of dollars are spent in American football every year- and its point is? When I was little, and my dad watched football on TV, I thought the point was to see how many men could end up stacked in a pile. As an adult, to me it seems like it's just a chance for grown men to inflict violence on each other while chasing a ball around the field without facing legal ramifications. It's no more "worthwhile" in my eyes than the backstroke is in yours, but I'm not out there trying to justify its inclusion in the "joke sport" category. If you don't like the sport, then don't watch. Simple as that. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 12:42, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::The IOC is the judge and the jury. They already do include some sports and exclude others, and they choose to allow different numbers of events in different sports. What I and others are saying is that we don't agree with some of the IOC's decisions. Maybe the term "joke sports" is unnecessarily inflammatory, but I wasn't the first to use it. That aside, what is so wrong with questioning or disagreeing with the IOC?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 06:01, 15 August 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Joke sports

2012-08-10T16:43:22Z

CPalmer: /* swimming medleys */ reply

== Female version of sports ==

Hi, long time reader but new editor as I wanted to give something back to the project. I was just wondering why Women's boxing is the only female specific sport listed. To be consistent surely sports such as women's weightlifting, wrestling and some of the athletics events what require pure strength (shot-put, hammer etc) should be included. What do more experience members think of including these?
Can I also suggest the 20km walk race?

:The other female sports you list seem more legitimate than women's boxing. Women's boxing appears to be particularly artificial - how often are there schoolyard boxing matches between girls?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:55, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
::It happened often enough where I grew up, but I probably came from a tougher neighborhood than you. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 20:02, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

:::I doubt they boxed as boys and men do. I have never, ever heard of that happening, and the small town I grew up in had plenty of fistfights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:15, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
::::You must have lived a particularly sheltered life then Andy!! --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 20:54, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

How often on your schoolyard did you see fencing matches? Or two first graders break out into a clean-and-jerk competition? Or archery? Or the down-hill slalom? Or the pentathlon? Or sailing? I think it's fair to say that if you are an Olympics athlete, you probably focused on it outside of the schoolyard. 
On a personal side note, as a person who was in both track relays and swimming relays; swimming relay exchanges are much harder. You have to time it such that you enter the water at the exact same time that the person in front of you touches. In track, it's just wait for "Go", then run; wait for "Hit", then put your arm back. Close hand, run some more. But I'm just some guy on the internet; you probably shouldn't take my word for it. But if we are going to have this footnote, could we add some citation at least giving a reputable opinion that track is harder than swimming? [[User:PaulRP|PaulRP]] 21:34, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
:I'll second that comment: swimming relays are difficult to get right, and easy to blow. Disqualifications are common at the high school level, and not unheard of in college swimming because of the split-second timing required by all but the first swimmer in the relay.--[[User:Bwebster|Bwebster]] 00:23, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

::But I don't think difficulty is the test. Lots of silly new televised competitions are difficult, but are not legitimate sports.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:34, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::So swimming relays are illegitimate because of the absence of a baton. That is your argument? [[User:RayM|RayM]] 00:35, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

==criteria?==
I'm wondering what our actual criteria are for inclusion on this list. I, for one, don't think that Swimming relays, BMX, or beach volleyball are "joke" sports, unless we want to include golf as a joke sport, sailing as a joke sport (please don't do this. the sailing fan in me would be sad). In fact, it seems to me that even dressage requires more athleticism than, say, prone rifle shooting. I realize that people higher up the pecking order on this site than me may have something invested in this article, so I won't make edits until there's a clarified set of criteria for this article.--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 20:46, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

:You raise excellent points. What is the criteria for separating the legitimate from the joke sports, or for including an event in the Olympics? Why isn't golf an Olympic sport?

:I've added "underlying purpose" to the sport as a criterion. More insights are welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:13, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::What is the underlying purpose of any sport? [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 10:26, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

[http://rio2016.com/en/the-games/olympic/sports/golf Golf will return to the Olympics in 2016]. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 00:18, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
[http://www.olympic.org/content/sports/all-sports/golf/equipment-and-history/?tab=history It was also contested at the 1900 and 1904 Summer Olympic Games]. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:23, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

I think this entire article is in violation of Conservapedia Commandments #1 ("Everything you post must be true and verifiable") and #5 ("Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry"). [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 10:32, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:With regards to our Fifth Commandment, I agree. Perhaps an administrator would like to move this page to the Essay pseudonamespace. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 11:43, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:::"Citius, Altius, Fortius" would be a good stating point for the criteria I think - sports that do not have an element of the Olympic motto would need a good reason to not be on this list, although most team sports would not satisfy this test [[User:AlanA|AlanA]] 11:49, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::::I think that a good test is that there shouldn't already be another, similar sport with a stronger tradition and more credibility. That would exclude recent additions like beach volleyball.
::::Related to this, it's chiefly the multiplicity of similar events that undermine swimming's credibility, so "one event testing one set of athletic abilities" might be a good way to phrase it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:07, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

== Dressage ==

I wonder if the editor who listed dressage as a joke sport is aware of the history behind the sport? It developed over centuries of military training and tactics for the cavalry, when horse and rider needed to move in harmony with each other during battle. Just because it has become a rich man's sport in today's society does not erase its meaningful history - it certainly wasn't a "joke" to thousands of cavalrymen. [http://www.artisticdressage.com/articles/history1.html A Brief Outline of the History of Dressage] by Dr. Thomas Ritter. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 00:22, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:I'm going to remove it from the list, until someone can come up with a realistic reason it should be on here. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:35, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::Because, for all intents and purposes, there's very little difference between dressage and Crufts, and I don't see many dog events at the Olympics?--[[User:CGrande|CGrande]] 09:41, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::I said a logical reason, thanks. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:43, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::::Technically you said a realistic reason. Dressage is about training between man and beast so said beast will do what you command, this is the same as some of the events at Crufts. There's no racing as a test of speed or rider's abilities. On that level I can't see any difference.--[[User:CGrande|CGrande]] 09:46, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::Racing or speed are not necessary components in a competition. As for not testing the rider's skill? Seriously, you're being absolutely ridiculous. The whole event is about showing the rider's skill in directing the horse through its movements. While I haven't participated in dressage myself, I have been around horses and riders enough to know that including dressage on this page is the joke created by a bunch of envious, armchair quarterbacks. If you can't do the activity, then don't open your mouth to criticize. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:54, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
Just because it's hard to do doesn't make it a serious sport. Ballet is hard to do. So is playing the 'cello. Neither of those are sports. Just because it has a long history doesn't make it a serious sport. It is an elitist activity that the average sports fan cares nothing about. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 10:02, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

Alright, go ahead. Disparage these athletes all you want. I have my doubts that any editor who has contributed to this page could compete in any of these "joke sports" on an Olympic level. It sounds like sour grapes to me. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:16, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:That's a sore loser's argument. Do you limit your opinions to those things you can do at an elite level? That would mean not having preferences about most things in the world, unless you are so gifted that you can compose poetry, play jazz piano, paint, sculpt, figure skate, design a building and cook at the level of the best in the world. Which none of us can. Just because a person can't do something doesn't mean they can't have an informed opinion about it. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 10:23, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::I have yet to see an "informed opinion" on any of the sports listed on this page. What I see is a bunch of editors who think it's fun to disparage hard-working athletes for their own amusement. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:27, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::Welcome to Conservapedia. It's what ASchlafly does. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 11:00, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::::Why do you add to it if you don't agree with the premise? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:06, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

== Greco-Roman wrestling ==

I removed Greco-Roman wrestling from the list. All wrestling styles have their particular rules, but that doesn't make them not a real sport. Saying it artifically prohibits the match is like saying hurdles is not a real sport since it hinders running. If anything, the role of throws requires more strength to compete properly. [[User:PaulRP|PaulRP]] 10:14, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:I agree - Graeco-Roman wrestling requires strength, technique and flexibility, as well as guile, and is one of the purest sports contested at the Olympics. Some people do like to joke about wrestling, but that in itself doesn't make it a joke sport.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:31, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::However, compare it to freestyle wrestling, also an Olympic Sport, but with far fewer restrictions on how athletes can show their abilities at that particular skill to their best, and it does come across as a joke sport.--[[User:CGrande|CGrande]] 11:12, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

== Table tennis ==

Have you actually watched any of the table tennis matches? The skills required to compete in this event - the quickness, agility, perspicacity - are at least equal to those in regular tennis. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 10:29, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

== This article is too negative and unnecessary ==

This article is too negative. For example, while there are martial art systems (or self-defense systems) which are better than taekwondo when it comes to self-defense[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwV3KZKcq4k][http://hammerprinciple.com/martialarts/items/karate/aikido], it can get you into great shape - especially if the twaekwondo center has a weight room. When I was involved in taekwondo, I enjoyed it and found it beneficial. Plus, when I was playing racketball without googles (which I should not have done), using a block I learned in taekwondo, I stopped a ball from hitting my face inches before it was about to hit me. :) The only potential downside I see to twaekwondo is that full contact sparring could potential cause brain damage as many medical doctors are against boxing for example and boxers can become "punch drunk".[http://digitaljournal.com/article/264678][http://www.justanswer.com/medical/2j5r4-does-sparring-mixed-martial-arts-muay-thai-specifically.html]

Although there are less toxic forms of keeping pools clean than chlorine[http://news.discovery.com/human/chlorinated-pools-swimming-cancer.html], swimming is great exercise and there is nothing wrong with the backstroke or relay races.

Soccer is great and inexpensive way to exercise and it probably keeps more people in shape than any sport in the world due to its popularity in the world.

There is no public outcry to remove these sports from the Olympics. Women enjoy synchronized swimming and rhythmic gymnastics for example.

I think this article is a wet blanket and a sour grapes way of minimizing others achievements.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:55, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:I'm not sure ASchlafly will agree with you. It was his idea, after all, and fits in with his basic orientation towards focusing on finding negative outcomes. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 10:59, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:We agree on this, [[User:Conservative]]. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:08, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::User:Conservative, I recommend using Firefox to make your posts. It has a spell-check facilility, which would help you spot typos such as the amusing "twaekwondo".
::Other than that, how could a "joke sports" article not be negative? Perhaps by talking up the humor content of the sports involved???
::Thirdly, you are right that there is nothing wrong with relay races, but swimming relays are not proper relays, as has been explained above. Backstroke ''is'' absurd - it's slower than crawl and more tiring than breast stroke, so what's the point of it, unless you're scared to put your face in the water?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:10, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:::Actually, people are wrong when they state swimming relays are not proper relays - there is strategy involved (fastest swimmer first, last? where to place the slowest swimmer?), and precise timing is needed during the exchange. As for the backstroke being absurd - how about testing the athlete's endurance? Not everything needs to be flashy and fast in order to be a competition. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:17, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::::Sharon, This is already being discussed above, at the end of the section headed "Female version of sports". Your post would be better off up there, where more informed people than I will see and respond to it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:48, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
CPalmer, I typed out taekwondo correctly 1 out 3 times. :). Secondly, Firefox does not have taekwondo in its spellcheck dictionary. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:22, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::CPalmer, as far as the backstroke, one of the principles of good exercise is working out all your muscles. Also, if the backstroke is more tiring than a breastroke as you say, that is a good indication it is giving someone a good workout. Given your approval of this article, I can only assume you may be a cranky old man who calls the police on kids making too much noise bouncing their basketballs!!! I rest my case that this article is a wet blanket article!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:31, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::I do not doubt backstroke's utility as a workout for lane-blocking old granddads, but a good workout does not necessarily make a good sport. Olympic toe-touching, for instance, or exercise biking, would certainly be seen as joke sports, were they to be added to the program.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:44, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

==swimming medleys==
I removed swimming medleys. The author of that particular edit was wondering what the track comparison would be, and the answer there is the pentathlon, heptathlon, decathlon, etc.--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 12:05, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:Not really. Multi-event athletics competitions require the athlete to do multiple different things, without specifying how. Swimming medleys, by contrast, require the swimmer to do the ''same'' thing in four different ways. If the decathlon included 100m running, 100m walking, 100m backwards running and 100m rolling then your argument would stand up better.
:I would support a swimming pentathlon that included short, medium and long-distance swims, plus springboard and platform diving, but that would require more genuine versatility than is possessed by most if not all competitive swimmers as far as I know.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:10, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::So I gotta ask, CPalmer, what sports do ''you'' play? how many of those might be considered "joke" sports. I know people who swim competitively, one in the backstroke, which you disparage, two in medleys. They're no joke. Because I need to go to work in about ten minutes, I'm not going to get into any kind of edit war here, I just wish you'd stop being so bitter and accept that people can have amazing sporting achievement EVEN IN EVENTS THAT YOU DON'T LIKE. Isn't that amazing? --[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 12:21, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::I am not saying that a gold medal in backstroke isn't an impressive achievement. I'm saying that it shouldn't be an Olympic event because it's a silly stroke for competitive purposes.
:::I don't play any sports competitively, but I play recreational football, tennis and darts. I do not think that darts should be an Olympic sport, however.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:27, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::::By the way, you knowing people who compete in these events does not in itself stop them from being joke events. If you mean that "they're no joke" because your friends take them extremely seriously, please consider the possibility that to others, that may make them more and not less absurd.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:29, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::I think I can see where you're coming from. I still disagree, but if you're using those criteria, then shouldn't you also include breast-stroke and butterfly? They're both less efficient than freestyle/crawl. Breast at least has some use apart from a competition environment, but butterfly seems totally useless. If you want those particular criteria, then please be consistent with them.--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 12:34, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::::::I agree about butterfly, and breast stroke, and walking races on dry land. For Olympic purposes, I think 100m, 200m, 400m and a longer distance, plus relays, for men and women, would be a sensible swimming program - say 12 gold medals in all, so far more than are available for archery or horse riding.
::::::Breast stroke has a case for inclusion, but the trouble is that the breast stroke performed competitively bears little resemblance to the steady, effort-conserving stroke that is so useful in real life.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:43, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

Joke sports

2012-08-10T16:31:58Z

CPalmer: retry - improved explanation

'''Joke sports''' are games that are poor substitutes for athletic endeavors that bring out the best in human achievement with a underlying purpose to the event. The inclusion of many joke sports in the [[2012 Summer Olympics]] detracts from the serious events. During those games, atheistic [[Great Britain]] won one gold in the joke sports; the United States won ten joke sport gold medals.

