Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Angel

2007-03-31T03:58:24Z

ColemanFrancis: moving some text

''This article is about the supernatural being. For the TV show, see [[Angel (TV Show)]]''

[[Image:Jajaja.jpg|right|thumb|The Archangel Michael by Guido Reni]]
According to Christian belief, '''Angels''' are the servants of [[God]]. Angels announce the word of God<ref>Luke 1:26-38</ref>, protect God's people<ref>Dan 6:22</ref>, and enforce God's will<ref>Matthew 13:41-42</ref>. Throughout the [[Bible]] their are mentions of people interacting with angels and of angels intervening on behalf of people. We won't know the full extent of their works until we ascend to [[Heaven]]{{fact}}.

==References==
<references/>

Symphony

2007-03-31T03:53:52Z

ColemanFrancis: added some stuff

A '''symphony''' is a large-scale orchestral work. In a sense, a symphony is anything that a composer chooses to call by that name; but the form, as developed from about 1750 to 1950, ''typically'':
*is played by an orchestra of fifty to a hundred musicians, including sections of strings (violin, viola, cello, bass), woodwinds (clarinet, oboe, bassoon, flute, piccolo), brass (French horns, trumpets, trombones, tuba), percussion (tympani, other drums, cymbals, triangle). The instrumental sections are more or less coequal and have conversations or dialogues with each other, as contrasted with a ''concerto,'' in which a solo instrument conducts a dialogue with the rest of the orchestra
*lasts about twenty to ninety minutes<ref>The compact disc originally had a maximum playing time of 74 minutes. A story holds that the size of the disc was influenced by the wish that Beethoven's Ninth Symphony fit onto a single disc. Sony's then-president Norio Ohga was a devotee of classical music and a friend of conductor Herbert von Karajan. Urban legends investigators seem to conclude that it's not quite as simple as that but that the story does have some truth to it; e.g. [http://www.snopes2.com/music/media/cdlength.htm CD length], Snopes.</ref>
*has a detectable structure to it; it is not simply a long medley of tunes. The pattern of key changes and recurring themes are often described as taking the listener on a musical journey.
*is usually "absolute music," without a specific story line to it (unlike "program music," such as Rimsky-Korsakov's ''Scheherazade'' or Smetana's ''Ma Vlast'')
*is usually in four separate parts, called ''movements,'' with the first movement following a pattern called "[[Sonata form|Sonata-allegro form]]." In 18th century symphonies, the second movement was the slow movement, followed by a minuet and trio (or scherzo and trio) in ternary form, and then a fast final movement, in either sonata form or rondo form.

These characterizations are not absolute, however, as many composers have experimented with the format of the symphony:

*Beethoven added programmatic features to his Sixth Symphony (as well as an extra movement), and a chorus to the finale of his Ninth
*Berlioz greatly expanded the size of the orchestra for his "Symphonie Fantastique", and used a programmatic structure
*Composers such as Mahler, Schoenberg, and Richard Strauss experimented with the number of movements and their size and scope

Some famous, familiar, and easily appreciated symphonies include:

*[[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart|Mozart's]] Symphony No. 40 in G minor, his penultimate symphony, and one of only two of his symphonies written in a minor key (the other, Symphony No. 25, was also in G minor)
*[[Ludwig van Beethoven|Beethoven's]] Symphony No. 9, with the choral "Ode to Joy" in the fourth movement. This piece was performed by Leonard Bernstein to celebrate the fall of the Berlin wall.
*[[Antonin Dvořák|Dvořák's]] Symphony No. 9, "From the New World," with themes that have the flavor of black spirituals to them.<ref>Dvořák was not a musicologist, and, oddly, believed that "Negro" and "Indian" music were similar. He himself regarded the music as Indian-themed, with connections to ''The Song of Hiawatha.''</ref>

Other composers known for their symphonies include [[Franz Joseph Haydn]], [[Franz Schubert]], [[Jean Sibelius]], [[Gustav Mahler]], [[Anton Bruckner]], [[Sergei Prokofiev]], and [[Dmitri Shostakovich]].

==Notes and references==
<references/>

[[Category:Music]]

User:ColemanFrancis

2007-03-31T03:38:39Z

ColemanFrancis:

I'm an amateur director. So far I've got three films under my belt (with a budget of under $500, I might add!). Very excited about this site.

Right now I'm working on some music articles (and making random copyedits). Feel free to join the fun!

Franz Liszt

2007-03-31T03:36:13Z

ColemanFrancis: started stub on Liszt, will finish later

'''Franz Liszt''' was a Hungarian composer and pianist, often considered to be the greatest pianist of all time.

Music

2007-03-31T03:35:23Z

ColemanFrancis: /* The power of music over human emotion */

[[Image:Musicalnotes.jpg|right]]

[[Music]] (Middle English ''musik'', from Anglo-French ''musike'', from [[Latin]] ''musica'', from [[Greek]] μουσικη ''mousike'') is an [[art]] form consisting entirely of organized [[sound]] interspersed with periods of silence.<ref>[http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=Music Music] defined in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.</ref> It takes its name from three [[Greek mythology|Greek]] goddesses known as the ''[[Muses]]'', who specialized in stimulation of an artist's or poet's mind.

Music is the highest of all the arts, and the one best able to stir human emotion. Depending on what sort of work of music one composes, interprets, or hears, it can build a person up in spirit, or break it; make a person happy, or sad; inspire a person to greatness, or lead him into very challenging temptation. It is the art form to which the [[Bible]] gives its strongest endorsement, and to which the Bible pays the greatest attention. At the same time, it is arguably the most dangerous of all the arts, when misused.<ref name=Brown>Brown, Alan B.: telephone interview conducted on 1 March 2007 with user [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]</ref>
== What is music? ==

Strictly speaking, ''music'' means sound having any organization at all, while ''noise'' is purely random sound. But the roots of these two words suggest that ''music'' ought to mean that which makes one think and feel something new and significantly different, while ''noise'' (from the same root from which we get the verb ''I annoy'') is merely a distracting, disturbing, or often physically damaging sound. Some modern composers have attempted to stretch the definition of music by using noises in a manner that they insist is organized. Whether such a work product properly falls under the heading of "music" is debatable.

Note that music is ''not'' limited to such sounds that a human being might produce by fashioning an instrument for the making of a simplified or otherwise organized sound and then "playing" said instrument. The chirping of birds and certain insects may properly be called music, especially if the sound produced is particularly pleasant to the listener. Furthermore, some of the most sophisticated music attempts to imitate the sounds made by birds, insects, and other animals.

== Basic music theory ==
: ''Main Article: [[Music theory]]''
Classically, music consists of ''tones'', ''melodies'', ''counterpoint'', and ''rhythm''. A ''tone'' is the purest form of sound, having a single [[frequency]]. However, pure tones in music are rare. Most tones present themselves to the human ear together with ''overtones'', which typically are small-[[integer]] multiples of the basic frequency (the ''fundamental tone'').

=== Notes, intervals, and scales ===
Two tones played together form an ''interval''. The simplest of all intervals is the ''octave'', formed by two tones, one of whose frequencies is the exact double of the other. The full collection of tones that one can play between the two notes of an octave is called a ''scale.'' In Western music, most scales are ''semi-tonal'', with twelve tones between the octave notes. (The high end of the octave is considered a repetition of the low end, but at twice the frequency.) [[Oriental]] music commonly has ''quarter-tonal'' scales, with twenty-four separate tones within an octave. Quarter tones are often difficult to distinguish for a Western listener, and such music, as a result, tends to suggest the sinuous movement of a snake.

The [[Greece|Greeks]] recognized early that fundamental tones in music have a simple and strict [[mathematics|mathematical]] relationship. As mentioned, the octave consists of two notes, one at double the frequency of the other. At ''triple'' the frequency, one hears a low fundamental tone, and a higher tone that is past the octave but roughly midway toward the second octave. If one then divides the high-tone frequency by two, one creates the interval called the ''perfect fifth'' or ''dominant'' interval, one of the most common intervals used in Western music. One can test this relationship by striking a note on a [[piano]] while holding down another key that is one octave higher than the perfect fifth. The second note will sound in sympathy with the first--because it is resonating with the overtone from the first note.

=== Melody and counterpoint ===
''Melody'' is the series of notes that most closely captures the attention of the listener. A ''counterpoint'' is another series of notes that complements the melody. Either melody or counterpoint can exist either as series of single notes, or as intervals, or as ''chords''. A ''chord'' (named after the string of a Greek hand-held instrument called a [[lyre]]) is any three or more notes sounded at once.

=== Rhythm ===
''Rhythm'' consists of all aspects of music that suggest ''forward movement.'' Most music contains a regularly repeating sequence of ''beats'', or strong elements, that typically lead with a ''down beat'' followed by any of a small number of slightly weaker beats. A down beat and its weaker beats form a ''measure.'' Usually, all measures in a piece of music have the same number of beats.

A note in music is described not only by pitch, or frequency, but also by duration. Notes in Western music have names that typically describe how long they would sound in a typical measure. ''Whole notes'' are so called because normally they would sound for the full measure. ''Half notes'' would sound for half the measure, ''quarter notes'' for a fourth of the measure, and so on. A note may also carry a ''dot'' to the right of it, that indicates that the note is to sound for one and one-half times its usual duration.

Any one of these notes may carry a beat, and a measure may have any number of beats. Thus every piece of music commonly carries at least one ''time signature'' describing how many beats a measure has, and which type of note carries one beat. The most common time is "four-quarter time" (four beats per measure, with the beat given to the quarter note), which is therefore called "common time." Other commonly used time signature include three-quarter, six-eighth, nine-eighth, or rarely, two-half (called ''Alla breve'' or "cut time"). Even rarer are the time signatures with prime numbers of beats (other than three-quarter), including five-quarter or even eleven-eighth.

''Tempo'' (Italian for "time") describes how frequently the beats occur. The typical tempo signature is a drawing of the note that has the beat, followed by the number of beats per minute.

Notes may be ''accented'' at any time. In fact, often the accent will fall on the weak beat and make the beats seem to sound out-of-sequence. The result is ''syncopated'' rhythm.

The genre of music called [[rock and roll]] features a unique rhythm convention: the ''backbeat.''<ref>[http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/12/07/RockRules Normative Backbeat] at Tbray.org</ref> This is a third beat, in four-quarter time, that is stressed even more strongly than the down beat. This produces a profound sense of restlessness in the listener.

== Types of instruments ==
: ''Main Article: [[Musical instruments]]''

== History ==
The [[Bible]] suggests that music actually began in [[heaven]], and that the first musician was [[Satan|Lucifer]], then the chief of [[God]]'s messengers, or [[angels]]. According to Scripture, after Lucifer fell, his choir fell with him.

Human music goes back to [[antediluvian civilization]]. The Bible specifically credits [[Jubal]], son of [[Lamech the Murderer]] by his wife [[Adah]], with introducing music to mankind.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=5|verses=19-21|version=KJV}}</ref>

The earliest ''post''-diluvian records of music have been found in [[Iraq]] and [[India]], and date at least from the time of [[Abraham]]. They probably were made shortly after the construction of the [[Tower of Babel].

Almost every culture and religious movement has its own particular form of music. Some forms are richer and more sophisticated than others. The [[Hebrew]] people, and especially the children of [[Jacob|Israel]], have some of the grandest of all musical traditions. Mentions of "singing to the Lord" abound in the Old Testament. The most specific testimony to the power of music over human emotions is surely contained in the story of King [[Saul]] and how he came to recruit the young [[David]] as his armorbearer and personal musician.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=I_Samuel|chap=16|verses=14-23|version=KJV}}</ref>

King [[David]], at the height of his reign, once had a ''four-thousand-voice choir'' to assist in the worship of [[God]]. The Book of [[Psalms]] is in fact a collection of lyrics for some of the first worship songs in Israelite tradition. (Most of these came from David, but at least one comes from [[Moses]].) The [[Song of Solomon]] is a grand ballad of love that most scholars regard as a type of the love of [[Jesus Christ]] for His elect.

The Greeks, when [[Alexander the Great]] accepted the surrender of [[Jerusalem]] in his wars of conquest, introduced their own brand of music to the region--which the Jews largely resisted. But music was highly prominent throughout the Greek world--and later in the [[Rome|Roman]] world following Rome's conquest of Greece. The Greeks' contributions to music theory influenced artists for centuries to come, and still have a strong influence today, especially on composers who prefer to adhere to the classical traditions of music.

The earliest Greek music was associated with Greek [[theater]]. Beginning with the fall of Rome, however, music became largely liturgical. The primary influence remained the [[Roman Catholic Church]] until the twin movements of the Renaissance and the Reformation, each of which introduced a countervailing tradition.

From that time forward, most scholars divide music into "classical" music (composed primarily to achieve a high art) and "popular" music (composed for the masses and tending to achieve wide, but ephemeral, appeal).<ref>[http://www.thefreedictionary.com/popular%20music Popular music] defined at the Free Dictionary</ref>

"Classical music" tends to rely more on written notation, as a piece of classical music is generally held to transcend any particular interpretation of it. In current practice, such music is performed in concerts where the audience is expected to remain respectfully silent and the performers dress formally; however, in the past such music was often performed at salons and other informal private gatherings. In addition, the increasing importance of the written transmission of such music has reduced the role of improvisation, which was extremely important through the beginning of the "Romantic" era. Classical music also displays great musical complexity through the use of varied rhythms, chord progressions, counterpoint, and other compositional techniques, while maintaining a deep emotional content.

"Popular music" on the other hand, tends to be more accessible to the general public through the use of simpler forms and relatively simple compositional techniques. Much popular music is the product of modern business enterprise, as opposed to folk music (created by ordinary people for their own enjoyment) or classical music (which was originally written for religious practice or for the entertainment of the nobility).

These two genres; however, are not necessarily distinct, as composers such as [[Johann Sebastian Bach|Bach]] and [[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart|Mozart]] would often incorporate themes from "popular music" of their time into their works. Other classical composers like [[Maurice Ravel|Ravel]] and [[George Gershwin|Gershwin]] were well-known for their use of jazz idiom in works like the Concerto in F for Piano and Orchestra and [[Rhapsody in Blue]]. On the other hand, popular music has borrowed many themes from classical works (one notable example is "A Whiter Shade of Pale" by [[Procol Harum]]). In addition, "popular music" is not necessarily simpler than classical, as forms like jazz and progressive rock make use of complex time signatures that do not often occur in classical works, and some popular musicians like [[Frank Zappa]] are considered serious composers in their own right.

=== Different uses of classical and popular music ===
Classical music has typically found these uses:

# As an aid to worship, by placing the listener into a proper frame of mind for worship or instill in the listener a proper appreciation of the grandeur and glory of [[God]] and of the listener's own place in relation to Him.
# For the entertainment of the nobility; or, in more recent times, by commission from a particular group of people (often an orchestra or a university).
# To rally troops, either during training, on the march, or in battle.
# To celebrate military victory or the reign of a king, usually the one presently on the throne.
# Occasionally as a supplement to various forms of [[theater]]. Originally (especially in the Greek era) this meant the open-air live theater of classical fame. Today such music might accompany a live stage performance or several scenes in a [[motion picture]].

Popular music, on the other hand, is typically used:

# For entertainment, and more particularly for financial remuneration.
# Very frequently as a supplement to modern [[theater]] in all its forms, including stage, [[motion picture|motion pictures]], and especially [[television]].
# As a powerful aid of [[propaganda]], and the closely related use in [[advertisement]].
# Rarely, to rally troops. One popular artist who achieved great distinction by winning acceptance of his music by military bands was [[Glenn Miller]].

Both forms of music can be used as propaganda, as in some of the works of [[Dmitri Shostakovich]] (although this is debated; see the article on Shostakovich for a more complete discussion).

== The power of music over human emotion ==
Music has a very powerful effect on the emotions of the listener. Music relies on [[sound]], and if "faith comes through hearing," then so does emotion. Music can instantly bring joy or sorrow, ecstasy or despair, and far more quickly than can any other form of art. Many musical composers insist that their music merely expresses emotions. This does not do music justice. Music does more than express emotions; it induces them.<ref>[http://www.musica.uci.edu/mrn/V3I1S96.html MuSICA Notes III(1), Spring 1996]</ref>

The amateur botanist Dorothy L. Retallack, in [[1973]], claimed to have found that music can have an effect on plants. "Positive" music (that produces joy or contentment) supposedly made plants flourish and even "reach" for, or grow toward, such music. Negative music (that produces frustration, restlessness, or especially anger and rage) supposedly caused plants to "recoil" (grow away) from the music, and prolonged or repeated exposure debilitates and eventually killed plants, or so she said.<ref>Retallack, Dorothy L. ''The Sound of Music and Plants''. Devorss and Company, June 1973, 96 pp., paperback. ISBN 0875161707</ref><ref>[http://www.dovesong.com/positive_music/ About Positive and Negative Music] from the Dovesong Foundation</ref>

No botanist has ever reproduced Retallack's claimed results. But the effects on animals and humans are far better documented and much more profound than any effect on plants that Retallack ever claimed. That animals, and especially [[dog]]s and [[cat]]s, recoil in horror from the sound of a poorly trained voice, is proverbial (and in fact the animals might be reacting to a sound that is not merely grating but acutely and physically painful to their ears). The Dovesong Foundation has found evidence for musical preferences by cattle<ref>[http://www.dovesong.com/positive_music/archives/basement/Cows%20and%20Classical%20Music.asp Cows Prefer Classical Music]</ref> and cetaceans.<ref>[http://www.dovesong.com/positive_music/archives/basement/Steinhart_Dolphins.asp Dolphins Don't Like Rock] (The article refers to the classic [[dolphin]] (family [[Cetacea]]), aka "porpoise," not the fish of that name.)</ref>

Music has also had a profound and well-documented effect in human history. The history of warfare includes a rich history of martial music. More recently, music has now found a use in the healing of negative emotional states and even as an aid to the healing of physical disabilities.<ref>[http://www.musictherapy.org/ The American Music Therapy Association]</ref>

Commercial enterprises always attempt, at great expense of time, money, and effort, to find and deploy forms of music that will enhance worker productivity or cause prospective customers to behave in a manner calculated to make them purchase their goods and/or services. The pop selections played in supermarkets are a prime example.

Music has always been an adjunct to [[theater]]. This is especially true of the performing arts called ''opera'' and ''ballet'', but applies also to the use of music as an adjunct to a theatrical production, whether on the stage, as a [[motion picture]], or as a [[television]] show.

Music also has an obvious use in [[propaganda]], in which the propagandist seeks to manipulate people's emotions and stir them typically to rage and hostility against certain groups.

Finally, music can strengthen in the listener a curiosity about, or even a desire for, an act of sexual or other [[sin]].<ref>[http://cranach.worldmagblog.com/cranach/archives/2006/08/draft_linking_s.html Linking Sexual Music and Teen Behavior] by Gene Edward Veith at the [http://www.worldmagblog.com World Magazine Blog]</ref><ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51496 Face the music, parents] at [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ WorldNetDaily] 12 August [[2006]]</ref> Sadly, this use of music is probably as old as "the oldest profession." Cultural critics observe, pointedly, that permissive cultures have permissive music, and non-permissive cultures avoid such music.

Yet for all this, music is still important in worship. If it were not, then it would not have received the favorable attention that the [[Bible]] clearly gives to it. As powerful a force for evil as it might be, music can be an equally powerful force to encourage the listener to worship, appreciate, and above all obey God and keep His laws--at least, as best as any human being is able.

== Traditions and principles for liturgical music ==
[[Saint Paul]] specifically exhorts his readers to employ music, and specifically "psalms, hymns, and spiritual odes," to bring them closer to God.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Ephesians|chap=5|verses=19|version=KJV}}</ref> <ref>{{Bible ref|book=Colossians|chap=3|verses=16|version=KJV}}</ref> In this context, a ''psalm'' is not necessarily a chapter out of the Book of [[Psalms]]; it can be any song that primarily quotes any part of Scripture. ''Hymns'' are songs primarily of praise and magnification of [[God]]; they do not, however, directly quote Scripture in most of their lyrics, as "psalms" do. ''Spiritual odes'' are primarily personal testimonies, either of salvation or of one's own perception of God. ''Amazing Grace'', by John Newton, is a prime example. ''It Is Well With My Soul'', by Horatio Spafford, is one song that has features of a hymn ''and'' a spiritual ode.

The Rev. Alan B. Brown, MDiv, ThM, has studied liturgical music extensively. In his view<ref name=Brown/>, liturgical music ought to satisfy three prime tests:

# Are the lyrics ''accurate'', either when they quote Scripture or reflect [[Christian]] principles?
# Can you properly ''associate'' the lyrics and/or the notes with Godly things, as opposed to worldly things?
# Are the lyrics and/or the notes ''appropriate'' for worship in general, and in the setting of a particular celebration?

The actual notes to the tunes that, say, King David's choir might have sung, or his royal orchestra might have produced, are lost to us today. But the titles of many of the Psalms contain specific instructions, originally to the music director at King David's court, as to the type of tune and the types of instruments required. Hymnists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries often set the Psalms and other portions of Scripture to music, often with very good effect. The best-known example is the ''Doxology'' (literally, "study in glory") that is a paraphrase of Psalm 100; the tune is called "Old Hundredth" and remains popular today.

== Controversies surrounding music today ==
Music perhaps has always been controversial, but the controversies surrounding music today rage with particular vehemence. The question of what is, and what is not, music is relatively tame. Different composers have always experimented with different music conventions, and always will. (And perhaps they must.) Many such experiments fail, in that the works produced draw only small audiences, and ultimately no one will play them, because no one will pay to listen to them or to have them played for other people.

Rather, the most raging controversy concerns certain genres of popular music that have provoked adverse political comment precisely because of the emotions they incite and the themes they sound, both in lyrics and in notes. Parents of adolescent and pre-adolescent children object to music that explicitly (mainly through its lyrics) exhorts its listeners to sexual sin. Members of various political interest groups object to music that they believe provokes its listeners to show ''disrespect'' for members of those groups.

Some listeners and music critics attempt to defend music as "amoral," that is, morally neutral. They maintain that music exists only for people to enjoy, not to make a political point. For some, indeed, music is an escape. To them, one who tries to infer a serious purpose in a given piece of music ought to abandon the attempt and simply enjoy it for what it is. This attitude recalls [[Mark Twain]]'s famous introduction to [[The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn]]:<blockquote>PERSONS attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot. BY ORDER OF THE AUTHOR, Per G.G., Chief of Ordnance.</blockquote>

The reaction of so many interested parties to various types of popular music today would seem to militate against that stance. Indeed, history is replete with examples of various pieces of music from earlier eras inciting their listeners to violence; [[Maurice Ravel]]'s signature work ''Bolero'', for example, was known to incite riots<ref>[http://www.kalvos.org/bazzr086.html Essay 86: Bolero v. Gliere, Round 1] by David Gunn, at Kalvos & Damian's New Music Bazaar</ref>, as was [[Igor Stravinsky]]'s work ''The Rite of Spring''.<ref>[http://www.nottinghamphilharmonic.co.uk/notes/SRS.html The Rite of Spring] by the Nottingham Philharmonic Orchestra</ref>

Riots have also broken out at many rock-and-roll concerts, and often the responding law-enforcement authorities have been at a loss to determine the ultimate causes of those riots. The ''proximate'' cause typically is a one-on-one fight in which other concert attendees joined in--but what put the original combatants into a fighting mood, or causes others to join a fight that was, strictly speaking, not theirs, is far more difficult to explain. Perhaps too many of the listeners are worshiping the performers as if they were [[pagan]] [[idol]]s--a problem that, some say, composers like [[Franz Liszt]] and [[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart|Mozart]] had to contend with. Perhaps the causes have as much to do with the subculture of which rock-and-roll music is a part, as with the music itself. Then, too, no [[physician]] has ever investigated the chronic, or long-standing, effects of a steady aural diet of different genres of music--beyond expressing concern that many listeners are listening to their music too loud and damaging their hearing with the sheer physical stress of the loud sounds. The only signs that anyone can study, if thry are signs of anything at all, are the statistics concerning psychological stress affecting, and substance abuse by, performers of various types of music. (Riots do not routinely break out at classical performances--at least, not since the ''Rite of Spring'' riot mentioned above. This might simply be due to wild behavior not being normative on the part of those who routinely patronize such music.)

== References ==
<references/>

== See Also ==
* [http://creationwiki.org/Music Music] by [[CreationWiki]]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music Music] by [[Wikipedia]]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_music History of music] by [[Wikipedia]]

[[Category:Culture]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

Music

2007-03-31T03:32:41Z

ColemanFrancis: /* History */

[[Image:Musicalnotes.jpg|right]]

[[Music]] (Middle English ''musik'', from Anglo-French ''musike'', from [[Latin]] ''musica'', from [[Greek]] μουσικη ''mousike'') is an [[art]] form consisting entirely of organized [[sound]] interspersed with periods of silence.<ref>[http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=Music Music] defined in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.</ref> It takes its name from three [[Greek mythology|Greek]] goddesses known as the ''[[Muses]]'', who specialized in stimulation of an artist's or poet's mind.

Music is the highest of all the arts, and the one best able to stir human emotion. Depending on what sort of work of music one composes, interprets, or hears, it can build a person up in spirit, or break it; make a person happy, or sad; inspire a person to greatness, or lead him into very challenging temptation. It is the art form to which the [[Bible]] gives its strongest endorsement, and to which the Bible pays the greatest attention. At the same time, it is arguably the most dangerous of all the arts, when misused.<ref name=Brown>Brown, Alan B.: telephone interview conducted on 1 March 2007 with user [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]</ref>
== What is music? ==

Strictly speaking, ''music'' means sound having any organization at all, while ''noise'' is purely random sound. But the roots of these two words suggest that ''music'' ought to mean that which makes one think and feel something new and significantly different, while ''noise'' (from the same root from which we get the verb ''I annoy'') is merely a distracting, disturbing, or often physically damaging sound. Some modern composers have attempted to stretch the definition of music by using noises in a manner that they insist is organized. Whether such a work product properly falls under the heading of "music" is debatable.

Note that music is ''not'' limited to such sounds that a human being might produce by fashioning an instrument for the making of a simplified or otherwise organized sound and then "playing" said instrument. The chirping of birds and certain insects may properly be called music, especially if the sound produced is particularly pleasant to the listener. Furthermore, some of the most sophisticated music attempts to imitate the sounds made by birds, insects, and other animals.

== Basic music theory ==
: ''Main Article: [[Music theory]]''
Classically, music consists of ''tones'', ''melodies'', ''counterpoint'', and ''rhythm''. A ''tone'' is the purest form of sound, having a single [[frequency]]. However, pure tones in music are rare. Most tones present themselves to the human ear together with ''overtones'', which typically are small-[[integer]] multiples of the basic frequency (the ''fundamental tone'').

=== Notes, intervals, and scales ===
Two tones played together form an ''interval''. The simplest of all intervals is the ''octave'', formed by two tones, one of whose frequencies is the exact double of the other. The full collection of tones that one can play between the two notes of an octave is called a ''scale.'' In Western music, most scales are ''semi-tonal'', with twelve tones between the octave notes. (The high end of the octave is considered a repetition of the low end, but at twice the frequency.) [[Oriental]] music commonly has ''quarter-tonal'' scales, with twenty-four separate tones within an octave. Quarter tones are often difficult to distinguish for a Western listener, and such music, as a result, tends to suggest the sinuous movement of a snake.

The [[Greece|Greeks]] recognized early that fundamental tones in music have a simple and strict [[mathematics|mathematical]] relationship. As mentioned, the octave consists of two notes, one at double the frequency of the other. At ''triple'' the frequency, one hears a low fundamental tone, and a higher tone that is past the octave but roughly midway toward the second octave. If one then divides the high-tone frequency by two, one creates the interval called the ''perfect fifth'' or ''dominant'' interval, one of the most common intervals used in Western music. One can test this relationship by striking a note on a [[piano]] while holding down another key that is one octave higher than the perfect fifth. The second note will sound in sympathy with the first--because it is resonating with the overtone from the first note.

=== Melody and counterpoint ===
''Melody'' is the series of notes that most closely captures the attention of the listener. A ''counterpoint'' is another series of notes that complements the melody. Either melody or counterpoint can exist either as series of single notes, or as intervals, or as ''chords''. A ''chord'' (named after the string of a Greek hand-held instrument called a [[lyre]]) is any three or more notes sounded at once.

=== Rhythm ===
''Rhythm'' consists of all aspects of music that suggest ''forward movement.'' Most music contains a regularly repeating sequence of ''beats'', or strong elements, that typically lead with a ''down beat'' followed by any of a small number of slightly weaker beats. A down beat and its weaker beats form a ''measure.'' Usually, all measures in a piece of music have the same number of beats.

A note in music is described not only by pitch, or frequency, but also by duration. Notes in Western music have names that typically describe how long they would sound in a typical measure. ''Whole notes'' are so called because normally they would sound for the full measure. ''Half notes'' would sound for half the measure, ''quarter notes'' for a fourth of the measure, and so on. A note may also carry a ''dot'' to the right of it, that indicates that the note is to sound for one and one-half times its usual duration.

Any one of these notes may carry a beat, and a measure may have any number of beats. Thus every piece of music commonly carries at least one ''time signature'' describing how many beats a measure has, and which type of note carries one beat. The most common time is "four-quarter time" (four beats per measure, with the beat given to the quarter note), which is therefore called "common time." Other commonly used time signature include three-quarter, six-eighth, nine-eighth, or rarely, two-half (called ''Alla breve'' or "cut time"). Even rarer are the time signatures with prime numbers of beats (other than three-quarter), including five-quarter or even eleven-eighth.

