https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=DaphneaConservapedia - User contributions [en]2026-09-22T19:46:34ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.14https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:TomMoore/Petition_Regarding_Ideological_Articles&diff=484130User talk:TomMoore/Petition Regarding Ideological Articles2008-06-30T00:01:54Z<p>Daphnea: </p>
<hr />
<div>==TomMoore was banned for 6 months==<br />
I hope we can still submit this to Aschlafly though. Any thoughts? '''[[user:FernoKlump|<font color="#000066" >FernoKlump</font>]]'''<sup>[[User:FernoKlump/petition|<font color="#bd2433" >Look at this petition!]]</font></sup> 21:39, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:It weakens our case, but yeah why not? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 00:22, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
==Differing opinions==<br />
#--<span style="margin-top: -3px;">&nbsp;[[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 18:32, 18 June 2008 (EDT) I think only Liberal quotient should be moved to Conservapedia: some articles may sound more encyclopedic if renamed but no changes should be done to the majority of articles<br />
#This site is a meritocracy and the editors who created those articles have far more merit than you have displayed, TomMoore. This is not a mobocracy and taking an asinine vote to try to determine policy is pointless. [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 00:12, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:You sir are in all likelihood a sock of a user of "the other site" as they are the chief users of the term "Mobocracy" to describe a wiki's management, please stop trolling conservapedia. [[User:Absentismens|Absentismens]] 20:32, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Submit? ==<br />
<br />
No one has signed this for almost 4 days, does anyone else think that it is time to submit it to Aschlafly? '''[[user:FernoKlump|<font color="#000066" >FernoKlump</font>]]'''<sup>[[User:FernoKlump/petition|<font color="#bd2433" >Look at this petition!]]</font></sup> 16:22, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
The other petition has a section for signatories who are opposed to the proposed action. Why doesn't this petition have such a section?--[[User:Goodman|Goodman]] 11:45, 27 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Hi<br />
<br />
I agree with this petition; however I'm currently on the "hit list" having been blocked by [[User:Bugler]] for adding Nixon, Libby and Enron to the examples at [[Deceit]]. If you think having my name attached to it will hurt your cause feel free to remove it. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 20:01, 29 June 2008 (EDT)</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Deceit&diff=484115Talk:Deceit2008-06-29T23:46:19Z<p>Daphnea: /* Nixon, Libby, and Enron */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Archives:''' [[/Archive 1|1]]<br />
<!-- <br />
============================================================================<br />
Place no content above this line! --><br />
<br />
==Examples== <br />
<br />
Do we really need this many examples of deciet? While I believe this website should present conservative values on every page, This particular page seems to be a huge political statement about how rotten the liberals are. honestly I don't think thats the best way to present conservative values. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] <sub>[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]</sub> 10:24, 11 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
==10 Commandments==<br />
I don't think the reference about removing the 10 Commandments from schools really shows that you're going for. The decision was to remove any physical depiction of the 10 Commandments, which has nothing to do with whether morals are taught in schools. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:20, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: "Nothing to do with morals are taught in schools"? You can't be serious. That's like saying "2+2=4" has nothing with whether "2+3=5". If the Ten Commandments can't be on the wall, then they can't be taught for [[normative]] purposes in textbooks either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Yes I am serious. To use your example you don't need a poster that says 2+2=4 to learn that or to know it. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 18:41, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Character education is a big part of the curriculum these days, and I've yet to see a school library without a bible in it. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Reference to the Ten Commandments is relevant to that page, not this one. Same for public schools. Deleted part about deceit not being taught in public schools. It's ridiculous to note on every page whether something is or is not taught in liberal American public schools (the list would be too long). --[[User:Ursus|Ursus]] 13:07, 31 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Seconding Ursus' comment. Furthermore, the exclusion of the Commandments from the educational curriculum has no place in the definition of any word. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:54, 25 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== contradiction in the definition ==<br />
<br />
I am not sure why I am getting involved with this, but here goes:<br />
<br />
* " Deceit is the fraudulent representation of a material fact, made intentionally or recklessly or without reasonable basis and with the intent to induce reliance on the falsehood".<br />
* "Traditionally deceit was taught as being wrong and in violation of the Ten Commandments" -"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor".<br />
<br />
The logic implied therefore is that'''all deceit'' is prohibited by the 10 commandments.<br />
<br />
<br />
However, bearing "false witness against a neighbour" is not the same as "fraudulent misrepresentation of a material fact", and does not encompass all the things that the latter could possible include. For example, claiming that you have a PhD when you do not have one is clearly deceit, but I cannot find anything in the 10 commandments that tells me I should not do it. I am not stealing; I am not bearing false witness against a neighbour. Am I coveting? I don't think so. As far as the ten commandments is concerned, I can get away with it.<br />
<br />
Under these circumstances, the statement concerning the 10C needs to be amended to say:<br />
"Deceit has traditionally been viwed as being morally wrong and in many respects it is in violation of the Ten Commandments, especially those deceits which involve harm or malpractice to another person" --[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 16:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Sometimes deceit can also be stealing - if you are trying to get advantages by deceiving. For example that kind of telling you have a PhD can have this kind of wrong motive. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:36, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Most crimes entail deceit, but the point here is when deceit is the primary wrongdoing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::You seem to be missing the point. I am not saying deceit is right, far from it. I am saying that the statement that "deceit is ... in violation of the Ten Commandments" is not correct, as some deceits are NOT in violation of any of the 10 commandments.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:23, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Sean, I thought I made the change you requested. Sure, some deceits are justified, just as self-defense can justify killing in rare circumstances. But the statement is correct, that deceit has traditionally been taught as being wrong under the Ten Commandments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Apologies, had missed that in the article, I was still responding to the stuff on the talk pages. Thank You. I shall now go back to what I know best.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:37, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Politicization ==<br />
So, regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Deceit&diff=181455&oldid=181449 this] edit war, the two sentences seem to suggest two things:<br />
# They suggest that all Conservatives are not deceitful, and that all Liberals are deceitful. That is a perfect definition of [[stereotype]], and I'm sure we can agree that stereotypes suck.<br />
# Reference #2 suggests that ''only'' conservatives teach their children the ten commandments, therefore implying that A). Liberals cannot be Christians, and B). All Liberals are atheists.<br />
Am I the only one who notices this? --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 19:36, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::No, you are not the only one. The universal statements are a little misleading, though I personally agree with what is said for the most part.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 19:40, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::So you agree that all liberals are atheist deceivers, and all conservatives are "true" Christians and always honest? --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 19:43, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::No that is not what I meant at all. Refering to groups, any groups, in terms of "all" is never a good thing to do, and should be somehow worked out. [[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 19:47, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
So it's not deceit when the army lies about Tilman, it's not deceit in the case of Iran-Contra or Watergate or the "slam-dunk" or "sexing up" intelligence reports or plagiarizing someone's report when speaking to the UN. Maybe this article needs to flat out say what the people who run this website obviously want it to say and define deceit as "what happens when anyone whom it is politically convenient to call a liar lies" and at least be a little less deceitful about it. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: REPLY TO ABOVE: The statement does not say that all liberals are deceitful. I don't think all liberals are. And I don't think all conservatives are honest. But conservatives do teach that deceit is wrong, and liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong. That's a fact. Compare a public school classroom, where you won't hear that deceit is wrong, with a conservative classroom, where you will hear that. This is not a politicization. This is observable fact.<br />
<br />
: Sevenstring can suggest other examples of deceit comparable to the ones listed. But the examples he identified are not comparable, because in those cases deceit was not embraced for ideological gain as it was in the listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:13, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: P.S. I just rolled back the Tillman example, because that was not deceit for any gain. It is common practice for the military, dating back to the death of Benny Goodman (?) by friendly fire during WWII, to glorify the victims of war and minimize embarrassment. JFK's heroism in his PT boat was actually the result of incompetence; Kerry's heroism was questionable also. There is nothing new about this and the military is not guilty of deceit in the same way as the listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:16, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: So the whole big push to punish plagiarising in public schools (two of my friends got failing grades for that), expelling people for cheating on tests, etc. (another friend got nabbed for that), and punishing kids for lieing to teachers are just coincidences, right?<br />
:: Once again, Andy, you are stereotyping the entire public school system. Perhaps instead of saying that "liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong", it can be phrased as "the public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong". Both statements are completely false, but at least it's a step towards the truth.<br />
:: And as for Tillman; it doesn't matter the tradition or context which it is in; it's still deceit. And I don't see Watergate on there, or the Lewinsky scandal. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 20:17, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::P.S. and really, not only Conservatives teach the ten commandments. Call me a heretic, but I'm pretty sure the 10C are standard throughout all kinds of Christianity. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 20:20, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Oh, come off it - how, exactly, does fudging the truth to justify a war not fall under the rubric of "deceit" for "ideological gain?" Or breaking into the opposing party's headquarters and then using the state apparatus to cover it up in order to win an election? By your own definition, weak as it is, those are textbook examples. And who says that there needs to be ideological gain for deceit to occur? [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Folks, you're in denial. I know what's taught in public schools. Hoji, if you're in public school, I challenge you to find anything in any of your textbooks, lecture notes, writing assignments, etc., that says deceit is wrong. It's not there, and that is because liberals run public schools. It is there in conservative classrooms. Sure, plagiarism and cheating are punished if someone is caught, but that can be explained by self-interest better than teaching it is "wrong".<br />
<br />
: Sevenstring, your complaint is that the list is not longer. Present something as airtight and long-lasting as the current examples and we'll include it. Delaying a few weeks before telling the truth about Tillman's death does not come close, not by a long shot. That TEMPORARY deceit could just as easily be justified as honoring Tillman rather than benefiting anyone, and the military has been doing that for decades without complaint in many celebrated cases. Shall we put JFK's PT boat incident in the list also???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::As for JFK's PT boat incident, if it is relevant, then sure, put it on. And as for the schools, you seem to be equating "liberal" with "public schools", which is certainly wrong. I grew up in a liberal household, and was taught that deceit is wrong. I am sure that the ''vast'' majority of ''all'' American families teach their kids that deceit is wrong; it is not a good way to win arguments, friends, or respect. In the public schools, deceit isn't taught to be wrong because there isn't an obsession with teaching moral behavior, because schools rely on parents to choose the moral education they give their children. If anything, I would say that Conservatives are just as deceitful as liberals; everything on AiG, for instance, is intentionally spun to persuade, even if that means leaving out relevant facts. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 20:32, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
Please excuse my vitriol, but Andy, I have been following this for a long time, and you have never cited ANYTHING to back up your bizarre assertions about liberals and deceit. I am liberal (mm..refreshing), I don't believe in deceit, neither do my children. In fact, neither do any of my friends, who are mostly liberal. You should be ashamed of yourself. Oh, that's right, im about to be banned for speaking my mind, and the truth. [[User:OneLove|OneLove]] 20:49, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
ASchlafly, did you even read my post? My complaint is not that " the list is not longer," but that by YOUR definition of, essentially, lying in the name of the advancement of political ideology, the discourse leading up to the invasion...errrrrrrrr liberation of Iraq was deceitful. As was Watergate. "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia," indeed. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 21:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong. "OneLove", do you teach that deceit is wrong? Did you ever hear public school, which is run by liberals, teach that it is wrong? Please answer without making absurd remarks like I "should be ashamed of" myself. You're not helping your cause.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::I'm going to attempt to draw a conclusion based on your logic, Andy;<br />
::*Catholicism is a branch of Christianity<br />
::*Catholics believe the Pope is divinely appointed by God.<br />
::*Therefore, all Christians believe that the Pope is divinely appointed by God.<br />
::Here, Catholicism represents the public school system, the Pope represents deceit, and Christianity represents liberals. You know that the above scenario is wrong, because it is based on faulty logic. Also, public schools certainly do not teach that deceit is ''right'', which you are seeming to imply. As an organ of the federal government, in accordance with the first amendment, schools do not teach about morality. So, using faulty logic, I draw that liberals are more patriotic! --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 21:24, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I'm sorry, Andy, I would be happy to answer more specifically. I used to be a public school teacher, in South San Francisco (NOT affiliated with San Fran in ANY way). I, of course, taught that deceit was wrong DAILY. Every single time a student would try to lie, or "pull one over" on me, I would explain to them why that was the wrong thing to do. I'm not sure why you would think any public school teacher would do otherwise. At least, none of my colleagues encouraged deceit. Given humans are fallible, I'm sure some teachers are as well. I quit teaching because of the general underfunding in schools in California. Also, to assert "the public schools are run by liberals" is patently ridiculous. Some school boards are quite liberal, some quite conservative, and they tend to swing back and forth--usually in reaction to a previous board being to extreme in their liberalism or conservatism. So, I'll add again, you should be ashamed. You prove that either you are deceitful or ignorant or both, but I won't generalize to all conservatives, because that would be incorrect stereotyping. [[User:OneLove|OneLove]] 21:51, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:OneLove, when did you teach: 1950? Anyone familiar with public schools today would find your claims to be so out-of-date as to be absurd. The word "wrong" in a moral sense has not been used in public school for at least a decade. Kids can be busted for drugs in the bathroom of the school and still the term morally wrong won't be used. I had my kids in public school, and I follow them closely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:59, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::In all honesty, Andy, I am undoubtedly the most qualified in this debate to comment on the current status of public schools, seeing as how I actually attend one, and deal with these non-issues you talk about regularly. And I do not see why you decided to drag the public school system into this, as the gross stereotype still exists on the page; the idea that "liberals", as a group, do not teach about the wrongness of deceit, is simply absurd. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 22:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Hey, I'm a qualified attender also![[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 22:05, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
First, OneLove, was NOT a sock of userP,,,s. Second, I have it on good authority that he taught public school in the early to mid nineties, not the 1950s. You are falling back on some shaky debating tactics. Oh, time to ban me for being a sock of OneLove, who was not a sock of p...s.[[User:Downinmyheart|Downinmyheart]] 22:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Do any of you above have cites showing the "improvement" of public education over the past 20 years? And if you produce them, do they take into account the lessening of academic standards and wholesale changes to the curriculum over the years to make it appear to be getting better? I have to tell you all the major and politically diseperate academic organizations don't see improvement. Is this really the argument you want to make, that public schools are "fine"? --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 22:46, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:No, the public school issue was a distraction; the actual issue was the line "Conservatives teach that deceit is wrong. Liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong", which is completely absurd. Following this, Andy attempted to equate "Liberals" with "public school system". --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 22:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Public schools are a perfect example of liberals who teach. I'm open to other examples, such as liberal philosophers.<br />
<br />
:: A substantial percentage of liberals are atheists who doubt anything is morally right or wrong. For them to teach that "deceit is wrong" would be, well, deceitful in itself!<br />
<br />
:: Rereading OneLove's claim above that he "taught that deceit was wrong DAILY" makes me wonder if he is being deceitful here. Not even the clergy teaches that deceit is wrong DAILY. I've observed on this website that some liberals actually enjoy being deceitful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*''Since this is a self-admitted and proclaimed Conservative and Christian-friendly encyclopedia'', there is nothing distracting in Andy's comments. I would submit that moral relativism and equivalency, along with historically revisionist thinking, which are an inarguable part of todays public school curriculum, do foster the "if it feels good do it" 60's mentality. I have several currently teaching relations, in rural and urban areas. Most of them have confirmed for me tonight, that teaching "right and wrong" as it once was, has been ditched in favor of non-judgemental lessons, and a reliance on "gray areas". --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 00:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Still, the blanket statement is misleading; there certainly are conservatives who deceive (and teach that deceit is right), and there are certainly liberals who teach that deceit is wrong. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 01:09, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Michigan's Department of Education requires public schools to teach students a certain set of Core Democratic Values. One of those values is Truth. [[User:TigersRoar|TigersRoar]] 21:20, 8 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Interesting, unless you're joking. Can you provide the link for that so I can confirm and see exactly how it is required? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:23, 8 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::[http://www.michigan.gov/documents/10-02_Core_democtaric_Values_48832_7.pdf Took about five seconds on google]... but personally I think it's a [[liberal]] scam. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:18, 9 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Archiving ==<br />
<br />
Someone who won't get yelled at like I do, would you be so kind as to archive this page and leave the section "10 Commandments" as the beginning piece? Thanks oodles! --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 00:06, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Done. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 01:11, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*You are so much more than kind, even if you won't share your box with everyone. :-( How do you get those neat accents on your sig? In my most Liberal whine, I feel so much less than without a cool sig! --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 02:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Democratic Party==<br />
<br />
[[David Limbaugh]] accused Democratic leaders of "deceit" on Iraq. He says they don't really intend to "win" in Iraq, butm want us to withdraw so that we will "lose" (which, by the way, is what happened when we withdrew from Vietna: an even worse tyranny was created in the entire country than ever existed in South Vietnam: compare 20,000 "tiger cage" deaths South Vietnam to 500,000 post-ware executions in North Vietnam. I think we also have to count the 250,000 to 500,000 [[boat people]] who died escaping the Communists.)<br />
<br />
*Nothing better illustrates the Democrats' duplicity and emptiness concerning Iraq than the manifestly contradictory statements of two of their leaders in the last few days preceding the election. Rep. John Murtha, who probably represents the bulk of his party, reiterated his nauseating, America-denigrating contention that the United States cannot win militarily in Iraq. We must resolve this matter diplomatically, he said, meaning we must negotiate with terrorists, and we must redeploy, meaning withdraw – very, very soon.Then, after Sen. Elizabeth Dole said that Democrats are content with losing the war in Iraq, Sen. Chuck Schumer replied indignantly, "Democrats want to win the war by changing the war strategy."<br />
*Now, should we believe Murtha or Schumer? Does Schumer really expect us to believe he has experienced a miraculous, neoconservative conversion, or is he just lip-syncing? That's a no-brainer: Of course he isn't sincere in saying Democrats want to win in Iraq by changing the strategy in Iraq. That would put him at odds with 90 percent of the Michael-Mooreized Democratic base and with the pronouncements of his party's leadership over the last year.<br />
*Dress it up however you like, Democrats are advocating an almost immediate withdrawal from Iraq before the Iraqi security forces are capable of sustaining their nation's security and newly formed government. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52813]<br />
<br />
Is this an "example of deceit", or just a partisan criticism of the [[Democratic Party]] by a conservative? The answer will determine where I place this quote. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:45, 10 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
==American Public Schools==<br />
<br />
"The American public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong, at least not using the Ten Commandments." It is my belief that this statement is misleading, it provides the suggestion that the Ten Commandments are required to teach that deceit is wrong. Just as it is possible to teach that murder is wrong without referring to the 10 Commandments it is just as possible to teach that deceit is wrong without referring to them, and there is no source to support a claim that the American Public School system does not teach that deceit is wrong, albeit without the 10 Commandments (my original reason for the citation template). Really, this article does not need the statement, and it has already been extensively covered in the 10 Commandments article. [[User:EQ|EQ]] 23:59, 28 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*The American public schools teach moral relativism. How does one get a clear idea of "right" and "wrong" when one is taught all such things are relative? I unlocked the article. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 00:13, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Character education is a BIG part of the curriculum these days. Try googling it. Here's just one link. I'd be happy to discus this further with anyone who feels there's a moral vacuum among teachers these days. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:50, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
http://www.goodcharacter.com/<br />
<br />
*Character education, taught from a secular-progressive POV, is nothing. Since they cannot bring themselves to actually say "anything" is "wrong", it is meaningless. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 01:49, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:We constantly say things are wrong: stealing, hurting, lying, etc. Some of our students are of religions other than Christianity...would it be right to instruct a Buddhist student using Christian scripture? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:34, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:*Yes, of course it would, in the United States! We are a Judeo-Christian country. We have achieved what we have here by virtue of being a "melting pot", not a balkanized hodge-podge of competing cultures. While the secular-progressives might wish it to be multi-cultural, with each and every ethnic and religious group clinging to their "Mother Culture", that is exactly the cause of the slaughter's in Africa and East Europe. Teaching a Buddhist Christian scripture in no way "demeans" their own. But it does teach them valuable lessons, and offers them understanding and insight into their new country and its attendant culture. You say you are constantly telling them things are wrong; Do you tell them why? And if so, what are those "non-religious" reasons? --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 10:28, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No American [[public schools]] teach that anything is "wrong". Maestro, post here the quote and citation of any textbook used in public school that says something is morally "wrong". As one would expect, eliminating God from public schools has also eliminated morality in terms of right and wrong. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: it took me 30 seconds: ''Lying is wrong''[http://www.goodcharacter.com/pp/trustworthiness.html] [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 10:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Some website? How is that related to ''[[public schools]]'' or their textbooks? I hope your editing here maintains a higher caliber than your research on this topic! --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 10:51, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Right, TK. Dkips, what does that website have to do with public schools? Public school curricula are available online, I think. But you didn't cite to one. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I wouldn't be surprised if you can't find a textbook that says lying is wrong. That sort of thing is taught in kindergarten, which doesn't use textbooks (it's also taught by parents at an even younger age, and it's they who have the real responsibility for moral instruction of their children, much moreso than government schools). Please do find me a textbook on moral relativism that is used in public schools. And, if we want to take the Bible literally, the ten commandments don't exactly teach deceit is wrong. They teach that bearing false witness against your neighbor is wrong, but bearing false witness is only a specific kind of deceit (there are countless lies oen can tell that do not involve bearing false witness against anyone). And if we want to be super-technical, it can be said that if someone lives far enough away from you that they wouldn't be considered a "neighbor" then it's perfectly fine to bear false witness against them. This morality is seeming slightly relative. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 11:57, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Public schools don't teach that deceit is wrong because that's something that's taught ''long'' before a child enrolls into the public school system. It's not that schools teach some sort of secular code of conduct or moral relativism - it's that they don't teach it '''at all''' because it's best taught by parents. Besides, there are many of us that view man as a creature endowed with a predisposition to perform goodness! [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Yes, public schools are often known to defer to parents with the utmost of respect. Just look at sex education; that's left strictly to the parents... Do you guys really think that by parroting each other that people won't see you're talking in circles? Apply some logic - don't make up phony reasons for why it's not taught and try to convince yourselves what you made up on the spot is true. Either it's taught or it's not. In fact, here's an easy one. Find me the curriculum that states what you said. Anything along the lines of "We don't teach that deceit is wrong because that is left to the parents and takes place before youngsters enter school." Want to find just one? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:26, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::You want to apply some logic? Fine. You're committing a grievous logical fallacy in your argument; remember, '''the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.''' Do you honestly believe something as mundane as "deceit is wrong" should be a bullet point on a syllabus for a public school class? If you want to see how seriously public schools take student discipline, character, and behavior, just look at my old Code of Conduct from the JCPS: http://www.jefferson.k12.ky.us/Pubs/codeofconduct.pdf . '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''<sup><small>[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]]</small></sup> 15:46, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'm sorry, but the code of conduct is sadly what I would expect it to be - a 25 page document outlining what is not acceptable in order to close all loopholes since anything that is not outlined, could be considered acceptable. And so you have warnings not to commit arson or kidnap other students. It seems to back Andy's views more than anything else -- the common understanding of morality that used to exist is gone.<br />
<br />
:::Getting back to the other point, you still appear to be talking in circles. You are applying the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" as a catch all after getting called on your last assertion which came across as made up on the spot. I somehow doubt that schools are removing information that used to be taught to give parents greater autonomy over their children's lives. Of course you can tell me that in the schools you have contact with that morality, right and wrong, and deceit are taught as an important part of the education process, but I would have to wonder if that itself wouldn't be an example of deceit. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:03, 12 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Clinton==<br />
<br />
Should we mention Bill Clinton's [[deceit]]ful testimony in the [[Paula Jones]] case? It got him [[impeach]]ed (but not removed from offices). There's the misleading bit about "I didn't have sex" (playing on whether [[oral sex]] counts as [[sexual intercourse]]).<br />
<br />
Is it [[adultery]] and/or grounds for divorce on account of un[[faithfulness]] if an ordinary man does what Clinton did with his intern? Is it [[sexual harassment]], given the power imbalance between employer and employee?<br />
<br />
== Pat Tillman example needs work ==<br />
<br />
"On 31 July 2007, the US Army censured three-star General Kensinger for "deception" in the friendly-fire death of Army Ranger [[Pat Tillman]] [http://www.onelocalnews.com/akronfarmreport/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=139590]"<br />
<br />
I know this issue is loved by Bush-haters, but covering up friendly fire is common in many Administrations. Glenn Miller was killed by friendly fire and [[FDR]] covered it up. I don't see why this issue concerning Pat Tillman is given so much attention at the expense of other examples. We're not a vehicle for misplaced Bush-hating here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:How about a general article on [[friendly fire]] first? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:39, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Well, I see you removed the information I'd added. I would point out three things:-<br />
<br><br />
<br>a) I'm not a "Bush-hater".<br />
<br>b) The issue is hardly being covered only by "Bush haters"! It's front page news on Fox News as we write! [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291591,00.html]<br />
<br>c) Why don't you add the into about Glenn Goodman [Miller] too? Deceit is deceit, whatever group it comes from.<br />
<br><br />
It seems to me you're being <i>very</i> selective with the truth, and I think that's unfair to our troops. Friendly fire accidents are not partisan politics - they happen, it's tragic, but it's a consequence of war and the truth should not be hidden from the public by [[deceit]]. Just because it's not [[liberal]] [[deceit]] doesn't mean this incident is not [[deceit]]. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 19:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Your point is well taken. We could use some more information on Tilman and Goodman [Miller]. One of the virtues of a democracy with a [[free press]] is that errors and misconduct can be brought to light by ordinary citizens. When this is not done for [[partisan advantage]], it's usually a good thing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:59, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Exactly, Ed. I would do it, except I fear a ban from a certain someone if I put Tillman back in. Perhaps someone else would tackle it? It seems to me that an announcement that a three-star general is to be censured over the matter makes this a notable enough example of deceit in high places, and deserving of appearing in the article, and it will also make the article less biased. Deceit is practiced by all who are prepared to lie, regardless of the color of their stripes. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:03, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:First, my mistake, it was Glenn "Miller", not Goodman. So I've inserted "Miller" above in brackets to prevent the error from propagating.<br />
<br />
:Second, no one is being blocked for this disagreement.<br />
<br />
:Third, more facts are needed. What was the alleged "deceit"? Why is this being singled out? Was was the motive for the deceit? Our examples have thorough proof of deceit on issues of extreme public importance. Why do you think covering up an incident of [[friendly fire]], which happens in every military conflict, ranks so highly in importance? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:07, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Thanks Andy. One point is that the Deceit article is extremely partisan and one-sided, and this type of bias is part of Conservapedia's credibility problem. Adding a publicly acknowledged incident from the 'other' side that is today part of the public record adds fairness and balance - a good thing, surely? As to the details of the incident, the report has yet to be published - I make no comment. However, in the context of the 'Deceit' article, since the three-star General is accused in public with the actual use of the word "deception", it seems more than appropriate for the article. As to the 'importance', I make no partisan claims one way or the other to the validity of the incident, but as a current example of deceit, I can think of no better example. And finally, while the Glenn Miller incident was friendly fire (and yes, that happens, and no political party is to blame for it), there was no cover-up or deceit involved, was there? [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:If you're trying to make the point that liberals aren't the only deceitful people in the world, I'll agree with you. The question is: should we use breaking news for an example? That's all.<br />
<br />
:Since you didn't jump in and help me write [[Pat Tillman]], I went ahead and did it by myself. See also [[fratricide]] and [[friendly fire]]. (You can do [[free-fire zone]] if you have time.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:17, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Another Example ==<br />
<br />
Perhaps the works of [[Ernst Haeckel]] and his "contributions" to evolution should be considered? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:48, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Yes, that was a fraud that lasted for 100 years, long after the experts knew it was a fraud. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:00, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Catalog or informative article? ==<br />
<br />
Is this article intended to be a catalog of acts of deceit or an article describing what deceit is? If it's the latter, then the direction of the article needs to be re-though; it's not necessary to have '''ten''' different examples of deceit to convey what deceit is. This is expressly different from [[liberal deceit]], which is actually of catalog of the subject matter. Maybe this article should be re-written to contain the "Top 3" examples that express what deceit is? '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''<sup><small>[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]]</small></sup> 12:11, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Public Schools==<br />
<br />
I don't see how you can make the claim that public schools don't teach that deceit is wrong when a large number of students are expelled for ACADEMIC DISHONESTY [[User:Dragonmaster|Dragonmaster]] 15:53, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Are you including in your "academic dishonesty" the act of copying, word for word, a passage of text from another source without clearly demarking this passage with quotation marks? Aka [[Barker|plagiarism]]? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::I busted kids left and right for that when I taught junior high. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 18:38, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
BTW, since when have the commandments been 'banned'? They're not publically desplayed (believe it or not, some students follow other religions), but banned? There's a bible in every library. You make it sound like crack or guns or something. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:23, 6 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:The issue of whether deceit is ever justified is a deep and complex one. Is "tattling" always wrong? Is to "bear false witness" wrong because it is tattling, or because it involves deceit?<br />
<br />
:How about telling someone that a thing is okay when you know it is not, so they do it and get into trouble? We need to expand upon the ethics of truth and deceit. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:37, 31 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Reversion ==<br />
<br />
This is a high-quality page. Additions to the list must be at the same quality level as existing examples. A [[liberal]] newspaper article claiming that a Republican lied about some fact doesn't cut it. Look at the examples, and please propose only additions at comparable level of significance, proof, and amount of deceit. Future reversions of low-quality examples will not be explained. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I'm still amazed that Ted Haggard, who publicly preached against homosexuality (saying "We don't have to debate about what we should think about homosexual activity. It's written in the Bible"[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003365311_jesuscamp08.html], and the National Association of Evangelicals under his leadership found "homosexual activity, like adulterous relationships, is clearly condemned in the Scriptures"[http://www.nae.net/index.cfm?FUSEACTION=editor.page&pageID=303&IDCategory=8]) led a three-year homosexual relationship with a gay prostitute, complete with the use of methamphetamine. Hmm... the leader of a national body of Christians having gay sex behind his wife's back, while preaching against those same activities seems a bit [[deceit]]ful. Oh well, I'm sure the whole thing is a big liberal conspiracy. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 02:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::By the way, Pastor Haggard spoke at my friends church two weeks prior to his being "outed", and I was fortunate enough to attend. It was a special evening sermon about sexual morality, and I can tell you from personal experience that he wasn't quite fond of homosexuals. (If you don't believe me, I'd be glad to email you contact info for the church). --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 03:03, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::Well, you'll notice that we don't have Bill Clinton and "that woman" as an example either. A benchmark is usually an intentional decision to mislead for personal gain that causes hardship to others by withholding information that could have been used to make honest, informed decisions. Whether or not Haggard had homosexual tendencies is not something that had a profound impact on the American public. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:18, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::It's not "misleading" to preach against homosexuality to millions of people while engaging in a homosexual ''and'' adulterous relationship? As a major Christian leader, Haggard had a huge influence on the voting habits of Conservative Christians. And I'm still having trouble determining how number 11 had a profound impact on the public. And regarding Clinton, he wasn't actively speaking out against homosexuals and adulterers. Haggard was, and his platform was against homosexuality ''and'' adultery, both of which he committed. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 03:28, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::::I think you overestimate Haggard's influece. The Haggard example seems like a better example of hypocrisy, not deceit. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 03:32, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::::I don't think saying that the leader of the National Association of Evangelicals, who also was the pastor of a 14,000-member megachurch, and one of TIME's 25 most influential evangelicals has influence one the vote of CC's is an "overestimate". And he did deceive; he deceived his wife, his family, and his congregation. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 03:39, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::::::Which sounds more like Haggard:<br />
::::::::::*"''criticism of others, by a standard one does not apply to oneself''" from [[hypocrisy]]<br />
::::::::::or<br />
::::::::::*"''the deliberate distortion or denial of the truth with an intent to trick or fool another''" from [[deceit]]? I say what he did was a better example of hypocrisy. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 03:42, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::::So people who have committed adultery shouldn't think it's wrong, or speak out against it? Sin is sin, and if we happen to fall into sin it doesn't exonerate us or mean we can no longer speak out against it. If someone is a pedophile, that person still has the right to speak out against it, and that is not deceitful. If Haggard didn't believe the practice of homosexuality was wrong, but spoke out against it, and he received financial gain for his position, then I would certainly agree with you that would be deceitful. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:44, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Hoji, is AmesG ghost writing your stuff now? :p --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 06:59, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Perhaps, TK, I merely have my own viewpoints which happen to overlap with other people's in some areas. Learn together, do you think he would have been the head of the NEA if he had been preaching "homosexuality is OK"? As a mega-pastor, he received quite the salary - he was practically a celebrity. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 13:25, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:*Hoji, he could have quite possibly been President of the NEA (National Education Association) preaching "homosexuality is OK", being it is the Liberal/Left Wing organization that it is, but of course he would never have been President of the Evangelical association! But it is Apples and Oranges to compare the duties and responsibilities of the President of either NEA with those of the POTUS. A logical fallacy, that makes a good "show" argument, but one that doesn't hold up. That said, I am uneasy holding people up for their personal failings in regard to such things, Even President Clinton. However one had an elected trust with the people of the United States,300,000,000 of them, the other didn't. I was bothered much more by Clinton's equivocation (actual and moral) over the meaning of the word "is" and his allowing good Citizens' reputations to be smeared along with the attendant financial ruin. I was also affronted to be told by President Clinton and his agents that I was part of a "vast, right-wing conspiracy" in thinking what he did was wrong. At least Jimmy Swaggart, in picking up prostitutes not even six miles from my home, didn't blame me or deny what he had been doing and ruin other people's lives in the process. --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 14:08, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:*I don't think you'd see him preaching homosexuality is ok because he doesn't believe it. From what I could tell, his preaching matched his beliefs. Some of the most vehement anti-smoking people I know with messages of 'don't ever start' and 'I wish I could quit' are those who are hooked on cigarettes. And let's be honest here, the man was hardly Fred Phelps. Homosexuality isn't a once a week topic and it wasn't a major part of Haggard's weekly messages. I just read a 6 page interview that Christianity Today did with him in November 2005. Although it touched on a multitude of different issues and his views, the only mention of homosexuality was that Haggard supported the Court's decision in Lawrence v Texas to stay out of the private life of homosexuals. Hardly seems deceitful does it? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:21, 12 August 2007 (EDT) <br />
<br />
: Hoji, I agree that number 11 should be deleted for lack of significance. I didn't insert that item. Honestly, I don't think number 10 is significant enough either, but I tried not to be heavy-handed about this.<br />
<br />
: As to Haggard, it was a scandal but it was not "deceit" like the other examples. Maybe he was a hypocrite, but that is not "deceit" either. Perhaps the people who supported Haggard were deceived, but they are not significant in comparison to how the public was deceived in the other examples. By the way, I had never even heard of Haggard before the [[liberal]] media made this such a big deal just prior to the election. Adding Haggard to the list would require adding scores of [[liberals]] like Clinton, who pretended to have a good Christian marriage with Hillary, to the list too. That's not what this entry is about.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:03, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Every single example of deceict (except maybe that Dutch art forger) is of a liberal. Every time someone posts an example of conservative decption, it's deleated, with an explanation that it's a 'scandal' or a 'lie', but not 'deception.' Isn't is slightly deceptive to only include the deceit of one side of the political spectrum? Just my two cents. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:47, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Some [[liberals]] delight in [[deceit]], and they have succeeded in driving morality out of [[public schools]]. So it's not surprising that many major examples are about [[liberals]]. But I don't claim that "every single example" is about [[liberals]]. You seem to be drawing that conclusion.<br />
<br />
: Provide a [[conservative]] example of similar magnitude and it will remain there. But please don't simply post a scandal that is not really deceit, or an insignificant example.<br />
<br />
: Surely you don't expect [[deceit]] to occur as often by people who teach that it is wrong as those who don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:14, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::<s>Andy, your suggestion that all liberals practice and encourage deceit is utterly ridiculous. There are deceitful Christians, and there are deceitful conservatives. Many liberals are Christian, and many conservatives are as well. But to conflate "liberal" with "some public schools" is a pretty far stretch.<br />
</s>::Regardless, I think the word "Watergate" sums up a very well-known example of conservative deceit. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 18:19, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Hoji, do you really expect [[deceit]] to be correlated precisely 50/50 among two very different groups, [[liberals]] and [[conservatives]]?<br />
<br />
::: Let's put this a different way. Do you think people who advocate legalizing drugs have a greater percentage of drug use than people who oppose legalizing drugs? Surely you don't think that correlation is a perfect 50/50 also. And if you agree that is unlikely to be evenly split, then why the claim that deceit must be evenly split also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::: The difference between your analogy and this situation is that both liberals and conservatives, by and large, teach that deceit is wrong. There aren't that many people out there (Christians, jews, muslims, atheists, agnostics, rastafarians, etc.) that actively advocate deceit. If I'm reading the analogy correctly (the drug-legalization advocates represent liberals, and the drug represents deceit), then this isn't congruent with the actual situation. And I've given two perfectly good examples of conservative deceit; I'm still waiting for a reply on the Watergate cover-up. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 19:43, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I'm still waiting for Hoji to take back his ''all liberals practice'' comment, which comes directly after Mr. Schlafly's ''Some [[liberals]] delight''. There's a big difference between [[some]] and [[all]], well known to all intellectuals and philosophers since the time of [[Aristotle]].<br />
<br />
After you take that back, we can progress to your next error. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:52, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I formally retract my "all liberals practice" comment. It still seems that great lengths are being taken to keep conservatives off the list. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 19:54, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Hoji, how about this: people who support gun control are less likely to own guns than people who support the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Agree with that? If so, then why so much protest over a similar statement about deceit? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:33, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Delete==<br />
Since I apparently shouldn't use the <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki> stub on the main page for whatever reason, I'm going to voice my opinion here that this article is counter-productive and should be deleted and re-created without bias. As it is now, it is a shining example of pure and simple hatred. Disgusting. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]]<br />
<br />
*The above post is a shining example of useless posts. What, specifically in the article do you object to, "Doctor"? Is there some specific fact or citation you dispute? That would be helpful, and better than just a statement of opinion backed by nothing. Sort of like if I said your post was the work of a bitter, Liberal troll who is full of [[deceit]] and [[Liberal Bias]] without pointing to specifics. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 14:15, 14 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Any article that has considerable ongoing activity should not just be stamped with <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki> without any other comment. We try to make extensive use of the talk pages to discuss thoughts and recommendations for improvement. It is also customary to put new commentary on the bottom, not on the top. Thank you [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:10, 14 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Environmental hoaxes and hogwash==<br />
<br />
Should we list or link to [[global warming]], [[ozone depletion]], etc.? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:19, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Do you really think such a large body of people made up a scientific theory to deliberately trick people? Thats the real question you should be asking. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:22, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I believe to be deceitful you would have to show that those who push GW, OD, etc are lying about it. Perhaps *some* pushers are being deceitful, but it's not a strong enough case to call all of them deceitful. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 19:23, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Right, that's the question. Is it a "hoax" if the people promoting it actually believe it? I would not apply the work ''hoax'' to anything other than a falsehood promoted by people who know it to be false, e.g., the theory that [[crop circles]] are mysterious, possibly supernatural or 'alien' phenomena. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:25, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Well some people can really buy into those crop circles! I mean, some farmers have seen a lot of green that way... Anyway, I don't believe GW or Ozone depletion to be a hoax. I can see how people might conclude that its a flawed science, but certainly not a hoax? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:37, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I appreciate your input; it's good advice. I'll start a category for flawed science instead, maybe. Or how about [[:Category:Junk science]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:39, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:wow wow wow, thats not what I'm advising at all. How would you then go on to define a junk science? Would you base it on a flawed methodology in collecting evidence, or simply that the conclusions do not meet the answers you want them to meet? I think that is at the heart of this sort of debate. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:45, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::CP is way ahead of you: [[Junk science]] ;) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:47, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Graham, I think "junk science" is generally the promotion of a finding as "scientific" or "unscientific" based purely upon whether - as you said - its conclusions support the answers (or views) you want to promote.<br />
<br />
Like, if you want to ban smoking in public places because (a) you personally hate the smell of the smoke or the dizzy feeling you get when you inhale a whiff or (b) you want to make other people take better care of their health - but you say that [[secondhand smoke]] is dangerous to others even if this is not supported by the evidence - then you are engaging in junk science. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:58, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I'm not sure hoax fits. A hoax has to be perpetrated by someone, but who's doing the perpetrating if not the scientists? There's also a rather high burden of proof to fit it into junk sceince, as you point out. I'm not sure we can yet match that burden. ''Politicians'', on the other hand, would fall into your pattern of "X is dangerous even if not supported by the evidence." I don't believe for one minute that scientists are engaging in any sort of this behavior, but politicians, not being educated in the material, certainly can; they don't have the technical background to know if their conclusions are supported by the evidence. In addition, it's a hot-button issue right now; I wouldn't be surprised if some of the politicians pushing global warming hysteria really don't believe it but just want the votes. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 20:15, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Reversion explained ==<br />
<br />
Maestro, your edits injected liberal bias, like the phone "separation of church and state" which is a liberal fiction. Your other edits also deserved reversion. Adhere to our [[rules]], please. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:43, 1 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Okay, what didn't you like? The fact that I mention deceit was forbidden by Islamic law? Or the way I corrected a now untrue statement about Wikipedia (they now mention in their article that the drawings are 'allegedly fraudulent'). As the article stands, it says something untrue about Wikipedia. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:46, 1 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I read your explanation, and I still don't get it. How is mentioning Islam a liberal bias? And liberal or not, the Wikipedia embryo article simply does not say what this article claims anymore. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:48, 1 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Please don't discuss a content page here. The talk pages for each content page are for that purpose. Take your comments over to [[Talk:Deceit]] and I'll respond there. But don't omit how you inserted the [[liberal]] fiction "separation of church and state," as I noted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:52, 1 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Here you go. I won't argue about church and state, and I know that mentioning Wikipedia in a less negative sense than before raises hackles here, but Islam? I'm still stumped as to how that breaks the rules. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:56, 1 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Didn't Mohammed break his peace treaty with the Jewish tribes and attack them? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:08, 1 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Your comment about [[Islam]] seemed unsupported and motivated by [[political correctness]]. Your statement about [[Wikipedia]] seemed false since the entry had the date of the [[liberal]] falsehood on [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:32, 1 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Well, it's your site, your rules. I was simply trying to show how universal the rule for honesty is (and I backed it up with a quote from the Koran), but, like I said, it's your ballgame. Allah Akbar. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 20:46, 1 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Maestro, if you can give an exact quote from the Koran about that outlawing of deceit, then that would definitely make it supported. If so, why not add it to the article? [[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 15:23, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Once bitten, twice shy, friend. Apparently my edits were a 'pile of manure' (see below)[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Maestro, you dumped the entire 2nd Sutra, which, after doing a search, doesn't even use the word deceit. What verse do you feel makes this point? And how does this correspond with Mohammed's later actions? You also included it along with a number of other alterations such as the "Constitutional Separation of Church and State". Guess what, if there's a rose in the middle of a pile of manure, it still gets thrown out. No one is going to do your cleaning for you. Present a polished product on its own merits and if it doesn't stick, then voice your complaints. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:25, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Are we still arguing about this? I said above that you won. Drop it already.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Heading edit==<br />
<br />
Hi. I changed a sentence in the opening header that mentions conservatives actively fighting deceit, while liberals purposely spread/encourage it. It now reads: <br />
<br />
"Both Conservatives and Liberals at large consider deceit wrong and actively fight it, but there are claims that Liberals are more guilty of deceit than Conservatives."<br />
<br />
I feel this is more accurate, as the original statemend suggested that each and every Liberal and Conservative were thus branded. My quote sorta smacks of overt political correctness, though, and if anybody has a better idea, please suggest/change it. [[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 14:15, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Wonderful! They'll never allow it. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::You're right. They didn't. Good call! Now, to whomever made the edit, I posit this: one of the Conservapedia Commandments says that everything must be true and verifiable. Now to make such a sweeping statement that the "huge majority" of Liberals actively practise deceit suggests that you have numbers or a study supporting your claims. So, please cite your work. And an "examples of bias in Wikipedia" doesn't count, because WP doesn't represent liberals at large.<br />
<br />
::Also, just nitpicking here, but the way you changed the sentence makes it so it doesn't make any sense. But since I got scolded for trying to change the article, I'll leave it up to a sysop or something.[[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 19:31, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::TK (an admin) edited it. Such talk will ban you. But I agree, if this 'encyclopedia' is going to be anything more then a joke to the majority of the non-American-conservative world (which is about 99.1 percent of the planet), they're going to have to find a balance in their edits.--[[User:Mircofixit|Mircofixit]] 22:12, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== How we differ from Wikipedia ==<br />
<br />
{{cquote|We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.}}<br />
<br />
The above section is quoted from the current version of [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]. Under that light, I find it extremely odd to see the claims ''"Conservatives and a very small minority of liberals consider deceit wrong and actively fight it, and there is substantial evidence that liberals are more guilty of deceit than conservatives."'' being backed up by a conservative ''commentary'' and a conservative ''column''. Also factoring in here is the hilarious issue of backing up a completely liberal-bashing claim with only conservative opinion pieces. For what it's worth, the reference might as well read "Because we say so".<br />
<br />
This is exactly what the above difference with Wikipedia is about: You postulate an opinion as a fact (and even claim there is "substantial evidence") and then just cite conservative journalists/bloggers/commentators/columnists (or whatever they want to call themselves) who voice their opinion. And look at how unbiased they are: "So the left, led by the slimy Media Matters organization, began a counterattack using the liberals’ favorite weapon – the lie."<br />
<br />
Fact is: The claims ("Conservatives and small minority of liberals fight it" and "evidence that liberals are more guilty") are practically impossible to prove because they're incredibly broad and would require measurements that are impossible to perform without asking God to take a look into his divine logs.<br />
<br />
I could claim that it's exactly the other way around while citing MoveOn and Mr. Colbert, and the claim would be exactly as valid as the one we got in terms of relying on authority and good sources.<br />
<br />
Right now, the claim should be severely rephrased to make it clear that this is an ''opinion of some conservatives''. Everything else would be pure irony: Deceit on the article about deceit. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:00, 6 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Okay, I've waited several days for voices of disagreement. Considering that nobody objected, I implemented a change of the form "X claims Y" to point out that the sources are biased opinion pieces instead of authority. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 11:33, 11 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::It's funny how my talk page proposal stays up here for almost a week without anybody objecting, but the edit doesn't even remain intact for ten minutes.<br />
::The claim is impossible to prove, and it's broad to the degree of being opinion (or worse: fiction). Backing it up with conservative opinions only shows that there are actually conservatives aside from the author of the claim who believe this.<br />
::Looking at the other end of the spectrum, I'm sure that there are liberal columnists and commentators who argue that there is evidence of conservatives being more deceitful. Should I cite them as authority as it is being done with conservative columnists? No, I don't think so. Opinion pieces don't become authority just because you agree with them. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:03, 11 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::: First of all, it is a sourced claim, and what would you expect, offcourse those are conservative facts that this is based on, good luck on getting liberals to admit their deceits, and while it says "conservatives" instead of "some conservatives" it offcourse just means that most of conservatives see it this way, not necesarily all, just like you would say that Liberals are pro abortion alltho there might be some liberals who dont't feel that way. I think your addition should be reverted, in current form it sounds silly. [[User:ConanO|ConanO]] 12:39, 11 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::There is a claim and there are sources, but that doesn't make a sourced claim. The sources (a conservative commentary and a conservative column) show that there are conservatives who make certain claims.<br />
::::#That conservatives consider deceit wrong.<br />
::::#*That one is not overly bold in itself, assuming that this is just about "most" conservatives.<br />
::::#That merely an "overwhelmingly small minority of liberals consider deceit wrong".<br />
::::#*How do you prove such a claim? Are there polls? Did they ask a thousand liberals if they considered deceit to be wrong? Or maybe somebody made a statistic?<br />
::::#That "there is substantial evidence that liberals are more guilty of deceit than conservatives"<br />
::::#*The killer. A claim that there is evidence, but where is the evidence? Where do the sources present evidence?<br />
::::The problem with the sources is that they simply make bold claims and attacks themselves while showcasing select examples, quite likely with their own spin to them. Okay, sure, that's what comments and columns are free to do, I figure, but that doesn't change that these are ''opinions'', not authority. For bold claims like these, we need the latter, not the former.<br />
::::Here, let me illustrate my point with "The Conservative Voice" source from our paragraph in question. Would you seriously put this into CP's [[Liberal]] article:<br />
{{cquote|Today's liberals are intellectual terrorists who try to destroy free speech. Instead of fairness, facts, and logic, they use lies and personal attacks to attack those who want to exercise their Freedom of Speech.[http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/27429.html]}}<br />
::::See? A claim and a source. However, it simply repeats opinion as fact and thus doesn't belong into an encyclopedia article. The source is not authority, and there are no facts given to back his claims and accusations. It's a "Because he said so" situation.<br />
::::You said it yourself: It's highly unlikely that thousands of liberals suddenly step forward and admit that they used deceit. Likewise, it's unlikely that thousands of conservatives would do that. What does this mean? Liberals deny their deceit while conservatives don't use deceit? Both sides deny it? Liberals don't do it, but conservatives deny it? Neither side uses it? That's what I meant when I said that the claim is practically impossible to prove in the form that had been there. You can give examples for either side using deceit, and you can point at people who agree with the claim, but you can't make calls like "that side does it more" based on this. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:19, 11 October 2007 <br />
(EDT)<br />
==Read My Lips==<br />
<br />
How about Bush, Sr's, famous 'Read my lips, no new taxes' pledge while campaigning, only to raise taxes as president? Surely that was decption? [[User:Monitor|Monitor]] 13:00, 8 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Do you have evidence that he was intending tax hikes when he was campaigning as opposed to shifting policies to deal with new fiscal realities? [[User:Dewey|Dewey]] 13:02, 8 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
As a former vice president, director of the CIA, and ambassador, I'm pretty sure that he was aware that fiscal realities can change. He was also aware that Americans wanted a candidate who would promise not to lower taxes, something Dukakis was not willing to promise. Bush looked America in the eye and said he wouldn't raise taxes. This helped him get elected. I'm sure it didn't make him happy when he was forced to raise them, but he was not a dumb man. He promised 'no new taxes,' while he was well aware they might be required. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:55, 8 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
So then your answer is "no." [[User:Dewey|Dewey]] 18:03, 8 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Right, Dewey. After Bush made that promise, the [[Democrats]] who controlled [[Congress]] becamed determined to force Bush to break the promise. That's not deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 8 November 2007 (EST)<br />
:Do you have evidence that congress was determined to force Bush to break the promise, or was this an example of 'shifting policies to deal with new fiscal realities' if I may quote? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 07:35, 9 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Haeckel fraud exposed by Behe &Jonathan Wells in 2000 ==<br />
<br />
It appears it is likely that the Haeckel fraud was exposed to the general public by the New York Times in 2000 vis a vis Michael Behe. It also appears as if Stephen Jay Gould was not happy Gould did this. However, I do know also that [[Jonathan Wells]] also exposed the fraud to the public with his publication of the book Icons of Evolution in 2000. Please see: http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf It appears though the scientists knew it earlier:<br />
:Adam Sedgwick, 1894<br />
:William Garstang, 1922<br />
:Gavin de Beer, 1958<br />
:William Ballard, 1976<br />
:Stephen J. Gould, 1977<br />
:Richard Elinson, 1987<br />
:Jane Oppenheimer, 1987<br />
:Michael Richardson, 1995<br />
:Stephen J. Gould, 2000 [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/wells_and_haeckels_embryos.php]<br />
<br />
So it appears as if the deceit article is errant and the NYT or Wells exposed the fraud to the general public in 2000 unless the author of the Dec 2000/Jan 2001 article is referring to 1999 which is doubtful. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 9 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Broken source link==<br />
Source #6 is a dead link and needs to be updated or removed, even so it appears to be a transcript from a talk show which is not an ideal source, actual data is preferred. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 17:47, 17 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
==I am officially leaving this website after reading this==<br />
<br />
As the title would suggest, I am leaving this website because of this article, but not exclusively so. This article is an example of mindless hatred, lack of understanding and common human decency towards those of opposite political persuasions. You claim to be Christian Conservatives - do you even know what it means to be a Christian? Honestly, some of you would prefer spending time at a rally denying basic rights to homosexuals than time spent in a homeless shelter. I will pray for the makers of this article, and will continue to pray for the poor souls who get caught up in your immoral (Amoral) propaganda. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Usually the [[Parthian Shots]] do better than that, "ModerateCatholic". For example, usually disgruntled users cite something more specific than vague rants. But suit yourself, and please use your real first name if and when you return. May I recommend [[liberal]] [[Wikipedia]] for you in the meantime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 28 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
I will pray for you especially, you poor misguided soul. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:P.S- Is the use of the term 'Parthian Shots' a way and means for you to divert accountability for your crimes? Throwing around the term 'Liberal Wikipedia' is another example of your uncontrollable hatred. There will be a home for you in the fiery pits of hell, unless you repent. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
ModCath seems to be a poorly executed caricature. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:41, 21 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Pathetic Rubbish ==<br />
<br />
There is absolutely no reason for the continued inclusion of this tripe in the article:<br />
<br />
{{cquote|[[Deceit]] plays a central role promoting the [[liberal]] belief system with the public, as illustrated by most examples below. Many [[liberals]] promote [[deceit]] if it advances their goals.}}<br />
<br />
It adds nothing, and is symptomatic of an abject failure to be able to make any points besides unsubstantiated insults. The insistence of even lower-echelon editors attempting to retain it is simply servile sycophancy. Material such as this reflects abominably upon this site, and unless you desire to demonstrate that this reflection is, in fact, not simply illusory, but indicative of a reality, I suggest that it be removed. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 22:46, 29 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
: "SimonA" (unlikely your real name), obviously many [[liberals]] do use [[deceit]] to advance their goals, and they are very good at it. The entry here on [[deceit]] provides numerous important examples of this. There is no doubting these examples. They were perpetrated by [[liberals]]. Feel free to try to fool users of [[Wikipedia]], but we're not fooled here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 29 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::I think Simon's point is that disingenuous people from all over the political spectrum have used deceit to achieve their goals - for every Stalin, there is a Hitler; for every Castro there is a Bush. Singling out 'liberals' as predisposed liars does not make for a particularly instructive exercise. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 01:03, 25 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: The point is simple: A: A list compiled by an encyclopædia that bills itself as "Conservapedia" is unlikely to contain any information that would be particularly damaging to Conservatives, ergo, the list here is not valid evidence. B: A list of 13, perhaps dubious, examples of deceit perpetrated by liberals is not sufficient evidence for a generalization of the type made, especially given the fact that the examples pertain only to an extremely small subset of the liberal population. C: Compiling a list of 13 examples of conservative deceit would not be particularly difficult. Would such a production be valid to make a generalization stating that deceit was necessary in conservative propaganda? The answer is obvious.<br />
<br />
:: The point is that such a passage is the argumentative equivalent of kicking someone in a sensitive area. I see no reason why it should not be removed. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 23:16, 29 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: Many [[liberals]] don't even accept the [[Ten Commandments]], let alone think that [[deceit]] is wrong to advance their goals. You couldn't come close to 13 examples of significant [[deceit]] advanced -- and embraced -- by [[conservatives]]. Note how many of the examples of [[liberal]] [[deceit]] continued to be embraced by other [[liberals]] who recognized the [[deceit]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:27, 29 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: "Many [[liberals]] don't even accept the [[Ten Commandments]], let alone think that [[deceit]] is wrong to advance their goals." Entirely tangent. I'm sure many conservatives don't, as well.<br />
:::: And I'm sure that I could. You would just have to look at Jack Chick's web site to get about 10. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 23:31, 29 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Andy,<br />
<br />
My point, as well as Simon's here is that there are 'bad people' on both sides of the spectrum. With this list you are childishly saying 'Liberals are bad, Conservatives are good'. Deceit exists all over the spectrum, from people of faith to none, and from Liberals to Conservatives. Your 'examples' are taken from a tiny minority of high profile Liberals, but if someone were to add a conservative example (Such as the homosexual senator who was rampantly anti-gay rights but did things to men in toilets) you would call it, 'Liberal Lies' or whatever. Again, as I have said before, I will pray for you. You really are a unfortunate misguided soul. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:01, 31 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
P.S- Where I come from the labels 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' are meaningless. Politics is not motivated by ideology whatsoever - all parties are pragmatic centralists. Calling me Liberal as a result of ''disagreeing with you'' is not only intellectual cowardice its simply rude. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:02, 31 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
: You're wrong. [[Liberals]] often reject the [[Ten Commandments]], and [[liberals]] use [[deceit]] far more than [[conservatives]] do. The list proves it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:04, 31 December 2007 (EST)<br />
:: Ah. I'm sorry, I thought ModerateCatholic offered a compelling argument based on everyday experience and the last two hundred years of history. Thanks for the heads-up. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 01:10, 25 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
The list doesn't prove anything! This is like talking to a ten year old child, honestly. Just keep your hands firmly around your ears and don't allow anything to get in other than stuff you completely and utterly agree with. Thank God I've more faith in the American people, because you would make me hate my own kind. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:13, 31 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
: About 90% of your edits are talk, talk, talk, in the typical [[liberal style]]. You're in violation of our [[rules]] and your petty namecalling pollutes the site. Last chance for you to convey some knowledge here. Use it or goodbye.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:23, 31 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:OK then. Can you please explain to me the logical basis for your entry in this article? Why have you not included isolated examples of conservative deceit also? Its anti-Academic to do what you have done. 'Typical Liberal Style' - Why don't you grow up. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 10:15, 31 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Liberals and Deceit==<br />
<br />
The sentence at the beginning of the article, saying that liberals engage in deceit but not mentioning conservatives, implies that only liberals deceive. This is clearly absurd, and the "references" seem to be opinion pieces by conservatives. I am new to this website, but I don't see how this article can possibly be useful... isn't this saying that conservatives never deceive, which is clearly not true? I edited this, but someone changed it back without replying to what I said when I changed it.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:18, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:Don't remove sections of this article because you disagree with them. Remember, this is a conservative site and you're not allowed to change it to a NPOV. This is not Wikipedia. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 02:26, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::I'm sorry, as I said, I am new. I thought people were supposed to edit in factual information from a conservative viewpoint, which makes sense to me. But you didn't address what I said... do you think the assertion in the article is true, that only liberals deceive? I am a conservative, and I am not perfect... I am sure I have deceived someone at some point. Haven't you? This article doesn't seem informative really, but more like just an attack. Am I misunderstanding something?--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:31, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:::This article is not about me or other conservatives. This article is about liberals who deceive and the examples are very informative. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 02:38, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::::I would understand that, but it's just called "deceit", not "liberal deceit", right? Is there some portion of the code or something that I screwed up? It looks like it's just "deceit."--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:45, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::::You locked the page without replying. It seems like you're actively trying to keep the page this way, but can't really defend the assertion that only liberals deceive. I came to this site because I was not interested in the little vendettas and biases on Wikipedia, but I guess now I see that there is good reason for Wikipedia policies... I regret having helped make a new article with a substantive nature here before discovering that you guys are only interested in being just as bad as the liberals.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 21:32, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::: Nobody said that ''only'' [[liberals]] deceive, but the [[liberal]] ideology does permit and encourage deceit. Regardless, I've unlocked the page for you but will re-protect it if edits do not comply with the [[rules]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:38, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::::::My point was that there was an obvious implication by only naming liberals. It would be like saying Saudi Arabians attacked the two towers on 9-11, without mentioning the other nationalities. The implication is one of exclusivity. But thank you for unlocking it, I am glad that we're interested in being unbiased and not pulling a "lib" :)--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 21:41, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Well, [[liberals|who]] do you think are the ones always engaging in [[deceit]]? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 02:53, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::::Except that, as I mentioned earlier, it seems pretty silly to claim only liberals deceive. Conservatives are only human too, even if in general more level-headed. I mean, take the recent sex scandals in the House. There was one Republican with pretty good policies who was hitting on a congressional page. I don't remember his name, but that was fairly strong evidence of deceit. I think he had a wife! So I mean, obviously conservatives sometimes deceive, but this article implies that only liberals do. We want to be conservative, but not just LIE, right?--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:00, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
It was Mark Foley, a Republican in the House.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:...but do you see any examples of [[conservative]] [[deceit]] on this page? Why do you think that is? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 03:19, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::I don't understand. Are you implying that the page IS an example of conservative deceit? If that is the case, I respectfully have to state that I think that is a very poor decision, to knowingly deceive impressionable young people who might go to this page. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:24, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::No, I was just speculating is all. Draw whatever conclusions you like from the article. Also: in general, be careful. You wouldn't want accused to be accusing Conservapedia of [[deceit]], because that is a very [[deceit|deceitful]], [[liberal]] thing to do! [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::::But I think Conservapedia IS being deceitful, and I'm not a liberal! This is absurd! It's like an article on cyanide stating, "Liberals have often used cyanide as a murder tool", without mentioning conservatives... the clear implication is that liberals either use cyanide or murder, not conservatives. This is just silly... God created man as imperfect, to declare otherwise is simply hubris and pagan. I am going to change it.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 18:48, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
(undent) Interesting discussion! I have just come across the [[Deceit]] page for the first time, and found such an obviously absurd suggestion that it is only liberals who deceive that I felt moved to change it. Which I did, before I came to this page! I see I am not the only one who thinks the wording was silly. Do yourselves/us/your readers a favor, and don't take us for complete idiots. It is patently absurd to suggest that liberals have a monopoly on deceit. By all means use liberal examples, in tune with the proudly acknowledged Conservapedia viewpoint, but don't make the site laughable by appearing to say that only liberals deceive. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:46, 22 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Piltdown Man ==<br />
<br />
Piltdown Man was indeed a deceit, but the continued use of it as an example in the teaching of evolution was not. It was a mistake made by the ''victims'' of the deceit, not a continuation of the deceit by the ''deceivers''. The statement that "evolutionists continued this deceit for decades" is seriously misleading and should be deleted or amended. I suggest a rewrite as follows:<br /><br />
<br />
The [[Piltdown Man]] was a fraudulent "Missing Link" taught to an entire generation of students worldwide from 1912 to 1953 as "proof" that man had evolved from an ape-like species. <s>Darwinists officially declared</s> The Piltdown Man <font color=red>was declared</font> to be authentic and <s>gave it</s> <font color=red>given</font> a formal name: ''Eoanthropus dawsoni,'' in honor of the person who claimed to have found it, Charles Dawson. The British scientific establishment largely supported the validity of Piltdown Man.<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/tenness5.html</ref> But the Piltdown Man was actually a medieval skull combined with a lower jaw from an orangutan and teeth from a chimpanzee, which were then placed in a gravel pit in the village of Piltdown, England. There are reports that as early as 1914 someone at the British Museum privately admitted that "a negro skull and a broken ape jaw" had been "artificially fossilized."<ref>http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_prim_suspects/KEITH/Keith_prosecution/piltdown_unmasked.html</ref> <s>Yet evolutionists continued this deceit</s> <font color=red>Yet this fraud maintained currency</font> for decades, <s>teaching it</s> in textbooks (e.g., the text at issue in the [[Scopes trial]] in 1925) <s>and publicizing it</s> <font color=red> as well as</font> in popular books and magazines (e.g., a 1922 book for the general market illustrated the daily life of the Piltdown Man). <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC02561355&id=L0sDgL6sPh4C&pg=RA1-PR51 ''Everyday Life in the Old Stone Age''], Charles Henry Bourne Quennell, 1922, p. 51.</ref><br />
<br />
: What is the specific part of it you propose changing, and why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:20, 28 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Reasons as stated. Proposed changes as shown above. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 09:42, 28 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Interested, but not surprised, to see that my correction of the inaccuracy in the article has been swiftly reverted. I take it, then, that you disagree with my point that the perpetation of the fraud was an error, not a deliberate deceit! I tried to raise it here, and when nobody disagreed with me I thought perhaps I might be so bold... I should clearly have known better! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:04, 29 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: I didn't revert your change, and apologize for not responding here sooner. I don't see how you can disagree with my changes. Large-scale deceit always has perpetrators and accomplices, plus [[deliberate ignorance]]. Surely you don't doubt that the [[Piltdown Man]] had all three among [[evolution]]ists?!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:15, 29 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::Well, yes, I do doubt that - but I am well aware that I won't win any such argument in this forum, so I'll leave it at that! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 15:20, 29 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::: [[Logic]] is welcome here, Humblpi. It's a bit of cop-out for someone to say (as we often hear) that he can't win. If you make a logical argument, you will win here. But there is no logic in insisting that the crude fraud of the [[Piltdown Man]] was somehow not perpetrated by [[evolutionists]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 29 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::::You accuse me of "insisting that the crude fraud of the [[Piltdown Man]] was somehow not perpetrated by evolutionists." That is not what I said. Of course the Piltdown fraud was perpetrated by "evolutionists". My point is that the ''perpetuation'' of that fraud was not a plot (and therefore not directly a deceit) but an ''error''. Those who committed the initial fraud were guilty of deceit; those who perpetuated it were not - they were ''victims'' of the fraud, not perpetrators of it. That's all, and I suggested a small change to the article to make that clearer. But you have seen fit to change it back to a twisted version of the truth. It's your website. I leave it there. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 15:54, 29 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Reversion explained ==<br />
<br />
The list is [[deceit]]. They are mostly [[liberal]] but that's not our fault. If you have comparable examples of [[deceit]] accepted and promoted by [[conservatives]], then let's see them here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:54, 1 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
What would be the point , you`l only revert them .--[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 09:06, 1 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: That's called a "cop-out". If you have examples, let's see them here. If you don't, please don't pretend otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:13, 1 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
But lets be serious your not actually suggesting that conservatives have never been deceitfull have you. What about president nixon. Is he not deceitful. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 13:28, 1 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Former President Nixon was not a conservative, and it is an affront to suggest that. Nixon was a Keynesian (A soft term to describe a socialist) who radically increased spending on social programmes and 'normalised' relations with communist nations. He was a Liberal. [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 11:15, 2 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: That's right. By 1972 -- before [[Nixon]]'s cover-up of [[Watergate]], [[conservatives]] were so opposed to Nixon that [[conservatives]] actually tried to defeat him in the [[Republican]] primary by backing [[John Ashbrook]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:24, 2 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
SO , the fact of the matter is that he was still a deceitful person, so therefore we should include it. His behaviour was deceitful , he is deceitful , you cant change that. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:10, 2 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Oh yes thats it any conservative that commits deceit is actually a liberal , lol , therefore it becomes liberal deceit, it doesnt even matter , as the topic is called deciet its ok to but nixon their. People can decide for themselves weither or not he is a liberal. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:13, 2 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:To some degree that's actually true - since [[conservative]]s, and especially Christian conservative values, adheres more to the moral principles of the Bible that explicitly forbids deceit, then one who deceives is not acting like a true conservative would. [[Liberal]]s, on the other hand, does not even seem to try to maintain a moral code.<br />
:Nevertheless, slandering Nixon is inappropriate for this page. Just because it is true does not make it relevant here. [[User:Hammet|Hammet]] 19:25, 2 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Enron... Nixon... ==<br />
<br />
I can hardly think of two more obvious examples of deceit. Why do Nixon and Enron get removed? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 11:44, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
:I suppose that, as explained above, they're not really ''true'' conservatives. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 12:57, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::For that matter, shouldn't people like [[Jim & Tammy Bakker]] and [[Jimmy Swaggart]] be added to the list? I would have thought they are prime examples of deceit. I'm sure there's more, but those are the only two that come to mind right now.[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 13:46, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
:::IIRC, the made mistakes and were repentant for those errors. [[Liberals]] deny that they have sinned, and deny their [[deceit]]. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 13:51, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
The [[deceit]] in this list is typically ''embraced'' deceit, and run-of-the-mill political lies or fraud are not included.<br />
<br />
Keep trying, guys, but you'll have to look a very long time to find just one example of embraced deceit by a [[conservative]] against the numerous examples of [[liberal]] deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:59, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
:Nixon said, "I am not a crook," and defended his own deceit. How is that not "embraced"? Enron executives maintained their innocence all the way through the trial. How are they not similarly embracing deceit? Perhaps your definition of "embraced deceit" is such a moving target as to become meaningless.-'''<font color="#CC0000">α</font><font color="#A0A0A0">m</font><font color="#0099FF">ε</font><font color="#003399">σ</font>''' <small>[[User_talk:AmesG | (advocate)]]</small> 14:08, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::So by your own definition ("The [[deceit]] in this list is typically ''embraced'' deceit, and run-of-the-mill political lies or fraud are not included.") Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell et al are guilty of deceit, given the way they fervently embraced (and haven't repented for) the deceit surrounding Weapons of Mass Destruction? It's a bit disingenuous to tweak the definition every time a name crops up that you wouldn't like to see in the list. Likewise, I can't see how Reagan's deceit surrounding Iran-Contra can be classed as run-of-the-mill political lies. That also seems to imply that you're willing to accept a politician who lies to you, in a run of the mill way?[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 15:28, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: Perhaps you also think it was [[deceit]] for Bush to claim to have won the 2000 election?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: Why would I think that? True, it did get messy before the final result was announced, but that was as much Gore's fault as anything. At the end of the day the candidate with the most votes won, fair and square. Now, snide remarks aside, shall we get back on topic?[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 15:51, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::: Uh oh, you'd better watch yourself, or you won't have any [[liberal friendship|liberal friends]] any more. ''Gore won the most votes, not Bush!''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:03, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
<-- Steering back on track, we have two examples that need to be considered:<br />
* Nixon stating "I am not a crook" and then defending this statement<br />
* Bush stating there were WMD's without evidence, and continuing this belief<br />
<br />
I know nothing about the first, and not as much as others about the second. As for Bush winning the 2000 election, this has nothing to do with deceit, and instead with the American election system. Bush did not win because he lied about the outcome. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 16:08, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Bush still claims he won in 2000. Some liberals would say this deceit has been going on for nearly 8 years. Do you think we should include that also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Of course not. He won. No deceit involved. Whereas Nixon clearly exemplifies "embraced deceit". I now understand why Enron has been deleted, given that it was a case of simple deceit in the form of theft, not an attempt to influence people's political opinions etc. But surely Nixon... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:20, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Bush ''did'' win in 2000, even though he still got less votes the way the American political system is structured allowed him to claim victory. While some extreme leftists may view this as deceit, others view it as a reason to change rather than an example of a blatant lie. I don't think anyone here is actually claiming Bush winning the election was an example of deceit, perhaps we could concentrate on the two issues others have raised. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 16:22, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: OK, then why the obsession with Nixon? Clinton lied and was impeached. We haven't included him, why do you think there was [[embraced deceit]] by Nixon that is so much stronger than Clinton's?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::(speaking just for myself, obviously) - I am not obsessed with Nixon, but he was once mentioned on the site and was deleted, and I queried the reason for that deletion. As far as I am aware (I haven't checked all the page history) Clinton has never made an appearance here. I am arguing against the removal of Nixon, not against the addition of Clinton. Adding Clinton might indeed be appropriate, for sure. And no doubt many other politicians of all political hues and persuasions. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:32, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::::Any standard used on Nixon would create a horde of politicians who could be included as well. The key is to find behavior that is out of the ordinary so as to set the actions of the individual apart from his peers. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:44, 9 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
You all seem to be forgetting something. The list says deceit, therfore any1 can be put on it including nixon. If you want it to only be an article on liberals have the guts to call it liberal deceit. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:57, 10 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I seem to recall it used to be called [[Liberal deceit]], but they changed it because some vandals and malcontents kept saying there should be an article for [[Conservative deceit]]. They failed to understand that [[Real Conservatives]] never lie. It's just that occasionally their true statements are non-operative in the reality-based community world at this point in time fnord. <br />
:I've taken the liberty of adding [[Scooter Libby]] to the list. If a conviction for perjury doesn't qualify as Deceit, I'm curious what does. (oh, yeah--ANYTHING a Liberal says.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 12:42, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Not all convictions are necessarily just, and this one was particularly controversial. You are right however that perjury qualifies as deciet. However, I think it is best to stick to more widely accepted examples. I'm moving the scooter libby example to the talk page for further discussion. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] <sub>[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]</sub> 12:48, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Admittedly there are several other controversial examples on te page. I'll see what I can do about them. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] <sub>[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]</sub> 12:52, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
on second thought, the current examples are pretty good. However you may feel free to suggest any examples that you think are appropriate. Personaly I have nothing against exposing non-liberal deciet. I don't approve of deciet in general. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] <sub>[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]</sub> 13:00, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Umm, right ==<br />
<br />
This article is stupid. Instead of actually giving information about deceit it just lists heaps of people who are apparently evil liberal liars. Why not actually provide information (like encyclopedias should) rather than listing "examples".<br />
<br />
If the admins of this place want it to replace Wikipedia as the Internets main source of info, a good way to start would be to actually provide information. [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 22:28, 23 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Fred, try opening your mind a bit and recognize the well-documented cases of [[deceit]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:36, 23 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Ok, I would like to insult you for your supposedly "open minded" idea of deceit, but I won't.<br />
I'm just saying, rather than listing supposed cases of deciet, shoulden't an encyclopedia describe what deciet is and explain why and how it is used rather than just saying "all these things are eebul liberal lies!!11!" Examples are good, but they should not be the main part of an article on an encyclopedia. [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 22:07, 25 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
As no one's replying, can I assume its ok for me to start drafting a replacement article with more emphasis on explaining dicete rather than exposing "eebul liberal lies!!11!" [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 23:59, 5 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Scooter Libby== <br />
<br />
This example has been suggested. please discuss.<br />
<br />
# [[Scooter Libby]], convicted in court of Obstruction of Justice, Making a False Statement, and [Perjury]], for intentionally deceiving the grand jury about how he learned, and “disclosed to the media,” information about Valerie Plame Wilson’s employment by the CIA.<br />
<br />
::Yes, that's deceit all right! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:07, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::Sounds good to ME, but I'm the one who posted it, so I'm biased. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:36, 29 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: There is no end to the list if we start posting political figures. There were many convictions among Clinton cronies also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Examples of deceit==<br />
<br />
I realize that this page contains many true and valid example's of deciet, however i don't see how such a list is what we're looking for in an encyclopedia. I think this list has only proved itself a can of worms. I say we only include a description of what deciet is and perhaps one or to more classical examples of deciet such as ananias and saphira. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] <sub>[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]</sub> 13:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree. Large laundry lists don't belong in an encyclopedia. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:51, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Encyclopedia's and all reference works, can teach not only by defining a term, but showing it as well. There is an old rhyme about how a person would rather see a sermon, than hear one. By not only defining the term, but providing examples and comparisons, the job this ''conservative encyclopedia'' does is greatly improved, IMO. I do realize that to many in today's world, it seems "out of step" in a society where teaching "right" and "wrong" is held to be archaic. Remember fine counsel is often confused, but examples are always clear! --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 00:33, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::So you agree with Ben (and I) then? I think a few in-depth, well known examples would be much more beneficial to ''any encyclopedia'' that what we have now. Deceit is a pretty simple concept, why explain it with 15 examples? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:16, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: We disfavor deleting information unless a [[rule]] violation is identified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:44, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
HelpJazz, I was saying just the opposite of what you (apparently) were saying. That good examples, which actually demonstrate, are a far better learning aid than just a litany of "facts". I would note that it appears many are overly concerned, ''albeit perhaps a well intentioned concern'', with truncating articles in CP that are "uncomfortable" to some in their uncompromising examples of [[liberal deceit]]. We see that in many places today, a few seeking to redefine, blur or minimize anything that points out uncomfortable facts about the left, and liberals in particular. Why even a factual statement about liberal thinking is branded by some now as ''ad hominem arguments'', which seems to be a new phrase introduced to truncate any and all discussion or disagreement with liberals! --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 16:11, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I didn't say anything about being uncomfortable, liberal deceit, minimizing criticism of the left, or ad hominem arguments, so I'll just address the relevant portion of your post.<br />
:We are obviously both in agreement (along with Ben, who started this thread) that examples can help explain a concept. I love examples, and try to add them to new articles I create. But don't you agree that a couple of good, solid examples are better than a list of every example we can find? I think this is a more concise and more informative way to make an encyclopedia entry.<br />
:Deceit is a simple concept; at some point all these examples stop being about deceit and start being about denegrating those who are being used as examples (both liberals AND conservatives, as can be seen in the suggestion in the section below). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:00, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I think I have dealt with the latest twist in liberals trying to shut down discussion by claiming "ad hominem arguments" elsewhere. That argument (liberal fact) is rejected by conservatives outright, and as this is a conservative wiki, has no place here. If you need the link, I think I can find it. <br />
<br />
::As for the idea of using fewer examples, I think Andy Schlafly succinctly answered that no, removal of examples showing liberal deceit/bias is not favored. No caveats were provided, correct? I do however think such articles could stand formatting and stylistic improvement, making them easier to read, and highlighting salient points in an improved way. I stand ready to assist anyone wanting to improve Conservapedia's articles, by offering suggestions/examples/ideas as to what is acceptable to conservatives and what is not. Ed Poor, Karajou, Crocotite, Conservative, TerryH and Andy himself are a few others I know who are qualified to provide that information. If someone feels unfairly excluded, please forgive an older person a lapse in memory or familiarity with their work. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 18:18, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
=="The War in Iraq Is Going Well"==<br />
Isn't that a form of embraced deceit? It's clearly ''not'' going well, and yet the Bush administration refuses to backtrack from its original position, that the war would be and essentially was won in a matter of days. We all know that's false now. Why do they not come out and say it?-[[User:Historian|Historian]] 16:31, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Politics is filled with issues like that. There are just as many -- if not more -- examples on the Democratic side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:42, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::True. It's no secret that politics is dirty on all sides. But if your goal with this article is to prove that no conservatives ever embrace deceit, then, I think this example should be included. Feel free to stack in as many other examples of Democrats doing the same thing as you want.-[[User:Historian|Historian]] 16:55, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::So what? We don't let Charles Manson out of jail just because Pol Pot killed more people, and misdeeds by Democrats '''DO NOT EXCUSE misdeeds by Republicans'''. If you seriously want people to believe that Conservatives have higher moral standards than Liberals, then giving "your" "side" a free pass when they've verifiably done something egregious does not help your case. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 19:01, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::"Going well" as compared to what? The Iraq situation, as compared to the more rampant random violence of months ago, is going better. The "surge", whatever one wants to call it, has improved security, and has been admitted so doing by even former Generals and the like who opposed the war. So clearly saying that isn't a deceit, as measured by military experts, not civilians. Let's not intertwine arguments for or against the American police actions in going into Iraq, or the failings of the democratically elected government of Iraq, with the much narrower discussion about the "surge". And, I think someone needs to reaffirm what Andy just posted above: Someone citing what they believe to be a deceit, doesn't negate or disprove another. Therefore, the entire purpose of the post above, has no basis in logic, and appears to be yet another argumentative ''Red Herring'', something thrown out for just the sake of argument, when that is something more appropriate for a ''Discussion Group or Board'', but does nothing to add content to an encyclopedia project. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 19:24, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::there is a very large diffrence between going well, and going better. your argument is like saying that since someone in a hospital is dying slower, they are doing well. and the refrence point should be... compared to just after we won the actual war (with the army) in iraq-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:32, 23 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== "Public schools, in contrast, do not teach that deceit is wrong." ==<br />
<br />
I beg your pardon? Is there any evidence for this outrageous statement? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:The [[burden of proof]] is on you, and it should be a light one if you have an example in mind already. "I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Er, that's not true. The burden of proof lies upon the one who makes the statement, in this case [[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]].<br />
<br />
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 13:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:That's what I just said: H made the claim that the statement is outrageous and so the burden of proof is upon him. Do I have to make it a [[writing assignment]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::The burden of proof is on the person who posts the statement in the article, not on the one who queries it on a talk page. I refer you to Commandments #1 and #5 - the article should ''not be personal opinion'', and it should ''be verifiable''. So it's not me that needs the writing assignment. I agree that the word "outrageous" was an expression of my personal opinion, but that is expressly allowed on a talk page (Commandment #5). If it helps, though, I'll happily withdraw it: "Public schools, in contrast, do not teach that deceit is wrong." Is there any evidence for this <s>outrageous</s> statement? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:16, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::: BenjaminS claims it to be fact, AND since everything here must be VERIFIED, it is upon Benny to prove that his broad accusation has merit. As far as disproving it, I ask all public-school educated people to remember the time their first grade teacher taught them that lying is bad.<br />
:::PBS (PUBLIC broadcasting) does teach this with the help of the good monsters of Sesame Street (I remember it back when it used to be a good neighborhood). '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 13:22, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::Frankly, I prefer Ed's guideline. Not requiring proof of a factual assertion, and instead putting the burden on any naysayers to disprove a fact, will make writing articles much easier.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:00, 20 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::::Is that a joke? Seriously, that's the worst methodology I've ever heard of. I'm going to go start an entry about the real-life Mighty Morphin Power Rangers which live on another planet at the other end of the galaxy. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:37, 20 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: Aschafly, you've reverted Lib1089's deletion of the sentence without adding any additional information. This is made worse because he expressly cited Conservapedia's first commandment in his edit summary: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable". You've run roughshod over that. Please reconsider your edit and either revert it or add information that substantiates the claim. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:20, 5 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
This strikes me as a bit odd. Perhaps my public school system was more conservative than most, but we most certainly were taught that deceit was wrong. In an academic setting, that of course took the form of bans on plagiarism and cheating, which were expressly forbidden, as I imagine they are at most any public school. I would also think that some public schools have honor codes, much like the liberal elite universities all do, that stress honesty and integrity. Finally, there is no evidence that public schools specifically condone deceit, is there? [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 00:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I just removed that statement. I'm a bit new here but I'm assuming that a statement of that magnitude, not backed up with any references, is an act of vandalism. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 22:24, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Boris Johnson==<br />
Aschlalfy, you have twice reverted factual, sourced, material about Boris Johnson. Why? I didnt state he was conservative so you cant say I was trying to smear conservatives. You will notice his mistress had an abortion to rid themselves of a potentially embarrasing love child. How is this not deceit?<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:57, 2 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Al Gore ==<br />
Took this one out because there was no evidence of deceit, just factual inaccuracy. Gore botched more than a few facts in that film, but there's no reason to chalk that up to anything more than his incompetence. Although, if you can prove an intent to deceive, then by all means, please revert. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 00:00, 11 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Richard Nixon==<br />
Added a rather obvious example. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 22:26, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==M Scott Peck==<br />
I removed his book from the further reading list because it is not about deceit as such, but about psycopathy (Evil, in common parlance). [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 10:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Nixon, Libby, and Enron ==<br />
<br />
What specifically about those named above and their actions qualifies them as not being deceitful? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 12:50, 27 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: One-sided and opinionated examples of alleged deceit by a president or corporation do not have sufficient quality to be included in this high-quality entry, which typically consisted of significant, prolonged, embraced and admitted or proven deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:58, 27 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::I think Nixon's deceit was significant and prolonged. Libby was significant simply for being a high-profile person, and his deceit was prolonged. And Enron's deceit was very significant, costing hundreds of people their savings. All three had their deceit proven in one way or another. It's pretty deceitful to claim otherwise. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 13:03, 27 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:...is it because they're not liberal...? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:06, 27 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I was about to post here yesterday, but I had just added the entires in question back and [[User:Bugler]] blocked me for it. The answer is that yes, of course, you will find as you continue to edit this 'encyclopedia' that examples of conservative deceit are not allowed. What I recommend is browing the edit list of [[User:Aschlafly]]. He's the owner and founder and essentially disagreeing with him is a sin. If you like that idea feel free to stick around. <br />
:Of course, it's a blatant disregarding of the principles of Conservapedia (see [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]) but hey, he's in charge. What are you going to do? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 19:42, 29 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Public school deceit==<br />
It's not a required course, but in "Journalism" students were taught about the evils of slander, deceit, and malice. <sub>your apathetic neighborhood public schooler</sub> [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 16:43, 27 June 2008 (EDT)</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Deceit&diff=484114Talk:Deceit2008-06-29T23:45:58Z<p>Daphnea: /* Nixon, Libby, and Enron */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Archives:''' [[/Archive 1|1]]<br />
<!-- <br />
============================================================================<br />
Place no content above this line! --><br />
<br />
==Examples== <br />
<br />
Do we really need this many examples of deciet? While I believe this website should present conservative values on every page, This particular page seems to be a huge political statement about how rotten the liberals are. honestly I don't think thats the best way to present conservative values. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] <sub>[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]</sub> 10:24, 11 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
==10 Commandments==<br />
I don't think the reference about removing the 10 Commandments from schools really shows that you're going for. The decision was to remove any physical depiction of the 10 Commandments, which has nothing to do with whether morals are taught in schools. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:20, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: "Nothing to do with morals are taught in schools"? You can't be serious. That's like saying "2+2=4" has nothing with whether "2+3=5". If the Ten Commandments can't be on the wall, then they can't be taught for [[normative]] purposes in textbooks either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Yes I am serious. To use your example you don't need a poster that says 2+2=4 to learn that or to know it. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 18:41, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Character education is a big part of the curriculum these days, and I've yet to see a school library without a bible in it. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Reference to the Ten Commandments is relevant to that page, not this one. Same for public schools. Deleted part about deceit not being taught in public schools. It's ridiculous to note on every page whether something is or is not taught in liberal American public schools (the list would be too long). --[[User:Ursus|Ursus]] 13:07, 31 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Seconding Ursus' comment. Furthermore, the exclusion of the Commandments from the educational curriculum has no place in the definition of any word. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:54, 25 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== contradiction in the definition ==<br />
<br />
I am not sure why I am getting involved with this, but here goes:<br />
<br />
* " Deceit is the fraudulent representation of a material fact, made intentionally or recklessly or without reasonable basis and with the intent to induce reliance on the falsehood".<br />
* "Traditionally deceit was taught as being wrong and in violation of the Ten Commandments" -"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor".<br />
<br />
The logic implied therefore is that'''all deceit'' is prohibited by the 10 commandments.<br />
<br />
<br />
However, bearing "false witness against a neighbour" is not the same as "fraudulent misrepresentation of a material fact", and does not encompass all the things that the latter could possible include. For example, claiming that you have a PhD when you do not have one is clearly deceit, but I cannot find anything in the 10 commandments that tells me I should not do it. I am not stealing; I am not bearing false witness against a neighbour. Am I coveting? I don't think so. As far as the ten commandments is concerned, I can get away with it.<br />
<br />
Under these circumstances, the statement concerning the 10C needs to be amended to say:<br />
"Deceit has traditionally been viwed as being morally wrong and in many respects it is in violation of the Ten Commandments, especially those deceits which involve harm or malpractice to another person" --[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 16:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Sometimes deceit can also be stealing - if you are trying to get advantages by deceiving. For example that kind of telling you have a PhD can have this kind of wrong motive. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:36, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Most crimes entail deceit, but the point here is when deceit is the primary wrongdoing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::You seem to be missing the point. I am not saying deceit is right, far from it. I am saying that the statement that "deceit is ... in violation of the Ten Commandments" is not correct, as some deceits are NOT in violation of any of the 10 commandments.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:23, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Sean, I thought I made the change you requested. Sure, some deceits are justified, just as self-defense can justify killing in rare circumstances. But the statement is correct, that deceit has traditionally been taught as being wrong under the Ten Commandments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Apologies, had missed that in the article, I was still responding to the stuff on the talk pages. Thank You. I shall now go back to what I know best.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:37, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Politicization ==<br />
So, regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Deceit&diff=181455&oldid=181449 this] edit war, the two sentences seem to suggest two things:<br />
# They suggest that all Conservatives are not deceitful, and that all Liberals are deceitful. That is a perfect definition of [[stereotype]], and I'm sure we can agree that stereotypes suck.<br />
# Reference #2 suggests that ''only'' conservatives teach their children the ten commandments, therefore implying that A). Liberals cannot be Christians, and B). All Liberals are atheists.<br />
Am I the only one who notices this? --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 19:36, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::No, you are not the only one. The universal statements are a little misleading, though I personally agree with what is said for the most part.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 19:40, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::So you agree that all liberals are atheist deceivers, and all conservatives are "true" Christians and always honest? --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 19:43, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::No that is not what I meant at all. Refering to groups, any groups, in terms of "all" is never a good thing to do, and should be somehow worked out. [[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 19:47, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
So it's not deceit when the army lies about Tilman, it's not deceit in the case of Iran-Contra or Watergate or the "slam-dunk" or "sexing up" intelligence reports or plagiarizing someone's report when speaking to the UN. Maybe this article needs to flat out say what the people who run this website obviously want it to say and define deceit as "what happens when anyone whom it is politically convenient to call a liar lies" and at least be a little less deceitful about it. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: REPLY TO ABOVE: The statement does not say that all liberals are deceitful. I don't think all liberals are. And I don't think all conservatives are honest. But conservatives do teach that deceit is wrong, and liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong. That's a fact. Compare a public school classroom, where you won't hear that deceit is wrong, with a conservative classroom, where you will hear that. This is not a politicization. This is observable fact.<br />
<br />
: Sevenstring can suggest other examples of deceit comparable to the ones listed. But the examples he identified are not comparable, because in those cases deceit was not embraced for ideological gain as it was in the listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:13, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: P.S. I just rolled back the Tillman example, because that was not deceit for any gain. It is common practice for the military, dating back to the death of Benny Goodman (?) by friendly fire during WWII, to glorify the victims of war and minimize embarrassment. JFK's heroism in his PT boat was actually the result of incompetence; Kerry's heroism was questionable also. There is nothing new about this and the military is not guilty of deceit in the same way as the listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:16, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: So the whole big push to punish plagiarising in public schools (two of my friends got failing grades for that), expelling people for cheating on tests, etc. (another friend got nabbed for that), and punishing kids for lieing to teachers are just coincidences, right?<br />
:: Once again, Andy, you are stereotyping the entire public school system. Perhaps instead of saying that "liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong", it can be phrased as "the public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong". Both statements are completely false, but at least it's a step towards the truth.<br />
:: And as for Tillman; it doesn't matter the tradition or context which it is in; it's still deceit. And I don't see Watergate on there, or the Lewinsky scandal. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 20:17, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::P.S. and really, not only Conservatives teach the ten commandments. Call me a heretic, but I'm pretty sure the 10C are standard throughout all kinds of Christianity. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 20:20, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Oh, come off it - how, exactly, does fudging the truth to justify a war not fall under the rubric of "deceit" for "ideological gain?" Or breaking into the opposing party's headquarters and then using the state apparatus to cover it up in order to win an election? By your own definition, weak as it is, those are textbook examples. And who says that there needs to be ideological gain for deceit to occur? [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Folks, you're in denial. I know what's taught in public schools. Hoji, if you're in public school, I challenge you to find anything in any of your textbooks, lecture notes, writing assignments, etc., that says deceit is wrong. It's not there, and that is because liberals run public schools. It is there in conservative classrooms. Sure, plagiarism and cheating are punished if someone is caught, but that can be explained by self-interest better than teaching it is "wrong".<br />
<br />
: Sevenstring, your complaint is that the list is not longer. Present something as airtight and long-lasting as the current examples and we'll include it. Delaying a few weeks before telling the truth about Tillman's death does not come close, not by a long shot. That TEMPORARY deceit could just as easily be justified as honoring Tillman rather than benefiting anyone, and the military has been doing that for decades without complaint in many celebrated cases. Shall we put JFK's PT boat incident in the list also???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::As for JFK's PT boat incident, if it is relevant, then sure, put it on. And as for the schools, you seem to be equating "liberal" with "public schools", which is certainly wrong. I grew up in a liberal household, and was taught that deceit is wrong. I am sure that the ''vast'' majority of ''all'' American families teach their kids that deceit is wrong; it is not a good way to win arguments, friends, or respect. In the public schools, deceit isn't taught to be wrong because there isn't an obsession with teaching moral behavior, because schools rely on parents to choose the moral education they give their children. If anything, I would say that Conservatives are just as deceitful as liberals; everything on AiG, for instance, is intentionally spun to persuade, even if that means leaving out relevant facts. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 20:32, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
Please excuse my vitriol, but Andy, I have been following this for a long time, and you have never cited ANYTHING to back up your bizarre assertions about liberals and deceit. I am liberal (mm..refreshing), I don't believe in deceit, neither do my children. In fact, neither do any of my friends, who are mostly liberal. You should be ashamed of yourself. Oh, that's right, im about to be banned for speaking my mind, and the truth. [[User:OneLove|OneLove]] 20:49, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
ASchlafly, did you even read my post? My complaint is not that " the list is not longer," but that by YOUR definition of, essentially, lying in the name of the advancement of political ideology, the discourse leading up to the invasion...errrrrrrrr liberation of Iraq was deceitful. As was Watergate. "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia," indeed. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 21:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong. "OneLove", do you teach that deceit is wrong? Did you ever hear public school, which is run by liberals, teach that it is wrong? Please answer without making absurd remarks like I "should be ashamed of" myself. You're not helping your cause.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::I'm going to attempt to draw a conclusion based on your logic, Andy;<br />
::*Catholicism is a branch of Christianity<br />
::*Catholics believe the Pope is divinely appointed by God.<br />
::*Therefore, all Christians believe that the Pope is divinely appointed by God.<br />
::Here, Catholicism represents the public school system, the Pope represents deceit, and Christianity represents liberals. You know that the above scenario is wrong, because it is based on faulty logic. Also, public schools certainly do not teach that deceit is ''right'', which you are seeming to imply. As an organ of the federal government, in accordance with the first amendment, schools do not teach about morality. So, using faulty logic, I draw that liberals are more patriotic! --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 21:24, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I'm sorry, Andy, I would be happy to answer more specifically. I used to be a public school teacher, in South San Francisco (NOT affiliated with San Fran in ANY way). I, of course, taught that deceit was wrong DAILY. Every single time a student would try to lie, or "pull one over" on me, I would explain to them why that was the wrong thing to do. I'm not sure why you would think any public school teacher would do otherwise. At least, none of my colleagues encouraged deceit. Given humans are fallible, I'm sure some teachers are as well. I quit teaching because of the general underfunding in schools in California. Also, to assert "the public schools are run by liberals" is patently ridiculous. Some school boards are quite liberal, some quite conservative, and they tend to swing back and forth--usually in reaction to a previous board being to extreme in their liberalism or conservatism. So, I'll add again, you should be ashamed. You prove that either you are deceitful or ignorant or both, but I won't generalize to all conservatives, because that would be incorrect stereotyping. [[User:OneLove|OneLove]] 21:51, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:OneLove, when did you teach: 1950? Anyone familiar with public schools today would find your claims to be so out-of-date as to be absurd. The word "wrong" in a moral sense has not been used in public school for at least a decade. Kids can be busted for drugs in the bathroom of the school and still the term morally wrong won't be used. I had my kids in public school, and I follow them closely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:59, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::In all honesty, Andy, I am undoubtedly the most qualified in this debate to comment on the current status of public schools, seeing as how I actually attend one, and deal with these non-issues you talk about regularly. And I do not see why you decided to drag the public school system into this, as the gross stereotype still exists on the page; the idea that "liberals", as a group, do not teach about the wrongness of deceit, is simply absurd. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 22:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Hey, I'm a qualified attender also![[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 22:05, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
First, OneLove, was NOT a sock of userP,,,s. Second, I have it on good authority that he taught public school in the early to mid nineties, not the 1950s. You are falling back on some shaky debating tactics. Oh, time to ban me for being a sock of OneLove, who was not a sock of p...s.[[User:Downinmyheart|Downinmyheart]] 22:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Do any of you above have cites showing the "improvement" of public education over the past 20 years? And if you produce them, do they take into account the lessening of academic standards and wholesale changes to the curriculum over the years to make it appear to be getting better? I have to tell you all the major and politically diseperate academic organizations don't see improvement. Is this really the argument you want to make, that public schools are "fine"? --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 22:46, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:No, the public school issue was a distraction; the actual issue was the line "Conservatives teach that deceit is wrong. Liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong", which is completely absurd. Following this, Andy attempted to equate "Liberals" with "public school system". --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 22:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Public schools are a perfect example of liberals who teach. I'm open to other examples, such as liberal philosophers.<br />
<br />
:: A substantial percentage of liberals are atheists who doubt anything is morally right or wrong. For them to teach that "deceit is wrong" would be, well, deceitful in itself!<br />
<br />
:: Rereading OneLove's claim above that he "taught that deceit was wrong DAILY" makes me wonder if he is being deceitful here. Not even the clergy teaches that deceit is wrong DAILY. I've observed on this website that some liberals actually enjoy being deceitful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*''Since this is a self-admitted and proclaimed Conservative and Christian-friendly encyclopedia'', there is nothing distracting in Andy's comments. I would submit that moral relativism and equivalency, along with historically revisionist thinking, which are an inarguable part of todays public school curriculum, do foster the "if it feels good do it" 60's mentality. I have several currently teaching relations, in rural and urban areas. Most of them have confirmed for me tonight, that teaching "right and wrong" as it once was, has been ditched in favor of non-judgemental lessons, and a reliance on "gray areas". --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 00:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Still, the blanket statement is misleading; there certainly are conservatives who deceive (and teach that deceit is right), and there are certainly liberals who teach that deceit is wrong. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 01:09, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Michigan's Department of Education requires public schools to teach students a certain set of Core Democratic Values. One of those values is Truth. [[User:TigersRoar|TigersRoar]] 21:20, 8 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Interesting, unless you're joking. Can you provide the link for that so I can confirm and see exactly how it is required? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:23, 8 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::[http://www.michigan.gov/documents/10-02_Core_democtaric_Values_48832_7.pdf Took about five seconds on google]... but personally I think it's a [[liberal]] scam. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:18, 9 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Archiving ==<br />
<br />
Someone who won't get yelled at like I do, would you be so kind as to archive this page and leave the section "10 Commandments" as the beginning piece? Thanks oodles! --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 00:06, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Done. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 01:11, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*You are so much more than kind, even if you won't share your box with everyone. :-( How do you get those neat accents on your sig? In my most Liberal whine, I feel so much less than without a cool sig! --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 02:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Democratic Party==<br />
<br />
[[David Limbaugh]] accused Democratic leaders of "deceit" on Iraq. He says they don't really intend to "win" in Iraq, butm want us to withdraw so that we will "lose" (which, by the way, is what happened when we withdrew from Vietna: an even worse tyranny was created in the entire country than ever existed in South Vietnam: compare 20,000 "tiger cage" deaths South Vietnam to 500,000 post-ware executions in North Vietnam. I think we also have to count the 250,000 to 500,000 [[boat people]] who died escaping the Communists.)<br />
<br />
*Nothing better illustrates the Democrats' duplicity and emptiness concerning Iraq than the manifestly contradictory statements of two of their leaders in the last few days preceding the election. Rep. John Murtha, who probably represents the bulk of his party, reiterated his nauseating, America-denigrating contention that the United States cannot win militarily in Iraq. We must resolve this matter diplomatically, he said, meaning we must negotiate with terrorists, and we must redeploy, meaning withdraw – very, very soon.Then, after Sen. Elizabeth Dole said that Democrats are content with losing the war in Iraq, Sen. Chuck Schumer replied indignantly, "Democrats want to win the war by changing the war strategy."<br />
*Now, should we believe Murtha or Schumer? Does Schumer really expect us to believe he has experienced a miraculous, neoconservative conversion, or is he just lip-syncing? That's a no-brainer: Of course he isn't sincere in saying Democrats want to win in Iraq by changing the strategy in Iraq. That would put him at odds with 90 percent of the Michael-Mooreized Democratic base and with the pronouncements of his party's leadership over the last year.<br />
*Dress it up however you like, Democrats are advocating an almost immediate withdrawal from Iraq before the Iraqi security forces are capable of sustaining their nation's security and newly formed government. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52813]<br />
<br />
Is this an "example of deceit", or just a partisan criticism of the [[Democratic Party]] by a conservative? The answer will determine where I place this quote. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:45, 10 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
==American Public Schools==<br />
<br />
"The American public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong, at least not using the Ten Commandments." It is my belief that this statement is misleading, it provides the suggestion that the Ten Commandments are required to teach that deceit is wrong. Just as it is possible to teach that murder is wrong without referring to the 10 Commandments it is just as possible to teach that deceit is wrong without referring to them, and there is no source to support a claim that the American Public School system does not teach that deceit is wrong, albeit without the 10 Commandments (my original reason for the citation template). Really, this article does not need the statement, and it has already been extensively covered in the 10 Commandments article. [[User:EQ|EQ]] 23:59, 28 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*The American public schools teach moral relativism. How does one get a clear idea of "right" and "wrong" when one is taught all such things are relative? I unlocked the article. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 00:13, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Character education is a BIG part of the curriculum these days. Try googling it. Here's just one link. I'd be happy to discus this further with anyone who feels there's a moral vacuum among teachers these days. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:50, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
http://www.goodcharacter.com/<br />
<br />
*Character education, taught from a secular-progressive POV, is nothing. Since they cannot bring themselves to actually say "anything" is "wrong", it is meaningless. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 01:49, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:We constantly say things are wrong: stealing, hurting, lying, etc. Some of our students are of religions other than Christianity...would it be right to instruct a Buddhist student using Christian scripture? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:34, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:*Yes, of course it would, in the United States! We are a Judeo-Christian country. We have achieved what we have here by virtue of being a "melting pot", not a balkanized hodge-podge of competing cultures. While the secular-progressives might wish it to be multi-cultural, with each and every ethnic and religious group clinging to their "Mother Culture", that is exactly the cause of the slaughter's in Africa and East Europe. Teaching a Buddhist Christian scripture in no way "demeans" their own. But it does teach them valuable lessons, and offers them understanding and insight into their new country and its attendant culture. You say you are constantly telling them things are wrong; Do you tell them why? And if so, what are those "non-religious" reasons? --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 10:28, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No American [[public schools]] teach that anything is "wrong". Maestro, post here the quote and citation of any textbook used in public school that says something is morally "wrong". As one would expect, eliminating God from public schools has also eliminated morality in terms of right and wrong. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: it took me 30 seconds: ''Lying is wrong''[http://www.goodcharacter.com/pp/trustworthiness.html] [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 10:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Some website? How is that related to ''[[public schools]]'' or their textbooks? I hope your editing here maintains a higher caliber than your research on this topic! --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 10:51, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Right, TK. Dkips, what does that website have to do with public schools? Public school curricula are available online, I think. But you didn't cite to one. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I wouldn't be surprised if you can't find a textbook that says lying is wrong. That sort of thing is taught in kindergarten, which doesn't use textbooks (it's also taught by parents at an even younger age, and it's they who have the real responsibility for moral instruction of their children, much moreso than government schools). Please do find me a textbook on moral relativism that is used in public schools. And, if we want to take the Bible literally, the ten commandments don't exactly teach deceit is wrong. They teach that bearing false witness against your neighbor is wrong, but bearing false witness is only a specific kind of deceit (there are countless lies oen can tell that do not involve bearing false witness against anyone). And if we want to be super-technical, it can be said that if someone lives far enough away from you that they wouldn't be considered a "neighbor" then it's perfectly fine to bear false witness against them. This morality is seeming slightly relative. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 11:57, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Public schools don't teach that deceit is wrong because that's something that's taught ''long'' before a child enrolls into the public school system. It's not that schools teach some sort of secular code of conduct or moral relativism - it's that they don't teach it '''at all''' because it's best taught by parents. Besides, there are many of us that view man as a creature endowed with a predisposition to perform goodness! [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Yes, public schools are often known to defer to parents with the utmost of respect. Just look at sex education; that's left strictly to the parents... Do you guys really think that by parroting each other that people won't see you're talking in circles? Apply some logic - don't make up phony reasons for why it's not taught and try to convince yourselves what you made up on the spot is true. Either it's taught or it's not. In fact, here's an easy one. Find me the curriculum that states what you said. Anything along the lines of "We don't teach that deceit is wrong because that is left to the parents and takes place before youngsters enter school." Want to find just one? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:26, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::You want to apply some logic? Fine. You're committing a grievous logical fallacy in your argument; remember, '''the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.''' Do you honestly believe something as mundane as "deceit is wrong" should be a bullet point on a syllabus for a public school class? If you want to see how seriously public schools take student discipline, character, and behavior, just look at my old Code of Conduct from the JCPS: http://www.jefferson.k12.ky.us/Pubs/codeofconduct.pdf . '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''<sup><small>[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]]</small></sup> 15:46, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'm sorry, but the code of conduct is sadly what I would expect it to be - a 25 page document outlining what is not acceptable in order to close all loopholes since anything that is not outlined, could be considered acceptable. And so you have warnings not to commit arson or kidnap other students. It seems to back Andy's views more than anything else -- the common understanding of morality that used to exist is gone.<br />
<br />
:::Getting back to the other point, you still appear to be talking in circles. You are applying the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" as a catch all after getting called on your last assertion which came across as made up on the spot. I somehow doubt that schools are removing information that used to be taught to give parents greater autonomy over their children's lives. Of course you can tell me that in the schools you have contact with that morality, right and wrong, and deceit are taught as an important part of the education process, but I would have to wonder if that itself wouldn't be an example of deceit. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:03, 12 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Clinton==<br />
<br />
Should we mention Bill Clinton's [[deceit]]ful testimony in the [[Paula Jones]] case? It got him [[impeach]]ed (but not removed from offices). There's the misleading bit about "I didn't have sex" (playing on whether [[oral sex]] counts as [[sexual intercourse]]).<br />
<br />
Is it [[adultery]] and/or grounds for divorce on account of un[[faithfulness]] if an ordinary man does what Clinton did with his intern? Is it [[sexual harassment]], given the power imbalance between employer and employee?<br />
<br />
== Pat Tillman example needs work ==<br />
<br />
"On 31 July 2007, the US Army censured three-star General Kensinger for "deception" in the friendly-fire death of Army Ranger [[Pat Tillman]] [http://www.onelocalnews.com/akronfarmreport/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=139590]"<br />
<br />
I know this issue is loved by Bush-haters, but covering up friendly fire is common in many Administrations. Glenn Miller was killed by friendly fire and [[FDR]] covered it up. I don't see why this issue concerning Pat Tillman is given so much attention at the expense of other examples. We're not a vehicle for misplaced Bush-hating here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:How about a general article on [[friendly fire]] first? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:39, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Well, I see you removed the information I'd added. I would point out three things:-<br />
<br><br />
<br>a) I'm not a "Bush-hater".<br />
<br>b) The issue is hardly being covered only by "Bush haters"! It's front page news on Fox News as we write! [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291591,00.html]<br />
<br>c) Why don't you add the into about Glenn Goodman [Miller] too? Deceit is deceit, whatever group it comes from.<br />
<br><br />
It seems to me you're being <i>very</i> selective with the truth, and I think that's unfair to our troops. Friendly fire accidents are not partisan politics - they happen, it's tragic, but it's a consequence of war and the truth should not be hidden from the public by [[deceit]]. Just because it's not [[liberal]] [[deceit]] doesn't mean this incident is not [[deceit]]. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 19:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Your point is well taken. We could use some more information on Tilman and Goodman [Miller]. One of the virtues of a democracy with a [[free press]] is that errors and misconduct can be brought to light by ordinary citizens. When this is not done for [[partisan advantage]], it's usually a good thing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:59, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Exactly, Ed. I would do it, except I fear a ban from a certain someone if I put Tillman back in. Perhaps someone else would tackle it? It seems to me that an announcement that a three-star general is to be censured over the matter makes this a notable enough example of deceit in high places, and deserving of appearing in the article, and it will also make the article less biased. Deceit is practiced by all who are prepared to lie, regardless of the color of their stripes. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:03, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:First, my mistake, it was Glenn "Miller", not Goodman. So I've inserted "Miller" above in brackets to prevent the error from propagating.<br />
<br />
:Second, no one is being blocked for this disagreement.<br />
<br />
:Third, more facts are needed. What was the alleged "deceit"? Why is this being singled out? Was was the motive for the deceit? Our examples have thorough proof of deceit on issues of extreme public importance. Why do you think covering up an incident of [[friendly fire]], which happens in every military conflict, ranks so highly in importance? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:07, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Thanks Andy. One point is that the Deceit article is extremely partisan and one-sided, and this type of bias is part of Conservapedia's credibility problem. Adding a publicly acknowledged incident from the 'other' side that is today part of the public record adds fairness and balance - a good thing, surely? As to the details of the incident, the report has yet to be published - I make no comment. However, in the context of the 'Deceit' article, since the three-star General is accused in public with the actual use of the word "deception", it seems more than appropriate for the article. As to the 'importance', I make no partisan claims one way or the other to the validity of the incident, but as a current example of deceit, I can think of no better example. And finally, while the Glenn Miller incident was friendly fire (and yes, that happens, and no political party is to blame for it), there was no cover-up or deceit involved, was there? [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:If you're trying to make the point that liberals aren't the only deceitful people in the world, I'll agree with you. The question is: should we use breaking news for an example? That's all.<br />
<br />
:Since you didn't jump in and help me write [[Pat Tillman]], I went ahead and did it by myself. See also [[fratricide]] and [[friendly fire]]. (You can do [[free-fire zone]] if you have time.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:17, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Another Example ==<br />
<br />
Perhaps the works of [[Ernst Haeckel]] and his "contributions" to evolution should be considered? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:48, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Yes, that was a fraud that lasted for 100 years, long after the experts knew it was a fraud. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:00, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Catalog or informative article? ==<br />
<br />
Is this article intended to be a catalog of acts of deceit or an article describing what deceit is? If it's the latter, then the direction of the article needs to be re-though; it's not necessary to have '''ten''' different examples of deceit to convey what deceit is. This is expressly different from [[liberal deceit]], which is actually of catalog of the subject matter. Maybe this article should be re-written to contain the "Top 3" examples that express what deceit is? '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''<sup><small>[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]]</small></sup> 12:11, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Public Schools==<br />
<br />
I don't see how you can make the claim that public schools don't teach that deceit is wrong when a large number of students are expelled for ACADEMIC DISHONESTY [[User:Dragonmaster|Dragonmaster]] 15:53, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Are you including in your "academic dishonesty" the act of copying, word for word, a passage of text from another source without clearly demarking this passage with quotation marks? Aka [[Barker|plagiarism]]? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::I busted kids left and right for that when I taught junior high. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 18:38, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
BTW, since when have the commandments been 'banned'? They're not publically desplayed (believe it or not, some students follow other religions), but banned? There's a bible in every library. You make it sound like crack or guns or something. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:23, 6 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:The issue of whether deceit is ever justified is a deep and complex one. Is "tattling" always wrong? Is to "bear false witness" wrong because it is tattling, or because it involves deceit?<br />
<br />
:How about telling someone that a thing is okay when you know it is not, so they do it and get into trouble? We need to expand upon the ethics of truth and deceit. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:37, 31 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Reversion ==<br />
<br />
This is a high-quality page. Additions to the list must be at the same quality level as existing examples. A [[liberal]] newspaper article claiming that a Republican lied about some fact doesn't cut it. Look at the examples, and please propose only additions at comparable level of significance, proof, and amount of deceit. Future reversions of low-quality examples will not be explained. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I'm still amazed that Ted Haggard, who publicly preached against homosexuality (saying "We don't have to debate about what we should think about homosexual activity. It's written in the Bible"[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003365311_jesuscamp08.html], and the National Association of Evangelicals under his leadership found "homosexual activity, like adulterous relationships, is clearly condemned in the Scriptures"[http://www.nae.net/index.cfm?FUSEACTION=editor.page&pageID=303&IDCategory=8]) led a three-year homosexual relationship with a gay prostitute, complete with the use of methamphetamine. Hmm... the leader of a national body of Christians having gay sex behind his wife's back, while preaching against those same activities seems a bit [[deceit]]ful. Oh well, I'm sure the whole thing is a big liberal conspiracy. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 02:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::By the way, Pastor Haggard spoke at my friends church two weeks prior to his being "outed", and I was fortunate enough to attend. It was a special evening sermon about sexual morality, and I can tell you from personal experience that he wasn't quite fond of homosexuals. (If you don't believe me, I'd be glad to email you contact info for the church). --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 03:03, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::Well, you'll notice that we don't have Bill Clinton and "that woman" as an example either. A benchmark is usually an intentional decision to mislead for personal gain that causes hardship to others by withholding information that could have been used to make honest, informed decisions. Whether or not Haggard had homosexual tendencies is not something that had a profound impact on the American public. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:18, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::It's not "misleading" to preach against homosexuality to millions of people while engaging in a homosexual ''and'' adulterous relationship? As a major Christian leader, Haggard had a huge influence on the voting habits of Conservative Christians. And I'm still having trouble determining how number 11 had a profound impact on the public. And regarding Clinton, he wasn't actively speaking out against homosexuals and adulterers. Haggard was, and his platform was against homosexuality ''and'' adultery, both of which he committed. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 03:28, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::::I think you overestimate Haggard's influece. The Haggard example seems like a better example of hypocrisy, not deceit. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 03:32, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::::I don't think saying that the leader of the National Association of Evangelicals, who also was the pastor of a 14,000-member megachurch, and one of TIME's 25 most influential evangelicals has influence one the vote of CC's is an "overestimate". And he did deceive; he deceived his wife, his family, and his congregation. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 03:39, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::::::Which sounds more like Haggard:<br />
::::::::::*"''criticism of others, by a standard one does not apply to oneself''" from [[hypocrisy]]<br />
::::::::::or<br />
::::::::::*"''the deliberate distortion or denial of the truth with an intent to trick or fool another''" from [[deceit]]? I say what he did was a better example of hypocrisy. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 03:42, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::::So people who have committed adultery shouldn't think it's wrong, or speak out against it? Sin is sin, and if we happen to fall into sin it doesn't exonerate us or mean we can no longer speak out against it. If someone is a pedophile, that person still has the right to speak out against it, and that is not deceitful. If Haggard didn't believe the practice of homosexuality was wrong, but spoke out against it, and he received financial gain for his position, then I would certainly agree with you that would be deceitful. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:44, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Hoji, is AmesG ghost writing your stuff now? :p --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 06:59, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Perhaps, TK, I merely have my own viewpoints which happen to overlap with other people's in some areas. Learn together, do you think he would have been the head of the NEA if he had been preaching "homosexuality is OK"? As a mega-pastor, he received quite the salary - he was practically a celebrity. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 13:25, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:*Hoji, he could have quite possibly been President of the NEA (National Education Association) preaching "homosexuality is OK", being it is the Liberal/Left Wing organization that it is, but of course he would never have been President of the Evangelical association! But it is Apples and Oranges to compare the duties and responsibilities of the President of either NEA with those of the POTUS. A logical fallacy, that makes a good "show" argument, but one that doesn't hold up. That said, I am uneasy holding people up for their personal failings in regard to such things, Even President Clinton. However one had an elected trust with the people of the United States,300,000,000 of them, the other didn't. I was bothered much more by Clinton's equivocation (actual and moral) over the meaning of the word "is" and his allowing good Citizens' reputations to be smeared along with the attendant financial ruin. I was also affronted to be told by President Clinton and his agents that I was part of a "vast, right-wing conspiracy" in thinking what he did was wrong. At least Jimmy Swaggart, in picking up prostitutes not even six miles from my home, didn't blame me or deny what he had been doing and ruin other people's lives in the process. --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 14:08, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:*I don't think you'd see him preaching homosexuality is ok because he doesn't believe it. From what I could tell, his preaching matched his beliefs. Some of the most vehement anti-smoking people I know with messages of 'don't ever start' and 'I wish I could quit' are those who are hooked on cigarettes. And let's be honest here, the man was hardly Fred Phelps. Homosexuality isn't a once a week topic and it wasn't a major part of Haggard's weekly messages. I just read a 6 page interview that Christianity Today did with him in November 2005. Although it touched on a multitude of different issues and his views, the only mention of homosexuality was that Haggard supported the Court's decision in Lawrence v Texas to stay out of the private life of homosexuals. Hardly seems deceitful does it? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:21, 12 August 2007 (EDT) <br />
<br />
: Hoji, I agree that number 11 should be deleted for lack of significance. I didn't insert that item. Honestly, I don't think number 10 is significant enough either, but I tried not to be heavy-handed about this.<br />
<br />
: As to Haggard, it was a scandal but it was not "deceit" like the other examples. Maybe he was a hypocrite, but that is not "deceit" either. Perhaps the people who supported Haggard were deceived, but they are not significant in comparison to how the public was deceived in the other examples. By the way, I had never even heard of Haggard before the [[liberal]] media made this such a big deal just prior to the election. Adding Haggard to the list would require adding scores of [[liberals]] like Clinton, who pretended to have a good Christian marriage with Hillary, to the list too. That's not what this entry is about.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:03, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Every single example of deceict (except maybe that Dutch art forger) is of a liberal. Every time someone posts an example of conservative decption, it's deleated, with an explanation that it's a 'scandal' or a 'lie', but not 'deception.' Isn't is slightly deceptive to only include the deceit of one side of the political spectrum? Just my two cents. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:47, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Some [[liberals]] delight in [[deceit]], and they have succeeded in driving morality out of [[public schools]]. So it's not surprising that many major examples are about [[liberals]]. But I don't claim that "every single example" is about [[liberals]]. You seem to be drawing that conclusion.<br />