Examples of joke sports include:

*[[Badminton]]
*Beach volleyball
*BMX cycling
*Diving<ref>Essentially nothing more than dropping into water</ref>
*Golf<ref>you walk around on a field hitting a ball with a stick. Sometimes you don't even walk, you use a little car.</ref>
*Rhythmic gymnastics
*Shooting<ref>Unlike archery, where there is a physical component of drawing back a bow, shooters simply point their guns and shoot. In trap shooting in particular the scores are often ridiculously high with only around 2% of shots missing, so there is not often a clear winner and very much an element of luck</ref>
*[[Soccer]]<ref>The Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) imposes rules on players regarding the Olympic Games over the age of participants. This has the effect of prohibiting the best (usually professional) players in the world from competing. The age limit is currently 23 and under. FIFA is trying to lower it to 21 and under; however, the International Olympic Committee is not planning to comply with proposed rules.</ref>
*Synchronized swimming
*[[Swimming]] relays<ref>In running relays, there is a baton that must be artfully passed during the race. No such baton passing exists for the silly swimming relays. Would anyone want a long jump or pole vault "relay"??? However, in swimming relays, strategy is an important component. Placement of the fastest and slowest swimmers in the order is important. Also, precise timing is required as well - the swimmer completing his/her turn must touch the wall before the following swimmer can leave the starting block.</ref>
*Backstroke races<ref>An inefficient, silly stroke comparable to foot races for hopping or running backwards. It does crudely test the athlete's endurance, by specifically limiting his movements in a way that prevents him from swimming with maximum efficiency.</ref>
*Swimming medleys<ref>It is hard even to imagine how preposterous a land-based equivalent of this might look. Yet swimmers award and receive gold medals for them without raising a single eyebrow.</ref>
*[[Table_tennis|Table Tennis]]
*[[Taekwondo]]
*Women's [[weightlifting]], [[boxing]] and [[wrestling]]

Former joke sports:
*[[Baseball]] was removed after the 2008 [[Beijing]] Olympics for numerous reasons (lack of popularity, poorly controlled doping regulations and tedious gameplay) after only five Olympic tournaments

== Comments ==

<references/>

Talk:Joke sports

2012-08-10T16:29:55Z

CPalmer: /* swimming medleys */ also... what effect does taking these sports seriously have?

Talk:Joke sports

2012-08-10T16:27:27Z

CPalmer: /* swimming medleys */ reply

User talk:CPalmer

2012-08-10T16:24:32Z

CPalmer: /* Joke sports */ reply

Talk:Joke sports

2012-08-10T16:14:26Z

CPalmer: /* swimming medleys */ a swimming pentathlon?

Joke sports

2012-08-10T16:11:45Z

CPalmer: retry

'''Joke sports''' are games that are poor substitutes for athletic endeavors that bring out the best in human achievement with a underlying purpose to the event. The inclusion of many joke sports in the [[2012 Summer Olympics]] detracts from the serious events. During those games, atheistic [[Great Britain]] won one gold in the joke sports; the United States won ten joke sport gold medals.

Examples of joke sports include:

*[[Badminton]]
*Beach volleyball
*BMX cycling
*Diving<ref>Essentially nothing more than dropping into water</ref>
*Rhythmic gymnastics
*Shooting<ref>Unlike archery, where there is a physical component of drawing back a bow, shooters simply point their guns and shoot. In trap shooting in particular the scores are often ridiculously high with only around 2% of shots missing, so there is not often a clear winner and very much an element of luck</ref>
*[[Soccer]]<ref>The Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) imposes rules on players regarding the Olympic Games over the age of participants. This has the effect of prohibiting the best (usually professional) players in the world from competing. The age limit is currently 23 and under. FIFA is trying to lower it to 21 and under; however, the International Olympic Committee is not planning to comply with proposed rules.</ref>
*Synchronized swimming
*[[Swimming]] relays<ref>In running relays, there is a baton that must be artfully passed during the race. No such baton passing exists for the silly swimming relays. Would anyone want a long jump or pole vault "relay"??? However, in swimming relays, strategy is an important component. Placement of the fastest and slowest swimmers in the order is important. Also, precise timing is required as well - the swimmer completing his/her turn must touch the wall before the following swimmer can leave the starting block.</ref>
*Backstroke races<ref>An inefficient, silly stroke comparable to foot races for hopping or running backwards. It does crudely test the athlete's endurance by requiring him to expend a lot of unnecessary effort.</ref>
*Swimming medleys<ref>It is hard even to imagine how preposterous a land-based equivalent of this might look. Yet swimmers award and receive gold medals for them without raising a single eyebrow.</ref>
*[[Table_tennis|Table Tennis]]
*[[Taekwondo]]
*Women's [[weightlifting]], [[boxing]] and [[wrestling]]

Former joke sports:
*[[Baseball]] was removed after the 2008 [[Beijing]] Olympics for numerous reasons (lack of popularity, poorly controlled doping regulations and tedious gameplay) after only five Olympic tournaments

== Comments ==

<references/>

Talk:Joke sports

2012-08-10T16:10:14Z

CPalmer: /* swimming medleys */ not really

== Female version of sports ==

Hi, long time reader but new editor as I wanted to give something back to the project. I was just wondering why Women's boxing is the only female specific sport listed. To be consistent surely sports such as women's weightlifting, wrestling and some of the athletics events what require pure strength (shot-put, hammer etc) should be included. What do more experience members think of including these?
Can I also suggest the 20km walk race?

:The other female sports you list seem more legitimate than women's boxing. Women's boxing appears to be particularly artificial - how often are there schoolyard boxing matches between girls?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:55, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
::It happened often enough where I grew up, but I probably came from a tougher neighborhood than you. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 20:02, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

:::I doubt they boxed as boys and men do. I have never, ever heard of that happening, and the small town I grew up in had plenty of fistfights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:15, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
::::You must have lived a particularly sheltered life then Andy!! --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 20:54, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

How often on your schoolyard did you see fencing matches? Or two first graders break out into a clean-and-jerk competition? Or archery? Or the down-hill slalom? Or the pentathlon? Or sailing? I think it's fair to say that if you are an Olympics athlete, you probably focused on it outside of the schoolyard. 
On a personal side note, as a person who was in both track relays and swimming relays; swimming relay exchanges are much harder. You have to time it such that you enter the water at the exact same time that the person in front of you touches. In track, it's just wait for "Go", then run; wait for "Hit", then put your arm back. Close hand, run some more. But I'm just some guy on the internet; you probably shouldn't take my word for it. But if we are going to have this footnote, could we add some citation at least giving a reputable opinion that track is harder than swimming? [[User:PaulRP|PaulRP]] 21:34, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
:I'll second that comment: swimming relays are difficult to get right, and easy to blow. Disqualifications are common at the high school level, and not unheard of in college swimming because of the split-second timing required by all but the first swimmer in the relay.--[[User:Bwebster|Bwebster]] 00:23, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

::But I don't think difficulty is the test. Lots of silly new televised competitions are difficult, but are not legitimate sports.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:34, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::So swimming relays are illegitimate because of the absence of a baton. That is your argument? [[User:RayM|RayM]] 00:35, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

==criteria?==
I'm wondering what our actual criteria are for inclusion on this list. I, for one, don't think that Swimming relays, BMX, or beach volleyball are "joke" sports, unless we want to include golf as a joke sport, sailing as a joke sport (please don't do this. the sailing fan in me would be sad). In fact, it seems to me that even dressage requires more athleticism than, say, prone rifle shooting. I realize that people higher up the pecking order on this site than me may have something invested in this article, so I won't make edits until there's a clarified set of criteria for this article.--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 20:46, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

:You raise excellent points. What is the criteria for separating the legitimate from the joke sports, or for including an event in the Olympics? Why isn't golf an Olympic sport?

:I've added "underlying purpose" to the sport as a criterion. More insights are welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:13, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::What is the underlying purpose of any sport? [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 10:26, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

[http://rio2016.com/en/the-games/olympic/sports/golf Golf will return to the Olympics in 2016]. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 00:18, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
[http://www.olympic.org/content/sports/all-sports/golf/equipment-and-history/?tab=history It was also contested at the 1900 and 1904 Summer Olympic Games]. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:23, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

I think this entire article is in violation of Conservapedia Commandments #1 ("Everything you post must be true and verifiable") and #5 ("Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry"). [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 10:32, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:With regards to our Fifth Commandment, I agree. Perhaps an administrator would like to move this page to the Essay pseudonamespace. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 11:43, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:::"Citius, Altius, Fortius" would be a good stating point for the criteria I think - sports that do not have an element of the Olympic motto would need a good reason to not be on this list, although most team sports would not satisfy this test [[User:AlanA|AlanA]] 11:49, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::::I think that a good test is that there shouldn't already be another, similar sport with a stronger tradition and more credibility. That would exclude recent additions like beach volleyball.
::::Related to this, it's chiefly the multiplicity of similar events that undermine swimming's credibility, so "one event testing one set of athletic abilities" might be a good way to phrase it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:07, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

== Dressage ==

I wonder if the editor who listed dressage as a joke sport is aware of the history behind the sport? It developed over centuries of military training and tactics for the cavalry, when horse and rider needed to move in harmony with each other during battle. Just because it has become a rich man's sport in today's society does not erase its meaningful history - it certainly wasn't a "joke" to thousands of cavalrymen. [http://www.artisticdressage.com/articles/history1.html A Brief Outline of the History of Dressage] by Dr. Thomas Ritter. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 00:22, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:I'm going to remove it from the list, until someone can come up with a realistic reason it should be on here. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:35, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::Because, for all intents and purposes, there's very little difference between dressage and Crufts, and I don't see many dog events at the Olympics?--[[User:CGrande|CGrande]] 09:41, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::I said a logical reason, thanks. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:43, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::::Technically you said a realistic reason. Dressage is about training between man and beast so said beast will do what you command, this is the same as some of the events at Crufts. There's no racing as a test of speed or rider's abilities. On that level I can't see any difference.--[[User:CGrande|CGrande]] 09:46, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::Racing or speed are not necessary components in a competition. As for not testing the rider's skill? Seriously, you're being absolutely ridiculous. The whole event is about showing the rider's skill in directing the horse through its movements. While I haven't participated in dressage myself, I have been around horses and riders enough to know that including dressage on this page is the joke created by a bunch of envious, armchair quarterbacks. If you can't do the activity, then don't open your mouth to criticize. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:54, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
Just because it's hard to do doesn't make it a serious sport. Ballet is hard to do. So is playing the 'cello. Neither of those are sports. Just because it has a long history doesn't make it a serious sport. It is an elitist activity that the average sports fan cares nothing about. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 10:02, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

Alright, go ahead. Disparage these athletes all you want. I have my doubts that any editor who has contributed to this page could compete in any of these "joke sports" on an Olympic level. It sounds like sour grapes to me. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:16, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:That's a sore loser's argument. Do you limit your opinions to those things you can do at an elite level? That would mean not having preferences about most things in the world, unless you are so gifted that you can compose poetry, play jazz piano, paint, sculpt, figure skate, design a building and cook at the level of the best in the world. Which none of us can. Just because a person can't do something doesn't mean they can't have an informed opinion about it. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 10:23, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::I have yet to see an "informed opinion" on any of the sports listed on this page. What I see is a bunch of editors who think it's fun to disparage hard-working athletes for their own amusement. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:27, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::Welcome to Conservapedia. It's what ASchlafly does. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 11:00, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::::Why do you add to it if you don't agree with the premise? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:06, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

== Greco-Roman wrestling ==

I removed Greco-Roman wrestling from the list. All wrestling styles have their particular rules, but that doesn't make them not a real sport. Saying it artifically prohibits the match is like saying hurdles is not a real sport since it hinders running. If anything, the role of throws requires more strength to compete properly. [[User:PaulRP|PaulRP]] 10:14, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:I agree - Graeco-Roman wrestling requires strength, technique and flexibility, as well as guile, and is one of the purest sports contested at the Olympics. Some people do like to joke about wrestling, but that in itself doesn't make it a joke sport.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:31, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::However, compare it to freestyle wrestling, also an Olympic Sport, but with far fewer restrictions on how athletes can show their abilities at that particular skill to their best, and it does come across as a joke sport.--[[User:CGrande|CGrande]] 11:12, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

== Table tennis ==

Have you actually watched any of the table tennis matches? The skills required to compete in this event - the quickness, agility, perspicacity - are at least equal to those in regular tennis. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 10:29, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

== This article is too negative and unnecessary ==

This article is too negative. For example, while there are martial art systems (or self-defense systems) which are better than taekwondo when it comes to self-defense[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwV3KZKcq4k][http://hammerprinciple.com/martialarts/items/karate/aikido], it can get you into great shape - especially if the twaekwondo center has a weight room. When I was involved in taekwondo, I enjoyed it and found it beneficial. Plus, when I was playing racketball without googles (which I should not have done), using a block I learned in taekwondo, I stopped a ball from hitting my face inches before it was about to hit me. :) The only potential downside I see to twaekwondo is that full contact sparring could potential cause brain damage as many medical doctors are against boxing for example and boxers can become "punch drunk".[http://digitaljournal.com/article/264678][http://www.justanswer.com/medical/2j5r4-does-sparring-mixed-martial-arts-muay-thai-specifically.html]

Although there are less toxic forms of keeping pools clean than chlorine[http://news.discovery.com/human/chlorinated-pools-swimming-cancer.html], swimming is great exercise and there is nothing wrong with the backstroke or relay races.

Soccer is great and inexpensive way to exercise and it probably keeps more people in shape than any sport in the world due to its popularity in the world.

There is no public outcry to remove these sports from the Olympics. Women enjoy synchronized swimming and rhythmic gymnastics for example.