''Tempo'' (Italian for "time") describes how frequently the beats occur. The typical tempo signature is a drawing of the note that has the beat, followed by the number of beats per minute.

Notes may be ''accented'' at any time. In fact, often the accent will fall on the weak beat and make the beats seem to sound out-of-sequence. The result is ''syncopated'' rhythm.

The genre of music called [[rock and roll]] features a unique rhythm convention: the ''backbeat.''<ref>[http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/12/07/RockRules Normative Backbeat] at Tbray.org</ref> This is a third beat, in four-quarter time, that is stressed even more strongly than the down beat. This produces a profound sense of restlessness in the listener.

== Types of instruments ==
: ''Main Article: [[Musical instruments]]''

== History ==
The [[Bible]] suggests that music actually began in [[heaven]], and that the first musician was [[Satan|Lucifer]], then the chief of [[God]]'s messengers, or [[angels]]. According to Scripture, after Lucifer fell, his choir fell with him.

Human music goes back to [[antediluvian civilization]]. The Bible specifically credits [[Jubal]], son of [[Lamech the Murderer]] by his wife [[Adah]], with introducing music to mankind.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=5|verses=19-21|version=KJV}}</ref>

The earliest ''post''-diluvian records of music have been found in [[Iraq]] and [[India]], and date at least from the time of [[Abraham]]. They probably were made shortly after the construction of the [[Tower of Babel].

Almost every culture and religious movement has its own particular form of music. Some forms are richer and more sophisticated than others. The [[Hebrew]] people, and especially the children of [[Jacob|Israel]], have some of the grandest of all musical traditions. Mentions of "singing to the Lord" abound in the Old Testament. The most specific testimony to the power of music over human emotions is surely contained in the story of King [[Saul]] and how he came to recruit the young [[David]] as his armorbearer and personal musician.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=I_Samuel|chap=16|verses=14-23|version=KJV}}</ref>

King [[David]], at the height of his reign, once had a ''four-thousand-voice choir'' to assist in the worship of [[God]]. The Book of [[Psalms]] is in fact a collection of lyrics for some of the first worship songs in Israelite tradition. (Most of these came from David, but at least one comes from [[Moses]].) The [[Song of Solomon]] is a grand ballad of love that most scholars regard as a type of the love of [[Jesus Christ]] for His elect.

The Greeks, when [[Alexander the Great]] accepted the surrender of [[Jerusalem]] in his wars of conquest, introduced their own brand of music to the region--which the Jews largely resisted. But music was highly prominent throughout the Greek world--and later in the [[Rome|Roman]] world following Rome's conquest of Greece. The Greeks' contributions to music theory influenced artists for centuries to come, and still have a strong influence today, especially on composers who prefer to adhere to the classical traditions of music.

The earliest Greek music was associated with Greek [[theater]]. Beginning with the fall of Rome, however, music became largely liturgical. The primary influence remained the [[Roman Catholic Church]] until the twin movements of the Renaissance and the Reformation, each of which introduced a countervailing tradition.

From that time forward, most scholars divide music into "classical" music (composed primarily to achieve a high art) and "popular" music (composed for the masses and tending to achieve wide, but ephemeral, appeal).<ref>[http://www.thefreedictionary.com/popular%20music Popular music] defined at the Free Dictionary</ref>

"Classical music" tends to rely more on written notation, as a piece of classical music is generally held to transcend any particular interpretation of it. In current practice, such music is performed in concerts where the audience is expected to remain respectfully silent and the performers dress formally; however, in the past such music was often performed at salons and other informal private gatherings. In addition, the increasing importance of the written transmission of such music has reduced the role of improvisation, which was extremely important through the beginning of the "Romantic" era. Classical music also displays great musical complexity through the use of varied rhythms, chord progressions, counterpoint, and other compositional techniques, while maintaining a deep emotional content.

"Popular music" on the other hand, tends to be more accessible to the general public through the use of simpler forms and relatively simple compositional techniques. Much popular music is the product of modern business enterprise, as opposed to folk music (created by ordinary people for their own enjoyment) or classical music (which was originally written for religious practice or for the entertainment of the nobility).

These two genres; however, are not necessarily distinct, as composers such as [[Johann Sebastian Bach|Bach]] and [[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart|Mozart]] would often incorporate themes from "popular music" of their time into their works. Other classical composers like [[Maurice Ravel|Ravel]] and [[George Gershwin|Gershwin]] were well-known for their use of jazz idiom in works like the Concerto in F for Piano and Orchestra and [[Rhapsody in Blue]]. On the other hand, popular music has borrowed many themes from classical works (one notable example is "A Whiter Shade of Pale" by [[Procol Harum]]). In addition, "popular music" is not necessarily simpler than classical, as forms like jazz and progressive rock make use of complex time signatures that do not often occur in classical works, and some popular musicians like [[Frank Zappa]] are considered serious composers in their own right.

=== Different uses of classical and popular music ===
Classical music has typically found these uses:

# As an aid to worship, by placing the listener into a proper frame of mind for worship or instill in the listener a proper appreciation of the grandeur and glory of [[God]] and of the listener's own place in relation to Him.
# For the entertainment of the nobility; or, in more recent times, by commission from a particular group of people (often an orchestra or a university).
# To rally troops, either during training, on the march, or in battle.
# To celebrate military victory or the reign of a king, usually the one presently on the throne.
# Occasionally as a supplement to various forms of [[theater]]. Originally (especially in the Greek era) this meant the open-air live theater of classical fame. Today such music might accompany a live stage performance or several scenes in a [[motion picture]].

Popular music, on the other hand, is typically used:

# For entertainment, and more particularly for financial remuneration.
# Very frequently as a supplement to modern [[theater]] in all its forms, including stage, [[motion picture|motion pictures]], and especially [[television]].
# As a powerful aid of [[propaganda]], and the closely related use in [[advertisement]].
# Rarely, to rally troops. One popular artist who achieved great distinction by winning acceptance of his music by military bands was [[Glenn Miller]].

Both forms of music can be used as propaganda, as in some of the works of [[Dmitri Shostakovich]] (although this is debated; see the article on Shostakovich for a more complete discussion).

== The power of music over human emotion ==
Music has a very powerful effect on the emotions of the listener. Music relies on [[sound]], and if "faith comes through hearing," then so does emotion. Music can instantly bring joy or sorrow, ecstasy or despair, and far more quickly than can any other form of art. Many musical composers insist that their music merely expresses emotions. This does not do music justice. Music does more than express emotions; it induces them.<ref>[http://www.musica.uci.edu/mrn/V3I1S96.html MuSICA Notes III(1), Spring 1996]</ref>

The amateur botanist Dorothy L. Retallack, in [[1973]], claimed to have found that music can have an effect on plants. "Positive" music (that produces joy or contentment) supposedly made plants flourish and even "reach" for, or grow toward, such music. Negative music (that produces frustration, restlessness, or especially anger and rage) supposedly caused plants to "recoil" (grow away) from the music, and prolonged or repeated exposure debilitates and eventually killed plants, or so she said.<ref>Retallack, Dorothy L. ''The Sound of Music and Plants''. Devorss and Company, June 1973, 96 pp., paperback. ISBN 0875161707</ref><ref>[http://www.dovesong.com/positive_music/ About Positive and Negative Music] from the Dovesong Foundation</ref>

No botanist has ever reproduced Retallack's claimed results. But the effects on animals and man are far better documented and much more profound than any effect on plants that Retallack ever claimed. That animals, and especially [[dog]]s and [[cat]]s, recoil in horror from the sound of a poorly trained voice, is proverbial (and in fact the animals might be reacting to a sound that is not merely grating but acutely and physically painful to their ears). The Dovesong Foundation has found evidence for musical preferences by cattle<ref>[http://www.dovesong.com/positive_music/archives/basement/Cows%20and%20Classical%20Music.asp Cows Prefer Classical Music]</ref> and cetaceans.<ref>[http://www.dovesong.com/positive_music/archives/basement/Steinhart_Dolphins.asp Dolphins Don't Like Rock] (The article refers to the classic [[dolphin]] (family [[Cetacea]]), aka "porpoise," not the fish of that name.)</ref>

But the effects of music on human beings are far better documented and recognized. The history of warfare includes a rich history of martial music. More recently, music has now found a use in the healing of negative emotional states and even as an aid to the healing of physical disabilities.<ref>[http://www.musictherapy.org/ The American Music Therapy Association]</ref>

Commercial enterprises always attempt, at great expense of time, money, and effort, to find and deploy forms of music that will enhance worker productivity or cause prospective customers to behave in a manner calculated to make them purchase their goods and/or services. The rock-and-roll selections played in supermarkets are a prime example.

Music has always been an adjunct to [[theater]]. This is especially true of the performing arts called ''opera'' and ''ballet'', but applies also to the use of music as an adjunct to a theatrical production, whether on the stage, as a [[motion picture]], or as a [[television]] show.

Music has an obvious use in [[propaganda]], in which the propagandist seeks to manipulate people's emotions and stir them typically to rage and hostility against certain groups.

Finally, music can strengthen in the listener a curiosity about, or even a desire for, an act of sexual or other [[sin]].<ref>[http://cranach.worldmagblog.com/cranach/archives/2006/08/draft_linking_s.html Linking Sexual Music and Teen Behavior] by Gene Edward Veith at the [http://www.worldmagblog.com World Magazine Blog]</ref><ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51496 Face the music, parents] at [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ WorldNetDaily] 12 August [[2006]]</ref> Sadly, this use of music is probably as old as "the oldest profession." Cultural critics observe, pointedly, that permissive cultures have permissive music, and non-permissive cultures avoid such music.

Yet for all this, music is still important in worship. If it were not, then it would not have received the favorable attention that the [[Bible]] clearly gives to it. As powerful a force for evil as it might be, music can be an equally powerful force to encourage the listener to worship, appreciate, and above all obey God and keep His laws--at least, as best as any human being is able.

== Traditions and principles for liturgical music ==
[[Saint Paul]] specifically exhorts his readers to employ music, and specifically "psalms, hymns, and spiritual odes," to bring them closer to God.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Ephesians|chap=5|verses=19|version=KJV}}</ref> <ref>{{Bible ref|book=Colossians|chap=3|verses=16|version=KJV}}</ref> In this context, a ''psalm'' is not necessarily a chapter out of the Book of [[Psalms]]; it can be any song that primarily quotes any part of Scripture. ''Hymns'' are songs primarily of praise and magnification of [[God]]; they do not, however, directly quote Scripture in most of their lyrics, as "psalms" do. ''Spiritual odes'' are primarily personal testimonies, either of salvation or of one's own perception of God. ''Amazing Grace'', by John Newton, is a prime example. ''It Is Well With My Soul'', by Horatio Spafford, is one song that has features of a hymn ''and'' a spiritual ode.

The Rev. Alan B. Brown, MDiv, ThM, has studied liturgical music extensively. In his view<ref name=Brown/>, liturgical music ought to satisfy three prime tests:

# Are the lyrics ''accurate'', either when they quote Scripture or reflect [[Christian]] principles?
# Can you properly ''associate'' the lyrics and/or the notes with Godly things, as opposed to worldly things?
# Are the lyrics and/or the notes ''appropriate'' for worship in general, and in the setting of a particular celebration?

The actual notes to the tunes that, say, King David's choir might have sung, or his royal orchestra might have produced, are lost to us today. But the titles of many of the Psalms contain specific instructions, originally to the music director at King David's court, as to the type of tune and the types of instruments required. Hymnists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries often set the Psalms and other portions of Scripture to music, often with very good effect. The best-known example is the ''Doxology'' (literally, "study in glory") that is a paraphrase of Psalm 100; the tune is called "Old Hundredth" and remains popular today.

== Controversies surrounding music today ==
Music perhaps has always been controversial, but the controversies surrounding music today rage with particular vehemence. The question of what is, and what is not, music is relatively tame. Different composers have always experimented with different music conventions, and always will. (And perhaps they must.) Many such experiments fail, in that the works produced draw only small audiences, and ultimately no one will play them, because no one will pay to listen to them or to have them played for other people.

Rather, the most raging controversy concerns certain genres of popular music that have provoked adverse political comment precisely because of the emotions they incite and the themes they sound, both in lyrics and in notes. Parents of adolescent and pre-adolescent children object to music that explicitly (mainly through its lyrics) exhorts its listeners to sexual sin. Members of various political interest groups object to music that they believe provokes its listeners to show ''disrespect'' for members of those groups.

Some listeners and music critics attempt to defend music as "amoral," that is, morally neutral. They maintain that music exists only for people to enjoy, not to make a political point. For some, indeed, music is an escape. To them, one who tries to infer a serious purpose in a given piece of music ought to abandon the attempt and simply enjoy it for what it is. This attitude recalls [[Mark Twain]]'s famous introduction to [[The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn]]:<blockquote>PERSONS attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot. BY ORDER OF THE AUTHOR, Per G.G., Chief of Ordnance.</blockquote>

The reaction of so many interested parties to various types of popular music today would seem to militate against that stance. Indeed, history is replete with examples of various pieces of music from earlier eras inciting their listeners to violence; [[Maurice Ravel]]'s signature work ''Bolero'', for example, was known to incite riots<ref>[http://www.kalvos.org/bazzr086.html Essay 86: Bolero v. Gliere, Round 1] by David Gunn, at Kalvos & Damian's New Music Bazaar</ref>, as was [[Igor Stravinsky]]'s work ''The Rite of Spring''.<ref>[http://www.nottinghamphilharmonic.co.uk/notes/SRS.html The Rite of Spring] by the Nottingham Philharmonic Orchestra</ref>

Riots have also broken out at many rock-and-roll concerts, and often the responding law-enforcement authorities have been at a loss to determine the ultimate causes of those riots. The ''proximate'' cause typically is a one-on-one fight in which other concert attendees joined in--but what put the original combatants into a fighting mood, or causes others to join a fight that was, strictly speaking, not theirs, is far more difficult to explain. Perhaps too many of the listeners are worshiping the performers as if they were [[pagan]] [[idol]]s--a problem that, some say, composers like [[Franz Liszt]] and [[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart|Mozart]] had to contend with. Perhaps the causes have as much to do with the subculture of which rock-and-roll music is a part, as with the music itself. Then, too, no [[physician]] has ever investigated the chronic, or long-standing, effects of a steady aural diet of different genres of music--beyond expressing concern that many listeners are listening to their music too loud and damaging their hearing with the sheer physical stress of the loud sounds. The only signs that anyone can study, if thry are signs of anything at all, are the statistics concerning psychological stress affecting, and substance abuse by, performers of various types of music. (Riots do not routinely break out at classical performances--at least, not since the ''Rite of Spring'' riot mentioned above. This might simply be due to wild behavior not being normative on the part of those who routinely patronize such music.)

== References ==
<references/>

== See Also ==
* [http://creationwiki.org/Music Music] by [[CreationWiki]]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music Music] by [[Wikipedia]]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_music History of music] by [[Wikipedia]]

[[Category:Culture]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

Sonata form

2007-03-31T01:39:13Z

ColemanFrancis: New page: '''Sonata form''', also known as '''sonata-allegro form''', is a musical form typically used in the first movement of classical works. It is derived from the "binary form" of the [[Baroqu...

'''Sonata form''', also known as '''sonata-allegro form''', is a musical form typically used in the first movement of classical works. It is derived from the "binary form" of the [[Baroque]] and [[Rococo]] eras of music, and gained prominence in the works of [[Franz Joseph Haydn]] and [[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart]].

The word [[sonata]] is also used to refer to a stand-alone instrumental work usually in three movements, the first of which is in sonata form.

A work in sonata form can be divided into three sections: the exposition, development, and recapitulation.

==Outline of form==

===Introduction===

Many works in sonata form are preceded by a slow introduction usually excluded from the exposition repeat. The introduction is often used to increase the dramatic weight of a movement, as in Beethoven's Piano Sonata Op. 13 ("Pathetique"), or Haydn's "Drumroll" Symphony No. 103.

===Exposition===

The exposition begins with the introduction of the first subject in the tonic key. After some transition material, the second subject is introduced, usually in the dominant or relative major key (in the case of a sonata in a minor key); however, this is not always the case, a notable exception being Beethoven's Piano Sonata Op. 53 ("Waldstein"). The second subject tends to be more lyrical than the first subject. A small codetta brings the exposition to a close with an authentic cadence in the key of the second subject.

===Development===

The development often begins in the same key as the end of the exposition, but modulates through many different keys until the recapitulation. In this section, the themes laid out in the exposition are modified through key changes, breaking down parts of keys and motifs, variations in rhythm and harmony, and other ways.

The end of the development is the retransition, in which the original key of the sonata is increasingly stressed as the recapitulation is approached.

===Recapitulation===

This section echoes the exposition, except that the second subject is now played in the tonic key, providing a sense of balance to the work.

===Coda===

Composers will often add a coda to the finale of a work in Sonata-allegro form. The coda varies in length, with notably lengthly codas including the finale of the first movement of Beethoven's Piano Sonata Op. 57 ("Appassionata"), and the first and fourth movements of his Fifth Symphony.

Michael Servetus

2007-03-30T22:36:06Z

ColemanFrancis: grammar

'''Michael Servetus''' was a Spanish physician, mathematician, astronomer, meteorologist and philosopher who lived from 29 September 1511 A.D. to 27 October 1553 A.D.

Servetus was largely interested in [[pharmacology]] and humanism. He also conducted a number of meteorological and astronomical observations during his life. He also attempted to give one of the first accurate accounts of the human circulatory system. This caused tensions with the Church because it conflicted with long-standing theological accounts of the circulatory system, and because Servetus wanted to conduct autopsies, which was considered to be defilement by many at the time.

Servetus was also interested in theology. He opened correspondence with [[John Calvin]] in which he disputed the sacred and central doctrine of the [[Holy Trinity]]. As news of Servetus and his heresies spread, the Church became involved.

In 1553, Servetus was denounced as a heretic while in Vienna by one of Calvin's followers who had been offended by the humanistic doctrines of the physician. Servetus was imprisoned and found guilty of heresy by the [[French Inquisition]], and sentenced to death by being burnt alive along with his books.

Servetus was able to escape from prison for a time, although his books were consigned to the purifying effigy which the Inquisition had built to cleanse the world of his doctrines, which were considered to be blasphemous. However, a short time later, he was apprehended in Geneva and, on October 27, 1553, was burned at the stake for the preaching of non-trinitarianism and anti-paedobaptism. For the crime of suggesting that children should not be baptized, Calvin had demanded that Servetus merely be beheaded, rather than burnt alive. [[Martin Luther]] helped see to it that the sale and printing of the Michael Servetus' books was immediately halted.

Despite Servetus's execution, his teachings had already spread through the Libertine movement, thus setting in motion the events that gave rise to the modernist philosophy of [[Secular Humanism]]. He was also considered the first [[Unitarian]] martyr, although his theology has little to do with current [[Unitarian Universalism]].

[[Category:Biographies]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Four Chaplains Day

2007-03-30T22:31:25Z

ColemanFrancis: formatting/grammar

'''Four Chaplains Day''' is February 3. It marks an event in 1943 when a Nazi submarine sunk the Allied ship ''Dorchester'' in icy waters off of Greenland.

Four chaplains were on board: a priest, a rabbi and two Protestant ministers. They distributed life jackets to the servicemen and then gave up their own jackets to save more lives. The chaplains went down with the ship, giving their lives for other servicemen. Their final words were prayers.

On February 7, 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower honored them with this remark:

:And we remember that, only a decade ago, aboard the transport Dorchester, four chaplains of four faiths together willingly sacrificed their lives so that four others might live.

:In the three centuries that separate the Pilgrims of the Mayflower from the chaplains of the Dorchester, America's freedom, her courage, her strength, and her progress have had their foundation in faith.

:Today as then, there is need for positive acts of renewed recognition that faith is our surest strength, our greatest resource.

Pi

2007-03-28T21:35:40Z

ColemanFrancis: restoring factual edit with cite; see Andy's talk page for my comment

'''Pi''' is the name for the Greek letter <big><big><math>\pi</math></big></big>, which corresponds to the English letter '''p.'''

<big><math>\pi</math></big> is also the symbol used in mathematics for the ratio between the diameter of a circle and its circumference, and which appears in many other places.

<big><math>\pi</math></big> is an [[irrational number]]; this means that it cannot be expressed as a fraction, and (therefore) cannot be expressed exactly as a decimal no matter how many decimal places it is carried out to.

The value of <big><math>\pi</math></big> is approximately 3.14159 in decimal. This value is precise enough for almost all ordinary purposes; it can, for example, be used to calculate the circumference of the Earth with an error of only 350 feet.

For rough purposes, the fraction 22/7 (= 3.14285...) is sometimes used. 355/113 is accurate to six places.

In hexadecimal (base-16) notation, <big><math>\pi</math></big> is approximately 3.243f.

==History==
To some extent, the progress of mathematics—or at least of computation—can be gauged by the progress in the number of digits to which <big><math>\pi</math></big> has been calculated.

In the Bible, 1 Kings 7:23 contains the passage "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." Making many assumptions<ref>Assuming that: the "sea" is perfectly circular; the measurements are to be understood as exact; the measurement of the "compass" and across the "brim" are measurements of the same circle, rather, than say, exterior and interior measurements of a wide lip; etc.</ref> this quotation (which predates Greek mathematics) would appear to equate Pi to 3.

Papyrys of Ahmes, dated c. 1650 B.C. circa 1000 years before Book of Kings, shows that ancient Egyptians had value 3 1/6 = 3.166666667. The Babylonian value from same time <big><math>\pi</math></big> 3 1/8 = 3.125<ref>Boyer, A History of Mathematics, 2nd Edition</ref>.

In 1873 Abraham Shanks spent twenty years calculating <big><math>\pi</math></big> to 707 places, but unfortunately made a mistake in his calculation and only 527 of them were correct. When electronic computers were developed, <big><math>\pi</math></big> was soon calculated to tens of thousands, millions, and billions of places. As of 2002, the record is held by Yasumasa Kanada of Tokyo University at 1,241,100,000,000 digits. That result was never printed out.

==Recreational use==
Memorizing <big><math>\pi</math></big> is a challenge that appeals to some people. Mnemonics have been devised. Counting the letters in the phrase "Now I want a drink—alcoholic, of course" gives <big><math>\pi</math></big> to seven places (which is more than enough for all ordinary purposes). Numerous other mnemonics of this kind have been devised; in 1995, Michael Keith wrote one entitled [http://users.aol.com/s6sj7gt/mikerav.htm Near a Raven] which simultaneously parodies [[Edgar Allen Poe]]'s poem ''The Raven,'' while encoding <big><math>\pi</math></big> to 740 places.

March 14 marks Pi Day, a holiday on which the mathematical constant is celebrated. The date comes from the first three digits of pi; some people begin their celebration at 1:59 pm, derived from the following three digits.

Pi Approximation day is a similar holiday, celebrated on July 22 (from the approximation 22/7). [http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/mathscience/2007-03-14-pi-day_N.htm]

==Notes and references==
<references/>

[[Category:Mathematics]]

French fries

2007-03-28T21:27:09Z

ColemanFrancis: consolidated redundant info

'''French fries''' are a food made from [[potato]]es that have been cut into less-than-quarter-inch, stringy length-wise slices and deep-fat fried (twice in some recipes). They are very popular in [[America]], where some add ketchup to them, the [[United Kingdom]], where they are referred to as ''chips'' and generally served with salt and malt vinegar (see entry on [[fish and chips]]), and [[Belgium]] and [[France]], where they are called ''frites'' and eaten with mayonnaise.

=== Freedom fries ===

Near the start of the [[Iraq War]], a wave of anti-French sentiment briefly swept the United States over [[France]]'s refusal to join or support the U.S.-led coalition. As a protest against France, for a while the Congressional cafeteria refused to use the name "French fries," serving them under the substitute name "Freedom fries".<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80700,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1491567,00.html</ref>
Representatives Bob Ney (R-OH) and Walter Jones (R-NC) were responsible for declaring that all references to "French" in the United States House of Representatives' restaurants and snack bars be removed. Said Ney after personally changing the signs in the House cafeteria, "Once again, our brave men and women in the American military are putting their lives on the line to ensure the freedom and security of others, and once again, France is sitting on the sidelines."

This was similar to other times when foods were renamed because they contained the name of a country with which we were at war. For example, during the first world war sauerkraut was renamed liberty cabbage and dachsunds liberty hounds. <ref>http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=531</ref> Also, in Britain, German Shepherd dogs were renamed Alsatians.

The French responded only by pointing out that French fries originate in Belgium. A spokeswoman (Nathalie Loisau) said, "We are at a very serious moment dealing with very serious issues and we are not focusing on the name you give to potatoes."

Capitol Hill, however, reverted to the "French" label in 2006.<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060802-125318-3981r.htm</ref>

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Food and drink]]

Talk:Music

2007-03-27T21:22:53Z

ColemanFrancis:

== Classical v. Popular Music ==
What is classical music? What is popular music? What were they used for?

Bring citations and examples here for consideration.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 07:53, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

The article seems to imply that "tame" music unlikely to cause riots is more moral than more raucous music. While it is obvious that music has a great deal of emotional content that affects one's moral behavior, I'm not sure if we want to implicitly support "tame" music over "wild music", so perhaps the last paragraph could be rephrased. [[User:ColemanFrancis|ColemanFrancis]] 01:31, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:Hi, there. Good question, and I'll give you a straight answer, from one music lover to another.

:We both agree that music has what each of us would call "emotional content." If you saw my footnotes, you'll see that I found one to substantiate my statement that music does more than reflect emotions; it induces them.

:I also have heard story after story, taken from the [[police]] blotter and also making it to the front page, about rock-and-roll events that end badly. This is not necessarily true of every such event. But the last time we heard of a riot starting at a "classical" concert was the premiere of [[Igor Stravinsky]]'s ''The Rite of Srping''. I never heard, for example, of [[Eugene Ormandy]] or [[Leopold Stokowski]] starting any riots with any of their concerts.

:So now we have to ask ourselves: How and why do certain genres of music cause riots? Do they truly ''cause'' the riots, or might they ''make the atmosphere conducive'' to riots? Or--is the "wild" music part of a subculture whose members characteristically abandon self-control on certain occasions--such as when they are "getting into" certain music that they know will drive them wild?

:And ask yourself this while we're thinking of re-phrasing that paragraph you mentioned: why do the ''lives'' of so many of the ''performers'' and ''composers'' of such music often end badly? In fact, that seems to be a part of rock-and-roll that its artists and listeners ''brag'' about. I recall a [[motion picture]] that was all about a young rock-and-roll bandleader who drove his car off a bridge into a creek, while he was working on a rock-and-roll version of the [[Faust]] story. Maybe you remember the title: ''Eddie and the Cruisers''.

:Hm-m-m-m. Lots of Eddies out there, or so it seems to me. Think maybe their music has something to do with it? Not so much one exposure as a steady diet, day after day after day? Or as a doctor might say, not an ''acute'' effect but a ''chronic'' one?

:Before this day is out, I'm going to take another look at that paragraph and think about a rewrite. But I'd like ''you'' to think about it, too, and to think about what I said above, in deciding how you would advise me.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:50, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Excellent points. It's fairly obvious that music can induce different emotional reactions. However, I will suggest that riots at classical concerts were far more commonplace in the past than they are today (any biography on Liszt or Paganini will describe the madhouse-like atmosphere at their concerts, where women would literally rush up to the stage and try to grab a lock of hair or some other memento from the performer). One could argue that this became less commonplace as classical music became more of a mark of "high culture" (there's a reason why people don't riot when "The Rite of Spring" is played nowadays). In addition, I would caution against the use of the word "sedate": the vast majority of pop music these days is pretty sedate, while most classical (assuming a decent performance) is not. Obviously there's a reason why classical concerts are much less likely to start riots, and I'm not trying to discount the role of music in influencing human behavior, but I think much of the different sets of behavior corresponding to different sets of music comes from cultural expectation of a particular genre, and general differences in musical taste, which should be accounted for in the article. I'm sure many of these rioters have more in common than what music they listen to. [[User:ColemanFrancis|ColemanFrancis]] 17:22, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Music

2007-03-27T05:31:28Z

ColemanFrancis:

User talk:TerryH

2007-03-27T05:27:27Z

ColemanFrancis: /* Music article */

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

You're right. I look forward to seeing your edits. The more, the better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Do you mind if I resize your music image? It seems to effectively dominate the page. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:23, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Go ahead, if you can. When I tried to upload a downsized version of the image, it blew up--and when I put in an internal link, I can't seem to specify a pixel size in the article, as I'm used to doing in [[CreationWiki]]. All I wanted was something 290 pixels wide, and in the upper right-hand corner. Please do what you can, and then ''show me how'' for future reference.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:25, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Ok it is resized to 290px in width, keeping the same dimensions in height. Do you have Paint Shop Pro? If not, what image editing software did you use the first time? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:49, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Oh, I got it. The Wiki software did not exactly "blow up", but you probably tried to upload it using the same name as the original. If you just change the name, it will upload. Then you can delete the original.
--[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:56, 5 March 2007 (EST)

I used "The GIMP", which stands for "GNU Image Manipulation Program." I can produce an image of just about any size. The problem was that I tried to exercise the option to "upload a newer version of this file," and when I did, the MediaWiki software blew up and scrawled an error message across the page. The gist of it is that overwrites are not allowed. I noticed that when you uploaded a resized image, you had to:

# Change the image's name.
# Change the link in my new article.

In [[CreationWiki]], if I were to specify, say, <nowiki>[[Image:Musical notes.jpg|right|290px]]</nowiki>, then I would get an automatically produced resized image of the original file. Here, when I do that, I get an error message.

