Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Essay:Surprising Dates of Origin for Terms

2010-09-07T14:53:01Z

Carillonneur:

One can learn history simply by skimming a dictionary that has the origination of terms. But there are many surprises. Add to our growing list:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|android
|1727
|Before being picked up by science fiction writers, the word was simply an adjective meaning "humanlike".
|-
|Biblical
|1780-1790
|It's hard to imagine such a late date of origin. Perhaps the word became necessary as an increasing number of people turned away from the authority of the Bible?
|-
|continental drift
|1926
|that's surprisingly recent for such a simple concept; wonder what held it up?
|-
|bill of rights
|1798
|Wow: that's many years ''after'' it was added to the Constitution!
|-
|corvette
|1636
|Perhaps you thought a car company in Detroit invented this name for a sports car? Not by a long shot: it was a type of warship ranked just below a frigate
|-
|dead hand
|1300s
|an oppressive, unjustified influence of the past; this problem is not new, and led to the [[Rule Against Perpetuities]] in property law
|-
|dinosaur
|1841
|surprisingly late date of origin, the term means "terrifying lizard," which raises the question of why its real name of lizard is not used today
|-
|diploma
|1702
|The term "diploma" seems to be an invention of atheistic sentiments in the Enlightenment, and unrelated to scholarly achievement or even the development of the universities hundreds of years earlier
|-
|exclamation point
|1824
|never used, not even once, by the [[King James Version]]?
|-
|fission
|1617
|Looks like nuclear fission is not a new idea after all!
|-
|flagpole
|1884
|What did flags hang on for centuries before that? Flag''staffs''.
|-
|foul play
|1400s
|Predates baseball by 400 years; Merriam-Webster defines it to mean violence and especially murder.
|-
|hello
|1889
|What was the prior greeting? Is this surprisingly late date of origin due to the invention of the telephone?
|-
|John Hancock
|1903
|Why did it take more than a century for the famous signatory's name to become a colloquialism for "signature"?
|-
|landlord
|before 1100s
|Think landlord problems are new? This is one of the very oldest words in the English language. That revelation then opens one's eyes to what the word really is: Lord of the land, in the feudal system.
|-
|pole vault
|1890
|Apparently this was not a recognized athletic field event much before the revival of the Olympics in 1896.
|-
|separation of church and state
|1802
|More than ten years ''after'' the adoption of the [[First Amendment]], the least Christian of the early presidents ([[Thomas Jefferson]]) used the phrase for the first time in an appeasing letter to Baptists. (It's also important to note that he used the term to assure them that their religious rights took precedence over the government--not the other way around.) The Supreme Court did not endorse this phrase until the liberal Justice [[Hugo Black]] used the term in 1947 (''[[Everson v. Board of Education]]''). (The Court also quoted from the Jefferson without endorsing the phrase in the 1879 polygamy case of ''[[Reynolds v. United States]]'').
|-
|theism
|1678
|Nearly a hundred years after "[[atheism]]" (1587). Perhaps such an obvious position that no word was required until atheism became more widespread?
|-
|worldwide
|1632
|Did people really think in terms of the entire world nearly 400 years ago? Apparently so.
|}

== See also ==

*[[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]]

[[Category:Essays]]

Much Ado About Nothing

2009-08-17T20:37:18Z

Carillonneur: Production history

'''''Much Ado About Nothing''''' is a play by [[William Shakespeare]] and published in 1600. A [[romantic comedy]], it involves two parallel courtships, which go in different directions, but have similar endings. The play is famous for the comedic characters of Benedick and Beatrice.

==Synopsis==
The play begins with the celebration of the victory of Prince Don Pedro of Arragon over his brother, Don John. The victors arrive for an extended stay in Messina. The Governor of Messina, Leonato, welcomes the victorious forces to Messina. Among the arrivals are Claudio, Benedick and the pardoned Don John. Benedick and Leonato's niece, the witty Beatrice, fall to arguing as they did before the wars. On the other hand, Claudio immediately falls in love with Leonato's daughter, Hero. Don Pedro agrees to try to help Claudio to win Hero as his wife. Don John, embittered by his defeat, tries to cross the match.

During the middle of the play, Claudio and Hero remain betrothed and in preparation for the wedding. While they are waiting, the Prince hatches a scheme to make Benedick and Beatrice fall in love with each other. The Prince, Claudio and Leonato let Benedick overhear that Beatrice is supposedly sick with love for him. While Hero talks with her servant and lets Beatrice overhear that Benedick is supposedly in love with her. While they arrange for Benedick and Beatrice to love each other, Don John executes his plot. He arranges for Claudio to see Hero, at night, kissing and embracing another man. In reality, one of Don John's men, Borachio, arranged to meet with one of Hero's maids, Margaret. Nevertheless, Claudio and the Prince mistake Margaret for Hero and declare that Hero was unfaithful on the very wedding day.

Because of her shame, the Friar recommends they pretend Hero died, in hopes that Claudio's heart would soften in evidence of Hero's innocence. Surprisingly, the play is saved by the stupid and insensible Dogberry, captain of the watch. Dogberry's men capture Don John's henchmen and overhear how the Prince and Claudio were deceived. When the Prince and Claudio hear the news, they immediately ask pardon of Leonato and Leonato requires Claudio to marry one of his nieces. Claudio agrees and leads Hero's funeral. During the confusion, Benedick reluctantly offered to kill Claudio, because of his actions, to win Beatrice's love. However, Claudio's penance stops Benedick's need to take vengeance.

{{Spoiler}}
On the wedding day of Claudio, all things are set to rights. Claudio discovers that Hero is not dead and marries her. Benedick and Beatrice are also married. Finally, Don John, who escaped during the confusion, is brought back to Messina to face punishment. The play ends with a dance.

==Characters==
'''Don Pedro''' is the Prince of Arragon, who plots both Claudio's and Benedick's happiness. He joins Claudio in his denouncement of Hero, but apologizes to Leonato.

'''Don John''' is the bastard brother of Don Pedro, who tries to asunder Claudio and Hero. Nonetheless, he is caught and brought back to Messina guarded.

'''Claudio''' is a captain of Don Pedro's army, who desires to marry Hero. Despite his denouncement of her at the wedding, he apologizes and is married to her anyway.

'''Benedick''' is another of Don Pedro's captain's, who has many witty quarrels with Beatrice. He eventually is tricked into falling in love with Beatrice and dares even to fight Claudio, before he repented of shaming Hero.

'''Leonato''' is the Governor of Messina and father of Hero. After the Prince accuses Hero, he is torn in grief over the possibility that his daughter was unfaithful.

'''Antonio''' is the brother of Leonato and probably the father of Beatrice.

'''Balthazar''' is the musician attendant upon Don Pedro.

'''Borachio''' and '''Conrade''' are the henchmen of Don John. Borachio helps craft the plot to shame Hero by deception, but they give away the secret to the watch.

'''Friar Francis''' is the friar, who tries to marry Hero to Claudio. He can discern that Hero, despite the accusations, is innocent of unfaithfulness.

'''Dogberry''' is the insensible and stupid leader of the watch. He commonly makes verbal mistakes, but catches the henchmen of Don John.

'''Verges''' and '''two watchmen''' are the assistants of Dogberry, who solve the mystery.

'''Hero''' is the daughter of Leonato, who is loved by Claudio. She temporarily "dies" because of the slander, but returns triumphantly to marry Claudio.

'''Beatrice''' is the niece of Leonato, who has many verbal spars with Benedick. She is also tricked into loving Benedick and marries him at the end of the play.

'''Margaret''' and '''Ursula''' are the attendants of Hero. Margaret unwittingly helps the plot of Don John against Hero.
<ref> [[Great Books: Shakespeare, Vol. 1]], by William George Clarke and William Aldis Wright, Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 1952, pp. 503-531. </ref>

==Production history==
''Much Ado'' was first published in 1600, and the original Quarto text says that it had already been performed publicly before the publication. It is not known how many times the play was revived before its second printing in the First Folio of 1623. A tribute poem to Shakespeare in 1640 mentions that the play was popular at that time. In the 16 and 1700s, a number of playwrights combined scenes and pieces of ''Much Ado'' with other plays to create purportedly new works. The most notable production during the 18th century was David Garrick's at Drury Lane in 1748.

The 19th century saw increasing focus on the spectacular scenes hinted at in the text. Leonato's villa and the cathedral where the weddings take place were visualized as particularly lavish sets by directors of this era. The [[Victorian]] era saw some alterations to the text in fitting with the [[conservative]] spirit of the time. Many of the overtly sexual jokes, especially those about [[infidelity]], were not included in the productions, notably the most famous production in the 19th century, directed by and starring [[Henry Irving]] opposite [[Ellen Terry]], two of the greatest British actors of the age.

In the 20th century, the sexual jokes were again included as the theatrical world took a more [[liberal]] slant. In addition, directors after 1900 began to experiment with and alter the traditional visualization of the play. Versions were staged that set ''Much Ado'' in such places as [[Mexico]] or [[India]]. The first televised production in 1971 set the entire play in the [[Teddy Roosevelt]]-era [[United States]]. It was estimated that more people saw the 1971 production on TV than had seen all previous stage performances combined.

Although it is less adapted than most plays, [[Kenneth Branagh]] chose it as his second film adaptation of Shakespeare in 1993. He stars as Benedick opposite Emma Thompson as Beatrice. It co-starred Robert Sean Leonard as Claudio, Kate Beckingsdale as Hero, [[Denzel Washington]] as Don Pedro and Keanu Reaves as Don John. It also included [[Michael Keaton]] as Dogberry.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
Open Source Shakespeare - [http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/playmenu.php?WorkID=muchado/ Much Ado About Nothing]

[[Category:Plays of Shakespeare]]

Andromeda

2009-06-22T05:27:23Z

Carillonneur:

'''Andromeda''' may refer to:
*[[Andromeda (mythology)]], legendary princess of Greek mythology
*[[Andromeda galaxy]], named for the constellation in which it appears (which is named for the princess)

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-05-20T04:10:52Z

Carillonneur: /* More 1700's possibilities */

==Couple of points==
* Interventionalism is an ugly kludge. The word should be "interventionism".
* Some of the terms are just not Conservative in '''any''' meaningful way. For example "design by committee" is used by both Liberals and Conservatives to describe the same problem.
* A word to describe Conservative concept may be worth calling a "Conservative word", but the mere fact that Conservatives like or dislike something doesn't mean the word is Liberal or Conservative. "Grassroots" isn't a Conservative word-- it's a word for local community activism, regardless of political bent. Ditto phonics. "Condescention" isn't a Liberal word, and it was originally, considered to be the Christian virtue of treating one's social inferiors as equals.
* I don't know anyone who denies the '''effectiveness''' of abstinence, Liberal, Conservative, or pink-and-green-striped.
[[User:Pepperlynn|Pepperlynn]] 17:48, 23 February 2009 (EST)

: Your first point is good, and I just changed it. You could have changed it yourself.

: Your second point is baseless. The conservative terms do reflect conservative insights. Sure, sometimes liberals use them. Sometimes atheists quote from the Bible too.

: Your third point again is misguided. Liberals say "community organizing" or "community activism." Conservatives say "grassroots". The concepts are different, though similar. Think about it more.

: Your fourth point shows you don't yet recognize the liberal viewpoint in its full deceit. Stick around here and you will. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)

==Some suggestions==
How about 'responsibility' (1737) and 'self-discipline' (1838)? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 08:58, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: Superb ideas!!! Fantastic. Please add them. I have some that will add also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:19, 10 January 2009 (EST)

The list is good, but it doesn't say why they are ''conservative'' words. Perhaps something could be added related to this? Also, I have a suggestion: 'Rags to Riches'? *Hopeful* [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 11:13, 10 January 2009 (EST)

What are the criteria for "conservative words" (as distinct from "liberal words"?) [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:10, 10 January 2009 (EST)

As per "radar", I suggest "sonar" and "laser" (also acronyms, from similar domain), and "radio".

: (edit conflict) Words that express more precisely a conservative concept, or criticize more effectively a liberal characteristic. I'm going to insert Mike Salter's suggestions above, for example, and feel free to add your own.

: The distribution of the words as a function of time (and perhaps what was happening at the time) will become illuminating.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: P.S. I don't see sonar, laser and radio as adding any conservative insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:: Understood. But "radar" does? [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:27, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::: Yes, because it was the first and it has broader use than your other example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:28, 10 January 2009 (EST)
::: I understand precedence going to the earliest word, but don't see how "radar" expresses more precisely a conservative concept, or criticizes more effectively a liberal characteristic. [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:33, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::: Your point is well-taken, and I agree this is borderline. However, I would still say that "radar" is a conservative concept/insight that is used effectively to convey a powerful conservative idea. Let's see what others think before deleting it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Well, RADAR was created in Britain just before WW2 - indeed, it was one of the reasons why Britain defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. So I'm not really sure why it's on a list of American Conservative words when Britain is highly liberal by comparison to America. Also, I added one - 'self-determination'. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 15:13, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Frankly, I'm confused. I normally think of "radar" (in the non-scientific sense) as meaning perception. "In the public's radar" means "something the public notices." Is there a different conservative conception of the word? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 15:14, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: The inclusion of "radar" is debatable, but essentially it is a powerful self-defense mechanism conceptually analogous to the [[Reagan]]'s concept of [[SDI]] and the [[Second Amendment]], which [[liberals]] loathed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:49, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Here's two:
*pro-life ([http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pro-life 1976], though I'd prefer a better citation since the quote they have underneath is very anti-conservative.)
*normalcy (1920 in the Conservative sense, although dated back to 1857 in a mathematical sense. In a rare glimmer of unbiased truth on a political subject, the WP article even states: ''"Furthermore, the concept apparently encapsulated what Americans wanted, since he was elected president over his Democratic opponent James Cox by the greatest margin since the popular vote was introduced."'')
-[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 14:40, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: Fantastic suggestions, both of them. Very insightful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)

"elitism" (1947) - Seems to be used much more widely with this last election campaign. [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 15:26, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:Conversely, "populism" and "grassroots," which have formed an important basis of conservative politics since 1980 (earlier?) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:17, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:: "grassroots" is a good suggestion, and I just added it. "populism" is not a term used particularly by conservatives; nor does it yield any conservative insight that I am aware of.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::Seriously? Populism is used continually to refer to Reagan, and more recently, George Bush and Sarah Palin, as they seek to speak for the "people" as opposed to "elites." Strikes me as deeply conservative. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:44, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::: I don't doubt that liberals, the media, history books, and a diversity other people use the term. I doubt that any of the conservatives you mention, or any other conservatives, use the term much. It would be easy for you to prove me wrong, if I were wrong. I don't see anything conservative or insightful about the term. Majority rules? That's a mundane, almost meaningless concept at best. It begs the question of what the majority thinks at a particular time, which of course is very fickle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Pat Buchanan calls himself a populist (though it notes Goldwater and Reagan would not use the term). [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v47/ai_17161967] Rove calls Bush a populist on taxation [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905EFD61130F930A15752C0A9659C8B63]. I suppose there are two different concepts of the word: first, the classical "majority rules" idea which was rejected by the founding fathers in favor of checks and balances, and second, the modern term, conservative "populism," which refers to deriving your power from the people and relying on widely and deeply held conservative Christian values (example would be Palin's emphasis on the "real America" and blue collar workers) as opposed to deriving your power from intellectuals and media magnates. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:21, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Phyllis Schlafly refers to the Goldwater ideology as populist, and she'd know! [http://www.eagleforum.org/column/1998/june98/98-06-10.html] [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:31, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: The word ''populist'' has a far better tone than the word'' populism''. Similarly, the word ''fundamentalist'' has a far better tone than ''fundamentalism''. In political contexts, these are four completely different words. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:32, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: The problem comes when liberals attempt to use the terms as smears, and we stop using them as a result. I for one am proud to call myself a fundamentalist, and I know many other who feel the same way. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:35, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::::: Me too. I take pride in saying I believe in fundamentalism. All would agree that ''-ism'' added to almost any word gives it a negative tone, yes? For example, "science + t + ism = scientism" and scientism always refers to a bad set of science-related ideas. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:42, 10 January 2009 (EST)
(Unindent) You have a point there. But now you have liberals calling muslim terrorists "fundamentalist muslims," to try to paint us with the same brush. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:54, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: The cites above are interesting but inconclusive. RickD's point in distinguishing "populist" from "populism" is superb. None of the above cites refer to "populism" in a conservative or even favorable light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Some suggestions off the top of my head: Truth, Integrity those these are quite general I think they contrast well with the article on liberal deceit. [[User:JamesDW|JamesDW]] 21:16, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Pro-life==

Andy, do you have a cite for the earlier attestation of "pro-life" than the one I provided? I think it's great that you've found a date that predates [[Roe v. Wade]]. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 18:38, 10 January 2009 (EST)

==Atheism==
It's not an English word; it's Greek. The claim is hardly "Silly," ASchlafly. But given your other claims on the page, IE that "quote mining" A: is a word and B: Was never invented, I guess I can forgive you for thinking that. [[User:RaymondS|RaymondS]] 00:04, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Use of the Adjective "New" ==

Is "new" the right word to be using for terms that originated in the 1600's and 1700's? `I'm not saying they should be removed from the list, but referring to them as "new" implies that they were originated with the modern conservative movement. Maybe these should be referred to as ''Powerful'' or ''Significant'' conservative words, which makes their date of origin irrelevant. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:10, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Origins==
I used the Oxford English Dictionary to correct the years of origin for some conservative words--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 12:45, 11 January 2009 (EST)

: You made a mess of the entry. For example, the date you inserted for "conservative" is not for the political sense used here. Now I have to clean up your mess ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:13, 11 January 2009 (EST)