I think this article is a wet blanket and a sour grapes way of minimizing others achievements.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:55, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:I'm not sure ASchlafly will agree with you. It was his idea, after all, and fits in with his basic orientation towards focusing on finding negative outcomes. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 10:59, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:We agree on this, [[User:Conservative]]. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:08, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::User:Conservative, I recommend using Firefox to make your posts. It has a spell-check facilility, which would help you spot typos such as the amusing "twaekwondo".
::Other than that, how could a "joke sports" article not be negative? Perhaps by talking up the humor content of the sports involved???
::Thirdly, you are right that there is nothing wrong with relay races, but swimming relays are not proper relays, as has been explained above. Backstroke ''is'' absurd - it's slower than crawl and more tiring than breast stroke, so what's the point of it, unless you're scared to put your face in the water?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:10, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:::Actually, people are wrong when they state swimming relays are not proper relays - there is strategy involved (fastest swimmer first, last? where to place the slowest swimmer?), and precise timing is needed during the exchange. As for the backstroke being absurd - how about testing the athlete's endurance? Not everything needs to be flashy and fast in order to be a competition. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:17, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::::Sharon, This is already being discussed above, at the end of the section headed "Female version of sports". Your post would be better off up there, where more informed people than I will see and respond to it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:48, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
CPalmer, I typed out taekwondo correctly 1 out 3 times. :). Secondly, Firefox does not have taekwondo in its spellcheck dictionary. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:22, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::CPalmer, as far as the backstroke, one of the principles of good exercise is working out all your muscles. Also, if the backstroke is more tiring than a breastroke as you say, that is a good indication it is giving someone a good workout. Given your approval of this article, I can only assume you may be a cranky old man who calls the police on kids making too much noise bouncing their basketballs!!! I rest my case that this article is a wet blanket article!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:31, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::I do not doubt backstroke's utility as a workout for lane-blocking old granddads, but a good workout does not necessarily make a good sport. Olympic toe-touching, for instance, or exercise biking, would certainly be seen as joke sports, were they to be added to the program.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:44, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

==swimming medleys==
I removed swimming medleys. The author of that particular edit was wondering what the track comparison would be, and the answer there is the pentathlon, heptathlon, decathlon, etc.--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 12:05, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:Not really. Multi-event athletics competitions require the athlete to do multiple different things, without specifying how. Swimming medleys, by contrast, require the swimmer to do the ''same'' thing in four different ways. If the decathlon included 100m running, 100m walking, 100m backwards running and 100m rolling then your argument would stand up better.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:10, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Joke sports

2012-08-10T16:07:10Z

CPalmer: /* criteria? */ ideas

Joke sports

2012-08-10T15:49:23Z

CPalmer: endurance

'''Joke sports''' are games that are poor substitutes for athletic endeavors that bring out the best in human achievement with a underlying purpose to the event. The inclusion of many joke sports in the [[2012 Summer Olympics]] detracts from the serious events. During those games, atheistic [[Great Britain]] won one gold in the joke sports; the United States won ten joke sport gold medals.

Examples of joke sports include:

*[[Badminton]]
*Beach volleyball
*BMX cycling
*Diving<ref>Essentially nothing more than dropping into water</ref>
*Rhythmic gymnastics
*Shooting<ref>Unlike archery, where there is a physical component of drawing back a bow, shooters simply point their guns and shoot. In trap shooting in particular the scores are often ridiculously high with only around 2% of shots missing, so there is not often a clear winner and very much an element of luck</ref>
*[[Soccer]]<ref>The Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) imposes rules on players regarding the Olympic Games over the age of participants. This has the effect of prohibiting the best (usually professional) players in the world from competing. The age limit is currently 23 and under. FIFA is trying to lower it to 21 and under; however, the International Olympic Committee is not planning to comply with proposed rules.</ref>
*Synchronized swimming
*[[Swimming]] relays<ref>In running relays, there is a baton that must be artfully passed during the race. No such baton passing exists for the silly swimming relays. Would anyone want a long jump or pole vault "relay"??? However, in swimming relays, strategy is an important component. Placement of the fastest and slowest swimmers in the order is important. Also, precise timing is required as well - the swimmer completing his/her turn must touch the wall before the following swimmer can leave the starting block.</ref>
*Backstroke races<ref>An inefficient, silly stroke comparable to foot races for hopping or running backwards. It does test the athlete's endurance, as indeed a one-legged hopping race would on land.</ref>
*Swimming medleys<ref>It is hard even to imagine how preposterous a land-based equivalent of this might look. Yet swimmers award and receive gold medals for them without raising a single eyebrow.</ref>
*[[Table_tennis|Table Tennis]]
*[[Taekwondo]]
*Women's [[weightlifting]], [[boxing]] and [[wrestling]]

Former joke sports:
*[[Baseball]] was removed after the 2008 [[Beijing]] Olympics for numerous reasons (lack of popularity, poorly controlled doping regulations and tedious gameplay) after only five Olympic tournaments

== Comments ==

<references/>

Talk:Joke sports

2012-08-10T15:48:03Z

CPalmer: /* This article is too negative and unnecessary */ already addressed above

== Female version of sports ==

Hi, long time reader but new editor as I wanted to give something back to the project. I was just wondering why Women's boxing is the only female specific sport listed. To be consistent surely sports such as women's weightlifting, wrestling and some of the athletics events what require pure strength (shot-put, hammer etc) should be included. What do more experience members think of including these?
Can I also suggest the 20km walk race?

:The other female sports you list seem more legitimate than women's boxing. Women's boxing appears to be particularly artificial - how often are there schoolyard boxing matches between girls?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:55, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
::It happened often enough where I grew up, but I probably came from a tougher neighborhood than you. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 20:02, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

:::I doubt they boxed as boys and men do. I have never, ever heard of that happening, and the small town I grew up in had plenty of fistfights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:15, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
::::You must have lived a particularly sheltered life then Andy!! --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 20:54, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

How often on your schoolyard did you see fencing matches? Or two first graders break out into a clean-and-jerk competition? Or archery? Or the down-hill slalom? Or the pentathlon? Or sailing? I think it's fair to say that if you are an Olympics athlete, you probably focused on it outside of the schoolyard. 
On a personal side note, as a person who was in both track relays and swimming relays; swimming relay exchanges are much harder. You have to time it such that you enter the water at the exact same time that the person in front of you touches. In track, it's just wait for "Go", then run; wait for "Hit", then put your arm back. Close hand, run some more. But I'm just some guy on the internet; you probably shouldn't take my word for it. But if we are going to have this footnote, could we add some citation at least giving a reputable opinion that track is harder than swimming? [[User:PaulRP|PaulRP]] 21:34, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
:I'll second that comment: swimming relays are difficult to get right, and easy to blow. Disqualifications are common at the high school level, and not unheard of in college swimming because of the split-second timing required by all but the first swimmer in the relay.--[[User:Bwebster|Bwebster]] 00:23, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

::But I don't think difficulty is the test. Lots of silly new televised competitions are difficult, but are not legitimate sports.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:34, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::So swimming relays are illegitimate because of the absence of a baton. That is your argument? [[User:RayM|RayM]] 00:35, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

==criteria?==
I'm wondering what our actual criteria are for inclusion on this list. I, for one, don't think that Swimming relays, BMX, or beach volleyball are "joke" sports, unless we want to include golf as a joke sport, sailing as a joke sport (please don't do this. the sailing fan in me would be sad). In fact, it seems to me that even dressage requires more athleticism than, say, prone rifle shooting. I realize that people higher up the pecking order on this site than me may have something invested in this article, so I won't make edits until there's a clarified set of criteria for this article.--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 20:46, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

:You raise excellent points. What is the criteria for separating the legitimate from the joke sports, or for including an event in the Olympics? Why isn't golf an Olympic sport?

:I've added "underlying purpose" to the sport as a criterion. More insights are welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:13, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::What is the underlying purpose of any sport? [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 10:26, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

[http://rio2016.com/en/the-games/olympic/sports/golf Golf will return to the Olympics in 2016]. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 00:18, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
[http://www.olympic.org/content/sports/all-sports/golf/equipment-and-history/?tab=history It was also contested at the 1900 and 1904 Summer Olympic Games]. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:23, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

I think this entire article is in violation of Conservapedia Commandments #1 ("Everything you post must be true and verifiable") and #5 ("Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry"). [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 10:32, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:With regards to our Fifth Commandment, I agree. Perhaps an administrator would like to move this page to the Essay pseudonamespace. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 11:43, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

== Dressage ==

I wonder if the editor who listed dressage as a joke sport is aware of the history behind the sport? It developed over centuries of military training and tactics for the cavalry, when horse and rider needed to move in harmony with each other during battle. Just because it has become a rich man's sport in today's society does not erase its meaningful history - it certainly wasn't a "joke" to thousands of cavalrymen. [http://www.artisticdressage.com/articles/history1.html A Brief Outline of the History of Dressage] by Dr. Thomas Ritter. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 00:22, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:I'm going to remove it from the list, until someone can come up with a realistic reason it should be on here. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:35, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::Because, for all intents and purposes, there's very little difference between dressage and Crufts, and I don't see many dog events at the Olympics?--[[User:CGrande|CGrande]] 09:41, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::I said a logical reason, thanks. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:43, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::::Technically you said a realistic reason. Dressage is about training between man and beast so said beast will do what you command, this is the same as some of the events at Crufts. There's no racing as a test of speed or rider's abilities. On that level I can't see any difference.--[[User:CGrande|CGrande]] 09:46, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::Racing or speed are not necessary components in a competition. As for not testing the rider's skill? Seriously, you're being absolutely ridiculous. The whole event is about showing the rider's skill in directing the horse through its movements. While I haven't participated in dressage myself, I have been around horses and riders enough to know that including dressage on this page is the joke created by a bunch of envious, armchair quarterbacks. If you can't do the activity, then don't open your mouth to criticize. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:54, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
Just because it's hard to do doesn't make it a serious sport. Ballet is hard to do. So is playing the 'cello. Neither of those are sports. Just because it has a long history doesn't make it a serious sport. It is an elitist activity that the average sports fan cares nothing about. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 10:02, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

Alright, go ahead. Disparage these athletes all you want. I have my doubts that any editor who has contributed to this page could compete in any of these "joke sports" on an Olympic level. It sounds like sour grapes to me. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:16, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:That's a sore loser's argument. Do you limit your opinions to those things you can do at an elite level? That would mean not having preferences about most things in the world, unless you are so gifted that you can compose poetry, play jazz piano, paint, sculpt, figure skate, design a building and cook at the level of the best in the world. Which none of us can. Just because a person can't do something doesn't mean they can't have an informed opinion about it. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 10:23, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::I have yet to see an "informed opinion" on any of the sports listed on this page. What I see is a bunch of editors who think it's fun to disparage hard-working athletes for their own amusement. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:27, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::Welcome to Conservapedia. It's what ASchlafly does. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 11:00, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::::Why do you add to it if you don't agree with the premise? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:06, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

== Greco-Roman wrestling ==

I removed Greco-Roman wrestling from the list. All wrestling styles have their particular rules, but that doesn't make them not a real sport. Saying it artifically prohibits the match is like saying hurdles is not a real sport since it hinders running. If anything, the role of throws requires more strength to compete properly. [[User:PaulRP|PaulRP]] 10:14, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:I agree - Graeco-Roman wrestling requires strength, technique and flexibility, as well as guile, and is one of the purest sports contested at the Olympics. Some people do like to joke about wrestling, but that in itself doesn't make it a joke sport.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:31, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::However, compare it to freestyle wrestling, also an Olympic Sport, but with far fewer restrictions on how athletes can show their abilities at that particular skill to their best, and it does come across as a joke sport.--[[User:CGrande|CGrande]] 11:12, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

== Table tennis ==

Have you actually watched any of the table tennis matches? The skills required to compete in this event - the quickness, agility, perspicacity - are at least equal to those in regular tennis. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 10:29, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

== This article is too negative and unnecessary ==

This article is too negative. For example, while there are martial art systems (or self-defense systems) which are better than taekwondo when it comes to self-defense[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwV3KZKcq4k][http://hammerprinciple.com/martialarts/items/karate/aikido], it can get you into great shape - especially if the twaekwondo center has a weight room. When I was involved in taekwondo, I enjoyed it and found it beneficial. Plus, when I was playing racketball without googles (which I should not have done), using a block I learned in taekwondo, I stopped a ball from hitting my face inches before it was about to hit me. :) The only potential downside I see to twaekwondo is that full contact sparring could potential cause brain damage as many medical doctors are against boxing for example and boxers can become "punch drunk".[http://digitaljournal.com/article/264678][http://www.justanswer.com/medical/2j5r4-does-sparring-mixed-martial-arts-muay-thai-specifically.html]

Although there are less toxic forms of keeping pools clean than chlorine[http://news.discovery.com/human/chlorinated-pools-swimming-cancer.html], swimming is great exercise and there is nothing wrong with the backstroke or relay races.

Soccer is great and inexpensive way to exercise and it probably keeps more people in shape than any sport in the world due to its popularity in the world.

There is no public outcry to remove these sports from the Olympics. Women enjoy synchronized swimming and rhythmic gymnastics for example.

I think this article is a wet blanket and a sour grapes way of minimizing others achievements.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:55, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:I'm not sure ASchlafly will agree with you. It was his idea, after all, and fits in with his basic orientation towards focusing on finding negative outcomes. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 10:59, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:We agree on this, [[User:Conservative]]. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:08, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::User:Conservative, I recommend using Firefox to make your posts. It has a spell-check facilility, which would help you spot typos such as the amusing "twaekwondo".
::Other than that, how could a "joke sports" article not be negative? Perhaps by talking up the humor content of the sports involved???
::Thirdly, you are right that there is nothing wrong with relay races, but swimming relays are not proper relays, as has been explained above. Backstroke ''is'' absurd - it's slower than crawl and more tiring than breast stroke, so what's the point of it, unless you're scared to put your face in the water?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:10, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:::Actually, people are wrong when they state swimming relays are not proper relays - there is strategy involved (fastest swimmer first, last? where to place the slowest swimmer?), and precise timing is needed during the exchange. As for the backstroke being absurd - how about testing the athlete's endurance? Not everything needs to be flashy and fast in order to be a competition. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:17, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::::Sharon, This is already being discussed above, at the end of the section headed "Female version of sports". Your post would be better off up there, where more informed people than I will see and respond to it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:48, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
CPalmer, I typed out taekwondo correctly 1 out 3 times. :). Secondly, Firefox does not have taekwondo in its spellcheck dictionary. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:22, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::CPalmer, as far as the backstroke, one of the principles of good exercise is working out all your muscles. Also, if the backstroke is more tiring than a breastroke as you say, that is a good indication it is giving someone a good workout. Given your approval of this article, I can only assume you may be a cranky old man who calls the police on kids making too much noise bouncing their basketballs!!! I rest my case that this article is a wet blanket article!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:31, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::I do not doubt backstroke's utility as a workout for lane-blocking old granddads, but a good workout does not necessarily make a good sport. Olympic toe-touching, for instance, or exercise biking, would certainly be seen as joke sports, were they to be added to the program.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:44, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Joke sports

2012-08-10T15:44:55Z

CPalmer: /* This article is too negative and unnecessary */ reply

== Female version of sports ==

Hi, long time reader but new editor as I wanted to give something back to the project. I was just wondering why Women's boxing is the only female specific sport listed. To be consistent surely sports such as women's weightlifting, wrestling and some of the athletics events what require pure strength (shot-put, hammer etc) should be included. What do more experience members think of including these?
Can I also suggest the 20km walk race?