Actually, I just figured out the proper way to put in a resized image. Here is the code:

<nowiki>[[Image:Musicalnotes.jpg|thumb|200px|right]]</nowiki>

And the result you can see at the right:
[[Image:Musicalnotes.jpg|thumb|200px|right]]

Now if I could just figure out how to write a template with a conditional statement...!--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 23:05, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== Use of material from Creation Wiki ==

Since Conservapedia is not under a GFDL and Andrew has made it very clear that Conservapedia reserves the right to prevent people from copying its work, adopting material from CreationWiki is very problematic. I suggest that you wait to do so until after you discuss the matter with Andrew. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:53, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Terry, in addition to Joshua's good point, I have reservations about copying from any other site. We have always created our own material, while of course using other references. The material that you're posting is good but let's hold off on the direct copying and heavy promotion of another site.

:Can you put this material in your own words and cite the Creation Wiki as references?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:26, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::If it's material that I did not write originally, I certainly can--and will. I was in too big a hurry when I copied some of that material ([[Logical fallacy]], for example), and--well, let's say that some other writers have their styles, and I have mine.

::But if it's something I wrote originally, and submitted to Conservapedia ''and'' [[CreationWiki]]--well, how should I proceed? That is, how extensively should/must I change my own words?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 07:51, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::As I understand it, you're free to re-use your own material under any license you please, even after you've published it under the GFDL elsewhere. So there shouldn't be a copyright issue there, at least. Anything you've published at CreationWiki will remain free to others under the terms of the GFDL, however, so if Andrew wants material here to be unique, that will remain a problem. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:06, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Update: I invite anyone here, who has commented on this thread, to review my latest edits on the article on [[Propaganda]]. You will notice a great many changes. Will these do?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:40, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Loaded question example ==

Is there a reason you removed my example? While strictly speaking the example I gave could be arguably a "complex question" rather than a "loaded questions" they are very related. Also, I would note that loaded and complex questions are not logical fallacies per se but bad rhetoric. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:15, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:Actually, the example you gave reminded me of an example I had seen in the version of the [[Logical fallacy]] article that was also present on [[CreationWiki]]. I did not know that you had put in that example independently.

:What makes a loaded question fallacious is the assumption of facts not in evidence.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:04, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: Um, yes, but my example is a bit more clear cut since it could be pretty strongly in evidence. Also, the case is a bit simpler, since in your case someone might point out that it is often in evidence, whereas the wife-beating example is easy to follow and is much simpler. In general, when illustrating fallacies, simpler examplers are better. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:15, 6 March 2007 (EST)

== Infinite regression ==
Infinite regression ''is'' a logical fallacy. It is a special case of "manufacturing facts to support a theory." I'll set you another example: [[Francis H. Crick]], co-discoverer of [[DNA]], had a logical problem with [[abiogenesis]] as an explanation for the origin of life on earth. He reasoned as follows:

#Abiogenesis requires the spontaneous generation of new information, in quantities that no reasonable theory of the origin of information would allow.
#Therefore life did not originate on earth.
#I (that is, Crick) refuse to accept the proposition that [[God]] created life.
#Therefore, life was ''deposited'' on the earth and originated outside of the earth.

This theory is called [[panspermia]] and is a little-known dodge of the too-much-information problem in biology. Crick's particular theory is that an advanced civilization fired a brace of missiles, each laden with bacteria and blue-green algae, in all directions from their home system. One such missile crashed to earth, and we are its by-products. But most panspermia adherents insist that life came to earth when the earth brushed through a [[comet]]'s tail.

The problem: where did life originate, if not on earth? Who or what seeded the world in which living materials grew to infiltrate a comet's tail, or in which an advanced civilization grew to build and launch a brace of intergalactic missiles? The answer can only be that a comet's tail brushed past yet another world, or the missile builders are themselves the by-product of another such guided missile. And now who or what seeded this other world? And the other? And the other?

Sooner or later, you have to get to a First Cause. That Cause is [[God]]. But all too many scientists refuse to admit a First Cause--just as they refuse to admit that life has an [[intelligent design]], because they know perfectly well that where you have design, you have a Design-er.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: No, this is completely incorrect. There are problems with infinite regression in some circumstances, but they are more subtle than this. Crick argued panspermia not because he couldn't conceive of how life would arise but because what he considered to be likely circumstances where it would arise did not occur on Earth. Thus, the hypothesis that those conditions existed elsewhere. And no, the first cause argument isn't a decent one either and suffers from a variety of flaws. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:17, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::I reject your defense of infinite regression. The problem with infinite regression is that it assumes infinite passage of time. Einstein showed that to be impossible--his General Theory of Relativity led him to conclude, ''inescapably'', that the universe was "open" and that the matter in it had proceeded from an initial cataclysmic event--in short, an explosion. Something had to set that explosion off--and ''before'' that explosion went off, time ''qua'' time did not flow, because it did not exist. And if time had a beginning, then all cyclic processes had a beginning, and therefore infinite regression is impossible.

::What circumstances do you identify in Dr. Crick's thesis, that did not exist on earth but "might have" existed elsewhere?

::I'll have a lot more to say about "directed panspermia" when I publish an article on that subject.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:26, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: Ok, first one doesn't need infinite past to have infinite regression (obvious examples, consider a cyclic universe or an event where step 0 takes 1 minute is caused by step 1 which takes 1/2 minute which is caused by step 2 which takes 1/4 of a minute and so on). Furthermore, any problems related to the nature of the universe's structure as a whole are not ''fallacies'' but contracitions given empirical data (and incidentally, Einstein did not reach that conclusion- among other problems, you merely get that a steady state is not a stable configuration, and the description of the initial big bang expansion as an "explosion" is inaccurate.). As to the matter of Crick, I'd haven't read him in a while so I'll have to reread what he wrote before commenting. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:32, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::If a process did not exist in Time T1 but now does exist in Time T2, then something had to cause it. That cause must have been a ''first'' cause.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:37, 6 March 2007 (EST)
::::: Um, what? Why? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)
::::::Because otherwise, the process would always have been happening since the "beginning" of time.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:44, 6 March 2007 (EST)
::::::: Um, why would it be? And even if it were, so what? And I note that you didn't respond to the distinction betweem logical fallacies and matters which contradict our empirical observations. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:46, 6 March 2007 (EST)
::::::::Because beyond a certain point, your distinction becomes a distinction without a difference. When people present empirical evidence that contradicts a proposition, and the proponent then manufactures yet another proposition (and another, and another, and another) to explain the contradiction, that's fallacious behavior.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:51, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::::::::: No, it is likely to be poor reasoning and run afoul of Occam's razor among other issues, but it isn't a logical fallacy per se. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:53, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Even if GR did prevent infinite regression (which it patently doesn't), that would make it ''false'', not ''fallacious''. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:38, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::: Thanks for summarzing well what I was attempting to say above. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:39, 6 March 2007 (EST)

==ILOVEJESUS==

It would probably be best to adjust your preference to let you know of minor changes. I have blocked user ILOVEJESUS for two weeks. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 07:25, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==4004 BC==

Fair edit. Thanks.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Music article==

Could you elaborate on how classical music is used during wartime on the battlefield? I deleted it because I could not think of a particular example. Also, we may want to add a section on traditional/folk music, which doesn't fit into "classical" or "pop". [[User:ColemanFrancis|ColemanFrancis]] 19:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:Think of all the military marches written over the centuries. Do you really think that none of those marches were performed by military bands on an actual march?
:I like your idea of a section on traditional/folk music. If you have any information along that line, then add it, by all means.
:Let's trade information on musical backgrounds. I played classical piano beginning at the age of five. My music education was mostly extracurricular, and consisted of learning by doing--that is, playing. I've also sung in college operetta productions (specifically, [[Gilbert and Sullivan]]). Today I mostly sing traditional [[church]] music. But I also own a collection that stretches from [[Johann Sebastian Bach|Bach]] to [[Francois Grofe|Grofe]] (think "Grand Canyon Suite") and beyond, with some good doses of [[George Gershwin]] and [[Stephen Sondheim]]. (And [[Rogers and Hammerstein]], [[Lerner and Loewe]], [[Bernard Hermann]], [[Jerry Goldsmith]], [[John Williams]], [[Alfred Newman]], and other famous soundtrack names.) None of this is meant for bragging rights, but only to show how much music I've sampled, and how I came to determine what sort of music I like and would advise others to get a steady diet of.
:You've taken a special interest in music; that much is clear. I'm genuinely interested in your background, whether in applied music, music appreciation, or both. If enough users with enough expertise in music get together, then perhaps we can start a comprehensive project on music to rival the one on [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:23, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::Good point on the military marches - I wasn't thinking of that (I was envisioning some guy pushing along a Steinway grand and simultaneously banging out Chopin's "Military Polonaise"). I've been playing classical piano for the last 13+ years, used to also play violin, and have recently found a job as an accompanist for some vocalists. I listen mainly to Western Classical music (primarily that for my instrument) although I will admit that there are a few composers that I don't "get" (Mahler probably being the most notable). I also have a good deal of knowledge on some of the classic rock bands, particularly those from the 1970s, and I listen to a fair amount of jazz. I don't know too much about folk music, so hopefully I will hear a lot more of that in the future.

::Also, regarding Grofe, not too many people have heard of him (I've only heard one of the movements of the "Grand Canyon Suite", and I think he and not Gershwin actually orchestrated Rhapsody in Blue), so we should start cracking on that article. [[User:ColemanFrancis|ColemanFrancis]] 19:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::This is just to let you know that I got your message. Regarding Grofe, I have his entire "Grand Canyon Suite" on a CD. Let me guess which movement you've heard: "Cloudburst." (It's the last, and when you hear it, you want to look outside to make sure that you're not in a severe [[thunderstorm]].) I also have Ravel's ''Bolero'', and when you hear ''that'', you will understand why that, in addition to Stravinsky's ''Rite of Spring'', started a riot at its premiere. (Today it would be relatively tame.)--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:48, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::::You guessed wrong; I've actually heard "On the Trail" (first heard it in an elementary school music class, and it pops up every so often on our local classical station's Saturday morning kids' show). The ''Bolero'' is a great piece, although I prefer some of Ravel's other works (there is an anecdote in which a woman described the "Bolero" as "not music", and Ravel said that she completely understood the work, but I can't find a source for it). [[User:ColemanFrancis|ColemanFrancis]] 01:27, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Rhapsody in Blue

2007-03-26T23:43:19Z

ColemanFrancis: stub, i'll add more later

'''Rhapsody in Blue''' is a one-movement composition by [[George Gershwin]] for solo piano and orchestra. It was written to fulfill a commission for a "Jazz concerto", and influenced composers such as [[Maurice Ravel]] to integrate "jazzy" sounds into their works. It has a famous clarinet introduction.

George Gershwin

2007-03-26T23:37:01Z

ColemanFrancis: formatting

'''George Gershwin''' was an important American songwriter and composer of the 1920s and 1930s, often collaborating with his brother [[Ira Gershwin|Ira]]. He also wrote orchestral music, most notably ''[[Rhapsody in Blue]]'', ''[[An American in Paris]]'' and the [[opera]] ''[[Porgy and Bess]]''.

Famous songs by Gershwin include "Summertime" (from ''Porgy''), "The Man I Love", and "It Ain't Necessarily So".

User talk:TerryH

2007-03-26T23:34:50Z

ColemanFrancis: /* Music article */

User talk:TerryH

2007-03-26T23:10:25Z

ColemanFrancis:

Music

2007-03-26T22:59:38Z

ColemanFrancis: /* Different uses of classical and popular music */

[[Image:Musicalnotes.jpg|right]]

[[Music]] (Middle English ''musik'', from Anglo-French ''musike'', from [[Latin]] ''musica'', from [[Greek]] μουσικη ''mousike'') is an [[art]] form consisting entirely of organized [[sound]] interspersed with periods of silence.<ref>[http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=Music Music] defined in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.</ref> It takes its name from three [[Greek mythology|Greek]] goddesses known as the ''[[Muses]]'', who specialized in stimulation of an artist's or poet's mind.

Music is the highest of all the arts, and the one best able to stir human emotion. Depending on what sort of work of music one composes, interprets, or hears, it can build a person up in spirit, or break it; make a person happy, or sad; inspire a person to greatness, or lead him into very challenging temptation. It is the art form to which the [[Bible]] gives its strongest endorsement, and to which the Bible pays the greatest attention. At the same time, it is arguably the most dangerous of all the arts, when misused.<ref name=Brown>Brown, Alan B.: telephone interview conducted on 1 March 2007 with user [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]</ref>
== What is music? ==

Strictly speaking, ''music'' means sound having any organization at all, while ''noise'' is purely random sound. But the roots of these two words suggest that ''music'' ought to mean that which makes one think and feel something new and significantly different, while ''noise'' (from the same root from which we get the verb ''I annoy'') is merely a distracting, disturbing, or often physically damaging sound. Some modern composers have attempted to stretch the definition of music by using noises in a manner that they insist is organized. Whether such a work product properly falls under the heading of "music" is debatable.

Note that music is ''not'' limited to such sounds that a human being might produce by fashioning an instrument for the making of a simplified or otherwise organized sound and then "playing" said instrument. The chirping of birds and certain insects may properly be called music, especially if the sound produced is particularly pleasant to the listener. Furthermore, some of the most sophisticated music attempts to imitate the sounds made by birds, insects, and other animals.

== Basic music theory ==
: ''Main Article: [[Music theory]]''
Classically, music consists of ''tones'', ''melodies'', ''counterpoint'', and ''rhythm''. A ''tone'' is the purest form of sound, having a single [[frequency]]. However, pure tones in music are rare. Most tones present themselves to the human ear together with ''overtones'', which typically are small-[[integer]] multiples of the basic frequency (the ''fundamental tone'').

=== Notes, intervals, and scales ===
Two tones played together form an ''interval''. The simplest of all intervals is the ''octave'', formed by two tones, one of whose frequencies is the exact double of the other. The full collection of tones that one can play between the two notes of an octave is called a ''scale.'' In Western music, most scales are ''semi-tonal'', with twelve tones between the octave notes. (The high end of the octave is considered a repetition of the low end, but at twice the frequency.) [[Oriental]] music commonly has ''quarter-tonal'' scales, with twenty-four separate tones within an octave. Quarter tones are often difficult to distinguish for a Western listener, and such music, as a result, tends to suggest the sinuous movement of a snake.

The [[Greece|Greeks]] recognized early that fundamental tones in music have a simple and strict [[mathematics|mathematical]] relationship. As mentioned, the octave consists of two notes, one at double the frequency of the other. At ''triple'' the frequency, one hears a low fundamental tone, and a higher tone that is past the octave but roughly midway toward the second octave. If one then divides the high-tone frequency by two, one creates the interval called the ''perfect fifth'' or ''dominant'' interval, one of the most common intervals used in Western music. One can test this relationship by striking a note on a [[piano]] while holding down another key that is one octave higher than the perfect fifth. The second note will sound in sympathy with the first--because it is resonating with the overtone from the first note.

=== Melody and counterpoint ===
''Melody'' is the series of notes that most closely captures the attention of the listener. A ''counterpoint'' is another series of notes that complements the melody. Either melody or counterpoint can exist either as series of single notes, or as intervals, or as ''chords''. A ''chord'' (named after the string of a Greek hand-held instrument called a [[lyre]]) is any three or more notes sounded at once.

=== Rhythm ===
''Rhythm'' consists of all aspects of music that suggest ''forward movement.'' Most music contains a regularly repeating sequence of ''beats'', or strong elements, that typically lead with a ''down beat'' followed by any of a small number of slightly weaker beats. A down beat and its weaker beats form a ''measure.'' Usually, all measures in a piece of music have the same number of beats.

A note in music is described not only by pitch, or frequency, but also by duration. Notes in Western music have names that typically describe how long they would sound in a typical measure. ''Whole notes'' are so called because normally they would sound for the full measure. ''Half notes'' would sound for half the measure, ''quarter notes'' for a fourth of the measure, and so on. A note may also carry a ''dot'' to the right of it, that indicates that the note is to sound for one and one-half times its usual duration.

Any one of these notes may carry a beat, and a measure may have any number of beats. Thus every piece of music commonly carries at least one ''time signature'' describing how many beats a measure has, and which type of note carries one beat. The most common time is "four-quarter time" (four beats per measure, with the beat given to the quarter note), which is therefore called "common time." Other commonly used time signature include three-quarter, six-eighth, nine-eighth, or rarely, two-half (called ''Alla breve'' or "cut time"). Even rarer are the time signatures with prime numbers of beats (other than three-quarter), including five-quarter or even eleven-eighth.

''Tempo'' (Italian for "time") describes how frequently the beats occur. The typical tempo signature is a drawing of the note that has the beat, followed by the number of beats per minute.

Notes may be ''accented'' at any time. In fact, often the accent will fall on the weak beat and make the beats seem to sound out-of-sequence. The result is ''syncopated'' rhythm.

The genre of music called [[rock and roll]] features a unique rhythm convention: the ''backbeat.''<ref>[http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/12/07/RockRules Normative Backbeat] at Tbray.org</ref> This is a third beat, in four-quarter time, that is stressed even more strongly than the down beat. This produces a profound sense of restlessness in the listener.

== Types of instruments ==
: ''Main Article: [[Musical instruments]]''

== History ==
The [[Bible]] suggests that music actually began in [[heaven]], and that the first-ever musician was [[Lucifer]], then the chief of [[God]]'s messengers, or angels. When he fell, so Scripture says, his choir fell with him.

Human music goes back to [[antediluvian civilization]]. The Bible specifically credits [[Jubal]], son of [[Lamech the Murderer]] by his wife [[Adah]], with introducing music to mankind.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=5|verses=19-21|version=KJV}}</ref>

The earliest ''post''-diluvian records of music have been found in [[Iraq]] and [[India]], and date at least from the time of [[Abraham]]. They probably were made shortly after the [[Babel]] Incident.

Almost every culture and religious movement has its own particular form of music. Some forms are richer and more sophisticated than others. The [[Hebrew]] people, and especially the children of [[Jacob|Israel]], have some of the grandest of all musical traditions. Mentions of "singing to the Lord" abound in the Old Testament. The most highly specific testimony to the power of music over human emotions is surely contained in the story of King [[Saul]] and how he came to recruit the young [[David]] as his armorbearer and personal musician.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=I_Samuel|chap=16|verses=14-23|version=KJV}}</ref>

King [[David]], at the height of his reign, once had a ''four-thousand-voice choir'' to assist in the worship of [[God]]. The Book of [[Psalms]] is in fact a collection of lyrics for some of the first worship songs in Israelite tradition. (Most of these came from David, but at least one comes from [[Moses]].) The [[Song of Solomon]] is a grand ballad of love that most scholars regard as a type of the love of [[Jesus Christ]] for His elect.

The Greeks, when [[Alexander the Great]] accepted the surrender of [[Jerusalem]] in his wars of conquest, introduced their own brand of music to the region--which the Jews largely resisted. But music was highly prominent throughout the Greek world--and later in the [[Rome|Roman]] world following Rome's conquest of Greece. The Greeks' contributions to musical theory influenced the classical artists for centuries to come, and still influence those composers who prefer to adhere to the classical traditions of music.

The earliest Greek music was associated with Greek [[theater]]. But beginning with the fall of Rome, music became largely liturgical. The primary influence remained the [[Roman Catholic Church]] until the twin movements of the Renaissance and the Reformation, each of which introduced a countervailing tradition.

From that time forward, most scholars divide music into "classical" music (composed primarily to achieve a high art) and "popular" music (composed for the masses and tending to achieve wide, but ephemeral, appeal).<ref>[http://www.thefreedictionary.com/popular%20music Popular music] defined at the Free Dictionary</ref>

"Classical music" tends to rely more on written notation, as a piece of classical music is generally held to transcend any particular interpretation of it. In current practice, such music is performed in concerts where the audience is expected to remain respectfully silent and the performers dress formally; however, in the past such music was often performed at salons and other informal private gatherings. In addition, the increasing importance of the written transmission of such music has reduced the role of improvisation, which was extremely important through the beginning of the "Romantic" era. Classical music also displays great musical complexity through the use of varied rhythms, chord progressions, counterpoint, and other compositional techniques, while maintaining a deep emotional content.

"Popular music" on the other hand, tends to be more accessible to the general public through the use of simpler forms and relatively simple compositional techniques. Much popular music is the product of modern business enterprise, as opposed to folk music (created by ordinary people for their own enjoyment) or classical music (which was originally written for religious practice or for the entertainment of the nobility).

These two genres; however, are not necessarily distinct, as composers such as [[Johann Sebastian Bach|Bach]] and [[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart|Mozart]] would often incorporate themes from "popular music" of their time into their works. Other classical composers like [[Maurice Ravel|Ravel]] and [[George Gershwin|Gershwin]] were well-known for their use of jazz idiom in works like the Concerto in F for Piano and Orchestra and [[Rhapsody in Blue]]. On the other hand, popular music has borrowed many themes from classical works (one notable example is "A Whiter Shade of Pale" by [[Procol Harum]]). In addition, "popular music" is not necessarily simpler than classical, as forms like jazz and progressive rock make use of complex time signatures that do not often occur in classical works, and some popular musicians like [[Frank Zappa]] are considered serious composers in their own right.

=== Different uses of classical and popular music ===
Classical music has typically found these uses:

# As an aid to worship, by placing the listener into a proper frame of mind for worship or instill in the listener a proper appreciation of the grandeur and glory of [[God]] and of the listener's own place in relation to Him.
# For the entertainment of the nobility; or, in more recent times, by commission from a particular group of people (often an orchestra or a university).
# To celebrate military victory or the reign of a king, usually the one presently on the throne.
# Occasionally as a supplement to various forms of [[theater]]. Originally (especially in the Greek era) this meant the open-air live theater of classical fame. Today such music might accompany a live stage performance or several scenes in a [[motion picture]].

Popular music, on the other hand, is typically used:

# For entertainment, and more particularly for financial remuneration.
# Very frequently as a supplement to modern [[theater]] in all its forms, including stage, [[motion picture|motion pictures]], and especially [[television]].
# Rarely, to rally troops. One popular artist who achieved great distinction by winning acceptance of his music by military bands was [[Glenn Miller]].

Both forms of music can be used as propaganda, as in some of the works of [[Dmitri Shostakovich]] (although this is debated; see the article on Shostakovich for a more complete discussion).

== The power of music over human emotion ==
Music has a very powerful effect on the emotions of the listener. Music relies on [[sound]], and if "faith comes through hearing," then so does emotion. Music can instantly bring joy or sorrow, ecstasy or despair, and far more quickly than can any other form of art. Many musical composers insist that their music merely expresses emotions. This does not do music justice. Music does more than express emotions; it induces them.<ref>[http://www.musica.uci.edu/mrn/V3I1S96.html MuSICA Notes III(1), Spring 1996]</ref>

The amateur botanist Dorothy L. Retallack, in [[1973]], claimed to have found that music can have an effect on plants. "Positive" music (that produces joy or contentment) supposedly made plants flourish and even "reach" for, or grow toward, such music. Negative music (that produces frustration, restlessness, or especially anger and rage) supposedly caused plants to "recoil" (grow away) from the music, and prolonged or repeated exposure debilitates and eventually killed plants, or so she said.<ref>Retallack, Dorothy L. ''The Sound of Music and Plants''. Devorss and Company, June 1973, 96 pp., paperback. ISBN 0875161707</ref><ref>[http://www.dovesong.com/positive_music/ About Positive and Negative Music] from the Dovesong Foundation</ref>

No botanist has ever reproduced Retallack's claimed results. But the effects on animals and man are far better documented and much more profound than any effect on plants that Retallack ever claimed. That animals, and especially [[dog]]s and [[cat]]s, recoil in horror from the sound of a poorly trained voice, is proverbial (and in fact the animals might be reacting to a sound that is not merely grating but acutely and physically painful to their ears). The Dovesong Foundation has found evidence for musical preferences by cattle<ref>[http://www.dovesong.com/positive_music/archives/basement/Cows%20and%20Classical%20Music.asp Cows Prefer Classical Music]</ref> and cetaceans.<ref>[http://www.dovesong.com/positive_music/archives/basement/Steinhart_Dolphins.asp Dolphins Don't Like Rock] (The article refers to the classic [[dolphin]] (family [[Cetacea]]), aka "porpoise," not the fish of that name.)</ref>

But the effects of music on human beings are far better documented and recognized. The history of warfare includes a rich history of martial music. More recently, music has now found a use in the healing of negative emotional states and even as an aid to the healing of physical disabilities.<ref>[http://www.musictherapy.org/ The American Music Therapy Association]</ref>

Commercial enterprises always attempt, at great expense of time, money, and effort, to find and deploy forms of music that will enhance worker productivity or cause prospective customers to behave in a manner calculated to make them purchase their goods and/or services. The rock-and-roll selections played in supermarkets are a prime example.

Music has always been an adjunct to [[theater]]. This is especially true of the performing arts called ''opera'' and ''ballet'', but applies also to the use of music as an adjunct to a theatrical production, whether on the stage, as a [[motion picture]], or as a [[television]] show.

Music has an obvious use in [[propaganda]], in which the propagandist seeks to manipulate people's emotions and stir them typically to rage and hostility against certain groups.

Finally, music can strengthen in the listener a curiosity about, or even a desire for, an act of sexual or other [[sin]].<ref>[http://cranach.worldmagblog.com/cranach/archives/2006/08/draft_linking_s.html Linking Sexual Music and Teen Behavior] by Gene Edward Veith at the [http://www.worldmagblog.com World Magazine Blog]</ref><ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51496 Face the music, parents] at [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ WorldNetDaily] 12 August [[2006]]</ref> Sadly, this use of music is probably as old as "the oldest profession." Cultural critics observe, pointedly, that permissive cultures have permissive music, and non-permissive cultures avoid such music.

Yet for all this, music is still important in worship. If it were not, then it would not have received the favorable attention that the [[Bible]] clearly gives to it. As powerful a force for evil as it might be, music can be an equally powerful force to encourage the listener to worship, appreciate, and above all obey God and keep His laws--at least, as best as any human being is able.

== Traditions and principles for liturgical music ==
[[Saint Paul]] specifically exhorts his readers to employ music, and specifically "psalms, hymns, and spiritual odes," to bring them closer to God.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Ephesians|chap=5|verses=19|version=KJV}}</ref> <ref>{{Bible ref|book=Colossians|chap=3|verses=16|version=KJV}}</ref> In this context, a ''psalm'' is not necessarily a chapter out of the Book of [[Psalms]]; it can be any song that primarily quotes any part of Scripture. ''Hymns'' are songs primarily of praise and magnification of [[God]]; they do not, however, directly quote Scripture in most of their lyrics, as "psalms" do. ''Spiritual odes'' are primarily personal testimonies, either of salvation or of one's own perception of God. ''Amazing Grace'', by John Newton, is a prime example. ''It Is Well With My Soul'', by Horatio Spafford, is one song that has features of a hymn ''and'' a spiritual ode.

The Rev. Alan B. Brown, MDiv, ThM, has studied liturgical music extensively. In his view<ref name=Brown/>, liturgical music ought to satisfy three prime tests:

# Are the lyrics ''accurate'', either when they quote Scripture or reflect [[Christian]] principles?
# Can you properly ''associate'' the lyrics and/or the notes with Godly things, as opposed to worldly things?
# Are the lyrics and/or the notes ''appropriate'' for worship in general, and in the setting of a particular celebration?

The actual notes to the tunes that, say, King David's choir might have sung, or his royal orchestra might have produced, are lost to us today. But the titles of many of the Psalms contain specific instructions, originally to the music director at King David's court, as to the type of tune and the types of instruments required. Hymnists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries often set the Psalms and other portions of Scripture to music, often with very good effect. The best-known example is the ''Doxology'' (literally, "study in glory") that is a paraphrase of Psalm 100; the tune is called "Old Hundredth" and remains popular today.

== Controversies surrounding music today ==
Music perhaps has always been controversial, but the controversies surrounding music today rage with particular vehemence. The question of what is, and what is not, music is relatively tame. Different composers have always experimented with different music conventions. Many such experiments fail, in that the works produced draw only small audiences, and ultimately no one will play them, because no one will pay to listen to them or to have them played for other people.

Rather, the most raging controversy concerns certain genres of popular music that have provoked adverse political comment precisely because of the emotions they incite and the themes they sound, both in lyrics and in notes. Parents of adolescent and pre-adolescent children object to music that explicitly (mainly through its lyrics) exhorts its listeners to sexual sin. Members of various political interest groups object to music that they believe provokes its listeners to show ''disrespect'' for members of those groups.

Some listeners and music critics attempt to defend music as "amoral," that is, morally neutral. The reaction of so many interested parties to various types of popular music today would seem to belie that stance. Indeed, history is replete with examples of various pieces of music from earlier eras inciting their listeners to violence; [[Maurice Ravel]]'s signature work ''Bolero'', for example, was known to incite riots<ref>[http://www.kalvos.org/bazzr086.html Essay 86: Bolero v. Gliere, Round 1] by David Gunn, at Kalvos & Damian's New Music Bazaar</ref>, as was [[Igor Stravinsky]]'s work ''The Rite of Spring''.<ref>[http://www.nottinghamphilharmonic.co.uk/notes/SRS.html The Rite of Spring] by the Nottingham Philharmonic Orchestra</ref> Riots have also broken out at many rock-and-roll concerts, and often the responding law-enforcement authorities have been at a loss to determine the ultimate causes of those riots. The ''proximate'' cause typically is a one-on-one fight in which other concert attendees joined in--but what put the original combatants into a fighting mood, or causes others to join a fight that was, strictly speaking, not theirs, is far more difficult to explain. The causes of the quarrels involved seem trifling in comparison to the damage that ultimately results--and riots like these do not normally occur at performances of other, "tamer" types of music.