::Then you should have made it clear you wished this to done in the current political context.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 13:20, 11 January 2009 (EST)

:::Be courteous, please. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 13:22, 11 January 2009 (EST)

:: The atheism date may perhaps need changing too, in that case. In the 16th century it probably applied to matters in which there was no superficial need for God, or to people who had never been given a choice regarding the matter (for example, in the 16th century you could be burned for being a Protestant/Catholic or for witchcraft; imagine what they would do to a modern atheist!). Today, however, the term has been changed to mean one who has apparently ''voluntarily'' rejected God. I hope this helps; I also added racism to the list of Liberal words earlier. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Spiritualism==
This may be a cultural/linguistic difference, but in the UK 'spiritualism' has a very specific meaning, of belief in communication with the dead. This was very popular in the early twentieth century, even Conan Doyle was a believer, but has since abated, though there are spiritualist 'churches' and mediums around. I would have said that 'spirituality' was the opposite of materialism, or 'religious feeling', 'religiosity', 'belief'. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 13:10, 11 January 2009 (EST)
:Not a cultural difference, but a plurality of definitions. Spirit-conjuring charlatans like to use the term, but in a philosophic context, ti's opposed to materialism. A similar opposite is "idealism," which also a number of unrelated non-philosophical definitions. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 13:17, 11 January 2009 (EST)
::I suggested dualism, which seems the best fit to me. Materialism can be phrased as the believe that everything boils down to matter, there is only one ontological world/realm and that's the realm of matter. I don't think there is an exact opposite of that (well, perhaps believing in no worlds at all, but that's just stupid), there are just alternatives like dualism and pluralism which believe in resp. two or more realms of existence and of these two dualism is the strongest held position.
::Another kind of opposite would be idealism, the belief that there is only one ontological realm and that's the realm of the mind, but even this one is more of an alternative than an opposition and not a strong position either.
::Anyways, asking for an opposite of materialism isn't very realistic, since it all depends on what you deem an opposite. What's the opposite of "one"? Is it zero, minus one, any number greater than one or "eno"? It all depends on the context, and in the context of ontological philosophy dualism is the strongest opposition to materialism. --[[User:TBrouwer|TBrouwer]] 18:43, 11 January 2009 (EST)

::: The opposite would be a sensible equivalent of anti-materialism, or immaterialism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:18, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Reversion ==

I had to revert many of Saxplayer's dates, and some minor edits were lost in the reversion. Feel free to reinstate if their quality is improved (e.g., spell "tyranny" correctly, or give a date of origin for "racism"). Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:33, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Conservapedia ==

Surely this must be one of the newest words that should earn a place! --[[User:JamesDW|JamesDW]] 23:09, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Definition / Categorisation ==

I'm reluctant to edit the page, as it may be reverted, but I have a suggestion for the opening. The term "conservative word" isn't defined, and could have many possible meanings, such as "a word coined by a conservative", or "a word for a conservative principle", or "a word commonly used by conservatives, but not by liberals or other groups". The list being produced includes examples of all these. Perhaps the page should therefore be split into accordingly different sections: "Words coined by conservatives to describe liberal principles", "Words which encapsulate conservative principles", "terms and concepts invented by conservatives", and so on.--[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:53, 12 January 2009 (EST)

: No, I disagree. The meaning is obvious enough and splintering into different categories would obscure rather than enlighten. Your three suggested "different" meanings in fact lack any significant differences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:25, 12 January 2009 (EST)

:: I concur with ASchlafly. As well as obscuring the information, if I were to go onto a page and see in the contents box "Words coined by conservatives to describe liberal principles" or "Words which encapsulate conservative principles", I would quickly go and find another page. They hardly grab one's interest. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 11:42, 12 January 2009 (EST)

== New word for 'liberal'? ==

Does anyone have any suggestions for a more descriptive word for 'liberal'? I find 'liberal' to be an unsatisfactory description for liberals in the present day, since they tend to support large government and curbs on freedom. Perhaps an alternative word would better sum up the set of views that liberals hold?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 04:47, 3 February 2009 (EST)

--There are plenty of words to use in sarcasm, eg "lie-beral." Other than that, all that comes to mind is what some liberals call themselves: Progressive. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 12:33, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

==[[Fellow traveller]]==
Is this a conservative word? I think its from the early 1900s and originally described communist sympathizers who did not belong to a communist party. It also might be a good word for now to describe your "terrorist sympathizer" situation.

Other suggestions: design-by-committee and democide. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:53, 8 February 2009 (EST)

: All three are superb suggestions for this entry. Please add them with informative material, such as date of first use. Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 10 February 2009 (EST)

== New article -> New liberal words? ==

I believe we discussed this prior to the server move where we lost a weeks worth of edits. I remember creating a new article on [[New liberal words]], by removing that section from this article. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:24, 17 February 2009 (EST)

== Words? ==

Many of these are phrases not words. How long can a phrase get? Can Reagan's acceptance speech be listed as a new word? We need guidance on what a word is. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 10:41, 18 February 2009 (EST)

: What are you talking about? The vast majority ''are'' words. If you're genuinely so confused, then I doubt we can help you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:44, 18 February 2009 (EST)

:: "Terms" would probably be a more accurate description than "words". However I assume that most people will be able to work things out from the examples given. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 10:47, 18 February 2009 (EST)

:: "affirmative action" is two words, "Affirmative" and "Action", a full 43% of the listed "Words" are really phrases like this, not including the words with hyphens. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:38, 18 February 2009 (EST)

== Humanism ==

Since Humanists and Big Bang were originally pejorative terms should they be under the conservative list? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:38, 18 February 2009 (EST)

: No, because they are liberal terms now. And I doubt their origin was conservative, either. Fred Hoyle was not a conservative. He was a liberal who rejected the theory of evolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:27, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::Wasn't Hoyle ''ridiculing'' the idea of the [[Big Bang]]? I'll go take a look at the [[Fred Hoyle]] article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:30, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::: Yes, he was ridiculing it. But liberals adopted the term and made it popular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 20 February 2009 (EST)

:: Evolution is a separate issue. they are only united by the fact that they both are in the standard naturalistic view of the origin of the universe. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 11:59, 22 February 2009 (EST)

== We should make a unifying convention or get rid of the divide ==

There are words that belong in both groups, that or we need a clear convention used through out. Communism is most often used by Conservatives, its a sore subject for liberals (you know, with the millions killed and mass poverty and all) and they rarely talk about it. I just want a better convention than "because Andy figures this way is best". --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:17, 23 February 2009 (EST)

== A new word? ==

Andy - "self determination"? It started around colonial times, so it could well be from the 1700's. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:45, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

: Date is 1670, and I'm sure it's all that conservative. Sometimes it is a euphemism for something harmful, like communism in Cuba. But thanks for the suggestion!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:12, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

:: You're very welcome - I made the suggestion because I felt that it is one of the reasons that America freed Iraq (a move opposed by liberals and supported by conservatives); so that the people there could hold fair elections, rather than suffer under Hussein's despotism. At the end of the day though, you probably know more than me on this subject, so I'll defer to your wisdom! [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:19, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

::: You raise interesting issues, but I think Saddam Hussein was also "self-determination" by Iraqis, right?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

::::(Edit conflict) Oh, and what about "survival of the fittest" for a liberal word? I noticed you mentioned it in your lecture. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:28, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
::::I think you're right about Saddam Hussein coming to power, but I also believe that towards the end of his reign many wanted him out, but were compelled to vote for him or else be punished (this is why I think the American system, with its two-term limit, is the best in the world). Mugabe is a good example of this; when he came to power, he was hailed as an African anti-oppression hero, and Zimbabwe was held up as an excellent example of post-colonialism. Now, however, his people want him out but are prevented from voting him out by the security forces (and when they did vote him out, it was declared illegal) and the world, including Africa, recognises him as a madman and a tyrant. In the meantime, the country is starving and in the grip of a cholera epidemic. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:28, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

"Natural selection" is a misleading euphemism, and the explanation discusses why. Also, it's improper to refer to creationists accepting a claim by evolutionists as though that somehow fully resolves the matter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:32, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action is a conservative word? ==

Why is "affirmative action" considered a conservative word?

It was first used in [http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal6/eo10925.htm JFK's Executive Order 10925] in 1961 (not 1965, as the essay states), and later "pushed" by LBJ.

Criticism of it is certainly a conservative concept, and it is now largely used critically by conservatives, but it hardly seems to qualify as a conservative "word" (or, more accurately, "term"). [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:08, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

: Good point and etymology. I'll move it to the "difficult to classify" section.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:26, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

== Politically correct ==

I can't help but notice that this term appears in both the 'New Conservative Terms' and 'New Liberal Terms' section (along with two different dates and explanations). Obviously, it can't be both! While it would appear that it was indeed coined by liberals to help their cause, I would say that its meaning has flipped and it now has negative, oppressive connotations. Perhaps the 'Hard to Classify' section? However, I leave it up the the judgement of an admin to sort this conundrum out. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:13, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Oh, and 'survival of the fittest' to go with natural selection for a liberal term? (Before I forget!) [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:15, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

: Fixed it per your suggestion, figuring that "politically correct" is used more by conservatives now. I don't think either side uses "survival of the fittest" and I think the euphemism "natural selection" covers that concept. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Can't say fairer than that. Thanks for the fix! [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:56, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

== Some further suggestions for words ==

Constructionist (1835-1845): Clearly, a valuable term when discussing the original intent of the Founding Fathers; equally clearly, a conservative one.

Capitalism (1850-1855): Goes almost without saying.

Big Government (unable to find a date for this one)

Right to Life (1970-1975): Pro-life is already on the list, but I think this is an important term, too, since it emphasizes that life is an essential right.

Moral Sense (1690-1700): Originally coined by Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury.

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:51, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Virtual Thesaurus has an interesting essay,
[http://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/wordroutes/1786/ A Brief Glossary of Recession-Speak] which may contain words appropriate for this article. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 18:31, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

==Constant==
This word was in use a long time before 1832. It appears in the King James Bible, for example. [[User:Pepperlynn|Pepperlynn]] 23:12, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
:Also, what, exactly, makes "constant" a "Conservative Word"? I don't see it. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 00:12, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
:Oh, and a reference for Pepperlynn: 1 Chronicles 28:7. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 00:16, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

:: My dictionary says the noun form (something unchanging in value) originated in 1832. That's surprising, but it is what it is. That's what makes this an educational project.

:: I agree it's debatable how conservative this term is, but the notion of unchanging values seems conservative to me. You don't think so?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:18, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
:::The ideological attraction to unchanging values is conservative, but there is n conservative claim on the concept of constancy. Yours in Christ,--[[User:JWeatherman|JWeatherman]] 22:46, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

== Questions ==

This is unlikely to be a popular view, and I can guess the sort of comments that might very well be sent my way as a result of this, but I believe that this article is deeply flawed and is setting a dangerous precedent in the context of political discussion here.

The second paragraph begins by stating that conservatism will inevitably triumph over liberalism. Conservatism and liberalism as political groupings only exist relative to each other. If every single person were tol hold conservative or liberal views then they would not be named as such. It glosses over the dynamic nature of these terms themselves. 'Liberals' or 'Conservatives' today do not believe the same things they did 10 years ago let alone 100. The words mean different things and I think it is naive to assume that their current connotations will remain consistent. Not only are the words themselves dynamic in their meaning but I cannot possibly see how any aspect of human history would lead to the conclusion that one set of political beliefs will 'triumph' over another, at least for more than a few decades. History has been shaped by conflicting ideologies and it seems completely against human nature to imagine that the future will be any different in this sense.

Although me calling this a 'dangerous precedent' is rather melodramatic I'll admit, I just think that it is rather odd to be claiming aspects of the English language as being inherently 'liberal' or 'conservative', although there are a very few obvious words linked clearly with one or the other, most on this list are simply normal words that have been 'claimed'. The whole process of selecting words is highly subjective, and to measure the 'dominance' of one ideology over the other by such a means seems a very strange way to go about it. Though there are a few words that can clearly be directly linked with conservatism or liberalism, this article has, in my opinion, taken it to the extreme. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 21:14, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

: Robert, I don't know why you expect such a backlash, or why your comment is so long-winded. I agree that a few of the words on the list are debatable, but the vast majority plainly are conservative or liberal in nature. And a comparison of the two lists is enlightening: the conservative words are more insightful, helpful, and durable. That speaks volumes about where we're headed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:19, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

::I'm sorry if my initial comment seemed somewhat ill-mannered, but all too often such discussions can result in the term liberal being thrown around as an insult rather than sticking to the issue, though I'm glad to see that I have been proven wrong thus far. And sorry if my posts are rather long-winded, that's just how I write I'm afraid. I still think that the way conservatism and liberalism are defined differently across the world and throughout history makes the compiling of any such list a futile task. Making claims as to how insightful or helpful a word is, is of course highly subjective. A self-styled liberal would probably say the exact opposite to yourself on the matter which means the debate never really gets anywhere. And I think the question of 'where we're headed' is far to complex to be answered using a few highly subjective words as a guide. Your country has just gone from a relatively conservative to a relatively liberal administration, and my own country looks quite likely to go back to conservative leadership after 12 years of labour. If there is one thing that history has taught us, i think it's that nothing remains constant for long. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 22:45, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

::: That's your view, but the evidence is that the United States is growing more conservative just as the English language is. This entry shows that the creation of insightful new conservatives words is greater in quality and frequency than that of new liberal words. Over time, culture and politics must inexorably follow the lead of language. That doesn't mean a liberal politician won't use smoke-and-mirrors to be elected occasionally against the grain, but the flow dictated by language cannot be reversed. Ah, perhaps I've stumbled onto another new term: "smoke and mirrors"!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:12, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: Actually, Andy, I believe language turns more liberal over time. I agree with you regarding the new words, but like all languages, English does evolve. To describe the language as "conservative" would really require the number of words in it to be reducing, perhaps to something like 1984's Newspeak! Why do we have multiple words for the similar concepts? Plus, look at our syntax - it's nothing like the English of Shakespeare's time. [[User:Andyt|Andyt]] 17:25, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: English adds new words. If you call that evolution, so be it. Others call it growth.

::::: You're welcome to disagree with the direction of English's growth, but the evidence in this entry is overwhelming that English is becoming more conservative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:33, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Besides my main point, I would also counter by suggesting that it is language that follows the lead of culture, not the other way around. The language is of course part of the culture, but new words are only likely to come into existence when they have something to describe in the first place. It is cultural shifts that lead to the coining of new words and phrases and some become so well established that they enter the common vocabulary. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 23:29, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

== Big bang ==

You quite sure about that being used to mock the suggestion of how the universe was formed? I was under the impression that it was a scientific theory proposed by a few physicists, not a liberal word used to mock creationism. --[[User:Jack456|Jack456]] 17:40, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

-- You're both wrong. When the big bang theory was first introduced, 'Big Bang' was a term used by scientists to mock what seemed at first like a ridiculous idea - leading scientific knowledge at the time was that the universe had no origin, but was sufficiently stable to have existed indefinatly. But when the evidence for the big bang theory became so compelling it replaced the old steady-state model, the name stuck, and ceased to be an insult. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 12:37, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:Right. I'll see if the entry's description can be improved, and will do so. I also note that the term "politically correct" migrated it the opposite direction: it started out as a serious compliment, and then became known as an insult.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:33, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

==New word==
I've thought of a word to describe people who live in this (or any) country and ''take advantage of it'', but spend all or most of their effort ''criticizing or demeaning'' it: misopatria (hatred of one's country), or misopatrist (one who hates his country). What do you think? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:00, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

:I like it a lot! I think I'll continue to use "traitor", though, at least for now. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:10, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
::No thanks. Traitor is much more simple. --[[User:Jack456|Jack456]] 18:13, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Thanks BHarlan! Yes parodist Jack, we strive for simple words (hey, sounds like something called ''newspeak!'' [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:05, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

"Traitor" means something slightly different from what Addison suggests. Addison, how about adding your suggestion to the table in the entry that seeks a word for the concept? You're right that it describes millions of malcontents.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

== Electricity ==

Electricity was a word created by William Gilbert 1646, and was researched by many great scientists, such as Robert Boyle, [[Benjamin Franklin]] and [[Thomas Edison]]. I suggest it as a conservative word because it has allowed many great technological innovations through the ages, but is untainted by association with theories that carry a political agenda.

:Interesting suggestion, but I don't see enough [[conservative]] insight in the largely neutral "electricity" term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:24, 26 April 2009 (EDT)
::I see your point, though electricity is currently opposed by many 'green' liberals who try to interfere with electricity production (see [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7447371.stm here]).

==Relativism==
Are you sure that relativism is a conservative term? More often, the term is preached against by conservatives. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 15:45, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

: It's a word created to criticize. The "-ism" ending is tell-tale sign of being pejorative. Examples of "isms" created or used by liberals to criticize are "isolationism" and "protectionism" and "creationism".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:23, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

== Morally bankrupt ==

Thanks, Jpatt, for the insight!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:23, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
 Pat Tillman was morally bankrupt?--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 12:49, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

== Dramacast? ==

Under your words not yet recognized, you include the word "dramacast" to decribe what happens when "mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline."