<br />
: Provide a [[conservative]] example of similar magnitude and it will remain there. But please don't simply post a scandal that is not really deceit, or an insignificant example.<br />
<br />
: Surely you don't expect [[deceit]] to occur as often by people who teach that it is wrong as those who don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:14, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::<s>Andy, your suggestion that all liberals practice and encourage deceit is utterly ridiculous. There are deceitful Christians, and there are deceitful conservatives. Many liberals are Christian, and many conservatives are as well. But to conflate "liberal" with "some public schools" is a pretty far stretch.<br />
</s>::Regardless, I think the word "Watergate" sums up a very well-known example of conservative deceit. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 18:19, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Hoji, do you really expect [[deceit]] to be correlated precisely 50/50 among two very different groups, [[liberals]] and [[conservatives]]?<br />
<br />
::: Let's put this a different way. Do you think people who advocate legalizing drugs have a greater percentage of drug use than people who oppose legalizing drugs? Surely you don't think that correlation is a perfect 50/50 also. And if you agree that is unlikely to be evenly split, then why the claim that deceit must be evenly split also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::: The difference between your analogy and this situation is that both liberals and conservatives, by and large, teach that deceit is wrong. There aren't that many people out there (Christians, jews, muslims, atheists, agnostics, rastafarians, etc.) that actively advocate deceit. If I'm reading the analogy correctly (the drug-legalization advocates represent liberals, and the drug represents deceit), then this isn't congruent with the actual situation. And I've given two perfectly good examples of conservative deceit; I'm still waiting for a reply on the Watergate cover-up. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 19:43, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I'm still waiting for Hoji to take back his ''all liberals practice'' comment, which comes directly after Mr. Schlafly's ''Some [[liberals]] delight''. There's a big difference between [[some]] and [[all]], well known to all intellectuals and philosophers since the time of [[Aristotle]].<br />
<br />
After you take that back, we can progress to your next error. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:52, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I formally retract my "all liberals practice" comment. It still seems that great lengths are being taken to keep conservatives off the list. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 19:54, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Hoji, how about this: people who support gun control are less likely to own guns than people who support the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Agree with that? If so, then why so much protest over a similar statement about deceit? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:33, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Delete==<br />
Since I apparently shouldn't use the <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki> stub on the main page for whatever reason, I'm going to voice my opinion here that this article is counter-productive and should be deleted and re-created without bias. As it is now, it is a shining example of pure and simple hatred. Disgusting. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]]<br />
<br />
*The above post is a shining example of useless posts. What, specifically in the article do you object to, "Doctor"? Is there some specific fact or citation you dispute? That would be helpful, and better than just a statement of opinion backed by nothing. Sort of like if I said your post was the work of a bitter, Liberal troll who is full of [[deceit]] and [[Liberal Bias]] without pointing to specifics. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 14:15, 14 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Any article that has considerable ongoing activity should not just be stamped with <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki> without any other comment. We try to make extensive use of the talk pages to discuss thoughts and recommendations for improvement. It is also customary to put new commentary on the bottom, not on the top. Thank you [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:10, 14 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Environmental hoaxes and hogwash==<br />
<br />
Should we list or link to [[global warming]], [[ozone depletion]], etc.? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:19, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Do you really think such a large body of people made up a scientific theory to deliberately trick people? Thats the real question you should be asking. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:22, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I believe to be deceitful you would have to show that those who push GW, OD, etc are lying about it. Perhaps *some* pushers are being deceitful, but it's not a strong enough case to call all of them deceitful. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 19:23, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Right, that's the question. Is it a "hoax" if the people promoting it actually believe it? I would not apply the work ''hoax'' to anything other than a falsehood promoted by people who know it to be false, e.g., the theory that [[crop circles]] are mysterious, possibly supernatural or 'alien' phenomena. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:25, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Well some people can really buy into those crop circles! I mean, some farmers have seen a lot of green that way... Anyway, I don't believe GW or Ozone depletion to be a hoax. I can see how people might conclude that its a flawed science, but certainly not a hoax? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:37, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I appreciate your input; it's good advice. I'll start a category for flawed science instead, maybe. Or how about [[:Category:Junk science]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:39, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:wow wow wow, thats not what I'm advising at all. How would you then go on to define a junk science? Would you base it on a flawed methodology in collecting evidence, or simply that the conclusions do not meet the answers you want them to meet? I think that is at the heart of this sort of debate. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:45, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::CP is way ahead of you: [[Junk science]] ;) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:47, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Graham, I think "junk science" is generally the promotion of a finding as "scientific" or "unscientific" based purely upon whether - as you said - its conclusions support the answers (or views) you want to promote.<br />
<br />
Like, if you want to ban smoking in public places because (a) you personally hate the smell of the smoke or the dizzy feeling you get when you inhale a whiff or (b) you want to make other people take better care of their health - but you say that [[secondhand smoke]] is dangerous to others even if this is not supported by the evidence - then you are engaging in junk science. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:58, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I'm not sure hoax fits. A hoax has to be perpetrated by someone, but who's doing the perpetrating if not the scientists? There's also a rather high burden of proof to fit it into junk sceince, as you point out. I'm not sure we can yet match that burden. ''Politicians'', on the other hand, would fall into your pattern of "X is dangerous even if not supported by the evidence." I don't believe for one minute that scientists are engaging in any sort of this behavior, but politicians, not being educated in the material, certainly can; they don't have the technical background to know if their conclusions are supported by the evidence. In addition, it's a hot-button issue right now; I wouldn't be surprised if some of the politicians pushing global warming hysteria really don't believe it but just want the votes. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 20:15, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Reversion explained ==<br />
<br />
Maestro, your edits injected liberal bias, like the phone "separation of church and state" which is a liberal fiction. Your other edits also deserved reversion. Adhere to our [[rules]], please. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:43, 1 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Okay, what didn't you like? The fact that I mention deceit was forbidden by Islamic law? Or the way I corrected a now untrue statement about Wikipedia (they now mention in their article that the drawings are 'allegedly fraudulent'). As the article stands, it says something untrue about Wikipedia. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:46, 1 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I read your explanation, and I still don't get it. How is mentioning Islam a liberal bias? And liberal or not, the Wikipedia embryo article simply does not say what this article claims anymore. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:48, 1 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Please don't discuss a content page here. The talk pages for each content page are for that purpose. Take your comments over to [[Talk:Deceit]] and I'll respond there. But don't omit how you inserted the [[liberal]] fiction "separation of church and state," as I noted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:52, 1 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Here you go. I won't argue about church and state, and I know that mentioning Wikipedia in a less negative sense than before raises hackles here, but Islam? I'm still stumped as to how that breaks the rules. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:56, 1 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Didn't Mohammed break his peace treaty with the Jewish tribes and attack them? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:08, 1 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Your comment about [[Islam]] seemed unsupported and motivated by [[political correctness]]. Your statement about [[Wikipedia]] seemed false since the entry had the date of the [[liberal]] falsehood on [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:32, 1 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Well, it's your site, your rules. I was simply trying to show how universal the rule for honesty is (and I backed it up with a quote from the Koran), but, like I said, it's your ballgame. Allah Akbar. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 20:46, 1 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Maestro, if you can give an exact quote from the Koran about that outlawing of deceit, then that would definitely make it supported. If so, why not add it to the article? [[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 15:23, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Once bitten, twice shy, friend. Apparently my edits were a 'pile of manure' (see below)[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Maestro, you dumped the entire 2nd Sutra, which, after doing a search, doesn't even use the word deceit. What verse do you feel makes this point? And how does this correspond with Mohammed's later actions? You also included it along with a number of other alterations such as the "Constitutional Separation of Church and State". Guess what, if there's a rose in the middle of a pile of manure, it still gets thrown out. No one is going to do your cleaning for you. Present a polished product on its own merits and if it doesn't stick, then voice your complaints. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:25, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Are we still arguing about this? I said above that you won. Drop it already.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Heading edit==<br />
<br />
Hi. I changed a sentence in the opening header that mentions conservatives actively fighting deceit, while liberals purposely spread/encourage it. It now reads: <br />
<br />
"Both Conservatives and Liberals at large consider deceit wrong and actively fight it, but there are claims that Liberals are more guilty of deceit than Conservatives."<br />
<br />
I feel this is more accurate, as the original statemend suggested that each and every Liberal and Conservative were thus branded. My quote sorta smacks of overt political correctness, though, and if anybody has a better idea, please suggest/change it. [[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 14:15, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Wonderful! They'll never allow it. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::You're right. They didn't. Good call! Now, to whomever made the edit, I posit this: one of the Conservapedia Commandments says that everything must be true and verifiable. Now to make such a sweeping statement that the "huge majority" of Liberals actively practise deceit suggests that you have numbers or a study supporting your claims. So, please cite your work. And an "examples of bias in Wikipedia" doesn't count, because WP doesn't represent liberals at large.<br />
<br />
::Also, just nitpicking here, but the way you changed the sentence makes it so it doesn't make any sense. But since I got scolded for trying to change the article, I'll leave it up to a sysop or something.[[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 19:31, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::TK (an admin) edited it. Such talk will ban you. But I agree, if this 'encyclopedia' is going to be anything more then a joke to the majority of the non-American-conservative world (which is about 99.1 percent of the planet), they're going to have to find a balance in their edits.--[[User:Mircofixit|Mircofixit]] 22:12, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== How we differ from Wikipedia ==<br />
<br />
{{cquote|We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.}}<br />
<br />
The above section is quoted from the current version of [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]. Under that light, I find it extremely odd to see the claims ''"Conservatives and a very small minority of liberals consider deceit wrong and actively fight it, and there is substantial evidence that liberals are more guilty of deceit than conservatives."'' being backed up by a conservative ''commentary'' and a conservative ''column''. Also factoring in here is the hilarious issue of backing up a completely liberal-bashing claim with only conservative opinion pieces. For what it's worth, the reference might as well read "Because we say so".<br />
<br />
This is exactly what the above difference with Wikipedia is about: You postulate an opinion as a fact (and even claim there is "substantial evidence") and then just cite conservative journalists/bloggers/commentators/columnists (or whatever they want to call themselves) who voice their opinion. And look at how unbiased they are: "So the left, led by the slimy Media Matters organization, began a counterattack using the liberals’ favorite weapon – the lie."<br />
<br />
Fact is: The claims ("Conservatives and small minority of liberals fight it" and "evidence that liberals are more guilty") are practically impossible to prove because they're incredibly broad and would require measurements that are impossible to perform without asking God to take a look into his divine logs.<br />
<br />
I could claim that it's exactly the other way around while citing MoveOn and Mr. Colbert, and the claim would be exactly as valid as the one we got in terms of relying on authority and good sources.<br />
<br />
Right now, the claim should be severely rephrased to make it clear that this is an ''opinion of some conservatives''. Everything else would be pure irony: Deceit on the article about deceit. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:00, 6 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Okay, I've waited several days for voices of disagreement. Considering that nobody objected, I implemented a change of the form "X claims Y" to point out that the sources are biased opinion pieces instead of authority. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 11:33, 11 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::It's funny how my talk page proposal stays up here for almost a week without anybody objecting, but the edit doesn't even remain intact for ten minutes.<br />
::The claim is impossible to prove, and it's broad to the degree of being opinion (or worse: fiction). Backing it up with conservative opinions only shows that there are actually conservatives aside from the author of the claim who believe this.<br />
::Looking at the other end of the spectrum, I'm sure that there are liberal columnists and commentators who argue that there is evidence of conservatives being more deceitful. Should I cite them as authority as it is being done with conservative columnists? No, I don't think so. Opinion pieces don't become authority just because you agree with them. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:03, 11 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::: First of all, it is a sourced claim, and what would you expect, offcourse those are conservative facts that this is based on, good luck on getting liberals to admit their deceits, and while it says "conservatives" instead of "some conservatives" it offcourse just means that most of conservatives see it this way, not necesarily all, just like you would say that Liberals are pro abortion alltho there might be some liberals who dont't feel that way. I think your addition should be reverted, in current form it sounds silly. [[User:ConanO|ConanO]] 12:39, 11 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::There is a claim and there are sources, but that doesn't make a sourced claim. The sources (a conservative commentary and a conservative column) show that there are conservatives who make certain claims.<br />
::::#That conservatives consider deceit wrong.<br />
::::#*That one is not overly bold in itself, assuming that this is just about "most" conservatives.<br />
::::#That merely an "overwhelmingly small minority of liberals consider deceit wrong".<br />
::::#*How do you prove such a claim? Are there polls? Did they ask a thousand liberals if they considered deceit to be wrong? Or maybe somebody made a statistic?<br />
::::#That "there is substantial evidence that liberals are more guilty of deceit than conservatives"<br />
::::#*The killer. A claim that there is evidence, but where is the evidence? Where do the sources present evidence?<br />
::::The problem with the sources is that they simply make bold claims and attacks themselves while showcasing select examples, quite likely with their own spin to them. Okay, sure, that's what comments and columns are free to do, I figure, but that doesn't change that these are ''opinions'', not authority. For bold claims like these, we need the latter, not the former.<br />
::::Here, let me illustrate my point with "The Conservative Voice" source from our paragraph in question. Would you seriously put this into CP's [[Liberal]] article:<br />
{{cquote|Today's liberals are intellectual terrorists who try to destroy free speech. Instead of fairness, facts, and logic, they use lies and personal attacks to attack those who want to exercise their Freedom of Speech.[http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/27429.html]}}<br />
::::See? A claim and a source. However, it simply repeats opinion as fact and thus doesn't belong into an encyclopedia article. The source is not authority, and there are no facts given to back his claims and accusations. It's a "Because he said so" situation.<br />
::::You said it yourself: It's highly unlikely that thousands of liberals suddenly step forward and admit that they used deceit. Likewise, it's unlikely that thousands of conservatives would do that. What does this mean? Liberals deny their deceit while conservatives don't use deceit? Both sides deny it? Liberals don't do it, but conservatives deny it? Neither side uses it? That's what I meant when I said that the claim is practically impossible to prove in the form that had been there. You can give examples for either side using deceit, and you can point at people who agree with the claim, but you can't make calls like "that side does it more" based on this. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:19, 11 October 2007 <br />
(EDT)<br />
==Read My Lips==<br />
<br />
How about Bush, Sr's, famous 'Read my lips, no new taxes' pledge while campaigning, only to raise taxes as president? Surely that was decption? [[User:Monitor|Monitor]] 13:00, 8 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Do you have evidence that he was intending tax hikes when he was campaigning as opposed to shifting policies to deal with new fiscal realities? [[User:Dewey|Dewey]] 13:02, 8 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
As a former vice president, director of the CIA, and ambassador, I'm pretty sure that he was aware that fiscal realities can change. He was also aware that Americans wanted a candidate who would promise not to lower taxes, something Dukakis was not willing to promise. Bush looked America in the eye and said he wouldn't raise taxes. This helped him get elected. I'm sure it didn't make him happy when he was forced to raise them, but he was not a dumb man. He promised 'no new taxes,' while he was well aware they might be required. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:55, 8 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
So then your answer is "no." [[User:Dewey|Dewey]] 18:03, 8 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Right, Dewey. After Bush made that promise, the [[Democrats]] who controlled [[Congress]] becamed determined to force Bush to break the promise. That's not deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 8 November 2007 (EST)<br />
:Do you have evidence that congress was determined to force Bush to break the promise, or was this an example of 'shifting policies to deal with new fiscal realities' if I may quote? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 07:35, 9 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Haeckel fraud exposed by Behe &Jonathan Wells in 2000 ==<br />
<br />
It appears it is likely that the Haeckel fraud was exposed to the general public by the New York Times in 2000 vis a vis Michael Behe. It also appears as if Stephen Jay Gould was not happy Gould did this. However, I do know also that [[Jonathan Wells]] also exposed the fraud to the public with his publication of the book Icons of Evolution in 2000. Please see: http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf It appears though the scientists knew it earlier:<br />
:Adam Sedgwick, 1894<br />
:William Garstang, 1922<br />
:Gavin de Beer, 1958<br />
:William Ballard, 1976<br />
:Stephen J. Gould, 1977<br />
:Richard Elinson, 1987<br />
:Jane Oppenheimer, 1987<br />
:Michael Richardson, 1995<br />
:Stephen J. Gould, 2000 [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/wells_and_haeckels_embryos.php]<br />
<br />
So it appears as if the deceit article is errant and the NYT or Wells exposed the fraud to the general public in 2000 unless the author of the Dec 2000/Jan 2001 article is referring to 1999 which is doubtful. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 9 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Broken source link==<br />
Source #6 is a dead link and needs to be updated or removed, even so it appears to be a transcript from a talk show which is not an ideal source, actual data is preferred. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 17:47, 17 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
==I am officially leaving this website after reading this==<br />
<br />
As the title would suggest, I am leaving this website because of this article, but not exclusively so. This article is an example of mindless hatred, lack of understanding and common human decency towards those of opposite political persuasions. You claim to be Christian Conservatives - do you even know what it means to be a Christian? Honestly, some of you would prefer spending time at a rally denying basic rights to homosexuals than time spent in a homeless shelter. I will pray for the makers of this article, and will continue to pray for the poor souls who get caught up in your immoral (Amoral) propaganda. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Usually the [[Parthian Shots]] do better than that, "ModerateCatholic". For example, usually disgruntled users cite something more specific than vague rants. But suit yourself, and please use your real first name if and when you return. May I recommend [[liberal]] [[Wikipedia]] for you in the meantime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 28 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
I will pray for you especially, you poor misguided soul. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:P.S- Is the use of the term 'Parthian Shots' a way and means for you to divert accountability for your crimes? Throwing around the term 'Liberal Wikipedia' is another example of your uncontrollable hatred. There will be a home for you in the fiery pits of hell, unless you repent. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
ModCath seems to be a poorly executed caricature. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:41, 21 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Pathetic Rubbish ==<br />
<br />
There is absolutely no reason for the continued inclusion of this tripe in the article:<br />
<br />
{{cquote|[[Deceit]] plays a central role promoting the [[liberal]] belief system with the public, as illustrated by most examples below. Many [[liberals]] promote [[deceit]] if it advances their goals.}}<br />
<br />
It adds nothing, and is symptomatic of an abject failure to be able to make any points besides unsubstantiated insults. The insistence of even lower-echelon editors attempting to retain it is simply servile sycophancy. Material such as this reflects abominably upon this site, and unless you desire to demonstrate that this reflection is, in fact, not simply illusory, but indicative of a reality, I suggest that it be removed. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 22:46, 29 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
: "SimonA" (unlikely your real name), obviously many [[liberals]] do use [[deceit]] to advance their goals, and they are very good at it. The entry here on [[deceit]] provides numerous important examples of this. There is no doubting these examples. They were perpetrated by [[liberals]]. Feel free to try to fool users of [[Wikipedia]], but we're not fooled here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 29 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::I think Simon's point is that disingenuous people from all over the political spectrum have used deceit to achieve their goals - for every Stalin, there is a Hitler; for every Castro there is a Bush. Singling out 'liberals' as predisposed liars does not make for a particularly instructive exercise. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 01:03, 25 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: The point is simple: A: A list compiled by an encyclopædia that bills itself as "Conservapedia" is unlikely to contain any information that would be particularly damaging to Conservatives, ergo, the list here is not valid evidence. B: A list of 13, perhaps dubious, examples of deceit perpetrated by liberals is not sufficient evidence for a generalization of the type made, especially given the fact that the examples pertain only to an extremely small subset of the liberal population. C: Compiling a list of 13 examples of conservative deceit would not be particularly difficult. Would such a production be valid to make a generalization stating that deceit was necessary in conservative propaganda? The answer is obvious.<br />
<br />
:: The point is that such a passage is the argumentative equivalent of kicking someone in a sensitive area. I see no reason why it should not be removed. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 23:16, 29 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: Many [[liberals]] don't even accept the [[Ten Commandments]], let alone think that [[deceit]] is wrong to advance their goals. You couldn't come close to 13 examples of significant [[deceit]] advanced -- and embraced -- by [[conservatives]]. Note how many of the examples of [[liberal]] [[deceit]] continued to be embraced by other [[liberals]] who recognized the [[deceit]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:27, 29 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: "Many [[liberals]] don't even accept the [[Ten Commandments]], let alone think that [[deceit]] is wrong to advance their goals." Entirely tangent. I'm sure many conservatives don't, as well.<br />
:::: And I'm sure that I could. You would just have to look at Jack Chick's web site to get about 10. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 23:31, 29 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Andy,<br />
<br />
My point, as well as Simon's here is that there are 'bad people' on both sides of the spectrum. With this list you are childishly saying 'Liberals are bad, Conservatives are good'. Deceit exists all over the spectrum, from people of faith to none, and from Liberals to Conservatives. Your 'examples' are taken from a tiny minority of high profile Liberals, but if someone were to add a conservative example (Such as the homosexual senator who was rampantly anti-gay rights but did things to men in toilets) you would call it, 'Liberal Lies' or whatever. Again, as I have said before, I will pray for you. You really are a unfortunate misguided soul. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:01, 31 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
P.S- Where I come from the labels 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' are meaningless. Politics is not motivated by ideology whatsoever - all parties are pragmatic centralists. Calling me Liberal as a result of ''disagreeing with you'' is not only intellectual cowardice its simply rude. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:02, 31 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
: You're wrong. [[Liberals]] often reject the [[Ten Commandments]], and [[liberals]] use [[deceit]] far more than [[conservatives]] do. The list proves it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:04, 31 December 2007 (EST)<br />
:: Ah. I'm sorry, I thought ModerateCatholic offered a compelling argument based on everyday experience and the last two hundred years of history. Thanks for the heads-up. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 01:10, 25 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
The list doesn't prove anything! This is like talking to a ten year old child, honestly. Just keep your hands firmly around your ears and don't allow anything to get in other than stuff you completely and utterly agree with. Thank God I've more faith in the American people, because you would make me hate my own kind. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:13, 31 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
: About 90% of your edits are talk, talk, talk, in the typical [[liberal style]]. You're in violation of our [[rules]] and your petty namecalling pollutes the site. Last chance for you to convey some knowledge here. Use it or goodbye.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:23, 31 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:OK then. Can you please explain to me the logical basis for your entry in this article? Why have you not included isolated examples of conservative deceit also? Its anti-Academic to do what you have done. 'Typical Liberal Style' - Why don't you grow up. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 10:15, 31 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Liberals and Deceit==<br />
<br />
The sentence at the beginning of the article, saying that liberals engage in deceit but not mentioning conservatives, implies that only liberals deceive. This is clearly absurd, and the "references" seem to be opinion pieces by conservatives. I am new to this website, but I don't see how this article can possibly be useful... isn't this saying that conservatives never deceive, which is clearly not true? I edited this, but someone changed it back without replying to what I said when I changed it.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:18, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:Don't remove sections of this article because you disagree with them. Remember, this is a conservative site and you're not allowed to change it to a NPOV. This is not Wikipedia. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 02:26, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::I'm sorry, as I said, I am new. I thought people were supposed to edit in factual information from a conservative viewpoint, which makes sense to me. But you didn't address what I said... do you think the assertion in the article is true, that only liberals deceive? I am a conservative, and I am not perfect... I am sure I have deceived someone at some point. Haven't you? This article doesn't seem informative really, but more like just an attack. Am I misunderstanding something?--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:31, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:::This article is not about me or other conservatives. This article is about liberals who deceive and the examples are very informative. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 02:38, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::::I would understand that, but it's just called "deceit", not "liberal deceit", right? Is there some portion of the code or something that I screwed up? It looks like it's just "deceit."--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:45, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::::You locked the page without replying. It seems like you're actively trying to keep the page this way, but can't really defend the assertion that only liberals deceive. I came to this site because I was not interested in the little vendettas and biases on Wikipedia, but I guess now I see that there is good reason for Wikipedia policies... I regret having helped make a new article with a substantive nature here before discovering that you guys are only interested in being just as bad as the liberals.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 21:32, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::: Nobody said that ''only'' [[liberals]] deceive, but the [[liberal]] ideology does permit and encourage deceit. Regardless, I've unlocked the page for you but will re-protect it if edits do not comply with the [[rules]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:38, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::::::My point was that there was an obvious implication by only naming liberals. It would be like saying Saudi Arabians attacked the two towers on 9-11, without mentioning the other nationalities. The implication is one of exclusivity. But thank you for unlocking it, I am glad that we're interested in being unbiased and not pulling a "lib" :)--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 21:41, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Well, [[liberals|who]] do you think are the ones always engaging in [[deceit]]? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 02:53, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::::Except that, as I mentioned earlier, it seems pretty silly to claim only liberals deceive. Conservatives are only human too, even if in general more level-headed. I mean, take the recent sex scandals in the House. There was one Republican with pretty good policies who was hitting on a congressional page. I don't remember his name, but that was fairly strong evidence of deceit. I think he had a wife! So I mean, obviously conservatives sometimes deceive, but this article implies that only liberals do. We want to be conservative, but not just LIE, right?--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:00, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
It was Mark Foley, a Republican in the House.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:...but do you see any examples of [[conservative]] [[deceit]] on this page? Why do you think that is? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 03:19, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::I don't understand. Are you implying that the page IS an example of conservative deceit? If that is the case, I respectfully have to state that I think that is a very poor decision, to knowingly deceive impressionable young people who might go to this page. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:24, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::No, I was just speculating is all. Draw whatever conclusions you like from the article. Also: in general, be careful. You wouldn't want accused to be accusing Conservapedia of [[deceit]], because that is a very [[deceit|deceitful]], [[liberal]] thing to do! [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::::But I think Conservapedia IS being deceitful, and I'm not a liberal! This is absurd! It's like an article on cyanide stating, "Liberals have often used cyanide as a murder tool", without mentioning conservatives... the clear implication is that liberals either use cyanide or murder, not conservatives. This is just silly... God created man as imperfect, to declare otherwise is simply hubris and pagan. I am going to change it.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 18:48, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
(undent) Interesting discussion! I have just come across the [[Deceit]] page for the first time, and found such an obviously absurd suggestion that it is only liberals who deceive that I felt moved to change it. Which I did, before I came to this page! I see I am not the only one who thinks the wording was silly. Do yourselves/us/your readers a favor, and don't take us for complete idiots. It is patently absurd to suggest that liberals have a monopoly on deceit. By all means use liberal examples, in tune with the proudly acknowledged Conservapedia viewpoint, but don't make the site laughable by appearing to say that only liberals deceive. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:46, 22 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Piltdown Man ==<br />
<br />
Piltdown Man was indeed a deceit, but the continued use of it as an example in the teaching of evolution was not. It was a mistake made by the ''victims'' of the deceit, not a continuation of the deceit by the ''deceivers''. The statement that "evolutionists continued this deceit for decades" is seriously misleading and should be deleted or amended. I suggest a rewrite as follows:<br /><br />
<br />
The [[Piltdown Man]] was a fraudulent "Missing Link" taught to an entire generation of students worldwide from 1912 to 1953 as "proof" that man had evolved from an ape-like species. <s>Darwinists officially declared</s> The Piltdown Man <font color=red>was declared</font> to be authentic and <s>gave it</s> <font color=red>given</font> a formal name: ''Eoanthropus dawsoni,'' in honor of the person who claimed to have found it, Charles Dawson. The British scientific establishment largely supported the validity of Piltdown Man.<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/tenness5.html</ref> But the Piltdown Man was actually a medieval skull combined with a lower jaw from an orangutan and teeth from a chimpanzee, which were then placed in a gravel pit in the village of Piltdown, England. There are reports that as early as 1914 someone at the British Museum privately admitted that "a negro skull and a broken ape jaw" had been "artificially fossilized."<ref>http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_prim_suspects/KEITH/Keith_prosecution/piltdown_unmasked.html</ref> <s>Yet evolutionists continued this deceit</s> <font color=red>Yet this fraud maintained currency</font> for decades, <s>teaching it</s> in textbooks (e.g., the text at issue in the [[Scopes trial]] in 1925) <s>and publicizing it</s> <font color=red> as well as</font> in popular books and magazines (e.g., a 1922 book for the general market illustrated the daily life of the Piltdown Man). <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC02561355&id=L0sDgL6sPh4C&pg=RA1-PR51 ''Everyday Life in the Old Stone Age''], Charles Henry Bourne Quennell, 1922, p. 51.</ref><br />
<br />
: What is the specific part of it you propose changing, and why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:20, 28 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Reasons as stated. Proposed changes as shown above. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 09:42, 28 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Interested, but not surprised, to see that my correction of the inaccuracy in the article has been swiftly reverted. I take it, then, that you disagree with my point that the perpetation of the fraud was an error, not a deliberate deceit! I tried to raise it here, and when nobody disagreed with me I thought perhaps I might be so bold... I should clearly have known better! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:04, 29 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: I didn't revert your change, and apologize for not responding here sooner. I don't see how you can disagree with my changes. Large-scale deceit always has perpetrators and accomplices, plus [[deliberate ignorance]]. Surely you don't doubt that the [[Piltdown Man]] had all three among [[evolution]]ists?!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:15, 29 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::Well, yes, I do doubt that - but I am well aware that I won't win any such argument in this forum, so I'll leave it at that! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 15:20, 29 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::: [[Logic]] is welcome here, Humblpi. It's a bit of cop-out for someone to say (as we often hear) that he can't win. If you make a logical argument, you will win here. But there is no logic in insisting that the crude fraud of the [[Piltdown Man]] was somehow not perpetrated by [[evolutionists]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 29 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::::You accuse me of "insisting that the crude fraud of the [[Piltdown Man]] was somehow not perpetrated by evolutionists." That is not what I said. Of course the Piltdown fraud was perpetrated by "evolutionists". My point is that the ''perpetuation'' of that fraud was not a plot (and therefore not directly a deceit) but an ''error''. Those who committed the initial fraud were guilty of deceit; those who perpetuated it were not - they were ''victims'' of the fraud, not perpetrators of it. That's all, and I suggested a small change to the article to make that clearer. But you have seen fit to change it back to a twisted version of the truth. It's your website. I leave it there. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 15:54, 29 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Reversion explained ==<br />
<br />
The list is [[deceit]]. They are mostly [[liberal]] but that's not our fault. If you have comparable examples of [[deceit]] accepted and promoted by [[conservatives]], then let's see them here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:54, 1 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
What would be the point , you`l only revert them .--[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 09:06, 1 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: That's called a "cop-out". If you have examples, let's see them here. If you don't, please don't pretend otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:13, 1 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
But lets be serious your not actually suggesting that conservatives have never been deceitfull have you. What about president nixon. Is he not deceitful. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 13:28, 1 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Former President Nixon was not a conservative, and it is an affront to suggest that. Nixon was a Keynesian (A soft term to describe a socialist) who radically increased spending on social programmes and 'normalised' relations with communist nations. He was a Liberal. [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 11:15, 2 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: That's right. By 1972 -- before [[Nixon]]'s cover-up of [[Watergate]], [[conservatives]] were so opposed to Nixon that [[conservatives]] actually tried to defeat him in the [[Republican]] primary by backing [[John Ashbrook]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:24, 2 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
SO , the fact of the matter is that he was still a deceitful person, so therefore we should include it. His behaviour was deceitful , he is deceitful , you cant change that. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:10, 2 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Oh yes thats it any conservative that commits deceit is actually a liberal , lol , therefore it becomes liberal deceit, it doesnt even matter , as the topic is called deciet its ok to but nixon their. People can decide for themselves weither or not he is a liberal. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:13, 2 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:To some degree that's actually true - since [[conservative]]s, and especially Christian conservative values, adheres more to the moral principles of the Bible that explicitly forbids deceit, then one who deceives is not acting like a true conservative would. [[Liberal]]s, on the other hand, does not even seem to try to maintain a moral code.<br />
:Nevertheless, slandering Nixon is inappropriate for this page. Just because it is true does not make it relevant here. [[User:Hammet|Hammet]] 19:25, 2 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Enron... Nixon... ==<br />
<br />
I can hardly think of two more obvious examples of deceit. Why do Nixon and Enron get removed? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 11:44, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
:I suppose that, as explained above, they're not really ''true'' conservatives. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 12:57, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::For that matter, shouldn't people like [[Jim & Tammy Bakker]] and [[Jimmy Swaggart]] be added to the list? I would have thought they are prime examples of deceit. I'm sure there's more, but those are the only two that come to mind right now.[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 13:46, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
:::IIRC, the made mistakes and were repentant for those errors. [[Liberals]] deny that they have sinned, and deny their [[deceit]]. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 13:51, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
The [[deceit]] in this list is typically ''embraced'' deceit, and run-of-the-mill political lies or fraud are not included.<br />
<br />
Keep trying, guys, but you'll have to look a very long time to find just one example of embraced deceit by a [[conservative]] against the numerous examples of [[liberal]] deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:59, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
:Nixon said, "I am not a crook," and defended his own deceit. How is that not "embraced"? Enron executives maintained their innocence all the way through the trial. How are they not similarly embracing deceit? Perhaps your definition of "embraced deceit" is such a moving target as to become meaningless.-'''<font color="#CC0000">α</font><font color="#A0A0A0">m</font><font color="#0099FF">ε</font><font color="#003399">σ</font>''' <small>[[User_talk:AmesG | (advocate)]]</small> 14:08, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::So by your own definition ("The [[deceit]] in this list is typically ''embraced'' deceit, and run-of-the-mill political lies or fraud are not included.") Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell et al are guilty of deceit, given the way they fervently embraced (and haven't repented for) the deceit surrounding Weapons of Mass Destruction? It's a bit disingenuous to tweak the definition every time a name crops up that you wouldn't like to see in the list. Likewise, I can't see how Reagan's deceit surrounding Iran-Contra can be classed as run-of-the-mill political lies. That also seems to imply that you're willing to accept a politician who lies to you, in a run of the mill way?[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 15:28, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: Perhaps you also think it was [[deceit]] for Bush to claim to have won the 2000 election?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: Why would I think that? True, it did get messy before the final result was announced, but that was as much Gore's fault as anything. At the end of the day the candidate with the most votes won, fair and square. Now, snide remarks aside, shall we get back on topic?[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 15:51, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::: Uh oh, you'd better watch yourself, or you won't have any [[liberal friendship|liberal friends]] any more. ''Gore won the most votes, not Bush!''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:03, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
<-- Steering back on track, we have two examples that need to be considered:<br />
* Nixon stating "I am not a crook" and then defending this statement<br />
* Bush stating there were WMD's without evidence, and continuing this belief<br />
<br />
I know nothing about the first, and not as much as others about the second. As for Bush winning the 2000 election, this has nothing to do with deceit, and instead with the American election system. Bush did not win because he lied about the outcome. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 16:08, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Bush still claims he won in 2000. Some liberals would say this deceit has been going on for nearly 8 years. Do you think we should include that also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Of course not. He won. No deceit involved. Whereas Nixon clearly exemplifies "embraced deceit". I now understand why Enron has been deleted, given that it was a case of simple deceit in the form of theft, not an attempt to influence people's political opinions etc. But surely Nixon... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:20, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Bush ''did'' win in 2000, even though he still got less votes the way the American political system is structured allowed him to claim victory. While some extreme leftists may view this as deceit, others view it as a reason to change rather than an example of a blatant lie. I don't think anyone here is actually claiming Bush winning the election was an example of deceit, perhaps we could concentrate on the two issues others have raised. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 16:22, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: OK, then why the obsession with Nixon? Clinton lied and was impeached. We haven't included him, why do you think there was [[embraced deceit]] by Nixon that is so much stronger than Clinton's?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::(speaking just for myself, obviously) - I am not obsessed with Nixon, but he was once mentioned on the site and was deleted, and I queried the reason for that deletion. As far as I am aware (I haven't checked all the page history) Clinton has never made an appearance here. I am arguing against the removal of Nixon, not against the addition of Clinton. Adding Clinton might indeed be appropriate, for sure. And no doubt many other politicians of all political hues and persuasions. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:32, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::::Any standard used on Nixon would create a horde of politicians who could be included as well. The key is to find behavior that is out of the ordinary so as to set the actions of the individual apart from his peers. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:44, 9 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
You all seem to be forgetting something. The list says deceit, therfore any1 can be put on it including nixon. If you want it to only be an article on liberals have the guts to call it liberal deceit. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:57, 10 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I seem to recall it used to be called [[Liberal deceit]], but they changed it because some vandals and malcontents kept saying there should be an article for [[Conservative deceit]]. They failed to understand that [[Real Conservatives]] never lie. It's just that occasionally their true statements are non-operative in the reality-based community world at this point in time fnord. <br />
:I've taken the liberty of adding [[Scooter Libby]] to the list. If a conviction for perjury doesn't qualify as Deceit, I'm curious what does. (oh, yeah--ANYTHING a Liberal says.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 12:42, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Not all convictions are necessarily just, and this one was particularly controversial. You are right however that perjury qualifies as deciet. However, I think it is best to stick to more widely accepted examples. I'm moving the scooter libby example to the talk page for further discussion. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] <sub>[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]</sub> 12:48, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Admittedly there are several other controversial examples on te page. I'll see what I can do about them. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] <sub>[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]</sub> 12:52, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
on second thought, the current examples are pretty good. However you may feel free to suggest any examples that you think are appropriate. Personaly I have nothing against exposing non-liberal deciet. I don't approve of deciet in general. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] <sub>[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]</sub> 13:00, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Umm, right ==<br />
<br />
This article is stupid. Instead of actually giving information about deceit it just lists heaps of people who are apparently evil liberal liars. Why not actually provide information (like encyclopedias should) rather than listing "examples".<br />
<br />
If the admins of this place want it to replace Wikipedia as the Internets main source of info, a good way to start would be to actually provide information. [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 22:28, 23 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Fred, try opening your mind a bit and recognize the well-documented cases of [[deceit]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:36, 23 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Ok, I would like to insult you for your supposedly "open minded" idea of deceit, but I won't.<br />
I'm just saying, rather than listing supposed cases of deciet, shoulden't an encyclopedia describe what deciet is and explain why and how it is used rather than just saying "all these things are eebul liberal lies!!11!" Examples are good, but they should not be the main part of an article on an encyclopedia. [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 22:07, 25 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
As no one's replying, can I assume its ok for me to start drafting a replacement article with more emphasis on explaining dicete rather than exposing "eebul liberal lies!!11!" [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 23:59, 5 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Scooter Libby== <br />
<br />
This example has been suggested. please discuss.<br />
<br />
# [[Scooter Libby]], convicted in court of Obstruction of Justice, Making a False Statement, and [Perjury]], for intentionally deceiving the grand jury about how he learned, and “disclosed to the media,” information about Valerie Plame Wilson’s employment by the CIA.<br />
<br />
::Yes, that's deceit all right! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:07, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::Sounds good to ME, but I'm the one who posted it, so I'm biased. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:36, 29 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: There is no end to the list if we start posting political figures. There were many convictions among Clinton cronies also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Examples of deceit==<br />
<br />
I realize that this page contains many true and valid example's of deciet, however i don't see how such a list is what we're looking for in an encyclopedia. I think this list has only proved itself a can of worms. I say we only include a description of what deciet is and perhaps one or to more classical examples of deciet such as ananias and saphira. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] <sub>[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]</sub> 13:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree. Large laundry lists don't belong in an encyclopedia. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:51, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Encyclopedia's and all reference works, can teach not only by defining a term, but showing it as well. There is an old rhyme about how a person would rather see a sermon, than hear one. By not only defining the term, but providing examples and comparisons, the job this ''conservative encyclopedia'' does is greatly improved, IMO. I do realize that to many in today's world, it seems "out of step" in a society where teaching "right" and "wrong" is held to be archaic. Remember fine counsel is often confused, but examples are always clear! --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 00:33, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::So you agree with Ben (and I) then? I think a few in-depth, well known examples would be much more beneficial to ''any encyclopedia'' that what we have now. Deceit is a pretty simple concept, why explain it with 15 examples? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:16, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: We disfavor deleting information unless a [[rule]] violation is identified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:44, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
HelpJazz, I was saying just the opposite of what you (apparently) were saying. That good examples, which actually demonstrate, are a far better learning aid than just a litany of "facts". I would note that it appears many are overly concerned, ''albeit perhaps a well intentioned concern'', with truncating articles in CP that are "uncomfortable" to some in their uncompromising examples of [[liberal deceit]]. We see that in many places today, a few seeking to redefine, blur or minimize anything that points out uncomfortable facts about the left, and liberals in particular. Why even a factual statement about liberal thinking is branded by some now as ''ad hominem arguments'', which seems to be a new phrase introduced to truncate any and all discussion or disagreement with liberals! --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 16:11, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I didn't say anything about being uncomfortable, liberal deceit, minimizing criticism of the left, or ad hominem arguments, so I'll just address the relevant portion of your post.<br />
:We are obviously both in agreement (along with Ben, who started this thread) that examples can help explain a concept. I love examples, and try to add them to new articles I create. But don't you agree that a couple of good, solid examples are better than a list of every example we can find? I think this is a more concise and more informative way to make an encyclopedia entry.<br />
:Deceit is a simple concept; at some point all these examples stop being about deceit and start being about denegrating those who are being used as examples (both liberals AND conservatives, as can be seen in the suggestion in the section below). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:00, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I think I have dealt with the latest twist in liberals trying to shut down discussion by claiming "ad hominem arguments" elsewhere. That argument (liberal fact) is rejected by conservatives outright, and as this is a conservative wiki, has no place here. If you need the link, I think I can find it. <br />
<br />
::As for the idea of using fewer examples, I think Andy Schlafly succinctly answered that no, removal of examples showing liberal deceit/bias is not favored. No caveats were provided, correct? I do however think such articles could stand formatting and stylistic improvement, making them easier to read, and highlighting salient points in an improved way. I stand ready to assist anyone wanting to improve Conservapedia's articles, by offering suggestions/examples/ideas as to what is acceptable to conservatives and what is not. Ed Poor, Karajou, Crocotite, Conservative, TerryH and Andy himself are a few others I know who are qualified to provide that information. If someone feels unfairly excluded, please forgive an older person a lapse in memory or familiarity with their work. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 18:18, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
=="The War in Iraq Is Going Well"==<br />
Isn't that a form of embraced deceit? It's clearly ''not'' going well, and yet the Bush administration refuses to backtrack from its original position, that the war would be and essentially was won in a matter of days. We all know that's false now. Why do they not come out and say it?-[[User:Historian|Historian]] 16:31, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Politics is filled with issues like that. There are just as many -- if not more -- examples on the Democratic side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:42, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::True. It's no secret that politics is dirty on all sides. But if your goal with this article is to prove that no conservatives ever embrace deceit, then, I think this example should be included. Feel free to stack in as many other examples of Democrats doing the same thing as you want.-[[User:Historian|Historian]] 16:55, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::So what? We don't let Charles Manson out of jail just because Pol Pot killed more people, and misdeeds by Democrats '''DO NOT EXCUSE misdeeds by Republicans'''. If you seriously want people to believe that Conservatives have higher moral standards than Liberals, then giving "your" "side" a free pass when they've verifiably done something egregious does not help your case. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 19:01, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::"Going well" as compared to what? The Iraq situation, as compared to the more rampant random violence of months ago, is going better. The "surge", whatever one wants to call it, has improved security, and has been admitted so doing by even former Generals and the like who opposed the war. So clearly saying that isn't a deceit, as measured by military experts, not civilians. Let's not intertwine arguments for or against the American police actions in going into Iraq, or the failings of the democratically elected government of Iraq, with the much narrower discussion about the "surge". And, I think someone needs to reaffirm what Andy just posted above: Someone citing what they believe to be a deceit, doesn't negate or disprove another. Therefore, the entire purpose of the post above, has no basis in logic, and appears to be yet another argumentative ''Red Herring'', something thrown out for just the sake of argument, when that is something more appropriate for a ''Discussion Group or Board'', but does nothing to add content to an encyclopedia project. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 19:24, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::there is a very large diffrence between going well, and going better. your argument is like saying that since someone in a hospital is dying slower, they are doing well. and the refrence point should be... compared to just after we won the actual war (with the army) in iraq-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:32, 23 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== "Public schools, in contrast, do not teach that deceit is wrong." ==<br />
<br />
I beg your pardon? Is there any evidence for this outrageous statement? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:The [[burden of proof]] is on you, and it should be a light one if you have an example in mind already. "I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Er, that's not true. The burden of proof lies upon the one who makes the statement, in this case [[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]].<br />
<br />
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 13:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:That's what I just said: H made the claim that the statement is outrageous and so the burden of proof is upon him. Do I have to make it a [[writing assignment]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::The burden of proof is on the person who posts the statement in the article, not on the one who queries it on a talk page. I refer you to Commandments #1 and #5 - the article should ''not be personal opinion'', and it should ''be verifiable''. So it's not me that needs the writing assignment. I agree that the word "outrageous" was an expression of my personal opinion, but that is expressly allowed on a talk page (Commandment #5). If it helps, though, I'll happily withdraw it: "Public schools, in contrast, do not teach that deceit is wrong." Is there any evidence for this <s>outrageous</s> statement? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:16, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::: BenjaminS claims it to be fact, AND since everything here must be VERIFIED, it is upon Benny to prove that his broad accusation has merit. As far as disproving it, I ask all public-school educated people to remember the time their first grade teacher taught them that lying is bad.<br />
:::PBS (PUBLIC broadcasting) does teach this with the help of the good monsters of Sesame Street (I remember it back when it used to be a good neighborhood). '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 13:22, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::Frankly, I prefer Ed's guideline. Not requiring proof of a factual assertion, and instead putting the burden on any naysayers to disprove a fact, will make writing articles much easier.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:00, 20 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::::Is that a joke? Seriously, that's the worst methodology I've ever heard of. I'm going to go start an entry about the real-life Mighty Morphin Power Rangers which live on another planet at the other end of the galaxy. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:37, 20 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: Aschafly, you've reverted Lib1089's deletion of the sentence without adding any additional information. This is made worse because he expressly cited Conservapedia's first commandment in his edit summary: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable". You've run roughshod over that. Please reconsider your edit and either revert it or add information that substantiates the claim. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:20, 5 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
This strikes me as a bit odd. Perhaps my public school system was more conservative than most, but we most certainly were taught that deceit was wrong. In an academic setting, that of course took the form of bans on plagiarism and cheating, which were expressly forbidden, as I imagine they are at most any public school. I would also think that some public schools have honor codes, much like the liberal elite universities all do, that stress honesty and integrity. Finally, there is no evidence that public schools specifically condone deceit, is there? [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 00:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I just removed that statement. I'm a bit new here but I'm assuming that a statement of that magnitude, not backed up with any references, is an act of vandalism. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 22:24, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Boris Johnson==<br />
Aschlalfy, you have twice reverted factual, sourced, material about Boris Johnson. Why? I didnt state he was conservative so you cant say I was trying to smear conservatives. You will notice his mistress had an abortion to rid themselves of a potentially embarrasing love child. How is this not deceit?<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:57, 2 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Al Gore ==<br />
Took this one out because there was no evidence of deceit, just factual inaccuracy. Gore botched more than a few facts in that film, but there's no reason to chalk that up to anything more than his incompetence. Although, if you can prove an intent to deceive, then by all means, please revert. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 00:00, 11 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Richard Nixon==<br />
Added a rather obvious example. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 22:26, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==M Scott Peck==<br />
I removed his book from the further reading list because it is not about deceit as such, but about psycopathy (Evil, in common parlance). [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 10:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Nixon, Libby, and Enron ==<br />
<br />
What specifically about those named above and their actions qualifies them as not being deceitful? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 12:50, 27 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: One-sided and opinionated examples of alleged deceit by a president or corporation do not have sufficient quality to be included in this high-quality entry, which typically consisted of significant, prolonged, embraced and admitted or proven deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:58, 27 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::I think Nixon's deceit was significant and prolonged. Libby was significant simply for being a high-profile person, and his deceit was prolonged. And Enron's deceit was very significant, costing hundreds of people their savings. All three had their deceit proven in one way or another. It's pretty deceitful to claim otherwise. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 13:03, 27 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:...is it because they're not liberal...? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:06, 27 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I was about to post here yesterday, but I had just added the entires in question back and [[User:Bugler]] blocked me for it. The answer is that yes, of course, you will find as you continue to edit this 'encyclopedia' that examples of conservative deceit are not allowed. What I recommend is browing the edit list of [[User:Aschlafly]]. He's the owner and founder and essentially disagreeing with him is a sin. If you like that idea feel free to stick around. <br />
:Off course, it's a blatant disregarding of the principles of Conservapedia (see [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Difers from Wikipedia]]) but hey, he's in charge. What are you going to do? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 19:42, 29 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Public school deceit==<br />
It's not a required course, but in "Journalism" students were taught about the evils of slander, deceit, and malice. <sub>your apathetic neighborhood public schooler</sub> [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 16:43, 27 June 2008 (EDT)</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Deceit&diff=484112Talk:Deceit2008-06-29T23:42:50Z<p>Daphnea: /* Nixon, Libby, and Enron */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Archives:''' [[/Archive 1|1]]<br />
<!-- <br />
============================================================================<br />
Place no content above this line! --><br />
<br />
==Examples== <br />
<br />
Do we really need this many examples of deciet? While I believe this website should present conservative values on every page, This particular page seems to be a huge political statement about how rotten the liberals are. honestly I don't think thats the best way to present conservative values. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] <sub>[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]</sub> 10:24, 11 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
==10 Commandments==<br />
I don't think the reference about removing the 10 Commandments from schools really shows that you're going for. The decision was to remove any physical depiction of the 10 Commandments, which has nothing to do with whether morals are taught in schools. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:20, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: "Nothing to do with morals are taught in schools"? You can't be serious. That's like saying "2+2=4" has nothing with whether "2+3=5". If the Ten Commandments can't be on the wall, then they can't be taught for [[normative]] purposes in textbooks either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Yes I am serious. To use your example you don't need a poster that says 2+2=4 to learn that or to know it. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 18:41, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Character education is a big part of the curriculum these days, and I've yet to see a school library without a bible in it. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Reference to the Ten Commandments is relevant to that page, not this one. Same for public schools. Deleted part about deceit not being taught in public schools. It's ridiculous to note on every page whether something is or is not taught in liberal American public schools (the list would be too long). --[[User:Ursus|Ursus]] 13:07, 31 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Seconding Ursus' comment. Furthermore, the exclusion of the Commandments from the educational curriculum has no place in the definition of any word. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:54, 25 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== contradiction in the definition ==<br />
<br />
I am not sure why I am getting involved with this, but here goes:<br />
<br />
* " Deceit is the fraudulent representation of a material fact, made intentionally or recklessly or without reasonable basis and with the intent to induce reliance on the falsehood".<br />
* "Traditionally deceit was taught as being wrong and in violation of the Ten Commandments" -"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor".<br />
<br />
The logic implied therefore is that'''all deceit'' is prohibited by the 10 commandments.<br />
<br />
<br />
However, bearing "false witness against a neighbour" is not the same as "fraudulent misrepresentation of a material fact", and does not encompass all the things that the latter could possible include. For example, claiming that you have a PhD when you do not have one is clearly deceit, but I cannot find anything in the 10 commandments that tells me I should not do it. I am not stealing; I am not bearing false witness against a neighbour. Am I coveting? I don't think so. As far as the ten commandments is concerned, I can get away with it.<br />
<br />
Under these circumstances, the statement concerning the 10C needs to be amended to say:<br />
"Deceit has traditionally been viwed as being morally wrong and in many respects it is in violation of the Ten Commandments, especially those deceits which involve harm or malpractice to another person" --[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 16:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Sometimes deceit can also be stealing - if you are trying to get advantages by deceiving. For example that kind of telling you have a PhD can have this kind of wrong motive. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:36, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Most crimes entail deceit, but the point here is when deceit is the primary wrongdoing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::You seem to be missing the point. I am not saying deceit is right, far from it. I am saying that the statement that "deceit is ... in violation of the Ten Commandments" is not correct, as some deceits are NOT in violation of any of the 10 commandments.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:23, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Sean, I thought I made the change you requested. Sure, some deceits are justified, just as self-defense can justify killing in rare circumstances. But the statement is correct, that deceit has traditionally been taught as being wrong under the Ten Commandments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Apologies, had missed that in the article, I was still responding to the stuff on the talk pages. Thank You. I shall now go back to what I know best.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:37, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Politicization ==<br />
So, regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Deceit&diff=181455&oldid=181449 this] edit war, the two sentences seem to suggest two things:<br />
# They suggest that all Conservatives are not deceitful, and that all Liberals are deceitful. That is a perfect definition of [[stereotype]], and I'm sure we can agree that stereotypes suck.<br />
# Reference #2 suggests that ''only'' conservatives teach their children the ten commandments, therefore implying that A). Liberals cannot be Christians, and B). All Liberals are atheists.<br />
Am I the only one who notices this? --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 19:36, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::No, you are not the only one. The universal statements are a little misleading, though I personally agree with what is said for the most part.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 19:40, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::So you agree that all liberals are atheist deceivers, and all conservatives are "true" Christians and always honest? --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 19:43, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::No that is not what I meant at all. Refering to groups, any groups, in terms of "all" is never a good thing to do, and should be somehow worked out. [[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 19:47, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
So it's not deceit when the army lies about Tilman, it's not deceit in the case of Iran-Contra or Watergate or the "slam-dunk" or "sexing up" intelligence reports or plagiarizing someone's report when speaking to the UN. Maybe this article needs to flat out say what the people who run this website obviously want it to say and define deceit as "what happens when anyone whom it is politically convenient to call a liar lies" and at least be a little less deceitful about it. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: REPLY TO ABOVE: The statement does not say that all liberals are deceitful. I don't think all liberals are. And I don't think all conservatives are honest. But conservatives do teach that deceit is wrong, and liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong. That's a fact. Compare a public school classroom, where you won't hear that deceit is wrong, with a conservative classroom, where you will hear that. This is not a politicization. This is observable fact.<br />
<br />
: Sevenstring can suggest other examples of deceit comparable to the ones listed. But the examples he identified are not comparable, because in those cases deceit was not embraced for ideological gain as it was in the listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:13, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: P.S. I just rolled back the Tillman example, because that was not deceit for any gain. It is common practice for the military, dating back to the death of Benny Goodman (?) by friendly fire during WWII, to glorify the victims of war and minimize embarrassment. JFK's heroism in his PT boat was actually the result of incompetence; Kerry's heroism was questionable also. There is nothing new about this and the military is not guilty of deceit in the same way as the listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:16, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: So the whole big push to punish plagiarising in public schools (two of my friends got failing grades for that), expelling people for cheating on tests, etc. (another friend got nabbed for that), and punishing kids for lieing to teachers are just coincidences, right?<br />
:: Once again, Andy, you are stereotyping the entire public school system. Perhaps instead of saying that "liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong", it can be phrased as "the public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong". Both statements are completely false, but at least it's a step towards the truth.<br />
:: And as for Tillman; it doesn't matter the tradition or context which it is in; it's still deceit. And I don't see Watergate on there, or the Lewinsky scandal. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 20:17, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::P.S. and really, not only Conservatives teach the ten commandments. Call me a heretic, but I'm pretty sure the 10C are standard throughout all kinds of Christianity. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 20:20, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Oh, come off it - how, exactly, does fudging the truth to justify a war not fall under the rubric of "deceit" for "ideological gain?" Or breaking into the opposing party's headquarters and then using the state apparatus to cover it up in order to win an election? By your own definition, weak as it is, those are textbook examples. And who says that there needs to be ideological gain for deceit to occur? [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Folks, you're in denial. I know what's taught in public schools. Hoji, if you're in public school, I challenge you to find anything in any of your textbooks, lecture notes, writing assignments, etc., that says deceit is wrong. It's not there, and that is because liberals run public schools. It is there in conservative classrooms. Sure, plagiarism and cheating are punished if someone is caught, but that can be explained by self-interest better than teaching it is "wrong".<br />
<br />
: Sevenstring, your complaint is that the list is not longer. Present something as airtight and long-lasting as the current examples and we'll include it. Delaying a few weeks before telling the truth about Tillman's death does not come close, not by a long shot. That TEMPORARY deceit could just as easily be justified as honoring Tillman rather than benefiting anyone, and the military has been doing that for decades without complaint in many celebrated cases. Shall we put JFK's PT boat incident in the list also???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::As for JFK's PT boat incident, if it is relevant, then sure, put it on. And as for the schools, you seem to be equating "liberal" with "public schools", which is certainly wrong. I grew up in a liberal household, and was taught that deceit is wrong. I am sure that the ''vast'' majority of ''all'' American families teach their kids that deceit is wrong; it is not a good way to win arguments, friends, or respect. In the public schools, deceit isn't taught to be wrong because there isn't an obsession with teaching moral behavior, because schools rely on parents to choose the moral education they give their children. If anything, I would say that Conservatives are just as deceitful as liberals; everything on AiG, for instance, is intentionally spun to persuade, even if that means leaving out relevant facts. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 20:32, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
Please excuse my vitriol, but Andy, I have been following this for a long time, and you have never cited ANYTHING to back up your bizarre assertions about liberals and deceit. I am liberal (mm..refreshing), I don't believe in deceit, neither do my children. In fact, neither do any of my friends, who are mostly liberal. You should be ashamed of yourself. Oh, that's right, im about to be banned for speaking my mind, and the truth. [[User:OneLove|OneLove]] 20:49, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
ASchlafly, did you even read my post? My complaint is not that " the list is not longer," but that by YOUR definition of, essentially, lying in the name of the advancement of political ideology, the discourse leading up to the invasion...errrrrrrrr liberation of Iraq was deceitful. As was Watergate. "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia," indeed. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 21:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong. "OneLove", do you teach that deceit is wrong? Did you ever hear public school, which is run by liberals, teach that it is wrong? Please answer without making absurd remarks like I "should be ashamed of" myself. You're not helping your cause.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::I'm going to attempt to draw a conclusion based on your logic, Andy;<br />
::*Catholicism is a branch of Christianity<br />
::*Catholics believe the Pope is divinely appointed by God.<br />
::*Therefore, all Christians believe that the Pope is divinely appointed by God.<br />
::Here, Catholicism represents the public school system, the Pope represents deceit, and Christianity represents liberals. You know that the above scenario is wrong, because it is based on faulty logic. Also, public schools certainly do not teach that deceit is ''right'', which you are seeming to imply. As an organ of the federal government, in accordance with the first amendment, schools do not teach about morality. So, using faulty logic, I draw that liberals are more patriotic! --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 21:24, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I'm sorry, Andy, I would be happy to answer more specifically. I used to be a public school teacher, in South San Francisco (NOT affiliated with San Fran in ANY way). I, of course, taught that deceit was wrong DAILY. Every single time a student would try to lie, or "pull one over" on me, I would explain to them why that was the wrong thing to do. I'm not sure why you would think any public school teacher would do otherwise. At least, none of my colleagues encouraged deceit. Given humans are fallible, I'm sure some teachers are as well. I quit teaching because of the general underfunding in schools in California. Also, to assert "the public schools are run by liberals" is patently ridiculous. Some school boards are quite liberal, some quite conservative, and they tend to swing back and forth--usually in reaction to a previous board being to extreme in their liberalism or conservatism. So, I'll add again, you should be ashamed. You prove that either you are deceitful or ignorant or both, but I won't generalize to all conservatives, because that would be incorrect stereotyping. [[User:OneLove|OneLove]] 21:51, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:OneLove, when did you teach: 1950? Anyone familiar with public schools today would find your claims to be so out-of-date as to be absurd. The word "wrong" in a moral sense has not been used in public school for at least a decade. Kids can be busted for drugs in the bathroom of the school and still the term morally wrong won't be used. I had my kids in public school, and I follow them closely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:59, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::In all honesty, Andy, I am undoubtedly the most qualified in this debate to comment on the current status of public schools, seeing as how I actually attend one, and deal with these non-issues you talk about regularly. And I do not see why you decided to drag the public school system into this, as the gross stereotype still exists on the page; the idea that "liberals", as a group, do not teach about the wrongness of deceit, is simply absurd. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 22:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Hey, I'm a qualified attender also![[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 22:05, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
First, OneLove, was NOT a sock of userP,,,s. Second, I have it on good authority that he taught public school in the early to mid nineties, not the 1950s. You are falling back on some shaky debating tactics. Oh, time to ban me for being a sock of OneLove, who was not a sock of p...s.[[User:Downinmyheart|Downinmyheart]] 22:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Do any of you above have cites showing the "improvement" of public education over the past 20 years? And if you produce them, do they take into account the lessening of academic standards and wholesale changes to the curriculum over the years to make it appear to be getting better? I have to tell you all the major and politically diseperate academic organizations don't see improvement. Is this really the argument you want to make, that public schools are "fine"? --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 22:46, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:No, the public school issue was a distraction; the actual issue was the line "Conservatives teach that deceit is wrong. Liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong", which is completely absurd. Following this, Andy attempted to equate "Liberals" with "public school system". --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 22:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Public schools are a perfect example of liberals who teach. I'm open to other examples, such as liberal philosophers.<br />
<br />
:: A substantial percentage of liberals are atheists who doubt anything is morally right or wrong. For them to teach that "deceit is wrong" would be, well, deceitful in itself!<br />
<br />
:: Rereading OneLove's claim above that he "taught that deceit was wrong DAILY" makes me wonder if he is being deceitful here. Not even the clergy teaches that deceit is wrong DAILY. I've observed on this website that some liberals actually enjoy being deceitful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*''Since this is a self-admitted and proclaimed Conservative and Christian-friendly encyclopedia'', there is nothing distracting in Andy's comments. I would submit that moral relativism and equivalency, along with historically revisionist thinking, which are an inarguable part of todays public school curriculum, do foster the "if it feels good do it" 60's mentality. I have several currently teaching relations, in rural and urban areas. Most of them have confirmed for me tonight, that teaching "right and wrong" as it once was, has been ditched in favor of non-judgemental lessons, and a reliance on "gray areas". --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 00:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Still, the blanket statement is misleading; there certainly are conservatives who deceive (and teach that deceit is right), and there are certainly liberals who teach that deceit is wrong. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 01:09, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Michigan's Department of Education requires public schools to teach students a certain set of Core Democratic Values. One of those values is Truth. [[User:TigersRoar|TigersRoar]] 21:20, 8 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Interesting, unless you're joking. Can you provide the link for that so I can confirm and see exactly how it is required? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:23, 8 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::[http://www.michigan.gov/documents/10-02_Core_democtaric_Values_48832_7.pdf Took about five seconds on google]... but personally I think it's a [[liberal]] scam. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:18, 9 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Archiving ==<br />
<br />
Someone who won't get yelled at like I do, would you be so kind as to archive this page and leave the section "10 Commandments" as the beginning piece? Thanks oodles! --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 00:06, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Done. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 01:11, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*You are so much more than kind, even if you won't share your box with everyone. :-( How do you get those neat accents on your sig? In my most Liberal whine, I feel so much less than without a cool sig! --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 02:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Democratic Party==<br />
<br />
[[David Limbaugh]] accused Democratic leaders of "deceit" on Iraq. He says they don't really intend to "win" in Iraq, butm want us to withdraw so that we will "lose" (which, by the way, is what happened when we withdrew from Vietna: an even worse tyranny was created in the entire country than ever existed in South Vietnam: compare 20,000 "tiger cage" deaths South Vietnam to 500,000 post-ware executions in North Vietnam. I think we also have to count the 250,000 to 500,000 [[boat people]] who died escaping the Communists.)<br />
<br />
*Nothing better illustrates the Democrats' duplicity and emptiness concerning Iraq than the manifestly contradictory statements of two of their leaders in the last few days preceding the election. Rep. John Murtha, who probably represents the bulk of his party, reiterated his nauseating, America-denigrating contention that the United States cannot win militarily in Iraq. We must resolve this matter diplomatically, he said, meaning we must negotiate with terrorists, and we must redeploy, meaning withdraw – very, very soon.Then, after Sen. Elizabeth Dole said that Democrats are content with losing the war in Iraq, Sen. Chuck Schumer replied indignantly, "Democrats want to win the war by changing the war strategy."<br />
*Now, should we believe Murtha or Schumer? Does Schumer really expect us to believe he has experienced a miraculous, neoconservative conversion, or is he just lip-syncing? That's a no-brainer: Of course he isn't sincere in saying Democrats want to win in Iraq by changing the strategy in Iraq. That would put him at odds with 90 percent of the Michael-Mooreized Democratic base and with the pronouncements of his party's leadership over the last year.<br />
*Dress it up however you like, Democrats are advocating an almost immediate withdrawal from Iraq before the Iraqi security forces are capable of sustaining their nation's security and newly formed government. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52813]<br />
<br />
Is this an "example of deceit", or just a partisan criticism of the [[Democratic Party]] by a conservative? The answer will determine where I place this quote. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:45, 10 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
==American Public Schools==<br />
<br />
"The American public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong, at least not using the Ten Commandments." It is my belief that this statement is misleading, it provides the suggestion that the Ten Commandments are required to teach that deceit is wrong. Just as it is possible to teach that murder is wrong without referring to the 10 Commandments it is just as possible to teach that deceit is wrong without referring to them, and there is no source to support a claim that the American Public School system does not teach that deceit is wrong, albeit without the 10 Commandments (my original reason for the citation template). Really, this article does not need the statement, and it has already been extensively covered in the 10 Commandments article. [[User:EQ|EQ]] 23:59, 28 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*The American public schools teach moral relativism. How does one get a clear idea of "right" and "wrong" when one is taught all such things are relative? I unlocked the article. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 00:13, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Character education is a BIG part of the curriculum these days. Try googling it. Here's just one link. I'd be happy to discus this further with anyone who feels there's a moral vacuum among teachers these days. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:50, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
http://www.goodcharacter.com/<br />
<br />
*Character education, taught from a secular-progressive POV, is nothing. Since they cannot bring themselves to actually say "anything" is "wrong", it is meaningless. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 01:49, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:We constantly say things are wrong: stealing, hurting, lying, etc. Some of our students are of religions other than Christianity...would it be right to instruct a Buddhist student using Christian scripture? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:34, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:*Yes, of course it would, in the United States! We are a Judeo-Christian country. We have achieved what we have here by virtue of being a "melting pot", not a balkanized hodge-podge of competing cultures. While the secular-progressives might wish it to be multi-cultural, with each and every ethnic and religious group clinging to their "Mother Culture", that is exactly the cause of the slaughter's in Africa and East Europe. Teaching a Buddhist Christian scripture in no way "demeans" their own. But it does teach them valuable lessons, and offers them understanding and insight into their new country and its attendant culture. You say you are constantly telling them things are wrong; Do you tell them why? And if so, what are those "non-religious" reasons? --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 10:28, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No American [[public schools]] teach that anything is "wrong". Maestro, post here the quote and citation of any textbook used in public school that says something is morally "wrong". As one would expect, eliminating God from public schools has also eliminated morality in terms of right and wrong. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: it took me 30 seconds: ''Lying is wrong''[http://www.goodcharacter.com/pp/trustworthiness.html] [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 10:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Some website? How is that related to ''[[public schools]]'' or their textbooks? I hope your editing here maintains a higher caliber than your research on this topic! --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 10:51, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Right, TK. Dkips, what does that website have to do with public schools? Public school curricula are available online, I think. But you didn't cite to one. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I wouldn't be surprised if you can't find a textbook that says lying is wrong. That sort of thing is taught in kindergarten, which doesn't use textbooks (it's also taught by parents at an even younger age, and it's they who have the real responsibility for moral instruction of their children, much moreso than government schools). Please do find me a textbook on moral relativism that is used in public schools. And, if we want to take the Bible literally, the ten commandments don't exactly teach deceit is wrong. They teach that bearing false witness against your neighbor is wrong, but bearing false witness is only a specific kind of deceit (there are countless lies oen can tell that do not involve bearing false witness against anyone). And if we want to be super-technical, it can be said that if someone lives far enough away from you that they wouldn't be considered a "neighbor" then it's perfectly fine to bear false witness against them. This morality is seeming slightly relative. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 11:57, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Public schools don't teach that deceit is wrong because that's something that's taught ''long'' before a child enrolls into the public school system. It's not that schools teach some sort of secular code of conduct or moral relativism - it's that they don't teach it '''at all''' because it's best taught by parents. Besides, there are many of us that view man as a creature endowed with a predisposition to perform goodness! [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Yes, public schools are often known to defer to parents with the utmost of respect. Just look at sex education; that's left strictly to the parents... Do you guys really think that by parroting each other that people won't see you're talking in circles? Apply some logic - don't make up phony reasons for why it's not taught and try to convince yourselves what you made up on the spot is true. Either it's taught or it's not. In fact, here's an easy one. Find me the curriculum that states what you said. Anything along the lines of "We don't teach that deceit is wrong because that is left to the parents and takes place before youngsters enter school." Want to find just one? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:26, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::You want to apply some logic? Fine. You're committing a grievous logical fallacy in your argument; remember, '''the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.''' Do you honestly believe something as mundane as "deceit is wrong" should be a bullet point on a syllabus for a public school class? If you want to see how seriously public schools take student discipline, character, and behavior, just look at my old Code of Conduct from the JCPS: http://www.jefferson.k12.ky.us/Pubs/codeofconduct.pdf . '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''<sup><small>[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]]</small></sup> 15:46, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'm sorry, but the code of conduct is sadly what I would expect it to be - a 25 page document outlining what is not acceptable in order to close all loopholes since anything that is not outlined, could be considered acceptable. And so you have warnings not to commit arson or kidnap other students. It seems to back Andy's views more than anything else -- the common understanding of morality that used to exist is gone.<br />
<br />
:::Getting back to the other point, you still appear to be talking in circles. You are applying the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" as a catch all after getting called on your last assertion which came across as made up on the spot. I somehow doubt that schools are removing information that used to be taught to give parents greater autonomy over their children's lives. Of course you can tell me that in the schools you have contact with that morality, right and wrong, and deceit are taught as an important part of the education process, but I would have to wonder if that itself wouldn't be an example of deceit. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:03, 12 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Clinton==<br />
<br />
Should we mention Bill Clinton's [[deceit]]ful testimony in the [[Paula Jones]] case? It got him [[impeach]]ed (but not removed from offices). There's the misleading bit about "I didn't have sex" (playing on whether [[oral sex]] counts as [[sexual intercourse]]).<br />
<br />
Is it [[adultery]] and/or grounds for divorce on account of un[[faithfulness]] if an ordinary man does what Clinton did with his intern? Is it [[sexual harassment]], given the power imbalance between employer and employee?<br />
<br />
== Pat Tillman example needs work ==<br />
<br />
"On 31 July 2007, the US Army censured three-star General Kensinger for "deception" in the friendly-fire death of Army Ranger [[Pat Tillman]] [http://www.onelocalnews.com/akronfarmreport/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=139590]"<br />
<br />
I know this issue is loved by Bush-haters, but covering up friendly fire is common in many Administrations. Glenn Miller was killed by friendly fire and [[FDR]] covered it up. I don't see why this issue concerning Pat Tillman is given so much attention at the expense of other examples. We're not a vehicle for misplaced Bush-hating here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:How about a general article on [[friendly fire]] first? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:39, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Well, I see you removed the information I'd added. I would point out three things:-<br />
<br><br />
<br>a) I'm not a "Bush-hater".<br />
<br>b) The issue is hardly being covered only by "Bush haters"! It's front page news on Fox News as we write! [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291591,00.html]<br />
<br>c) Why don't you add the into about Glenn Goodman [Miller] too? Deceit is deceit, whatever group it comes from.<br />
<br><br />
It seems to me you're being <i>very</i> selective with the truth, and I think that's unfair to our troops. Friendly fire accidents are not partisan politics - they happen, it's tragic, but it's a consequence of war and the truth should not be hidden from the public by [[deceit]]. Just because it's not [[liberal]] [[deceit]] doesn't mean this incident is not [[deceit]]. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 19:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Your point is well taken. We could use some more information on Tilman and Goodman [Miller]. One of the virtues of a democracy with a [[free press]] is that errors and misconduct can be brought to light by ordinary citizens. When this is not done for [[partisan advantage]], it's usually a good thing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:59, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Exactly, Ed. I would do it, except I fear a ban from a certain someone if I put Tillman back in. Perhaps someone else would tackle it? It seems to me that an announcement that a three-star general is to be censured over the matter makes this a notable enough example of deceit in high places, and deserving of appearing in the article, and it will also make the article less biased. Deceit is practiced by all who are prepared to lie, regardless of the color of their stripes. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:03, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:First, my mistake, it was Glenn "Miller", not Goodman. So I've inserted "Miller" above in brackets to prevent the error from propagating.<br />
<br />
:Second, no one is being blocked for this disagreement.<br />
<br />
:Third, more facts are needed. What was the alleged "deceit"? Why is this being singled out? Was was the motive for the deceit? Our examples have thorough proof of deceit on issues of extreme public importance. Why do you think covering up an incident of [[friendly fire]], which happens in every military conflict, ranks so highly in importance? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:07, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Thanks Andy. One point is that the Deceit article is extremely partisan and one-sided, and this type of bias is part of Conservapedia's credibility problem. Adding a publicly acknowledged incident from the 'other' side that is today part of the public record adds fairness and balance - a good thing, surely? As to the details of the incident, the report has yet to be published - I make no comment. However, in the context of the 'Deceit' article, since the three-star General is accused in public with the actual use of the word "deception", it seems more than appropriate for the article. As to the 'importance', I make no partisan claims one way or the other to the validity of the incident, but as a current example of deceit, I can think of no better example. And finally, while the Glenn Miller incident was friendly fire (and yes, that happens, and no political party is to blame for it), there was no cover-up or deceit involved, was there? [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:If you're trying to make the point that liberals aren't the only deceitful people in the world, I'll agree with you. The question is: should we use breaking news for an example? That's all.<br />
<br />
:Since you didn't jump in and help me write [[Pat Tillman]], I went ahead and did it by myself. See also [[fratricide]] and [[friendly fire]]. (You can do [[free-fire zone]] if you have time.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:17, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Another Example ==<br />
<br />
Perhaps the works of [[Ernst Haeckel]] and his "contributions" to evolution should be considered? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:48, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Yes, that was a fraud that lasted for 100 years, long after the experts knew it was a fraud. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:00, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Catalog or informative article? ==<br />
<br />
Is this article intended to be a catalog of acts of deceit or an article describing what deceit is? If it's the latter, then the direction of the article needs to be re-though; it's not necessary to have '''ten''' different examples of deceit to convey what deceit is. This is expressly different from [[liberal deceit]], which is actually of catalog of the subject matter. Maybe this article should be re-written to contain the "Top 3" examples that express what deceit is? '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''<sup><small>[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]]</small></sup> 12:11, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Public Schools==<br />
<br />
I don't see how you can make the claim that public schools don't teach that deceit is wrong when a large number of students are expelled for ACADEMIC DISHONESTY [[User:Dragonmaster|Dragonmaster]] 15:53, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Are you including in your "academic dishonesty" the act of copying, word for word, a passage of text from another source without clearly demarking this passage with quotation marks? Aka [[Barker|plagiarism]]? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::I busted kids left and right for that when I taught junior high. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 18:38, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
BTW, since when have the commandments been 'banned'? They're not publically desplayed (believe it or not, some students follow other religions), but banned? There's a bible in every library. You make it sound like crack or guns or something. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:23, 6 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:The issue of whether deceit is ever justified is a deep and complex one. Is "tattling" always wrong? Is to "bear false witness" wrong because it is tattling, or because it involves deceit?<br />
<br />
:How about telling someone that a thing is okay when you know it is not, so they do it and get into trouble? We need to expand upon the ethics of truth and deceit. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:37, 31 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Reversion ==<br />
<br />
This is a high-quality page. Additions to the list must be at the same quality level as existing examples. A [[liberal]] newspaper article claiming that a Republican lied about some fact doesn't cut it. Look at the examples, and please propose only additions at comparable level of significance, proof, and amount of deceit. Future reversions of low-quality examples will not be explained. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I'm still amazed that Ted Haggard, who publicly preached against homosexuality (saying "We don't have to debate about what we should think about homosexual activity. It's written in the Bible"[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003365311_jesuscamp08.html], and the National Association of Evangelicals under his leadership found "homosexual activity, like adulterous relationships, is clearly condemned in the Scriptures"[http://www.nae.net/index.cfm?FUSEACTION=editor.page&pageID=303&IDCategory=8]) led a three-year homosexual relationship with a gay prostitute, complete with the use of methamphetamine. Hmm... the leader of a national body of Christians having gay sex behind his wife's back, while preaching against those same activities seems a bit [[deceit]]ful. Oh well, I'm sure the whole thing is a big liberal conspiracy. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 02:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::By the way, Pastor Haggard spoke at my friends church two weeks prior to his being "outed", and I was fortunate enough to attend. It was a special evening sermon about sexual morality, and I can tell you from personal experience that he wasn't quite fond of homosexuals. (If you don't believe me, I'd be glad to email you contact info for the church). --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 03:03, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::Well, you'll notice that we don't have Bill Clinton and "that woman" as an example either. A benchmark is usually an intentional decision to mislead for personal gain that causes hardship to others by withholding information that could have been used to make honest, informed decisions. Whether or not Haggard had homosexual tendencies is not something that had a profound impact on the American public. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:18, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::It's not "misleading" to preach against homosexuality to millions of people while engaging in a homosexual ''and'' adulterous relationship? As a major Christian leader, Haggard had a huge influence on the voting habits of Conservative Christians. And I'm still having trouble determining how number 11 had a profound impact on the public. And regarding Clinton, he wasn't actively speaking out against homosexuals and adulterers. Haggard was, and his platform was against homosexuality ''and'' adultery, both of which he committed. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 03:28, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::::I think you overestimate Haggard's influece. The Haggard example seems like a better example of hypocrisy, not deceit. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 03:32, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::::I don't think saying that the leader of the National Association of Evangelicals, who also was the pastor of a 14,000-member megachurch, and one of TIME's 25 most influential evangelicals has influence one the vote of CC's is an "overestimate". And he did deceive; he deceived his wife, his family, and his congregation. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 03:39, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::::::Which sounds more like Haggard:<br />
::::::::::*"''criticism of others, by a standard one does not apply to oneself''" from [[hypocrisy]]<br />
::::::::::or<br />
::::::::::*"''the deliberate distortion or denial of the truth with an intent to trick or fool another''" from [[deceit]]? I say what he did was a better example of hypocrisy. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 03:42, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::::So people who have committed adultery shouldn't think it's wrong, or speak out against it? Sin is sin, and if we happen to fall into sin it doesn't exonerate us or mean we can no longer speak out against it. If someone is a pedophile, that person still has the right to speak out against it, and that is not deceitful. If Haggard didn't believe the practice of homosexuality was wrong, but spoke out against it, and he received financial gain for his position, then I would certainly agree with you that would be deceitful. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:44, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Hoji, is AmesG ghost writing your stuff now? :p --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 06:59, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Perhaps, TK, I merely have my own viewpoints which happen to overlap with other people's in some areas. Learn together, do you think he would have been the head of the NEA if he had been preaching "homosexuality is OK"? As a mega-pastor, he received quite the salary - he was practically a celebrity. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 13:25, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:*Hoji, he could have quite possibly been President of the NEA (National Education Association) preaching "homosexuality is OK", being it is the Liberal/Left Wing organization that it is, but of course he would never have been President of the Evangelical association! But it is Apples and Oranges to compare the duties and responsibilities of the President of either NEA with those of the POTUS. A logical fallacy, that makes a good "show" argument, but one that doesn't hold up. That said, I am uneasy holding people up for their personal failings in regard to such things, Even President Clinton. However one had an elected trust with the people of the United States,300,000,000 of them, the other didn't. I was bothered much more by Clinton's equivocation (actual and moral) over the meaning of the word "is" and his allowing good Citizens' reputations to be smeared along with the attendant financial ruin. I was also affronted to be told by President Clinton and his agents that I was part of a "vast, right-wing conspiracy" in thinking what he did was wrong. At least Jimmy Swaggart, in picking up prostitutes not even six miles from my home, didn't blame me or deny what he had been doing and ruin other people's lives in the process. --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 14:08, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:*I don't think you'd see him preaching homosexuality is ok because he doesn't believe it. From what I could tell, his preaching matched his beliefs. Some of the most vehement anti-smoking people I know with messages of 'don't ever start' and 'I wish I could quit' are those who are hooked on cigarettes. And let's be honest here, the man was hardly Fred Phelps. Homosexuality isn't a once a week topic and it wasn't a major part of Haggard's weekly messages. I just read a 6 page interview that Christianity Today did with him in November 2005. Although it touched on a multitude of different issues and his views, the only mention of homosexuality was that Haggard supported the Court's decision in Lawrence v Texas to stay out of the private life of homosexuals. Hardly seems deceitful does it? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:21, 12 August 2007 (EDT) <br />
<br />
: Hoji, I agree that number 11 should be deleted for lack of significance. I didn't insert that item. Honestly, I don't think number 10 is significant enough either, but I tried not to be heavy-handed about this.<br />
<br />
: As to Haggard, it was a scandal but it was not "deceit" like the other examples. Maybe he was a hypocrite, but that is not "deceit" either. Perhaps the people who supported Haggard were deceived, but they are not significant in comparison to how the public was deceived in the other examples. By the way, I had never even heard of Haggard before the [[liberal]] media made this such a big deal just prior to the election. Adding Haggard to the list would require adding scores of [[liberals]] like Clinton, who pretended to have a good Christian marriage with Hillary, to the list too. That's not what this entry is about.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:03, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Every single example of deceict (except maybe that Dutch art forger) is of a liberal. Every time someone posts an example of conservative decption, it's deleated, with an explanation that it's a 'scandal' or a 'lie', but not 'deception.' Isn't is slightly deceptive to only include the deceit of one side of the political spectrum? Just my two cents. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:47, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Some [[liberals]] delight in [[deceit]], and they have succeeded in driving morality out of [[public schools]]. So it's not surprising that many major examples are about [[liberals]]. But I don't claim that "every single example" is about [[liberals]]. You seem to be drawing that conclusion.<br />
<br />
: Provide a [[conservative]] example of similar magnitude and it will remain there. But please don't simply post a scandal that is not really deceit, or an insignificant example.<br />
<br />
: Surely you don't expect [[deceit]] to occur as often by people who teach that it is wrong as those who don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:14, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::<s>Andy, your suggestion that all liberals practice and encourage deceit is utterly ridiculous. There are deceitful Christians, and there are deceitful conservatives. Many liberals are Christian, and many conservatives are as well. But to conflate "liberal" with "some public schools" is a pretty far stretch.<br />
</s>::Regardless, I think the word "Watergate" sums up a very well-known example of conservative deceit. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 18:19, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Hoji, do you really expect [[deceit]] to be correlated precisely 50/50 among two very different groups, [[liberals]] and [[conservatives]]?<br />
<br />
::: Let's put this a different way. Do you think people who advocate legalizing drugs have a greater percentage of drug use than people who oppose legalizing drugs? Surely you don't think that correlation is a perfect 50/50 also. And if you agree that is unlikely to be evenly split, then why the claim that deceit must be evenly split also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::: The difference between your analogy and this situation is that both liberals and conservatives, by and large, teach that deceit is wrong. There aren't that many people out there (Christians, jews, muslims, atheists, agnostics, rastafarians, etc.) that actively advocate deceit. If I'm reading the analogy correctly (the drug-legalization advocates represent liberals, and the drug represents deceit), then this isn't congruent with the actual situation. And I've given two perfectly good examples of conservative deceit; I'm still waiting for a reply on the Watergate cover-up. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 19:43, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I'm still waiting for Hoji to take back his ''all liberals practice'' comment, which comes directly after Mr. Schlafly's ''Some [[liberals]] delight''. There's a big difference between [[some]] and [[all]], well known to all intellectuals and philosophers since the time of [[Aristotle]].<br />
<br />
After you take that back, we can progress to your next error. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:52, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I formally retract my "all liberals practice" comment. It still seems that great lengths are being taken to keep conservatives off the list. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 19:54, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Hoji, how about this: people who support gun control are less likely to own guns than people who support the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Agree with that? If so, then why so much protest over a similar statement about deceit? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:33, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Delete==<br />
Since I apparently shouldn't use the <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki> stub on the main page for whatever reason, I'm going to voice my opinion here that this article is counter-productive and should be deleted and re-created without bias. As it is now, it is a shining example of pure and simple hatred. Disgusting. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]]<br />
<br />
*The above post is a shining example of useless posts. What, specifically in the article do you object to, "Doctor"? Is there some specific fact or citation you dispute? That would be helpful, and better than just a statement of opinion backed by nothing. Sort of like if I said your post was the work of a bitter, Liberal troll who is full of [[deceit]] and [[Liberal Bias]] without pointing to specifics. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 14:15, 14 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Any article that has considerable ongoing activity should not just be stamped with <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki> without any other comment. We try to make extensive use of the talk pages to discuss thoughts and recommendations for improvement. It is also customary to put new commentary on the bottom, not on the top. Thank you [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:10, 14 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Environmental hoaxes and hogwash==<br />
<br />
Should we list or link to [[global warming]], [[ozone depletion]], etc.? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:19, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Do you really think such a large body of people made up a scientific theory to deliberately trick people? Thats the real question you should be asking. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:22, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I believe to be deceitful you would have to show that those who push GW, OD, etc are lying about it. Perhaps *some* pushers are being deceitful, but it's not a strong enough case to call all of them deceitful. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 19:23, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Right, that's the question. Is it a "hoax" if the people promoting it actually believe it? I would not apply the work ''hoax'' to anything other than a falsehood promoted by people who know it to be false, e.g., the theory that [[crop circles]] are mysterious, possibly supernatural or 'alien' phenomena. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:25, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Well some people can really buy into those crop circles! I mean, some farmers have seen a lot of green that way... Anyway, I don't believe GW or Ozone depletion to be a hoax. I can see how people might conclude that its a flawed science, but certainly not a hoax? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:37, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I appreciate your input; it's good advice. I'll start a category for flawed science instead, maybe. Or how about [[:Category:Junk science]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:39, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:wow wow wow, thats not what I'm advising at all. How would you then go on to define a junk science? Would you base it on a flawed methodology in collecting evidence, or simply that the conclusions do not meet the answers you want them to meet? I think that is at the heart of this sort of debate. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:45, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::CP is way ahead of you: [[Junk science]] ;) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:47, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Graham, I think "junk science" is generally the promotion of a finding as "scientific" or "unscientific" based purely upon whether - as you said - its conclusions support the answers (or views) you want to promote.<br />
<br />
Like, if you want to ban smoking in public places because (a) you personally hate the smell of the smoke or the dizzy feeling you get when you inhale a whiff or (b) you want to make other people take better care of their health - but you say that [[secondhand smoke]] is dangerous to others even if this is not supported by the evidence - then you are engaging in junk science. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:58, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I'm not sure hoax fits. A hoax has to be perpetrated by someone, but who's doing the perpetrating if not the scientists? There's also a rather high burden of proof to fit it into junk sceince, as you point out. I'm not sure we can yet match that burden. ''Politicians'', on the other hand, would fall into your pattern of "X is dangerous even if not supported by the evidence." I don't believe for one minute that scientists are engaging in any sort of this behavior, but politicians, not being educated in the material, certainly can; they don't have the technical background to know if their conclusions are supported by the evidence. In addition, it's a hot-button issue right now; I wouldn't be surprised if some of the politicians pushing global warming hysteria really don't believe it but just want the votes. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 20:15, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Reversion explained ==<br />
<br />
Maestro, your edits injected liberal bias, like the phone "separation of church and state" which is a liberal fiction. Your other edits also deserved reversion. Adhere to our [[rules]], please. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:43, 1 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Okay, what didn't you like? The fact that I mention deceit was forbidden by Islamic law? Or the way I corrected a now untrue statement about Wikipedia (they now mention in their article that the drawings are 'allegedly fraudulent'). As the article stands, it says something untrue about Wikipedia. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:46, 1 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I read your explanation, and I still don't get it. How is mentioning Islam a liberal bias? And liberal or not, the Wikipedia embryo article simply does not say what this article claims anymore. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:48, 1 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Please don't discuss a content page here. The talk pages for each content page are for that purpose. Take your comments over to [[Talk:Deceit]] and I'll respond there. But don't omit how you inserted the [[liberal]] fiction "separation of church and state," as I noted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:52, 1 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Here you go. I won't argue about church and state, and I know that mentioning Wikipedia in a less negative sense than before raises hackles here, but Islam? I'm still stumped as to how that breaks the rules. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:56, 1 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Didn't Mohammed break his peace treaty with the Jewish tribes and attack them? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:08, 1 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Your comment about [[Islam]] seemed unsupported and motivated by [[political correctness]]. Your statement about [[Wikipedia]] seemed false since the entry had the date of the [[liberal]] falsehood on [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:32, 1 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Well, it's your site, your rules. I was simply trying to show how universal the rule for honesty is (and I backed it up with a quote from the Koran), but, like I said, it's your ballgame. Allah Akbar. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 20:46, 1 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Maestro, if you can give an exact quote from the Koran about that outlawing of deceit, then that would definitely make it supported. If so, why not add it to the article? [[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 15:23, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Once bitten, twice shy, friend. Apparently my edits were a 'pile of manure' (see below)[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Maestro, you dumped the entire 2nd Sutra, which, after doing a search, doesn't even use the word deceit. What verse do you feel makes this point? And how does this correspond with Mohammed's later actions? You also included it along with a number of other alterations such as the "Constitutional Separation of Church and State". Guess what, if there's a rose in the middle of a pile of manure, it still gets thrown out. No one is going to do your cleaning for you. Present a polished product on its own merits and if it doesn't stick, then voice your complaints. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:25, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Are we still arguing about this? I said above that you won. Drop it already.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Heading edit==<br />
<br />
Hi. I changed a sentence in the opening header that mentions conservatives actively fighting deceit, while liberals purposely spread/encourage it. It now reads: <br />
<br />
"Both Conservatives and Liberals at large consider deceit wrong and actively fight it, but there are claims that Liberals are more guilty of deceit than Conservatives."<br />
<br />
I feel this is more accurate, as the original statemend suggested that each and every Liberal and Conservative were thus branded. My quote sorta smacks of overt political correctness, though, and if anybody has a better idea, please suggest/change it. [[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 14:15, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Wonderful! They'll never allow it. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::You're right. They didn't. Good call! Now, to whomever made the edit, I posit this: one of the Conservapedia Commandments says that everything must be true and verifiable. Now to make such a sweeping statement that the "huge majority" of Liberals actively practise deceit suggests that you have numbers or a study supporting your claims. So, please cite your work. And an "examples of bias in Wikipedia" doesn't count, because WP doesn't represent liberals at large.<br />
<br />
::Also, just nitpicking here, but the way you changed the sentence makes it so it doesn't make any sense. But since I got scolded for trying to change the article, I'll leave it up to a sysop or something.[[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 19:31, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::TK (an admin) edited it. Such talk will ban you. But I agree, if this 'encyclopedia' is going to be anything more then a joke to the majority of the non-American-conservative world (which is about 99.1 percent of the planet), they're going to have to find a balance in their edits.--[[User:Mircofixit|Mircofixit]] 22:12, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== How we differ from Wikipedia ==<br />
<br />
{{cquote|We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.}}<br />
<br />
The above section is quoted from the current version of [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]. Under that light, I find it extremely odd to see the claims ''"Conservatives and a very small minority of liberals consider deceit wrong and actively fight it, and there is substantial evidence that liberals are more guilty of deceit than conservatives."'' being backed up by a conservative ''commentary'' and a conservative ''column''. Also factoring in here is the hilarious issue of backing up a completely liberal-bashing claim with only conservative opinion pieces. For what it's worth, the reference might as well read "Because we say so".<br />
<br />
This is exactly what the above difference with Wikipedia is about: You postulate an opinion as a fact (and even claim there is "substantial evidence") and then just cite conservative journalists/bloggers/commentators/columnists (or whatever they want to call themselves) who voice their opinion. And look at how unbiased they are: "So the left, led by the slimy Media Matters organization, began a counterattack using the liberals’ favorite weapon – the lie."<br />
<br />
Fact is: The claims ("Conservatives and small minority of liberals fight it" and "evidence that liberals are more guilty") are practically impossible to prove because they're incredibly broad and would require measurements that are impossible to perform without asking God to take a look into his divine logs.<br />
<br />
I could claim that it's exactly the other way around while citing MoveOn and Mr. Colbert, and the claim would be exactly as valid as the one we got in terms of relying on authority and good sources.<br />
<br />
Right now, the claim should be severely rephrased to make it clear that this is an ''opinion of some conservatives''. Everything else would be pure irony: Deceit on the article about deceit. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:00, 6 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Okay, I've waited several days for voices of disagreement. Considering that nobody objected, I implemented a change of the form "X claims Y" to point out that the sources are biased opinion pieces instead of authority. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 11:33, 11 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::It's funny how my talk page proposal stays up here for almost a week without anybody objecting, but the edit doesn't even remain intact for ten minutes.<br />
::The claim is impossible to prove, and it's broad to the degree of being opinion (or worse: fiction). Backing it up with conservative opinions only shows that there are actually conservatives aside from the author of the claim who believe this.<br />
::Looking at the other end of the spectrum, I'm sure that there are liberal columnists and commentators who argue that there is evidence of conservatives being more deceitful. Should I cite them as authority as it is being done with conservative columnists? No, I don't think so. Opinion pieces don't become authority just because you agree with them. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:03, 11 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::: First of all, it is a sourced claim, and what would you expect, offcourse those are conservative facts that this is based on, good luck on getting liberals to admit their deceits, and while it says "conservatives" instead of "some conservatives" it offcourse just means that most of conservatives see it this way, not necesarily all, just like you would say that Liberals are pro abortion alltho there might be some liberals who dont't feel that way. I think your addition should be reverted, in current form it sounds silly. [[User:ConanO|ConanO]] 12:39, 11 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::There is a claim and there are sources, but that doesn't make a sourced claim. The sources (a conservative commentary and a conservative column) show that there are conservatives who make certain claims.<br />
::::#That conservatives consider deceit wrong.<br />
::::#*That one is not overly bold in itself, assuming that this is just about "most" conservatives.<br />
::::#That merely an "overwhelmingly small minority of liberals consider deceit wrong".<br />
::::#*How do you prove such a claim? Are there polls? Did they ask a thousand liberals if they considered deceit to be wrong? Or maybe somebody made a statistic?<br />
::::#That "there is substantial evidence that liberals are more guilty of deceit than conservatives"<br />
::::#*The killer. A claim that there is evidence, but where is the evidence? Where do the sources present evidence?<br />
::::The problem with the sources is that they simply make bold claims and attacks themselves while showcasing select examples, quite likely with their own spin to them. Okay, sure, that's what comments and columns are free to do, I figure, but that doesn't change that these are ''opinions'', not authority. For bold claims like these, we need the latter, not the former.<br />
::::Here, let me illustrate my point with "The Conservative Voice" source from our paragraph in question. Would you seriously put this into CP's [[Liberal]] article:<br />
{{cquote|Today's liberals are intellectual terrorists who try to destroy free speech. Instead of fairness, facts, and logic, they use lies and personal attacks to attack those who want to exercise their Freedom of Speech.[http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/27429.html]}}<br />
::::See? A claim and a source. However, it simply repeats opinion as fact and thus doesn't belong into an encyclopedia article. The source is not authority, and there are no facts given to back his claims and accusations. It's a "Because he said so" situation.<br />
::::You said it yourself: It's highly unlikely that thousands of liberals suddenly step forward and admit that they used deceit. Likewise, it's unlikely that thousands of conservatives would do that. What does this mean? Liberals deny their deceit while conservatives don't use deceit? Both sides deny it? Liberals don't do it, but conservatives deny it? Neither side uses it? That's what I meant when I said that the claim is practically impossible to prove in the form that had been there. You can give examples for either side using deceit, and you can point at people who agree with the claim, but you can't make calls like "that side does it more" based on this. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:19, 11 October 2007 <br />
(EDT)<br />
==Read My Lips==<br />
<br />
How about Bush, Sr's, famous 'Read my lips, no new taxes' pledge while campaigning, only to raise taxes as president? Surely that was decption? [[User:Monitor|Monitor]] 13:00, 8 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Do you have evidence that he was intending tax hikes when he was campaigning as opposed to shifting policies to deal with new fiscal realities? [[User:Dewey|Dewey]] 13:02, 8 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
As a former vice president, director of the CIA, and ambassador, I'm pretty sure that he was aware that fiscal realities can change. He was also aware that Americans wanted a candidate who would promise not to lower taxes, something Dukakis was not willing to promise. Bush looked America in the eye and said he wouldn't raise taxes. This helped him get elected. I'm sure it didn't make him happy when he was forced to raise them, but he was not a dumb man. He promised 'no new taxes,' while he was well aware they might be required. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:55, 8 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
So then your answer is "no." [[User:Dewey|Dewey]] 18:03, 8 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Right, Dewey. After Bush made that promise, the [[Democrats]] who controlled [[Congress]] becamed determined to force Bush to break the promise. That's not deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 8 November 2007 (EST)<br />
:Do you have evidence that congress was determined to force Bush to break the promise, or was this an example of 'shifting policies to deal with new fiscal realities' if I may quote? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 07:35, 9 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Haeckel fraud exposed by Behe &Jonathan Wells in 2000 ==<br />
<br />
It appears it is likely that the Haeckel fraud was exposed to the general public by the New York Times in 2000 vis a vis Michael Behe. It also appears as if Stephen Jay Gould was not happy Gould did this. However, I do know also that [[Jonathan Wells]] also exposed the fraud to the public with his publication of the book Icons of Evolution in 2000. Please see: http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf It appears though the scientists knew it earlier:<br />
:Adam Sedgwick, 1894<br />
:William Garstang, 1922<br />
:Gavin de Beer, 1958<br />
:William Ballard, 1976<br />
:Stephen J. Gould, 1977<br />
:Richard Elinson, 1987<br />
:Jane Oppenheimer, 1987<br />
:Michael Richardson, 1995<br />
:Stephen J. Gould, 2000 [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/wells_and_haeckels_embryos.php]<br />
<br />
So it appears as if the deceit article is errant and the NYT or Wells exposed the fraud to the general public in 2000 unless the author of the Dec 2000/Jan 2001 article is referring to 1999 which is doubtful. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 9 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Broken source link==<br />
Source #6 is a dead link and needs to be updated or removed, even so it appears to be a transcript from a talk show which is not an ideal source, actual data is preferred. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 17:47, 17 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
==I am officially leaving this website after reading this==<br />
<br />
As the title would suggest, I am leaving this website because of this article, but not exclusively so. This article is an example of mindless hatred, lack of understanding and common human decency towards those of opposite political persuasions. You claim to be Christian Conservatives - do you even know what it means to be a Christian? Honestly, some of you would prefer spending time at a rally denying basic rights to homosexuals than time spent in a homeless shelter. I will pray for the makers of this article, and will continue to pray for the poor souls who get caught up in your immoral (Amoral) propaganda. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Usually the [[Parthian Shots]] do better than that, "ModerateCatholic". For example, usually disgruntled users cite something more specific than vague rants. But suit yourself, and please use your real first name if and when you return. May I recommend [[liberal]] [[Wikipedia]] for you in the meantime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 28 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
I will pray for you especially, you poor misguided soul. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:P.S- Is the use of the term 'Parthian Shots' a way and means for you to divert accountability for your crimes? Throwing around the term 'Liberal Wikipedia' is another example of your uncontrollable hatred. There will be a home for you in the fiery pits of hell, unless you repent. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
ModCath seems to be a poorly executed caricature. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:41, 21 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Pathetic Rubbish ==<br />
<br />
There is absolutely no reason for the continued inclusion of this tripe in the article:<br />
<br />
{{cquote|[[Deceit]] plays a central role promoting the [[liberal]] belief system with the public, as illustrated by most examples below. Many [[liberals]] promote [[deceit]] if it advances their goals.}}<br />
<br />
It adds nothing, and is symptomatic of an abject failure to be able to make any points besides unsubstantiated insults. The insistence of even lower-echelon editors attempting to retain it is simply servile sycophancy. Material such as this reflects abominably upon this site, and unless you desire to demonstrate that this reflection is, in fact, not simply illusory, but indicative of a reality, I suggest that it be removed. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 22:46, 29 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
: "SimonA" (unlikely your real name), obviously many [[liberals]] do use [[deceit]] to advance their goals, and they are very good at it. The entry here on [[deceit]] provides numerous important examples of this. There is no doubting these examples. They were perpetrated by [[liberals]]. Feel free to try to fool users of [[Wikipedia]], but we're not fooled here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 29 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::I think Simon's point is that disingenuous people from all over the political spectrum have used deceit to achieve their goals - for every Stalin, there is a Hitler; for every Castro there is a Bush. Singling out 'liberals' as predisposed liars does not make for a particularly instructive exercise. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 01:03, 25 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: The point is simple: A: A list compiled by an encyclopædia that bills itself as "Conservapedia" is unlikely to contain any information that would be particularly damaging to Conservatives, ergo, the list here is not valid evidence. B: A list of 13, perhaps dubious, examples of deceit perpetrated by liberals is not sufficient evidence for a generalization of the type made, especially given the fact that the examples pertain only to an extremely small subset of the liberal population. C: Compiling a list of 13 examples of conservative deceit would not be particularly difficult. Would such a production be valid to make a generalization stating that deceit was necessary in conservative propaganda? The answer is obvious.<br />
<br />
:: The point is that such a passage is the argumentative equivalent of kicking someone in a sensitive area. I see no reason why it should not be removed. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 23:16, 29 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: Many [[liberals]] don't even accept the [[Ten Commandments]], let alone think that [[deceit]] is wrong to advance their goals. You couldn't come close to 13 examples of significant [[deceit]] advanced -- and embraced -- by [[conservatives]]. Note how many of the examples of [[liberal]] [[deceit]] continued to be embraced by other [[liberals]] who recognized the [[deceit]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:27, 29 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: "Many [[liberals]] don't even accept the [[Ten Commandments]], let alone think that [[deceit]] is wrong to advance their goals." Entirely tangent. I'm sure many conservatives don't, as well.<br />
:::: And I'm sure that I could. You would just have to look at Jack Chick's web site to get about 10. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 23:31, 29 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Andy,<br />
<br />
My point, as well as Simon's here is that there are 'bad people' on both sides of the spectrum. With this list you are childishly saying 'Liberals are bad, Conservatives are good'. Deceit exists all over the spectrum, from people of faith to none, and from Liberals to Conservatives. Your 'examples' are taken from a tiny minority of high profile Liberals, but if someone were to add a conservative example (Such as the homosexual senator who was rampantly anti-gay rights but did things to men in toilets) you would call it, 'Liberal Lies' or whatever. Again, as I have said before, I will pray for you. You really are a unfortunate misguided soul. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:01, 31 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
P.S- Where I come from the labels 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' are meaningless. Politics is not motivated by ideology whatsoever - all parties are pragmatic centralists. Calling me Liberal as a result of ''disagreeing with you'' is not only intellectual cowardice its simply rude. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:02, 31 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
: You're wrong. [[Liberals]] often reject the [[Ten Commandments]], and [[liberals]] use [[deceit]] far more than [[conservatives]] do. The list proves it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:04, 31 December 2007 (EST)<br />
:: Ah. I'm sorry, I thought ModerateCatholic offered a compelling argument based on everyday experience and the last two hundred years of history. Thanks for the heads-up. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 01:10, 25 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
The list doesn't prove anything! This is like talking to a ten year old child, honestly. Just keep your hands firmly around your ears and don't allow anything to get in other than stuff you completely and utterly agree with. Thank God I've more faith in the American people, because you would make me hate my own kind. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:13, 31 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
: About 90% of your edits are talk, talk, talk, in the typical [[liberal style]]. You're in violation of our [[rules]] and your petty namecalling pollutes the site. Last chance for you to convey some knowledge here. Use it or goodbye.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:23, 31 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:OK then. Can you please explain to me the logical basis for your entry in this article? Why have you not included isolated examples of conservative deceit also? Its anti-Academic to do what you have done. 'Typical Liberal Style' - Why don't you grow up. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 10:15, 31 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Liberals and Deceit==<br />
<br />
The sentence at the beginning of the article, saying that liberals engage in deceit but not mentioning conservatives, implies that only liberals deceive. This is clearly absurd, and the "references" seem to be opinion pieces by conservatives. I am new to this website, but I don't see how this article can possibly be useful... isn't this saying that conservatives never deceive, which is clearly not true? I edited this, but someone changed it back without replying to what I said when I changed it.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:18, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:Don't remove sections of this article because you disagree with them. Remember, this is a conservative site and you're not allowed to change it to a NPOV. This is not Wikipedia. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 02:26, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::I'm sorry, as I said, I am new. I thought people were supposed to edit in factual information from a conservative viewpoint, which makes sense to me. But you didn't address what I said... do you think the assertion in the article is true, that only liberals deceive? I am a conservative, and I am not perfect... I am sure I have deceived someone at some point. Haven't you? This article doesn't seem informative really, but more like just an attack. Am I misunderstanding something?--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:31, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:::This article is not about me or other conservatives. This article is about liberals who deceive and the examples are very informative. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 02:38, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::::I would understand that, but it's just called "deceit", not "liberal deceit", right? Is there some portion of the code or something that I screwed up? It looks like it's just "deceit."--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:45, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::::You locked the page without replying. It seems like you're actively trying to keep the page this way, but can't really defend the assertion that only liberals deceive. I came to this site because I was not interested in the little vendettas and biases on Wikipedia, but I guess now I see that there is good reason for Wikipedia policies... I regret having helped make a new article with a substantive nature here before discovering that you guys are only interested in being just as bad as the liberals.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 21:32, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::: Nobody said that ''only'' [[liberals]] deceive, but the [[liberal]] ideology does permit and encourage deceit. Regardless, I've unlocked the page for you but will re-protect it if edits do not comply with the [[rules]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:38, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::::::My point was that there was an obvious implication by only naming liberals. It would be like saying Saudi Arabians attacked the two towers on 9-11, without mentioning the other nationalities. The implication is one of exclusivity. But thank you for unlocking it, I am glad that we're interested in being unbiased and not pulling a "lib" :)--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 21:41, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Well, [[liberals|who]] do you think are the ones always engaging in [[deceit]]? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 02:53, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::::Except that, as I mentioned earlier, it seems pretty silly to claim only liberals deceive. Conservatives are only human too, even if in general more level-headed. I mean, take the recent sex scandals in the House. There was one Republican with pretty good policies who was hitting on a congressional page. I don't remember his name, but that was fairly strong evidence of deceit. I think he had a wife! So I mean, obviously conservatives sometimes deceive, but this article implies that only liberals do. We want to be conservative, but not just LIE, right?--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:00, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
It was Mark Foley, a Republican in the House.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:...but do you see any examples of [[conservative]] [[deceit]] on this page? Why do you think that is? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 03:19, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::I don't understand. Are you implying that the page IS an example of conservative deceit? If that is the case, I respectfully have to state that I think that is a very poor decision, to knowingly deceive impressionable young people who might go to this page. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:24, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::No, I was just speculating is all. Draw whatever conclusions you like from the article. Also: in general, be careful. You wouldn't want accused to be accusing Conservapedia of [[deceit]], because that is a very [[deceit|deceitful]], [[liberal]] thing to do! [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::::But I think Conservapedia IS being deceitful, and I'm not a liberal! This is absurd! It's like an article on cyanide stating, "Liberals have often used cyanide as a murder tool", without mentioning conservatives... the clear implication is that liberals either use cyanide or murder, not conservatives. This is just silly... God created man as imperfect, to declare otherwise is simply hubris and pagan. I am going to change it.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 18:48, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
(undent) Interesting discussion! I have just come across the [[Deceit]] page for the first time, and found such an obviously absurd suggestion that it is only liberals who deceive that I felt moved to change it. Which I did, before I came to this page! I see I am not the only one who thinks the wording was silly. Do yourselves/us/your readers a favor, and don't take us for complete idiots. It is patently absurd to suggest that liberals have a monopoly on deceit. By all means use liberal examples, in tune with the proudly acknowledged Conservapedia viewpoint, but don't make the site laughable by appearing to say that only liberals deceive. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:46, 22 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Piltdown Man ==<br />
<br />
Piltdown Man was indeed a deceit, but the continued use of it as an example in the teaching of evolution was not. It was a mistake made by the ''victims'' of the deceit, not a continuation of the deceit by the ''deceivers''. The statement that "evolutionists continued this deceit for decades" is seriously misleading and should be deleted or amended. I suggest a rewrite as follows:<br /><br />
<br />
The [[Piltdown Man]] was a fraudulent "Missing Link" taught to an entire generation of students worldwide from 1912 to 1953 as "proof" that man had evolved from an ape-like species. <s>Darwinists officially declared</s> The Piltdown Man <font color=red>was declared</font> to be authentic and <s>gave it</s> <font color=red>given</font> a formal name: ''Eoanthropus dawsoni,'' in honor of the person who claimed to have found it, Charles Dawson. The British scientific establishment largely supported the validity of Piltdown Man.<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/tenness5.html</ref> But the Piltdown Man was actually a medieval skull combined with a lower jaw from an orangutan and teeth from a chimpanzee, which were then placed in a gravel pit in the village of Piltdown, England. There are reports that as early as 1914 someone at the British Museum privately admitted that "a negro skull and a broken ape jaw" had been "artificially fossilized."<ref>http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_prim_suspects/KEITH/Keith_prosecution/piltdown_unmasked.html</ref> <s>Yet evolutionists continued this deceit</s> <font color=red>Yet this fraud maintained currency</font> for decades, <s>teaching it</s> in textbooks (e.g., the text at issue in the [[Scopes trial]] in 1925) <s>and publicizing it</s> <font color=red> as well as</font> in popular books and magazines (e.g., a 1922 book for the general market illustrated the daily life of the Piltdown Man). <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC02561355&id=L0sDgL6sPh4C&pg=RA1-PR51 ''Everyday Life in the Old Stone Age''], Charles Henry Bourne Quennell, 1922, p. 51.</ref><br />
<br />
: What is the specific part of it you propose changing, and why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:20, 28 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Reasons as stated. Proposed changes as shown above. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 09:42, 28 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Interested, but not surprised, to see that my correction of the inaccuracy in the article has been swiftly reverted. I take it, then, that you disagree with my point that the perpetation of the fraud was an error, not a deliberate deceit! I tried to raise it here, and when nobody disagreed with me I thought perhaps I might be so bold... I should clearly have known better! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:04, 29 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: I didn't revert your change, and apologize for not responding here sooner. I don't see how you can disagree with my changes. Large-scale deceit always has perpetrators and accomplices, plus [[deliberate ignorance]]. Surely you don't doubt that the [[Piltdown Man]] had all three among [[evolution]]ists?!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:15, 29 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::Well, yes, I do doubt that - but I am well aware that I won't win any such argument in this forum, so I'll leave it at that! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 15:20, 29 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::: [[Logic]] is welcome here, Humblpi. It's a bit of cop-out for someone to say (as we often hear) that he can't win. If you make a logical argument, you will win here. But there is no logic in insisting that the crude fraud of the [[Piltdown Man]] was somehow not perpetrated by [[evolutionists]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 29 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::::You accuse me of "insisting that the crude fraud of the [[Piltdown Man]] was somehow not perpetrated by evolutionists." That is not what I said. Of course the Piltdown fraud was perpetrated by "evolutionists". My point is that the ''perpetuation'' of that fraud was not a plot (and therefore not directly a deceit) but an ''error''. Those who committed the initial fraud were guilty of deceit; those who perpetuated it were not - they were ''victims'' of the fraud, not perpetrators of it. That's all, and I suggested a small change to the article to make that clearer. But you have seen fit to change it back to a twisted version of the truth. It's your website. I leave it there. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 15:54, 29 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Reversion explained ==<br />
<br />
The list is [[deceit]]. They are mostly [[liberal]] but that's not our fault. If you have comparable examples of [[deceit]] accepted and promoted by [[conservatives]], then let's see them here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:54, 1 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
What would be the point , you`l only revert them .--[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 09:06, 1 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: That's called a "cop-out". If you have examples, let's see them here. If you don't, please don't pretend otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:13, 1 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
But lets be serious your not actually suggesting that conservatives have never been deceitfull have you. What about president nixon. Is he not deceitful. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 13:28, 1 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Former President Nixon was not a conservative, and it is an affront to suggest that. Nixon was a Keynesian (A soft term to describe a socialist) who radically increased spending on social programmes and 'normalised' relations with communist nations. He was a Liberal. [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 11:15, 2 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: That's right. By 1972 -- before [[Nixon]]'s cover-up of [[Watergate]], [[conservatives]] were so opposed to Nixon that [[conservatives]] actually tried to defeat him in the [[Republican]] primary by backing [[John Ashbrook]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:24, 2 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
SO , the fact of the matter is that he was still a deceitful person, so therefore we should include it. His behaviour was deceitful , he is deceitful , you cant change that. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:10, 2 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Oh yes thats it any conservative that commits deceit is actually a liberal , lol , therefore it becomes liberal deceit, it doesnt even matter , as the topic is called deciet its ok to but nixon their. People can decide for themselves weither or not he is a liberal. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:13, 2 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:To some degree that's actually true - since [[conservative]]s, and especially Christian conservative values, adheres more to the moral principles of the Bible that explicitly forbids deceit, then one who deceives is not acting like a true conservative would. [[Liberal]]s, on the other hand, does not even seem to try to maintain a moral code.<br />
:Nevertheless, slandering Nixon is inappropriate for this page. Just because it is true does not make it relevant here. [[User:Hammet|Hammet]] 19:25, 2 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Enron... Nixon... ==<br />
<br />
I can hardly think of two more obvious examples of deceit. Why do Nixon and Enron get removed? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 11:44, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
:I suppose that, as explained above, they're not really ''true'' conservatives. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 12:57, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::For that matter, shouldn't people like [[Jim & Tammy Bakker]] and [[Jimmy Swaggart]] be added to the list? I would have thought they are prime examples of deceit. I'm sure there's more, but those are the only two that come to mind right now.[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 13:46, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
:::IIRC, the made mistakes and were repentant for those errors. [[Liberals]] deny that they have sinned, and deny their [[deceit]]. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 13:51, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
The [[deceit]] in this list is typically ''embraced'' deceit, and run-of-the-mill political lies or fraud are not included.<br />
<br />
Keep trying, guys, but you'll have to look a very long time to find just one example of embraced deceit by a [[conservative]] against the numerous examples of [[liberal]] deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:59, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
:Nixon said, "I am not a crook," and defended his own deceit. How is that not "embraced"? Enron executives maintained their innocence all the way through the trial. How are they not similarly embracing deceit? Perhaps your definition of "embraced deceit" is such a moving target as to become meaningless.-'''<font color="#CC0000">α</font><font color="#A0A0A0">m</font><font color="#0099FF">ε</font><font color="#003399">σ</font>''' <small>[[User_talk:AmesG | (advocate)]]</small> 14:08, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::So by your own definition ("The [[deceit]] in this list is typically ''embraced'' deceit, and run-of-the-mill political lies or fraud are not included.") Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell et al are guilty of deceit, given the way they fervently embraced (and haven't repented for) the deceit surrounding Weapons of Mass Destruction? It's a bit disingenuous to tweak the definition every time a name crops up that you wouldn't like to see in the list. Likewise, I can't see how Reagan's deceit surrounding Iran-Contra can be classed as run-of-the-mill political lies. That also seems to imply that you're willing to accept a politician who lies to you, in a run of the mill way?[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 15:28, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: Perhaps you also think it was [[deceit]] for Bush to claim to have won the 2000 election?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: Why would I think that? True, it did get messy before the final result was announced, but that was as much Gore's fault as anything. At the end of the day the candidate with the most votes won, fair and square. Now, snide remarks aside, shall we get back on topic?[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 15:51, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::: Uh oh, you'd better watch yourself, or you won't have any [[liberal friendship|liberal friends]] any more. ''Gore won the most votes, not Bush!''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:03, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
<-- Steering back on track, we have two examples that need to be considered:<br />
* Nixon stating "I am not a crook" and then defending this statement<br />
* Bush stating there were WMD's without evidence, and continuing this belief<br />
<br />