== References ==
<references/>

== See Also ==
* [http://creationwiki.org/Music Music] by [[CreationWiki]]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music Music] by [[Wikipedia]]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_music History of music] by [[Wikipedia]]

[[Category:Culture]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

Brown University

2007-03-26T20:19:42Z

ColemanFrancis: /* SPG scandal */

'''Brown University''' is an American university located in Providence, Rhode Island. It is a member of the Ivy League, and was rated as the 15th best U.S. college in 2007 by U.S. News and World Report [http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/t1natudoc_brief.php].

==The New Curriculum==

Brown prides itself on its "New Curriculum," first established in 1969, which allows students to take virtually any course they want, with no general distribution requirements. Traditional letter grades are optional. [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=adp5xdxUBo78]

==Slavery and Justice==

Brown recently did a study on its own history, and found that the Brown family heavily participated in the slavery trade, finding that slave labor was extremely important in the funding of the university during its early days.

==SPG scandal==

In 2005, Brown University's "Queer Alliance" threw a raucous party entitled “Sex Power God,” in Sayles Hall, a large lecture hall used also for concerts and previously for mandatory religious services, and containing large portraits of former University officials. According to some reports, a number of students had to receive emergency medical assistance due to over-consumption of [[alcohol]]. Reporters with fake ID's attended the event with hidden cameras, resulting in footage which was soon featured on [[The O'Reilly Factor]], where Bill O'Reilly stated "You would have been safer in [[Baghdad]] than on the campus of Brown University," and calling Brown president Ruth Simmons and other university leaders "pinheads." [http://media.www.browndailyherald.com/media/storage/paper472/news/2006/04/27/CampusNews/Chaos.And.Management.Failures.Marred.Sex.Power.God-1880141.shtml?norewrite200605012032&sourcedomain=www.browndailyherald.com]

==Vandalism of Conservapedia==

Recently, at least one Brown University internet user has vandalized Conservapedia<ref> [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Lewis_and_Clark_by_Brown_University_Contributor]]</ref>.
==Notes==
<references/>
==References==
*[http://www.brown.edu/Research/Slavery_Justice/ Brown's report on its historical ties with Slavery]

Talk:Brown University

2007-03-26T20:16:28Z

ColemanFrancis: /* Sayles Hall */

If there's no citation for the info about Brown and the slave trade, the information should be removed.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:49, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:I agree, it looks like gossip against Brown and doesn't help Conservapedia's goal of no gossip. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 13:51, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Maybe it would just be easier to keep the information, and get rid of the "no gossip" goal. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 16:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Maybe it'd be easiest to keep conservapedia, and get rid of all the people who read it? --[[User:Mittromney|Mittromney]] 16:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
== Sayles Hall ==

Sayles Hall is neither one of the oldest buildings on campus, nor was it built for religious purposes; it was (and is) a lecture hall, bult in 1881. A chapel, known as the "Little Chapel", was added in a side-room in 1945, and indeed is still there -- but it would be misleading to imply that the building's primary use was ever for the holding of religious services.

see the entry on the Hall in the [http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/Databases/Encyclopedia/search.php?serial=S0050 Encyclopedia Brunoniana] [[User:Boethius|Boethius]]

Sayles was used for mandatory chapel services from 1906 to 1969, so the previous description as "where required religious services was once held" is accurate. See the [http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/Databases/Encyclopedia/search.php?serial=C0330 Encyclopedia Brunoniana] entry on "Chapel". I'll include a better description of the hall. [[User:ColemanFrancis|ColemanFrancis]] 16:16, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Mitosis

2007-03-26T15:25:47Z

ColemanFrancis:

The duplication of a [[cell]]'s [[chromosome]]s to allow daughter cells to receive the exact [[genetics|genetic]] makeup of the parent cell.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Biology''. Apologia
Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref>

Mitosis makes up the "M-phase" of the [[cell cyc#le]], and is comprised of the following stages:

===Prophase===

===Prometaphase===

===Metaphase===

===Anaphase===

===Telophase===

===Cytokinesis===

==See also==
*[[Meiosis]]

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]

Lines of longitude

2007-03-26T15:23:14Z

ColemanFrancis:

Imaginary lines that run north and south across the earth. They are used to measure east-west orientation, relative to a "prime meridian" set at 0 degrees. While in the past many meridians have been used, since 1884 the Greenwich Meridian has become the universal standard. <ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Liberal

2007-03-26T03:09:03Z

ColemanFrancis: added more detailed definition of liberal

'''''Liberal''' is a term used in politics to describe a person who generally is left-wing in his attitudes towards the government, establishment, and many other laws. The term was first used in reference to a political opinion c. 1801 A.D., in the aftermath of the French Revolution, when it meant "tending in favor of freedom and democracy."<ref>Etymology [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=liberal]</ref>

In the United States, the term ''liberal'' characterizes people who hold political views that support less governmental restrictions on behavior, while supporting greater governmental influence in the free market to protect what are perceived as "natural rights" (such as anti-discrimination laws, etc.). This is different from [[classical liberalism]] (which has more to do with what would be called [[libertarianism]] in the United States). The following views are generally, though not always, supported by American liberals today:

* in favor of [[gun control]]
* supporting a woman's [[right to choose]] pregnancy termination, i.e. [[abortion]]
* promoting secularism and the prohibition of organized prayer in school
* equal responsibilities for men and women, such as equal participation by men and women in the military
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
* [[same-sex marriage]]
* increased taxpayer funding of public schools
* protection of natural resources and wilderness areas
* taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
* increased power for labor unions
* [[disarmament treaties]]
* classical liberalism stood for a limited government role [http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/economic-liberalism.php]
* private property and individual contracts form the basis of Classical liberal economic theory
* reduction of military expenses
* support of [[affirmative action]]
* government-sponsored education
* preference for a interpretation of the constitution as a "[[living Constitution]]" instead of an unchanging Constitution
*[[income redistribution]], with higher progressive taxation on those in the top 10% of earnings.
* currently, opposition to interventionist foreign policies that involves nation building. Isolationist positions are however traditionally neither liberal nor conservative. There are examples for isolationist positions on both sides of the political divide. <ref>[http://newsmine.org/archive/cabal-elite/w-administration/w-bush/bush-2000-against-nation-building-and-poor-nation-debt.txt The Second Gore-Bush Presidential Debate] </ref><ref>[http://www.un.int/usa/02_131.htm President Bush's address to the United Nations], United States Mission to the United Nations, Press Release #131(02), 12 September 2002.</ref>

Note, that ''liberal'' in the European context refers to moderate and center-right parties, often with a pro-business stance.<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> The same holds for many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world.<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref>. The US definition of liberal is much more similar to the politics of European [[socialist|socialist or social democratic]] parties.<ref>http://www.pes.org</ref>.

One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>
: Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Politics]]

Talk:Liberal

2007-03-26T03:03:47Z

ColemanFrancis: /* Isolationist vs Interventionalists */ forgot tag

== Wikipedia Citations ==

*'''It is never acceptable to use citations from Wikipedia here on the Conservapedia, per Aschlafly''' --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:07, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

----

prohibiting prayer in school is not a liberal objective. Mandatory prayer over a loud speaker, however, should be prohibited. Talking to God does not require infringing on other children's right not to have to engage in such activities.

:How is gun control liberal? I mean like, doesn't sound conservetive? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:14, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::The Constitution allows us to own guns, liberals want to confiscate all our guns in spite of the Constitution saying that is illegal. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, I've been intrigued and annoyed at the one-dimensionality of the political spectrum in the United States. I can't honestly quarrel with Aschlafly's list. If this were Wikipedia I'd want to see a source for it... and of course it has a conservative spin ("protection of obscure endangered species")... but it wouldn't surprise me if you could pull that list, or something very like it from election-year national Democratic Party platforms.

:But isn't it weird? These positions have very little to do with each other. Years ago I was trying to explain American politics to friends from the Netherlands and they found it baffling. They didn't see at all why someone who was for gun control would necessarily be expected to support legalized abortion, why someone who supported legalized abortion would necessarily be expected to support environmental protection, or why someone who supported environmental protection would necessarily be expected to oppose prayer in schools.

:I don't know where this one-dimensional polarization comes from. Perhaps the two-party system leads to political leaders trying to sort political positions into neat packages and sell the public on an "us-versus-them" situation.

:I always thought Jimmy Carter got a bad rap, and that part of the reason was that he actually ''voiced moderate positions,'' and that he did ''not'' fit neatly into a one-dimensional political spectrum. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:The two-party system and its polarisation are the cause of almost all that is currently wrong in US politics. It has created an environment where only the extremists have any chance of getting to the top - a moderate, or any sensible person, will succeed only in incuring the wrath of both liberals ''and'' conservatives. - Suricou
::But that's assuming liberalism and conservativism lie at polar opposites. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:34, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== European Liberals ==

This part near the end of the artical is totally wrong: "Note, that liberal in the European context refers to moderate and center-right parties, often with a pro-business stance."

Best example is the UK Liberal Democrats, they are Left. How can Liberal views like wealth distribution be mixed up with a "center-right" stand.

This is what happens when you giving editing rights to just one, presumably American person. --[[User:Mj|Mj]] 10:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

This refers to liberal parties such as the VVD in the Netherlands, FDP in Germany, Venstre Parti in Denmark, or FPOE in Austria, or maybe even the Liberal party in Australia. Outside of the US, the pro-businnes centre-right parties outnumber social liberal parties. You might want to look at the discussion on this subject on this page. [[User:Order|Order]] 25 March, 9:15 (AEST)

== Sort order of priorities ==
How about sorting the points in the artical in to some more meaningful way. Maybe you could even break off core belief's, like wealth distribution from current issues like abortion. --[[User:Mj|Mj]] 10:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Parochial definition ==

I have long had a real problem with the way that this word is defined in America.

Yes, I know this is Conservapedia and we are all about American usage. But the way this particular word is defined in America seems, in some ways, perverse. I wonder if this definition ought to be a little broader. I am prompted to say this because of the line in the article that says '"Liberal" today means the disfavoring of individual responsibility in favor of collectivism or egalitarianism'. That is almost the opposite of my understanding of the word. What about John Stuart Mill and the freedom of the individual? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:14, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:Well, for purposes of this article, I'd suggest: slap a qualification on it: "In the present-day United States, the word liberal means..."

:Then start another section or something. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:P. S. Don't you just love it that the traditional dead-white-European-male Harold Bloom, "Western canon" educational curriculum is known as the (wait for it...) '''Liberal Arts?''' (rimshot) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:24, 3 March 2007 (EST)

==Vandalism?==

The last three listed "characteristics" of liberalism seem to be sarcastic caricatures of conservative positions. I'm especially suspicious because the evolution reference seems redundant, and it also directly states that creationism is not science. I think I'm going to remove the last three. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Aliens? ==

Do Liberals really attempt to achieve amnesty for illegal aliens? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Some do. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:So does George W. Bush. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 22:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

But are they not aware that aliens are sometimes really dangerous? It is O.K not to hate every foreigner, ... but aliens? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:If my ancestors had had your attitude, we'd all be speaking Navaho today. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 22:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:Or you'd just be speaking your butchered version of English, moron. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::Are you advocating genocide? Or are you saying a genocide wouldn't have happened? [[User:Mustaine12390|Mustaine12390]] 16:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why were my changings reverted? ==

I made some changings to the article, by adding some more information. But they were reverted without any reason. I think the main reason why this project was started is because they used to revert imortant contributions to articles in wikipedia. So there should not be removement of important facts that are added. Or do I get something wrong? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:The "reversion" key does not allow explanation. Let me explain here. Your additions were not factual enough. Saying liberals want "reform" is meaningless. You said they want more wealth for the poor. No one is against that either. The point of this entry is to describe how liberals distinguish themselves in their beliefs. No one favors harming the environment either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:36, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:: The "reform" comes from "American Heritage Dictionary". Of course no one is against more wealth for the poor. But the liberals are tending to take a lot of money from the rich to achieve that. And of course no one favours harming the environment. But most just do not really care. Look who is driving the hybrids. Most of them are liberals. No American but Japanese cars. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Foreign Treaties are liberal? ==

First off, treaties by their nature are foreign since we sign them with other countries. So that is redundant. Secondly, many conservative presidents have signed treaties, so how can they be a "liberal" goal? Thirdly, conservative presidents have signed disarmament treaties, or has everyone forgotten Reagan and Gorbachev signing the INF Treaty in 1988? --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 10:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:Well, President George W. Bush has made it clear he's not going to obey any treaties that might endanger America, so he's not as liberal as SOME presidents. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 00:30, 11 March 2007 (EST)

::I believe that any President is bound by the Constitution to honor treaties that have been ratified by the Senate. To do otherwise could well lead to a breakdown of constitutional principles such as separation of powers.[[User:Cracker|Second Amendment]] 01:27, 11 March 2007 (EST)

::President Bush has also made it clear he is also not bound by the "separation of powers" if it might endanger America. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:31, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== References for the "typical" liberal positions? ==

Please add references for each position and maybe try tor sort it. I would do it if i would be competent on the american political system and culture; sadly i am not. Maybe one could sort it into the categories "economic beliefs in international trade", "economic beliefs regarding financing public services" and "relation between state and citizen". So something like "funding abortions from tax money" is a combination of "health system funded by taxes" and the belief "abortion is a personal health decision by the women" (i am not judging about either of the claims; my opinion is that the state should do everything to decrease the reasons for abortion. It is a shame for any industrialized nation that pregant women see economic causes as a pressure to commit an abortion.).

So clarify the fundamental opinions by references.

== Reference to socialism ==

It used to say that many views of liberals are similar to socialism. This just shows little knowledge of socialism, and the context it operated in. Socialist regimes were often bad for the environment, let criminals and gays in disappear in gulags, were very restrictive on immigration (see guest workers in East Germany), were critical of evolution, oppressed independent trade unions (Solidarnosc in Poland), engaged in the arms race, were militaristic, supported para military organizations, and some even were outright opposed to abortion (Romania). Also issues such as welfare didn't apply, since these countries didn't know this concept.[[User:Order|Order]] 13:45 (AEST)

== Increased taxes? ==

I find it interesting that "increased taxes" is listed among the goals of liberalism. Granted, there is among liberals a generally greater emphasis on social programs geared towards helping the less-fortunate members of society. Since those programs cost money to operate, there is perhaps a tendency towards taxes higher than we would otherwise see without those programs in place. But it seems a bit of a stretch to say that liberals are focused on raising taxes for the sake of raising taxes. Why is "increased taxes" listed?

: Welcome, and please sign your entries with the signature button at the top. Increasing taxes is a way of increasing government power and equalizing wealth, regardless of whether the money is really needed for government services. Liberals support increasing taxes even when there is a budget surplus. Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes. Please provide an example if you disagee.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:46, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: "Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes." That's a pretty bold statement. John F. Kennedy, for example, called for one of the biggest tax cuts in history in 1963. See http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=9387&st=Kennedy&st1=tax.--[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 19:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Provide an example saying conservatives '''never''' raise taxes then Aschlafly. It's easy to say something and then say "prove me wrong". If you're going to make a claim like "Liberals never, ''ever'' call for cutting taxes" it's up to you to prove it, not someone else to disprove it. Take a look at your court system if you want to see this in action. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 06:40, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Re: Increased Taxes ==

I didn't notice the signature item earlier. I'll be sure to use it from now on.--[[User:Blr|Blr]] 01:23, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandments? ==

Doesn’t this list break some or all of the following commandments?

1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.
2. Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain.
6. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry.

:*Agree. I'm new here but I've already noticed that people don't seem to cite their sources...

So - if this breaks the commandments - shouldn't' it be deleted?

The commandments state: "Edits which violate these rules will be deleted. Users who violate the rules repeatedly will be blocked."

So should not most of this be deleted? It's almost all all unsubstantiated, unverified opinion, and the commandments don't allow for discussion - they just say edits which violate these rules will be deleted.

[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Look, if we held people up to the commandments aschlafley would had to have been blocked ages ago. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 00:00, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal outside of the US ==

You cannot call liberals outside of the US ''socialists''. Neither are ''socialists'' abroad liberal. In many countries, the ''Liberals'' are either moderates or right-wing. Examples are the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria. The Australian PM, from the Liberal Party, is one of the staunchest supporters of President Bush. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 12 March 2007, 23:11 (AEST)

: For ''liberal'' parties in Europe check [http://www.alde.eu/], for socialist parties check [http://www.pes.org/]. These are different organizations, different parties. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 12 March 2007, 23:41 (AEST)
:::Yes, that is one definition of liberal. But, as conservapedia aims to maintain a pro american stance the American definition of liberal is important too. The British Labour Party (who fit the US definition of liberal) are socialists as are many other european parties.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 08:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Does Pro-American mean Anti-World (or "ignore that US-people are less than 5% of the world and that there is a world outside"?) If you write about liberals outside the USA, you have to see what liberals outside the USA are. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== So why were MY changes deleted? ==

Regarding the taxes issue: In the discussion above, [[User:Blr|Blr]] had a good point. Liberals do not support increasing taxes for the sake of increasing taxes. They support expansive government and social support programs (welfare, Medicare, etc.) that require funding. This creates an increased tendency to raise taxes, but does not mean that liberals necessarily ''want'' to. Additionally, in the above discussion, the justification for keeping the statement on the page was a comment by Mr. Schlafly, stating "Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes. Please provide an example if you disagree." I did provide an example, and then changed the page; my change was erased within 1 minute. If this site wants to be unbiased, it ought to follow its own first commandment: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." The support for the increased taxes claim was negated using a strong counterexample. So how does the claim remain "true and verifiable"? With its support gone, the claim is just opinion and does not belong in an encyclopedia. --[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 09:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree. As noted above, this page seems to violate three of the site's commandments. Given that there are only seven of them that's quite good going. [[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Incidentally ==

It is impressive how you make no attempt whatsoever to make this a respectable encyclopedia. I would have thought you people would keep your bias more subtle than this but apparently not given that you seem to think "support of gun control" and
"taxpayer funding of abortion" are the two views which are most synonymous with the liberal cause. I imagine that seeing as you are all true patriots and believe in freedom of speech and democracy, this post will probably last a little less than the amount of time it took me to write it, but at least I got it off my chest.

: Spanky, did you completely make up your entry about [[Peter Singer]]? Is that a liberal thing to do?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Links? ==

I was quite a bit disturbed to find that most issues here don't link to their corresponding articles. I created an account to try to make them links and found that the page is protected without even using the template to say that the page is protected. --[[User:Chuck SMITH|Chuck SMITH]] 06:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I think this is a very good point. Shouldn't all of these be red links?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 03:41, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
::OK, I'll set some up.

== False Statement ==

The statement that Liberals wish to prevent prayer in schools is false. Liberals wish to prevent '''organised''' prayer in '''public''' schools. [[User:Nirgal|Nirgal]] 13:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why can't this page be edited? ==

It seems to me that this "conservative" effort is little more than a means for some to vent their frustration with the Wikipedia audience. If this were meant to be comparable in scope and superior in quality then more due diligence would be done so that pages were considered accurate, not just conservative. In evaluating the liberal page, it seems that a concerted effort has been made to infuse conservative bias into the definition of the topic. That, to me, is the very definition of propaganda. Unless editors choose to make edits that reflect the truth,and not just conservative spin, this site will become irrelevant. [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 12:19, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yeah, that's the feeling I've been getting too. I think it's just that certain people here don't like being proven wrong, so when someone like me attempts to put up factual statements (or at least remove false ones), those certain people (or maybe person) lock the article. You can see the "discussion" about increased taxes above. I'm still waiting for my changes to be incorporated into the article. Good luck in removing the propaganda. --[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 09:36, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Giving to the poor ==

I am surprised to see "distributing wealth from the rich to the poor" listed as a "liberal" belief -- seems to me this is (or ought to be) a Christian belief, as Jesus himself says to the rich man "sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven" (Mark 10:21).

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Sounds like you are trying to say Jesus is a Democrat? Hardly. Besides, I think you are taking that Bibical statement out of context. Just an FYI. Also, aren't the liberals the ones behind the "warming climate hoax"? [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::No, I don't think that Jesus Christ endorses any political party. But His teaching has consistently been that it is the obigation of the wealthy (and indeed, of everyone) to give to the poor, as well as to minister to the sick, visit those in prison, and otherwise render comfort to their fellow men. See Mark 12:41-44, Matthew 25:36, and many other passages. The way in which any given political party, or person interprets or applies those teachings is up to them; it just seemed to me odd that this idea, phrased this way, would be attributed to "Liberals". [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::You appear to be tarring alot of things with the same brush, Miles. That is a gross generalisation of liberalism. Also, given that it is unclear whether climate change is because of human activity how can you say "warming climate hoax"?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I thought it had been proven to be a hoax, sorry if I am wrong. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Alternate defintion of liberal ==

Currently we have an alternate definition of liberal that is "anything that is not conservative" while we have a definition of [[conservative]] that is "one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue." This strongly implies that liberals do not adhere to personal responsibility and moral virtue. Isn't that needlessly inflammatory? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Beliefs ==

I am not sure that you guys understand what liberal means. Here is a list of things that are not liberal on the list you provide:
support of gun control,
taxpayer funding of abortion,
support of gun control,
distributing wealth from the rich to the poor,
government programs to rehabilitate criminals,
increased taxpayer funding of public school,
taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care,
increased taxes,
support of government programs such as welfare,
teaching of evolution (this isn't a set belief by liberals or conservatives, generally though liberals favor the teaching of evolution, however, this should not be added as a set belief)

The problem with this list is that you say it is the beliefs of liberals. However, these are the beliefs of Democrats and not liberals. You guys are making a common error that many citizens make. The error is using liberal as a synonym of Democrat. Democrats though are not true liberals. Democrats are economically conservative. The party that is a true liberal by definition would be the Libertarian Party. Essentially what a true liberal wants is no government at all. In a truly liberal society there would be total anarchy. Liberals want people to be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt other people. Increased taxes is conservative economic issue which Democrats would, yes, be in favor of, but liberals would not be in favor of it. Gun control is another issue that is wanted by some Democrats, however, this too is a conservative belief. Surely this site should know what its beliefs are if it considers it to be a conservative site. This site could be considered a liberal point of view due to the economic views expressed on this site. However, really this site should not consider itself to be liberal or conservative, but rather a Republican view. The website should be www.Republicapedia.com. I don't see how you people can consider yourself conservative when you don't know what conservatism is. Republicans are the biggest bunch of liberals I know.

Minors under 16 years use this site. So I feel that this site should be as accurate as possible and not lie to the innocent children viewing this site.
--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 00:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I must admit that I would have thought the same thing - but not being an American citizen - I assumed the word had acquired a different meaning over there. Presumably this explains why none of the entries actually links to anything to source the apparently unsubstantiated opinions expressed here.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:It would help to have some subheadings in this article - the bulletpointed list could be put in a section entitled 'Liberalism in America' or suchlike, and have another section on the libertarian/right-leaning definition more commonly used in Europe etc. --[[User:Rafa|Rafa]] 17:52, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unlock Page ==

Could you please unlock this page so that people can edit it. {{unsigned|Liberalmedia}}
: [[Conservapedia:Request Unprotection]] is thataway. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 12:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Nonsense ==

This article is a study in overstatement, overgeneralization, and innuendo. Since it violates the first of the Conservapedia Commandments, I propose it for immediate deletion. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:07, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:Those things are ok sometimes depending on who wrote them. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:19, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberals and Saddam ==
::The portion about being supportive of Saddam is particularly egregious.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

This article is unfair to the many liberals who oppose any dictatorship. The piece about liberals is just there to infume them. Lets be fair, because we wouldn't like it either if the article on ''conservative'' said that conservatives have no problems with human right violations and murder, such as in Chile under Pinochet or Burma now, as long as the regime works with them. [[User:Order]]

:This is an undeniable fact. In 2003, so-called liberals were ''the only'' group who (a) identified themselves as liberals and (b) opposed Iraqi human rights and democracy. No one else shared thier views. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually it's a steaming pile of, er, lies. --[[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:24, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Rob, get your head out of the sand. Every American is in favor of Democracy, for the love of God, get that into your head. Liberals, like me, were opposed to the war because it was poorly planned, poorly committed, we knew it'd be poorly executed, and it was inconsistent with previous stated U.S. policy (see the [[Powell Doctrine]] which I'm sure isn't up yet, since it's a liberal topic). We knew it would end in a quagmire. Liberals would line up 'cross the board in support of spreading democracy if we thought it would be easy in and easy out, but we weren't deluded into thinking it was. You were.
::Ooooh, and guess who was right?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:RobS| RobS]], it may be that liberals are not in favorite of human rights, lets not forget that the only conservative who had some courage and decency to take a stand against torture was McCain. So do you want the article on conservatives to say: ''As the discussion around Abu Graib and torture legislation has shown, conservatives do not believe in human rights, and would like to torture at will, and for no good reason, and all the reason that we had to invade Iraq to bring democracy and freedom, was obviously a sham'' just because a few vocal and irresponsible conservatives don't get that these practices are plain wrong, who hardly represent the mainstream conservative position. You should allow both sides to have their share of lunatics on the fringe, but we shouldn't make it part of how we define the mainstream. [[User:Order| Order]] 23 March. 11:50 (AEST)

:: Let's not forget the "Torture Memo," [[user:Order]. I submit one final question to you, [[user:RobS| comrade]]: based on what we now know about how the war should have been executed, should have been planned, what the troops should have gotten before the war in the way of training and armor...
:: ...who really supports the troops? Hint: '''not''' the Bush administration.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:57, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:::AmesG: So your psychic powers told you it was poorly planned, etc., and that's why you went about disrupting public support for the War. The Powell Doctrine is a restatement of Clausewitz, adding "overwhelming use of force", etc. But (a) the Powell Doctrine only referes to conventional type Cold War conflicts with large standing miltiary establishment, fixed targets, etc, and does not address the problems of '''modern 21st century warfare'''. Further, the business about "exit strategy" was always controversial, because it only applies to what Clausewitz refers to as "A War of Limited Aims".[http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/VomKriege2/BK8ch05.html]
:::Order: That discussion is already in the mainspace at [[Abu Ghraib]]. Arundati Roy, ''et al'', are self identified comrades with murderers and [[terrorist]]s. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I don't need psychic powers to tell me that a war without an exit plan is poorly planned. And it's not me that misinterpreted the type of conflict awaiting in Iraq: the government has consistently treated it like a Cold War style conflict, so conceding your point, your own argument bites you. Seriously, that this war was bungled from the start was never an issue. No exit plan = poorly planned. And Powell thought it applied; that's why he quit.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 21:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::We're still waiting for the exit plan from the Korean War, considering it was the policy of contianing Soviet expansion that got us in there, and now with the Soviet Union defunct, we're still waiting on the exit plan.

:::::Point is, only in a war of limited aims can there be an exit plan. And not all wars are wars of limited aims. Idealy, in a perfect world that would be so. But we all know the truth of that matter...

:::::As to it being a Cold War style conflict, as the saying goes, we always plan to fight the last war. Cold War military and 20th century military establishments are not designed to fight modern warfare against terrorist cells. It's a learning curve, and the US is deveolping the special skills needed. Us oldtimers can only give our experience, but if the US is to survive, the present generation must revamp the idea of what soldiering and war is to deal with this enemy which is intent upon destroying Western Civilization, and probably will never quit.

:::::The War on Terror, or the War in Iraq, is not just another "frisch, fröhliche krieg", as the Germans say, a brisk, jolly little war; and comparing it to the Cold War is an understatement, too. Neither is it like both World Wars which were total war between nation-states. But I'm afraid you have (and probably the sources you get much of your information from) drawn too heavily upon these past experiences to base your analogies on. It is an entirley different kind of war that needs entireley different approaches and solutions. Complaining about the things you've stated solves nothing. The John Kerry Administration or Al Gore Administration would be facing these identical problems, so your reservations literally have no merit whatsoever other than ill-founded partisanship.

:::::So then, what do we do? Hide our head in the sand and pray to Allah that the problem will go away? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Your knowledge of German attitude towards war is a bit dated. This was the pre WW-1 mood, about one century ago. There was no "frisch, fröhliche krieg" sentiment at the beginning of WW-2. If anyone was looking for a jolly little war in the last century, then it was mood by the neo-cons (who by my account aren't conservative) prior to the Iraq war.

:::::: There were people with precongnition. Even part of the bush administration was able to have an appropiate plan for the war and its aftermath in iraq. Unfortunately this plan was made by the state department. The Pentagon decided to disregard the recommendations in that plan, ignore the warnings in that plan. They kind of followed a recipe for disaster that was painted in the plan by the state department. There were sufficient people who warned, but the white house and the pentagon decided to ignore these. [[User:Order]] 23 March, 15:30 (AEST)

::::::: A frisch, fröhliche krieg would describe something like Granada or the Falklands, yes there may be real fighting and valor, but ultimately it's more like a game of touch football where nobody gets hurt. So what are you saying? Saddam randomly putting a person in a wood chipper every few months to keep the population terrorized is preferable to 650,000 casualties in building a democratic Iraq? Case closed. Nobody ever said democracy and freedom come cheaply. Liberals abandoned thier long held advocacy of democracy and human rights when they opposed the war. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::P.S. And all you have are lame partisan arguments that do nothing, absolutely nothing, to further the cause of democracy and human rights.