:The other female sports you list seem more legitimate than women's boxing. Women's boxing appears to be particularly artificial - how often are there schoolyard boxing matches between girls?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:55, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
::It happened often enough where I grew up, but I probably came from a tougher neighborhood than you. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 20:02, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

:::I doubt they boxed as boys and men do. I have never, ever heard of that happening, and the small town I grew up in had plenty of fistfights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:15, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
::::You must have lived a particularly sheltered life then Andy!! --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 20:54, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

How often on your schoolyard did you see fencing matches? Or two first graders break out into a clean-and-jerk competition? Or archery? Or the down-hill slalom? Or the pentathlon? Or sailing? I think it's fair to say that if you are an Olympics athlete, you probably focused on it outside of the schoolyard. 
On a personal side note, as a person who was in both track relays and swimming relays; swimming relay exchanges are much harder. You have to time it such that you enter the water at the exact same time that the person in front of you touches. In track, it's just wait for "Go", then run; wait for "Hit", then put your arm back. Close hand, run some more. But I'm just some guy on the internet; you probably shouldn't take my word for it. But if we are going to have this footnote, could we add some citation at least giving a reputable opinion that track is harder than swimming? [[User:PaulRP|PaulRP]] 21:34, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
:I'll second that comment: swimming relays are difficult to get right, and easy to blow. Disqualifications are common at the high school level, and not unheard of in college swimming because of the split-second timing required by all but the first swimmer in the relay.--[[User:Bwebster|Bwebster]] 00:23, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

::But I don't think difficulty is the test. Lots of silly new televised competitions are difficult, but are not legitimate sports.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:34, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::So swimming relays are illegitimate because of the absence of a baton. That is your argument? [[User:RayM|RayM]] 00:35, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

==criteria?==
I'm wondering what our actual criteria are for inclusion on this list. I, for one, don't think that Swimming relays, BMX, or beach volleyball are "joke" sports, unless we want to include golf as a joke sport, sailing as a joke sport (please don't do this. the sailing fan in me would be sad). In fact, it seems to me that even dressage requires more athleticism than, say, prone rifle shooting. I realize that people higher up the pecking order on this site than me may have something invested in this article, so I won't make edits until there's a clarified set of criteria for this article.--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 20:46, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

:You raise excellent points. What is the criteria for separating the legitimate from the joke sports, or for including an event in the Olympics? Why isn't golf an Olympic sport?

:I've added "underlying purpose" to the sport as a criterion. More insights are welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:13, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::What is the underlying purpose of any sport? [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 10:26, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

[http://rio2016.com/en/the-games/olympic/sports/golf Golf will return to the Olympics in 2016]. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 00:18, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
[http://www.olympic.org/content/sports/all-sports/golf/equipment-and-history/?tab=history It was also contested at the 1900 and 1904 Summer Olympic Games]. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:23, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

I think this entire article is in violation of Conservapedia Commandments #1 ("Everything you post must be true and verifiable") and #5 ("Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry"). [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 10:32, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:With regards to our Fifth Commandment, I agree. Perhaps an administrator would like to move this page to the Essay pseudonamespace. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 11:43, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

== Dressage ==

I wonder if the editor who listed dressage as a joke sport is aware of the history behind the sport? It developed over centuries of military training and tactics for the cavalry, when horse and rider needed to move in harmony with each other during battle. Just because it has become a rich man's sport in today's society does not erase its meaningful history - it certainly wasn't a "joke" to thousands of cavalrymen. [http://www.artisticdressage.com/articles/history1.html A Brief Outline of the History of Dressage] by Dr. Thomas Ritter. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 00:22, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:I'm going to remove it from the list, until someone can come up with a realistic reason it should be on here. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:35, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::Because, for all intents and purposes, there's very little difference between dressage and Crufts, and I don't see many dog events at the Olympics?--[[User:CGrande|CGrande]] 09:41, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::I said a logical reason, thanks. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:43, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::::Technically you said a realistic reason. Dressage is about training between man and beast so said beast will do what you command, this is the same as some of the events at Crufts. There's no racing as a test of speed or rider's abilities. On that level I can't see any difference.--[[User:CGrande|CGrande]] 09:46, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::Racing or speed are not necessary components in a competition. As for not testing the rider's skill? Seriously, you're being absolutely ridiculous. The whole event is about showing the rider's skill in directing the horse through its movements. While I haven't participated in dressage myself, I have been around horses and riders enough to know that including dressage on this page is the joke created by a bunch of envious, armchair quarterbacks. If you can't do the activity, then don't open your mouth to criticize. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:54, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
Just because it's hard to do doesn't make it a serious sport. Ballet is hard to do. So is playing the 'cello. Neither of those are sports. Just because it has a long history doesn't make it a serious sport. It is an elitist activity that the average sports fan cares nothing about. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 10:02, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

Alright, go ahead. Disparage these athletes all you want. I have my doubts that any editor who has contributed to this page could compete in any of these "joke sports" on an Olympic level. It sounds like sour grapes to me. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:16, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:That's a sore loser's argument. Do you limit your opinions to those things you can do at an elite level? That would mean not having preferences about most things in the world, unless you are so gifted that you can compose poetry, play jazz piano, paint, sculpt, figure skate, design a building and cook at the level of the best in the world. Which none of us can. Just because a person can't do something doesn't mean they can't have an informed opinion about it. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 10:23, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::I have yet to see an "informed opinion" on any of the sports listed on this page. What I see is a bunch of editors who think it's fun to disparage hard-working athletes for their own amusement. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:27, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::Welcome to Conservapedia. It's what ASchlafly does. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 11:00, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::::Why do you add to it if you don't agree with the premise? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:06, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

== Greco-Roman wrestling ==

I removed Greco-Roman wrestling from the list. All wrestling styles have their particular rules, but that doesn't make them not a real sport. Saying it artifically prohibits the match is like saying hurdles is not a real sport since it hinders running. If anything, the role of throws requires more strength to compete properly. [[User:PaulRP|PaulRP]] 10:14, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:I agree - Graeco-Roman wrestling requires strength, technique and flexibility, as well as guile, and is one of the purest sports contested at the Olympics. Some people do like to joke about wrestling, but that in itself doesn't make it a joke sport.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:31, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::However, compare it to freestyle wrestling, also an Olympic Sport, but with far fewer restrictions on how athletes can show their abilities at that particular skill to their best, and it does come across as a joke sport.--[[User:CGrande|CGrande]] 11:12, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

== Table tennis ==

Have you actually watched any of the table tennis matches? The skills required to compete in this event - the quickness, agility, perspicacity - are at least equal to those in regular tennis. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 10:29, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

== This article is too negative and unnecessary ==

This article is too negative. For example, while there are martial art systems (or self-defense systems) which are better than taekwondo when it comes to self-defense[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwV3KZKcq4k][http://hammerprinciple.com/martialarts/items/karate/aikido], it can get you into great shape - especially if the twaekwondo center has a weight room. When I was involved in taekwondo, I enjoyed it and found it beneficial. Plus, when I was playing racketball without googles (which I should not have done), using a block I learned in taekwondo, I stopped a ball from hitting my face inches before it was about to hit me. :) The only potential downside I see to twaekwondo is that full contact sparring could potential cause brain damage as many medical doctors are against boxing for example and boxers can become "punch drunk".[http://digitaljournal.com/article/264678][http://www.justanswer.com/medical/2j5r4-does-sparring-mixed-martial-arts-muay-thai-specifically.html]

Although there are less toxic forms of keeping pools clean than chlorine[http://news.discovery.com/human/chlorinated-pools-swimming-cancer.html], swimming is great exercise and there is nothing wrong with the backstroke or relay races.

Soccer is great and inexpensive way to exercise and it probably keeps more people in shape than any sport in the world due to its popularity in the world.

There is no public outcry to remove these sports from the Olympics. Women enjoy synchronized swimming and rhythmic gymnastics for example.

I think this article is a wet blanket and a sour grapes way of minimizing others achievements.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:55, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:I'm not sure ASchlafly will agree with you. It was his idea, after all, and fits in with his basic orientation towards focusing on finding negative outcomes. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 10:59, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:We agree on this, [[User:Conservative]]. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:08, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::User:Conservative, I recommend using Firefox to make your posts. It has a spell-check facilility, which would help you spot typos such as the amusing "twaekwondo".
::Other than that, how could a "joke sports" article not be negative? Perhaps by talking up the humor content of the sports involved???
::Thirdly, you are right that there is nothing wrong with relay races, but swimming relays are not proper relays, as has been explained above. Backstroke ''is'' absurd - it's slower than crawl and more tiring than breast stroke, so what's the point of it, unless you're scared to put your face in the water?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:10, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:::Actually, people are wrong when they state swimming relays are not proper relays - there is strategy involved (fastest swimmer first, last? where to place the slowest swimmer?), and precise timing is needed during the exchange. As for the backstroke being absurd - how about testing the athlete's endurance? Not everything needs to be flashy and fast in order to be a competition. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:17, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
CPalmer, I typed out taekwondo correctly 1 out 3 times. :). Secondly, Firefox does not have taekwondo in its spellcheck dictionary. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:22, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::CPalmer, as far as the backstroke, one of the principles of good exercise is working out all your muscles. Also, if the backstroke is more tiring than a breastroke as you say, that is a good indication it is giving someone a good workout. Given your approval of this article, I can only assume you may be a cranky old man who calls the police on kids making too much noise bouncing their basketballs!!! I rest my case that this article is a wet blanket article!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:31, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::I do not doubt backstroke's utility as a workout for lane-blocking old granddads, but a good workout does not necessarily make a good sport. Olympic toe-touching, for instance, or exercise biking, would certainly be seen as joke sports, were they to be added to the program.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:44, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Joke sports

2012-08-10T15:10:01Z

CPalmer: /* This article is too negative */ reply

Joke sports

2012-08-10T14:34:32Z

CPalmer: remove gymnastics - neither of these reciprocal reasons are good ones

Joke sports

2012-08-10T14:33:17Z

CPalmer: update now that Dressage has been removed - we will have to keep track of this.

Talk:Joke sports

2012-08-10T14:31:37Z

CPalmer: /* Greco-Roman wrestling */ agree

Dressage

2012-08-10T11:58:48Z

CPalmer: eventing

'''Dressage''' is a [[joke sports|joke sport]] dating to Antiquity in which [[horse]]s move and maneuvre in response to the commands of the rider. Its origins lie in the military training of the cavalry for battle. One of the first treatises on the subject was by the Greek general Xenophon (430 – 354 BC), who based his writings on the works of an earlier author.<ref>[http://www.artisticdressage.com/articles/history1.html A Brief Outline of the History of Dressage] artisticdressage.com, Dr. Thomas Ritter, originally published in ''Topline Ink'' Magazine, copyright 2008, retrieved August 10, 2012</ref> Dressage has been featured in the [[Olympic Games]] since 1928.

[[Mitt_Romney|Mitt Romney's]] wife Ann Romney owns the German-born dressage horse Rafalca. Rafalca competed in the [[2012 Summer Olympics]] with rider Jan Ebeling, but failed to reach the individual medal round.

[[Great Britain]] padded its medal total with two gold medals in the individual and team events in the [[2012 Summer Olympics]]. Despite positive responses by the British public regarding all medal successes, dressage has had difficulty in winning over the public. <ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/19180865</ref>

As well as being a discipline in its own right, Dressage also forms part of equestrian eventing, along with cross-country and show jumping.
[[category:Sports]]
[[category:Dictionary]]

===References===
<references/>

Joke sports

2012-08-10T11:38:26Z

CPalmer: and medleys

Joke sports

2012-08-10T10:10:26Z

CPalmer: more silliness

Joke sports

2012-08-10T10:09:48Z

CPalmer: backstroke!

Steve Redgrave

2012-08-09T12:59:24Z

CPalmer: create page on this great Olympian

Sir '''Steve Redgrave''' is a retired British rower. He is best known for winning rowing gold medals in five consecutive [[Olympic Games]] - the only competitor to do this in an endurance sport. This record began with the [[Los Angeles]] games in 1984, and ended at the [[Sydney]] games in 2000. After the [[Atlanta]] games in 1996, Redgrave jokingly requested that somebody shoot him if he ever went near a [[boat]] again. Nevertheless, he returned to win a fifth gold medal, in a boat, four years later.
[[category:Sportspeople]]

Talk:2012 Summer Olympics

2012-08-07T14:37:28Z

CPalmer: /* Medal weighting */ new section

== "1 Nations That Impose Same-sex marriage/ 2 Nations that are increasingly atheistic/ 3 Sports that have been ravaged by feminist Title IX in the U.S." ==

Nice. Great way to cover all your bases. When the US does well, you can crow about the same-sex marriage and the atheism. When the US doesn't do well, you can pile on Title IX and the feminists. Win-Win. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 10:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:Also, it's curious that you are focused on reasons for failure, not reasons for success. Why not divide up the matrix by, say, "Countries with a record of supporting young athletes"/"Countries with a strong cultural tradition of teamwork" or "Countries with a strong tradition of individual accomplishment"/"Countries where fitness is held as an important value"? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 11:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

::Category 3 is sports-specific in the [[U.S.]], so there is no contradiction with categories 1 and 2, which are nation-specific.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:54, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::Which is exactly why your matrix allows you to frame both US victories and US defeats in terms of your political agenda. It's an awesome rhetorical move. But I'm still curious as to why you are more focused on reasons for failure than on reasons for success. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:15, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

::::There is nothing "rhetorical" about this. Ideologies obviously have consequences, and this is a prediction of those consequences beforehand, with an evaluation as the results occur. Surely we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, and every ideology is a winner too? (Except, of course, [[Christianity]], which [[liberals]] never want to credit).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:22, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::Of course it's a rhetorical move--you are narrowing your analysis to focus on the political points that you are most interested in. Of course we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, so why not focus on reasons why people win, as opposed to why they lose--and surely Christianity is not the only reason, otherwise Jews, Muslims, atheists, Shintoists, Mormons, Moonies, Buddhists etc would never win any medals. It would be worthwhile to account for non-divine, or at least non-Christian reasons for success. Your focus on failure is really disheartening. Do you enjoy pointing out other's shortcomings, or are you projecting? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:29, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:::::::I'm fine with focusing on the winners - a entire entry called [[Greatest Conesrvative Sports Stars]] has been doing that for months. If you'd like to add a section to [[Olympics 2012]] that focuses on winners, that would be welcome. In fact, I'll start it for you now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:46, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::::Again, a great rhetorical move on your part--what about the non-conservative winners? If they're not conservative, they can't be winners. If they're winners, they must be conservative. If Tim Thomas doesn't lead the Boston Bruins to another Stanley Cup, hockey falls off the front page of the website; if the Miami Heat win, it's because they were somehow "taught a lesson" by a team they went on to beat soundly. Well played, sir. Well played. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::::Your objection reminds me of the editor who thought it significant that [[Tim Tebow]], after winning a spectacular upset in the first game of last year's [[NFL]] playoffs, then lost in the second round to a much stronger team. My response then is similar to now: people usually don't look for a miracle to occur ever single time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