I know nothing about the first, and not as much as others about the second. As for Bush winning the 2000 election, this has nothing to do with deceit, and instead with the American election system. Bush did not win because he lied about the outcome. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 16:08, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Bush still claims he won in 2000. Some liberals would say this deceit has been going on for nearly 8 years. Do you think we should include that also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Of course not. He won. No deceit involved. Whereas Nixon clearly exemplifies "embraced deceit". I now understand why Enron has been deleted, given that it was a case of simple deceit in the form of theft, not an attempt to influence people's political opinions etc. But surely Nixon... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:20, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Bush ''did'' win in 2000, even though he still got less votes the way the American political system is structured allowed him to claim victory. While some extreme leftists may view this as deceit, others view it as a reason to change rather than an example of a blatant lie. I don't think anyone here is actually claiming Bush winning the election was an example of deceit, perhaps we could concentrate on the two issues others have raised. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 16:22, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: OK, then why the obsession with Nixon? Clinton lied and was impeached. We haven't included him, why do you think there was [[embraced deceit]] by Nixon that is so much stronger than Clinton's?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::(speaking just for myself, obviously) - I am not obsessed with Nixon, but he was once mentioned on the site and was deleted, and I queried the reason for that deletion. As far as I am aware (I haven't checked all the page history) Clinton has never made an appearance here. I am arguing against the removal of Nixon, not against the addition of Clinton. Adding Clinton might indeed be appropriate, for sure. And no doubt many other politicians of all political hues and persuasions. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:32, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::::Any standard used on Nixon would create a horde of politicians who could be included as well. The key is to find behavior that is out of the ordinary so as to set the actions of the individual apart from his peers. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:44, 9 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
You all seem to be forgetting something. The list says deceit, therfore any1 can be put on it including nixon. If you want it to only be an article on liberals have the guts to call it liberal deceit. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:57, 10 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I seem to recall it used to be called [[Liberal deceit]], but they changed it because some vandals and malcontents kept saying there should be an article for [[Conservative deceit]]. They failed to understand that [[Real Conservatives]] never lie. It's just that occasionally their true statements are non-operative in the reality-based community world at this point in time fnord. <br />
:I've taken the liberty of adding [[Scooter Libby]] to the list. If a conviction for perjury doesn't qualify as Deceit, I'm curious what does. (oh, yeah--ANYTHING a Liberal says.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 12:42, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Not all convictions are necessarily just, and this one was particularly controversial. You are right however that perjury qualifies as deciet. However, I think it is best to stick to more widely accepted examples. I'm moving the scooter libby example to the talk page for further discussion. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] <sub>[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]</sub> 12:48, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Admittedly there are several other controversial examples on te page. I'll see what I can do about them. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] <sub>[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]</sub> 12:52, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
on second thought, the current examples are pretty good. However you may feel free to suggest any examples that you think are appropriate. Personaly I have nothing against exposing non-liberal deciet. I don't approve of deciet in general. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] <sub>[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]</sub> 13:00, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Umm, right ==<br />
<br />
This article is stupid. Instead of actually giving information about deceit it just lists heaps of people who are apparently evil liberal liars. Why not actually provide information (like encyclopedias should) rather than listing "examples".<br />
<br />
If the admins of this place want it to replace Wikipedia as the Internets main source of info, a good way to start would be to actually provide information. [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 22:28, 23 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Fred, try opening your mind a bit and recognize the well-documented cases of [[deceit]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:36, 23 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Ok, I would like to insult you for your supposedly "open minded" idea of deceit, but I won't.<br />
I'm just saying, rather than listing supposed cases of deciet, shoulden't an encyclopedia describe what deciet is and explain why and how it is used rather than just saying "all these things are eebul liberal lies!!11!" Examples are good, but they should not be the main part of an article on an encyclopedia. [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 22:07, 25 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
As no one's replying, can I assume its ok for me to start drafting a replacement article with more emphasis on explaining dicete rather than exposing "eebul liberal lies!!11!" [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 23:59, 5 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Scooter Libby== <br />
<br />
This example has been suggested. please discuss.<br />
<br />
# [[Scooter Libby]], convicted in court of Obstruction of Justice, Making a False Statement, and [Perjury]], for intentionally deceiving the grand jury about how he learned, and “disclosed to the media,” information about Valerie Plame Wilson’s employment by the CIA.<br />
<br />
::Yes, that's deceit all right! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:07, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::Sounds good to ME, but I'm the one who posted it, so I'm biased. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:36, 29 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: There is no end to the list if we start posting political figures. There were many convictions among Clinton cronies also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Examples of deceit==<br />
<br />
I realize that this page contains many true and valid example's of deciet, however i don't see how such a list is what we're looking for in an encyclopedia. I think this list has only proved itself a can of worms. I say we only include a description of what deciet is and perhaps one or to more classical examples of deciet such as ananias and saphira. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] <sub>[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]</sub> 13:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree. Large laundry lists don't belong in an encyclopedia. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:51, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Encyclopedia's and all reference works, can teach not only by defining a term, but showing it as well. There is an old rhyme about how a person would rather see a sermon, than hear one. By not only defining the term, but providing examples and comparisons, the job this ''conservative encyclopedia'' does is greatly improved, IMO. I do realize that to many in today's world, it seems "out of step" in a society where teaching "right" and "wrong" is held to be archaic. Remember fine counsel is often confused, but examples are always clear! --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 00:33, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::So you agree with Ben (and I) then? I think a few in-depth, well known examples would be much more beneficial to ''any encyclopedia'' that what we have now. Deceit is a pretty simple concept, why explain it with 15 examples? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:16, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: We disfavor deleting information unless a [[rule]] violation is identified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:44, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
HelpJazz, I was saying just the opposite of what you (apparently) were saying. That good examples, which actually demonstrate, are a far better learning aid than just a litany of "facts". I would note that it appears many are overly concerned, ''albeit perhaps a well intentioned concern'', with truncating articles in CP that are "uncomfortable" to some in their uncompromising examples of [[liberal deceit]]. We see that in many places today, a few seeking to redefine, blur or minimize anything that points out uncomfortable facts about the left, and liberals in particular. Why even a factual statement about liberal thinking is branded by some now as ''ad hominem arguments'', which seems to be a new phrase introduced to truncate any and all discussion or disagreement with liberals! --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 16:11, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I didn't say anything about being uncomfortable, liberal deceit, minimizing criticism of the left, or ad hominem arguments, so I'll just address the relevant portion of your post.<br />
:We are obviously both in agreement (along with Ben, who started this thread) that examples can help explain a concept. I love examples, and try to add them to new articles I create. But don't you agree that a couple of good, solid examples are better than a list of every example we can find? I think this is a more concise and more informative way to make an encyclopedia entry.<br />
:Deceit is a simple concept; at some point all these examples stop being about deceit and start being about denegrating those who are being used as examples (both liberals AND conservatives, as can be seen in the suggestion in the section below). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:00, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I think I have dealt with the latest twist in liberals trying to shut down discussion by claiming "ad hominem arguments" elsewhere. That argument (liberal fact) is rejected by conservatives outright, and as this is a conservative wiki, has no place here. If you need the link, I think I can find it. <br />
<br />
::As for the idea of using fewer examples, I think Andy Schlafly succinctly answered that no, removal of examples showing liberal deceit/bias is not favored. No caveats were provided, correct? I do however think such articles could stand formatting and stylistic improvement, making them easier to read, and highlighting salient points in an improved way. I stand ready to assist anyone wanting to improve Conservapedia's articles, by offering suggestions/examples/ideas as to what is acceptable to conservatives and what is not. Ed Poor, Karajou, Crocotite, Conservative, TerryH and Andy himself are a few others I know who are qualified to provide that information. If someone feels unfairly excluded, please forgive an older person a lapse in memory or familiarity with their work. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 18:18, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
=="The War in Iraq Is Going Well"==<br />
Isn't that a form of embraced deceit? It's clearly ''not'' going well, and yet the Bush administration refuses to backtrack from its original position, that the war would be and essentially was won in a matter of days. We all know that's false now. Why do they not come out and say it?-[[User:Historian|Historian]] 16:31, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Politics is filled with issues like that. There are just as many -- if not more -- examples on the Democratic side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:42, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::True. It's no secret that politics is dirty on all sides. But if your goal with this article is to prove that no conservatives ever embrace deceit, then, I think this example should be included. Feel free to stack in as many other examples of Democrats doing the same thing as you want.-[[User:Historian|Historian]] 16:55, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::So what? We don't let Charles Manson out of jail just because Pol Pot killed more people, and misdeeds by Democrats '''DO NOT EXCUSE misdeeds by Republicans'''. If you seriously want people to believe that Conservatives have higher moral standards than Liberals, then giving "your" "side" a free pass when they've verifiably done something egregious does not help your case. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 19:01, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::"Going well" as compared to what? The Iraq situation, as compared to the more rampant random violence of months ago, is going better. The "surge", whatever one wants to call it, has improved security, and has been admitted so doing by even former Generals and the like who opposed the war. So clearly saying that isn't a deceit, as measured by military experts, not civilians. Let's not intertwine arguments for or against the American police actions in going into Iraq, or the failings of the democratically elected government of Iraq, with the much narrower discussion about the "surge". And, I think someone needs to reaffirm what Andy just posted above: Someone citing what they believe to be a deceit, doesn't negate or disprove another. Therefore, the entire purpose of the post above, has no basis in logic, and appears to be yet another argumentative ''Red Herring'', something thrown out for just the sake of argument, when that is something more appropriate for a ''Discussion Group or Board'', but does nothing to add content to an encyclopedia project. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 19:24, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::there is a very large diffrence between going well, and going better. your argument is like saying that since someone in a hospital is dying slower, they are doing well. and the refrence point should be... compared to just after we won the actual war (with the army) in iraq-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:32, 23 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== "Public schools, in contrast, do not teach that deceit is wrong." ==<br />
<br />
I beg your pardon? Is there any evidence for this outrageous statement? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:The [[burden of proof]] is on you, and it should be a light one if you have an example in mind already. "I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Er, that's not true. The burden of proof lies upon the one who makes the statement, in this case [[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]].<br />
<br />
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 13:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:That's what I just said: H made the claim that the statement is outrageous and so the burden of proof is upon him. Do I have to make it a [[writing assignment]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::The burden of proof is on the person who posts the statement in the article, not on the one who queries it on a talk page. I refer you to Commandments #1 and #5 - the article should ''not be personal opinion'', and it should ''be verifiable''. So it's not me that needs the writing assignment. I agree that the word "outrageous" was an expression of my personal opinion, but that is expressly allowed on a talk page (Commandment #5). If it helps, though, I'll happily withdraw it: "Public schools, in contrast, do not teach that deceit is wrong." Is there any evidence for this <s>outrageous</s> statement? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:16, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::: BenjaminS claims it to be fact, AND since everything here must be VERIFIED, it is upon Benny to prove that his broad accusation has merit. As far as disproving it, I ask all public-school educated people to remember the time their first grade teacher taught them that lying is bad.<br />
:::PBS (PUBLIC broadcasting) does teach this with the help of the good monsters of Sesame Street (I remember it back when it used to be a good neighborhood). '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 13:22, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::Frankly, I prefer Ed's guideline. Not requiring proof of a factual assertion, and instead putting the burden on any naysayers to disprove a fact, will make writing articles much easier.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:00, 20 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::::Is that a joke? Seriously, that's the worst methodology I've ever heard of. I'm going to go start an entry about the real-life Mighty Morphin Power Rangers which live on another planet at the other end of the galaxy. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:37, 20 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: Aschafly, you've reverted Lib1089's deletion of the sentence without adding any additional information. This is made worse because he expressly cited Conservapedia's first commandment in his edit summary: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable". You've run roughshod over that. Please reconsider your edit and either revert it or add information that substantiates the claim. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:20, 5 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
This strikes me as a bit odd. Perhaps my public school system was more conservative than most, but we most certainly were taught that deceit was wrong. In an academic setting, that of course took the form of bans on plagiarism and cheating, which were expressly forbidden, as I imagine they are at most any public school. I would also think that some public schools have honor codes, much like the liberal elite universities all do, that stress honesty and integrity. Finally, there is no evidence that public schools specifically condone deceit, is there? [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 00:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I just removed that statement. I'm a bit new here but I'm assuming that a statement of that magnitude, not backed up with any references, is an act of vandalism. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 22:24, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Boris Johnson==<br />
Aschlalfy, you have twice reverted factual, sourced, material about Boris Johnson. Why? I didnt state he was conservative so you cant say I was trying to smear conservatives. You will notice his mistress had an abortion to rid themselves of a potentially embarrasing love child. How is this not deceit?<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:57, 2 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Al Gore ==<br />
Took this one out because there was no evidence of deceit, just factual inaccuracy. Gore botched more than a few facts in that film, but there's no reason to chalk that up to anything more than his incompetence. Although, if you can prove an intent to deceive, then by all means, please revert. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 00:00, 11 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Richard Nixon==<br />
Added a rather obvious example. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 22:26, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==M Scott Peck==<br />
I removed his book from the further reading list because it is not about deceit as such, but about psycopathy (Evil, in common parlance). [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 10:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Nixon, Libby, and Enron ==<br />
<br />
What specifically about those named above and their actions qualifies them as not being deceitful? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 12:50, 27 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: One-sided and opinionated examples of alleged deceit by a president or corporation do not have sufficient quality to be included in this high-quality entry, which typically consisted of significant, prolonged, embraced and admitted or proven deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:58, 27 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::I think Nixon's deceit was significant and prolonged. Libby was significant simply for being a high-profile person, and his deceit was prolonged. And Enron's deceit was very significant, costing hundreds of people their savings. All three had their deceit proven in one way or another. It's pretty deceitful to claim otherwise. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 13:03, 27 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:...is it because they're not liberal...? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:06, 27 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I was about to post here yesterday, but I had just added the entires in question back and [[User:Bugler]] blocked me for it. The answer is that yes, of course, you will find as you continue to edit this 'encyclopedia' that examples of conservative deceit are not allowed. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 19:42, 29 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Public school deceit==<br />
It's not a required course, but in "Journalism" students were taught about the evils of slander, deceit, and malice. <sub>your apathetic neighborhood public schooler</sub> [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 16:43, 27 June 2008 (EDT)</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Daphnea&diff=484110User:Daphnea2008-06-29T23:40:17Z<p>Daphnea: Farewell to Conservapedia</p>
<hr />
<div>==Farewell to Conservapedia==<br />
<br />
I've been an editor here for about a week now. I'm a conservative and a Christian. I came here looking for an alternative to Wikipedia that was more conservative in viewpoint, less biased, more accurate and more credible. There may be such an encyclopedia out there. I'm certain that Conservapedia isn't it.<br />
<br />
The short version of my reason for leaving, the straw that broke the camel's back, was that I was blocked for adding examples to the article [[Deceit]]. The examples were [[Richard Nixon]], [[Scooter Libby]] and [[Enron]]. Surely it was a no-brainer that such well-known examples of deceivers on a huge scale merit a mention? Such examples were not appropriate I was told, although lesser examples of deceit were certainly allowed, if they were carried out by Democrats.<br />
<br />
The long version is more complicated. So let me take some time to explain what is wrong with Conservapedia - in my opinion of course. You are entitled to your own.<br />
<br />
==Nobody seems to want to write an encyclopedia==<br />
Conservapedia is incredibly sparse. Many articles on major subjects are very small and trivial in nature. [[England]] gives almost no idea of the history of the nation, stopping around 1500<ref>It's only as long as it is because I wrote much of it</ref>. [[Rome]] gets barely a paragraph.<br />
<br />
The main reason for this is clear. Nobody seems to want to actually write encyclopedia articles. Certainly not among the leaders. Instead they seem to spend all their time having debates<ref>[[Debate:Should_pharmacists_be_forced_to_fill_legal_prescriptions_they_personally_object_to_on_moral_grounds%3F]]</ref><ref>[[Debate:_Are_Catholics_Christians%3F]]</ref> or [[Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog|attacking biologists]] or writing pseudo-articles like [[Liberal bias]] or [[Hollywood Values]].<br />
<br />
===Broken Rules===<br />
<br />
Conservapedia has some good rules. <br />
<br />
*"[[Conservapedia:Commandments|Everything you post must be true and verifiable]]"<br />
*"[[Conservapedia:Commandments|Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry]]"<br />
*"[[Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia|Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic rules]]"<br />
*"[[Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia|We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts]]"<br />
<br />
These are good rules, and would make for a good encyclopedia. The trouble is that all of the above rules are frequently and intentionally broken by those in charge. Sysops and particularly [[User:Aschlafly]] frequently make edits that are based entirely on personal opinion, and not at all verifiable<ref> http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=483679</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Richard_Lenski&diff=prev&oldid=483305</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Deceit&diff=prev&oldid=479709</ref>. If the journalist in question is a conservative, their views are often cited as fact. Facts are frequently censored if they seem not to agree with the personal views of the site's owner<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Deceit&diff=prev&oldid=482812</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=480375</ref>. Explanations for such censorship include "liberal claptrap", and includes removal of facts that are agreed with by 99% of people.<br />
<br />
Not only are facts removed if those in power don't agree, but people are blocked from editing if they disagree. My own example is a case in point. If I'm still able to edit a week after writing this, I'll apologize, but don't hold your breath.<br />
<br />
A point frequently made by sysops as they revert your changes is that "Andrew Schlafley owns this site and he can do what he likes". That's true, though it's a bad example to be setting. When a national leader takes that attitude we call him a dictator. But more to the point, if Andrew Schlafley wants only his own personal view expressed on the site (and that ppears to be the case) why did he make it a wiki? A blog would have been much better. Feel free to ask him why.<br />
<br />
===Ideological censorship===<br />
It is obvious from some of the above examples that facts that are not helpful to the Conservapedia cause are simply ignored. If someone adds them to an article they are removed. If someone complains that they have been removed, the complaint is removed. If someone complains that the complaint is removed the editor is blocked. The article [[Deceit]] is a prime example; so is [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] and [[Barack Obama]]. Any of [[Hollywood Values]], [[Professor values]] or any similar named article is another good case. Just look at the edit history.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Factual inaccuracies==<br />
<br />
Given how small it is Conservapedia contains a large numbers of inaccuracies. Some I fixed in my time here include "[[Montreal]] is the second largest city in [[Quebec]]" and "[[United Kingdom#History|the United Kingdom developed a separate but established church]]". Others I could not fix: "[[Main Page|Britain with its atheistic schools leads Europe in teen drunkeness]]" (British schools are some of the most religious in Europe). These pages are locked against normal users and requests to fix them drew no response.<br />
<br />
==Final thoughts==<br />
<br />
So there are my thoughts. I doubt they will remain here long, so read them while you may. I'm not going to edit this mess any further: doing so would only be enabling Conservapedia's dysfunctional dynamic. I will be sending some goodbye messages to a few people. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist}}</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Faith&diff=483324Faith2008-06-28T15:02:47Z<p>Daphnea: /* The Uniqueness of Christian "Faith" */</p>
<hr />
<div>The Biblical definition of '''Faith''' (from the Greek, πίστις or ''pistis'') refers to ''trust'',<ref>[http://www.zhubert.com/word?root=%CF%80%E1%BD%B7%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B9%CF%82 Definition of πίστις from zhubert.com]</ref> and if applied refers to applying a confidence in what is already known about God (specifically Christ), to a situation where every detail is not laid out in full. We can see that kind of confidence as the [[Bible]] describes what faith is in the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]]. (This kind of trust based on knowledge is [[#The Uniqueness of Christian "Faith"|unique]] to historical Christianity and Judaism)<br />
:Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1, NASB)<br />
<br />
==The Practicality of Christian "Faith"==<br />
The verb for the word "faith" in Greek is πιστεύω (pisteuo), which is translated most often as "believe" in English. Having faith, believing, trusting, or having confidence are all things that imply much more than a simple head knowledge about something, and more specifically God himself. For example, it is possible for one to acknowledge God's existence and know it as a fact deduced from logical arguments, and yet still not make God a practical faith, belief, trust, or confidence in their life. Faith, then, is a trusting action taken based on knowledge.<br />
<br />
Often times the example of a chair is given to illustrate the practicality of biblical faith. When you sit down in a chair (and perhaps you are now, while reading this article), do you generally worry whether that chair will hold you up? Usually, one will never think about the chair, and take it for granted. Another way to think of that same illustration is a person who sits on the edge of their seat, because they are nervous about the chair. They are not sitting back and resting in the chair, but tensed and ready just in case it turns out that the chair becomes untrustworthy and falls over.<br />
<br />
This is what it means to have biblical faith in God. It means a knowledge of God and who he is in his character and actions, and resting in that knowledge from day to day.<br />
<br />
==Faith and Knowledge==<br />
In the modern secular mindset and even in some evangelical circles, the ideas of faith and knowledge cannot coexist. In other words, many believe that faith is antithetical to knowledge and even science. Really, this is a misconception which comes from an ignorance of both what true biblical faith is (as described in brief above) and what knowledge really is (from a philosophical point of view). According to Dr. Dallas Willard (a Christian philosopher), faith is not opposed to knowledge because "faith is a kind of knowledge."<ref>[http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/2008/01/07/how-people-perish-for-lack-of-knowledge/ How People Perish for Lack of Knowledge]</ref><br />
<br />
In the Bible, faith is never offered in opposition to knowledge, but it is in opposition to ''sight'' ("for we walk by faith, not by sight" — 2 Corinthians 5:7). In the modern context, ''sight'', or the use of the five senses, is almost always used as a limiter for the extent of knowledge. This is unfortunate, however, because there are practical things that people interact with all the time that cannot be sensed. For example, friendship, love, truth, beauty, and even knowledge itself are all things, which in essence, cannot be observed with the senses. These are all things that we have some sort of ''knowledge'' about, and yet they cannot be empirically tested, if "empirical" means the five senses.<br />
<br />
==The Opposite of Faith: Doubt==<br />
If faith is ''a trusting action taken based on knowledge'', then doubt is having that knowledge but not trusting it to aid you through an unknown circumstance. For example, it would be like saying, ''I know about God and what He is capable of, but I won't trust that knowledge in this situation because of all the unknown factors involved''. Therefore doubt is a reaction to uncertainties rather than certainties.<br />
<br />
Jesus acknowledges that doubt is the opposite of faith.<br />
:And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, <u>if you have faith and do not doubt</u>, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen." (Matthew 21:21, NASB)<br />
Taking the definition of faith and doubt as described above, Jesus is basically saying here, ''If you have a knowledge of who I am [and they did because they were with Jesus and saw that he was God], and you trust that knowledge in a practical sense, you will be capable of great things''.<br />
<br />
Although doubt is the primary antithesis of biblical faith, it may manifest itself in a variety of ways. It may manifest as fear, anxiety, depression, and lack of confidence. A lack of faith can even be very harmful, leading to self-destructive behavior.<br />
<br />
==The Uniqueness of Christian "Faith"==<br />
<br />
Some other religions have concepts similar to Christian "faith". [[Judaism]] and [[Islam]] particularly view ''faith'' in virtually the same way as Christianity.<br />
<br />
* Some branches of [[Buddhism]], such as the Jodo (or Shin) school popular in Japan, have a concept that is sometimes described as "salvation through faith". These Buddhists believe that devotion to a certain Buddha will allow them to be reincarnated in a kind of heaven, regardless of what sort of life they led. Their "devotion" takes the form of repeating a short meaningless prayer over and over again. This is very different from the personal relationship with Christ that is implied by Christian faith: "Christian and Shin Faith are exactly opposite."<ref>[http://www.seattlebetsuin.com/Is_Shin_Buddhism_the_same_as_Christianity.htm]</ref><br />
<br />
==Secondary Benefits of "Faith"==<br />
* Faith plays a central role in overcoming [[addiction]]. Virtually everyone is plagued by one or more addictions, and faith enables overcoming those weaknesses.<br />
<br />
==Biblical examples==<br />
* Perhaps the greatest description of faith is Hebrews 11. It states: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."<ref>Hebrews 11:1 (NIV).</ref><br />
* [[Paul]] indicated that faith itself is a gift of the [[Holy Spirit]]. 1 Corinthians 12:8-9 <i>For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit</i><br />
* In attempt to convert [[Jews]] to [[Christianity]], [[Paul]] described [[Abraham]]'s willingness to sacrifice his beloved son [[Isaac]] to [[God]] as an act of [[faith]], though the [[Old Testament]] did not describe it with that term. As discussed above, a potential reference to faith is [[Genesis]] 22 where [[God]] tested [[Abraham]] by commanding him to sacrifice his only son [[Isaac]]. As Abraham prepared to do what God commanded -he was stopped. <i>"Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son." </i><br />
<br />
==Famous People on "Faith"==<br />
===Martin Luther on Faith===<br />
Luther in his Table Talk papers writes this thought provoking and rather difficult passage on faith:<br />
:This is the acme of faith, to believe that God, who saves so few and condemns so many, is merciful; that he is just who, at his own pleasure, has made us necessarily doomed to damnation, so that he seems to delight in the torture of the wretched and is more deserving of hate than of love. If by any effort of reason I could conceive how God, who shows so much anger and harshness, could be merciful and just, there would be no need of faith.<br />
<br />
==Criticisms of "Faith"==<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
'''Evangelical perspectives of Faith'''<br />
* Holding, James Patrick, [http://tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html Fallacious Faith]<br />
'''Non-Evangelical perspectives of Faith'''<br />
* [http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/finding-faith-in-christ/video/finding-faith-in-christ Finding Faith in Christ], video at ''JesusChrist.lds.org''<br />
<br />
[[Category:Religion]]<br />
[[Category:Philosophy]]<br />
[[Category:Christianity]]</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Daphnea&diff=483320User talk:Daphnea2008-06-28T14:56:37Z<p>Daphnea: /* you asked me to acknowledge getting your email on your talk page. I got it and responded. */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{welcome}}<br />
==Richard Dawkins==<br />
It appears I made a mistake. Please accept my apologies. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]]<sup>[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]]</sup> 20:02, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Thank you. No problem. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 20:04, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Stop making positive edits, part of the lulz from this place comes from their HI-larious "definitions". Make more troll edits, but don't give advice on how to correct page. Jesus, dude.--[[User:Ivysaur|Ivysaur]] 22:41, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Answer to your question. ==<br />
<br />
Bugler did not seem to want to answer, so here is the best answer I can come up with. I would suggest steering clear of any pages that start with the word "liberal," or contain the word "values." Those pages are watched pretty closely, and any dissenting information is pretty quickly reverted. Other than that there is no easy way to tell what pages are dangerous ground. [[Barack Obama]] is another. If you look at the talk page and see alot of arguing and debate, that might be an indicator. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup> <sup>[[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]]</sup> 11:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I'll repeat what I said on Bugler's talk page, and on your talk page. Feel free to carry on the conversation at any of these.<br />
:When you say "dissenting information" what do you mean? My edits were to fix factual problems. One was to correct something said about Wikipedia (the Wikipedia article we talk about no longer says what we say it does). The other was to clear up a statement that was not backed up by references, and so not verifiable according to the Conservapedia Commandments. <br />
:When I came here I thought that this was a wiki, like Wikipedia but written from a Conservative point of view. Are there actually restrictions on who can edit articles? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 11:56, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Thanks for chipping in on the [[compass]] article ==<br />
<br />
I think it's safe to say that contributing to the [[compass]] article is "safe ground." I'm still trying to figure out "the rules" here and am finding that a lot of them are unspoken - you find out when it's too late that you've transgressed. I've been shunned (blocked) once already for violating some obscure rule that said if you talk too much, rather than directly make major edits, you'll be blocked. This implies that anyone (like me) who would rather discuss something contentious before actually changing an article has to learn simply to shut up. I personally think that is counterproductive.<br />
<br />
Writing about compasses is much more soothing (and as an ex-navigation type, something I rather enjoy). -- [[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 16:21, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree in principle, though if that's all I do I'm beginning to wonder why I wouldn't do it on another wiki. It's hard to see how an article on compasses written from a conservative viewpoint is different from one written from any other viewpoint. Some of the rules are very strange. Apparently there are some articles (no-one seems to know exactly which ones) where you have to ask permission of [[User:Aschlafly]] if you want to edit them. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:38, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:My bad. The 90-10 rule is a core commandment and not an obscure rule. I'm not sure that makes it better, though. Makes me wonder if "talking" here counts against me. -- [[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 16:14, 27 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Reversions==<br />
Thanks! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:16, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
And again! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:06, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==You can wait==<br />
''"I did as you said and asked [[User:Aschlafly]] about the edits to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]. That was 48 hours ago and he hasn't got back to me. How about we apply the legal doctrine "silence gives consent" and make the edits again? If he's that busy he probably won't notice, and if he objects he can always tell me why when he does notice."''<br />
<br />
How about waiting for an answer from him first? Making an over-riding decision like what you indicated above is not allowed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:02, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:This is starting to sound very worrying. Is this an "unwritten rule" - you can't disagree with [[User:Aschlafly]]? I understand that he set up the website, but if he had wanted it to contain only his views why didn't he make it a regular website instead of a wiki?<br />
:Incidentally the edits I made (that were undone and need to be "discussed" were to fix cases where the article was contravening the '''written''' rules of Conservapedia. One was a factual in accuracy and the other was a case where the reference given did not back up what was said in the article. Do the unwritten rules take precedence over the written ones? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 15:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Pretty much.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:11, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No, I wasn't referring to an unwritten rule; what I was referring to was an attempt by you to make changes that he told you not to do, and those changes would be done behind his back. It's not going to happen. So, wait until he gets back online, broach the question again, and see what comes of it. If he says no, accept it and move on. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Andy has been online several times since I asked him the question more than 48 hours ago. He has been online several times since I reminded him about it 24 hours ago. If he actually answered me and explained the reasons why my edits were bad I would be happy - it is his site after all. For that matter '''not one other editor''' has ventured to give me a reason why my edits were considered bad, including the several sysops who have been involved in this and (I would hope) have a pretty good idea of how Conservapedia works by now. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 15:20, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
==Editing==<br />
Hello. You should, by now, understand that the POV of, say, [[Hollywood values]] is to denigrate the motion picture and television industries. Adding films that show that Hollywood ''at least'' recognizes how to make a movie that has strong [[conservative values]], might make a reader think that there is some redeeming value in Hollywood and its value system. Since we know this '''cannot''' be the case, (after all, something is ''either'' '''all good''' or '''all bad'''), the edits you made were outside the scope of the POV. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 16:58, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Thanks Marge, and having been here a few days now I believe what you say. There were some previous edits to the article pointing out that not everyone in Hollywood goes along with "Hollywood values", and I had hoped that pointing out similarly that not all Hollywood movies go along with "Hollywood values" would be valuable. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:02, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::The way to do that would, on a page about Hollywood or the entertainment industry, to point out that it is not synonymous with HV. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:04, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::OK, I'll do that. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:06, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== you asked me to acknowledge getting your email on your talk page. I got it and responded. ==<br />
<br />
You asked me to acknowledge getting your email on your talk page as you could not edit conservapedia you said. I got your email and I responded to your email.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:51, 27 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Thanks. As you can see the problem is now fixed. I didn't get the email. I'll check I didn't get it wrong. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 10:56, 28 June 2008 (EDT)</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hollywood_values&diff=482442Hollywood values2008-06-26T21:46:54Z<p>Daphnea: ...and the productions</p>
<hr />
<div>The phrase '''Hollywood values''' refers to the lack of [[morals]] and [[values]] in [[Hollywood]] culture, which is characterized by decadence, narcissism, rampant [[drug|drug use]], extramarital sex, sexually-transmitted [[disease]], lawlessness and death. A poll by MSNBC said that 60% of [[Americans]] agree that "Hollywood's values are not in line with the rest of America and that the quality of movies has dimished in recent years."<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11714540/</ref><br />
<br />
Not all people who currently work or have worked in Hollywood espouse Hollywood values. [[Ronald Reagan]], [[James Stewart]], [[Charlton Heston]], [[Walt Disney]] and many others practiced conservative values while working in Hollywood and their productions also reflect these values. Some productions also reflect conservative values, irrespecitive of the star names associated with them: [[The Chronicles of Narnia]] and [[independence Day]] are examples.<br />
<br />
Hollywood values can include a flagrant disrespect and disregard for:<br />
<br />
* [[marriage]] and [[abstinence]]<br />
* [[patriotism]]<br />
* [[religion]]<br />
* [[accountability]]<br />
* family responsibilities, like childrearing<ref>[[Britney Spears]] "doesn't want [her] kids back." [http://www.nypost.com/seven/02132008/news/nationalnews/brit_doesnt_want_her_kids__1st_ex_97425.htm]</ref><br />
* laws that apply to everyone else<br />
* normal behavioural boundaries and values of human decency<br />
<br />
==Deaths ==<br />
Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4174733&page=1</ref><ref>http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_18845.aspx</ref><br />
*[[John Barrymore]], 60, cirrhosis of the liver from heavy drinking<br />
*[[Bix Beiderbecke]], 28, [[alcoholism]]<br />
*[[John Belushi]], 33, was a repeated drug abuser who ultimately died of a lethal injection of cocaine and heroin<br />
*[[Clara Blandick]], 81, suicide<br />
*[[John Bonham]], 32, after too much drinking, asphyxiated on vomit<br />
*[[Kurt Cobain]], 27, "turned to drugs and alcohol to help him cope," then committed suicide<br />
*[[Karl Dane]], 47, suicide by gunshot<br />
*[[James Dean]], 24, auto accident (see also crime, below)<br />
*[[Eazy-E]], 31. [[AIDS]] contracted through drug use.<br />
*[[Brian Epstein]], 32, overdosed on sleeping pills and alcohol<br />
*[[Chris Farley]], 33, overdose of morphine and cocaine<br />
*[[Judy Garland]], 47, overdosed on sleeping pills<br />
*[[Margaux Hemingway]], 42, suicide<br />
*[[Jimi Hendrix]], 27, an enthusisatic abuser of illegal drugs, choked on his own vomit after overdose of sleeping pills.<br />
*[[Rock Hudson]], 59, AIDS<br />
*[[Michael Hutchence]], 37, asphyxiated during an auto-erotic act while alone in a Sydney hotel. His wife, Paula Yates (see below), also fell victim to Hollywood Values.<br />
*[[Richard Jeni]], 49, suicide<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258231,00.html</ref><br />
*[[Janis Joplin]], 27, heroin overdose<br />
*[[Rob Knox]], 18, star of a [[Harry Potter]] film, was stabbed to death during a fight after midnight in or outside a bar<ref>http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1204418.ece</ref><ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/05/24/international/i140113D92.DTL</ref><br />
*[[Heath Ledger]], 28, found dead in his [[Manhattan]] apartment. "Prescription sleeping pills and anti-anxiety pills were found in bottles in Ledger's bedroom and bathroom, and police have speculated the death was caused by an accidental drug overdose."<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_en_ce/obit_ledger</ref> "Ledger died of an accidental overdose of painkillers, sleeping pills, anti-anxiety medication and other prescription drugs, the New York City medical examiner said Wednesday." <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328828,00.html</ref><br />
*[[Bruce Lee]] (Li Xiaolong), actor, 33, collapsed and died; cannabis found in bloodstream at post-mortem. <br />
*[[Stuart Lubbock]], 31, found dead in the swimming pool of popular TV entertainer [[Michael Barrymore]], having suffered severe anal trauma, after a drug-fuelled party at the star's home<br />
*[[Sal Mineo]], 37, murdered under circumstances that suggested "a homosexual motive"<br />
*[[Marilyn Monroe]], 36, overdosed on sleeping pills<br />
*[[Keith Moon]], drummer of [[The Who]], 32, overdose of Clomethiazole prescribed to treat his [[alcoholism]].<br />
*[[Jim Morrison]], 27, died of an apparent heroin overdose<br />
*[[Chris Penn]], 40, brother of [[Sean Penn]], "died accidentally from an enlarged heart and the effects of a mix of multiple medications"<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/02/13/entertainment/e162146S51.DTL</ref><br />
*[[River Phoenix]], 23, died from an overdose cocaine and heroin<br />
*[[Dana Plato]], 34, ''Diff'rent Strokes'' star, suicide by drugs overdose after posing for lesbian pornography.<br />
*[[Elvis Presley]], 42, large drug intake causes a cardiac arrhythmia and rumoured to have suffocated on the carpet when he collpased from a drug overdose.<br />
*[[Virginia Rappe]], 30, died of a ruptured bladder incurred at a party hosted by [[Roscoe Arbuckle]]<br />
*[[George Reeves]], 45, suicide<br />
*[[Brad Renfro]], 25, became addicted to heroin and was found dead after a night of drinking<br />
*[[Anna Nicole Smith]], 39, accidental overdose on prescription drugs<br />
*[[Sharon Tate]], 26, an actress with a [[hippie]] lifestyle who was murdered by followers of [[Charles Manson]], a [[Beatles]]-obsessed musician wannabee; Manson's followers murdered Tate, who was pregnant and only two weeks from birth, her unborn child, her prior lover, who was staying with her while her husband, paedophile movie producer [[Roman Polanski]] (see 'Crime', below), was away, and another unmarried couple staying in the house<br />
*[[Lou Tellegen]], 52, suicide<br />
*[[Sid Vicious]], 21. [[Heroin]] overdose while awaiting trial for his girlfriend's murder.<br />
*[[Kenneth Williams]], 62, overdose.<br />
*[[Natalie Wood]], 43. Drowned while intoxicated.<br />
*[[Paula Yates]], 41, heroin overdose.<br />
<br />
== Crime ==<br />
Hollywood values often include being arrested or convicted for a variety of crimes. Here are some examples:<br />
<br />
* [[Winona Ryder]] was convicted of convicted of vandalism and grand theft for stealing designer merchandise worth $5,560.40.<ref>http://www.courttv.com/trials/ryder/</ref><br />
* [[O.J. Simpson]] is widely believed to have murdered his wife and her friend, and was found liable in a civil (but not criminal) trial. He has since been arrested again on an unrelated charge.<br />
* [[Paris Hilton]] was convicted of driving while intoxicated, and then violated the terms of her probation, leading to a 45-day prison sentence.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18472845/ Paris Hilton sentenced to 45 days in jail], msnbc, May 4, 2007</ref><br />
*[[Hugh Grant]] was arrested in 1995 when found in a car with a prostitute.<ref>[http://www.mugshots.org/hollywood/hugh-grant.html]</ref><br />
*[[Stacy Keach]], movie actor, was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment in the [[United Kingdom]] in 1984 after being arrested at [[London]] [[Heathrow Airport]] in possession of a large quantity of [[cocaine]].<br />
*[[Kiefer Sutherland]] was given a 48-day sentence for DUI in 2007, an offence committed while still on probation following a 2004 conviction for DUI.<ref>Sutherland is released from jail [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7200633.stm BBC]</ref><br />
*[[George Michael]] was convicted of "Committing a lewd act in public", having been arrested in a public restroom by a plain clothes police officer.<ref>Police confirm George Michael arrest [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/75904.stmBBC]</ref><br />
*[[Snoop Dogg]], a popular [[rap|rapper]], was arrested in 2006 for [[marijuana]] possession.<br />
*[[Roman Polanski]], Polish-born film producer, is unable to return to Hollywood as he skipped bail and fled to [[France]] after being convicted in 1978 on charges of unlawful sexual intercourse with a thirteen-year old girl.<br />
* Rapper DMX (Earl Simmons) was caught on camera drag racing at a speed over 110 miles on a freeway, and then a SWAT team was used to arrest him three days later on drug and animal cruelty charges. "The Maricopa County sheriff's office says the 37-year-old, whose real name is Earl Simmons, at first tried to barricade himself in his bedroom. He came out as a SWAT team entered during the early-morning raid Friday."<ref>http://news.aol.com/entertainment/music/music-news-story/ar/_a/dmx-arrested-on-animal-cruelty-charges/20080509163709990001</ref><br />
*[[Tatum O'Neal]] arrested in 2008 for [[cocaine]] possession. <ref><br />
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361361,00.html Tatum O'Neal Released After Drug Arrest], [[Associated Press]], ''[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]]'', June 02, 2008.</ref><br />
*[[James Dean]] displayed an unhealthy interest in a twelve-year-old boy. His former director Elia Kazan later commented: "I've known many actors who have been twisted up in their sex lives, but never anybody as sick and unhealthy as Dean was."<br />
<br />
== Falsehoods ==<br />
<br />
[[Hollywood values]] perpetuates [[liberal]]-driven falsehoods:<br />
<br />
*[[Matthew Shepard Fallacy]] <br />
:Adherents to Hollywood values "green-lighted a troika of [[Matthew Shepard]] movies after he was senselessly killed because it affirmed their gut feeling that a gay young man living in backward America is destined for death at the hands of hateful ultraconservatives. A street in West Hollywood still stands in his name despite ABC News reporting the story false: He was killed by crazed meth addicts for drugs and money -- not because he was gay. Isn't that tragic enough? Yet Shepherd is still the icon of gay victims' rights, and the mistaken story of his 'fate' soon thereafter befell Jake Gyllenhaal's character in 'Brokeback Mountain.' The Oscar statuette stands as the exclamation point."<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup26sep26,0,1800794,full.story</ref><br />
<br />
*[[Inherit the Wind]] <br />
:<fill in><br />
<br />
==Divorce==<br />
<br />
*[[Elizabeth Taylor]] has been married eight (8) times.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000072/bio</ref><br />
*[[Valerie Bertinelli]] said her divorce from [[Eddie Van Halen]] was caused by infidelity and drug use - by her too. She said she was "destroying my body," trying to keep up with a rock-star lifestyle. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332551,00.html Valerie Bertinelli About Divorce From Eddie Van Halen: 'I Wasn't An Angel Either'], [[Fox News Channel]], ''[[Associated Press]]'', February 26, 2008</ref><br />
*[[Zsa Zsa Gabor]] has been married nine (9) times.<br />
*[[Mickey Rooney]] has been married eight (8) times, but has been with his last wife for 30 years after embracing religion and abandoning his previous lifestyle.<br />
*[[Charlie Chaplin]] married four (4) times, including his marriage at the age of 54 to an 18-year-old bride.<br />
<br />
== Offensive Behavior ==<br />
<br />
* Trashing hotel rooms is a favorite form of offensive behavior by Hollywood types. Many examples are readily available on the [[internet]].<ref>See, e.g., [http://www.budgettravel.com/bt-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101034.html]</ref><br />
*[[Mel Gibson]], who had started drinking again, was arrested after being stopped for driving at 84 mph in a 45 mph zone on a notoriously dangerous road in Malibu, California.<ref>''Mel Gibson apologizes after DUI arrest'' [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14080210/ Associated Press]</ref> A breathalyzer test confirmed he was drunk and next to him was an open bottle of Tequila; after being arrested he hurled Anti-Semitic abuse at a Jewish police officer.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2292336,00.html Mel Gibson rants against Jews in drink-drive arrest], Times Online, July 30, 2006</ref><br />
*The parents of [[Miley Cyrus]], just 15 years old, allowed [[Annie Liebowitz]] to pose the starlet without a shirt or bra (aka [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/topless "topless"]) and with just a sheet covering her front for Vanity Fair magazine.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/business/media/28hannah.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</ref><ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20195785,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23608789-5001026,00.html</ref> "I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed," Cyrus said Sunday in a statement through her publicist. "I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about." <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref><br />
:"... a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines," a network statement said. <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref><br />
<br />
== Rehab ==<br />
Hollywood values often result in [[Celebrity|celebrities]] going into rehab. Here are some examples:<br />
<br />
*[[Kirsten Dunst]] checked into the [[Cirque Lodge]] treatment facility in [[Utah]] after a week of hard partying at the [[Sundance Film Festival]], according to a source at the lodge, although the lodge's director of operations denies this. <ref name = "foxkirsten"><br />
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329545,00.html Reports Say Kirsten Dunst in Rehab; Rep for Facility Denies It], ''[[Fox News]]'', February 08, 2008</ref><br />
<br />
The following all checked into the above facility seeking treatment for various psychological problems:<br />
<br />
*[[Lindsay Lohan]] <ref name = "foxkirsten"/><br />
*[[Eva Mendes]] <ref name = "foxkirsten"/><br />
*[[Mary-Kate Olsen]] <ref name = "foxkirsten"/><br />
<br />
== Hypocrisy ==<br />
<br />
Hollywood personalities often propose legislation such as outlawing private gun ownership, or speak out against things such as anti-gun laws, but have at the same time acted in movies contrary to their public opinions: <br />
<br />
* [[George Clooney]] on hearing that fellow actor and guns-rights advocate, [[Charlton Heston]], suffers from Alzheimer's disease, said: ''"I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the [[National Rifle Association]]. He deserves whatever anyone says about him."''<ref>http://www.funnyreign.com/quotes-georgeclooney.shtml</ref> Clooney starred in the film ''The Peacemaker'', in which he played an American military man defending the country from a nuclear attack; scenes in the film showed him using a gun to defend himself and others. <br />
<br />
* [[Mark Wahlberg]] upon meeting Charlton Heston on the set of the remake of ''Planet of the Apes'', Wahlberg rudely told Heston, "It was very disturbing meeting you." Later, Wahlberg would have this to say at the MTV Movie Awards: ''"I believe Charlton Heston is America's best villain because he loves guns so much. Maybe he should get the award for being president of the National Rifle Association."''<ref>http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2360</ref> Wahlberg's character in ''Planet of the Apes'' uses a gun to defend himself and other humans from the apes who would rule over them.<br />
<br />
==Moral depravity==<br />
*[[Woody Allen]] seduced and took pornographic photographs of the adolescent daughter of his wife [[Mia Farrow]].<br />
<br />
==Using appearances to promote themselves and their causes or air their pet peeves==<br />
*Rapper Kanye West infamously went way off script during a live benefit concert for victims of Hurricane Katrina, criticizing the media's treatment of images of black and white people and saying President [[George W. Bush]] "hates black people."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090300165.html</ref><br />
*During the live broadcast of the 2007 Emmy Awards, actress Sally Field went on a sputtering anti-war rant, eventually concluding by saying, "If the mothers ruled the world, there would be no g**d*** war in the first place." She received thunderous applause from the Hollywood audience for her vulgar remark.<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=3610891</ref><br />
*[[Michael Moore]] surprised no one by criticizing President Bush during his 2003 Oscar acceptance speech for "Bowling for Columbine," saying, "We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man who's sending us to war for fictitious reasons, whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts. We are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush. Shame on you."<ref>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20030323-2028-oscars-moore.html</ref><br />
*Actress Jessica Lange verbally attacked President Bush and the Iraq War during a 2008 commencement speech at Sarah Lawrence College in Yonkers, New York, stating, "We are living in an America that, in the last seven and a half years, has waged an unnecessary war, established prison camps, condoned torture, employed corporate armies, eliminated the right of habeas corpus, practiced extraordinary rendition, and believe me, this is only a partial list."<ref>http://cbs5.com/politics/Jessica.Lange.President.2.732264.html</ref><br />
<br />
==Productions==<br />
The diseased moral values of the Liberal-dominated entertainments industry are manifested all too clearly in many of the products of that industry - motion pictures and television programmes that offer no edification or instruction to the viewer, but plumb a cess-pit of licence and depravity. Some recent examples include the television series ''Desperate Housewives'' and the tv series/movie ''[[Sex and the City]]''. The movie ''Forrest Gump'' was a clumsy attempt to smear conservatives as having learning difficulties.<br />
<br />
==Books==<br />
* ''Hollywood Against America''<br />
* ''Hollywood Babylon'' (1965) by Kenneth Anger (US edition)<br />
* ''Hollywood Babylon II'' (1984) by Kenneth Anger<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
{{liberalism}}<br />
<br />
[[category:entertainment]]<br />
[[Category:Liberals]]</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Hollywood_values&diff=482441Talk:Hollywood values2008-06-26T21:45:48Z<p>Daphnea: /* Productions */</p>
<hr />
<div>This obviously needs more stuff, but I stub'd it so the red link on the main page went away.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 22:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Unlike reality, which clearly has none of these things. Perhaps a random use of the word "glamourization" is in order? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)<br />
Barikada, I think that's a central point! It's not only disrespect for morals, it's flagrant glamorization of lack of morals! I'll leave it to you to add it, but good call.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 19:59, 23 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:Thanks. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
MexMax - please stop reinserting the unsubstantiated information into the article. Thank you. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
MexMax - any and all talk of whether Heath Ledger's death was due to 'Hollywood Values' should be left until AFTER the autopsy and inquest have been published. Mr. Schalfly's previous version of the article was based on a celebrity gossip article, and has been superceded by real information from the police. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:40, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:I'm sorry for jumping the gun. That seems truthful, I apologize for reverting without looking closer. I thought we were just doing the same edit war over and over again...[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
::One point: I think the MTV article should be treated as, errr, second best. Is there a better citation? I think we'd rather not cite to MTV unless we have no other chance.[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Possible Inclusions==<br />
<br />
A few suggestions for the list, off the top of my head: Marilyn Monroe would be a prime (and notorious) example. Chris Farley, who's stated goal was to live and die like Belushi. Janis Joplin. Anna Nicole Smith. Freddie Prinze. Rock Hudson. And depending on how comprehensive you want the list to be, there's an almost endless parade of people who were more famous as part of a group than as individuals, such as Keith Moon or Dennis Wilson.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:16, 25 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I did a search for Hollywood liberals and came up with [http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ this] website. On the front page I see that the cops are invertviewing Mary Kate Olsen about the suspicious circumstances in Ledger's death, David Copperfield has had two childred out of wedlock, Britney Spears is finally making it to her custody hearing to see if she can stay off drugs long enough to take care of her own kids, and Kiefer Sutherland is being let out of jail after a DUI charge. Hollywood values at their best! (Or should I say worst?) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
If an MTV reference is frowned upon, I can hardly see a credible argument for references to The National Enquirer? It's not exactly known for its adherence to fact-based logic, is it? [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Why not? I bet they had articles on every one of the people we have in the article right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:21, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::There's a reason that tabloids are also known as "Gossip rags." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
The people putting these lists together do not seem to realize that in making a case linking "Hollywood values"--not coherently defined in the article, by the way--to early death or criminality it is not enough simply to cite examples; it needs to be demonstrated that these alleged consequences are ''more likely'' to occur to those who adopt these values than to the general population. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Heath Ledger==<br />
<br />
How did Hollywood values contribute to his death? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 04:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:It is clear upon reviewing [[User_talk:Fox#Heath_Ledger|this]] and [[Talk:Main_Page#Milking_deaths_for_political_gain|this]] that nobody has justified how Hollywood values contributed to Ledger's death. We all acknowledge that during his life he probably did take drugs and was a selfish individual, however there is no evidence that his overdose on legal prescription drugs was a suicide attempt or reasonably affected by his drug habit. Given that the example is used in the context of death ("Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:") then I think it would be prudent to remove Ledger's entry until sufficient evidence connecting Hollywood to his death has been found, otherwise we are just sponsoring gossip. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 07:22, 2 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Of what significance is it that he was found naked in his bed? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:20, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==So?==<br />
<br />
So? What does this article intend to prove? What is its thesis? Is this article intended to somehow connect the unfortunate deaths of some people who got too involved in drugs or alcohol as an indicator that hollywood films are a bad influence? <br />
Is this article supposed to somehow connect these so-called "Hollywood Values" with liberal politics? <br />
Last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh had had an embarrassing addiction to opiate painkillers, George W. Bush had admitted to a cocaine problem, and Mel Gibson had such a drinking problem that he was accusing "the Jews" of all the evils that had ever plagued him. These three men, for example, are CONSERVATIVES. Mel Gibson even functions as part of the industry centered in HOLLYWOOD. Why is good ol' Mel not mentioned in this article? <br />
Is the anti-liberal bias in this article too overwhelming to include even one conservative who's had problems?<br />
Or, as I suspect, is Conservapedia wearing the type of blinders that see any conservative's troubles with drugs or alcohol as a momentary temptation by the liberal side? <br />
<br />
If you simply blame everything on your opponents, all the time, then you never have to think it through or acknowledge reality. Seems to be the basic M.O. here. <br />
<br />
I, for one, fail to see how Heath Ledger's accidental death from combining the wrong medications (all of which seem to have been prescribed for him) as indicative of a "Hollywood Value" system. Well, I'm sure the response will go like this: "He was NAKED! Surely, nakedness is indicative of SOME evil-doing. After all, LIBERALS SLEEP NAKED! No God-fearing person should sleep sans pajamas!"<br />
<br />
I'm disgusted.<br />
<br />
[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 14:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== What about Britney Spears? ==<br />
<br />
Britney is a very famous person, and hasn't she been to rehab?<br />
Shouldn't she be mentioned in connection with "Hollywood Values"?<br />
Just a suggestion. [[User:MikeSchwartz|MikeSchwartz]] 20:07, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Not entirely accurate ==<br />
<br />
This article doesn't really give an accurate definition of the phrase, 'Hollywood Values'. I don't really blame you, as it is very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately define it. I also made this point on the 'Liberal Denial' Talk Page, so I'll just copy the relevant part of what I said here:<br />
<br />
This phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:48, 13 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
It should also be noted that the meaning of 'Hollywood Values', according to some, is directly contradicted by what others mean by 'Hollywood Values'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Wikilinks ==<br />
<br />
Why are all these actors, singers, etc. wikilinked? Do we plan to have articles on them all? I removed most of them at some point, but I see they were added back. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Crime ==<br />
For the crime section, please stick to actual crimes. Maybe there could be another section for offensive comments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:48, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:TBH Roger, I think the linked [[Mel Gibson]] article covers it sufficiently, so - in Gibson's case at least - there's probably no need to mention it in the article at all. But perhaps you're right that there should be a section for those celebs who have demonstrated consistent/repeated immoral behaviour/outbursts but have stopped short of actually breaking the law. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 14:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Hollywood==<br />
<br />
Why are musicians and athletes included in an article about [[Hollywood]]? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:34, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== What do we do? ==<br />
<br />
Even if Hollywood values are in fact a problem, what can we possibly do about it? Make extramarital and premarital sex illegal? Or just force everyone to convert to Christianity? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Bix Biederbecke ==<br />
<br />
Not really a "Hollywood" star - Jazz musicians at the time were more liable to spend their lives in NY (as he did), Chicago, or New Orleans. Lots of jazz musicians, of course, had serious addiction problems, but it's not really intellectually honest to lump in struggling musicians - many of America's greatest jazz artists never made much money - in with wealthy movie stars. Remove? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:56, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Who compiled this silly list? ==<br />
<br />
Bix Biederbecke is hardly the only problem here. What about Brian Epstein? What did he have to do with Hollywood? What about Sid Viscious? Hollywood? I hardly think so. Richard Jeni suffered from clinical depression. Do you think that might have had something to do with his suicide? Clara Blandick was in pain and facing blindness. What has her suicide got to do with Hollywodd values? Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family. Why is she in the article? The circumstances of Virginia Rappe's death remain unknown and controversial. What has Heath Ledger's accidental overdose got to do with Hollywood or any other values? What has John Bonham got to do with Hollywood? The inquest into the death of Kenneth Williams returned an open verdict as it was not posibble to determine whether his overdose was accidental. In any case he was suffering from declining health and depression at the time.<br />
<br />
This is extremely sloppy work. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:33, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Tate ==<br />
<br />
Tate was murdered. How is that her fault? Maybe that part should just mention the Manson Family--a depraved group, indeed. [[User:Cisnon|Cisnon]] 22:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
reply to the above criticisms (prior to Tate): [[liberals]] become so literal when it becomes a basis for censoring things they don't like. [[Hollywood values]] are not literally confined to Hollywood, California, and, by the way, things like depression and overdosing on prescription drugs are a symptom of [[Hollywood values]] and occur in that group in far higher percentages than the general public. Please, no [[liberal denial]] on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
As to Tate, I welcome more information before censoring it from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
:Again, I think [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor censor] has a different meaning than [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delete delete.] Now, I'm no big city lawyer. Wait, yes I am.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:44, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Riiight... So, any time any entertainer somewhere in the (English speaking?) world suffers depression or overdoses on drugs, whether legal or prescription, whether accidentally or on purpose, that goes to show that "Hollywood values" (whatever they are) are evil. Did I say sloppy work? I withdraw that. I meant stupid, religiously driven nonsense. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Listing a pregnant murder victim as somehow indicative of "Hollywood values" is a disgrace. Sharon Tate did nothing to encourage Charles Manson to murder her; no aspect of her behavior or beliefs can excuse that, or played any role in it. Perhaps we should list her fetus as another sinner who deserved to be murdered? -- [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 23:08, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==You're bloody kidding me==<br />
Death is a value? Sexually-transmitted disease is a value? I have no clue what you're trying to say here-- That Hollywood is responsible for death and STDs? Or that actors somehow worship these two things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: You are clueless. Drug use and promiscuity are [[Hollywood values]], and they cause death.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::The paranoia in that comment aside, that still doesn't make death a value... Or disease, for that matter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:18, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::You're misreading (or misunderstanding) the entry, Bari. It doesn't say that disease and death ''are'' Hollywood values, it says that Hollywood values breed a culture that ''leads to'' disease and death.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::My apologies, it appears that you are correct... or at least you were, before the last grammar fix. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:53, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Hypocrisy ==<br />
<br />
Why was the new section Hypocrisy deleted? It was a fair point as explained eloquently at [[Liberal Hypocrisy]] I would have asked the reverting Sysop but the talk page is locked. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
:The context of Clooney portraying a US military officer was not explained. Please cease trying to attract my attention, and go back to your own website where I'm sure you will be much happier. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 10:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Context has now been added. I don't have a website. But thank you for your concern about my happiness. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:51, 17 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
This article is full of finger-pointing. I realize that Hollywood stars live lives full of questionable behavior, and I agree that they do not set good role models for all of the young fans that watch their movies and follow their lives, but we should look at our own lives, and not be so quick to point fingers like this. Shouldn't we be promoting forgiveness, as the Lord intends us?<br />
<br />
: This isn't "finger-pointing", and of course forgiveness remains available to anyone who requests it. But we're not going to stand by quietly as certain values destroy people. Would you also object if we identified how smoking has killed many people who smoke?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:46, 1 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Well, perhaps finger-pointing was the wrong word. I'm just saying, we shouldn't piously observe Hollywood stars and forget our own behavior. I would not object to identifying the wrongs of smoking, but what I find a little silly is the big list of stars and their own individual crimes. I think a more general article would be better, and we should avoid a "more words is better" approach, like Wikipedia does.<br />
<br />
: There is nothing "pious" about this. Values and lifestyles can cause harm just as surely as smoking can. Do we criticize anti-smoking statements as "pious"? Of course not. Highlighting the harm caused by [[Hollywood Values]] is not pious either. In fact, it can be scientifically studied.<br />
<br />
: The individual examples, just like individual examples of prominent smokers who died young, are powerful and just as compelling as more-difficult-to-find statistics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
To quote Aschlafly (look at the talk page for the Mathematics page) "Conservapedia does not take the childish approach of "more words is better." We strive to be concise as a good encyclopedia should. Godspeed." Perhaps this principle should be applied to this page. I think everyone understands that Hollywood values are corrupted. I don't see the need for a long list of people who have done wrong things.<br />
<br />
== removal ==<br />
<br />
How can you justify Tate being a victim of hollywood values? Please point to it? I dont want to get into an edit but you cant just add with the tag "because I say so"<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:05, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: It's self-evident from the explanation given. Tate was not a perpetrator of the crime, but became a victim of the culture in which she joined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
No it is not self evident. What culture did she join? married a film director? Associated with hippies? If that so then she was a victim of hippies values. Her 'culture' lead her to be murdered? many people get murdered and she was targeted because she was famous. That has nothing to do with so called holloywood values.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:57, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Right removing the Tate stuff again. At the time of the murder Sharon Tate has not been using drugs or alcohol, she was pregnant and the Mason family was actually interested in killing a man who refused to sign his band up. Tate was unlucky but it is clearly at odds with other deaths listed with hers as she was murdered!<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:55, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Wow: Tate's murder was just the product of chance, like getting hit by a car! No, AdenJ, Tate's murder was the result of [[Hollywood values]]. Maybe the initial intended victim was someone else, but that reinforces how [[Hollywood values]] work that they killed her instead. The entry is staying in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I give up, its totally ridiculous. Sharon Tate was murdered, It was nothing, repeat, NOTHING to do with values. Unless its the values of Manson. <br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: AdenJ, Tate's murder had ''everything'' to do with values. And, duh, that does include the [[Hollywood values]] of Manson and his followers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So its 'duh' now is it? How did Mason have hollywood values? He was in no movies and was a poor musician. How was he affected by hollywood values? Because he was obessed with The Beatles? Who wasnt at that time. He was a drug crazed hippie with a severe mental problem.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:31, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Ridiculous==<br />
<br />
This article just cherry-picks famous people (or...not, in the case of "1920s cornettists" and similar cases), and stretches a granule, albeit a malleable one, miles and miles away from the true root causes of their deaths to make some point that these people's deaths are connected to some Spectre of Glittery Death looming up over Mulholland. How many famous people are there? There must be...untold millions of YouTube phenoms, game show contestants, sandwich shop spokesman, and to highlight a few flare-ups is entirely counter to any kind of legitimacy an encyclopedic volume should have. When I look at that list, I see Sid Vicious, who, as far as I know, lived in the UK for 98% of his life. I see Elvis Presley (maybe there should be a "Memphis values" page). And Sharon Tate...Sharon Tate? Wasn't Manson actually trying to kill somebody else, someone who wasn't there (supposedly a record honcho or someother such person who denied him a chance to be on a Beach Boys record). If that's how we're gonna be about it, and say innocent pregnant sober bystanders are perpetrators of Hollywood values, then let's say those whores that Jack the Ripper killed were victims of "West End values". [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 18:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Linus has given us the fundamental [[liberal denial]]: denying that [[liberal]] values have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Aschlafly has given us the fundamental conservative denial.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:24, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::'''I don't see anywhere in my graph where I denied that liberal values have consequences'''. I think that this whole liberal/conservative jive is basically a distraction, an abstract that exists only theoretically, and even then, as a theory lend creedence by consensus. If these people's death is going to be attributed to a set of industries in a geographic location, then it's already got the integrity of arguing about air temperature. Who cares? I'm not some objectivist/nihilist (probably mutually exclusive philosophies, but often combined nonetheless by people who don't understand them), so I'm not going to deforest the issue by going on some bleat about how we're all just "computers made out of meat" or whatnot, but I think this issue is...not an issue. I'm not arguing at it from any perspective other than one which states all perspectives are already invalid if it comes from a person who cares about things like this. So to say that anybody's neurons are any better than anyone else's simply because of the choices which all the electric 1's and 0's in our brains combine to create, is stupid. Even the whole idea of "liberal denial", which is supposed to be some kind of searing label which supercedes all the fray of bickering and mudslinging, has been trampled on by reductive childishness that's rampant here. Liberal denial. That's all your arguement is here. You'll say, I'm using liberal denial because what I'm saying is a denial coming from a liberal viewpoint. You define my point of view, incorrectly, sure, but you're still just defining it. Not '''re'''fining it, not clarifying or showing how it's wrong and maybe trying to excise the benign liberal tumors you probably surmise exist within my brain stem, you're just defining it. I should have taken a hint from the logo and realized that "applying logos" and "slapping labels" is basically the fundamental economy of Conservapedia. All apologies.<br />
[[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 21:22, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
==Miley Cyrus==<br />
see http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0<br />
"They include shots of the teen wrapped in what appears to be a satin bedsheet, looking over her shoulder with her back exposed."<br />
<br />
she was not topless--<span style="margin-top: -3px;">&nbsp;[[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 21:34, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:That's your opinion and you are not an accepted reference for material. I provided not one, not two but THREE references that described the photo as "topless." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:42, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::She was topless unless you are prepared to call a sheet a "top". <br />
<br />
::Do we want to put our cards on the table people? Clearly the reason that some here do not want this addition to the Hollywood values page is that Ms Cyrus appeared on the Main Page here not long ago as an exemplar of Christian virtue when she spoke of her ambition to abstain from sex until marriage (if memory serves).<br />
<br />
::Well, now she's been photographed topless. I'll bet if it were Hillary Clinton you would all be loudly insisting that the description "topless" was absolutely accurate. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:44, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Er, no. What *is* clear is that her parents and Disney decided to let her be posed in as risque a fashion as possible - thus largely '''negating''' her value as a role model. My only objection is to the word ''topless'' which implies visible headlights rather than shrouded ones. Perhaps you'd like to right about teen [[role model]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:48, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::As I said, three references described the photo as "topless." However, I've now clarified the extend of the toplessness in the article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:50, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
topless requires that the breasts be exposed since they were not she was not topless --<span style="margin-top: -3px;">&nbsp;[[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 21:49, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:*sigh* Jinx, you can say that some sources said the girl was topless. That would come under the heading of "exaggeration", I'd say. Unless the editor in chief overturns my decision, I intend to have us all avoid that word. Let's not embarrass the girl any more than she already has been. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:52, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::That's pretty rich having regard to a number of the other accustaions and comments in the article. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No, it actually doesn't require that the breasts be exposed. Neither does "nude" require that genitals be exposed. Demi Moore was nude when she posed for Vanity Fair's cover when pregnant even though neither her breasts or genitals were exposed. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:08, 2 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I'm an easily lead, ignorant Christian. Tell me what change you'd like to see in the article - or make it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:56, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Let's dial down the fuss a bit, folks. I was the one who originally posted the Cyrus line, and I didn't intend to start a war. I used the term "topless" because, a) that's the way I've heard it reported today, and b) it's accurate, strictly speaking. However, while I recognize that in common vernacular, "topless" implies a more explicit condition than exists in this case, I expected someone to come up with a better term rather than a complete (and unwarranted) reversion. So, maybe we can keep the item, but change the descriptive word? "Suggestive"? "Racy"? "Controversial"? "Provocative"? "Naughty"? Suggestions welcome...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 21:58, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I'm letting Deborah decide this one. (If you must apply an adjective, try "risqué".) Anyway, the emphasis should be on the parents, as she is a minor and not responsible for photo shoot decisions. <br />
<br />
:We can write an article on how parents of teen stars, such as Britney Spears, Hillary Duff & Lindsay Lohan, have managed their daughters' careers. But do we have a decent article on [[Modesty]] yet? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:05, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::All good suggestions. And don't forget Brooke Shields and her mother--They were a notorious pair a quarter-century ago (not that I'm old enough to remember such things [cough]).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::As a former Disney employee, I must say the company needs to pay more attention to its [[role model]]s for tweens. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:32, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::Call me cynical but I think it's just like any mega multi-national corporation, all that matters is the bottom line. And let's face it, sex (and abstinence) sells. You know back in the studio days women had to behave very nicely otherwise they'd be fired from their contract, then the supreme court broke them up and there went the Golden (or was it Silver?) age of Hollywood.<br />
::::And anyway, shouldn't their '''parents''' be more concerned then a board of directors? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:38, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Lenny Bruce/Sharon Tate/Blaming the victim ==<br />
<br />
While Lenny did die because of a heroin OD, he was a standup comic (Comedian Values?), not an actor he only appeared on TV six times on variety/talk shows, definitely not Hollywood. I'd like to believe the government's horrible persecution of him led to his downward spiral.<br />
<br />
As far as the Tate case. Andy, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't familiar with the story, here is a [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonaccount.html link to it,] '''if you still think that she did herself in because of Hollywood values, then ''by all means'' put it back in.<br />
<br />
As for me, it makes me sick to my stomach to somehow imply that she was anyway responsible for her own death, that's worse then saying "well if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that low-cut dress".'''<br />
<br />
And just to make sure you don't go off subject and say that I'm a typical liberal, I'll admit that I '''agree''' with the premise of the article.<br />
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:02, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Goodness, no, we would never insult you like that. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:06, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Bruce Lee==<br />
<br />
ATang, please stop removing this item. Edit wars are frowned on at CP, so I suggest that if you want it deleted you seek the advice of a sysop. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Bruce Lee died of cerebral edema. Traces of a painkiller and cannabis were found postmortem. However, the cause of death was not cannabis; ergo, the link between Hollywood values and his death was not established.<br />
<br />
:Otherwise you should list every cannabis user who died, regardless of cause of death. For example - if a lone hunter was attacked by a black bear and died as a result, and they found traces of THC in his body, would you say that's the cause of death? That he died of drug use? Or that he died because of Hollywood values? (Now... if he got high and provoked the bear, that's an entirely different story...)<br />
<br />
:[[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:33, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:PS. Heh, I just saw what you typed. Merging the topics. (And I'm trying to avoid an edit war by pointing to the talk page)<br />
<br />
::He was a cannabis user, and the health risks of cannabis are well known; even today (literally) the leftist British government has reclassified cannabis as a class B drug (from being class C, the lowest class of illegal substance, A being the highest). It is scarcely surprising that cannabis use - an HV practice in itself - may well have contributed to Lee's early death. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:32, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yeah, it 'may' have - but by the same argument, UV exposure or asbestos inhalation may have contributed to his death too. My point is - when the cause of death is not conclusive, you cannot point to one single factor. Cannabis is not known to cause swelling of the brain; until there is an established link between the cerebral edema and cannabis use, I don't see how HV caused his death. Like I stated before, you cannot list every death of persons who have Hollywood Values. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 09:37, 9 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Rob Knox==<br />
He died protecting his little brother from two armed assailants. If those are Hollywood Values, sign me up.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 17:38, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Tom Moore on this one... There has been some mistake, just a misunderstanding.<br />
<br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2026826/Harry-Potter-actor's-father-Colin-Knox-visits-murder-scene.html "The father of a teenage actor who appears in the next Harry Potter film today visited the scene where the 18-year-old was stabbed to death trying to protect his younger brother from a knifeman."] [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Folks, we need more than a few minutes to discuss something before deleting it like that. Some good new information is provided above, but some of it missed the point. No one is trying to blame the victim here. [[Hollywood values]] include carousing amid drunken people, and can often include underage drinking. Trouble breaks out and victims get killed. This doesn't happen as often to people who are, for example, sleeping by midnight. More comments welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Hey, like I said, if Hollywood values include defending your little brother from being one of the many stabbed by a stranger with two knives, sign me up as a proponent.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Well, that's not saying much, because I would expect you to have been a proponent before. By the way, before you jump to conclusions, do you know who brought Rob Knox's under-aged 16-year-old brother to that drunken, late-night mayhem? Or is that question considered inappropriate when the controlling standards are [[Hollywood values]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:28, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::I have no notion who brought him there. I am not sure it matters, since the problem there would be a young man bringing his under-age brother out on the town drinking, something that is relatively minor and which doesn't seem worthy of condemnation. But since you bring it up, do you know? If not, why did you put this up in the article before you found out?<br />
::::Eh, who cares... it's your site.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:36, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::I looked, and can't find that information. I'll check the CNN report of the story.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:37, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::Nope, doesn't seem to have been reported. Although incidentally, while you're reading this, you might want to add to the News section that Bob Barr was nominated as the Libertarian candidate for this year. [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/25/barr.election/index.html Story is here], and conservatives are probably interested.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:40, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: The account the fight which killed Rob Knox is described differently from your accounts above here: [http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1204418.ece]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::::I was going by the link above, wherein a stranger with two kitchen knives approached them and began stabbing people. This is a much more detailed account, but no less tragic. His friend thought a stranger had stolen his phone and accused the guy of it, and later the guy comes back with some friends, one of whom starts stabbing people.<br />
::::::At the very least, this change to the article is in very bad taste so soon. But again, you own this place, so I guess you get to make that final call. I obviously disagree with the whole premise of the article, so I don't expect you to take my views much to account on the matter.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 20:14, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::At best, it's a weak example that doesn't serve the broad thrust of your argument particularly well. As charity decreases, it looks variously: inappropriate -> ridiculous -> mean-spirited. If you insist on keeping it, I'd suggest making a new section and leading in with the kind of qualifications you made above. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 20:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I'm seeking the truth just as others should be here, and there is obviously more to the Rob Knox tragedy than the simple story that you insisted upon above. According to the more detailed account, the fight was expected. Note also that the victim's under-aged brother is an Olympic-level expert in karate, and that the fight was in or around a bar after midnight. This is still a terrible tragedy, to be sure, but values undeniably played a role in it, as in deaths from drunken driving. We'll say prayers for the victims '''and''' speak out against the causes. Liberals do neither.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
A young man who has played a minor role in a movie is stabbed to death in London, and within hours of his death you add him to this page as an example of "Hollywood values". That is '''vile'''. I do not know the details of the case, but nor do you, and nor does anyone. Someone has just been arrested, and the facts are simply not known. Jumping to conclusions like this, and acting with unseemly haste to use the Knox family's tragedy as fuel for your anti-Hollywood/anti-liberal campaign is disgusting. Please delete this appalling addition to the article. It does not do the Conservapedia image any good at all. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:29, 27 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
:There's probably a name for those who make capital out of the suffering of others. Oh yes - SCUM! [[User:WarrenG|WarrenG]] 08:31, 27 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Chaplin==<br />
I saw the addition for Chaplin under divorce and I wonder if it's not worth mentioning some of the large age gaps between married Hollywood types? Chaplin met his last wife (Oona?) when she was dating one of his sons. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]]<sub>[[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']]</sub> 10:35, 30 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Wow, that's shocking. Yes, please add that with a citation. (I should have added a citation for mine also.) Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:45, 30 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Thank you, will do so. I have it mentioned in a book at home, so I'll put it up later tonight, with a few other examples I know are in there. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]]<sub>[[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']]</sub> 10:51, 30 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Hypocrisy - all specious ==<br />
<br />
Would someone please tell me what is ''hypocritical'' an actor "act[ing] in movies contrary to their public opinions"? Isn't that simply what actors do - '''act'''? This section of the article seems to be based on a very naive confusion of an actor's role-playing with his or her real-life views and actions. In its present form, I don't think it adds anything of value. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: To a degree, you're right, but when an actor profits enormously by exploiting a sentiment which he simultaneously harshly criticizes (in appeasement of [[liberals]]), it begs the question: dude, if you think it's so wrong, then why do you profit so much from it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Not convinced. You seem to be saying that no actor should accept an offer to play roles like Shylock, Iago, or Hannibal Lecter. That would make for some pretty thin plot-lines... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 10:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: No, you overstate it. A better example would be if a [[conservative]] starred in a movie featuring sex and nudity. The howls of protest by [[liberals]] would be deafening!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::But, [[Hollywood values]] embrassed by all [[Liberals]] would mean they were desensortised to this. <br />
<br />
::::Actually could you explain this why would "liberals" be out raged, you have spent all this time saying they like that in their movies. People only seem to care about movies featuring sex and nudity when some former child star appears in them and news reporting go along the line "she (it is always she they care about) is sheading her innocent image". This might comes as a shock to you but most of the world doesn't think of actors as liberal/conservative and judge their movies on that basis. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:30, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== At a certain point, it would probably pay to be selective ==<br />
<br />
<br />
At some point I would advise to only use examples that best show the point trying to be made. For instance there are certainly many Hollywood divorces, but we have chosen to only point to a few that give the greatest examples of particular excess. Other areas of the article may wish to do the same. Drew Barrymore's stint in rehab as a young girl would be a good one. Ryan O'Neal thinking that Lee Majors telling him to look out for his wife while he was away on a trip meant to have sex with her would be another. Woody Allen's picture taking, the death of Dorothy Stratten, Morrison's burnout death and his girlfriend being beaten to death by a baseball bat by her next boyfriend, all would be notable examples. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:20, 4 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Crime: Innocent until proven guilty ==<br />
<br />
I think that there may be a certain level of contradiction here. Although we ''can'' use arrests as a way to suggest hedonistic activity of Hollywood stars, we're mentioning an accusation without proof they were convicted of the actual crime.<br />
<br />
Perhaps we can delete and find other conviction examples. If not we can provide a reminder that we recognize that they are innocent until proven guilty. BTW: I'm not suggesting it's wrong in essence, but it could potentially confuse readers who are trying to understand things.<br />
--[[User:Borneo|Borneo]] 05:34, 6 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Is it just me, or is this a bit one-sided? ==<br />
<br />
I think that this entire article, from the first line, is very condescending and even slanderous. This isn't an article about "Hollywood Values" (which I am convinced is a made up word), it's simply a list of drug deaths and crimes committed by people who happen to be / have been in Hollywood.<br />
<br />
While the sources for the statistics are cited, perhaps it would be more appropriate to include interviews and quotes from Hollywood stars on their values. One could also delve into the history of Hollywood, and how it has molded the culture and values that are present there now.<br />
<br />
If this is really an article on Hollywood Values, someone needs to gather up primary sources relevant to this topic. Otherwise, this article should be renamed "List of Bad Things about Hollywood People."<br />
<br />
==Charity work==<br />
I notice that a section on charity work has been removed. If entertainers are in fact sincerely raising money to help the needy isn't that part of their values and should be included in "Hollywood values"? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 10:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:No, because Hollywood Values are not the across-the-board-values of all who have worked in Hollywood. Do not be fooled into over-literalism, a crutch of [[Liberals]] who are unable to make logical pointsin debate. [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[Charlton Heston]] worked in Hollywood, and did a huge amount for good causes, but were a world away from 'Hollywood Values'. Try reading the article properly! Best wishes, [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
So, let me get this straight...<br />
<br />
Only some liberals follow liberal style and every other article beginning with the word "Liberal"<br />
<br />
Only some people in Hollywood follow Hollywood values.<br />
<br />
So really, nothing substantiative is in these articles, and it's little more than a shoddy smearjob against the rich (Hollywood) and the Left.<br />
<br />
Trustworthy indeed. [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 10:49, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So are you saying that "Hollywood values" refers only to the ''negative'' values of people who work in Hollywood, and that any positive values that might be held by people in Hollywood are ''not'' considered part of Hollywood values? Isn't that a bit biased? How would we feel if people started talking about "Republican values" but meant only the negative aspects? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 11:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Daphnea and EBrown, you are hopeless cases. HV refers to the pernicious effects of the cult of celebrity, which leads sufferers to feel that they are above all legal, moral or societal rules. It is, perhaps, significant that you are quibbling with the title and definitions through the medium of an absurd literalism. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I assumed that "Hollywood values" would be about the values espoused by Hollywood; while that is largely negative in contrast with conservative values I feel it is only honest to mention the positive aspects when they occur; unless the article ''by definition'' is only about the negative aspects, which is the question I asked. I'm assuming from your reply that it ''is'' only about the negative values. Now I can edit it accordingly. When did asking for clarification become an "absurd literalism"? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:32, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Productions==<br />
I put back a deleted edit after revising it on the advice of [[User:Bugler]]. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Please don't revert edits that '''you told me to do'''! To be a little more conversational, I was following an edit which was approved by another editor pointing out that not everybody in Hollywood goes along with "Hollywood values". Likewise it is sensible to point out that not all Hollywood productions go along with "Hollywood values". If we don't do this then in the first case someone reading this (especially a child) might go away with the impression that ''everyone'' involved in Hollywood is evil, and thus grow up hating Ronald Reagan and Charlton Heston. I the second case they might avoid seeing The Chronicle of Narnia because it's a "Hollywood" production. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:18, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:I didn't tell you to do it here, Daphnea. I said that the correct place for such a statement was on a page bout Hollywood, or about the entertainment industry. HV is not the same as Hollywood. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:20, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:So what do you think of what I said above? Do you want people to start thinking Ronald Reagan went along with Hollywood Values? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Add it to [[Hollywood]] [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:28, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::I asked you a question. Are you intending to answer it? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:31, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::I will certainly not answer if addressed in so aggressive a fashion. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:32, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::OK, let's be polite. Are you going to answer my question, please? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
Yes. Naturally RR is not an example of HV, nor is James Stuart, or Charlton Heston, or Audie Murphy. Perhaps a line at the start to differentiate the industry as a whole from HV might be appropriate. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:35, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
: ... and in fact already exists. ''Not all people who currently work or have worked in Hollywood espouse Hollywood values. [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Charlton Heston]], [[Walt Disney]] and many others practiced conservative values while working in Hollywood''. That would seem to cover matters. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:37, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Good, good, now we're getting somewhere. You've just found out that there already is a line at the top pointing this out. I knew that already because I helped put it there. All I'm doing is saying the same thing about productions: just as not all people in Hollywood go along with "Hollywood values", not all productions do either. That's all I'm saying. If you like I can move the statement about the production up to the top of the article too. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:40, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::See, that wasn't so hard. Now all I'm going to do is add some production examples, because productions aren't always about who is in them; Chronicles of Narnia doesn't have an outstanding "non-Hollywood values" person at the helm, yet it reflects conservative values. Again, we don't want to give the idea that people should judge a production entirely on the basis of what stars are associated with it. Would you want people not to watch [[The Passion of the Christ]] because a drunken anti-semite made it? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:45, 26 June 2008 (EDT)</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Hollywood_values&diff=482438Talk:Hollywood values2008-06-26T21:40:46Z<p>Daphnea: /* Productions */</p>
<hr />
<div>This obviously needs more stuff, but I stub'd it so the red link on the main page went away.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 22:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Unlike reality, which clearly has none of these things. Perhaps a random use of the word "glamourization" is in order? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)<br />
Barikada, I think that's a central point! It's not only disrespect for morals, it's flagrant glamorization of lack of morals! I'll leave it to you to add it, but good call.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 19:59, 23 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:Thanks. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
MexMax - please stop reinserting the unsubstantiated information into the article. Thank you. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
MexMax - any and all talk of whether Heath Ledger's death was due to 'Hollywood Values' should be left until AFTER the autopsy and inquest have been published. Mr. Schalfly's previous version of the article was based on a celebrity gossip article, and has been superceded by real information from the police. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:40, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:I'm sorry for jumping the gun. That seems truthful, I apologize for reverting without looking closer. I thought we were just doing the same edit war over and over again...[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
::One point: I think the MTV article should be treated as, errr, second best. Is there a better citation? I think we'd rather not cite to MTV unless we have no other chance.[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Possible Inclusions==<br />
<br />
A few suggestions for the list, off the top of my head: Marilyn Monroe would be a prime (and notorious) example. Chris Farley, who's stated goal was to live and die like Belushi. Janis Joplin. Anna Nicole Smith. Freddie Prinze. Rock Hudson. And depending on how comprehensive you want the list to be, there's an almost endless parade of people who were more famous as part of a group than as individuals, such as Keith Moon or Dennis Wilson.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:16, 25 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I did a search for Hollywood liberals and came up with [http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ this] website. On the front page I see that the cops are invertviewing Mary Kate Olsen about the suspicious circumstances in Ledger's death, David Copperfield has had two childred out of wedlock, Britney Spears is finally making it to her custody hearing to see if she can stay off drugs long enough to take care of her own kids, and Kiefer Sutherland is being let out of jail after a DUI charge. Hollywood values at their best! (Or should I say worst?) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
If an MTV reference is frowned upon, I can hardly see a credible argument for references to The National Enquirer? It's not exactly known for its adherence to fact-based logic, is it? [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Why not? I bet they had articles on every one of the people we have in the article right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:21, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::There's a reason that tabloids are also known as "Gossip rags." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
The people putting these lists together do not seem to realize that in making a case linking "Hollywood values"--not coherently defined in the article, by the way--to early death or criminality it is not enough simply to cite examples; it needs to be demonstrated that these alleged consequences are ''more likely'' to occur to those who adopt these values than to the general population. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Heath Ledger==<br />
<br />
How did Hollywood values contribute to his death? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 04:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:It is clear upon reviewing [[User_talk:Fox#Heath_Ledger|this]] and [[Talk:Main_Page#Milking_deaths_for_political_gain|this]] that nobody has justified how Hollywood values contributed to Ledger's death. We all acknowledge that during his life he probably did take drugs and was a selfish individual, however there is no evidence that his overdose on legal prescription drugs was a suicide attempt or reasonably affected by his drug habit. Given that the example is used in the context of death ("Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:") then I think it would be prudent to remove Ledger's entry until sufficient evidence connecting Hollywood to his death has been found, otherwise we are just sponsoring gossip. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 07:22, 2 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Of what significance is it that he was found naked in his bed? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:20, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==So?==<br />
<br />
So? What does this article intend to prove? What is its thesis? Is this article intended to somehow connect the unfortunate deaths of some people who got too involved in drugs or alcohol as an indicator that hollywood films are a bad influence? <br />
Is this article supposed to somehow connect these so-called "Hollywood Values" with liberal politics? <br />
Last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh had had an embarrassing addiction to opiate painkillers, George W. Bush had admitted to a cocaine problem, and Mel Gibson had such a drinking problem that he was accusing "the Jews" of all the evils that had ever plagued him. These three men, for example, are CONSERVATIVES. Mel Gibson even functions as part of the industry centered in HOLLYWOOD. Why is good ol' Mel not mentioned in this article? <br />
Is the anti-liberal bias in this article too overwhelming to include even one conservative who's had problems?<br />
Or, as I suspect, is Conservapedia wearing the type of blinders that see any conservative's troubles with drugs or alcohol as a momentary temptation by the liberal side? <br />
<br />
If you simply blame everything on your opponents, all the time, then you never have to think it through or acknowledge reality. Seems to be the basic M.O. here. <br />
<br />
I, for one, fail to see how Heath Ledger's accidental death from combining the wrong medications (all of which seem to have been prescribed for him) as indicative of a "Hollywood Value" system. Well, I'm sure the response will go like this: "He was NAKED! Surely, nakedness is indicative of SOME evil-doing. After all, LIBERALS SLEEP NAKED! No God-fearing person should sleep sans pajamas!"<br />
<br />
I'm disgusted.<br />
<br />
[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 14:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== What about Britney Spears? ==<br />
<br />
Britney is a very famous person, and hasn't she been to rehab?<br />
Shouldn't she be mentioned in connection with "Hollywood Values"?<br />
Just a suggestion. [[User:MikeSchwartz|MikeSchwartz]] 20:07, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Not entirely accurate ==<br />
<br />
This article doesn't really give an accurate definition of the phrase, 'Hollywood Values'. I don't really blame you, as it is very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately define it. I also made this point on the 'Liberal Denial' Talk Page, so I'll just copy the relevant part of what I said here:<br />
<br />
This phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:48, 13 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
It should also be noted that the meaning of 'Hollywood Values', according to some, is directly contradicted by what others mean by 'Hollywood Values'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Wikilinks ==<br />
<br />
Why are all these actors, singers, etc. wikilinked? Do we plan to have articles on them all? I removed most of them at some point, but I see they were added back. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Crime ==<br />
For the crime section, please stick to actual crimes. Maybe there could be another section for offensive comments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:48, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:TBH Roger, I think the linked [[Mel Gibson]] article covers it sufficiently, so - in Gibson's case at least - there's probably no need to mention it in the article at all. But perhaps you're right that there should be a section for those celebs who have demonstrated consistent/repeated immoral behaviour/outbursts but have stopped short of actually breaking the law. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 14:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Hollywood==<br />
<br />
Why are musicians and athletes included in an article about [[Hollywood]]? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:34, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== What do we do? ==<br />
<br />
Even if Hollywood values are in fact a problem, what can we possibly do about it? Make extramarital and premarital sex illegal? Or just force everyone to convert to Christianity? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Bix Biederbecke ==<br />
<br />
Not really a "Hollywood" star - Jazz musicians at the time were more liable to spend their lives in NY (as he did), Chicago, or New Orleans. Lots of jazz musicians, of course, had serious addiction problems, but it's not really intellectually honest to lump in struggling musicians - many of America's greatest jazz artists never made much money - in with wealthy movie stars. Remove? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:56, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Who compiled this silly list? ==<br />
<br />
Bix Biederbecke is hardly the only problem here. What about Brian Epstein? What did he have to do with Hollywood? What about Sid Viscious? Hollywood? I hardly think so. Richard Jeni suffered from clinical depression. Do you think that might have had something to do with his suicide? Clara Blandick was in pain and facing blindness. What has her suicide got to do with Hollywodd values? Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family. Why is she in the article? The circumstances of Virginia Rappe's death remain unknown and controversial. What has Heath Ledger's accidental overdose got to do with Hollywood or any other values? What has John Bonham got to do with Hollywood? The inquest into the death of Kenneth Williams returned an open verdict as it was not posibble to determine whether his overdose was accidental. In any case he was suffering from declining health and depression at the time.<br />
<br />
This is extremely sloppy work. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:33, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Tate ==<br />
<br />
Tate was murdered. How is that her fault? Maybe that part should just mention the Manson Family--a depraved group, indeed. [[User:Cisnon|Cisnon]] 22:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
reply to the above criticisms (prior to Tate): [[liberals]] become so literal when it becomes a basis for censoring things they don't like. [[Hollywood values]] are not literally confined to Hollywood, California, and, by the way, things like depression and overdosing on prescription drugs are a symptom of [[Hollywood values]] and occur in that group in far higher percentages than the general public. Please, no [[liberal denial]] on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
As to Tate, I welcome more information before censoring it from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
:Again, I think [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor censor] has a different meaning than [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delete delete.] Now, I'm no big city lawyer. Wait, yes I am.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:44, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Riiight... So, any time any entertainer somewhere in the (English speaking?) world suffers depression or overdoses on drugs, whether legal or prescription, whether accidentally or on purpose, that goes to show that "Hollywood values" (whatever they are) are evil. Did I say sloppy work? I withdraw that. I meant stupid, religiously driven nonsense. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Listing a pregnant murder victim as somehow indicative of "Hollywood values" is a disgrace. Sharon Tate did nothing to encourage Charles Manson to murder her; no aspect of her behavior or beliefs can excuse that, or played any role in it. Perhaps we should list her fetus as another sinner who deserved to be murdered? -- [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 23:08, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==You're bloody kidding me==<br />
Death is a value? Sexually-transmitted disease is a value? I have no clue what you're trying to say here-- That Hollywood is responsible for death and STDs? Or that actors somehow worship these two things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: You are clueless. Drug use and promiscuity are [[Hollywood values]], and they cause death.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::The paranoia in that comment aside, that still doesn't make death a value... Or disease, for that matter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:18, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::You're misreading (or misunderstanding) the entry, Bari. It doesn't say that disease and death ''are'' Hollywood values, it says that Hollywood values breed a culture that ''leads to'' disease and death.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::My apologies, it appears that you are correct... or at least you were, before the last grammar fix. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:53, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Hypocrisy ==<br />
<br />
Why was the new section Hypocrisy deleted? It was a fair point as explained eloquently at [[Liberal Hypocrisy]] I would have asked the reverting Sysop but the talk page is locked. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
:The context of Clooney portraying a US military officer was not explained. Please cease trying to attract my attention, and go back to your own website where I'm sure you will be much happier. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 10:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Context has now been added. I don't have a website. But thank you for your concern about my happiness. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:51, 17 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
This article is full of finger-pointing. I realize that Hollywood stars live lives full of questionable behavior, and I agree that they do not set good role models for all of the young fans that watch their movies and follow their lives, but we should look at our own lives, and not be so quick to point fingers like this. Shouldn't we be promoting forgiveness, as the Lord intends us?<br />
<br />
: This isn't "finger-pointing", and of course forgiveness remains available to anyone who requests it. But we're not going to stand by quietly as certain values destroy people. Would you also object if we identified how smoking has killed many people who smoke?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:46, 1 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Well, perhaps finger-pointing was the wrong word. I'm just saying, we shouldn't piously observe Hollywood stars and forget our own behavior. I would not object to identifying the wrongs of smoking, but what I find a little silly is the big list of stars and their own individual crimes. I think a more general article would be better, and we should avoid a "more words is better" approach, like Wikipedia does.<br />
<br />
: There is nothing "pious" about this. Values and lifestyles can cause harm just as surely as smoking can. Do we criticize anti-smoking statements as "pious"? Of course not. Highlighting the harm caused by [[Hollywood Values]] is not pious either. In fact, it can be scientifically studied.<br />
<br />
: The individual examples, just like individual examples of prominent smokers who died young, are powerful and just as compelling as more-difficult-to-find statistics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
To quote Aschlafly (look at the talk page for the Mathematics page) "Conservapedia does not take the childish approach of "more words is better." We strive to be concise as a good encyclopedia should. Godspeed." Perhaps this principle should be applied to this page. I think everyone understands that Hollywood values are corrupted. I don't see the need for a long list of people who have done wrong things.<br />
<br />
== removal ==<br />
<br />
How can you justify Tate being a victim of hollywood values? Please point to it? I dont want to get into an edit but you cant just add with the tag "because I say so"<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:05, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: It's self-evident from the explanation given. Tate was not a perpetrator of the crime, but became a victim of the culture in which she joined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
No it is not self evident. What culture did she join? married a film director? Associated with hippies? If that so then she was a victim of hippies values. Her 'culture' lead her to be murdered? many people get murdered and she was targeted because she was famous. That has nothing to do with so called holloywood values.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:57, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Right removing the Tate stuff again. At the time of the murder Sharon Tate has not been using drugs or alcohol, she was pregnant and the Mason family was actually interested in killing a man who refused to sign his band up. Tate was unlucky but it is clearly at odds with other deaths listed with hers as she was murdered!<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:55, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Wow: Tate's murder was just the product of chance, like getting hit by a car! No, AdenJ, Tate's murder was the result of [[Hollywood values]]. Maybe the initial intended victim was someone else, but that reinforces how [[Hollywood values]] work that they killed her instead. The entry is staying in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I give up, its totally ridiculous. Sharon Tate was murdered, It was nothing, repeat, NOTHING to do with values. Unless its the values of Manson. <br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: AdenJ, Tate's murder had ''everything'' to do with values. And, duh, that does include the [[Hollywood values]] of Manson and his followers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So its 'duh' now is it? How did Mason have hollywood values? He was in no movies and was a poor musician. How was he affected by hollywood values? Because he was obessed with The Beatles? Who wasnt at that time. He was a drug crazed hippie with a severe mental problem.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:31, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Ridiculous==<br />
<br />
This article just cherry-picks famous people (or...not, in the case of "1920s cornettists" and similar cases), and stretches a granule, albeit a malleable one, miles and miles away from the true root causes of their deaths to make some point that these people's deaths are connected to some Spectre of Glittery Death looming up over Mulholland. How many famous people are there? There must be...untold millions of YouTube phenoms, game show contestants, sandwich shop spokesman, and to highlight a few flare-ups is entirely counter to any kind of legitimacy an encyclopedic volume should have. When I look at that list, I see Sid Vicious, who, as far as I know, lived in the UK for 98% of his life. I see Elvis Presley (maybe there should be a "Memphis values" page). And Sharon Tate...Sharon Tate? Wasn't Manson actually trying to kill somebody else, someone who wasn't there (supposedly a record honcho or someother such person who denied him a chance to be on a Beach Boys record). If that's how we're gonna be about it, and say innocent pregnant sober bystanders are perpetrators of Hollywood values, then let's say those whores that Jack the Ripper killed were victims of "West End values". [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 18:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Linus has given us the fundamental [[liberal denial]]: denying that [[liberal]] values have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Aschlafly has given us the fundamental conservative denial.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:24, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::'''I don't see anywhere in my graph where I denied that liberal values have consequences'''. I think that this whole liberal/conservative jive is basically a distraction, an abstract that exists only theoretically, and even then, as a theory lend creedence by consensus. If these people's death is going to be attributed to a set of industries in a geographic location, then it's already got the integrity of arguing about air temperature. Who cares? I'm not some objectivist/nihilist (probably mutually exclusive philosophies, but often combined nonetheless by people who don't understand them), so I'm not going to deforest the issue by going on some bleat about how we're all just "computers made out of meat" or whatnot, but I think this issue is...not an issue. I'm not arguing at it from any perspective other than one which states all perspectives are already invalid if it comes from a person who cares about things like this. So to say that anybody's neurons are any better than anyone else's simply because of the choices which all the electric 1's and 0's in our brains combine to create, is stupid. Even the whole idea of "liberal denial", which is supposed to be some kind of searing label which supercedes all the fray of bickering and mudslinging, has been trampled on by reductive childishness that's rampant here. Liberal denial. That's all your arguement is here. You'll say, I'm using liberal denial because what I'm saying is a denial coming from a liberal viewpoint. You define my point of view, incorrectly, sure, but you're still just defining it. Not '''re'''fining it, not clarifying or showing how it's wrong and maybe trying to excise the benign liberal tumors you probably surmise exist within my brain stem, you're just defining it. I should have taken a hint from the logo and realized that "applying logos" and "slapping labels" is basically the fundamental economy of Conservapedia. All apologies.<br />
[[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 21:22, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
==Miley Cyrus==<br />
see http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0<br />
"They include shots of the teen wrapped in what appears to be a satin bedsheet, looking over her shoulder with her back exposed."<br />
<br />
she was not topless--<span style="margin-top: -3px;">&nbsp;[[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 21:34, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:That's your opinion and you are not an accepted reference for material. I provided not one, not two but THREE references that described the photo as "topless." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:42, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::She was topless unless you are prepared to call a sheet a "top". <br />
<br />
::Do we want to put our cards on the table people? Clearly the reason that some here do not want this addition to the Hollywood values page is that Ms Cyrus appeared on the Main Page here not long ago as an exemplar of Christian virtue when she spoke of her ambition to abstain from sex until marriage (if memory serves).<br />
<br />
::Well, now she's been photographed topless. I'll bet if it were Hillary Clinton you would all be loudly insisting that the description "topless" was absolutely accurate. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:44, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Er, no. What *is* clear is that her parents and Disney decided to let her be posed in as risque a fashion as possible - thus largely '''negating''' her value as a role model. My only objection is to the word ''topless'' which implies visible headlights rather than shrouded ones. Perhaps you'd like to right about teen [[role model]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:48, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::As I said, three references described the photo as "topless." However, I've now clarified the extend of the toplessness in the article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:50, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
topless requires that the breasts be exposed since they were not she was not topless --<span style="margin-top: -3px;">&nbsp;[[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 21:49, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:*sigh* Jinx, you can say that some sources said the girl was topless. That would come under the heading of "exaggeration", I'd say. Unless the editor in chief overturns my decision, I intend to have us all avoid that word. Let's not embarrass the girl any more than she already has been. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:52, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::That's pretty rich having regard to a number of the other accustaions and comments in the article. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No, it actually doesn't require that the breasts be exposed. Neither does "nude" require that genitals be exposed. Demi Moore was nude when she posed for Vanity Fair's cover when pregnant even though neither her breasts or genitals were exposed. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:08, 2 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I'm an easily lead, ignorant Christian. Tell me what change you'd like to see in the article - or make it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:56, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Let's dial down the fuss a bit, folks. I was the one who originally posted the Cyrus line, and I didn't intend to start a war. I used the term "topless" because, a) that's the way I've heard it reported today, and b) it's accurate, strictly speaking. However, while I recognize that in common vernacular, "topless" implies a more explicit condition than exists in this case, I expected someone to come up with a better term rather than a complete (and unwarranted) reversion. So, maybe we can keep the item, but change the descriptive word? "Suggestive"? "Racy"? "Controversial"? "Provocative"? "Naughty"? Suggestions welcome...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 21:58, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I'm letting Deborah decide this one. (If you must apply an adjective, try "risqué".) Anyway, the emphasis should be on the parents, as she is a minor and not responsible for photo shoot decisions. <br />
<br />
:We can write an article on how parents of teen stars, such as Britney Spears, Hillary Duff & Lindsay Lohan, have managed their daughters' careers. But do we have a decent article on [[Modesty]] yet? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:05, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::All good suggestions. And don't forget Brooke Shields and her mother--They were a notorious pair a quarter-century ago (not that I'm old enough to remember such things [cough]).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::As a former Disney employee, I must say the company needs to pay more attention to its [[role model]]s for tweens. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:32, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::Call me cynical but I think it's just like any mega multi-national corporation, all that matters is the bottom line. And let's face it, sex (and abstinence) sells. You know back in the studio days women had to behave very nicely otherwise they'd be fired from their contract, then the supreme court broke them up and there went the Golden (or was it Silver?) age of Hollywood.<br />
::::And anyway, shouldn't their '''parents''' be more concerned then a board of directors? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:38, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Lenny Bruce/Sharon Tate/Blaming the victim ==<br />
<br />
While Lenny did die because of a heroin OD, he was a standup comic (Comedian Values?), not an actor he only appeared on TV six times on variety/talk shows, definitely not Hollywood. I'd like to believe the government's horrible persecution of him led to his downward spiral.<br />
<br />
As far as the Tate case. Andy, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't familiar with the story, here is a [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonaccount.html link to it,] '''if you still think that she did herself in because of Hollywood values, then ''by all means'' put it back in.<br />
<br />
As for me, it makes me sick to my stomach to somehow imply that she was anyway responsible for her own death, that's worse then saying "well if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that low-cut dress".'''<br />
<br />
And just to make sure you don't go off subject and say that I'm a typical liberal, I'll admit that I '''agree''' with the premise of the article.<br />
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:02, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Goodness, no, we would never insult you like that. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:06, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Bruce Lee==<br />
<br />
ATang, please stop removing this item. Edit wars are frowned on at CP, so I suggest that if you want it deleted you seek the advice of a sysop. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Bruce Lee died of cerebral edema. Traces of a painkiller and cannabis were found postmortem. However, the cause of death was not cannabis; ergo, the link between Hollywood values and his death was not established.<br />
<br />
:Otherwise you should list every cannabis user who died, regardless of cause of death. For example - if a lone hunter was attacked by a black bear and died as a result, and they found traces of THC in his body, would you say that's the cause of death? That he died of drug use? Or that he died because of Hollywood values? (Now... if he got high and provoked the bear, that's an entirely different story...)<br />
<br />
:[[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:33, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:PS. Heh, I just saw what you typed. Merging the topics. (And I'm trying to avoid an edit war by pointing to the talk page)<br />
<br />
::He was a cannabis user, and the health risks of cannabis are well known; even today (literally) the leftist British government has reclassified cannabis as a class B drug (from being class C, the lowest class of illegal substance, A being the highest). It is scarcely surprising that cannabis use - an HV practice in itself - may well have contributed to Lee's early death. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:32, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yeah, it 'may' have - but by the same argument, UV exposure or asbestos inhalation may have contributed to his death too. My point is - when the cause of death is not conclusive, you cannot point to one single factor. Cannabis is not known to cause swelling of the brain; until there is an established link between the cerebral edema and cannabis use, I don't see how HV caused his death. Like I stated before, you cannot list every death of persons who have Hollywood Values. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 09:37, 9 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Rob Knox==<br />
He died protecting his little brother from two armed assailants. If those are Hollywood Values, sign me up.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 17:38, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Tom Moore on this one... There has been some mistake, just a misunderstanding.<br />
<br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2026826/Harry-Potter-actor's-father-Colin-Knox-visits-murder-scene.html "The father of a teenage actor who appears in the next Harry Potter film today visited the scene where the 18-year-old was stabbed to death trying to protect his younger brother from a knifeman."] [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Folks, we need more than a few minutes to discuss something before deleting it like that. Some good new information is provided above, but some of it missed the point. No one is trying to blame the victim here. [[Hollywood values]] include carousing amid drunken people, and can often include underage drinking. Trouble breaks out and victims get killed. This doesn't happen as often to people who are, for example, sleeping by midnight. More comments welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Hey, like I said, if Hollywood values include defending your little brother from being one of the many stabbed by a stranger with two knives, sign me up as a proponent.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Well, that's not saying much, because I would expect you to have been a proponent before. By the way, before you jump to conclusions, do you know who brought Rob Knox's under-aged 16-year-old brother to that drunken, late-night mayhem? Or is that question considered inappropriate when the controlling standards are [[Hollywood values]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:28, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::I have no notion who brought him there. I am not sure it matters, since the problem there would be a young man bringing his under-age brother out on the town drinking, something that is relatively minor and which doesn't seem worthy of condemnation. But since you bring it up, do you know? If not, why did you put this up in the article before you found out?<br />
::::Eh, who cares... it's your site.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:36, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::I looked, and can't find that information. I'll check the CNN report of the story.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:37, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::Nope, doesn't seem to have been reported. Although incidentally, while you're reading this, you might want to add to the News section that Bob Barr was nominated as the Libertarian candidate for this year. [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/25/barr.election/index.html Story is here], and conservatives are probably interested.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:40, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: The account the fight which killed Rob Knox is described differently from your accounts above here: [http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1204418.ece]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::::I was going by the link above, wherein a stranger with two kitchen knives approached them and began stabbing people. This is a much more detailed account, but no less tragic. His friend thought a stranger had stolen his phone and accused the guy of it, and later the guy comes back with some friends, one of whom starts stabbing people.<br />
::::::At the very least, this change to the article is in very bad taste so soon. But again, you own this place, so I guess you get to make that final call. I obviously disagree with the whole premise of the article, so I don't expect you to take my views much to account on the matter.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 20:14, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::At best, it's a weak example that doesn't serve the broad thrust of your argument particularly well. As charity decreases, it looks variously: inappropriate -> ridiculous -> mean-spirited. If you insist on keeping it, I'd suggest making a new section and leading in with the kind of qualifications you made above. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 20:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I'm seeking the truth just as others should be here, and there is obviously more to the Rob Knox tragedy than the simple story that you insisted upon above. According to the more detailed account, the fight was expected. Note also that the victim's under-aged brother is an Olympic-level expert in karate, and that the fight was in or around a bar after midnight. This is still a terrible tragedy, to be sure, but values undeniably played a role in it, as in deaths from drunken driving. We'll say prayers for the victims '''and''' speak out against the causes. Liberals do neither.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
A young man who has played a minor role in a movie is stabbed to death in London, and within hours of his death you add him to this page as an example of "Hollywood values". That is '''vile'''. I do not know the details of the case, but nor do you, and nor does anyone. Someone has just been arrested, and the facts are simply not known. Jumping to conclusions like this, and acting with unseemly haste to use the Knox family's tragedy as fuel for your anti-Hollywood/anti-liberal campaign is disgusting. Please delete this appalling addition to the article. It does not do the Conservapedia image any good at all. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:29, 27 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
:There's probably a name for those who make capital out of the suffering of others. Oh yes - SCUM! [[User:WarrenG|WarrenG]] 08:31, 27 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Chaplin==<br />
I saw the addition for Chaplin under divorce and I wonder if it's not worth mentioning some of the large age gaps between married Hollywood types? Chaplin met his last wife (Oona?) when she was dating one of his sons. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]]<sub>[[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']]</sub> 10:35, 30 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Wow, that's shocking. Yes, please add that with a citation. (I should have added a citation for mine also.) Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:45, 30 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Thank you, will do so. I have it mentioned in a book at home, so I'll put it up later tonight, with a few other examples I know are in there. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]]<sub>[[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']]</sub> 10:51, 30 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Hypocrisy - all specious ==<br />
<br />
Would someone please tell me what is ''hypocritical'' an actor "act[ing] in movies contrary to their public opinions"? Isn't that simply what actors do - '''act'''? This section of the article seems to be based on a very naive confusion of an actor's role-playing with his or her real-life views and actions. In its present form, I don't think it adds anything of value. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: To a degree, you're right, but when an actor profits enormously by exploiting a sentiment which he simultaneously harshly criticizes (in appeasement of [[liberals]]), it begs the question: dude, if you think it's so wrong, then why do you profit so much from it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Not convinced. You seem to be saying that no actor should accept an offer to play roles like Shylock, Iago, or Hannibal Lecter. That would make for some pretty thin plot-lines... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 10:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: No, you overstate it. A better example would be if a [[conservative]] starred in a movie featuring sex and nudity. The howls of protest by [[liberals]] would be deafening!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::But, [[Hollywood values]] embrassed by all [[Liberals]] would mean they were desensortised to this. <br />
<br />
::::Actually could you explain this why would "liberals" be out raged, you have spent all this time saying they like that in their movies. People only seem to care about movies featuring sex and nudity when some former child star appears in them and news reporting go along the line "she (it is always she they care about) is sheading her innocent image". This might comes as a shock to you but most of the world doesn't think of actors as liberal/conservative and judge their movies on that basis. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:30, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== At a certain point, it would probably pay to be selective ==<br />
<br />
<br />
At some point I would advise to only use examples that best show the point trying to be made. For instance there are certainly many Hollywood divorces, but we have chosen to only point to a few that give the greatest examples of particular excess. Other areas of the article may wish to do the same. Drew Barrymore's stint in rehab as a young girl would be a good one. Ryan O'Neal thinking that Lee Majors telling him to look out for his wife while he was away on a trip meant to have sex with her would be another. Woody Allen's picture taking, the death of Dorothy Stratten, Morrison's burnout death and his girlfriend being beaten to death by a baseball bat by her next boyfriend, all would be notable examples. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:20, 4 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Crime: Innocent until proven guilty ==<br />
<br />
I think that there may be a certain level of contradiction here. Although we ''can'' use arrests as a way to suggest hedonistic activity of Hollywood stars, we're mentioning an accusation without proof they were convicted of the actual crime.<br />
<br />
Perhaps we can delete and find other conviction examples. If not we can provide a reminder that we recognize that they are innocent until proven guilty. BTW: I'm not suggesting it's wrong in essence, but it could potentially confuse readers who are trying to understand things.<br />
--[[User:Borneo|Borneo]] 05:34, 6 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Is it just me, or is this a bit one-sided? ==<br />
<br />
I think that this entire article, from the first line, is very condescending and even slanderous. This isn't an article about "Hollywood Values" (which I am convinced is a made up word), it's simply a list of drug deaths and crimes committed by people who happen to be / have been in Hollywood.<br />
<br />
While the sources for the statistics are cited, perhaps it would be more appropriate to include interviews and quotes from Hollywood stars on their values. One could also delve into the history of Hollywood, and how it has molded the culture and values that are present there now.<br />
<br />
If this is really an article on Hollywood Values, someone needs to gather up primary sources relevant to this topic. Otherwise, this article should be renamed "List of Bad Things about Hollywood People."<br />
<br />
==Charity work==<br />
I notice that a section on charity work has been removed. If entertainers are in fact sincerely raising money to help the needy isn't that part of their values and should be included in "Hollywood values"? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 10:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:No, because Hollywood Values are not the across-the-board-values of all who have worked in Hollywood. Do not be fooled into over-literalism, a crutch of [[Liberals]] who are unable to make logical pointsin debate. [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[Charlton Heston]] worked in Hollywood, and did a huge amount for good causes, but were a world away from 'Hollywood Values'. Try reading the article properly! Best wishes, [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
So, let me get this straight...<br />
<br />
Only some liberals follow liberal style and every other article beginning with the word "Liberal"<br />
<br />
Only some people in Hollywood follow Hollywood values.<br />
<br />
So really, nothing substantiative is in these articles, and it's little more than a shoddy smearjob against the rich (Hollywood) and the Left.<br />
<br />
Trustworthy indeed. [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 10:49, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So are you saying that "Hollywood values" refers only to the ''negative'' values of people who work in Hollywood, and that any positive values that might be held by people in Hollywood are ''not'' considered part of Hollywood values? Isn't that a bit biased? How would we feel if people started talking about "Republican values" but meant only the negative aspects? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 11:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Daphnea and EBrown, you are hopeless cases. HV refers to the pernicious effects of the cult of celebrity, which leads sufferers to feel that they are above all legal, moral or societal rules. It is, perhaps, significant that you are quibbling with the title and definitions through the medium of an absurd literalism. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I assumed that "Hollywood values" would be about the values espoused by Hollywood; while that is largely negative in contrast with conservative values I feel it is only honest to mention the positive aspects when they occur; unless the article ''by definition'' is only about the negative aspects, which is the question I asked. I'm assuming from your reply that it ''is'' only about the negative values. Now I can edit it accordingly. When did asking for clarification become an "absurd literalism"? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:32, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Productions==<br />
I put back a deleted edit after revising it on the advice of [[User:Bugler]]. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Please don't revert edits that '''you told me to do'''! To be a little more conversational, I was following an edit which was approved by another editor pointing out that not everybody in Hollywood goes along with "Hollywood values". Likewise it is sensible to point out that not all Hollywood productions go along with "Hollywood values". If we don't do this then in the first case someone reading this (especially a child) might go away with the impression that ''everyone'' involved in Hollywood is evil, and thus grow up hating Ronald Reagan and Charlton Heston. I the second case they might avoid seeing The Chronicle of Narnia because it's a "Hollywood" production. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:18, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:I didn't tell you to do it here, Daphnea. I said that the correct place for such a statement was on a page bout Hollywood, or about the entertainment industry. HV is not the same as Hollywood. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:20, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:So what do you think of what I said above? Do you want people to start thinking Ronald Reagan went along with Hollywood Values? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Add it to [[Hollywood]] [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:28, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::I asked you a question. Are you intending to answer it? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:31, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::I will certainly not answer if addressed in so aggressive a fashion. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:32, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::OK, let's be polite. Are you going to answer my question, please? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
Yes. Naturally RR is not an example of HV, nor is James Stuart, or Charlton Heston, or Audie Murphy. Perhaps a line at the start to differentiate the industry as a whole from HV might be appropriate. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:35, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
: ... and in fact already exists. ''Not all people who currently work or have worked in Hollywood espouse Hollywood values. [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Charlton Heston]], [[Walt Disney]] and many others practiced conservative values while working in Hollywood''. That would seem to cover matters. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:37, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Good, good, now we're getting somewhere. You've just found out that there already is a line at the top pointing this out. I knew that already because I helped put it there. All I'm doing is saying the same thing about productions: just as not all people in Hollywood go along with "Hollywood values", not all productions do either. That's all I'm saying. If you like I can move the statement about the production up to the top of the article too. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:40, 26 June 2008 (EDT)</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Hollywood_values&diff=482437Talk:Hollywood values2008-06-26T21:40:28Z<p>Daphnea: /* Productions */</p>
<hr />
<div>This obviously needs more stuff, but I stub'd it so the red link on the main page went away.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 22:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Unlike reality, which clearly has none of these things. Perhaps a random use of the word "glamourization" is in order? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)<br />
Barikada, I think that's a central point! It's not only disrespect for morals, it's flagrant glamorization of lack of morals! I'll leave it to you to add it, but good call.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 19:59, 23 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:Thanks. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
MexMax - please stop reinserting the unsubstantiated information into the article. Thank you. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
MexMax - any and all talk of whether Heath Ledger's death was due to 'Hollywood Values' should be left until AFTER the autopsy and inquest have been published. Mr. Schalfly's previous version of the article was based on a celebrity gossip article, and has been superceded by real information from the police. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:40, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:I'm sorry for jumping the gun. That seems truthful, I apologize for reverting without looking closer. I thought we were just doing the same edit war over and over again...[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
::One point: I think the MTV article should be treated as, errr, second best. Is there a better citation? I think we'd rather not cite to MTV unless we have no other chance.[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Possible Inclusions==<br />
<br />
A few suggestions for the list, off the top of my head: Marilyn Monroe would be a prime (and notorious) example. Chris Farley, who's stated goal was to live and die like Belushi. Janis Joplin. Anna Nicole Smith. Freddie Prinze. Rock Hudson. And depending on how comprehensive you want the list to be, there's an almost endless parade of people who were more famous as part of a group than as individuals, such as Keith Moon or Dennis Wilson.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:16, 25 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I did a search for Hollywood liberals and came up with [http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ this] website. On the front page I see that the cops are invertviewing Mary Kate Olsen about the suspicious circumstances in Ledger's death, David Copperfield has had two childred out of wedlock, Britney Spears is finally making it to her custody hearing to see if she can stay off drugs long enough to take care of her own kids, and Kiefer Sutherland is being let out of jail after a DUI charge. Hollywood values at their best! (Or should I say worst?) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
If an MTV reference is frowned upon, I can hardly see a credible argument for references to The National Enquirer? It's not exactly known for its adherence to fact-based logic, is it? [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Why not? I bet they had articles on every one of the people we have in the article right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:21, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::There's a reason that tabloids are also known as "Gossip rags." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
The people putting these lists together do not seem to realize that in making a case linking "Hollywood values"--not coherently defined in the article, by the way--to early death or criminality it is not enough simply to cite examples; it needs to be demonstrated that these alleged consequences are ''more likely'' to occur to those who adopt these values than to the general population. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Heath Ledger==<br />
<br />
How did Hollywood values contribute to his death? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 04:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:It is clear upon reviewing [[User_talk:Fox#Heath_Ledger|this]] and [[Talk:Main_Page#Milking_deaths_for_political_gain|this]] that nobody has justified how Hollywood values contributed to Ledger's death. We all acknowledge that during his life he probably did take drugs and was a selfish individual, however there is no evidence that his overdose on legal prescription drugs was a suicide attempt or reasonably affected by his drug habit. Given that the example is used in the context of death ("Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:") then I think it would be prudent to remove Ledger's entry until sufficient evidence connecting Hollywood to his death has been found, otherwise we are just sponsoring gossip. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 07:22, 2 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Of what significance is it that he was found naked in his bed? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:20, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==So?==<br />
<br />
So? What does this article intend to prove? What is its thesis? Is this article intended to somehow connect the unfortunate deaths of some people who got too involved in drugs or alcohol as an indicator that hollywood films are a bad influence? <br />
Is this article supposed to somehow connect these so-called "Hollywood Values" with liberal politics? <br />
Last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh had had an embarrassing addiction to opiate painkillers, George W. Bush had admitted to a cocaine problem, and Mel Gibson had such a drinking problem that he was accusing "the Jews" of all the evils that had ever plagued him. These three men, for example, are CONSERVATIVES. Mel Gibson even functions as part of the industry centered in HOLLYWOOD. Why is good ol' Mel not mentioned in this article? <br />
Is the anti-liberal bias in this article too overwhelming to include even one conservative who's had problems?<br />
Or, as I suspect, is Conservapedia wearing the type of blinders that see any conservative's troubles with drugs or alcohol as a momentary temptation by the liberal side? <br />
<br />
If you simply blame everything on your opponents, all the time, then you never have to think it through or acknowledge reality. Seems to be the basic M.O. here. <br />
<br />
I, for one, fail to see how Heath Ledger's accidental death from combining the wrong medications (all of which seem to have been prescribed for him) as indicative of a "Hollywood Value" system. Well, I'm sure the response will go like this: "He was NAKED! Surely, nakedness is indicative of SOME evil-doing. After all, LIBERALS SLEEP NAKED! No God-fearing person should sleep sans pajamas!"<br />
<br />
I'm disgusted.<br />
<br />
[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 14:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== What about Britney Spears? ==<br />
<br />
Britney is a very famous person, and hasn't she been to rehab?<br />
Shouldn't she be mentioned in connection with "Hollywood Values"?<br />
Just a suggestion. [[User:MikeSchwartz|MikeSchwartz]] 20:07, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Not entirely accurate ==<br />
<br />
This article doesn't really give an accurate definition of the phrase, 'Hollywood Values'. I don't really blame you, as it is very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately define it. I also made this point on the 'Liberal Denial' Talk Page, so I'll just copy the relevant part of what I said here:<br />
<br />
This phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:48, 13 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
It should also be noted that the meaning of 'Hollywood Values', according to some, is directly contradicted by what others mean by 'Hollywood Values'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Wikilinks ==<br />
<br />
Why are all these actors, singers, etc. wikilinked? Do we plan to have articles on them all? I removed most of them at some point, but I see they were added back. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Crime ==<br />
For the crime section, please stick to actual crimes. Maybe there could be another section for offensive comments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:48, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:TBH Roger, I think the linked [[Mel Gibson]] article covers it sufficiently, so - in Gibson's case at least - there's probably no need to mention it in the article at all. But perhaps you're right that there should be a section for those celebs who have demonstrated consistent/repeated immoral behaviour/outbursts but have stopped short of actually breaking the law. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 14:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Hollywood==<br />
<br />
Why are musicians and athletes included in an article about [[Hollywood]]? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:34, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== What do we do? ==<br />
<br />
Even if Hollywood values are in fact a problem, what can we possibly do about it? Make extramarital and premarital sex illegal? Or just force everyone to convert to Christianity? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Bix Biederbecke ==<br />
<br />
Not really a "Hollywood" star - Jazz musicians at the time were more liable to spend their lives in NY (as he did), Chicago, or New Orleans. Lots of jazz musicians, of course, had serious addiction problems, but it's not really intellectually honest to lump in struggling musicians - many of America's greatest jazz artists never made much money - in with wealthy movie stars. Remove? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:56, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Who compiled this silly list? ==<br />
<br />
Bix Biederbecke is hardly the only problem here. What about Brian Epstein? What did he have to do with Hollywood? What about Sid Viscious? Hollywood? I hardly think so. Richard Jeni suffered from clinical depression. Do you think that might have had something to do with his suicide? Clara Blandick was in pain and facing blindness. What has her suicide got to do with Hollywodd values? Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family. Why is she in the article? The circumstances of Virginia Rappe's death remain unknown and controversial. What has Heath Ledger's accidental overdose got to do with Hollywood or any other values? What has John Bonham got to do with Hollywood? The inquest into the death of Kenneth Williams returned an open verdict as it was not posibble to determine whether his overdose was accidental. In any case he was suffering from declining health and depression at the time.<br />
<br />
This is extremely sloppy work. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:33, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Tate ==<br />
<br />
Tate was murdered. How is that her fault? Maybe that part should just mention the Manson Family--a depraved group, indeed. [[User:Cisnon|Cisnon]] 22:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
reply to the above criticisms (prior to Tate): [[liberals]] become so literal when it becomes a basis for censoring things they don't like. [[Hollywood values]] are not literally confined to Hollywood, California, and, by the way, things like depression and overdosing on prescription drugs are a symptom of [[Hollywood values]] and occur in that group in far higher percentages than the general public. Please, no [[liberal denial]] on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
As to Tate, I welcome more information before censoring it from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