:::::::: So, the well executed post war planning by the state department was partisan? Just accusing liberals all the time doesn't solve the problems. This administration messed up. And not because it is conservative or liberal, but because they have contempt for experts. They think that these expert also just have an opinion even valid as their own opinion. Interlectually dishonesty is the problem, and I can't see any conservative value in that. It is you who casts everything under sun in partisan terms. [[User:Order|Order]] 23 March, 16:30 (AEST)

::::::::Not wanting to endorse a poorly planned war that could never accomplish its goals - as much as I hope it still will, as do all Democrats - is not the same as not signing off on the goals. I think it'd be super if man could land on Mars, but I'd rather not try to get there in a Cessna 152. My recalcitrance at using such limited means, though, doesn't mean that I dont' think we should at some point land on Mars... -[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 01:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::So is the argument (again) that because ''didn't'' have operational capability in WMD that we should have waited until he did, then we could have sent the troops in harms way with the assurance that would suffer a chemical weapons attack. And then that would justify everything. But you and I both know, in that scenario, all we would hear would be "Wjhy didn't we get rid of Saddam ''before'' he had WMD? Why did they wait too long? They knew and they did nothing!" Youn know the script lines, and play the part well, but let's be honest with the folks viewing at home, all this refernce to Bush, Cheney, Powell, etc. is bogus, and has nothing to do with the real matter. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::You just come with your ''talking-points''. The ''talking points business'' an insult for any conservative who is able to think for himself. Anyway, tell us what the matter is? What does your ''talking point list'' say about this topic? [[User:Order|Order]] 23 March, 16:40 (AEST)

It's really hard to argue that the world is a better place without Saddam in it. I'm not even going to try. But what I can argue is that liberal thought maybe... juuuuuuuustt maybe... the administration shouldn't have gone in there with such a rosy picture of what was going to happen. George H.W. Bush knew what the consequences of a Baghdad invasion would look like. He knew it in 1991. W didn't have to listen to liberals to figure out what would happen, he just had to call his dad.

And let's not forget... Saddam was contained. His ability to mount any kind of offensive war was extremely limited, he was under constant surveilance. Time was our ally here. We lost that ally like we did the rest of them. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::It was easy to predict the failure of the Iraq war based on the worldview of those who planned it. Neoconservativism has always been scoffed at by all serious foreign policy experts because it fundamentally misunderstands the nature of power and the role of nationalism in political behavior. It is why all of Bush's policies have been failures--because he tries to implement conservative policies and conservative policies are fundamentally flawed because they are premised on false assumptions about authority and erroneous predictions regarding human behavior and how it responds to authority.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 00:13, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Liberals in Europe ==
I saw that you changed that liberal in europe from "center to right wing" to "so-called center and right wing". Tell us what is "so-called" center and right wing about the liberal parties in Germany, austria or the VVD in the Netherlands? They are centre or right wig.[[User:Order|Order]]
:This refers to the Left/Right Spectrum Theory, as we have discovered in the most recent example--Iraq, is totally devoid in understanding politcal groups, coalitions, parties, groupings, ideologies, or loyalties. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: So why do you use it? And what does that have to do about the fact that Liberals outside of the US, do not fit this defiition of liberal. Do you actually know what liberal parties in Europe stand for, say VVD in the Netherlands, FDP in Germany, Venstre Parti in Denmark, or FPÖ in Austria? Where they position themselves in the political spectum? Or do you know, to mention a non european example, what attitude the leader of the Australian Liberal Party has towards the war in Iraq? I guess you just don't know it, and therefore try to change the subject. [[User:Order|Order]] 23 March 15:40 (AEST)

== Gun Control ==

Liberals don't want gun control. I would like to see sources that state otherwise. Liberals are all about individual freedoms and gun control takes away from their freedoms. Just because Democrats want gun control doesn't mean that liberals want gun control. This is the definition given by dictionary.com [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal]
:''favorable to or in accord with concepts of '''maximum individual freedom possible''', esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties. ''--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 23:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:In US, a liberal who doesn't want gun control is a libertarian. [[User:Noodles|Noodles]] 00:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Libmed is right [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Cites==

The citation to http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/economic-liberalism.php would, IMO, be a '''conservative''' economic goal. That is, limited governmental interaction within the markets.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:16, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:*Hey, Cracker. I understand why you think that it is a conservative economic goal. The reason why you think this is that Republicans are wanting these same economic goals. However, the mistake you are making is that any goal on the Republican party's platform must be a conservative view. However, this is not true. Economic liberalism is wanting essentially no governmental interference on economic policy. Also, if you check out wikipedia (Sorry) they will state how economic liberalism is the Republican's ideology on economic matters.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)] Any view that is against government controls is a liberal view. Any view that gives more power to the government is a conservative view.

::Yes. We're in agreement...I think the original citer saw "economic-liberalism" and ''assumed'' it MUST be a politcally liberal idea!

::The current crop of "conservatives" seem to forget they're for SMALL government and less economic regulation. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:51, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Protection ==

The protection log says to see the talk page. As there is nothing on the talk page, I thought I'd put something here. So... protected again, huh? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, it said for David (Hoji) to see it. ;-) I meant to only protect against unregistered users, and that I fixed. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 03:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I thought only registered users could edit at all. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Nope, not according to the protection choices. I can protect against everyone but Sysop's, unregistered users only, or make it normal, which, I am assuming, since it gives me the other choices, means unregistered users. Who knows, lol..not like there is some instruction book. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 04:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Unregistered users are blocked across the entire wiki. That's why you don't see lots of edits by IP addresses. If you can stomach it, check out a popular wikipedia page and look at the history. Lots of edits are from unreigtered users. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Man, it's almost two in the morning here, and I am in real need of a Stoli and completing my daily quota of email/spam/crap, lol. (ADDED) I only know those are the choices I am given. I've never tried to edit as a unregistered user.--~ --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)[[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 04:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Broadest possible application==
The article currently lists "Broadest possible application of the Geneva Conventions and the American Constitution", and someone added "(except the 2nd amendment)". What does this mean? I've never noticed that liberals want applications of the Geneva Conventions and the American Constitution that are any broader than anyone else. Maybe they are more willing to alter constitutional principles to promote their agendas, but they don't broadly apply the constitution. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
*Yes, I agree, however Democrats in both the House and Senate actually have campaigned to try terrorists, or non-uniformed enemy combatants in civilian courts, rather than the Geneva Convention mandated Military Tribunals. That, I guess, users might class as their "proof" of wanting broader applications, lol. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::What was it that Tony Snow was saying yesterday? That Congress has no oversight authority over the Executive Branch? Which party is it that is altering constitutional principles? Which party argued that the constitution doesn't guarantee habeas corpus? --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 19:09, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
*Congress really doesn't have Oversight of the Executive. They are (nominally) co-equal, however with Congress solely responsible for appropriations, it is hard to see the equality. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:30, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== How can we forget the fact that... ==

... liberals eat aborted fetuses while smoking pot and having homosexual sex while burning flags and bibles? Oh, and worst of all, they believe in... ... ... scientific process and objectivity. Wicked, evil things, they are. Spreading their ''bias'' everywhere like a plague. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 22:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::actully liberals believe in subjectivity, as in subjectiveness of morality, not objectivity.

*What? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 22:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Isolationist vs Interventionalists ==

The repeated edits and reverts of the "support of/opposition to an American foreign policy that supports ..." are annoying. Mostly because this is more a difference of opinion between ''isolationists'' and ''interventionists'', and not between liberals and conservatives. You can find isolationists and interventionists on both sides of the political divide. [[User:Order]] 24 March 13:30
:What this does is deny that liberals openly opposed the stated war aims in 2003, and denies that today they are actively seeking for the US to abandon the democratically elected govenrnment of Iraq. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::You presume that all conservatives support the war, while that is demonstrably not the case. On the other hand, how many liberals support American intervention in Darfur? Support or disapproval of one solitary front amongst a plethora of foreign policy actions does not an isolationist policy make. --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 21:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't presume anything about conservatives; the case is stated exactly as such: the US Govt declared a policy of regime change in Iraq to support long held US foreign policy objectives going back to Woodrow Wilson. Extreme elements at that time who self-identifed as "liberal" opposed US policy. Today, four years later, more self-identified "liberals" opposed US support for the democratic govt of Iraq. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:17, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::In history republicans have been at least as often isolationists as democrats. For example G.W.Bush before he became president. It might be that whoever is not in power favors isolationist positions, and they turn into intervetionists as soon as they come to power. [[User:Order]]

:::::It is not liberal vs conservative, it is "liberal" vs US Govt foreign policy. This indeed is not even ideological or a way of thinking; it refers to behavior, activism and contravention of a democaratically elected governments long standing policy that has had supporters from both major parties for at least three generations. And that active opposition not only (a) remains today, it has (b) spread to more "moderate" elements, and (c) actively seeks to undermine support for a "liberal" ally--the democratically elected government of Iraq. This is a milestone in politcal events.

:::::What goes unstated in this historic retelling of the past four years, IMO is this: many who claim the label of "liberal" either (a) are not, or (b) do not know what the word means.

:::::And a final observation: it is not critics of these sad events fault that so-called "liberalism", which is probably a misnomer to begin with, it's not thier fault this sorry state of affairs has come to what it is. Here's another theory: perhaps now we know why neo-cons divorced themselves from the label "liberal". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Even if most liberals did not support such a foreign policy, one shouldn't use this to define the term "liberal" if a significant number of conservatives also have exhibited and continue to exhibit isolationism. [[User:ColemanFrancis|ColemanFrancis]] 22:42, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::As stated, its not ideological or a "lberal v conservative' thing. One hasn't seen conservative marching in the streets to oppose liberation of the Iraqi people. Similiarly, isolationists like the [[America First]] Committee, were very often called fascists. The leading isolationist in the GOP, Pat Buchanan, is routinely called anti-Semitic. See below for further discussion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::I'm not saying it's a liberal vs. conservative thing. I'm just saying that if a significant number of conservatives (who are generally ideologically opposed to liberals) agree with liberals on this one issue, it should not be used in the definition of "liberal". [[User:ColemanFrancis|ColemanFrancis]] 23:03, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== '''Foreign Policy''' ==

Is it at all credible to say that liberals do not support the spread of democracy and human rights? Surely even a twelve-year-old in your average public school can see that it's not a question of liberal opposition to these values but a debate over 1. thwe implementation of such a policy and 2. the mobilisation of a discourse of human rights when other motivations may be at the heart of a policy designed to propagate said values? -Sevenstring.
:Sevenstring, see my response directly above, it address exactly the same question. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal

2007-03-26T03:02:51Z

ColemanFrancis: /* Isolationist vs Interventionalists */

== Wikipedia Citations ==

*'''It is never acceptable to use citations from Wikipedia here on the Conservapedia, per Aschlafly''' --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:07, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

----

prohibiting prayer in school is not a liberal objective. Mandatory prayer over a loud speaker, however, should be prohibited. Talking to God does not require infringing on other children's right not to have to engage in such activities.

:How is gun control liberal? I mean like, doesn't sound conservetive? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:14, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::The Constitution allows us to own guns, liberals want to confiscate all our guns in spite of the Constitution saying that is illegal. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, I've been intrigued and annoyed at the one-dimensionality of the political spectrum in the United States. I can't honestly quarrel with Aschlafly's list. If this were Wikipedia I'd want to see a source for it... and of course it has a conservative spin ("protection of obscure endangered species")... but it wouldn't surprise me if you could pull that list, or something very like it from election-year national Democratic Party platforms.

:But isn't it weird? These positions have very little to do with each other. Years ago I was trying to explain American politics to friends from the Netherlands and they found it baffling. They didn't see at all why someone who was for gun control would necessarily be expected to support legalized abortion, why someone who supported legalized abortion would necessarily be expected to support environmental protection, or why someone who supported environmental protection would necessarily be expected to oppose prayer in schools.

:I don't know where this one-dimensional polarization comes from. Perhaps the two-party system leads to political leaders trying to sort political positions into neat packages and sell the public on an "us-versus-them" situation.

:I always thought Jimmy Carter got a bad rap, and that part of the reason was that he actually ''voiced moderate positions,'' and that he did ''not'' fit neatly into a one-dimensional political spectrum. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:The two-party system and its polarisation are the cause of almost all that is currently wrong in US politics. It has created an environment where only the extremists have any chance of getting to the top - a moderate, or any sensible person, will succeed only in incuring the wrath of both liberals ''and'' conservatives. - Suricou
::But that's assuming liberalism and conservativism lie at polar opposites. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:34, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== European Liberals ==

This part near the end of the artical is totally wrong: "Note, that liberal in the European context refers to moderate and center-right parties, often with a pro-business stance."

Best example is the UK Liberal Democrats, they are Left. How can Liberal views like wealth distribution be mixed up with a "center-right" stand.

This is what happens when you giving editing rights to just one, presumably American person. --[[User:Mj|Mj]] 10:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

This refers to liberal parties such as the VVD in the Netherlands, FDP in Germany, Venstre Parti in Denmark, or FPOE in Austria, or maybe even the Liberal party in Australia. Outside of the US, the pro-businnes centre-right parties outnumber social liberal parties. You might want to look at the discussion on this subject on this page. [[User:Order|Order]] 25 March, 9:15 (AEST)

== Sort order of priorities ==
How about sorting the points in the artical in to some more meaningful way. Maybe you could even break off core belief's, like wealth distribution from current issues like abortion. --[[User:Mj|Mj]] 10:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Parochial definition ==

I have long had a real problem with the way that this word is defined in America.

Yes, I know this is Conservapedia and we are all about American usage. But the way this particular word is defined in America seems, in some ways, perverse. I wonder if this definition ought to be a little broader. I am prompted to say this because of the line in the article that says '"Liberal" today means the disfavoring of individual responsibility in favor of collectivism or egalitarianism'. That is almost the opposite of my understanding of the word. What about John Stuart Mill and the freedom of the individual? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:14, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:Well, for purposes of this article, I'd suggest: slap a qualification on it: "In the present-day United States, the word liberal means..."

:Then start another section or something. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:P. S. Don't you just love it that the traditional dead-white-European-male Harold Bloom, "Western canon" educational curriculum is known as the (wait for it...) '''Liberal Arts?''' (rimshot) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:24, 3 March 2007 (EST)

==Vandalism?==

The last three listed "characteristics" of liberalism seem to be sarcastic caricatures of conservative positions. I'm especially suspicious because the evolution reference seems redundant, and it also directly states that creationism is not science. I think I'm going to remove the last three. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Aliens? ==

Do Liberals really attempt to achieve amnesty for illegal aliens? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Some do. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:So does George W. Bush. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 22:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

But are they not aware that aliens are sometimes really dangerous? It is O.K not to hate every foreigner, ... but aliens? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:If my ancestors had had your attitude, we'd all be speaking Navaho today. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 22:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:Or you'd just be speaking your butchered version of English, moron. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::Are you advocating genocide? Or are you saying a genocide wouldn't have happened? [[User:Mustaine12390|Mustaine12390]] 16:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why were my changings reverted? ==

I made some changings to the article, by adding some more information. But they were reverted without any reason. I think the main reason why this project was started is because they used to revert imortant contributions to articles in wikipedia. So there should not be removement of important facts that are added. Or do I get something wrong? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:The "reversion" key does not allow explanation. Let me explain here. Your additions were not factual enough. Saying liberals want "reform" is meaningless. You said they want more wealth for the poor. No one is against that either. The point of this entry is to describe how liberals distinguish themselves in their beliefs. No one favors harming the environment either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:36, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:: The "reform" comes from "American Heritage Dictionary". Of course no one is against more wealth for the poor. But the liberals are tending to take a lot of money from the rich to achieve that. And of course no one favours harming the environment. But most just do not really care. Look who is driving the hybrids. Most of them are liberals. No American but Japanese cars. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Foreign Treaties are liberal? ==

First off, treaties by their nature are foreign since we sign them with other countries. So that is redundant. Secondly, many conservative presidents have signed treaties, so how can they be a "liberal" goal? Thirdly, conservative presidents have signed disarmament treaties, or has everyone forgotten Reagan and Gorbachev signing the INF Treaty in 1988? --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 10:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:Well, President George W. Bush has made it clear he's not going to obey any treaties that might endanger America, so he's not as liberal as SOME presidents. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 00:30, 11 March 2007 (EST)

::I believe that any President is bound by the Constitution to honor treaties that have been ratified by the Senate. To do otherwise could well lead to a breakdown of constitutional principles such as separation of powers.[[User:Cracker|Second Amendment]] 01:27, 11 March 2007 (EST)

::President Bush has also made it clear he is also not bound by the "separation of powers" if it might endanger America. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:31, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== References for the "typical" liberal positions? ==

Please add references for each position and maybe try tor sort it. I would do it if i would be competent on the american political system and culture; sadly i am not. Maybe one could sort it into the categories "economic beliefs in international trade", "economic beliefs regarding financing public services" and "relation between state and citizen". So something like "funding abortions from tax money" is a combination of "health system funded by taxes" and the belief "abortion is a personal health decision by the women" (i am not judging about either of the claims; my opinion is that the state should do everything to decrease the reasons for abortion. It is a shame for any industrialized nation that pregant women see economic causes as a pressure to commit an abortion.).

So clarify the fundamental opinions by references.

== Reference to socialism ==

It used to say that many views of liberals are similar to socialism. This just shows little knowledge of socialism, and the context it operated in. Socialist regimes were often bad for the environment, let criminals and gays in disappear in gulags, were very restrictive on immigration (see guest workers in East Germany), were critical of evolution, oppressed independent trade unions (Solidarnosc in Poland), engaged in the arms race, were militaristic, supported para military organizations, and some even were outright opposed to abortion (Romania). Also issues such as welfare didn't apply, since these countries didn't know this concept.[[User:Order|Order]] 13:45 (AEST)

== Increased taxes? ==

I find it interesting that "increased taxes" is listed among the goals of liberalism. Granted, there is among liberals a generally greater emphasis on social programs geared towards helping the less-fortunate members of society. Since those programs cost money to operate, there is perhaps a tendency towards taxes higher than we would otherwise see without those programs in place. But it seems a bit of a stretch to say that liberals are focused on raising taxes for the sake of raising taxes. Why is "increased taxes" listed?

: Welcome, and please sign your entries with the signature button at the top. Increasing taxes is a way of increasing government power and equalizing wealth, regardless of whether the money is really needed for government services. Liberals support increasing taxes even when there is a budget surplus. Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes. Please provide an example if you disagee.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:46, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: "Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes." That's a pretty bold statement. John F. Kennedy, for example, called for one of the biggest tax cuts in history in 1963. See http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=9387&st=Kennedy&st1=tax.--[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 19:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Provide an example saying conservatives '''never''' raise taxes then Aschlafly. It's easy to say something and then say "prove me wrong". If you're going to make a claim like "Liberals never, ''ever'' call for cutting taxes" it's up to you to prove it, not someone else to disprove it. Take a look at your court system if you want to see this in action. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 06:40, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Re: Increased Taxes ==

I didn't notice the signature item earlier. I'll be sure to use it from now on.--[[User:Blr|Blr]] 01:23, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandments? ==

Doesn’t this list break some or all of the following commandments?

1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.
2. Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain.
6. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry.

:*Agree. I'm new here but I've already noticed that people don't seem to cite their sources...

So - if this breaks the commandments - shouldn't' it be deleted?

The commandments state: "Edits which violate these rules will be deleted. Users who violate the rules repeatedly will be blocked."

So should not most of this be deleted? It's almost all all unsubstantiated, unverified opinion, and the commandments don't allow for discussion - they just say edits which violate these rules will be deleted.

[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Look, if we held people up to the commandments aschlafley would had to have been blocked ages ago. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 00:00, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal outside of the US ==

You cannot call liberals outside of the US ''socialists''. Neither are ''socialists'' abroad liberal. In many countries, the ''Liberals'' are either moderates or right-wing. Examples are the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria. The Australian PM, from the Liberal Party, is one of the staunchest supporters of President Bush. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 12 March 2007, 23:11 (AEST)

: For ''liberal'' parties in Europe check [http://www.alde.eu/], for socialist parties check [http://www.pes.org/]. These are different organizations, different parties. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 12 March 2007, 23:41 (AEST)
:::Yes, that is one definition of liberal. But, as conservapedia aims to maintain a pro american stance the American definition of liberal is important too. The British Labour Party (who fit the US definition of liberal) are socialists as are many other european parties.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 08:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Does Pro-American mean Anti-World (or "ignore that US-people are less than 5% of the world and that there is a world outside"?) If you write about liberals outside the USA, you have to see what liberals outside the USA are. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== So why were MY changes deleted? ==

Regarding the taxes issue: In the discussion above, [[User:Blr|Blr]] had a good point. Liberals do not support increasing taxes for the sake of increasing taxes. They support expansive government and social support programs (welfare, Medicare, etc.) that require funding. This creates an increased tendency to raise taxes, but does not mean that liberals necessarily ''want'' to. Additionally, in the above discussion, the justification for keeping the statement on the page was a comment by Mr. Schlafly, stating "Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes. Please provide an example if you disagree." I did provide an example, and then changed the page; my change was erased within 1 minute. If this site wants to be unbiased, it ought to follow its own first commandment: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." The support for the increased taxes claim was negated using a strong counterexample. So how does the claim remain "true and verifiable"? With its support gone, the claim is just opinion and does not belong in an encyclopedia. --[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 09:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree. As noted above, this page seems to violate three of the site's commandments. Given that there are only seven of them that's quite good going. [[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Incidentally ==

It is impressive how you make no attempt whatsoever to make this a respectable encyclopedia. I would have thought you people would keep your bias more subtle than this but apparently not given that you seem to think "support of gun control" and
"taxpayer funding of abortion" are the two views which are most synonymous with the liberal cause. I imagine that seeing as you are all true patriots and believe in freedom of speech and democracy, this post will probably last a little less than the amount of time it took me to write it, but at least I got it off my chest.

: Spanky, did you completely make up your entry about [[Peter Singer]]? Is that a liberal thing to do?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Links? ==

I was quite a bit disturbed to find that most issues here don't link to their corresponding articles. I created an account to try to make them links and found that the page is protected without even using the template to say that the page is protected. --[[User:Chuck SMITH|Chuck SMITH]] 06:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I think this is a very good point. Shouldn't all of these be red links?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 03:41, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
::OK, I'll set some up.

== False Statement ==

The statement that Liberals wish to prevent prayer in schools is false. Liberals wish to prevent '''organised''' prayer in '''public''' schools. [[User:Nirgal|Nirgal]] 13:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why can't this page be edited? ==

It seems to me that this "conservative" effort is little more than a means for some to vent their frustration with the Wikipedia audience. If this were meant to be comparable in scope and superior in quality then more due diligence would be done so that pages were considered accurate, not just conservative. In evaluating the liberal page, it seems that a concerted effort has been made to infuse conservative bias into the definition of the topic. That, to me, is the very definition of propaganda. Unless editors choose to make edits that reflect the truth,and not just conservative spin, this site will become irrelevant. [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 12:19, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yeah, that's the feeling I've been getting too. I think it's just that certain people here don't like being proven wrong, so when someone like me attempts to put up factual statements (or at least remove false ones), those certain people (or maybe person) lock the article. You can see the "discussion" about increased taxes above. I'm still waiting for my changes to be incorporated into the article. Good luck in removing the propaganda. --[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 09:36, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Giving to the poor ==

I am surprised to see "distributing wealth from the rich to the poor" listed as a "liberal" belief -- seems to me this is (or ought to be) a Christian belief, as Jesus himself says to the rich man "sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven" (Mark 10:21).

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Sounds like you are trying to say Jesus is a Democrat? Hardly. Besides, I think you are taking that Bibical statement out of context. Just an FYI. Also, aren't the liberals the ones behind the "warming climate hoax"? [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::No, I don't think that Jesus Christ endorses any political party. But His teaching has consistently been that it is the obigation of the wealthy (and indeed, of everyone) to give to the poor, as well as to minister to the sick, visit those in prison, and otherwise render comfort to their fellow men. See Mark 12:41-44, Matthew 25:36, and many other passages. The way in which any given political party, or person interprets or applies those teachings is up to them; it just seemed to me odd that this idea, phrased this way, would be attributed to "Liberals". [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::You appear to be tarring alot of things with the same brush, Miles. That is a gross generalisation of liberalism. Also, given that it is unclear whether climate change is because of human activity how can you say "warming climate hoax"?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I thought it had been proven to be a hoax, sorry if I am wrong. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Alternate defintion of liberal ==

Currently we have an alternate definition of liberal that is "anything that is not conservative" while we have a definition of [[conservative]] that is "one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue." This strongly implies that liberals do not adhere to personal responsibility and moral virtue. Isn't that needlessly inflammatory? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Beliefs ==

I am not sure that you guys understand what liberal means. Here is a list of things that are not liberal on the list you provide:
support of gun control,
taxpayer funding of abortion,
support of gun control,
distributing wealth from the rich to the poor,
government programs to rehabilitate criminals,
increased taxpayer funding of public school,
taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care,
increased taxes,
support of government programs such as welfare,
teaching of evolution (this isn't a set belief by liberals or conservatives, generally though liberals favor the teaching of evolution, however, this should not be added as a set belief)

The problem with this list is that you say it is the beliefs of liberals. However, these are the beliefs of Democrats and not liberals. You guys are making a common error that many citizens make. The error is using liberal as a synonym of Democrat. Democrats though are not true liberals. Democrats are economically conservative. The party that is a true liberal by definition would be the Libertarian Party. Essentially what a true liberal wants is no government at all. In a truly liberal society there would be total anarchy. Liberals want people to be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt other people. Increased taxes is conservative economic issue which Democrats would, yes, be in favor of, but liberals would not be in favor of it. Gun control is another issue that is wanted by some Democrats, however, this too is a conservative belief. Surely this site should know what its beliefs are if it considers it to be a conservative site. This site could be considered a liberal point of view due to the economic views expressed on this site. However, really this site should not consider itself to be liberal or conservative, but rather a Republican view. The website should be www.Republicapedia.com. I don't see how you people can consider yourself conservative when you don't know what conservatism is. Republicans are the biggest bunch of liberals I know.

Minors under 16 years use this site. So I feel that this site should be as accurate as possible and not lie to the innocent children viewing this site.
--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 00:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I must admit that I would have thought the same thing - but not being an American citizen - I assumed the word had acquired a different meaning over there. Presumably this explains why none of the entries actually links to anything to source the apparently unsubstantiated opinions expressed here.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:It would help to have some subheadings in this article - the bulletpointed list could be put in a section entitled 'Liberalism in America' or suchlike, and have another section on the libertarian/right-leaning definition more commonly used in Europe etc. --[[User:Rafa|Rafa]] 17:52, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unlock Page ==

Could you please unlock this page so that people can edit it. {{unsigned|Liberalmedia}}
: [[Conservapedia:Request Unprotection]] is thataway. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 12:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Nonsense ==

This article is a study in overstatement, overgeneralization, and innuendo. Since it violates the first of the Conservapedia Commandments, I propose it for immediate deletion. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:07, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:Those things are ok sometimes depending on who wrote them. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:19, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberals and Saddam ==
::The portion about being supportive of Saddam is particularly egregious.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

This article is unfair to the many liberals who oppose any dictatorship. The piece about liberals is just there to infume them. Lets be fair, because we wouldn't like it either if the article on ''conservative'' said that conservatives have no problems with human right violations and murder, such as in Chile under Pinochet or Burma now, as long as the regime works with them. [[User:Order]]

:This is an undeniable fact. In 2003, so-called liberals were ''the only'' group who (a) identified themselves as liberals and (b) opposed Iraqi human rights and democracy. No one else shared thier views. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually it's a steaming pile of, er, lies. --[[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:24, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Rob, get your head out of the sand. Every American is in favor of Democracy, for the love of God, get that into your head. Liberals, like me, were opposed to the war because it was poorly planned, poorly committed, we knew it'd be poorly executed, and it was inconsistent with previous stated U.S. policy (see the [[Powell Doctrine]] which I'm sure isn't up yet, since it's a liberal topic). We knew it would end in a quagmire. Liberals would line up 'cross the board in support of spreading democracy if we thought it would be easy in and easy out, but we weren't deluded into thinking it was. You were.
::Ooooh, and guess who was right?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:RobS| RobS]], it may be that liberals are not in favorite of human rights, lets not forget that the only conservative who had some courage and decency to take a stand against torture was McCain. So do you want the article on conservatives to say: ''As the discussion around Abu Graib and torture legislation has shown, conservatives do not believe in human rights, and would like to torture at will, and for no good reason, and all the reason that we had to invade Iraq to bring democracy and freedom, was obviously a sham'' just because a few vocal and irresponsible conservatives don't get that these practices are plain wrong, who hardly represent the mainstream conservative position. You should allow both sides to have their share of lunatics on the fringe, but we shouldn't make it part of how we define the mainstream. [[User:Order| Order]] 23 March. 11:50 (AEST)

:: Let's not forget the "Torture Memo," [[user:Order]. I submit one final question to you, [[user:RobS| comrade]]: based on what we now know about how the war should have been executed, should have been planned, what the troops should have gotten before the war in the way of training and armor...
:: ...who really supports the troops? Hint: '''not''' the Bush administration.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:57, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:::AmesG: So your psychic powers told you it was poorly planned, etc., and that's why you went about disrupting public support for the War. The Powell Doctrine is a restatement of Clausewitz, adding "overwhelming use of force", etc. But (a) the Powell Doctrine only referes to conventional type Cold War conflicts with large standing miltiary establishment, fixed targets, etc, and does not address the problems of '''modern 21st century warfare'''. Further, the business about "exit strategy" was always controversial, because it only applies to what Clausewitz refers to as "A War of Limited Aims".[http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/VomKriege2/BK8ch05.html]
:::Order: That discussion is already in the mainspace at [[Abu Ghraib]]. Arundati Roy, ''et al'', are self identified comrades with murderers and [[terrorist]]s. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I don't need psychic powers to tell me that a war without an exit plan is poorly planned. And it's not me that misinterpreted the type of conflict awaiting in Iraq: the government has consistently treated it like a Cold War style conflict, so conceding your point, your own argument bites you. Seriously, that this war was bungled from the start was never an issue. No exit plan = poorly planned. And Powell thought it applied; that's why he quit.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 21:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::We're still waiting for the exit plan from the Korean War, considering it was the policy of contianing Soviet expansion that got us in there, and now with the Soviet Union defunct, we're still waiting on the exit plan.