== Euro 2012 ==
Slightly off-topic, I admit, but I was wondering, whether Andy had any comments on the final of the European Cup final (soccer) that takes place tonight between Spain and Italy? Maybe even a prediction who might win? If you haven't followed the tournament so far, atheistic England went out in the quarter finals, while the liberal Netherlands didn't make it past the first round (same as catholic, pro-life Poland, incidentally). --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 13:31, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Netherlands]] is a big [[same-sex marriage]] country, so no surprise there. Both [[Spain]] and [[Italy]] are very [[liberal]], so that's a tough choice. Poland was under communist martial law until about 20-25 years ago, so I don't think it's far to expect it to do as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
::So gay marriage, political culture, and form of government matter more that the relative skill of the players, their histories in recent match-ups, their style of play, the depth of their squads, coaching, or any other soccer-related questions? So when you sit down to watch a given sports contest, you analyze the game through the lens of politics and religion, and not through the lenses of ability, strategy, or any other sports-related concept. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:::Deny it all you like, but ideologies do have consequences. Show me a sports team of atheists and I'll show you a team that's not going to win the championship.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:20, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::So all of those Soviet medal wins in the Olympics, or in international hockey, all of the medal wins by Chinese teams--they were all believers of one sort or another? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:26, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
Also, if Spain and Italy are both "very liberal", that means a liberal team is guaranteed to win the championship. Guess it pays to be "very liberal!" [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:30, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
::::: Meh.... In the first Euro championship (1960), the USSR, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia finished 1-2-3 respectively. All were communist. At least two communist nations made the semifinals for each of the next 3 Euros. In 1980, the Czechoslovakians finished third. In 1984, no Communist nations finished in the Top 4, but that was the only time that happened. The Soviets came in second in 1988, and then the communists fell. Since then (6 Euros), the Czechs have two Top 4 apppearances, the Russians have one, and other communist nations or their successor states have none. Of course, this is misleading because a combined Yugoslavia team consisting of the Serbian, Montenegrin, Croatian, etc. teams might have done well, and of those nations, only Croatia qualified and they did fairly well considering they were in a group with Italy and Spain. Most of the Yugoslavian players were Serbian, and most of the Soviet players were Russian. So it appears Serbia and Russia suffered. But Croatia and Montenegro have done well since independence (and a unified Serbia and Montenegro team qualified for the World Cup in 2006, but was placed in the group of death and eliminated in the first round. It also didn't help that the World Cup was held after the two nations separated). Also, Bosnia and Herzigovina has improved, coming within a playoff against Portugal of qualifying for both the World Cup and Euro, but they lost both.
Additionally, Ukraine has improved significantly since the USSR breakup. Although they only qualified this year because they were hosts, they qualified for the World Cup in 2006 and almost again in 2010. Latvia qualified for Euro 2004, even though there were pretty much no Latvian Soviet soccer players. Estonia also came within a playoff of qualifying for Euro this year, a marked improvement over their Soviet days, but lost. Same with Bosnia-Herzigovinia and Montenegro. Additionally, either Slovakia or the Czech Republic has qualified almost always for the World Cup and Euro, and a combined team would likely have done better. In team sports, it is hard to compare stats from before and after, because while the USSR may have done better than any of the new nations, we don't know how the new nations would do if they competed together as they did when they were the USSR. Andre Szevchenko is one of the best players in Europe for Ukraine, but he doesn't have much support. If he had the support of Russian players, Estonian players, and Latvian players on his team, then that team would probably have done better. The same could be said of a combined team for Czech Republic and Slovakia.
As an example of the opposite, the new German team has done far better than the old East German team, including some players from Berlin who would have competed for East Gemrany 25 years ago. Their performance is slightly better than the West German performance, although this is probably just because they have more people now, since they were both capitalist.
Also, Germany is the only country in the Netherlands' group that does not have same-sex marriage (Portugal and Denmark also do). At least one of them by rule HAD to advance (Portugal did), but it was the Germans who won the group with a perfect record. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 05:20, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

== Evidence that Christianity increases a countries Olympic medals while atheism and liberalism reduce gold medals won ==

Andy, although it is true that Communist/authoritarian countries have gone out of their way in the past to pour money in the Olympic gold winning efforts (Soviet Union)[http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=econ_honproj&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dgdp%2520population%2520freedom%2520and%2520olympic%2520medals%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CEoQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.iwu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1004%2526context%253Decon_honproj%26ei%3DbsLwT5fpO-Hq0gHpidj6Ag%26usg%3DAFQjCNGA2tePIDTqdOmM8p42uwGhpzkVhA#search=%22gdp%20population%20freedom%20olympic%20medals%22], it is also true that a higher population size and a higher GDP positively affect the number of gold medals that a country wins.[http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/andrew.bernard/olymp60restat_finaljournalversion.pdf]

Atheism reduces a countries population size while religiosity increases a countries birth rate: http://conservapedia.com/Decline_of_atheism#Decline_of_atheism_in_terms_of_global_adherents_is_expected_to_accelerate See also: [[Decline of atheism]]

In the journal article ''Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications'' psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on self-control/self-regulation.[http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/Relig_self_control_bulletin.pdf][http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19210054] Athletes with more self-control have more mental toughness.[http://www.nmnathletics.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=8800&ATCLID=926652] Athletes with more mental toughness tend to perform at higher levels.[http://vimeo.com/23328555] See also: [[Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism]]

Also, all other things remaining equal, religion in the Western world tends to promote more self-discipline and healthier behaviors when it comes to mental and physical health: See: [[Atheism and health]] and [[Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism]] and [[Atheism and obesity]]

Also, while it is true that a country that is doing well can have "fat and sassy" atheists as a result. On the other hand, if there is religious freedom in a country a country can have high levels of religiosity even with high incomes such as the United States. See effects of prosperity on rates of atheism: http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative/atheism-research#Effect_of_prosperity_on_rate_of_atheism

I am sure you can find data to support that capitalism causes a country to have higher incomes than socialism/liberalism over the long term.

Next, liberalism promotes abortion and small family sizes where conservative religion does not.

Summary: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPLEAWsX0qk Jesus is the winnamon and Christians are on the winning side!] Christians are winners and atheists tend to lose again!

Go for the gold America! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! (where atheists are the least trusted group of individuals. See: [[Views on atheists]]) :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:07, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
=== No doubt Bible believers achieve more gold medals than atheists all other things being equal ===

In a study listed in Who's Who in Who's Who, it took 5,000 Presbyterian ministers to produce one child listed in Who's Who. Among lawyers the ratio was 5,000 to 1; dentists 2,500 to 1. But for every seven Christian missionary families from the United States, one of their children would be listed in Who's Who.[http://www.wentworthbaptist.ca/old/sermontexts/Leaving%20the%20past%20behind_Phil%203.1-14_071230.htm] See also: [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and health]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:33, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
::Do you have a link to that actual study? One in seven seems high. How big is this "Who's Who" list and how many missionary families are there in the USA?
::::Come on, everybody knows the formula to winning the gold. Preparation and conceive, believe and achieve! :) Doubters have a harder time believing than believers! Atheists are pessimists and have higher rates of depression. See: [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]. Bible believers who are realists and optimists are more upbeat and win more gold medals. Plus, conservative Bible believing Protestants with the Protestant work ethic, are more able to outwork atheists and achieve more gold medals. Secular Europe is filled lazy doubters who love socialism. Lazy people are less likely to win gold medals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:08, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::yeah, that's good, really I just want to see how the study explains it
::::::::We know that per capita GDP increases Olympic medals. Therefore, when the shortsighted measures holding together the [http://www.care2.com/causes/euro-zone-crisis-banks-lower-rates-but-confidence-stays-low.html troubled Eurozone economy] stop working, they will win less gold medals than countries which were more prudent. The lazy secular Europeans should have listened to the Bible about hard work and not getting heavy into debt. The gold medal counts of secular Europe are going to be lower than they needed to be in 2016. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:24, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/10394-public-debt-by-country.html#axzz1zqxAoMmm
:::::::::I think it is self explanatory that those who have faith will have the discipline and the belief to achieve something extraordinary--[[User:OconnorM|OconnorM]] 12:46, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I do know that post 1950 the USA became more secular and United States became less financially prudent. Socialism and communism do not have great track records over the long term and atheists have tended to like these systems more. Countries which adopted a Protestant work ethic have benefited and even those with a legacy of a Protestant work ethic culture have benefited.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/oct/31/economics-religion-research] The Bible also mentions sharpening the axe (Ecclesiastes 10:10), good stewardship of resources and orderliness. [http://www.openbible.info/topics/orderliness] No doubt the legacy of Protestantism in the country of Germany (birth place of Protestantism), helped to create the efficiency and orderliness that their society is known for. Athletes who train more efficiently using the best methods and get better nutrition, gain more medals. See also: [[Christianity and science]]. Christianity has one of the highest rates of creationism in the world and despite Darwinist persecution of creationists and intelligent design proponents (see: [[Expelled]]) manages to be leader in technological innovation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:48, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

== One fair way to analyze ==

In order to give a fair analysis, information needs to be compiled before the Games for the countries/sports listed for both pre/post same-sex marriage/girls playing sports and then add this year's results. As far as I can see, that would be the only way to objectively assess any trend regarding medals/performance. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:14, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:It would still make no case for any causal relationship between same-sex marriage, atheism etc. and performance at the Olympics. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 19:54, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== Baseball not an Olympic sport in 2012 ==

Baseball is removed from the list, because both baseball and softball have been dropped for the program for the 2012 Olympics. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/08/sports/08iht-oly.html?_r=1 [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

== Baseball being removed from list ==

Maybe baseball (and softball) have been removed because they are not included in the 2012 Olympics. [http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/8504326/] "They'rrre out! Olympics drop baseball, softball: Sports eliminated for 2012 Games, but could win way back in 2016" AP, nbcsports.com, July 9, 2005, retrieved July 2, 2012. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

:[[Baseball]] was dropped from the 2012 Olympics??? That's a disappointment! Is the sport considered too [[conservative]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::If it is, why did [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_at_the_Summer_Olympics#Medal_table Cuba win most of the gold medals?] (And the most medals overall?) [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

== Same sex marriage and underachievement. ==

While a rationale is given for the relationship between atheism and underperformance, none is given for the relationship between same sex marriage and underperformance. Can somebody who understands the relationship please provide a rationale in the relevant section? Thanks. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:25, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::A factor in winning gold medals is the population size of a country. How does same sex marriage help increase the population size of a country? The Russians seem to think that it doesn't. Also, Olympic athletes have to be in top physical condition. See: [[Homosexuality and health]]. In addition, mental toughness is important in sports and "Nancy boys" lack this characteristic! Also, there is the issue of [[Homosexuality and obesity]]. If you could show us that the town of Ereses on the Greek Island of [[Lesbos]] has produced an inordinate amount of Olympic women gymnasts instead of higher incidence of obese lesbians, it would be greatly appreciated (See: [[Lesbianism and obesity]]).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:16, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I think the town is called Eresos (Greek: Ερεσός), no? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:21, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::Thanks! Corrected. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:26, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

:::This isn't a good argument against same-sex marriage, you know. It's just not logical. If a marriage is for population growth, then why are marriages that can't/won't produce children permitted? My dad's on his second marriage since my mother passed away - no half-siblings yet. You need to think through your arguments. If these non-productive marriages ''are'' permitted, under what reason? Companionship? That can be applied to same-sex couples as well. Tax benefits? Ditto. The argument doesn't stand up very well.
:::Oh, and there you go - you just can't get away from negatively portraying fat people. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:24, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::Why an ancient Greek myth should be applicable to today is something only you would know.
::::As for homosexuals at the Olympics - and "nancy boys" is a very derogatory term, much like using the n-word. One would think a site like this would be above that sort of thing, but obviously not - how about Mark Spitz (7 gold) and Greg Louganis (4 gold), who was also the the most outstanding amateur athlete in the United States in 1984.
::::Once again, your tired old arguments don't hold any water - obese people - gay or straight are hardly likely to be participating at the games, so trying to make a correlation between a country's political decisions and the performance of individual athletes is - quite frankly - stupid. But I have a feeling that you still can't grasp the idea. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:26, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::There's a legal precedent - "He Who Asserts Must Prove"... so, let's see your proof that a government passing same-sex marriage laws affects individual sportsmens' performance. Hint: the drivel you wrote above is not proof. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:34, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::Homosexuality related tourism occurs in this town today. Second, re: lower amount of mental toughness issue: [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]] Third, the birth rate of heterosexual marriages will always exceed homosexual "marriages" [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:37, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::Your first point - totally not relevant. What the hell does tourism have to do with athletes at the Olympic Games? Second people - people who are not mentally tough - gay or straight wouldn't last at any level of competitive sport and thus wouldn't appear at the Games, so your point is invalid. Third point is equally invalid - birth rates have nothing to do with how individuals perform at the Games. Care to try again? [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:40, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
It is relevant: Homosexuality related tourism occurs in the Greek town today. In 1976, Gwen J. Proude and Sarah J. Green published a study in the journal Ethnology which showed a positive correlation between cultures which accepted or ignored homosexuality in their cultures and cultures which were more likely to have homosexuality be more common. (see: [[Homosexuality]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::Birth rates, already covered above: "A factor in winning gold medals is the population size of a country. How does same sex marriage help increase the population size of a country? The Russians seem to think that it doesn't." [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:::Nope. Still has absolutely no relevance to the performance of individual athletes at the Games. In fact, on rereading your reasons, you seem to be stuck on the thought that countries that allow same-sex marriage would only send gay athletes to the Games. That is bizarre.
:::Just how many people of the same gender do you think are going to be married? To say it'll affect a country's population growth is double bizarre. Japan's population growth is going backwards and they don't have same-sex marriage. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:49, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
Your [[last wordism]] isn't impressing anyone - especially since you conveniently ignored the [[Homosexuality and health]] issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:08, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
[[File:Chuck norris.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|It is no coincidence that the fit and healthy Bible believing martial artist [[Chuck Norris]] lives in the state of [[Texas]] and not the city of San Francisco! Chuck Norris is no "Nancy boy" and he is the embodiment of mental toughness. ]]
{{clear}}
:::: Wouldn't there be just as many homosexuals whether same-sex marriage is legal or not? Legalizing same-sex marriage wouldn't turn the existing athletes into homosexuals. So we're barking up the wrong tree here. Even if there were a correlation between homosexuality and athletic performance, it would have nothing to do with the legal status of same-sex marriage. Tim Tebow will be playing his home games in New York next year (ok, fine, New Jersey, but I'm a Jets fan and I consider them to be from New York). Same-sex marriage is legal in New York. It was not legal in Colorado or Florida. It is ridiculous to suggest that this would somehow hurt Tebow's performance. He will be just as faithful, Christian, and heterosexual as he ever was. Even if the NFL adds a franchise in atheistic London (as they are foolishly considering) and Tebow winds up there, nothing will change. Even if the Bills move to Toronto and Tebow plays for them, nothing will change. So supposing there is a correlation, we're looking for it in the wrong place, in my opinion. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 07:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::To be fair, legalization of homosexual relationships may be a proxy for a jurisdiction's attitudes for homosexuality. I don't think it's a very good proxy; it would probably be a better idea to examine sexual orientations of athletes themselves rather than attitudes about homosexuality held by residents the places they represent. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::: But it's not the ''attitudes'' of the athletes that [[User:Conservative]] says are relevant. It's the actual ''orientation'' of the athletes. He posted a number of references to homosexuality and health problems. Without commenting one way or the other on their merits, they only apply if the athlete himself is a homosexual. So I'm inclined to agree with GregG here. Perhaps Conservative's theory is right, but if it is, he's going about proving it the wrong way. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:08, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

=== Evidence pointing to same sex marriage acceptance negatively affecting Olympic medal counts ===

We know that bigger populations tend to gain more Olympic medals.[http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/andrew.bernard/olymp60restat_finaljournalversion.pdf] Show me that societies which accept homosexuality tend to have higher birth rates.