:Again, I think [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor censor] has a different meaning than [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delete delete.] Now, I'm no big city lawyer. Wait, yes I am.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:44, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Riiight... So, any time any entertainer somewhere in the (English speaking?) world suffers depression or overdoses on drugs, whether legal or prescription, whether accidentally or on purpose, that goes to show that "Hollywood values" (whatever they are) are evil. Did I say sloppy work? I withdraw that. I meant stupid, religiously driven nonsense. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Listing a pregnant murder victim as somehow indicative of "Hollywood values" is a disgrace. Sharon Tate did nothing to encourage Charles Manson to murder her; no aspect of her behavior or beliefs can excuse that, or played any role in it. Perhaps we should list her fetus as another sinner who deserved to be murdered? -- [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 23:08, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==You're bloody kidding me==<br />
Death is a value? Sexually-transmitted disease is a value? I have no clue what you're trying to say here-- That Hollywood is responsible for death and STDs? Or that actors somehow worship these two things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: You are clueless. Drug use and promiscuity are [[Hollywood values]], and they cause death.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::The paranoia in that comment aside, that still doesn't make death a value... Or disease, for that matter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:18, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::You're misreading (or misunderstanding) the entry, Bari. It doesn't say that disease and death ''are'' Hollywood values, it says that Hollywood values breed a culture that ''leads to'' disease and death.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::My apologies, it appears that you are correct... or at least you were, before the last grammar fix. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:53, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Hypocrisy ==<br />
<br />
Why was the new section Hypocrisy deleted? It was a fair point as explained eloquently at [[Liberal Hypocrisy]] I would have asked the reverting Sysop but the talk page is locked. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
:The context of Clooney portraying a US military officer was not explained. Please cease trying to attract my attention, and go back to your own website where I'm sure you will be much happier. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 10:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Context has now been added. I don't have a website. But thank you for your concern about my happiness. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:51, 17 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
This article is full of finger-pointing. I realize that Hollywood stars live lives full of questionable behavior, and I agree that they do not set good role models for all of the young fans that watch their movies and follow their lives, but we should look at our own lives, and not be so quick to point fingers like this. Shouldn't we be promoting forgiveness, as the Lord intends us?<br />
<br />
: This isn't "finger-pointing", and of course forgiveness remains available to anyone who requests it. But we're not going to stand by quietly as certain values destroy people. Would you also object if we identified how smoking has killed many people who smoke?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:46, 1 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Well, perhaps finger-pointing was the wrong word. I'm just saying, we shouldn't piously observe Hollywood stars and forget our own behavior. I would not object to identifying the wrongs of smoking, but what I find a little silly is the big list of stars and their own individual crimes. I think a more general article would be better, and we should avoid a "more words is better" approach, like Wikipedia does.<br />
<br />
: There is nothing "pious" about this. Values and lifestyles can cause harm just as surely as smoking can. Do we criticize anti-smoking statements as "pious"? Of course not. Highlighting the harm caused by [[Hollywood Values]] is not pious either. In fact, it can be scientifically studied.<br />
<br />
: The individual examples, just like individual examples of prominent smokers who died young, are powerful and just as compelling as more-difficult-to-find statistics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
To quote Aschlafly (look at the talk page for the Mathematics page) "Conservapedia does not take the childish approach of "more words is better." We strive to be concise as a good encyclopedia should. Godspeed." Perhaps this principle should be applied to this page. I think everyone understands that Hollywood values are corrupted. I don't see the need for a long list of people who have done wrong things.<br />
<br />
== removal ==<br />
<br />
How can you justify Tate being a victim of hollywood values? Please point to it? I dont want to get into an edit but you cant just add with the tag "because I say so"<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:05, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: It's self-evident from the explanation given. Tate was not a perpetrator of the crime, but became a victim of the culture in which she joined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
No it is not self evident. What culture did she join? married a film director? Associated with hippies? If that so then she was a victim of hippies values. Her 'culture' lead her to be murdered? many people get murdered and she was targeted because she was famous. That has nothing to do with so called holloywood values.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:57, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Right removing the Tate stuff again. At the time of the murder Sharon Tate has not been using drugs or alcohol, she was pregnant and the Mason family was actually interested in killing a man who refused to sign his band up. Tate was unlucky but it is clearly at odds with other deaths listed with hers as she was murdered!<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:55, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Wow: Tate's murder was just the product of chance, like getting hit by a car! No, AdenJ, Tate's murder was the result of [[Hollywood values]]. Maybe the initial intended victim was someone else, but that reinforces how [[Hollywood values]] work that they killed her instead. The entry is staying in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I give up, its totally ridiculous. Sharon Tate was murdered, It was nothing, repeat, NOTHING to do with values. Unless its the values of Manson. <br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: AdenJ, Tate's murder had ''everything'' to do with values. And, duh, that does include the [[Hollywood values]] of Manson and his followers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So its 'duh' now is it? How did Mason have hollywood values? He was in no movies and was a poor musician. How was he affected by hollywood values? Because he was obessed with The Beatles? Who wasnt at that time. He was a drug crazed hippie with a severe mental problem.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:31, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Ridiculous==<br />
<br />
This article just cherry-picks famous people (or...not, in the case of "1920s cornettists" and similar cases), and stretches a granule, albeit a malleable one, miles and miles away from the true root causes of their deaths to make some point that these people's deaths are connected to some Spectre of Glittery Death looming up over Mulholland. How many famous people are there? There must be...untold millions of YouTube phenoms, game show contestants, sandwich shop spokesman, and to highlight a few flare-ups is entirely counter to any kind of legitimacy an encyclopedic volume should have. When I look at that list, I see Sid Vicious, who, as far as I know, lived in the UK for 98% of his life. I see Elvis Presley (maybe there should be a "Memphis values" page). And Sharon Tate...Sharon Tate? Wasn't Manson actually trying to kill somebody else, someone who wasn't there (supposedly a record honcho or someother such person who denied him a chance to be on a Beach Boys record). If that's how we're gonna be about it, and say innocent pregnant sober bystanders are perpetrators of Hollywood values, then let's say those whores that Jack the Ripper killed were victims of "West End values". [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 18:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Linus has given us the fundamental [[liberal denial]]: denying that [[liberal]] values have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Aschlafly has given us the fundamental conservative denial.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:24, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::'''I don't see anywhere in my graph where I denied that liberal values have consequences'''. I think that this whole liberal/conservative jive is basically a distraction, an abstract that exists only theoretically, and even then, as a theory lend creedence by consensus. If these people's death is going to be attributed to a set of industries in a geographic location, then it's already got the integrity of arguing about air temperature. Who cares? I'm not some objectivist/nihilist (probably mutually exclusive philosophies, but often combined nonetheless by people who don't understand them), so I'm not going to deforest the issue by going on some bleat about how we're all just "computers made out of meat" or whatnot, but I think this issue is...not an issue. I'm not arguing at it from any perspective other than one which states all perspectives are already invalid if it comes from a person who cares about things like this. So to say that anybody's neurons are any better than anyone else's simply because of the choices which all the electric 1's and 0's in our brains combine to create, is stupid. Even the whole idea of "liberal denial", which is supposed to be some kind of searing label which supercedes all the fray of bickering and mudslinging, has been trampled on by reductive childishness that's rampant here. Liberal denial. That's all your arguement is here. You'll say, I'm using liberal denial because what I'm saying is a denial coming from a liberal viewpoint. You define my point of view, incorrectly, sure, but you're still just defining it. Not '''re'''fining it, not clarifying or showing how it's wrong and maybe trying to excise the benign liberal tumors you probably surmise exist within my brain stem, you're just defining it. I should have taken a hint from the logo and realized that "applying logos" and "slapping labels" is basically the fundamental economy of Conservapedia. All apologies.<br />
[[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 21:22, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
==Miley Cyrus==<br />
see http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0<br />
"They include shots of the teen wrapped in what appears to be a satin bedsheet, looking over her shoulder with her back exposed."<br />
<br />
she was not topless--<span style="margin-top: -3px;">&nbsp;[[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 21:34, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:That's your opinion and you are not an accepted reference for material. I provided not one, not two but THREE references that described the photo as "topless." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:42, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::She was topless unless you are prepared to call a sheet a "top". <br />
<br />
::Do we want to put our cards on the table people? Clearly the reason that some here do not want this addition to the Hollywood values page is that Ms Cyrus appeared on the Main Page here not long ago as an exemplar of Christian virtue when she spoke of her ambition to abstain from sex until marriage (if memory serves).<br />
<br />
::Well, now she's been photographed topless. I'll bet if it were Hillary Clinton you would all be loudly insisting that the description "topless" was absolutely accurate. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:44, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Er, no. What *is* clear is that her parents and Disney decided to let her be posed in as risque a fashion as possible - thus largely '''negating''' her value as a role model. My only objection is to the word ''topless'' which implies visible headlights rather than shrouded ones. Perhaps you'd like to right about teen [[role model]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:48, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::As I said, three references described the photo as "topless." However, I've now clarified the extend of the toplessness in the article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:50, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
topless requires that the breasts be exposed since they were not she was not topless --<span style="margin-top: -3px;">&nbsp;[[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 21:49, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:*sigh* Jinx, you can say that some sources said the girl was topless. That would come under the heading of "exaggeration", I'd say. Unless the editor in chief overturns my decision, I intend to have us all avoid that word. Let's not embarrass the girl any more than she already has been. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:52, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::That's pretty rich having regard to a number of the other accustaions and comments in the article. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No, it actually doesn't require that the breasts be exposed. Neither does "nude" require that genitals be exposed. Demi Moore was nude when she posed for Vanity Fair's cover when pregnant even though neither her breasts or genitals were exposed. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:08, 2 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I'm an easily lead, ignorant Christian. Tell me what change you'd like to see in the article - or make it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:56, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Let's dial down the fuss a bit, folks. I was the one who originally posted the Cyrus line, and I didn't intend to start a war. I used the term "topless" because, a) that's the way I've heard it reported today, and b) it's accurate, strictly speaking. However, while I recognize that in common vernacular, "topless" implies a more explicit condition than exists in this case, I expected someone to come up with a better term rather than a complete (and unwarranted) reversion. So, maybe we can keep the item, but change the descriptive word? "Suggestive"? "Racy"? "Controversial"? "Provocative"? "Naughty"? Suggestions welcome...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 21:58, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I'm letting Deborah decide this one. (If you must apply an adjective, try "risqué".) Anyway, the emphasis should be on the parents, as she is a minor and not responsible for photo shoot decisions. <br />
<br />
:We can write an article on how parents of teen stars, such as Britney Spears, Hillary Duff & Lindsay Lohan, have managed their daughters' careers. But do we have a decent article on [[Modesty]] yet? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:05, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::All good suggestions. And don't forget Brooke Shields and her mother--They were a notorious pair a quarter-century ago (not that I'm old enough to remember such things [cough]).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::As a former Disney employee, I must say the company needs to pay more attention to its [[role model]]s for tweens. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:32, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::Call me cynical but I think it's just like any mega multi-national corporation, all that matters is the bottom line. And let's face it, sex (and abstinence) sells. You know back in the studio days women had to behave very nicely otherwise they'd be fired from their contract, then the supreme court broke them up and there went the Golden (or was it Silver?) age of Hollywood.<br />
::::And anyway, shouldn't their '''parents''' be more concerned then a board of directors? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:38, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Lenny Bruce/Sharon Tate/Blaming the victim ==<br />
<br />
While Lenny did die because of a heroin OD, he was a standup comic (Comedian Values?), not an actor he only appeared on TV six times on variety/talk shows, definitely not Hollywood. I'd like to believe the government's horrible persecution of him led to his downward spiral.<br />
<br />
As far as the Tate case. Andy, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't familiar with the story, here is a [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonaccount.html link to it,] '''if you still think that she did herself in because of Hollywood values, then ''by all means'' put it back in.<br />
<br />
As for me, it makes me sick to my stomach to somehow imply that she was anyway responsible for her own death, that's worse then saying "well if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that low-cut dress".'''<br />
<br />
And just to make sure you don't go off subject and say that I'm a typical liberal, I'll admit that I '''agree''' with the premise of the article.<br />
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:02, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Goodness, no, we would never insult you like that. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:06, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Bruce Lee==<br />
<br />
ATang, please stop removing this item. Edit wars are frowned on at CP, so I suggest that if you want it deleted you seek the advice of a sysop. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Bruce Lee died of cerebral edema. Traces of a painkiller and cannabis were found postmortem. However, the cause of death was not cannabis; ergo, the link between Hollywood values and his death was not established.<br />
<br />
:Otherwise you should list every cannabis user who died, regardless of cause of death. For example - if a lone hunter was attacked by a black bear and died as a result, and they found traces of THC in his body, would you say that's the cause of death? That he died of drug use? Or that he died because of Hollywood values? (Now... if he got high and provoked the bear, that's an entirely different story...)<br />
<br />
:[[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:33, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:PS. Heh, I just saw what you typed. Merging the topics. (And I'm trying to avoid an edit war by pointing to the talk page)<br />
<br />
::He was a cannabis user, and the health risks of cannabis are well known; even today (literally) the leftist British government has reclassified cannabis as a class B drug (from being class C, the lowest class of illegal substance, A being the highest). It is scarcely surprising that cannabis use - an HV practice in itself - may well have contributed to Lee's early death. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:32, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yeah, it 'may' have - but by the same argument, UV exposure or asbestos inhalation may have contributed to his death too. My point is - when the cause of death is not conclusive, you cannot point to one single factor. Cannabis is not known to cause swelling of the brain; until there is an established link between the cerebral edema and cannabis use, I don't see how HV caused his death. Like I stated before, you cannot list every death of persons who have Hollywood Values. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 09:37, 9 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Rob Knox==<br />
He died protecting his little brother from two armed assailants. If those are Hollywood Values, sign me up.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 17:38, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Tom Moore on this one... There has been some mistake, just a misunderstanding.<br />
<br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2026826/Harry-Potter-actor's-father-Colin-Knox-visits-murder-scene.html "The father of a teenage actor who appears in the next Harry Potter film today visited the scene where the 18-year-old was stabbed to death trying to protect his younger brother from a knifeman."] [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Folks, we need more than a few minutes to discuss something before deleting it like that. Some good new information is provided above, but some of it missed the point. No one is trying to blame the victim here. [[Hollywood values]] include carousing amid drunken people, and can often include underage drinking. Trouble breaks out and victims get killed. This doesn't happen as often to people who are, for example, sleeping by midnight. More comments welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Hey, like I said, if Hollywood values include defending your little brother from being one of the many stabbed by a stranger with two knives, sign me up as a proponent.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Well, that's not saying much, because I would expect you to have been a proponent before. By the way, before you jump to conclusions, do you know who brought Rob Knox's under-aged 16-year-old brother to that drunken, late-night mayhem? Or is that question considered inappropriate when the controlling standards are [[Hollywood values]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:28, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::I have no notion who brought him there. I am not sure it matters, since the problem there would be a young man bringing his under-age brother out on the town drinking, something that is relatively minor and which doesn't seem worthy of condemnation. But since you bring it up, do you know? If not, why did you put this up in the article before you found out?<br />
::::Eh, who cares... it's your site.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:36, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::I looked, and can't find that information. I'll check the CNN report of the story.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:37, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::Nope, doesn't seem to have been reported. Although incidentally, while you're reading this, you might want to add to the News section that Bob Barr was nominated as the Libertarian candidate for this year. [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/25/barr.election/index.html Story is here], and conservatives are probably interested.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:40, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: The account the fight which killed Rob Knox is described differently from your accounts above here: [http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1204418.ece]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::::I was going by the link above, wherein a stranger with two kitchen knives approached them and began stabbing people. This is a much more detailed account, but no less tragic. His friend thought a stranger had stolen his phone and accused the guy of it, and later the guy comes back with some friends, one of whom starts stabbing people.<br />
::::::At the very least, this change to the article is in very bad taste so soon. But again, you own this place, so I guess you get to make that final call. I obviously disagree with the whole premise of the article, so I don't expect you to take my views much to account on the matter.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 20:14, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::At best, it's a weak example that doesn't serve the broad thrust of your argument particularly well. As charity decreases, it looks variously: inappropriate -> ridiculous -> mean-spirited. If you insist on keeping it, I'd suggest making a new section and leading in with the kind of qualifications you made above. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 20:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I'm seeking the truth just as others should be here, and there is obviously more to the Rob Knox tragedy than the simple story that you insisted upon above. According to the more detailed account, the fight was expected. Note also that the victim's under-aged brother is an Olympic-level expert in karate, and that the fight was in or around a bar after midnight. This is still a terrible tragedy, to be sure, but values undeniably played a role in it, as in deaths from drunken driving. We'll say prayers for the victims '''and''' speak out against the causes. Liberals do neither.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
A young man who has played a minor role in a movie is stabbed to death in London, and within hours of his death you add him to this page as an example of "Hollywood values". That is '''vile'''. I do not know the details of the case, but nor do you, and nor does anyone. Someone has just been arrested, and the facts are simply not known. Jumping to conclusions like this, and acting with unseemly haste to use the Knox family's tragedy as fuel for your anti-Hollywood/anti-liberal campaign is disgusting. Please delete this appalling addition to the article. It does not do the Conservapedia image any good at all. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:29, 27 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
:There's probably a name for those who make capital out of the suffering of others. Oh yes - SCUM! [[User:WarrenG|WarrenG]] 08:31, 27 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Chaplin==<br />
I saw the addition for Chaplin under divorce and I wonder if it's not worth mentioning some of the large age gaps between married Hollywood types? Chaplin met his last wife (Oona?) when she was dating one of his sons. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]]<sub>[[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']]</sub> 10:35, 30 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Wow, that's shocking. Yes, please add that with a citation. (I should have added a citation for mine also.) Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:45, 30 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Thank you, will do so. I have it mentioned in a book at home, so I'll put it up later tonight, with a few other examples I know are in there. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]]<sub>[[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']]</sub> 10:51, 30 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Hypocrisy - all specious ==<br />
<br />
Would someone please tell me what is ''hypocritical'' an actor "act[ing] in movies contrary to their public opinions"? Isn't that simply what actors do - '''act'''? This section of the article seems to be based on a very naive confusion of an actor's role-playing with his or her real-life views and actions. In its present form, I don't think it adds anything of value. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: To a degree, you're right, but when an actor profits enormously by exploiting a sentiment which he simultaneously harshly criticizes (in appeasement of [[liberals]]), it begs the question: dude, if you think it's so wrong, then why do you profit so much from it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Not convinced. You seem to be saying that no actor should accept an offer to play roles like Shylock, Iago, or Hannibal Lecter. That would make for some pretty thin plot-lines... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 10:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: No, you overstate it. A better example would be if a [[conservative]] starred in a movie featuring sex and nudity. The howls of protest by [[liberals]] would be deafening!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::But, [[Hollywood values]] embrassed by all [[Liberals]] would mean they were desensortised to this. <br />
<br />
::::Actually could you explain this why would "liberals" be out raged, you have spent all this time saying they like that in their movies. People only seem to care about movies featuring sex and nudity when some former child star appears in them and news reporting go along the line "she (it is always she they care about) is sheading her innocent image". This might comes as a shock to you but most of the world doesn't think of actors as liberal/conservative and judge their movies on that basis. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:30, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== At a certain point, it would probably pay to be selective ==<br />
<br />
<br />
At some point I would advise to only use examples that best show the point trying to be made. For instance there are certainly many Hollywood divorces, but we have chosen to only point to a few that give the greatest examples of particular excess. Other areas of the article may wish to do the same. Drew Barrymore's stint in rehab as a young girl would be a good one. Ryan O'Neal thinking that Lee Majors telling him to look out for his wife while he was away on a trip meant to have sex with her would be another. Woody Allen's picture taking, the death of Dorothy Stratten, Morrison's burnout death and his girlfriend being beaten to death by a baseball bat by her next boyfriend, all would be notable examples. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:20, 4 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Crime: Innocent until proven guilty ==<br />
<br />
I think that there may be a certain level of contradiction here. Although we ''can'' use arrests as a way to suggest hedonistic activity of Hollywood stars, we're mentioning an accusation without proof they were convicted of the actual crime.<br />
<br />
Perhaps we can delete and find other conviction examples. If not we can provide a reminder that we recognize that they are innocent until proven guilty. BTW: I'm not suggesting it's wrong in essence, but it could potentially confuse readers who are trying to understand things.<br />
--[[User:Borneo|Borneo]] 05:34, 6 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Is it just me, or is this a bit one-sided? ==<br />
<br />
I think that this entire article, from the first line, is very condescending and even slanderous. This isn't an article about "Hollywood Values" (which I am convinced is a made up word), it's simply a list of drug deaths and crimes committed by people who happen to be / have been in Hollywood.<br />
<br />
While the sources for the statistics are cited, perhaps it would be more appropriate to include interviews and quotes from Hollywood stars on their values. One could also delve into the history of Hollywood, and how it has molded the culture and values that are present there now.<br />
<br />
If this is really an article on Hollywood Values, someone needs to gather up primary sources relevant to this topic. Otherwise, this article should be renamed "List of Bad Things about Hollywood People."<br />
<br />
==Charity work==<br />
I notice that a section on charity work has been removed. If entertainers are in fact sincerely raising money to help the needy isn't that part of their values and should be included in "Hollywood values"? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 10:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:No, because Hollywood Values are not the across-the-board-values of all who have worked in Hollywood. Do not be fooled into over-literalism, a crutch of [[Liberals]] who are unable to make logical pointsin debate. [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[Charlton Heston]] worked in Hollywood, and did a huge amount for good causes, but were a world away from 'Hollywood Values'. Try reading the article properly! Best wishes, [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
So, let me get this straight...<br />
<br />
Only some liberals follow liberal style and every other article beginning with the word "Liberal"<br />
<br />
Only some people in Hollywood follow Hollywood values.<br />
<br />
So really, nothing substantiative is in these articles, and it's little more than a shoddy smearjob against the rich (Hollywood) and the Left.<br />
<br />
Trustworthy indeed. [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 10:49, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So are you saying that "Hollywood values" refers only to the ''negative'' values of people who work in Hollywood, and that any positive values that might be held by people in Hollywood are ''not'' considered part of Hollywood values? Isn't that a bit biased? How would we feel if people started talking about "Republican values" but meant only the negative aspects? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 11:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Daphnea and EBrown, you are hopeless cases. HV refers to the pernicious effects of the cult of celebrity, which leads sufferers to feel that they are above all legal, moral or societal rules. It is, perhaps, significant that you are quibbling with the title and definitions through the medium of an absurd literalism. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I assumed that "Hollywood values" would be about the values espoused by Hollywood; while that is largely negative in contrast with conservative values I feel it is only honest to mention the positive aspects when they occur; unless the article ''by definition'' is only about the negative aspects, which is the question I asked. I'm assuming from your reply that it ''is'' only about the negative values. Now I can edit it accordingly. When did asking for clarification become an "absurd literalism"? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:32, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Productions==<br />
I put back a deleted edit after revising it on the advice of [[User:Bugler]]. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Please don't revert edits that '''you told me to do'''! To be a little more conversational, I was following an edit which was approved by another editor pointing out that not everybody in Hollywood goes along with "Hollywood values". Likewise it is sensible to point out that not all Hollywood productions go along with "Hollywood values". If we don't do this then in the first case someone reading this (especially a child) might go away with the impression that ''everyone'' involved in Hollywood is evil, and thus grow up hating Ronald Reagan and Charlton Heston. I the second case they might avoid seeing The Chronicle of Narnia because it's a "Hollywood" production. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:18, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:I didn't tell you to do it here, Daphnea. I said that the correct place for such a statement was on a page bout Hollywood, or about the entertainment industry. HV is not the same as Hollywood. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:20, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:So what do you think of what I said above? Do you want people to start thinking Ronald Reagan went along with Hollywood Values? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Add it to [[Hollywood]] [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:28, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::I asked you a question. Are you intending to answer it? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:31, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::I will certainly not answer if addressed in so aggressive a fashion. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:32, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::OK, let's be polite. Are you going to answer my question, please? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
Yes. Naturally RR is not an example of HV, nor is James Stuart, or Charlton Heston, or Audie Murphy. Perhaps a line at the start to differentiate the industry as a whole from HV might be appropriate. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:35, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
: ... and in fact already exists. ''Not all people who currently work or have worked in Hollywood espouse Hollywood values. [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Charlton Heston]], [[Walt Disney]] and many others practiced conservative values while working in Hollywood''. That would seem to cover matters. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:37, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Good, good, now we're getting somewhere. You've just found out that there already is a line at the top pointing this out. I knew that already because I helped put it there. All I'm doing is saying the same thing about productions: just as not all people in Hollywood go along with "Hollywood values", not all productions do either. That's all I'm saying. If you like I can move the statement about the production uup to the top of the article too. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:40, 26 June 2008 (EDT)</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Hollywood_values&diff=482436Talk:Hollywood values2008-06-26T21:39:44Z<p>Daphnea: /* Productions */</p>
<hr />
<div>This obviously needs more stuff, but I stub'd it so the red link on the main page went away.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 22:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Unlike reality, which clearly has none of these things. Perhaps a random use of the word "glamourization" is in order? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)<br />
Barikada, I think that's a central point! It's not only disrespect for morals, it's flagrant glamorization of lack of morals! I'll leave it to you to add it, but good call.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 19:59, 23 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:Thanks. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
MexMax - please stop reinserting the unsubstantiated information into the article. Thank you. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
MexMax - any and all talk of whether Heath Ledger's death was due to 'Hollywood Values' should be left until AFTER the autopsy and inquest have been published. Mr. Schalfly's previous version of the article was based on a celebrity gossip article, and has been superceded by real information from the police. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:40, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:I'm sorry for jumping the gun. That seems truthful, I apologize for reverting without looking closer. I thought we were just doing the same edit war over and over again...[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
::One point: I think the MTV article should be treated as, errr, second best. Is there a better citation? I think we'd rather not cite to MTV unless we have no other chance.[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Possible Inclusions==<br />
<br />
A few suggestions for the list, off the top of my head: Marilyn Monroe would be a prime (and notorious) example. Chris Farley, who's stated goal was to live and die like Belushi. Janis Joplin. Anna Nicole Smith. Freddie Prinze. Rock Hudson. And depending on how comprehensive you want the list to be, there's an almost endless parade of people who were more famous as part of a group than as individuals, such as Keith Moon or Dennis Wilson.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:16, 25 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I did a search for Hollywood liberals and came up with [http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ this] website. On the front page I see that the cops are invertviewing Mary Kate Olsen about the suspicious circumstances in Ledger's death, David Copperfield has had two childred out of wedlock, Britney Spears is finally making it to her custody hearing to see if she can stay off drugs long enough to take care of her own kids, and Kiefer Sutherland is being let out of jail after a DUI charge. Hollywood values at their best! (Or should I say worst?) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
If an MTV reference is frowned upon, I can hardly see a credible argument for references to The National Enquirer? It's not exactly known for its adherence to fact-based logic, is it? [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Why not? I bet they had articles on every one of the people we have in the article right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:21, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::There's a reason that tabloids are also known as "Gossip rags." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
The people putting these lists together do not seem to realize that in making a case linking "Hollywood values"--not coherently defined in the article, by the way--to early death or criminality it is not enough simply to cite examples; it needs to be demonstrated that these alleged consequences are ''more likely'' to occur to those who adopt these values than to the general population. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Heath Ledger==<br />
<br />
How did Hollywood values contribute to his death? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 04:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:It is clear upon reviewing [[User_talk:Fox#Heath_Ledger|this]] and [[Talk:Main_Page#Milking_deaths_for_political_gain|this]] that nobody has justified how Hollywood values contributed to Ledger's death. We all acknowledge that during his life he probably did take drugs and was a selfish individual, however there is no evidence that his overdose on legal prescription drugs was a suicide attempt or reasonably affected by his drug habit. Given that the example is used in the context of death ("Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:") then I think it would be prudent to remove Ledger's entry until sufficient evidence connecting Hollywood to his death has been found, otherwise we are just sponsoring gossip. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 07:22, 2 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Of what significance is it that he was found naked in his bed? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:20, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==So?==<br />
<br />
So? What does this article intend to prove? What is its thesis? Is this article intended to somehow connect the unfortunate deaths of some people who got too involved in drugs or alcohol as an indicator that hollywood films are a bad influence? <br />
Is this article supposed to somehow connect these so-called "Hollywood Values" with liberal politics? <br />
Last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh had had an embarrassing addiction to opiate painkillers, George W. Bush had admitted to a cocaine problem, and Mel Gibson had such a drinking problem that he was accusing "the Jews" of all the evils that had ever plagued him. These three men, for example, are CONSERVATIVES. Mel Gibson even functions as part of the industry centered in HOLLYWOOD. Why is good ol' Mel not mentioned in this article? <br />
Is the anti-liberal bias in this article too overwhelming to include even one conservative who's had problems?<br />
Or, as I suspect, is Conservapedia wearing the type of blinders that see any conservative's troubles with drugs or alcohol as a momentary temptation by the liberal side? <br />
<br />
If you simply blame everything on your opponents, all the time, then you never have to think it through or acknowledge reality. Seems to be the basic M.O. here. <br />
<br />
I, for one, fail to see how Heath Ledger's accidental death from combining the wrong medications (all of which seem to have been prescribed for him) as indicative of a "Hollywood Value" system. Well, I'm sure the response will go like this: "He was NAKED! Surely, nakedness is indicative of SOME evil-doing. After all, LIBERALS SLEEP NAKED! No God-fearing person should sleep sans pajamas!"<br />
<br />
I'm disgusted.<br />
<br />
[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 14:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== What about Britney Spears? ==<br />
<br />
Britney is a very famous person, and hasn't she been to rehab?<br />
Shouldn't she be mentioned in connection with "Hollywood Values"?<br />
Just a suggestion. [[User:MikeSchwartz|MikeSchwartz]] 20:07, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Not entirely accurate ==<br />
<br />
This article doesn't really give an accurate definition of the phrase, 'Hollywood Values'. I don't really blame you, as it is very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately define it. I also made this point on the 'Liberal Denial' Talk Page, so I'll just copy the relevant part of what I said here:<br />
<br />
This phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:48, 13 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
It should also be noted that the meaning of 'Hollywood Values', according to some, is directly contradicted by what others mean by 'Hollywood Values'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Wikilinks ==<br />
<br />
Why are all these actors, singers, etc. wikilinked? Do we plan to have articles on them all? I removed most of them at some point, but I see they were added back. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Crime ==<br />
For the crime section, please stick to actual crimes. Maybe there could be another section for offensive comments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:48, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:TBH Roger, I think the linked [[Mel Gibson]] article covers it sufficiently, so - in Gibson's case at least - there's probably no need to mention it in the article at all. But perhaps you're right that there should be a section for those celebs who have demonstrated consistent/repeated immoral behaviour/outbursts but have stopped short of actually breaking the law. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 14:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Hollywood==<br />
<br />
Why are musicians and athletes included in an article about [[Hollywood]]? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:34, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== What do we do? ==<br />
<br />
Even if Hollywood values are in fact a problem, what can we possibly do about it? Make extramarital and premarital sex illegal? Or just force everyone to convert to Christianity? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Bix Biederbecke ==<br />
<br />
Not really a "Hollywood" star - Jazz musicians at the time were more liable to spend their lives in NY (as he did), Chicago, or New Orleans. Lots of jazz musicians, of course, had serious addiction problems, but it's not really intellectually honest to lump in struggling musicians - many of America's greatest jazz artists never made much money - in with wealthy movie stars. Remove? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:56, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Who compiled this silly list? ==<br />
<br />
Bix Biederbecke is hardly the only problem here. What about Brian Epstein? What did he have to do with Hollywood? What about Sid Viscious? Hollywood? I hardly think so. Richard Jeni suffered from clinical depression. Do you think that might have had something to do with his suicide? Clara Blandick was in pain and facing blindness. What has her suicide got to do with Hollywodd values? Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family. Why is she in the article? The circumstances of Virginia Rappe's death remain unknown and controversial. What has Heath Ledger's accidental overdose got to do with Hollywood or any other values? What has John Bonham got to do with Hollywood? The inquest into the death of Kenneth Williams returned an open verdict as it was not posibble to determine whether his overdose was accidental. In any case he was suffering from declining health and depression at the time.<br />
<br />
This is extremely sloppy work. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:33, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Tate ==<br />
<br />
Tate was murdered. How is that her fault? Maybe that part should just mention the Manson Family--a depraved group, indeed. [[User:Cisnon|Cisnon]] 22:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
reply to the above criticisms (prior to Tate): [[liberals]] become so literal when it becomes a basis for censoring things they don't like. [[Hollywood values]] are not literally confined to Hollywood, California, and, by the way, things like depression and overdosing on prescription drugs are a symptom of [[Hollywood values]] and occur in that group in far higher percentages than the general public. Please, no [[liberal denial]] on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
As to Tate, I welcome more information before censoring it from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
:Again, I think [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor censor] has a different meaning than [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delete delete.] Now, I'm no big city lawyer. Wait, yes I am.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:44, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Riiight... So, any time any entertainer somewhere in the (English speaking?) world suffers depression or overdoses on drugs, whether legal or prescription, whether accidentally or on purpose, that goes to show that "Hollywood values" (whatever they are) are evil. Did I say sloppy work? I withdraw that. I meant stupid, religiously driven nonsense. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Listing a pregnant murder victim as somehow indicative of "Hollywood values" is a disgrace. Sharon Tate did nothing to encourage Charles Manson to murder her; no aspect of her behavior or beliefs can excuse that, or played any role in it. Perhaps we should list her fetus as another sinner who deserved to be murdered? -- [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 23:08, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==You're bloody kidding me==<br />
Death is a value? Sexually-transmitted disease is a value? I have no clue what you're trying to say here-- That Hollywood is responsible for death and STDs? Or that actors somehow worship these two things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: You are clueless. Drug use and promiscuity are [[Hollywood values]], and they cause death.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::The paranoia in that comment aside, that still doesn't make death a value... Or disease, for that matter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:18, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::You're misreading (or misunderstanding) the entry, Bari. It doesn't say that disease and death ''are'' Hollywood values, it says that Hollywood values breed a culture that ''leads to'' disease and death.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::My apologies, it appears that you are correct... or at least you were, before the last grammar fix. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:53, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Hypocrisy ==<br />
<br />
Why was the new section Hypocrisy deleted? It was a fair point as explained eloquently at [[Liberal Hypocrisy]] I would have asked the reverting Sysop but the talk page is locked. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
:The context of Clooney portraying a US military officer was not explained. Please cease trying to attract my attention, and go back to your own website where I'm sure you will be much happier. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 10:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Context has now been added. I don't have a website. But thank you for your concern about my happiness. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:51, 17 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
This article is full of finger-pointing. I realize that Hollywood stars live lives full of questionable behavior, and I agree that they do not set good role models for all of the young fans that watch their movies and follow their lives, but we should look at our own lives, and not be so quick to point fingers like this. Shouldn't we be promoting forgiveness, as the Lord intends us?<br />
<br />
: This isn't "finger-pointing", and of course forgiveness remains available to anyone who requests it. But we're not going to stand by quietly as certain values destroy people. Would you also object if we identified how smoking has killed many people who smoke?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:46, 1 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Well, perhaps finger-pointing was the wrong word. I'm just saying, we shouldn't piously observe Hollywood stars and forget our own behavior. I would not object to identifying the wrongs of smoking, but what I find a little silly is the big list of stars and their own individual crimes. I think a more general article would be better, and we should avoid a "more words is better" approach, like Wikipedia does.<br />
<br />
: There is nothing "pious" about this. Values and lifestyles can cause harm just as surely as smoking can. Do we criticize anti-smoking statements as "pious"? Of course not. Highlighting the harm caused by [[Hollywood Values]] is not pious either. In fact, it can be scientifically studied.<br />
<br />
: The individual examples, just like individual examples of prominent smokers who died young, are powerful and just as compelling as more-difficult-to-find statistics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
To quote Aschlafly (look at the talk page for the Mathematics page) "Conservapedia does not take the childish approach of "more words is better." We strive to be concise as a good encyclopedia should. Godspeed." Perhaps this principle should be applied to this page. I think everyone understands that Hollywood values are corrupted. I don't see the need for a long list of people who have done wrong things.<br />
<br />
== removal ==<br />
<br />
How can you justify Tate being a victim of hollywood values? Please point to it? I dont want to get into an edit but you cant just add with the tag "because I say so"<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:05, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: It's self-evident from the explanation given. Tate was not a perpetrator of the crime, but became a victim of the culture in which she joined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
No it is not self evident. What culture did she join? married a film director? Associated with hippies? If that so then she was a victim of hippies values. Her 'culture' lead her to be murdered? many people get murdered and she was targeted because she was famous. That has nothing to do with so called holloywood values.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:57, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Right removing the Tate stuff again. At the time of the murder Sharon Tate has not been using drugs or alcohol, she was pregnant and the Mason family was actually interested in killing a man who refused to sign his band up. Tate was unlucky but it is clearly at odds with other deaths listed with hers as she was murdered!<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:55, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Wow: Tate's murder was just the product of chance, like getting hit by a car! No, AdenJ, Tate's murder was the result of [[Hollywood values]]. Maybe the initial intended victim was someone else, but that reinforces how [[Hollywood values]] work that they killed her instead. The entry is staying in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I give up, its totally ridiculous. Sharon Tate was murdered, It was nothing, repeat, NOTHING to do with values. Unless its the values of Manson. <br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: AdenJ, Tate's murder had ''everything'' to do with values. And, duh, that does include the [[Hollywood values]] of Manson and his followers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So its 'duh' now is it? How did Mason have hollywood values? He was in no movies and was a poor musician. How was he affected by hollywood values? Because he was obessed with The Beatles? Who wasnt at that time. He was a drug crazed hippie with a severe mental problem.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:31, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Ridiculous==<br />
<br />
This article just cherry-picks famous people (or...not, in the case of "1920s cornettists" and similar cases), and stretches a granule, albeit a malleable one, miles and miles away from the true root causes of their deaths to make some point that these people's deaths are connected to some Spectre of Glittery Death looming up over Mulholland. How many famous people are there? There must be...untold millions of YouTube phenoms, game show contestants, sandwich shop spokesman, and to highlight a few flare-ups is entirely counter to any kind of legitimacy an encyclopedic volume should have. When I look at that list, I see Sid Vicious, who, as far as I know, lived in the UK for 98% of his life. I see Elvis Presley (maybe there should be a "Memphis values" page). And Sharon Tate...Sharon Tate? Wasn't Manson actually trying to kill somebody else, someone who wasn't there (supposedly a record honcho or someother such person who denied him a chance to be on a Beach Boys record). If that's how we're gonna be about it, and say innocent pregnant sober bystanders are perpetrators of Hollywood values, then let's say those whores that Jack the Ripper killed were victims of "West End values". [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 18:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Linus has given us the fundamental [[liberal denial]]: denying that [[liberal]] values have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Aschlafly has given us the fundamental conservative denial.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:24, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::'''I don't see anywhere in my graph where I denied that liberal values have consequences'''. I think that this whole liberal/conservative jive is basically a distraction, an abstract that exists only theoretically, and even then, as a theory lend creedence by consensus. If these people's death is going to be attributed to a set of industries in a geographic location, then it's already got the integrity of arguing about air temperature. Who cares? I'm not some objectivist/nihilist (probably mutually exclusive philosophies, but often combined nonetheless by people who don't understand them), so I'm not going to deforest the issue by going on some bleat about how we're all just "computers made out of meat" or whatnot, but I think this issue is...not an issue. I'm not arguing at it from any perspective other than one which states all perspectives are already invalid if it comes from a person who cares about things like this. So to say that anybody's neurons are any better than anyone else's simply because of the choices which all the electric 1's and 0's in our brains combine to create, is stupid. Even the whole idea of "liberal denial", which is supposed to be some kind of searing label which supercedes all the fray of bickering and mudslinging, has been trampled on by reductive childishness that's rampant here. Liberal denial. That's all your arguement is here. You'll say, I'm using liberal denial because what I'm saying is a denial coming from a liberal viewpoint. You define my point of view, incorrectly, sure, but you're still just defining it. Not '''re'''fining it, not clarifying or showing how it's wrong and maybe trying to excise the benign liberal tumors you probably surmise exist within my brain stem, you're just defining it. I should have taken a hint from the logo and realized that "applying logos" and "slapping labels" is basically the fundamental economy of Conservapedia. All apologies.<br />
[[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 21:22, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
==Miley Cyrus==<br />
see http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0<br />
"They include shots of the teen wrapped in what appears to be a satin bedsheet, looking over her shoulder with her back exposed."<br />
<br />
she was not topless--<span style="margin-top: -3px;">&nbsp;[[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 21:34, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:That's your opinion and you are not an accepted reference for material. I provided not one, not two but THREE references that described the photo as "topless." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:42, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::She was topless unless you are prepared to call a sheet a "top". <br />
<br />
::Do we want to put our cards on the table people? Clearly the reason that some here do not want this addition to the Hollywood values page is that Ms Cyrus appeared on the Main Page here not long ago as an exemplar of Christian virtue when she spoke of her ambition to abstain from sex until marriage (if memory serves).<br />
<br />
::Well, now she's been photographed topless. I'll bet if it were Hillary Clinton you would all be loudly insisting that the description "topless" was absolutely accurate. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:44, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Er, no. What *is* clear is that her parents and Disney decided to let her be posed in as risque a fashion as possible - thus largely '''negating''' her value as a role model. My only objection is to the word ''topless'' which implies visible headlights rather than shrouded ones. Perhaps you'd like to right about teen [[role model]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:48, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::As I said, three references described the photo as "topless." However, I've now clarified the extend of the toplessness in the article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:50, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
topless requires that the breasts be exposed since they were not she was not topless --<span style="margin-top: -3px;">&nbsp;[[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 21:49, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:*sigh* Jinx, you can say that some sources said the girl was topless. That would come under the heading of "exaggeration", I'd say. Unless the editor in chief overturns my decision, I intend to have us all avoid that word. Let's not embarrass the girl any more than she already has been. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:52, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::That's pretty rich having regard to a number of the other accustaions and comments in the article. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No, it actually doesn't require that the breasts be exposed. Neither does "nude" require that genitals be exposed. Demi Moore was nude when she posed for Vanity Fair's cover when pregnant even though neither her breasts or genitals were exposed. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:08, 2 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I'm an easily lead, ignorant Christian. Tell me what change you'd like to see in the article - or make it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:56, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Let's dial down the fuss a bit, folks. I was the one who originally posted the Cyrus line, and I didn't intend to start a war. I used the term "topless" because, a) that's the way I've heard it reported today, and b) it's accurate, strictly speaking. However, while I recognize that in common vernacular, "topless" implies a more explicit condition than exists in this case, I expected someone to come up with a better term rather than a complete (and unwarranted) reversion. So, maybe we can keep the item, but change the descriptive word? "Suggestive"? "Racy"? "Controversial"? "Provocative"? "Naughty"? Suggestions welcome...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 21:58, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I'm letting Deborah decide this one. (If you must apply an adjective, try "risqué".) Anyway, the emphasis should be on the parents, as she is a minor and not responsible for photo shoot decisions. <br />
<br />
:We can write an article on how parents of teen stars, such as Britney Spears, Hillary Duff & Lindsay Lohan, have managed their daughters' careers. But do we have a decent article on [[Modesty]] yet? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:05, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::All good suggestions. And don't forget Brooke Shields and her mother--They were a notorious pair a quarter-century ago (not that I'm old enough to remember such things [cough]).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::As a former Disney employee, I must say the company needs to pay more attention to its [[role model]]s for tweens. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:32, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::Call me cynical but I think it's just like any mega multi-national corporation, all that matters is the bottom line. And let's face it, sex (and abstinence) sells. You know back in the studio days women had to behave very nicely otherwise they'd be fired from their contract, then the supreme court broke them up and there went the Golden (or was it Silver?) age of Hollywood.<br />
::::And anyway, shouldn't their '''parents''' be more concerned then a board of directors? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:38, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Lenny Bruce/Sharon Tate/Blaming the victim ==<br />
<br />
While Lenny did die because of a heroin OD, he was a standup comic (Comedian Values?), not an actor he only appeared on TV six times on variety/talk shows, definitely not Hollywood. I'd like to believe the government's horrible persecution of him led to his downward spiral.<br />
<br />
As far as the Tate case. Andy, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't familiar with the story, here is a [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonaccount.html link to it,] '''if you still think that she did herself in because of Hollywood values, then ''by all means'' put it back in.<br />
<br />
As for me, it makes me sick to my stomach to somehow imply that she was anyway responsible for her own death, that's worse then saying "well if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that low-cut dress".'''<br />
<br />
And just to make sure you don't go off subject and say that I'm a typical liberal, I'll admit that I '''agree''' with the premise of the article.<br />
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:02, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Goodness, no, we would never insult you like that. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:06, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Bruce Lee==<br />
<br />
ATang, please stop removing this item. Edit wars are frowned on at CP, so I suggest that if you want it deleted you seek the advice of a sysop. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Bruce Lee died of cerebral edema. Traces of a painkiller and cannabis were found postmortem. However, the cause of death was not cannabis; ergo, the link between Hollywood values and his death was not established.<br />
<br />
:Otherwise you should list every cannabis user who died, regardless of cause of death. For example - if a lone hunter was attacked by a black bear and died as a result, and they found traces of THC in his body, would you say that's the cause of death? That he died of drug use? Or that he died because of Hollywood values? (Now... if he got high and provoked the bear, that's an entirely different story...)<br />
<br />
:[[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:33, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:PS. Heh, I just saw what you typed. Merging the topics. (And I'm trying to avoid an edit war by pointing to the talk page)<br />
<br />
::He was a cannabis user, and the health risks of cannabis are well known; even today (literally) the leftist British government has reclassified cannabis as a class B drug (from being class C, the lowest class of illegal substance, A being the highest). It is scarcely surprising that cannabis use - an HV practice in itself - may well have contributed to Lee's early death. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:32, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yeah, it 'may' have - but by the same argument, UV exposure or asbestos inhalation may have contributed to his death too. My point is - when the cause of death is not conclusive, you cannot point to one single factor. Cannabis is not known to cause swelling of the brain; until there is an established link between the cerebral edema and cannabis use, I don't see how HV caused his death. Like I stated before, you cannot list every death of persons who have Hollywood Values. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 09:37, 9 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Rob Knox==<br />
He died protecting his little brother from two armed assailants. If those are Hollywood Values, sign me up.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 17:38, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Tom Moore on this one... There has been some mistake, just a misunderstanding.<br />
<br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2026826/Harry-Potter-actor's-father-Colin-Knox-visits-murder-scene.html "The father of a teenage actor who appears in the next Harry Potter film today visited the scene where the 18-year-old was stabbed to death trying to protect his younger brother from a knifeman."] [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Folks, we need more than a few minutes to discuss something before deleting it like that. Some good new information is provided above, but some of it missed the point. No one is trying to blame the victim here. [[Hollywood values]] include carousing amid drunken people, and can often include underage drinking. Trouble breaks out and victims get killed. This doesn't happen as often to people who are, for example, sleeping by midnight. More comments welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Hey, like I said, if Hollywood values include defending your little brother from being one of the many stabbed by a stranger with two knives, sign me up as a proponent.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Well, that's not saying much, because I would expect you to have been a proponent before. By the way, before you jump to conclusions, do you know who brought Rob Knox's under-aged 16-year-old brother to that drunken, late-night mayhem? Or is that question considered inappropriate when the controlling standards are [[Hollywood values]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:28, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::I have no notion who brought him there. I am not sure it matters, since the problem there would be a young man bringing his under-age brother out on the town drinking, something that is relatively minor and which doesn't seem worthy of condemnation. But since you bring it up, do you know? If not, why did you put this up in the article before you found out?<br />
::::Eh, who cares... it's your site.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:36, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::I looked, and can't find that information. I'll check the CNN report of the story.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:37, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::Nope, doesn't seem to have been reported. Although incidentally, while you're reading this, you might want to add to the News section that Bob Barr was nominated as the Libertarian candidate for this year. [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/25/barr.election/index.html Story is here], and conservatives are probably interested.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:40, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: The account the fight which killed Rob Knox is described differently from your accounts above here: [http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1204418.ece]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::::I was going by the link above, wherein a stranger with two kitchen knives approached them and began stabbing people. This is a much more detailed account, but no less tragic. His friend thought a stranger had stolen his phone and accused the guy of it, and later the guy comes back with some friends, one of whom starts stabbing people.<br />
::::::At the very least, this change to the article is in very bad taste so soon. But again, you own this place, so I guess you get to make that final call. I obviously disagree with the whole premise of the article, so I don't expect you to take my views much to account on the matter.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 20:14, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::At best, it's a weak example that doesn't serve the broad thrust of your argument particularly well. As charity decreases, it looks variously: inappropriate -> ridiculous -> mean-spirited. If you insist on keeping it, I'd suggest making a new section and leading in with the kind of qualifications you made above. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 20:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I'm seeking the truth just as others should be here, and there is obviously more to the Rob Knox tragedy than the simple story that you insisted upon above. According to the more detailed account, the fight was expected. Note also that the victim's under-aged brother is an Olympic-level expert in karate, and that the fight was in or around a bar after midnight. This is still a terrible tragedy, to be sure, but values undeniably played a role in it, as in deaths from drunken driving. We'll say prayers for the victims '''and''' speak out against the causes. Liberals do neither.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
A young man who has played a minor role in a movie is stabbed to death in London, and within hours of his death you add him to this page as an example of "Hollywood values". That is '''vile'''. I do not know the details of the case, but nor do you, and nor does anyone. Someone has just been arrested, and the facts are simply not known. Jumping to conclusions like this, and acting with unseemly haste to use the Knox family's tragedy as fuel for your anti-Hollywood/anti-liberal campaign is disgusting. Please delete this appalling addition to the article. It does not do the Conservapedia image any good at all. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:29, 27 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
:There's probably a name for those who make capital out of the suffering of others. Oh yes - SCUM! [[User:WarrenG|WarrenG]] 08:31, 27 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Chaplin==<br />
I saw the addition for Chaplin under divorce and I wonder if it's not worth mentioning some of the large age gaps between married Hollywood types? Chaplin met his last wife (Oona?) when she was dating one of his sons. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]]<sub>[[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']]</sub> 10:35, 30 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Wow, that's shocking. Yes, please add that with a citation. (I should have added a citation for mine also.) Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:45, 30 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Thank you, will do so. I have it mentioned in a book at home, so I'll put it up later tonight, with a few other examples I know are in there. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]]<sub>[[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']]</sub> 10:51, 30 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Hypocrisy - all specious ==<br />
<br />
Would someone please tell me what is ''hypocritical'' an actor "act[ing] in movies contrary to their public opinions"? Isn't that simply what actors do - '''act'''? This section of the article seems to be based on a very naive confusion of an actor's role-playing with his or her real-life views and actions. In its present form, I don't think it adds anything of value. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: To a degree, you're right, but when an actor profits enormously by exploiting a sentiment which he simultaneously harshly criticizes (in appeasement of [[liberals]]), it begs the question: dude, if you think it's so wrong, then why do you profit so much from it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Not convinced. You seem to be saying that no actor should accept an offer to play roles like Shylock, Iago, or Hannibal Lecter. That would make for some pretty thin plot-lines... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 10:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: No, you overstate it. A better example would be if a [[conservative]] starred in a movie featuring sex and nudity. The howls of protest by [[liberals]] would be deafening!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::But, [[Hollywood values]] embrassed by all [[Liberals]] would mean they were desensortised to this. <br />
<br />
::::Actually could you explain this why would "liberals" be out raged, you have spent all this time saying they like that in their movies. People only seem to care about movies featuring sex and nudity when some former child star appears in them and news reporting go along the line "she (it is always she they care about) is sheading her innocent image". This might comes as a shock to you but most of the world doesn't think of actors as liberal/conservative and judge their movies on that basis. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:30, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== At a certain point, it would probably pay to be selective ==<br />
<br />
<br />
At some point I would advise to only use examples that best show the point trying to be made. For instance there are certainly many Hollywood divorces, but we have chosen to only point to a few that give the greatest examples of particular excess. Other areas of the article may wish to do the same. Drew Barrymore's stint in rehab as a young girl would be a good one. Ryan O'Neal thinking that Lee Majors telling him to look out for his wife while he was away on a trip meant to have sex with her would be another. Woody Allen's picture taking, the death of Dorothy Stratten, Morrison's burnout death and his girlfriend being beaten to death by a baseball bat by her next boyfriend, all would be notable examples. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:20, 4 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Crime: Innocent until proven guilty ==<br />
<br />
I think that there may be a certain level of contradiction here. Although we ''can'' use arrests as a way to suggest hedonistic activity of Hollywood stars, we're mentioning an accusation without proof they were convicted of the actual crime.<br />
<br />
Perhaps we can delete and find other conviction examples. If not we can provide a reminder that we recognize that they are innocent until proven guilty. BTW: I'm not suggesting it's wrong in essence, but it could potentially confuse readers who are trying to understand things.<br />
--[[User:Borneo|Borneo]] 05:34, 6 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Is it just me, or is this a bit one-sided? ==<br />
<br />
I think that this entire article, from the first line, is very condescending and even slanderous. This isn't an article about "Hollywood Values" (which I am convinced is a made up word), it's simply a list of drug deaths and crimes committed by people who happen to be / have been in Hollywood.<br />
<br />
While the sources for the statistics are cited, perhaps it would be more appropriate to include interviews and quotes from Hollywood stars on their values. One could also delve into the history of Hollywood, and how it has molded the culture and values that are present there now.<br />
<br />
If this is really an article on Hollywood Values, someone needs to gather up primary sources relevant to this topic. Otherwise, this article should be renamed "List of Bad Things about Hollywood People."<br />
<br />
==Charity work==<br />
I notice that a section on charity work has been removed. If entertainers are in fact sincerely raising money to help the needy isn't that part of their values and should be included in "Hollywood values"? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 10:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:No, because Hollywood Values are not the across-the-board-values of all who have worked in Hollywood. Do not be fooled into over-literalism, a crutch of [[Liberals]] who are unable to make logical pointsin debate. [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[Charlton Heston]] worked in Hollywood, and did a huge amount for good causes, but were a world away from 'Hollywood Values'. Try reading the article properly! Best wishes, [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
So, let me get this straight...<br />
<br />
Only some liberals follow liberal style and every other article beginning with the word "Liberal"<br />
<br />
Only some people in Hollywood follow Hollywood values.<br />
<br />
So really, nothing substantiative is in these articles, and it's little more than a shoddy smearjob against the rich (Hollywood) and the Left.<br />
<br />
Trustworthy indeed. [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 10:49, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So are you saying that "Hollywood values" refers only to the ''negative'' values of people who work in Hollywood, and that any positive values that might be held by people in Hollywood are ''not'' considered part of Hollywood values? Isn't that a bit biased? How would we feel if people started talking about "Republican values" but meant only the negative aspects? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 11:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Daphnea and EBrown, you are hopeless cases. HV refers to the pernicious effects of the cult of celebrity, which leads sufferers to feel that they are above all legal, moral or societal rules. It is, perhaps, significant that you are quibbling with the title and definitions through the medium of an absurd literalism. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I assumed that "Hollywood values" would be about the values espoused by Hollywood; while that is largely negative in contrast with conservative values I feel it is only honest to mention the positive aspects when they occur; unless the article ''by definition'' is only about the negative aspects, which is the question I asked. I'm assuming from your reply that it ''is'' only about the negative values. Now I can edit it accordingly. When did asking for clarification become an "absurd literalism"? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:32, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Productions==<br />
I put back a deleted edit after revising it on the advice of [[User:Bugler]]. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Please don't revert edits that '''you told me to do'''! To be a little more conversational, I was following an edit which was approved by another editor pointing out that not everybody in Hollywood goes along with "Hollywood values". Likewise it is sensible to point out that not all Hollywood productions go along with "Hollywood values". If we don't do this then in the first case someone reading this (especially a child) might go away with the impression that ''everyone'' involved in Hollywood is evil, and thus grow up hating Ronald Reagan and Charlton Heston. I the second case they might avoid seeing The Chronicle of Narnia because it's a "Hollywood" production. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:18, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:I didn't tell you to do it here, Daphnea. I said that the correct place for such a statement was on a page bout Hollywood, or about the entertainment industry. HV is not the same as Hollywood. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:20, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:So what do you think of what I said above? Do you want people to start thinking Ronald Reagan went along with Hollywood Values? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Add it to [[Hollywood]] [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:28, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::I asked you a question. Are you intending to answer it? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:31, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::I will certainly not answer if addressed in so aggressive a fashion. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:32, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::OK, let's be polite. Are you going to answer my question, please? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
Yes. Naturally RR is not an example of HV, nor is James Stuart, or Charlton Heston, or Audie Murphy. Perhaps a line at the start to differentiate the industry as a whole from HV might be appropriate. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:35, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
: ... and in fact already exists. ''Not all people who currently work or have worked in Hollywood espouse Hollywood values. [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Charlton Heston]], [[Walt Disney]] and many others practiced conservative values while working in Hollywood''. That would seem to cover matters. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:37, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Good, good, now we're getting somewhere. You've just found out that there already is a line at the top pointing this out. I knew that already because I helped put it there. All I'm doing is saying the same thing about productions: just as not all people in Hollywood go along with "Hollywood values", not all production do either. That's all I'm saying.</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Faith&diff=482433Talk:Faith2008-06-26T21:37:34Z<p>Daphnea: Uniqueness</p>
<hr />
<div>== Reversion ==<br />
<br />
I notice the revert basicly leaves out the entry I made concerning Christ words about a Roman Pagan Centurion and his faith. Guess Christs own opinion on the matter is not good enough.<br />
<br />
I completely disagree, Any religion requires faith. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:46, 2 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Good point tim, while most religions might not actually use the term faith, the concept is quite widespread.<br />
<br />
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 15:57, 2 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Tim and Ben, you don't support your claims with anything. "Faith" is unique to Christianity, and the term is not genuinely used by other religions.<br />
<br />
:That's moronic. Very simply defined, the English word "faith" means belief in the existence, truth, etc. of anything in the absence of definitive proof. For instance, I have faith that my family will come home tonight, because I think that they will. I do not have faith in gravity; I know from experience that it works, and I have some small understanding of the mechanism by which it does so (I don't however, know the cause, but then, no one does.) Faith is not uniquely Christian by virtue of the fact that other religions exist. If their followers lacked faith, those religions would be gone. Calling it something else, or even not referring it at all does not change it's nature; is sin a uniquely Christian concept?<br />
<br />
The powerful Greek language was essential to express the concept of faith. Not even English can describe it well.<br />
<br />
'''pivstiß''' is the Greek word for faith, and it takes Strong's version many words to explain it:<ref>http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4102&version=kjv</ref><br />
<br />
1. conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it<br />
1. relating to God<br />
1. the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ <br />
2. relating to Christ<br />
1. a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God <br />
3. the religious beliefs of Christians<br />
4. belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same <br />
2. fidelity, faithfulness<br />
1. the character of one who can be relied on <br />
<br />
----<br />
It is false to claim that faith is only a christian concept. Other religions may not call it faith, but they still have it. For example: a muslim suicide bomber is not going to bomb anything if he does not have faith that it will send him to heaven. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:59, 4 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Sources:''' <references/><br />
<br />
==American Heritage Dictionary==<br />
says:<br />
<br />
'''faith,''' noun: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at ''belief,'' ''trust.'' 3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. 4. often '''Faith''' ''Christianity'' The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. 5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 6. A set of principles or beliefs.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/84/F0018400.html]<br />
<br />
In other words, according to one dictionary, anyway, the word has more than one meaning. It is not being misapplied in the phrase "the Muslim faith," it is simply a different meaning of the word. This article, presently, would seem to be about the fourth meaning. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 3 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Neurocat's posting was misleading in claiming that "The concept of faith exists in nearly all major religions. Faith is mentioned in the New Testament, the Old Testament, and the Koran. Faith is also a well established part of so-called "New Age" religions, such as Wicca."<br />
<br />
::Faith, historically, was uniquely Christian. The entry demonstrates that. Others may try to make faith synonymous with belief, but that is not its original meaning. Muslims "submit" to Allah rather than have faith in Allah. The very reason for an entry here is to be precise. Broader (and less precise) colloquial meanings can be found elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:36, 20 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::How can they submit to Allah if they lack faith in his existence and intrinsic "better-ness?"<br />
<br />
::If the page is to describe Faith as a "historically uniquely Christian" term, there should be some evidence provided to that effect. Otherwise, the page is less accurate, not more precise. Since the American Heritage Dictionary does not say that definition #4 is more valid than any other, there is no reason to assert that the other definitions are less accurate.<br />
<br />
:::Neurocat, please sign your comments with the signature icon (second from the right in the row of click-on boxes). <br />
<br />
:::A dictionary merely reflects common usage and, increasingly, political correctness. An entry here called [[Merriam-Webster]] criticizes some entries in the dictionary. You are free to post anti-Christian views but only if you support them with references. If you think there is a Muslim "faith in Allah," then you need to support your view or else the page will be reverted. By the way, the Koran does not support your view. It calls for "submission to Allah." The term "faith" is not a synomym for belief or submission.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:55, 20 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::I take exception to the word "merely." It's hardly a trivial job. And one of the reasons I like to cite the American Heritage dictionary here is precisely because, while not politically conservative, it was created in opposition to what was seen as the overly-permissive and overly-descriptive Merriam-Webster. A dictionary is a good starting point. Any group of people that has a sort of private definition of a word that does not match what is generally understood, it is going to be counterproductive to use that definition in discourse with others outside the group. <br />
<br />
::::AHD says that "faith" has five meanings. People who refer to "the Muslim faith" are not wrong, they are just using meaning number 5. The article needs to be clearer on this point. For example, it could open by saying "Christian faith is a unique concept that means trust or complete confidence in something unseen. Although the word "faith" can be used to refer to any body of beliefs, other religions do not have any concept equivalent to Christian faith."<br />
<br />
::::To insist on "faith" has having only meaning number 4 would be like insisting that the British naval power during the Napoleonic era was equal to the number of foot-pounds per minute exerted by the force of the wind on the combined area of all its sails. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:34, 21 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::So Christian faith is unique to Christianity? That statement is so self-evident as to be utterly moronic. It's like saying Buddha is unique to Buddhism.<br />
<br />
:::Can you then please post a reference that cites that the original usage of the word "faith" is Christian? If you are going to call the dictionary into question as a source, you cannot selectively choose which entries you believe and which you do not believe. If you wish to cite a specific dictionary entry as incorrect, you must support that with fact. Perhaps it would be better to clarify that, in your view, the "original" meaning of the word "faith" is Christian, but current modern usage is different. After all, you do intend this to be a factual, unbiased conservapedia, not a collection of unsubstantiated right-wing beliefs. True? --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 09:48, 21 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::I added a common dictionary definition of faith, with reference link, to clarify the issue for readers. Furthermore, the first line of the entry seems to be unclear - if the word Faith descends from a Latin word meaning "to trust", how can the original meaning be purely Christian? Certainly the Greeks and Romans used the term to describe something other than a Christian "faith". Should we remove it? --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:00, 21 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Re: faith in other religions ==<br />
<br />
I just edited the article and included a source on the concept of faith in Islam. A few short minutes of Googling turned up a scholarly article from the 1950s about the importance of faith to Islam. Also, does anybody know how many of the mentions of faith in the Old Testament are in the parts that make up the Torah? That would go a long way toward identifying the importance of faith in the Jewish religion.<br />
<br />
Finally, I agree completely with those who are saying that the concept of faith is common to any theistic religion. Without any exceptions that I know of (correct me if I'm wrong), any religion that requires belief in a god requires faith, since there is no evidence for any of these gods and faith is belief in the unseen/unobservable. --[[User:Haveyouseenmypants|Haveyouseenmypants]] 18:20, 21 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
*Not a rhetorical question: how much similarity is there between the Muslim concept translated as "faith" and the Christian concept of "faith?" It seems to me that in the Arabian Nights the Caliph of Baghdad is referred to as "Defender of the Faithful," and certainly Moslems refer to non-Moslems as "Infidels" (i.e. "Unfaithful"), but I don't know that the concepts are necessarily the same. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 21 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
******Re: claim that "faith" is unique to Christianity and Bible, and word counts of "faith" in religious texts******<br />
<br />
The author says above that “Jesus was unique in preaching the significance of faith exclusive to Christianity. No other religion is based on faith as distinguished from mere belief. Faith is mentioned 229 times in the Bible's New Testament.” <br />
<br />
Above, where the author of the article is translating the Greek word “pivsti,” he attributes the definition to Strong’s. The definition he provides actually comes from the lexicon tool in a website called Crosswalk.com. Strong’s definition for “pivsti” (a word that was translated into English to mean “faith” in several Protestant versions of the Bible) is as follows:<br />
<br />
3982. peitho pi'-tho a primary verb; to convince (by argument, true or false); by analogy, to pacify or conciliate (by other fair means); reflexively or passively, to assent (to evidence or authority), to rely (by inward certainty):--agree, assure, believe, have confidence, be (wax) conflent, make friend, obey, persuade, trust, yield. (Note: 3982 is the Strong’s reference number to the word “pivsti” as well. See the author’s link to Crosswalk.com above.)<br />
<br />
Other Greek words that were translated into “faith” according to Strong’s were: <br />
<br />
4102. pistis pis'-tis from 3982; persuasion, i.e. credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself:--assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.<br />
<br />
4103. pistos pis-tos' from 3982; objectively, trustworthy; subjectively, trustful:--believe(-ing, -r), faithful(-ly), sure, true.<br />
<br />
http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&isindex=3982<br />
<br />
So there is no specific link between the Greek words that were translated to mean “faith” and the author’s statement that the word “faith” only applies to Christian belief.<br />
<br />
The English word “faith” came into usage in approximately 1250 A.D. At the time, it was used to refer to a duty, or fulfilling one’s trust. It did not at that time have a meaning related to Christian faith. <br />
<br />
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=faith&searchmode=none<br />
<br />
In fact, the word “faith” was used to refer to all religious faiths starting in approximately 1300 A.D. The Bible was first translated into English from the Latin Vulgate in 1380, and the word “faith” came to be used to refer to the Christian faith at that time.<br />
<br />
The etymology of the word and Strong’s definitions are quite well documented and I’ve provided links here. <br />
<br />
The author is mistaken in the etymology of the word because, as I have shown, the word “faith” was used with other meanings before it had the meaning the author is using (as that specifically of Christian faith), including its meaning as “faith in any religious belief.” In addition, while the use of the word “faith” as meaning Christian faith may have been coined, so to speak, at the time of the earliest English translations of the Bible, the original Greek words did not mean the same thing as the current translations. The original Greek (which is the language in which the Scriptures were given to us) does not have a word that has the same definition as the word “faith” given in this entry (see Strong's). And where the author said that “No other religion is based on faith as distinguished from mere belief,” he is clearly wrong because according to Strong’s, the Greek words used in the original Scriptures actually have a meaning closer to the word “belief” than they do to the word “faith.”<br />
<br />
==ASCHLAFLY's Unsupported Assumptions==<br />
<br />
ASCHLAFLY, can you give any references, AT ALL, for your recent edits to the Faith entry? You keep falling back on the "Faith is Christian" concept and keep removing all the well-documented entries that demonstrate otherwise. Once and for all, do you have any evidence to back this up, or is this "Conservapedia" just a "Schlaflyapedia" documenting your opinions rather than facts? --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 13:41, 24 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Unlocking Faith==<br />
<br />
I think it is time we unlocked this entry. It has so many unsupported assumptions on it as to be largely worthless. It is in desperate need of editing. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:54, 26 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Faith is NOT unique ==<br />
<br />
To say that the concept of "faith" is unique to Christianity is absurd, and the height of vanity. To begin with, the editors critique previous commentators who argue the non-uniqueness of Christian "Faith" by stating that they offer "no proof" that faith is NOT a uniquely Christian concept. However, the author of the article on faith (locked, Draconian fashion), states no support for the idea that "faith" IS unique to Christianity. A word count is the only proof, compared with a word count of one other holy book. That is hardly proof. Further, the originator of such an absurd idea that faith is unique to Christianity must surely have the burden of proof. In the absence of proof, discourse with any non-Christian will suffice to prove the ridiculousness of that statement.<br />
<br />
However, proof can be clearly offered. To begin with, the author of the locked "article" on Faith suggests that "submission" to Allah is pre-eminent in Islam, displacing faith. However, faith in Allah is a necessary predicate to submission - otherwise, the submission would be worthless, if it is directed to no-one. <br />
<br />
Further, the Roman state religion placed great import on the concept of "pietas," or "piety," which the Romans understood to include faith in the gods' good will, and the importance to daily life of satisfying the gods. A note of the importance of "pietas" in Roman life would be its prominent placement on the Clipeus Virtutis, a shield awarded to Augustus Caesar upon the First Constitutional Settlement, which noted Augustus' many virtues. Among them, "pietas" was prominently figured. (See http://www.ac-orleans-tours.fr/lang_anciennes/arapacis/images/clipeus.jpg). A second touchstone for faith in the Roman religion would be Horace's Odes (http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_horace_odes3.htm). The third book of Odes makes several mentions of "faithless foes" - suggesting that lack of faith is associated with evil, and faith therefore with the good and pious. Further, an important theme of Horace's 3d Book of Odes is the need of Rome to satisfy the Gods, demonstrating a strong faith in the relevance & role of the Gods in daily life.<br />
<br />
I insist not only that the article on be "faith" unlocked, but that all bias be purged from this encyclopedia. You claim to to ignore any bias whatsoever, and pay heed only to the facts. However, since often the facts include a "bias" against ridiculous opinions such as this, you end up purging the facts. Please, be reasonable, for the good of the country.<br />
<br />
:*Right something trustworthy '''CANNOT''' be biased and saying that faith is unique only to christianity is one of the most biased statements I have ever heard. {{unsigned|Cal05000}}<br />
:: I disagree that trustworthy and biased are mutually exclusive. However, I agree that faith is not a uniquely Christian concept. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:23, 18 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
(reset)The [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] is generally considered to contain the greatest chapter regarding "faith" in the New Testament. It points the early church, the fledgling Christians, towards the men and women of the Old Testament - Jews - and holds them up as true examples of real faith: after all, they didn't have any of the later "proofs" that Jesus demonstrated, they didn't have the "pouring out of the Holy Spirit", they never saw any "substance" of what they believed in and held dear to. The writer of the epistle singles out:<br />
*[[Abel]], [[Enoch]] and [[Noah]]<br />
*[[Abraham]], [[Isaac]] and [[Jacob]]<br />
*[[Joseph]] and [[Moses]]<br />
*[[Joshua]] and [[Rahab]] <br />
*[[Gideon]], [[Barak]], [[Samson]] and [[Jephthah]]<br />
*[[David]]<br />
*[[Samuel]] and the prophets<br />
<br />
All of these demonstrated their faith by their works. All of these were still faithful at their deaths even though they died without ever receiving proof of their faith. <br />
<br />
Incidentally, the word "faith" is mentioned more than twice in the OT. In fact, there are at least three different Hebrew words used to convey faith: '''אמנה''' '''אמוּנה''' '''אמוּנה''' - which would seem to be contradictory if it only gets two mentions! The Old Testament is the foundation of faith upon which the New Testament stands - if there is no "faith" within the OT, then there can be none reflected in the NT, or what there is, is meaningless and superficial. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 05:26, 18 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Tautology! ==<br />
<br />
Also, saying that Christian faith is a uniquely Christian concept is a tautology. You can't reject other people's arguments that other religions define "faith," by saying, "well, not in the same way Christianity does," and concluding "therefore faith is unique to Christianity."<br />
<br />
FAITH is not unique to Christianity.<br />
<br />
CHRISTIAN FAITH is obviously, by definition, unique to Christianity, but again, this is mere tautology. 1 = 1. Congratulations.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Main Page ==<br />
<br />
Note that the following is still on Conservapedia's main page, forming part of the casual visitor's initial impression: "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept? Add to the explanation of what it means, and how it does not exist on other religions." [[User:Moioci|Moioci]] 05:09, 1 March 2007 (EST)<br />
:Romans 10:17:<br />
:Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard <u>through the word of Christ.</u> [[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 15:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Bad, bad, bad==<br />
This article isn't just bad. It's brilliantly bad. Outstandingly bad. It is a paradigmatic example of bad. If this is the kind of writing that this project is going to promote, then the project should be shelved.<br />
<br />
==Alternate version==<br />
<br />
'''Faith''' (from Greek-''pistis'' and Latin-''fides'') refers to confidence, trust, and hope in a [[God]], person, community, tradition, or another locus of inspiration. The object of faith varies among people, but the common denominator is a level of conviction and an inner attitude towards a greater power or force in the universe. Etymologically, the word 'faith' is closely linked to the concept of "fidelity," which emphasizes commitment to something or someone. Thus, faith is often understood to mean 'loyalty' to a particular view of [[divinity]], and allegiance to a particular religious community and it's cognate [[doctrine]]s. Yet, faith can also be envisioned more broadly as a trust in [[providence]], and has been used as a synonym for religion, such as in the [[Buddhist]] faith or the [[Christian]] faith. <br />
<br />
Faith is an important aspect of the world religions, and a common theme of human religiosity. According to Christian tradition, faith is one of the gifts of the [[Holy Spirit]] that provides impetus for humanity to move forward, and is said to be especially important when one encounters obstacles in life. For many people, faith or the lack thereof, is an important part of their overall identities.<br />
<br />
==(Lack of?) Faith in Science==<br />
<br />
I have argued this point many times among non-believers, but most religious people will maintain that science requires a larger leap of faith than religion. Do you think this debate merits inclusion/referral in this article? --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:12, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I would agree that things like evolution and the Big Bang require a greater "leap of faith", but not science. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Given the strictest definition of science, is it possible to seperate these two concepts from that definition? However I agree, the theoretical nature of both "evolution" and the Big Bang do require the greatest leap of faith. Continuing in this vein however, how do we know that many other aspects of scientific study are not also contrived fallacies? Man once believed the Earth was flat because of thousands of years of precedent. What shall we deam "science" in another thousand years in contrast to acts of God? These concepts are worthy of inclusion in the article. --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:26, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Given the strictest definition of science, is it possible to call evolution and the Big Bang science? Both are attempts to explain what happened in the past, and we cannot observe the past, cannot run tests on the past, and cannot reproduce those events. And those are the sorts of things required for science.<br />
:::But as you will see from the [[natural science]] article, differences between things that are "operational science" and others that are "origins science" mean that you cannot extend that question to many other areas of science, such as medicine, chemistry, physics, etc.<br />
::: The idea that man once believed that the Earth was flat is itself largely an urban myth. Sure, there were ''some'' people that thought that, but we know that the ancient Greeks knew the Earth to be round, and that almost everybody else since thought that also (and perhaps everyone before for all we know). The idea that the [[flat Earth]] belief was widespread has been shown to be an evolutionist invention to discredit creationists.<br />
:::Given those points, I think that you musings about science in the future are largely without foundation.<br />
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::Where has it been shown that the idea that the [[flat Earth]] belief was widespread has been shown to be an evolutionist invention to discredit creationists? --[[User:Vincentvincent|Vincentvincent]] 07:26, 14 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::: See [[Flat Earth]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:42, 14 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
There is only one area of science in which "faith" is required. That the universe and everything in it follow a set of naturalistic laws which can be predicted and understood, though there are some we are still working on. However, this "faith" is backed up by the fact that the universe has always, so far as we currently know, followed a set of laws. If you have no faith in this premise then a 5 minute old universe in which all our memories have been fabricated by god becomes a possibility and science goes out the window. A 5 minute old universe, by the way, is logically just as likely as one less than 15 billion years old.<br />
<br />
To reject the theory of evolution requires more faith than to accept it because of all the evidence for the theory which must also be rejected. Face it, based on genetics, it is statistically impossible for us to not share a common ancestor with all other mammals... Unless you think the earth is 5 minutes old and everything is a trick by god... now that requires a lot of faith... but no more than is required to believe in a 6000 year old earth or a virgin birth.<br />
<br />
== Faith in Literature ==<br />
<br />
I agree with Phillip that this section is suspect. Taking the real life information and incorporating it into the article is one thing, but noting ways faith has been viewed in literary works seems to be out of place. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:03, 11 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Biblical Examples ==<br />
I felt that an Old Testament example would be in order. I would like to include some pictures as it would look better than this "dry" page that we have here.<br />
<br />
[[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 15:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Multiple definitions of faith ==<br />
<br />
All: Not sure who's watching this page, but I want to make sure I touch base with folks before I dive in. I'd like to introduce multiple uses of the word "faith" to the article. Specifically:<br />
* Faith as loyalty (Faithful to a spouse, or to God)<br />
* Faith as trust (I have faith that you will do what you say, or that God will)<br />
* Faith as a trust in the fundamental good (as the article now articulates)<br />
* Faith as hanging on to your reason when emotion seeks to overwhelm it (per C.S. Lewis).<br />
I'd also like to introduce and analyze the typical nontheist definition of faith -- "Believing without evidence," and to show that ''this'' concept of faith is absent from the Bible -- i.e. nobody in the Bible believed without evidence -- they all had overwhelming evidence for belief (as do Christians today) -- so faith must mean something else.<br />
<br />
Any objections? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:03, 4 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I have always seen that faith means that one KNOWS not beliefs something is true without any proof. It does not matter if one is saying that I know that Christ died for my sins, or that I know there is one God but Allah and Muhammad is his profit, or that I know that Zeus may send lighting bolt down on me, or that I know that there is no God or gods. [[User:Pibu|Pibu]] 23:58, 10 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
=="Faith is a uniquely Christian concept"==<br />
<br />
So faith isn't a concept in any other religion? ...could somebody please just clear this up? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 11:20, 7 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Kierkegaard ==<br />
<br />
I think a good source to use would be the works of Kierkegaard. His "leap to faith" discourses are wonderful and are a great supplement to faith/existentialism. [[User:Probus1|Probus1]]<br />
<br />
== Faith as loyalty based on past performance ==<br />
<br />
Ed left an unsigned comment awhile back that describes an alternative view of faith, that is in fact described in the external link to JP Holding's site at the bottom of the page. This theologically argues that faith in the biblical sense is to be described as loyalty based on past performance. Perhaps this should be mentioned somewhere in the article. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:42, 24 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Arrogance ==<br />
<br />
That Christianity is the only religion with the concept of faith in it is one of the most arrogant claims I have ever heard. We can start by discussing the opening statement. <br />
<br />
"Faith is a uniquely Christian concept referring to a confidence or trust in a greater good as provided by the Lord."<br />
<br />
First, this statement claims that faith in anything is a Christian concept that was invented by the Christians. It claims that no other religion or philosophy has or have ever had any sort of faith in a greater good. <br />
<br />
This implies that my own great personal faith in humanity as a whole is non-existant. I have no faith in humanity's capability of rational thinking, nor any faith in realizing my own and others potential to do good. Beliefs that are not rooted in any religious faith but instead by observation of humanity's history and characters that have done both terrible and wonderful things. <br />
<br />
My own and others faith that are outside the Christian belief system are simply to be discarded as something that is irrellevant.<br />
<br />
(as a side note please pardon any spelling mistakes, I'm Norwegian and thus realize that coming to this English speaking site might seem a bit odd, but it seems that you might need some foreign opinions on this site from time to time) Posted by: [[User:Toby|toby]]<br />
<br />
==Rename the article==<br />
<br />
This article seems to about [[Christian faith]], so it should be moved there. It is not really an article about [[religious faith]] in general. Moreover, an article on [[faith]] which includes the ideas of Ungtss above would be good. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
:Seconding this motion. 15:41, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Faith is a Christian concept, and "Christian faith" is a silly redundancy. It would be like saying "Christian Easter."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:43, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: It's not a uniquely Christian concept, though. People can have faith in something without being religious, or they can have faith in non-Christian religions. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:46, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Even if we were to change the name (which I do not prefer), there is a problem with that name. "Christian faith" can be used to refer to ''Christianity'' as a religious system, when this article is mostly about ''Faith in Christianity'' (what it means to have a practical trust in God, and specifically Christ). --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 15:56, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Lack of the Lord in entry ==<br />
<br />
Faith is a concept introduced by Jesus, yet there is no reference to Him or His teachings on it in the entire first page. There are references to the Greek (which Jesus may not have used); there is reference to faith in support by chair (an example unlike ones used by Jesus); and there is a lack of emphasis on how faith is a uniquely Christian concept. For those reasons, I respectfully think this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Faith&oldid=474174|version] is better. (Also, I think the phrase "about God" in the first sentence must be an unintentional error.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:00, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Well, that faith did not start with Jesus' earthly ministry, it is the same kind of faith presented in the Old Testament. It is more defined in the New, but it's not a ''new'' concept. Obviously we need to include more, but I don't think how it is right now is worse.<br />
:About the "about God," what do you find wrong with it? --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 22:03, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: There are virtually no references to faith in the Old Testament, but hundreds in the New. Added to that is the fact the Old Testament is much longer than the New, and the straightforward conclusion is that faith is a new concept introduced by Christianity.<br />
:: I don't understand the "about God" reference. How does faith in, say, Peter's ability to walk on water or in the healing of the Roman soldier's servant knowledge "about God"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Wait, so - at no point did the Jews have faith in God? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:22, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::To your objection: ''There are virtually no references to faith in the Old Testament''. I went to BibleGateway and found the word faith, faithful, or faithless a total of [http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=faith&version1=49&searchtype=all&limit=none&wholewordsonly=no 96 times]. It is simply incorrect to say that the OT does not make a big deal about faith. Sure, it's not as much as the NT, but I already explained that. Also, remember the word "believe" is connected directly in the Greek to the word "faith." They are synonymous. "Then he [Abraham] <u>believed</u> in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness." (Genesis 15:6)<br />
:::For your question: ''I don't understand the "about God" reference''. I would recommend that you listen to this lecture by Dr. Dallas Willard, entitled ''[http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/2008/01/07/how-people-perish-for-lack-of-knowledge/ How People Perish for Lack of Knowledge]''. Other than that, are you talking about us (in modern day) reading those accounts and receiving knowledge of God? Or are you talking about Peter stepping out on the water and faith and having knowledge of God?<br />
:::I'll take the Peter one... Say you are Peter, and you are in the boat. What impulse do you think would compel you to get out of that boat, when there is a fierce storm going on? I mean Peter has got to be used to this type of weather by now, so if he is having trouble, why would he have any desire to put himself in danger? But Peter knows something. (1) He has seen what Christ can do, (2) Christ is Himself outside the boat and calling him (and by the way, Jesus is not sinking, so it can't be too bad). Those two bits of ''knowledge'' on the part of Peter are able to help him overcome the uncertainty of the wind and the waves. But then when Peter takes his eyes off of Jesus (stops trusting in Him), he starts sinking. Peter then starts trusting in himself. Peter starts focusing on the uncertainties of whether he could really make it or not, rater than the certainty that there was standing on the water with him (Jesus).<br />
:::Don't know if that made sense, but maybe :-) --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 22:39, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: I checked your Gateway link: the term "faith" appears only 4 times in the lengthy Old Testament, and 237 times in the brief New Testament. The Old Testament references have a different meaning from the New Testament meaning. The references to "faithful" and "faithless" have different meanings.<br />
:::: I don't see how the faith by the soldier that his servant will be healed is knowledge "about God." The example of the chair seems, by the way, far removed from the New Testament examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:00, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::'''You are correct about the number on BibleGateway'''. I should have been looking closer at the meanings. However, I still maintain the Old Testament has a very clear conception of what faith is, and it does not change in the New. For example, in Exodus 4:8, God is sending Moses to Egypt, and God says this interesting statement: "If they will not believe you or heed the witness of the first sign, they may believe the witness of the last sign." Notice that God is providing a "sign" for them to believe. And if they don't trust the first "sign," then they might trust the last one. In terms of what I am talking about, that "sign" is ''knowledge about God''. It is something that God is doing to show humanity who He is.<br />
:::::'''Faith of the soldier'''. The Centurion would have at least heard of Jesus, since Capernaum was Jesus' hometown (or at least homebase) I think. And this soldier may have even seen Jesus perform miracles before on other people. That is sufficient knowledge of what Christ (God) could do. I mean this Centurion definitely recognizes Jesus' divine authority (imho) as he calls Jesus "Lord", and says statements like, "I am not worthy for You to come under my roof," and "just say the word, and my servant will be healed." Not things you say about someone you barely know or have barely heard of... The point is that this centurion did indeed have a ''knowledge'' of Christ which caused faith in his heart.<br />
:::::'''The chair example being far removed from scripture'''. That chair example is simply a popular way to conceptualize what saving faith is. If I just stood next to a chair and acknowledged that the chair could indeed support me, but I never sat down in the chair... is that really true faith in the chair? No. It's not faith until you not only ''acknowledge'' that the chair can hold you up, but you sit down in it. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 23:21, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: I need to take a break now from this discussion, but so that you're not left waiting for a response, I observe that the nature of the examples of faith in the New Testament all have substantial significance relating to life or death, and none of them are trivialities like the chair example that seem to demean the significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:38, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Ok, and don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed at all to using biblical examples :-). So if that's what you want to stick to, that's fine by me. And I was planning on putting more in, but I always thought for me personally that the chair analogy was somewhat helpful. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 23:51, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Uniqueness==<br />
"Some other religions have concepts that liberals pretend are similar to Christian "faith", but examining these claims invariably shows that no other religion has the same concept. "<br />
<br />
That's clearly wrong. Judaism at the very least has a very similar meaning of ''Faith''. Islam does too as far as I recall. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:37, 26 June 2008 (EDT)</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Hollywood_values&diff=482430Talk:Hollywood values2008-06-26T21:33:31Z<p>Daphnea: /* Productions */</p>
<hr />
<div>This obviously needs more stuff, but I stub'd it so the red link on the main page went away.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 22:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Unlike reality, which clearly has none of these things. Perhaps a random use of the word "glamourization" is in order? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)<br />
Barikada, I think that's a central point! It's not only disrespect for morals, it's flagrant glamorization of lack of morals! I'll leave it to you to add it, but good call.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 19:59, 23 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:Thanks. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
MexMax - please stop reinserting the unsubstantiated information into the article. Thank you. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
MexMax - any and all talk of whether Heath Ledger's death was due to 'Hollywood Values' should be left until AFTER the autopsy and inquest have been published. Mr. Schalfly's previous version of the article was based on a celebrity gossip article, and has been superceded by real information from the police. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:40, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:I'm sorry for jumping the gun. That seems truthful, I apologize for reverting without looking closer. I thought we were just doing the same edit war over and over again...[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
::One point: I think the MTV article should be treated as, errr, second best. Is there a better citation? I think we'd rather not cite to MTV unless we have no other chance.[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Possible Inclusions==<br />
<br />
A few suggestions for the list, off the top of my head: Marilyn Monroe would be a prime (and notorious) example. Chris Farley, who's stated goal was to live and die like Belushi. Janis Joplin. Anna Nicole Smith. Freddie Prinze. Rock Hudson. And depending on how comprehensive you want the list to be, there's an almost endless parade of people who were more famous as part of a group than as individuals, such as Keith Moon or Dennis Wilson.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:16, 25 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I did a search for Hollywood liberals and came up with [http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ this] website. On the front page I see that the cops are invertviewing Mary Kate Olsen about the suspicious circumstances in Ledger's death, David Copperfield has had two childred out of wedlock, Britney Spears is finally making it to her custody hearing to see if she can stay off drugs long enough to take care of her own kids, and Kiefer Sutherland is being let out of jail after a DUI charge. Hollywood values at their best! (Or should I say worst?) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
If an MTV reference is frowned upon, I can hardly see a credible argument for references to The National Enquirer? It's not exactly known for its adherence to fact-based logic, is it? [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Why not? I bet they had articles on every one of the people we have in the article right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:21, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::There's a reason that tabloids are also known as "Gossip rags." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
The people putting these lists together do not seem to realize that in making a case linking "Hollywood values"--not coherently defined in the article, by the way--to early death or criminality it is not enough simply to cite examples; it needs to be demonstrated that these alleged consequences are ''more likely'' to occur to those who adopt these values than to the general population. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Heath Ledger==<br />
<br />
How did Hollywood values contribute to his death? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 04:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:It is clear upon reviewing [[User_talk:Fox#Heath_Ledger|this]] and [[Talk:Main_Page#Milking_deaths_for_political_gain|this]] that nobody has justified how Hollywood values contributed to Ledger's death. We all acknowledge that during his life he probably did take drugs and was a selfish individual, however there is no evidence that his overdose on legal prescription drugs was a suicide attempt or reasonably affected by his drug habit. Given that the example is used in the context of death ("Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:") then I think it would be prudent to remove Ledger's entry until sufficient evidence connecting Hollywood to his death has been found, otherwise we are just sponsoring gossip. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 07:22, 2 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Of what significance is it that he was found naked in his bed? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:20, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==So?==<br />
<br />
So? What does this article intend to prove? What is its thesis? Is this article intended to somehow connect the unfortunate deaths of some people who got too involved in drugs or alcohol as an indicator that hollywood films are a bad influence? <br />
Is this article supposed to somehow connect these so-called "Hollywood Values" with liberal politics? <br />
Last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh had had an embarrassing addiction to opiate painkillers, George W. Bush had admitted to a cocaine problem, and Mel Gibson had such a drinking problem that he was accusing "the Jews" of all the evils that had ever plagued him. These three men, for example, are CONSERVATIVES. Mel Gibson even functions as part of the industry centered in HOLLYWOOD. Why is good ol' Mel not mentioned in this article? <br />
Is the anti-liberal bias in this article too overwhelming to include even one conservative who's had problems?<br />
Or, as I suspect, is Conservapedia wearing the type of blinders that see any conservative's troubles with drugs or alcohol as a momentary temptation by the liberal side? <br />
<br />
If you simply blame everything on your opponents, all the time, then you never have to think it through or acknowledge reality. Seems to be the basic M.O. here. <br />
<br />
I, for one, fail to see how Heath Ledger's accidental death from combining the wrong medications (all of which seem to have been prescribed for him) as indicative of a "Hollywood Value" system. Well, I'm sure the response will go like this: "He was NAKED! Surely, nakedness is indicative of SOME evil-doing. After all, LIBERALS SLEEP NAKED! No God-fearing person should sleep sans pajamas!"<br />
<br />
I'm disgusted.<br />
<br />
[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 14:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== What about Britney Spears? ==<br />
<br />
Britney is a very famous person, and hasn't she been to rehab?<br />
Shouldn't she be mentioned in connection with "Hollywood Values"?<br />
Just a suggestion. [[User:MikeSchwartz|MikeSchwartz]] 20:07, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Not entirely accurate ==<br />
<br />
This article doesn't really give an accurate definition of the phrase, 'Hollywood Values'. I don't really blame you, as it is very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately define it. I also made this point on the 'Liberal Denial' Talk Page, so I'll just copy the relevant part of what I said here:<br />
<br />
This phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:48, 13 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
It should also be noted that the meaning of 'Hollywood Values', according to some, is directly contradicted by what others mean by 'Hollywood Values'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Wikilinks ==<br />
<br />
Why are all these actors, singers, etc. wikilinked? Do we plan to have articles on them all? I removed most of them at some point, but I see they were added back. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Crime ==<br />
For the crime section, please stick to actual crimes. Maybe there could be another section for offensive comments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:48, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:TBH Roger, I think the linked [[Mel Gibson]] article covers it sufficiently, so - in Gibson's case at least - there's probably no need to mention it in the article at all. But perhaps you're right that there should be a section for those celebs who have demonstrated consistent/repeated immoral behaviour/outbursts but have stopped short of actually breaking the law. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 14:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Hollywood==<br />
<br />
Why are musicians and athletes included in an article about [[Hollywood]]? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:34, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== What do we do? ==<br />
<br />
Even if Hollywood values are in fact a problem, what can we possibly do about it? Make extramarital and premarital sex illegal? Or just force everyone to convert to Christianity? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Bix Biederbecke ==<br />
<br />
Not really a "Hollywood" star - Jazz musicians at the time were more liable to spend their lives in NY (as he did), Chicago, or New Orleans. Lots of jazz musicians, of course, had serious addiction problems, but it's not really intellectually honest to lump in struggling musicians - many of America's greatest jazz artists never made much money - in with wealthy movie stars. Remove? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:56, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Who compiled this silly list? ==<br />
<br />
Bix Biederbecke is hardly the only problem here. What about Brian Epstein? What did he have to do with Hollywood? What about Sid Viscious? Hollywood? I hardly think so. Richard Jeni suffered from clinical depression. Do you think that might have had something to do with his suicide? Clara Blandick was in pain and facing blindness. What has her suicide got to do with Hollywodd values? Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family. Why is she in the article? The circumstances of Virginia Rappe's death remain unknown and controversial. What has Heath Ledger's accidental overdose got to do with Hollywood or any other values? What has John Bonham got to do with Hollywood? The inquest into the death of Kenneth Williams returned an open verdict as it was not posibble to determine whether his overdose was accidental. In any case he was suffering from declining health and depression at the time.<br />
<br />
This is extremely sloppy work. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:33, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Tate ==<br />
<br />
Tate was murdered. How is that her fault? Maybe that part should just mention the Manson Family--a depraved group, indeed. [[User:Cisnon|Cisnon]] 22:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
reply to the above criticisms (prior to Tate): [[liberals]] become so literal when it becomes a basis for censoring things they don't like. [[Hollywood values]] are not literally confined to Hollywood, California, and, by the way, things like depression and overdosing on prescription drugs are a symptom of [[Hollywood values]] and occur in that group in far higher percentages than the general public. Please, no [[liberal denial]] on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
As to Tate, I welcome more information before censoring it from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
:Again, I think [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor censor] has a different meaning than [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delete delete.] Now, I'm no big city lawyer. Wait, yes I am.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:44, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Riiight... So, any time any entertainer somewhere in the (English speaking?) world suffers depression or overdoses on drugs, whether legal or prescription, whether accidentally or on purpose, that goes to show that "Hollywood values" (whatever they are) are evil. Did I say sloppy work? I withdraw that. I meant stupid, religiously driven nonsense. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Listing a pregnant murder victim as somehow indicative of "Hollywood values" is a disgrace. Sharon Tate did nothing to encourage Charles Manson to murder her; no aspect of her behavior or beliefs can excuse that, or played any role in it. Perhaps we should list her fetus as another sinner who deserved to be murdered? -- [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 23:08, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==You're bloody kidding me==<br />
Death is a value? Sexually-transmitted disease is a value? I have no clue what you're trying to say here-- That Hollywood is responsible for death and STDs? Or that actors somehow worship these two things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: You are clueless. Drug use and promiscuity are [[Hollywood values]], and they cause death.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::The paranoia in that comment aside, that still doesn't make death a value... Or disease, for that matter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:18, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::You're misreading (or misunderstanding) the entry, Bari. It doesn't say that disease and death ''are'' Hollywood values, it says that Hollywood values breed a culture that ''leads to'' disease and death.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::My apologies, it appears that you are correct... or at least you were, before the last grammar fix. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:53, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Hypocrisy ==<br />
<br />
Why was the new section Hypocrisy deleted? It was a fair point as explained eloquently at [[Liberal Hypocrisy]] I would have asked the reverting Sysop but the talk page is locked. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
:The context of Clooney portraying a US military officer was not explained. Please cease trying to attract my attention, and go back to your own website where I'm sure you will be much happier. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 10:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Context has now been added. I don't have a website. But thank you for your concern about my happiness. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:51, 17 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
This article is full of finger-pointing. I realize that Hollywood stars live lives full of questionable behavior, and I agree that they do not set good role models for all of the young fans that watch their movies and follow their lives, but we should look at our own lives, and not be so quick to point fingers like this. Shouldn't we be promoting forgiveness, as the Lord intends us?<br />
<br />
: This isn't "finger-pointing", and of course forgiveness remains available to anyone who requests it. But we're not going to stand by quietly as certain values destroy people. Would you also object if we identified how smoking has killed many people who smoke?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:46, 1 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Well, perhaps finger-pointing was the wrong word. I'm just saying, we shouldn't piously observe Hollywood stars and forget our own behavior. I would not object to identifying the wrongs of smoking, but what I find a little silly is the big list of stars and their own individual crimes. I think a more general article would be better, and we should avoid a "more words is better" approach, like Wikipedia does.<br />
<br />
: There is nothing "pious" about this. Values and lifestyles can cause harm just as surely as smoking can. Do we criticize anti-smoking statements as "pious"? Of course not. Highlighting the harm caused by [[Hollywood Values]] is not pious either. In fact, it can be scientifically studied.<br />
<br />
: The individual examples, just like individual examples of prominent smokers who died young, are powerful and just as compelling as more-difficult-to-find statistics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
To quote Aschlafly (look at the talk page for the Mathematics page) "Conservapedia does not take the childish approach of "more words is better." We strive to be concise as a good encyclopedia should. Godspeed." Perhaps this principle should be applied to this page. I think everyone understands that Hollywood values are corrupted. I don't see the need for a long list of people who have done wrong things.<br />
<br />
== removal ==<br />
<br />
How can you justify Tate being a victim of hollywood values? Please point to it? I dont want to get into an edit but you cant just add with the tag "because I say so"<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:05, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: It's self-evident from the explanation given. Tate was not a perpetrator of the crime, but became a victim of the culture in which she joined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
No it is not self evident. What culture did she join? married a film director? Associated with hippies? If that so then she was a victim of hippies values. Her 'culture' lead her to be murdered? many people get murdered and she was targeted because she was famous. That has nothing to do with so called holloywood values.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:57, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Right removing the Tate stuff again. At the time of the murder Sharon Tate has not been using drugs or alcohol, she was pregnant and the Mason family was actually interested in killing a man who refused to sign his band up. Tate was unlucky but it is clearly at odds with other deaths listed with hers as she was murdered!<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:55, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Wow: Tate's murder was just the product of chance, like getting hit by a car! No, AdenJ, Tate's murder was the result of [[Hollywood values]]. Maybe the initial intended victim was someone else, but that reinforces how [[Hollywood values]] work that they killed her instead. The entry is staying in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I give up, its totally ridiculous. Sharon Tate was murdered, It was nothing, repeat, NOTHING to do with values. Unless its the values of Manson. <br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: AdenJ, Tate's murder had ''everything'' to do with values. And, duh, that does include the [[Hollywood values]] of Manson and his followers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So its 'duh' now is it? How did Mason have hollywood values? He was in no movies and was a poor musician. How was he affected by hollywood values? Because he was obessed with The Beatles? Who wasnt at that time. He was a drug crazed hippie with a severe mental problem.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:31, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Ridiculous==<br />
<br />
This article just cherry-picks famous people (or...not, in the case of "1920s cornettists" and similar cases), and stretches a granule, albeit a malleable one, miles and miles away from the true root causes of their deaths to make some point that these people's deaths are connected to some Spectre of Glittery Death looming up over Mulholland. How many famous people are there? There must be...untold millions of YouTube phenoms, game show contestants, sandwich shop spokesman, and to highlight a few flare-ups is entirely counter to any kind of legitimacy an encyclopedic volume should have. When I look at that list, I see Sid Vicious, who, as far as I know, lived in the UK for 98% of his life. I see Elvis Presley (maybe there should be a "Memphis values" page). And Sharon Tate...Sharon Tate? Wasn't Manson actually trying to kill somebody else, someone who wasn't there (supposedly a record honcho or someother such person who denied him a chance to be on a Beach Boys record). If that's how we're gonna be about it, and say innocent pregnant sober bystanders are perpetrators of Hollywood values, then let's say those whores that Jack the Ripper killed were victims of "West End values". [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 18:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Linus has given us the fundamental [[liberal denial]]: denying that [[liberal]] values have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Aschlafly has given us the fundamental conservative denial.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:24, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::'''I don't see anywhere in my graph where I denied that liberal values have consequences'''. I think that this whole liberal/conservative jive is basically a distraction, an abstract that exists only theoretically, and even then, as a theory lend creedence by consensus. If these people's death is going to be attributed to a set of industries in a geographic location, then it's already got the integrity of arguing about air temperature. Who cares? I'm not some objectivist/nihilist (probably mutually exclusive philosophies, but often combined nonetheless by people who don't understand them), so I'm not going to deforest the issue by going on some bleat about how we're all just "computers made out of meat" or whatnot, but I think this issue is...not an issue. I'm not arguing at it from any perspective other than one which states all perspectives are already invalid if it comes from a person who cares about things like this. So to say that anybody's neurons are any better than anyone else's simply because of the choices which all the electric 1's and 0's in our brains combine to create, is stupid. Even the whole idea of "liberal denial", which is supposed to be some kind of searing label which supercedes all the fray of bickering and mudslinging, has been trampled on by reductive childishness that's rampant here. Liberal denial. That's all your arguement is here. You'll say, I'm using liberal denial because what I'm saying is a denial coming from a liberal viewpoint. You define my point of view, incorrectly, sure, but you're still just defining it. Not '''re'''fining it, not clarifying or showing how it's wrong and maybe trying to excise the benign liberal tumors you probably surmise exist within my brain stem, you're just defining it. I should have taken a hint from the logo and realized that "applying logos" and "slapping labels" is basically the fundamental economy of Conservapedia. All apologies.<br />
[[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 21:22, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
==Miley Cyrus==<br />
see http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0<br />
"They include shots of the teen wrapped in what appears to be a satin bedsheet, looking over her shoulder with her back exposed."<br />
<br />
she was not topless--<span style="margin-top: -3px;">&nbsp;[[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 21:34, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:That's your opinion and you are not an accepted reference for material. I provided not one, not two but THREE references that described the photo as "topless." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:42, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::She was topless unless you are prepared to call a sheet a "top". <br />
<br />
::Do we want to put our cards on the table people? Clearly the reason that some here do not want this addition to the Hollywood values page is that Ms Cyrus appeared on the Main Page here not long ago as an exemplar of Christian virtue when she spoke of her ambition to abstain from sex until marriage (if memory serves).<br />
<br />
::Well, now she's been photographed topless. I'll bet if it were Hillary Clinton you would all be loudly insisting that the description "topless" was absolutely accurate. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:44, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Er, no. What *is* clear is that her parents and Disney decided to let her be posed in as risque a fashion as possible - thus largely '''negating''' her value as a role model. My only objection is to the word ''topless'' which implies visible headlights rather than shrouded ones. Perhaps you'd like to right about teen [[role model]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:48, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::As I said, three references described the photo as "topless." However, I've now clarified the extend of the toplessness in the article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:50, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
topless requires that the breasts be exposed since they were not she was not topless --<span style="margin-top: -3px;">&nbsp;[[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 21:49, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:*sigh* Jinx, you can say that some sources said the girl was topless. That would come under the heading of "exaggeration", I'd say. Unless the editor in chief overturns my decision, I intend to have us all avoid that word. Let's not embarrass the girl any more than she already has been. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:52, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::That's pretty rich having regard to a number of the other accustaions and comments in the article. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No, it actually doesn't require that the breasts be exposed. Neither does "nude" require that genitals be exposed. Demi Moore was nude when she posed for Vanity Fair's cover when pregnant even though neither her breasts or genitals were exposed. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:08, 2 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I'm an easily lead, ignorant Christian. Tell me what change you'd like to see in the article - or make it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:56, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Let's dial down the fuss a bit, folks. I was the one who originally posted the Cyrus line, and I didn't intend to start a war. I used the term "topless" because, a) that's the way I've heard it reported today, and b) it's accurate, strictly speaking. However, while I recognize that in common vernacular, "topless" implies a more explicit condition than exists in this case, I expected someone to come up with a better term rather than a complete (and unwarranted) reversion. So, maybe we can keep the item, but change the descriptive word? "Suggestive"? "Racy"? "Controversial"? "Provocative"? "Naughty"? Suggestions welcome...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 21:58, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I'm letting Deborah decide this one. (If you must apply an adjective, try "risqué".) Anyway, the emphasis should be on the parents, as she is a minor and not responsible for photo shoot decisions. <br />
<br />
:We can write an article on how parents of teen stars, such as Britney Spears, Hillary Duff & Lindsay Lohan, have managed their daughters' careers. But do we have a decent article on [[Modesty]] yet? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:05, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::All good suggestions. And don't forget Brooke Shields and her mother--They were a notorious pair a quarter-century ago (not that I'm old enough to remember such things [cough]).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::As a former Disney employee, I must say the company needs to pay more attention to its [[role model]]s for tweens. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:32, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::Call me cynical but I think it's just like any mega multi-national corporation, all that matters is the bottom line. And let's face it, sex (and abstinence) sells. You know back in the studio days women had to behave very nicely otherwise they'd be fired from their contract, then the supreme court broke them up and there went the Golden (or was it Silver?) age of Hollywood.<br />
::::And anyway, shouldn't their '''parents''' be more concerned then a board of directors? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:38, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Lenny Bruce/Sharon Tate/Blaming the victim ==<br />
<br />
While Lenny did die because of a heroin OD, he was a standup comic (Comedian Values?), not an actor he only appeared on TV six times on variety/talk shows, definitely not Hollywood. I'd like to believe the government's horrible persecution of him led to his downward spiral.<br />
<br />
As far as the Tate case. Andy, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't familiar with the story, here is a [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonaccount.html link to it,] '''if you still think that she did herself in because of Hollywood values, then ''by all means'' put it back in.<br />
<br />
As for me, it makes me sick to my stomach to somehow imply that she was anyway responsible for her own death, that's worse then saying "well if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that low-cut dress".'''<br />
<br />
And just to make sure you don't go off subject and say that I'm a typical liberal, I'll admit that I '''agree''' with the premise of the article.<br />
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:02, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Goodness, no, we would never insult you like that. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:06, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Bruce Lee==<br />
<br />
ATang, please stop removing this item. Edit wars are frowned on at CP, so I suggest that if you want it deleted you seek the advice of a sysop. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Bruce Lee died of cerebral edema. Traces of a painkiller and cannabis were found postmortem. However, the cause of death was not cannabis; ergo, the link between Hollywood values and his death was not established.<br />
<br />
:Otherwise you should list every cannabis user who died, regardless of cause of death. For example - if a lone hunter was attacked by a black bear and died as a result, and they found traces of THC in his body, would you say that's the cause of death? That he died of drug use? Or that he died because of Hollywood values? (Now... if he got high and provoked the bear, that's an entirely different story...)<br />
<br />
:[[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:33, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:PS. Heh, I just saw what you typed. Merging the topics. (And I'm trying to avoid an edit war by pointing to the talk page)<br />
<br />
::He was a cannabis user, and the health risks of cannabis are well known; even today (literally) the leftist British government has reclassified cannabis as a class B drug (from being class C, the lowest class of illegal substance, A being the highest). It is scarcely surprising that cannabis use - an HV practice in itself - may well have contributed to Lee's early death. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:32, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yeah, it 'may' have - but by the same argument, UV exposure or asbestos inhalation may have contributed to his death too. My point is - when the cause of death is not conclusive, you cannot point to one single factor. Cannabis is not known to cause swelling of the brain; until there is an established link between the cerebral edema and cannabis use, I don't see how HV caused his death. Like I stated before, you cannot list every death of persons who have Hollywood Values. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 09:37, 9 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Rob Knox==<br />
He died protecting his little brother from two armed assailants. If those are Hollywood Values, sign me up.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 17:38, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Tom Moore on this one... There has been some mistake, just a misunderstanding.<br />
<br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2026826/Harry-Potter-actor's-father-Colin-Knox-visits-murder-scene.html "The father of a teenage actor who appears in the next Harry Potter film today visited the scene where the 18-year-old was stabbed to death trying to protect his younger brother from a knifeman."] [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Folks, we need more than a few minutes to discuss something before deleting it like that. Some good new information is provided above, but some of it missed the point. No one is trying to blame the victim here. [[Hollywood values]] include carousing amid drunken people, and can often include underage drinking. Trouble breaks out and victims get killed. This doesn't happen as often to people who are, for example, sleeping by midnight. More comments welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Hey, like I said, if Hollywood values include defending your little brother from being one of the many stabbed by a stranger with two knives, sign me up as a proponent.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Well, that's not saying much, because I would expect you to have been a proponent before. By the way, before you jump to conclusions, do you know who brought Rob Knox's under-aged 16-year-old brother to that drunken, late-night mayhem? Or is that question considered inappropriate when the controlling standards are [[Hollywood values]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:28, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::I have no notion who brought him there. I am not sure it matters, since the problem there would be a young man bringing his under-age brother out on the town drinking, something that is relatively minor and which doesn't seem worthy of condemnation. But since you bring it up, do you know? If not, why did you put this up in the article before you found out?<br />
::::Eh, who cares... it's your site.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:36, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::I looked, and can't find that information. I'll check the CNN report of the story.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:37, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::Nope, doesn't seem to have been reported. Although incidentally, while you're reading this, you might want to add to the News section that Bob Barr was nominated as the Libertarian candidate for this year. [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/25/barr.election/index.html Story is here], and conservatives are probably interested.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:40, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: The account the fight which killed Rob Knox is described differently from your accounts above here: [http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1204418.ece]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::::I was going by the link above, wherein a stranger with two kitchen knives approached them and began stabbing people. This is a much more detailed account, but no less tragic. His friend thought a stranger had stolen his phone and accused the guy of it, and later the guy comes back with some friends, one of whom starts stabbing people.<br />
::::::At the very least, this change to the article is in very bad taste so soon. But again, you own this place, so I guess you get to make that final call. I obviously disagree with the whole premise of the article, so I don't expect you to take my views much to account on the matter.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 20:14, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::At best, it's a weak example that doesn't serve the broad thrust of your argument particularly well. As charity decreases, it looks variously: inappropriate -> ridiculous -> mean-spirited. If you insist on keeping it, I'd suggest making a new section and leading in with the kind of qualifications you made above. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 20:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I'm seeking the truth just as others should be here, and there is obviously more to the Rob Knox tragedy than the simple story that you insisted upon above. According to the more detailed account, the fight was expected. Note also that the victim's under-aged brother is an Olympic-level expert in karate, and that the fight was in or around a bar after midnight. This is still a terrible tragedy, to be sure, but values undeniably played a role in it, as in deaths from drunken driving. We'll say prayers for the victims '''and''' speak out against the causes. Liberals do neither.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
A young man who has played a minor role in a movie is stabbed to death in London, and within hours of his death you add him to this page as an example of "Hollywood values". That is '''vile'''. I do not know the details of the case, but nor do you, and nor does anyone. Someone has just been arrested, and the facts are simply not known. Jumping to conclusions like this, and acting with unseemly haste to use the Knox family's tragedy as fuel for your anti-Hollywood/anti-liberal campaign is disgusting. Please delete this appalling addition to the article. It does not do the Conservapedia image any good at all. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:29, 27 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
:There's probably a name for those who make capital out of the suffering of others. Oh yes - SCUM! [[User:WarrenG|WarrenG]] 08:31, 27 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Chaplin==<br />
I saw the addition for Chaplin under divorce and I wonder if it's not worth mentioning some of the large age gaps between married Hollywood types? Chaplin met his last wife (Oona?) when she was dating one of his sons. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]]<sub>[[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']]</sub> 10:35, 30 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Wow, that's shocking. Yes, please add that with a citation. (I should have added a citation for mine also.) Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:45, 30 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Thank you, will do so. I have it mentioned in a book at home, so I'll put it up later tonight, with a few other examples I know are in there. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]]<sub>[[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']]</sub> 10:51, 30 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Hypocrisy - all specious ==<br />
<br />
Would someone please tell me what is ''hypocritical'' an actor "act[ing] in movies contrary to their public opinions"? Isn't that simply what actors do - '''act'''? This section of the article seems to be based on a very naive confusion of an actor's role-playing with his or her real-life views and actions. In its present form, I don't think it adds anything of value. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: To a degree, you're right, but when an actor profits enormously by exploiting a sentiment which he simultaneously harshly criticizes (in appeasement of [[liberals]]), it begs the question: dude, if you think it's so wrong, then why do you profit so much from it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Not convinced. You seem to be saying that no actor should accept an offer to play roles like Shylock, Iago, or Hannibal Lecter. That would make for some pretty thin plot-lines... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 10:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: No, you overstate it. A better example would be if a [[conservative]] starred in a movie featuring sex and nudity. The howls of protest by [[liberals]] would be deafening!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::But, [[Hollywood values]] embrassed by all [[Liberals]] would mean they were desensortised to this. <br />
<br />
::::Actually could you explain this why would "liberals" be out raged, you have spent all this time saying they like that in their movies. People only seem to care about movies featuring sex and nudity when some former child star appears in them and news reporting go along the line "she (it is always she they care about) is sheading her innocent image". This might comes as a shock to you but most of the world doesn't think of actors as liberal/conservative and judge their movies on that basis. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:30, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== At a certain point, it would probably pay to be selective ==<br />
<br />
<br />
At some point I would advise to only use examples that best show the point trying to be made. For instance there are certainly many Hollywood divorces, but we have chosen to only point to a few that give the greatest examples of particular excess. Other areas of the article may wish to do the same. Drew Barrymore's stint in rehab as a young girl would be a good one. Ryan O'Neal thinking that Lee Majors telling him to look out for his wife while he was away on a trip meant to have sex with her would be another. Woody Allen's picture taking, the death of Dorothy Stratten, Morrison's burnout death and his girlfriend being beaten to death by a baseball bat by her next boyfriend, all would be notable examples. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:20, 4 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Crime: Innocent until proven guilty ==<br />
<br />
I think that there may be a certain level of contradiction here. Although we ''can'' use arrests as a way to suggest hedonistic activity of Hollywood stars, we're mentioning an accusation without proof they were convicted of the actual crime.<br />
<br />
Perhaps we can delete and find other conviction examples. If not we can provide a reminder that we recognize that they are innocent until proven guilty. BTW: I'm not suggesting it's wrong in essence, but it could potentially confuse readers who are trying to understand things.<br />
--[[User:Borneo|Borneo]] 05:34, 6 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Is it just me, or is this a bit one-sided? ==<br />
<br />
I think that this entire article, from the first line, is very condescending and even slanderous. This isn't an article about "Hollywood Values" (which I am convinced is a made up word), it's simply a list of drug deaths and crimes committed by people who happen to be / have been in Hollywood.<br />
<br />
While the sources for the statistics are cited, perhaps it would be more appropriate to include interviews and quotes from Hollywood stars on their values. One could also delve into the history of Hollywood, and how it has molded the culture and values that are present there now.<br />
<br />
If this is really an article on Hollywood Values, someone needs to gather up primary sources relevant to this topic. Otherwise, this article should be renamed "List of Bad Things about Hollywood People."<br />
<br />
==Charity work==<br />
I notice that a section on charity work has been removed. If entertainers are in fact sincerely raising money to help the needy isn't that part of their values and should be included in "Hollywood values"? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 10:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:No, because Hollywood Values are not the across-the-board-values of all who have worked in Hollywood. Do not be fooled into over-literalism, a crutch of [[Liberals]] who are unable to make logical pointsin debate. [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[Charlton Heston]] worked in Hollywood, and did a huge amount for good causes, but were a world away from 'Hollywood Values'. Try reading the article properly! Best wishes, [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
So, let me get this straight...<br />
<br />
Only some liberals follow liberal style and every other article beginning with the word "Liberal"<br />
<br />
Only some people in Hollywood follow Hollywood values.<br />
<br />
So really, nothing substantiative is in these articles, and it's little more than a shoddy smearjob against the rich (Hollywood) and the Left.<br />
<br />
Trustworthy indeed. [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 10:49, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So are you saying that "Hollywood values" refers only to the ''negative'' values of people who work in Hollywood, and that any positive values that might be held by people in Hollywood are ''not'' considered part of Hollywood values? Isn't that a bit biased? How would we feel if people started talking about "Republican values" but meant only the negative aspects? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 11:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Daphnea and EBrown, you are hopeless cases. HV refers to the pernicious effects of the cult of celebrity, which leads sufferers to feel that they are above all legal, moral or societal rules. It is, perhaps, significant that you are quibbling with the title and definitions through the medium of an absurd literalism. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I assumed that "Hollywood values" would be about the values espoused by Hollywood; while that is largely negative in contrast with conservative values I feel it is only honest to mention the positive aspects when they occur; unless the article ''by definition'' is only about the negative aspects, which is the question I asked. I'm assuming from your reply that it ''is'' only about the negative values. Now I can edit it accordingly. When did asking for clarification become an "absurd literalism"? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:32, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Productions==<br />
I put back a deleted edit after revising it on the advice of [[User:Bugler]]. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Please don't revert edits that '''you told me to do'''! To be a little more conversational, I was following an edit which was approved by another editor pointing out that not everybody in Hollywood goes along with "Hollywood values". Likewise it is sensible to point out that not all Hollywood productions go along with "Hollywood values". If we don't do this then in the first case someone reading this (especially a child) might go away with the impression that ''everyone'' involved in Hollywood is evil, and thus grow up hating Ronald Reagan and Charlton Heston. I the second case they might avoid seeing The Chronicle of Narnia because it's a "Hollywood" production. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:18, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:I didn't tell you to do it here, Daphnea. I said that the correct place for such a statement was on a page bout Hollywood, or about the entertainment industry. HV is not the same as Hollywood. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:20, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:So what do you think of what I said above? Do you want people to start thinking Ronald Reagan went along with Hollywood Values? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Add it to [[Hollywood]] [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:28, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::I asked you a question. Are you intending to answer it? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:31, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::I will certainly not answer if addressed in so aggressive a fashion. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:32, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::OK, let's be polite. Are you going to answer my question, please? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT)</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Hollywood_values&diff=482428Talk:Hollywood values2008-06-26T21:31:36Z<p>Daphnea: /* Productions */</p>