:::::Point is, only in a war of limited aims can there be an exit plan. And not all wars are wars of limited aims. Idealy, in a perfect world that would be so. But we all know the truth of that matter...

:::::As to it being a Cold War style conflict, as the saying goes, we always plan to fight the last war. Cold War military and 20th century military establishments are not designed to fight modern warfare against terrorist cells. It's a learning curve, and the US is deveolping the special skills needed. Us oldtimers can only give our experience, but if the US is to survive, the present generation must revamp the idea of what soldiering and war is to deal with this enemy which is intent upon destroying Western Civilization, and probably will never quit.

:::::The War on Terror, or the War in Iraq, is not just another "frisch, fröhliche krieg", as the Germans say, a brisk, jolly little war; and comparing it to the Cold War is an understatement, too. Neither is it like both World Wars which were total war between nation-states. But I'm afraid you have (and probably the sources you get much of your information from) drawn too heavily upon these past experiences to base your analogies on. It is an entirley different kind of war that needs entireley different approaches and solutions. Complaining about the things you've stated solves nothing. The John Kerry Administration or Al Gore Administration would be facing these identical problems, so your reservations literally have no merit whatsoever other than ill-founded partisanship.

:::::So then, what do we do? Hide our head in the sand and pray to Allah that the problem will go away? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Your knowledge of German attitude towards war is a bit dated. This was the pre WW-1 mood, about one century ago. There was no "frisch, fröhliche krieg" sentiment at the beginning of WW-2. If anyone was looking for a jolly little war in the last century, then it was mood by the neo-cons (who by my account aren't conservative) prior to the Iraq war.

:::::: There were people with precongnition. Even part of the bush administration was able to have an appropiate plan for the war and its aftermath in iraq. Unfortunately this plan was made by the state department. The Pentagon decided to disregard the recommendations in that plan, ignore the warnings in that plan. They kind of followed a recipe for disaster that was painted in the plan by the state department. There were sufficient people who warned, but the white house and the pentagon decided to ignore these. [[User:Order]] 23 March, 15:30 (AEST)

::::::: A frisch, fröhliche krieg would describe something like Granada or the Falklands, yes there may be real fighting and valor, but ultimately it's more like a game of touch football where nobody gets hurt. So what are you saying? Saddam randomly putting a person in a wood chipper every few months to keep the population terrorized is preferable to 650,000 casualties in building a democratic Iraq? Case closed. Nobody ever said democracy and freedom come cheaply. Liberals abandoned thier long held advocacy of democracy and human rights when they opposed the war. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::P.S. And all you have are lame partisan arguments that do nothing, absolutely nothing, to further the cause of democracy and human rights.

:::::::: So, the well executed post war planning by the state department was partisan? Just accusing liberals all the time doesn't solve the problems. This administration messed up. And not because it is conservative or liberal, but because they have contempt for experts. They think that these expert also just have an opinion even valid as their own opinion. Interlectually dishonesty is the problem, and I can't see any conservative value in that. It is you who casts everything under sun in partisan terms. [[User:Order|Order]] 23 March, 16:30 (AEST)

::::::::Not wanting to endorse a poorly planned war that could never accomplish its goals - as much as I hope it still will, as do all Democrats - is not the same as not signing off on the goals. I think it'd be super if man could land on Mars, but I'd rather not try to get there in a Cessna 152. My recalcitrance at using such limited means, though, doesn't mean that I dont' think we should at some point land on Mars... -[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 01:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::So is the argument (again) that because ''didn't'' have operational capability in WMD that we should have waited until he did, then we could have sent the troops in harms way with the assurance that would suffer a chemical weapons attack. And then that would justify everything. But you and I both know, in that scenario, all we would hear would be "Wjhy didn't we get rid of Saddam ''before'' he had WMD? Why did they wait too long? They knew and they did nothing!" Youn know the script lines, and play the part well, but let's be honest with the folks viewing at home, all this refernce to Bush, Cheney, Powell, etc. is bogus, and has nothing to do with the real matter. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::You just come with your ''talking-points''. The ''talking points business'' an insult for any conservative who is able to think for himself. Anyway, tell us what the matter is? What does your ''talking point list'' say about this topic? [[User:Order|Order]] 23 March, 16:40 (AEST)

It's really hard to argue that the world is a better place without Saddam in it. I'm not even going to try. But what I can argue is that liberal thought maybe... juuuuuuuustt maybe... the administration shouldn't have gone in there with such a rosy picture of what was going to happen. George H.W. Bush knew what the consequences of a Baghdad invasion would look like. He knew it in 1991. W didn't have to listen to liberals to figure out what would happen, he just had to call his dad.

And let's not forget... Saddam was contained. His ability to mount any kind of offensive war was extremely limited, he was under constant surveilance. Time was our ally here. We lost that ally like we did the rest of them. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::It was easy to predict the failure of the Iraq war based on the worldview of those who planned it. Neoconservativism has always been scoffed at by all serious foreign policy experts because it fundamentally misunderstands the nature of power and the role of nationalism in political behavior. It is why all of Bush's policies have been failures--because he tries to implement conservative policies and conservative policies are fundamentally flawed because they are premised on false assumptions about authority and erroneous predictions regarding human behavior and how it responds to authority.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 00:13, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Liberals in Europe ==
I saw that you changed that liberal in europe from "center to right wing" to "so-called center and right wing". Tell us what is "so-called" center and right wing about the liberal parties in Germany, austria or the VVD in the Netherlands? They are centre or right wig.[[User:Order|Order]]
:This refers to the Left/Right Spectrum Theory, as we have discovered in the most recent example--Iraq, is totally devoid in understanding politcal groups, coalitions, parties, groupings, ideologies, or loyalties. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: So why do you use it? And what does that have to do about the fact that Liberals outside of the US, do not fit this defiition of liberal. Do you actually know what liberal parties in Europe stand for, say VVD in the Netherlands, FDP in Germany, Venstre Parti in Denmark, or FPÖ in Austria? Where they position themselves in the political spectum? Or do you know, to mention a non european example, what attitude the leader of the Australian Liberal Party has towards the war in Iraq? I guess you just don't know it, and therefore try to change the subject. [[User:Order|Order]] 23 March 15:40 (AEST)

== Gun Control ==

Liberals don't want gun control. I would like to see sources that state otherwise. Liberals are all about individual freedoms and gun control takes away from their freedoms. Just because Democrats want gun control doesn't mean that liberals want gun control. This is the definition given by dictionary.com [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal]
:''favorable to or in accord with concepts of '''maximum individual freedom possible''', esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties. ''--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 23:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:In US, a liberal who doesn't want gun control is a libertarian. [[User:Noodles|Noodles]] 00:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Libmed is right [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Cites==

The citation to http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/economic-liberalism.php would, IMO, be a '''conservative''' economic goal. That is, limited governmental interaction within the markets.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:16, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:*Hey, Cracker. I understand why you think that it is a conservative economic goal. The reason why you think this is that Republicans are wanting these same economic goals. However, the mistake you are making is that any goal on the Republican party's platform must be a conservative view. However, this is not true. Economic liberalism is wanting essentially no governmental interference on economic policy. Also, if you check out wikipedia (Sorry) they will state how economic liberalism is the Republican's ideology on economic matters.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)] Any view that is against government controls is a liberal view. Any view that gives more power to the government is a conservative view.

::Yes. We're in agreement...I think the original citer saw "economic-liberalism" and ''assumed'' it MUST be a politcally liberal idea!

::The current crop of "conservatives" seem to forget they're for SMALL government and less economic regulation. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:51, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Protection ==

The protection log says to see the talk page. As there is nothing on the talk page, I thought I'd put something here. So... protected again, huh? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, it said for David (Hoji) to see it. ;-) I meant to only protect against unregistered users, and that I fixed. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 03:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I thought only registered users could edit at all. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Nope, not according to the protection choices. I can protect against everyone but Sysop's, unregistered users only, or make it normal, which, I am assuming, since it gives me the other choices, means unregistered users. Who knows, lol..not like there is some instruction book. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 04:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Unregistered users are blocked across the entire wiki. That's why you don't see lots of edits by IP addresses. If you can stomach it, check out a popular wikipedia page and look at the history. Lots of edits are from unreigtered users. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Man, it's almost two in the morning here, and I am in real need of a Stoli and completing my daily quota of email/spam/crap, lol. (ADDED) I only know those are the choices I am given. I've never tried to edit as a unregistered user.--~ --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)[[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 04:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Broadest possible application==
The article currently lists "Broadest possible application of the Geneva Conventions and the American Constitution", and someone added "(except the 2nd amendment)". What does this mean? I've never noticed that liberals want applications of the Geneva Conventions and the American Constitution that are any broader than anyone else. Maybe they are more willing to alter constitutional principles to promote their agendas, but they don't broadly apply the constitution. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
*Yes, I agree, however Democrats in both the House and Senate actually have campaigned to try terrorists, or non-uniformed enemy combatants in civilian courts, rather than the Geneva Convention mandated Military Tribunals. That, I guess, users might class as their "proof" of wanting broader applications, lol. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::What was it that Tony Snow was saying yesterday? That Congress has no oversight authority over the Executive Branch? Which party is it that is altering constitutional principles? Which party argued that the constitution doesn't guarantee habeas corpus? --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 19:09, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
*Congress really doesn't have Oversight of the Executive. They are (nominally) co-equal, however with Congress solely responsible for appropriations, it is hard to see the equality. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:30, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== How can we forget the fact that... ==

... liberals eat aborted fetuses while smoking pot and having homosexual sex while burning flags and bibles? Oh, and worst of all, they believe in... ... ... scientific process and objectivity. Wicked, evil things, they are. Spreading their ''bias'' everywhere like a plague. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 22:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::actully liberals believe in subjectivity, as in subjectiveness of morality, not objectivity.

*What? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 22:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Isolationist vs Interventionalists ==

The repeated edits and reverts of the "support of/opposition to an American foreign policy that supports ..." are annoying. Mostly because this is more a difference of opinion between ''isolationists'' and ''interventionists'', and not between liberals and conservatives. You can find isolationists and interventionists on both sides of the political divide. [[User:Order]] 24 March 13:30
:What this does is deny that liberals openly opposed the stated war aims in 2003, and denies that today they are actively seeking for the US to abandon the democratically elected govenrnment of Iraq. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::You presume that all conservatives support the war, while that is demonstrably not the case. On the other hand, how many liberals support American intervention in Darfur? Support or disapproval of one solitary front amongst a plethora of foreign policy actions does not an isolationist policy make. --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 21:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't presume anything about conservatives; the case is stated exactly as such: the US Govt declared a policy of regime change in Iraq to support long held US foreign policy objectives going back to Woodrow Wilson. Extreme elements at that time who self-identifed as "liberal" opposed US policy. Today, four years later, more self-identified "liberals" opposed US support for the democratic govt of Iraq. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:17, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::In history republicans have been at least as often isolationists as democrats. For example G.W.Bush before he became president. It might be that whoever is not in power favors isolationist positions, and they turn into intervetionists as soon as they come to power. [[User:Order]]

:::::It is not liberal vs conservative, it is "liberal" vs US Govt foreign policy. This indeed is not even ideological or a way of thinking; it refers to behavior, activism and contravention of a democaratically elected governments long standing policy that has had supporters from both major parties for at least three generations. And that active opposition not only (a) remains today, it has (b) spread to more "moderate" elements, and (c) actively seeks to undermine support for a "liberal" ally--the democratically elected government of Iraq. This is a milestone in politcal events.

:::::What goes unstated in this historic retelling of the past four years, IMO is this: many who claim the label of "liberal" either (a) are not, or (b) do not know what the word means.

:::::And a final observation: it is not critics of these sad events fault that so-called "liberalism", which is probably a misnomer to begin with, it's not thier fault this sorry state of affairs has come to what it is. Here's another theory: perhaps now we know why neo-cons divorced themselves from the label "liberal". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Even if most liberals did not support such a foreign policy, one shouldn't use this to define the term "liberal" if a significant number of conservatives also have exhibited and continue to exhibit isolationism. [[User:ColemanFrancis|ColemanFrancis]] 22:42, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::As stated, its not ideological or a "lberal v conservative' thing. One hasn't seen conservative marching in the streets to oppose liberation of the Iraqi people. Similiarly, isolationists like the [[America First]] Committee, were very often called fascists. The leading isolationist in the GOP, Pat Buchanan, is routinely called anti-Semitic. See below for further discussion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::I'm not saying it's a liberal vs. conservative thing. I'm just saying that if a significant number of conservatives (who are generally ideologically opposed to liberals) agree with liberals on this one issue, it should not be used in the definition of "liberal".

== '''Foreign Policy''' ==

Is it at all credible to say that liberals do not support the spread of democracy and human rights? Surely even a twelve-year-old in your average public school can see that it's not a question of liberal opposition to these values but a debate over 1. thwe implementation of such a policy and 2. the mobilisation of a discourse of human rights when other motivations may be at the heart of a policy designed to propagate said values? -Sevenstring.
:Sevenstring, see my response directly above, it address exactly the same question. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Liberal

2007-03-26T02:43:23Z

ColemanFrancis: spelling

'''''Liberal''' is a term used in US politics to describe a person who generally is left-wing in his attitudes towards the government, establishment, and many other laws. The term was first used in reference to a political opinion c. 1801 A.D., in the aftermath of the French Revolution, when it meant "tending in favor of freedom and democracy."<ref>Etymology [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=liberal]</ref>

The term ''liberal'' is used in the United States generally to characterize the following set of beliefs, although these may vary from person to person:

* in favor of [[gun control]]
* supporting a woman's [[right to choose]] pregnancy termination, i.e. [[abortion]]
* promoting secularism and the prohibition of organized prayer in school
* equal responsibilities for men and women, such as equal participation by men and women in the military
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
* [[same-sex marriage]]
* increased taxpayer funding of public schools
* protection of natural resources and wilderness areas
* taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
* increased power for labor unions
* [[disarmament treaties]]
* classical liberalism stood for a limited government role [http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/economic-liberalism.php]
* private property and individual contracts form the basis of Classical liberal economic theory
* reduction of military expenses
* support of [[affirmative action]]
* government-sponsored education
* preference for a interpretation of the constitution as a "[[living Constitution]]" instead of an unchanging Constitution
*[[income redistribution]], with higher progressive taxation on those in the top 10% of earnings.
* currently, opposition to interventionist foreign policies that involves nation building. Isolationist positions are however traditionally neither liberal nor conservative. There are examples for isolationist positions on both sides of the political divide. <ref>[http://newsmine.org/archive/cabal-elite/w-administration/w-bush/bush-2000-against-nation-building-and-poor-nation-debt.txt The Second Gore-Bush Presidential Debate] </ref><ref>[http://www.un.int/usa/02_131.htm President Bush's address to the United Nations], United States Mission to the United Nations, Press Release #131(02), 12 September 2002.</ref>

Note, that ''liberal'' in the European context refers to moderate and center-right parties, often with a pro-business stance.<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> The same holds for many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world.<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref>. The US definition of liberal is much more similar to the politics of European [[socialist|socialist or social democratic]] parties.<ref>http://www.pes.org</ref>.

One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>
: Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Politics]]

Talk:Liberal

2007-03-26T02:42:54Z

ColemanFrancis: /* Isolationist vs Interventionalists */

== Wikipedia Citations ==

*'''It is never acceptable to use citations from Wikipedia here on the Conservapedia, per Aschlafly''' --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:07, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

----

prohibiting prayer in school is not a liberal objective. Mandatory prayer over a loud speaker, however, should be prohibited. Talking to God does not require infringing on other children's right not to have to engage in such activities.

:How is gun control liberal? I mean like, doesn't sound conservetive? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:14, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::The Constitution allows us to own guns, liberals want to confiscate all our guns in spite of the Constitution saying that is illegal. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, I've been intrigued and annoyed at the one-dimensionality of the political spectrum in the United States. I can't honestly quarrel with Aschlafly's list. If this were Wikipedia I'd want to see a source for it... and of course it has a conservative spin ("protection of obscure endangered species")... but it wouldn't surprise me if you could pull that list, or something very like it from election-year national Democratic Party platforms.

:But isn't it weird? These positions have very little to do with each other. Years ago I was trying to explain American politics to friends from the Netherlands and they found it baffling. They didn't see at all why someone who was for gun control would necessarily be expected to support legalized abortion, why someone who supported legalized abortion would necessarily be expected to support environmental protection, or why someone who supported environmental protection would necessarily be expected to oppose prayer in schools.

:I don't know where this one-dimensional polarization comes from. Perhaps the two-party system leads to political leaders trying to sort political positions into neat packages and sell the public on an "us-versus-them" situation.

:I always thought Jimmy Carter got a bad rap, and that part of the reason was that he actually ''voiced moderate positions,'' and that he did ''not'' fit neatly into a one-dimensional political spectrum. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:The two-party system and its polarisation are the cause of almost all that is currently wrong in US politics. It has created an environment where only the extremists have any chance of getting to the top - a moderate, or any sensible person, will succeed only in incuring the wrath of both liberals ''and'' conservatives. - Suricou
::But that's assuming liberalism and conservativism lie at polar opposites. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:34, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== European Liberals ==

This part near the end of the artical is totally wrong: "Note, that liberal in the European context refers to moderate and center-right parties, often with a pro-business stance."

Best example is the UK Liberal Democrats, they are Left. How can Liberal views like wealth distribution be mixed up with a "center-right" stand.

This is what happens when you giving editing rights to just one, presumably American person. --[[User:Mj|Mj]] 10:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

This refers to liberal parties such as the VVD in the Netherlands, FDP in Germany, Venstre Parti in Denmark, or FPOE in Austria, or maybe even the Liberal party in Australia. Outside of the US, the pro-businnes centre-right parties outnumber social liberal parties. You might want to look at the discussion on this subject on this page. [[User:Order|Order]] 25 March, 9:15 (AEST)

== Sort order of priorities ==
How about sorting the points in the artical in to some more meaningful way. Maybe you could even break off core belief's, like wealth distribution from current issues like abortion. --[[User:Mj|Mj]] 10:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Parochial definition ==

I have long had a real problem with the way that this word is defined in America.

Yes, I know this is Conservapedia and we are all about American usage. But the way this particular word is defined in America seems, in some ways, perverse. I wonder if this definition ought to be a little broader. I am prompted to say this because of the line in the article that says '"Liberal" today means the disfavoring of individual responsibility in favor of collectivism or egalitarianism'. That is almost the opposite of my understanding of the word. What about John Stuart Mill and the freedom of the individual? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:14, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:Well, for purposes of this article, I'd suggest: slap a qualification on it: "In the present-day United States, the word liberal means..."

:Then start another section or something. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:P. S. Don't you just love it that the traditional dead-white-European-male Harold Bloom, "Western canon" educational curriculum is known as the (wait for it...) '''Liberal Arts?''' (rimshot) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:24, 3 March 2007 (EST)

==Vandalism?==

The last three listed "characteristics" of liberalism seem to be sarcastic caricatures of conservative positions. I'm especially suspicious because the evolution reference seems redundant, and it also directly states that creationism is not science. I think I'm going to remove the last three. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Aliens? ==

Do Liberals really attempt to achieve amnesty for illegal aliens? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Some do. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:So does George W. Bush. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 22:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

But are they not aware that aliens are sometimes really dangerous? It is O.K not to hate every foreigner, ... but aliens? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:If my ancestors had had your attitude, we'd all be speaking Navaho today. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 22:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:Or you'd just be speaking your butchered version of English, moron. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::Are you advocating genocide? Or are you saying a genocide wouldn't have happened? [[User:Mustaine12390|Mustaine12390]] 16:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why were my changings reverted? ==

I made some changings to the article, by adding some more information. But they were reverted without any reason. I think the main reason why this project was started is because they used to revert imortant contributions to articles in wikipedia. So there should not be removement of important facts that are added. Or do I get something wrong? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:The "reversion" key does not allow explanation. Let me explain here. Your additions were not factual enough. Saying liberals want "reform" is meaningless. You said they want more wealth for the poor. No one is against that either. The point of this entry is to describe how liberals distinguish themselves in their beliefs. No one favors harming the environment either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:36, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:: The "reform" comes from "American Heritage Dictionary". Of course no one is against more wealth for the poor. But the liberals are tending to take a lot of money from the rich to achieve that. And of course no one favours harming the environment. But most just do not really care. Look who is driving the hybrids. Most of them are liberals. No American but Japanese cars. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Foreign Treaties are liberal? ==

First off, treaties by their nature are foreign since we sign them with other countries. So that is redundant. Secondly, many conservative presidents have signed treaties, so how can they be a "liberal" goal? Thirdly, conservative presidents have signed disarmament treaties, or has everyone forgotten Reagan and Gorbachev signing the INF Treaty in 1988? --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 10:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:Well, President George W. Bush has made it clear he's not going to obey any treaties that might endanger America, so he's not as liberal as SOME presidents. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 00:30, 11 March 2007 (EST)

::I believe that any President is bound by the Constitution to honor treaties that have been ratified by the Senate. To do otherwise could well lead to a breakdown of constitutional principles such as separation of powers.[[User:Cracker|Second Amendment]] 01:27, 11 March 2007 (EST)

::President Bush has also made it clear he is also not bound by the "separation of powers" if it might endanger America. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:31, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== References for the "typical" liberal positions? ==

Please add references for each position and maybe try tor sort it. I would do it if i would be competent on the american political system and culture; sadly i am not. Maybe one could sort it into the categories "economic beliefs in international trade", "economic beliefs regarding financing public services" and "relation between state and citizen". So something like "funding abortions from tax money" is a combination of "health system funded by taxes" and the belief "abortion is a personal health decision by the women" (i am not judging about either of the claims; my opinion is that the state should do everything to decrease the reasons for abortion. It is a shame for any industrialized nation that pregant women see economic causes as a pressure to commit an abortion.).

So clarify the fundamental opinions by references.

== Reference to socialism ==

It used to say that many views of liberals are similar to socialism. This just shows little knowledge of socialism, and the context it operated in. Socialist regimes were often bad for the environment, let criminals and gays in disappear in gulags, were very restrictive on immigration (see guest workers in East Germany), were critical of evolution, oppressed independent trade unions (Solidarnosc in Poland), engaged in the arms race, were militaristic, supported para military organizations, and some even were outright opposed to abortion (Romania). Also issues such as welfare didn't apply, since these countries didn't know this concept.[[User:Order|Order]] 13:45 (AEST)

== Increased taxes? ==

I find it interesting that "increased taxes" is listed among the goals of liberalism. Granted, there is among liberals a generally greater emphasis on social programs geared towards helping the less-fortunate members of society. Since those programs cost money to operate, there is perhaps a tendency towards taxes higher than we would otherwise see without those programs in place. But it seems a bit of a stretch to say that liberals are focused on raising taxes for the sake of raising taxes. Why is "increased taxes" listed?

: Welcome, and please sign your entries with the signature button at the top. Increasing taxes is a way of increasing government power and equalizing wealth, regardless of whether the money is really needed for government services. Liberals support increasing taxes even when there is a budget surplus. Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes. Please provide an example if you disagee.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:46, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: "Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes." That's a pretty bold statement. John F. Kennedy, for example, called for one of the biggest tax cuts in history in 1963. See http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=9387&st=Kennedy&st1=tax.--[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 19:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Provide an example saying conservatives '''never''' raise taxes then Aschlafly. It's easy to say something and then say "prove me wrong". If you're going to make a claim like "Liberals never, ''ever'' call for cutting taxes" it's up to you to prove it, not someone else to disprove it. Take a look at your court system if you want to see this in action. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 06:40, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Re: Increased Taxes ==

I didn't notice the signature item earlier. I'll be sure to use it from now on.--[[User:Blr|Blr]] 01:23, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandments? ==

Doesn’t this list break some or all of the following commandments?

1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.
2. Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain.
6. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry.

:*Agree. I'm new here but I've already noticed that people don't seem to cite their sources...

So - if this breaks the commandments - shouldn't' it be deleted?

The commandments state: "Edits which violate these rules will be deleted. Users who violate the rules repeatedly will be blocked."

So should not most of this be deleted? It's almost all all unsubstantiated, unverified opinion, and the commandments don't allow for discussion - they just say edits which violate these rules will be deleted.

[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Look, if we held people up to the commandments aschlafley would had to have been blocked ages ago. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 00:00, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal outside of the US ==

You cannot call liberals outside of the US ''socialists''. Neither are ''socialists'' abroad liberal. In many countries, the ''Liberals'' are either moderates or right-wing. Examples are the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria. The Australian PM, from the Liberal Party, is one of the staunchest supporters of President Bush. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 12 March 2007, 23:11 (AEST)

: For ''liberal'' parties in Europe check [http://www.alde.eu/], for socialist parties check [http://www.pes.org/]. These are different organizations, different parties. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 12 March 2007, 23:41 (AEST)
:::Yes, that is one definition of liberal. But, as conservapedia aims to maintain a pro american stance the American definition of liberal is important too. The British Labour Party (who fit the US definition of liberal) are socialists as are many other european parties.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 08:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Does Pro-American mean Anti-World (or "ignore that US-people are less than 5% of the world and that there is a world outside"?) If you write about liberals outside the USA, you have to see what liberals outside the USA are. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== So why were MY changes deleted? ==

Regarding the taxes issue: In the discussion above, [[User:Blr|Blr]] had a good point. Liberals do not support increasing taxes for the sake of increasing taxes. They support expansive government and social support programs (welfare, Medicare, etc.) that require funding. This creates an increased tendency to raise taxes, but does not mean that liberals necessarily ''want'' to. Additionally, in the above discussion, the justification for keeping the statement on the page was a comment by Mr. Schlafly, stating "Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes. Please provide an example if you disagree." I did provide an example, and then changed the page; my change was erased within 1 minute. If this site wants to be unbiased, it ought to follow its own first commandment: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." The support for the increased taxes claim was negated using a strong counterexample. So how does the claim remain "true and verifiable"? With its support gone, the claim is just opinion and does not belong in an encyclopedia. --[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 09:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree. As noted above, this page seems to violate three of the site's commandments. Given that there are only seven of them that's quite good going. [[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Incidentally ==

It is impressive how you make no attempt whatsoever to make this a respectable encyclopedia. I would have thought you people would keep your bias more subtle than this but apparently not given that you seem to think "support of gun control" and
"taxpayer funding of abortion" are the two views which are most synonymous with the liberal cause. I imagine that seeing as you are all true patriots and believe in freedom of speech and democracy, this post will probably last a little less than the amount of time it took me to write it, but at least I got it off my chest.

: Spanky, did you completely make up your entry about [[Peter Singer]]? Is that a liberal thing to do?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Links? ==

I was quite a bit disturbed to find that most issues here don't link to their corresponding articles. I created an account to try to make them links and found that the page is protected without even using the template to say that the page is protected. --[[User:Chuck SMITH|Chuck SMITH]] 06:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I think this is a very good point. Shouldn't all of these be red links?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 03:41, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
::OK, I'll set some up.

== False Statement ==

The statement that Liberals wish to prevent prayer in schools is false. Liberals wish to prevent '''organised''' prayer in '''public''' schools. [[User:Nirgal|Nirgal]] 13:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why can't this page be edited? ==

It seems to me that this "conservative" effort is little more than a means for some to vent their frustration with the Wikipedia audience. If this were meant to be comparable in scope and superior in quality then more due diligence would be done so that pages were considered accurate, not just conservative. In evaluating the liberal page, it seems that a concerted effort has been made to infuse conservative bias into the definition of the topic. That, to me, is the very definition of propaganda. Unless editors choose to make edits that reflect the truth,and not just conservative spin, this site will become irrelevant. [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 12:19, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yeah, that's the feeling I've been getting too. I think it's just that certain people here don't like being proven wrong, so when someone like me attempts to put up factual statements (or at least remove false ones), those certain people (or maybe person) lock the article. You can see the "discussion" about increased taxes above. I'm still waiting for my changes to be incorporated into the article. Good luck in removing the propaganda. --[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 09:36, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Giving to the poor ==

I am surprised to see "distributing wealth from the rich to the poor" listed as a "liberal" belief -- seems to me this is (or ought to be) a Christian belief, as Jesus himself says to the rich man "sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven" (Mark 10:21).