We know that atheists are more accepting of homosexuality and also more liberal (see: [[Atheism and morality]]). We know that liberals are more accepting of homosexuality. See: [[Views on Homosexuality]]. We also know atheists tend to have lower birth rates. See: [[Decline of atheism]]. My educated guess is that liberal countries have lower birth rates (abortion, birth control, etc.). [http://erlc.com/article/death-of-liberalism/] There is also evidence pointing to societies which accept homosexuality having more of it. In 1976, Gwen J. Proude and Sarah J. Green published a study in the journal Ethnology which showed a positive correlation between cultures which accepted or ignored homosexuality in their cultures and cultures which were more likely to have homosexuality be more common. (see: [[Homosexuality]]). My educated guess therefore is that societies accepting of same sex marriage have lower birth rates and achieve less medals as a result. I do understand that societies which have more material wealth can grow morally lax and thus more accepting of homosexuality and those societies tend to be more prone to falling (Roman Empire for example). Therefore, we should not confuse higher GDP per capita and achieving more medals and a societies acceptance of homosexuality.

Athletes with higher degrees of mental toughness achieve more. I would think that societies with higher degrees of mental toughness would have lower suicide rates. We know that atheists tend to be more accepting of homosexuality (plus more liberal) and they have higher suicide rates than the general population. See: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]. Also, compare the suicide rates of countries and their acceptance of homosexuality as a possible benchmark for the mental toughness of the societies. Of course, you would have to do statistical analysis to examine the relationship between societies accepting homosexuality and their suicide rates so you do not count other factors which cause suicides.

Alternatively, show me societies accepting of homosexuality tend to score high on mental toughness tests such as Peter Cough's test. Also, [http://psychology.about.com/library/quiz/bl_eq_quiz.htm Emotional intelligence (EQ) test] score and a person's [http://www.winstonbrill.com/bril001/html/article_index/articles/501-550/article517_body.html "Adversity quotient"] test score would be possible benchmarks as far as measuring mental toughness, but obviously the latter would be better. EQ is popular in management circles and perhaps different societies have been measured in terms of their EQ test scores. My guess is that perhaps EQ is only somewhat popular in the USA and Spain perhaps.[http://danielgoleman.info/2008/can-there-be-an-emotionally-intelligent-society/] With that being said, I think there is far more detailed information on suicide rates of countries and that is probably a better benchmark of mental toughness. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:13, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:Canada's medal haul went UP by 50% after they allowed same-sex marriage. (12 in 2004, 18 in 2008) [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 08:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
::Anecdotal and too tied to them hosting the Olympics and starting a drive to win more gold. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:58, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::They didn't host the Olympics in 2008, and anyways, the medal drive was focused on the winter games, not the summer games. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 09:03, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
It takes time to develop winning programs and I am guessing they knew in advance they were going to host the Olympics. 09:13, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:Caribbeans have low suicide rates.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate] They must be pretty mentally tough and not worry. :) Mental toughness increases performance. Hey mon, don't worry, be happy! Hey mon, I think I am going to kick back on a Caribbean beach and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTW0ifgY9zc&playnext=1&list=PLAA6853EB17004E8E listen to Caribbean music] while conservative, Bible believing families (which don't approve of homosexuality) keep winning more gold medals per family because they have more kids and have more mental toughness! :) And remember, conservative Bible believers with the Protestant work ethic, work harder to win gold medals than lazy, liberal, obese homosexuals with knee problems on welfare! See: [[Homosexuality and obesity]] and [[Lesbianism and obesity]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::HAHAHA they do talk funny
:::: That may be so, [[User:Conservative]], but you are still miscorrelating. A conservative Canadian family wouldn't be made liberal by the legalization of same-sex marriage. If anything, the decline in medals should come ''before'' the legalization of same sex-marriage, since liberalization would come ''before'' the legalization of same-sex marriage. So, perhaps a better study would be looking at a country's attitudes towards homosexuality over time (both before and after legalization of same-sex marriage) and try to correlate that. But I honestly doubt the actual act of legalizing same-sex marriage has a magic wand effect. Which is why the evidence shows you are wrong even though your logic may be perfectly correct. It's only your conclusion that's flawed. Liberalization and shift in views on homosexuality take time to occur. They don't happen overnight upon legalization of same-sex marriage. There would only be evidence of what you're saying if it was a magical overnight shift. And it's not. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:16, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

=== More evidence that homosexuality leads to lower medal counts and Bible believing enables more medals to be won ===

Homosexuals have higher suicide rates than the general population (see: [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]]). Historically, Christians have faced a lot of persecution, but they don't commit suicide. They know that God wants Christians to be strong and not commit suicide and the Bible has many verses about being courageous plus the Bible is against suicide. Bible believers are more mentally tough than homosexuals. Mental toughness increases athletic performance. Therefore, Bible believers, all other things remaining equal, are able to win more Olympic medals than homosexuals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:52, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

=== Math'd -- Gay marriage ===

A subject about quantifying something?? I accept your challenge.

For the following, I am trying to determine the effect of pro-gay legislation on Olympic Medals. Since different countries have hugely different factors, I thought we could use the states of the USA to observe any effects (being labs of democracy, and all). What I did was find a list of all 2008 Olympic Medalists. Then, I got rid of any groups, leaving only individual medalists. Then, I mapped these medalists to their home state. Then, I figured out, based on population, how many medals each state should win out of the total USA medals. Then, I matched states with their same-sex marriage legislation (I assumed if same-sex couples could marry or engage in civil unions, this was a "Pro-Gay" state. No marriage or civil unions, an "Anti-Gay" state.) Then I summed up expected and actuals by these two categories. Here's what I got....

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! State Type
! Expected Medals
! Actual Medals
! Over/Under
|-
| Pro-Gay
| 29.8
| 45
| 15.2
|-
| Anti-Gay
| 42.2
| 27
| -15.2
|-
| Total
| 72.0
| 72
| 0
|}

If we look just at Gold Medals...

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! State Type
! Expected Golds
! Actual Golds
! Over/Under
|-
| Pro-Gay
| 8.3
| 14
| 5.7
|-
| Anti-Gay
| 11.7
| 6
| -5.7
|-
| Total
| 20.0
| 20
| 0
|}
(Please note that if a medalist is from another country, they were excluded. Same with two obscure athletes I couldn't find information on)

As you can see, "Pro-Gay" states outperform their expected total medal results by over 50%. Conversely, "Anti-Gay" states underperform by 36%.

The picture is more extreme only looking at Gold medals - "Pro-Gay" outperformes %69%, while "Anti-Gay' under perform by almost half.

In conclusion, do I think "imposing" gay marriage has anything to do with Olympic results? Probably not, since states, along any group of people in the Olympics, have a huge number of factors affecting their outcomes. But, to say that gay marriage destroys Olypmic results...well, that just goes against the data.
[[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 15:49, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I think you are going to have to do regression analysis to isolate the homosexuality issue. It seems as if the wealth and population size are important variables to winning medals as noted above. Cultures which have significant wealth often get morally complacent history shows. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:00, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

1) This is a regression based on population size. But I don't think a regression could be done on wealth, since it's hard to track the socio-economic movements of dozens of medalists, many of whom are relatively unknown. Also, if you want me to regress based on a group of large, poor states that allow gay marriage...my sample size isn't going to be even close to credible. I agree though, it would be very interesting.

2) You didn't provide isolation of the homosexuality issue in your hypothesis, so that's what I based my refutation on.. You said countries with gay marriage would underperform. Not that a country with gay marriage would underperform an identical country without gay marriage.

3) Most importantly, why should ''I'' isolate the homosexuality issue? ''You'' should be the one supporting your premise, or at least refuting my data. I spent the time showing why your idea was wrong, now it's your turn to either show where I am wrong, or adjust or reject your hypothesis.
[[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 16:13, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::The liberals are not being realistic and fighting an uphill battle here. You are never going to have people associate homosexuality with athleticism/health. This is a Pickett's charge to say the least - especially at Conservapedia (see: [[Homosexuality and health]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:36, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::So...nothing about the Olympics then? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 16:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::You still haven't shown me that the homosexual population can clear Olympic hurdles as well as the heterosexual population. See: [[Homosexuality and obesity]] and [[Lesbianism and obesity]]. Are you saying that overweight people are better hurdlers? If so, I have a hard time believing this. Also, nations with bigger populations earn more medals. How does homosexuality promote procreation? After all, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:37, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::And kudos to you, User:Conservative. You once again can't resist bringing up us evil fat people as your argument. And lo and behold, it's even completely off-topic to the above comments. Color me surprised... '''''NOT!''''' [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 13:38, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::: [[User:Conservative]], you make valid points, but you are confusing two statistical populations. There is the homosexual population, and if your statistics are correct, they should perform worse. Let's assume that you're right for the purpose of this discussion. However, that would only effect athletes who are homosexual themselves, not entire countries. Legalizing same-sex marriage won't magically make the entire population into homosexuals. So you should be looking at the sexual orientation of the athletes themselves if you want to prove your point. Whether the country/state legalizes same-sex marriage is irrelevant to your point, one way or the other. I'd be interested in seeing your new study which focuses on the athletes themselves and not on the whole country. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

Conservative, you said that legalizing gay marriage leads to a country under-performing in the Olympics. I showed that the evidence does not support that, at least in America. I didn't say fat gays make good hurdlers. But, the Olympics usually doesn't draw athletes from the 'out-of-shape' population... [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 22:45, 8 July 2012 (EDT)

== Expected Medals ==

Hello all,
I think it would be fun to track "expected vs actuals" with regards to medals. I was thinking of adding a table giving each partipating country an expected value. However, I'm having trouble deciding it it would be better to do it on a "per capita" basis, or a "per GDP" basis. Any thoughts? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 17:09, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

:I think ranking on a "per GDP" basis would be fairer. Competitive sports is an activity of affluent nations. Any thoughts on this by others?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:14, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

::I added a table, proportioning medals by nominal GDP. I notice that I'm predicting 200 medals for America, which seems high. I wonder why that could be? My thought is that there are a ton of countries with less than 1 medal expected, but a lot of them will probably get one. I'll leave the table, but please let me know if you have any thoughts on modifications. It's a least something to get us thinking! [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 13:43, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

== Added info re same-sex marriage ==

I added more info on same-sex marriage being allowed in certain political subdivisions of a country. I clarified that there are two US States that have legalized same sex marriage but there is a citizen's referendum about it, but that one of them (Washington) already had civil unions. I also noted that in Mexico, same-sex marriage is legal in Mexico City, a Federal District similar to Washington, DC. Also, I noted that several overseas territories of the Netherlands will compete separately and also have different laws regarding same-sex marriage. Aruba does not perform them, but per the Kingdom's requirements must recognize those performed elsewhere. Same with Curacao and Sint Maarten, who will compete as "Independent Olympic Participants" under the Olympic flag after the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles and the loss of recognition for their Olympic committee. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 19:29, 3 July 2012 (EDT)

== Joke sports ==

I'm going to remove beach volleyball from the list, as it's a very physically demanding sport. Also, while I agree that synchronised swimming is a bit of a joke, I disagree with the description that these are "sports that allow underachieving nations to pad their medal totals". The USA has won (usually multiple) medals in beach volleyball every year it has been included in the Olympics, synchronised swimming medals ''most'' times and half of all the BMX medals ever awarded! In fact, the only weak nation that has ever won a medal in any of these events (ever) was a Latvian who won the first BMX gold. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:00, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

:I realize that the U.S. wins many of these "joke" medals. I was being objective and fair to other nations in criticizing these medals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

::Ok fair enough. So what are your thoughts on beach volleyball? What makes it joke...ish? [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:19, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

:::I think it's mainly because it's a relatively recent creation, arrived at by taking an existing sport and just playing it on a beach. (I know that teams are smaller and the rules are a bit different etc, but that's basically it.) Why not have beach tennis, beach archery, beach baseball and beach cricket as well??? That and the requirements by the sport's governing body specifying the skimpiness of female competitors' attire.
:::This isn't to say that it's not demanding to play at the top level, but do the Olympics really need to have two different kinds of volleyball? Regular volleyball is hardly a blue riband event as it is!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:33, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::: Beach volleyball and regular volleyball have different rules. The idea is the same, but the rules are pretty different. A similar situation would be rugby. Starting in 2016 rugby sevens will be in the Olympics. If they also added rugby league (which is fairly similar to rugby sevens, but has a lot of differences too) as well, then that would be too similar. But it just makes them redundant, it doesn't make one of them a "joke". [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:04, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

== Are the nations of Japan increasingly atheistic or increasingly theistic and/or christian? ==

Are the nations of Japan increasingly atheistic or increasingly theistic and/or christian?