I've never come across the word "dramacast," and a google search brings up no hits. However, doesn't "infotainment" mean the same thing? Has that made it into the dictionary yet? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:25, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

: Good point. The "dramacast" addition was not by me, and you can insert a better substitute such as "infotainment" or perhaps "docudrama". Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:47, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

::Just did. Infotainment seems closer to the concept than "docudrama," which always seems to indicate something longer. It might be good as its own separate entry. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:32, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

== Closed Shop ==
You might like to include Closed shop. -[[User:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

: Superb suggestion. Will add now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:55, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

From the 19th century, I suggest 'scrooge' - a miser who, despite wealth, does not give to charity or allow wealth to circulate and benefit the wider economy. Clearly this orginates from ''A Christmas Carol'', which was written in that century.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:45, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Superb suggestion. Please add with a precise date, if you have one. I'm also working on a few possibilities for 1700s and 1800s to perfect the geometric fit, but yours is better than mine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:15, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

::It looks like the novella was published in 1843 [http://www.stormfax.com/dickens.htm] but I don't have a citation for the first general use of 'scrooge' to describe any miser. I know the book was an immediate success when it was published, so it can't have been long after. Perhaps you have a bigger dictionary than I do?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 19:42, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== Question ==

Just out of curiosity, what exactly makes a word conservative or liberal? For example, liberals often practice double standard far more than conservatives, so wouldn't that make it a liberal word? Same with hysteria, since most media hype is in liberal news sources like MSNBC and CNN. [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 18:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia, home of Patriots. Take hysteria, studies will prove people without God are less grounded, more frequent to have off-the-wall behavior patterns, gradually regressing in communication with others. My conclusion is a sane person (grounded in the Lord, conservative by default) would have created the diagnosis, hence crafted the word hysteria. That is just one example, my 2 cents anyway, comprehend?

:If you do Merriam-Webster dictionary search, you are likely to find the dates and further research the origin, its like word salad.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:23, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
::So it's less words that apply to conservatives and more words coined by the conservatives themselves? [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 19:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Conservative terms are crafted, coined (growth rate) faster than liberal words. This shows that generations have been conservative while liberal crafted words have spurts of growth. Example, 1960 ideas such as freedom of mind drug talk, explore feminism, tune-in drop-out of society became associated with that generation in disproportane numbers. We may be now in such a new phase of liberalism; tax, big government, empathy legislation, gay rights, environmentalism- which will give way to the next sustained period of conservatism.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:30, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

Could I suggest Astroturfing as a conservative word? It was coined around 1998 as a response to false grassroot movements by Microsoft, but can refer to political movements as well. I consider it conservative because it is a good word for pinpointing deceit. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astroturfing] [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 21:22, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Haven't heard of that term in politics, so I'm not sure it qualifies yet. The word has to catch on a bit to earn its way in this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:41, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== No capitalism? ==

I was rather shocked to notice that capitalism (circa 1850) isn't included as a new conservative word. Was this intentional? I would also suggest constructionist (circa 1835) as another conservative word of value.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:58, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

== A few more suggestions (one from 1700's) ==

According to Random House, "republican" has its origin around 1685...close, but not quite in the time period you're looking for. "Evangelism" is 1620-1630, and "missionary" is 1635-1645.

Aha! What about "states' rights," circa 1790? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:11, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

: "Republican" is a good suggestion, but the term is associated more with the Republican Party than with conservatism. There are arguments that conservatism is populist in nature. "Isms" are usually derogatory; missionary requires more discussion.

:"States rights" adds nothing conservative to "federalism", a 1789 term that we already include. Liberals invokes "states rights" often also.

:I'll add all four terms as difficult to classify, pending further discussion. Thanks but we're still looking for a a 1700s term to perfect the geometric fit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

== A few more possibilities from the 1700's ==

economics (1785)
division of labor (1770)
patriotism (1720)--I know "isms" are often pejorative, but surely this one isn't (regardless of how some people might try to malign it?)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:00, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

:patriotism has been on the list. Division of labor is good. Economics can be liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

== Further suggestions ==

Two suggestions from Gulliver's Travels, which was published in 1726 and immediately became popular:
* Lilliputian - small-minded or trivial, used to satirise people who are preoccupied with petty squabbles.
* Yahoo - a person who embodies all the worst human characteristics because of a lack of moral or civilising influences.

--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:08, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions! I think Lilliputian is the better of the two. "Yahoo" does not seem to have retained its original meaning, perhaps due to yahoo.com's use of the term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:11, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: I agree that Lilliputian is more relevant today. It strikes me as an excellent way to describe many people's obsessions with gossip, people's personal lives, celebrities, entertainment etc while they ignore far more important concerns. It's actually amazing how much of what Swift wrote is even more relevant today than it was when he wrote it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:51, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

::: According to M-W, ''yahoo'' as a noun dates to Swift's book in 1726; ''yahoo'' as an interjection (synonym for "yippee") dates to 1870. But I disagree with both as conservative terms: ''Gulliver'' is extremely rooted in the attitudes of the [[Enlightenment]] and the glorification of Reason above all else - hardly conservative IMO. (Yes, I know that the Enlightenment produced some conservative ideas also.) [[User:Carillonneur|Carillonneur]] 12:34, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:Carillonner has a point. Swift is regarded as one of the greatest satirists of all time - I am personally a fan of him. You shouldn't adopt his words unless you have read the book from which they come, and understand exactly what they intend to mean. The entire country of Lilliput was a criticism of the trivialities that dominated british and european politics - much of which is lost on a modern reader, unfamiliar with the subject. That the people were tiny was but incidential to the real significence of them, the way in which they would turn the tiniest event or question into a source of great conflict or debate while entirely ignoring far more serious issues, culminating in a war fought over which way up an egg should be placed in an eggcup before breaking it open. If you're looking for a section good for criticising liberals with, I suggest the third country visited by Gulliver: Laputa. The floating island satirises scientific and artistic accomplishment performed for it's own sake without thought to practical benefits, and a community of academics who posess vast knowledge of subjects entirely useless to anyone else. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 12:45, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the insights above. Looks like we'll hold off on both terms, then. That means we're still looking for one more word from the 1700s to perfect the geometric increase in generation of insightful conservative terms for the list. Suggestions are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:21, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

== More 1700's possibilities ==

Businessman (~1710)

Checks and balances (~1780)

Separation of powers (1748)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:55, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: The latter two are good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:02, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Self-respect (1765)

== Liberal word from 1830 ==

'''Reactionary''' - liberal smear-word for conservative ideas.--[[User:Woloct|Woloct]] 21:05, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-05-19T16:34:54Z

Carillonneur: /* Further suggestions */

==Couple of points==
* Interventionalism is an ugly kludge. The word should be "interventionism".
* Some of the terms are just not Conservative in '''any''' meaningful way. For example "design by committee" is used by both Liberals and Conservatives to describe the same problem.
* A word to describe Conservative concept may be worth calling a "Conservative word", but the mere fact that Conservatives like or dislike something doesn't mean the word is Liberal or Conservative. "Grassroots" isn't a Conservative word-- it's a word for local community activism, regardless of political bent. Ditto phonics. "Condescention" isn't a Liberal word, and it was originally, considered to be the Christian virtue of treating one's social inferiors as equals.
* I don't know anyone who denies the '''effectiveness''' of abstinence, Liberal, Conservative, or pink-and-green-striped.
[[User:Pepperlynn|Pepperlynn]] 17:48, 23 February 2009 (EST)

: Your first point is good, and I just changed it. You could have changed it yourself.

: Your second point is baseless. The conservative terms do reflect conservative insights. Sure, sometimes liberals use them. Sometimes atheists quote from the Bible too.

: Your third point again is misguided. Liberals say "community organizing" or "community activism." Conservatives say "grassroots". The concepts are different, though similar. Think about it more.

: Your fourth point shows you don't yet recognize the liberal viewpoint in its full deceit. Stick around here and you will. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)

==Some suggestions==
How about 'responsibility' (1737) and 'self-discipline' (1838)? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 08:58, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: Superb ideas!!! Fantastic. Please add them. I have some that will add also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:19, 10 January 2009 (EST)

The list is good, but it doesn't say why they are ''conservative'' words. Perhaps something could be added related to this? Also, I have a suggestion: 'Rags to Riches'? *Hopeful* [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 11:13, 10 January 2009 (EST)

What are the criteria for "conservative words" (as distinct from "liberal words"?) [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:10, 10 January 2009 (EST)

As per "radar", I suggest "sonar" and "laser" (also acronyms, from similar domain), and "radio".

: (edit conflict) Words that express more precisely a conservative concept, or criticize more effectively a liberal characteristic. I'm going to insert Mike Salter's suggestions above, for example, and feel free to add your own.

: The distribution of the words as a function of time (and perhaps what was happening at the time) will become illuminating.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: P.S. I don't see sonar, laser and radio as adding any conservative insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:: Understood. But "radar" does? [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:27, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::: Yes, because it was the first and it has broader use than your other example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:28, 10 January 2009 (EST)
::: I understand precedence going to the earliest word, but don't see how "radar" expresses more precisely a conservative concept, or criticizes more effectively a liberal characteristic. [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:33, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::: Your point is well-taken, and I agree this is borderline. However, I would still say that "radar" is a conservative concept/insight that is used effectively to convey a powerful conservative idea. Let's see what others think before deleting it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Well, RADAR was created in Britain just before WW2 - indeed, it was one of the reasons why Britain defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. So I'm not really sure why it's on a list of American Conservative words when Britain is highly liberal by comparison to America. Also, I added one - 'self-determination'. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 15:13, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Frankly, I'm confused. I normally think of "radar" (in the non-scientific sense) as meaning perception. "In the public's radar" means "something the public notices." Is there a different conservative conception of the word? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 15:14, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: The inclusion of "radar" is debatable, but essentially it is a powerful self-defense mechanism conceptually analogous to the [[Reagan]]'s concept of [[SDI]] and the [[Second Amendment]], which [[liberals]] loathed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:49, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Here's two:
*pro-life ([http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pro-life 1976], though I'd prefer a better citation since the quote they have underneath is very anti-conservative.)
*normalcy (1920 in the Conservative sense, although dated back to 1857 in a mathematical sense. In a rare glimmer of unbiased truth on a political subject, the WP article even states: ''"Furthermore, the concept apparently encapsulated what Americans wanted, since he was elected president over his Democratic opponent James Cox by the greatest margin since the popular vote was introduced."'')
-[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 14:40, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: Fantastic suggestions, both of them. Very insightful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)

"elitism" (1947) - Seems to be used much more widely with this last election campaign. [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 15:26, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:Conversely, "populism" and "grassroots," which have formed an important basis of conservative politics since 1980 (earlier?) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:17, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:: "grassroots" is a good suggestion, and I just added it. "populism" is not a term used particularly by conservatives; nor does it yield any conservative insight that I am aware of.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::Seriously? Populism is used continually to refer to Reagan, and more recently, George Bush and Sarah Palin, as they seek to speak for the "people" as opposed to "elites." Strikes me as deeply conservative. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:44, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::: I don't doubt that liberals, the media, history books, and a diversity other people use the term. I doubt that any of the conservatives you mention, or any other conservatives, use the term much. It would be easy for you to prove me wrong, if I were wrong. I don't see anything conservative or insightful about the term. Majority rules? That's a mundane, almost meaningless concept at best. It begs the question of what the majority thinks at a particular time, which of course is very fickle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Pat Buchanan calls himself a populist (though it notes Goldwater and Reagan would not use the term). [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v47/ai_17161967] Rove calls Bush a populist on taxation [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905EFD61130F930A15752C0A9659C8B63]. I suppose there are two different concepts of the word: first, the classical "majority rules" idea which was rejected by the founding fathers in favor of checks and balances, and second, the modern term, conservative "populism," which refers to deriving your power from the people and relying on widely and deeply held conservative Christian values (example would be Palin's emphasis on the "real America" and blue collar workers) as opposed to deriving your power from intellectuals and media magnates. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:21, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Phyllis Schlafly refers to the Goldwater ideology as populist, and she'd know! [http://www.eagleforum.org/column/1998/june98/98-06-10.html] [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:31, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: The word ''populist'' has a far better tone than the word'' populism''. Similarly, the word ''fundamentalist'' has a far better tone than ''fundamentalism''. In political contexts, these are four completely different words. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:32, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: The problem comes when liberals attempt to use the terms as smears, and we stop using them as a result. I for one am proud to call myself a fundamentalist, and I know many other who feel the same way. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:35, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::::: Me too. I take pride in saying I believe in fundamentalism. All would agree that ''-ism'' added to almost any word gives it a negative tone, yes? For example, "science + t + ism = scientism" and scientism always refers to a bad set of science-related ideas. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:42, 10 January 2009 (EST)
(Unindent) You have a point there. But now you have liberals calling muslim terrorists "fundamentalist muslims," to try to paint us with the same brush. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:54, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: The cites above are interesting but inconclusive. RickD's point in distinguishing "populist" from "populism" is superb. None of the above cites refer to "populism" in a conservative or even favorable light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Some suggestions off the top of my head: Truth, Integrity those these are quite general I think they contrast well with the article on liberal deceit. [[User:JamesDW|JamesDW]] 21:16, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Pro-life==

Andy, do you have a cite for the earlier attestation of "pro-life" than the one I provided? I think it's great that you've found a date that predates [[Roe v. Wade]]. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 18:38, 10 January 2009 (EST)

==Atheism==
It's not an English word; it's Greek. The claim is hardly "Silly," ASchlafly. But given your other claims on the page, IE that "quote mining" A: is a word and B: Was never invented, I guess I can forgive you for thinking that. [[User:RaymondS|RaymondS]] 00:04, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Use of the Adjective "New" ==

Is "new" the right word to be using for terms that originated in the 1600's and 1700's? `I'm not saying they should be removed from the list, but referring to them as "new" implies that they were originated with the modern conservative movement. Maybe these should be referred to as ''Powerful'' or ''Significant'' conservative words, which makes their date of origin irrelevant. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:10, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Origins==
I used the Oxford English Dictionary to correct the years of origin for some conservative words--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 12:45, 11 January 2009 (EST)

: You made a mess of the entry. For example, the date you inserted for "conservative" is not for the political sense used here. Now I have to clean up your mess ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:13, 11 January 2009 (EST)

::Then you should have made it clear you wished this to done in the current political context.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 13:20, 11 January 2009 (EST)

:::Be courteous, please. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 13:22, 11 January 2009 (EST)

:: The atheism date may perhaps need changing too, in that case. In the 16th century it probably applied to matters in which there was no superficial need for God, or to people who had never been given a choice regarding the matter (for example, in the 16th century you could be burned for being a Protestant/Catholic or for witchcraft; imagine what they would do to a modern atheist!). Today, however, the term has been changed to mean one who has apparently ''voluntarily'' rejected God. I hope this helps; I also added racism to the list of Liberal words earlier. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Spiritualism==
This may be a cultural/linguistic difference, but in the UK 'spiritualism' has a very specific meaning, of belief in communication with the dead. This was very popular in the early twentieth century, even Conan Doyle was a believer, but has since abated, though there are spiritualist 'churches' and mediums around. I would have said that 'spirituality' was the opposite of materialism, or 'religious feeling', 'religiosity', 'belief'. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 13:10, 11 January 2009 (EST)
:Not a cultural difference, but a plurality of definitions. Spirit-conjuring charlatans like to use the term, but in a philosophic context, ti's opposed to materialism. A similar opposite is "idealism," which also a number of unrelated non-philosophical definitions. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 13:17, 11 January 2009 (EST)
::I suggested dualism, which seems the best fit to me. Materialism can be phrased as the believe that everything boils down to matter, there is only one ontological world/realm and that's the realm of matter. I don't think there is an exact opposite of that (well, perhaps believing in no worlds at all, but that's just stupid), there are just alternatives like dualism and pluralism which believe in resp. two or more realms of existence and of these two dualism is the strongest held position.
::Another kind of opposite would be idealism, the belief that there is only one ontological realm and that's the realm of the mind, but even this one is more of an alternative than an opposition and not a strong position either.
::Anyways, asking for an opposite of materialism isn't very realistic, since it all depends on what you deem an opposite. What's the opposite of "one"? Is it zero, minus one, any number greater than one or "eno"? It all depends on the context, and in the context of ontological philosophy dualism is the strongest opposition to materialism. --[[User:TBrouwer|TBrouwer]] 18:43, 11 January 2009 (EST)

::: The opposite would be a sensible equivalent of anti-materialism, or immaterialism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:18, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Reversion ==

I had to revert many of Saxplayer's dates, and some minor edits were lost in the reversion. Feel free to reinstate if their quality is improved (e.g., spell "tyranny" correctly, or give a date of origin for "racism"). Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:33, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Conservapedia ==

Surely this must be one of the newest words that should earn a place! --[[User:JamesDW|JamesDW]] 23:09, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Definition / Categorisation ==

I'm reluctant to edit the page, as it may be reverted, but I have a suggestion for the opening. The term "conservative word" isn't defined, and could have many possible meanings, such as "a word coined by a conservative", or "a word for a conservative principle", or "a word commonly used by conservatives, but not by liberals or other groups". The list being produced includes examples of all these. Perhaps the page should therefore be split into accordingly different sections: "Words coined by conservatives to describe liberal principles", "Words which encapsulate conservative principles", "terms and concepts invented by conservatives", and so on.--[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:53, 12 January 2009 (EST)

: No, I disagree. The meaning is obvious enough and splintering into different categories would obscure rather than enlighten. Your three suggested "different" meanings in fact lack any significant differences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:25, 12 January 2009 (EST)

:: I concur with ASchlafly. As well as obscuring the information, if I were to go onto a page and see in the contents box "Words coined by conservatives to describe liberal principles" or "Words which encapsulate conservative principles", I would quickly go and find another page. They hardly grab one's interest. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 11:42, 12 January 2009 (EST)

== New word for 'liberal'? ==

Does anyone have any suggestions for a more descriptive word for 'liberal'? I find 'liberal' to be an unsatisfactory description for liberals in the present day, since they tend to support large government and curbs on freedom. Perhaps an alternative word would better sum up the set of views that liberals hold?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 04:47, 3 February 2009 (EST)

--There are plenty of words to use in sarcasm, eg "lie-beral." Other than that, all that comes to mind is what some liberals call themselves: Progressive. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 12:33, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

==[[Fellow traveller]]==
Is this a conservative word? I think its from the early 1900s and originally described communist sympathizers who did not belong to a communist party. It also might be a good word for now to describe your "terrorist sympathizer" situation.