<hr />
<div>This obviously needs more stuff, but I stub'd it so the red link on the main page went away.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 22:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Unlike reality, which clearly has none of these things. Perhaps a random use of the word "glamourization" is in order? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)<br />
Barikada, I think that's a central point! It's not only disrespect for morals, it's flagrant glamorization of lack of morals! I'll leave it to you to add it, but good call.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 19:59, 23 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:Thanks. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
MexMax - please stop reinserting the unsubstantiated information into the article. Thank you. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
MexMax - any and all talk of whether Heath Ledger's death was due to 'Hollywood Values' should be left until AFTER the autopsy and inquest have been published. Mr. Schalfly's previous version of the article was based on a celebrity gossip article, and has been superceded by real information from the police. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:40, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:I'm sorry for jumping the gun. That seems truthful, I apologize for reverting without looking closer. I thought we were just doing the same edit war over and over again...[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
::One point: I think the MTV article should be treated as, errr, second best. Is there a better citation? I think we'd rather not cite to MTV unless we have no other chance.[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Possible Inclusions==<br />
<br />
A few suggestions for the list, off the top of my head: Marilyn Monroe would be a prime (and notorious) example. Chris Farley, who's stated goal was to live and die like Belushi. Janis Joplin. Anna Nicole Smith. Freddie Prinze. Rock Hudson. And depending on how comprehensive you want the list to be, there's an almost endless parade of people who were more famous as part of a group than as individuals, such as Keith Moon or Dennis Wilson.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:16, 25 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I did a search for Hollywood liberals and came up with [http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ this] website. On the front page I see that the cops are invertviewing Mary Kate Olsen about the suspicious circumstances in Ledger's death, David Copperfield has had two childred out of wedlock, Britney Spears is finally making it to her custody hearing to see if she can stay off drugs long enough to take care of her own kids, and Kiefer Sutherland is being let out of jail after a DUI charge. Hollywood values at their best! (Or should I say worst?) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
If an MTV reference is frowned upon, I can hardly see a credible argument for references to The National Enquirer? It's not exactly known for its adherence to fact-based logic, is it? [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Why not? I bet they had articles on every one of the people we have in the article right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:21, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::There's a reason that tabloids are also known as "Gossip rags." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
The people putting these lists together do not seem to realize that in making a case linking "Hollywood values"--not coherently defined in the article, by the way--to early death or criminality it is not enough simply to cite examples; it needs to be demonstrated that these alleged consequences are ''more likely'' to occur to those who adopt these values than to the general population. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Heath Ledger==<br />
<br />
How did Hollywood values contribute to his death? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 04:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:It is clear upon reviewing [[User_talk:Fox#Heath_Ledger|this]] and [[Talk:Main_Page#Milking_deaths_for_political_gain|this]] that nobody has justified how Hollywood values contributed to Ledger's death. We all acknowledge that during his life he probably did take drugs and was a selfish individual, however there is no evidence that his overdose on legal prescription drugs was a suicide attempt or reasonably affected by his drug habit. Given that the example is used in the context of death ("Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:") then I think it would be prudent to remove Ledger's entry until sufficient evidence connecting Hollywood to his death has been found, otherwise we are just sponsoring gossip. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 07:22, 2 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Of what significance is it that he was found naked in his bed? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:20, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==So?==<br />
<br />
So? What does this article intend to prove? What is its thesis? Is this article intended to somehow connect the unfortunate deaths of some people who got too involved in drugs or alcohol as an indicator that hollywood films are a bad influence? <br />
Is this article supposed to somehow connect these so-called "Hollywood Values" with liberal politics? <br />
Last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh had had an embarrassing addiction to opiate painkillers, George W. Bush had admitted to a cocaine problem, and Mel Gibson had such a drinking problem that he was accusing "the Jews" of all the evils that had ever plagued him. These three men, for example, are CONSERVATIVES. Mel Gibson even functions as part of the industry centered in HOLLYWOOD. Why is good ol' Mel not mentioned in this article? <br />
Is the anti-liberal bias in this article too overwhelming to include even one conservative who's had problems?<br />
Or, as I suspect, is Conservapedia wearing the type of blinders that see any conservative's troubles with drugs or alcohol as a momentary temptation by the liberal side? <br />
<br />
If you simply blame everything on your opponents, all the time, then you never have to think it through or acknowledge reality. Seems to be the basic M.O. here. <br />
<br />
I, for one, fail to see how Heath Ledger's accidental death from combining the wrong medications (all of which seem to have been prescribed for him) as indicative of a "Hollywood Value" system. Well, I'm sure the response will go like this: "He was NAKED! Surely, nakedness is indicative of SOME evil-doing. After all, LIBERALS SLEEP NAKED! No God-fearing person should sleep sans pajamas!"<br />
<br />
I'm disgusted.<br />
<br />
[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 14:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== What about Britney Spears? ==<br />
<br />
Britney is a very famous person, and hasn't she been to rehab?<br />
Shouldn't she be mentioned in connection with "Hollywood Values"?<br />
Just a suggestion. [[User:MikeSchwartz|MikeSchwartz]] 20:07, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Not entirely accurate ==<br />
<br />
This article doesn't really give an accurate definition of the phrase, 'Hollywood Values'. I don't really blame you, as it is very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately define it. I also made this point on the 'Liberal Denial' Talk Page, so I'll just copy the relevant part of what I said here:<br />
<br />
This phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:48, 13 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
It should also be noted that the meaning of 'Hollywood Values', according to some, is directly contradicted by what others mean by 'Hollywood Values'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Wikilinks ==<br />
<br />
Why are all these actors, singers, etc. wikilinked? Do we plan to have articles on them all? I removed most of them at some point, but I see they were added back. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Crime ==<br />
For the crime section, please stick to actual crimes. Maybe there could be another section for offensive comments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:48, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:TBH Roger, I think the linked [[Mel Gibson]] article covers it sufficiently, so - in Gibson's case at least - there's probably no need to mention it in the article at all. But perhaps you're right that there should be a section for those celebs who have demonstrated consistent/repeated immoral behaviour/outbursts but have stopped short of actually breaking the law. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 14:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Hollywood==<br />
<br />
Why are musicians and athletes included in an article about [[Hollywood]]? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:34, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== What do we do? ==<br />
<br />
Even if Hollywood values are in fact a problem, what can we possibly do about it? Make extramarital and premarital sex illegal? Or just force everyone to convert to Christianity? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Bix Biederbecke ==<br />
<br />
Not really a "Hollywood" star - Jazz musicians at the time were more liable to spend their lives in NY (as he did), Chicago, or New Orleans. Lots of jazz musicians, of course, had serious addiction problems, but it's not really intellectually honest to lump in struggling musicians - many of America's greatest jazz artists never made much money - in with wealthy movie stars. Remove? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:56, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Who compiled this silly list? ==<br />
<br />
Bix Biederbecke is hardly the only problem here. What about Brian Epstein? What did he have to do with Hollywood? What about Sid Viscious? Hollywood? I hardly think so. Richard Jeni suffered from clinical depression. Do you think that might have had something to do with his suicide? Clara Blandick was in pain and facing blindness. What has her suicide got to do with Hollywodd values? Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family. Why is she in the article? The circumstances of Virginia Rappe's death remain unknown and controversial. What has Heath Ledger's accidental overdose got to do with Hollywood or any other values? What has John Bonham got to do with Hollywood? The inquest into the death of Kenneth Williams returned an open verdict as it was not posibble to determine whether his overdose was accidental. In any case he was suffering from declining health and depression at the time.<br />
<br />
This is extremely sloppy work. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:33, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Tate ==<br />
<br />
Tate was murdered. How is that her fault? Maybe that part should just mention the Manson Family--a depraved group, indeed. [[User:Cisnon|Cisnon]] 22:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
reply to the above criticisms (prior to Tate): [[liberals]] become so literal when it becomes a basis for censoring things they don't like. [[Hollywood values]] are not literally confined to Hollywood, California, and, by the way, things like depression and overdosing on prescription drugs are a symptom of [[Hollywood values]] and occur in that group in far higher percentages than the general public. Please, no [[liberal denial]] on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
As to Tate, I welcome more information before censoring it from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
:Again, I think [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor censor] has a different meaning than [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delete delete.] Now, I'm no big city lawyer. Wait, yes I am.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:44, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Riiight... So, any time any entertainer somewhere in the (English speaking?) world suffers depression or overdoses on drugs, whether legal or prescription, whether accidentally or on purpose, that goes to show that "Hollywood values" (whatever they are) are evil. Did I say sloppy work? I withdraw that. I meant stupid, religiously driven nonsense. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Listing a pregnant murder victim as somehow indicative of "Hollywood values" is a disgrace. Sharon Tate did nothing to encourage Charles Manson to murder her; no aspect of her behavior or beliefs can excuse that, or played any role in it. Perhaps we should list her fetus as another sinner who deserved to be murdered? -- [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 23:08, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==You're bloody kidding me==<br />
Death is a value? Sexually-transmitted disease is a value? I have no clue what you're trying to say here-- That Hollywood is responsible for death and STDs? Or that actors somehow worship these two things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: You are clueless. Drug use and promiscuity are [[Hollywood values]], and they cause death.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::The paranoia in that comment aside, that still doesn't make death a value... Or disease, for that matter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:18, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::You're misreading (or misunderstanding) the entry, Bari. It doesn't say that disease and death ''are'' Hollywood values, it says that Hollywood values breed a culture that ''leads to'' disease and death.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::My apologies, it appears that you are correct... or at least you were, before the last grammar fix. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:53, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Hypocrisy ==<br />
<br />
Why was the new section Hypocrisy deleted? It was a fair point as explained eloquently at [[Liberal Hypocrisy]] I would have asked the reverting Sysop but the talk page is locked. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
:The context of Clooney portraying a US military officer was not explained. Please cease trying to attract my attention, and go back to your own website where I'm sure you will be much happier. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 10:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Context has now been added. I don't have a website. But thank you for your concern about my happiness. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:51, 17 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
This article is full of finger-pointing. I realize that Hollywood stars live lives full of questionable behavior, and I agree that they do not set good role models for all of the young fans that watch their movies and follow their lives, but we should look at our own lives, and not be so quick to point fingers like this. Shouldn't we be promoting forgiveness, as the Lord intends us?<br />
<br />
: This isn't "finger-pointing", and of course forgiveness remains available to anyone who requests it. But we're not going to stand by quietly as certain values destroy people. Would you also object if we identified how smoking has killed many people who smoke?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:46, 1 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Well, perhaps finger-pointing was the wrong word. I'm just saying, we shouldn't piously observe Hollywood stars and forget our own behavior. I would not object to identifying the wrongs of smoking, but what I find a little silly is the big list of stars and their own individual crimes. I think a more general article would be better, and we should avoid a "more words is better" approach, like Wikipedia does.<br />
<br />
: There is nothing "pious" about this. Values and lifestyles can cause harm just as surely as smoking can. Do we criticize anti-smoking statements as "pious"? Of course not. Highlighting the harm caused by [[Hollywood Values]] is not pious either. In fact, it can be scientifically studied.<br />
<br />
: The individual examples, just like individual examples of prominent smokers who died young, are powerful and just as compelling as more-difficult-to-find statistics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
To quote Aschlafly (look at the talk page for the Mathematics page) "Conservapedia does not take the childish approach of "more words is better." We strive to be concise as a good encyclopedia should. Godspeed." Perhaps this principle should be applied to this page. I think everyone understands that Hollywood values are corrupted. I don't see the need for a long list of people who have done wrong things.<br />
<br />
== removal ==<br />
<br />
How can you justify Tate being a victim of hollywood values? Please point to it? I dont want to get into an edit but you cant just add with the tag "because I say so"<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:05, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: It's self-evident from the explanation given. Tate was not a perpetrator of the crime, but became a victim of the culture in which she joined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
No it is not self evident. What culture did she join? married a film director? Associated with hippies? If that so then she was a victim of hippies values. Her 'culture' lead her to be murdered? many people get murdered and she was targeted because she was famous. That has nothing to do with so called holloywood values.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:57, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Right removing the Tate stuff again. At the time of the murder Sharon Tate has not been using drugs or alcohol, she was pregnant and the Mason family was actually interested in killing a man who refused to sign his band up. Tate was unlucky but it is clearly at odds with other deaths listed with hers as she was murdered!<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:55, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Wow: Tate's murder was just the product of chance, like getting hit by a car! No, AdenJ, Tate's murder was the result of [[Hollywood values]]. Maybe the initial intended victim was someone else, but that reinforces how [[Hollywood values]] work that they killed her instead. The entry is staying in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I give up, its totally ridiculous. Sharon Tate was murdered, It was nothing, repeat, NOTHING to do with values. Unless its the values of Manson. <br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: AdenJ, Tate's murder had ''everything'' to do with values. And, duh, that does include the [[Hollywood values]] of Manson and his followers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So its 'duh' now is it? How did Mason have hollywood values? He was in no movies and was a poor musician. How was he affected by hollywood values? Because he was obessed with The Beatles? Who wasnt at that time. He was a drug crazed hippie with a severe mental problem.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:31, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Ridiculous==<br />
<br />
This article just cherry-picks famous people (or...not, in the case of "1920s cornettists" and similar cases), and stretches a granule, albeit a malleable one, miles and miles away from the true root causes of their deaths to make some point that these people's deaths are connected to some Spectre of Glittery Death looming up over Mulholland. How many famous people are there? There must be...untold millions of YouTube phenoms, game show contestants, sandwich shop spokesman, and to highlight a few flare-ups is entirely counter to any kind of legitimacy an encyclopedic volume should have. When I look at that list, I see Sid Vicious, who, as far as I know, lived in the UK for 98% of his life. I see Elvis Presley (maybe there should be a "Memphis values" page). And Sharon Tate...Sharon Tate? Wasn't Manson actually trying to kill somebody else, someone who wasn't there (supposedly a record honcho or someother such person who denied him a chance to be on a Beach Boys record). If that's how we're gonna be about it, and say innocent pregnant sober bystanders are perpetrators of Hollywood values, then let's say those whores that Jack the Ripper killed were victims of "West End values". [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 18:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Linus has given us the fundamental [[liberal denial]]: denying that [[liberal]] values have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Aschlafly has given us the fundamental conservative denial.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:24, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::'''I don't see anywhere in my graph where I denied that liberal values have consequences'''. I think that this whole liberal/conservative jive is basically a distraction, an abstract that exists only theoretically, and even then, as a theory lend creedence by consensus. If these people's death is going to be attributed to a set of industries in a geographic location, then it's already got the integrity of arguing about air temperature. Who cares? I'm not some objectivist/nihilist (probably mutually exclusive philosophies, but often combined nonetheless by people who don't understand them), so I'm not going to deforest the issue by going on some bleat about how we're all just "computers made out of meat" or whatnot, but I think this issue is...not an issue. I'm not arguing at it from any perspective other than one which states all perspectives are already invalid if it comes from a person who cares about things like this. So to say that anybody's neurons are any better than anyone else's simply because of the choices which all the electric 1's and 0's in our brains combine to create, is stupid. Even the whole idea of "liberal denial", which is supposed to be some kind of searing label which supercedes all the fray of bickering and mudslinging, has been trampled on by reductive childishness that's rampant here. Liberal denial. That's all your arguement is here. You'll say, I'm using liberal denial because what I'm saying is a denial coming from a liberal viewpoint. You define my point of view, incorrectly, sure, but you're still just defining it. Not '''re'''fining it, not clarifying or showing how it's wrong and maybe trying to excise the benign liberal tumors you probably surmise exist within my brain stem, you're just defining it. I should have taken a hint from the logo and realized that "applying logos" and "slapping labels" is basically the fundamental economy of Conservapedia. All apologies.<br />
[[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 21:22, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
==Miley Cyrus==<br />
see http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0<br />
"They include shots of the teen wrapped in what appears to be a satin bedsheet, looking over her shoulder with her back exposed."<br />
<br />
she was not topless--<span style="margin-top: -3px;">&nbsp;[[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 21:34, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:That's your opinion and you are not an accepted reference for material. I provided not one, not two but THREE references that described the photo as "topless." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:42, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::She was topless unless you are prepared to call a sheet a "top". <br />
<br />
::Do we want to put our cards on the table people? Clearly the reason that some here do not want this addition to the Hollywood values page is that Ms Cyrus appeared on the Main Page here not long ago as an exemplar of Christian virtue when she spoke of her ambition to abstain from sex until marriage (if memory serves).<br />
<br />
::Well, now she's been photographed topless. I'll bet if it were Hillary Clinton you would all be loudly insisting that the description "topless" was absolutely accurate. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:44, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Er, no. What *is* clear is that her parents and Disney decided to let her be posed in as risque a fashion as possible - thus largely '''negating''' her value as a role model. My only objection is to the word ''topless'' which implies visible headlights rather than shrouded ones. Perhaps you'd like to right about teen [[role model]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:48, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::As I said, three references described the photo as "topless." However, I've now clarified the extend of the toplessness in the article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:50, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
topless requires that the breasts be exposed since they were not she was not topless --<span style="margin-top: -3px;">&nbsp;[[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 21:49, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:*sigh* Jinx, you can say that some sources said the girl was topless. That would come under the heading of "exaggeration", I'd say. Unless the editor in chief overturns my decision, I intend to have us all avoid that word. Let's not embarrass the girl any more than she already has been. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:52, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::That's pretty rich having regard to a number of the other accustaions and comments in the article. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No, it actually doesn't require that the breasts be exposed. Neither does "nude" require that genitals be exposed. Demi Moore was nude when she posed for Vanity Fair's cover when pregnant even though neither her breasts or genitals were exposed. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:08, 2 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I'm an easily lead, ignorant Christian. Tell me what change you'd like to see in the article - or make it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:56, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Let's dial down the fuss a bit, folks. I was the one who originally posted the Cyrus line, and I didn't intend to start a war. I used the term "topless" because, a) that's the way I've heard it reported today, and b) it's accurate, strictly speaking. However, while I recognize that in common vernacular, "topless" implies a more explicit condition than exists in this case, I expected someone to come up with a better term rather than a complete (and unwarranted) reversion. So, maybe we can keep the item, but change the descriptive word? "Suggestive"? "Racy"? "Controversial"? "Provocative"? "Naughty"? Suggestions welcome...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 21:58, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I'm letting Deborah decide this one. (If you must apply an adjective, try "risqué".) Anyway, the emphasis should be on the parents, as she is a minor and not responsible for photo shoot decisions. <br />
<br />
:We can write an article on how parents of teen stars, such as Britney Spears, Hillary Duff & Lindsay Lohan, have managed their daughters' careers. But do we have a decent article on [[Modesty]] yet? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:05, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::All good suggestions. And don't forget Brooke Shields and her mother--They were a notorious pair a quarter-century ago (not that I'm old enough to remember such things [cough]).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::As a former Disney employee, I must say the company needs to pay more attention to its [[role model]]s for tweens. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:32, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::Call me cynical but I think it's just like any mega multi-national corporation, all that matters is the bottom line. And let's face it, sex (and abstinence) sells. You know back in the studio days women had to behave very nicely otherwise they'd be fired from their contract, then the supreme court broke them up and there went the Golden (or was it Silver?) age of Hollywood.<br />
::::And anyway, shouldn't their '''parents''' be more concerned then a board of directors? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:38, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Lenny Bruce/Sharon Tate/Blaming the victim ==<br />
<br />
While Lenny did die because of a heroin OD, he was a standup comic (Comedian Values?), not an actor he only appeared on TV six times on variety/talk shows, definitely not Hollywood. I'd like to believe the government's horrible persecution of him led to his downward spiral.<br />
<br />
As far as the Tate case. Andy, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't familiar with the story, here is a [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonaccount.html link to it,] '''if you still think that she did herself in because of Hollywood values, then ''by all means'' put it back in.<br />
<br />
As for me, it makes me sick to my stomach to somehow imply that she was anyway responsible for her own death, that's worse then saying "well if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that low-cut dress".'''<br />
<br />
And just to make sure you don't go off subject and say that I'm a typical liberal, I'll admit that I '''agree''' with the premise of the article.<br />
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:02, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Goodness, no, we would never insult you like that. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:06, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Bruce Lee==<br />
<br />
ATang, please stop removing this item. Edit wars are frowned on at CP, so I suggest that if you want it deleted you seek the advice of a sysop. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Bruce Lee died of cerebral edema. Traces of a painkiller and cannabis were found postmortem. However, the cause of death was not cannabis; ergo, the link between Hollywood values and his death was not established.<br />
<br />
:Otherwise you should list every cannabis user who died, regardless of cause of death. For example - if a lone hunter was attacked by a black bear and died as a result, and they found traces of THC in his body, would you say that's the cause of death? That he died of drug use? Or that he died because of Hollywood values? (Now... if he got high and provoked the bear, that's an entirely different story...)<br />
<br />
:[[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:33, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:PS. Heh, I just saw what you typed. Merging the topics. (And I'm trying to avoid an edit war by pointing to the talk page)<br />
<br />
::He was a cannabis user, and the health risks of cannabis are well known; even today (literally) the leftist British government has reclassified cannabis as a class B drug (from being class C, the lowest class of illegal substance, A being the highest). It is scarcely surprising that cannabis use - an HV practice in itself - may well have contributed to Lee's early death. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:32, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yeah, it 'may' have - but by the same argument, UV exposure or asbestos inhalation may have contributed to his death too. My point is - when the cause of death is not conclusive, you cannot point to one single factor. Cannabis is not known to cause swelling of the brain; until there is an established link between the cerebral edema and cannabis use, I don't see how HV caused his death. Like I stated before, you cannot list every death of persons who have Hollywood Values. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 09:37, 9 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Rob Knox==<br />
He died protecting his little brother from two armed assailants. If those are Hollywood Values, sign me up.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 17:38, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Tom Moore on this one... There has been some mistake, just a misunderstanding.<br />
<br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2026826/Harry-Potter-actor's-father-Colin-Knox-visits-murder-scene.html "The father of a teenage actor who appears in the next Harry Potter film today visited the scene where the 18-year-old was stabbed to death trying to protect his younger brother from a knifeman."] [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Folks, we need more than a few minutes to discuss something before deleting it like that. Some good new information is provided above, but some of it missed the point. No one is trying to blame the victim here. [[Hollywood values]] include carousing amid drunken people, and can often include underage drinking. Trouble breaks out and victims get killed. This doesn't happen as often to people who are, for example, sleeping by midnight. More comments welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Hey, like I said, if Hollywood values include defending your little brother from being one of the many stabbed by a stranger with two knives, sign me up as a proponent.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Well, that's not saying much, because I would expect you to have been a proponent before. By the way, before you jump to conclusions, do you know who brought Rob Knox's under-aged 16-year-old brother to that drunken, late-night mayhem? Or is that question considered inappropriate when the controlling standards are [[Hollywood values]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:28, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::I have no notion who brought him there. I am not sure it matters, since the problem there would be a young man bringing his under-age brother out on the town drinking, something that is relatively minor and which doesn't seem worthy of condemnation. But since you bring it up, do you know? If not, why did you put this up in the article before you found out?<br />
::::Eh, who cares... it's your site.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:36, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::I looked, and can't find that information. I'll check the CNN report of the story.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:37, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::Nope, doesn't seem to have been reported. Although incidentally, while you're reading this, you might want to add to the News section that Bob Barr was nominated as the Libertarian candidate for this year. [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/25/barr.election/index.html Story is here], and conservatives are probably interested.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:40, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: The account the fight which killed Rob Knox is described differently from your accounts above here: [http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1204418.ece]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::::I was going by the link above, wherein a stranger with two kitchen knives approached them and began stabbing people. This is a much more detailed account, but no less tragic. His friend thought a stranger had stolen his phone and accused the guy of it, and later the guy comes back with some friends, one of whom starts stabbing people.<br />
::::::At the very least, this change to the article is in very bad taste so soon. But again, you own this place, so I guess you get to make that final call. I obviously disagree with the whole premise of the article, so I don't expect you to take my views much to account on the matter.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 20:14, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::At best, it's a weak example that doesn't serve the broad thrust of your argument particularly well. As charity decreases, it looks variously: inappropriate -> ridiculous -> mean-spirited. If you insist on keeping it, I'd suggest making a new section and leading in with the kind of qualifications you made above. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 20:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I'm seeking the truth just as others should be here, and there is obviously more to the Rob Knox tragedy than the simple story that you insisted upon above. According to the more detailed account, the fight was expected. Note also that the victim's under-aged brother is an Olympic-level expert in karate, and that the fight was in or around a bar after midnight. This is still a terrible tragedy, to be sure, but values undeniably played a role in it, as in deaths from drunken driving. We'll say prayers for the victims '''and''' speak out against the causes. Liberals do neither.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
A young man who has played a minor role in a movie is stabbed to death in London, and within hours of his death you add him to this page as an example of "Hollywood values". That is '''vile'''. I do not know the details of the case, but nor do you, and nor does anyone. Someone has just been arrested, and the facts are simply not known. Jumping to conclusions like this, and acting with unseemly haste to use the Knox family's tragedy as fuel for your anti-Hollywood/anti-liberal campaign is disgusting. Please delete this appalling addition to the article. It does not do the Conservapedia image any good at all. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:29, 27 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
:There's probably a name for those who make capital out of the suffering of others. Oh yes - SCUM! [[User:WarrenG|WarrenG]] 08:31, 27 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Chaplin==<br />
I saw the addition for Chaplin under divorce and I wonder if it's not worth mentioning some of the large age gaps between married Hollywood types? Chaplin met his last wife (Oona?) when she was dating one of his sons. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]]<sub>[[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']]</sub> 10:35, 30 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Wow, that's shocking. Yes, please add that with a citation. (I should have added a citation for mine also.) Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:45, 30 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Thank you, will do so. I have it mentioned in a book at home, so I'll put it up later tonight, with a few other examples I know are in there. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]]<sub>[[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']]</sub> 10:51, 30 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Hypocrisy - all specious ==<br />
<br />
Would someone please tell me what is ''hypocritical'' an actor "act[ing] in movies contrary to their public opinions"? Isn't that simply what actors do - '''act'''? This section of the article seems to be based on a very naive confusion of an actor's role-playing with his or her real-life views and actions. In its present form, I don't think it adds anything of value. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: To a degree, you're right, but when an actor profits enormously by exploiting a sentiment which he simultaneously harshly criticizes (in appeasement of [[liberals]]), it begs the question: dude, if you think it's so wrong, then why do you profit so much from it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Not convinced. You seem to be saying that no actor should accept an offer to play roles like Shylock, Iago, or Hannibal Lecter. That would make for some pretty thin plot-lines... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 10:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: No, you overstate it. A better example would be if a [[conservative]] starred in a movie featuring sex and nudity. The howls of protest by [[liberals]] would be deafening!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::But, [[Hollywood values]] embrassed by all [[Liberals]] would mean they were desensortised to this. <br />
<br />
::::Actually could you explain this why would "liberals" be out raged, you have spent all this time saying they like that in their movies. People only seem to care about movies featuring sex and nudity when some former child star appears in them and news reporting go along the line "she (it is always she they care about) is sheading her innocent image". This might comes as a shock to you but most of the world doesn't think of actors as liberal/conservative and judge their movies on that basis. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:30, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== At a certain point, it would probably pay to be selective ==<br />
<br />
<br />
At some point I would advise to only use examples that best show the point trying to be made. For instance there are certainly many Hollywood divorces, but we have chosen to only point to a few that give the greatest examples of particular excess. Other areas of the article may wish to do the same. Drew Barrymore's stint in rehab as a young girl would be a good one. Ryan O'Neal thinking that Lee Majors telling him to look out for his wife while he was away on a trip meant to have sex with her would be another. Woody Allen's picture taking, the death of Dorothy Stratten, Morrison's burnout death and his girlfriend being beaten to death by a baseball bat by her next boyfriend, all would be notable examples. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:20, 4 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Crime: Innocent until proven guilty ==<br />
<br />
I think that there may be a certain level of contradiction here. Although we ''can'' use arrests as a way to suggest hedonistic activity of Hollywood stars, we're mentioning an accusation without proof they were convicted of the actual crime.<br />
<br />
Perhaps we can delete and find other conviction examples. If not we can provide a reminder that we recognize that they are innocent until proven guilty. BTW: I'm not suggesting it's wrong in essence, but it could potentially confuse readers who are trying to understand things.<br />
--[[User:Borneo|Borneo]] 05:34, 6 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Is it just me, or is this a bit one-sided? ==<br />
<br />
I think that this entire article, from the first line, is very condescending and even slanderous. This isn't an article about "Hollywood Values" (which I am convinced is a made up word), it's simply a list of drug deaths and crimes committed by people who happen to be / have been in Hollywood.<br />
<br />
While the sources for the statistics are cited, perhaps it would be more appropriate to include interviews and quotes from Hollywood stars on their values. One could also delve into the history of Hollywood, and how it has molded the culture and values that are present there now.<br />
<br />
If this is really an article on Hollywood Values, someone needs to gather up primary sources relevant to this topic. Otherwise, this article should be renamed "List of Bad Things about Hollywood People."<br />
<br />
==Charity work==<br />
I notice that a section on charity work has been removed. If entertainers are in fact sincerely raising money to help the needy isn't that part of their values and should be included in "Hollywood values"? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 10:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:No, because Hollywood Values are not the across-the-board-values of all who have worked in Hollywood. Do not be fooled into over-literalism, a crutch of [[Liberals]] who are unable to make logical pointsin debate. [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[Charlton Heston]] worked in Hollywood, and did a huge amount for good causes, but were a world away from 'Hollywood Values'. Try reading the article properly! Best wishes, [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
So, let me get this straight...<br />
<br />
Only some liberals follow liberal style and every other article beginning with the word "Liberal"<br />
<br />
Only some people in Hollywood follow Hollywood values.<br />
<br />
So really, nothing substantiative is in these articles, and it's little more than a shoddy smearjob against the rich (Hollywood) and the Left.<br />
<br />
Trustworthy indeed. [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 10:49, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So are you saying that "Hollywood values" refers only to the ''negative'' values of people who work in Hollywood, and that any positive values that might be held by people in Hollywood are ''not'' considered part of Hollywood values? Isn't that a bit biased? How would we feel if people started talking about "Republican values" but meant only the negative aspects? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 11:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Daphnea and EBrown, you are hopeless cases. HV refers to the pernicious effects of the cult of celebrity, which leads sufferers to feel that they are above all legal, moral or societal rules. It is, perhaps, significant that you are quibbling with the title and definitions through the medium of an absurd literalism. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I assumed that "Hollywood values" would be about the values espoused by Hollywood; while that is largely negative in contrast with conservative values I feel it is only honest to mention the positive aspects when they occur; unless the article ''by definition'' is only about the negative aspects, which is the question I asked. I'm assuming from your reply that it ''is'' only about the negative values. Now I can edit it accordingly. When did asking for clarification become an "absurd literalism"? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:32, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Productions==<br />
I put back a deleted edit after revising it on the advice of [[User:Bugler]]. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Please don't revert edits that '''you told me to do'''! To be a little more conversational, I was following an edit which was approved by another editor pointing out that not everybody in Hollywood goes along with "Hollywood values". Likewise it is sensible to point out that not all Hollywood productions go along with "Hollywood values". If we don't do this then in the first case someone reading this (especially a child) might go away with the impression that ''everyone'' involved in Hollywood is evil, and thus grow up hating Ronald Reagan and Charlton Heston. I the second case they might avoid seeing The Chronicle of Narnia because it's a "Hollywood" production. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:18, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:I didn't tell you to do it here, Daphnea. I said that the correct place for such a statement was on a page bout Hollywood, or about the entertainment industry. HV is not the same as Hollywood. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:20, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:So what do you think of what I said above? Do you want people to start thinking Ronald Reagan went along with Hollywood Values? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Add it to [[Hollywood]] [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:28, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::I asked you a question. Are you intending to answer it? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:31, 26 June 2008 (EDT)</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Hollywood_values&diff=482421Talk:Hollywood values2008-06-26T21:26:08Z<p>Daphnea: /* Productions */</p>
<hr />
<div>This obviously needs more stuff, but I stub'd it so the red link on the main page went away.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 22:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Unlike reality, which clearly has none of these things. Perhaps a random use of the word "glamourization" is in order? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)<br />
Barikada, I think that's a central point! It's not only disrespect for morals, it's flagrant glamorization of lack of morals! I'll leave it to you to add it, but good call.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 19:59, 23 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:Thanks. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
MexMax - please stop reinserting the unsubstantiated information into the article. Thank you. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
MexMax - any and all talk of whether Heath Ledger's death was due to 'Hollywood Values' should be left until AFTER the autopsy and inquest have been published. Mr. Schalfly's previous version of the article was based on a celebrity gossip article, and has been superceded by real information from the police. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:40, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:I'm sorry for jumping the gun. That seems truthful, I apologize for reverting without looking closer. I thought we were just doing the same edit war over and over again...[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
::One point: I think the MTV article should be treated as, errr, second best. Is there a better citation? I think we'd rather not cite to MTV unless we have no other chance.[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Possible Inclusions==<br />
<br />
A few suggestions for the list, off the top of my head: Marilyn Monroe would be a prime (and notorious) example. Chris Farley, who's stated goal was to live and die like Belushi. Janis Joplin. Anna Nicole Smith. Freddie Prinze. Rock Hudson. And depending on how comprehensive you want the list to be, there's an almost endless parade of people who were more famous as part of a group than as individuals, such as Keith Moon or Dennis Wilson.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:16, 25 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I did a search for Hollywood liberals and came up with [http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ this] website. On the front page I see that the cops are invertviewing Mary Kate Olsen about the suspicious circumstances in Ledger's death, David Copperfield has had two childred out of wedlock, Britney Spears is finally making it to her custody hearing to see if she can stay off drugs long enough to take care of her own kids, and Kiefer Sutherland is being let out of jail after a DUI charge. Hollywood values at their best! (Or should I say worst?) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
If an MTV reference is frowned upon, I can hardly see a credible argument for references to The National Enquirer? It's not exactly known for its adherence to fact-based logic, is it? [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Why not? I bet they had articles on every one of the people we have in the article right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:21, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::There's a reason that tabloids are also known as "Gossip rags." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
The people putting these lists together do not seem to realize that in making a case linking "Hollywood values"--not coherently defined in the article, by the way--to early death or criminality it is not enough simply to cite examples; it needs to be demonstrated that these alleged consequences are ''more likely'' to occur to those who adopt these values than to the general population. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Heath Ledger==<br />
<br />
How did Hollywood values contribute to his death? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 04:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:It is clear upon reviewing [[User_talk:Fox#Heath_Ledger|this]] and [[Talk:Main_Page#Milking_deaths_for_political_gain|this]] that nobody has justified how Hollywood values contributed to Ledger's death. We all acknowledge that during his life he probably did take drugs and was a selfish individual, however there is no evidence that his overdose on legal prescription drugs was a suicide attempt or reasonably affected by his drug habit. Given that the example is used in the context of death ("Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:") then I think it would be prudent to remove Ledger's entry until sufficient evidence connecting Hollywood to his death has been found, otherwise we are just sponsoring gossip. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 07:22, 2 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Of what significance is it that he was found naked in his bed? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:20, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==So?==<br />
<br />
So? What does this article intend to prove? What is its thesis? Is this article intended to somehow connect the unfortunate deaths of some people who got too involved in drugs or alcohol as an indicator that hollywood films are a bad influence? <br />
Is this article supposed to somehow connect these so-called "Hollywood Values" with liberal politics? <br />
Last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh had had an embarrassing addiction to opiate painkillers, George W. Bush had admitted to a cocaine problem, and Mel Gibson had such a drinking problem that he was accusing "the Jews" of all the evils that had ever plagued him. These three men, for example, are CONSERVATIVES. Mel Gibson even functions as part of the industry centered in HOLLYWOOD. Why is good ol' Mel not mentioned in this article? <br />
Is the anti-liberal bias in this article too overwhelming to include even one conservative who's had problems?<br />
Or, as I suspect, is Conservapedia wearing the type of blinders that see any conservative's troubles with drugs or alcohol as a momentary temptation by the liberal side? <br />
<br />
If you simply blame everything on your opponents, all the time, then you never have to think it through or acknowledge reality. Seems to be the basic M.O. here. <br />
<br />
I, for one, fail to see how Heath Ledger's accidental death from combining the wrong medications (all of which seem to have been prescribed for him) as indicative of a "Hollywood Value" system. Well, I'm sure the response will go like this: "He was NAKED! Surely, nakedness is indicative of SOME evil-doing. After all, LIBERALS SLEEP NAKED! No God-fearing person should sleep sans pajamas!"<br />
<br />
I'm disgusted.<br />
<br />
[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 14:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== What about Britney Spears? ==<br />
<br />
Britney is a very famous person, and hasn't she been to rehab?<br />
Shouldn't she be mentioned in connection with "Hollywood Values"?<br />
Just a suggestion. [[User:MikeSchwartz|MikeSchwartz]] 20:07, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Not entirely accurate ==<br />
<br />
This article doesn't really give an accurate definition of the phrase, 'Hollywood Values'. I don't really blame you, as it is very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately define it. I also made this point on the 'Liberal Denial' Talk Page, so I'll just copy the relevant part of what I said here:<br />
<br />
This phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:48, 13 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
It should also be noted that the meaning of 'Hollywood Values', according to some, is directly contradicted by what others mean by 'Hollywood Values'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Wikilinks ==<br />
<br />
Why are all these actors, singers, etc. wikilinked? Do we plan to have articles on them all? I removed most of them at some point, but I see they were added back. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Crime ==<br />
For the crime section, please stick to actual crimes. Maybe there could be another section for offensive comments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:48, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:TBH Roger, I think the linked [[Mel Gibson]] article covers it sufficiently, so - in Gibson's case at least - there's probably no need to mention it in the article at all. But perhaps you're right that there should be a section for those celebs who have demonstrated consistent/repeated immoral behaviour/outbursts but have stopped short of actually breaking the law. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 14:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Hollywood==<br />
<br />
Why are musicians and athletes included in an article about [[Hollywood]]? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:34, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== What do we do? ==<br />
<br />
Even if Hollywood values are in fact a problem, what can we possibly do about it? Make extramarital and premarital sex illegal? Or just force everyone to convert to Christianity? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Bix Biederbecke ==<br />
<br />
Not really a "Hollywood" star - Jazz musicians at the time were more liable to spend their lives in NY (as he did), Chicago, or New Orleans. Lots of jazz musicians, of course, had serious addiction problems, but it's not really intellectually honest to lump in struggling musicians - many of America's greatest jazz artists never made much money - in with wealthy movie stars. Remove? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:56, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Who compiled this silly list? ==<br />
<br />
Bix Biederbecke is hardly the only problem here. What about Brian Epstein? What did he have to do with Hollywood? What about Sid Viscious? Hollywood? I hardly think so. Richard Jeni suffered from clinical depression. Do you think that might have had something to do with his suicide? Clara Blandick was in pain and facing blindness. What has her suicide got to do with Hollywodd values? Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family. Why is she in the article? The circumstances of Virginia Rappe's death remain unknown and controversial. What has Heath Ledger's accidental overdose got to do with Hollywood or any other values? What has John Bonham got to do with Hollywood? The inquest into the death of Kenneth Williams returned an open verdict as it was not posibble to determine whether his overdose was accidental. In any case he was suffering from declining health and depression at the time.<br />
<br />
This is extremely sloppy work. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:33, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Tate ==<br />
<br />
Tate was murdered. How is that her fault? Maybe that part should just mention the Manson Family--a depraved group, indeed. [[User:Cisnon|Cisnon]] 22:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
reply to the above criticisms (prior to Tate): [[liberals]] become so literal when it becomes a basis for censoring things they don't like. [[Hollywood values]] are not literally confined to Hollywood, California, and, by the way, things like depression and overdosing on prescription drugs are a symptom of [[Hollywood values]] and occur in that group in far higher percentages than the general public. Please, no [[liberal denial]] on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
As to Tate, I welcome more information before censoring it from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
:Again, I think [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor censor] has a different meaning than [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delete delete.] Now, I'm no big city lawyer. Wait, yes I am.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:44, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Riiight... So, any time any entertainer somewhere in the (English speaking?) world suffers depression or overdoses on drugs, whether legal or prescription, whether accidentally or on purpose, that goes to show that "Hollywood values" (whatever they are) are evil. Did I say sloppy work? I withdraw that. I meant stupid, religiously driven nonsense. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Listing a pregnant murder victim as somehow indicative of "Hollywood values" is a disgrace. Sharon Tate did nothing to encourage Charles Manson to murder her; no aspect of her behavior or beliefs can excuse that, or played any role in it. Perhaps we should list her fetus as another sinner who deserved to be murdered? -- [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 23:08, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==You're bloody kidding me==<br />
Death is a value? Sexually-transmitted disease is a value? I have no clue what you're trying to say here-- That Hollywood is responsible for death and STDs? Or that actors somehow worship these two things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: You are clueless. Drug use and promiscuity are [[Hollywood values]], and they cause death.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::The paranoia in that comment aside, that still doesn't make death a value... Or disease, for that matter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:18, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::You're misreading (or misunderstanding) the entry, Bari. It doesn't say that disease and death ''are'' Hollywood values, it says that Hollywood values breed a culture that ''leads to'' disease and death.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::My apologies, it appears that you are correct... or at least you were, before the last grammar fix. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:53, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Hypocrisy ==<br />
<br />
Why was the new section Hypocrisy deleted? It was a fair point as explained eloquently at [[Liberal Hypocrisy]] I would have asked the reverting Sysop but the talk page is locked. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
:The context of Clooney portraying a US military officer was not explained. Please cease trying to attract my attention, and go back to your own website where I'm sure you will be much happier. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 10:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Context has now been added. I don't have a website. But thank you for your concern about my happiness. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:51, 17 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
This article is full of finger-pointing. I realize that Hollywood stars live lives full of questionable behavior, and I agree that they do not set good role models for all of the young fans that watch their movies and follow their lives, but we should look at our own lives, and not be so quick to point fingers like this. Shouldn't we be promoting forgiveness, as the Lord intends us?<br />
<br />
: This isn't "finger-pointing", and of course forgiveness remains available to anyone who requests it. But we're not going to stand by quietly as certain values destroy people. Would you also object if we identified how smoking has killed many people who smoke?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:46, 1 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Well, perhaps finger-pointing was the wrong word. I'm just saying, we shouldn't piously observe Hollywood stars and forget our own behavior. I would not object to identifying the wrongs of smoking, but what I find a little silly is the big list of stars and their own individual crimes. I think a more general article would be better, and we should avoid a "more words is better" approach, like Wikipedia does.<br />
<br />
: There is nothing "pious" about this. Values and lifestyles can cause harm just as surely as smoking can. Do we criticize anti-smoking statements as "pious"? Of course not. Highlighting the harm caused by [[Hollywood Values]] is not pious either. In fact, it can be scientifically studied.<br />
<br />
: The individual examples, just like individual examples of prominent smokers who died young, are powerful and just as compelling as more-difficult-to-find statistics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
To quote Aschlafly (look at the talk page for the Mathematics page) "Conservapedia does not take the childish approach of "more words is better." We strive to be concise as a good encyclopedia should. Godspeed." Perhaps this principle should be applied to this page. I think everyone understands that Hollywood values are corrupted. I don't see the need for a long list of people who have done wrong things.<br />
<br />
== removal ==<br />
<br />
How can you justify Tate being a victim of hollywood values? Please point to it? I dont want to get into an edit but you cant just add with the tag "because I say so"<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:05, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: It's self-evident from the explanation given. Tate was not a perpetrator of the crime, but became a victim of the culture in which she joined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
No it is not self evident. What culture did she join? married a film director? Associated with hippies? If that so then she was a victim of hippies values. Her 'culture' lead her to be murdered? many people get murdered and she was targeted because she was famous. That has nothing to do with so called holloywood values.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:57, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Right removing the Tate stuff again. At the time of the murder Sharon Tate has not been using drugs or alcohol, she was pregnant and the Mason family was actually interested in killing a man who refused to sign his band up. Tate was unlucky but it is clearly at odds with other deaths listed with hers as she was murdered!<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:55, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Wow: Tate's murder was just the product of chance, like getting hit by a car! No, AdenJ, Tate's murder was the result of [[Hollywood values]]. Maybe the initial intended victim was someone else, but that reinforces how [[Hollywood values]] work that they killed her instead. The entry is staying in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I give up, its totally ridiculous. Sharon Tate was murdered, It was nothing, repeat, NOTHING to do with values. Unless its the values of Manson. <br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: AdenJ, Tate's murder had ''everything'' to do with values. And, duh, that does include the [[Hollywood values]] of Manson and his followers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So its 'duh' now is it? How did Mason have hollywood values? He was in no movies and was a poor musician. How was he affected by hollywood values? Because he was obessed with The Beatles? Who wasnt at that time. He was a drug crazed hippie with a severe mental problem.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:31, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Ridiculous==<br />
<br />
This article just cherry-picks famous people (or...not, in the case of "1920s cornettists" and similar cases), and stretches a granule, albeit a malleable one, miles and miles away from the true root causes of their deaths to make some point that these people's deaths are connected to some Spectre of Glittery Death looming up over Mulholland. How many famous people are there? There must be...untold millions of YouTube phenoms, game show contestants, sandwich shop spokesman, and to highlight a few flare-ups is entirely counter to any kind of legitimacy an encyclopedic volume should have. When I look at that list, I see Sid Vicious, who, as far as I know, lived in the UK for 98% of his life. I see Elvis Presley (maybe there should be a "Memphis values" page). And Sharon Tate...Sharon Tate? Wasn't Manson actually trying to kill somebody else, someone who wasn't there (supposedly a record honcho or someother such person who denied him a chance to be on a Beach Boys record). If that's how we're gonna be about it, and say innocent pregnant sober bystanders are perpetrators of Hollywood values, then let's say those whores that Jack the Ripper killed were victims of "West End values". [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 18:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Linus has given us the fundamental [[liberal denial]]: denying that [[liberal]] values have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Aschlafly has given us the fundamental conservative denial.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:24, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::'''I don't see anywhere in my graph where I denied that liberal values have consequences'''. I think that this whole liberal/conservative jive is basically a distraction, an abstract that exists only theoretically, and even then, as a theory lend creedence by consensus. If these people's death is going to be attributed to a set of industries in a geographic location, then it's already got the integrity of arguing about air temperature. Who cares? I'm not some objectivist/nihilist (probably mutually exclusive philosophies, but often combined nonetheless by people who don't understand them), so I'm not going to deforest the issue by going on some bleat about how we're all just "computers made out of meat" or whatnot, but I think this issue is...not an issue. I'm not arguing at it from any perspective other than one which states all perspectives are already invalid if it comes from a person who cares about things like this. So to say that anybody's neurons are any better than anyone else's simply because of the choices which all the electric 1's and 0's in our brains combine to create, is stupid. Even the whole idea of "liberal denial", which is supposed to be some kind of searing label which supercedes all the fray of bickering and mudslinging, has been trampled on by reductive childishness that's rampant here. Liberal denial. That's all your arguement is here. You'll say, I'm using liberal denial because what I'm saying is a denial coming from a liberal viewpoint. You define my point of view, incorrectly, sure, but you're still just defining it. Not '''re'''fining it, not clarifying or showing how it's wrong and maybe trying to excise the benign liberal tumors you probably surmise exist within my brain stem, you're just defining it. I should have taken a hint from the logo and realized that "applying logos" and "slapping labels" is basically the fundamental economy of Conservapedia. All apologies.<br />
[[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 21:22, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
==Miley Cyrus==<br />
see http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0<br />
"They include shots of the teen wrapped in what appears to be a satin bedsheet, looking over her shoulder with her back exposed."<br />
<br />
she was not topless--<span style="margin-top: -3px;">&nbsp;[[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 21:34, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:That's your opinion and you are not an accepted reference for material. I provided not one, not two but THREE references that described the photo as "topless." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:42, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::She was topless unless you are prepared to call a sheet a "top". <br />
<br />
::Do we want to put our cards on the table people? Clearly the reason that some here do not want this addition to the Hollywood values page is that Ms Cyrus appeared on the Main Page here not long ago as an exemplar of Christian virtue when she spoke of her ambition to abstain from sex until marriage (if memory serves).<br />
<br />
::Well, now she's been photographed topless. I'll bet if it were Hillary Clinton you would all be loudly insisting that the description "topless" was absolutely accurate. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:44, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Er, no. What *is* clear is that her parents and Disney decided to let her be posed in as risque a fashion as possible - thus largely '''negating''' her value as a role model. My only objection is to the word ''topless'' which implies visible headlights rather than shrouded ones. Perhaps you'd like to right about teen [[role model]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:48, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::As I said, three references described the photo as "topless." However, I've now clarified the extend of the toplessness in the article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:50, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
topless requires that the breasts be exposed since they were not she was not topless --<span style="margin-top: -3px;">&nbsp;[[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 21:49, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:*sigh* Jinx, you can say that some sources said the girl was topless. That would come under the heading of "exaggeration", I'd say. Unless the editor in chief overturns my decision, I intend to have us all avoid that word. Let's not embarrass the girl any more than she already has been. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:52, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::That's pretty rich having regard to a number of the other accustaions and comments in the article. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No, it actually doesn't require that the breasts be exposed. Neither does "nude" require that genitals be exposed. Demi Moore was nude when she posed for Vanity Fair's cover when pregnant even though neither her breasts or genitals were exposed. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:08, 2 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I'm an easily lead, ignorant Christian. Tell me what change you'd like to see in the article - or make it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:56, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Let's dial down the fuss a bit, folks. I was the one who originally posted the Cyrus line, and I didn't intend to start a war. I used the term "topless" because, a) that's the way I've heard it reported today, and b) it's accurate, strictly speaking. However, while I recognize that in common vernacular, "topless" implies a more explicit condition than exists in this case, I expected someone to come up with a better term rather than a complete (and unwarranted) reversion. So, maybe we can keep the item, but change the descriptive word? "Suggestive"? "Racy"? "Controversial"? "Provocative"? "Naughty"? Suggestions welcome...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 21:58, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I'm letting Deborah decide this one. (If you must apply an adjective, try "risqué".) Anyway, the emphasis should be on the parents, as she is a minor and not responsible for photo shoot decisions. <br />
<br />
:We can write an article on how parents of teen stars, such as Britney Spears, Hillary Duff & Lindsay Lohan, have managed their daughters' careers. But do we have a decent article on [[Modesty]] yet? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:05, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::All good suggestions. And don't forget Brooke Shields and her mother--They were a notorious pair a quarter-century ago (not that I'm old enough to remember such things [cough]).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::As a former Disney employee, I must say the company needs to pay more attention to its [[role model]]s for tweens. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:32, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::Call me cynical but I think it's just like any mega multi-national corporation, all that matters is the bottom line. And let's face it, sex (and abstinence) sells. You know back in the studio days women had to behave very nicely otherwise they'd be fired from their contract, then the supreme court broke them up and there went the Golden (or was it Silver?) age of Hollywood.<br />
::::And anyway, shouldn't their '''parents''' be more concerned then a board of directors? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:38, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Lenny Bruce/Sharon Tate/Blaming the victim ==<br />
<br />
While Lenny did die because of a heroin OD, he was a standup comic (Comedian Values?), not an actor he only appeared on TV six times on variety/talk shows, definitely not Hollywood. I'd like to believe the government's horrible persecution of him led to his downward spiral.<br />
<br />
As far as the Tate case. Andy, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't familiar with the story, here is a [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonaccount.html link to it,] '''if you still think that she did herself in because of Hollywood values, then ''by all means'' put it back in.<br />
<br />
As for me, it makes me sick to my stomach to somehow imply that she was anyway responsible for her own death, that's worse then saying "well if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that low-cut dress".'''<br />
<br />
And just to make sure you don't go off subject and say that I'm a typical liberal, I'll admit that I '''agree''' with the premise of the article.<br />
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:02, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Goodness, no, we would never insult you like that. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:06, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Bruce Lee==<br />
<br />
ATang, please stop removing this item. Edit wars are frowned on at CP, so I suggest that if you want it deleted you seek the advice of a sysop. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Bruce Lee died of cerebral edema. Traces of a painkiller and cannabis were found postmortem. However, the cause of death was not cannabis; ergo, the link between Hollywood values and his death was not established.<br />
<br />
:Otherwise you should list every cannabis user who died, regardless of cause of death. For example - if a lone hunter was attacked by a black bear and died as a result, and they found traces of THC in his body, would you say that's the cause of death? That he died of drug use? Or that he died because of Hollywood values? (Now... if he got high and provoked the bear, that's an entirely different story...)<br />
<br />
:[[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:33, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:PS. Heh, I just saw what you typed. Merging the topics. (And I'm trying to avoid an edit war by pointing to the talk page)<br />
<br />
::He was a cannabis user, and the health risks of cannabis are well known; even today (literally) the leftist British government has reclassified cannabis as a class B drug (from being class C, the lowest class of illegal substance, A being the highest). It is scarcely surprising that cannabis use - an HV practice in itself - may well have contributed to Lee's early death. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:32, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yeah, it 'may' have - but by the same argument, UV exposure or asbestos inhalation may have contributed to his death too. My point is - when the cause of death is not conclusive, you cannot point to one single factor. Cannabis is not known to cause swelling of the brain; until there is an established link between the cerebral edema and cannabis use, I don't see how HV caused his death. Like I stated before, you cannot list every death of persons who have Hollywood Values. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 09:37, 9 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Rob Knox==<br />
He died protecting his little brother from two armed assailants. If those are Hollywood Values, sign me up.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 17:38, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Tom Moore on this one... There has been some mistake, just a misunderstanding.<br />
<br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2026826/Harry-Potter-actor's-father-Colin-Knox-visits-murder-scene.html "The father of a teenage actor who appears in the next Harry Potter film today visited the scene where the 18-year-old was stabbed to death trying to protect his younger brother from a knifeman."] [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Folks, we need more than a few minutes to discuss something before deleting it like that. Some good new information is provided above, but some of it missed the point. No one is trying to blame the victim here. [[Hollywood values]] include carousing amid drunken people, and can often include underage drinking. Trouble breaks out and victims get killed. This doesn't happen as often to people who are, for example, sleeping by midnight. More comments welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Hey, like I said, if Hollywood values include defending your little brother from being one of the many stabbed by a stranger with two knives, sign me up as a proponent.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Well, that's not saying much, because I would expect you to have been a proponent before. By the way, before you jump to conclusions, do you know who brought Rob Knox's under-aged 16-year-old brother to that drunken, late-night mayhem? Or is that question considered inappropriate when the controlling standards are [[Hollywood values]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:28, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::I have no notion who brought him there. I am not sure it matters, since the problem there would be a young man bringing his under-age brother out on the town drinking, something that is relatively minor and which doesn't seem worthy of condemnation. But since you bring it up, do you know? If not, why did you put this up in the article before you found out?<br />
::::Eh, who cares... it's your site.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:36, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::I looked, and can't find that information. I'll check the CNN report of the story.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:37, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::Nope, doesn't seem to have been reported. Although incidentally, while you're reading this, you might want to add to the News section that Bob Barr was nominated as the Libertarian candidate for this year. [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/25/barr.election/index.html Story is here], and conservatives are probably interested.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:40, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: The account the fight which killed Rob Knox is described differently from your accounts above here: [http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1204418.ece]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::::I was going by the link above, wherein a stranger with two kitchen knives approached them and began stabbing people. This is a much more detailed account, but no less tragic. His friend thought a stranger had stolen his phone and accused the guy of it, and later the guy comes back with some friends, one of whom starts stabbing people.<br />
::::::At the very least, this change to the article is in very bad taste so soon. But again, you own this place, so I guess you get to make that final call. I obviously disagree with the whole premise of the article, so I don't expect you to take my views much to account on the matter.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 20:14, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::At best, it's a weak example that doesn't serve the broad thrust of your argument particularly well. As charity decreases, it looks variously: inappropriate -> ridiculous -> mean-spirited. If you insist on keeping it, I'd suggest making a new section and leading in with the kind of qualifications you made above. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 20:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I'm seeking the truth just as others should be here, and there is obviously more to the Rob Knox tragedy than the simple story that you insisted upon above. According to the more detailed account, the fight was expected. Note also that the victim's under-aged brother is an Olympic-level expert in karate, and that the fight was in or around a bar after midnight. This is still a terrible tragedy, to be sure, but values undeniably played a role in it, as in deaths from drunken driving. We'll say prayers for the victims '''and''' speak out against the causes. Liberals do neither.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
A young man who has played a minor role in a movie is stabbed to death in London, and within hours of his death you add him to this page as an example of "Hollywood values". That is '''vile'''. I do not know the details of the case, but nor do you, and nor does anyone. Someone has just been arrested, and the facts are simply not known. Jumping to conclusions like this, and acting with unseemly haste to use the Knox family's tragedy as fuel for your anti-Hollywood/anti-liberal campaign is disgusting. Please delete this appalling addition to the article. It does not do the Conservapedia image any good at all. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:29, 27 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
:There's probably a name for those who make capital out of the suffering of others. Oh yes - SCUM! [[User:WarrenG|WarrenG]] 08:31, 27 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Chaplin==<br />
I saw the addition for Chaplin under divorce and I wonder if it's not worth mentioning some of the large age gaps between married Hollywood types? Chaplin met his last wife (Oona?) when she was dating one of his sons. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]]<sub>[[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']]</sub> 10:35, 30 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Wow, that's shocking. Yes, please add that with a citation. (I should have added a citation for mine also.) Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:45, 30 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Thank you, will do so. I have it mentioned in a book at home, so I'll put it up later tonight, with a few other examples I know are in there. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]]<sub>[[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']]</sub> 10:51, 30 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Hypocrisy - all specious ==<br />
<br />
Would someone please tell me what is ''hypocritical'' an actor "act[ing] in movies contrary to their public opinions"? Isn't that simply what actors do - '''act'''? This section of the article seems to be based on a very naive confusion of an actor's role-playing with his or her real-life views and actions. In its present form, I don't think it adds anything of value. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: To a degree, you're right, but when an actor profits enormously by exploiting a sentiment which he simultaneously harshly criticizes (in appeasement of [[liberals]]), it begs the question: dude, if you think it's so wrong, then why do you profit so much from it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Not convinced. You seem to be saying that no actor should accept an offer to play roles like Shylock, Iago, or Hannibal Lecter. That would make for some pretty thin plot-lines... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 10:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: No, you overstate it. A better example would be if a [[conservative]] starred in a movie featuring sex and nudity. The howls of protest by [[liberals]] would be deafening!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::But, [[Hollywood values]] embrassed by all [[Liberals]] would mean they were desensortised to this. <br />
<br />
::::Actually could you explain this why would "liberals" be out raged, you have spent all this time saying they like that in their movies. People only seem to care about movies featuring sex and nudity when some former child star appears in them and news reporting go along the line "she (it is always she they care about) is sheading her innocent image". This might comes as a shock to you but most of the world doesn't think of actors as liberal/conservative and judge their movies on that basis. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:30, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== At a certain point, it would probably pay to be selective ==<br />
<br />
<br />
At some point I would advise to only use examples that best show the point trying to be made. For instance there are certainly many Hollywood divorces, but we have chosen to only point to a few that give the greatest examples of particular excess. Other areas of the article may wish to do the same. Drew Barrymore's stint in rehab as a young girl would be a good one. Ryan O'Neal thinking that Lee Majors telling him to look out for his wife while he was away on a trip meant to have sex with her would be another. Woody Allen's picture taking, the death of Dorothy Stratten, Morrison's burnout death and his girlfriend being beaten to death by a baseball bat by her next boyfriend, all would be notable examples. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:20, 4 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Crime: Innocent until proven guilty ==<br />
<br />
I think that there may be a certain level of contradiction here. Although we ''can'' use arrests as a way to suggest hedonistic activity of Hollywood stars, we're mentioning an accusation without proof they were convicted of the actual crime.<br />
<br />
Perhaps we can delete and find other conviction examples. If not we can provide a reminder that we recognize that they are innocent until proven guilty. BTW: I'm not suggesting it's wrong in essence, but it could potentially confuse readers who are trying to understand things.<br />
--[[User:Borneo|Borneo]] 05:34, 6 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Is it just me, or is this a bit one-sided? ==<br />
<br />
I think that this entire article, from the first line, is very condescending and even slanderous. This isn't an article about "Hollywood Values" (which I am convinced is a made up word), it's simply a list of drug deaths and crimes committed by people who happen to be / have been in Hollywood.<br />
<br />
While the sources for the statistics are cited, perhaps it would be more appropriate to include interviews and quotes from Hollywood stars on their values. One could also delve into the history of Hollywood, and how it has molded the culture and values that are present there now.<br />
<br />
If this is really an article on Hollywood Values, someone needs to gather up primary sources relevant to this topic. Otherwise, this article should be renamed "List of Bad Things about Hollywood People."<br />
<br />
==Charity work==<br />
I notice that a section on charity work has been removed. If entertainers are in fact sincerely raising money to help the needy isn't that part of their values and should be included in "Hollywood values"? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 10:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:No, because Hollywood Values are not the across-the-board-values of all who have worked in Hollywood. Do not be fooled into over-literalism, a crutch of [[Liberals]] who are unable to make logical pointsin debate. [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[Charlton Heston]] worked in Hollywood, and did a huge amount for good causes, but were a world away from 'Hollywood Values'. Try reading the article properly! Best wishes, [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
So, let me get this straight...<br />
<br />
Only some liberals follow liberal style and every other article beginning with the word "Liberal"<br />
<br />
Only some people in Hollywood follow Hollywood values.<br />
<br />
So really, nothing substantiative is in these articles, and it's little more than a shoddy smearjob against the rich (Hollywood) and the Left.<br />
<br />
Trustworthy indeed. [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 10:49, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So are you saying that "Hollywood values" refers only to the ''negative'' values of people who work in Hollywood, and that any positive values that might be held by people in Hollywood are ''not'' considered part of Hollywood values? Isn't that a bit biased? How would we feel if people started talking about "Republican values" but meant only the negative aspects? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 11:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Daphnea and EBrown, you are hopeless cases. HV refers to the pernicious effects of the cult of celebrity, which leads sufferers to feel that they are above all legal, moral or societal rules. It is, perhaps, significant that you are quibbling with the title and definitions through the medium of an absurd literalism. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I assumed that "Hollywood values" would be about the values espoused by Hollywood; while that is largely negative in contrast with conservative values I feel it is only honest to mention the positive aspects when they occur; unless the article ''by definition'' is only about the negative aspects, which is the question I asked. I'm assuming from your reply that it ''is'' only about the negative values. Now I can edit it accordingly. When did asking for clarification become an "absurd literalism"? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:32, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Productions==<br />
I put back a deleted edit after revising it on the advice of [[User:Bugler]]. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Please don't revert edits that '''you told me to do'''! To be a little more conversational, I was following an edit which was approved by another editor pointing out that not everybody in Hollywood goes along with "Hollywood values". Likewise it is sensible to point out that not all Hollywood productions go along with "Hollywood values". If we don't do this then in the first case someone reading this (especially a child) might go away with the impression that ''everyone'' involved in Hollywood is evil, and thus grow up hating Ronald Reagan and Charlton Heston. I the second case they might avoid seeing The Chronicle of Narnia because it's a "Hollywood" production. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:18, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:I didn't tell you to do it here, Daphnea. I said that the correct place for such a statement was on a page bout Hollywood, or about the entertainment industry. HV is not the same as Hollywood. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:20, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:So what do you think of what I said above? Do you want people to start thinking Ronald Reagan went along with Hollywood Values? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Hollywood_values&diff=482414Talk:Hollywood values2008-06-26T21:22:03Z<p>Daphnea: /* Productions */</p>
<hr />
<div>This obviously needs more stuff, but I stub'd it so the red link on the main page went away.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 22:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Unlike reality, which clearly has none of these things. Perhaps a random use of the word "glamourization" is in order? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)<br />
Barikada, I think that's a central point! It's not only disrespect for morals, it's flagrant glamorization of lack of morals! I'll leave it to you to add it, but good call.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 19:59, 23 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:Thanks. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
MexMax - please stop reinserting the unsubstantiated information into the article. Thank you. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
MexMax - any and all talk of whether Heath Ledger's death was due to 'Hollywood Values' should be left until AFTER the autopsy and inquest have been published. Mr. Schalfly's previous version of the article was based on a celebrity gossip article, and has been superceded by real information from the police. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:40, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:I'm sorry for jumping the gun. That seems truthful, I apologize for reverting without looking closer. I thought we were just doing the same edit war over and over again...[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
::One point: I think the MTV article should be treated as, errr, second best. Is there a better citation? I think we'd rather not cite to MTV unless we have no other chance.[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Possible Inclusions==<br />
<br />
A few suggestions for the list, off the top of my head: Marilyn Monroe would be a prime (and notorious) example. Chris Farley, who's stated goal was to live and die like Belushi. Janis Joplin. Anna Nicole Smith. Freddie Prinze. Rock Hudson. And depending on how comprehensive you want the list to be, there's an almost endless parade of people who were more famous as part of a group than as individuals, such as Keith Moon or Dennis Wilson.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:16, 25 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I did a search for Hollywood liberals and came up with [http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ this] website. On the front page I see that the cops are invertviewing Mary Kate Olsen about the suspicious circumstances in Ledger's death, David Copperfield has had two childred out of wedlock, Britney Spears is finally making it to her custody hearing to see if she can stay off drugs long enough to take care of her own kids, and Kiefer Sutherland is being let out of jail after a DUI charge. Hollywood values at their best! (Or should I say worst?) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
If an MTV reference is frowned upon, I can hardly see a credible argument for references to The National Enquirer? It's not exactly known for its adherence to fact-based logic, is it? [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Why not? I bet they had articles on every one of the people we have in the article right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:21, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::There's a reason that tabloids are also known as "Gossip rags." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
The people putting these lists together do not seem to realize that in making a case linking "Hollywood values"--not coherently defined in the article, by the way--to early death or criminality it is not enough simply to cite examples; it needs to be demonstrated that these alleged consequences are ''more likely'' to occur to those who adopt these values than to the general population. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Heath Ledger==<br />
<br />
How did Hollywood values contribute to his death? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 04:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:It is clear upon reviewing [[User_talk:Fox#Heath_Ledger|this]] and [[Talk:Main_Page#Milking_deaths_for_political_gain|this]] that nobody has justified how Hollywood values contributed to Ledger's death. We all acknowledge that during his life he probably did take drugs and was a selfish individual, however there is no evidence that his overdose on legal prescription drugs was a suicide attempt or reasonably affected by his drug habit. Given that the example is used in the context of death ("Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:") then I think it would be prudent to remove Ledger's entry until sufficient evidence connecting Hollywood to his death has been found, otherwise we are just sponsoring gossip. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 07:22, 2 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Of what significance is it that he was found naked in his bed? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:20, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==So?==<br />
<br />
So? What does this article intend to prove? What is its thesis? Is this article intended to somehow connect the unfortunate deaths of some people who got too involved in drugs or alcohol as an indicator that hollywood films are a bad influence? <br />
Is this article supposed to somehow connect these so-called "Hollywood Values" with liberal politics? <br />
Last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh had had an embarrassing addiction to opiate painkillers, George W. Bush had admitted to a cocaine problem, and Mel Gibson had such a drinking problem that he was accusing "the Jews" of all the evils that had ever plagued him. These three men, for example, are CONSERVATIVES. Mel Gibson even functions as part of the industry centered in HOLLYWOOD. Why is good ol' Mel not mentioned in this article? <br />
Is the anti-liberal bias in this article too overwhelming to include even one conservative who's had problems?<br />
Or, as I suspect, is Conservapedia wearing the type of blinders that see any conservative's troubles with drugs or alcohol as a momentary temptation by the liberal side? <br />
<br />
If you simply blame everything on your opponents, all the time, then you never have to think it through or acknowledge reality. Seems to be the basic M.O. here. <br />
<br />
I, for one, fail to see how Heath Ledger's accidental death from combining the wrong medications (all of which seem to have been prescribed for him) as indicative of a "Hollywood Value" system. Well, I'm sure the response will go like this: "He was NAKED! Surely, nakedness is indicative of SOME evil-doing. After all, LIBERALS SLEEP NAKED! No God-fearing person should sleep sans pajamas!"<br />
<br />
I'm disgusted.<br />
<br />
[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 14:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== What about Britney Spears? ==<br />
<br />
Britney is a very famous person, and hasn't she been to rehab?<br />
Shouldn't she be mentioned in connection with "Hollywood Values"?<br />
Just a suggestion. [[User:MikeSchwartz|MikeSchwartz]] 20:07, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Not entirely accurate ==<br />
<br />
This article doesn't really give an accurate definition of the phrase, 'Hollywood Values'. I don't really blame you, as it is very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately define it. I also made this point on the 'Liberal Denial' Talk Page, so I'll just copy the relevant part of what I said here:<br />
<br />
This phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:48, 13 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
It should also be noted that the meaning of 'Hollywood Values', according to some, is directly contradicted by what others mean by 'Hollywood Values'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Wikilinks ==<br />
<br />
Why are all these actors, singers, etc. wikilinked? Do we plan to have articles on them all? I removed most of them at some point, but I see they were added back. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Crime ==<br />
For the crime section, please stick to actual crimes. Maybe there could be another section for offensive comments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:48, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:TBH Roger, I think the linked [[Mel Gibson]] article covers it sufficiently, so - in Gibson's case at least - there's probably no need to mention it in the article at all. But perhaps you're right that there should be a section for those celebs who have demonstrated consistent/repeated immoral behaviour/outbursts but have stopped short of actually breaking the law. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 14:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Hollywood==<br />
<br />
Why are musicians and athletes included in an article about [[Hollywood]]? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:34, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== What do we do? ==<br />
<br />
Even if Hollywood values are in fact a problem, what can we possibly do about it? Make extramarital and premarital sex illegal? Or just force everyone to convert to Christianity? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Bix Biederbecke ==<br />
<br />
Not really a "Hollywood" star - Jazz musicians at the time were more liable to spend their lives in NY (as he did), Chicago, or New Orleans. Lots of jazz musicians, of course, had serious addiction problems, but it's not really intellectually honest to lump in struggling musicians - many of America's greatest jazz artists never made much money - in with wealthy movie stars. Remove? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:56, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Who compiled this silly list? ==<br />
<br />
Bix Biederbecke is hardly the only problem here. What about Brian Epstein? What did he have to do with Hollywood? What about Sid Viscious? Hollywood? I hardly think so. Richard Jeni suffered from clinical depression. Do you think that might have had something to do with his suicide? Clara Blandick was in pain and facing blindness. What has her suicide got to do with Hollywodd values? Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family. Why is she in the article? The circumstances of Virginia Rappe's death remain unknown and controversial. What has Heath Ledger's accidental overdose got to do with Hollywood or any other values? What has John Bonham got to do with Hollywood? The inquest into the death of Kenneth Williams returned an open verdict as it was not posibble to determine whether his overdose was accidental. In any case he was suffering from declining health and depression at the time.<br />
<br />
This is extremely sloppy work. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:33, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Tate ==<br />
<br />
Tate was murdered. How is that her fault? Maybe that part should just mention the Manson Family--a depraved group, indeed. [[User:Cisnon|Cisnon]] 22:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
reply to the above criticisms (prior to Tate): [[liberals]] become so literal when it becomes a basis for censoring things they don't like. [[Hollywood values]] are not literally confined to Hollywood, California, and, by the way, things like depression and overdosing on prescription drugs are a symptom of [[Hollywood values]] and occur in that group in far higher percentages than the general public. Please, no [[liberal denial]] on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
As to Tate, I welcome more information before censoring it from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
:Again, I think [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor censor] has a different meaning than [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delete delete.] Now, I'm no big city lawyer. Wait, yes I am.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:44, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Riiight... So, any time any entertainer somewhere in the (English speaking?) world suffers depression or overdoses on drugs, whether legal or prescription, whether accidentally or on purpose, that goes to show that "Hollywood values" (whatever they are) are evil. Did I say sloppy work? I withdraw that. I meant stupid, religiously driven nonsense. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Listing a pregnant murder victim as somehow indicative of "Hollywood values" is a disgrace. Sharon Tate did nothing to encourage Charles Manson to murder her; no aspect of her behavior or beliefs can excuse that, or played any role in it. Perhaps we should list her fetus as another sinner who deserved to be murdered? -- [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 23:08, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==You're bloody kidding me==<br />
Death is a value? Sexually-transmitted disease is a value? I have no clue what you're trying to say here-- That Hollywood is responsible for death and STDs? Or that actors somehow worship these two things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: You are clueless. Drug use and promiscuity are [[Hollywood values]], and they cause death.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::The paranoia in that comment aside, that still doesn't make death a value... Or disease, for that matter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:18, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::You're misreading (or misunderstanding) the entry, Bari. It doesn't say that disease and death ''are'' Hollywood values, it says that Hollywood values breed a culture that ''leads to'' disease and death.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::My apologies, it appears that you are correct... or at least you were, before the last grammar fix. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:53, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Hypocrisy ==<br />
<br />
Why was the new section Hypocrisy deleted? It was a fair point as explained eloquently at [[Liberal Hypocrisy]] I would have asked the reverting Sysop but the talk page is locked. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
:The context of Clooney portraying a US military officer was not explained. Please cease trying to attract my attention, and go back to your own website where I'm sure you will be much happier. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 10:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Context has now been added. I don't have a website. But thank you for your concern about my happiness. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:51, 17 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
This article is full of finger-pointing. I realize that Hollywood stars live lives full of questionable behavior, and I agree that they do not set good role models for all of the young fans that watch their movies and follow their lives, but we should look at our own lives, and not be so quick to point fingers like this. Shouldn't we be promoting forgiveness, as the Lord intends us?<br />
<br />
: This isn't "finger-pointing", and of course forgiveness remains available to anyone who requests it. But we're not going to stand by quietly as certain values destroy people. Would you also object if we identified how smoking has killed many people who smoke?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:46, 1 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Well, perhaps finger-pointing was the wrong word. I'm just saying, we shouldn't piously observe Hollywood stars and forget our own behavior. I would not object to identifying the wrongs of smoking, but what I find a little silly is the big list of stars and their own individual crimes. I think a more general article would be better, and we should avoid a "more words is better" approach, like Wikipedia does.<br />
<br />
: There is nothing "pious" about this. Values and lifestyles can cause harm just as surely as smoking can. Do we criticize anti-smoking statements as "pious"? Of course not. Highlighting the harm caused by [[Hollywood Values]] is not pious either. In fact, it can be scientifically studied.<br />
<br />
: The individual examples, just like individual examples of prominent smokers who died young, are powerful and just as compelling as more-difficult-to-find statistics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
To quote Aschlafly (look at the talk page for the Mathematics page) "Conservapedia does not take the childish approach of "more words is better." We strive to be concise as a good encyclopedia should. Godspeed." Perhaps this principle should be applied to this page. I think everyone understands that Hollywood values are corrupted. I don't see the need for a long list of people who have done wrong things.<br />
<br />
== removal ==<br />
<br />
How can you justify Tate being a victim of hollywood values? Please point to it? I dont want to get into an edit but you cant just add with the tag "because I say so"<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:05, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: It's self-evident from the explanation given. Tate was not a perpetrator of the crime, but became a victim of the culture in which she joined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
No it is not self evident. What culture did she join? married a film director? Associated with hippies? If that so then she was a victim of hippies values. Her 'culture' lead her to be murdered? many people get murdered and she was targeted because she was famous. That has nothing to do with so called holloywood values.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:57, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Right removing the Tate stuff again. At the time of the murder Sharon Tate has not been using drugs or alcohol, she was pregnant and the Mason family was actually interested in killing a man who refused to sign his band up. Tate was unlucky but it is clearly at odds with other deaths listed with hers as she was murdered!<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:55, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Wow: Tate's murder was just the product of chance, like getting hit by a car! No, AdenJ, Tate's murder was the result of [[Hollywood values]]. Maybe the initial intended victim was someone else, but that reinforces how [[Hollywood values]] work that they killed her instead. The entry is staying in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I give up, its totally ridiculous. Sharon Tate was murdered, It was nothing, repeat, NOTHING to do with values. Unless its the values of Manson. <br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: AdenJ, Tate's murder had ''everything'' to do with values. And, duh, that does include the [[Hollywood values]] of Manson and his followers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So its 'duh' now is it? How did Mason have hollywood values? He was in no movies and was a poor musician. How was he affected by hollywood values? Because he was obessed with The Beatles? Who wasnt at that time. He was a drug crazed hippie with a severe mental problem.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:31, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Ridiculous==<br />
<br />
This article just cherry-picks famous people (or...not, in the case of "1920s cornettists" and similar cases), and stretches a granule, albeit a malleable one, miles and miles away from the true root causes of their deaths to make some point that these people's deaths are connected to some Spectre of Glittery Death looming up over Mulholland. How many famous people are there? There must be...untold millions of YouTube phenoms, game show contestants, sandwich shop spokesman, and to highlight a few flare-ups is entirely counter to any kind of legitimacy an encyclopedic volume should have. When I look at that list, I see Sid Vicious, who, as far as I know, lived in the UK for 98% of his life. I see Elvis Presley (maybe there should be a "Memphis values" page). And Sharon Tate...Sharon Tate? Wasn't Manson actually trying to kill somebody else, someone who wasn't there (supposedly a record honcho or someother such person who denied him a chance to be on a Beach Boys record). If that's how we're gonna be about it, and say innocent pregnant sober bystanders are perpetrators of Hollywood values, then let's say those whores that Jack the Ripper killed were victims of "West End values". [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 18:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Linus has given us the fundamental [[liberal denial]]: denying that [[liberal]] values have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Aschlafly has given us the fundamental conservative denial.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:24, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::'''I don't see anywhere in my graph where I denied that liberal values have consequences'''. I think that this whole liberal/conservative jive is basically a distraction, an abstract that exists only theoretically, and even then, as a theory lend creedence by consensus. If these people's death is going to be attributed to a set of industries in a geographic location, then it's already got the integrity of arguing about air temperature. Who cares? I'm not some objectivist/nihilist (probably mutually exclusive philosophies, but often combined nonetheless by people who don't understand them), so I'm not going to deforest the issue by going on some bleat about how we're all just "computers made out of meat" or whatnot, but I think this issue is...not an issue. I'm not arguing at it from any perspective other than one which states all perspectives are already invalid if it comes from a person who cares about things like this. So to say that anybody's neurons are any better than anyone else's simply because of the choices which all the electric 1's and 0's in our brains combine to create, is stupid. Even the whole idea of "liberal denial", which is supposed to be some kind of searing label which supercedes all the fray of bickering and mudslinging, has been trampled on by reductive childishness that's rampant here. Liberal denial. That's all your arguement is here. You'll say, I'm using liberal denial because what I'm saying is a denial coming from a liberal viewpoint. You define my point of view, incorrectly, sure, but you're still just defining it. Not '''re'''fining it, not clarifying or showing how it's wrong and maybe trying to excise the benign liberal tumors you probably surmise exist within my brain stem, you're just defining it. I should have taken a hint from the logo and realized that "applying logos" and "slapping labels" is basically the fundamental economy of Conservapedia. All apologies.<br />
[[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 21:22, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
==Miley Cyrus==<br />
see http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0<br />
"They include shots of the teen wrapped in what appears to be a satin bedsheet, looking over her shoulder with her back exposed."<br />
<br />
she was not topless--<span style="margin-top: -3px;">&nbsp;[[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 21:34, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:That's your opinion and you are not an accepted reference for material. I provided not one, not two but THREE references that described the photo as "topless." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:42, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::She was topless unless you are prepared to call a sheet a "top". <br />
<br />
::Do we want to put our cards on the table people? Clearly the reason that some here do not want this addition to the Hollywood values page is that Ms Cyrus appeared on the Main Page here not long ago as an exemplar of Christian virtue when she spoke of her ambition to abstain from sex until marriage (if memory serves).<br />
<br />
::Well, now she's been photographed topless. I'll bet if it were Hillary Clinton you would all be loudly insisting that the description "topless" was absolutely accurate. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:44, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Er, no. What *is* clear is that her parents and Disney decided to let her be posed in as risque a fashion as possible - thus largely '''negating''' her value as a role model. My only objection is to the word ''topless'' which implies visible headlights rather than shrouded ones. Perhaps you'd like to right about teen [[role model]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:48, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::As I said, three references described the photo as "topless." However, I've now clarified the extend of the toplessness in the article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:50, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
topless requires that the breasts be exposed since they were not she was not topless --<span style="margin-top: -3px;">&nbsp;[[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 21:49, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:*sigh* Jinx, you can say that some sources said the girl was topless. That would come under the heading of "exaggeration", I'd say. Unless the editor in chief overturns my decision, I intend to have us all avoid that word. Let's not embarrass the girl any more than she already has been. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:52, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::That's pretty rich having regard to a number of the other accustaions and comments in the article. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No, it actually doesn't require that the breasts be exposed. Neither does "nude" require that genitals be exposed. Demi Moore was nude when she posed for Vanity Fair's cover when pregnant even though neither her breasts or genitals were exposed. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:08, 2 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I'm an easily lead, ignorant Christian. Tell me what change you'd like to see in the article - or make it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:56, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Let's dial down the fuss a bit, folks. I was the one who originally posted the Cyrus line, and I didn't intend to start a war. I used the term "topless" because, a) that's the way I've heard it reported today, and b) it's accurate, strictly speaking. However, while I recognize that in common vernacular, "topless" implies a more explicit condition than exists in this case, I expected someone to come up with a better term rather than a complete (and unwarranted) reversion. So, maybe we can keep the item, but change the descriptive word? "Suggestive"? "Racy"? "Controversial"? "Provocative"? "Naughty"? Suggestions welcome...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 21:58, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I'm letting Deborah decide this one. (If you must apply an adjective, try "risqué".) Anyway, the emphasis should be on the parents, as she is a minor and not responsible for photo shoot decisions. <br />
<br />
:We can write an article on how parents of teen stars, such as Britney Spears, Hillary Duff & Lindsay Lohan, have managed their daughters' careers. But do we have a decent article on [[Modesty]] yet? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:05, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::All good suggestions. And don't forget Brooke Shields and her mother--They were a notorious pair a quarter-century ago (not that I'm old enough to remember such things [cough]).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::As a former Disney employee, I must say the company needs to pay more attention to its [[role model]]s for tweens. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:32, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::Call me cynical but I think it's just like any mega multi-national corporation, all that matters is the bottom line. And let's face it, sex (and abstinence) sells. You know back in the studio days women had to behave very nicely otherwise they'd be fired from their contract, then the supreme court broke them up and there went the Golden (or was it Silver?) age of Hollywood.<br />
::::And anyway, shouldn't their '''parents''' be more concerned then a board of directors? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:38, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Lenny Bruce/Sharon Tate/Blaming the victim ==<br />
<br />
While Lenny did die because of a heroin OD, he was a standup comic (Comedian Values?), not an actor he only appeared on TV six times on variety/talk shows, definitely not Hollywood. I'd like to believe the government's horrible persecution of him led to his downward spiral.<br />
<br />
As far as the Tate case. Andy, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't familiar with the story, here is a [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonaccount.html link to it,] '''if you still think that she did herself in because of Hollywood values, then ''by all means'' put it back in.<br />
<br />
As for me, it makes me sick to my stomach to somehow imply that she was anyway responsible for her own death, that's worse then saying "well if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that low-cut dress".'''<br />
<br />
And just to make sure you don't go off subject and say that I'm a typical liberal, I'll admit that I '''agree''' with the premise of the article.<br />
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:02, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Goodness, no, we would never insult you like that. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:06, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Bruce Lee==<br />
<br />
ATang, please stop removing this item. Edit wars are frowned on at CP, so I suggest that if you want it deleted you seek the advice of a sysop. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Bruce Lee died of cerebral edema. Traces of a painkiller and cannabis were found postmortem. However, the cause of death was not cannabis; ergo, the link between Hollywood values and his death was not established.<br />
<br />
:Otherwise you should list every cannabis user who died, regardless of cause of death. For example - if a lone hunter was attacked by a black bear and died as a result, and they found traces of THC in his body, would you say that's the cause of death? That he died of drug use? Or that he died because of Hollywood values? (Now... if he got high and provoked the bear, that's an entirely different story...)<br />
<br />
:[[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:33, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:PS. Heh, I just saw what you typed. Merging the topics. (And I'm trying to avoid an edit war by pointing to the talk page)<br />
<br />
::He was a cannabis user, and the health risks of cannabis are well known; even today (literally) the leftist British government has reclassified cannabis as a class B drug (from being class C, the lowest class of illegal substance, A being the highest). It is scarcely surprising that cannabis use - an HV practice in itself - may well have contributed to Lee's early death. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:32, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yeah, it 'may' have - but by the same argument, UV exposure or asbestos inhalation may have contributed to his death too. My point is - when the cause of death is not conclusive, you cannot point to one single factor. Cannabis is not known to cause swelling of the brain; until there is an established link between the cerebral edema and cannabis use, I don't see how HV caused his death. Like I stated before, you cannot list every death of persons who have Hollywood Values. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 09:37, 9 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Rob Knox==<br />
He died protecting his little brother from two armed assailants. If those are Hollywood Values, sign me up.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 17:38, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Tom Moore on this one... There has been some mistake, just a misunderstanding.<br />
<br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2026826/Harry-Potter-actor's-father-Colin-Knox-visits-murder-scene.html "The father of a teenage actor who appears in the next Harry Potter film today visited the scene where the 18-year-old was stabbed to death trying to protect his younger brother from a knifeman."] [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Folks, we need more than a few minutes to discuss something before deleting it like that. Some good new information is provided above, but some of it missed the point. No one is trying to blame the victim here. [[Hollywood values]] include carousing amid drunken people, and can often include underage drinking. Trouble breaks out and victims get killed. This doesn't happen as often to people who are, for example, sleeping by midnight. More comments welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Hey, like I said, if Hollywood values include defending your little brother from being one of the many stabbed by a stranger with two knives, sign me up as a proponent.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Well, that's not saying much, because I would expect you to have been a proponent before. By the way, before you jump to conclusions, do you know who brought Rob Knox's under-aged 16-year-old brother to that drunken, late-night mayhem? Or is that question considered inappropriate when the controlling standards are [[Hollywood values]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:28, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::I have no notion who brought him there. I am not sure it matters, since the problem there would be a young man bringing his under-age brother out on the town drinking, something that is relatively minor and which doesn't seem worthy of condemnation. But since you bring it up, do you know? If not, why did you put this up in the article before you found out?<br />
::::Eh, who cares... it's your site.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:36, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::I looked, and can't find that information. I'll check the CNN report of the story.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:37, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::Nope, doesn't seem to have been reported. Although incidentally, while you're reading this, you might want to add to the News section that Bob Barr was nominated as the Libertarian candidate for this year. [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/25/barr.election/index.html Story is here], and conservatives are probably interested.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:40, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: The account the fight which killed Rob Knox is described differently from your accounts above here: [http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1204418.ece]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::::I was going by the link above, wherein a stranger with two kitchen knives approached them and began stabbing people. This is a much more detailed account, but no less tragic. His friend thought a stranger had stolen his phone and accused the guy of it, and later the guy comes back with some friends, one of whom starts stabbing people.<br />
::::::At the very least, this change to the article is in very bad taste so soon. But again, you own this place, so I guess you get to make that final call. I obviously disagree with the whole premise of the article, so I don't expect you to take my views much to account on the matter.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 20:14, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::At best, it's a weak example that doesn't serve the broad thrust of your argument particularly well. As charity decreases, it looks variously: inappropriate -> ridiculous -> mean-spirited. If you insist on keeping it, I'd suggest making a new section and leading in with the kind of qualifications you made above. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 20:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I'm seeking the truth just as others should be here, and there is obviously more to the Rob Knox tragedy than the simple story that you insisted upon above. According to the more detailed account, the fight was expected. Note also that the victim's under-aged brother is an Olympic-level expert in karate, and that the fight was in or around a bar after midnight. This is still a terrible tragedy, to be sure, but values undeniably played a role in it, as in deaths from drunken driving. We'll say prayers for the victims '''and''' speak out against the causes. Liberals do neither.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
A young man who has played a minor role in a movie is stabbed to death in London, and within hours of his death you add him to this page as an example of "Hollywood values". That is '''vile'''. I do not know the details of the case, but nor do you, and nor does anyone. Someone has just been arrested, and the facts are simply not known. Jumping to conclusions like this, and acting with unseemly haste to use the Knox family's tragedy as fuel for your anti-Hollywood/anti-liberal campaign is disgusting. Please delete this appalling addition to the article. It does not do the Conservapedia image any good at all. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:29, 27 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
:There's probably a name for those who make capital out of the suffering of others. Oh yes - SCUM! [[User:WarrenG|WarrenG]] 08:31, 27 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Chaplin==<br />
I saw the addition for Chaplin under divorce and I wonder if it's not worth mentioning some of the large age gaps between married Hollywood types? Chaplin met his last wife (Oona?) when she was dating one of his sons. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]]<sub>[[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']]</sub> 10:35, 30 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Wow, that's shocking. Yes, please add that with a citation. (I should have added a citation for mine also.) Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:45, 30 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Thank you, will do so. I have it mentioned in a book at home, so I'll put it up later tonight, with a few other examples I know are in there. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]]<sub>[[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']]</sub> 10:51, 30 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Hypocrisy - all specious ==<br />
<br />
Would someone please tell me what is ''hypocritical'' an actor "act[ing] in movies contrary to their public opinions"? Isn't that simply what actors do - '''act'''? This section of the article seems to be based on a very naive confusion of an actor's role-playing with his or her real-life views and actions. In its present form, I don't think it adds anything of value. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: To a degree, you're right, but when an actor profits enormously by exploiting a sentiment which he simultaneously harshly criticizes (in appeasement of [[liberals]]), it begs the question: dude, if you think it's so wrong, then why do you profit so much from it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Not convinced. You seem to be saying that no actor should accept an offer to play roles like Shylock, Iago, or Hannibal Lecter. That would make for some pretty thin plot-lines... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 10:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: No, you overstate it. A better example would be if a [[conservative]] starred in a movie featuring sex and nudity. The howls of protest by [[liberals]] would be deafening!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::But, [[Hollywood values]] embrassed by all [[Liberals]] would mean they were desensortised to this. <br />
<br />
::::Actually could you explain this why would "liberals" be out raged, you have spent all this time saying they like that in their movies. People only seem to care about movies featuring sex and nudity when some former child star appears in them and news reporting go along the line "she (it is always she they care about) is sheading her innocent image". This might comes as a shock to you but most of the world doesn't think of actors as liberal/conservative and judge their movies on that basis. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:30, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== At a certain point, it would probably pay to be selective ==<br />
<br />
<br />
At some point I would advise to only use examples that best show the point trying to be made. For instance there are certainly many Hollywood divorces, but we have chosen to only point to a few that give the greatest examples of particular excess. Other areas of the article may wish to do the same. Drew Barrymore's stint in rehab as a young girl would be a good one. Ryan O'Neal thinking that Lee Majors telling him to look out for his wife while he was away on a trip meant to have sex with her would be another. Woody Allen's picture taking, the death of Dorothy Stratten, Morrison's burnout death and his girlfriend being beaten to death by a baseball bat by her next boyfriend, all would be notable examples. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:20, 4 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Crime: Innocent until proven guilty ==<br />
<br />
I think that there may be a certain level of contradiction here. Although we ''can'' use arrests as a way to suggest hedonistic activity of Hollywood stars, we're mentioning an accusation without proof they were convicted of the actual crime.<br />
<br />
Perhaps we can delete and find other conviction examples. If not we can provide a reminder that we recognize that they are innocent until proven guilty. BTW: I'm not suggesting it's wrong in essence, but it could potentially confuse readers who are trying to understand things.<br />
--[[User:Borneo|Borneo]] 05:34, 6 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Is it just me, or is this a bit one-sided? ==<br />
<br />
I think that this entire article, from the first line, is very condescending and even slanderous. This isn't an article about "Hollywood Values" (which I am convinced is a made up word), it's simply a list of drug deaths and crimes committed by people who happen to be / have been in Hollywood.<br />
<br />
While the sources for the statistics are cited, perhaps it would be more appropriate to include interviews and quotes from Hollywood stars on their values. One could also delve into the history of Hollywood, and how it has molded the culture and values that are present there now.<br />
<br />
If this is really an article on Hollywood Values, someone needs to gather up primary sources relevant to this topic. Otherwise, this article should be renamed "List of Bad Things about Hollywood People."<br />
<br />
==Charity work==<br />
I notice that a section on charity work has been removed. If entertainers are in fact sincerely raising money to help the needy isn't that part of their values and should be included in "Hollywood values"? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 10:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:No, because Hollywood Values are not the across-the-board-values of all who have worked in Hollywood. Do not be fooled into over-literalism, a crutch of [[Liberals]] who are unable to make logical pointsin debate. [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[Charlton Heston]] worked in Hollywood, and did a huge amount for good causes, but were a world away from 'Hollywood Values'. Try reading the article properly! Best wishes, [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
So, let me get this straight...<br />
<br />
Only some liberals follow liberal style and every other article beginning with the word "Liberal"<br />
<br />
Only some people in Hollywood follow Hollywood values.<br />
<br />
So really, nothing substantiative is in these articles, and it's little more than a shoddy smearjob against the rich (Hollywood) and the Left.<br />
<br />
Trustworthy indeed. [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 10:49, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So are you saying that "Hollywood values" refers only to the ''negative'' values of people who work in Hollywood, and that any positive values that might be held by people in Hollywood are ''not'' considered part of Hollywood values? Isn't that a bit biased? How would we feel if people started talking about "Republican values" but meant only the negative aspects? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 11:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Daphnea and EBrown, you are hopeless cases. HV refers to the pernicious effects of the cult of celebrity, which leads sufferers to feel that they are above all legal, moral or societal rules. It is, perhaps, significant that you are quibbling with the title and definitions through the medium of an absurd literalism. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I assumed that "Hollywood values" would be about the values espoused by Hollywood; while that is largely negative in contrast with conservative values I feel it is only honest to mention the positive aspects when they occur; unless the article ''by definition'' is only about the negative aspects, which is the question I asked. I'm assuming from your reply that it ''is'' only about the negative values. Now I can edit it accordingly. When did asking for clarification become an "absurd literalism"? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:32, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Productions==<br />
I put back a deleted edit after revising it on the advice of [[User:Bugler]]. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Please don't revert edits that '''you told me to do'''! To be a little more conversational, I was following an edit which was approved by another editor pointing out that not everybody in Hollywood goes along with "Hollywood values". Likewise it is sensible to point out that not all Hollywood productions go along with "Hollywood values". If we don't do this then in the first case someone reading this (especially a child) might go away with the impression that ''everyone'' involved in Hollywood is evil, and thus grow up hating Ronal Reagan and Charlton Heston. I the second case they might avoid seeing The Chronicle of Narnia because it's a "Hollywood" production. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:18, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:I didn't tell you to do it here, Daphnea. I said that the correct place for such a statement was on a page bout Hollywood, or about the entertainment industry. HV is not the same as Hollywood. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:20, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:So what do you think of what I said above? Do you want people to start thinking Ronald Reagan went along with Hollywood Values? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Hollywood_values&diff=482408Talk:Hollywood values2008-06-26T21:18:05Z<p>Daphnea: /* Productions */</p>
<hr />
<div>This obviously needs more stuff, but I stub'd it so the red link on the main page went away.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 22:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Unlike reality, which clearly has none of these things. Perhaps a random use of the word "glamourization" is in order? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)<br />
Barikada, I think that's a central point! It's not only disrespect for morals, it's flagrant glamorization of lack of morals! I'll leave it to you to add it, but good call.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 19:59, 23 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:Thanks. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
MexMax - please stop reinserting the unsubstantiated information into the article. Thank you. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
MexMax - any and all talk of whether Heath Ledger's death was due to 'Hollywood Values' should be left until AFTER the autopsy and inquest have been published. Mr. Schalfly's previous version of the article was based on a celebrity gossip article, and has been superceded by real information from the police. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:40, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:I'm sorry for jumping the gun. That seems truthful, I apologize for reverting without looking closer. I thought we were just doing the same edit war over and over again...[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
::One point: I think the MTV article should be treated as, errr, second best. Is there a better citation? I think we'd rather not cite to MTV unless we have no other chance.[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Possible Inclusions==<br />
<br />
A few suggestions for the list, off the top of my head: Marilyn Monroe would be a prime (and notorious) example. Chris Farley, who's stated goal was to live and die like Belushi. Janis Joplin. Anna Nicole Smith. Freddie Prinze. Rock Hudson. And depending on how comprehensive you want the list to be, there's an almost endless parade of people who were more famous as part of a group than as individuals, such as Keith Moon or Dennis Wilson.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:16, 25 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I did a search for Hollywood liberals and came up with [http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ this] website. On the front page I see that the cops are invertviewing Mary Kate Olsen about the suspicious circumstances in Ledger's death, David Copperfield has had two childred out of wedlock, Britney Spears is finally making it to her custody hearing to see if she can stay off drugs long enough to take care of her own kids, and Kiefer Sutherland is being let out of jail after a DUI charge. Hollywood values at their best! (Or should I say worst?) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
If an MTV reference is frowned upon, I can hardly see a credible argument for references to The National Enquirer? It's not exactly known for its adherence to fact-based logic, is it? [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Why not? I bet they had articles on every one of the people we have in the article right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:21, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::There's a reason that tabloids are also known as "Gossip rags." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
The people putting these lists together do not seem to realize that in making a case linking "Hollywood values"--not coherently defined in the article, by the way--to early death or criminality it is not enough simply to cite examples; it needs to be demonstrated that these alleged consequences are ''more likely'' to occur to those who adopt these values than to the general population. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Heath Ledger==<br />
<br />
How did Hollywood values contribute to his death? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 04:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:It is clear upon reviewing [[User_talk:Fox#Heath_Ledger|this]] and [[Talk:Main_Page#Milking_deaths_for_political_gain|this]] that nobody has justified how Hollywood values contributed to Ledger's death. We all acknowledge that during his life he probably did take drugs and was a selfish individual, however there is no evidence that his overdose on legal prescription drugs was a suicide attempt or reasonably affected by his drug habit. Given that the example is used in the context of death ("Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:") then I think it would be prudent to remove Ledger's entry until sufficient evidence connecting Hollywood to his death has been found, otherwise we are just sponsoring gossip. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 07:22, 2 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Of what significance is it that he was found naked in his bed? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:20, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==So?==<br />
<br />
So? What does this article intend to prove? What is its thesis? Is this article intended to somehow connect the unfortunate deaths of some people who got too involved in drugs or alcohol as an indicator that hollywood films are a bad influence? <br />
Is this article supposed to somehow connect these so-called "Hollywood Values" with liberal politics? <br />
Last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh had had an embarrassing addiction to opiate painkillers, George W. Bush had admitted to a cocaine problem, and Mel Gibson had such a drinking problem that he was accusing "the Jews" of all the evils that had ever plagued him. These three men, for example, are CONSERVATIVES. Mel Gibson even functions as part of the industry centered in HOLLYWOOD. Why is good ol' Mel not mentioned in this article? <br />
Is the anti-liberal bias in this article too overwhelming to include even one conservative who's had problems?<br />
Or, as I suspect, is Conservapedia wearing the type of blinders that see any conservative's troubles with drugs or alcohol as a momentary temptation by the liberal side? <br />
<br />
If you simply blame everything on your opponents, all the time, then you never have to think it through or acknowledge reality. Seems to be the basic M.O. here. <br />
<br />
I, for one, fail to see how Heath Ledger's accidental death from combining the wrong medications (all of which seem to have been prescribed for him) as indicative of a "Hollywood Value" system. Well, I'm sure the response will go like this: "He was NAKED! Surely, nakedness is indicative of SOME evil-doing. After all, LIBERALS SLEEP NAKED! No God-fearing person should sleep sans pajamas!"<br />
<br />
I'm disgusted.<br />
<br />
[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 14:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== What about Britney Spears? ==<br />
<br />
Britney is a very famous person, and hasn't she been to rehab?<br />
Shouldn't she be mentioned in connection with "Hollywood Values"?<br />
Just a suggestion. [[User:MikeSchwartz|MikeSchwartz]] 20:07, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Not entirely accurate ==<br />
<br />
This article doesn't really give an accurate definition of the phrase, 'Hollywood Values'. I don't really blame you, as it is very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately define it. I also made this point on the 'Liberal Denial' Talk Page, so I'll just copy the relevant part of what I said here:<br />
<br />
This phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:48, 13 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
It should also be noted that the meaning of 'Hollywood Values', according to some, is directly contradicted by what others mean by 'Hollywood Values'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Wikilinks ==<br />
<br />
Why are all these actors, singers, etc. wikilinked? Do we plan to have articles on them all? I removed most of them at some point, but I see they were added back. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Crime ==<br />
For the crime section, please stick to actual crimes. Maybe there could be another section for offensive comments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:48, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:TBH Roger, I think the linked [[Mel Gibson]] article covers it sufficiently, so - in Gibson's case at least - there's probably no need to mention it in the article at all. But perhaps you're right that there should be a section for those celebs who have demonstrated consistent/repeated immoral behaviour/outbursts but have stopped short of actually breaking the law. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 14:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Hollywood==<br />
<br />
Why are musicians and athletes included in an article about [[Hollywood]]? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:34, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== What do we do? ==<br />
<br />
Even if Hollywood values are in fact a problem, what can we possibly do about it? Make extramarital and premarital sex illegal? Or just force everyone to convert to Christianity? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Bix Biederbecke ==<br />
<br />
Not really a "Hollywood" star - Jazz musicians at the time were more liable to spend their lives in NY (as he did), Chicago, or New Orleans. Lots of jazz musicians, of course, had serious addiction problems, but it's not really intellectually honest to lump in struggling musicians - many of America's greatest jazz artists never made much money - in with wealthy movie stars. Remove? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:56, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Who compiled this silly list? ==<br />
<br />
Bix Biederbecke is hardly the only problem here. What about Brian Epstein? What did he have to do with Hollywood? What about Sid Viscious? Hollywood? I hardly think so. Richard Jeni suffered from clinical depression. Do you think that might have had something to do with his suicide? Clara Blandick was in pain and facing blindness. What has her suicide got to do with Hollywodd values? Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family. Why is she in the article? The circumstances of Virginia Rappe's death remain unknown and controversial. What has Heath Ledger's accidental overdose got to do with Hollywood or any other values? What has John Bonham got to do with Hollywood? The inquest into the death of Kenneth Williams returned an open verdict as it was not posibble to determine whether his overdose was accidental. In any case he was suffering from declining health and depression at the time.<br />
<br />
This is extremely sloppy work. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:33, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Tate ==<br />
<br />
Tate was murdered. How is that her fault? Maybe that part should just mention the Manson Family--a depraved group, indeed. [[User:Cisnon|Cisnon]] 22:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
reply to the above criticisms (prior to Tate): [[liberals]] become so literal when it becomes a basis for censoring things they don't like. [[Hollywood values]] are not literally confined to Hollywood, California, and, by the way, things like depression and overdosing on prescription drugs are a symptom of [[Hollywood values]] and occur in that group in far higher percentages than the general public. Please, no [[liberal denial]] on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
As to Tate, I welcome more information before censoring it from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
:Again, I think [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor censor] has a different meaning than [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delete delete.] Now, I'm no big city lawyer. Wait, yes I am.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:44, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Riiight... So, any time any entertainer somewhere in the (English speaking?) world suffers depression or overdoses on drugs, whether legal or prescription, whether accidentally or on purpose, that goes to show that "Hollywood values" (whatever they are) are evil. Did I say sloppy work? I withdraw that. I meant stupid, religiously driven nonsense. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Listing a pregnant murder victim as somehow indicative of "Hollywood values" is a disgrace. Sharon Tate did nothing to encourage Charles Manson to murder her; no aspect of her behavior or beliefs can excuse that, or played any role in it. Perhaps we should list her fetus as another sinner who deserved to be murdered? -- [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 23:08, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==You're bloody kidding me==<br />
Death is a value? Sexually-transmitted disease is a value? I have no clue what you're trying to say here-- That Hollywood is responsible for death and STDs? Or that actors somehow worship these two things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: You are clueless. Drug use and promiscuity are [[Hollywood values]], and they cause death.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::The paranoia in that comment aside, that still doesn't make death a value... Or disease, for that matter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:18, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::You're misreading (or misunderstanding) the entry, Bari. It doesn't say that disease and death ''are'' Hollywood values, it says that Hollywood values breed a culture that ''leads to'' disease and death.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::My apologies, it appears that you are correct... or at least you were, before the last grammar fix. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:53, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Hypocrisy ==<br />
<br />
Why was the new section Hypocrisy deleted? It was a fair point as explained eloquently at [[Liberal Hypocrisy]] I would have asked the reverting Sysop but the talk page is locked. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
:The context of Clooney portraying a US military officer was not explained. Please cease trying to attract my attention, and go back to your own website where I'm sure you will be much happier. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 10:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Context has now been added. I don't have a website. But thank you for your concern about my happiness. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:51, 17 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
This article is full of finger-pointing. I realize that Hollywood stars live lives full of questionable behavior, and I agree that they do not set good role models for all of the young fans that watch their movies and follow their lives, but we should look at our own lives, and not be so quick to point fingers like this. Shouldn't we be promoting forgiveness, as the Lord intends us?<br />
<br />
: This isn't "finger-pointing", and of course forgiveness remains available to anyone who requests it. But we're not going to stand by quietly as certain values destroy people. Would you also object if we identified how smoking has killed many people who smoke?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:46, 1 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Well, perhaps finger-pointing was the wrong word. I'm just saying, we shouldn't piously observe Hollywood stars and forget our own behavior. I would not object to identifying the wrongs of smoking, but what I find a little silly is the big list of stars and their own individual crimes. I think a more general article would be better, and we should avoid a "more words is better" approach, like Wikipedia does.<br />
<br />
: There is nothing "pious" about this. Values and lifestyles can cause harm just as surely as smoking can. Do we criticize anti-smoking statements as "pious"? Of course not. Highlighting the harm caused by [[Hollywood Values]] is not pious either. In fact, it can be scientifically studied.<br />
<br />
: The individual examples, just like individual examples of prominent smokers who died young, are powerful and just as compelling as more-difficult-to-find statistics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
To quote Aschlafly (look at the talk page for the Mathematics page) "Conservapedia does not take the childish approach of "more words is better." We strive to be concise as a good encyclopedia should. Godspeed." Perhaps this principle should be applied to this page. I think everyone understands that Hollywood values are corrupted. I don't see the need for a long list of people who have done wrong things.<br />
<br />
== removal ==<br />
<br />
How can you justify Tate being a victim of hollywood values? Please point to it? I dont want to get into an edit but you cant just add with the tag "because I say so"<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:05, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: It's self-evident from the explanation given. Tate was not a perpetrator of the crime, but became a victim of the culture in which she joined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
No it is not self evident. What culture did she join? married a film director? Associated with hippies? If that so then she was a victim of hippies values. Her 'culture' lead her to be murdered? many people get murdered and she was targeted because she was famous. That has nothing to do with so called holloywood values.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:57, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Right removing the Tate stuff again. At the time of the murder Sharon Tate has not been using drugs or alcohol, she was pregnant and the Mason family was actually interested in killing a man who refused to sign his band up. Tate was unlucky but it is clearly at odds with other deaths listed with hers as she was murdered!<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:55, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Wow: Tate's murder was just the product of chance, like getting hit by a car! No, AdenJ, Tate's murder was the result of [[Hollywood values]]. Maybe the initial intended victim was someone else, but that reinforces how [[Hollywood values]] work that they killed her instead. The entry is staying in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I give up, its totally ridiculous. Sharon Tate was murdered, It was nothing, repeat, NOTHING to do with values. Unless its the values of Manson. <br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: AdenJ, Tate's murder had ''everything'' to do with values. And, duh, that does include the [[Hollywood values]] of Manson and his followers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So its 'duh' now is it? How did Mason have hollywood values? He was in no movies and was a poor musician. How was he affected by hollywood values? Because he was obessed with The Beatles? Who wasnt at that time. He was a drug crazed hippie with a severe mental problem.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:31, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Ridiculous==<br />
<br />
This article just cherry-picks famous people (or...not, in the case of "1920s cornettists" and similar cases), and stretches a granule, albeit a malleable one, miles and miles away from the true root causes of their deaths to make some point that these people's deaths are connected to some Spectre of Glittery Death looming up over Mulholland. How many famous people are there? There must be...untold millions of YouTube phenoms, game show contestants, sandwich shop spokesman, and to highlight a few flare-ups is entirely counter to any kind of legitimacy an encyclopedic volume should have. When I look at that list, I see Sid Vicious, who, as far as I know, lived in the UK for 98% of his life. I see Elvis Presley (maybe there should be a "Memphis values" page). And Sharon Tate...Sharon Tate? Wasn't Manson actually trying to kill somebody else, someone who wasn't there (supposedly a record honcho or someother such person who denied him a chance to be on a Beach Boys record). If that's how we're gonna be about it, and say innocent pregnant sober bystanders are perpetrators of Hollywood values, then let's say those whores that Jack the Ripper killed were victims of "West End values". [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 18:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Linus has given us the fundamental [[liberal denial]]: denying that [[liberal]] values have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Aschlafly has given us the fundamental conservative denial.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:24, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::'''I don't see anywhere in my graph where I denied that liberal values have consequences'''. I think that this whole liberal/conservative jive is basically a distraction, an abstract that exists only theoretically, and even then, as a theory lend creedence by consensus. If these people's death is going to be attributed to a set of industries in a geographic location, then it's already got the integrity of arguing about air temperature. Who cares? I'm not some objectivist/nihilist (probably mutually exclusive philosophies, but often combined nonetheless by people who don't understand them), so I'm not going to deforest the issue by going on some bleat about how we're all just "computers made out of meat" or whatnot, but I think this issue is...not an issue. I'm not arguing at it from any perspective other than one which states all perspectives are already invalid if it comes from a person who cares about things like this. So to say that anybody's neurons are any better than anyone else's simply because of the choices which all the electric 1's and 0's in our brains combine to create, is stupid. Even the whole idea of "liberal denial", which is supposed to be some kind of searing label which supercedes all the fray of bickering and mudslinging, has been trampled on by reductive childishness that's rampant here. Liberal denial. That's all your arguement is here. You'll say, I'm using liberal denial because what I'm saying is a denial coming from a liberal viewpoint. You define my point of view, incorrectly, sure, but you're still just defining it. Not '''re'''fining it, not clarifying or showing how it's wrong and maybe trying to excise the benign liberal tumors you probably surmise exist within my brain stem, you're just defining it. I should have taken a hint from the logo and realized that "applying logos" and "slapping labels" is basically the fundamental economy of Conservapedia. All apologies.<br />
[[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 21:22, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
==Miley Cyrus==<br />
see http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0<br />
"They include shots of the teen wrapped in what appears to be a satin bedsheet, looking over her shoulder with her back exposed."<br />
<br />
she was not topless--<span style="margin-top: -3px;">&nbsp;[[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 21:34, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:That's your opinion and you are not an accepted reference for material. I provided not one, not two but THREE references that described the photo as "topless." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:42, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::She was topless unless you are prepared to call a sheet a "top". <br />
<br />
::Do we want to put our cards on the table people? Clearly the reason that some here do not want this addition to the Hollywood values page is that Ms Cyrus appeared on the Main Page here not long ago as an exemplar of Christian virtue when she spoke of her ambition to abstain from sex until marriage (if memory serves).<br />
<br />
::Well, now she's been photographed topless. I'll bet if it were Hillary Clinton you would all be loudly insisting that the description "topless" was absolutely accurate. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:44, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Er, no. What *is* clear is that her parents and Disney decided to let her be posed in as risque a fashion as possible - thus largely '''negating''' her value as a role model. My only objection is to the word ''topless'' which implies visible headlights rather than shrouded ones. Perhaps you'd like to right about teen [[role model]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:48, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::As I said, three references described the photo as "topless." However, I've now clarified the extend of the toplessness in the article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:50, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
topless requires that the breasts be exposed since they were not she was not topless --<span style="margin-top: -3px;">&nbsp;[[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 21:49, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:*sigh* Jinx, you can say that some sources said the girl was topless. That would come under the heading of "exaggeration", I'd say. Unless the editor in chief overturns my decision, I intend to have us all avoid that word. Let's not embarrass the girl any more than she already has been. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:52, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::That's pretty rich having regard to a number of the other accustaions and comments in the article. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No, it actually doesn't require that the breasts be exposed. Neither does "nude" require that genitals be exposed. Demi Moore was nude when she posed for Vanity Fair's cover when pregnant even though neither her breasts or genitals were exposed. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:08, 2 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I'm an easily lead, ignorant Christian. Tell me what change you'd like to see in the article - or make it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:56, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Let's dial down the fuss a bit, folks. I was the one who originally posted the Cyrus line, and I didn't intend to start a war. I used the term "topless" because, a) that's the way I've heard it reported today, and b) it's accurate, strictly speaking. However, while I recognize that in common vernacular, "topless" implies a more explicit condition than exists in this case, I expected someone to come up with a better term rather than a complete (and unwarranted) reversion. So, maybe we can keep the item, but change the descriptive word? "Suggestive"? "Racy"? "Controversial"? "Provocative"? "Naughty"? Suggestions welcome...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 21:58, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I'm letting Deborah decide this one. (If you must apply an adjective, try "risqué".) Anyway, the emphasis should be on the parents, as she is a minor and not responsible for photo shoot decisions. <br />
<br />
:We can write an article on how parents of teen stars, such as Britney Spears, Hillary Duff & Lindsay Lohan, have managed their daughters' careers. But do we have a decent article on [[Modesty]] yet? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:05, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::All good suggestions. And don't forget Brooke Shields and her mother--They were a notorious pair a quarter-century ago (not that I'm old enough to remember such things [cough]).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::As a former Disney employee, I must say the company needs to pay more attention to its [[role model]]s for tweens. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:32, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::Call me cynical but I think it's just like any mega multi-national corporation, all that matters is the bottom line. And let's face it, sex (and abstinence) sells. You know back in the studio days women had to behave very nicely otherwise they'd be fired from their contract, then the supreme court broke them up and there went the Golden (or was it Silver?) age of Hollywood.<br />
::::And anyway, shouldn't their '''parents''' be more concerned then a board of directors? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:38, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Lenny Bruce/Sharon Tate/Blaming the victim ==<br />
<br />
While Lenny did die because of a heroin OD, he was a standup comic (Comedian Values?), not an actor he only appeared on TV six times on variety/talk shows, definitely not Hollywood. I'd like to believe the government's horrible persecution of him led to his downward spiral.<br />
<br />
As far as the Tate case. Andy, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't familiar with the story, here is a [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonaccount.html link to it,] '''if you still think that she did herself in because of Hollywood values, then ''by all means'' put it back in.<br />
<br />
As for me, it makes me sick to my stomach to somehow imply that she was anyway responsible for her own death, that's worse then saying "well if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that low-cut dress".'''<br />
<br />
And just to make sure you don't go off subject and say that I'm a typical liberal, I'll admit that I '''agree''' with the premise of the article.<br />
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:02, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Goodness, no, we would never insult you like that. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:06, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Bruce Lee==<br />
<br />
ATang, please stop removing this item. Edit wars are frowned on at CP, so I suggest that if you want it deleted you seek the advice of a sysop. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Bruce Lee died of cerebral edema. Traces of a painkiller and cannabis were found postmortem. However, the cause of death was not cannabis; ergo, the link between Hollywood values and his death was not established.<br />
<br />
:Otherwise you should list every cannabis user who died, regardless of cause of death. For example - if a lone hunter was attacked by a black bear and died as a result, and they found traces of THC in his body, would you say that's the cause of death? That he died of drug use? Or that he died because of Hollywood values? (Now... if he got high and provoked the bear, that's an entirely different story...)<br />
<br />
:[[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:33, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:PS. Heh, I just saw what you typed. Merging the topics. (And I'm trying to avoid an edit war by pointing to the talk page)<br />