Gallup poll: Christianity growing in Japan: http://www.breakingchristiannews.com/articles/display_art.html?ID=2278

Pastor Lee in Korea, 2007 - BBC: ""Our church is still growing, so sooner or later Christianity will be the major religion in Korea. All Christians are praying for that right now."[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8322072.stm]

== Move page ==

Can we move this page to [[2012 Olympics]]? That's a more natural title. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 07:16, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:How bout a redirect?[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 11:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

::The redirect works. It's a close call which title is better, but to me starting an entry with a number seems less efficient in conveying meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:24, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::You have to have something indicating summer. I retitled the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:04, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
::::I agree. Even though Summer and Winter Olympics never occur in the same year anymore, they historically were both held in the same year. Having this naming convention will ensure consistency with other Olympics articles we may create. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:11, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
::::: I agree. 2012 Olympics may not be ambiguous but [[1984 Olympics]] would be. (Los Angeles Summer Games or Sarajevo Winter Games). Also, with regards to Andy's concern, virtually all press releases refer to these as the 2012 (Summer) Olympics, and/or use the official name "Games of the XXX Olympiad". (XXX is Roman Numeral 30, not a placeholder) However, since the official Olympiad name is never used except in official releases, and it is commonly referred to as 2012 Summer Olympics everywhere else, I say keep it this way. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:01, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

Agree with Greg. Thirtieth Olympiad is too obscure for a generation that regards 3 month old music as outdated. Better call it the 2012 Olympics. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:26, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== Tables for medals ==

I'm going to add tables showing medals won, and indicate in the table when same-sex marriage was recognized, for each country listed. This will make it easier to identify trends from before and after legalization. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:54, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== This page is preposterous ==

I can't believe that nearly everything you have to say about this year's Olympic games revolves around your overweening obsession with homosexuality and atheism. Even conservatives--well, normal conservatives--would want more substantive information. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 19:51, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:That's not enough to qualify as trying to improve this page. Are you saying there's no correlation, or are you indirectly registering an objection to this project's campaign against homosexuality and atheism? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:25, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
::In my opinion, the way to improve this page would be to delete all the content and start over. I understand that the project is against homosexuality and atheism. But that doesn't mean those things have to be the main focus of ''every'' article. And yes, I ''am'' saying that there is no known correlation between same-sex marriage, homosexuality or atheism and Olympics success, and even if one were demonstrated, it would not establish causality, which is clearly what you are after. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 21:20, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:::Ideas do have consequences on productivity, achievement, happiness, etc. A high percentage of successful [[NFL]] quarterbacks are devout [[Christians]]. Why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:17, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

::::Is that so? What is the percentage? --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 23:57, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== Where is the UK... ==

...in the expected medals section? --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 21:02, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:Whoops, I had it listed as Great Britain. Which I should have known better than to do - I lived in London for a couple years, and got yelled at every time I got the terms wrong... [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 23:18, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

::Aaargh! I checked UK and Britain but neglected to check Great Britain. Silly me. --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 23:23, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== GDP ==

If GDP "may be a fair proxy" in relation to how many medals a country will win then why is the main part of the article all about how atheism and gay marriage are going to have such an influence over the results? --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 21:04, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:I wanted to have a start point for comparisons and trend-spotting. It is my hypothesis that homosexuality and atheism have nothing to do with a country's athletic performance, and the table is my first step in testing. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 23:21, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

::I am inclined to agree with you. Unfortunately it makes the article a little schizophrenic (if I may use that term in such an inaccurate manner). The top of the article asserts that homosexuality and atheism are solid indicators of Olympic performance for reasons, whereas your section is intended to show otherwise. An internal tension, if you will.
::I get the feeling from the ''Nations that are increasingly atheistic'' section that there is supposed to be some reason that atheists are incapable of acting as members of a team (the reason is not explained). Beyond that, the article is not only utterly unsupported by any study or even by any observations made by eminent persons in the appropriate field, it doesn't even contain a hypothesis as to the means by which the asserted connections operate. I would suggest deleting and starting again but I have read Ed Poor's comments above and I assume any such similar request from myself would be resisted. --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 23:36, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
::: We have explained those connections elsewhere, including on this talk page. Perhaps make separate articles and link to them? If we put all the explanations in this article, I think it would get a bit too busy. Also, we'd have to copy them for every future Olympics, which seems like a waste if we can just link to them. What does everyone else think? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 12:04, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

== Rowing -> soccer ==

I see Andy that you have reverted my edit which asserted that rowing was the sport requiring the most teamwork. Apparently soccer is the sport that requires most teamwork (for reasons that are mysterious to me).

Why is that Andy? Why not (field) hockey, for example? Or American football? I would still assert that rowing is far and away the paramount team sport. Your edit comment that it is "emulating a machine" really does nothing to detract from that assertion. So what? If that means that each crew member must move their body in perfect time with each other then my point is all the stronger isn't it?

Obviously if this is a conservative insight then clearly I must be wrong, but if there is an actual reason that soccer is the ultimate team sport over rowing then I would be interested to hear it. --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 23:52, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:There is no dynamic teamwork of any consequence in rowing - no passing a ball from one player to another, no reactions to defenders, and no mental strategy. Rowing is great exercise for those who have access to expensive equipment and placid lakes, but it's not dynamic teamwork as soccer is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

::Ok, so it's "dynamic teamwork" that atheists can't perform? They are capable of acting in perfect harmony with each other in a rowing shell but cannot pass a ball to each other or perform mental strategy? Interesting. Is there any evidence to support any of this? If so, why is it that atheists are incapable of such activities?

::P.S. I performed a couple of Google searches on which (rowing or soccer) is more commonly referred to as "the ultimate team sport": [https://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22rowing+the+ultimate+team+sport%22&oq=%22rowing+the+ultimate+team+sport%22&gs_l=serp.3..0i30.71845.74333.0.74873.2.2.0.0.0.0.220.429.2-2.2.0...0.0...1c.IPtkh8308qI&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=862d766996523d9f&biw=1201&bih=678 rowing] or [https://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&pq=soccer%20the%20ultimate%20team%20sport&cp=32&gs_id=e&xhr=t&q=%22soccer+the+ultimate+team+sport%22&pf=p&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&oq=%22soccer+the+ultimate+team+sport%22&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=862d766996523d9f&biw=1201&bih=678 soccer]. I think that the hit numbers speak for themselves. --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 00:57, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

:::Rowing is obviously a rich-man's sport, which gives an unfair advantage to a few nations like the [[U.K.]] While physically challenging, rowing is the only sport where the contestant should think as little as possible and simply act like a robot.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:12, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
:::: In rowing, don't you have a coxswain telling you when to row? It requires everyone rowing together, yes, but as long as they all act like robots (as Andy put it) and row when the coxswain says row, that's the only teamwork required. I won't deny it's a difficult sport, but it doesn't require much teamwork when there's a coxswain. The reason it's the ultimate team sport is that, more so than in any other sport, the chain is only as strong as the weakest link. If you put me on a soccer field with the 10 best players in the world (assuming they're of different positions), we could win, even though I'm a terrible soccer player. If you put me in a four-man boat with the three best rowers in the world, we would do terrible, because I'm a terrible rower. That's the difference between rowing and other team sports. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 05:35, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

::::::I row 3 times a week and I am a coxswain. It is certainly not a "robot" sport, and it requires intense concentration from the rowers to make sure that the crew is in time, running on perfect technique and drawing through together. A physically stronger crew will often lose to a weaker but more technical crew. The reason that our crews look like robots are because they are concentrating as hard as they can to keep everything technical, and to work against what the body is intuitively telling you to make every single inch of pressure on the water count.
::::::
::::::As for being a rich man's sport, I can sympathise. Those boats are bloody expensive, and are often donated through philanthropy. However many of us, myself included, come from very underprivileged backgrounds and are fortunate enough to row in university teams. But getting to Olympic level requires training from a young age, which usually means being brought up at a very expensive private school that has rowing equipment. So I agree to an extent there, but one must not forget the huge benefits that philanthropy gives to broadening the pool of rowers, which is a conservative virtue as far as this website is concerned. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 11:16, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

:::: (edit conflict) Doesn't the above data prove my point? The wealthiest nations in the world have won nearly all of the rowing medals.

:::: Rowing is a grueling sport - I rowed for a bit myself. But it is a rich man's sport, and it is the only sport that does not use the brain.

:::: In reply to Greg's insight comments, I doubt a soccer team with 25% terrible players could win either, if the coaching by the opposing side is good.

:::: In reply to HumanGeographer's good comments, I agree that concentration is required and that the sport is terrific exercise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
::::: Andy, soccer teams have 11 players (including goalie). So it would be 9% poor players. And considering that teams have won 10-on-11 after an early red card, it's not inconceivable. But in rowing, it would be impossible. That's where the "team sport" mantra comes from. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 15:05, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

Greg, you have missed Andy's point. If you are one out of the four rowers you now have 25% of a team being terrible, whereas in soccer, as you have put it, missing one player means only 9% of the team is terrible. What Andy is suggesting is that the better comparison would be if a soccer team had 3 of their players essentially non-effective, and his point in that regard is well-taken. A soccer team playing 8 against 11 would not fare well either.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 15:23, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

== The Olympics and Economics 2012 ==

[[Goldman Sachs]] has some thoughts on the matters discussed above: [http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/topics/global-economic-outlook/olympics-and-economics-.pdf pdf]
{{cquote|Britain has quite high per capita spending on elite sports for a western democracy. Sailing is a perfect example— boats are very costly. For equestrianism, you need a horse. For rowing, you need a boathouse, boats and oars. For track cycling, you don’t really have a chance without a wind tunnel, a velodrome. It’s different with running, where you just need a pair of shoes. There is a dramatic difference between sports that only a tiny group of countries can afford to invest in and the others.|||Matthew Syed, British journalist}}
They have a forecast for Gold and Total medals, too.
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 05:50, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

== During the Modern Olympic Games, the pagan origins of the Olympics have been replaced by faith-based achievement by the participating athletes ==

This seems to be wishful thinking: the Olympics were for quite a time dominated by nations which didn't allow their athletes the comforts of faith. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 05:59, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

== Group of Left ==

For those who don't get the "Group of Left" reference, it's a play on the phrase "Group of Death", which refers to an unusually strong group. I doubt Tunisia will finish in the top two and go to the medal round, but anything other than last place would be overperforming for them. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 18:21, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

== Women's Soccer ==

Why would the US women's soccer team be expected to underachieve? They're not one of the atheist nations, same-sex marriage is only legal in six states, and if Title IX effected them in any way, it would have helped them (albeit at the expense of men's sports). We should either explain it or remove it. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 18:35, 22 July 2012 (EDT)
:As I understand it, women's soccer is very strong in the US. Still, the nature of Soccer means that results are more unpredictable than other sports. Very often the best team is not able to win. Its a funny sport in that respect. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 18:44, 22 July 2012 (EDT)
:: I know that. But that still doesn't answer the question. We could say the same about any of the favorites. There's no reason given to expect the US team specifically to underperform. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 08:49, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
:::It seems as though "underperformance" and "failing to live up to expectations" are a preferred theme of the website's management. Maybe it's just a case of projection. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 09:22, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
:::: Possibly. If that's all it is, we should remove it. But I'm going to wait and see if anyone has a better explanation before I do so. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 18:07, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

:::::[[Politically correct]] teams often underachieve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:03, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::: Very well. I removed the part about the coach being a foreigner, since surprisingly it isn't an unusual practice to do something like that. About half the women's soccer coaches this year are from another country (i.e. not the one they coach). And Jurgen Kingsman of Germany coaches the men's US national team, although it's unlikely he'd have coached at the Olympics even if they did qualify, since men's soccer at the Olympics is primarily Under-23 teams. However, I kept the rest of the footnote. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 21:10, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

::::::: I don't think it's that common for a prominent sport like soccer. Germany, of course, has a very strong soccer program. But a coach from Sweden for the women's team???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::::: Ahhh.... Good point. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 21:50, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
The coach in question was the coach when the US won gold in 2008. She took the job in 2007. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 00:14, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::::: Early goal for France in Game 1 for the USA. 1-0. Plenty of time for us to come back. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 12:13, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::::: 2-0 France, less than 20 minutes in. A loss wouldn't eliminate the US, but a big loss would make it hard to go through in a tough group. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 12:15, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::::: 2-1. US goal came on a corner kick, which requires a lot of teamwork, against, atheist France. Still not even a quarter of the way through. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 12:20, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
So let me get this straight: If France loses, it's because of atheism. If the US loses, it's because their coach is a foreign-born lesbian, even though she led the team to gold in 2008. Is that correct? [[User:RayM|RayM]] 12:29, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::: It's only one game. And one of them had to win (or it could be a tie, I suppose). Let's see how the tournament progresses. It looks like they'll both go to the quarterfinals, but with 8 of the 12 teams advancing, that's not unexpected. Let's see how they do there. Then we can discuss this. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:51, 29 July 2012 (EDT)

=="No Religion" in census response==
There are three possible explanations for a citizen refusing to state a religious preference on a government census form: no self-identification with one of the listed denominations, fear of government recording of religious preferences, or protest against government intrusion into a citizen's private spiritual life. Do we know which is the case in Australia? I know that if the government were to knock on my door, I would be in the third group. We don't know if Australia is in a religious decline based on census data, when there are better measures, including church service attendance and audience ratings for religious radio and TV broadcasts. Are there better data sources for this article? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:08, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

Over 11% of Australians refused to answer the religion question on their census forms. These people could have a faith. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 08:22, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

== Beckham and the Olympic torch ==

I suggest not adding whether Beckham lights the Olympic cauldron until after it airs on NBC, even though we should know around 7:30 PM ET whether he has or not. Some people might not know and might want to not know until NBC shows it on tape delay. It's only a few hours, and since most of our users are American and won't have seen the cauldron lighting yet, I think it's a reasonable courtesy. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 06:41, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Black Power salute controversy ==

I don't see a connection between the Black Power salute controversy, which was an act of political defiance on the medal stand that hardly anyone remembers (and which the Olympic committee forgave participants for) and [[Tebowing]]. Also, why would the comment be in the "TBD" column anyway?
:I think that athletes may (understandably) refrain from engaging in overt religious activity due to the precedent set by Smith and Carlos. The Olympics are a major event, and being banned from them (even wrongly) can seriously affect athletes, especially those competing in sports whose major competition is the Olympics. That's why I think that athletes will at least think twice before engaging in such behavior.
:The column where I added my explanation is headed "Answer," and my explanation is certainly an answer. Of course, it's just my insight, and maybe it will be proven wrong. But even if no one does end up doing Tebowing, we can rest assured that Christian athletes have Jesus' words in mind:
{{cquote|And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.|||Matthew 6:5-8|NIV}}
:[[User:GregG|GregG]] 14:42, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

::The "answer" is presumably provided by the results, as for the other issues, all of which is "TBA". [[Tebowing]] is not something that would likely be done during the medal ceremony, not even by Tebow himself. It's done before or after the athletic event, as in the American marathon medalist in 2004 who did the Sign of the Cross right after crossing the finish line.