Other suggestions: design-by-committee and democide. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:53, 8 February 2009 (EST)

: All three are superb suggestions for this entry. Please add them with informative material, such as date of first use. Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 10 February 2009 (EST)

== New article -> New liberal words? ==

I believe we discussed this prior to the server move where we lost a weeks worth of edits. I remember creating a new article on [[New liberal words]], by removing that section from this article. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:24, 17 February 2009 (EST)

== Words? ==

Many of these are phrases not words. How long can a phrase get? Can Reagan's acceptance speech be listed as a new word? We need guidance on what a word is. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 10:41, 18 February 2009 (EST)

: What are you talking about? The vast majority ''are'' words. If you're genuinely so confused, then I doubt we can help you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:44, 18 February 2009 (EST)

:: "Terms" would probably be a more accurate description than "words". However I assume that most people will be able to work things out from the examples given. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 10:47, 18 February 2009 (EST)

:: "affirmative action" is two words, "Affirmative" and "Action", a full 43% of the listed "Words" are really phrases like this, not including the words with hyphens. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:38, 18 February 2009 (EST)

== Humanism ==

Since Humanists and Big Bang were originally pejorative terms should they be under the conservative list? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:38, 18 February 2009 (EST)

: No, because they are liberal terms now. And I doubt their origin was conservative, either. Fred Hoyle was not a conservative. He was a liberal who rejected the theory of evolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:27, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::Wasn't Hoyle ''ridiculing'' the idea of the [[Big Bang]]? I'll go take a look at the [[Fred Hoyle]] article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:30, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::: Yes, he was ridiculing it. But liberals adopted the term and made it popular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 20 February 2009 (EST)

:: Evolution is a separate issue. they are only united by the fact that they both are in the standard naturalistic view of the origin of the universe. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 11:59, 22 February 2009 (EST)

== We should make a unifying convention or get rid of the divide ==

There are words that belong in both groups, that or we need a clear convention used through out. Communism is most often used by Conservatives, its a sore subject for liberals (you know, with the millions killed and mass poverty and all) and they rarely talk about it. I just want a better convention than "because Andy figures this way is best". --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:17, 23 February 2009 (EST)

== A new word? ==

Andy - "self determination"? It started around colonial times, so it could well be from the 1700's. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:45, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

: Date is 1670, and I'm sure it's all that conservative. Sometimes it is a euphemism for something harmful, like communism in Cuba. But thanks for the suggestion!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:12, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

:: You're very welcome - I made the suggestion because I felt that it is one of the reasons that America freed Iraq (a move opposed by liberals and supported by conservatives); so that the people there could hold fair elections, rather than suffer under Hussein's despotism. At the end of the day though, you probably know more than me on this subject, so I'll defer to your wisdom! [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:19, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

::: You raise interesting issues, but I think Saddam Hussein was also "self-determination" by Iraqis, right?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

::::(Edit conflict) Oh, and what about "survival of the fittest" for a liberal word? I noticed you mentioned it in your lecture. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:28, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
::::I think you're right about Saddam Hussein coming to power, but I also believe that towards the end of his reign many wanted him out, but were compelled to vote for him or else be punished (this is why I think the American system, with its two-term limit, is the best in the world). Mugabe is a good example of this; when he came to power, he was hailed as an African anti-oppression hero, and Zimbabwe was held up as an excellent example of post-colonialism. Now, however, his people want him out but are prevented from voting him out by the security forces (and when they did vote him out, it was declared illegal) and the world, including Africa, recognises him as a madman and a tyrant. In the meantime, the country is starving and in the grip of a cholera epidemic. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:28, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

"Natural selection" is a misleading euphemism, and the explanation discusses why. Also, it's improper to refer to creationists accepting a claim by evolutionists as though that somehow fully resolves the matter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:32, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action is a conservative word? ==

Why is "affirmative action" considered a conservative word?

It was first used in [http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal6/eo10925.htm JFK's Executive Order 10925] in 1961 (not 1965, as the essay states), and later "pushed" by LBJ.

Criticism of it is certainly a conservative concept, and it is now largely used critically by conservatives, but it hardly seems to qualify as a conservative "word" (or, more accurately, "term"). [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:08, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

: Good point and etymology. I'll move it to the "difficult to classify" section.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:26, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

== Politically correct ==

I can't help but notice that this term appears in both the 'New Conservative Terms' and 'New Liberal Terms' section (along with two different dates and explanations). Obviously, it can't be both! While it would appear that it was indeed coined by liberals to help their cause, I would say that its meaning has flipped and it now has negative, oppressive connotations. Perhaps the 'Hard to Classify' section? However, I leave it up the the judgement of an admin to sort this conundrum out. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:13, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Oh, and 'survival of the fittest' to go with natural selection for a liberal term? (Before I forget!) [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:15, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

: Fixed it per your suggestion, figuring that "politically correct" is used more by conservatives now. I don't think either side uses "survival of the fittest" and I think the euphemism "natural selection" covers that concept. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Can't say fairer than that. Thanks for the fix! [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:56, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

== Some further suggestions for words ==

Constructionist (1835-1845): Clearly, a valuable term when discussing the original intent of the Founding Fathers; equally clearly, a conservative one.

Capitalism (1850-1855): Goes almost without saying.

Big Government (unable to find a date for this one)

Right to Life (1970-1975): Pro-life is already on the list, but I think this is an important term, too, since it emphasizes that life is an essential right.

Moral Sense (1690-1700): Originally coined by Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury.

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:51, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Virtual Thesaurus has an interesting essay,
[http://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/wordroutes/1786/ A Brief Glossary of Recession-Speak] which may contain words appropriate for this article. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 18:31, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

==Constant==
This word was in use a long time before 1832. It appears in the King James Bible, for example. [[User:Pepperlynn|Pepperlynn]] 23:12, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
:Also, what, exactly, makes "constant" a "Conservative Word"? I don't see it. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 00:12, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
:Oh, and a reference for Pepperlynn: 1 Chronicles 28:7. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 00:16, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

:: My dictionary says the noun form (something unchanging in value) originated in 1832. That's surprising, but it is what it is. That's what makes this an educational project.

:: I agree it's debatable how conservative this term is, but the notion of unchanging values seems conservative to me. You don't think so?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:18, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
:::The ideological attraction to unchanging values is conservative, but there is n conservative claim on the concept of constancy. Yours in Christ,--[[User:JWeatherman|JWeatherman]] 22:46, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

== Questions ==

This is unlikely to be a popular view, and I can guess the sort of comments that might very well be sent my way as a result of this, but I believe that this article is deeply flawed and is setting a dangerous precedent in the context of political discussion here.

The second paragraph begins by stating that conservatism will inevitably triumph over liberalism. Conservatism and liberalism as political groupings only exist relative to each other. If every single person were tol hold conservative or liberal views then they would not be named as such. It glosses over the dynamic nature of these terms themselves. 'Liberals' or 'Conservatives' today do not believe the same things they did 10 years ago let alone 100. The words mean different things and I think it is naive to assume that their current connotations will remain consistent. Not only are the words themselves dynamic in their meaning but I cannot possibly see how any aspect of human history would lead to the conclusion that one set of political beliefs will 'triumph' over another, at least for more than a few decades. History has been shaped by conflicting ideologies and it seems completely against human nature to imagine that the future will be any different in this sense.

Although me calling this a 'dangerous precedent' is rather melodramatic I'll admit, I just think that it is rather odd to be claiming aspects of the English language as being inherently 'liberal' or 'conservative', although there are a very few obvious words linked clearly with one or the other, most on this list are simply normal words that have been 'claimed'. The whole process of selecting words is highly subjective, and to measure the 'dominance' of one ideology over the other by such a means seems a very strange way to go about it. Though there are a few words that can clearly be directly linked with conservatism or liberalism, this article has, in my opinion, taken it to the extreme. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 21:14, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

: Robert, I don't know why you expect such a backlash, or why your comment is so long-winded. I agree that a few of the words on the list are debatable, but the vast majority plainly are conservative or liberal in nature. And a comparison of the two lists is enlightening: the conservative words are more insightful, helpful, and durable. That speaks volumes about where we're headed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:19, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

::I'm sorry if my initial comment seemed somewhat ill-mannered, but all too often such discussions can result in the term liberal being thrown around as an insult rather than sticking to the issue, though I'm glad to see that I have been proven wrong thus far. And sorry if my posts are rather long-winded, that's just how I write I'm afraid. I still think that the way conservatism and liberalism are defined differently across the world and throughout history makes the compiling of any such list a futile task. Making claims as to how insightful or helpful a word is, is of course highly subjective. A self-styled liberal would probably say the exact opposite to yourself on the matter which means the debate never really gets anywhere. And I think the question of 'where we're headed' is far to complex to be answered using a few highly subjective words as a guide. Your country has just gone from a relatively conservative to a relatively liberal administration, and my own country looks quite likely to go back to conservative leadership after 12 years of labour. If there is one thing that history has taught us, i think it's that nothing remains constant for long. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 22:45, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

::: That's your view, but the evidence is that the United States is growing more conservative just as the English language is. This entry shows that the creation of insightful new conservatives words is greater in quality and frequency than that of new liberal words. Over time, culture and politics must inexorably follow the lead of language. That doesn't mean a liberal politician won't use smoke-and-mirrors to be elected occasionally against the grain, but the flow dictated by language cannot be reversed. Ah, perhaps I've stumbled onto another new term: "smoke and mirrors"!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:12, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: Actually, Andy, I believe language turns more liberal over time. I agree with you regarding the new words, but like all languages, English does evolve. To describe the language as "conservative" would really require the number of words in it to be reducing, perhaps to something like 1984's Newspeak! Why do we have multiple words for the similar concepts? Plus, look at our syntax - it's nothing like the English of Shakespeare's time. [[User:Andyt|Andyt]] 17:25, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: English adds new words. If you call that evolution, so be it. Others call it growth.

::::: You're welcome to disagree with the direction of English's growth, but the evidence in this entry is overwhelming that English is becoming more conservative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:33, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Besides my main point, I would also counter by suggesting that it is language that follows the lead of culture, not the other way around. The language is of course part of the culture, but new words are only likely to come into existence when they have something to describe in the first place. It is cultural shifts that lead to the coining of new words and phrases and some become so well established that they enter the common vocabulary. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 23:29, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

== Big bang ==

You quite sure about that being used to mock the suggestion of how the universe was formed? I was under the impression that it was a scientific theory proposed by a few physicists, not a liberal word used to mock creationism. --[[User:Jack456|Jack456]] 17:40, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

==New word==
I've thought of a word to describe people who live in this (or any) country and ''take advantage of it'', but spend all or most of their effort ''criticizing or demeaning'' it: misopatria (hatred of one's country), or misopatrist (one who hates his country). What do you think? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:00, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

:I like it a lot! I think I'll continue to use "traitor", though, at least for now. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:10, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
::No thanks. Traitor is much more simple. --[[User:Jack456|Jack456]] 18:13, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Thanks BHarlan! Yes parodist Jack, we strive for simple words (hey, sounds like something called ''newspeak!'' [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:05, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

"Traitor" means something slightly different from what Addison suggests. Addison, how about adding your suggestion to the table in the entry that seeks a word for the concept? You're right that it describes millions of malcontents.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

== Electricity ==

Electricity was a word created by William Gilbert 1646, and was researched by many great scientists, such as Robert Boyle, [[Benjamin Franklin]] and [[Thomas Edison]]. I suggest it as a conservative word because it has allowed many great technological innovations through the ages, but is untainted by association with theories that carry a political agenda.

:Interesting suggestion, but I don't see enough [[conservative]] insight in the largely neutral "electricity" term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:24, 26 April 2009 (EDT)
::I see your point, though electricity is currently opposed by many 'green' liberals who try to interfere with electricity production (see [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7447371.stm here]).

==Relativism==
Are you sure that relativism is a conservative term? More often, the term is preached against by conservatives. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 15:45, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

: It's a word created to criticize. The "-ism" ending is tell-tale sign of being pejorative. Examples of "isms" created or used by liberals to criticize are "isolationism" and "protectionism" and "creationism".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:23, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

== Morally bankrupt ==

Thanks, Jpatt, for the insight!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:23, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
 Pat Tillman was morally bankrupt?--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 12:49, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

== Dramacast? ==

Under your words not yet recognized, you include the word "dramacast" to decribe what happens when "mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline."

I've never come across the word "dramacast," and a google search brings up no hits. However, doesn't "infotainment" mean the same thing? Has that made it into the dictionary yet? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:25, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

: Good point. The "dramacast" addition was not by me, and you can insert a better substitute such as "infotainment" or perhaps "docudrama". Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:47, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

::Just did. Infotainment seems closer to the concept than "docudrama," which always seems to indicate something longer. It might be good as its own separate entry. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:32, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

== Closed Shop ==
You might like to include Closed shop. -[[User:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

: Superb suggestion. Will add now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:55, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

From the 19th century, I suggest 'scrooge' - a miser who, despite wealth, does not give to charity or allow wealth to circulate and benefit the wider economy. Clearly this orginates from ''A Christmas Carol'', which was written in that century.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:45, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Superb suggestion. Please add with a precise date, if you have one. I'm also working on a few possibilities for 1700s and 1800s to perfect the geometric fit, but yours is better than mine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:15, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

::It looks like the novella was published in 1843 [http://www.stormfax.com/dickens.htm] but I don't have a citation for the first general use of 'scrooge' to describe any miser. I know the book was an immediate success when it was published, so it can't have been long after. Perhaps you have a bigger dictionary than I do?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 19:42, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== Question ==

Just out of curiosity, what exactly makes a word conservative or liberal? For example, liberals often practice double standard far more than conservatives, so wouldn't that make it a liberal word? Same with hysteria, since most media hype is in liberal news sources like MSNBC and CNN. [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 18:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia, home of Patriots. Take hysteria, studies will prove people without God are less grounded, more frequent to have off-the-wall behavior patterns, gradually regressing in communication with others. My conclusion is a sane person (grounded in the Lord, conservative by default) would have created the diagnosis, hence crafted the word hysteria. That is just one example, my 2 cents anyway, comprehend?

:If you do Merriam-Webster dictionary search, you are likely to find the dates and further research the origin, its like word salad.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:23, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
::So it's less words that apply to conservatives and more words coined by the conservatives themselves? [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 19:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Conservative terms are crafted, coined (growth rate) faster than liberal words. This shows that generations have been conservative while liberal crafted words have spurts of growth. Example, 1960 ideas such as freedom of mind drug talk, explore feminism, tune-in drop-out of society became associated with that generation in disproportane numbers. We may be now in such a new phase of liberalism; tax, big government, empathy legislation, gay rights, environmentalism- which will give way to the next sustained period of conservatism.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:30, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

Could I suggest Astroturfing as a conservative word? It was coined around 1998 as a response to false grassroot movements by Microsoft, but can refer to political movements as well. I consider it conservative because it is a good word for pinpointing deceit. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astroturfing] [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 21:22, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Haven't heard of that term in politics, so I'm not sure it qualifies yet. The word has to catch on a bit to earn its way in this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:41, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== No capitalism? ==

I was rather shocked to notice that capitalism (circa 1850) isn't included as a new conservative word. Was this intentional? I would also suggest constructionist (circa 1835) as another conservative word of value.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:58, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

== A few more suggestions (one from 1700's) ==

According to Random House, "republican" has its origin around 1685...close, but not quite in the time period you're looking for. "Evangelism" is 1620-1630, and "missionary" is 1635-1645.

Aha! What about "states' rights," circa 1790? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:11, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

: "Republican" is a good suggestion, but the term is associated more with the Republican Party than with conservatism. There are arguments that conservatism is populist in nature. "Isms" are usually derogatory; missionary requires more discussion.

:"States rights" adds nothing conservative to "federalism", a 1789 term that we already include. Liberals invokes "states rights" often also.

:I'll add all four terms as difficult to classify, pending further discussion. Thanks but we're still looking for a a 1700s term to perfect the geometric fit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

== A few more possibilities from the 1700's ==

economics (1785)
division of labor (1770)
patriotism (1720)--I know "isms" are often pejorative, but surely this one isn't (regardless of how some people might try to malign it?)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:00, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

:patriotism has been on the list. Division of labor is good. Economics can be liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

== Further suggestions ==

Two suggestions from Gulliver's Travels, which was published in 1726 and immediately became popular:
* Lilliputian - small-minded or trivial, used to satirise people who are preoccupied with petty squabbles.
* Yahoo - a person who embodies all the worst human characteristics because of a lack of moral or civilising influences.

--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:08, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions! I think Lilliputian is the better of the two. "Yahoo" does not seem to have retained its original meaning, perhaps due to yahoo.com's use of the term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:11, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: I agree that Lilliputian is more relevant today. It strikes me as an excellent way to describe many people's obsessions with gossip, people's personal lives, celebrities, entertainment etc while they ignore far more important concerns. It's actually amazing how much of what Swift wrote is even more relevant today than it was when he wrote it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:51, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

::: According to M-W, ''yahoo'' as a noun dates to Swift's book in 1726; ''yahoo'' as an interjection (synonym for "yippee") dates to 1870. But I disagree with both as conservative terms: ''Gulliver'' is extremely rooted in the attitudes of the [[Enlightenment]] and the glorification of Reason above all else - hardly conservative IMO. (Yes, I know that the Enlightenment produced some conservative ideas also.) [[User:Carillonneur|Carillonneur]] 12:34, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-05-03T04:31:26Z

Carillonneur:

Each year the English language develops about a thousand new words. Over the course of a century, that amounts to 100,000 new words. Since the [[King James Version]] of the [[Bible]] was published in 1611, perhaps a half a million new English words have been developed.