<br />
::He was a cannabis user, and the health risks of cannabis are well known; even today (literally) the leftist British government has reclassified cannabis as a class B drug (from being class C, the lowest class of illegal substance, A being the highest). It is scarcely surprising that cannabis use - an HV practice in itself - may well have contributed to Lee's early death. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:32, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yeah, it 'may' have - but by the same argument, UV exposure or asbestos inhalation may have contributed to his death too. My point is - when the cause of death is not conclusive, you cannot point to one single factor. Cannabis is not known to cause swelling of the brain; until there is an established link between the cerebral edema and cannabis use, I don't see how HV caused his death. Like I stated before, you cannot list every death of persons who have Hollywood Values. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 09:37, 9 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Rob Knox==<br />
He died protecting his little brother from two armed assailants. If those are Hollywood Values, sign me up.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 17:38, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Tom Moore on this one... There has been some mistake, just a misunderstanding.<br />
<br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2026826/Harry-Potter-actor's-father-Colin-Knox-visits-murder-scene.html "The father of a teenage actor who appears in the next Harry Potter film today visited the scene where the 18-year-old was stabbed to death trying to protect his younger brother from a knifeman."] [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Folks, we need more than a few minutes to discuss something before deleting it like that. Some good new information is provided above, but some of it missed the point. No one is trying to blame the victim here. [[Hollywood values]] include carousing amid drunken people, and can often include underage drinking. Trouble breaks out and victims get killed. This doesn't happen as often to people who are, for example, sleeping by midnight. More comments welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Hey, like I said, if Hollywood values include defending your little brother from being one of the many stabbed by a stranger with two knives, sign me up as a proponent.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Well, that's not saying much, because I would expect you to have been a proponent before. By the way, before you jump to conclusions, do you know who brought Rob Knox's under-aged 16-year-old brother to that drunken, late-night mayhem? Or is that question considered inappropriate when the controlling standards are [[Hollywood values]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:28, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::I have no notion who brought him there. I am not sure it matters, since the problem there would be a young man bringing his under-age brother out on the town drinking, something that is relatively minor and which doesn't seem worthy of condemnation. But since you bring it up, do you know? If not, why did you put this up in the article before you found out?<br />
::::Eh, who cares... it's your site.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:36, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::I looked, and can't find that information. I'll check the CNN report of the story.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:37, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::Nope, doesn't seem to have been reported. Although incidentally, while you're reading this, you might want to add to the News section that Bob Barr was nominated as the Libertarian candidate for this year. [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/25/barr.election/index.html Story is here], and conservatives are probably interested.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:40, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: The account the fight which killed Rob Knox is described differently from your accounts above here: [http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1204418.ece]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::::I was going by the link above, wherein a stranger with two kitchen knives approached them and began stabbing people. This is a much more detailed account, but no less tragic. His friend thought a stranger had stolen his phone and accused the guy of it, and later the guy comes back with some friends, one of whom starts stabbing people.<br />
::::::At the very least, this change to the article is in very bad taste so soon. But again, you own this place, so I guess you get to make that final call. I obviously disagree with the whole premise of the article, so I don't expect you to take my views much to account on the matter.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 20:14, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::At best, it's a weak example that doesn't serve the broad thrust of your argument particularly well. As charity decreases, it looks variously: inappropriate -> ridiculous -> mean-spirited. If you insist on keeping it, I'd suggest making a new section and leading in with the kind of qualifications you made above. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 20:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I'm seeking the truth just as others should be here, and there is obviously more to the Rob Knox tragedy than the simple story that you insisted upon above. According to the more detailed account, the fight was expected. Note also that the victim's under-aged brother is an Olympic-level expert in karate, and that the fight was in or around a bar after midnight. This is still a terrible tragedy, to be sure, but values undeniably played a role in it, as in deaths from drunken driving. We'll say prayers for the victims '''and''' speak out against the causes. Liberals do neither.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
A young man who has played a minor role in a movie is stabbed to death in London, and within hours of his death you add him to this page as an example of "Hollywood values". That is '''vile'''. I do not know the details of the case, but nor do you, and nor does anyone. Someone has just been arrested, and the facts are simply not known. Jumping to conclusions like this, and acting with unseemly haste to use the Knox family's tragedy as fuel for your anti-Hollywood/anti-liberal campaign is disgusting. Please delete this appalling addition to the article. It does not do the Conservapedia image any good at all. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:29, 27 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
:There's probably a name for those who make capital out of the suffering of others. Oh yes - SCUM! [[User:WarrenG|WarrenG]] 08:31, 27 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Chaplin==<br />
I saw the addition for Chaplin under divorce and I wonder if it's not worth mentioning some of the large age gaps between married Hollywood types? Chaplin met his last wife (Oona?) when she was dating one of his sons. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]]<sub>[[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']]</sub> 10:35, 30 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Wow, that's shocking. Yes, please add that with a citation. (I should have added a citation for mine also.) Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:45, 30 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Thank you, will do so. I have it mentioned in a book at home, so I'll put it up later tonight, with a few other examples I know are in there. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]]<sub>[[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']]</sub> 10:51, 30 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Hypocrisy - all specious ==<br />
<br />
Would someone please tell me what is ''hypocritical'' an actor "act[ing] in movies contrary to their public opinions"? Isn't that simply what actors do - '''act'''? This section of the article seems to be based on a very naive confusion of an actor's role-playing with his or her real-life views and actions. In its present form, I don't think it adds anything of value. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: To a degree, you're right, but when an actor profits enormously by exploiting a sentiment which he simultaneously harshly criticizes (in appeasement of [[liberals]]), it begs the question: dude, if you think it's so wrong, then why do you profit so much from it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Not convinced. You seem to be saying that no actor should accept an offer to play roles like Shylock, Iago, or Hannibal Lecter. That would make for some pretty thin plot-lines... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 10:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: No, you overstate it. A better example would be if a [[conservative]] starred in a movie featuring sex and nudity. The howls of protest by [[liberals]] would be deafening!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::But, [[Hollywood values]] embrassed by all [[Liberals]] would mean they were desensortised to this. <br />
<br />
::::Actually could you explain this why would "liberals" be out raged, you have spent all this time saying they like that in their movies. People only seem to care about movies featuring sex and nudity when some former child star appears in them and news reporting go along the line "she (it is always she they care about) is sheading her innocent image". This might comes as a shock to you but most of the world doesn't think of actors as liberal/conservative and judge their movies on that basis. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:30, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== At a certain point, it would probably pay to be selective ==<br />
<br />
<br />
At some point I would advise to only use examples that best show the point trying to be made. For instance there are certainly many Hollywood divorces, but we have chosen to only point to a few that give the greatest examples of particular excess. Other areas of the article may wish to do the same. Drew Barrymore's stint in rehab as a young girl would be a good one. Ryan O'Neal thinking that Lee Majors telling him to look out for his wife while he was away on a trip meant to have sex with her would be another. Woody Allen's picture taking, the death of Dorothy Stratten, Morrison's burnout death and his girlfriend being beaten to death by a baseball bat by her next boyfriend, all would be notable examples. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:20, 4 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Crime: Innocent until proven guilty ==<br />
<br />
I think that there may be a certain level of contradiction here. Although we ''can'' use arrests as a way to suggest hedonistic activity of Hollywood stars, we're mentioning an accusation without proof they were convicted of the actual crime.<br />
<br />
Perhaps we can delete and find other conviction examples. If not we can provide a reminder that we recognize that they are innocent until proven guilty. BTW: I'm not suggesting it's wrong in essence, but it could potentially confuse readers who are trying to understand things.<br />
--[[User:Borneo|Borneo]] 05:34, 6 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Is it just me, or is this a bit one-sided? ==<br />
<br />
I think that this entire article, from the first line, is very condescending and even slanderous. This isn't an article about "Hollywood Values" (which I am convinced is a made up word), it's simply a list of drug deaths and crimes committed by people who happen to be / have been in Hollywood.<br />
<br />
While the sources for the statistics are cited, perhaps it would be more appropriate to include interviews and quotes from Hollywood stars on their values. One could also delve into the history of Hollywood, and how it has molded the culture and values that are present there now.<br />
<br />
If this is really an article on Hollywood Values, someone needs to gather up primary sources relevant to this topic. Otherwise, this article should be renamed "List of Bad Things about Hollywood People."<br />
<br />
==Charity work==<br />
I notice that a section on charity work has been removed. If entertainers are in fact sincerely raising money to help the needy isn't that part of their values and should be included in "Hollywood values"? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 10:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:No, because Hollywood Values are not the across-the-board-values of all who have worked in Hollywood. Do not be fooled into over-literalism, a crutch of [[Liberals]] who are unable to make logical pointsin debate. [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[Charlton Heston]] worked in Hollywood, and did a huge amount for good causes, but were a world away from 'Hollywood Values'. Try reading the article properly! Best wishes, [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
So, let me get this straight...<br />
<br />
Only some liberals follow liberal style and every other article beginning with the word "Liberal"<br />
<br />
Only some people in Hollywood follow Hollywood values.<br />
<br />
So really, nothing substantiative is in these articles, and it's little more than a shoddy smearjob against the rich (Hollywood) and the Left.<br />
<br />
Trustworthy indeed. [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 10:49, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So are you saying that "Hollywood values" refers only to the ''negative'' values of people who work in Hollywood, and that any positive values that might be held by people in Hollywood are ''not'' considered part of Hollywood values? Isn't that a bit biased? How would we feel if people started talking about "Republican values" but meant only the negative aspects? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 11:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Daphnea and EBrown, you are hopeless cases. HV refers to the pernicious effects of the cult of celebrity, which leads sufferers to feel that they are above all legal, moral or societal rules. It is, perhaps, significant that you are quibbling with the title and definitions through the medium of an absurd literalism. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I assumed that "Hollywood values" would be about the values espoused by Hollywood; while that is largely negative in contrast with conservative values I feel it is only honest to mention the positive aspects when they occur; unless the article ''by definition'' is only about the negative aspects, which is the question I asked. I'm assuming from your reply that it ''is'' only about the negative values. Now I can edit it accordingly. When did asking for clarification become an "absurd literalism"? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:32, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Productions==<br />
I put back a deleted edit after revising it on the advice of [[User:Bugler]]. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Please don't revert edits that '''you told me to do'''! To be a little more conversational, I was following an edit which was approved by another editor pointing out that not everybody in Hollywood goes along with "Hollywood values". Likewise it is sensible to point out that not all Hollywood productions go along with "Hollywood values". If we don't do this then in the first case someone reading this (especially a child) might go away with the impression that ''everyone'' involved in Hollywood is evil, and thus grow up hating Ronal Reagan and Charlton Heston. I the second case they might avoid seeing The Chronicle of Narnia because it's a "Hollywood" production. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:18, 26 June 2008 (EDT)</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hollywood_values&diff=482402Hollywood values2008-06-26T21:14:23Z<p>Daphnea: Yes it is necessary and no its not confusing</p>
<hr />
<div>The phrase '''Hollywood values''' refers to the lack of [[morals]] and [[values]] in [[Hollywood]] culture, which is characterized by decadence, narcissism, rampant [[drug|drug use]], extramarital sex, sexually-transmitted [[disease]], lawlessness and death. A poll by MSNBC said that 60% of [[Americans]] agree that "Hollywood's values are not in line with the rest of America and that the quality of movies has dimished in recent years."<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11714540/</ref><br />
<br />
Not all people who currently work or have worked in Hollywood espouse Hollywood values. [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Charlton Heston]], [[Walt Disney]] and many others practiced conservative values while working in Hollywood.<br />
<br />
Hollywood values can include a flagrant disrespect and disregard for:<br />
<br />
* [[marriage]] and [[abstinence]]<br />
* [[patriotism]]<br />
* [[religion]]<br />
* [[accountability]]<br />
* family responsibilities, like childrearing<ref>[[Britney Spears]] "doesn't want [her] kids back." [http://www.nypost.com/seven/02132008/news/nationalnews/brit_doesnt_want_her_kids__1st_ex_97425.htm]</ref><br />
* laws that apply to everyone else<br />
* normal behavioural boundaries and values of human decency<br />
<br />
==Deaths ==<br />
Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4174733&page=1</ref><ref>http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_18845.aspx</ref><br />
*[[John Barrymore]], 60, cirrhosis of the liver from heavy drinking<br />
*[[Bix Beiderbecke]], 28, [[alcoholism]]<br />
*[[John Belushi]], 33, was a repeated drug abuser who ultimately died of a lethal injection of cocaine and heroin<br />
*[[Clara Blandick]], 81, suicide<br />
*[[John Bonham]], 32, after too much drinking, asphyxiated on vomit<br />
*[[Kurt Cobain]], 27, "turned to drugs and alcohol to help him cope," then committed suicide<br />
*[[Karl Dane]], 47, suicide by gunshot<br />
*[[James Dean]], 24, auto accident (see also crime, below)<br />
*[[Eazy-E]], 31. [[AIDS]] contracted through drug use.<br />
*[[Brian Epstein]], 32, overdosed on sleeping pills and alcohol<br />
*[[Chris Farley]], 33, overdose of morphine and cocaine<br />
*[[Judy Garland]], 47, overdosed on sleeping pills<br />
*[[Margaux Hemingway]], 42, suicide<br />
*[[Jimi Hendrix]], 27, an enthusisatic abuser of illegal drugs, choked on his own vomit after overdose of sleeping pills.<br />
*[[Rock Hudson]], 59, AIDS<br />
*[[Michael Hutchence]], 37, asphyxiated during an auto-erotic act while alone in a Sydney hotel. His wife, Paula Yates (see below), also fell victim to Hollywood Values.<br />
*[[Richard Jeni]], 49, suicide<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258231,00.html</ref><br />
*[[Janis Joplin]], 27, heroin overdose<br />
*[[Rob Knox]], 18, star of a [[Harry Potter]] film, was stabbed to death during a fight after midnight in or outside a bar<ref>http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1204418.ece</ref><ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/05/24/international/i140113D92.DTL</ref><br />
*[[Heath Ledger]], 28, found dead in his [[Manhattan]] apartment. "Prescription sleeping pills and anti-anxiety pills were found in bottles in Ledger's bedroom and bathroom, and police have speculated the death was caused by an accidental drug overdose."<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_en_ce/obit_ledger</ref> "Ledger died of an accidental overdose of painkillers, sleeping pills, anti-anxiety medication and other prescription drugs, the New York City medical examiner said Wednesday." <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328828,00.html</ref><br />
*[[Bruce Lee]] (Li Xiaolong), actor, 33, collapsed and died; cannabis found in bloodstream at post-mortem. <br />
*[[Stuart Lubbock]], 31, found dead in the swimming pool of popular TV entertainer [[Michael Barrymore]], having suffered severe anal trauma, after a drug-fuelled party at the star's home<br />
*[[Sal Mineo]], 37, murdered under circumstances that suggested "a homosexual motive"<br />
*[[Marilyn Monroe]], 36, overdosed on sleeping pills<br />
*[[Keith Moon]], drummer of [[The Who]], 32, overdose of Clomethiazole prescribed to treat his [[alcoholism]].<br />
*[[Jim Morrison]], 27, died of an apparent heroin overdose<br />
*[[Chris Penn]], 40, brother of [[Sean Penn]], "died accidentally from an enlarged heart and the effects of a mix of multiple medications"<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/02/13/entertainment/e162146S51.DTL</ref><br />
*[[River Phoenix]], 23, died from an overdose cocaine and heroin<br />
*[[Dana Plato]], 34, ''Diff'rent Strokes'' star, suicide by drugs overdose after posing for lesbian pornography.<br />
*[[Elvis Presley]], 42, large drug intake causes a cardiac arrhythmia and rumoured to have suffocated on the carpet when he collpased from a drug overdose.<br />
*[[Virginia Rappe]], 30, died of a ruptured bladder incurred at a party hosted by [[Roscoe Arbuckle]]<br />
*[[George Reeves]], 45, suicide<br />
*[[Brad Renfro]], 25, became addicted to heroin and was found dead after a night of drinking<br />
*[[Anna Nicole Smith]], 39, accidental overdose on prescription drugs<br />
*[[Sharon Tate]], 26, an actress with a [[hippie]] lifestyle who was murdered by followers of [[Charles Manson]], a [[Beatles]]-obsessed musician wannabee; Manson's followers murdered Tate, who was pregnant and only two weeks from birth, her unborn child, her prior lover, who was staying with her while her husband, paedophile movie producer [[Roman Polanski]] (see 'Crime', below), was away, and another unmarried couple staying in the house<br />
*[[Lou Tellegen]], 52, suicide<br />
*[[Sid Vicious]], 21. [[Heroin]] overdose while awaiting trial for his girlfriend's murder.<br />
*[[Kenneth Williams]], 62, overdose.<br />
*[[Natalie Wood]], 43. Drowned while intoxicated.<br />
*[[Paula Yates]], 41, heroin overdose.<br />
<br />
== Crime ==<br />
Hollywood values often include being arrested or convicted for a variety of crimes. Here are some examples:<br />
<br />
* [[Winona Ryder]] was convicted of convicted of vandalism and grand theft for stealing designer merchandise worth $5,560.40.<ref>http://www.courttv.com/trials/ryder/</ref><br />
* [[O.J. Simpson]] is widely believed to have murdered his wife and her friend, and was found liable in a civil (but not criminal) trial. He has since been arrested again on an unrelated charge.<br />
* [[Paris Hilton]] was convicted of driving while intoxicated, and then violated the terms of her probation, leading to a 45-day prison sentence.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18472845/ Paris Hilton sentenced to 45 days in jail], msnbc, May 4, 2007</ref><br />
*[[Hugh Grant]] was arrested in 1995 when found in a car with a prostitute.<ref>[http://www.mugshots.org/hollywood/hugh-grant.html]</ref><br />
*[[Stacy Keach]], movie actor, was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment in the [[United Kingdom]] in 1984 after being arrested at [[London]] [[Heathrow Airport]] in possession of a large quantity of [[cocaine]].<br />
*[[Kiefer Sutherland]] was given a 48-day sentence for DUI in 2007, an offence committed while still on probation following a 2004 conviction for DUI.<ref>Sutherland is released from jail [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7200633.stm BBC]</ref><br />
*[[George Michael]] was convicted of "Committing a lewd act in public", having been arrested in a public restroom by a plain clothes police officer.<ref>Police confirm George Michael arrest [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/75904.stmBBC]</ref><br />
*[[Snoop Dogg]], a popular [[rap|rapper]], was arrested in 2006 for [[marijuana]] possession.<br />
*[[Roman Polanski]], Polish-born film producer, is unable to return to Hollywood as he skipped bail and fled to [[France]] after being convicted in 1978 on charges of unlawful sexual intercourse with a thirteen-year old girl.<br />
* Rapper DMX (Earl Simmons) was caught on camera drag racing at a speed over 110 miles on a freeway, and then a SWAT team was used to arrest him three days later on drug and animal cruelty charges. "The Maricopa County sheriff's office says the 37-year-old, whose real name is Earl Simmons, at first tried to barricade himself in his bedroom. He came out as a SWAT team entered during the early-morning raid Friday."<ref>http://news.aol.com/entertainment/music/music-news-story/ar/_a/dmx-arrested-on-animal-cruelty-charges/20080509163709990001</ref><br />
*[[Tatum O'Neal]] arrested in 2008 for [[cocaine]] possession. <ref><br />
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361361,00.html Tatum O'Neal Released After Drug Arrest], [[Associated Press]], ''[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]]'', June 02, 2008.</ref><br />
*[[James Dean]] displayed an unhealthy interest in a twelve-year-old boy. His former director Elia Kazan later commented: "I've known many actors who have been twisted up in their sex lives, but never anybody as sick and unhealthy as Dean was."<br />
<br />
== Falsehoods ==<br />
<br />
[[Hollywood values]] perpetuates [[liberal]]-driven falsehoods:<br />
<br />
*[[Matthew Shepard Fallacy]] <br />
:Adherents to Hollywood values "green-lighted a troika of [[Matthew Shepard]] movies after he was senselessly killed because it affirmed their gut feeling that a gay young man living in backward America is destined for death at the hands of hateful ultraconservatives. A street in West Hollywood still stands in his name despite ABC News reporting the story false: He was killed by crazed meth addicts for drugs and money -- not because he was gay. Isn't that tragic enough? Yet Shepherd is still the icon of gay victims' rights, and the mistaken story of his 'fate' soon thereafter befell Jake Gyllenhaal's character in 'Brokeback Mountain.' The Oscar statuette stands as the exclamation point."<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup26sep26,0,1800794,full.story</ref><br />
<br />
*[[Inherit the Wind]] <br />
:<fill in><br />
<br />
==Divorce==<br />
<br />
*[[Elizabeth Taylor]] has been married eight (8) times.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000072/bio</ref><br />
*[[Valerie Bertinelli]] said her divorce from [[Eddie Van Halen]] was caused by infidelity and drug use - by her too. She said she was "destroying my body," trying to keep up with a rock-star lifestyle. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332551,00.html Valerie Bertinelli About Divorce From Eddie Van Halen: 'I Wasn't An Angel Either'], [[Fox News Channel]], ''[[Associated Press]]'', February 26, 2008</ref><br />
*[[Zsa Zsa Gabor]] has been married nine (9) times.<br />
*[[Mickey Rooney]] has been married eight (8) times, but has been with his last wife for 30 years after embracing religion and abandoning his previous lifestyle.<br />
*[[Charlie Chaplin]] married four (4) times, including his marriage at the age of 54 to an 18-year-old bride.<br />
<br />
== Offensive Behavior ==<br />
<br />
* Trashing hotel rooms is a favorite form of offensive behavior by Hollywood types. Many examples are readily available on the [[internet]].<ref>See, e.g., [http://www.budgettravel.com/bt-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101034.html]</ref><br />
*[[Mel Gibson]], who had started drinking again, was arrested after being stopped for driving at 84 mph in a 45 mph zone on a notoriously dangerous road in Malibu, California.<ref>''Mel Gibson apologizes after DUI arrest'' [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14080210/ Associated Press]</ref> A breathalyzer test confirmed he was drunk and next to him was an open bottle of Tequila; after being arrested he hurled Anti-Semitic abuse at a Jewish police officer.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2292336,00.html Mel Gibson rants against Jews in drink-drive arrest], Times Online, July 30, 2006</ref><br />
*The parents of [[Miley Cyrus]], just 15 years old, allowed [[Annie Liebowitz]] to pose the starlet without a shirt or bra (aka [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/topless "topless"]) and with just a sheet covering her front for Vanity Fair magazine.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/business/media/28hannah.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</ref><ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20195785,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23608789-5001026,00.html</ref> "I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed," Cyrus said Sunday in a statement through her publicist. "I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about." <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref><br />
:"... a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines," a network statement said. <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref><br />
<br />
== Rehab ==<br />
Hollywood values often result in [[Celebrity|celebrities]] going into rehab. Here are some examples:<br />
<br />
*[[Kirsten Dunst]] checked into the [[Cirque Lodge]] treatment facility in [[Utah]] after a week of hard partying at the [[Sundance Film Festival]], according to a source at the lodge, although the lodge's director of operations denies this. <ref name = "foxkirsten"><br />
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329545,00.html Reports Say Kirsten Dunst in Rehab; Rep for Facility Denies It], ''[[Fox News]]'', February 08, 2008</ref><br />
<br />
The following all checked into the above facility seeking treatment for various psychological problems:<br />
<br />
*[[Lindsay Lohan]] <ref name = "foxkirsten"/><br />
*[[Eva Mendes]] <ref name = "foxkirsten"/><br />
*[[Mary-Kate Olsen]] <ref name = "foxkirsten"/><br />
<br />
== Hypocrisy ==<br />
<br />
Hollywood personalities often propose legislation such as outlawing private gun ownership, or speak out against things such as anti-gun laws, but have at the same time acted in movies contrary to their public opinions: <br />
<br />
* [[George Clooney]] on hearing that fellow actor and guns-rights advocate, [[Charlton Heston]], suffers from Alzheimer's disease, said: ''"I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the [[National Rifle Association]]. He deserves whatever anyone says about him."''<ref>http://www.funnyreign.com/quotes-georgeclooney.shtml</ref> Clooney starred in the film ''The Peacemaker'', in which he played an American military man defending the country from a nuclear attack; scenes in the film showed him using a gun to defend himself and others. <br />
<br />
* [[Mark Wahlberg]] upon meeting Charlton Heston on the set of the remake of ''Planet of the Apes'', Wahlberg rudely told Heston, "It was very disturbing meeting you." Later, Wahlberg would have this to say at the MTV Movie Awards: ''"I believe Charlton Heston is America's best villain because he loves guns so much. Maybe he should get the award for being president of the National Rifle Association."''<ref>http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2360</ref> Wahlberg's character in ''Planet of the Apes'' uses a gun to defend himself and other humans from the apes who would rule over them.<br />
<br />
==Moral depravity==<br />
*[[Woody Allen]] seduced and took pornographic photographs of the adolescent daughter of his wife [[Mia Farrow]].<br />
<br />
==Using appearances to promote themselves and their causes or air their pet peeves==<br />
*Rapper Kanye West infamously went way off script during a live benefit concert for victims of Hurricane Katrina, criticizing the media's treatment of images of black and white people and saying President [[George W. Bush]] "hates black people."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090300165.html</ref><br />
*During the live broadcast of the 2007 Emmy Awards, actress Sally Field went on a sputtering anti-war rant, eventually concluding by saying, "If the mothers ruled the world, there would be no g**d*** war in the first place." She received thunderous applause from the Hollywood audience for her vulgar remark.<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=3610891</ref><br />
*[[Michael Moore]] surprised no one by criticizing President Bush during his 2003 Oscar acceptance speech for "Bowling for Columbine," saying, "We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man who's sending us to war for fictitious reasons, whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts. We are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush. Shame on you."<ref>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20030323-2028-oscars-moore.html</ref><br />
*Actress Jessica Lange verbally attacked President Bush and the Iraq War during a 2008 commencement speech at Sarah Lawrence College in Yonkers, New York, stating, "We are living in an America that, in the last seven and a half years, has waged an unnecessary war, established prison camps, condoned torture, employed corporate armies, eliminated the right of habeas corpus, practiced extraordinary rendition, and believe me, this is only a partial list."<ref>http://cbs5.com/politics/Jessica.Lange.President.2.732264.html</ref><br />
<br />
==Productions==<br />
The diseased moral values of the Liberal-dominated entertainments industry are manifested all too clearly in many of the products of that industry - motion pictures and television programmes that offer no edification or instruction to the viewer, but plumb a cess-pit of licence and depravity. Some recent examples include the television series ''Desperate Housewives'' and the tv series/movie ''[[Sex and the City]]''. The movie ''Forrest Gump'' was a clumsy attempt to smear conservatives as having learning difficulties. However not all movies or TV programmes go along with ''Hollywood values'': there are also many movies and tv series that are full of conservative values, including [[The Chronicles of Narnia]], [[Pay It Forward]], [[Air Force One]], [[Independence Day]], [[Dave]], [[Touched by an Angel]], [[Toy Story]], [[The Incredibles]].<br />
<br />
==Books==<br />
* ''Hollywood Against America''<br />
* ''Hollywood Babylon'' (1965) by Kenneth Anger (US edition)<br />
* ''Hollywood Babylon II'' (1984) by Kenneth Anger<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
{{liberalism}}<br />
<br />
[[category:entertainment]]<br />
[[Category:Liberals]]</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Hollywood_values&diff=482394Talk:Hollywood values2008-06-26T21:09:11Z<p>Daphnea: /* Charity work */</p>
<hr />
<div>This obviously needs more stuff, but I stub'd it so the red link on the main page went away.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 22:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Unlike reality, which clearly has none of these things. Perhaps a random use of the word "glamourization" is in order? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)<br />
Barikada, I think that's a central point! It's not only disrespect for morals, it's flagrant glamorization of lack of morals! I'll leave it to you to add it, but good call.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 19:59, 23 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:Thanks. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
MexMax - please stop reinserting the unsubstantiated information into the article. Thank you. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
MexMax - any and all talk of whether Heath Ledger's death was due to 'Hollywood Values' should be left until AFTER the autopsy and inquest have been published. Mr. Schalfly's previous version of the article was based on a celebrity gossip article, and has been superceded by real information from the police. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:40, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:I'm sorry for jumping the gun. That seems truthful, I apologize for reverting without looking closer. I thought we were just doing the same edit war over and over again...[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
::One point: I think the MTV article should be treated as, errr, second best. Is there a better citation? I think we'd rather not cite to MTV unless we have no other chance.[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Possible Inclusions==<br />
<br />
A few suggestions for the list, off the top of my head: Marilyn Monroe would be a prime (and notorious) example. Chris Farley, who's stated goal was to live and die like Belushi. Janis Joplin. Anna Nicole Smith. Freddie Prinze. Rock Hudson. And depending on how comprehensive you want the list to be, there's an almost endless parade of people who were more famous as part of a group than as individuals, such as Keith Moon or Dennis Wilson.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:16, 25 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I did a search for Hollywood liberals and came up with [http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ this] website. On the front page I see that the cops are invertviewing Mary Kate Olsen about the suspicious circumstances in Ledger's death, David Copperfield has had two childred out of wedlock, Britney Spears is finally making it to her custody hearing to see if she can stay off drugs long enough to take care of her own kids, and Kiefer Sutherland is being let out of jail after a DUI charge. Hollywood values at their best! (Or should I say worst?) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
If an MTV reference is frowned upon, I can hardly see a credible argument for references to The National Enquirer? It's not exactly known for its adherence to fact-based logic, is it? [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Why not? I bet they had articles on every one of the people we have in the article right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:21, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::There's a reason that tabloids are also known as "Gossip rags." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
The people putting these lists together do not seem to realize that in making a case linking "Hollywood values"--not coherently defined in the article, by the way--to early death or criminality it is not enough simply to cite examples; it needs to be demonstrated that these alleged consequences are ''more likely'' to occur to those who adopt these values than to the general population. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Heath Ledger==<br />
<br />
How did Hollywood values contribute to his death? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 04:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:It is clear upon reviewing [[User_talk:Fox#Heath_Ledger|this]] and [[Talk:Main_Page#Milking_deaths_for_political_gain|this]] that nobody has justified how Hollywood values contributed to Ledger's death. We all acknowledge that during his life he probably did take drugs and was a selfish individual, however there is no evidence that his overdose on legal prescription drugs was a suicide attempt or reasonably affected by his drug habit. Given that the example is used in the context of death ("Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:") then I think it would be prudent to remove Ledger's entry until sufficient evidence connecting Hollywood to his death has been found, otherwise we are just sponsoring gossip. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 07:22, 2 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Of what significance is it that he was found naked in his bed? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:20, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==So?==<br />
<br />
So? What does this article intend to prove? What is its thesis? Is this article intended to somehow connect the unfortunate deaths of some people who got too involved in drugs or alcohol as an indicator that hollywood films are a bad influence? <br />
Is this article supposed to somehow connect these so-called "Hollywood Values" with liberal politics? <br />
Last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh had had an embarrassing addiction to opiate painkillers, George W. Bush had admitted to a cocaine problem, and Mel Gibson had such a drinking problem that he was accusing "the Jews" of all the evils that had ever plagued him. These three men, for example, are CONSERVATIVES. Mel Gibson even functions as part of the industry centered in HOLLYWOOD. Why is good ol' Mel not mentioned in this article? <br />
Is the anti-liberal bias in this article too overwhelming to include even one conservative who's had problems?<br />
Or, as I suspect, is Conservapedia wearing the type of blinders that see any conservative's troubles with drugs or alcohol as a momentary temptation by the liberal side? <br />
<br />
If you simply blame everything on your opponents, all the time, then you never have to think it through or acknowledge reality. Seems to be the basic M.O. here. <br />
<br />
I, for one, fail to see how Heath Ledger's accidental death from combining the wrong medications (all of which seem to have been prescribed for him) as indicative of a "Hollywood Value" system. Well, I'm sure the response will go like this: "He was NAKED! Surely, nakedness is indicative of SOME evil-doing. After all, LIBERALS SLEEP NAKED! No God-fearing person should sleep sans pajamas!"<br />
<br />
I'm disgusted.<br />
<br />
[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 14:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== What about Britney Spears? ==<br />
<br />
Britney is a very famous person, and hasn't she been to rehab?<br />
Shouldn't she be mentioned in connection with "Hollywood Values"?<br />
Just a suggestion. [[User:MikeSchwartz|MikeSchwartz]] 20:07, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Not entirely accurate ==<br />
<br />
This article doesn't really give an accurate definition of the phrase, 'Hollywood Values'. I don't really blame you, as it is very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately define it. I also made this point on the 'Liberal Denial' Talk Page, so I'll just copy the relevant part of what I said here:<br />
<br />
This phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:48, 13 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
It should also be noted that the meaning of 'Hollywood Values', according to some, is directly contradicted by what others mean by 'Hollywood Values'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Wikilinks ==<br />
<br />
Why are all these actors, singers, etc. wikilinked? Do we plan to have articles on them all? I removed most of them at some point, but I see they were added back. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Crime ==<br />
For the crime section, please stick to actual crimes. Maybe there could be another section for offensive comments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:48, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:TBH Roger, I think the linked [[Mel Gibson]] article covers it sufficiently, so - in Gibson's case at least - there's probably no need to mention it in the article at all. But perhaps you're right that there should be a section for those celebs who have demonstrated consistent/repeated immoral behaviour/outbursts but have stopped short of actually breaking the law. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 14:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Hollywood==<br />
<br />
Why are musicians and athletes included in an article about [[Hollywood]]? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:34, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== What do we do? ==<br />
<br />
Even if Hollywood values are in fact a problem, what can we possibly do about it? Make extramarital and premarital sex illegal? Or just force everyone to convert to Christianity? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Bix Biederbecke ==<br />
<br />
Not really a "Hollywood" star - Jazz musicians at the time were more liable to spend their lives in NY (as he did), Chicago, or New Orleans. Lots of jazz musicians, of course, had serious addiction problems, but it's not really intellectually honest to lump in struggling musicians - many of America's greatest jazz artists never made much money - in with wealthy movie stars. Remove? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:56, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Who compiled this silly list? ==<br />
<br />
Bix Biederbecke is hardly the only problem here. What about Brian Epstein? What did he have to do with Hollywood? What about Sid Viscious? Hollywood? I hardly think so. Richard Jeni suffered from clinical depression. Do you think that might have had something to do with his suicide? Clara Blandick was in pain and facing blindness. What has her suicide got to do with Hollywodd values? Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family. Why is she in the article? The circumstances of Virginia Rappe's death remain unknown and controversial. What has Heath Ledger's accidental overdose got to do with Hollywood or any other values? What has John Bonham got to do with Hollywood? The inquest into the death of Kenneth Williams returned an open verdict as it was not posibble to determine whether his overdose was accidental. In any case he was suffering from declining health and depression at the time.<br />
<br />
This is extremely sloppy work. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:33, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Tate ==<br />
<br />
Tate was murdered. How is that her fault? Maybe that part should just mention the Manson Family--a depraved group, indeed. [[User:Cisnon|Cisnon]] 22:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
reply to the above criticisms (prior to Tate): [[liberals]] become so literal when it becomes a basis for censoring things they don't like. [[Hollywood values]] are not literally confined to Hollywood, California, and, by the way, things like depression and overdosing on prescription drugs are a symptom of [[Hollywood values]] and occur in that group in far higher percentages than the general public. Please, no [[liberal denial]] on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
As to Tate, I welcome more information before censoring it from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
:Again, I think [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor censor] has a different meaning than [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delete delete.] Now, I'm no big city lawyer. Wait, yes I am.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:44, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Riiight... So, any time any entertainer somewhere in the (English speaking?) world suffers depression or overdoses on drugs, whether legal or prescription, whether accidentally or on purpose, that goes to show that "Hollywood values" (whatever they are) are evil. Did I say sloppy work? I withdraw that. I meant stupid, religiously driven nonsense. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Listing a pregnant murder victim as somehow indicative of "Hollywood values" is a disgrace. Sharon Tate did nothing to encourage Charles Manson to murder her; no aspect of her behavior or beliefs can excuse that, or played any role in it. Perhaps we should list her fetus as another sinner who deserved to be murdered? -- [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 23:08, 5 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==You're bloody kidding me==<br />
Death is a value? Sexually-transmitted disease is a value? I have no clue what you're trying to say here-- That Hollywood is responsible for death and STDs? Or that actors somehow worship these two things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: You are clueless. Drug use and promiscuity are [[Hollywood values]], and they cause death.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::The paranoia in that comment aside, that still doesn't make death a value... Or disease, for that matter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:18, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::You're misreading (or misunderstanding) the entry, Bari. It doesn't say that disease and death ''are'' Hollywood values, it says that Hollywood values breed a culture that ''leads to'' disease and death.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::My apologies, it appears that you are correct... or at least you were, before the last grammar fix. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:53, 6 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Hypocrisy ==<br />
<br />
Why was the new section Hypocrisy deleted? It was a fair point as explained eloquently at [[Liberal Hypocrisy]] I would have asked the reverting Sysop but the talk page is locked. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
:The context of Clooney portraying a US military officer was not explained. Please cease trying to attract my attention, and go back to your own website where I'm sure you will be much happier. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 10:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Context has now been added. I don't have a website. But thank you for your concern about my happiness. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:51, 17 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
This article is full of finger-pointing. I realize that Hollywood stars live lives full of questionable behavior, and I agree that they do not set good role models for all of the young fans that watch their movies and follow their lives, but we should look at our own lives, and not be so quick to point fingers like this. Shouldn't we be promoting forgiveness, as the Lord intends us?<br />
<br />
: This isn't "finger-pointing", and of course forgiveness remains available to anyone who requests it. But we're not going to stand by quietly as certain values destroy people. Would you also object if we identified how smoking has killed many people who smoke?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:46, 1 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Well, perhaps finger-pointing was the wrong word. I'm just saying, we shouldn't piously observe Hollywood stars and forget our own behavior. I would not object to identifying the wrongs of smoking, but what I find a little silly is the big list of stars and their own individual crimes. I think a more general article would be better, and we should avoid a "more words is better" approach, like Wikipedia does.<br />
<br />
: There is nothing "pious" about this. Values and lifestyles can cause harm just as surely as smoking can. Do we criticize anti-smoking statements as "pious"? Of course not. Highlighting the harm caused by [[Hollywood Values]] is not pious either. In fact, it can be scientifically studied.<br />
<br />
: The individual examples, just like individual examples of prominent smokers who died young, are powerful and just as compelling as more-difficult-to-find statistics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
To quote Aschlafly (look at the talk page for the Mathematics page) "Conservapedia does not take the childish approach of "more words is better." We strive to be concise as a good encyclopedia should. Godspeed." Perhaps this principle should be applied to this page. I think everyone understands that Hollywood values are corrupted. I don't see the need for a long list of people who have done wrong things.<br />
<br />
== removal ==<br />
<br />
How can you justify Tate being a victim of hollywood values? Please point to it? I dont want to get into an edit but you cant just add with the tag "because I say so"<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:05, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: It's self-evident from the explanation given. Tate was not a perpetrator of the crime, but became a victim of the culture in which she joined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
No it is not self evident. What culture did she join? married a film director? Associated with hippies? If that so then she was a victim of hippies values. Her 'culture' lead her to be murdered? many people get murdered and she was targeted because she was famous. That has nothing to do with so called holloywood values.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:57, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Right removing the Tate stuff again. At the time of the murder Sharon Tate has not been using drugs or alcohol, she was pregnant and the Mason family was actually interested in killing a man who refused to sign his band up. Tate was unlucky but it is clearly at odds with other deaths listed with hers as she was murdered!<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:55, 24 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Wow: Tate's murder was just the product of chance, like getting hit by a car! No, AdenJ, Tate's murder was the result of [[Hollywood values]]. Maybe the initial intended victim was someone else, but that reinforces how [[Hollywood values]] work that they killed her instead. The entry is staying in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I give up, its totally ridiculous. Sharon Tate was murdered, It was nothing, repeat, NOTHING to do with values. Unless its the values of Manson. <br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: AdenJ, Tate's murder had ''everything'' to do with values. And, duh, that does include the [[Hollywood values]] of Manson and his followers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So its 'duh' now is it? How did Mason have hollywood values? He was in no movies and was a poor musician. How was he affected by hollywood values? Because he was obessed with The Beatles? Who wasnt at that time. He was a drug crazed hippie with a severe mental problem.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:31, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Ridiculous==<br />
<br />
This article just cherry-picks famous people (or...not, in the case of "1920s cornettists" and similar cases), and stretches a granule, albeit a malleable one, miles and miles away from the true root causes of their deaths to make some point that these people's deaths are connected to some Spectre of Glittery Death looming up over Mulholland. How many famous people are there? There must be...untold millions of YouTube phenoms, game show contestants, sandwich shop spokesman, and to highlight a few flare-ups is entirely counter to any kind of legitimacy an encyclopedic volume should have. When I look at that list, I see Sid Vicious, who, as far as I know, lived in the UK for 98% of his life. I see Elvis Presley (maybe there should be a "Memphis values" page). And Sharon Tate...Sharon Tate? Wasn't Manson actually trying to kill somebody else, someone who wasn't there (supposedly a record honcho or someother such person who denied him a chance to be on a Beach Boys record). If that's how we're gonna be about it, and say innocent pregnant sober bystanders are perpetrators of Hollywood values, then let's say those whores that Jack the Ripper killed were victims of "West End values". [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 18:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Linus has given us the fundamental [[liberal denial]]: denying that [[liberal]] values have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Aschlafly has given us the fundamental conservative denial.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:24, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::'''I don't see anywhere in my graph where I denied that liberal values have consequences'''. I think that this whole liberal/conservative jive is basically a distraction, an abstract that exists only theoretically, and even then, as a theory lend creedence by consensus. If these people's death is going to be attributed to a set of industries in a geographic location, then it's already got the integrity of arguing about air temperature. Who cares? I'm not some objectivist/nihilist (probably mutually exclusive philosophies, but often combined nonetheless by people who don't understand them), so I'm not going to deforest the issue by going on some bleat about how we're all just "computers made out of meat" or whatnot, but I think this issue is...not an issue. I'm not arguing at it from any perspective other than one which states all perspectives are already invalid if it comes from a person who cares about things like this. So to say that anybody's neurons are any better than anyone else's simply because of the choices which all the electric 1's and 0's in our brains combine to create, is stupid. Even the whole idea of "liberal denial", which is supposed to be some kind of searing label which supercedes all the fray of bickering and mudslinging, has been trampled on by reductive childishness that's rampant here. Liberal denial. That's all your arguement is here. You'll say, I'm using liberal denial because what I'm saying is a denial coming from a liberal viewpoint. You define my point of view, incorrectly, sure, but you're still just defining it. Not '''re'''fining it, not clarifying or showing how it's wrong and maybe trying to excise the benign liberal tumors you probably surmise exist within my brain stem, you're just defining it. I should have taken a hint from the logo and realized that "applying logos" and "slapping labels" is basically the fundamental economy of Conservapedia. All apologies.<br />
[[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 21:22, 25 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
==Miley Cyrus==<br />
see http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0<br />
"They include shots of the teen wrapped in what appears to be a satin bedsheet, looking over her shoulder with her back exposed."<br />
<br />
she was not topless--<span style="margin-top: -3px;">&nbsp;[[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 21:34, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:That's your opinion and you are not an accepted reference for material. I provided not one, not two but THREE references that described the photo as "topless." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:42, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::She was topless unless you are prepared to call a sheet a "top". <br />
<br />
::Do we want to put our cards on the table people? Clearly the reason that some here do not want this addition to the Hollywood values page is that Ms Cyrus appeared on the Main Page here not long ago as an exemplar of Christian virtue when she spoke of her ambition to abstain from sex until marriage (if memory serves).<br />
<br />
::Well, now she's been photographed topless. I'll bet if it were Hillary Clinton you would all be loudly insisting that the description "topless" was absolutely accurate. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:44, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Er, no. What *is* clear is that her parents and Disney decided to let her be posed in as risque a fashion as possible - thus largely '''negating''' her value as a role model. My only objection is to the word ''topless'' which implies visible headlights rather than shrouded ones. Perhaps you'd like to right about teen [[role model]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:48, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::As I said, three references described the photo as "topless." However, I've now clarified the extend of the toplessness in the article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:50, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
topless requires that the breasts be exposed since they were not she was not topless --<span style="margin-top: -3px;">&nbsp;[[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 21:49, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:*sigh* Jinx, you can say that some sources said the girl was topless. That would come under the heading of "exaggeration", I'd say. Unless the editor in chief overturns my decision, I intend to have us all avoid that word. Let's not embarrass the girl any more than she already has been. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:52, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::That's pretty rich having regard to a number of the other accustaions and comments in the article. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No, it actually doesn't require that the breasts be exposed. Neither does "nude" require that genitals be exposed. Demi Moore was nude when she posed for Vanity Fair's cover when pregnant even though neither her breasts or genitals were exposed. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:08, 2 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I'm an easily lead, ignorant Christian. Tell me what change you'd like to see in the article - or make it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:56, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Let's dial down the fuss a bit, folks. I was the one who originally posted the Cyrus line, and I didn't intend to start a war. I used the term "topless" because, a) that's the way I've heard it reported today, and b) it's accurate, strictly speaking. However, while I recognize that in common vernacular, "topless" implies a more explicit condition than exists in this case, I expected someone to come up with a better term rather than a complete (and unwarranted) reversion. So, maybe we can keep the item, but change the descriptive word? "Suggestive"? "Racy"? "Controversial"? "Provocative"? "Naughty"? Suggestions welcome...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 21:58, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I'm letting Deborah decide this one. (If you must apply an adjective, try "risqué".) Anyway, the emphasis should be on the parents, as she is a minor and not responsible for photo shoot decisions. <br />
<br />
:We can write an article on how parents of teen stars, such as Britney Spears, Hillary Duff & Lindsay Lohan, have managed their daughters' careers. But do we have a decent article on [[Modesty]] yet? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:05, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::All good suggestions. And don't forget Brooke Shields and her mother--They were a notorious pair a quarter-century ago (not that I'm old enough to remember such things [cough]).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::As a former Disney employee, I must say the company needs to pay more attention to its [[role model]]s for tweens. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:32, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::Call me cynical but I think it's just like any mega multi-national corporation, all that matters is the bottom line. And let's face it, sex (and abstinence) sells. You know back in the studio days women had to behave very nicely otherwise they'd be fired from their contract, then the supreme court broke them up and there went the Golden (or was it Silver?) age of Hollywood.<br />
::::And anyway, shouldn't their '''parents''' be more concerned then a board of directors? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:38, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Lenny Bruce/Sharon Tate/Blaming the victim ==<br />
<br />
While Lenny did die because of a heroin OD, he was a standup comic (Comedian Values?), not an actor he only appeared on TV six times on variety/talk shows, definitely not Hollywood. I'd like to believe the government's horrible persecution of him led to his downward spiral.<br />
<br />
As far as the Tate case. Andy, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't familiar with the story, here is a [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonaccount.html link to it,] '''if you still think that she did herself in because of Hollywood values, then ''by all means'' put it back in.<br />
<br />
As for me, it makes me sick to my stomach to somehow imply that she was anyway responsible for her own death, that's worse then saying "well if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that low-cut dress".'''<br />
<br />
And just to make sure you don't go off subject and say that I'm a typical liberal, I'll admit that I '''agree''' with the premise of the article.<br />
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:02, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Goodness, no, we would never insult you like that. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:06, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Bruce Lee==<br />
<br />
ATang, please stop removing this item. Edit wars are frowned on at CP, so I suggest that if you want it deleted you seek the advice of a sysop. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Bruce Lee died of cerebral edema. Traces of a painkiller and cannabis were found postmortem. However, the cause of death was not cannabis; ergo, the link between Hollywood values and his death was not established.<br />
<br />
:Otherwise you should list every cannabis user who died, regardless of cause of death. For example - if a lone hunter was attacked by a black bear and died as a result, and they found traces of THC in his body, would you say that's the cause of death? That he died of drug use? Or that he died because of Hollywood values? (Now... if he got high and provoked the bear, that's an entirely different story...)<br />
<br />
:[[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:33, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:PS. Heh, I just saw what you typed. Merging the topics. (And I'm trying to avoid an edit war by pointing to the talk page)<br />
<br />
::He was a cannabis user, and the health risks of cannabis are well known; even today (literally) the leftist British government has reclassified cannabis as a class B drug (from being class C, the lowest class of illegal substance, A being the highest). It is scarcely surprising that cannabis use - an HV practice in itself - may well have contributed to Lee's early death. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:32, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yeah, it 'may' have - but by the same argument, UV exposure or asbestos inhalation may have contributed to his death too. My point is - when the cause of death is not conclusive, you cannot point to one single factor. Cannabis is not known to cause swelling of the brain; until there is an established link between the cerebral edema and cannabis use, I don't see how HV caused his death. Like I stated before, you cannot list every death of persons who have Hollywood Values. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 09:37, 9 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Rob Knox==<br />
He died protecting his little brother from two armed assailants. If those are Hollywood Values, sign me up.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 17:38, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Tom Moore on this one... There has been some mistake, just a misunderstanding.<br />
<br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2026826/Harry-Potter-actor's-father-Colin-Knox-visits-murder-scene.html "The father of a teenage actor who appears in the next Harry Potter film today visited the scene where the 18-year-old was stabbed to death trying to protect his younger brother from a knifeman."] [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Folks, we need more than a few minutes to discuss something before deleting it like that. Some good new information is provided above, but some of it missed the point. No one is trying to blame the victim here. [[Hollywood values]] include carousing amid drunken people, and can often include underage drinking. Trouble breaks out and victims get killed. This doesn't happen as often to people who are, for example, sleeping by midnight. More comments welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Hey, like I said, if Hollywood values include defending your little brother from being one of the many stabbed by a stranger with two knives, sign me up as a proponent.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Well, that's not saying much, because I would expect you to have been a proponent before. By the way, before you jump to conclusions, do you know who brought Rob Knox's under-aged 16-year-old brother to that drunken, late-night mayhem? Or is that question considered inappropriate when the controlling standards are [[Hollywood values]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:28, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::I have no notion who brought him there. I am not sure it matters, since the problem there would be a young man bringing his under-age brother out on the town drinking, something that is relatively minor and which doesn't seem worthy of condemnation. But since you bring it up, do you know? If not, why did you put this up in the article before you found out?<br />
::::Eh, who cares... it's your site.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:36, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::I looked, and can't find that information. I'll check the CNN report of the story.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:37, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::Nope, doesn't seem to have been reported. Although incidentally, while you're reading this, you might want to add to the News section that Bob Barr was nominated as the Libertarian candidate for this year. [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/25/barr.election/index.html Story is here], and conservatives are probably interested.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:40, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: The account the fight which killed Rob Knox is described differently from your accounts above here: [http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1204418.ece]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::::I was going by the link above, wherein a stranger with two kitchen knives approached them and began stabbing people. This is a much more detailed account, but no less tragic. His friend thought a stranger had stolen his phone and accused the guy of it, and later the guy comes back with some friends, one of whom starts stabbing people.<br />
::::::At the very least, this change to the article is in very bad taste so soon. But again, you own this place, so I guess you get to make that final call. I obviously disagree with the whole premise of the article, so I don't expect you to take my views much to account on the matter.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 20:14, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::At best, it's a weak example that doesn't serve the broad thrust of your argument particularly well. As charity decreases, it looks variously: inappropriate -> ridiculous -> mean-spirited. If you insist on keeping it, I'd suggest making a new section and leading in with the kind of qualifications you made above. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 20:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I'm seeking the truth just as others should be here, and there is obviously more to the Rob Knox tragedy than the simple story that you insisted upon above. According to the more detailed account, the fight was expected. Note also that the victim's under-aged brother is an Olympic-level expert in karate, and that the fight was in or around a bar after midnight. This is still a terrible tragedy, to be sure, but values undeniably played a role in it, as in deaths from drunken driving. We'll say prayers for the victims '''and''' speak out against the causes. Liberals do neither.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 25 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
A young man who has played a minor role in a movie is stabbed to death in London, and within hours of his death you add him to this page as an example of "Hollywood values". That is '''vile'''. I do not know the details of the case, but nor do you, and nor does anyone. Someone has just been arrested, and the facts are simply not known. Jumping to conclusions like this, and acting with unseemly haste to use the Knox family's tragedy as fuel for your anti-Hollywood/anti-liberal campaign is disgusting. Please delete this appalling addition to the article. It does not do the Conservapedia image any good at all. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:29, 27 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
:There's probably a name for those who make capital out of the suffering of others. Oh yes - SCUM! [[User:WarrenG|WarrenG]] 08:31, 27 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Chaplin==<br />
I saw the addition for Chaplin under divorce and I wonder if it's not worth mentioning some of the large age gaps between married Hollywood types? Chaplin met his last wife (Oona?) when she was dating one of his sons. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]]<sub>[[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']]</sub> 10:35, 30 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Wow, that's shocking. Yes, please add that with a citation. (I should have added a citation for mine also.) Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:45, 30 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Thank you, will do so. I have it mentioned in a book at home, so I'll put it up later tonight, with a few other examples I know are in there. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]]<sub>[[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']]</sub> 10:51, 30 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Hypocrisy - all specious ==<br />
<br />
Would someone please tell me what is ''hypocritical'' an actor "act[ing] in movies contrary to their public opinions"? Isn't that simply what actors do - '''act'''? This section of the article seems to be based on a very naive confusion of an actor's role-playing with his or her real-life views and actions. In its present form, I don't think it adds anything of value. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: To a degree, you're right, but when an actor profits enormously by exploiting a sentiment which he simultaneously harshly criticizes (in appeasement of [[liberals]]), it begs the question: dude, if you think it's so wrong, then why do you profit so much from it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Not convinced. You seem to be saying that no actor should accept an offer to play roles like Shylock, Iago, or Hannibal Lecter. That would make for some pretty thin plot-lines... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 10:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: No, you overstate it. A better example would be if a [[conservative]] starred in a movie featuring sex and nudity. The howls of protest by [[liberals]] would be deafening!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::But, [[Hollywood values]] embrassed by all [[Liberals]] would mean they were desensortised to this. <br />
<br />
::::Actually could you explain this why would "liberals" be out raged, you have spent all this time saying they like that in their movies. People only seem to care about movies featuring sex and nudity when some former child star appears in them and news reporting go along the line "she (it is always she they care about) is sheading her innocent image". This might comes as a shock to you but most of the world doesn't think of actors as liberal/conservative and judge their movies on that basis. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:30, 3 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== At a certain point, it would probably pay to be selective ==<br />
<br />
<br />
At some point I would advise to only use examples that best show the point trying to be made. For instance there are certainly many Hollywood divorces, but we have chosen to only point to a few that give the greatest examples of particular excess. Other areas of the article may wish to do the same. Drew Barrymore's stint in rehab as a young girl would be a good one. Ryan O'Neal thinking that Lee Majors telling him to look out for his wife while he was away on a trip meant to have sex with her would be another. Woody Allen's picture taking, the death of Dorothy Stratten, Morrison's burnout death and his girlfriend being beaten to death by a baseball bat by her next boyfriend, all would be notable examples. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:20, 4 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Crime: Innocent until proven guilty ==<br />
<br />
I think that there may be a certain level of contradiction here. Although we ''can'' use arrests as a way to suggest hedonistic activity of Hollywood stars, we're mentioning an accusation without proof they were convicted of the actual crime.<br />
<br />
Perhaps we can delete and find other conviction examples. If not we can provide a reminder that we recognize that they are innocent until proven guilty. BTW: I'm not suggesting it's wrong in essence, but it could potentially confuse readers who are trying to understand things.<br />
--[[User:Borneo|Borneo]] 05:34, 6 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Is it just me, or is this a bit one-sided? ==<br />
<br />
I think that this entire article, from the first line, is very condescending and even slanderous. This isn't an article about "Hollywood Values" (which I am convinced is a made up word), it's simply a list of drug deaths and crimes committed by people who happen to be / have been in Hollywood.<br />
<br />
While the sources for the statistics are cited, perhaps it would be more appropriate to include interviews and quotes from Hollywood stars on their values. One could also delve into the history of Hollywood, and how it has molded the culture and values that are present there now.<br />
<br />
If this is really an article on Hollywood Values, someone needs to gather up primary sources relevant to this topic. Otherwise, this article should be renamed "List of Bad Things about Hollywood People."<br />
<br />
==Charity work==<br />
I notice that a section on charity work has been removed. If entertainers are in fact sincerely raising money to help the needy isn't that part of their values and should be included in "Hollywood values"? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 10:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:No, because Hollywood Values are not the across-the-board-values of all who have worked in Hollywood. Do not be fooled into over-literalism, a crutch of [[Liberals]] who are unable to make logical pointsin debate. [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[Charlton Heston]] worked in Hollywood, and did a huge amount for good causes, but were a world away from 'Hollywood Values'. Try reading the article properly! Best wishes, [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
So, let me get this straight...<br />
<br />
Only some liberals follow liberal style and every other article beginning with the word "Liberal"<br />
<br />
Only some people in Hollywood follow Hollywood values.<br />
<br />
So really, nothing substantiative is in these articles, and it's little more than a shoddy smearjob against the rich (Hollywood) and the Left.<br />
<br />
Trustworthy indeed. [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 10:49, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So are you saying that "Hollywood values" refers only to the ''negative'' values of people who work in Hollywood, and that any positive values that might be held by people in Hollywood are ''not'' considered part of Hollywood values? Isn't that a bit biased? How would we feel if people started talking about "Republican values" but meant only the negative aspects? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 11:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Daphnea and EBrown, you are hopeless cases. HV refers to the pernicious effects of the cult of celebrity, which leads sufferers to feel that they are above all legal, moral or societal rules. It is, perhaps, significant that you are quibbling with the title and definitions through the medium of an absurd literalism. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I assumed that "Hollywood values" would be about the values espoused by Hollywood; while that is largely negative in contrast with conservative values I feel it is only honest to mention the positive aspects when they occur; unless the article ''by definition'' is only about the negative aspects, which is the question I asked. I'm assuming from your reply that it ''is'' only about the negative values. Now I can edit it accordingly. When did asking for clarification become an "absurd literalism"? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:32, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Productions==<br />
I put back a deleted edit after revising it on the advice of [[User:Bugler]]. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hollywood_values&diff=482392Hollywood values2008-06-26T21:08:11Z<p>Daphnea: /* Productions */</p>
<hr />
<div>The phrase '''Hollywood values''' refers to the lack of [[morals]] and [[values]] in [[Hollywood]] culture, which is characterized by decadence, narcissism, rampant [[drug|drug use]], extramarital sex, sexually-transmitted [[disease]], lawlessness and death. A poll by MSNBC said that 60% of [[Americans]] agree that "Hollywood's values are not in line with the rest of America and that the quality of movies has dimished in recent years."<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11714540/</ref><br />
<br />
Not all people who currently work or have worked in Hollywood espouse Hollywood values. [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Charlton Heston]], [[Walt Disney]] and many others practiced conservative values while working in Hollywood.<br />
<br />
Hollywood values can include a flagrant disrespect and disregard for:<br />
<br />
* [[marriage]] and [[abstinence]]<br />
* [[patriotism]]<br />
* [[religion]]<br />
* [[accountability]]<br />
* family responsibilities, like childrearing<ref>[[Britney Spears]] "doesn't want [her] kids back." [http://www.nypost.com/seven/02132008/news/nationalnews/brit_doesnt_want_her_kids__1st_ex_97425.htm]</ref><br />
* laws that apply to everyone else<br />
* normal behavioural boundaries and values of human decency<br />
<br />
==Deaths ==<br />
Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4174733&page=1</ref><ref>http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_18845.aspx</ref><br />
*[[John Barrymore]], 60, cirrhosis of the liver from heavy drinking<br />
*[[Bix Beiderbecke]], 28, [[alcoholism]]<br />
*[[John Belushi]], 33, was a repeated drug abuser who ultimately died of a lethal injection of cocaine and heroin<br />
*[[Clara Blandick]], 81, suicide<br />
*[[John Bonham]], 32, after too much drinking, asphyxiated on vomit<br />
*[[Kurt Cobain]], 27, "turned to drugs and alcohol to help him cope," then committed suicide<br />
*[[Karl Dane]], 47, suicide by gunshot<br />
*[[James Dean]], 24, auto accident (see also crime, below)<br />
*[[Eazy-E]], 31. [[AIDS]] contracted through drug use.<br />
*[[Brian Epstein]], 32, overdosed on sleeping pills and alcohol<br />
*[[Chris Farley]], 33, overdose of morphine and cocaine<br />
*[[Judy Garland]], 47, overdosed on sleeping pills<br />
*[[Margaux Hemingway]], 42, suicide<br />
*[[Jimi Hendrix]], 27, an enthusisatic abuser of illegal drugs, choked on his own vomit after overdose of sleeping pills.<br />
*[[Rock Hudson]], 59, AIDS<br />
*[[Michael Hutchence]], 37, asphyxiated during an auto-erotic act while alone in a Sydney hotel. His wife, Paula Yates (see below), also fell victim to Hollywood Values.<br />
*[[Richard Jeni]], 49, suicide<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258231,00.html</ref><br />
*[[Janis Joplin]], 27, heroin overdose<br />
*[[Rob Knox]], 18, star of a [[Harry Potter]] film, was stabbed to death during a fight after midnight in or outside a bar<ref>http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1204418.ece</ref><ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/05/24/international/i140113D92.DTL</ref><br />
*[[Heath Ledger]], 28, found dead in his [[Manhattan]] apartment. "Prescription sleeping pills and anti-anxiety pills were found in bottles in Ledger's bedroom and bathroom, and police have speculated the death was caused by an accidental drug overdose."<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_en_ce/obit_ledger</ref> "Ledger died of an accidental overdose of painkillers, sleeping pills, anti-anxiety medication and other prescription drugs, the New York City medical examiner said Wednesday." <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328828,00.html</ref><br />
*[[Bruce Lee]] (Li Xiaolong), actor, 33, collapsed and died; cannabis found in bloodstream at post-mortem. <br />
*[[Stuart Lubbock]], 31, found dead in the swimming pool of popular TV entertainer [[Michael Barrymore]], having suffered severe anal trauma, after a drug-fuelled party at the star's home<br />
*[[Sal Mineo]], 37, murdered under circumstances that suggested "a homosexual motive"<br />
*[[Marilyn Monroe]], 36, overdosed on sleeping pills<br />
*[[Keith Moon]], drummer of [[The Who]], 32, overdose of Clomethiazole prescribed to treat his [[alcoholism]].<br />
*[[Jim Morrison]], 27, died of an apparent heroin overdose<br />
*[[Chris Penn]], 40, brother of [[Sean Penn]], "died accidentally from an enlarged heart and the effects of a mix of multiple medications"<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/02/13/entertainment/e162146S51.DTL</ref><br />
*[[River Phoenix]], 23, died from an overdose cocaine and heroin<br />
*[[Dana Plato]], 34, ''Diff'rent Strokes'' star, suicide by drugs overdose after posing for lesbian pornography.<br />
*[[Elvis Presley]], 42, large drug intake causes a cardiac arrhythmia and rumoured to have suffocated on the carpet when he collpased from a drug overdose.<br />
*[[Virginia Rappe]], 30, died of a ruptured bladder incurred at a party hosted by [[Roscoe Arbuckle]]<br />
*[[George Reeves]], 45, suicide<br />
*[[Brad Renfro]], 25, became addicted to heroin and was found dead after a night of drinking<br />
*[[Anna Nicole Smith]], 39, accidental overdose on prescription drugs<br />
*[[Sharon Tate]], 26, an actress with a [[hippie]] lifestyle who was murdered by followers of [[Charles Manson]], a [[Beatles]]-obsessed musician wannabee; Manson's followers murdered Tate, who was pregnant and only two weeks from birth, her unborn child, her prior lover, who was staying with her while her husband, paedophile movie producer [[Roman Polanski]] (see 'Crime', below), was away, and another unmarried couple staying in the house<br />
*[[Lou Tellegen]], 52, suicide<br />
*[[Sid Vicious]], 21. [[Heroin]] overdose while awaiting trial for his girlfriend's murder.<br />
*[[Kenneth Williams]], 62, overdose.<br />
*[[Natalie Wood]], 43. Drowned while intoxicated.<br />
*[[Paula Yates]], 41, heroin overdose.<br />
<br />
== Crime ==<br />
Hollywood values often include being arrested or convicted for a variety of crimes. Here are some examples:<br />
<br />
* [[Winona Ryder]] was convicted of convicted of vandalism and grand theft for stealing designer merchandise worth $5,560.40.<ref>http://www.courttv.com/trials/ryder/</ref><br />
* [[O.J. Simpson]] is widely believed to have murdered his wife and her friend, and was found liable in a civil (but not criminal) trial. He has since been arrested again on an unrelated charge.<br />
* [[Paris Hilton]] was convicted of driving while intoxicated, and then violated the terms of her probation, leading to a 45-day prison sentence.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18472845/ Paris Hilton sentenced to 45 days in jail], msnbc, May 4, 2007</ref><br />
*[[Hugh Grant]] was arrested in 1995 when found in a car with a prostitute.<ref>[http://www.mugshots.org/hollywood/hugh-grant.html]</ref><br />
*[[Stacy Keach]], movie actor, was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment in the [[United Kingdom]] in 1984 after being arrested at [[London]] [[Heathrow Airport]] in possession of a large quantity of [[cocaine]].<br />
*[[Kiefer Sutherland]] was given a 48-day sentence for DUI in 2007, an offence committed while still on probation following a 2004 conviction for DUI.<ref>Sutherland is released from jail [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7200633.stm BBC]</ref><br />
*[[George Michael]] was convicted of "Committing a lewd act in public", having been arrested in a public restroom by a plain clothes police officer.<ref>Police confirm George Michael arrest [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/75904.stmBBC]</ref><br />
*[[Snoop Dogg]], a popular [[rap|rapper]], was arrested in 2006 for [[marijuana]] possession.<br />
*[[Roman Polanski]], Polish-born film producer, is unable to return to Hollywood as he skipped bail and fled to [[France]] after being convicted in 1978 on charges of unlawful sexual intercourse with a thirteen-year old girl.<br />
* Rapper DMX (Earl Simmons) was caught on camera drag racing at a speed over 110 miles on a freeway, and then a SWAT team was used to arrest him three days later on drug and animal cruelty charges. "The Maricopa County sheriff's office says the 37-year-old, whose real name is Earl Simmons, at first tried to barricade himself in his bedroom. He came out as a SWAT team entered during the early-morning raid Friday."<ref>http://news.aol.com/entertainment/music/music-news-story/ar/_a/dmx-arrested-on-animal-cruelty-charges/20080509163709990001</ref><br />
*[[Tatum O'Neal]] arrested in 2008 for [[cocaine]] possession. <ref><br />
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361361,00.html Tatum O'Neal Released After Drug Arrest], [[Associated Press]], ''[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]]'', June 02, 2008.</ref><br />
*[[James Dean]] displayed an unhealthy interest in a twelve-year-old boy. His former director Elia Kazan later commented: "I've known many actors who have been twisted up in their sex lives, but never anybody as sick and unhealthy as Dean was."<br />
<br />
== Falsehoods ==<br />
<br />
[[Hollywood values]] perpetuates [[liberal]]-driven falsehoods:<br />
<br />
*[[Matthew Shepard Fallacy]] <br />
:Adherents to Hollywood values "green-lighted a troika of [[Matthew Shepard]] movies after he was senselessly killed because it affirmed their gut feeling that a gay young man living in backward America is destined for death at the hands of hateful ultraconservatives. A street in West Hollywood still stands in his name despite ABC News reporting the story false: He was killed by crazed meth addicts for drugs and money -- not because he was gay. Isn't that tragic enough? Yet Shepherd is still the icon of gay victims' rights, and the mistaken story of his 'fate' soon thereafter befell Jake Gyllenhaal's character in 'Brokeback Mountain.' The Oscar statuette stands as the exclamation point."<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup26sep26,0,1800794,full.story</ref><br />
<br />
*[[Inherit the Wind]] <br />
:<fill in><br />
<br />
==Divorce==<br />
<br />
*[[Elizabeth Taylor]] has been married eight (8) times.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000072/bio</ref><br />
*[[Valerie Bertinelli]] said her divorce from [[Eddie Van Halen]] was caused by infidelity and drug use - by her too. She said she was "destroying my body," trying to keep up with a rock-star lifestyle. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332551,00.html Valerie Bertinelli About Divorce From Eddie Van Halen: 'I Wasn't An Angel Either'], [[Fox News Channel]], ''[[Associated Press]]'', February 26, 2008</ref><br />
*[[Zsa Zsa Gabor]] has been married nine (9) times.<br />
*[[Mickey Rooney]] has been married eight (8) times, but has been with his last wife for 30 years after embracing religion and abandoning his previous lifestyle.<br />
*[[Charlie Chaplin]] married four (4) times, including his marriage at the age of 54 to an 18-year-old bride.<br />
<br />
== Offensive Behavior ==<br />
<br />
* Trashing hotel rooms is a favorite form of offensive behavior by Hollywood types. Many examples are readily available on the [[internet]].<ref>See, e.g., [http://www.budgettravel.com/bt-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101034.html]</ref><br />
*[[Mel Gibson]], who had started drinking again, was arrested after being stopped for driving at 84 mph in a 45 mph zone on a notoriously dangerous road in Malibu, California.<ref>''Mel Gibson apologizes after DUI arrest'' [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14080210/ Associated Press]</ref> A breathalyzer test confirmed he was drunk and next to him was an open bottle of Tequila; after being arrested he hurled Anti-Semitic abuse at a Jewish police officer.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2292336,00.html Mel Gibson rants against Jews in drink-drive arrest], Times Online, July 30, 2006</ref><br />
*The parents of [[Miley Cyrus]], just 15 years old, allowed [[Annie Liebowitz]] to pose the starlet without a shirt or bra (aka [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/topless "topless"]) and with just a sheet covering her front for Vanity Fair magazine.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/business/media/28hannah.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</ref><ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20195785,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23608789-5001026,00.html</ref> "I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed," Cyrus said Sunday in a statement through her publicist. "I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about." <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref><br />
:"... a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines," a network statement said. <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref><br />
<br />
== Rehab ==<br />
Hollywood values often result in [[Celebrity|celebrities]] going into rehab. Here are some examples:<br />
<br />
*[[Kirsten Dunst]] checked into the [[Cirque Lodge]] treatment facility in [[Utah]] after a week of hard partying at the [[Sundance Film Festival]], according to a source at the lodge, although the lodge's director of operations denies this. <ref name = "foxkirsten"><br />
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329545,00.html Reports Say Kirsten Dunst in Rehab; Rep for Facility Denies It], ''[[Fox News]]'', February 08, 2008</ref><br />
<br />
The following all checked into the above facility seeking treatment for various psychological problems:<br />
<br />
*[[Lindsay Lohan]] <ref name = "foxkirsten"/><br />
*[[Eva Mendes]] <ref name = "foxkirsten"/><br />
*[[Mary-Kate Olsen]] <ref name = "foxkirsten"/><br />
<br />
== Hypocrisy ==<br />
<br />
Hollywood personalities often propose legislation such as outlawing private gun ownership, or speak out against things such as anti-gun laws, but have at the same time acted in movies contrary to their public opinions: <br />
<br />
* [[George Clooney]] on hearing that fellow actor and guns-rights advocate, [[Charlton Heston]], suffers from Alzheimer's disease, said: ''"I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the [[National Rifle Association]]. He deserves whatever anyone says about him."''<ref>http://www.funnyreign.com/quotes-georgeclooney.shtml</ref> Clooney starred in the film ''The Peacemaker'', in which he played an American military man defending the country from a nuclear attack; scenes in the film showed him using a gun to defend himself and others. <br />
<br />
* [[Mark Wahlberg]] upon meeting Charlton Heston on the set of the remake of ''Planet of the Apes'', Wahlberg rudely told Heston, "It was very disturbing meeting you." Later, Wahlberg would have this to say at the MTV Movie Awards: ''"I believe Charlton Heston is America's best villain because he loves guns so much. Maybe he should get the award for being president of the National Rifle Association."''<ref>http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2360</ref> Wahlberg's character in ''Planet of the Apes'' uses a gun to defend himself and other humans from the apes who would rule over them.<br />
<br />
==Moral depravity==<br />
*[[Woody Allen]] seduced and took pornographic photographs of the adolescent daughter of his wife [[Mia Farrow]].<br />
<br />
==Using appearances to promote themselves and their causes or air their pet peeves==<br />
*Rapper Kanye West infamously went way off script during a live benefit concert for victims of Hurricane Katrina, criticizing the media's treatment of images of black and white people and saying President [[George W. Bush]] "hates black people."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090300165.html</ref><br />
*During the live broadcast of the 2007 Emmy Awards, actress Sally Field went on a sputtering anti-war rant, eventually concluding by saying, "If the mothers ruled the world, there would be no g**d*** war in the first place." She received thunderous applause from the Hollywood audience for her vulgar remark.<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=3610891</ref><br />
*[[Michael Moore]] surprised no one by criticizing President Bush during his 2003 Oscar acceptance speech for "Bowling for Columbine," saying, "We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man who's sending us to war for fictitious reasons, whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts. We are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush. Shame on you."<ref>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20030323-2028-oscars-moore.html</ref><br />
*Actress Jessica Lange verbally attacked President Bush and the Iraq War during a 2008 commencement speech at Sarah Lawrence College in Yonkers, New York, stating, "We are living in an America that, in the last seven and a half years, has waged an unnecessary war, established prison camps, condoned torture, employed corporate armies, eliminated the right of habeas corpus, practiced extraordinary rendition, and believe me, this is only a partial list."<ref>http://cbs5.com/politics/Jessica.Lange.President.2.732264.html</ref><br />
<br />
==Productions==<br />
The diseased moral values of the Liberal-dominated entertainments industry are manifested all too clearly in many of the products of that industry - motion pictures and television programmes that offer no edification or instruction to the viewer, but plumb a cess-pit of licence and depravity. Some recent examples include the television series ''Desperate Housewives'' and the tv series/movie ''[[Sex and the City]]''. The movie ''Forrest Gump'' was a clumsy attempt to smear conservatives as having learning difficulties. However not all movies or TV programmes go along with ''Hollywood values'': there are also many movies and tv series that are full of conservative values, including [[The Chronicles of Narnia]], [[Pay It Forward]], [[Air Force One]], [[Independence Day]], [[Dave]], [[Touched by an Angel]], [[Toy Story]], [[The Incredibles]].<br />
<br />
==Books==<br />
* ''Hollywood Against America''<br />
* ''Hollywood Babylon'' (1965) by Kenneth Anger (US edition)<br />
* ''Hollywood Babylon II'' (1984) by Kenneth Anger<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
{{liberalism}}<br />
<br />
[[category:entertainment]]<br />
[[Category:Liberals]]</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Daphnea&diff=482390User talk:Daphnea2008-06-26T21:06:24Z<p>Daphnea: /* Editing */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{welcome}}<br />
==Richard Dawkins==<br />
It appears I made a mistake. Please accept my apologies. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]]<sup>[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]]</sup> 20:02, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Thank you. No problem. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 20:04, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Stop making positive edits, part of the lulz from this place comes from their HI-larious "definitions". Make more troll edits, but don't give advice on how to correct page. Jesus, dude.--[[User:Ivysaur|Ivysaur]] 22:41, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Answer to your question. ==<br />
<br />
Bugler did not seem to want to answer, so here is the best answer I can come up with. I would suggest steering clear of any pages that start with the word "liberal," or contain the word "values." Those pages are watched pretty closely, and any dissenting information is pretty quickly reverted. Other than that there is no easy way to tell what pages are dangerous ground. [[Barack Obama]] is another. If you look at the talk page and see alot of arguing and debate, that might be an indicator. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup> <sup>[[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]]</sup> 11:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I'll repeat what I said on Bugler's talk page, and on your talk page. Feel free to carry on the conversation at any of these.<br />
:When you say "dissenting information" what do you mean? My edits were to fix factual problems. One was to correct something said about Wikipedia (the Wikipedia article we talk about no longer says what we say it does). The other was to clear up a statement that was not backed up by references, and so not verifiable according to the Conservapedia Commandments. <br />
:When I came here I thought that this was a wiki, like Wikipedia but written from a Conservative point of view. Are there actually restrictions on who can edit articles? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 11:56, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Thanks for chipping in on the [[compass]] article ==<br />
<br />
I think it's safe to say that contributing to the [[compass]] article is "safe ground." I'm still trying to figure out "the rules" here and am finding that a lot of them are unspoken - you find out when it's too late that you've transgressed. I've been shunned (blocked) once already for violating some obscure rule that said if you talk too much, rather than directly make major edits, you'll be blocked. This implies that anyone (like me) who would rather discuss something contentious before actually changing an article has to learn simply to shut up. I personally think that is counterproductive.<br />
<br />
Writing about compasses is much more soothing (and as an ex-navigation type, something I rather enjoy). -- [[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 16:21, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree in principle, though if that's all I do I'm beginning to wonder why I wouldn't do it on another wiki. It's hard to see how an article on compasses written from a conservative viewpoint is different from one written from any other viewpoint. Some of the rules are very strange. Apparently there are some articles (no-one seems to know exactly which ones) where you have to ask permission of [[User:Aschlafly]] if you want to edit them. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:38, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Reversions==<br />
Thanks! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:16, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
And again! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:06, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==You can wait==<br />
''"I did as you said and asked [[User:Aschlafly]] about the edits to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]. That was 48 hours ago and he hasn't got back to me. How about we apply the legal doctrine "silence gives consent" and make the edits again? If he's that busy he probably won't notice, and if he objects he can always tell me why when he does notice."''<br />
<br />
How about waiting for an answer from him first? Making an over-riding decision like what you indicated above is not allowed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:02, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:This is starting to sound very worrying. Is this an "unwritten rule" - you can't disagree with [[User:Aschlafly]]? I understand that he set up the website, but if he had wanted it to contain only his views why didn't he make it a regular website instead of a wiki?<br />
:Incidentally the edits I made (that were undone and need to be "discussed" were to fix cases where the article was contravening the '''written''' rules of Conservapedia. One was a factual in accuracy and the other was a case where the reference given did not back up what was said in the article. Do the unwritten rules take precedence over the written ones? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 15:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Pretty much.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:11, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No, I wasn't referring to an unwritten rule; what I was referring to was an attempt by you to make changes that he told you not to do, and those changes would be done behind his back. It's not going to happen. So, wait until he gets back online, broach the question again, and see what comes of it. If he says no, accept it and move on. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Andy has been online several times since I asked him the question more than 48 hours ago. He has been online several times since I reminded him about it 24 hours ago. If he actually answered me and explained the reasons why my edits were bad I would be happy - it is his site after all. For that matter '''not one other editor''' has ventured to give me a reason why my edits were considered bad, including the several sysops who have been involved in this and (I would hope) have a pretty good idea of how Conservapedia works by now. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 15:20, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
==Editing==<br />
Hello. You should, by now, understand that the POV of, say, [[Hollywood values]] is to denigrate the motion picture and television industries. Adding films that show that Hollywood ''at least'' recognizes how to make a movie that has strong [[conservative values]], might make a reader think that there is some redeeming value in Hollywood and its value system. Since we know this '''cannot''' be the case, (after all, something is ''either'' '''all good''' or '''all bad'''), the edits you made were outside the scope of the POV. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 16:58, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Thanks Marge, and having been here a few days now I believe what you say. There were some previous edits to the article pointing out that not everyone in Hollywood goes along with "Hollywood values", and I had hoped that pointing out similarly that not all Hollywood movies go along with "Hollywood values" would be valuable. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:02, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::The way to do that would, on a page about Hollywood or the entertainment industry, to point out that it is not synonymous with HV. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:04, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::OK, I'll do that. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:06, 26 June 2008 (EDT)</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:San_Francisco_values&diff=482389Talk:San Francisco values2008-06-26T21:05:54Z<p>Daphnea: New page: Oh come on. Are we asking to be parodied? How about New Jersey values, which are all about whacking people? Or New York values? I'm guessing Washington DC values is next. ~~~~</p>
<hr />
<div>Oh come on. Are we asking to be parodied? How about New Jersey values, which are all about whacking people? Or New York values? I'm guessing Washington DC values is next. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:05, 26 June 2008 (EDT)</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Daphnea&diff=482383User talk:Daphnea2008-06-26T21:02:35Z<p>Daphnea: /* Editing */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{welcome}}<br />
==Richard Dawkins==<br />
It appears I made a mistake. Please accept my apologies. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]]<sup>[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]]</sup> 20:02, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Thank you. No problem. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 20:04, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Stop making positive edits, part of the lulz from this place comes from their HI-larious "definitions". Make more troll edits, but don't give advice on how to correct page. Jesus, dude.--[[User:Ivysaur|Ivysaur]] 22:41, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Answer to your question. ==<br />
<br />
Bugler did not seem to want to answer, so here is the best answer I can come up with. I would suggest steering clear of any pages that start with the word "liberal," or contain the word "values." Those pages are watched pretty closely, and any dissenting information is pretty quickly reverted. Other than that there is no easy way to tell what pages are dangerous ground. [[Barack Obama]] is another. If you look at the talk page and see alot of arguing and debate, that might be an indicator. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup> <sup>[[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]]</sup> 11:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I'll repeat what I said on Bugler's talk page, and on your talk page. Feel free to carry on the conversation at any of these.<br />
:When you say "dissenting information" what do you mean? My edits were to fix factual problems. One was to correct something said about Wikipedia (the Wikipedia article we talk about no longer says what we say it does). The other was to clear up a statement that was not backed up by references, and so not verifiable according to the Conservapedia Commandments. <br />
:When I came here I thought that this was a wiki, like Wikipedia but written from a Conservative point of view. Are there actually restrictions on who can edit articles? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 11:56, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Thanks for chipping in on the [[compass]] article ==<br />
<br />
I think it's safe to say that contributing to the [[compass]] article is "safe ground." I'm still trying to figure out "the rules" here and am finding that a lot of them are unspoken - you find out when it's too late that you've transgressed. I've been shunned (blocked) once already for violating some obscure rule that said if you talk too much, rather than directly make major edits, you'll be blocked. This implies that anyone (like me) who would rather discuss something contentious before actually changing an article has to learn simply to shut up. I personally think that is counterproductive.<br />
<br />
Writing about compasses is much more soothing (and as an ex-navigation type, something I rather enjoy). -- [[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 16:21, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree in principle, though if that's all I do I'm beginning to wonder why I wouldn't do it on another wiki. It's hard to see how an article on compasses written from a conservative viewpoint is different from one written from any other viewpoint. Some of the rules are very strange. Apparently there are some articles (no-one seems to know exactly which ones) where you have to ask permission of [[User:Aschlafly]] if you want to edit them. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:38, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Reversions==<br />
Thanks! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:16, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
And again! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:06, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==You can wait==<br />
''"I did as you said and asked [[User:Aschlafly]] about the edits to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]. That was 48 hours ago and he hasn't got back to me. How about we apply the legal doctrine "silence gives consent" and make the edits again? If he's that busy he probably won't notice, and if he objects he can always tell me why when he does notice."''<br />
<br />
How about waiting for an answer from him first? Making an over-riding decision like what you indicated above is not allowed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:02, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:This is starting to sound very worrying. Is this an "unwritten rule" - you can't disagree with [[User:Aschlafly]]? I understand that he set up the website, but if he had wanted it to contain only his views why didn't he make it a regular website instead of a wiki?<br />
:Incidentally the edits I made (that were undone and need to be "discussed" were to fix cases where the article was contravening the '''written''' rules of Conservapedia. One was a factual in accuracy and the other was a case where the reference given did not back up what was said in the article. Do the unwritten rules take precedence over the written ones? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 15:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Pretty much.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:11, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No, I wasn't referring to an unwritten rule; what I was referring to was an attempt by you to make changes that he told you not to do, and those changes would be done behind his back. It's not going to happen. So, wait until he gets back online, broach the question again, and see what comes of it. If he says no, accept it and move on. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Andy has been online several times since I asked him the question more than 48 hours ago. He has been online several times since I reminded him about it 24 hours ago. If he actually answered me and explained the reasons why my edits were bad I would be happy - it is his site after all. For that matter '''not one other editor''' has ventured to give me a reason why my edits were considered bad, including the several sysops who have been involved in this and (I would hope) have a pretty good idea of how Conservapedia works by now. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 15:20, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
==Editing==<br />
Hello. You should, by now, understand that the POV of, say, [[Hollywood values]] is to denigrate the motion picture and television industries. Adding films that show that Hollywood ''at least'' recognizes how to make a movie that has strong [[conservative values]], might make a reader think that there is some redeeming value in Hollywood and its value system. Since we know this '''cannot''' be the case, (after all, something is ''either'' '''all good''' or '''all bad'''), the edits you made were outside the scope of the POV. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 16:58, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Thanks Marge, and having been here a few days now I believe what you say. There were some previous edits to the article pointing out that not everyone in Hollywood goes along with "Hollywood values", and I had hoped that pointing out similarly that not all Hollywood movies go along with "Hollywood values" would be valuable. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:02, 26 June 2008 (EDT)</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=482352Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog2008-06-26T20:36:43Z<p>Daphnea: /* E. coli in our bowels */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Final Copy of Letter Sent Wednesday afternoon ==<br />
<br />
Dear Prof. Lenski,<br />
<br />
This is my second request for your data underlying your recent paper, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of ''Escherichia coli''," published in PNAS (June 10, 2008) and reported in New Scientist ("Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in lab," June 9, 2008).<br />
<br>http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf<br />
<br>http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html<br />
<br />
Your work was taxpayer-funded, and PNAS represents that its authors will make underlying data available. I'd like to review the data myself and ensure availability for others, including experts and my students. Others have expressed interest in access to the data in addition to myself, and your website seems well-suited for public release of these data.<br />
<br />
If the data are voluminous, then I particularly request access to the data that was made available to the peer reviewers of your paper, and to the data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony supposedly developed Cit+. As before, I'm requesting the organized data themselves, not the graphs and summaries set forth in the paper and referenced in your first reply to me. Note that several times your paper expressly states, "data not shown."<br />
<br />
Given that this is my second request for the data, a clear answer is requested as to whether you will make the key underlying data available for independent review. Your response, or lack thereof, will be posted due to the public interest in this issue. Thank you.<br />
<br />
Andy Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D.<br />
<br>www.conservapedia.com<br />
<br>cc: PNAS, New Scientist publications<br />
<br />
:That was disappointing. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I don't blame him if he doesn't respond. What is this about Aschafly wanting to review the information himself. I thought he said that he wouldn't understand it, or something to that effect.[[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:21, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Well, I guess he didn't really need people to sign on with him, after all. Added to the project page.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 17:29, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Draft letter ==<br />
<br />
Dear Prof. Lenski,<br />
<br />
This is my second request for the data underlying your recent paper, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli," published in PNAS (June 10, 2008) and reported in New Scientist ("Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in lab," June 9, 2008).<br />
<br>http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf<br />
<br>http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html<br />
<br />
This work was taxpayer-funded, and PNAS represents that its authors will make underlying data available. I'd like to review the data myself and ensure availability for others, including experts and my students. Others have expressed interested in access to the data in addition to myself, and your website seems well-suited for public release of these data.<br />
<br />
If the data are voluminous, then I particularly request that access to the data made available to the peer reviewers of your paper, and data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony supposedly developed Cit+. As before, I'm requesting the organized data themselves, not the graphs and summaries set forth in the paper. Note that several times your paper expressly states, "data not shown."<br />
<br />
Given that this is my second request for the data, a clear answer is requested as to whether you will make the key data available for independent review. Thank you.<br />
<br />
Andy Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D.<br />
<br />
cc: PNAS, New Scientist publications<br />
<br />
:Given that he was very gracious in his last reply, you think maybe it would be a good idea to at least TRY not to sound like he's being accused of malfeasance? I'd suggest new wording but something much better is already available below. -Drek<br />
<br />
== List of people willing to join an email requesting the public release of Lenski's data ==<br />
<br />
Schedule permitting, a better version of the draft letter below (which someone diluted) will be sent tomorrow to Lenski, noting support by others (unspecified whom) at Conservapedia. Obviously Conservapedia rejects the limits on access to data proposed by several below. Public access to data means access by all, not merely by people having certain preferred credentials or education.<br />
<br />
This will be the second request for the data from Lenski. Given that the research was publicly funded and published in a Journal that has a policy of access to data, the expectation is that Lenski will release the data. But will he?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:40, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
: I'm not sure that you've ever spelt out exactly what data you are expecting. Somebody mentioned on this page that we might be talking about terabytes of data. Is that what you are asking for? Or what?<br />
: Also, I don't recall anybody actually said that the access to the data should be limited (and if you are talking about my comments and those of others that ''we'' should leave it to those who are qualified to see it, then I reject that we are proposing limits as such).<br />
: Neither have you responded to my comments about how it will make creationists look.<br />
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:58, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I "diluted it. I thought it needed to be more specific and polite. Since it is neither again, I am hesitant to put my name to it. There's no need to be brusque, and every reason to be as polite as possible.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 12:35, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
'''Current total of supporters: 7'''<br />
<br />
*[[User:Aschlafly]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:13, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
*[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 20:55, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
*--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 12:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
*--[[User:DeanS|DeanS<sup>talk</sup>]] 14:05, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
*[[User:Conservative]]---[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:52, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Wait a second... if I put my name on this list, is it going to get attached to some combative email? I don't want to just agree, when you seem to be ignoring my attempts to help draft this email. What were you proposing to send, Andy? If you wouldn't mind, could you post the text here before I have to decide if I want to attach my good name to it?--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 14:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::QFT. I likewise said earlier that I'd be happy to sign on, pending a review of the actual text to be sent. So long as the tone remains professional and polite I'm in. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: It will be polite and professional, of course. In fact, someone else can draft the text if he likes, as long as it simply requests '''public release of the data for public scrutiny''' and is free of any obfuscation like that displayed by some detractors on this page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:54, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::There's a draft that some folks are working on, below. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Provisionally willing, pending review of the finished draft. I make it a policy never to sign my name to anything I haven't read. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Let's work up a draft. Here's a start, and improvements are welcome:<br />
<br />
Dear Prof. Lenski,<br />
<br />
Your recent paper in PNAS, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key<br />
innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli,"[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf] has interested us greatly. Knowing PNAS policy of making data available, we were hoping you would accordingly oblige us with your recorded observations for a few key points.<br />
<br />
We respectfully request the data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony developed cit+; while we see excerpts in the paper, we were hoping to examine them in context. Your website[https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/] already discloses some older data, and seems well-suited for public release of the data underlying your recent paper.<br />
<br />
Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this.<br />
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:15, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I think we should probably be more specific, Andy. We're obviously not asking for twenty years' worth of notes, right? Or at least, I don't think we should ask for that.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 21:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I think it's reasonably obvious what the key claims are in the paper, and what the key data are underlying those claims. But, if you like, perhaps you can revise the above letter. The paper itself is not long and feel free to cite to it, if you think that is necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:10, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I just think it helps to be as specific as possible. But I have edited a bit with slightly more polite wording and more specificity. I hope it is acceptable?--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 21:16, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::If we send that version, put my name on the list :) --[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 13:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::I'll add my name to that version as well. It's encouraging to see what teamwork can achieve when we're all focused on the same goal. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:39, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Is it acceptable for the people co-signing this letter to use their Conservapedia user names? I noticed earlier that Arizaphale did not want to use his real name. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:54, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Thanks, Philip. I'm also willing to sign with a generic "John Doe" or even an old-fashioned "X". Or, the letter could simply be signed "Members of the Conservapedia Community," since I'm feeling confident that two or more others aren't sporting their actual names on that list. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:41, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Right, that's no problem. We're polite and professional around here, and signing as "Members of the Conservapedia Community" is a good suggestion, with a number added.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:51, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'd be more comfortable with that, as well. You can't be too careful with putting personal information online nowadays. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Recap ==<br />
<br />
Carafe, TomMoore, and SMaines all defend the withholding from public scrutiny of data underlying a scientific claim. Moreover, note how insulting some of them have become in response below to a request for public scrutiny of the data. No more insults will be allowed here, and their talk pollution may be removed.<br />
<br />
Public scrutiny has obvious benefits, and none of them have given any reason for denying that scrutiny. Journals and even government policy encourage or require it. Ah, but [[evolutionists]] feel they can play by their own rules, and make public claims without making the data public. Rest assured that no one here is fooled by this "make the claim but hide the data from the public" approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:Just for the record, the above as it refers to my own statements is untrue. I think public scrutiny is excellent. I believe, in fact, that given that Lenski so promptly answered your questions, he would probably comply with any specific requests you might make. It does not seem reasonable to demand he send you what must be gigabytes of data off the cuff. If you were a professional in a field even tangentially related, I imagine he might be happy to do so immediately, but as it is, I suspect you are not at the top of the list for someone as busy as he undoubtedly must be.<br />
:Perhaps if you sent him an email asking him a specific question: ("I wonder if you would send me the relevant records from the time at which you believe the bacteria became Cit+" might be one, but I am not a biologist) he would answer it with the records or say why he wouldn't. Or if you wait, they might have time to organize the data into a coherent manner for presentation and make it available on the internet or by request. Cordiality is key, we agree on that much.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 15:05, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::While I appreciate having my name removed from the top list because my position was acknowledged, it's pointless while Carafe, TomMoore, and SMaines are still being represented in the way they are. I'm in agreement with them, and now Philip Rayment too, that simply asking "for all your data" is not only unscientific, but wasteful and disrespectful if there's no meaningful plan in place to use the data productively. None of these people are against disclosure or proper scientific review, so as long as that statement above remains you're continuing to make false statements about CP editors. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:21, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: If you supported public scrutiny of the data, then you would send Lenski an email requesting it. That you have not, and will not, speaks volumes about your view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:40, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::...to me, it says that I'm not a biologist, and doubt I could fairly evaluate it if I received it. I know the degree of training it has required for me to achieve my present position, and I lack the hubris to think I could exercise equivalent powers of discrimination in a field so unrelated to my own. I'm not faulting you - maybe you have a degree in biochemistry, for all I know! But I know that I am not capable of fairly evaluating in context the raw data of biological experiments. My view is not a multi-book set: there's only one volume to it, and it's humility and appreciation of the credentials of the qualified.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 17:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: As I said, TomMoore, you apparently don't support "public scrutiny" of the data. Your own expertise is obviously irrelevant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I assure you, Andy, I do support it. I see no reason to think it isn't forthcoming, even though he didn't send all of the data to Some Internet Guy who demanded it offhand.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 22:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: Andy, I will not join in your support in the wasting of the tax dollars of mine and others to provide irrelevant information which you will then proceed to not use. Your version of "scrutiny", unlike scientific scrutiny, accomplishes nothing but to waste our tax dollars.<br />
<br />
::::: You can either participate with other scientists in public scrutiny by identifying rational weaknesses in Lenski's work and doing verification experiments, or you can continue to ignore public scrutiny and demand that your version of "scrutiny" be done. What will it be?<br />
<br />
::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 20:09, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: Although I support the public release of data, there is no way that I would ask for it or put my name to a request for it unless I first knew that someone was available to analyse it. I mentioned earlier (when this discussion was on Aschlafly's talk page) that creationists might not review Lenski's work because of lack of funding and numbers of creationary scientists available to do the work. Nevertheless, two creationary scientists have or are in the process of critiquing it (and I think an ID proponent has also). But the first (Don Batten) has apparently not seen the need to ask for all the data, and if either of the other two feel the need, they can ask for themselves. But given the aforementioned lack of funding and availability, it would be pointless asking for the data if there was nobody available to analyse it. Of course, if Conservapedia, or someone known to Conservapedia, is offering to fund the analysis, that might change things.<br />
::::: Furthermore, most problems with evolutionary conclusions are not because of misrepresenting the data, but with the conclusions being based on the materialistic worldview. It is usually not necessary to analyse the (in this case) 20 years' worth of data in order to find this fault.<br />
::::: I'm also concerned about the impression this will give of creationists. We cop enough criticism as it is simply by holding creationist views without giving our critics real reasons such as unreasonable demands for data that we will probably never use.<br />
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: Finally. Someone who makes sense. I'll gladly join in an email requesting any relevant data from Lenski, as needed by an identified/funded creationist scientist for Conservapedia.<br />
<br />
:::::: Until that time, Andy's "public scrutiny" just wastes tax dollars.<br />
<br />
:::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 12:08, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Unfortunately, Philip, you've proven to be right on this. If you google "schlafly lenski" there's plenty of criticism over the way this has been handled by CP, and the credibility of the latter. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:25, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Request of Examination of raw data is reasonable given the history of fraud related to the evolutionary position ==<br />
<br />
I do think a request of examination of the alleged raw data is reasonable [[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation|given the history of fraud in relation to the evolutionary position]]. In addition, we know know that [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin was deceitful regarding his public pronouncements regarding his worldview]] and he was actually an [[atheism|atheist]]. So given the history of [[deceit]] in connection with the evolutionary position and its promotion, I do think Andy is quite justified in requesting to see the raw data of Lenski's alleged work. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:14, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: As I wrote above, I'm pretty sure the relevant data would be happily provided as soon as a request a bit more specific than "give me all the data" is given. Some particular weakness that Andy identified in Lenski's reasoning, perhaps? Or some experimental procedure that you deemed especially prone to mistake, or even forgery? What is this "skepticism" that has been "expressed" based on? Or is it some sort of... dogmatic skepticism?<br />
<br />
: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 00:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I had asked a question above that was never answered, so I'll repeat it here: Who does Conservapedia plan on retaining to review the data from on scientific basis? It would be a lot more professional to select a qualified scientist or panel of scientists to do the job, and let them have a ''professional'' dialog with Prof. Lenski to review the raw data and conclusions. This is just grandstanding - "You haven't delivered gigs and gigs of raw data as requested, so you're withholding data". What it comes down to is that the CP leadership wants anything BUT a professional, qualified review of professor Lenski's work, because the outcome of that is not likely to be what they want. This reminds me of Kent Hovind's "Evolution Challenge" - set up ridiculous demands, and then claim victory because reasonable people don't meet them. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:07, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Public scrutiny has obvious benefits. See "recap" above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::I'll repeat my specific point. There's nothing improper about requesting that Professor Lenski share his raw data, but it's disrespectful of his time if there's no intention of using that data purposefully. I had asked what the plan was for having the data reviewed once it's received. Are there any qualified professionals lined up to review it and respond? He showed courtesy and professionalism in responding intra-day to the original request, so it's disrespectful to accuse him of withholding information after a single exchange of emails. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::It's also disrespectful to claim that Carafe, TomMoore, SMaines and I are all defending "the withholding from public scrutiny of data underlying a scientific claim." None of us have made that statement, so please remove it since it's untrue. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:46, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: DinsdaleP, clearly state that you support the public release of the data, and retract any comments to the contrary, and I'll remove your name. <br />
<br />
:::::: Your comment above suggests that you only support requests for data that have a proper purpose (whatever that is), a proper plan for review (whatever that is), and "qualified professionals lined up to review it." If you cling to that very limited approach, then you do oppose "public scrutiny" of data underlying a scientific claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I thought my comments were self-explanatory, but I'll try to simplify it. Yes, I support the public release of the data, and never claimed otherwise. I hope that's clear enough. The point we disagree on is that after a single exchange of emails, it's wrong to accuse Prof. Lenski of withholding data when he made a reasonable attempt to answer your questions and point you to the supporting data in his papers. If you ask him in a courteous manner how the underlying raw data can be made available, I'm sure you'll get a prompt and professional reply. So go ahead, make the request, and get the data. Frankly, I don't care what you do with it, but at least it will stop the insulting accusations of data being withheld. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::A last clarification - my point about having a "proper purpose" in requesting the data simply meant that if you were asking Prof. Lenski to take the time and effort to collect the raw data and send it to you, I'd hope the effort wasn't going to be a waste of time because it never got into the hands of people qualified to evaluate it properly. Time will tell. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:07, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::: Perhaps you're saying you don't oppose public release of the data. You haven't demonstrated you would "support" it, as in joining an email requesting it. Or would you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::"Perhaps"? I thought my statement above was plain enough, but instead of retracting your false accusation, you're just adding new conditions - now I have to add my signature to an email I haven't seen to show my support for disclosure? That's a sad way to avoid accountability for making false statements. Show me the email and a plan for using the data that doesn't make this a waste of time and taxpayer money, and I'll consider signing the request. In the meantime, please remove the false statements at the top of this page. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:17, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::: I'm sure all of us here will gladly join in an email requesting public release of the data in a scientific scrutiny process. I will not however join in your version of "scrutiny", which has nothing to do with scientific scrutiny at all. -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 20:11, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== responses of creation scientists to Lenski matter ==<br />
<br />
Here are the responses of creation scientists to the Lenski matter:<br />
<br />
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5827<br />
<br />
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/06/14/news-to-note-06142008<br />
<br />
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:48, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Another email? ==<br />
<br />
Is there going to be one? It's entirely possible that, having received a request from a lawyer for data, a scientist might very well think that the data provided in the report would be sufficient. Before deciding that he's hiding something, why not give him enough rope to conclusively hang himself?<br />
<br />
"Dear Dr. Lenski,<br />
<br />
I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear enough in the first place. We were hoping to see the entirety of the raw data in order to assess it ourselves."<br />
<br />
Or some such.<br />
<br />
[[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:26, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::If you are running a study on the genetics of a rapidly multiplying bacterial species over many years, the data accumulated will run into many many gigabytes. I don't believe it is practical to hand it out to any Tom, Dick and Harry requesting it. If there are concerns about any particular area of the study which raised suspicion of fraud or misinterpretation of data, then Mr. Schlafly should be asking the raw data pertaining to that particular area. <br />
<br />
::I have published in many medical journals and actively peer review for 2 of them. This is how it works in the field of science. Being a lawyer, Mr. Schlafly may not be familiar with the practice. So I do not think the email Aziraphale prepared is appropriate. This is my opinion and most of the users seem to agree with this as well. --[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 13:35, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
In response to Aziraphale, my email was clear and there is no reason for me to say the same thing again. You're welcome to make your request of Lenski if you really don't think he understood my email.<br />
<br />
In response to SMaines, I'll add your name to the list above of people who oppose the public release of data underlying public claims about the data. (The amount of the data is no obstacle to its release.) SMaines' approach prevents mistakes and fraud from being identified by independent public review. Apparently SMaines does not even request availability of the data when he does peer review. Perhaps he could tell us which journals he does peer review for so that others can have a healthy skepticism about claims made in them. Of course, SMaines is unlikely to disclose the names of those journals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:21, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
It is true that I do not ask for raw data from all the authors that I have peer reviewed articles for. You do not seem to understand how the peer review process works. The role of the peer reviewer is not to repeat all the work the authors have already done. <br />
<br />
First I check whether the authors are asking a relevant question regarding the hypothesis, whether the hypotheses are falsifiable, whether the methodology is sound without any obvious flaws, were the data collected ethically and whether they obtain informed consent of all involved. I also aim to determine the experiments performed adhering to protocol and statistical methods used were sound. Then I determine whether their results actually conclude what they have listed as their conclusions. I check whether the bibliography is complete and up-to-date. Finally I recommend to the editor whether the paper is significant and relevant to the journal. I may have omitted a few steps, but that is in nutshell how a peer review process works. <br />
<br />
I have worked in academic circles for years and I am yet to come across any referee who will ask for the whole set of raw data for all the papers reviewed. Raw data is only asked for if we have any concerns regarding the validity of methodology or conclusions. I have in the past asked for set of raw data to run some specific calculations myself. I have never known any one who will ring an author and ask to send the whole set of data covering years of data collection. <br />
<br />
It works like Carafe described “A, I tried duplicating your experiment, but parameters x, y, and z that I need were not in your article. I need you to disclose to me x, y, and z that you used at the time. What are they?”<br />
<br />
Also, have you come across the different peer review tools? Please familiarize yourself with the process before <br />
<br />
For record, I am not against public scrutiny at all, but you have not even pointed out what your concerns or skepticisms are. What you have effectively said is you paper does not fit my belief patterns, so I do not believe you. Hand over all the raw data. This is childish and silly. <br />
--[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 15:06, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Dear Aschlafly,<br />
<br />
:You've mistaken me for someone who thinks he could diagnose Lenski's work in a meaningful way. You are one who can do so, so I was offering advice. It was free, and worth every penny. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Aziraphale, you still don't get it. I support the public release of the data, so that the public can analyze it. Got it now?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::One of us is certainly not getting something - my suggestion was meant to encourage the release of the data, rather than allowing the conversation to die with a possibility existing that there was a miscommunication rather than a denial of the request. What's more important here: that a political point is scored, or that the data be released? You are 100% mistaken if you think I'm opposed to the release of the data. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:50, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:20, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Absolutely, but I won't divulge my identity to you. If using a pseudonym is alright with you I'll gladly attach my support. If my particular handle is too silly, I could be appended as a John Doe instead. That said, you and I have different ideas of what language is appropriate, so I'd expect to see the exact text in advance. For example, until ''proven'' a liar or charlatan he deserves not to be accused of anything. Rather, just as when a motion for discovery is not compeletely fulfilled to your satisfaction, a firm but courteous clarification of your expectations would be appropriate.<br />
<br />
::::Would you care for me to draft something instead, and you can sign off, or not, as you see fit? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 21:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Rants Against Public Release of Data ==<br />
<br />
:While you're at it, you might do well to explain to Lenski what exactly a "Conservapedia" is. Unless he really likes Lewis Black's "The conservatives think that YOU, THE PUBLIC, HAVE A LIBERAL BIAS." quote, he's unlikely to know. After all, this site gets most of its views from a small group of devout sysops and the snarkers over at RW. Godspeed. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 13:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf Paper 180.] All kinds of data. If you want, I can also link to the protocols and such. Prof. Lenski is way more obliging than we would have any right to expect... I sent him a letter of congratulations, and he even took the time to reply thanking me!--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 15:27, 13 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::So, Andy, when can we expect your in-depth analysis of paper #180? -Drek<br />
<br />
:::With a professional and comprehensive reply having been sent promptly by Professor Lenski, what would be the intended follow-up from Conservapedia? It seems like he answered the letter's first two questions and pointed out that the third was based on a misunderstanding of his paper. Since his study's data and methodology are freely available for review, I'm wondering who CP is looking to engage to independently review and assess his work, which has already passed peer review in order to be published. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:03, 13 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::He answered, everybody scramble! I need that Lack of Evidence in the air NOW! You call artillery and tell them to deploy the Inconclusive Data immediately! Move, move, move! We've got a battle against science to fight, people!--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 17:29, 13 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Lenski's reply did not provide the data as requested. It did clarify that his claims are not as strong as some [[evolutionists]] have insisted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:07, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:"You will find all the relevant methods and data supporting this claim in our paper." If this statement is true then I hardly think he's going to go to the trouble of sending us all his data when it is readily available. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:29, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: StatsMsn, have you ever read a scientific paper? Papers don't set forth the data themselves. At most, they set forth summaries of data, which can be flawed or self-serving.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:31, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Supposing he gave you access to the gigs of raw data, would you:<br />
:::#Be able to understand any of it? <br />
:::#Be prepared to accept that the data accurately reflects the physical facts of the matter in the lab, were you to find it consistent with his conclusions?<br />
:::Given your educational background, I have serious doubts about 1), and given your behaviour on this site, I find myself incapable of believing 2). Please feel free to offer me some reassurance. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 10:26, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::I find this ironic that you suddenly want data to support someone else's claim, given your "Mystery: Young hollywood stars and breast cancer" ballpark figure. The paper provides more than ballpark figures you have previously used to support your hypothses in the past. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: In response to Leda, if for some unexplained reason I can't understand the data, then I'll find someone who can. I don't know how to fly an airplane but obviously that does not stop me from traveling by air. I am not reassured by the withholding of data.<br />
<br />
::::: In response to DanielB, I presented my data and described it as a mystery. What we have here is the unacceptable opposite: a scientific claim without production of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:12, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: ''"I don't know how to fly an airplane but obviously that does not stop me from traveling by air."'' Oh, nobody's objecting to you flying when clueless. But a modicum of flight knowledge might expected of you if you, say, suddenly rush into the cockpit and demand that the pilot repeat to you every single flight procedure done for the last 12 hours, lest you declare him fraudulent and/or incompetent. I mean, isn't that what you're implying?<br />
<br />
:::::: I mean, what are you expecting when you demand "data" of the Cit+ mutation occurance other than a log entry of "Jan 24th, 2008, 2:03pm. Generation 2026 confirmed to express Cit+ mutation"? Then what you do oh-so-politely request? That all of his collaborator's minds be read so you can make sure there is no mistakes?<br />
<br />
:::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 23:08, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: Your attempt to defend the withholding of data underlying a scientific claim is amusing. While you're at it, perhaps you should also protest the Submission guidelines for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science: "(viii) Materials and Data Availability. To allow others to replicate and build on work published in PNAS, authors must make materials, data, and associated protocols available to readers. Authors must disclose upon submission of the manuscript any restrictions on the availability of materials or information." You might also protest policies that recommend or require taxpayer-funded data to be made available.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:21, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::: You thought my poking fun at your inability to form a coherent analogy was supposed to be a defense? The amusement is all on this side of the table, trust me. You see, there is no defending going on here, because there is no withholding going on here.<br />
<br />
:::::::: ''"(viii) Materials and Data Availability..."'' Yes, you can stop repeating yourself now. This was in your letter, which I did in fact read (something that might not be said of you and the myriad articles Richard provided). I did wonder why that was in your letter. I mean, did you think that normal scientific discourse doesn't occur unless by your legal coercion? I'm pretty sure if you had, say, a request just a tad more specific than "give me all your data", Richard would have been more than happy to reply. "Give me all your data" is as an absurd of a data request as demanding that Richard must "right now tell me all you know about E. coli", which, come to think about it, would be pretty much the same thing.<br />
<br />
:::::::: '''''"To allow others to replicate and build on''' work published in PNAS, authors must..."'' Out of curiosity, which part of his experiment are you trying to replicate that need additional information not available in the paper? Maybe you should tell him, he could easily help you with that. If you are not replicating the experiment, then did you have a real question or concern, or a weakness that you identified, like "I had a concern about this-and-that procedure of the strain selection, it seems particularly vulnerable to contamination" he would be quite happy to help you too. But hey, that requires that you have a clue about the subject matter.<br />
<br />
:::::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 00:32, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::::::You really go out of your way to defend a guy who's clearly a fraudulent hack. Even if he released his so called "raw data" it would just be a huge load of numbers no one is going to take the time to analyze. If it took him years and years to do this experiment he can be pretty sure no one is going to waste that much time trying to replicate it, so everyone can assume he's right and the atheist Darwinists can pretend they've proved evolution, even when we know it's impossible. Do you believe everything you read? If someone claimed they had a mountain of evidence that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster had a baby, I suppose you'd believe that too if it were published somewhere? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 14:36, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
::::::::::So let me see if I understand you correctly, Tony. If Lenski doesn't release all of the raw data accumulated over twenty years as Mr. Schlafly requests, it's proof that he's a fraud. If Lenski releases all of the raw data accumulated over twenty years as Mr. Schlafly requests, the sheer volume is proof that he's trying to pull a fast one, and he's a fraud. <br />
::::::::::Is that correct?<br />
::::::::::Given this and other comments you have made, I suspect that you're a satirist attempting to make conservatives look unreasonable. If so, please stop. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:06, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I resent being called a satirist. You assume that anyone who doesn't hold your liberal views must be joking! Well, the majority of the people in this country are "satirists" if that is the case. It doesn't much matter if Lenski releases his data or not. Us right thinking people know he's a fraud because he claims to have witnessed evolution, and we know that is impossible. That is a fact! I'd like to see his data. I bet it's so seriously flawed even someone with little background in biology will be able to tell. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 21:54, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::::::::::: Do not call Lenski or anyone else a fraud without good evidence. Evolution is impossible, but for Lenski to be a fraud he would have to be claiming something that he ''knows'' to be wrong, and you've provided no evidence of that, and I doubt that it exists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT) (Administrator)<br />
::::::::::::: Not at all, Tony. I assume that anyone who is genuinely conservative is going to present a reasonable and rational demeanor, refrain from a priori reasoning, and generally engage in mature conduct. I assume that those who wish to promulgate a stereotype of conservatism with an eye to demonization is going to engage in name-calling, refuse to engage in rational discussion, and declare himself right without adequate support for the position. Such actions are entirely consistent with liberals masquerading as conservatives. If you resent being called a satirist, I would suggest attempting to conduct yourself in a manner becoming a conservative. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:22, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::: Where did the 20 years come from? Lenski was asked for the data supporting his claim. He has produced some information on a website, but not that data. Yes, making a claim while withholding the data, even after a request, can reasonably lead one to doubt the claim. Wouldn't you agree with that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
'''(Unindent)'''<br />
<br />
Certainly, Mr. Schlafly. What I'm taking issue with is Tony's claim that even if Lenski releases his data, it's not worth taking the time to analyze or "waste the time" trying to replicate. It seems very much to me as if he's trying to portray conservatives as closed-minded and unwilling to look at the evidence. Perhaps I'm mistaken on that point, but I certainly think you'd agree that such individuals have turned up here before, wouldn't you? <br />
<br />
With respect to the 'twenty years' portion: I was under the impression that you wanted the full and complete data to be made available. Given that the experiment took twenty years, I assumed that you would want the full twenty years of data included for evaluation. I apologize if I was mistaken.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:28, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
I was wondering how anyone possibly could conclude from this exchange that Lenski was hiding something. I came to the conclusion that some people must not understand how scientific scrutiny works. I wrote a guide.<br />
<br />
<u>Scientific scrutiny works like this:</u><br><br />
{| width="500px"<br />
|-<br />
|<i>'''Scientist A''' publishes results.<br><br />
'''Scientist B''': A, I tried duplicating your experiment, but parameters x, y, and z that I need were not in your article. I need you to disclose to me x, y, and z that you used at the time. What are they?<br><br />
'''A''': x, y, and z are such and such.<br><br />
'''B''': Using x, y, and z, my result doesn't agree with yours at all. Are you sure you did the procedures that you claimed?<br><br />
'''A''': ...<br><br />
'''B''': You fraud!</i><br />
<br />
<u>Scientific scrutiny ''does not'' work like this:</u><br><br />
<i><br />
'''A''' publishes results.<br><br />
'''B''': I have Generic Skepticism toward your article. Under code viii of the Publication Criteria, I demand that you give me all of your data!<br><br />
'''A''': ... ok...? It seems that everything you would need is already in the article. Did you have something specific in mind?<br><br />
'''B''': A has refused to attach all data he has ever used for the experiment. He is withholding information and thus hiding something.<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
-- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 01:42, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:This is it. This one is my favorite post. Carafe has won Conservapedia, roll the credits.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 01:49, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Beautiful! What else can I say?--[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 13:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Not much, apparently. I think you've exhausted your meaningful comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Aschlafly, have you read the paper? ==<br />
<br />
I have. It pretty fairly lays out all the important data. Unless you want to run the experiments yourself - which I don't know if you could do, given the equipment he used - I think it's probably the best you'll ever get. I think a fair reply to Lenski would be point out elements of his analysis that you don't like, and put that in a reply e-mail. Otherwise, your lack of reply makes it look like you've given up, and your defensive parries here ("he didn't give all his data!") look like a losing rearguard action.-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 17:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::May I sign-with-qualifier? As in, signed, "A. Shephard - please do show as much as reasonably possible; the truth will out and convince those who doubt you, and this will hasten it along."?-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 22:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Something to note ==<br />
<br />
From the AiG article:<br />
<br />
"AiG’s Dr. Georgia Purdom is studying the research for an upcoming semi-technical article in the journal Answers In Depth."<br />
<br />
Apparently, Lenski has released his data to Purdom. Presumably, Dr. Purdom wouldn't settle for fragmentary data that wouldn't allow her to fully evaluate the claims. Had Lenski refused to disclose, it seems certain that AiG would have made note of it.<br />
<br />
{{unsigned|Benp}}<br />
<br />
==Hypothetical==<br />
Let's say that a second email is enough for Lenski to release his data. What are you going to do with it all? Previous discussions show you don't what you are doing with small, simple to analyse data sets. You would need a degree in biochemistry and biostats to even begin to know what you are going to do with it. The people who have peer reviewed the paper a by far better qualified and if they had concerns they would have asked specifically for what they wanted without sounding like .... Well I want say what you sound like writting emails singed with a law degree demanding data. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:25, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Sure, but like the human genome it will probably be released in time anyway in a way that is useful. You standing there making demands, signing letters JD, makes you look like some lawyer with an axe to grind rather than someone interested in research. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Proposed Follow-up Email==<br />
Since Andy wants to send a second email for some of the rest of us to sign as well, here is a space to work out the wording. I wonder if MainS and Carafe would help us write something that seems reasonable and polite, since you guys seem to have sufficient knowledge in the field to describe what we are looking to find out?<br />
<br />
I would suggest something along these lines:<br />
<br />
''Dear Professor Lenski''<br />
''We are writing in regards to your recent experiment with cit+ development in observed E. coli populations. We were wondering if you would oblige us by sending the relevant raw data from your observations during the period in which the bacteria population developed the ability to utilize citrase. We are intensely curious about that information. If it will be made available through some other venue and you wish to direct us to that instead, then we would very much like to be made aware of that.''<br />
''Thank you,''<br />
''Andy Schlafly, Thomas Moore, etc.''<br />
<br />
Is that a reasonable request? I am afraid biology protocol is quite beyond me, so some help would be appreciated.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 22:47, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Looks like a good start, Tom, but from the comments so far it seems like nothing short of the full set of observations is going to be satisfactory for some of the skeptics here. I'd suggest the following revision to the second and third sentences:<br />
::''We were wondering if you would oblige us by sending the relevant raw data for the full set of your observations for this population. We are intensely curious about the period in which the bacteria population developed the ability to utilize citrase, but would like the complete set of observations instead of a subset to facilitate an independent analysis of the research.'' --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:07, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::It doesn't seem reasonable to demand twenty years' worth of observations, which would be the full set. Or at least, it doesn't seem reasonable to me.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 00:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::It doesn't seem reasonable to me, either, which is why Professor Lenski's response pointed readers to the relevant subsets of data, and that would be sufficient for most reasonable people. I was just pointing out that unreasonable people here will consider anything less than all 20 years to be withholding data, so what's needed to satisfy the skeptics is a way for that full body of observations to be accessible. If the response is that it would take too much time and/or money to satisfy the request, then the burden of proof falls on the skeptics to justify why they can't start with the data already made available and only request additional data when they have specific questions that require it for an answer. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:32, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Well, maybe they will feel differently. I think this is the polite and reasonable approach, rather than asking for all twenty years. Other comments? Andy?--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 18:51, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==What is the plan for a Conservapedia review of Lenski's work?==<br />
<br />
One thing that keeps getting lost in the rhetoric - who is looking at the Lenski work on behalf of Conservapedia? More than a few people here, including a CP sysop, have pointed out that a proper scientific review can begin using the data already made available by Professor Lenski. If this review surfaces any questions or criticisms, then that would prompt an exchange with Lenski on the specifcs, and I'm sure the related data would be made available. While I see that there are reviews of the work being done by some creationist groups (who apparently see no need to have all the raw data first), the Conservapedia approach is more like a set of lawyers looking for discovery than a set of scientists looking for truth. Why can't CP review Lenski's work in a scientific manner like AiG instead? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:31, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: The issue is '''public''' release and scrutiny of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::No one investigating Lenski's work in a scientific manner is accusing him of withholding any data from them, or from the public. You're setting a new, and unprofessional, precedent in expecting a scientist to take the time to collect and send you decades of raw data on his research simply because you're asking him to, when you haven't even shown the courtesy of demonstrating why this effort is necessary. I repeat the question you keep avoiding - is this exercise going to be a waste of Lenski's time so you can make a point, or do you have a plan to use that raw data and a timetable for publishing your findings? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: DinsdaleP, it sounds like your name should be added back to the list of those who oppose public release and scrutiny of the data above. The questions you keep harping on are irrelevant to the issue of public release and scrutiny of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:02, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Feel free to add me back to your ridiculous list, then. Anyone who can read knows where I stand, just as they can see your continued avoidance of my question. There is no plan, is there? I'll be glad to stand corrected if I'm wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:17, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: How is asking about "scrutiny of the data" irrelevant to the issue of "public release and '''scrutiny of the data'''"? Color me confused!--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:03, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
You don't seem to understand the scientific method at all. There is a reason peer review is so called. It is a review of work by your peers, that is fellows engaged in similar fields of research. You are not a peer of Dr. Lenski. You don't even hold an undergraduate degree in a related field. You aren't even qualified to be a research assistant in his lab. You're a lawyer, and I'm sure you're good at your job and all, but don't try to pretend to qualifications you simply do not have to serve a political purpose.<br />
<br />
Lets face it, the good doctor has been extremely kind to you thus far. I would not recommend pushing your luck. Had it been me, your email would have hit the bit bucket faster than you can say "plunk". As far as I can tell, you haven't even had the good grace to read the poor guy's paper as he suggested. I did, and I found it extremely accessible compared to the cryptography papers I'm used to reviewing. I believed I followed the bulk of it, and I'm sure you could too if you were so minded.<br />
<br />
But of course, you aren't minded to. You're not at all interested in his findings, because you assume they're false before you even know the details. If he were correct, it would yet further discredit your young earth creationist beliefs. Here is research that gives the lie to the old "mutations never produce new information" talking point, while at the same time demonstrating how a feature that seems incredibly unlikely were it to happen in one big bang, can in fact become trivial via building up a "potentiated genome" as alluded to by Lenski in his email (see the section headed "Historical Contingency in the Evolution of Cit+" for details of the experiments they performed to confirm this.)<br />
<br />
This experiment yet again confirms the predictions of the theory of evolution, while contradicting your own creation hypothesis (The capacity for citrate utilisation starts out weak and gets stronger over time, via additional mutations that out compete the peers they fissioned from.) This result scares you. You aren't interested at all in Dr. Lenski's data are you? All you want is to make an unreasonable request, and then when it is sensibly refused or ignored to trumpet that clearly the scientists working on LEE are attempting to hide something. Nobody is impressed by your transparent posturing. --[[User:Taciturn|Taciturn]] 15:08, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
: Although some of your comments, such as those about peer review, are reasonable, the last half particularly is begging the question. His research is ''claimed to'' give the lie to the "mutations never produce new information" claim, but whether they ''actually'' do is one of the points that are in contention. Trying to make your point by assuming your point and simply restating it is not a valid form of argument. Further, although misunderstanding this is understandable, creationists have acknowledged that mutations might ''extremely rarely'' produce new genetic information by chance. Their argument is more that you can't use mutations as a source of new information, not because it never ever happens, but because it very rarely happens and would be swamped by all the information-losing mutations. So Lenski's claim, even if it turned out to be true (which seems unlikely: see creationist responses linked above), does not disprove creationism anyway, as ''one'' example of an information-gaining mutation is consistent with creationism and inconsistent with evolution, which requires ''many'' such mutations. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:05, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Ugh. Don't get me started on those "creationist responses." They're clearly written for a scientifically illiterate and unthinking audience. People who won't notice that the author's idea of a literature survey is to read and fail to understand an abstract, and then cite the paper in support of whatever gibberish they want to commit to paper. The AiG response is just talking points recycled for the occasion, which no meaningful content, while creation on the web is so intellectually dishonest it beggars belief. Take this wonderful paragraph:<br />
<br />
{{cquote|Furthermore, E. coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions, with a whole suite of genes involved in its fermentation. This includes a citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein embedded in the cell wall that takes citrate into the cell.}}<br />