::As to the quote from the [[Bible]], the context for that quote is clear: people should not pray in a hypocritical manner like the liberal Pharisees. There is nothing hypocritical about [[Tebowing]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:08, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I think the precedent still applies, or at least it has an ''in terrorem'' effect, to all such displays, regardless of whether they are during a medals ceremony or before or after an event. I know that this is my opinion, but Tebowing seems to me to be nothing more than a gimmick, a practice designed to whack people over the head with the "HEY, IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW, I'M CHRISTIAN!" hammer. Such efforts, no matter how sincere they are, are misguided, and Jesus tells us that this sort of public display is not at all required by Christians, just as Jesus goes on to criticize people who make a public display out the pious practice of fasting. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 15:41, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Reformat ==

Can someone with better formatting skills than me please make the table into a better, cleaner format? It's very hard to read right now. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 15:42, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

== Public Schools ==

Is the public schools example really that good? There are certain private schools in America that are infamous for training its students like athletes rather than students. More so in basketball and (American) football than other Olympic sports, though. Public schools don't do that. Nor should schools do that, it's called "school", not "training". I should point out that certain colleges are legendary for that too, including my own school, which is a public college under the State of Connecticut. But don't think that's why we're banned from the tournament next year - we're actually banned for not doing enough to game the system. And half the women's basketball Olympic team went to UConn. We actually care about academics for our women's basketball team, and do very well academically. But don't get me started on that, because it's irrelevant.
Anyway, assuming you mean public high schools (or below), I think it doesn't present a very conservative argument. Private primary schools should not exist for the purpose of training athletes. The fact that some do indicates something is wrong with the system, not that the system is good. Not saying that's enough to make the whole system bad - the vast majority of private schools are very good academically. But these aren't the ones that produce the superstar athletes, for the most part. Also, other than basketball, it wouldn't apply to any of the Olympic sports, since football isn't in the Olympics. And there are only 12 American men's basketball players. I don't know how many of them went to the sham private schools whose main purpose is athletics, but I know LeBron is one of them. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 15:49, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

== The Swiss tweet in question. ==

[http://www.totalprosports.com/2012/07/30/swiss-soccer-player-michel-morganella-sent-home-olympics-racist-tweet/ Here is a link to an image of the tweet]. As you can easily read for yourself, it's directed at "les coréens," et non pas contre "l'équipe coréen" ou quelque chose de même. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 18:33, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

: "South Korean" is not a race, and there is no evidence that the tweet was racist as the [[liberals]] claim. Rather, this incident shows how much liberals oppose [[free speech]], and will NOT defend the rights of others to speak their minds.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:40, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
::So, just for the record, you do defend the right of a person to call an entire nation of people "mentally handicapped retards" and think that he should face no consequences for doing so while representing his own country at an international event? [[User:RayM|RayM]] 18:48, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

:::For the record, I do support [[free speech]], even for statements with which I disagree. The tweet was not racist and athletes should be able to vent on twitter, just as they do vocally during games. Fans do also, by the way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:13, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

::::Do you believe a private, non-profit organization such as the Swiss and/or Greek Olympic committees has the right to demand and/or expect behavior from its members that reflects well on the organization, and that organization should be allowed to sanction a participant when behavior does not meet those expectations? If you do, where do you think the line is drawn? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:27, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

:::::No, I don't think the organizations you mention should be expelling athletes based on what they say on Twitter (and I question whether the organizations are truly private, rather than publicly funded).

:::::There was no evidence that the tweets embarrassed the nations in any way. Rather, this is [[liberal censorship]] run amok. Thirty years ago, liberals and the ACLU would have sided with the athletes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:39, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::: The only NOC that is 100% privately funded is the American one, although the vast majority of them are funded privately in part. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:01, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

== Atheistic Brits ==

I wonder...what percentage of the underachieving, God-hating British Olympians are actually Atheists? [[user:Willingham77|Willingham77]] 17:03, 31 July 2012

:The better question is what percentage of the Brits are subjected to an increasingly atheistic media and culture? Unfortunately, nearly 100%.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:11, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

::The better better question is why does an "atheistic" country have an established religion (COE)? Should all of us God-fearing Americans want the same for Christianity?[[User:Emmerich|Emmerich]] 23:23, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

:::[[Great Britain]] has an established '''''church'''''. That is something the [[Founders]] opposed - a state supported '''''church'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:42, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

::::Wow Andy, you should use that statement as an example in a Conservapedia article entitled "Non sequitur". [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 15:43, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
==Proposed table entry==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Sport
!Political issue
!Answer
|-
|Netball
|Will Netball be played at the 2012 and 2016 Summer Olympics? Wikipedia claims that Netball is an "Olympic sport"<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Olympic_sports|title=Category:Olympic sports|accessdate=Aug. 3, 2012}}</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics/Archive_12#Category:Olympic_sports</ref> played "at the Olympics".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_at_the_Olympics&action=history</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics/Archive_12#Olympic_recognised_sports</ref>
|Feminists have been demanding equality in Olympic participation. As a result, women have been playing the same game as men -- five-players-on-each-side basketball in the Olympics since 1976, rather than a watered-down version designed for Victorian women called Netball.
|}
If there are no objections, I will move this to the table in the article. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 11:19, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
: That's not really a question about the Olympics, more a commentary on Wikipedia. Stick it in [[Bias in Wikipedia]], not here. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 17:11, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
: Also, Wikipedia no longer claims Netball is an Olympic sport, only an "Olympic recognized sport", which is correct. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 17:17, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
::With all due respect to my friend Gregkochuconn, I just looked at the Wikipedia netball article and it is still in category "Olympic sports." I admit that the Wikipedia article "Netball and the Olympic Movement" is in category "Olympic recognised sports" but the radical feminists have insisted that Netball stay in the former category. Please see for yourself. The table entry was an assertion: We say netball will not be played in 2012 and 2016, Wikipedia says it is already an Olympic sport and keeps deleting statements that it could not possibly be added to the Olympic Programme before 2024.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&diff=502656544&oldid=502573324] [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:00, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
:::Its a bit hard to see exactly what the issue is. It is not hard to see that this issue is one for the Wikipedia page and not for the Olympics 2012 page. Whether or not it is deservedly and "Olympic Sport" or an "Olympic Recognised Sport" (these terms are not synonymous) is an issue for a general Olympics page, and whether Wikipedia is somehow censoring conservative thought is an issue for the Wikipedia page. Frankly I doubt very many of you even know what netball is. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:52, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
:::: That edit seems to be adding the 2024 information, not deleting it. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:24, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::Promptly reverted.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&diff=next&oldid=502668446] [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 03:52, 5 August 2012 (EDT)
::::: Probably because it was in the article about the sport at the Olympics, and didn't belong in the main article. The main article doesn't make any claim one way or the other. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 17:54, 5 August 2012 (EDT)
:::: Also, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netball_at_the_Olympics current version of the page] includes that information. So what you are saying is wrong. In any case, this is not the place for it, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the 2012 Olympics. Wikipedia makes no claim that it will be contested at the 2012 Olympics, even if it is an "Olympic sport", seeing as that category includes present Olympic sports, past Olympic sports, and Olympic recognized sports. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:27, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
::::::: Note that the article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squash_(sport) squash], which has a far more significant chance of being added to the Olympic program than squash, also does not mention that it could be added no sooner than 2024. As I said above, the article on Netball and the Olympic Movement does mention that it can't be added until 2024. The fact doesn't belong in the main article for the sport, by WP standards, and other articles on Olympic-recognized sports don't mention it either. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 15:17, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
<references/>

== Oh no, the tennis! ==

Look what's happening! One of the greatest conservative sports stars just lost the bronze medal match to an Argentinian who no doubt supports gay marriage, and an overrated Brit is smashing one of the all-time greats in the gold! What is going on?? Not only that, but we all just watched home-schooled gymnast Makayla Maroney underperform, right onto her bum! This page may need a re-write ... [[User:AlanA|AlanA]] 10:43, 5 August 2012 (EDT)

:While expressing doubt about your guess as to the Argentinian star's political views, I welcome further review of the predictions in the entry as more results pour in ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:45, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
:: The predictions represent things that are "likely" to happen, not things that are guaranteed to happen. Murray also had the advantage of the home fans, and Federer was tired from his marathon match with Del Potro. Of course, Del Potro should have been tired too.

== Will countries that have implemented same-sex marriage underperform? ==

Will someone please explain where the expected total medals figures in this section come from? Thanks. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 15:41, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
: The table lower down in the article. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:59, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
::Oh, you mean the one based on GDP, which "cannot be used as a fair proxy". In other words, they're meaningless. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 22:15, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
::: Find a better proxy and we can use that. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:17, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
::: I have changed the proxy to medals won at the last (Summer) Olympics prior to implementing same-sex marriage. The expected total is virtually unchanged. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:28, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

== Medal weighting ==

It's been pointed out at [[talk:Main Page]] that some sports, notably swimming, are vastly over-rewarded in terms of the number of medals available. We would get a better representation of which nations were actually the best, sporting-wise, if we took this into account in our medals tables. One simple way would be to discount multiple medals won by the same individual, or perhaps to cap the number of medals counted in the same sport at, say, five. What do people think?

(Sadly the nation most affected by this would currently be that titan of the swimming pool, the USA.)--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:37, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

Michael Phelps

2012-08-07T12:37:16Z

CPalmer: note about medals

[[Image:Michael Phelps.jpg|right]]
'''Michael Phelps''' (born Baltimore, MD, June 30, 1985) is the world record holding Olympic [[swimming]] champion from the United States. Phelps won 8 olympic gold medals and broke 7 world records at the [[Olympics]] in [[Beijing]], [[China]]. Phelps eclipsed [[Mark Spitz]]'s seven-gold performance at the 1972 Munich Games. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,405062,00.html Michael Phelps Wins Record-Breaking 8th Gold Medal at Beijing Games], Associated Press, ''Fox News Channel'', August 17, 2008</ref> Phelps won eight Olympic medals (6 Gold, 2 Silver) at the 2004 Summer Olympics in [[Athens]], [[Greece]]. Phelps set four individual world records and won seven gold medals at the 2007 World Championships to become the most successful athlete in World Championship history. By winning 6 medals (4 gold, 2 silver) in the 2012 Olympics, Phelps became the individual with the most medals won in Olympic events, with 22 (18 gold, 2 silver, 2 bronze), although this is only partly due to his greatness and dedication, and partly due to the disproportionate number of medals awarded for often only marginally different swimming events. He has announced that he will retire after the 2012 Olympics in London. <ref>[http://swimming.teamusa.org/athlete/athlete/900 USA

Swimming - Athletes - Michael Phelps], TeamUSA.org</ref>

==2000 Sydney Olympics==
When he was only 15 years old, Michael Phelps competed at the 2000 Sydney Olympics, placing fifth in the 200m butterfly.

==2008 Beijing Olympics==
Phelps won 8 olympic gold medals and broke 7 world records and 1 olympic record at the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, China.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Event
! Date
! Medal
! Individual Time
! Splits ''Position and Time''
! Relay Time ''Record''
|-
| Men's 400m Individual Medley <ref>[http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/INF/SW/C73A1/SWM054101.shtml#SWM054101]</ref>
| Aug 10, 2008
| <center>Gold</center>
| 4:03.84 (WR)
|-
| Men's 4 x 100m Freestyle Relay <ref>[http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/INF/SW/C73B1/SWM411101.shtml#SWM411101]</ref>
| Aug 11, 2008
| <center>Gold</center>
| 47.51
| (2) 47.51
| 3:08.24 (WR)
|-
| Men's 200m Freestyle <ref>[http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/INF/SW/C73A1/SWM012101.shtml#SWM012101]</ref>
| Aug 12, 2008
| <center>Gold</center>
| 1:42.96 (WR)
|-
| Men's 200m Butterfly <ref>[http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/INF/SW/C73A1/SWM022101.shtml#SWM022101]</ref>
| Aug 13, 2008
| <center>Gold</center>
| 1:52.03 (WR)
|-
| Men's 4 x 200m Freestyle Relay <ref>[http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/INF/SW/C73B1/SWM412101.shtml#SWM412101]</ref>
| Aug 13, 2008
| <center>Gold</center>
| 1:43.31
| (1) 1:43.31
| 6:58.56 (WR)
|-
| Men's 200m Individual Medley <ref>[http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/INF/SW/C73A1/SWM052101.shtml#SWM052101]</ref>
| Aug 15, 2008
| <center>Gold</center>
| 1:54.23 (WR)
|-
| Men's 100m Butterfly <ref>[http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/INF/SW/C73A1/SWM021101.shtml#SWM021101]</ref>
| Aug 16, 2008
| <center>Gold</center>
| 50.58 (OR)
|-
| Men's 4 x 100m Medley Relay <ref>[http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/INF/SW/C73B1/SWM451101.shtml#SWM451101]</ref>
| Aug 17, 2008
| <center>Gold</center>
| 50.15
| (1) 2:42.58
| 3:29.34 (WR)
|}

== External links ==

*[http://www.michaelphelps.com/2004/english.html Official site] Michael Phelps.com
*[http://swimming.teamusa.org/athlete/athlete/900 USA Swimming - Athletes - Michael Phelps], TeamUSA.org

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

{{DEFAULTSORT: Phelps, Michael}}
[[Category:Athletes]]
[[Category:Olympic Athletes]]

Usain Bolt

2012-08-07T11:12:02Z

CPalmer: four and counting!

Usain Bolt is a [[Jamaica|Jamaican]] [[Athletics#Running_events|sprinter]] and winner of four [[Olympics|Olympic]] gold medals. He currently holds the [[world record]] in the 100 meter dash with a time of 9.58 seconds and in the 200 meter dash with a time of 19.19 seconds.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bolt, Usain}}
[[Category:Athletes]]

Carl Lewis

2012-08-07T11:11:24Z

CPalmer: more on legacy

'''Carl Lewis''' is an American runner who had great success in sprinting events during the 1980s. He once won four gold medals at a single [[Olympic Games]], in 100m, 200m, long jump and 4x100m relay in the [[Los Angeles]] games in 1984. He then managed to defend two of those titles four years later in [[Seoul]]. These and other achievements give him a claim to be one of the greatest Olympians, and indeed sportspeople, of all time.

In recent years, accusations and insinuations have been made that Lewis took performance-enhancing [[drugs]]. Certainly the era in which he competed was rife with doping, but nothing has ever been proven about Lewis and as such, his achievements stand and his greatness is untarnished.

Lewis's status as the best sprinter ever remained uncontested for two decades, although current competitor [[Usain Bolt]] arguably has a chance to overturn this depending on how much he goes on to achieve. Even if Bolt's running achievements do eventually eclipse Lewis's, he has yet to compete in the long jump, so Lewis would still be a more versatile athlete and his record of four track and field gold medals in one Olympic games is unlikely to be beaten.
[[Category:Sportspeople]]