[[Image:Tax-spend.jpg|thumb|480px|The "tax-and-spend" slogan stuck to Harry Hopkins like a well-fitted suit.]]
The inevitable triumph of conservatism over liberalism is apparent from comparing the rates of generation of new terms of each type, and the quality of the terms so generated. Conservative terms are being generated at a faster rate, and with much higher quality, than liberal terms are. In the 20th century, for example, more conservative terms were developed, and they were developed at a steadier pace. The new liberal terms were clustered in the 1920s and 1960s, were fewer in number, and lacked the same high quality.

Powerful, insightful new conservative terms have grown at a geometric rate, doubling every century. Here are some examples developed since the King James Version was published:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[accountability]]
|1794
|
|-
|alarmism
|1867
|needless warnings
|-
|[[American dream]]
|1911<ref>1911 is the date given by the "OED", which refers to the Oxford English Dictionary. The Merriam-Webster dictionary gives a date of 1931.</ref>
|
|-
|Americanism
|1781
|Originally, a phrase unique to American English, later, loyalty to America and its principles
|-
|anti-Christian
|1900s
|about a million sites turn up in a Google search, yet the Merriam-Webster dictionary doesn't recognize this important term
|-
|assimilate
|late 1800s
|the desired absorption of immigrant groups into the culture and mores of the resident population
|-
|bailout
|1951
|wasting taxpayer money to rescue, temporarily, a failing company
|-
|biased
|1649
|
|-
|[[Blue Dog Democrat]]
|1995
|A person who adheres to conservative principles within the Democratic party, once called a Boll Weevil
|-
|bootstrap
|1856
|Unaided effort, personal merit, hard work
|-
|bork
|1988
|coined by William Safire to refer to how Democrats savage a conservative nominee, such as their defeat of Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork.
|-
|brinkmanship
|1956
|the art of displaying a willingness to use military force in order to obtain a just resolution to a conflict between nations
|-
|[[bureaucracy]]
|1818
|
|-
|Columbian
|1757
|relating to Christopher Columbus ''or the United States''
|-
|competitive
|1829
|
|-
|[[conservative]]
|1831
|
|-
|copyright
|1735
|extending private property to protect expressive works
|-
|constant
|1832
|(noun) something unchanging in value
|-
|counterexample
|1957
|an example that is contrary to the proposition
|-
|[[culture war]]
|1991
|widespread use after the book ''Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America'' by James Davison Hunter
|-
|death tax
|1989
|interesting, the term was coined by Canadians opposed to the high estate tax on their assets held in the United States
|-
|decrypt
|1935
|military code-breaking, which played an instrumental role in World War II in deciphering enemy codes that many felt were unbreakable
|-
|deflation
|1891
|an increase in the value of savings
|-
|demagogue
|1648
|
|-
|[[deregulation]]
|1963
|Reagan won in 1980 by campaigning on this.
|-
|design by committee
|before 1958
|Pejorative directed against collective production by a group
|-
|[[deterrence]]
|1861
|
|-
|domino effect
|1966
|how the fall of one nation to communism can result in its harmful spread to neighboring nations
|-
|double standard
|1894
|applying harsher criticism against one group, such as churchgoers, than against another group, such as atheists
|-
|dumb down
|1933
|
|-
|[[efficiency]]
|1633
|Ultimately from the Latin ''efficientem'', meaning ''"working out, or accomplishing"''<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=efficient Online Etymological Dictionary]</ref>
|-
|[[elementary proof]]
|1865
|a mathematical proof based on the minimum assumptions associated with real analysis; term probably does not predate [[complex analysis]] and its first use may have been the English mathematician James Joseph Sylvester's paper, "On an elementary proof and generalisation of Sir Isaac Newton's hitherto
undenionstrated rule for the discovery of imaginary roots."<ref>http://www.archive.org/stream/circular129johnuoft/circular129johnuoft_djvu.txt</ref>
|-
|[[elitism]]
|1950
|
|-
|[[entitlement]]
|1944
|
|-
|[[ethnic voting]]
|1900s
|widely recognized and even advocated by some,<ref>http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/5/2/3/4/p152345_index.html</ref> yet the dictionary doesn't yet recognize it
|-
|falsifiability
|1934
|first emphasized by Karl Popper in 1934, this helps define science: if a proposition is false, then it can be shown to be false. If not, then the proposition is not scientific.
|-
|[[family values]]
|1916
|widespread use after a speech by Vice President [[Dan Quayle]], 1992
|-
|[[fellow traveller]]
|1925
|May have existed earlier, but popularized in 1924 by Trotsky. Describes a sympathizer of a cause but who does not formally belong to the cause, such as a [[communist]] sympathizer who is not part of the communist party.
|-
|forward-looking
|1800
|planning for the future rather than dwelling on the past
|-
|[[free enterprise]]
|1820
|
|-
|free market
|1907
|
|-
|free world
|1949
|areas of the world free of communism
|-
|gateway drug
|1982
|abuse of alcohol/marijuana eventually leads to harder drugs cocaine/heroin
|-
|globalism
|1997
|MW states it was first used in 1943<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/globalism</ref> and the OED gives a date of 1965 for the exact term 'globalism'<ref>http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50095613/50095613se2?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=globalism&first=1&max_to_show=10&hilite=50095613se2</ref> the term "globalization" was first used in the mid-1980s in a different, complimentary sense.
|-
|go-getter
|1921
|
|-
|Good Samaritan
|1640
|how genuine charity is the best approach
|-
|[[grade inflation]]
|1975
|the tendency by Liberal educationalists and public schools to increase marks, irrespective of merit or actual achievement.
|-
|[[grassroots]]
|1901
|
|-
|Hawthorne effect
|1962
|the increase in achievement resulting merely from being observed; this was demonstrated by experiment at the Hawthorne Works of Western Electric in Cicero, Illinois
|-
|[[homeschool]]
|1980<ref>The OED assigns a date of origin of 1850 to "homeschool".</ref>
|
|-
|identity politics
|1988
|exploiting politics for racial, ethnic, gender equality.
|-
|incompleteness
|1931
|a system of logic or mathematics that includes propositions that are impossible to prove or disprove; term coined as a result of [[Kurt Godel]]'s work in 1931
|-
|individualism
|1827
|values, rights and duties arise from the individual
|-
|inflationary
|1920
|policies causing inflation of the monetary supply
|-
|informed consent
|1967
|consent to surgery is meaningful only if informed, a requirement that should apply to abortion
|-
|initiative
|1793
|self-starting first step toward improvement
|-
|interventionism
|1923
|"governmental interference in economic affairs at home or in political affairs of another country"<ref>Merriam-Webster (1994).</ref>
|-
|invisible hand
|1776
|Coined by Adam Smith in the ''Wealth of Nations'' and widely used today, yet Merriam-Webster fails to recognize it!<ref>This term is absent from the 1994 print edition of the Merriam-Webster dictionary</ref>
|-
|Iron curtain
|1945
|coined by Winston Churchill in a speech in Missouri just after World War II, to describe the communist's figurative wall against freedom
|-
|judicial activism
|1947
|First coined in an article in ''Fortune'' magazine by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.,<ref>http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/278089</ref> and repeatedly used in U.S. Supreme Court opinions since 1967,<ref>''United States v. Wade'',
388 U.S. 218 (1967).</ref> yet as of 2009 [[Merriam-Webster]] dictionary still fails to recognize this widely used term.
|-
|judicial supremacist
|2004
|One who advocates that the courts should be supreme over the other branches of government for certain legal issues; first coined in a book by [[Phyllis Schlafly]]; first used by the judiciary by the Michigan Supreme Court in ''Paige v. City of Sterling Heights'', 476 Mich. 495 (2006).<ref>A similar yet different concept, "judicial supremacy," was coined by [[conservative]] Supreme Court Justice [[Robert H. Jackson]] as the title of his book,'' The Struggle for Judicial Supremacy: A Study of a Crisis in American Political Power'' (New York: Knopf, 1941).</ref>
|-
|junk science
|1962<ref>http://rated.com/dir/Society/Issues/Environment/Opposing_Views/Junk_Science</ref>
|the corruption of the scientific method to advance other goals
|-
|jury nullification
|1948
|the power of a jury to overrule the law and acquit an ostensibly guilty defendant; the power was established in the colonies in 1735 in the trial of [[John Peter Zenger]], but this term was first used in state court by Pfeuffer v. Haas, 55 S.W.2d 111 (Tex. Civ. App. 1932) and in federal court by ''Skidmore v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.'', 167 F.2d 54 (2nd Cir. 1948)
|-
|Kremlinology
|1958
|the study of the otherwise indecipherable behavior of the government of the [[communist]] [[Soviet Union]]. Refers to the Kremlin, the traditional seat of Russian government (Soviet or not).
|-
|laissez-faire
|1825
|opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond what is minimally necessary
|-
|[[Essay:Liberal hysteria|hysteria]]
|1801
|From the Latin ''hystericus'', from Greek ''hystera '' meaning ''"womb"''<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hysteria Meriam Webster Dictionary]</ref> (an old notion that hysteria was caused by the [[womb]]).
|-
|local
|1824<ref>This date refers to its first usage as a ''noun'', which is an estimate of its adoption as a concept.</ref>
|common usage: "all politics is local"
|-
|[[microeconomics]]
|1947
|the study of the economics of the individual person or business
|-
|[[meritocracy]]
|1958
|
|-
|missile defense
|1980s
|popularized by President Ronald Reagan as part of [[SDI]]
|-
|mobocracy
|1754
|rule by a mob, as at Wikipedia
|-
|Murphy's Law
|1958
|if something can go wrong, then it will go wrong: that was a conservative insight by an engineer Edward Murphy
|-
|myopic
|1752
|originally a term in optometry, 1990's used to describe liberals lack of foresight
|-
|negativism
|1824
|mental attitude that tends that is skeptical about almost everything, except one's own views
|-
|newspeak
|1949
|political or media expressions using circumlocution and euphemisms to disguise or distract from the truth; first coined by [[George Orwell]] in ''[[1984]]''
|-
|non-justiciable
|1922<ref>Used by the state attorneys for West Virginia (including Philip Steptoe, founder of Steptoe & Johnson) in ''Pennsylvania v. West Virginia'', 262 U.S. 553 (1923): "It is not the 'subject of judicial cognizance,' Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 15; Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S 1, 15; Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 233, or 'susceptible of judicial solution.' Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S. 1, 18, 22; Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 233, 234."</ref>
|a difficult issue that the courts should not attempt to resolve, often because it is too political in nature
|-
|[[opportunity cost]]
|1911
|
|-
|originalism
|1985
|taken from original intent, The belief that the United States Constitution should be interpreted in the way the authors originally intended it
|-
|optimism
|1759
|
|-
|parenting
|1958
|Children raising
|-
|Parkinson's Law
|1955
|how bureaucracies expand regardless of the productivity, and how inefficient work expands to fill the time available for its completition
|-
|patriotism
|1726
|
|-
|[[personhood]] <ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/personhood Personhood] Dictionary.com</ref>
|1955
|Inherent rights guaranteed to all human beings from the beginning of their biological development, including the pre-born, partially born. Also, the state or fact of being a person.
|-
|[[phonics]]
|1684
|
|-
|[[politically correct]]
|1983
|This term originated among radicals at the [[University of Wisconsin-Madison]] to enforce radical orthodoxy, but immediately flipped in usage to become a term of mockery of radicals.<ref>For an early different usage of the word, see 1793 J. WILSON in U.S. Rep. (U.S. Supreme Court) 2 (1798) 462 Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our..language... ‘The United States’, instead of the ‘People of the United States’, is the toast given. This is not politically correct.</ref> The term may have come from Chairman Mao in 1936.
|-
|potential
|1817<ref>Usage here refers to "promise", not "possibility".</ref>
|
|-
|privatize
|1940
|to return a business or enterprise from state to private control; to de-nationalize.
|-
|productive
|1612
|
|-
|productivity
|1810
|the gap of about 200 years between the creation of "productive" and "productivity" is astounding
|-
|[[pro-life]]
|1960
|
|-
|property right
|1853
|
|-
|race card
|1995<ref>This is the date of its widespread familiarity.</ref>
|"Playing the race card" consists of relying on racial emotions or charges of racism in order to overcome the truth and logic in politics, legal proceedings, or otherwise; this term became familiar in the criticism of the defense and acquittal of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife and her friend.
|-
|[[relativism]]
|1865
|the view that ethical truths are not absolute, but depend on the person or group that holds them
|-
|[[responsibility]]
|1737
|1787 HAMILTON Federalist No. 63 II. 193 Responsibility in order to be reasonable must be limited to objects within the power of the responsible party.
|-
|reverse discrimination
|1969
|the use of quotas or affirmative action to use race or gender to discriminate against a better qualified person
|-
|school choice
|1980
|popularized by Milton Friedman in his book, ''Free to Choose''
|-
|[[self-defense]]
|1651
|
|-
|[[Discipline|self-discipline]]
|1838
|
|-
|self-indulgence
|1753
|
|-
|self-reliant
|1848
|
|-
|slippery slope
|1900s
|term has been widely used for decades to expose the fallacy of "it doesn't hurt to try"
|-
|spend-and-tax
|2009<ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/02/morning-bell-the-obama-tax-and-spend-economy-is-here/</ref>
|a variation on "tax-and-spend" (see below), "spend-and-tax" consists of spending the money first and then trying to justify raising taxes based on the deficit created by the spending
|-
|straw man
|1896
|an imaginary argument or example set up for the purpose of easily knocking down, while distracting from valid arguments
|-
|tax-and-spend
|1937
|Not yet recognized by Merriam-Webster, it is included in dictionary.com and it means the liberal policy of raising taxes and increasing government spending
|-
|terrorism
|1795
|this was during the French Revolution
|-
|[[term limits]]
|1861
|can you believe this is not in the dictionary yet? Merriam-Webster omits it, but dictionary.com has it<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/term+limit</ref>
|-
|trademark
|1838
|extends the concept of private property to the marks used by business
|-
|traditionalism
|1856
|"beliefs of those opposed to [[modernism]], [[liberalism]], or [[radicalism]]"
|-
|[[transaction cost]]
|1961
|Economist [[Ronald Coase]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] for this.
|-
|traditionalist
|1856
|"adherence to the doctrines or practices of a tradition...the beliefs of those opposed to modernism, liberalism, or radicalism"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/traditionalist</ref>
|-
|tree huggers
|1970s
|still not recognized by the dictionary, this term criticizes extreme environmentalists, but they proudly use the term also to describe what they literally do
|-
|trust but verify
|1980s
|popularized by President Ronald Reagan as the approach to use towards communist [[deceit]]
|-
|vandalism
|1798
|malicious destruction of someone else's property
|-
|veracity
|1623
|devotion to truthfulness
|-
|victimization
|1840
|
|-
|wannabee
|1981
|a word that criticizes liberal [[status worship]]
|-
|War on Terror
|2001
|no listing at Merriam-Webster, Encyclopedia.com has an anti-American version <ref>[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O48-waronterrorism.html war on terrorism] Encyclopedia.com</ref> February 2, 2009 Obama ends use of the conservative lexicon. <ref>[http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=17455 Obama administration drops 'war on terror' phrase] Pew Forum, February 2, 2009</ref>
|-
|work ethic
|1951
|a habit of working as a moral good
|-
|worldview
|1858
|a comprehensive way of looking at life and the world; sometimes used to criticize a liberal's irrational belief system
|-
|}

== Rate of Generation of Conservative Terms ==

The rate of generation of conservative terms is increasing at a remarkable geometric rate of growth, by doubling each century:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Century
!# New Conservative Terms
|-
|1600s
|7
|-
|1700s
|14
|-
|1800s
|28
|-
|1900s
|63
|-
|2000s
|3 (preliminary)
|-
|}

== Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary ==

A thousand new words are developed in English each year. Here is a growing list of conservative concepts, each of which is not yet defined by a single word or two.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Not Yet Recognized Terms
!Suggestions
!Comments
|-
|9/10 mindset
|pre-9/11 thinking
|terror is jurisdiction of the courts
|-
|Unaffected by, or impervious to, the media
|mediaproof
|cf. bulletproof. ''Once John became aware of the extent of [[liberal deceit]], he set about mediaproofing his mind''.
|-
|easily amused by [[deceit]]
|dolophile
|from Greek/Latin root ''dolo-'' meaning guile, deceit, deception [http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/664]
|-
|morally bankrupt
|[[atheism]], self-void
|ethically and spiritually challenged souls
|-
|Hatred of one's country, refusal to recognize the good elements of it, or unreasonably critical of it
|Misopatria, misopatrist
|From Greek ''misein'', to hate, and Latin ''patria'', nation or homeland
|-
|true emergency
|life support
|meaning a high probability of serious injury or death to an individual or property. Emergency has been watered down, e.g. to be locked out of one's car.
|-
|the opposite of [[materialism]]
|spiritualism and idealism have been its philosophical opposites, historically
|[[dualism]] has been suggested, but it is not the ''opposite'' of [[materialism]]; "spiritualism" is not a common term and is the "opposite" of materialism
|-
|runaway jury
|
|The term has existed for decades, but Merriam-Webster has not recognized it yet.
|-
|[[Second generation atheist|second-generation atheist]]
|cradle atheist
|
|-
|denial that [[Hell]] exists
|Hell-denier? Antinfernal?
|
|-
|[[deliberate ignorance]]
|
|the term exists; the dictionary does not yet include it
|-
|proven wrong, a refusal to admit it
|mulism; heel-digger?
|cf. mulish. This refusal is what promoted the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]].
|-
|[[Illegal Alien|illegal alien]]
|
|widely used in court decisions and political discourse for years, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it is as a term.
|-
|strict constructionism
|
|an important term for over 200 years to describe adherence to the text of the Constitution, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it.
|-
|[[abstinence denial|denier of the effectiveness of abstinence]]
|abstinence-denier?
|-
|anti-family
|tradition opposer, familiopathic
|
|-
|dramacast
|tabloid news
|mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline
|-
|[[militant gays]]
|intimidating homosexual
|
|-
|causing harm by spreading falsehoods
|
|e.g., denying or concealing disease and infertility caused by promiscuity
|-
|[[peer pressure]]
|
|can you believe that isn't recognized by Merriam-Webster?
|-
|modern idolatry
|"media idolatry"; "money idolatry"; "celebrity idolatry"
|idolatry conjures images of golden calves, and a modern version is needed
|-
|Rule of Law
|
|
|-
|[[schlockumentary]]
|propaganda film
|documentary films based falsehoods and half-truths
|-
|}

== New Liberal Terms ==

New liberal words often have deceptive, or nonsensical, meanings. Here are some new words created by liberals to combat [[conservatism]]:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[Atheism|atheist]]
|1571
|useful and often deceptive alternative name for an anti-Christian
|-
|[[Big Bang theory|big bang]]
|1948
|term invented by the leading [[British]] physicist Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] to ''mock'' this suggestion of how the universe was formed
|-
|bilingual education
|1972
|a euphemism describing a costly and hurtful program that hinders the learning of English by foreign-born children in American [[public school]]s, which hurts their future opportunities
|-
|[[carbon footprint]]
|1999<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carbon%20footprint</ref>
|term indicates an individual human's effect on the environment by production of carbon dioxide
|-
|chairperson
|1971
|Even Alice Sturgis, the leading parliamentarian of the 20th century, rejected this cumbersome form of political correctness.
|-
|check-off
|1911
|automatic deduction of union dues by the employer from the employee's paycheck, so he has no choice
|-
|[[class warfare]]
|
|first entered the political lexicon primarily as an attack by liberals against conservatives. <ref>[http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030115.html The art of "class warfare"], Ben Fritz, Spinsanity.org, January 15, 2003</ref>
|-
|[[communism]]
|1840
|
|-
|compassion fatigue
|1968
|Liberals, driven by materialistic self-interest, are likely to suffer from this.
|-
|[[condescension]]
|1647
|Treating another person as though they are inferior
|-
|[[creationism]]
|1880
|like most "isms", creationism is a derogatory term coined preferred most by opponents of it.
|-
|[[Dark Ages]]
|1730
|A term coined in the so-called [[enlightenment]] to disparage the period between the fall of the [[Roman Empire]] and c.1000, when the Christian faith, and its learning and culture, spread across Europe.
|-
|[[Dead white males|dead white males]]
|
|a disparaging term used of significant figures from previous generations by those who wish to undermine [[Cultural Literacy|cultural literacy]]
|-
|deconstruction
|1973
|a style of interpretation of texts that looks beyond the plain meaning of the text and instead infers social bias
|-
|diva
|1883
|modern use to describe female Hollywood/media personalities
|-
|[[Détente|detente]]
|1970s
|A euphemism referring to pacifist policy re. the Soviet Union
|-
|distributive justice
|
|A term used to redefine socialist abridgment of rights as "just"
|-
|[[enlightenment]]
|1669
|
|-
|[[Environmentalist|environmentalism]]
|1922
|a mixture of [[pseudoscience]] and neo-[[paganism]] used to justify the imposition of [[socialist]]ic controls.
|-
|freethinker
|1692
|the euphemism "free" hides the hostility towards faith, which is not free
|-
|[[fundamentalism]]
|1922
|"a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism</ref> From a series of pamphlets called "The Fundamentals" which outlined the movement. Perjorative usage started when the liberal [[Harry Emerson Fosdick]] began using the term in a straw man attack against [[Conservative Christianity]].
|-
|[[feminism]]
|1895
|notionally, "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes"; in reality, the attempt to destroy traditional family, societal and religious values by erasing or undermining natural gender differences.
|-
|[[gay rights]]
|1969
|The movement for civil rights for homosexuals
|-
|glass ceiling
|1984
|the notion that an invisible barrier prevents women and ethnic minorities from reaching high office; an excuse for [[feminist]]s and others to demand [[affirmative action]]
|-
|[[global warming]]
|1969
|The baseless [[environmentalist]] mantra that the earth's temperature is rising, and that human intervention is the cause.
|-
|gun control
|1969
|a euphemism for restricting the right to keep and bear arms
|-
|[[homophobia]]
|1969
|used by Liberals to describe a failure to subscribe 100% to the [[homosexual agenda]].
|-
|[[humanism]]
|1808 <ref>http://newhumanist.org.uk/1740</ref>
|
|-
|[[imperialism]]
|1851
|a clever term later used by liberals to interfere with Christian missionaries and stopping anti-Christian tyranny
|-
|[[isolationism]]
|1922
|a pejorative term that is critical of American politicians putting America first in priorities
|-
|Keynesianism
|1946
|advocacy of 'tax and spend' policies as elaborated by the economist [[John Maynard Keynes]]; a [[euphemism]] for back-door [[Socialism]].
|-
|[[Living Constitution]]
|2000
|a continually evolving Constitution (first used by presidential candidate Al Gore, title of a 1936 book by Howard McBain)
|-
|McCarthyism
|1950
|Originally, investigations by Sen. Joe McCarthy of Communists working in sensitive USA government jobs. Later, it more broadly refers to holding radical leftists accountable for their beliefs and loyalties.
|-
|[[metrosexual]]
|1994
|fashion and glamour man
|-
|moderate
|late 1900s
|the original term dates from the French Revolution, but its meaning today is a euphemism for someone who favors abortion and/or supports censorship of Christianity in some ways.
|-
|nationalize
|1800
|a euphemism for the government taking over ownership and control of a large company or entire industry, as in socialism
|-
|natural selection
|1857
|a misleading and euphemistic term for the theory that genetic advantages and conflict dictate survival
|-
|[[population control]]
|1968
|the issue of population dates back to Confucius. Liberals promoted the term after the book The Population Bomb by Paul R. Ehrlich
|-
|[[pro-choice]]
|1975
|a euphemism for insisting on taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]; people who claim to be pro-choice typically oppose ''informed'' choice, which makes the "choice" meaningless
|-
|[[progressivism]]
|1892
|the progressive movement was not entirely liberal; it was started by a Republican and shared some goals with conservatives, and still does
|-
|[[psychoanalysis]]
|1906
|contributed to de-spiritualization of human beings
|-
|[[quote mining]]
|non-existent
|a term used by [[evolutionists]] to describe taking quotes out of context in order to damage the position of the quoted party.
|-
|[[racism]]
|
|If you don't support Barack Obama, you are guilty of....
|-
|[[Sexual Discrimination|sexism]]
|1968
|That which is practiced by those who do not give total support to [[feminism]].
|-
|situation ethics
|1955
|a euphemism for denying fixed ethical standards
|-
|strict liability
|1869
|court-imposed liability even when there is no evidence of any fault by the defendant
|-
|sustainability
|1727
|[[environmentalism|environmentalist]] buzzword
|-
|Swift-Boating
|2004
|Allegations of unfair campaign tactics.
|-
|undocumented immigrant
|2000
|a [[politically correct]] replacement for illegal alien.
|-
|unfair
|1700
|
|-
|union shop
|1904
|
|-
|[[Unitarian]]
|1687
|
|-
|will to power
|1907
|[[Nietzche]]'s concept of the drive of a superman to perfect himself by exercising creative power; it didn't catch on
|-
|}

== Rate of Generation of Liberal Terms ==

The rate of generation of liberal terms is increasing:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Century
!# New Liberal Terms
|-
|1600s
|4
|-
|1700s
|2
|-
|1800s
|9
|-
|1900s
|26 (7 in the 1960s)
|-
|2000s
|3
|-
|}

== New Terms Difficult to Classify ==

These new terms are difficult to classify:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|[[Affirmative Action|affirmative action]]
|1961
|first used in [http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal6/eo10925.htm JFK's Executive Order 10925] in 1961 and subsequently promoted by [[LBJ]].
|-
|bipartisan
|1909
|emphasized by liberals when they are in the minority in power, but ignored by liberals when they are the majority in power
|-
|Cold War
|1947
|open hostilities and ideological driven differences between nations
|-
|smoke and mirrors
|1982
|describes the use of deceit, particularly in politics; probably a conservative term, but will await more etymology about it
|-
|telecommute
|1974<ref>This first use was in the British magazine ''The Economist''.</ref>
|a combination of a Greek root ("tele", which means "far off") and a Latin root ("commutare", which means "to exchange")
|-
|[[twilight zone]]
|1949
|the realm of imagination that seems impossible but is difficult to disprove, and which challenges ordinary views of reality; also the terminator between night and day on a planetary body
|-
|}

== Downgraded Conservative Terms ==

These conservative terms are less significant:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|byzantine
|1794<ref>The usage here -- in sense of complex governmental rules -- probably developed later.</ref>
|
|-
|[[entropy]]
|1868
|
|-
|[[filibuster]]
|1851
|
|-
|incandescent
|1794
|bright and radiant, conquering darkness, precursor to the invention of the incandescent lamp (light bulb)
|-
|Luddite
|1811
|one who opposes and even destroys technological advances
|-
|media
|1923
|
|-
|[[milquetoast]]
|1933
|
|-
|normalcy
|1920
|related to the election of [[Warren G. Harding]] by the largest margin yet in history
|-
|ne'er-do-well
|1736
|"an idle worthless person" - Merriam-Webster
|-
|reticent
|1834
|restrained in expression, presentation, or appearance
|-
|}

== Sources ==

*[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ Merriam-Webster dictionary]

== See also ==

*[[Essay:Surprising Dates of Origin for Terms]]

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

[[Category:Essays]]

Talk:World History Lecture Eleven

2009-04-24T19:51:11Z

Carillonneur: /* Regarding Trotsky */

I noticed this spelling, Guomindang; can we make redirects like Kuomintang, or such, or how do you wish to handle things like this? Thanks. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:48, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Who's Andy Schlafly? How about some bibliographic info? [[User:Testing|Testing]] 15:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:He made the site...--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

''Stalin established a brutal totalitarian state, whereby he dictated all aspects of life and used violence to destroy any opponents. A secret police aided Stalin in his vicious execution of all opponents.''

And none of this happened under kindly Uncle Lenin? [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 10:29, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Why does it not mention that Warren G. Harding was one of the most corrupt presidents ever? And that he is regularly ranked among the worst presidents by most historians?

: Do you think Harding was almost as corrupt as recent Democratic Administrations???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:38, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

::Almost as corrupt? try far more corrupt. He had multiple affairs before and during is time in office. he paid one of his mistresses $50,000 not to reveal the affair. his administration was a den of nepotism. he appointed personal friends to important positions such as head of the veterans bureau. His nepotistically appointed friend Charles Forbes, head of the veterans bureau, stole $200 million from the federal government, and his attorney general Daugherty was found to have profited from illegal shipments of alcohol. so yes, i'd say his corruption and that of his administration FAR exceeded that of any recent democratic administration!!!!{{unsigned|JBryant}}

::Well????

::: Are you sure you aren't trying to describe some of the problems in the Clinton Administration???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:59, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

::::Are you sure you're not trying to dodge the question???????????????????????????
listen, I"m no fan of Clinton or the democrats. I think that all presidents, liberal AND conservative need to be held accountable for their actions. I think that it is revisionist to not include Harding's shortcomings. I know that if he had been liberal, you'd be all over his affairs and other such corruption. I'm just asking that you be fair and balanced in terms of talking about corruption. is that too much to ask? [[User:JBryant|JBryant]] 11:13, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

: No, you're wrong in suggesting that a quality world history course would waste time on [[gossip]] about Harding if he had been liberal. This is a quality history course. Read the National Enquirer if you have a need for gossip.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:50, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

== Theory of Relativity ==

This section is full of strange mistakes. Are we permitted to edit the lectures here so that the students get accurate science instruction? For example, the Theory or Relativity does not care whether the speed of light changed over time. It probably has not changed, but the theory has no preference either way. Also, why does the author state that the Theory of Relativity has nothing to do with the atom bomb or any other technology? This statement lacks any point or precision. It' not true that the theory of relativity has nothing to do with technologies we use today. Also the Theory of Relativity does not reject "Newton's Theory." It merely modifies certain Newtonian kinematics, as for very high velocities. Also, the Theory of Relativity has nothing to do with moral relativism. Why does the author keep saying it does? It is a scientific theory, not a theory of morality. I am interested in assisting with this project if it is open for participation! [[User:ShmuelB|ShmuelB]] 12:24, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

: The truth is welcome. Falsehoods, even popular ones, are not. Your comments are historically or factually incorrect, unfortunately.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:17, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

== Postulates of Special Relativity ==

I clarified one postulate, i.e., ''The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their relative speeds.'' That seems to be an improvement over ''the speed of light never changes''...

This section - especially in its disparagement of Einstein's work - is something you don't find in any common textbook on the history of sciences. Therefore, I'd wish that A. Schlafly would include some sources to bolster his claims.

Unfortunately, such a (in my eyes, mainly unjustified) critique of the importance of the theories of relativity invokes memories of the ''German Physics''.

[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:30, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

:It is '''inappropriate''' to compare scientific skepticism about materialist science to Naziism.
:If you find me ten articles that accept the theory of relativity and use it to make historical claims, I can show you ten articles that accept that the speed of light is constant. Do you think that is some sort of coincidence?
:I do not think it is a coincidence. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:03, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

:: I don't find any substance in either of the above comments. If you have a specific factual improvement to the article, then let's see it. Otherwise, let's move on.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

@Aschlafly: My ''specific factual improvement'' of the article is a change of your wording (''the speed of light never changes'') of one of Einstein's postulate of the theory of relativity.
Here a some versions which I looked up over the last days:
*'''Wolfgang Pauli''' ''Theory of Relativity'', 1958, p. 5: ''The velocity of light is independent of the motion of the light source''

*'''Robert Resnick''', '''David Halliday''' ''Fundamentals of Physics'', 7th ed. 1996, p. 1254: ''The speed of light in vacuum has the same value in all inertial frames, regardless of the velocity of the observer or the velocity of the source emitting the light''

and from a source you seem to trust:

*'''[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relativity Merriam-Webster]''' ''the speed of light in a vacuum is constant and independent of the source or observer''
None of these - and many others - implies that the ''speed of light never changes''. They stress the point that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source or the observer - and I think that's the rather baffling, exciting part for everyone who is confronted with this postulates for the first time.

None of those states that ''the speed of light never changes'', but they emphasize the mind-baffling (at least for everyone who is confronted with this theory for the first time) fact that the velocity of light is ''independent of the motion of the light source''.

The phrase ''the speed of light never changes'' is at least unfortunate as it implies that the speed of light has never changed since the begin of the universe. But the postulates doesn't require this, the same theory would hold with a speed of light of 300 km/h instead of 300,000 km/s...

@BHarlan: ''If you find me ten articles that accept the theory of relativity and use it to make historical claims, I can show you ten articles that accept that the speed of light is constant.'' I honestly don't know what you want say here...

That said, I hope you'll approve that I change the lecture to the version of Wolfgang Pauli.

[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 14:07, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

:Pauli did not use it, in the quote you supply, to make historical claims. I maintain my promise of ten for ten, and I caution you against attacking the conservative worldview by prevaricating on what "historical" means. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 15:21, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

::I stated above that I won't touch the ''historical'' aspects of the lecture, but only the ''scientific'' ones. So, I rectified or - if you prefer - improved a scientific statement. That has nothing to do with a certain ''Weltanschauung'', that's just a question whether a formulation is used in physics or not.
::I think that Aschlafly will accept a formulation which is similar to the one used at Conservapedia's article on the [[Theory of Relativity]].
::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 15:55, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

::''addendum'' It isn't my lecture. But it isn't an essay, neither, and the page is not protected. Due to the very nature of these lectures, any change should be done after consideration. The quotes above should show that I tried to be painstakingly diligent. That said, I will change the lecture '''again''', and I like to ask you, BHarlan, for a source of the first version of the postulate - if you have the intention to undo my edit, that is... [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 16:02, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I've to admit that I'm not glad with the current version (''the speed of light can never be increased''). It's not a general accepted version of the postulates, and differs greatly from the examples I gave above. I don't know why it seems to be necessary to find a new, somehow unique formulation of these century-old postulates. One doesn't take much liberty with the phrasing of ''Newton's axioms'', and one shouldn't with ''Einstein's postulates'', neither.
But as you obviously want to show some creativity, I won't argue any longer.
[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 08:01, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

: Clement, where did your accusation that "you obviously want to show some creativity" come from??? It's bizarre.