<br />
:: Wrong, wrong, wrong. E. Coli is not, and has never been observed to be capable of utilising citrate natively. Any E. Coli that have this ability have it because it is coded for be invasive plasmids. That's the point of the paper the author cites. Lenski takes great pains to point out that the Cit+ and Cit- strains DO NOT possess these plasmids, since the issue of external contamination would be foremost in any reviewer's mind. <br />
<br />
:: The whole creation on the web article is like this throughout. It takes parts of the paper out of context and uses them as an attack on the work. Whole sentences and paragraphs are copied wholesale without attribution. The author makes totally unfounded claims about the what the LTEE team are doing, accusing them of "giving up on observing evolution." It's the most astonishingly asinine thing I've read this month, and only "died-in-the-wool" (sic) creationist would take it seriously.<br />
<br />
:: So, here's the thing. Lets assume that Lenski's claims are false or exaggerated (and I don't think for a moment that is the case.) How exactly is Schlafly, a lawyer, going to show this regardless of how much raw data he has? He doesn't even know what to ask for, let alone what he's going to do with it once he has it. I don't believe it would be overly cynical to ascribe an ulterior motive to this request. At very best, he wants to pester a person doing productive research and force him to do extra work, unpaid, on his behalf. That would be fine if Schlafly was a peer of Lenski's seeking verification of the result. Defending one's work is part of the scientific process, but there have to be limits. If you really want to analyse the result, first find a working biologist with time and equipment to do the analysis, then and only then will I support the request for further data.<br />
<br />
:: To all others supporting the request currently, I'd ask they withdraw their support until such time as this condition is fulfilled. I cannot believe that Schlafly seriously wants the data, simply that he wishes the request to be refused such that he can make outlandish claims about scientific transparency. --[[User:Taciturn|Taciturn]] 08:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Taciturn, I'm not requesting merely my personal review of the data (although certainly I will review it if Lenski produces it), but rather the ''public scrutiny'' of the data. Unless you think that Lenski's team is perfect or has a monopoly on knowledge, you should agree that additional review of the data by others can yield additional insights, and possibly identify flaws.<br />
<br />
::: Andrew Wiles is undeniably a bright mathematician, as are his friends who reviewed his claim to have proven Fermat's Last Theorem. But when he made his initial proof available more widely, others saw flaws in it that took a long time to repair. Obviously the same may be true about anyone's work ... including Lenski's.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:37, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: [Edit conflict] Mr. Schlafly, given that Lenski is required to release the data to any scientist who asks, who exactly is preventing public scrutiny? A lawyer such as yourself quite simply does not have the training to understand the data, and you're quite unlikely to find a scientist sympathetic to your cause. Even if he releases twenty years worth of research to you, nothing changes. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 10:19, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: Are you saying that only a "scientist" may see the data? I hold an engineering degree and worked at Bell Labs, but perhaps you have some special definition to limit access to the data as much as possible. If someone drops out of college, does that disqualify him from being able to look at the data? I certainly hope that isn't your view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Andy, only someone with proper training in biology could hope to understand the raw data. You can look at it, yes, fine, but you won't understand it, and you'll quickly demand that Lenski release it in a "clear and comprehensive format", at which point you'll promptly be pointed right back to Paper 180. Your engineering degree doesn't help you here. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 11:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Taciturn, one more bigoted derogatory comment like those in your first paragraph and the end of your third paragraph and you will earn yourself a block.<br />
::: Now, to your specific claims regarding AiG and CMI:<br />
::: * The articles are written for a lay audience, but that doesn't mean that they are written for a "scientifically illiterate and unthinking audience". On the contrary, they aim to make them scientifically accurate.<br />
::: * The AiG article was clearly a preliminary response, so your derogatory comment about no meaningful content is unwarranted.<br />
::: * "''Whole sentences and paragraphs are copied wholesale without attribution.''": Please back that claim with evidence or retract it.<br />
::: * "''The author makes totally unfounded claims about the what the LTEE team are doing, accusing them of "giving up on observing evolution."''": On the contrary, it appears that you did not read the article properly (with an open mind?). It actually says that "...Lenski seemed [note both the lack of definiteness/lack of accusation and the past tense] to have given up on ‘evolution in the lab’ ..."<br />
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: Taciturn discredited himself, and probably won't even defend his behavior.<br />
<br />
:::: But Philip, I have a question for you: do you support public release of the data to enable others (including creationists) to review it? It's hard for me to see how outside reviewers (including creationists) can do a thorough job without access to the data. Undeniably outside reviewers could do a better job if the data were public.<br />
<br />
:::: I'm starting to think that even the peer reviewers for the paper never checked the data, if the data continue to be withheld.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::::: I've already given my answer to whether or not I support release of the data. Do a search of this page for a post with a timestamp of 09:34. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: Well, OK, I found your prior posting and reread it, but didn't find any answer to the basic question I just asked: wouldn't outside reviewers (including creationists) be better off with an availability of the data? And to your point about funding, wouldn't funding be easier to obtain (to the extent necessary) if it were known that the data are available? Seems obvious to me, and probably to the co-signers (11 and growing), that the answer is "yes" to both.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::::::: Actually, that was not a question that you had just asked. And yes, outside reviewers, including creationists, ''would'' be better off with the data being available, ''if they plan on reviewing all that data''. But that's a big "if", because, as I did say above, there is a shortage of available creationary scientists and funding for them. As for obtaining funding, no, I don't think it would make a difference. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Lenski has not refused to release the data; it's just that you plan on asking him to do so ''now'' rather than wait for someone who is actually going to review the data to ask. That is, I assume that the data would be made available in due course to a serious researcher who requested it.<br />
:::::::: I also pointed out that creationary scientists may not be interested in reviewing all the data. They probably have better things to do with their time and funds than to analyse 20 years worth of data, when all they likely need to do is find out a bit more about his actual results. Further, as I said elsewhere on this page, it's even ''possible'' that Lenski has actually found a mutation that has added genetic information. Creationists don't rule out that there may be very rare examples of this, and ''perhaps'' this is the first known case of such. But that doesn't disprove creation nor prove evolution because, as I said, creationism can handle the odd exception to the rule, whereas the evolution requires millions of such information-gaining mutations, and one example is not that evidence. So why would a creationary scientist waste his time (unless someone was employing him to do it)?<br />
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Which would mean that it would not even be published in the journal, Andy. Your final claim is unfounded and, quite frankly, slanderous. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 10:19, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: If the peer reviewers saw the data, then it is no problem to make that data publicly available. So where is it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::In the paper, Andy. Everything that you could need to know about the experiment and much more is in the paper. If you don't believe me, you can ask Lenski for something extra, however general questions like the ones you've sent him so far will only get you pointed back to the paper. If you've got a specific part of the work you want, ask and I'm sure he'll happily throw the raw, incomprehensible data at you. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 11:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::This would seem to come down to a fundamental misunderstanding. Few biologists are going to want to see Lenski's raw data like this, because the observations will be relatively simple to make - or at least simple for a biologist. Instead, they will want to examine his methodology (which is already freely available) to see if they can find any flaws. For example, if he had stored them in a non-sterile environment or something, the colonies could have been contaminated, and it would invalidate his conclusions. They will also want to see the conclusions he draws from his observations, which might be unwarranted or otherwise explainable. For example, if they know as biologists that e. coli can use citrase under certain conditions (not the case, actually, but it's an example), they would call his conclusions into question. And of course some scientists are going to want to imitate his whole set-up to reproduce his result... although it will take a while. But because Prof. Lenski is a highly skilled and reputable scientist, few are going to demand to see his raw data, because there is little reason not to trust his integrity. That is generally just not how this science is done, to the best of my knowledge.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 13:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I can't believe I'm getting into this particular mess but, here goes: hypothetically, let's say that Andy contacts Lenski and Lenski graciously releases all of the raw data anyone could want. Let's further say that Andy manages to secure the services of a qualified analyst who has the time and training to properly analyze said data and that, further, that analyst confirms that Lenski's interpretations are correct. In other words, the analyst says that Lenski is- as far as anyone can tell- correct. What happens then? Will Andy or anyone else publicly acknowledge this to be the case, or will the story suddenly become that Lenski "falsified" his raw data? Because, really and truly folks, the "raw data" we keep talking about is not the same thing as actually having access to Lenski's samples. Moreover, Lenski is not about to release any part of his samples to folks who haven't the slightest idea how to store them, much less how to analyze. And I don't have imagination enough to think that Conservapedia is going to set up an adequately equipped and staffed research lab capable of taking possession of such samples, much less fund it long enough to replicate Lenski's research. As far as I can tell, this entire thing is a lot of sound and fury that will ultimately come to nothing (apologies Will). So what's with all the grandstanding, Andy? Okay, I've said my bit. I'll go back to editing statistics articles now. -Drek<br />
::I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:23, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: I've just posted above in a reply to Andy why I think a creationary scientist would ''not'' be interested. I'll add here that, according to Don Batten of CMI (link elsewhere on this page), it fits with what Behe has written about in his latest book, so there's no reason to think that this case would bother ID proponents either. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::''"I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data."'' Yeah, but I was specifically referring to qualified analysts, so the ID/C.S. folks won't help. Snark aside, however, neither you nor anyone else has addressed the underlying issue: what happens if Lenski DOES provide the full database? It isn't like someone couldn't claim he faked that and the only way to confirm it would be to evaluate his samples. Look, I DO in fact support public availability of data derived from publicly funded research. That said, however, if we don't even have a plausible case for how we ourselves could verify output, much less carry out a replication, we're just being nuisances. Lenski's job is to do research, not bow to every request made of him by random unqualified amateurs. And even if he has tenure and that somehow made him utterly invulnerable to firing (oddly, failing to produce is one of those things that can kill tenure) he still has a responsibility to his Post-Docs and grad students. -Drek<br />
::::: I've warned two others on this page about derogatory comments, and you've gone and added your own. For that you've earned yourself a block for the "snark". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:57, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
It interesting that Rayment has given Derek a block for 'snarking'. Presumably this is to maintain a decent, respectful, and intelligent tone in the body of the discussion. However, Schafly's entire tone in his addresses to Dr. Lenski have been openly insulting and ignorant from the start, yet there has been no attempt to address that problem from Rayment. A number of others have flung open insults, yet no blocks are in placefor them as long as they insult Dr. Lenski. How is that not a double standard? {{unsigned|Bithead}}<br />
: For one thing, there's not much point in blocking someone who has the ability to unblock themselves. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:24, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Really, starting a conversation with "I will post your reply, or lack thereof" then maintaining that one only wants to participate in a scientific conversation and is chiefly concerned with freedom of information is hypocritical to say the very least. As someone who can't be blocked, he has clearly set the standard for conservapedia. Also, others on this thread have tendered obvious insults yet enjoyed no admonitions - again so long as they insult Lenski. Isn't there something in the 'conservapedia commandments' about double standards?<br />
<br />
==Question==<br />
I am going to make it clear that I am not willing to put my name on this. I whole-heartedly support the release of Professor Lenski's data, but not to a faceless group of individuals with no clear purpose for demanding the data. My question is, as Mr. Schlafly seems to be avoiding it, have you Mr. Schlafly read the paper that Professor Lenski directed you to? I hope that this request is more than an attempt to add Professor Lenski to the [[professor values]] list. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 15:18, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Your argument is irrelevant to the ''public'' release of the data. I hadn't read Andrew Wiles' attempt to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, but I sure am glad that he publicized it so that people could identify serious flaws after Wiles' expert friends declared it to be complete.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::You already emailed Professor Lenski, and he kindly took the time to respond. But you didn't even bother to read the answers he gave you. Sending him another email demanding even more information, without even reading the information he already gave you seems rude. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 15:49, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Now you're making up things about me. Perhaps you think you can distract attention from the simple issue of public release of the data. You failed if that was your goal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::That never was my intention. I was simply trying to understand your reasoning behind this email. I am interested in something else at the moment actually. You seem to enjoy mentioning Andrew Wiles and Fermat's Last Theorem. Who proved that Andrew Wiles was wrong. Was it a layperson, or a mathematician? [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:58, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::At the end of the introduction to the revised paper, Wiles indicates that the original error was detected in discussions between himself, Nick Katz, Luc Illusie and Richard Taylor. Katz is a professor at Princeton, Illusie at Paris Sud, and Taylor at Harvard. Between the three of them they now have over 200 peer reviewed papers on elliptic curves and Galois representation theory. Of course their records were weaker at the relevant time in 1993, but they were certainly all established mathematicians. I think they were all at the Isaac Newton Institute when Wiles first explained his work in lectures there. So it is far from the truth to suggest that Wiles's expert friends declared the proof complete, or that errors were found by random other people after the release of the preprint. --[[User:Npstrick|Npstrick]] 17:42, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: If you're trying to exclude people from looking at the data based on their education or credentials, then just say so. There are many bright people who never graduated from college, and I oppose making education or credentials a test for who can review the data. In Wiles' case, I don't know what the credentials were of the multiple people who found serious flaws.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
== Two Questions for Aschlafly==<br />
<br />
I have two questions for Aschlafly. Please answer them plainly and in brief as I've no use for obfuscation typical of what I've seen above. As you know, failing to answer is an answer of sorts. Here are my questions:<br />
# Have you read Lenski's paper as he suggested?<br />
# What do you plan to do with his "raw" data should you receive it?<br />
The answers to these two questions will tell much about your intent and your character. [[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 18:34, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::So your answers are <br />
<br />
# you "skimmed" it<br />
# you won't do anythnig with the "raw data" should he send it to you<br />
Thank you for your honesty. I hope your readership takes these answers in their full measure. [[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 19:30, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I hope you recognize and admit to the benefits of public access. You haven't yet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
=== Two Questions for Aschlafly: comments from others===<br />
*I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:21, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I know your question was not directed at me, but isn't the point of public release that it would be open to ''everyone'' to examine; ie - that this isn't solely about Aschlafly? I doubt if there is anyone on this site who would be capable of understanding Lenski's raw data, if it were to be made available, but that is not a reason to oppose the public release of the data ''per se'', is it? If released publicly, anyone capable of understanding it can see it for themselves, and those who cannot understand it will be unaffected. What's wrong with that?[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:44, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I would encourage people to watch the movie of what the physical form of the raw data looks like. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNaXlK_3Fik They tested 4 trillion cells.[http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php] Assuming even a simple 'y/n' for the 'can metabolize citrate' that is about 4 terabytes of data. This doesn't go into the other genes that they have studied. Are you going to send him some hard drives to copy the data onto? Do you have the bandwidth to host that data for public scrutiny (at a full T1 speed with 100% utilization, if I did my math correctly, it would take about 2 years to download all of the data)? Granted, that is one extreme of the data but this could potentially be more than you can handle or host. And if he says its a terrabyte of data or so, will you host it? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No, I wouldn't host it. If the data were made publicly available, I would have no interest in downloading it or reading it because I am not a biologist and wouldn't be able to understand it. But I am not opposed to the data - whatever size the files are - being made available for people who can understand it (and have sufficiently spacious hard drives). [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:01, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::to clarify, I am not opposed to it '''in principle'''. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:03, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I did skim Lenski's paper, and saw that on multiple occasions he says the data are not shown. In addition, his figures and tables are oddly uninformative. I recall that one figure is complete speculation. After skimming his paper the need for public disclosure of the data became even more apparent.<br />
<br />
What would I do with the raw data? I don't propose that access to it be limited based on education or credentials. I would expect many people, including folks just as bright as Lenski, to examine it and possibly identify flaws or make suggestions.<br />
<br />
I repeat: does anyone here really think Lenski's team is perfect or has a monopoly on knowledge???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
)<br />
<br />
:I don't think they have a monopoly on knowledge, and nobody's perfect. On the other hand, I do think the volume of data might prove to be a problem. If a response indicates that the complete data is simply too massive to be mailed/posted to a website, what's the next reasonable step? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:50, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::It is becoming clear that this campaign to release the data has more to do with your hope that Lenski won't and you can dismiss his claims on those grounds. I am sure the data is available to the people who need to see it and depending on the copyright restrictions that research unfortunatly comes with these day (usually through funding by non-government entities) it will be made available as publically as it can.<br />
<br />
:: Someone earlier mentioned ID theorist, they tend to have about as much qualifications on this as Andrew Schalfly, BSE. JD. so I won't hold much hope in them being able to understand it. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:22, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::: As I've warned someone else already on this page, one more derogatory comment like that in your second paragraph and you will earn yourself a block. Despite anti-creationist and anti-ID urban myth, the credentials of ID proponents and creationary scientists are every bit as good as those of other scientists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Really, ID theorist are scientist? [http://www.discovery.org/fellows/ Look at the Discovery Institute's board members and fellows]. Cihak is a MD, every other person on that list either has a degree in history, political science or law. Behe use to be a fellow so that is one biochemist, Dempski(?) was a mathematician who use to be there once. Only one relevently qualified and two semi-qualified experts that is it. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:02, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::: The Discovery Institute is not the only source of ID proponents. Just as with evolutionists, there are those that are qualified and those that are not, but still believe it, promote it, and etc. Your comment that I warned you about was ID theorists ''in general'', not DI board members and fellows specifically. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:01, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::But go to an equivalent one evolution supporting organisation and it will be full of PhD's in biology. Can you name any of these ID theorists ''in general'', Behe is the only one that comes to my mind. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 00:27, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::::: Really? I looked at the NCSE's staff list, and here's what I found.<br />
:::::::* Glenn Branch: no PhD. MA in philosophy from (UCLA).<br />
:::::::* Barbara Forrest: PhD in philosophy (Tulane University).<br />
:::::::* Peter Hess: PhD in a theological field, Science and Religion, (Graduate Theological Union).<br />
:::::::* Louise Mead: PhD in Organismic and Evolutionary Biology (UMass).<br />
:::::::* Eric Meikle: PhD in anthropology (Berkeley).<br />
:::::::* Kevin Padian: PhD in vertebrate evolution (Yale).<br />
:::::::* Andrew Petto: PhD in bioanthropology (UMass).<br />
:::::::* Joshua Rosenau: PhD candidate, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (University of Kansas).<br />
:::::::* Eugenie Scott: PhD in physical anthropology (University of Missouri).<br />
:::::::* Susan Spath: PhD in history of science, MA in molecular and cell biology (Berkeley).<br />
:::::::* Philip Spieth: PhD in genetics (University of Oregon).<br />
::::::: Biologists, yes. "full of PhD's in biology"? No.<br />
::::::: As for ID theorists, off the top of my head there's Michael Denton and Dean Kenyon. Not to mention the creationary scientists, such as Don Batten, David Catchpoole, Gary Parker, Jeff Downes, and many others.<br />
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:26, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I made some edits showing the location of where their graduate degrees were awarded (this is important for those who receive degrees from non-accredited schools). I would not cite NCSE anyway for they are only a PR group. I will point out that 9 out of the 11 are PhDs, that is pretty high (over 80%)(while one of the two non-PhDs is a PhD candidate). The question I might ask is how often do those of a non-related field write or evaluate a topic or paper? This should also be asked about CMI and such.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:58, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::::::: So which is the DI nearest to? A scientific research lab or a PR group?<br />
::::::::: Okay Able806, you implicitly questioned the legitimacy of the qualifications of creationists. So you now have a job: List, like I did and you expanded, the qualifications of the CMI staff ([http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/45/ here's] your starting point). And when you've done that, tell us how many of those are from non-accredited schools. Else you just might earn yourself a block for implicit accusations of dishonesty (that they are claiming to be something that they are not). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No need to threaten a block Philip, for to block me due to said accusation would require a block from those who are stating that Lenski is with holding his work from review. Here is a list I compiled from the website you gave me. Please correct me if I am wrong or missing names. I will add the information just as I did above as I discover it. Oh, does AU have a system to list accreditation? I will need to know that as well for those who received their Ph.Ds in AU.<br />
:Carl Wieland<br />
:Don Batten<br />
:Gary Bates<br />
:Jonathan Sarfati<br />
:Tas Walker<br />
:David Catchpoole<br />
:Pierre Jerlström<br />
:Peter Sparrow<br />
:Russell Grigg<br />
:Mark Harwood<br />
:John Hartnett<br />
:Rod Walsh<br />
:Barry Tapp<br />
:Stephen Grocott<br />
:Richard Fangrad <br />
:Emil Silvestru<br />
:Calvin Smith <br />
:Jeff Chiasson <br />
:Adrian Bates<br />
:Johan Kruger <br />
:Philip Bell<br />
:Rob Carter<br />
:Skip Tilton<br />
:The above list is a working list.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 12:27, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I've never heard of an accreditation list in Australia, but calling yourself a University when your not is an offence. [http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=University+act&meta= If you scroll down a bit] Each universities relevent act shows up eventually. It is a unique Australian phenomenon the act of parliment to create a university.<br />
<br />
::PJR giving Able806 a stupid job to do to deflect from the fact that you are severlly losing an argument is petty. All the Australians above have by and large from some of Austalia's top universities. Okay you have made your point. However I will note that one of them is famous for his twin publishing record. He publishes in top quality geology journals with the rock is 2.6bya, this glacier formed 100mya, and he has another list where he publishes in his creation "journal" he is on the board for defending his rediculous 6000 year hypothesis. Yes these days crationist have PhD either through abandoning their when that "have been saved" in which case they corrupt the scientific method to prove their new belief or they went through doing their PhD all the time not believing what they write. As someone currently studying a PhD I can't see how they managed but being slightly divorced from reality probably helped. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:24, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I read Lenski's paper, and as a trained microbiologist, I thought that it was both thorough and well done. His claims are backed by good data, namely that which was presented in the figures. I went through each of the figures after Aschlafly said that they were uninformative. Actually, they are basic figures that show the population explosion of the bacterial cultures after the Cit+ mutation occurred. These figures show that the cultures increased in size and mass at a given timepoint, being able to do so because they had evolved a mechanism to utilize a new nutrient, without the assistance of helper plasmids.<br />
<br />
I know that my post is getting long, but I just wanted to say that in addition to this that of course there is going to be a figure with some speculation when it is covering an alternate hypothesis. That is what a lot of science is really about; the scientist creates a battery of hypotheses, and through experimentation narrows down the field. Lenksi's paper, while not the most definite I've seen, is still a very well-researched paper that supports its claims nicely. --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]<br />
<br />
==Detractor Lineup==<br />
<br />
Ok, there seems to be some confusion about whether we are opposing the public release of information based on principle or practicality. So, let's make a list to make our position clear (please add a brief explanation and feel free to discuss in the comments section). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:54, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose Public Release based on PRINCIPLE'''<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Oppose Public Release based on PRACTICALITY'''<br />
<br />
* Because it is time consuming, costly (both in terms of money and resources) and the data is too big to be readily transfered. If we had a genuine reason to want the data and we were actually going to do something with it then it would be worth the effort (for example if we disputed a particular conclusion, in which case we could probably narrow down the data we wanted) however demanding a release based solely on principle is simply impractical and not going to happen. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:54, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:To illustrate that "big" means, a little ilustration from my own work. I work for the LOFAR project's future data proccesing center, we plan on recieving several dozen gigabits per second, or about a 60 meter stack of paper a second.. Now, I know biology research doesn't produce as much data as radiotelescopes do, but they've been working for 20 years.<br />
:By demanding all the original data, you are asking for several shipping containers full of dvd's. It's just not acceptable to spend so much time and money on everyone who asks for it, especially when you have no real desire to reproduce anything. I do think you should be able to see the data, but you obviously have to be more specific in your questions for information.<br />
:Again, I am not a biologist, but in astronomy when you want raw data, you request information about a specific part of measurements. You call someone and ask for data for 10 seconds from this-and-that time and of such-and-so area of sky. You do not send an open letter and demand "All research data". I think Richard Lenski was increadibly kind not to laugh in your face for such a demand, because it shows the asker has no idea how the scientific community functions.<br />
[[User:Alcari|Alcari]] 14:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
'''Comments'''<br />
<br />
StatsMsn, your objection is purely speculative and, frankly, implausible. Lenski has not asserted your claim and I doubt he will.<br />
<br />
But if you're right about the key data, then that suggests the peer reviewers did not have access to it, and the conclusion is this: claims based on that data should not be published in a Journal that says the data will be made available. Instead, one could publish such claims in a Journal saying the data will not be made available, and we can all take the claims with a grain of salt.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:03, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I think it's more likely that Lanski hasn't released the information to you based on practicalities than a conspiracy to publish false results. Note that I did not say the peer reviewers did not have access to the raw data, only that you did not. If there was a genuine reason to provide the data to someone (that is, someone who had a genuine reason to have it, such as to confirm or dispute a conclusion) then I have no doubt that any ethical research team would work out a way to transmit it. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:24, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: StatsMsn, I stopped reading at your word "conspiracy". No is alleging a "conspiracy". Post in a rational manner and don't pollute this page. Apologize and clean up your edit or please leave. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'm sorry Mr. Schlafly, but you seem to be trying to say that Lenski fudged 20 years of work, and that is being hidden by the people reviewing his work. That sounds like a conspiracy. Perhaps you should apologize, or clarify your edits. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: Has anyone considered the possiblility that some data was removed in the reviewing process? From my experience with journal publications (moderate at best) page numbers is important. Pages and pages of data and graphs are expensive to print. The reviewer would have seen it, the editor would look at it and thought it is too much and edit the paper so as to say the data is not presented. Ask for a preprint of the paper that will contain more data. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== False Claim of a Bad motive ==<br />
<br />
Let's face the truth, there is no real desire here for Andrew Schlafly or anyone on Conservapedia to get the raw data. The reason that this is even an issue is because placing this demand and getting no response somehow makes Lenski look bad and therefore automatically discredits him and his research and therefor the theory of evolution. The position of Mr. Schlafly is that the Bible is inerrant and the Genesis creation story is true. No amount of scientific data is going to change that. So why argue with him? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 10:05, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: You're clueless about my motivation and your account has been blocked for violating our [[90/10 rule]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Wow. I'm actually afraid to post my opinion now...Well, at the risk of being banned...Aschlafly: Was it really necessary to block MAnderson? I get the feeling (And this is simply an opinion based on personal observation) that the action taken against MAnderson was due more to the nature of his accusation of bias against you and not due to any violation of code, since bias is indeed a word that gets used around here often without reprimand. That being said I feel that the intended letter in question would severely discredit this website. Unless members of this site have the facilities necessary to conduct research into the validity of the Doctor's claims then we have no reason to request such massive documentation. Furthermore, the purpose of such counter-research should always be with the intent to ultimately strengthen a proposed line of research, even if it is by bringing to light flaws in the original findings. The purpose of peer review is not to discredit, but to strengthen through careful examination and criticism. If the originals researchers conclusions are eventually found to be flawed beyond renovation then the entire thing is thrown out, strengthening our scientific pool of knowledge as a whole by protecting it against faulty findings. It is my belief that a peer-reviewer should always have a most critical eye, but should also ultimately have the best at heart for the purported research. I do not believe such a mindset exists in this case. The letter itself seems to indicate a specific desire and hope of discrediting the E-coli findings, which should never be the purpose of peer review. To seek discredit simply for the sake of discredit is the very anti-thesis of why the peer-review system exists IMO. And it is my opinion that the intended letter gives the impression that discredit is the goal. In my opinion. --[[User:RobinGoodfellow|RobinGoodfellow]] 13:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:There's a difference between expressing your thoughts on a matter and saying of someone else "here is why you did it" and then make statements that are derogatory and degrading. The one at least expresses opinion. The other just makes things up with the followup assumption being now you must defend yourself against what I just made up. That's inappropriate and was handled as being inappropriate.<br />
<br />
:That being said, what you wrote is a different matter. I see no difficulty in the form of your speech, or the expression of your ideas. Do not equate your writings to what was put above by MAnderson; they are not the same. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:27, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I think there's a great deal of misunderstanding here from the critics of Mr. Schlafly and obfuscation on the part of Prof. Lenski and his supporters. The real data that we need are not in the paper. Rather they are in the bacteria used in the experiments themselves. Prof. Lenski claims that these bacteria "evolved" novel traits and that these were preceded by the evolution of "potentiated genotypes", from which the traits could be "reëvolved" using preserved colonies from those generations. But how are we to know if these traits weren't "potentiated" by the Creator when He designed the bacteria thousands of years ago, such that they would eventually reveal themselves when the time was right? The only way this can be settled is if we have access to the genetic sequences of the bacteria colonies so that we can apply CSI techniques and determine if these "potentiated genotypes" originated through blind chance or intelligence. But with the physical specimens in the hands of Darwinists, who claim they will get around to the sequencing at some unspecifed future time, how can we trust that this data will be forthcoming and forthright? Thus, Prof. Lenski et al. should supply Conservapedia, as stewards, with samples of the preserved ''E. coli'' colonies so that the data can be accessible to unbiased researchers outside of the hegemony of the Darwinian academia, even if it won't be put to immediate examination by Mr. Schlafly. This is simply about keeping tax-payer-funded scientists honest. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 20:03, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:'Dr. Paley', that's about the most ridiculous suggestion I've heard yet. I'm not going to even dignify that kind of nonsense with a response. But I will suggest, generally, that if you are that convinced there is a worldwide scientific conspiracy to perpretate fraud by hiding 'the potentiating hand of the creator', then there's nothing I could say to you anyway.<br />
<br />
:But I have this question for Andy and the rest of the supporters of the 'public access to data' line: if it is the ''principle'' of public access to data that you are fighting for--and this is not some kind of publicity stunt, as many have suggested--then why are you picking on this one experiment, and not the ''tens of thousands'' of scientific papers that have been published just, say, in the last decade? After all, Lenski's paper is no different than any scientific paper, in that is summarizes, but does not publish, the raw data on which it was based. So shouldn't you be asking every scientist who has published a paper in which raw data has not been published to present that data? Why just Lenski? Aren't there potentially ''thousands'' of 'new insights' that could be produced from public scrutiny of this data?<br />
<br />
:I think your motivations speak pretty clearly for themselves. [[User:porkchop]]<br />
<br />
:: (Note porkchop's use of [[Liberal tools]] #11 and #13.) Anyway, if Prof. Lenski has no fraud to hide, then he won't mind allowing other researchers access to the physical data. Again, it is simply a matter of keeping tax-funded activities honest. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 21:44, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Sorry, Richard. I guess you need your stupidity spelled out for you: no laboratory in the world is going to send ''the actual biological samples they worked on'' to a bunch of faceless internet nuts or anyone else. Even if such a request were possible (i.e. transport could be arranged safely and at no expense to Lenski, he could spare the material, etc.) what on earth would the 'scientists' at Conservapedia ''do'' with it? Keep it in Andy's refrigerator and look at it under his Kid Scientist microscope?<br />
<br />
:::And I'm waiting to hear whether anyone has a response to my question about the selective targeting of Lenski. [[User:porkchop]]<br />
<br />
:::: Taxpayers paid for Lenski's work, he published it in a journal that claims its authors will make underlying data available, his research claims were publicized in New Scientist, yet he hasn't complied with a request for his data. If that's true of others also as you suggest, then please give examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::What is your response to the view that Lenski has not released the data because it is too big to simply send to someone? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:50, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: That "view" is without any basis and, by the way, the suggestion is that Lenski post it rather than send it. Are you suggesting that Lenski did not make his key data available to the peer reviewers on his paper?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:59, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Someone said above that considering just one variable would result 4 terabytes worth of data, this is a ridiculous and costly amount of data to host (to put it in perspective, it's about 200 full DVD's). And yes it pretty much is all key (to ensure the mutations were not due to an environmental factor, to ensure that they were inherited, to ensure that they were not simply repressed genes which had previously appearing in the colonies etc). I am not suggesting that Lenski did not make his key data avaliable to peer reviewers, I'm fairly sure that had they wished to view it they could have done so (possibly by physically visiting his labs to access it, or by using a dedicated stream). Perhaps it's something you could ask in the email you send him, and while you're at it perhaps you could ask if researchers such as yourself or others would be able to access the data on request (this is essentially public access so long as nobody is turned away for ideological reasons). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:24, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::: So you're suggesting that the peer reviewers could only access the data by physically visiting Lenski's labs or by using "a dedicated stream"? That's tantamount to suggesting that the peer reviewers did not practically have access to the data, which creates an even bigger cloud of doubt about the claimed results. If that's the case, then obviously that should have been disclosed to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<- No, I was offering a couple of options. It's is equally (or even more likely) that Lenski's team spent a bit of money and transferred the data onto physical media and sent it to them. That is a question that you can ask in your email, lest we be accused of jumping to conclusions. Peer reviewers aside, the point remains that the reason Lenski has not published the data is due to its size and the cost of posting it, not their opposition to the public release of data. Again this will only be answered through a reply to your email, perhaps you could ask if it would be possible for you (and other researchers) to access the data, rather than demanding he post it on the internet or send it to you. This would overcome any refusal based on practicality, but still allow the public access to data. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:42, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: StatsMsn, note that:<br />
<br />
:* Lenski replied once and did not himself raise the objection you suggest<br />
:* the objection you suggest has no factual basis<br />
:* the objection you suggest would make it impossible to peer review the paper, or most types of collaborative work<br />
<br />
: At some point, StatsMsn, an open mind requires admitting the possibility that the data have not been made available because there is concern about what an independent reviewer may conclude from it. Are you open-minded enough to admit that possibility? It's a waste of time arguing with a closed mind, and if you won't admit at least that possibility then this discussion is unproductive.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:00, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm more than happy to admit that Lenski is preventing public access to his data, if there was some solid evidence for it. At the moment he has not refused to allow public access to it. <br />
<br />
::*Correct<br />
::*How so? People have already stated how large the raw data you are requesting is and how impractical it would be to host it. Where do you believe the factual error is, on the estimates of the size or the ability to make it readily avaliable to the general public?<br />
::*No, as measures could be taken to allow the peer reviewers access to the data if they required it. <br />
<br />
::The reason I keep arguing is because I know how difficult it is to transmit data to the general public. The university where I study originally provided a number of high resolution pictures to the general public via a ftp stream, however as each individual picture grew in size and the number of pictures grew the university had to cut off access, first to the general public and then to students, despite our internet connection greatly increasing in speed at the same time. At present the only way to access the images is either to physically enter the premises or request images via DVD (with a small cost for material and administration charges). Everyone including the general public is still able to access the images, however they cannot be made readily avaliable for reasons of practicality.<br />
<br />
::If the statistics above are correct then the size of the raw data you are requesting is much larger than the combined size of all our image files, it is highly impractical to simply request someone send it to you or post it on the internet. And yes I am willing to admit that this discussion is unproductive, that's why I'm going to send Lenski an email myself and request information on how the raw data can be accessed. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:10, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: You haven't yet admitted the possibility I describe, which suggests you may not yet have an open mind about this. If so, this discussion is unproductive, but please do feel free to contact Lenski directly with your theory about the data. I bet you do not receive a clear answer.<br />
<br />
::: I'm confident that Lenski has the data in a manageable form that enables him and his fellow researchers to access and examine it. If not, then frankly that raises even bigger questions about the reliability and verifiability of the claimed results.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<- I'm more than willing to admit the possibility that the peer reviewers have not had access to the raw data, it is entierly possible and we still see it happening when commercial interests become entangled with science (for instance, many pharamacological companies will not release negative studies concerning their products). In this case there is a need for further review in order to confirm the results, and if it is shown that Lenski skewed his results then appropriate action must be taken.<br />
<br />
Now, are you willing to admit the possibility that I describe?<br />
<br />
And I too am confident that Lenski has his data in a manageable form, what we disagree on is whether this data can be readily made avaliable to the public (like by hosting 4 terabytes on the internet) or to people who request it out of the blue. I am fairly confident that if you or another researcher requested access to the data and had a genuine reason for doing so then you would be provided with access to the data, either by physically accessing it on site or by arranging an appropriate means of transfer (with costs considered). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:26, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I admit the possibility that all the data is too voluminous to transfer easily, which is why my letter addressed that and requested the data made available to peer reviewers. By definition, that data cannot be too voluminous to transfer.<br />
<br />
: You said you would ask Lenski. Have you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:44, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Read below, and I have emailed him. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 10:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[Edit Conflict] I just read the paper for a second time, paying particular attention to the results section. There is an adequate summary of the data provided for peer reviewers. I admit that I was wrong with my terminology above (I'm having a late night and my brain's shutting down), the peer reviewers of the paper are not sent the raw data, they rely on the facts presented. Any subsequent reviews could have access to the raw data if necessary.<br />
<br />
Right now we have 4 possible scenarios that could be proposed:<br />
<br />
* The summary of the data Lenski presented is correct and the conclusion drawn is correct<br />
* The summary of the data Lenski presented is correct but the conclusion drawn is incorrect<br />
* The summary of the data is wrong due to unintentional mistakes<br />
* The summary of the data is wrong due to a deliberate attempt to skew results<br />
<br />
If the first is correct we have nothing to argue about. If the second is correct then you do not need access to the raw data in order to prove your results. If the third is correct then access to the raw data would be essential, however it would call into question the integrity of Lenski's laboratory and quite frankly I do not believe you have the resources to do better (let alone detect any irregularities). If the fourth is correct then you are accusing Lenski of academic dishonesty, a libelous claim that you would need solid evidence to support.<br />
<br />
Andy, could you please outline why you want to have access to the raw data when the summary provided in the paper is more than adequate to draw a conclusion. Do you believe that there has been a mistake made in the organisation of the data, or is this just to prove that you can (or cannot) gain access to the data, even though this is not at all required. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 10:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Failure to supply data? ==<br />
<br />
Aschlafly, you say above that Lenski "hasn't complied with a request for his data." Where did he do that? In his reply to your original letter he bends over backwards to accommodate your requests and answer your questions, and he's hardly had time to reply to the second letter! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:55, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Piltdown All Over Again ==<br />
<br />
The [[Piltdown Man | Piltdown hoax]] was possible precisely because the physical data was kept under lock-and-key and away from the eyes of unbiased non-Darwinians, who, if given the chance, would have spotted that the bones were unrelated right away. Even if Prof. Lenski were to provide the public with digital versions of the data, what assurances would we have that the data wasn't doctored? If we assume his Darwinian principles were no check on his willingness to publish a falsified paper, then why would we then assume they would prevent him from falsifying data? On the other hand, it would be impossible for Prof. Lenski to falsify the physical data residing in the actual bacteria, as that would require a massive program of genetic engineering. Only by allowing unbiased conservative scientists access to samples of the bacteria colonies can we assure that we aren't witnessing another Piltdown hoax, as the Darwinian community has a reputation for perpetrating them.<br />
<br />
As to the practicality of this, only scrapings of the cultures would be needed for reculturing, not the entire original petri dish as "porkchop" implies above. These can be stored in standard cryogenic ampules that take up very little space. The Discovery Institute surely has cryogenic facilities in their labs and would be willing to host the collection under the auspices of Conservapedia. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 10:50, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Excellent idea! Go for it. Send off a third letter at once! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:09, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Until Lenksi himself states that "no I will not give you the data, you crazy conservatives", in no way can you compare this to Piltdown. To do so is to further your own agenda of discrediting a scientific experiment that makes the minor point that traits can evolve. I believe that Lenski has provided enough data for all of you to examine and make claims about his research; honestly, what would you possibly do with scrapings of cultures? "Ok, Culture #95324 is Cit-, had me #95325"? I doubt that you people would even do that. Chances are, you would glance at the mountain of raw data Lenski would send, and then summarily dismiss it based on your own desire to see it fail. This is disgusting. --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]<br />
<br />
::''This is disgusting'' What is disgusting is that you are doing to Andy precisely what you suppose he will do to the data if and when it comes - that is, use it to back up a preconceived idea. You do not know how he or other Conservapedians will treat the data. Do not criticise him for something he hasn't done but which you assume he will do. To do so is arrant hypocricy. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:57, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::That is a fair point, Bugler. I'm just frustrated by the serious bias already lined up against Lenski's research, even before raw data has been seen. --Aaronp<br />
<br />
:: Well put, Bugler. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Aaronp, either you're naive or you're engaging in bullying if you maintain that Lenski plans to release his raw data soon for independent, public review. I asked him last Friday to release it, and his reply declined to do so. I asked him again yesterday, and he predictably has not replied. It now seems to me to be likely that the peer reviewers for his paper did not even see the raw data. I think it's likely that only Lenski and his grad student have seen the raw data underlying that paper (note its footnote). Don't pretend that Lenski welcomes independent review of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:15, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: My understanding is that peer reviewers do not normally see raw data. Absent reason to believe otherwise, they assume data is correctly reported in the submitted paper. But I could be wrong about this. Why do you think reviewers would normally be shown raw data? Also, I do not have a good idea what the data would look like? Do you have an opinion of what it looks like and what form it is in? -divaricatum 13:04, 19 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::: Data should be made available to peer reviewers. If I'm reading the dates on the front of this particular paper correctly, I think peer review was a mere 15 days or so. Looks to me like a rubber-stamp process for this subject matter despite making claims that were reported as being newsworthy.<br />
<br />
::::: The raw data have to already be in a form that allows collaborative work, so I don't see that as much of an obstacle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:47, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
[unidenting] You did not really respond to my points. I asked whether, according to your understanding, peer reviewers are normally shown raw data. I said my understanding was they were not. You say "data should be made available..." Is that your opinion, or are you describing actual practice? Second, the usable data is in the paper, as far as I can tell. The graphs do not permit knowing exact value, but you do not seem to be asking for the exact figures used to generate the graph. Look at, for example, figure 1: X axis is generation, Y axis is Optical Density. The caption says:<br />
<br />
: Population expansion during evolution of the Cit+ phenotype. Samples frozen at various times in the history of population Ara-3 were revived, and three DM25 cultures were established for each generation. Optical density (OD) at 420 nm was measured for each culture at 24 h. Error bars show the range of three values measured for each generation.<br />
<br />
The graph shows a dramatic rise around generation 33000, from less than 0.05 to about .25. What additional data would you like? There are presumably lab books with 33000+ OD measurements (or some multiple of that) but in what sense is the data not available? What exactly regarding this graph would you like to see? <br />
<br />
Finally, in the second letter you talk about instances where it is noted that data is not shown. I found 3 such instances:<br />
<br />
: page 3 Also, growth on citrate is inhibited by the citrate analog 5-fluorocitrate (data not shown), as was observed for the one previously reported Cit� mutant of E. coli (42, 43).<br />
<br />
: page 3 After depleting the glucose in DM25, the earliest Cit+ clones grow almost imperceptibly, if at all, for many hours before they begin efficiently using the citrate (data not shown), whereas later Cit+ cones switch to growth on citrate almost immediately (Fig. 2).<br />
<br />
: page 6 These differences were also evident when we monitored the intraday dynamics of mixtures of Cit+ and Cit- cells (data not shown).<br />
<br />
In no case do the data seem relevant to the main point of the paper (in the first case, there may be data in the references; in the second case, he is simply noting that early clones grow slowly, but the point is later clones grow fast, for which data are shown; and the third case -- discussing utilization of glucose -- is again tangential to the main conclusion). Why are you interested in these data? -divaricatum 14:21 June 19, 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Lenski has "predictably" not replied? That's exactly what I'm talking about. You're so biased against him purely because you don't agree with the subject of his work. I would be frustrated in the same way if you were doing this with any research paper, not just Lenski's. "Predictably" he hasn't replied... maybe that is because he is a busy man who was kind enough to respond to your first email, but now simply does not want to (or have to) cater to the whims of some random hyper-conservative blogger who is asking him to release 20 years of raw data that the blogger does not have the knowledge set to critique! God forbid the man takes a week to respond to your email; if after two are three days of no answer are you going to condemn him by saying "he's obviously not talking to me because he's hiding something"? --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
"''If we assume his Darwinian principles were no check on his willingness to publish a falsified paper, then why would we then assume they would prevent him from falsifying data?''": Whilst it is true that Darwinism and atheism provide no basis for morals, hence honesty, it does not follow that individual Darwinists and atheists have no morals. In most cases, they have adopted a form of the morality held to by their society, which (in the case of western countries) has its basis in Christianity. So there is no reason to assume that Lenski would be dishonest with the data itself. The comparison with Piltdown has no basis.<br />
<br />
Peer review, as I understand it, is not meant as a check on all the research of a scientist, but merely as a basic check that the scientist has used suitable methodology, that his conclusions can be justified from his data, that he has explained the research clearly enough for the readers to understand, and so forth. Therefore all the detailed data would not normally be provided to the reviewers, although they may (I'm not certain) be able to request it if they are not satisfied by the data provided. Certainly they could reject the paper if they weren't satisfied, or request that more data be included in the paper if they felt that not enough was.<br />
<br />
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== General Reply ==<br />
<br />
Lenski has essentially refused my request that he make his underlying data available for public scrutiny, despite his use of public funding. Given the remarkably short time between submission of his PNAS manuscript and its acceptance (only 14 days), I doubt his paper even had meaningful peer review. <br />
<br />
It's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data. I wonder if PNAS violated its own stated policies by publishing Lenski's paper, and I'm going to email its Editor-in-Chief to request an explanation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:19, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
: How long does peer review normally take? And what PNAS policies do you think may have been violated? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:32, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Other articles in the same issue of PNAS:<br />
<br />
Effective tumor treatment targeting a melanoma/melanocyte-associated antigen triggers severe ocular autoimmunity approved April 14, 2008 (received for review November 18, 2007)<br />
<br />
Localized and extended deformations of elastic shells<br />
approved March 11, 2008 (received for review August 7, 2007)<br />
<br />
Characterization of the structure–function relationship at the ligament-to-bone interface approved April 11, 2008 (received for review December 28, 2007)<br />
<br />
Mutations in the telomerase component NHP2 cause the premature ageing syndrome dyskeratosis congenita approved April 14, 2008 (received for review January 3, 2008)<br />
<br />
Experimental evidence for negative selection in the evolution of a Yersinia pestis pseudogene approved April 15, 2008 (received for review February 13, 2008)<br />
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:36, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The average length of peer review for PNAS, based on a sample, is over 120 days. Lenski's paper was accepted within only 14 days of submission.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:53, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Andy, I'm not sure there's sufficient reason to claim that it probably didn't get a meaningful peer review. 2 weeks is certainly enough time for reviewers to read and critique the article. You may have noticed that Blount et al.'s article is identified as part of a special series, which could explain why it was reviewed more quickly than usual. I hope you will post the editor's reply here. Incidentally, in light of your view on this page of the importance of allowing research to be scrutinized by others, I would like to re-open my request for you to share your methodology on the hollywood breast cancer mystery page. Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:18, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I intended peer review in general, not just at the PNAS, but that's a fair comparison. Like Murray, I would have thought that a fortnight is sufficient, but you do appear to be correct that the Lenski paper was much quicker than normal at the PNAS. So that just leaves the question of broken policies... [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:24, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::If you take Lenski's paper for what it is, peer review of the paper would not take long after all. The majority of his data could be kick out for his paper is just the documentation of the bacteria using the citrate. Murry, what is this about breast cancer?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 12:30, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: Murray is referring to [http://www.conservapedia.com/Mystery:Young_Hollywood_Breast_Cancer_Victims this poorly researched thesis proposed by ASchlafly], Able806. No data to support the thesis was ever provided by ASchlafly. I'd invite you to take a look. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 12:40, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Looking at the paper, it seems to me almost all the experimental data is shown in figure 1: the ability of the bacteria to utilize citrate as revealed by optical density measurements. Something clearly happened around generation 33000, and the OD measurements jumped fivefold (from 0.05 to 0.25) with the range of measurements over three samples being way, way less that 0.2 (the size of the jump). That seems to be it experimentally. The rest of the paper describes the methodology and discusses what could have caused the change.<br />
<br />
::: People keep talking about raw data. Would someone who says that explain what they mean? To me, raw data is relevant when what is reported is derived data. For example, suppose you have a study of health effects of working at a facility that handles nuclear material. You report the radiation exposure over background of workers. That is derived data. The raw data are the workers' dosimeter readings and the background radiation measurements. That is what you would ask for when you wanted the raw data which supported the derived data.<br />
<br />
::: But in the Lenski paper, as far as I can tell, the data reported is the actual measured data: they measured the optical density of the samples and reported those numbers in figure 1. Of course, I could be wrong, I am not an expert in this field, but if someone disagrees with me, please tell me what the raw data would be and how the data in figure 1 was derived from it. (Lenski said that all the data being asked for is in paper. That statement is consistent with what I am saying.)<br />
<br />
::: As to 14 days, I do not see any problem. This is a very exciting result to people in the field and the reviewers would very likely put it on top of their to do lists. As I say, the experimental data is simple and unambiguous (something significant happened at generation 33000), the description of the methodology is clear and straightforward, and the discussion of the causes is at least consistent and believable. What is there to object to?<br />
<br />
::: Aschlafly talks of 'concealed data'. Could you please tell me what data you believe is being concealed? Specifically, what measurements are not revealed? (I know you can say 'how could I know if they do not tell me', but can someone at least suggest what kind of information is not being revealed?) -divaricatum 10:03 June 20 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::: If Aschlafly is talking about the "data not shown" parts of the paper as being "concealed", then he is being ignorant about normal scientific paper submission. Due to length constraints and other factors, most (read: all) researchers will leave out unimportant pieces of data that aren't necessarily the key points of the paper. For example, a paper could catalog the radiation levels of all the workers at a given nuclear power plant, and have a main point that workers who are in a certain part of the plant are getting higher exposure rates. Because it had to catalog all workers of the plant, it might also have to take dosage readings of people who work off-site. Obviously, people who aren't working at the plant will not have high radiation doses, and thus in the paper that result might look like "Predictably, those workers who perform their duties off-site had no detectable radiation doses that were above background (data not shown)". It would be pointless to show that "hey look, people who don't work around the radiation don't have readings above background! Here's a chart proving it!". That is why almost all papers have at least one data set that isn't shown. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]<br />
<br />
I have to run an errand but want to you everyone know, as I've said before, that it's only productive to discuss something with somebody who has an open mind. If you agree with my statement that "It's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data," then let's talk. If not, then please rant somewhere else. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:34, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: In the 'Piltdown all over again' thread above, I list all three instances of 'data not shown' from the paper and point out that, according to my understanding of what is being reported, the conclusions are not relevant to the point being made. Therefore (reinforcing what aaronp says) I would not expect the data to be shown and do not understand what use it would be to anyone interested in arguing with the paper's conclusions. Again, I could be wrong, but please if you disagree, address the point by explaining how the unshown data would be relevant to the conclusions of the paper. <br />
<br />
:::: With regard to aschlafly's last comment, please tell me what data you believe has not been revealed. My contention is all the relevant data is in figure 1. I am happy to be shown to be wrong, but please explain what data you think has not been revealed. -divaricatum 10:40 June 20 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::: : The data hasn't been concealed! "Concealed" from you, perhaps, but I blame that more on who you represent rather than some vague plot to get this information published without going through checks and balances. The data was peer-reviewed. The data was presented in a clear and logical manner. The data supported the conclusions. This is your run-of-the-mill publication, and has satisfied all it needs to in order to be recognized. I agree that if some person were to make an unverified claim (like all those crazy people who claim to have cloned a human being, but haven't shown the clones or released any data) and depict it as truth, then yes, that would be unscientific. But this paper hasn't done that. As for being close-minded, I believe it is you that is being close-minded. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]] 13:40, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
For reasons already explained, I'm not going to waste time with close-minded argument here. If you agree that it's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data, then clearly say so. Otherwise, it's a futile exercise. Anyone at any time could make an unverified claim based on concealed data, and people could be found to defend it. Only fools would try to reason with them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:17, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: If you are referring to me, please show where I have been close-minded. Sure I agree that "it's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data", but I am asking whether that is the case here. I ask repeatedly about what data have been concealed, and no one, particularly you, responds. There are two claims made in the paper: that a strain of E. colii evolved the ability to utilize citrate, and that the strain first had a mutation which while it did not allow the utilization of citrate, in some fashion potentiated the later mutation. The first claim is supported by the optical density data in figure 1. I contend that that is direct data and there is no associated raw data to look at, and that the ability to utilize citrate is clearly shown by the data provided.<br />
<br />
: The second claim is demonstrated by repeat experiments using stored samples. In some cases, the ability to utilize citrate evolved, in some cases not. They report on the strains used, how often the ability evolved, etc. I again do not see what data are not being supplied. All I am asking from you is to explain what data you believe is available to the researches that would be relevant in evaluating their results which is not in the paper. I do not see what is unreasonable about that request.<br />
<br />
: Lenski said in his letter to you that all the relevant data was in the paper. From my reading, that seems to be true. I am of course open to an argument that something additional needs to be revealed but I would like to understand what that additional something is, and no one, specifically not you, has said.<br />
<br />
: Now perhaps you are suggesting that the data reported in the paper is not the actual data collected (whether accidentally or intentionally mistranscribed, or whatever). If that is what you are saying is possible, please say so explicitly so we can understand your point, and also say how you would like the matter resolved (xeroxes of lab books? Computer backup tapes? what?)<br />
<br />
: I would just like to understand what people think has not been revealed. I do not see why asking that question indicates a closed mind or any such thing. -divaricatum 11:30 June 20 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: OK, divaricatum, we're arguing from the same logical basis, so let's proceed. The underlying data are not in the papers. The papers have an interpretative summary of the data which may be mistaken, incomplete, or worse. The underlying data were only analyzed by two people: Lenski and a grad student (presumably under the control of Lenski). Let's see what they analyzed. We may see things they missed or ignored. Or there may be defects in the data that they didn't realize or disclose. In less than 14 days between submission and acceptance of the paper, it's unlikely any peer review did this.<br />
<br />
:: If this were a court of law, the judge would not even allow Lenski and his grad student to present their summaries to the jury without first providing the underlying data to the other side. Surely scientific standards have not fallen lower than legal ones.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:52, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
(this discussion is limited to those who accept the logical premise repeated above: "it's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data." Sermons, rants and illogical postings can be made elsewhere. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:14, 20 June 2008 (EDT))<br />
<br />
::: Thank you. Let us look at claim number 1, that a strain of E. coli evolved the ability to utilize citrate. This is from page 2 of the paper (and onto page 3):<br />
<br />
:::: After 33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1). A number of Cit+ clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all were Ara-, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2). DNA sequencing also showed that Cit+ clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, and each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all of the others (30). Therefore, the Cit+ variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant. The evolved Cit+ variant grows to high density in DM0 (a citrate-only medium), produces vigorous colonies on minimal citrate (MC) agar plates, and causes a positive color change on Simmon’s citrate agar, all of which indicate that it can use citrate as a sole carbon source. In DM25, Cit+ cells undergo a period of rapid growth on glucose that is followed by slower growth on citrate (Fig. 2). Also, growth on citrate is inhibited by the citrate analog 5-fluorocitrate (data not shown), as was observed for the one previously reported Cit+ mutant of E. coli (42, 43).<br />
<br />
::: So, there was a population that could utilize citrate. The claims made are (1) it was not a contaminate (the data asserted is that it had the markers of the earlier populations), (2) it had mutations found in earlier strains from the same evolving populations. (3) It grows in a glucose-free environment and can use citrate as a carbon source. (4) It continues to grow on citrate/glucose medium after the glucose is exhausted (while other E. coli stops growing).<br />
<br />
::: Data explicitly supplied (figure 1) shows the ability of strains after the mutation to grow on citrate only (glucose free) medium. I assert this is direct (not derived) data since (I believe) the optical density is directly measured and that is what is shown in figure 1. Further data (figure 2) compares a strain with the mutation and one without and shows the with strain continues to grow after the glucose is exhausted while the without strain stops growing. Again, this is OD data directly reported. (I could of course be mistaken and OD data is in fact derived from other data, like excess radiation exposure, in which case someone please correct me.)<br />
<br />
::: The derived data is that the mutated strain has markers from the ancestral source and has specific mutations from more recent ancestors (that is, there are presumably DNA and other analyses which show these things which are not shown). He also reports on growth on other specific media (minimal citrate (MC) agar plates and Simmon’s citrate agar) where we are told only that on the first, the growth is vigorous, and on the second produces a color change. Finally (in what seems to be a parenthetical comment) growth in inhibited by the "citrate analog 5-fluorocitrate", but that data is not shown, and it is noted that was reported by the other known E. coli variant that can utilize citrate. (I interpret this as simply reporting that the variant they found is likely the same or very similar to the variant previously reported. That is interesting but not, it seems to me, relevant to the result of the paper, so the lack of supplied data does not seem significant to me.)<br />
<br />
::: So, what could you ask for? The OD reports from saved samples shown in figure 1 seem unambiguous as to the ability of the strain, after 33000 to utilize citrate, and so, except as qualified next, the basic claim seems to me to be verified. I cannot imagine what additional data with respect to OD you could ask for unless you are claiming that they mistranscribed the data (in which case, I repeat, resolve it how? Look at Lab books?)<br />
<br />
::: So here is the qualification: could it be a contamination? They explain how they reject the contamination hypothesis. You could say that was very important to your confidence and so you would like to see the specific test results for the markers and mutations. That is certainly a specific question and one that could be answered, although with some (perhaps significant) expenditure of time and money.<br />
<br />
::: As to the growth on other media (minimal citrate (MC) agar plates and Simmon’s citrate agar) the paper simply describes the growth as vigorous and the color changing. But these reports seem unambiguous in that they could be in error only if the investigators were misrepresenting their findings. Here again, what would you like to see? Lab books? Because this could only be false through fraud, the lab books would presumably in that case also be fraudulent.<br />
<br />
::: So it seems to me that all one could ask for is the dna/marker data that verifies that the cit+ samples are not contaminates. Perhaps, if you were willing to pay for the tests, one could ask for ancestral, close to mutation, and post mutation samples on which to repeat the tests.<br />
<br />
::: Let us leave fraud aside. So then the question is, did they make (honest) mistakes? It frankly seems unlikely to me because the tests seem straightforward: the ability to utilize citrate seems very easy to test unambiguously (smear some on a citrate/no glucose base and see what happens). The differences between growing vigorously and hardly are surely great enough that one could not mistake one for the other. The contamination tests, while much more complicated, also seem standard. DNA sequencing is a well-established technique. There are looking for specific loci ("DNA sequencing also showed that Cit+ clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population"). I am not sure how the markers mentioned are identified but I again think this is a standard test.<br />
<br />
::: So, to repeat my conclusion: the only thing I feel is worth asking about (all this is about result 1, there was a mutation which allowed utilization of citrate) is the contamination question. There they presumably have data which confirms there statements but I am not sure whether it is reasonably to ask them for it absent some specific concern. (Here an experienced microbiogist would be helpful, if I have the field right: is their description of how they determined that the strain was not contaminated reasonable and the tests they did straightforward and unambiguous, or is there room for reasonable doubt? Answering that is beyond my knowledge. I would be pleased to hear from such an expert.)<br />
<br />
::: As to claim 2, I understand it less well, but could discuss it in more detail but I feel I have gone on long enough discussing claim 1. I would be pleased to read differing analyses of claim 1, particularly with regard to where the authors might reasonably be incorrect, absent fraud. divaricatum 13:09 June 20, 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Thank you, Divaricatum, for putting what I wanted to say so eloquently on the page. I believe that Lenski was being straight when he published his findings, and that barring gross fraud, the paper is very well-researched. -- Aaronp<br />
<br />
==Note re. article==<br />
As an aside, I' wonder if someone couldn't place some information at the head of the article here? At present, the article simply starts into a "first letter" to "a Prof. Lenski". The article should have a little setup to introduce readers to what on Earth it's all about. There is no reference in the article to the rest of the debate, basically. Just an FYI. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 13:17, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Lenski's second reply==<br />
Are you happy now? He has answered everything you asked. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 06:21, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:Andy should be thanked and congratulated by everyone here for his efforts on behalf of truth and openness. Those of us not blinded by Liberal deceit can now see atheistic pseudo-science for what it is. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:04, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:Really, Bugler? After that statement, I have trouble believing you're real. Atheistic pseudo-science? Liberal deceit? Do you even know what you're talking about? This isn't pseudo-science. Just because you don't understand it, it doesn't mean the information is suddenly invalid. In fact, after what is seemingly a post purely to stroke Andy's ego just a little bit more, even in the face of Lenski's reply, I believe that you are just a sock of Aschlafly. By the way, I'm expecting a 90/10 for this. --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]<br />
::I wouldn't give you the satisfaction of dignifying such a ridiculous post in that manner. Nor does the exchange require my poor talents to explain it to you. The messages stand by themselves, and Andy's honest intentions and integrity stand out. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:22, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::Sir Bugler, why do you cite something called "Liberal Deceit." Please allow me to clarify, explain to me what basis you have to slap on deceit towards liberals. I know that you are not inferring that all liberals engage in deceit, or that deceit is only inherent to liberals, but you are making a statement in some form, am I wrong? For every time that there is a liberal engaging in a form of deceit, there is also a conservative engaging in that same type of deceit. <br />
P.S. You are seeking data to scrutinize the integrity of an "Atheistic" scientist's work, who, as we've learned now from the Lenski's most recent letter that he is in fact, not at all an atheist, but a church attender. SO please accordingly revise your attacks. {{unsigned|Eligus}}<br />
<br />
:::Ok Bugler, to be fair, I will let go of my frustration and attempt to make a "valid" point. Can we at least respect Lenski for taking the time to write out his replies? The man is incredibly busy (trust me, I know), and still managed to communicate to a random person from the internet who was challenging 20 years worth of work. In addition to this, Lenski was very courteous with his replies! Surely we can't demonize the man purely because of his work on a bacterial strain? I can respect that Andy was doing what he thought was right, but can't we also give the same courtesy to Lenski, who put equal heart into his own work? -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]<br />
::::I can't say I noticed sarcasm or mockery in Andy's messages. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::True, but I did notice some serious (unfounded) allegations of fraud in his statements on the talk page; since the talk page is public domain, it means that Lenski saw them as well. I would say that Andy was being very rude, accusing someone of gross fraud without concrete evidence. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]<br />
<br />
::::: Really, Aaronp? When was I "accusing someone of gross fraud without concrete evidence"? Perhaps you can provide a quote for your claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:11, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Anyway back to my question, are you now satisfied in the response? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 08:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
"Given the remarkably short time between submission of his PNAS manuscript and its acceptance (only 14 days), I doubt his paper even had meaningful peer review..." "It's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data..." Both of these quotes, Mr. Schlafly, imply that Lenski falsified his data and collaborated in an elaborate conspiracy to get his paper published! You already assume that Lenski was fraudulent with his data when you said this! How is that not accusing him of fraud? -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]] Also, sorry to distract from your question, Daniel. Andy, please answer Dan first. Thank you.<br />
<br />
: Aaronp, your quote does not support your accusation, and I suggest you retract it immediately. I leave that up to you. Obviously there are many types of possible flaws in scientific claims that are not "gross fraud." For example, I don't think Andrew Wiles' (an example I used) was fraudulent in presenting his initial proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]], which general scrutiny found to be flawed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::''You already assume that Lenski was fraudulent with his data when you said this!'' You are a mind-reader, Aaron! Truly remarkable! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:32, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::You're right. What can I say? I am omniscient. As for the quote, by stating you doubted the paper was peer-reviewed, you are claiming that Lenski didn't actually go through the proper steps to get his data published, which is accusing him of fraud. I don't see how that can be any more straightforward. --Aaronp<br />
<br />
::::The responsibility for peer review is on the peers that do the reviewing. I don't know why you would assume that Andy would be accusing Linski of dubious scientific practice, when the more likely explanation is that he was accusing the reviewers. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 08:51, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Don't be naive, Drochld. Andy was attacking Lenski specifically. -- Aaronp<br />
That is enough. If you persist with these ludicrous accusations of malevolence you will be blocked. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:58, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:AaronP to be safe you should preface every truth you say with "it seems" so that way it isn't an accusation... '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 09:02, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Bugler, if Andy was not assuming that Lenski's data was frauduflent, wouldn't that mean that he was being openminded about the possibility of the Bible being incorrect? [[User:RWilson|RWilson]] 13:52, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::: I'm not sure what you are getting at there, but I ''think'' you are saying that either Lenski is a fraud or the Bible is incorrect, yet I see no reason for thinking it has to be one or the other. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:29, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Once again, the above seriously misrepresents the situation with Fermat's Last Theorem. While I was very happy that he released his manuscript immediately after his lectures at the Newton Institute, the fact remains that the error was detected in conversations between Wiles and consummate insiders like Nick Katz [http://www.math.princeton.edu/~nmk/], not after general scrutiny by random people around the internet. --[[User:Npstrick|Npstrick]] 10:23, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Thanks, DLerner. "It seems" I've made my point anyway. No more accusations of malevolence from this gentleman, no sir! --Aaronp<br />
<br />
Lenski's reply in a nutshell, once all the talk pollution and ad hominem attacks are removed: No, I will not give you my raw data or my E. Coli samples, not to you or any other non-Darwinist. <br />
<br />
And we're still supposed to believe his research is legitimate??? This is exactly what Andy predicted he would do, only not necessarily so rudely. Andy wins. Game. Set. Match. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 10:36, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Really? He said he would put the data on his website, and I think [[Behe]] meets Lenski's three qualifications for a scientist to whom he would release the bacteria. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 10:55, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Behe? Are you serious? He's supposed to be a Creation Scientist? The guy believes in the big bang, an earth billions of years old, and evolution. He does not believe in a young Earth, Adam and Eve, or the true word of the Bible. He's an evolutionist who happens to say "oh yeah, God guided evolution." As if there was anything on the Earth ''not'' guided by God! Just because he's one of the few scientists who isn't an atheist he's supposed to be one of us? No thanks. I'd rather go with someone who didn't drink the Old Earth Kool-aid. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 11:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::In spite of his Old Earth views or sympathies to evolution, Behe would be the perfect person for the job. He's a scientist! Has anyone contacted him yet? I bet he would jump at the opportunity to do research like this and having it published in a peer review journal would make ID more credible. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I for one am really, really glad that Lenski is '''not''' prepared to send dangerous bacteria to someone without checking on their credentials first. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 18:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Settle down, TonyT. Nobody claimed that he was a creationist, but as one who doesn't believe in naturalistic evolution, he would be a good person to check this out. On the other hand, as I've pointed out already, creationists and ID theorists don't necessarily have a problem with this research, so really, there may be nothing worth checking out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:25, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== "P.P.P.P.S.?" == <br />
<br />
Wow. Professional. The guy writes like a 12-year-old girl. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:25, 24 June 2008 (EDT) <br />
:Wow. besides the ad hom, does anyone care to contest the substance of what the guy said? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:36, 24 June 2008 (EDT) <br />
<br />
<br />
::Fair enough. I think Lenski raises a valid point that honestly hadn't occurred to me--namely, the logistics of transporting and storing biological materials. While a request for data stored in electronic form is one thing, a request for actual samples of the cultures is another. Unless facilities for the storage of such material are available, I don't think this issue can be brought to a conclusion that will be satisfactory for everyone. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:54, 24 June 2008 (EDT) <br />
<br />
== E. coli in our bowels == <br />
<br />
So if they're mutating and evolving, why don't they kill us? Our bodies obviously have defenses that protect us from the E. coli in our guts, but with all this evolving supposedly going on, you'd think they'd have evolved into something that could overcome those defenses and kill us so they could feast on our corpses. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Or you'd think that our bodies have evolved ways to deal with that. Or you'd think that there would be no advantage for e.coli to evolve a trait that would kill off its host environment. Or you'd think that humans would have evolved wings and third arms and eyes in the back of their heads in order to better adapt to their environments. Where exactly is it written in evolutionary science that all organism will eveolve the traits that you happen to think would improve their chances? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT) <br />
: Not to mention that evolution doesn't have a "goal." Yeesh, the ignorance here is astounding.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 15:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT) + <br />
:: Shows what you know! The goal of evolution is obviously to "evolve" in whatever manner it takes to destroy all of humanity. Who's ignorant now? Bobdobbs 15:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Jinxmchue perhaps you should better familiarise yourself with the principles of evolution and basic human biology before making claims such as the above. The theory of evolution states that organisms will undergo mutations, and the process of natural selection will determine which prosper (and hence are carried on) and which do not. A parasitic organism is not going to be doing itself any favours by killing its host, if it did then it would have minimal ability to survive and its genes would not be passed on to future generations.<br />
<br />
:::In addition, some bacteria do evolve (or have evolved in the past) to overcome their host's defences, the thing is that the body contains millions upon millions of variations of white blood cells and eventually one that possesses the capability to destroy the bacteria will encounter it, proliferate and destroy it. This likelihood is increased by the inflammatory response accompanying most organisms. In some caes our bodies cannot fight off infection, and that is the reason we develop modern antibiotics.<br />
<br />
:::Furthermore, a single mutated bacteria, or even a few hundred of its spawn, are not going to be capable of producing sufficient protetin to kill their host. Even if every protein produced was capable of destroying a cell (which never happens) it would take thousands if not millions of bacteria over a long time period to kill the host. Now this is where the catch is, it takes energy to produce proteins which the bacteria could otherwise be utilising for other things, like surviving. If a bacteria is pumping out enough proteins to kill the surrounding cells it will be diverted from its normal tasks (but please remember that a bacteria is not actually capable of thought) and will not stand much of a change of survival. <br />
<br />
:::Oh (and this sort of relates to all of the last three points), you should be aware that bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract (our guts) are in most cases not under attack by the human immune system as they are technically outside of the body. Therefore evolving to overcome the host's defences is not going to have any difference, and will just be wasting energy. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 19:14, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Alice, according to evolutionary theory, species that fail to evolve die. And there are no evolutionary dead ends other than those that die off. If it's alive, it's evolving. Yet we don't see any evolving going on despite the fact that the rate of evolution has to be so phenomenally fast that it should easily be seen. In fact, this lack of obvious evolution has led to someone inventing the idea of "punctuated equilibrium" to explain away why we don't see it happening all the time. It's a load of nonsensical, unprovable bull. I used to believe every word of it, but when I approached it with a critical eye (something that is NEVER allowed by the evolutionary dogmatists), I found it to be very, very wanting. This "evolving" E. coli proves nothing. It's still E. coli. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:02, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Jinxmchue, wrong. Evolutionary theory gives various examples of species that have not evolved (or evolved very little) in millions of years; coelacanths are one. Species that fail to evolve ''when their environment changes'' die; species in an unchanging habitat have no need to evolve one they have adapted to it sufficiently. [[User:Bmalee|bmalee]] 07:56, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::The coelacanth is very likely the greatest example of how wrong the theory of evolution is. Evolutionists are beside themselves trying to explain how this supposedly millions of years extinct animal showed up in modern times showing absolutely no evolution. Are we to believe that the coelacanths' environment never changed in the millions of years since they were claimed to have died off? That must be quite a stable part of the earth indeed! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:04, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: You are both correct. Evolution does indeed say that creatures in non-changing environments have no need to evolve. bmalee is correct on that. However, you are also correct with your example of the coelacanth. Basically, the evolutionary argument that a given creature hasn't evolved because its environment didn't change is an ''ad hoc'' explanation without empirical evidence and without explanatory power. I don't know that the coelacanth is the greatest example, though, as there are much older living things that show no sign of change either. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:18, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: How is Jinx correct with that example, though? The current living species of coelacanth are not the same as the ones in fossils, which as far as we know are all extinct (although the most recent fossils do resemble the living ones found). It seems that 'modern' coelacanth are substantially larger than their ancestors, and live birth is also speculated to be (relatively) new to the species. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:27, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: Jinxmchue, you need to do some research. Modern coelacanths are anything but unchanged. For example, they're roughly three times as large as their ancient predecessors. Of the two known living species, neither are in the same genus as ancient coelacanths. Your statement is ''blatantly'' false. --[[User:Rspeed|Rspeed]] 16:31, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::The whole of Jinxmchue's argument is false, whatever the changes in the Coelacanth. Just because there is '''one''' example of a creature that has not changed doesn't mean that ''no'' creatures have changed. That would be like finding one person who drives a 1958 Chevvy and concluding from it that car design hadn't changed at all in 50 years. And it is not true that "according to evolutionary theory, species that fail to evolve die". [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:35, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Peer Review Process==<br />
<br />
My apologies if I am contributing to a debate that has already closed, but skimmed through the letters exchanged and the debate here and noticed a slight discrepancy in understanding. The peer reviewers of a paper do not receive any data other than that which is eventually published in the journal (although some may be removed by the editor, such as for page restrictions). They exist to judge the method and to ensure that the conclusions are accurately drawn from the results provided in the paper. They do not check to make sure the raw data is properly summarised in the results, nor do they ever have access to the raw data. The checking of raw data is carried out after the paper is published, either through scientists reproducing the experiment or (such as in this case) obtaining materials and records directly from the scientist involved.<br />
<br />
Hope this clears things up. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 09:06, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Well I don't know the details of the peer review process. I also dunno about anyone else. But I did get a chuckle out of his little anecdote. For what its worth, it lightened my mood after 38 hours without sleep, (recipe for regret, I don't recommend it). [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 23:44, 24 June 2008<br />
<br />
== Reply to Lenski's second-last paragraph ==<br />
<br />
Dr. Lenski, I hope you get to read this.<br />
<br />
I have no dispute with most of your second letter (or your first one), and you will note above my objections to the letters being sent to you, but do wish to respond to your second-last paragraph (the P.P.P.S.). You point out earlier in your letter than Andy Schlafly lacks expertise in the relevant fields, but you then proceed to pontificate on an area in which you appear to have no expertise, biblical [[exegesis]].<br />
<br />
The main problem with your claim that God may have used evolution is not that He could not have, but that He said that he didn't (or, more precisely, what He said that He did is incompatible with evolution). What is "insulting to God" is rejecting what He has plainly told us that He did.<br />
<br />
This point has been made over and over by creationists, so your lack of awareness of this demonstrates that you have little idea of what creationists actually claim and believe, yet it seems that you yourself are willing to go beyond your expertise when it suits you.<br />
<br />
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:22, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
P.S. Don't take too much notice of some of the messages posted above, a few of which are likely parodist troublemakers.<br />
<br />
:He wasn't talking about Creationism (specifically Young Earth Creationism) though, Philip. As you are aware, many Christians, possibly the majority, reject YEC and use very similar arguments that Lenski iterated, i.e. that evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive and it is presumptuous of any of us to claim knowledge of how precisely God created the universe. Of course, that's the core disagreement between YEC and more theistic evolution positions. You would expect an evolutionary biologist to side with the latter in his appreciation and understanding of Christianity. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:39, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:Just to clarify - I'm not deliberately arguing, just pointing out what I understood to be his position on that bit. I agree wholeheartedly with your other sentiments. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:01, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Reading past all the deliberate insults the scientists tossed, we come to the claim that "God created living things via evolution". Taking a stab at [[theistic evolution]], the scientist twists the knife by speculating that God would use set in motion some sort of blind watchmaker mechanism to create everything. <br />
<br />
::As Philip indicated, this is so obviously incompatible with YE Creationism that you have to wonder how stupid the scientists thinks our readers are. And even OE Creationism (the only major kind left to consider) '''specifically''' posits that God intervened creatively. <br />
<br />
::So, once again, the scientists has made assertions without giving adequate explanation. Everything is either assumed to have been "already explained" or is embargoed information (so he and has colleagues can take credit). If I may use a Jewish expression, God forbid he should every give us a straight answer! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:48, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::Not "speculating", Ed; '''observing'''. The speculation lies in the assumption that what someone you trust, who was told by someone they trust who was told by someone ''they'' trusted - and so on throughout many generations and translations - told ''you'' is an objective fact, and that ''somewhere'' down the line, not a single person - most of whose names you will never know - either made an error in judgment about who to trust, mistranslated, took artistic license at filling in the blanks, or at the very least had unwittingly consumed some rather questionable mushrooms. This is precisely why empirical data is valued in science over anecdotal. <br />
<br />
:::You say God said so, I say bring him here to tell me in person. You say God doesn't work that way, I say my how convenient for you, now leave me alone, I'm busy doing science. [[User:Cantle|Cantle]] 23:48, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Ajkgordon, did I mention anything about YEC? Lenski was clearly talking about the God of the Bible, and the biblical description of creation, specifically including the length of time taken and the order of creation, is totally incompatible with the evolutionary story. If it is "presumptuous" to claim knowledge of how God created, then why do so many do that very thing by claiming that God used evolution? Rather, it's arrogant and presumptuous to reject His clear revelation for man-made ideas that ''presume'' that He wasn't involved!<br />
<br />
Cantle, that you must misrepresent the basis for believing in creation suggests that without doing so your case is weak, if valid at all. The ''evidence'' is that the Bible has been transmitted through time very accurately. The Bible is not "anecdotal"; it is ''eye-witness history'', exactly the same sort of thing that allows you to know about almost anything that you did not personally experience, such as World War I (assuming you're not old enough to remember that) or even the date of your birth. Yes, ''your'' argument is convenient that you arbitrarily require particular evidence and reject all the evidence that is available.<br />
<br />
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:46, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Philip, you mentioned Creationism and implicitly Biblical inerrancy, therefore, yes , you mentioned YEC by default. In other words, you appear to take any mention of Lenski's about Christianity to de-facto mean that he's talking about YEC, the only form of Christianity that you believe is right. But he wasn't. He was talking about Christianity in more general terms reflecting what a great deal of Christians believe - that is that evolution and Christianity are not mutually incompatible. Surely you can see this while not agreeing with it. This is the type of Christianity he was talking about and how he can maintain respect for it (which he explicitly states) while carrying out his work. It is not pontification about an expertise he doesn't hold. It is a theological position of many many Christians, some of whom are academics of the highest standing in both science and theology. Again, you may vehemently deny that these Christians are right (or even possibly that they are not real Christians). But that doesn't change the fact that Lenski was talking about that Christian position and not Biblical inerrency. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:43, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Ed, similar reply. Lenski wasn't talking about Creationism. He was repeating the theological position of many learned Christian theologians that evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant. Many do. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:43, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I don't understand the phrase, "evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive." Are you speaking about the meaning of evolution in the sense of, "All forms of life evolved naturally, i.e., by the action of physical forces alone, and without any direct intervention by God"? If so, then I wonder which denominations of Christianity accept this disavowal of Creationism? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:17, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks for the question, Ed. Please remember this isn't me saying this but many academic theologians from mainstream Christianity including Roman Catholics, Anglicans and Protestants. In most cases it seems to mean that the jury is out - that their Christianity doesn't exclude evolution in the same way that it doesn't exclude the Big Bang. This seems to be borne from the position that mortals shouldn't limit God's creativity and that the Bible, particularly the Genesis account, shouldn't taken literally. While this might not be a majority position in the US (I don't know), it probably is in the rest of the Christian world - not necessarily by the layman (the subject doesn't really crop up that often!) but by members of Christian academia. In fact, admitting my ignorance, it might not even be a majority elsewhere but it certainly is a firmly held belief among a significant section of Christianity.<br />
:::What I am trying to suggest to Philip's original point in reply to Lenski, is that Lenski almost certainly wasn't referring to Creationist Christianity. (I doubt he would be that ignorant to not understand the basic principles of YEC.) Many of us only have experience of Christianity as non-scientific and non-political spirituality and faith and, for the scientists among us, NOMA applies. This is amply demonstrated by the various scientists who were Christians developing scientific discoveries that would not agree with the YEC view; the most recent famous example probably being Father George Lemaitre, arguably the "discoverer" of the Big Bang. Whether we, as individual Christians, believe in these scientific theories or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that many others do and it was to this Christian view that I presume Lenski was referring. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 09:46, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::You thanked me for "the question", but I asked two questions. And you didn't answer either one, so I will repeat them here (with numbers for easy reference):<br />
::# Are you speaking about the meaning of evolution in the sense of, "All forms of life evolved naturally, i.e., by the action of physical forces alone, and without any direct intervention by God"? ::#If so, then I wonder which denominations of Christianity accept this disavowal of Creationism?<br />
<br />
::When you respond again, please indicate by number which question(s) you are answering. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:18, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
"''...you mentioned Creationism...''": I actually mentioned creation''ists'', with reference to what they've pointed out about what ''the Bible'' teaches. And despite the existence of "useful idiots" who try and force the text to say something contrary to what it clearly says, the Bible ''very clearly''&mdash;arguably ''overly'' clearly&mdash;says that creation took six days. That is not (just) a YEC view: That is the clear, unambiguous, indisputable (except by people who don't understand the language and have try and force-fit an anti-biblical view into the Bible) record of Scripture. Any five-year-old can read the Bible and learn that. And experts in Hebrew agree. And the church believed that until the anti-biblical views of uniformitarianism changed that (that is, long ages wasn't something that was learned from Scripture, but from outside).<br />
<br />
"''He was talking about Christianity in more general terms reflecting what a great deal of Christians believe...''": Yes, but in doing so he was making a theological claim, which is (presumably) outside his area of expertise.<br />
<br />
"''This seems to be borne from the position that mortals shouldn't limit God's creativity and that the Bible, particularly the Genesis account, shouldn't taken literally.''": However, this position only arose as an attempt to incorporate what ''seemed'' to these ''non-scientists'' a scientific fact&mdash;''which it is not''. So basically they've been hoodwinked by scientists proclaiming a supposed scientific truth that is actually an anti-biblical philosophy. Prior to around 200 years ago, the Genesis account was taken literally. Again, the move to taking it non-literally was not based on theological understanding nor a better appreciation of the language, but an attempt to accommodate the supposedly-scientific but actually anti-biblical ideas of fallible men.<br />
<br />
"''Lenski almost certainly wasn't referring to Creationist Christianity''": No, he was referring to the God of the Bible, and that is what I was talking about in response.<br />
<br />
"''I doubt he would be that ignorant to not understand the basic principles of YEC''": From what I've seen many times over, I'd be surprised if he ''did'' understand.<br />
<br />
"''...for the scientists among us, NOMA applies.''" You mean that principle dreamt up by a Marxist that tries to claim for science areas that the Bible claims, such as how things got started? NOMA itself is anti-biblical.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3855/#noma]<br />
<br />
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:01, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Philip, it was not my intention to get involved in a debate about YEC and non-YEC Christianity. You appear to have missed my point almost certainly due to my clumsiness. My apologies. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 09:40, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Fair Warning==<br />
Your own senior sysops [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=next&oldid=475426 warned you] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=next&oldid=475433 repeatedly] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=next&oldid=476314 that this would not go well]. I think it's only fair that those fair warnings are acknowledged by those of us who claim to "know better" - some here know better too, but couldn't turn the ship around in time. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 11:26, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:What sort of Liberal defeatism are you bound up in, and why do you assume, without examining the facts of the matter, that this has not gone well? Have a look at the lead on the front page, and read Professor Lenski's message. 'By their words shall ye know them'! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:39, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::'By their words shall ye know them'. Is that a quote? And if so where is it from? It sounds like it's a corruption of Matthew 7:16, but I don't know if it's just made up or from somewhere else or just a mistake.[[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 14:30, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Please be charitable==<br />
<br />
[[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] was trying to warn you about the risk of ridicule. Please be charitable and unblock him.[[User:Veronica|Veronica]] 10:02, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&oldid=478060 See this]<br />
<br />
:Veronica, please see my response to 'Fair Warning' above. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Questions for Aschlafly , not Bugler ==<br />
(only because Bugler seems to be answering all the questions to Aschlafly)<br />
<br />
* I am repeating DanielB's question. Prof. Lenski has agreed to share the data.. actually the real samples to anyone with the credentials. Are you satisfied by his response?<br />
<br />
* How can I obtain an uncensored version of the letter?<br />
<br />
Please answer... I would love to hear from the top man himself. not any of the acolytes. <br />
<br />
thank you in anticipation. --[[User:Kajira|Kajira]] 14:10, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Seconded, I'd love to hear Mr. Schlafly's responce to Lenki's second letter. He basically agreed to all demands, stating the required conditions under which they can be met, so what's going to happen now? (now signed) --[[User:Alcari|Alcari]] 17:45, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Well I hope we're not going to stop here. It's not just an issue of will the evolutionist make their data open to the public, but we must validate that data, yes? I'm curious to know which university Mr Schlafly will be working with to receive the biological samples and also I'm curious to know what researcher(s) he will ask to experiment/validate the data. I don't recall an evolutionist ever being this open with their data so this is all so very intriguing. Perhaps the Discovery Institute could help, they have a laboratory in Seattle Washington where they conduct intelligent design experiments and biology research all the time. That would be a logical resource. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Kajira, I realise that you want to hear from Andy, but as for your second question, I guess that you could write to him yourself.<br />
<br />
Miles, from a quick bit of research, it seems that although the DI ''fund'' a laboratory, it's not part of the DI. Second, as I've mentioned before and repeated just now, the DI is not likely to have too much of an issue with this research (apart from the claims that it supports evolution, which it doesn't), so they may not want to waste their time with it.<br />
<br />
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:36, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Why do you say that it does not support evolution?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 15:05, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Question concerning deletions==<br />
<br />
Bugler,<br />
<br />
I notice that one of your recent edits deleted a substantial amount of discussion. Might I ask whether this was intentional, and if so, why it was necessary to do so? Thanks. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:No. I don't know how this happened. I shall restore the [passage concerned. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:23, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Thank you! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Liberal Deceit + Atheistic Pseudo-Science ==<br />
<br />
People on this board have made "broad generalizations" against Lenski and assumed that he is: 1. An atheist, 2. A liberal. <br />
<br />
Who says that he doesn't have socially conservative values? Also, he states in his most recent letter that he's also a church-goer. He never said that he's a raging Richard Dawkins, PZ Meyers atheist, or an atheist at all. So someone please clarify for me, is it possible to be conservative and also be a scientist who has discovered "alleged" evidence of evolution? Is it also OK for that person to not be an atheist or a liberal? --eligus<br />
<br />
Point well-taken. However, I don't see how his faith or lack thereof is at all relevant. The scope of the argument is microevolution in E. coli, not Lenski's personal beliefs. --[[User:R2d2fan|R2d2fan]] 23:53, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Evidence of Conservative Christian Evolutionist ==<br />
<br />
I am relatively new here - I created this account so that I could respond to the above question. Although I have been around here for about a year reading. I graduated from Westmont College in (gasp!) California. It is a Conservative Christian College (because the faculty and staff are Conservative Christians). The keynote speaker for my graduation was Condeleeza Rice. What am I getting at? Well at least two of the Professors in the Biology department believe in Evolution, which I don't find much problem with. I don't see how it makes God any less powerful or awesome if he set Evolution in motion. The Bible speaks of Free will given to mankind so that we might chose to love God. Why couldn't God give Free Will to nature...it mentions how all of creation also worships and rejoices God.<br />
<br />
I think that this whole Evolution vs. Creationism is an overblown Non-issue. Much like how the Medieval Catholic Church argued against Galileo regarding the Rotation of the Earth around the Sun. Just because the Bible isn't Crystal Clear on this point doesn't mean that we have to accept some very narrow idea of HOW God created everything. If we need something to get rilled up about why aren't we concerned about all the money that we (Conservatives) are losing from the out of control banks and Commodities Speculators (Enron Loophole). That's something we Conservatives should legitimately get pissed off about!<br />
<br />
{{unsigned|Stgulik}}<br />
<br />
: The issue is not so much what God ''could'' have done, but what He ''said'' He did. And He said (and this is something that the Bible ''is'' "Crystal Clear" about) that He created everything in six days. That by itself (and there's much more) means that evolution is wrong. And why do we need to get "rilled up" about it? Simply because evolution undermines the very foundations of the Bible. According to evolution, death (and suffering, etc.) is a natural part of life, and there was no Adam and Eve. In fact, if creatures didn't die (the less fit ones), then evolution could not have progressed. According to the Bible, death (and suffering, etc.) was not part of the original creation, but the result of sin. So if evolution is true, there was no original sin, and therefore no need of a Saviour&mdash;Jesus is out of a job! This is a very simple explanation, but basically if evolution is true, then the entire teaching of the Bible (not just the first chapter or so of Genesis) is dead wrong. Christians ''need'' to get "rilled up" about it. And even the atheists realise this: <br />
{{QuoteBox|And the creationists have also shown irrefutably that those liberal and neo–orthodox Christians who regard the creation stories as myths or allegories are undermining the rest of Scripture, for if there was no Adam, there was no fall; and if there was no fall there was no hell; and if there was no hell, there was no need of Jesus as Second Adam and Incarnate Savior, crucified and risen. As a result, the whole biblical system of salvation collapses.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3459]}}<br />
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:11, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks, Philip. Now I think I understand.--[[User:Aristotle56|Aristotle56]] 09:19, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::: You're welcome. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:29, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Why... ==<br />
<br />
...is Mr. Schlafly criticizing Professor Lenski's attitude, when it was Mr. Schafley and other Conservapedia editors who rudely accused Prof. Lenski of deliberate fraud, without proof?<br />
<br />
Both of Professor Lenski's responses appear to be thoughtful, well-written, and thorough. He addressed the misconceptions regarding the disputed claims and also addressed how other editors on this website had attempted to explain to Mr. Schlafly how such rude behavior is inconsistent with Christian values. He has also made the data from the study available and even offered the actual bacteria themselves - what else is left?<br />
<br />
As a Christian, I am disappointed by Mr. Schlafly's behavior and the personal attacks made by his followers and I will pray for them to examine their hearts and see if their motives are prideful or simply overzealous.<br />
<br />
"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth." ~Matthew 5:5<br />
<br />
[[User:Blessed|Blessed]] 23:56, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Closure?==<br />
<br />
Given Professor Lenski's second response, it would be good if we can finally achieve closure on this issue. Not only has Professor Lenski identified where the relevant data is in his published work, but he's offered to share additional details and even samples of the bacteria from the experiment, provided the request is made in a professional manner by qualified individuals. <br />
<br />
It's unfortunate that the only official response from CP has been a sarcastic comment on the main page news section. That comment is particularly ironic in implying that the tone of Professor Lenski's second response was inappropriate, given the following assertions by Andrew Schlafly on this page:<br />
<br />
* "What we have here is the unacceptable opposite: a scientific claim without production of the data." --Aschlafly 21:12, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
* "I'm starting to think that even the peer reviewers for the paper never checked the data, if the data continue to be withheld." --Aschlafly 10:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
* "If I'm reading the dates on the front of this particular paper correctly, I think peer review was a mere 15 days or so. Looks to me like a rubber-stamp process for this subject matter despite making claims that were reported as being newsworthy." --Aschlafly 16:47, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
* "Don't pretend that Lenski welcomes independent review of the data." --Aschlafly 15:15, 19 June 2008 (EDT) <br />
<br />
What ''would'' be appropriate is a statement from Andrew Schlafly acknowledging that these statements were out of line, along with a retraction of them. I would hope in any case to have a meaningful statement of response to Professor Lenski's second note come from Mr. Schlafly himself, without the intervention of others looking to speak on his behalf.<br />
<br />
What I expect, frankly, is for this entry to be removed and my ID to be blocked, just as it was last week in answer to my request to stop speculating and allow Professor Lenski to respond himself. I appreciated the integrity shown in publishing the text of Lenski's second response, so maybe this request for professional closure will last more than a few minutes after all. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:57, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Reply to the above ==<br />
<br />
: The comments above by defenders of withholding data have been unsatisfactory, to say the least. <br />
<br />
: Lenski says in his published paper: "Z.D.B. and R.E.L. [Lenski] analyzed data"[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf]<br />
<br />
: So where are all the data Lenski said he analyzed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:27, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::As clearly stated in Professor Lenski's second response:<br />
<br />
::: ''"Finally, let me now turn to our data. As I said before, the relevant methods and data about the evolution of the citrate-using bacteria are in our paper. In three places in our paper, we did say 'data not shown', which is common in scientific papers owing to limitations in page length, especially for secondary or minor points. None of the places where we made such references concern the existence of the citrate-using bacteria; they concern only certain secondary properties of those bacteria. We will gladly post those additional data on my website." ''<br />
<br />
::If the additional data is not on his website by now, I'm sure it will be soon. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 07:45, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Off for Vacation==<br />
Wow, off for a bit of vacation and I find this when I return, I can not believe how far this has gone. For someone to even suggest testing the bacterial samples without identifying a lab and storage facility is amazing. (I guess not many here know much about -80 freezers, culturing cryopreserved cells, sequencing the genome and associated costs for such work, not to mention MTAs.) I am a bit ashamed that I was associated in the final reply from Lenski due to the stance I held through out this debackaul. <br />
<br />
Andy, I hope this finally answers your questions and puts to rest your argument about Lenski withholding data and such. His response was, to say the least, colorful but informative and provided enough information that this argument can be put to rest. It is not Lenski's responsibility to train everyone who inquires about his work in the sciences needed to understand such work. When you could not identify an ARA that should have been an indicator that perhaps you needed a professional biological scientist to assist you. (A BSE will not get you very far in understanding gene expression or differentiating between bacterial mutants) Your insistence that Lenski is still with holding data seems to be without limits; what data would you accept? I believe you are not evaluating what Lenski has said in an objective manner, thus allowing for a limited understanding of the material. If you wish to continue then I recommend this (which seems to have been recommended by Philip), wait till other qualified labs have evaluated the work then question if the Lenski's work is found to be questionable.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:31, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Anyone a biologist?==<br />
Just for the sake of asking is ''anyone'' involved in this discussion an actual biologist? You know, like having a bachelor's degree in it or something? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:57, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I have a BS in Microbiology, but I don't think my credentials matter. If I try to claim that I know more, I'll be blocked for bullying. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]<br />
<br />
Point 14 of [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]] says "We do not drive away experts by pretending that some random anonymous user who just signed up is as knowledgeable and authoritative as a scholar with decades of experience in teaching or research.". I would have though your views would be listened to with extra attention. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:35, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Obviously, you have not been at Conservapedia very long.--[[User:Fernandez|Fernandez]] 14:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:What do you mean, Fernandez? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:23, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::The reply by Fernandez was deleted by an Admin. Can we either remove the questions or put the reply back? Otherwise it looks as if Bugler asked a question and Fernandez never replied to it. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:06, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Here, I will put it back: <br />
Editors who have expertise in certain areas are banned if the powers that be at Conservapedia disagree with them. A couple examples that come to mind. One is PalMD, a physician (and who provided his credentials), who attempted to correct the misinformation in Conservapedia's article linking abortion to breast cancer. Another is the historian "franklin" who contested much of the misinformation on the debate page regarding Franklin's deist leanings. You should read that debate page Bugler. You will notice that the person arguing with Franklin kept asking for views on "school prayer" as if that had something to do with the topic. But it does make my point that Conservapedia does not encourage experts to stay, but activly seeks to drive them away.--[[User:Fernandez|Fernandez]] 14:34, 26 June 2008 (EDT)--[[User:Thompson|Thompson]] 14:55, 26 June 2008 (EDT)--[[User:Watwood|Watwood]] 16:13, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Attitude? ==<br />
<br />
He makes some good points. To be entirely honest I could care less about the "attitude" that my tax dollars appropriate. I just want results. I'll take an effective, mean spirited president any day over an incompetent, polite one (Jimmy Carter anyone?). --[[User:RobinGoodfellow|RobinGoodfellow]] 15:46, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: What is important is that Lenski is a superb scientist. I'd be a little testy too if some dweeb asked me for data AFTER I had already provided it. Andy got the smackdown he deserved, and is now the laughing stock of the internet.--[[User:Watwood|Watwood]] 16:27, 26 June 2008 (EDT)</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=482350Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog2008-06-26T20:35:12Z<p>Daphnea: /* E. coli in our bowels */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Final Copy of Letter Sent Wednesday afternoon ==<br />
<br />
Dear Prof. Lenski,<br />
<br />
This is my second request for your data underlying your recent paper, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of ''Escherichia coli''," published in PNAS (June 10, 2008) and reported in New Scientist ("Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in lab," June 9, 2008).<br />
<br>http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf<br />
<br>http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html<br />
<br />
Your work was taxpayer-funded, and PNAS represents that its authors will make underlying data available. I'd like to review the data myself and ensure availability for others, including experts and my students. Others have expressed interest in access to the data in addition to myself, and your website seems well-suited for public release of these data.<br />
<br />
If the data are voluminous, then I particularly request access to the data that was made available to the peer reviewers of your paper, and to the data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony supposedly developed Cit+. As before, I'm requesting the organized data themselves, not the graphs and summaries set forth in the paper and referenced in your first reply to me. Note that several times your paper expressly states, "data not shown."<br />
<br />
Given that this is my second request for the data, a clear answer is requested as to whether you will make the key underlying data available for independent review. Your response, or lack thereof, will be posted due to the public interest in this issue. Thank you.<br />
<br />
Andy Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D.<br />
<br>www.conservapedia.com<br />
<br>cc: PNAS, New Scientist publications<br />
<br />
:That was disappointing. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I don't blame him if he doesn't respond. What is this about Aschafly wanting to review the information himself. I thought he said that he wouldn't understand it, or something to that effect.[[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:21, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Well, I guess he didn't really need people to sign on with him, after all. Added to the project page.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 17:29, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Draft letter ==<br />
<br />
Dear Prof. Lenski,<br />
<br />
This is my second request for the data underlying your recent paper, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli," published in PNAS (June 10, 2008) and reported in New Scientist ("Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in lab," June 9, 2008).<br />
<br>http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf<br />
<br>http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html<br />
<br />
This work was taxpayer-funded, and PNAS represents that its authors will make underlying data available. I'd like to review the data myself and ensure availability for others, including experts and my students. Others have expressed interested in access to the data in addition to myself, and your website seems well-suited for public release of these data.<br />
<br />
If the data are voluminous, then I particularly request that access to the data made available to the peer reviewers of your paper, and data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony supposedly developed Cit+. As before, I'm requesting the organized data themselves, not the graphs and summaries set forth in the paper. Note that several times your paper expressly states, "data not shown."<br />
<br />
Given that this is my second request for the data, a clear answer is requested as to whether you will make the key data available for independent review. Thank you.<br />
<br />
Andy Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D.<br />
<br />
cc: PNAS, New Scientist publications<br />
<br />
:Given that he was very gracious in his last reply, you think maybe it would be a good idea to at least TRY not to sound like he's being accused of malfeasance? I'd suggest new wording but something much better is already available below. -Drek<br />
<br />
== List of people willing to join an email requesting the public release of Lenski's data ==<br />
<br />
Schedule permitting, a better version of the draft letter below (which someone diluted) will be sent tomorrow to Lenski, noting support by others (unspecified whom) at Conservapedia. Obviously Conservapedia rejects the limits on access to data proposed by several below. Public access to data means access by all, not merely by people having certain preferred credentials or education.<br />
<br />
This will be the second request for the data from Lenski. Given that the research was publicly funded and published in a Journal that has a policy of access to data, the expectation is that Lenski will release the data. But will he?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:40, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
: I'm not sure that you've ever spelt out exactly what data you are expecting. Somebody mentioned on this page that we might be talking about terabytes of data. Is that what you are asking for? Or what?<br />
: Also, I don't recall anybody actually said that the access to the data should be limited (and if you are talking about my comments and those of others that ''we'' should leave it to those who are qualified to see it, then I reject that we are proposing limits as such).<br />
: Neither have you responded to my comments about how it will make creationists look.<br />
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:58, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I "diluted it. I thought it needed to be more specific and polite. Since it is neither again, I am hesitant to put my name to it. There's no need to be brusque, and every reason to be as polite as possible.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 12:35, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
'''Current total of supporters: 7'''<br />
<br />
*[[User:Aschlafly]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:13, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
*[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 20:55, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
*--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 12:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
*--[[User:DeanS|DeanS<sup>talk</sup>]] 14:05, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
*[[User:Conservative]]---[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:52, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Wait a second... if I put my name on this list, is it going to get attached to some combative email? I don't want to just agree, when you seem to be ignoring my attempts to help draft this email. What were you proposing to send, Andy? If you wouldn't mind, could you post the text here before I have to decide if I want to attach my good name to it?--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 14:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::QFT. I likewise said earlier that I'd be happy to sign on, pending a review of the actual text to be sent. So long as the tone remains professional and polite I'm in. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: It will be polite and professional, of course. In fact, someone else can draft the text if he likes, as long as it simply requests '''public release of the data for public scrutiny''' and is free of any obfuscation like that displayed by some detractors on this page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:54, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::There's a draft that some folks are working on, below. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Provisionally willing, pending review of the finished draft. I make it a policy never to sign my name to anything I haven't read. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Let's work up a draft. Here's a start, and improvements are welcome:<br />
<br />
Dear Prof. Lenski,<br />
<br />
Your recent paper in PNAS, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key<br />
innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli,"[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf] has interested us greatly. Knowing PNAS policy of making data available, we were hoping you would accordingly oblige us with your recorded observations for a few key points.<br />
<br />
We respectfully request the data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony developed cit+; while we see excerpts in the paper, we were hoping to examine them in context. Your website[https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/] already discloses some older data, and seems well-suited for public release of the data underlying your recent paper.<br />
<br />
Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this.<br />
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:15, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I think we should probably be more specific, Andy. We're obviously not asking for twenty years' worth of notes, right? Or at least, I don't think we should ask for that.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 21:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I think it's reasonably obvious what the key claims are in the paper, and what the key data are underlying those claims. But, if you like, perhaps you can revise the above letter. The paper itself is not long and feel free to cite to it, if you think that is necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:10, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I just think it helps to be as specific as possible. But I have edited a bit with slightly more polite wording and more specificity. I hope it is acceptable?--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 21:16, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::If we send that version, put my name on the list :) --[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 13:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::I'll add my name to that version as well. It's encouraging to see what teamwork can achieve when we're all focused on the same goal. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:39, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Is it acceptable for the people co-signing this letter to use their Conservapedia user names? I noticed earlier that Arizaphale did not want to use his real name. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:54, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Thanks, Philip. I'm also willing to sign with a generic "John Doe" or even an old-fashioned "X". Or, the letter could simply be signed "Members of the Conservapedia Community," since I'm feeling confident that two or more others aren't sporting their actual names on that list. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:41, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Right, that's no problem. We're polite and professional around here, and signing as "Members of the Conservapedia Community" is a good suggestion, with a number added.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:51, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'd be more comfortable with that, as well. You can't be too careful with putting personal information online nowadays. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Recap ==<br />
<br />
Carafe, TomMoore, and SMaines all defend the withholding from public scrutiny of data underlying a scientific claim. Moreover, note how insulting some of them have become in response below to a request for public scrutiny of the data. No more insults will be allowed here, and their talk pollution may be removed.<br />
<br />
Public scrutiny has obvious benefits, and none of them have given any reason for denying that scrutiny. Journals and even government policy encourage or require it. Ah, but [[evolutionists]] feel they can play by their own rules, and make public claims without making the data public. Rest assured that no one here is fooled by this "make the claim but hide the data from the public" approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:Just for the record, the above as it refers to my own statements is untrue. I think public scrutiny is excellent. I believe, in fact, that given that Lenski so promptly answered your questions, he would probably comply with any specific requests you might make. It does not seem reasonable to demand he send you what must be gigabytes of data off the cuff. If you were a professional in a field even tangentially related, I imagine he might be happy to do so immediately, but as it is, I suspect you are not at the top of the list for someone as busy as he undoubtedly must be.<br />
:Perhaps if you sent him an email asking him a specific question: ("I wonder if you would send me the relevant records from the time at which you believe the bacteria became Cit+" might be one, but I am not a biologist) he would answer it with the records or say why he wouldn't. Or if you wait, they might have time to organize the data into a coherent manner for presentation and make it available on the internet or by request. Cordiality is key, we agree on that much.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 15:05, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::While I appreciate having my name removed from the top list because my position was acknowledged, it's pointless while Carafe, TomMoore, and SMaines are still being represented in the way they are. I'm in agreement with them, and now Philip Rayment too, that simply asking "for all your data" is not only unscientific, but wasteful and disrespectful if there's no meaningful plan in place to use the data productively. None of these people are against disclosure or proper scientific review, so as long as that statement above remains you're continuing to make false statements about CP editors. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:21, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: If you supported public scrutiny of the data, then you would send Lenski an email requesting it. That you have not, and will not, speaks volumes about your view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:40, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::...to me, it says that I'm not a biologist, and doubt I could fairly evaluate it if I received it. I know the degree of training it has required for me to achieve my present position, and I lack the hubris to think I could exercise equivalent powers of discrimination in a field so unrelated to my own. I'm not faulting you - maybe you have a degree in biochemistry, for all I know! But I know that I am not capable of fairly evaluating in context the raw data of biological experiments. My view is not a multi-book set: there's only one volume to it, and it's humility and appreciation of the credentials of the qualified.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 17:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: As I said, TomMoore, you apparently don't support "public scrutiny" of the data. Your own expertise is obviously irrelevant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I assure you, Andy, I do support it. I see no reason to think it isn't forthcoming, even though he didn't send all of the data to Some Internet Guy who demanded it offhand.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 22:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: Andy, I will not join in your support in the wasting of the tax dollars of mine and others to provide irrelevant information which you will then proceed to not use. Your version of "scrutiny", unlike scientific scrutiny, accomplishes nothing but to waste our tax dollars.<br />
<br />
::::: You can either participate with other scientists in public scrutiny by identifying rational weaknesses in Lenski's work and doing verification experiments, or you can continue to ignore public scrutiny and demand that your version of "scrutiny" be done. What will it be?<br />
<br />
::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 20:09, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: Although I support the public release of data, there is no way that I would ask for it or put my name to a request for it unless I first knew that someone was available to analyse it. I mentioned earlier (when this discussion was on Aschlafly's talk page) that creationists might not review Lenski's work because of lack of funding and numbers of creationary scientists available to do the work. Nevertheless, two creationary scientists have or are in the process of critiquing it (and I think an ID proponent has also). But the first (Don Batten) has apparently not seen the need to ask for all the data, and if either of the other two feel the need, they can ask for themselves. But given the aforementioned lack of funding and availability, it would be pointless asking for the data if there was nobody available to analyse it. Of course, if Conservapedia, or someone known to Conservapedia, is offering to fund the analysis, that might change things.<br />
::::: Furthermore, most problems with evolutionary conclusions are not because of misrepresenting the data, but with the conclusions being based on the materialistic worldview. It is usually not necessary to analyse the (in this case) 20 years' worth of data in order to find this fault.<br />
::::: I'm also concerned about the impression this will give of creationists. We cop enough criticism as it is simply by holding creationist views without giving our critics real reasons such as unreasonable demands for data that we will probably never use.<br />
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: Finally. Someone who makes sense. I'll gladly join in an email requesting any relevant data from Lenski, as needed by an identified/funded creationist scientist for Conservapedia.<br />
<br />
:::::: Until that time, Andy's "public scrutiny" just wastes tax dollars.<br />
<br />
:::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 12:08, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Unfortunately, Philip, you've proven to be right on this. If you google "schlafly lenski" there's plenty of criticism over the way this has been handled by CP, and the credibility of the latter. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:25, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Request of Examination of raw data is reasonable given the history of fraud related to the evolutionary position ==<br />
<br />
I do think a request of examination of the alleged raw data is reasonable [[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation|given the history of fraud in relation to the evolutionary position]]. In addition, we know know that [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin was deceitful regarding his public pronouncements regarding his worldview]] and he was actually an [[atheism|atheist]]. So given the history of [[deceit]] in connection with the evolutionary position and its promotion, I do think Andy is quite justified in requesting to see the raw data of Lenski's alleged work. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:14, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: As I wrote above, I'm pretty sure the relevant data would be happily provided as soon as a request a bit more specific than "give me all the data" is given. Some particular weakness that Andy identified in Lenski's reasoning, perhaps? Or some experimental procedure that you deemed especially prone to mistake, or even forgery? What is this "skepticism" that has been "expressed" based on? Or is it some sort of... dogmatic skepticism?<br />
<br />
: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 00:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I had asked a question above that was never answered, so I'll repeat it here: Who does Conservapedia plan on retaining to review the data from on scientific basis? It would be a lot more professional to select a qualified scientist or panel of scientists to do the job, and let them have a ''professional'' dialog with Prof. Lenski to review the raw data and conclusions. This is just grandstanding - "You haven't delivered gigs and gigs of raw data as requested, so you're withholding data". What it comes down to is that the CP leadership wants anything BUT a professional, qualified review of professor Lenski's work, because the outcome of that is not likely to be what they want. This reminds me of Kent Hovind's "Evolution Challenge" - set up ridiculous demands, and then claim victory because reasonable people don't meet them. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:07, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Public scrutiny has obvious benefits. See "recap" above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::I'll repeat my specific point. There's nothing improper about requesting that Professor Lenski share his raw data, but it's disrespectful of his time if there's no intention of using that data purposefully. I had asked what the plan was for having the data reviewed once it's received. Are there any qualified professionals lined up to review it and respond? He showed courtesy and professionalism in responding intra-day to the original request, so it's disrespectful to accuse him of withholding information after a single exchange of emails. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::It's also disrespectful to claim that Carafe, TomMoore, SMaines and I are all defending "the withholding from public scrutiny of data underlying a scientific claim." None of us have made that statement, so please remove it since it's untrue. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:46, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: DinsdaleP, clearly state that you support the public release of the data, and retract any comments to the contrary, and I'll remove your name. <br />
<br />
:::::: Your comment above suggests that you only support requests for data that have a proper purpose (whatever that is), a proper plan for review (whatever that is), and "qualified professionals lined up to review it." If you cling to that very limited approach, then you do oppose "public scrutiny" of data underlying a scientific claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I thought my comments were self-explanatory, but I'll try to simplify it. Yes, I support the public release of the data, and never claimed otherwise. I hope that's clear enough. The point we disagree on is that after a single exchange of emails, it's wrong to accuse Prof. Lenski of withholding data when he made a reasonable attempt to answer your questions and point you to the supporting data in his papers. If you ask him in a courteous manner how the underlying raw data can be made available, I'm sure you'll get a prompt and professional reply. So go ahead, make the request, and get the data. Frankly, I don't care what you do with it, but at least it will stop the insulting accusations of data being withheld. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::A last clarification - my point about having a "proper purpose" in requesting the data simply meant that if you were asking Prof. Lenski to take the time and effort to collect the raw data and send it to you, I'd hope the effort wasn't going to be a waste of time because it never got into the hands of people qualified to evaluate it properly. Time will tell. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:07, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::: Perhaps you're saying you don't oppose public release of the data. You haven't demonstrated you would "support" it, as in joining an email requesting it. Or would you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::"Perhaps"? I thought my statement above was plain enough, but instead of retracting your false accusation, you're just adding new conditions - now I have to add my signature to an email I haven't seen to show my support for disclosure? That's a sad way to avoid accountability for making false statements. Show me the email and a plan for using the data that doesn't make this a waste of time and taxpayer money, and I'll consider signing the request. In the meantime, please remove the false statements at the top of this page. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:17, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::: I'm sure all of us here will gladly join in an email requesting public release of the data in a scientific scrutiny process. I will not however join in your version of "scrutiny", which has nothing to do with scientific scrutiny at all. -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 20:11, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== responses of creation scientists to Lenski matter ==<br />
<br />
Here are the responses of creation scientists to the Lenski matter:<br />
<br />
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5827<br />
<br />
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/06/14/news-to-note-06142008<br />
<br />
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:48, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Another email? ==<br />
<br />
Is there going to be one? It's entirely possible that, having received a request from a lawyer for data, a scientist might very well think that the data provided in the report would be sufficient. Before deciding that he's hiding something, why not give him enough rope to conclusively hang himself?<br />
<br />
"Dear Dr. Lenski,<br />
<br />
I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear enough in the first place. We were hoping to see the entirety of the raw data in order to assess it ourselves."<br />
<br />
Or some such.<br />
<br />
[[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:26, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::If you are running a study on the genetics of a rapidly multiplying bacterial species over many years, the data accumulated will run into many many gigabytes. I don't believe it is practical to hand it out to any Tom, Dick and Harry requesting it. If there are concerns about any particular area of the study which raised suspicion of fraud or misinterpretation of data, then Mr. Schlafly should be asking the raw data pertaining to that particular area. <br />
<br />
::I have published in many medical journals and actively peer review for 2 of them. This is how it works in the field of science. Being a lawyer, Mr. Schlafly may not be familiar with the practice. So I do not think the email Aziraphale prepared is appropriate. This is my opinion and most of the users seem to agree with this as well. --[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 13:35, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
In response to Aziraphale, my email was clear and there is no reason for me to say the same thing again. You're welcome to make your request of Lenski if you really don't think he understood my email.<br />
<br />
In response to SMaines, I'll add your name to the list above of people who oppose the public release of data underlying public claims about the data. (The amount of the data is no obstacle to its release.) SMaines' approach prevents mistakes and fraud from being identified by independent public review. Apparently SMaines does not even request availability of the data when he does peer review. Perhaps he could tell us which journals he does peer review for so that others can have a healthy skepticism about claims made in them. Of course, SMaines is unlikely to disclose the names of those journals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:21, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
It is true that I do not ask for raw data from all the authors that I have peer reviewed articles for. You do not seem to understand how the peer review process works. The role of the peer reviewer is not to repeat all the work the authors have already done. <br />
<br />
First I check whether the authors are asking a relevant question regarding the hypothesis, whether the hypotheses are falsifiable, whether the methodology is sound without any obvious flaws, were the data collected ethically and whether they obtain informed consent of all involved. I also aim to determine the experiments performed adhering to protocol and statistical methods used were sound. Then I determine whether their results actually conclude what they have listed as their conclusions. I check whether the bibliography is complete and up-to-date. Finally I recommend to the editor whether the paper is significant and relevant to the journal. I may have omitted a few steps, but that is in nutshell how a peer review process works. <br />
<br />
I have worked in academic circles for years and I am yet to come across any referee who will ask for the whole set of raw data for all the papers reviewed. Raw data is only asked for if we have any concerns regarding the validity of methodology or conclusions. I have in the past asked for set of raw data to run some specific calculations myself. I have never known any one who will ring an author and ask to send the whole set of data covering years of data collection. <br />
<br />
It works like Carafe described “A, I tried duplicating your experiment, but parameters x, y, and z that I need were not in your article. I need you to disclose to me x, y, and z that you used at the time. What are they?”<br />
<br />
Also, have you come across the different peer review tools? Please familiarize yourself with the process before <br />
<br />
For record, I am not against public scrutiny at all, but you have not even pointed out what your concerns or skepticisms are. What you have effectively said is you paper does not fit my belief patterns, so I do not believe you. Hand over all the raw data. This is childish and silly. <br />
--[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 15:06, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Dear Aschlafly,<br />
<br />
:You've mistaken me for someone who thinks he could diagnose Lenski's work in a meaningful way. You are one who can do so, so I was offering advice. It was free, and worth every penny. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Aziraphale, you still don't get it. I support the public release of the data, so that the public can analyze it. Got it now?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::One of us is certainly not getting something - my suggestion was meant to encourage the release of the data, rather than allowing the conversation to die with a possibility existing that there was a miscommunication rather than a denial of the request. What's more important here: that a political point is scored, or that the data be released? You are 100% mistaken if you think I'm opposed to the release of the data. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:50, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:20, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Absolutely, but I won't divulge my identity to you. If using a pseudonym is alright with you I'll gladly attach my support. If my particular handle is too silly, I could be appended as a John Doe instead. That said, you and I have different ideas of what language is appropriate, so I'd expect to see the exact text in advance. For example, until ''proven'' a liar or charlatan he deserves not to be accused of anything. Rather, just as when a motion for discovery is not compeletely fulfilled to your satisfaction, a firm but courteous clarification of your expectations would be appropriate.<br />
<br />
::::Would you care for me to draft something instead, and you can sign off, or not, as you see fit? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 21:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Rants Against Public Release of Data ==<br />
<br />
:While you're at it, you might do well to explain to Lenski what exactly a "Conservapedia" is. Unless he really likes Lewis Black's "The conservatives think that YOU, THE PUBLIC, HAVE A LIBERAL BIAS." quote, he's unlikely to know. After all, this site gets most of its views from a small group of devout sysops and the snarkers over at RW. Godspeed. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 13:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf Paper 180.] All kinds of data. If you want, I can also link to the protocols and such. Prof. Lenski is way more obliging than we would have any right to expect... I sent him a letter of congratulations, and he even took the time to reply thanking me!--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 15:27, 13 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::So, Andy, when can we expect your in-depth analysis of paper #180? -Drek<br />
<br />
:::With a professional and comprehensive reply having been sent promptly by Professor Lenski, what would be the intended follow-up from Conservapedia? It seems like he answered the letter's first two questions and pointed out that the third was based on a misunderstanding of his paper. Since his study's data and methodology are freely available for review, I'm wondering who CP is looking to engage to independently review and assess his work, which has already passed peer review in order to be published. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:03, 13 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::He answered, everybody scramble! I need that Lack of Evidence in the air NOW! You call artillery and tell them to deploy the Inconclusive Data immediately! Move, move, move! We've got a battle against science to fight, people!--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 17:29, 13 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Lenski's reply did not provide the data as requested. It did clarify that his claims are not as strong as some [[evolutionists]] have insisted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:07, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:"You will find all the relevant methods and data supporting this claim in our paper." If this statement is true then I hardly think he's going to go to the trouble of sending us all his data when it is readily available. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:29, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: StatsMsn, have you ever read a scientific paper? Papers don't set forth the data themselves. At most, they set forth summaries of data, which can be flawed or self-serving.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:31, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Supposing he gave you access to the gigs of raw data, would you:<br />
:::#Be able to understand any of it? <br />
:::#Be prepared to accept that the data accurately reflects the physical facts of the matter in the lab, were you to find it consistent with his conclusions?<br />
:::Given your educational background, I have serious doubts about 1), and given your behaviour on this site, I find myself incapable of believing 2). Please feel free to offer me some reassurance. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 10:26, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::I find this ironic that you suddenly want data to support someone else's claim, given your "Mystery: Young hollywood stars and breast cancer" ballpark figure. The paper provides more than ballpark figures you have previously used to support your hypothses in the past. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: In response to Leda, if for some unexplained reason I can't understand the data, then I'll find someone who can. I don't know how to fly an airplane but obviously that does not stop me from traveling by air. I am not reassured by the withholding of data.<br />
<br />
::::: In response to DanielB, I presented my data and described it as a mystery. What we have here is the unacceptable opposite: a scientific claim without production of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:12, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: ''"I don't know how to fly an airplane but obviously that does not stop me from traveling by air."'' Oh, nobody's objecting to you flying when clueless. But a modicum of flight knowledge might expected of you if you, say, suddenly rush into the cockpit and demand that the pilot repeat to you every single flight procedure done for the last 12 hours, lest you declare him fraudulent and/or incompetent. I mean, isn't that what you're implying?<br />
<br />
:::::: I mean, what are you expecting when you demand "data" of the Cit+ mutation occurance other than a log entry of "Jan 24th, 2008, 2:03pm. Generation 2026 confirmed to express Cit+ mutation"? Then what you do oh-so-politely request? That all of his collaborator's minds be read so you can make sure there is no mistakes?<br />
<br />
:::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 23:08, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: Your attempt to defend the withholding of data underlying a scientific claim is amusing. While you're at it, perhaps you should also protest the Submission guidelines for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science: "(viii) Materials and Data Availability. To allow others to replicate and build on work published in PNAS, authors must make materials, data, and associated protocols available to readers. Authors must disclose upon submission of the manuscript any restrictions on the availability of materials or information." You might also protest policies that recommend or require taxpayer-funded data to be made available.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:21, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::: You thought my poking fun at your inability to form a coherent analogy was supposed to be a defense? The amusement is all on this side of the table, trust me. You see, there is no defending going on here, because there is no withholding going on here.<br />