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Sounds like you are trying to say Jesus is a Democrat? Hardly. Besides, I think you are taking that Bibical statement out of context. Just an FYI. Also, aren't the liberals the ones behind the "warming climate hoax"? [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::No, I don't think that Jesus Christ endorses any political party. But His teaching has consistently been that it is the obigation of the wealthy (and indeed, of everyone) to give to the poor, as well as to minister to the sick, visit those in prison, and otherwise render comfort to their fellow men. See Mark 12:41-44, Matthew 25:36, and many other passages. The way in which any given political party, or person interprets or applies those teachings is up to them; it just seemed to me odd that this idea, phrased this way, would be attributed to "Liberals". [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::You appear to be tarring alot of things with the same brush, Miles. That is a gross generalisation of liberalism. Also, given that it is unclear whether climate change is because of human activity how can you say "warming climate hoax"?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I thought it had been proven to be a hoax, sorry if I am wrong. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Alternate defintion of liberal ==

Currently we have an alternate definition of liberal that is "anything that is not conservative" while we have a definition of [[conservative]] that is "one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue." This strongly implies that liberals do not adhere to personal responsibility and moral virtue. Isn't that needlessly inflammatory? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Beliefs ==

I am not sure that you guys understand what liberal means. Here is a list of things that are not liberal on the list you provide:
support of gun control,
taxpayer funding of abortion,
support of gun control,
distributing wealth from the rich to the poor,
government programs to rehabilitate criminals,
increased taxpayer funding of public school,
taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care,
increased taxes,
support of government programs such as welfare,
teaching of evolution (this isn't a set belief by liberals or conservatives, generally though liberals favor the teaching of evolution, however, this should not be added as a set belief)

The problem with this list is that you say it is the beliefs of liberals. However, these are the beliefs of Democrats and not liberals. You guys are making a common error that many citizens make. The error is using liberal as a synonym of Democrat. Democrats though are not true liberals. Democrats are economically conservative. The party that is a true liberal by definition would be the Libertarian Party. Essentially what a true liberal wants is no government at all. In a truly liberal society there would be total anarchy. Liberals want people to be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt other people. Increased taxes is conservative economic issue which Democrats would, yes, be in favor of, but liberals would not be in favor of it. Gun control is another issue that is wanted by some Democrats, however, this too is a conservative belief. Surely this site should know what its beliefs are if it considers it to be a conservative site. This site could be considered a liberal point of view due to the economic views expressed on this site. However, really this site should not consider itself to be liberal or conservative, but rather a Republican view. The website should be www.Republicapedia.com. I don't see how you people can consider yourself conservative when you don't know what conservatism is. Republicans are the biggest bunch of liberals I know.

Minors under 16 years use this site. So I feel that this site should be as accurate as possible and not lie to the innocent children viewing this site.
--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 00:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I must admit that I would have thought the same thing - but not being an American citizen - I assumed the word had acquired a different meaning over there. Presumably this explains why none of the entries actually links to anything to source the apparently unsubstantiated opinions expressed here.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:It would help to have some subheadings in this article - the bulletpointed list could be put in a section entitled 'Liberalism in America' or suchlike, and have another section on the libertarian/right-leaning definition more commonly used in Europe etc. --[[User:Rafa|Rafa]] 17:52, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unlock Page ==

Could you please unlock this page so that people can edit it. {{unsigned|Liberalmedia}}
: [[Conservapedia:Request Unprotection]] is thataway. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 12:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Nonsense ==

This article is a study in overstatement, overgeneralization, and innuendo. Since it violates the first of the Conservapedia Commandments, I propose it for immediate deletion. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:07, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:Those things are ok sometimes depending on who wrote them. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:19, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberals and Saddam ==
::The portion about being supportive of Saddam is particularly egregious.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

This article is unfair to the many liberals who oppose any dictatorship. The piece about liberals is just there to infume them. Lets be fair, because we wouldn't like it either if the article on ''conservative'' said that conservatives have no problems with human right violations and murder, such as in Chile under Pinochet or Burma now, as long as the regime works with them. [[User:Order]]

:This is an undeniable fact. In 2003, so-called liberals were ''the only'' group who (a) identified themselves as liberals and (b) opposed Iraqi human rights and democracy. No one else shared thier views. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually it's a steaming pile of, er, lies. --[[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:24, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Rob, get your head out of the sand. Every American is in favor of Democracy, for the love of God, get that into your head. Liberals, like me, were opposed to the war because it was poorly planned, poorly committed, we knew it'd be poorly executed, and it was inconsistent with previous stated U.S. policy (see the [[Powell Doctrine]] which I'm sure isn't up yet, since it's a liberal topic). We knew it would end in a quagmire. Liberals would line up 'cross the board in support of spreading democracy if we thought it would be easy in and easy out, but we weren't deluded into thinking it was. You were.
::Ooooh, and guess who was right?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:RobS| RobS]], it may be that liberals are not in favorite of human rights, lets not forget that the only conservative who had some courage and decency to take a stand against torture was McCain. So do you want the article on conservatives to say: ''As the discussion around Abu Graib and torture legislation has shown, conservatives do not believe in human rights, and would like to torture at will, and for no good reason, and all the reason that we had to invade Iraq to bring democracy and freedom, was obviously a sham'' just because a few vocal and irresponsible conservatives don't get that these practices are plain wrong, who hardly represent the mainstream conservative position. You should allow both sides to have their share of lunatics on the fringe, but we shouldn't make it part of how we define the mainstream. [[User:Order| Order]] 23 March. 11:50 (AEST)

:: Let's not forget the "Torture Memo," [[user:Order]. I submit one final question to you, [[user:RobS| comrade]]: based on what we now know about how the war should have been executed, should have been planned, what the troops should have gotten before the war in the way of training and armor...
:: ...who really supports the troops? Hint: '''not''' the Bush administration.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:57, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:::AmesG: So your psychic powers told you it was poorly planned, etc., and that's why you went about disrupting public support for the War. The Powell Doctrine is a restatement of Clausewitz, adding "overwhelming use of force", etc. But (a) the Powell Doctrine only referes to conventional type Cold War conflicts with large standing miltiary establishment, fixed targets, etc, and does not address the problems of '''modern 21st century warfare'''. Further, the business about "exit strategy" was always controversial, because it only applies to what Clausewitz refers to as "A War of Limited Aims".[http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/VomKriege2/BK8ch05.html]
:::Order: That discussion is already in the mainspace at [[Abu Ghraib]]. Arundati Roy, ''et al'', are self identified comrades with murderers and [[terrorist]]s. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I don't need psychic powers to tell me that a war without an exit plan is poorly planned. And it's not me that misinterpreted the type of conflict awaiting in Iraq: the government has consistently treated it like a Cold War style conflict, so conceding your point, your own argument bites you. Seriously, that this war was bungled from the start was never an issue. No exit plan = poorly planned. And Powell thought it applied; that's why he quit.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 21:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::We're still waiting for the exit plan from the Korean War, considering it was the policy of contianing Soviet expansion that got us in there, and now with the Soviet Union defunct, we're still waiting on the exit plan.

:::::Point is, only in a war of limited aims can there be an exit plan. And not all wars are wars of limited aims. Idealy, in a perfect world that would be so. But we all know the truth of that matter...

:::::As to it being a Cold War style conflict, as the saying goes, we always plan to fight the last war. Cold War military and 20th century military establishments are not designed to fight modern warfare against terrorist cells. It's a learning curve, and the US is deveolping the special skills needed. Us oldtimers can only give our experience, but if the US is to survive, the present generation must revamp the idea of what soldiering and war is to deal with this enemy which is intent upon destroying Western Civilization, and probably will never quit.

:::::The War on Terror, or the War in Iraq, is not just another "frisch, fröhliche krieg", as the Germans say, a brisk, jolly little war; and comparing it to the Cold War is an understatement, too. Neither is it like both World Wars which were total war between nation-states. But I'm afraid you have (and probably the sources you get much of your information from) drawn too heavily upon these past experiences to base your analogies on. It is an entirley different kind of war that needs entireley different approaches and solutions. Complaining about the things you've stated solves nothing. The John Kerry Administration or Al Gore Administration would be facing these identical problems, so your reservations literally have no merit whatsoever other than ill-founded partisanship.

:::::So then, what do we do? Hide our head in the sand and pray to Allah that the problem will go away? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Your knowledge of German attitude towards war is a bit dated. This was the pre WW-1 mood, about one century ago. There was no "frisch, fröhliche krieg" sentiment at the beginning of WW-2. If anyone was looking for a jolly little war in the last century, then it was mood by the neo-cons (who by my account aren't conservative) prior to the Iraq war.

:::::: There were people with precongnition. Even part of the bush administration was able to have an appropiate plan for the war and its aftermath in iraq. Unfortunately this plan was made by the state department. The Pentagon decided to disregard the recommendations in that plan, ignore the warnings in that plan. They kind of followed a recipe for disaster that was painted in the plan by the state department. There were sufficient people who warned, but the white house and the pentagon decided to ignore these. [[User:Order]] 23 March, 15:30 (AEST)

::::::: A frisch, fröhliche krieg would describe something like Granada or the Falklands, yes there may be real fighting and valor, but ultimately it's more like a game of touch football where nobody gets hurt. So what are you saying? Saddam randomly putting a person in a wood chipper every few months to keep the population terrorized is preferable to 650,000 casualties in building a democratic Iraq? Case closed. Nobody ever said democracy and freedom come cheaply. Liberals abandoned thier long held advocacy of democracy and human rights when they opposed the war. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::P.S. And all you have are lame partisan arguments that do nothing, absolutely nothing, to further the cause of democracy and human rights.

:::::::: So, the well executed post war planning by the state department was partisan? Just accusing liberals all the time doesn't solve the problems. This administration messed up. And not because it is conservative or liberal, but because they have contempt for experts. They think that these expert also just have an opinion even valid as their own opinion. Interlectually dishonesty is the problem, and I can't see any conservative value in that. It is you who casts everything under sun in partisan terms. [[User:Order|Order]] 23 March, 16:30 (AEST)

::::::::Not wanting to endorse a poorly planned war that could never accomplish its goals - as much as I hope it still will, as do all Democrats - is not the same as not signing off on the goals. I think it'd be super if man could land on Mars, but I'd rather not try to get there in a Cessna 152. My recalcitrance at using such limited means, though, doesn't mean that I dont' think we should at some point land on Mars... -[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 01:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::So is the argument (again) that because ''didn't'' have operational capability in WMD that we should have waited until he did, then we could have sent the troops in harms way with the assurance that would suffer a chemical weapons attack. And then that would justify everything. But you and I both know, in that scenario, all we would hear would be "Wjhy didn't we get rid of Saddam ''before'' he had WMD? Why did they wait too long? They knew and they did nothing!" Youn know the script lines, and play the part well, but let's be honest with the folks viewing at home, all this refernce to Bush, Cheney, Powell, etc. is bogus, and has nothing to do with the real matter. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::You just come with your ''talking-points''. The ''talking points business'' an insult for any conservative who is able to think for himself. Anyway, tell us what the matter is? What does your ''talking point list'' say about this topic? [[User:Order|Order]] 23 March, 16:40 (AEST)

It's really hard to argue that the world is a better place without Saddam in it. I'm not even going to try. But what I can argue is that liberal thought maybe... juuuuuuuustt maybe... the administration shouldn't have gone in there with such a rosy picture of what was going to happen. George H.W. Bush knew what the consequences of a Baghdad invasion would look like. He knew it in 1991. W didn't have to listen to liberals to figure out what would happen, he just had to call his dad.

And let's not forget... Saddam was contained. His ability to mount any kind of offensive war was extremely limited, he was under constant surveilance. Time was our ally here. We lost that ally like we did the rest of them. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::It was easy to predict the failure of the Iraq war based on the worldview of those who planned it. Neoconservativism has always been scoffed at by all serious foreign policy experts because it fundamentally misunderstands the nature of power and the role of nationalism in political behavior. It is why all of Bush's policies have been failures--because he tries to implement conservative policies and conservative policies are fundamentally flawed because they are premised on false assumptions about authority and erroneous predictions regarding human behavior and how it responds to authority.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 00:13, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Liberals in Europe ==
I saw that you changed that liberal in europe from "center to right wing" to "so-called center and right wing". Tell us what is "so-called" center and right wing about the liberal parties in Germany, austria or the VVD in the Netherlands? They are centre or right wig.[[User:Order|Order]]
:This refers to the Left/Right Spectrum Theory, as we have discovered in the most recent example--Iraq, is totally devoid in understanding politcal groups, coalitions, parties, groupings, ideologies, or loyalties. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: So why do you use it? And what does that have to do about the fact that Liberals outside of the US, do not fit this defiition of liberal. Do you actually know what liberal parties in Europe stand for, say VVD in the Netherlands, FDP in Germany, Venstre Parti in Denmark, or FPÖ in Austria? Where they position themselves in the political spectum? Or do you know, to mention a non european example, what attitude the leader of the Australian Liberal Party has towards the war in Iraq? I guess you just don't know it, and therefore try to change the subject. [[User:Order|Order]] 23 March 15:40 (AEST)

== Gun Control ==

Liberals don't want gun control. I would like to see sources that state otherwise. Liberals are all about individual freedoms and gun control takes away from their freedoms. Just because Democrats want gun control doesn't mean that liberals want gun control. This is the definition given by dictionary.com [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal]
:''favorable to or in accord with concepts of '''maximum individual freedom possible''', esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties. ''--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 23:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:In US, a liberal who doesn't want gun control is a libertarian. [[User:Noodles|Noodles]] 00:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Libmed is right [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Cites==

The citation to http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/economic-liberalism.php would, IMO, be a '''conservative''' economic goal. That is, limited governmental interaction within the markets.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:16, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:*Hey, Cracker. I understand why you think that it is a conservative economic goal. The reason why you think this is that Republicans are wanting these same economic goals. However, the mistake you are making is that any goal on the Republican party's platform must be a conservative view. However, this is not true. Economic liberalism is wanting essentially no governmental interference on economic policy. Also, if you check out wikipedia (Sorry) they will state how economic liberalism is the Republican's ideology on economic matters.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)] Any view that is against government controls is a liberal view. Any view that gives more power to the government is a conservative view.

::Yes. We're in agreement...I think the original citer saw "economic-liberalism" and ''assumed'' it MUST be a politcally liberal idea!

::The current crop of "conservatives" seem to forget they're for SMALL government and less economic regulation. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:51, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Protection ==

The protection log says to see the talk page. As there is nothing on the talk page, I thought I'd put something here. So... protected again, huh? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, it said for David (Hoji) to see it. ;-) I meant to only protect against unregistered users, and that I fixed. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 03:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I thought only registered users could edit at all. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Nope, not according to the protection choices. I can protect against everyone but Sysop's, unregistered users only, or make it normal, which, I am assuming, since it gives me the other choices, means unregistered users. Who knows, lol..not like there is some instruction book. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 04:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Unregistered users are blocked across the entire wiki. That's why you don't see lots of edits by IP addresses. If you can stomach it, check out a popular wikipedia page and look at the history. Lots of edits are from unreigtered users. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Man, it's almost two in the morning here, and I am in real need of a Stoli and completing my daily quota of email/spam/crap, lol. (ADDED) I only know those are the choices I am given. I've never tried to edit as a unregistered user.--~ --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)[[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 04:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Broadest possible application==
The article currently lists "Broadest possible application of the Geneva Conventions and the American Constitution", and someone added "(except the 2nd amendment)". What does this mean? I've never noticed that liberals want applications of the Geneva Conventions and the American Constitution that are any broader than anyone else. Maybe they are more willing to alter constitutional principles to promote their agendas, but they don't broadly apply the constitution. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
*Yes, I agree, however Democrats in both the House and Senate actually have campaigned to try terrorists, or non-uniformed enemy combatants in civilian courts, rather than the Geneva Convention mandated Military Tribunals. That, I guess, users might class as their "proof" of wanting broader applications, lol. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::What was it that Tony Snow was saying yesterday? That Congress has no oversight authority over the Executive Branch? Which party is it that is altering constitutional principles? Which party argued that the constitution doesn't guarantee habeas corpus? --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 19:09, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
*Congress really doesn't have Oversight of the Executive. They are (nominally) co-equal, however with Congress solely responsible for appropriations, it is hard to see the equality. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:30, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== How can we forget the fact that... ==

... liberals eat aborted fetuses while smoking pot and having homosexual sex while burning flags and bibles? Oh, and worst of all, they believe in... ... ... scientific process and objectivity. Wicked, evil things, they are. Spreading their ''bias'' everywhere like a plague. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 22:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::actully liberals believe in subjectivity, as in subjectiveness of morality, not objectivity.

*What? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 22:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Isolationist vs Interventionalists ==

The repeated edits and reverts of the "support of/opposition to an American foreign policy that supports ..." are annoying. Mostly because this is more a difference of opinion between ''isolationists'' and ''interventionists'', and not between liberals and conservatives. You can find isolationists and interventionists on both sides of the political divide. [[User:Order]] 24 March 13:30
:What this does is deny that liberals openly opposed the stated war aims in 2003, and denies that today they are actively seeking for the US to abandon the democratically elected govenrnment of Iraq. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::You presume that all conservatives support the war, while that is demonstrably not the case. On the other hand, how many liberals support American intervention in Darfur? Support or disapproval of one solitary front amongst a plethora of foreign policy actions does not an isolationist policy make. --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 21:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't presume anything about conservatives; the case is stated exactly as such: the US Govt declared a policy of regime change in Iraq to support long held US foreign policy objectives going back to Woodrow Wilson. Extreme elements at that time who self-identifed as "liberal" opposed US policy. Today, four years later, more self-identified "liberals" opposed US support for the democratic govt of Iraq. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:17, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::In history republicans have been at least as often isolationists as democrats. For example G.W.Bush before he became president. It might be that whoever is not in power favors isolationist positions, and they turn into intervetionists as soon as they come to power. [[User:Order]]

:::::It is not liberal vs conservative, it is "liberal" vs US Govt foreign policy. This indeed is not even ideological or a way of thinking; it refers to behavior, activism and contravention of a democaratically elected governments long standing policy that has had supporters from both major parties for at least three generations. And that active opposition not only (a) remains today, it has (b) spread to more "moderate" elements, and (c) actively seeks to undermine support for a "liberal" ally--the democratically elected government of Iraq. This is a milestone in politcal events.

:::::What goes unstated in this historic retelling of the past four years, IMO is this: many who claim the label of "liberal" either (a) are not, or (b) do not know what the word means.

:::::And a final observation: it is not critics of these sad events fault that so-called "liberalism", which is probably a misnomer to begin with, it's not thier fault this sorry state of affairs has come to what it is. Here's another theory: perhaps now we know why neo-cons divorced themselves from the label "liberal". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Even if most liberals did not support such a foreign policy, one shouldn't use this to define the term "liberal" if a significant number of conservatives also have exhibited and continue to exhibit isolationism. [[User:ColemanFrancis|ColemanFrancis]] 22:42, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== '''Foreign Policy''' ==

Is it at all credible to say that liberals do not support the spread of democracy and human rights? Surely even a twelve-year-old in your average public school can see that it's not a question of liberal opposition to these values but a debate over 1. thwe implementation of such a policy and 2. the mobilisation of a discourse of human rights when other motivations may be at the heart of a policy designed to propagate said values? -Sevenstring.
:Sevenstring, see my response directly above, it address exactly the same question. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Music

2007-03-26T02:24:05Z

ColemanFrancis: /* History */ difference b/t classical and pop

[[Image:Musicalnotes.jpg|right]]

[[Music]] (Middle English ''musik'', from Anglo-French ''musike'', from [[Latin]] ''musica'', from [[Greek]] μουσικη ''mousike'') is an [[art]] form consisting entirely of organized [[sound]] interspersed with periods of silence.<ref>[http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=Music Music] defined in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.</ref> It takes its name from three [[Greek mythology|Greek]] goddesses known as the ''[[Muses]]'', who specialized in stimulation of an artist's or poet's mind.

Music is the highest of all the arts, and the one best able to stir human emotion. Depending on what sort of work of music one composes, interprets, or hears, it can build a person up in spirit, or break it; make a person happy, or sad; inspire a person to greatness, or lead him into very challenging temptation. It is the art form to which the [[Bible]] gives its strongest endorsement, and to which the Bible pays the greatest attention. At the same time, it is arguably the most dangerous of all the arts, when misused.<ref name=Brown>Brown, Alan B.: telephone interview conducted on 1 March 2007 with user [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]</ref>
== What is music? ==

Strictly speaking, ''music'' means sound having any organization at all, while ''noise'' is purely random sound. But the roots of these two words suggest that ''music'' ought to mean that which makes one think and feel something new and significantly different, while ''noise'' (from the same root from which we get the verb ''I annoy'') is merely a distracting, disturbing, or often physically damaging sound. Some modern composers have attempted to stretch the definition of music by using noises in a manner that they insist is organized. Whether such a work product properly falls under the heading of "music" is debatable.

Note that music is ''not'' limited to such sounds that a human being might produce by fashioning an instrument for the making of a simplified or otherwise organized sound and then "playing" said instrument. The chirping of birds and certain insects may properly be called music, especially if the sound produced is particularly pleasant to the listener. Furthermore, some of the most sophisticated music attempts to imitate the sounds made by birds, insects, and other animals.

== Basic music theory ==
: ''Main Article: [[Music theory]]''
Classically, music consists of ''tones'', ''melodies'', ''counterpoint'', and ''rhythm''. A ''tone'' is the purest form of sound, having a single [[frequency]]. However, pure tones in music are rare. Most tones present themselves to the human ear together with ''overtones'', which typically are small-[[integer]] multiples of the basic frequency (the ''fundamental tone'').

=== Notes, intervals, and scales ===
Two tones played together form an ''interval''. The simplest of all intervals is the ''octave'', formed by two tones, one of whose frequencies is the exact double of the other. The full collection of tones that one can play between the two notes of an octave is called a ''scale.'' In Western music, most scales are ''semi-tonal'', with twelve tones between the octave notes. (The high end of the octave is considered a repetition of the low end, but at twice the frequency.) [[Oriental]] music commonly has ''quarter-tonal'' scales, with twenty-four separate tones within an octave. Quarter tones are often difficult to distinguish for a Western listener, and such music, as a result, tends to suggest the sinuous movement of a snake.

The [[Greece|Greeks]] recognized early that fundamental tones in music have a simple and strict [[mathematics|mathematical]] relationship. As mentioned, the octave consists of two notes, one at double the frequency of the other. At ''triple'' the frequency, one hears a low fundamental tone, and a higher tone that is past the octave but roughly midway toward the second octave. If one then divides the high-tone frequency by two, one creates the interval called the ''perfect fifth'' or ''dominant'' interval, one of the most common intervals used in Western music. One can test this relationship by striking a note on a [[piano]] while holding down another key that is one octave higher than the perfect fifth. The second note will sound in sympathy with the first--because it is resonating with the overtone from the first note.

=== Melody and counterpoint ===
''Melody'' is the series of notes that most closely captures the attention of the listener. A ''counterpoint'' is another series of notes that complements the melody. Either melody or counterpoint can exist either as series of single notes, or as intervals, or as ''chords''. A ''chord'' (named after the string of a Greek hand-held instrument called a [[lyre]]) is any three or more notes sounded at once.

=== Rhythm ===
''Rhythm'' consists of all aspects of music that suggest ''forward movement.'' Most music contains a regularly repeating sequence of ''beats'', or strong elements, that typically lead with a ''down beat'' followed by any of a small number of slightly weaker beats. A down beat and its weaker beats form a ''measure.'' Usually, all measures in a piece of music have the same number of beats.

A note in music is described not only by pitch, or frequency, but also by duration. Notes in Western music have names that typically describe how long they would sound in a typical measure. ''Whole notes'' are so called because normally they would sound for the full measure. ''Half notes'' would sound for half the measure, ''quarter notes'' for a fourth of the measure, and so on. A note may also carry a ''dot'' to the right of it, that indicates that the note is to sound for one and one-half times its usual duration.

Any one of these notes may carry a beat, and a measure may have any number of beats. Thus every piece of music commonly carries at least one ''time signature'' describing how many beats a measure has, and which type of note carries one beat. The most common time is "four-quarter time" (four beats per measure, with the beat given to the quarter note), which is therefore called "common time." Other commonly used time signature include three-quarter, six-eighth, nine-eighth, or rarely, two-half (called ''Alla breve'' or "cut time"). Even rarer are the time signatures with prime numbers of beats (other than three-quarter), including five-quarter or even eleven-eighth.

''Tempo'' (Italian for "time") describes how frequently the beats occur. The typical tempo signature is a drawing of the note that has the beat, followed by the number of beats per minute.

Notes may be ''accented'' at any time. In fact, often the accent will fall on the weak beat and make the beats seem to sound out-of-sequence. The result is ''syncopated'' rhythm.

The genre of music called [[rock and roll]] features a unique rhythm convention: the ''backbeat.''<ref>[http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/12/07/RockRules Normative Backbeat] at Tbray.org</ref> This is a third beat, in four-quarter time, that is stressed even more strongly than the down beat. This produces a profound sense of restlessness in the listener.

== Types of instruments ==
: ''Main Article: [[Musical instruments]]''

== History ==
The [[Bible]] suggests that music actually began in [[heaven]], and that the first-ever musician was [[Lucifer]], then the chief of [[God]]'s messengers, or angels. When he fell, so Scripture says, his choir fell with him.

Human music goes back to [[antediluvian civilization]]. The Bible specifically credits [[Jubal]], son of [[Lamech the Murderer]] by his wife [[Adah]], with introducing music to mankind.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=5|verses=19-21|version=KJV}}</ref>

The earliest ''post''-diluvian records of music have been found in [[Iraq]] and [[India]], and date at least from the time of [[Abraham]]. They probably were made shortly after the [[Babel]] Incident.

Almost every culture and religious movement has its own particular form of music. Some forms are richer and more sophisticated than others. The [[Hebrew]] people, and especially the children of [[Jacob|Israel]], have some of the grandest of all musical traditions. Mentions of "singing to the Lord" abound in the Old Testament. The most highly specific testimony to the power of music over human emotions is surely contained in the story of King [[Saul]] and how he came to recruit the young [[David]] as his armorbearer and personal musician.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=I_Samuel|chap=16|verses=14-23|version=KJV}}</ref>

King [[David]], at the height of his reign, once had a ''four-thousand-voice choir'' to assist in the worship of [[God]]. The Book of [[Psalms]] is in fact a collection of lyrics for some of the first worship songs in Israelite tradition. (Most of these came from David, but at least one comes from [[Moses]].) The [[Song of Solomon]] is a grand ballad of love that most scholars regard as a type of the love of [[Jesus Christ]] for His elect.

The Greeks, when [[Alexander the Great]] accepted the surrender of [[Jerusalem]] in his wars of conquest, introduced their own brand of music to the region--which the Jews largely resisted. But music was highly prominent throughout the Greek world--and later in the [[Rome|Roman]] world following Rome's conquest of Greece. The Greeks' contributions to musical theory influenced the classical artists for centuries to come, and still influence those composers who prefer to adhere to the classical traditions of music.

The earliest Greek music was associated with Greek [[theater]]. But beginning with the fall of Rome, music became largely liturgical. The primary influence remained the [[Roman Catholic Church]] until the twin movements of the Renaissance and the Reformation, each of which introduced a countervailing tradition.

From that time forward, most scholars divide music into "classical" music (composed primarily to achieve a high art) and "popular" music (composed for the masses and tending to achieve wide, but ephemeral, appeal).<ref>[http://www.thefreedictionary.com/popular%20music Popular music] defined at the Free Dictionary</ref>

"Classical music" tends to rely more on written notation, as a piece of classical music is generally held to transcend any particular interpretation of it. In current practice, such music is performed in concerts where the audience is expected to remain respectfully silent and the performers dress formally; however, in the past such music was often performed at salons and other informal private gatherings. In addition, the increasing importance of the written transmission of such music has reduced the role of improvisation, which was extremely important through the beginning of the "Romantic" era. Classical music also displays great musical complexity through the use of varied rhythms, chord progressions, counterpoint, and other compositional techniques, while maintaining a deep emotional content.

"Popular music" on the other hand, tends to be more accessible to the general public through the use of simpler forms and relatively simple compositional techniques. Much popular music is the product of modern business enterprise, as opposed to folk music (created by ordinary people for their own enjoyment) or classical music (which was originally written for religious practice or for the entertainment of the nobility).

These two genres; however, are not necessarily distinct, as composers such as [[Bach]] and [[Mozart]] would often incorporate themes from "popular music" of their time into their works. Other classical composers like [[Ravel]] and [[Gershwin]] were well-known for their use of jazz idiom in works like the Piano Concerto in G major and "Rhapsody in Blue". On the other hand, popular music has borrowed many themes from classical works (one notable example is "A Whiter Shade of Pale" by [[Procol Harum]]). In addition, "popular music" is not necessarily simpler than classical, as forms like jazz and progressive rock make use of complex time signatures that do not often occur in classical works, and some popular musicians like [[Frank Zappa]] are considered serious composers in their own right.

== The power of music over human emotion ==
Music has a very powerful effect on the emotions of the listener. Music relies on [[sound]], and if "faith comes through hearing," then so does emotion. Music can instantly bring joy or sorrow, ecstasy or despair, and far more quickly than can any other form of art. Many musical composers insist that their music merely expresses emotions. This does not do music justice. Music does more than express emotions; it induces them.<ref>[http://www.musica.uci.edu/mrn/V3I1S96.html MuSICA Notes III(1), Spring 1996]</ref>

The amateur botanist Dorothy L. Retallack, in [[1973]], claimed to have found that music can have an effect on plants. "Positive" music (that produces joy or contentment) supposedly made plants flourish and even "reach" for, or grow toward, such music. Negative music (that produces frustration, restlessness, or especially anger and rage) supposedly caused plants to "recoil" (grow away) from the music, and prolonged or repeated exposure debilitates and eventually killed plants, or so she said.<ref>Retallack, Dorothy L. ''The Sound of Music and Plants''. Devorss and Company, June 1973, 96 pp., paperback. ISBN 0875161707</ref><ref>[http://www.dovesong.com/positive_music/ About Positive and Negative Music] from the Dovesong Foundation</ref>

No botanist has ever reproduced Retallack's claimed results. But the effects on animals and man are far better documented and much more profound than any effect on plants that Retallack ever claimed. That animals, and especially [[dog]]s and [[cat]]s, recoil in horror from the sound of a poorly trained voice, is proverbial (and in fact the animals might be reacting to a sound that is not merely grating but acutely and physically painful to their ears). The Dovesong Foundation has found evidence for musical preferences by cattle<ref>[http://www.dovesong.com/positive_music/archives/basement/Cows%20and%20Classical%20Music.asp Cows Prefer Classical Music]</ref> and cetaceans.<ref>[http://www.dovesong.com/positive_music/archives/basement/Steinhart_Dolphins.asp Dolphins Don't Like Rock] (The article refers to the classic [[dolphin]] (family [[Cetacea]]), aka "porpoise," not the fish of that name.)</ref>

But the effects of music on human beings are far better documented and recognized. The history of warfare includes a rich history of martial music. More recently, music has now found a use in the healing of negative emotional states and even as an aid to the healing of physical disabilities.<ref>[http://www.musictherapy.org/ The American Music Therapy Association]</ref>

Commercial enterprises always attempt, at great expense of time, money, and effort, to find and deploy forms of music that will enhance worker productivity or cause prospective customers to behave in a manner calculated to make them purchase their goods and/or services. The rock-and-roll selections played in supermarkets are a prime example.