: I'm looking for the clearest explanation of the postulate. I don't think your version is any more historically accurate than mine, and yours is far more difficult for history students to understand. Good teaching is about .... clear teaching. It does not allow confusing students with contorted, confusing statements.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:56, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Sorry, that wasn't meant as an accusation, that's just an observation: instead of using a formulation of Einstein's postulates which is to be found only with small alterations in most textbook on physics - and even in the Merriam-Webster, you prefer your own wording. That's creative.
:: [[Pauli exclusion principle|Pauli]]'s version in not only more ''historically'' accurate, it is more ''scientifically'' accurate. Of course, the whole concept is baffling. So it may be a little bit more difficult to understand - but you have bright students! And it can be understood correctly.
:: BTW, you will find scant scientists or educators who judge Pauli's statements as contorted or confusing.
:: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 14:05, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

::: I wasn't offended by your "observation", but found it to be inexplicably bizarre. I articulated the postulate, then you replaced it with a far more complex and non-historical substitute, and then I simplified it into something clearer. Your response was a petulant accusation, without even addressing the substance my improvement. Are you saying the more concise, clearer formulation is wrong? I can't even tell what your view is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:42, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: Until now, the history of the formulations of the postulate in the lecture reads like:
::::# the speed of light never changes (original by Aschlafly)
::::# the speed is the same for all observers (no matter what their relative speeds) (Clement B.)
::::# the speed of light never changes (reversion by BHarlan)
::::# the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source (Pauli's version inserted by Clement B.)
::::# the speed can never be increased (second version of Aschlafly)

::::Your formulations are shorter, but neither more concise or clearer. Furthermore, I don't know how you can label W. Pauli's version as non-historical?
::::In his article ''Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper'' - ''About the electrodynamics of moving bodies'' (Annalen der Physik, 1905, p 891), Einstein wrote
:::::'' 1. Die Gesetze, nach denen sich die Zustände der physikalischen Systeme ändern, sind unabhängig davon, auf welches von zwei relativ zueinander in gleichförmiger Translationsbewegung befindlichen Koordinatensystemen diese Zustandsänderungen bezogen werden.''

:::::''2. Jeder Lichtstrahl bewegt sich im ,,ruhenden“ Koordinatensystem mit der bestimmten Geschwindigkeit V , unabhängig davon, ob dieser Lichtstrahl von einem ruhenden oder bewegten Körper emittiert ist. ''

::::This would be the historic origin of the postulates. A translation:

:::::''1. The laws which describe the change of the properties of physical systems are independent of a steady translation of the coordinates in which this changes are described''

:::::''2. Any ray of light moves in «stationary» coordinates with a certain velocity V, regardless whether this ray was emitted from a stationary or moving body''

::::So, from the very beginning you find the same idea which Pauli describes concisely and clearly : '''the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source'''

::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 16:18, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: This is an interesting and informative discussion. But Einstein said that the speed of light always moved with a "certain velocity." That is very similar to my first formulation. Pauli, who had nothing to do with the development of relativity, is saying something different. Under Pauli's formulation, the speed of light may vary. Not so under Einstein's.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:53, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Einstein speaks of a ''certain velocity V'' - ''eine gewisse Geschwindigkeit V''. This is his way to introduce an abbreviation (''V'') - you'll find similar formulations in the work of his contemporaries. In his whole essay he doesn't touch the question whether this certain velocity V has changed over time.
:::::: The main point - as it is stressed in so many textbooks - is that the speed of light is independent of the movement of the source. Think about it: It's really mind-boggling as it contradicts our intuition! I haven't met a pupil who wasn't intrigued by this, especially if you explained the ''Gedankenexperimente'' ...
:::::: To be petulant for another time: Frankly, I don't think that you can produce a better formulation than that of W. Pauli.
:::::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 18:09, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::: Clement, you're not responding to my points, and you've resorted again to a petulant mode. Do yourself a favor: open your mind and think more for yourself, rather than simply repeating what someone else said. Suit yourself, but I'm moving on to others. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: And may I give you an advise, too? Sometimes it is good to listen to those great minds who actually had the ideas in the first place. Thinking for yourself is all fine and dandy, but sometimes, it seems to be the sensible thing not to ignore a century of textbooks.
:::::::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 18:41, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: If your approach is to rely on authoritative, time-tested sources, Clement, then '''why haven't you been quoting the Bible during your many edits to this site'''? Instead, you seem very selective in which sources you quote, and as BHarlan pointed out first below, you don't even seem to interpret your own selective sources correctly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

ClementB, doesn't "a certain velocity V" imply that Einstein is saying that the speed does not change during the scope of the problem?
For instance, if I say "If a certain man V is President for two full terms, V may not be elected to a third term" or "There is a certain function f such that if a car is traveling at a certain velocity V that is less than the escape velocity, then it will fall to Earth in less than time f(V)", then the variables are not changing over the scope of the problem, no? And since some problems take place over very long periods of time, the velocity is assumed not to change over that whole period, no? And doesn't that imply that the speed of light is constant, no matter how far your twin travels? [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:26, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::: The Bible is my source of inspiration. I keep it out of my science or history classes, though.
:::::::::: Yes, I'm selective in my sources: on science, I quote scientists. I'm humble enough to know that I can't improve the insights of the greatest minds of the last century, but I am confident that I can understand what they were talking about. If you read the quotes above with an open mind, you'll find that your wording of the postulates is lacking: it covers at most half of the original of Einstein, and leaves out the baffling part. You scold me for respecting to much ''what someone else said''. May I quote Sir Isaak Newton: ''If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.''
:::::::::: I think it is prideful to refuse to climb on these shoulders, and to remain willfully in the shadows of the giants.
:::::::::: And may I say that you offered no quote, neither Biblical nor scientific, for your version of the postulate? I got the impression that you thought it up by yourself. But which sources did you use?
:::::::::: BTW, BHarlan talks about a conclusion drawn from the postulates, not the postulates themselves.
:::::::::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 07:25, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::: Perhaps you "keep" the Bible "out of" many fields of inquiry, not just science and history (and why censor the Bible from history???). I've never seen you quote or mention the Bible in any of your numerous edits here. You seem to quote everything and everyone ''except'' the Bible.

::::::::::: You've never explained why you think the lecture is incorrect with respect to its current formulation of the relativity postulate. I'm not even sure you do disagree with it, except that you say it is not how Pauli (who had nothing to do with relativity) described it. I have explained why Pauli's description is inadequate: his description ("the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source") does not expressly preclude somehow increasing the speed of light. Yet the formulas for relativity do assume that is impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]]

== Regarding Trotsky ==

While I was perusing the site last night I happened across the section eleven homework assignments and was curious as to which mottoes by John Smith and Trotsky were being referred to in one of the questions. I checked out the lecture and found the section in question and I believe there is a problem with context involved.

Whereas the Englishman Captain John Smith famously stated in the early days of the Jamestown settlement,
“He that will not work shall not eat, ”Trotsky’s famous motto was this: “Those who do not obey do not eat.”

For one, the John Smith quote seems to indicate that "He that will not work, shall not eat" is a phrase coined by John Smith. It might be good to give proper attribution to the Bible, which is where the thought originated.

Also, regarding the Trotsky quote: ''Trotsky’s famous motto was this: “Those who do not obey do not eat.”'' This indicates heavily that Trotsky advocated such a thought process and that this sentiment was inherent to the birth of communism. This is false. While communist dictators throughout the world have proven belief in this sentiment through atrocious acts of government, it was in no way Trotsky's belief or line of thinking nor was it expressed in the origins of communism as a political and economic theory. While claiming to espouse a saying more akin to "He that will not work, shall not eat", it was in fact '''Stalin''' who most embodied the phrase “Those who do not obey do not eat.”

Now I am certainly not going to make an argument for communism here, it is simply not a functional system of government, I will say that Trotsky as a historical figure has been improperly quoted via lack of significant context. Trotsky voraciously opposed the totalitarian government of Stalin which was the reason for his exile and assassination. “Those who do not obey do not eat.” was Trotsky's response to the 1936 constitution of the U.S.S.R. including the phrase :

In the U.S.S.R. work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: "He who does not work, neither
shall he eat."

“Those who do not obey do not eat.” was Trotsky's condemnation of Stalin's methods and was what Trotsky believed to be Stalin's true "motto".

On a lighter note: It may be interesting to your students that after Trotsky's assassin buried a pick-axe in his skull, The sixty year old man remained conscious and actually fought his attacker with an axe sticking out of his head. Trotsky didn't die until the next day. I've always found that interesting. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 08:25, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

: Interesting comments. Thanks. But Trotsky was a communist, just not a supporter of Stalin. Did Trotsky believe his motto? I would think so. Also, I'm not sure from where in the Bible you think John Smith's motto came. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:47, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::NicholasT explained how this wasn't Trotsky's motto, but the motto of Stalin as seen by Trotsky. He made it clear that Trotsky didn't endorse this motto
::In lecture 12, you state that Orwell fought in Spain ''against both the communists and Franco’s fascists''. But Orwell was member of a Trotskystic group. So, Orwell ''was'' a communist, wasn't he? [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:10, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Regarding the bible verse: ''"He that will not work shall not eat"'' can be found in Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thess%203:10;&version=31;2 Thessalonians 3:10]

::As for Trotsky: I may have not expressed myself well enough. ''"Those who do not obey do not eat"'' was no one's famous motto. The official motto of the Soviet Union under Stalin was ''"He who does not work, neither should he eat"''. Trotsky wrote a book in 1937 entitled "The Revolution Betrayed" in which he condemns Stalin's use of brutality within the state as an oppressive regime. In it he cites specifically Stalin's act of advising local organs to not give work to anyone sympathetic with Trotsky. Trotsky goes on to state that the lack of employment options led to followers of his philosophy lacking money, and in turn food, and leading to starvation. Trotsky says the the old motto of "who does not work shall not eat" had been replaced by Stalin with ''"Those who do not obey do not eat."''.

::My main point is this: ''"Those who do not obey do not eat."'' was not Trotsky's motto or Stalin's motto. It is a statement from a book Trotsky wrote just before his death. Trotsky claimed it to be Stalin's new motto as a point of rhetoric in an argument against Stalin's brutal methods, specifically against the Bolsheviks and supporters of Trotsky. ''"Those who do not obey do not eat."'' might be what happens when a communist dictator is in command, but as far as Trotsky is concerned it was a specific reference to Stalin's starving out of his followers and Trotsky believed it to be the wrong way to run a government. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 10:49, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::: The points above about Trotsky and Orwell are interesting, and I've spent some time without success trying to confirm t. Unfortunately, you don't provide any support for your claims. There's no doubt that Orwell fought against the communists, and that changed his view of them. There also seems to be no doubt that Trotsky said what the lecture states. The very, very subtle distinction between drawn above does not change the essential substance of the lecture, even if the claims are true.

::: I welcome a supported, well-written improvement on the lecture, but not something that would tend to confuse students with hairsplitting and debatable distinctions. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:15, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: The lecture says Trotsky used the phrase as his personal motto. Nicholas says that he used it as a way to summarize and criticize his opponent, Stalin. That's not a subtle distinction - Nicholas and the lecture report precisely opposite versions! So it's probably worth "getting to the bottom of" if indeed the lecture contains a serious inaccuracy. [EDIT]: This seems to be the source: "[http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch11.htm The Revolution Betrayed]" by Leon Trotsky, Chapter 11. The quote, a little more than halfway down, reads:

::::::...during the “purgations” in the last month of 1935 and the first half of 1936, hundreds of thousands of members of the party were again expelled, among them several tens of thousands of “Trotskyists.” The most active were immediately arrested and thrown into prisons and concentration camps. As to the rest, Stalin, through Pravda, openly advised the local organs not to give them work. In a country where the sole employer is the state, this means death by slow starvation. '''The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced with a new one: who does not obey shall not eat.''' Exactly how many Bolsheviks have been expelled, arrested, exiled, exterminated, since 1923, when the era of Bonapartism opened, we shall find out when we go through the archives of Stalin’s political police.
::::I have to say that this supports Nicholas's reading of it, since Trotsky is using the phrase to describe Stalin's reign of terror, and definitely sees the altered adage as a Very Bad Thing. [[User:Carillonneur|Carillonneur]] 15:51, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:World History Lecture Eleven

2009-04-24T19:44:11Z

Carillonneur: /* Regarding Trotsky */

I noticed this spelling, Guomindang; can we make redirects like Kuomintang, or such, or how do you wish to handle things like this? Thanks. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:48, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Who's Andy Schlafly? How about some bibliographic info? [[User:Testing|Testing]] 15:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:He made the site...--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

''Stalin established a brutal totalitarian state, whereby he dictated all aspects of life and used violence to destroy any opponents. A secret police aided Stalin in his vicious execution of all opponents.''

And none of this happened under kindly Uncle Lenin? [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 10:29, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Why does it not mention that Warren G. Harding was one of the most corrupt presidents ever? And that he is regularly ranked among the worst presidents by most historians?

: Do you think Harding was almost as corrupt as recent Democratic Administrations???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:38, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

::Almost as corrupt? try far more corrupt. He had multiple affairs before and during is time in office. he paid one of his mistresses $50,000 not to reveal the affair. his administration was a den of nepotism. he appointed personal friends to important positions such as head of the veterans bureau. His nepotistically appointed friend Charles Forbes, head of the veterans bureau, stole $200 million from the federal government, and his attorney general Daugherty was found to have profited from illegal shipments of alcohol. so yes, i'd say his corruption and that of his administration FAR exceeded that of any recent democratic administration!!!!{{unsigned|JBryant}}

::Well????

::: Are you sure you aren't trying to describe some of the problems in the Clinton Administration???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:59, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

::::Are you sure you're not trying to dodge the question???????????????????????????
listen, I"m no fan of Clinton or the democrats. I think that all presidents, liberal AND conservative need to be held accountable for their actions. I think that it is revisionist to not include Harding's shortcomings. I know that if he had been liberal, you'd be all over his affairs and other such corruption. I'm just asking that you be fair and balanced in terms of talking about corruption. is that too much to ask? [[User:JBryant|JBryant]] 11:13, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

: No, you're wrong in suggesting that a quality world history course would waste time on [[gossip]] about Harding if he had been liberal. This is a quality history course. Read the National Enquirer if you have a need for gossip.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:50, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

== Theory of Relativity ==

This section is full of strange mistakes. Are we permitted to edit the lectures here so that the students get accurate science instruction? For example, the Theory or Relativity does not care whether the speed of light changed over time. It probably has not changed, but the theory has no preference either way. Also, why does the author state that the Theory of Relativity has nothing to do with the atom bomb or any other technology? This statement lacks any point or precision. It' not true that the theory of relativity has nothing to do with technologies we use today. Also the Theory of Relativity does not reject "Newton's Theory." It merely modifies certain Newtonian kinematics, as for very high velocities. Also, the Theory of Relativity has nothing to do with moral relativism. Why does the author keep saying it does? It is a scientific theory, not a theory of morality. I am interested in assisting with this project if it is open for participation! [[User:ShmuelB|ShmuelB]] 12:24, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

: The truth is welcome. Falsehoods, even popular ones, are not. Your comments are historically or factually incorrect, unfortunately.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:17, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

== Postulates of Special Relativity ==

I clarified one postulate, i.e., ''The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their relative speeds.'' That seems to be an improvement over ''the speed of light never changes''...

This section - especially in its disparagement of Einstein's work - is something you don't find in any common textbook on the history of sciences. Therefore, I'd wish that A. Schlafly would include some sources to bolster his claims.

Unfortunately, such a (in my eyes, mainly unjustified) critique of the importance of the theories of relativity invokes memories of the ''German Physics''.

[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:30, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

:It is '''inappropriate''' to compare scientific skepticism about materialist science to Naziism.
:If you find me ten articles that accept the theory of relativity and use it to make historical claims, I can show you ten articles that accept that the speed of light is constant. Do you think that is some sort of coincidence?
:I do not think it is a coincidence. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:03, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

:: I don't find any substance in either of the above comments. If you have a specific factual improvement to the article, then let's see it. Otherwise, let's move on.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

@Aschlafly: My ''specific factual improvement'' of the article is a change of your wording (''the speed of light never changes'') of one of Einstein's postulate of the theory of relativity.
Here a some versions which I looked up over the last days:
*'''Wolfgang Pauli''' ''Theory of Relativity'', 1958, p. 5: ''The velocity of light is independent of the motion of the light source''

*'''Robert Resnick''', '''David Halliday''' ''Fundamentals of Physics'', 7th ed. 1996, p. 1254: ''The speed of light in vacuum has the same value in all inertial frames, regardless of the velocity of the observer or the velocity of the source emitting the light''

and from a source you seem to trust:

*'''[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relativity Merriam-Webster]''' ''the speed of light in a vacuum is constant and independent of the source or observer''
None of these - and many others - implies that the ''speed of light never changes''. They stress the point that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source or the observer - and I think that's the rather baffling, exciting part for everyone who is confronted with this postulates for the first time.

None of those states that ''the speed of light never changes'', but they emphasize the mind-baffling (at least for everyone who is confronted with this theory for the first time) fact that the velocity of light is ''independent of the motion of the light source''.

The phrase ''the speed of light never changes'' is at least unfortunate as it implies that the speed of light has never changed since the begin of the universe. But the postulates doesn't require this, the same theory would hold with a speed of light of 300 km/h instead of 300,000 km/s...

@BHarlan: ''If you find me ten articles that accept the theory of relativity and use it to make historical claims, I can show you ten articles that accept that the speed of light is constant.'' I honestly don't know what you want say here...

That said, I hope you'll approve that I change the lecture to the version of Wolfgang Pauli.

[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 14:07, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

:Pauli did not use it, in the quote you supply, to make historical claims. I maintain my promise of ten for ten, and I caution you against attacking the conservative worldview by prevaricating on what "historical" means. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 15:21, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

::I stated above that I won't touch the ''historical'' aspects of the lecture, but only the ''scientific'' ones. So, I rectified or - if you prefer - improved a scientific statement. That has nothing to do with a certain ''Weltanschauung'', that's just a question whether a formulation is used in physics or not.
::I think that Aschlafly will accept a formulation which is similar to the one used at Conservapedia's article on the [[Theory of Relativity]].
::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 15:55, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

::''addendum'' It isn't my lecture. But it isn't an essay, neither, and the page is not protected. Due to the very nature of these lectures, any change should be done after consideration. The quotes above should show that I tried to be painstakingly diligent. That said, I will change the lecture '''again''', and I like to ask you, BHarlan, for a source of the first version of the postulate - if you have the intention to undo my edit, that is... [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 16:02, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I've to admit that I'm not glad with the current version (''the speed of light can never be increased''). It's not a general accepted version of the postulates, and differs greatly from the examples I gave above. I don't know why it seems to be necessary to find a new, somehow unique formulation of these century-old postulates. One doesn't take much liberty with the phrasing of ''Newton's axioms'', and one shouldn't with ''Einstein's postulates'', neither.
But as you obviously want to show some creativity, I won't argue any longer.
[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 08:01, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

: Clement, where did your accusation that "you obviously want to show some creativity" come from??? It's bizarre.

: I'm looking for the clearest explanation of the postulate. I don't think your version is any more historically accurate than mine, and yours is far more difficult for history students to understand. Good teaching is about .... clear teaching. It does not allow confusing students with contorted, confusing statements.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:56, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Sorry, that wasn't meant as an accusation, that's just an observation: instead of using a formulation of Einstein's postulates which is to be found only with small alterations in most textbook on physics - and even in the Merriam-Webster, you prefer your own wording. That's creative.
:: [[Pauli exclusion principle|Pauli]]'s version in not only more ''historically'' accurate, it is more ''scientifically'' accurate. Of course, the whole concept is baffling. So it may be a little bit more difficult to understand - but you have bright students! And it can be understood correctly.
:: BTW, you will find scant scientists or educators who judge Pauli's statements as contorted or confusing.
:: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 14:05, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

::: I wasn't offended by your "observation", but found it to be inexplicably bizarre. I articulated the postulate, then you replaced it with a far more complex and non-historical substitute, and then I simplified it into something clearer. Your response was a petulant accusation, without even addressing the substance my improvement. Are you saying the more concise, clearer formulation is wrong? I can't even tell what your view is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:42, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: Until now, the history of the formulations of the postulate in the lecture reads like:
::::# the speed of light never changes (original by Aschlafly)
::::# the speed is the same for all observers (no matter what their relative speeds) (Clement B.)
::::# the speed of light never changes (reversion by BHarlan)
::::# the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source (Pauli's version inserted by Clement B.)
::::# the speed can never be increased (second version of Aschlafly)

::::Your formulations are shorter, but neither more concise or clearer. Furthermore, I don't know how you can label W. Pauli's version as non-historical?
::::In his article ''Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper'' - ''About the electrodynamics of moving bodies'' (Annalen der Physik, 1905, p 891), Einstein wrote
:::::'' 1. Die Gesetze, nach denen sich die Zustände der physikalischen Systeme ändern, sind unabhängig davon, auf welches von zwei relativ zueinander in gleichförmiger Translationsbewegung befindlichen Koordinatensystemen diese Zustandsänderungen bezogen werden.''

:::::''2. Jeder Lichtstrahl bewegt sich im ,,ruhenden“ Koordinatensystem mit der bestimmten Geschwindigkeit V , unabhängig davon, ob dieser Lichtstrahl von einem ruhenden oder bewegten Körper emittiert ist. ''

::::This would be the historic origin of the postulates. A translation:

:::::''1. The laws which describe the change of the properties of physical systems are independent of a steady translation of the coordinates in which this changes are described''

:::::''2. Any ray of light moves in «stationary» coordinates with a certain velocity V, regardless whether this ray was emitted from a stationary or moving body''

::::So, from the very beginning you find the same idea which Pauli describes concisely and clearly : '''the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source'''

::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 16:18, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: This is an interesting and informative discussion. But Einstein said that the speed of light always moved with a "certain velocity." That is very similar to my first formulation. Pauli, who had nothing to do with the development of relativity, is saying something different. Under Pauli's formulation, the speed of light may vary. Not so under Einstein's.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:53, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Einstein speaks of a ''certain velocity V'' - ''eine gewisse Geschwindigkeit V''. This is his way to introduce an abbreviation (''V'') - you'll find similar formulations in the work of his contemporaries. In his whole essay he doesn't touch the question whether this certain velocity V has changed over time.
:::::: The main point - as it is stressed in so many textbooks - is that the speed of light is independent of the movement of the source. Think about it: It's really mind-boggling as it contradicts our intuition! I haven't met a pupil who wasn't intrigued by this, especially if you explained the ''Gedankenexperimente'' ...
:::::: To be petulant for another time: Frankly, I don't think that you can produce a better formulation than that of W. Pauli.
:::::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 18:09, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::: Clement, you're not responding to my points, and you've resorted again to a petulant mode. Do yourself a favor: open your mind and think more for yourself, rather than simply repeating what someone else said. Suit yourself, but I'm moving on to others. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: And may I give you an advise, too? Sometimes it is good to listen to those great minds who actually had the ideas in the first place. Thinking for yourself is all fine and dandy, but sometimes, it seems to be the sensible thing not to ignore a century of textbooks.
:::::::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 18:41, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: If your approach is to rely on authoritative, time-tested sources, Clement, then '''why haven't you been quoting the Bible during your many edits to this site'''? Instead, you seem very selective in which sources you quote, and as BHarlan pointed out first below, you don't even seem to interpret your own selective sources correctly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

ClementB, doesn't "a certain velocity V" imply that Einstein is saying that the speed does not change during the scope of the problem?
For instance, if I say "If a certain man V is President for two full terms, V may not be elected to a third term" or "There is a certain function f such that if a car is traveling at a certain velocity V that is less than the escape velocity, then it will fall to Earth in less than time f(V)", then the variables are not changing over the scope of the problem, no? And since some problems take place over very long periods of time, the velocity is assumed not to change over that whole period, no? And doesn't that imply that the speed of light is constant, no matter how far your twin travels? [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:26, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::: The Bible is my source of inspiration. I keep it out of my science or history classes, though.
:::::::::: Yes, I'm selective in my sources: on science, I quote scientists. I'm humble enough to know that I can't improve the insights of the greatest minds of the last century, but I am confident that I can understand what they were talking about. If you read the quotes above with an open mind, you'll find that your wording of the postulates is lacking: it covers at most half of the original of Einstein, and leaves out the baffling part. You scold me for respecting to much ''what someone else said''. May I quote Sir Isaak Newton: ''If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.''
:::::::::: I think it is prideful to refuse to climb on these shoulders, and to remain willfully in the shadows of the giants.
:::::::::: And may I say that you offered no quote, neither Biblical nor scientific, for your version of the postulate? I got the impression that you thought it up by yourself. But which sources did you use?
:::::::::: BTW, BHarlan talks about a conclusion drawn from the postulates, not the postulates themselves.
:::::::::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 07:25, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::: Perhaps you "keep" the Bible "out of" many fields of inquiry, not just science and history (and why censor the Bible from history???). I've never seen you quote or mention the Bible in any of your numerous edits here. You seem to quote everything and everyone ''except'' the Bible.

::::::::::: You've never explained why you think the lecture is incorrect with respect to its current formulation of the relativity postulate. I'm not even sure you do disagree with it, except that you say it is not how Pauli (who had nothing to do with relativity) described it. I have explained why Pauli's description is inadequate: his description ("the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source") does not expressly preclude somehow increasing the speed of light. Yet the formulas for relativity do assume that is impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]]

== Regarding Trotsky ==

While I was perusing the site last night I happened across the section eleven homework assignments and was curious as to which mottoes by John Smith and Trotsky were being referred to in one of the questions. I checked out the lecture and found the section in question and I believe there is a problem with context involved.

Whereas the Englishman Captain John Smith famously stated in the early days of the Jamestown settlement,
“He that will not work shall not eat, ”Trotsky’s famous motto was this: “Those who do not obey do not eat.”

For one, the John Smith quote seems to indicate that "He that will not work, shall not eat" is a phrase coined by John Smith. It might be good to give proper attribution to the Bible, which is where the thought originated.

Also, regarding the Trotsky quote: ''Trotsky’s famous motto was this: “Those who do not obey do not eat.”'' This indicates heavily that Trotsky advocated such a thought process and that this sentiment was inherent to the birth of communism. This is false. While communist dictators throughout the world have proven belief in this sentiment through atrocious acts of government, it was in no way Trotsky's belief or line of thinking nor was it expressed in the origins of communism as a political and economic theory. While claiming to espouse a saying more akin to "He that will not work, shall not eat", it was in fact '''Stalin''' who most embodied the phrase “Those who do not obey do not eat.”

Now I am certainly not going to make an argument for communism here, it is simply not a functional system of government, I will say that Trotsky as a historical figure has been improperly quoted via lack of significant context. Trotsky voraciously opposed the totalitarian government of Stalin which was the reason for his exile and assassination. “Those who do not obey do not eat.” was Trotsky's response to the 1936 constitution of the U.S.S.R. including the phrase :

In the U.S.S.R. work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: "He who does not work, neither
shall he eat."

“Those who do not obey do not eat.” was Trotsky's condemnation of Stalin's methods and was what Trotsky believed to be Stalin's true "motto".

On a lighter note: It may be interesting to your students that after Trotsky's assassin buried a pick-axe in his skull, The sixty year old man remained conscious and actually fought his attacker with an axe sticking out of his head. Trotsky didn't die until the next day. I've always found that interesting. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 08:25, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

: Interesting comments. Thanks. But Trotsky was a communist, just not a supporter of Stalin. Did Trotsky believe his motto? I would think so. Also, I'm not sure from where in the Bible you think John Smith's motto came. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:47, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::NicholasT explained how this wasn't Trotsky's motto, but the motto of Stalin as seen by Trotsky. He made it clear that Trotsky didn't endorse this motto
::In lecture 12, you state that Orwell fought in Spain ''against both the communists and Franco’s fascists''. But Orwell was member of a Trotskystic group. So, Orwell ''was'' a communist, wasn't he? [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:10, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Regarding the bible verse: ''"He that will not work shall not eat"'' can be found in Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thess%203:10;&version=31;2 Thessalonians 3:10]

::As for Trotsky: I may have not expressed myself well enough. ''"Those who do not obey do not eat"'' was no one's famous motto. The official motto of the Soviet Union under Stalin was ''"He who does not work, neither should he eat"''. Trotsky wrote a book in 1937 entitled "The Revolution Betrayed" in which he condemns Stalin's use of brutality within the state as an oppressive regime. In it he cites specifically Stalin's act of advising local organs to not give work to anyone sympathetic with Trotsky. Trotsky goes on to state that the lack of employment options led to followers of his philosophy lacking money, and in turn food, and leading to starvation. Trotsky says the the old motto of "who does not work shall not eat" had been replaced by Stalin with ''"Those who do not obey do not eat."''.

::My main point is this: ''"Those who do not obey do not eat."'' was not Trotsky's motto or Stalin's motto. It is a statement from a book Trotsky wrote just before his death. Trotsky claimed it to be Stalin's new motto as a point of rhetoric in an argument against Stalin's brutal methods, specifically against the Bolsheviks and supporters of Trotsky. ''"Those who do not obey do not eat."'' might be what happens when a communist dictator is in command, but as far as Trotsky is concerned it was a specific reference to Stalin's starving out of his followers and Trotsky believed it to be the wrong way to run a government. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 10:49, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::: The points above about Trotsky and Orwell are interesting, and I've spent some time without success trying to confirm t. Unfortunately, you don't provide any support for your claims. There's no doubt that Orwell fought against the communists, and that changed his view of them. There also seems to be no doubt that Trotsky said what the lecture states. The very, very subtle distinction between drawn above does not change the essential substance of the lecture, even if the claims are true.

::: I welcome a supported, well-written improvement on the lecture, but not something that would tend to confuse students with hairsplitting and debatable distinctions. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:15, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: The lecture says Trotsky used the phrase as his personal motto. Nicholas says that he used it as a way to summarize and criticize his opponent, Stalin. That's not a subtle distinction - Nicholas and the lecture report precisely opposite versions! So it's probably worth "getting to the bottom of" if indeed the lecture contains a serious inaccuracy. [[User:Carillonneur|Carillonneur]] 15:44, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

Aeacus

2009-03-25T04:23:53Z

Carillonneur: M --> m

In [[Greek mythology]], '''Aeacus''' was the first king of the island of [[Aegina]]. He was the son of [[Zeus]] and Aegina, daughter of the river god Asopus and the woman for whom the island was named. Zeus used an eagle to carry Aegina off to the island, originally called Oenone, where she bore him Aeacus. Her father Asopus searched for her, asking King [[Sisyphus]] of [[Corinth]] for help. Sisyphus had seen the eagle and told the river god about it. Zeus was enraged that Sisyphus had informed on him. In the Underworld, the king was forced to roll a rock uphill that would roll back down over him forever.

When he grew up, Aeacus became the island's king. Because of his parentage, Aeacus was hated by [[Hera]], wife of Zeus. She sent a terrible plague or drought that killed many of the island's people. Aeachus travelled to the temple of Zeus. He prayed that Zeus send rain and that he make Aegina's people as numerous as a nearby troop of ants. Zeus sent rain and miraculously transformed the ants into men. These were the [[Myrmidons]], legendary warriors of Aegina named for the ant (''myrmex'').

Aeacus' sons were Telamon and [[Peleus]]. Peleus was a hero and the father of [[Achilles]]. Achilles was sometimes named with the epithet ''Aeacides'', "descendant of Aeacus." In the [[Attica|Attic]] mythological tradition, Aeacus was honored after his death for his famous wisdom. He was made one of the three judges of the Underworld, alongside [[Rhadamanthus]] and King [[Minos]]. In Greece's pagan period, Aeacus' legendary prayer to Zeus was honored with a temple on Aegina and an annual festival, the Aiakeia.

==References==
Aeacus (1974). Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Vol. I. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Inc.

Hamilton, Edith (1942). Mythology: Timeless Tales of Gods and Heroes. New York: Warner Books.

[[Category:Greek Mythology]]

Aeacus

2009-03-25T04:23:32Z

Carillonneur:

In [[Greek Mythology]], '''Aeacus''' was the first king of the island of [[Aegina]]. He was the son of [[Zeus]] and Aegina, daughter of the river god Asopus and the woman for whom the island was named. Zeus used an eagle to carry Aegina off to the island, originally called Oenone, where she bore him Aeacus. Her father Asopus searched for her, asking King [[Sisyphus]] of [[Corinth]] for help. Sisyphus had seen the eagle and told the river god about it. Zeus was enraged that Sisyphus had informed on him. In the Underworld, the king was forced to roll a rock uphill that would roll back down over him forever.

When he grew up, Aeacus became the island's king. Because of his parentage, Aeacus was hated by [[Hera]], wife of Zeus. She sent a terrible plague or drought that killed many of the island's people. Aeachus travelled to the temple of Zeus. He prayed that Zeus send rain and that he make Aegina's people as numerous as a nearby troop of ants. Zeus sent rain and miraculously transformed the ants into men. These were the [[Myrmidons]], legendary warriors of Aegina named for the ant (''myrmex'').

Aeacus' sons were Telamon and [[Peleus]]. Peleus was a hero and the father of [[Achilles]]. Achilles was sometimes named with the epithet ''Aeacides'', "descendant of Aeacus." In the [[Attica|Attic]] mythological tradition, Aeacus was honored after his death for his famous wisdom. He was made one of the three judges of the Underworld, alongside [[Rhadamanthus]] and King [[Minos]]. In Greece's pagan period, Aeacus' legendary prayer to Zeus was honored with a temple on Aegina and an annual festival, the Aiakeia.

==References==
Aeacus (1974). Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Vol. I. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Inc.

Hamilton, Edith (1942). Mythology: Timeless Tales of Gods and Heroes. New York: Warner Books.

[[Category:Greek Mythology]]

Francis Gary Powers

2009-03-12T21:19:00Z

Carillonneur:

'''Francis Gary Powers''' (1929–1977) was an American pilot who flew for the [[CIA]]. He became famous as the pilot of a [[U-2]] spy plane that was shot down on a secret flight out of [[Peshawar]], [[Pakistan]] over the [[Soviet Union]]. He soon was captured by the [[KGB]]. The discovery of the mission during one of the tensest periods of the [[Cold War]] sparked a crisis between the superpowers on May 1, 1960. Although the U.S. tried to deny that Powers' mission was one of espionage, the USSR nevertheless sentenced him to hard labor. After nearly two years he was exchanged for Colonel [[Rudolph Abel]] and brought back to the United States.

Powers was criticized for failing to destroy his camera, its film, and classified parts prior to capture, all of which were recovered nearly intact by the KGB. The circumstances surrounding his crash and survival were also questioned, because a U-2 plane was supposed to fly at very high altitudes from which they are difficult to shoot down. However, a congressional investigation cleared him of any wrongdoing. Powers was also criticized for not taking a suicide pill; however, he had been under no compulsion to do so.

In 1977 Powers was killed in a [[helicopter]] crash while working for a Los Angeles television station. In 2000, he was posthumously awarded the [[Distinguished Flying Cross]], [[National Defense Service Medal]], and [[Prisoner of War Medal]].

{{DEFAULTSORT:Powers, Francis Gary}}

[[Category:American war heroes]]
[[Category:Cold War]]
[[Category:Pilots]]