Music has always been an adjunct to [[theater]]. This is especially true of the performing arts called ''opera'' and ''ballet'', but applies also to the use of music as an adjunct to a theatrical production, whether on the stage, as a [[motion picture]], or as a [[television]] show.

Music has an obvious use in [[propaganda]], in which the propagandist seeks to manipulate people's emotions and stir them typically to rage and hostility against certain groups.

Finally, music can strengthen in the listener a curiosity about, or even a desire for, an act of sexual or other [[sin]].<ref>[http://cranach.worldmagblog.com/cranach/archives/2006/08/draft_linking_s.html Linking Sexual Music and Teen Behavior] by Gene Edward Veith at the [http://www.worldmagblog.com World Magazine Blog]</ref><ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51496 Face the music, parents] at [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ WorldNetDaily] 12 August [[2006]]</ref> Sadly, this use of music is probably as old as "the oldest profession." Cultural critics observe, pointedly, that permissive cultures have permissive music, and non-permissive cultures avoid such music.

Yet for all this, music is still important in worship. If it were not, then it would not have received the favorable attention that the [[Bible]] clearly gives to it. As powerful a force for evil as it might be, music can be an equally powerful force to encourage the listener to worship, appreciate, and above all obey God and keep His laws--at least, as best as any human being is able.

== Traditions and principles for liturgical music ==
[[Saint Paul]] specifically exhorts his readers to employ music, and specifically "psalms, hymns, and spiritual odes," to bring them closer to God.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Ephesians|chap=5|verses=19|version=KJV}}</ref> <ref>{{Bible ref|book=Colossians|chap=3|verses=16|version=KJV}}</ref> In this context, a ''psalm'' is not necessarily a chapter out of the Book of [[Psalms]]; it can be any song that primarily quotes any part of Scripture. ''Hymns'' are songs primarily of praise and magnification of [[God]]; they do not, however, directly quote Scripture in most of their lyrics, as "psalms" do. ''Spiritual odes'' are primarily personal testimonies, either of salvation or of one's own perception of God. ''Amazing Grace'', by John Newton, is a prime example. ''It Is Well With My Soul'', by Horatio Spafford, is one song that has features of a hymn ''and'' a spiritual ode.

The Rev. Alan B. Brown, MDiv, ThM, has studied liturgical music extensively. In his view<ref name=Brown/>, liturgical music ought to satisfy three prime tests:

# Are the lyrics ''accurate'', either when they quote Scripture or reflect [[Christian]] principles?
# Can you properly ''associate'' the lyrics and/or the notes with Godly things, as opposed to worldly things?
# Are the lyrics and/or the notes ''appropriate'' for worship in general, and in the setting of a particular celebration?

The actual notes to the tunes that, say, King David's choir might have sung, or his royal orchestra might have produced, are lost to us today. But the titles of many of the Psalms contain specific instructions, originally to the music director at King David's court, as to the type of tune and the types of instruments required. Hymnists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries often set the Psalms and other portions of Scripture to music, often with very good effect. The best-known example is the ''Doxology'' (literally, "study in glory") that is a paraphrase of Psalm 100; the tune is called "Old Hundredth" and remains popular today.

== Controversies surrounding music today ==
Music perhaps has always been controversial, but the controversies surrounding music today rage with particular vehemence. The question of what is, and what is not, music is relatively tame. Different composers have always experimented with different music conventions. Many such experiments fail, in that the works produced draw only small audiences, and ultimately no one will play them, because no one will pay to listen to them or to have them played for other people.

Rather, the most raging controversy concerns certain genres of popular music that have provoked adverse political comment precisely because of the emotions they incite and the themes they sound, both in lyrics and in notes. Parents of adolescent and pre-adolescent children object to music that explicitly (mainly through its lyrics) exhorts its listeners to sexual sin. Members of various political interest groups object to music that they believe provokes its listeners to show ''disrespect'' for members of those groups.

Some listeners and music critics attempt to defend music as "amoral," that is, morally neutral. The reaction of so many interested parties to various types of popular music today would seem to belie that stance. Indeed, history is replete with examples of various pieces of music from earlier eras inciting their listeners to violence; [[Maurice Ravel]]'s signature work ''Bolero'', for example, was known to incite riots<ref>[http://www.kalvos.org/bazzr086.html Essay 86: Bolero v. Gliere, Round 1] by David Gunn, at Kalvos & Damian's New Music Bazaar</ref>, as was [[Igor Stravinsky]]'s work ''The Rite of Spring''.<ref>[http://www.nottinghamphilharmonic.co.uk/notes/SRS.html The Rite of Spring] by the Nottingham Philharmonic Orchestra</ref> Riots have also broken out at many rock-and-roll concerts, and often the responding law-enforcement authorities have been at a loss to determine the ultimate causes of those riots. The ''proximate'' cause typically is a one-on-one fight in which other concert attendees joined in--but what put the original combatants into a fighting mood, or causes others to join a fight that was, strictly speaking, not theirs, is far more difficult to explain. The causes of the quarrels involved seem trifling in comparison to the damage that ultimately results--and riots like these do not normally occur at performances of other, "tamer" types of music.

== References ==
<references/>

== See Also ==
* [http://creationwiki.org/Music Music] by [[CreationWiki]]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music Music] by [[Wikipedia]]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_music History of music] by [[Wikipedia]]

[[Category:Culture]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

Tyrannosaurus

2007-03-25T21:00:13Z

ColemanFrancis: /* Young Earth Creationist Theory */ this section works better as a link to the more complete discussion of YEC on dinosaurs in general

The '''Tyrannosaurus rex''', or T-rex, was a large carnivorous [[dinosaur]] with very small forelimbs, large hind legs and a long tail. It is one of the largest land carnivores to have ever walked the earth, measuring about 13 meters long and 5 meters high.<ref>Brochu, C.R. 2003. Osteology of Tyrannosaurus rex: insights from a nearly complete skeleton and high-resolution computed tomographic analysis of the skull. Memoirs of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 7: 1-138.</ref>

[[Theory of evolution|Evolutionary]] scientists believe that the T-rex lived at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, approximately 65 million years ago. [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] on the other hand believe that they became extinct some 6-5,000 years ago, after [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]] when the environment became too hostile for them.
==History==
The earliest find of a Tyrannosaurus rex occurred in 1892. In 1905, after additional discoveries of fossils, the president of the American Museum for Natural History named the dinosaur. Since then, more than 30 specimens have been found.

In 1990, amateur paleontologist Susan Hendrickson discovered the most complete Tyrannosaurus fossil yet. The fossil, named Sue, is also one of the largest Tyrannosaurus specimen discovered.<ref>Guinness World Records Ltd. (2003). 2003 Guinness World Records. pg 90.</ref>

==Young Earth Creationist Theory==
[[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth creationists]] have alternate theories to the existance of the Tyrannosaurus rex, and other dinosaurs in general, that either it did not live, or that it lived at the same time as humans at some point in history. For a more complete discussion, see the article on ''[[Dinosaur#Creationist_Scientists_Perspective|Dinosaurs]]''

==Diet==

T-rex had forward-facing eyes, which gave it binocular vision. Binocular vision is usually present in carnivores, as it helps them see their prey from far off, therefore it is very likely that Tyrannosaurus was a carnivore. Young earth creationists believe that the Tyrannosaurus, along with all other carnivores, was herbivorous in the [[Garden of Eden]] before the Fall, but afterwards a change occured that caused T-rex to be unable to digest plants and therefore had to kill and eat other creatures for food.

Some have suggested that T-rex was exclusively a scavenger. This may be partially true, since most carnivores today will happily scavenge available meat. However, it probably was not an ''exclusive'' scavenger, as most meat-eaters must also hunt in order to survive. T-rex's jaws were also quite adaptive to grabbing live prey, and probably used them in the same way most carnivores do: bit the throat to either crush the larynx and thus kill by suffocation or through blood loss. Also, the T-rex's large body probably required a great amount of food and therefore scavenging probably wouldn't be sufficient to support its high metabolism.<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3790/is_200103/ai_n8932547|</ref>

==References==

<references/>

Oregon

2007-03-25T19:23:24Z

ColemanFrancis:

{{stub}}

'''Oregon''' is a state in the western United States. Its capital is Salem and largest city is Portland.

Oregon was originally settled by many Native Americans before the [[Lewis and Clark]] expedition brought greater attention to the area from the United States and Britain. The British had control of the majority of the territory until the Oregon Trail started in the 1840s and American settlers began moving in. Eventually, the land was ceded to the United States in the resolution of a boundary dispute.

[[Category:US state]]

Nirvana (Band)

2007-03-25T19:18:17Z

ColemanFrancis: clarification: the reference only lists Kurt Cobain's estate as the top-earner among dead celebrities; does not provide evidence for claim.

'''Nirvana''' was a [[grunge rock]] band from Aberdeen, [[Washington]]. The band was formed by [[Kurt Cobain]] and Krist Novoselic in early 1988. The band first achieved mainstream success with the release of their single ''[[Smells Like Teen Spirit]]'' in 1991. Since their debut, over 60 million Nirvana albums have been sold worldwide, making the band one of the most popular non-active musical act in history.<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/WolfFiles/story?id=2619535&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 Elvis No Longer King of Dead Celebrities], ''ABC News''</ref> The lead singer of the band, Kurt Cobain, was often labeled as the "spokesman for a generation", referring to [[Generation X]]. Cobain committed suicide on April 5, 1994 in his [[Seattle]] home.

<references/>

User talk:MountainDew

2007-03-25T19:16:13Z

ColemanFrancis:

Archive: [[User talk:MountainDewarchive1]]

== [[User:Conservator]] ==

I can't tell what he's doing. He seems to be adding extra-huge amounts of content to articles, but every time I try and go there, it errors out. Just fyi. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 16:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Anarchocapitalism ==

The user created a redirect to that page at Free Market, and it looked like a crank article.[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 02:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:Sorry for any time that I wasted. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 02:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==[[God]]==
I unlocked [[God]] to registered users since around 8 days have passed since it was locked. Probably a good idea to keep an eye on it, so I thought I'd let you know. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 18:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==[[User:Conservative]]==
The debate over [[User:Conservative]] is going on at [[Talk:dinosaur]], and the section above the one you just created at [[User Talk:Aschlafly]]. I must agree, it is somewhat disturbing that the notion "Conservative's worldview is the ONLY worldview" has gained acceptance. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== New User ==
The New User log has been installed. You can see new account creations now. Thanks for the tip! [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 09:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

===Judaism==

You have to revert that page to an older version, ASAP. There is slander in there I think you missed - like saying that the real Jews are white Europeans and that Jews descended from Satan.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Judaism -- the version you have protected is the wrong one ==

Hi MountainDew -- a note to let you know that the version of [[Judaism]] which you protected is an innacurate one, filled to rants by someone who subscribes to the widely discredited [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity Christian Identity] school of racist thinking which goes so far as to reject the notion that the Jews of today even *are* Jews, and says they are descended from Satan. Please revert to an earlier accurate version if you are going to protect this entry!

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 12:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==User names==

Thanks for that block. If I were an admin, I'd have done the same. Keep up the good work! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:48, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== CP:AID ==

Hello, You recently expressed your opinion at [[CP:AID]]. After voting, it has become obvious that the first article to improve is [[Germany]] and any related articles. Details will be posted soon at [[CP:AID]], check there tomorrow for details. Thanks! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:36, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unlock ==

Now that the rash of vandalism seems to have passed, could you unlock my user page? I need to make some edits. Thanks. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks, feel free to delete this little thread. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
==Spoon==
why did you block him?? All he did was quote the Bible. If you don't think it belongs where it was put, delete it, but don't block the editor. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

He was only posting verses that post the Bible in a bad light. I will unblock him, though. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

User Ilikebigbibles should be blocked. Are you going to be up a while? If not, then I'm inclined to block him now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:36, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks much. He's from Australia (near Sydney) based on his IP, and his edits and name highly suggest the need to block. Unless you see a reason not to, I'd recommend blocking before you sign off. Thanks much!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:40, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Alien==
Please explain your justification for deletion of the content i added to [[Alien]]. [[User:Ilikebigbibles|Ilikebigbibles]] 02:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== confused ==

Tsumetai said to ask someone on the list and you had a cool name, so I'm asking you. What did i do that was vandalism? and what am I a not good parody at? I thought we were supposed to add true things here, not like at Wikipedia were you have to have npov and liberal bias. [[User:Gabriel|Gabriel]] 13:33, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Dispute Resolution Process ==

Erm, not sure if you meant to, but you overwrote my edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&diff=58850&oldid=58846 here]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:OK, thanks for the quick response. I was getting worried for a minute. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks for the quick block ==

Wow, you were really quick on that last block! Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Gah, you're way too quick with these obscenity-laden usernames! Hopefully this message will distract you long enough for me to nab one. Mwuahahahaha! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Sockpuppet/Troll Stalker! ==

I know you are the same person as that hoji...you ain't fooling anyone, pinko liberal godless soul!

*Sorry, Dan...I apologize. I thought you would realize the humor, the joke, being since you were posting on hoji's page too. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 03:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Blocked user==

I just got an e-mail from AmesG that he was blocked by conservative, he wanted me to ask another admin to look into it. I am not sure the surroundings but there is a decent chance it was pre-mature. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: Thank you all again!!!-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:21, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Poor AmesG. You're like the red-headed stepchild of the family. :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Like the gingers from South Park! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
*ROFL! Cheer up....I haven't banned you yet! :p --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: I totally am. But getting banned by Conservative is good for the soul.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Bans need not be permanent. Does a user block here also stop the user from posting on their own user talk page? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*If one is banned, they cannot sign into the site. They could, I guess, post as someone else on their banned page. Perhaps the Webmaster needs to remove the pages of banned users... --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Please Stop Removing Page Protection ==

It is ''especially rude'' for you to unprotect pages, without consultation with the Sysop who locked it. Is there some explanation for doing it, other than just your idea you know better? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:32, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== BillOReillyFan ==

I'm not sure if this has surfaced in the discussion over [[User:BillOReillyFan]] yet, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AConservapedia&diff=117389986&oldid=117378784 this edit] to Wikipedia by somebody who seems to be BillOReillyFan is quite incriminating. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:01, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:Can't we call him something else, some cool code name? BillOReillyFan...meh....[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 03:04, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I just say BORF. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:05, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Ha! Thats perfect actually. You are on a roll tonight! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 03:06, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Conservapedia Threat number zero-five-two-nine, abberviated at CON-T0529. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:05, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Have fun BORF hunting, I will see you tommorrow! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 03:15, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I think [[User:Pacman]] might be a BORF. Lots of good edits (esp. in knowledgeable areas) and then complete silliness. Anyway, he's blocked for a day now. I guess we'll see. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:41, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:If nothing else, he likes the nickname you gave him. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:42, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Unblock==
Thanks for the unblock, MountainDew. I had no idea how sneaky people were, what with the edits by "BORF". Thanks for redeeming me. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]] 03:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Scientology ==

Can you provide some justification for your edits on Scientology? I was fixing a rather overzealous edit by a user called Terryeo.

: I am he. Since the discussion seems to go on at [[User_talk:Pacman#Revert|Pacman's Page]], I replied to him there. The data Pacman is introducing is already in the article. It is in the [[Scientology#Controversy|Contoversy Section]] of the article and has been there for some time. Tmloulouse introduced the data on 19 March at this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientology&oldid=47501 editing difference]. He and I worked out a compromise wording that we could both live with, but he introduced the idea and documented it pretty throughly. Pacman seems to want the data taken out of controversy and put into basic beliefs, which would be incorrect. That's why he and I are working that out. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 13:10, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Hitler, whatever... ==

Were you able to block him with no problems? Every time I tried to, it said no user of that name existed. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 14:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:Same problem here :( [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:57, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I had to remove the underscores from his name and type the plus sign in myself. It took me several tries. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 14:57, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Why the heck ins't his IP blocked? [[Special:Checkuser]] says the same IP has been used by all of the "hitler" vandals. I'm confused. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:12, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not sure. I suspect that the names are being created by somebody who has an established account here already; I'm going to go run some checkuser inquiries. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

See what you may glean from the users [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:195.93.21.97 talk page on Wikipedia]. Evidently, it's an AOL Proxy, and I will try to block this IP. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:38, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Aschlafly's talk page ==

Hop over to Aschlafly's [[User Talk:Aschlafly|talk page]] and tell me what you think of the banner at the top, I spent some time trying to get it presentable... --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 02:00, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Ashens ==

I'll block him if he continues. Fred Phelps is a phsyco, and it's our job to paint him as such! I like your request to him, by the way... I'll go CheckUser him. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 02:36, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:He says he's going to "report us for hounding him". Shall I just block him now, and delete all traces of his existence? Yes? That sounds like an excellent idea! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:15, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::We should give him one warning for name calling first. Whether he's broken any rules seems borderline, even though he's here to cause trouble. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*This is what I mean. Do either of you understand what other Sysops think when reading these kind of posts? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The whole communication thing, right? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:45, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*In order for a page to be on a sysops watch list, one has to enable watch manually, or have auto watch enabled so, if a sysop hasnt posted on your page, mine, or hoji's, they dont know the convo is happening = exclusionary. I have had other Sysops express the same frustration. We just can's assume they will see the topic on their watch lists. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:57, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==Recent Blocks==

I'm confused about some of these. Kiowa and Tmtoulouse mainly. I know there's probably good reasons, but I never saw anything against the rules in any of their entries that I saw.[[User:NSmyth|Nsmyth]] 04:03, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*Most of it was on Andrews page. I wasn't a party to, nor do I agree that Tmtoulouse should have been blocked, and until I saw your post, didn't know he had been....yet. His feelings were hurt, and he lashed out. That isn't the way to handle such things. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:He did actually suggest being blocked. That said, I do disagree with the blocking, but it's not my call. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*If he asks for a second chance (he has my IM), I wouldn't oppose giving it to him. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Kiowa was placed on a short block for subtle vandalism of Americium and a couple of other articles

==Stub2 Deleted==

The webmaster deleted the stub2 template and now we have a ton of pages siting around with a broken template. I have been fixing them, but I'm tired and need sleep, could you help when you log on. All the pages with broken links can be found here: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Template:Stub2
:(Issue has been fixed via Template Redirect.) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
*I appreciate you letting me know about the problem, sid....I sent email to webmaster, didnt get an answer, but main thing its fixed. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 08:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
**Main praise goes to Elamdri for actually spotting it. (The initial alert didn't come from me, it's an unsigned entry by Elamdri.) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:01, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
*That was sarcasm. None of these guys answer their email, so I don't know why I bothered. And of course, you messaged that the problem was being worked on, but not to me. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:03, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
**I tracked down the people Elamdri alerted and left the "No worries, it's been fixed" notes underneath Elamdri's posts to avoid the alerted people from going all "OH NOES!". Not much use to leave a message on ALL sysops' pages going all "There was some problem, but it's not there anymore, so this message is fairly pointless.". ;) If you check Elamdri's contributions, you'll notice that only a few people have been alerted.
**Besides, you showed that you keep your eyes open by checking other User Talk pages. That definitely speaks for you. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:10, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
*No worries, I'm on a tear about communication...I should have it worked out of my system by this evening, lol. :p --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== McCain v. Reagan ==

Hey MD- Just a heads up.

*Ronald Reagan, born 2/6/11, took office 1/20/81. 69 years 11.5 mos.
*John McCain, born 8/29/36, would take office ~1/15/2009. 72 years 3.5 mos.

I've had to fix that a couple of times and mentioned it on the talk page. Jus ta heads up. (Personally, I think the entire section about "electability" has got to go but someone disagrees with me. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:31, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Eric ==

No, just a friend of his. You must admit, however, that he has his fair share of Google hits (and an interesting biography that you can read here [http://bio50.wikispaces.com/Lord+Eric+Mukherjee%2C+Grand+Guru+of+Science].

Anyway, he wouldn't be enough of a loser to put his own name on somebody's wiki. [[User:ColemanFrancis|ColemanFrancis]] 15:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Kansas

2007-03-25T19:07:26Z

ColemanFrancis: /* Notable Kansans */

'''Kansas''' is a Midwestern state which became the 34th state admitted to the Union on January 29, 1861. Its capital is Topeka, and its largest cities are, in order, Wichita, Overland Park, and Kansas City. The name ''Kansas'' comes from a Sioux word meaning "people of the south wind".

==History==
Kansas was admitted as a [[free state]] in the midst of guerilla warfare between pro-slavery and abolitionist forces that had erupted in the wake of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. <ref>http://www.legendsofamerica.com/OZ-BleedingKansas.html</ref> This act provided for an election to determine whether Kansas would be a free state or a slave state, and many people flooded into the state to vote. The vote process was not easy, and was rife with accusations of voter fraud. <ref>http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/kansas.htm</ref> Noted abolitionist [[John Brown]] led anti-slavery forces during some of this time period. This violence continued after Kansas was admitted to the union, and the worst example was the destruction of the city of Lawrence by pro-slavery guerilla [[William Quantrill]] on August 21, 1863, which killed most of the male population of the town. <ref>http://www.legendsofamerica.com/OZ-Lawrence2.html</ref>

==Politics==
Kansas is perhaps one of the most consistent examples of a [[red state]], having voted for the Republican candidate in every presidential election since 1964. 71% of voters supported a ban on gay marriage in 2005 <ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/05/national/main685831.shtml</ref>, and both of its senators (Pat Roberts and [[Sam Brownback]] are Republicans), and there is a general sense that the Republican primaries are more important than general elections on a state level. However, this may be changing. [[Kathleen Sebelius]], the widely popular governor, is a Democrat and in her second term. In the 2006 attorney general race, Democrat Paul Morrison defeated incumbent Phill Kline, who had strenuously pushed a conservative agenda, most notably his relentless legal pursuit of abortion provider George Tiller. Former Rep. [[Jim Ryun]]'s surprise loss to Nancy Boyda in 2006 has created a situation in which two out of the four U.S. Representatives (Boyda and Dennis Moore, who represents the affluent suburban area near Kansas City) are Democrats. (The two Republicans are Todd Tiahrt and Jerry Moran).

==Miscellaneous==
Kansas exports more wheat than any other state. Kansas's economy is heavily dependent upon agriculture. <ref>http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/factsheets/CAFTA/ks.html</ref>

Kansas's motto is ''ad astra per aspera'', which is Latin for "to the stars through difficulties." Its state flower is the sunflower, its state tree is the cottonwood, and its state bird is the Western meadowlark.

[[Helium]] was first found in natural gas at the University of Kansas in Lawrence in 1905. <ref>http://www.news.ku.edu/2000/00N/AprNews/Apr7/bailey.html</ref>

The term "What would Jesus do?" was first used by Charles Sheldon, a Topeka minister, in 1896. <ref>http://www.mastersimage.com/articles/ihs.htm</ref>

Cawker City is home to the world's largest ball of twine, which has a 40 foot circumference<ref>http://skyways.lib.ks.us/towns/Cawker/twine.html</ref>, and Greensburg is home to the world's deepst hand dug well, which is 109 feet deep. <ref>http://www.bigwell.org/bigwell.html</ref>.

Although Dorothy Gale, in the 1900 book and 1939 film ''The Wizard of Oz'', is from Kansas, L. Frank Baum, the author of the Oz books, had never been to Kansas, and based his description of a state where 'everything was grey' on his experiences as a newspaper man in [[North Dakota]].

The default position for the mapping program [[Google Earth]] is Lawrence. <ref>http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/21/lawrence_pinpointed_center_google_earth/</ref>

==Notable Kansans==

[[Bob Dole]], former US Senator and the 1996 Republican nominee for President, grew up in Russell.

[[Amelia Earhart]], the first woman to fly solo across the Atlantic Ocean, was from Abilene.

[[Dwight Eisenhower]], president of the United States from 1952 to 1960, grew up in Abilene.

[[Thomas Frank]], an author who is most well known for his book ''What's the Matter with Kansas?'', a look at the political history of Kansas written from a liberal perspective.

[[James Naismith]], inventor of the game of basketball, was a professor and coach at the University of Kansas in Lawrence.

[[Gordon Parks]], an award-winning African-American photographer and writer, was from Fort Scott.

[[Jim Ryun]], a three time Olympic gold medalist who held the world record in the mile run and served several terms in the House of Representatives, is originally from Wichita but now lives in Lawrence.

[[William Allen White]], a journalist who is most well known for his bitter piece of conservative satire, ''What's the Matter With Kansas?'', lived in Emporia. (Note: The title of the aforementioned Frank book is a reference to the article by White, which precedes Frank's book by over 100 years.)

The 1970s progressive rock band [[Kansas]], known for the songs [[Carry On My Wayward Son]] and [[Dust in the Wind]] takes its name from the state.

[[Eric Mukherjee]], scientist and advocate of intelligent design.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:US state]]

Talk:Tyrannosaurus Rex

2007-03-17T21:35:51Z

ColemanFrancis: Talk:Tyrannosaurus Rex moved to Talk:Tyrannosaurus rex: revert

#REDIRECT [[Talk:Tyrannosaurus rex]]

Talk:Tyrannosaurus rex

2007-03-17T21:35:51Z

ColemanFrancis: Talk:Tyrannosaurus Rex moved to Talk:Tyrannosaurus rex: revert

Again, should be titled Tyrannosaurus '''REX'''--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Reverts? ==

Why can't we include the creationist view on T. Rex? My edits keep getting reverted.
:Write your edit here to see what's wrong and cite all sources. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Can't we have some images of a t-rex eating people in a natural history museum? I think that would be a major improvement. (ha ha) [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 18:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This is brilliant! Don't change a thing!--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 16:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Protected==

I protected this version because it did not lack citations and gave the most information. Please discuss what should and should not remain. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 17:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:One citation repeated three times is not equal to three citations. Try looking at this, careful it has '''bigwords''' in it. [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3790/is_200103/ai_n8932547| Gut contents from a cretaceous tyrannosaurid.] --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I tried to add more citations, but they kept getting deleted! Here's a great one: [http://www.gavinrymill.com/dinosaurs/t-rex-hunter-or-scavenger.html SCAVENGER!]--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:This article is complete and utter nonsense. One line explains what it is, the rest is devoted to arguments for creationism. Can it be unlocked so that real facts can be added to it instead of pure speculation and creationist propaganda.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:The current article makes no sense. Please reopen so we can add factual information.[[User:ColemanFrancis|ColemanFrancis]] 17:29, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Creationist propoganda? Noted Hadrosaur expert Jack Horner [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Horner_%28paleontologist%29 Sorry this is the best thing I could find] thinks they were scavengers, not carnivores.--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Ugh==

To the person who added the last information...again - The writing was NOT cited before, hence the deletion, now it is, but with a single biased source which does not include each possible perspective. Now it's locked, despite being horribly short. Do not state the T-Rex as being a slow vegetarian as fact, it's speculation and there is more than one view. "If some of the dinosaurs we find killed by the Flood did eat meat, they were probably scavengers (like vultures) that lived off the bodies of large dead animals." is not necissarily correct either. I, for one, don't believe there was a great flood, and that they were actually killed by a meteor. It's also possible that they ran out of food. Either way, you cannot state something like that as fact. And they weren't "probably" scavengers, that is just one point of view, from one particular group of scientists. Also the sentence "Bible-believing Christians can be sure of one thing. When dinosaurs were originally created, they were peaceful and harmless just like all the other animals." is ridiculous. They can't be sure of anything, it's a clear bias. You know, as long as I'm critiquing the article, I might as well go through all of it. "The Tyrannosaurus was originally thought to be a carnivore. However, this assertion directly contradicts the statements in the Bible that all animals were herbivorous before sin was introduced to the world." - not relevant, many things contradict the bible that are not incorrect. "Recent evidence has backed up the idea that many of the Dinosaurs like the T-Rex once thought to be meat eaters are actually vegetarians. New research suggests that the Tyranosaurus would not be able to move very quickly. [1] So most other dinosaurs, being fast moving creatures, could have easily gotten away from him." Most other dinosaurs weren't quick, some were, some were very very slow. "Also, the teeth of the Tyranosaur are not well rooted in the Dinosaur's mouth, meaning it seems they could have snapped off easily in a battle.[2] Many have compared his teeth to those of the vegetarian spider monkey." Who are the many? But anyway, the teeth are still strong enough to bite through flesh. "Also, Tyranosaur's front legs were insufficient for attacking any other Dinosaurs." - Irrelevant, they didn't use their front legs to attack other dinosaurs, they used their jaws. Last two points discussed above. Include more than just one pro-creationism source and you might find some more accurate information. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 17:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Tyrannosaurus rex

2007-03-17T21:29:13Z

ColemanFrancis: /* Protected */

User:ColemanFrancis

2007-03-17T21:27:58Z

ColemanFrancis:

I'm an amateur director. So far I've got three films under my belt (with a budget of under $500, I might add!). Very excited about this site.