<br />
:::::::: ''"(viii) Materials and Data Availability..."'' Yes, you can stop repeating yourself now. This was in your letter, which I did in fact read (something that might not be said of you and the myriad articles Richard provided). I did wonder why that was in your letter. I mean, did you think that normal scientific discourse doesn't occur unless by your legal coercion? I'm pretty sure if you had, say, a request just a tad more specific than "give me all your data", Richard would have been more than happy to reply. "Give me all your data" is as an absurd of a data request as demanding that Richard must "right now tell me all you know about E. coli", which, come to think about it, would be pretty much the same thing.<br />
<br />
:::::::: '''''"To allow others to replicate and build on''' work published in PNAS, authors must..."'' Out of curiosity, which part of his experiment are you trying to replicate that need additional information not available in the paper? Maybe you should tell him, he could easily help you with that. If you are not replicating the experiment, then did you have a real question or concern, or a weakness that you identified, like "I had a concern about this-and-that procedure of the strain selection, it seems particularly vulnerable to contamination" he would be quite happy to help you too. But hey, that requires that you have a clue about the subject matter.<br />
<br />
:::::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 00:32, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::::::You really go out of your way to defend a guy who's clearly a fraudulent hack. Even if he released his so called "raw data" it would just be a huge load of numbers no one is going to take the time to analyze. If it took him years and years to do this experiment he can be pretty sure no one is going to waste that much time trying to replicate it, so everyone can assume he's right and the atheist Darwinists can pretend they've proved evolution, even when we know it's impossible. Do you believe everything you read? If someone claimed they had a mountain of evidence that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster had a baby, I suppose you'd believe that too if it were published somewhere? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 14:36, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
::::::::::So let me see if I understand you correctly, Tony. If Lenski doesn't release all of the raw data accumulated over twenty years as Mr. Schlafly requests, it's proof that he's a fraud. If Lenski releases all of the raw data accumulated over twenty years as Mr. Schlafly requests, the sheer volume is proof that he's trying to pull a fast one, and he's a fraud. <br />
::::::::::Is that correct?<br />
::::::::::Given this and other comments you have made, I suspect that you're a satirist attempting to make conservatives look unreasonable. If so, please stop. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:06, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I resent being called a satirist. You assume that anyone who doesn't hold your liberal views must be joking! Well, the majority of the people in this country are "satirists" if that is the case. It doesn't much matter if Lenski releases his data or not. Us right thinking people know he's a fraud because he claims to have witnessed evolution, and we know that is impossible. That is a fact! I'd like to see his data. I bet it's so seriously flawed even someone with little background in biology will be able to tell. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 21:54, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::::::::::: Do not call Lenski or anyone else a fraud without good evidence. Evolution is impossible, but for Lenski to be a fraud he would have to be claiming something that he ''knows'' to be wrong, and you've provided no evidence of that, and I doubt that it exists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT) (Administrator)<br />
::::::::::::: Not at all, Tony. I assume that anyone who is genuinely conservative is going to present a reasonable and rational demeanor, refrain from a priori reasoning, and generally engage in mature conduct. I assume that those who wish to promulgate a stereotype of conservatism with an eye to demonization is going to engage in name-calling, refuse to engage in rational discussion, and declare himself right without adequate support for the position. Such actions are entirely consistent with liberals masquerading as conservatives. If you resent being called a satirist, I would suggest attempting to conduct yourself in a manner becoming a conservative. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:22, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::: Where did the 20 years come from? Lenski was asked for the data supporting his claim. He has produced some information on a website, but not that data. Yes, making a claim while withholding the data, even after a request, can reasonably lead one to doubt the claim. Wouldn't you agree with that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
'''(Unindent)'''<br />
<br />
Certainly, Mr. Schlafly. What I'm taking issue with is Tony's claim that even if Lenski releases his data, it's not worth taking the time to analyze or "waste the time" trying to replicate. It seems very much to me as if he's trying to portray conservatives as closed-minded and unwilling to look at the evidence. Perhaps I'm mistaken on that point, but I certainly think you'd agree that such individuals have turned up here before, wouldn't you? <br />
<br />
With respect to the 'twenty years' portion: I was under the impression that you wanted the full and complete data to be made available. Given that the experiment took twenty years, I assumed that you would want the full twenty years of data included for evaluation. I apologize if I was mistaken.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:28, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
I was wondering how anyone possibly could conclude from this exchange that Lenski was hiding something. I came to the conclusion that some people must not understand how scientific scrutiny works. I wrote a guide.<br />
<br />
<u>Scientific scrutiny works like this:</u><br><br />
{| width="500px"<br />
|-<br />
|<i>'''Scientist A''' publishes results.<br><br />
'''Scientist B''': A, I tried duplicating your experiment, but parameters x, y, and z that I need were not in your article. I need you to disclose to me x, y, and z that you used at the time. What are they?<br><br />
'''A''': x, y, and z are such and such.<br><br />
'''B''': Using x, y, and z, my result doesn't agree with yours at all. Are you sure you did the procedures that you claimed?<br><br />
'''A''': ...<br><br />
'''B''': You fraud!</i><br />
<br />
<u>Scientific scrutiny ''does not'' work like this:</u><br><br />
<i><br />
'''A''' publishes results.<br><br />
'''B''': I have Generic Skepticism toward your article. Under code viii of the Publication Criteria, I demand that you give me all of your data!<br><br />
'''A''': ... ok...? It seems that everything you would need is already in the article. Did you have something specific in mind?<br><br />
'''B''': A has refused to attach all data he has ever used for the experiment. He is withholding information and thus hiding something.<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
-- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 01:42, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:This is it. This one is my favorite post. Carafe has won Conservapedia, roll the credits.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 01:49, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Beautiful! What else can I say?--[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 13:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Not much, apparently. I think you've exhausted your meaningful comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Aschlafly, have you read the paper? ==<br />
<br />
I have. It pretty fairly lays out all the important data. Unless you want to run the experiments yourself - which I don't know if you could do, given the equipment he used - I think it's probably the best you'll ever get. I think a fair reply to Lenski would be point out elements of his analysis that you don't like, and put that in a reply e-mail. Otherwise, your lack of reply makes it look like you've given up, and your defensive parries here ("he didn't give all his data!") look like a losing rearguard action.-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 17:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::May I sign-with-qualifier? As in, signed, "A. Shephard - please do show as much as reasonably possible; the truth will out and convince those who doubt you, and this will hasten it along."?-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 22:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Something to note ==<br />
<br />
From the AiG article:<br />
<br />
"AiG’s Dr. Georgia Purdom is studying the research for an upcoming semi-technical article in the journal Answers In Depth."<br />
<br />
Apparently, Lenski has released his data to Purdom. Presumably, Dr. Purdom wouldn't settle for fragmentary data that wouldn't allow her to fully evaluate the claims. Had Lenski refused to disclose, it seems certain that AiG would have made note of it.<br />
<br />
{{unsigned|Benp}}<br />
<br />
==Hypothetical==<br />
Let's say that a second email is enough for Lenski to release his data. What are you going to do with it all? Previous discussions show you don't what you are doing with small, simple to analyse data sets. You would need a degree in biochemistry and biostats to even begin to know what you are going to do with it. The people who have peer reviewed the paper a by far better qualified and if they had concerns they would have asked specifically for what they wanted without sounding like .... Well I want say what you sound like writting emails singed with a law degree demanding data. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:25, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Sure, but like the human genome it will probably be released in time anyway in a way that is useful. You standing there making demands, signing letters JD, makes you look like some lawyer with an axe to grind rather than someone interested in research. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Proposed Follow-up Email==<br />
Since Andy wants to send a second email for some of the rest of us to sign as well, here is a space to work out the wording. I wonder if MainS and Carafe would help us write something that seems reasonable and polite, since you guys seem to have sufficient knowledge in the field to describe what we are looking to find out?<br />
<br />
I would suggest something along these lines:<br />
<br />
''Dear Professor Lenski''<br />
''We are writing in regards to your recent experiment with cit+ development in observed E. coli populations. We were wondering if you would oblige us by sending the relevant raw data from your observations during the period in which the bacteria population developed the ability to utilize citrase. We are intensely curious about that information. If it will be made available through some other venue and you wish to direct us to that instead, then we would very much like to be made aware of that.''<br />
''Thank you,''<br />
''Andy Schlafly, Thomas Moore, etc.''<br />
<br />
Is that a reasonable request? I am afraid biology protocol is quite beyond me, so some help would be appreciated.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 22:47, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Looks like a good start, Tom, but from the comments so far it seems like nothing short of the full set of observations is going to be satisfactory for some of the skeptics here. I'd suggest the following revision to the second and third sentences:<br />
::''We were wondering if you would oblige us by sending the relevant raw data for the full set of your observations for this population. We are intensely curious about the period in which the bacteria population developed the ability to utilize citrase, but would like the complete set of observations instead of a subset to facilitate an independent analysis of the research.'' --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:07, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::It doesn't seem reasonable to demand twenty years' worth of observations, which would be the full set. Or at least, it doesn't seem reasonable to me.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 00:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::It doesn't seem reasonable to me, either, which is why Professor Lenski's response pointed readers to the relevant subsets of data, and that would be sufficient for most reasonable people. I was just pointing out that unreasonable people here will consider anything less than all 20 years to be withholding data, so what's needed to satisfy the skeptics is a way for that full body of observations to be accessible. If the response is that it would take too much time and/or money to satisfy the request, then the burden of proof falls on the skeptics to justify why they can't start with the data already made available and only request additional data when they have specific questions that require it for an answer. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:32, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Well, maybe they will feel differently. I think this is the polite and reasonable approach, rather than asking for all twenty years. Other comments? Andy?--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 18:51, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==What is the plan for a Conservapedia review of Lenski's work?==<br />
<br />
One thing that keeps getting lost in the rhetoric - who is looking at the Lenski work on behalf of Conservapedia? More than a few people here, including a CP sysop, have pointed out that a proper scientific review can begin using the data already made available by Professor Lenski. If this review surfaces any questions or criticisms, then that would prompt an exchange with Lenski on the specifcs, and I'm sure the related data would be made available. While I see that there are reviews of the work being done by some creationist groups (who apparently see no need to have all the raw data first), the Conservapedia approach is more like a set of lawyers looking for discovery than a set of scientists looking for truth. Why can't CP review Lenski's work in a scientific manner like AiG instead? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:31, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: The issue is '''public''' release and scrutiny of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::No one investigating Lenski's work in a scientific manner is accusing him of withholding any data from them, or from the public. You're setting a new, and unprofessional, precedent in expecting a scientist to take the time to collect and send you decades of raw data on his research simply because you're asking him to, when you haven't even shown the courtesy of demonstrating why this effort is necessary. I repeat the question you keep avoiding - is this exercise going to be a waste of Lenski's time so you can make a point, or do you have a plan to use that raw data and a timetable for publishing your findings? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: DinsdaleP, it sounds like your name should be added back to the list of those who oppose public release and scrutiny of the data above. The questions you keep harping on are irrelevant to the issue of public release and scrutiny of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:02, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Feel free to add me back to your ridiculous list, then. Anyone who can read knows where I stand, just as they can see your continued avoidance of my question. There is no plan, is there? I'll be glad to stand corrected if I'm wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:17, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: How is asking about "scrutiny of the data" irrelevant to the issue of "public release and '''scrutiny of the data'''"? Color me confused!--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:03, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
You don't seem to understand the scientific method at all. There is a reason peer review is so called. It is a review of work by your peers, that is fellows engaged in similar fields of research. You are not a peer of Dr. Lenski. You don't even hold an undergraduate degree in a related field. You aren't even qualified to be a research assistant in his lab. You're a lawyer, and I'm sure you're good at your job and all, but don't try to pretend to qualifications you simply do not have to serve a political purpose.<br />
<br />
Lets face it, the good doctor has been extremely kind to you thus far. I would not recommend pushing your luck. Had it been me, your email would have hit the bit bucket faster than you can say "plunk". As far as I can tell, you haven't even had the good grace to read the poor guy's paper as he suggested. I did, and I found it extremely accessible compared to the cryptography papers I'm used to reviewing. I believed I followed the bulk of it, and I'm sure you could too if you were so minded.<br />
<br />
But of course, you aren't minded to. You're not at all interested in his findings, because you assume they're false before you even know the details. If he were correct, it would yet further discredit your young earth creationist beliefs. Here is research that gives the lie to the old "mutations never produce new information" talking point, while at the same time demonstrating how a feature that seems incredibly unlikely were it to happen in one big bang, can in fact become trivial via building up a "potentiated genome" as alluded to by Lenski in his email (see the section headed "Historical Contingency in the Evolution of Cit+" for details of the experiments they performed to confirm this.)<br />
<br />
This experiment yet again confirms the predictions of the theory of evolution, while contradicting your own creation hypothesis (The capacity for citrate utilisation starts out weak and gets stronger over time, via additional mutations that out compete the peers they fissioned from.) This result scares you. You aren't interested at all in Dr. Lenski's data are you? All you want is to make an unreasonable request, and then when it is sensibly refused or ignored to trumpet that clearly the scientists working on LEE are attempting to hide something. Nobody is impressed by your transparent posturing. --[[User:Taciturn|Taciturn]] 15:08, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
: Although some of your comments, such as those about peer review, are reasonable, the last half particularly is begging the question. His research is ''claimed to'' give the lie to the "mutations never produce new information" claim, but whether they ''actually'' do is one of the points that are in contention. Trying to make your point by assuming your point and simply restating it is not a valid form of argument. Further, although misunderstanding this is understandable, creationists have acknowledged that mutations might ''extremely rarely'' produce new genetic information by chance. Their argument is more that you can't use mutations as a source of new information, not because it never ever happens, but because it very rarely happens and would be swamped by all the information-losing mutations. So Lenski's claim, even if it turned out to be true (which seems unlikely: see creationist responses linked above), does not disprove creationism anyway, as ''one'' example of an information-gaining mutation is consistent with creationism and inconsistent with evolution, which requires ''many'' such mutations. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:05, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Ugh. Don't get me started on those "creationist responses." They're clearly written for a scientifically illiterate and unthinking audience. People who won't notice that the author's idea of a literature survey is to read and fail to understand an abstract, and then cite the paper in support of whatever gibberish they want to commit to paper. The AiG response is just talking points recycled for the occasion, which no meaningful content, while creation on the web is so intellectually dishonest it beggars belief. Take this wonderful paragraph:<br />
<br />
{{cquote|Furthermore, E. coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions, with a whole suite of genes involved in its fermentation. This includes a citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein embedded in the cell wall that takes citrate into the cell.}}<br />
<br />
:: Wrong, wrong, wrong. E. Coli is not, and has never been observed to be capable of utilising citrate natively. Any E. Coli that have this ability have it because it is coded for be invasive plasmids. That's the point of the paper the author cites. Lenski takes great pains to point out that the Cit+ and Cit- strains DO NOT possess these plasmids, since the issue of external contamination would be foremost in any reviewer's mind. <br />
<br />
:: The whole creation on the web article is like this throughout. It takes parts of the paper out of context and uses them as an attack on the work. Whole sentences and paragraphs are copied wholesale without attribution. The author makes totally unfounded claims about the what the LTEE team are doing, accusing them of "giving up on observing evolution." It's the most astonishingly asinine thing I've read this month, and only "died-in-the-wool" (sic) creationist would take it seriously.<br />
<br />
:: So, here's the thing. Lets assume that Lenski's claims are false or exaggerated (and I don't think for a moment that is the case.) How exactly is Schlafly, a lawyer, going to show this regardless of how much raw data he has? He doesn't even know what to ask for, let alone what he's going to do with it once he has it. I don't believe it would be overly cynical to ascribe an ulterior motive to this request. At very best, he wants to pester a person doing productive research and force him to do extra work, unpaid, on his behalf. That would be fine if Schlafly was a peer of Lenski's seeking verification of the result. Defending one's work is part of the scientific process, but there have to be limits. If you really want to analyse the result, first find a working biologist with time and equipment to do the analysis, then and only then will I support the request for further data.<br />
<br />
:: To all others supporting the request currently, I'd ask they withdraw their support until such time as this condition is fulfilled. I cannot believe that Schlafly seriously wants the data, simply that he wishes the request to be refused such that he can make outlandish claims about scientific transparency. --[[User:Taciturn|Taciturn]] 08:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Taciturn, I'm not requesting merely my personal review of the data (although certainly I will review it if Lenski produces it), but rather the ''public scrutiny'' of the data. Unless you think that Lenski's team is perfect or has a monopoly on knowledge, you should agree that additional review of the data by others can yield additional insights, and possibly identify flaws.<br />
<br />
::: Andrew Wiles is undeniably a bright mathematician, as are his friends who reviewed his claim to have proven Fermat's Last Theorem. But when he made his initial proof available more widely, others saw flaws in it that took a long time to repair. Obviously the same may be true about anyone's work ... including Lenski's.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:37, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: [Edit conflict] Mr. Schlafly, given that Lenski is required to release the data to any scientist who asks, who exactly is preventing public scrutiny? A lawyer such as yourself quite simply does not have the training to understand the data, and you're quite unlikely to find a scientist sympathetic to your cause. Even if he releases twenty years worth of research to you, nothing changes. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 10:19, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: Are you saying that only a "scientist" may see the data? I hold an engineering degree and worked at Bell Labs, but perhaps you have some special definition to limit access to the data as much as possible. If someone drops out of college, does that disqualify him from being able to look at the data? I certainly hope that isn't your view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Andy, only someone with proper training in biology could hope to understand the raw data. You can look at it, yes, fine, but you won't understand it, and you'll quickly demand that Lenski release it in a "clear and comprehensive format", at which point you'll promptly be pointed right back to Paper 180. Your engineering degree doesn't help you here. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 11:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Taciturn, one more bigoted derogatory comment like those in your first paragraph and the end of your third paragraph and you will earn yourself a block.<br />
::: Now, to your specific claims regarding AiG and CMI:<br />
::: * The articles are written for a lay audience, but that doesn't mean that they are written for a "scientifically illiterate and unthinking audience". On the contrary, they aim to make them scientifically accurate.<br />
::: * The AiG article was clearly a preliminary response, so your derogatory comment about no meaningful content is unwarranted.<br />
::: * "''Whole sentences and paragraphs are copied wholesale without attribution.''": Please back that claim with evidence or retract it.<br />
::: * "''The author makes totally unfounded claims about the what the LTEE team are doing, accusing them of "giving up on observing evolution."''": On the contrary, it appears that you did not read the article properly (with an open mind?). It actually says that "...Lenski seemed [note both the lack of definiteness/lack of accusation and the past tense] to have given up on ‘evolution in the lab’ ..."<br />
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: Taciturn discredited himself, and probably won't even defend his behavior.<br />
<br />
:::: But Philip, I have a question for you: do you support public release of the data to enable others (including creationists) to review it? It's hard for me to see how outside reviewers (including creationists) can do a thorough job without access to the data. Undeniably outside reviewers could do a better job if the data were public.<br />
<br />
:::: I'm starting to think that even the peer reviewers for the paper never checked the data, if the data continue to be withheld.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::::: I've already given my answer to whether or not I support release of the data. Do a search of this page for a post with a timestamp of 09:34. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: Well, OK, I found your prior posting and reread it, but didn't find any answer to the basic question I just asked: wouldn't outside reviewers (including creationists) be better off with an availability of the data? And to your point about funding, wouldn't funding be easier to obtain (to the extent necessary) if it were known that the data are available? Seems obvious to me, and probably to the co-signers (11 and growing), that the answer is "yes" to both.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::::::: Actually, that was not a question that you had just asked. And yes, outside reviewers, including creationists, ''would'' be better off with the data being available, ''if they plan on reviewing all that data''. But that's a big "if", because, as I did say above, there is a shortage of available creationary scientists and funding for them. As for obtaining funding, no, I don't think it would make a difference. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Lenski has not refused to release the data; it's just that you plan on asking him to do so ''now'' rather than wait for someone who is actually going to review the data to ask. That is, I assume that the data would be made available in due course to a serious researcher who requested it.<br />
:::::::: I also pointed out that creationary scientists may not be interested in reviewing all the data. They probably have better things to do with their time and funds than to analyse 20 years worth of data, when all they likely need to do is find out a bit more about his actual results. Further, as I said elsewhere on this page, it's even ''possible'' that Lenski has actually found a mutation that has added genetic information. Creationists don't rule out that there may be very rare examples of this, and ''perhaps'' this is the first known case of such. But that doesn't disprove creation nor prove evolution because, as I said, creationism can handle the odd exception to the rule, whereas the evolution requires millions of such information-gaining mutations, and one example is not that evidence. So why would a creationary scientist waste his time (unless someone was employing him to do it)?<br />
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Which would mean that it would not even be published in the journal, Andy. Your final claim is unfounded and, quite frankly, slanderous. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 10:19, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: If the peer reviewers saw the data, then it is no problem to make that data publicly available. So where is it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::In the paper, Andy. Everything that you could need to know about the experiment and much more is in the paper. If you don't believe me, you can ask Lenski for something extra, however general questions like the ones you've sent him so far will only get you pointed back to the paper. If you've got a specific part of the work you want, ask and I'm sure he'll happily throw the raw, incomprehensible data at you. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 11:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::This would seem to come down to a fundamental misunderstanding. Few biologists are going to want to see Lenski's raw data like this, because the observations will be relatively simple to make - or at least simple for a biologist. Instead, they will want to examine his methodology (which is already freely available) to see if they can find any flaws. For example, if he had stored them in a non-sterile environment or something, the colonies could have been contaminated, and it would invalidate his conclusions. They will also want to see the conclusions he draws from his observations, which might be unwarranted or otherwise explainable. For example, if they know as biologists that e. coli can use citrase under certain conditions (not the case, actually, but it's an example), they would call his conclusions into question. And of course some scientists are going to want to imitate his whole set-up to reproduce his result... although it will take a while. But because Prof. Lenski is a highly skilled and reputable scientist, few are going to demand to see his raw data, because there is little reason not to trust his integrity. That is generally just not how this science is done, to the best of my knowledge.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 13:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I can't believe I'm getting into this particular mess but, here goes: hypothetically, let's say that Andy contacts Lenski and Lenski graciously releases all of the raw data anyone could want. Let's further say that Andy manages to secure the services of a qualified analyst who has the time and training to properly analyze said data and that, further, that analyst confirms that Lenski's interpretations are correct. In other words, the analyst says that Lenski is- as far as anyone can tell- correct. What happens then? Will Andy or anyone else publicly acknowledge this to be the case, or will the story suddenly become that Lenski "falsified" his raw data? Because, really and truly folks, the "raw data" we keep talking about is not the same thing as actually having access to Lenski's samples. Moreover, Lenski is not about to release any part of his samples to folks who haven't the slightest idea how to store them, much less how to analyze. And I don't have imagination enough to think that Conservapedia is going to set up an adequately equipped and staffed research lab capable of taking possession of such samples, much less fund it long enough to replicate Lenski's research. As far as I can tell, this entire thing is a lot of sound and fury that will ultimately come to nothing (apologies Will). So what's with all the grandstanding, Andy? Okay, I've said my bit. I'll go back to editing statistics articles now. -Drek<br />
::I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:23, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: I've just posted above in a reply to Andy why I think a creationary scientist would ''not'' be interested. I'll add here that, according to Don Batten of CMI (link elsewhere on this page), it fits with what Behe has written about in his latest book, so there's no reason to think that this case would bother ID proponents either. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::''"I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data."'' Yeah, but I was specifically referring to qualified analysts, so the ID/C.S. folks won't help. Snark aside, however, neither you nor anyone else has addressed the underlying issue: what happens if Lenski DOES provide the full database? It isn't like someone couldn't claim he faked that and the only way to confirm it would be to evaluate his samples. Look, I DO in fact support public availability of data derived from publicly funded research. That said, however, if we don't even have a plausible case for how we ourselves could verify output, much less carry out a replication, we're just being nuisances. Lenski's job is to do research, not bow to every request made of him by random unqualified amateurs. And even if he has tenure and that somehow made him utterly invulnerable to firing (oddly, failing to produce is one of those things that can kill tenure) he still has a responsibility to his Post-Docs and grad students. -Drek<br />
::::: I've warned two others on this page about derogatory comments, and you've gone and added your own. For that you've earned yourself a block for the "snark". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:57, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
It interesting that Rayment has given Derek a block for 'snarking'. Presumably this is to maintain a decent, respectful, and intelligent tone in the body of the discussion. However, Schafly's entire tone in his addresses to Dr. Lenski have been openly insulting and ignorant from the start, yet there has been no attempt to address that problem from Rayment. A number of others have flung open insults, yet no blocks are in placefor them as long as they insult Dr. Lenski. How is that not a double standard? {{unsigned|Bithead}}<br />
: For one thing, there's not much point in blocking someone who has the ability to unblock themselves. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:24, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Really, starting a conversation with "I will post your reply, or lack thereof" then maintaining that one only wants to participate in a scientific conversation and is chiefly concerned with freedom of information is hypocritical to say the very least. As someone who can't be blocked, he has clearly set the standard for conservapedia. Also, others on this thread have tendered obvious insults yet enjoyed no admonitions - again so long as they insult Lenski. Isn't there something in the 'conservapedia commandments' about double standards?<br />
<br />
==Question==<br />
I am going to make it clear that I am not willing to put my name on this. I whole-heartedly support the release of Professor Lenski's data, but not to a faceless group of individuals with no clear purpose for demanding the data. My question is, as Mr. Schlafly seems to be avoiding it, have you Mr. Schlafly read the paper that Professor Lenski directed you to? I hope that this request is more than an attempt to add Professor Lenski to the [[professor values]] list. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 15:18, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Your argument is irrelevant to the ''public'' release of the data. I hadn't read Andrew Wiles' attempt to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, but I sure am glad that he publicized it so that people could identify serious flaws after Wiles' expert friends declared it to be complete.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::You already emailed Professor Lenski, and he kindly took the time to respond. But you didn't even bother to read the answers he gave you. Sending him another email demanding even more information, without even reading the information he already gave you seems rude. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 15:49, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Now you're making up things about me. Perhaps you think you can distract attention from the simple issue of public release of the data. You failed if that was your goal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::That never was my intention. I was simply trying to understand your reasoning behind this email. I am interested in something else at the moment actually. You seem to enjoy mentioning Andrew Wiles and Fermat's Last Theorem. Who proved that Andrew Wiles was wrong. Was it a layperson, or a mathematician? [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:58, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::At the end of the introduction to the revised paper, Wiles indicates that the original error was detected in discussions between himself, Nick Katz, Luc Illusie and Richard Taylor. Katz is a professor at Princeton, Illusie at Paris Sud, and Taylor at Harvard. Between the three of them they now have over 200 peer reviewed papers on elliptic curves and Galois representation theory. Of course their records were weaker at the relevant time in 1993, but they were certainly all established mathematicians. I think they were all at the Isaac Newton Institute when Wiles first explained his work in lectures there. So it is far from the truth to suggest that Wiles's expert friends declared the proof complete, or that errors were found by random other people after the release of the preprint. --[[User:Npstrick|Npstrick]] 17:42, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: If you're trying to exclude people from looking at the data based on their education or credentials, then just say so. There are many bright people who never graduated from college, and I oppose making education or credentials a test for who can review the data. In Wiles' case, I don't know what the credentials were of the multiple people who found serious flaws.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
== Two Questions for Aschlafly==<br />
<br />
I have two questions for Aschlafly. Please answer them plainly and in brief as I've no use for obfuscation typical of what I've seen above. As you know, failing to answer is an answer of sorts. Here are my questions:<br />
# Have you read Lenski's paper as he suggested?<br />
# What do you plan to do with his "raw" data should you receive it?<br />
The answers to these two questions will tell much about your intent and your character. [[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 18:34, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::So your answers are <br />
<br />
# you "skimmed" it<br />
# you won't do anythnig with the "raw data" should he send it to you<br />
Thank you for your honesty. I hope your readership takes these answers in their full measure. [[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 19:30, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I hope you recognize and admit to the benefits of public access. You haven't yet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
=== Two Questions for Aschlafly: comments from others===<br />
*I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:21, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I know your question was not directed at me, but isn't the point of public release that it would be open to ''everyone'' to examine; ie - that this isn't solely about Aschlafly? I doubt if there is anyone on this site who would be capable of understanding Lenski's raw data, if it were to be made available, but that is not a reason to oppose the public release of the data ''per se'', is it? If released publicly, anyone capable of understanding it can see it for themselves, and those who cannot understand it will be unaffected. What's wrong with that?[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:44, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I would encourage people to watch the movie of what the physical form of the raw data looks like. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNaXlK_3Fik They tested 4 trillion cells.[http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php] Assuming even a simple 'y/n' for the 'can metabolize citrate' that is about 4 terabytes of data. This doesn't go into the other genes that they have studied. Are you going to send him some hard drives to copy the data onto? Do you have the bandwidth to host that data for public scrutiny (at a full T1 speed with 100% utilization, if I did my math correctly, it would take about 2 years to download all of the data)? Granted, that is one extreme of the data but this could potentially be more than you can handle or host. And if he says its a terrabyte of data or so, will you host it? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No, I wouldn't host it. If the data were made publicly available, I would have no interest in downloading it or reading it because I am not a biologist and wouldn't be able to understand it. But I am not opposed to the data - whatever size the files are - being made available for people who can understand it (and have sufficiently spacious hard drives). [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:01, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::to clarify, I am not opposed to it '''in principle'''. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:03, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I did skim Lenski's paper, and saw that on multiple occasions he says the data are not shown. In addition, his figures and tables are oddly uninformative. I recall that one figure is complete speculation. After skimming his paper the need for public disclosure of the data became even more apparent.<br />
<br />
What would I do with the raw data? I don't propose that access to it be limited based on education or credentials. I would expect many people, including folks just as bright as Lenski, to examine it and possibly identify flaws or make suggestions.<br />
<br />
I repeat: does anyone here really think Lenski's team is perfect or has a monopoly on knowledge???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
)<br />
<br />
:I don't think they have a monopoly on knowledge, and nobody's perfect. On the other hand, I do think the volume of data might prove to be a problem. If a response indicates that the complete data is simply too massive to be mailed/posted to a website, what's the next reasonable step? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:50, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::It is becoming clear that this campaign to release the data has more to do with your hope that Lenski won't and you can dismiss his claims on those grounds. I am sure the data is available to the people who need to see it and depending on the copyright restrictions that research unfortunatly comes with these day (usually through funding by non-government entities) it will be made available as publically as it can.<br />
<br />
:: Someone earlier mentioned ID theorist, they tend to have about as much qualifications on this as Andrew Schalfly, BSE. JD. so I won't hold much hope in them being able to understand it. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:22, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::: As I've warned someone else already on this page, one more derogatory comment like that in your second paragraph and you will earn yourself a block. Despite anti-creationist and anti-ID urban myth, the credentials of ID proponents and creationary scientists are every bit as good as those of other scientists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Really, ID theorist are scientist? [http://www.discovery.org/fellows/ Look at the Discovery Institute's board members and fellows]. Cihak is a MD, every other person on that list either has a degree in history, political science or law. Behe use to be a fellow so that is one biochemist, Dempski(?) was a mathematician who use to be there once. Only one relevently qualified and two semi-qualified experts that is it. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:02, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::: The Discovery Institute is not the only source of ID proponents. Just as with evolutionists, there are those that are qualified and those that are not, but still believe it, promote it, and etc. Your comment that I warned you about was ID theorists ''in general'', not DI board members and fellows specifically. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:01, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::But go to an equivalent one evolution supporting organisation and it will be full of PhD's in biology. Can you name any of these ID theorists ''in general'', Behe is the only one that comes to my mind. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 00:27, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::::: Really? I looked at the NCSE's staff list, and here's what I found.<br />
:::::::* Glenn Branch: no PhD. MA in philosophy from (UCLA).<br />
:::::::* Barbara Forrest: PhD in philosophy (Tulane University).<br />
:::::::* Peter Hess: PhD in a theological field, Science and Religion, (Graduate Theological Union).<br />
:::::::* Louise Mead: PhD in Organismic and Evolutionary Biology (UMass).<br />
:::::::* Eric Meikle: PhD in anthropology (Berkeley).<br />
:::::::* Kevin Padian: PhD in vertebrate evolution (Yale).<br />
:::::::* Andrew Petto: PhD in bioanthropology (UMass).<br />
:::::::* Joshua Rosenau: PhD candidate, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (University of Kansas).<br />
:::::::* Eugenie Scott: PhD in physical anthropology (University of Missouri).<br />
:::::::* Susan Spath: PhD in history of science, MA in molecular and cell biology (Berkeley).<br />
:::::::* Philip Spieth: PhD in genetics (University of Oregon).<br />
::::::: Biologists, yes. "full of PhD's in biology"? No.<br />
::::::: As for ID theorists, off the top of my head there's Michael Denton and Dean Kenyon. Not to mention the creationary scientists, such as Don Batten, David Catchpoole, Gary Parker, Jeff Downes, and many others.<br />
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:26, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I made some edits showing the location of where their graduate degrees were awarded (this is important for those who receive degrees from non-accredited schools). I would not cite NCSE anyway for they are only a PR group. I will point out that 9 out of the 11 are PhDs, that is pretty high (over 80%)(while one of the two non-PhDs is a PhD candidate). The question I might ask is how often do those of a non-related field write or evaluate a topic or paper? This should also be asked about CMI and such.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:58, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::::::: So which is the DI nearest to? A scientific research lab or a PR group?<br />
::::::::: Okay Able806, you implicitly questioned the legitimacy of the qualifications of creationists. So you now have a job: List, like I did and you expanded, the qualifications of the CMI staff ([http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/45/ here's] your starting point). And when you've done that, tell us how many of those are from non-accredited schools. Else you just might earn yourself a block for implicit accusations of dishonesty (that they are claiming to be something that they are not). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No need to threaten a block Philip, for to block me due to said accusation would require a block from those who are stating that Lenski is with holding his work from review. Here is a list I compiled from the website you gave me. Please correct me if I am wrong or missing names. I will add the information just as I did above as I discover it. Oh, does AU have a system to list accreditation? I will need to know that as well for those who received their Ph.Ds in AU.<br />
:Carl Wieland<br />
:Don Batten<br />
:Gary Bates<br />
:Jonathan Sarfati<br />
:Tas Walker<br />
:David Catchpoole<br />
:Pierre Jerlström<br />
:Peter Sparrow<br />
:Russell Grigg<br />
:Mark Harwood<br />
:John Hartnett<br />
:Rod Walsh<br />
:Barry Tapp<br />
:Stephen Grocott<br />
:Richard Fangrad <br />
:Emil Silvestru<br />
:Calvin Smith <br />
:Jeff Chiasson <br />
:Adrian Bates<br />
:Johan Kruger <br />
:Philip Bell<br />
:Rob Carter<br />
:Skip Tilton<br />
:The above list is a working list.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 12:27, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I've never heard of an accreditation list in Australia, but calling yourself a University when your not is an offence. [http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=University+act&meta= If you scroll down a bit] Each universities relevent act shows up eventually. It is a unique Australian phenomenon the act of parliment to create a university.<br />
<br />
::PJR giving Able806 a stupid job to do to deflect from the fact that you are severlly losing an argument is petty. All the Australians above have by and large from some of Austalia's top universities. Okay you have made your point. However I will note that one of them is famous for his twin publishing record. He publishes in top quality geology journals with the rock is 2.6bya, this glacier formed 100mya, and he has another list where he publishes in his creation "journal" he is on the board for defending his rediculous 6000 year hypothesis. Yes these days crationist have PhD either through abandoning their when that "have been saved" in which case they corrupt the scientific method to prove their new belief or they went through doing their PhD all the time not believing what they write. As someone currently studying a PhD I can't see how they managed but being slightly divorced from reality probably helped. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:24, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I read Lenski's paper, and as a trained microbiologist, I thought that it was both thorough and well done. His claims are backed by good data, namely that which was presented in the figures. I went through each of the figures after Aschlafly said that they were uninformative. Actually, they are basic figures that show the population explosion of the bacterial cultures after the Cit+ mutation occurred. These figures show that the cultures increased in size and mass at a given timepoint, being able to do so because they had evolved a mechanism to utilize a new nutrient, without the assistance of helper plasmids.<br />
<br />
I know that my post is getting long, but I just wanted to say that in addition to this that of course there is going to be a figure with some speculation when it is covering an alternate hypothesis. That is what a lot of science is really about; the scientist creates a battery of hypotheses, and through experimentation narrows down the field. Lenksi's paper, while not the most definite I've seen, is still a very well-researched paper that supports its claims nicely. --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]<br />
<br />
==Detractor Lineup==<br />
<br />
Ok, there seems to be some confusion about whether we are opposing the public release of information based on principle or practicality. So, let's make a list to make our position clear (please add a brief explanation and feel free to discuss in the comments section). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:54, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose Public Release based on PRINCIPLE'''<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Oppose Public Release based on PRACTICALITY'''<br />
<br />
* Because it is time consuming, costly (both in terms of money and resources) and the data is too big to be readily transfered. If we had a genuine reason to want the data and we were actually going to do something with it then it would be worth the effort (for example if we disputed a particular conclusion, in which case we could probably narrow down the data we wanted) however demanding a release based solely on principle is simply impractical and not going to happen. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:54, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:To illustrate that "big" means, a little ilustration from my own work. I work for the LOFAR project's future data proccesing center, we plan on recieving several dozen gigabits per second, or about a 60 meter stack of paper a second.. Now, I know biology research doesn't produce as much data as radiotelescopes do, but they've been working for 20 years.<br />
:By demanding all the original data, you are asking for several shipping containers full of dvd's. It's just not acceptable to spend so much time and money on everyone who asks for it, especially when you have no real desire to reproduce anything. I do think you should be able to see the data, but you obviously have to be more specific in your questions for information.<br />
:Again, I am not a biologist, but in astronomy when you want raw data, you request information about a specific part of measurements. You call someone and ask for data for 10 seconds from this-and-that time and of such-and-so area of sky. You do not send an open letter and demand "All research data". I think Richard Lenski was increadibly kind not to laugh in your face for such a demand, because it shows the asker has no idea how the scientific community functions.<br />
[[User:Alcari|Alcari]] 14:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
'''Comments'''<br />
<br />
StatsMsn, your objection is purely speculative and, frankly, implausible. Lenski has not asserted your claim and I doubt he will.<br />
<br />
But if you're right about the key data, then that suggests the peer reviewers did not have access to it, and the conclusion is this: claims based on that data should not be published in a Journal that says the data will be made available. Instead, one could publish such claims in a Journal saying the data will not be made available, and we can all take the claims with a grain of salt.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:03, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I think it's more likely that Lanski hasn't released the information to you based on practicalities than a conspiracy to publish false results. Note that I did not say the peer reviewers did not have access to the raw data, only that you did not. If there was a genuine reason to provide the data to someone (that is, someone who had a genuine reason to have it, such as to confirm or dispute a conclusion) then I have no doubt that any ethical research team would work out a way to transmit it. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:24, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: StatsMsn, I stopped reading at your word "conspiracy". No is alleging a "conspiracy". Post in a rational manner and don't pollute this page. Apologize and clean up your edit or please leave. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'm sorry Mr. Schlafly, but you seem to be trying to say that Lenski fudged 20 years of work, and that is being hidden by the people reviewing his work. That sounds like a conspiracy. Perhaps you should apologize, or clarify your edits. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: Has anyone considered the possiblility that some data was removed in the reviewing process? From my experience with journal publications (moderate at best) page numbers is important. Pages and pages of data and graphs are expensive to print. The reviewer would have seen it, the editor would look at it and thought it is too much and edit the paper so as to say the data is not presented. Ask for a preprint of the paper that will contain more data. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== False Claim of a Bad motive ==<br />
<br />
Let's face the truth, there is no real desire here for Andrew Schlafly or anyone on Conservapedia to get the raw data. The reason that this is even an issue is because placing this demand and getting no response somehow makes Lenski look bad and therefore automatically discredits him and his research and therefor the theory of evolution. The position of Mr. Schlafly is that the Bible is inerrant and the Genesis creation story is true. No amount of scientific data is going to change that. So why argue with him? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 10:05, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: You're clueless about my motivation and your account has been blocked for violating our [[90/10 rule]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Wow. I'm actually afraid to post my opinion now...Well, at the risk of being banned...Aschlafly: Was it really necessary to block MAnderson? I get the feeling (And this is simply an opinion based on personal observation) that the action taken against MAnderson was due more to the nature of his accusation of bias against you and not due to any violation of code, since bias is indeed a word that gets used around here often without reprimand. That being said I feel that the intended letter in question would severely discredit this website. Unless members of this site have the facilities necessary to conduct research into the validity of the Doctor's claims then we have no reason to request such massive documentation. Furthermore, the purpose of such counter-research should always be with the intent to ultimately strengthen a proposed line of research, even if it is by bringing to light flaws in the original findings. The purpose of peer review is not to discredit, but to strengthen through careful examination and criticism. If the originals researchers conclusions are eventually found to be flawed beyond renovation then the entire thing is thrown out, strengthening our scientific pool of knowledge as a whole by protecting it against faulty findings. It is my belief that a peer-reviewer should always have a most critical eye, but should also ultimately have the best at heart for the purported research. I do not believe such a mindset exists in this case. The letter itself seems to indicate a specific desire and hope of discrediting the E-coli findings, which should never be the purpose of peer review. To seek discredit simply for the sake of discredit is the very anti-thesis of why the peer-review system exists IMO. And it is my opinion that the intended letter gives the impression that discredit is the goal. In my opinion. --[[User:RobinGoodfellow|RobinGoodfellow]] 13:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:There's a difference between expressing your thoughts on a matter and saying of someone else "here is why you did it" and then make statements that are derogatory and degrading. The one at least expresses opinion. The other just makes things up with the followup assumption being now you must defend yourself against what I just made up. That's inappropriate and was handled as being inappropriate.<br />
<br />
:That being said, what you wrote is a different matter. I see no difficulty in the form of your speech, or the expression of your ideas. Do not equate your writings to what was put above by MAnderson; they are not the same. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:27, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I think there's a great deal of misunderstanding here from the critics of Mr. Schlafly and obfuscation on the part of Prof. Lenski and his supporters. The real data that we need are not in the paper. Rather they are in the bacteria used in the experiments themselves. Prof. Lenski claims that these bacteria "evolved" novel traits and that these were preceded by the evolution of "potentiated genotypes", from which the traits could be "reëvolved" using preserved colonies from those generations. But how are we to know if these traits weren't "potentiated" by the Creator when He designed the bacteria thousands of years ago, such that they would eventually reveal themselves when the time was right? The only way this can be settled is if we have access to the genetic sequences of the bacteria colonies so that we can apply CSI techniques and determine if these "potentiated genotypes" originated through blind chance or intelligence. But with the physical specimens in the hands of Darwinists, who claim they will get around to the sequencing at some unspecifed future time, how can we trust that this data will be forthcoming and forthright? Thus, Prof. Lenski et al. should supply Conservapedia, as stewards, with samples of the preserved ''E. coli'' colonies so that the data can be accessible to unbiased researchers outside of the hegemony of the Darwinian academia, even if it won't be put to immediate examination by Mr. Schlafly. This is simply about keeping tax-payer-funded scientists honest. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 20:03, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:'Dr. Paley', that's about the most ridiculous suggestion I've heard yet. I'm not going to even dignify that kind of nonsense with a response. But I will suggest, generally, that if you are that convinced there is a worldwide scientific conspiracy to perpretate fraud by hiding 'the potentiating hand of the creator', then there's nothing I could say to you anyway.<br />
<br />
:But I have this question for Andy and the rest of the supporters of the 'public access to data' line: if it is the ''principle'' of public access to data that you are fighting for--and this is not some kind of publicity stunt, as many have suggested--then why are you picking on this one experiment, and not the ''tens of thousands'' of scientific papers that have been published just, say, in the last decade? After all, Lenski's paper is no different than any scientific paper, in that is summarizes, but does not publish, the raw data on which it was based. So shouldn't you be asking every scientist who has published a paper in which raw data has not been published to present that data? Why just Lenski? Aren't there potentially ''thousands'' of 'new insights' that could be produced from public scrutiny of this data?<br />
<br />
:I think your motivations speak pretty clearly for themselves. [[User:porkchop]]<br />
<br />
:: (Note porkchop's use of [[Liberal tools]] #11 and #13.) Anyway, if Prof. Lenski has no fraud to hide, then he won't mind allowing other researchers access to the physical data. Again, it is simply a matter of keeping tax-funded activities honest. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 21:44, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Sorry, Richard. I guess you need your stupidity spelled out for you: no laboratory in the world is going to send ''the actual biological samples they worked on'' to a bunch of faceless internet nuts or anyone else. Even if such a request were possible (i.e. transport could be arranged safely and at no expense to Lenski, he could spare the material, etc.) what on earth would the 'scientists' at Conservapedia ''do'' with it? Keep it in Andy's refrigerator and look at it under his Kid Scientist microscope?<br />
<br />
:::And I'm waiting to hear whether anyone has a response to my question about the selective targeting of Lenski. [[User:porkchop]]<br />
<br />
:::: Taxpayers paid for Lenski's work, he published it in a journal that claims its authors will make underlying data available, his research claims were publicized in New Scientist, yet he hasn't complied with a request for his data. If that's true of others also as you suggest, then please give examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::What is your response to the view that Lenski has not released the data because it is too big to simply send to someone? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:50, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: That "view" is without any basis and, by the way, the suggestion is that Lenski post it rather than send it. Are you suggesting that Lenski did not make his key data available to the peer reviewers on his paper?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:59, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Someone said above that considering just one variable would result 4 terabytes worth of data, this is a ridiculous and costly amount of data to host (to put it in perspective, it's about 200 full DVD's). And yes it pretty much is all key (to ensure the mutations were not due to an environmental factor, to ensure that they were inherited, to ensure that they were not simply repressed genes which had previously appearing in the colonies etc). I am not suggesting that Lenski did not make his key data avaliable to peer reviewers, I'm fairly sure that had they wished to view it they could have done so (possibly by physically visiting his labs to access it, or by using a dedicated stream). Perhaps it's something you could ask in the email you send him, and while you're at it perhaps you could ask if researchers such as yourself or others would be able to access the data on request (this is essentially public access so long as nobody is turned away for ideological reasons). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:24, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::: So you're suggesting that the peer reviewers could only access the data by physically visiting Lenski's labs or by using "a dedicated stream"? That's tantamount to suggesting that the peer reviewers did not practically have access to the data, which creates an even bigger cloud of doubt about the claimed results. If that's the case, then obviously that should have been disclosed to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<- No, I was offering a couple of options. It's is equally (or even more likely) that Lenski's team spent a bit of money and transferred the data onto physical media and sent it to them. That is a question that you can ask in your email, lest we be accused of jumping to conclusions. Peer reviewers aside, the point remains that the reason Lenski has not published the data is due to its size and the cost of posting it, not their opposition to the public release of data. Again this will only be answered through a reply to your email, perhaps you could ask if it would be possible for you (and other researchers) to access the data, rather than demanding he post it on the internet or send it to you. This would overcome any refusal based on practicality, but still allow the public access to data. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:42, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: StatsMsn, note that:<br />
<br />
:* Lenski replied once and did not himself raise the objection you suggest<br />
:* the objection you suggest has no factual basis<br />
:* the objection you suggest would make it impossible to peer review the paper, or most types of collaborative work<br />
<br />
: At some point, StatsMsn, an open mind requires admitting the possibility that the data have not been made available because there is concern about what an independent reviewer may conclude from it. Are you open-minded enough to admit that possibility? It's a waste of time arguing with a closed mind, and if you won't admit at least that possibility then this discussion is unproductive.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:00, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm more than happy to admit that Lenski is preventing public access to his data, if there was some solid evidence for it. At the moment he has not refused to allow public access to it. <br />
<br />
::*Correct<br />
::*How so? People have already stated how large the raw data you are requesting is and how impractical it would be to host it. Where do you believe the factual error is, on the estimates of the size or the ability to make it readily avaliable to the general public?<br />
::*No, as measures could be taken to allow the peer reviewers access to the data if they required it. <br />
<br />
::The reason I keep arguing is because I know how difficult it is to transmit data to the general public. The university where I study originally provided a number of high resolution pictures to the general public via a ftp stream, however as each individual picture grew in size and the number of pictures grew the university had to cut off access, first to the general public and then to students, despite our internet connection greatly increasing in speed at the same time. At present the only way to access the images is either to physically enter the premises or request images via DVD (with a small cost for material and administration charges). Everyone including the general public is still able to access the images, however they cannot be made readily avaliable for reasons of practicality.<br />
<br />
::If the statistics above are correct then the size of the raw data you are requesting is much larger than the combined size of all our image files, it is highly impractical to simply request someone send it to you or post it on the internet. And yes I am willing to admit that this discussion is unproductive, that's why I'm going to send Lenski an email myself and request information on how the raw data can be accessed. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:10, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: You haven't yet admitted the possibility I describe, which suggests you may not yet have an open mind about this. If so, this discussion is unproductive, but please do feel free to contact Lenski directly with your theory about the data. I bet you do not receive a clear answer.<br />
<br />
::: I'm confident that Lenski has the data in a manageable form that enables him and his fellow researchers to access and examine it. If not, then frankly that raises even bigger questions about the reliability and verifiability of the claimed results.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<- I'm more than willing to admit the possibility that the peer reviewers have not had access to the raw data, it is entierly possible and we still see it happening when commercial interests become entangled with science (for instance, many pharamacological companies will not release negative studies concerning their products). In this case there is a need for further review in order to confirm the results, and if it is shown that Lenski skewed his results then appropriate action must be taken.<br />
<br />
Now, are you willing to admit the possibility that I describe?<br />
<br />
And I too am confident that Lenski has his data in a manageable form, what we disagree on is whether this data can be readily made avaliable to the public (like by hosting 4 terabytes on the internet) or to people who request it out of the blue. I am fairly confident that if you or another researcher requested access to the data and had a genuine reason for doing so then you would be provided with access to the data, either by physically accessing it on site or by arranging an appropriate means of transfer (with costs considered). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:26, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I admit the possibility that all the data is too voluminous to transfer easily, which is why my letter addressed that and requested the data made available to peer reviewers. By definition, that data cannot be too voluminous to transfer.<br />
<br />
: You said you would ask Lenski. Have you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:44, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Read below, and I have emailed him. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 10:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[Edit Conflict] I just read the paper for a second time, paying particular attention to the results section. There is an adequate summary of the data provided for peer reviewers. I admit that I was wrong with my terminology above (I'm having a late night and my brain's shutting down), the peer reviewers of the paper are not sent the raw data, they rely on the facts presented. Any subsequent reviews could have access to the raw data if necessary.<br />
<br />
Right now we have 4 possible scenarios that could be proposed:<br />
<br />
* The summary of the data Lenski presented is correct and the conclusion drawn is correct<br />
* The summary of the data Lenski presented is correct but the conclusion drawn is incorrect<br />
* The summary of the data is wrong due to unintentional mistakes<br />
* The summary of the data is wrong due to a deliberate attempt to skew results<br />
<br />
If the first is correct we have nothing to argue about. If the second is correct then you do not need access to the raw data in order to prove your results. If the third is correct then access to the raw data would be essential, however it would call into question the integrity of Lenski's laboratory and quite frankly I do not believe you have the resources to do better (let alone detect any irregularities). If the fourth is correct then you are accusing Lenski of academic dishonesty, a libelous claim that you would need solid evidence to support.<br />
<br />
Andy, could you please outline why you want to have access to the raw data when the summary provided in the paper is more than adequate to draw a conclusion. Do you believe that there has been a mistake made in the organisation of the data, or is this just to prove that you can (or cannot) gain access to the data, even though this is not at all required. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 10:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Failure to supply data? ==<br />
<br />
Aschlafly, you say above that Lenski "hasn't complied with a request for his data." Where did he do that? In his reply to your original letter he bends over backwards to accommodate your requests and answer your questions, and he's hardly had time to reply to the second letter! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:55, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Piltdown All Over Again ==<br />
<br />
The [[Piltdown Man | Piltdown hoax]] was possible precisely because the physical data was kept under lock-and-key and away from the eyes of unbiased non-Darwinians, who, if given the chance, would have spotted that the bones were unrelated right away. Even if Prof. Lenski were to provide the public with digital versions of the data, what assurances would we have that the data wasn't doctored? If we assume his Darwinian principles were no check on his willingness to publish a falsified paper, then why would we then assume they would prevent him from falsifying data? On the other hand, it would be impossible for Prof. Lenski to falsify the physical data residing in the actual bacteria, as that would require a massive program of genetic engineering. Only by allowing unbiased conservative scientists access to samples of the bacteria colonies can we assure that we aren't witnessing another Piltdown hoax, as the Darwinian community has a reputation for perpetrating them.<br />
<br />
As to the practicality of this, only scrapings of the cultures would be needed for reculturing, not the entire original petri dish as "porkchop" implies above. These can be stored in standard cryogenic ampules that take up very little space. The Discovery Institute surely has cryogenic facilities in their labs and would be willing to host the collection under the auspices of Conservapedia. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 10:50, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Excellent idea! Go for it. Send off a third letter at once! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:09, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Until Lenksi himself states that "no I will not give you the data, you crazy conservatives", in no way can you compare this to Piltdown. To do so is to further your own agenda of discrediting a scientific experiment that makes the minor point that traits can evolve. I believe that Lenski has provided enough data for all of you to examine and make claims about his research; honestly, what would you possibly do with scrapings of cultures? "Ok, Culture #95324 is Cit-, had me #95325"? I doubt that you people would even do that. Chances are, you would glance at the mountain of raw data Lenski would send, and then summarily dismiss it based on your own desire to see it fail. This is disgusting. --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]<br />
<br />
::''This is disgusting'' What is disgusting is that you are doing to Andy precisely what you suppose he will do to the data if and when it comes - that is, use it to back up a preconceived idea. You do not know how he or other Conservapedians will treat the data. Do not criticise him for something he hasn't done but which you assume he will do. To do so is arrant hypocricy. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:57, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::That is a fair point, Bugler. I'm just frustrated by the serious bias already lined up against Lenski's research, even before raw data has been seen. --Aaronp<br />
<br />
:: Well put, Bugler. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Aaronp, either you're naive or you're engaging in bullying if you maintain that Lenski plans to release his raw data soon for independent, public review. I asked him last Friday to release it, and his reply declined to do so. I asked him again yesterday, and he predictably has not replied. It now seems to me to be likely that the peer reviewers for his paper did not even see the raw data. I think it's likely that only Lenski and his grad student have seen the raw data underlying that paper (note its footnote). Don't pretend that Lenski welcomes independent review of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:15, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: My understanding is that peer reviewers do not normally see raw data. Absent reason to believe otherwise, they assume data is correctly reported in the submitted paper. But I could be wrong about this. Why do you think reviewers would normally be shown raw data? Also, I do not have a good idea what the data would look like? Do you have an opinion of what it looks like and what form it is in? -divaricatum 13:04, 19 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::: Data should be made available to peer reviewers. If I'm reading the dates on the front of this particular paper correctly, I think peer review was a mere 15 days or so. Looks to me like a rubber-stamp process for this subject matter despite making claims that were reported as being newsworthy.<br />
<br />
::::: The raw data have to already be in a form that allows collaborative work, so I don't see that as much of an obstacle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:47, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
[unidenting] You did not really respond to my points. I asked whether, according to your understanding, peer reviewers are normally shown raw data. I said my understanding was they were not. You say "data should be made available..." Is that your opinion, or are you describing actual practice? Second, the usable data is in the paper, as far as I can tell. The graphs do not permit knowing exact value, but you do not seem to be asking for the exact figures used to generate the graph. Look at, for example, figure 1: X axis is generation, Y axis is Optical Density. The caption says:<br />
<br />
: Population expansion during evolution of the Cit+ phenotype. Samples frozen at various times in the history of population Ara-3 were revived, and three DM25 cultures were established for each generation. Optical density (OD) at 420 nm was measured for each culture at 24 h. Error bars show the range of three values measured for each generation.<br />
<br />
The graph shows a dramatic rise around generation 33000, from less than 0.05 to about .25. What additional data would you like? There are presumably lab books with 33000+ OD measurements (or some multiple of that) but in what sense is the data not available? What exactly regarding this graph would you like to see? <br />
<br />
Finally, in the second letter you talk about instances where it is noted that data is not shown. I found 3 such instances:<br />
<br />
: page 3 Also, growth on citrate is inhibited by the citrate analog 5-fluorocitrate (data not shown), as was observed for the one previously reported Cit� mutant of E. coli (42, 43).<br />
<br />
: page 3 After depleting the glucose in DM25, the earliest Cit+ clones grow almost imperceptibly, if at all, for many hours before they begin efficiently using the citrate (data not shown), whereas later Cit+ cones switch to growth on citrate almost immediately (Fig. 2).<br />
<br />
: page 6 These differences were also evident when we monitored the intraday dynamics of mixtures of Cit+ and Cit- cells (data not shown).<br />
<br />
In no case do the data seem relevant to the main point of the paper (in the first case, there may be data in the references; in the second case, he is simply noting that early clones grow slowly, but the point is later clones grow fast, for which data are shown; and the third case -- discussing utilization of glucose -- is again tangential to the main conclusion). Why are you interested in these data? -divaricatum 14:21 June 19, 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Lenski has "predictably" not replied? That's exactly what I'm talking about. You're so biased against him purely because you don't agree with the subject of his work. I would be frustrated in the same way if you were doing this with any research paper, not just Lenski's. "Predictably" he hasn't replied... maybe that is because he is a busy man who was kind enough to respond to your first email, but now simply does not want to (or have to) cater to the whims of some random hyper-conservative blogger who is asking him to release 20 years of raw data that the blogger does not have the knowledge set to critique! God forbid the man takes a week to respond to your email; if after two are three days of no answer are you going to condemn him by saying "he's obviously not talking to me because he's hiding something"? --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
"''If we assume his Darwinian principles were no check on his willingness to publish a falsified paper, then why would we then assume they would prevent him from falsifying data?''": Whilst it is true that Darwinism and atheism provide no basis for morals, hence honesty, it does not follow that individual Darwinists and atheists have no morals. In most cases, they have adopted a form of the morality held to by their society, which (in the case of western countries) has its basis in Christianity. So there is no reason to assume that Lenski would be dishonest with the data itself. The comparison with Piltdown has no basis.<br />
<br />
Peer review, as I understand it, is not meant as a check on all the research of a scientist, but merely as a basic check that the scientist has used suitable methodology, that his conclusions can be justified from his data, that he has explained the research clearly enough for the readers to understand, and so forth. Therefore all the detailed data would not normally be provided to the reviewers, although they may (I'm not certain) be able to request it if they are not satisfied by the data provided. Certainly they could reject the paper if they weren't satisfied, or request that more data be included in the paper if they felt that not enough was.<br />
<br />
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== General Reply ==<br />
<br />
Lenski has essentially refused my request that he make his underlying data available for public scrutiny, despite his use of public funding. Given the remarkably short time between submission of his PNAS manuscript and its acceptance (only 14 days), I doubt his paper even had meaningful peer review. <br />
<br />
It's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data. I wonder if PNAS violated its own stated policies by publishing Lenski's paper, and I'm going to email its Editor-in-Chief to request an explanation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:19, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
: How long does peer review normally take? And what PNAS policies do you think may have been violated? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:32, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Other articles in the same issue of PNAS:<br />
<br />
Effective tumor treatment targeting a melanoma/melanocyte-associated antigen triggers severe ocular autoimmunity approved April 14, 2008 (received for review November 18, 2007)<br />
<br />
Localized and extended deformations of elastic shells<br />
approved March 11, 2008 (received for review August 7, 2007)<br />
<br />
Characterization of the structure–function relationship at the ligament-to-bone interface approved April 11, 2008 (received for review December 28, 2007)<br />
<br />
Mutations in the telomerase component NHP2 cause the premature ageing syndrome dyskeratosis congenita approved April 14, 2008 (received for review January 3, 2008)<br />
<br />
Experimental evidence for negative selection in the evolution of a Yersinia pestis pseudogene approved April 15, 2008 (received for review February 13, 2008)<br />
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:36, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The average length of peer review for PNAS, based on a sample, is over 120 days. Lenski's paper was accepted within only 14 days of submission.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:53, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Andy, I'm not sure there's sufficient reason to claim that it probably didn't get a meaningful peer review. 2 weeks is certainly enough time for reviewers to read and critique the article. You may have noticed that Blount et al.'s article is identified as part of a special series, which could explain why it was reviewed more quickly than usual. I hope you will post the editor's reply here. Incidentally, in light of your view on this page of the importance of allowing research to be scrutinized by others, I would like to re-open my request for you to share your methodology on the hollywood breast cancer mystery page. Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:18, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I intended peer review in general, not just at the PNAS, but that's a fair comparison. Like Murray, I would have thought that a fortnight is sufficient, but you do appear to be correct that the Lenski paper was much quicker than normal at the PNAS. So that just leaves the question of broken policies... [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:24, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::If you take Lenski's paper for what it is, peer review of the paper would not take long after all. The majority of his data could be kick out for his paper is just the documentation of the bacteria using the citrate. Murry, what is this about breast cancer?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 12:30, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: Murray is referring to [http://www.conservapedia.com/Mystery:Young_Hollywood_Breast_Cancer_Victims this poorly researched thesis proposed by ASchlafly], Able806. No data to support the thesis was ever provided by ASchlafly. I'd invite you to take a look. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 12:40, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Looking at the paper, it seems to me almost all the experimental data is shown in figure 1: the ability of the bacteria to utilize citrate as revealed by optical density measurements. Something clearly happened around generation 33000, and the OD measurements jumped fivefold (from 0.05 to 0.25) with the range of measurements over three samples being way, way less that 0.2 (the size of the jump). That seems to be it experimentally. The rest of the paper describes the methodology and discusses what could have caused the change.<br />
<br />
::: People keep talking about raw data. Would someone who says that explain what they mean? To me, raw data is relevant when what is reported is derived data. For example, suppose you have a study of health effects of working at a facility that handles nuclear material. You report the radiation exposure over background of workers. That is derived data. The raw data are the workers' dosimeter readings and the background radiation measurements. That is what you would ask for when you wanted the raw data which supported the derived data.<br />
<br />
::: But in the Lenski paper, as far as I can tell, the data reported is the actual measured data: they measured the optical density of the samples and reported those numbers in figure 1. Of course, I could be wrong, I am not an expert in this field, but if someone disagrees with me, please tell me what the raw data would be and how the data in figure 1 was derived from it. (Lenski said that all the data being asked for is in paper. That statement is consistent with what I am saying.)<br />
<br />
::: As to 14 days, I do not see any problem. This is a very exciting result to people in the field and the reviewers would very likely put it on top of their to do lists. As I say, the experimental data is simple and unambiguous (something significant happened at generation 33000), the description of the methodology is clear and straightforward, and the discussion of the causes is at least consistent and believable. What is there to object to?<br />
<br />
::: Aschlafly talks of 'concealed data'. Could you please tell me what data you believe is being concealed? Specifically, what measurements are not revealed? (I know you can say 'how could I know if they do not tell me', but can someone at least suggest what kind of information is not being revealed?) -divaricatum 10:03 June 20 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::: If Aschlafly is talking about the "data not shown" parts of the paper as being "concealed", then he is being ignorant about normal scientific paper submission. Due to length constraints and other factors, most (read: all) researchers will leave out unimportant pieces of data that aren't necessarily the key points of the paper. For example, a paper could catalog the radiation levels of all the workers at a given nuclear power plant, and have a main point that workers who are in a certain part of the plant are getting higher exposure rates. Because it had to catalog all workers of the plant, it might also have to take dosage readings of people who work off-site. Obviously, people who aren't working at the plant will not have high radiation doses, and thus in the paper that result might look like "Predictably, those workers who perform their duties off-site had no detectable radiation doses that were above background (data not shown)". It would be pointless to show that "hey look, people who don't work around the radiation don't have readings above background! Here's a chart proving it!". That is why almost all papers have at least one data set that isn't shown. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]<br />
<br />
I have to run an errand but want to you everyone know, as I've said before, that it's only productive to discuss something with somebody who has an open mind. If you agree with my statement that "It's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data," then let's talk. If not, then please rant somewhere else. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:34, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: In the 'Piltdown all over again' thread above, I list all three instances of 'data not shown' from the paper and point out that, according to my understanding of what is being reported, the conclusions are not relevant to the point being made. Therefore (reinforcing what aaronp says) I would not expect the data to be shown and do not understand what use it would be to anyone interested in arguing with the paper's conclusions. Again, I could be wrong, but please if you disagree, address the point by explaining how the unshown data would be relevant to the conclusions of the paper. <br />
<br />
:::: With regard to aschlafly's last comment, please tell me what data you believe has not been revealed. My contention is all the relevant data is in figure 1. I am happy to be shown to be wrong, but please explain what data you think has not been revealed. -divaricatum 10:40 June 20 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::: : The data hasn't been concealed! "Concealed" from you, perhaps, but I blame that more on who you represent rather than some vague plot to get this information published without going through checks and balances. The data was peer-reviewed. The data was presented in a clear and logical manner. The data supported the conclusions. This is your run-of-the-mill publication, and has satisfied all it needs to in order to be recognized. I agree that if some person were to make an unverified claim (like all those crazy people who claim to have cloned a human being, but haven't shown the clones or released any data) and depict it as truth, then yes, that would be unscientific. But this paper hasn't done that. As for being close-minded, I believe it is you that is being close-minded. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]] 13:40, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
For reasons already explained, I'm not going to waste time with close-minded argument here. If you agree that it's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data, then clearly say so. Otherwise, it's a futile exercise. Anyone at any time could make an unverified claim based on concealed data, and people could be found to defend it. Only fools would try to reason with them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:17, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: If you are referring to me, please show where I have been close-minded. Sure I agree that "it's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data", but I am asking whether that is the case here. I ask repeatedly about what data have been concealed, and no one, particularly you, responds. There are two claims made in the paper: that a strain of E. colii evolved the ability to utilize citrate, and that the strain first had a mutation which while it did not allow the utilization of citrate, in some fashion potentiated the later mutation. The first claim is supported by the optical density data in figure 1. I contend that that is direct data and there is no associated raw data to look at, and that the ability to utilize citrate is clearly shown by the data provided.<br />
<br />
: The second claim is demonstrated by repeat experiments using stored samples. In some cases, the ability to utilize citrate evolved, in some cases not. They report on the strains used, how often the ability evolved, etc. I again do not see what data are not being supplied. All I am asking from you is to explain what data you believe is available to the researches that would be relevant in evaluating their results which is not in the paper. I do not see what is unreasonable about that request.<br />
<br />
: Lenski said in his letter to you that all the relevant data was in the paper. From my reading, that seems to be true. I am of course open to an argument that something additional needs to be revealed but I would like to understand what that additional something is, and no one, specifically not you, has said.<br />
<br />
: Now perhaps you are suggesting that the data reported in the paper is not the actual data collected (whether accidentally or intentionally mistranscribed, or whatever). If that is what you are saying is possible, please say so explicitly so we can understand your point, and also say how you would like the matter resolved (xeroxes of lab books? Computer backup tapes? what?)<br />
<br />
: I would just like to understand what people think has not been revealed. I do not see why asking that question indicates a closed mind or any such thing. -divaricatum 11:30 June 20 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: OK, divaricatum, we're arguing from the same logical basis, so let's proceed. The underlying data are not in the papers. The papers have an interpretative summary of the data which may be mistaken, incomplete, or worse. The underlying data were only analyzed by two people: Lenski and a grad student (presumably under the control of Lenski). Let's see what they analyzed. We may see things they missed or ignored. Or there may be defects in the data that they didn't realize or disclose. In less than 14 days between submission and acceptance of the paper, it's unlikely any peer review did this.<br />
<br />
:: If this were a court of law, the judge would not even allow Lenski and his grad student to present their summaries to the jury without first providing the underlying data to the other side. Surely scientific standards have not fallen lower than legal ones.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:52, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
(this discussion is limited to those who accept the logical premise repeated above: "it's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data." Sermons, rants and illogical postings can be made elsewhere. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:14, 20 June 2008 (EDT))<br />
<br />
::: Thank you. Let us look at claim number 1, that a strain of E. coli evolved the ability to utilize citrate. This is from page 2 of the paper (and onto page 3):<br />
<br />
:::: After 33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1). A number of Cit+ clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all were Ara-, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2). DNA sequencing also showed that Cit+ clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, and each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all of the others (30). Therefore, the Cit+ variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant. The evolved Cit+ variant grows to high density in DM0 (a citrate-only medium), produces vigorous colonies on minimal citrate (MC) agar plates, and causes a positive color change on Simmon’s citrate agar, all of which indicate that it can use citrate as a sole carbon source. In DM25, Cit+ cells undergo a period of rapid growth on glucose that is followed by slower growth on citrate (Fig. 2). Also, growth on citrate is inhibited by the citrate analog 5-fluorocitrate (data not shown), as was observed for the one previously reported Cit+ mutant of E. coli (42, 43).<br />
<br />
::: So, there was a population that could utilize citrate. The claims made are (1) it was not a contaminate (the data asserted is that it had the markers of the earlier populations), (2) it had mutations found in earlier strains from the same evolving populations. (3) It grows in a glucose-free environment and can use citrate as a carbon source. (4) It continues to grow on citrate/glucose medium after the glucose is exhausted (while other E. coli stops growing).<br />
<br />
::: Data explicitly supplied (figure 1) shows the ability of strains after the mutation to grow on citrate only (glucose free) medium. I assert this is direct (not derived) data since (I believe) the optical density is directly measured and that is what is shown in figure 1. Further data (figure 2) compares a strain with the mutation and one without and shows the with strain continues to grow after the glucose is exhausted while the without strain stops growing. Again, this is OD data directly reported. (I could of course be mistaken and OD data is in fact derived from other data, like excess radiation exposure, in which case someone please correct me.)<br />
<br />
::: The derived data is that the mutated strain has markers from the ancestral source and has specific mutations from more recent ancestors (that is, there are presumably DNA and other analyses which show these things which are not shown). He also reports on growth on other specific media (minimal citrate (MC) agar plates and Simmon’s citrate agar) where we are told only that on the first, the growth is vigorous, and on the second produces a color change. Finally (in what seems to be a parenthetical comment) growth in inhibited by the "citrate analog 5-fluorocitrate", but that data is not shown, and it is noted that was reported by the other known E. coli variant that can utilize citrate. (I interpret this as simply reporting that the variant they found is likely the same or very similar to the variant previously reported. That is interesting but not, it seems to me, relevant to the result of the paper, so the lack of supplied data does not seem significant to me.)<br />
<br />
::: So, what could you ask for? The OD reports from saved samples shown in figure 1 seem unambiguous as to the ability of the strain, after 33000 to utilize citrate, and so, except as qualified next, the basic claim seems to me to be verified. I cannot imagine what additional data with respect to OD you could ask for unless you are claiming that they mistranscribed the data (in which case, I repeat, resolve it how? Look at Lab books?)<br />
<br />
::: So here is the qualification: could it be a contamination? They explain how they reject the contamination hypothesis. You could say that was very important to your confidence and so you would like to see the specific test results for the markers and mutations. That is certainly a specific question and one that could be answered, although with some (perhaps significant) expenditure of time and money.<br />
<br />
::: As to the growth on other media (minimal citrate (MC) agar plates and Simmon’s citrate agar) the paper simply describes the growth as vigorous and the color changing. But these reports seem unambiguous in that they could be in error only if the investigators were misrepresenting their findings. Here again, what would you like to see? Lab books? Because this could only be false through fraud, the lab books would presumably in that case also be fraudulent.<br />
<br />
::: So it seems to me that all one could ask for is the dna/marker data that verifies that the cit+ samples are not contaminates. Perhaps, if you were willing to pay for the tests, one could ask for ancestral, close to mutation, and post mutation samples on which to repeat the tests.<br />
<br />
::: Let us leave fraud aside. So then the question is, did they make (honest) mistakes? It frankly seems unlikely to me because the tests seem straightforward: the ability to utilize citrate seems very easy to test unambiguously (smear some on a citrate/no glucose base and see what happens). The differences between growing vigorously and hardly are surely great enough that one could not mistake one for the other. The contamination tests, while much more complicated, also seem standard. DNA sequencing is a well-established technique. There are looking for specific loci ("DNA sequencing also showed that Cit+ clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population"). I am not sure how the markers mentioned are identified but I again think this is a standard test.<br />
<br />
::: So, to repeat my conclusion: the only thing I feel is worth asking about (all this is about result 1, there was a mutation which allowed utilization of citrate) is the contamination question. There they presumably have data which confirms there statements but I am not sure whether it is reasonably to ask them for it absent some specific concern. (Here an experienced microbiogist would be helpful, if I have the field right: is their description of how they determined that the strain was not contaminated reasonable and the tests they did straightforward and unambiguous, or is there room for reasonable doubt? Answering that is beyond my knowledge. I would be pleased to hear from such an expert.)<br />
<br />
::: As to claim 2, I understand it less well, but could discuss it in more detail but I feel I have gone on long enough discussing claim 1. I would be pleased to read differing analyses of claim 1, particularly with regard to where the authors might reasonably be incorrect, absent fraud. divaricatum 13:09 June 20, 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Thank you, Divaricatum, for putting what I wanted to say so eloquently on the page. I believe that Lenski was being straight when he published his findings, and that barring gross fraud, the paper is very well-researched. -- Aaronp<br />
<br />
==Note re. article==<br />
As an aside, I' wonder if someone couldn't place some information at the head of the article here? At present, the article simply starts into a "first letter" to "a Prof. Lenski". The article should have a little setup to introduce readers to what on Earth it's all about. There is no reference in the article to the rest of the debate, basically. Just an FYI. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 13:17, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Lenski's second reply==<br />
Are you happy now? He has answered everything you asked. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 06:21, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:Andy should be thanked and congratulated by everyone here for his efforts on behalf of truth and openness. Those of us not blinded by Liberal deceit can now see atheistic pseudo-science for what it is. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:04, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:Really, Bugler? After that statement, I have trouble believing you're real. Atheistic pseudo-science? Liberal deceit? Do you even know what you're talking about? This isn't pseudo-science. Just because you don't understand it, it doesn't mean the information is suddenly invalid. In fact, after what is seemingly a post purely to stroke Andy's ego just a little bit more, even in the face of Lenski's reply, I believe that you are just a sock of Aschlafly. By the way, I'm expecting a 90/10 for this. --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]<br />
::I wouldn't give you the satisfaction of dignifying such a ridiculous post in that manner. Nor does the exchange require my poor talents to explain it to you. The messages stand by themselves, and Andy's honest intentions and integrity stand out. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:22, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::Sir Bugler, why do you cite something called "Liberal Deceit." Please allow me to clarify, explain to me what basis you have to slap on deceit towards liberals. I know that you are not inferring that all liberals engage in deceit, or that deceit is only inherent to liberals, but you are making a statement in some form, am I wrong? For every time that there is a liberal engaging in a form of deceit, there is also a conservative engaging in that same type of deceit. <br />
P.S. You are seeking data to scrutinize the integrity of an "Atheistic" scientist's work, who, as we've learned now from the Lenski's most recent letter that he is in fact, not at all an atheist, but a church attender. SO please accordingly revise your attacks. {{unsigned|Eligus}}<br />
<br />
:::Ok Bugler, to be fair, I will let go of my frustration and attempt to make a "valid" point. Can we at least respect Lenski for taking the time to write out his replies? The man is incredibly busy (trust me, I know), and still managed to communicate to a random person from the internet who was challenging 20 years worth of work. In addition to this, Lenski was very courteous with his replies! Surely we can't demonize the man purely because of his work on a bacterial strain? I can respect that Andy was doing what he thought was right, but can't we also give the same courtesy to Lenski, who put equal heart into his own work? -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]<br />
::::I can't say I noticed sarcasm or mockery in Andy's messages. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::True, but I did notice some serious (unfounded) allegations of fraud in his statements on the talk page; since the talk page is public domain, it means that Lenski saw them as well. I would say that Andy was being very rude, accusing someone of gross fraud without concrete evidence. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]<br />
<br />
::::: Really, Aaronp? When was I "accusing someone of gross fraud without concrete evidence"? Perhaps you can provide a quote for your claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:11, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Anyway back to my question, are you now satisfied in the response? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 08:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
"Given the remarkably short time between submission of his PNAS manuscript and its acceptance (only 14 days), I doubt his paper even had meaningful peer review..." "It's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data..." Both of these quotes, Mr. Schlafly, imply that Lenski falsified his data and collaborated in an elaborate conspiracy to get his paper published! You already assume that Lenski was fraudulent with his data when you said this! How is that not accusing him of fraud? -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]] Also, sorry to distract from your question, Daniel. Andy, please answer Dan first. Thank you.<br />
<br />
: Aaronp, your quote does not support your accusation, and I suggest you retract it immediately. I leave that up to you. Obviously there are many types of possible flaws in scientific claims that are not "gross fraud." For example, I don't think Andrew Wiles' (an example I used) was fraudulent in presenting his initial proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]], which general scrutiny found to be flawed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::''You already assume that Lenski was fraudulent with his data when you said this!'' You are a mind-reader, Aaron! Truly remarkable! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:32, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::You're right. What can I say? I am omniscient. As for the quote, by stating you doubted the paper was peer-reviewed, you are claiming that Lenski didn't actually go through the proper steps to get his data published, which is accusing him of fraud. I don't see how that can be any more straightforward. --Aaronp<br />
<br />
::::The responsibility for peer review is on the peers that do the reviewing. I don't know why you would assume that Andy would be accusing Linski of dubious scientific practice, when the more likely explanation is that he was accusing the reviewers. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 08:51, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Don't be naive, Drochld. Andy was attacking Lenski specifically. -- Aaronp<br />
That is enough. If you persist with these ludicrous accusations of malevolence you will be blocked. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:58, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:AaronP to be safe you should preface every truth you say with "it seems" so that way it isn't an accusation... '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 09:02, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Bugler, if Andy was not assuming that Lenski's data was frauduflent, wouldn't that mean that he was being openminded about the possibility of the Bible being incorrect? [[User:RWilson|RWilson]] 13:52, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::: I'm not sure what you are getting at there, but I ''think'' you are saying that either Lenski is a fraud or the Bible is incorrect, yet I see no reason for thinking it has to be one or the other. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:29, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Once again, the above seriously misrepresents the situation with Fermat's Last Theorem. While I was very happy that he released his manuscript immediately after his lectures at the Newton Institute, the fact remains that the error was detected in conversations between Wiles and consummate insiders like Nick Katz [http://www.math.princeton.edu/~nmk/], not after general scrutiny by random people around the internet. --[[User:Npstrick|Npstrick]] 10:23, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Thanks, DLerner. "It seems" I've made my point anyway. No more accusations of malevolence from this gentleman, no sir! --Aaronp<br />
<br />
Lenski's reply in a nutshell, once all the talk pollution and ad hominem attacks are removed: No, I will not give you my raw data or my E. Coli samples, not to you or any other non-Darwinist. <br />
<br />
And we're still supposed to believe his research is legitimate??? This is exactly what Andy predicted he would do, only not necessarily so rudely. Andy wins. Game. Set. Match. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 10:36, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Really? He said he would put the data on his website, and I think [[Behe]] meets Lenski's three qualifications for a scientist to whom he would release the bacteria. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 10:55, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Behe? Are you serious? He's supposed to be a Creation Scientist? The guy believes in the big bang, an earth billions of years old, and evolution. He does not believe in a young Earth, Adam and Eve, or the true word of the Bible. He's an evolutionist who happens to say "oh yeah, God guided evolution." As if there was anything on the Earth ''not'' guided by God! Just because he's one of the few scientists who isn't an atheist he's supposed to be one of us? No thanks. I'd rather go with someone who didn't drink the Old Earth Kool-aid. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 11:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::In spite of his Old Earth views or sympathies to evolution, Behe would be the perfect person for the job. He's a scientist! Has anyone contacted him yet? I bet he would jump at the opportunity to do research like this and having it published in a peer review journal would make ID more credible. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I for one am really, really glad that Lenski is '''not''' prepared to send dangerous bacteria to someone without checking on their credentials first. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 18:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Settle down, TonyT. Nobody claimed that he was a creationist, but as one who doesn't believe in naturalistic evolution, he would be a good person to check this out. On the other hand, as I've pointed out already, creationists and ID theorists don't necessarily have a problem with this research, so really, there may be nothing worth checking out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:25, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== "P.P.P.P.S.?" == <br />
<br />
Wow. Professional. The guy writes like a 12-year-old girl. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:25, 24 June 2008 (EDT) <br />
:Wow. besides the ad hom, does anyone care to contest the substance of what the guy said? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:36, 24 June 2008 (EDT) <br />
<br />
<br />
::Fair enough. I think Lenski raises a valid point that honestly hadn't occurred to me--namely, the logistics of transporting and storing biological materials. While a request for data stored in electronic form is one thing, a request for actual samples of the cultures is another. Unless facilities for the storage of such material are available, I don't think this issue can be brought to a conclusion that will be satisfactory for everyone. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:54, 24 June 2008 (EDT) <br />
<br />
== E. coli in our bowels == <br />
<br />
So if they're mutating and evolving, why don't they kill us? Our bodies obviously have defenses that protect us from the E. coli in our guts, but with all this evolving supposedly going on, you'd think they'd have evolved into something that could overcome those defenses and kill us so they could feast on our corpses. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Or you'd think that our bodies have evolved ways to deal with that. Or you'd think that there would be no advantage for e.coli to evolve a trait that would kill off its host environment. Or you'd think that humans would have evolved wings and third arms and eyes in the back of their heads in order to better adapt to their environments. Where exactly is it written in evolutionary science that all organism will eveolve the traits that you happen to think would improve their chances? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT) <br />
: Not to mention that evolution doesn't have a "goal." Yeesh, the ignorance here is astounding.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 15:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT) + <br />
:: Shows what you know! The goal of evolution is obviously to "evolve" in whatever manner it takes to destroy all of humanity. Who's ignorant now? Bobdobbs 15:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Jinxmchue perhaps you should better familiarise yourself with the principles of evolution and basic human biology before making claims such as the above. The theory of evolution states that organisms will undergo mutations, and the process of natural selection will determine which prosper (and hence are carried on) and which do not. A parasitic organism is not going to be doing itself any favours by killing its host, if it did then it would have minimal ability to survive and its genes would not be passed on to future generations.<br />
<br />
:::In addition, some bacteria do evolve (or have evolved in the past) to overcome their host's defences, the thing is that the body contains millions upon millions of variations of white blood cells and eventually one that possesses the capability to destroy the bacteria will encounter it, proliferate and destroy it. This likelihood is increased by the inflammatory response accompanying most organisms. In some caes our bodies cannot fight off infection, and that is the reason we develop modern antibiotics.<br />
<br />
:::Furthermore, a single mutated bacteria, or even a few hundred of its spawn, are not going to be capable of producing sufficient protetin to kill their host. Even if every protein produced was capable of destroying a cell (which never happens) it would take thousands if not millions of bacteria over a long time period to kill the host. Now this is where the catch is, it takes energy to produce proteins which the bacteria could otherwise be utilising for other things, like surviving. If a bacteria is pumping out enough proteins to kill the surrounding cells it will be diverted from its normal tasks (but please remember that a bacteria is not actually capable of thought) and will not stand much of a change of survival. <br />
<br />
:::Oh (and this sort of relates to all of the last three points), you should be aware that bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract (our guts) are in most cases not under attack by the human immune system as they are technically outside of the body. Therefore evolving to overcome the host's defences is not going to have any difference, and will just be wasting energy. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 19:14, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Alice, according to evolutionary theory, species that fail to evolve die. And there are no evolutionary dead ends other than those that die off. If it's alive, it's evolving. Yet we don't see any evolving going on despite the fact that the rate of evolution has to be so phenomenally fast that it should easily be seen. In fact, this lack of obvious evolution has led to someone inventing the idea of "punctuated equilibrium" to explain away why we don't see it happening all the time. It's a load of nonsensical, unprovable bull. I used to believe every word of it, but when I approached it with a critical eye (something that is NEVER allowed by the evolutionary dogmatists), I found it to be very, very wanting. This "evolving" E. coli proves nothing. It's still E. coli. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:02, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Jinxmchue, wrong. Evolutionary theory gives various examples of species that have not evolved (or evolved very little) in millions of years; coelacanths are one. Species that fail to evolve ''when their environment changes'' die; species in an unchanging habitat have no need to evolve one they have adapted to it sufficiently. [[User:Bmalee|bmalee]] 07:56, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::The coelacanth is very likely the greatest example of how wrong the theory of evolution is. Evolutionists are beside themselves trying to explain how this supposedly millions of years extinct animal showed up in modern times showing absolutely no evolution. Are we to believe that the coelacanths' environment never changed in the millions of years since they were claimed to have died off? That must be quite a stable part of the earth indeed! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:04, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: You are both correct. Evolution does indeed say that creatures in non-changing environments have no need to evolve. bmalee is correct on that. However, you are also correct with your example of the coelacanth. Basically, the evolutionary argument that a given creature hasn't evolved because its environment didn't change is an ''ad hoc'' explanation without empirical evidence and without explanatory power. I don't know that the coelacanth is the greatest example, though, as there are much older living things that show no sign of change either. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:18, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: How is Jinx correct with that example, though? The current living species of coelacanth are not the same as the ones in fossils, which as far as we know are all extinct (although the most recent fossils do resemble the living ones found). It seems that 'modern' coelacanth are substantially larger than their ancestors, and live birth is also speculated to be (relatively) new to the species. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:27, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: Jinxmchue, you need to do some research. Modern coelacanths are anything but unchanged. For example, they're roughly three times as large as their ancient predecessors. Of the two known living species, neither are in the same genus as ancient coelacanths. Your statement is ''blatantly'' false. --[[User:Rspeed|Rspeed]] 16:31, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::The whole argument is false, whatever the changes in the Coelacanth. Just because there is '''one''' example of a creature that has not changed doesn't mean that ''no'' creatures have changed. That would be like finding one person who drives a 1958 Chevvy and concluding from it that car design hadn't changed at all in 50 years. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:35, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Peer Review Process==<br />
<br />
My apologies if I am contributing to a debate that has already closed, but skimmed through the letters exchanged and the debate here and noticed a slight discrepancy in understanding. The peer reviewers of a paper do not receive any data other than that which is eventually published in the journal (although some may be removed by the editor, such as for page restrictions). They exist to judge the method and to ensure that the conclusions are accurately drawn from the results provided in the paper. They do not check to make sure the raw data is properly summarised in the results, nor do they ever have access to the raw data. The checking of raw data is carried out after the paper is published, either through scientists reproducing the experiment or (such as in this case) obtaining materials and records directly from the scientist involved.<br />
<br />
Hope this clears things up. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 09:06, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Well I don't know the details of the peer review process. I also dunno about anyone else. But I did get a chuckle out of his little anecdote. For what its worth, it lightened my mood after 38 hours without sleep, (recipe for regret, I don't recommend it). [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 23:44, 24 June 2008<br />
<br />
== Reply to Lenski's second-last paragraph ==<br />
<br />
Dr. Lenski, I hope you get to read this.<br />
<br />
I have no dispute with most of your second letter (or your first one), and you will note above my objections to the letters being sent to you, but do wish to respond to your second-last paragraph (the P.P.P.S.). You point out earlier in your letter than Andy Schlafly lacks expertise in the relevant fields, but you then proceed to pontificate on an area in which you appear to have no expertise, biblical [[exegesis]].<br />
<br />
The main problem with your claim that God may have used evolution is not that He could not have, but that He said that he didn't (or, more precisely, what He said that He did is incompatible with evolution). What is "insulting to God" is rejecting what He has plainly told us that He did.<br />
<br />
This point has been made over and over by creationists, so your lack of awareness of this demonstrates that you have little idea of what creationists actually claim and believe, yet it seems that you yourself are willing to go beyond your expertise when it suits you.<br />
<br />
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:22, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
P.S. Don't take too much notice of some of the messages posted above, a few of which are likely parodist troublemakers.<br />
<br />
:He wasn't talking about Creationism (specifically Young Earth Creationism) though, Philip. As you are aware, many Christians, possibly the majority, reject YEC and use very similar arguments that Lenski iterated, i.e. that evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive and it is presumptuous of any of us to claim knowledge of how precisely God created the universe. Of course, that's the core disagreement between YEC and more theistic evolution positions. You would expect an evolutionary biologist to side with the latter in his appreciation and understanding of Christianity. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:39, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:Just to clarify - I'm not deliberately arguing, just pointing out what I understood to be his position on that bit. I agree wholeheartedly with your other sentiments. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:01, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Reading past all the deliberate insults the scientists tossed, we come to the claim that "God created living things via evolution". Taking a stab at [[theistic evolution]], the scientist twists the knife by speculating that God would use set in motion some sort of blind watchmaker mechanism to create everything. <br />
<br />
::As Philip indicated, this is so obviously incompatible with YE Creationism that you have to wonder how stupid the scientists thinks our readers are. And even OE Creationism (the only major kind left to consider) '''specifically''' posits that God intervened creatively. <br />
<br />
::So, once again, the scientists has made assertions without giving adequate explanation. Everything is either assumed to have been "already explained" or is embargoed information (so he and has colleagues can take credit). If I may use a Jewish expression, God forbid he should every give us a straight answer! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:48, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::Not "speculating", Ed; '''observing'''. The speculation lies in the assumption that what someone you trust, who was told by someone they trust who was told by someone ''they'' trusted - and so on throughout many generations and translations - told ''you'' is an objective fact, and that ''somewhere'' down the line, not a single person - most of whose names you will never know - either made an error in judgment about who to trust, mistranslated, took artistic license at filling in the blanks, or at the very least had unwittingly consumed some rather questionable mushrooms. This is precisely why empirical data is valued in science over anecdotal. <br />
<br />
:::You say God said so, I say bring him here to tell me in person. You say God doesn't work that way, I say my how convenient for you, now leave me alone, I'm busy doing science. [[User:Cantle|Cantle]] 23:48, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Ajkgordon, did I mention anything about YEC? Lenski was clearly talking about the God of the Bible, and the biblical description of creation, specifically including the length of time taken and the order of creation, is totally incompatible with the evolutionary story. If it is "presumptuous" to claim knowledge of how God created, then why do so many do that very thing by claiming that God used evolution? Rather, it's arrogant and presumptuous to reject His clear revelation for man-made ideas that ''presume'' that He wasn't involved!<br />
<br />
Cantle, that you must misrepresent the basis for believing in creation suggests that without doing so your case is weak, if valid at all. The ''evidence'' is that the Bible has been transmitted through time very accurately. The Bible is not "anecdotal"; it is ''eye-witness history'', exactly the same sort of thing that allows you to know about almost anything that you did not personally experience, such as World War I (assuming you're not old enough to remember that) or even the date of your birth. Yes, ''your'' argument is convenient that you arbitrarily require particular evidence and reject all the evidence that is available.<br />
<br />
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:46, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Philip, you mentioned Creationism and implicitly Biblical inerrancy, therefore, yes , you mentioned YEC by default. In other words, you appear to take any mention of Lenski's about Christianity to de-facto mean that he's talking about YEC, the only form of Christianity that you believe is right. But he wasn't. He was talking about Christianity in more general terms reflecting what a great deal of Christians believe - that is that evolution and Christianity are not mutually incompatible. Surely you can see this while not agreeing with it. This is the type of Christianity he was talking about and how he can maintain respect for it (which he explicitly states) while carrying out his work. It is not pontification about an expertise he doesn't hold. It is a theological position of many many Christians, some of whom are academics of the highest standing in both science and theology. Again, you may vehemently deny that these Christians are right (or even possibly that they are not real Christians). But that doesn't change the fact that Lenski was talking about that Christian position and not Biblical inerrency. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:43, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Ed, similar reply. Lenski wasn't talking about Creationism. He was repeating the theological position of many learned Christian theologians that evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant. Many do. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:43, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I don't understand the phrase, "evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive." Are you speaking about the meaning of evolution in the sense of, "All forms of life evolved naturally, i.e., by the action of physical forces alone, and without any direct intervention by God"? If so, then I wonder which denominations of Christianity accept this disavowal of Creationism? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:17, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks for the question, Ed. Please remember this isn't me saying this but many academic theologians from mainstream Christianity including Roman Catholics, Anglicans and Protestants. In most cases it seems to mean that the jury is out - that their Christianity doesn't exclude evolution in the same way that it doesn't exclude the Big Bang. This seems to be borne from the position that mortals shouldn't limit God's creativity and that the Bible, particularly the Genesis account, shouldn't taken literally. While this might not be a majority position in the US (I don't know), it probably is in the rest of the Christian world - not necessarily by the layman (the subject doesn't really crop up that often!) but by members of Christian academia. In fact, admitting my ignorance, it might not even be a majority elsewhere but it certainly is a firmly held belief among a significant section of Christianity.<br />
:::What I am trying to suggest to Philip's original point in reply to Lenski, is that Lenski almost certainly wasn't referring to Creationist Christianity. (I doubt he would be that ignorant to not understand the basic principles of YEC.) Many of us only have experience of Christianity as non-scientific and non-political spirituality and faith and, for the scientists among us, NOMA applies. This is amply demonstrated by the various scientists who were Christians developing scientific discoveries that would not agree with the YEC view; the most recent famous example probably being Father George Lemaitre, arguably the "discoverer" of the Big Bang. Whether we, as individual Christians, believe in these scientific theories or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that many others do and it was to this Christian view that I presume Lenski was referring. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 09:46, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::You thanked me for "the question", but I asked two questions. And you didn't answer either one, so I will repeat them here (with numbers for easy reference):<br />
::# Are you speaking about the meaning of evolution in the sense of, "All forms of life evolved naturally, i.e., by the action of physical forces alone, and without any direct intervention by God"? ::#If so, then I wonder which denominations of Christianity accept this disavowal of Creationism?<br />
<br />
::When you respond again, please indicate by number which question(s) you are answering. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:18, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
"''...you mentioned Creationism...''": I actually mentioned creation''ists'', with reference to what they've pointed out about what ''the Bible'' teaches. And despite the existence of "useful idiots" who try and force the text to say something contrary to what it clearly says, the Bible ''very clearly''&mdash;arguably ''overly'' clearly&mdash;says that creation took six days. That is not (just) a YEC view: That is the clear, unambiguous, indisputable (except by people who don't understand the language and have try and force-fit an anti-biblical view into the Bible) record of Scripture. Any five-year-old can read the Bible and learn that. And experts in Hebrew agree. And the church believed that until the anti-biblical views of uniformitarianism changed that (that is, long ages wasn't something that was learned from Scripture, but from outside).<br />
<br />
"''He was talking about Christianity in more general terms reflecting what a great deal of Christians believe...''": Yes, but in doing so he was making a theological claim, which is (presumably) outside his area of expertise.<br />
<br />
"''This seems to be borne from the position that mortals shouldn't limit God's creativity and that the Bible, particularly the Genesis account, shouldn't taken literally.''": However, this position only arose as an attempt to incorporate what ''seemed'' to these ''non-scientists'' a scientific fact&mdash;''which it is not''. So basically they've been hoodwinked by scientists proclaiming a supposed scientific truth that is actually an anti-biblical philosophy. Prior to around 200 years ago, the Genesis account was taken literally. Again, the move to taking it non-literally was not based on theological understanding nor a better appreciation of the language, but an attempt to accommodate the supposedly-scientific but actually anti-biblical ideas of fallible men.<br />
<br />
"''Lenski almost certainly wasn't referring to Creationist Christianity''": No, he was referring to the God of the Bible, and that is what I was talking about in response.<br />
<br />
"''I doubt he would be that ignorant to not understand the basic principles of YEC''": From what I've seen many times over, I'd be surprised if he ''did'' understand.<br />
<br />
"''...for the scientists among us, NOMA applies.''" You mean that principle dreamt up by a Marxist that tries to claim for science areas that the Bible claims, such as how things got started? NOMA itself is anti-biblical.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3855/#noma]<br />
<br />
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:01, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Philip, it was not my intention to get involved in a debate about YEC and non-YEC Christianity. You appear to have missed my point almost certainly due to my clumsiness. My apologies. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 09:40, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Fair Warning==<br />
Your own senior sysops [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=next&oldid=475426 warned you] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=next&oldid=475433 repeatedly] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=next&oldid=476314 that this would not go well]. I think it's only fair that those fair warnings are acknowledged by those of us who claim to "know better" - some here know better too, but couldn't turn the ship around in time. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 11:26, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:What sort of Liberal defeatism are you bound up in, and why do you assume, without examining the facts of the matter, that this has not gone well? Have a look at the lead on the front page, and read Professor Lenski's message. 'By their words shall ye know them'! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:39, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::'By their words shall ye know them'. Is that a quote? And if so where is it from? It sounds like it's a corruption of Matthew 7:16, but I don't know if it's just made up or from somewhere else or just a mistake.[[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 14:30, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Please be charitable==<br />
<br />
[[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] was trying to warn you about the risk of ridicule. Please be charitable and unblock him.[[User:Veronica|Veronica]] 10:02, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&oldid=478060 See this]<br />
<br />
:Veronica, please see my response to 'Fair Warning' above. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Questions for Aschlafly , not Bugler ==<br />
(only because Bugler seems to be answering all the questions to Aschlafly)<br />
<br />
* I am repeating DanielB's question. Prof. Lenski has agreed to share the data.. actually the real samples to anyone with the credentials. Are you satisfied by his response?<br />
<br />
* How can I obtain an uncensored version of the letter?<br />
<br />
Please answer... I would love to hear from the top man himself. not any of the acolytes. <br />
<br />
thank you in anticipation. --[[User:Kajira|Kajira]] 14:10, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Seconded, I'd love to hear Mr. Schlafly's responce to Lenki's second letter. He basically agreed to all demands, stating the required conditions under which they can be met, so what's going to happen now? (now signed) --[[User:Alcari|Alcari]] 17:45, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Well I hope we're not going to stop here. It's not just an issue of will the evolutionist make their data open to the public, but we must validate that data, yes? I'm curious to know which university Mr Schlafly will be working with to receive the biological samples and also I'm curious to know what researcher(s) he will ask to experiment/validate the data. I don't recall an evolutionist ever being this open with their data so this is all so very intriguing. Perhaps the Discovery Institute could help, they have a laboratory in Seattle Washington where they conduct intelligent design experiments and biology research all the time. That would be a logical resource. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Kajira, I realise that you want to hear from Andy, but as for your second question, I guess that you could write to him yourself.<br />
<br />
Miles, from a quick bit of research, it seems that although the DI ''fund'' a laboratory, it's not part of the DI. Second, as I've mentioned before and repeated just now, the DI is not likely to have too much of an issue with this research (apart from the claims that it supports evolution, which it doesn't), so they may not want to waste their time with it.<br />
<br />
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:36, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Why do you say that it does not support evolution?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 15:05, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Question concerning deletions==<br />
<br />
Bugler,<br />
<br />
I notice that one of your recent edits deleted a substantial amount of discussion. Might I ask whether this was intentional, and if so, why it was necessary to do so? Thanks. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:No. I don't know how this happened. I shall restore the [passage concerned. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:23, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Thank you! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Liberal Deceit + Atheistic Pseudo-Science ==<br />
<br />
People on this board have made "broad generalizations" against Lenski and assumed that he is: 1. An atheist, 2. A liberal. <br />
<br />
Who says that he doesn't have socially conservative values? Also, he states in his most recent letter that he's also a church-goer. He never said that he's a raging Richard Dawkins, PZ Meyers atheist, or an atheist at all. So someone please clarify for me, is it possible to be conservative and also be a scientist who has discovered "alleged" evidence of evolution? Is it also OK for that person to not be an atheist or a liberal? --eligus<br />
<br />
Point well-taken. However, I don't see how his faith or lack thereof is at all relevant. The scope of the argument is microevolution in E. coli, not Lenski's personal beliefs. --[[User:R2d2fan|R2d2fan]] 23:53, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Evidence of Conservative Christian Evolutionist ==<br />
<br />
I am relatively new here - I created this account so that I could respond to the above question. Although I have been around here for about a year reading. I graduated from Westmont College in (gasp!) California. It is a Conservative Christian College (because the faculty and staff are Conservative Christians). The keynote speaker for my graduation was Condeleeza Rice. What am I getting at? Well at least two of the Professors in the Biology department believe in Evolution, which I don't find much problem with. I don't see how it makes God any less powerful or awesome if he set Evolution in motion. The Bible speaks of Free will given to mankind so that we might chose to love God. Why couldn't God give Free Will to nature...it mentions how all of creation also worships and rejoices God.<br />
<br />
I think that this whole Evolution vs. Creationism is an overblown Non-issue. Much like how the Medieval Catholic Church argued against Galileo regarding the Rotation of the Earth around the Sun. Just because the Bible isn't Crystal Clear on this point doesn't mean that we have to accept some very narrow idea of HOW God created everything. If we need something to get rilled up about why aren't we concerned about all the money that we (Conservatives) are losing from the out of control banks and Commodities Speculators (Enron Loophole). That's something we Conservatives should legitimately get pissed off about!<br />
<br />
{{unsigned|Stgulik}}<br />
<br />
: The issue is not so much what God ''could'' have done, but what He ''said'' He did. And He said (and this is something that the Bible ''is'' "Crystal Clear" about) that He created everything in six days. That by itself (and there's much more) means that evolution is wrong. And why do we need to get "rilled up" about it? Simply because evolution undermines the very foundations of the Bible. According to evolution, death (and suffering, etc.) is a natural part of life, and there was no Adam and Eve. In fact, if creatures didn't die (the less fit ones), then evolution could not have progressed. According to the Bible, death (and suffering, etc.) was not part of the original creation, but the result of sin. So if evolution is true, there was no original sin, and therefore no need of a Saviour&mdash;Jesus is out of a job! This is a very simple explanation, but basically if evolution is true, then the entire teaching of the Bible (not just the first chapter or so of Genesis) is dead wrong. Christians ''need'' to get "rilled up" about it. And even the atheists realise this: <br />
{{QuoteBox|And the creationists have also shown irrefutably that those liberal and neo–orthodox Christians who regard the creation stories as myths or allegories are undermining the rest of Scripture, for if there was no Adam, there was no fall; and if there was no fall there was no hell; and if there was no hell, there was no need of Jesus as Second Adam and Incarnate Savior, crucified and risen. As a result, the whole biblical system of salvation collapses.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3459]}}<br />
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:11, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks, Philip. Now I think I understand.--[[User:Aristotle56|Aristotle56]] 09:19, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::: You're welcome. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:29, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Why... ==<br />
<br />
...is Mr. Schlafly criticizing Professor Lenski's attitude, when it was Mr. Schafley and other Conservapedia editors who rudely accused Prof. Lenski of deliberate fraud, without proof?<br />
<br />
Both of Professor Lenski's responses appear to be thoughtful, well-written, and thorough. He addressed the misconceptions regarding the disputed claims and also addressed how other editors on this website had attempted to explain to Mr. Schlafly how such rude behavior is inconsistent with Christian values. He has also made the data from the study available and even offered the actual bacteria themselves - what else is left?<br />
<br />
As a Christian, I am disappointed by Mr. Schlafly's behavior and the personal attacks made by his followers and I will pray for them to examine their hearts and see if their motives are prideful or simply overzealous.<br />
<br />
"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth." ~Matthew 5:5<br />
<br />
[[User:Blessed|Blessed]] 23:56, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Closure?==<br />
<br />
Given Professor Lenski's second response, it would be good if we can finally achieve closure on this issue. Not only has Professor Lenski identified where the relevant data is in his published work, but he's offered to share additional details and even samples of the bacteria from the experiment, provided the request is made in a professional manner by qualified individuals. <br />
<br />
It's unfortunate that the only official response from CP has been a sarcastic comment on the main page news section. That comment is particularly ironic in implying that the tone of Professor Lenski's second response was inappropriate, given the following assertions by Andrew Schlafly on this page:<br />
<br />
* "What we have here is the unacceptable opposite: a scientific claim without production of the data." --Aschlafly 21:12, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
* "I'm starting to think that even the peer reviewers for the paper never checked the data, if the data continue to be withheld." --Aschlafly 10:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
* "If I'm reading the dates on the front of this particular paper correctly, I think peer review was a mere 15 days or so. Looks to me like a rubber-stamp process for this subject matter despite making claims that were reported as being newsworthy." --Aschlafly 16:47, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
* "Don't pretend that Lenski welcomes independent review of the data." --Aschlafly 15:15, 19 June 2008 (EDT) <br />
<br />
What ''would'' be appropriate is a statement from Andrew Schlafly acknowledging that these statements were out of line, along with a retraction of them. I would hope in any case to have a meaningful statement of response to Professor Lenski's second note come from Mr. Schlafly himself, without the intervention of others looking to speak on his behalf.<br />
<br />
What I expect, frankly, is for this entry to be removed and my ID to be blocked, just as it was last week in answer to my request to stop speculating and allow Professor Lenski to respond himself. I appreciated the integrity shown in publishing the text of Lenski's second response, so maybe this request for professional closure will last more than a few minutes after all. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:57, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Reply to the above ==<br />
<br />
: The comments above by defenders of withholding data have been unsatisfactory, to say the least. <br />
<br />
: Lenski says in his published paper: "Z.D.B. and R.E.L. [Lenski] analyzed data"[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf]<br />
<br />
: So where are all the data Lenski said he analyzed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:27, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::As clearly stated in Professor Lenski's second response:<br />
<br />
::: ''"Finally, let me now turn to our data. As I said before, the relevant methods and data about the evolution of the citrate-using bacteria are in our paper. In three places in our paper, we did say 'data not shown', which is common in scientific papers owing to limitations in page length, especially for secondary or minor points. None of the places where we made such references concern the existence of the citrate-using bacteria; they concern only certain secondary properties of those bacteria. We will gladly post those additional data on my website." ''<br />
<br />
::If the additional data is not on his website by now, I'm sure it will be soon. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 07:45, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Off for Vacation==<br />
Wow, off for a bit of vacation and I find this when I return, I can not believe how far this has gone. For someone to even suggest testing the bacterial samples without identifying a lab and storage facility is amazing. (I guess not many here know much about -80 freezers, culturing cryopreserved cells, sequencing the genome and associated costs for such work, not to mention MTAs.) I am a bit ashamed that I was associated in the final reply from Lenski due to the stance I held through out this debackaul. <br />
<br />
Andy, I hope this finally answers your questions and puts to rest your argument about Lenski withholding data and such. His response was, to say the least, colorful but informative and provided enough information that this argument can be put to rest. It is not Lenski's responsibility to train everyone who inquires about his work in the sciences needed to understand such work. When you could not identify an ARA that should have been an indicator that perhaps you needed a professional biological scientist to assist you. (A BSE will not get you very far in understanding gene expression or differentiating between bacterial mutants) Your insistence that Lenski is still with holding data seems to be without limits; what data would you accept? I believe you are not evaluating what Lenski has said in an objective manner, thus allowing for a limited understanding of the material. If you wish to continue then I recommend this (which seems to have been recommended by Philip), wait till other qualified labs have evaluated the work then question if the Lenski's work is found to be questionable.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:31, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Anyone a biologist?==<br />
Just for the sake of asking is ''anyone'' involved in this discussion an actual biologist? You know, like having a bachelor's degree in it or something? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:57, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I have a BS in Microbiology, but I don't think my credentials matter. If I try to claim that I know more, I'll be blocked for bullying. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]<br />
<br />
Point 14 of [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]] says "We do not drive away experts by pretending that some random anonymous user who just signed up is as knowledgeable and authoritative as a scholar with decades of experience in teaching or research.". I would have though your views would be listened to with extra attention. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:35, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Obviously, you have not been at Conservapedia very long.--[[User:Fernandez|Fernandez]] 14:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:What do you mean, Fernandez? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:23, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::The reply by Fernandez was deleted by an Admin. Can we either remove the questions or put the reply back? Otherwise it looks as if Bugler asked a question and Fernandez never replied to it. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:06, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Here, I will put it back: <br />
Editors who have expertise in certain areas are banned if the powers that be at Conservapedia disagree with them. A couple examples that come to mind. One is PalMD, a physician (and who provided his credentials), who attempted to correct the misinformation in Conservapedia's article linking abortion to breast cancer. Another is the historian "franklin" who contested much of the misinformation on the debate page regarding Franklin's deist leanings. You should read that debate page Bugler. You will notice that the person arguing with Franklin kept asking for views on "school prayer" as if that had something to do with the topic. But it does make my point that Conservapedia does not encourage experts to stay, but activly seeks to drive them away.--[[User:Fernandez|Fernandez]] 14:34, 26 June 2008 (EDT)--[[User:Thompson|Thompson]] 14:55, 26 June 2008 (EDT)--[[User:Watwood|Watwood]] 16:13, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Attitude? ==<br />
<br />
He makes some good points. To be entirely honest I could care less about the "attitude" that my tax dollars appropriate. I just want results. I'll take an effective, mean spirited president any day over an incompetent, polite one (Jimmy Carter anyone?). --[[User:RobinGoodfellow|RobinGoodfellow]] 15:46, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: What is important is that Lenski is a superb scientist. I'd be a little testy too if some dweeb asked me for data AFTER I had already provided it. Andy got the smackdown he deserved, and is now the laughing stock of the internet.--[[User:Watwood|Watwood]] 16:27, 26 June 2008 (EDT)</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal_media_bias&diff=482343Talk:Liberal media bias2008-06-26T20:22:27Z<p>Daphnea: </p>
<hr />
<div>Another great article. Awesome Ed! [[User:Orrelon|Orrelon]] 09:29, 16 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
What, no quote from [[Ann Coulter|Ann]] or [[Michael Savage|Michael]]? any sources? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 09:34, 16 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Please add some quotes. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:36, 16 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I don't think we are allowed to use Ann as a reference. [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]] says: "We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support.". [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:21, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Parody==<br />
That last sentence is clearly a parody.<br />
:fixed. '''[[user:FernoKlump|<font color="#000066" >FernoKlump</font>]]'''<sup>[[User:FernoKlump/petition|<font color="#bd2433" >Look at this petition!]]</font></sup> 16:12, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Hmmm . . . that original sentence was added as "Conservapedia actively fights Liberal media bias with an unbiased front page, offering our own opinion on the facts" and Ed Poor trimmed out the "offering our own opinion on the facts" part. So it was originally added by a parodist, but I guess the rest of it was "sysop-approved". My bad. '''[[user:FernoKlump|<font color="#000066" >FernoKlump</font>]]'''<sup>[[User:FernoKlump/petition|<font color="#bd2433" >Look at this petition!]]</font></sup> 16:20, 26 June 2008 (EDT)</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal_media_bias&diff=482342Talk:Liberal media bias2008-06-26T20:22:07Z<p>Daphnea: </p>
<hr />
<div>Another great article. Awesome Ed! [[User:Orrelon|Orrelon]] 09:29, 16 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
What, no quote from [[Ann Coulter|Ann]] or [[Michael Savage|Michael]]? any sources? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 09:34, 16 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Please add some quotes. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:36, 16 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I don't think we are allowed to use Ann as a reference. [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia differs from Wikipedia]] says: "We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support.". [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:21, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Parody==<br />
That last sentence is clearly a parody.<br />
:fixed. '''[[user:FernoKlump|<font color="#000066" >FernoKlump</font>]]'''<sup>[[User:FernoKlump/petition|<font color="#bd2433" >Look at this petition!]]</font></sup> 16:12, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Hmmm . . . that original sentence was added as "Conservapedia actively fights Liberal media bias with an unbiased front page, offering our own opinion on the facts" and Ed Poor trimmed out the "offering our own opinion on the facts" part. So it was originally added by a parodist, but I guess the rest of it was "sysop-approved". My bad. '''[[user:FernoKlump|<font color="#000066" >FernoKlump</font>]]'''<sup>[[User:FernoKlump/petition|<font color="#bd2433" >Look at this petition!]]</font></sup> 16:20, 26 June 2008 (EDT)</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal_media_bias&diff=482341Talk:Liberal media bias2008-06-26T20:21:57Z<p>Daphnea: </p>
<hr />
<div>Another great article. Awesome Ed! [[User:Orrelon|Orrelon]] 09:29, 16 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
What, no quote from [[Ann Coulter|Ann]] or [[Michael Savage|Michael]]? any sources? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 09:34, 16 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Please add some quotes. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:36, 16 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I don't think we are allowed to use Ann as a reference. [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia differes from Wikipedia]] says: "We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support.". [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:21, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Parody==<br />
That last sentence is clearly a parody.<br />
:fixed. '''[[user:FernoKlump|<font color="#000066" >FernoKlump</font>]]'''<sup>[[User:FernoKlump/petition|<font color="#bd2433" >Look at this petition!]]</font></sup> 16:12, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Hmmm . . . that original sentence was added as "Conservapedia actively fights Liberal media bias with an unbiased front page, offering our own opinion on the facts" and Ed Poor trimmed out the "offering our own opinion on the facts" part. So it was originally added by a parodist, but I guess the rest of it was "sysop-approved". My bad. '''[[user:FernoKlump|<font color="#000066" >FernoKlump</font>]]'''<sup>[[User:FernoKlump/petition|<font color="#bd2433" >Look at this petition!]]</font></sup> 16:20, 26 June 2008 (EDT)</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Time_dilation&diff=482338Time dilation2008-06-26T20:13:34Z<p>Daphnea: No point in having this very short article when there is a much better explanation here</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[Theory of Relativity]]</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=482332Theory of relativity2008-06-26T20:11:57Z<p>Daphnea: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Relativity''' refers to two closely-related theories in [[physics]], and to postulates that led to the first theory. Special relativity (SR) is a theory which describes the laws of motion for non-accelerating bodies traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light. As speeds approach zero, Special Relativity tends towards equivalence with Newton's Laws of Motion. Special Relativity was developed by [[Hendrik Lorentz]], [[Henri Poincaré]], Hermann Minkowski<ref>"German mathematician who developed the geometrical theory of numbers and who made numerous contributions to number theory, mathematical physics, and the theory of relativity." [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9052860/Hermann-Minkowski Hermann Minkowski -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia]</ref><ref>[http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Minkowski.html Hermann Minkowski, Biography]</ref>, and [[Albert Einstein]].<br />
<br />
General Relativity (GR) is a theory which explains the laws of motion as viewed from accelerating reference frames and includes a geometric explanation for gravity. This theory was developed by [[David Hilbert]] and [[Albert Einstein]] as an extension of the postulates of Special Relativity.<ref>"[T]he German mathematician David Hilbert submitted an article containing the correct field equations for general relativity five days before Einstein."[http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/physics/relativity/history-1.html Nobel Prize historical account]</ref> A dramatic but later discredited claim by Sir [[Arthur Eddington]] of experimental proof of General Relativity in 1919 made Einstein a household name.<br />
<br />
== Special Relativity ==<br />
Special Relativity is usually explained in terms of two assumptions (postulates):<br />
<br />
# ''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all (inertial) observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''<br />
# ''The laws of physics are identical in all inertial reference frames.''<br />
<br />
In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:<br />
# It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.<ref>This assumption is commonly restated in this manner. For example, a discussion of hypothetical [[tachyons]] talks "about using tachyons to transmit information faster than the speed of light, '''in violation of Special Relativity'''."[http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html] However, there is some question whether the Theory of Special Relativity really restricts faster-than-light communication of information.</ref><br />
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.<br />
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).<br />
<br />
Special Relativity (SR) was initially developed by [[Henri Poincaré]] and [[Hendrik Lorentz]], working on problems in electrodynamics and the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]], which had not found any sign of [[aether (science)|luminiferous aether]], which was believed to be the substance which carried electromagnetic waves. Special relativity alters [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion by assuming that the speed of light will be the same for all observers, despite their relative velocities and the source of the light. (Therefore, if A sends a beam of light to B, and both measure the speed, it will be the same for both, no matter what the relative velocity of A and B. In Newtonian/Galilean mechanics, If A sends a physical object at a particular velocity towards B, and nothing slows it, the velocity of the object relative to B depends on the velocities of the object and of B relative to A.)<br />
<br />
At low speeds (relative to light-speed), the Einstein-Lorentz relativity equations are equivalent to Newton's equations. The famous equation attributed to Einstein, ''E=mc<sup>2</sup>'', describes the relationship between energy and the rest mass of a body.<br />
<br />
Relativity is essential for massive or fast-moving bodies; for electromagnetism; for light and other radiation; for quantum field theory; for spin; and for nuclear energy. Particles at low mass and low speed can be accurately approximated by [[classical mechanics]] (such as [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion). At the two extremes, modeling the behavior of electrons requires that relativistic effects be taken into account (the chemically significant phenomenon of [[electron spin]] arises from relativity), and the course light passing through a region containing many massive bodies such as galaxies will be distorted ([[classical mechanics]], in which light travels with infinite speed in straight lines, does not predict this). These are both experimentally confirmed ([[electron spin]] was known before relativity arose, and telescopic observations confirm that galactic clusters distort the paths of the light passing through them).<br />
<br />
== General Relativity ==<br />
<br />
General Relativity is a mathematical extension of Special Relativity. GR proposes that space-time is curved by massive bodies, so that near any massive body, the sum of the angles in a triangle is not exactly 180 degrees. <br />
<br />
The GR field equations are <br />
:<math> G_{uv} = 8\pi\, T_{uv} </math><br />
where ''G<sub>uv</sub>'' is the [[Einstein curvature tensor]], and ''T<sub>uv</sub>'' is the [[stress-energy tensor]], ''G<sub>uv</sub>'' and ''T<sub>uv</sub>'' are both rank 2 symmetric tensors. The GR field equations is a system of [[partial differential equations]] that relates the curvature of space to the mass occupying the space.<br />
<br />
General relativity provides one explanation for the seemingly anomalous precession of Mercury's perihelion. There are other explanations based in Newtonian gravity, such as factoring in the pull of the other planets on Mercury's orbit. One Newtonian explanation requires a slight alternation to the precise inverse-square relation of Newtonian gravity to distance, which is disfavored by mathematicians due to its inelegance in integrating.<br />
<br />
British Historian Paul Johnson declares the turning point in 20th century to have been when fellow Briton Sir [[Arthur Eddington]], an esteemed English astronomer, ventured out on a boat off Africa in 1919 with a local Army unit to observe the bending of starlight around the sun during a total eclipse. Upon his return to England declared that his observations proven the theory of relativity. In fact recent analysis of Eddington's work revealed that he was biased in selecting his data, and that overall his data were inconclusive about the theory of relativity. The prediction was later confirmed by more rigorous experiments, such as those performed by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] <ref>[http://www.spaceimages.com/gravlen.html Hubble Gravitational Lens Photo]</ref><ref> [http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/galaxies/lensing.html Gravitational Lensing] </ref><ref>[http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html]</ref>. Lorentz has this to say on the discrepancies between the empirical eclipse data and Einstein's predictions.<br />
<br />
::''It indeed seems that the discrepancies may be ascribed to faults in observations, which supposition is supported by the fact that the observations at Prince's Island, which, it is true, did not turn out quite as well as those mentioned above, gave the result, of 1.64, somewhat lower than Einstein's figure.''<ref>Lorentz, H.A. [http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity]</ref><br />
<br />
The prediction that light is bent by gravity is predicted both by Newtonian physics and relativity, but relativity predicts a larger deflection.<br />
<br />
Special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity where all gravitational fields are weak. Alternatively, special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity when all reference frames are inertial (non-accelerating and without gravity).<br />
<br />
==Time dilation==<br />
[[Image:Light cone.png|right|thumb|Light-cone diagram]]<br />
One important consequence of SR's postulates is that an observer in one reference frame will observe a clock in another frame to be "ticking" more slowly than in the observer's own frame. This can be proven mathematically using basic geometry, if the postulates are physically true without exception.<br />
<br />
The length of an event <math>t</math>, as seen by a (relative) stationary observer observing an event is given by:<br />
<br />
<math> t = \frac{t_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math> <br />
<br />
Where <br />
:<math>t_0</math> is the "proper time" or the length of the event in the observed frame of reference.<br />
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.<br />
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x10<sup>8</sup> ms<sup>-1</sup>).<br />
<br />
Evidence for time dilation was discovered by studying [[muon decay]]. [[Muons]] are [[subatomic]] [[particles]] with a very short [[halflife]] (1.53 microseconds at rest) and a very fast speed (0.994c). By putting muon detectors at the top (D<sub>1</sub>) and bottom (D<sub>2</sub>) of a mountain with a separation of 1900m, scientists could measure accurately the proportion of muons reaching the second detector in comparison to the first. The proportion found was different to the proportion that was calculated without taking into account relativistic effects.<br />
<br />
Using the equation for exponential decay, they could use this proportion to calculate the time taken for the muons to decay, relative to the muon. Then, using the time dilation equation they could then work out the dilated time. The dilated time showed a good correlation with the time it took the muons to reach the second sensor, thereby supporting the existence of time dilation.<br />
<br />
The time taken for a muon to travel from D<sub>1</sub> to D<sub>2</sub> as measured by a stationary observer is:<br />
<br />
<math> t = \frac{s}{v} = \frac{1900}{0.994\times(3\times10^{8})} = 6.37\mu\textrm{s} </math><br />
<br />
The fraction of muons arriving at D<sub>2</sub> in comparison to D<sub>1</sub> was 0.732. (Given by <math> \frac{N}{N_0} = 0.732 </math>)<br />
<br />
Since (from the equation for exponential decay) <math> \frac{N}{N_{0}} = e^{-\lambda t_{0}} </math> then<br />
<br />
<math> t_{0} = \frac {ln(0.732)}{ln (0.2)} \times 1.53\times 10^{-6} = 0.689\mu\textrm{s}</math><br />
<br />
This gives the time for the proportion of decay to occur for an observer who is stationary, relative to the muon.<br />
<br />
Putting this into the time dilation equation gives:<br />
<br />
<math> t = \frac{t_{0}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}} = \frac{0.689 \times{10^{-6}}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{0.994^{2}}{1^{2}}}} = 6.3\times 10^{-6}\textrm{s}</math><br />
<br />
This is in good agreement with the value calculated above, thereby providing evidence to support time dilation.<br />
<br />
==Length contraction==<br />
When two inertial reference frames move past each other in a straight line with constant relative velocity, an observer in one reference frame would observe a metre rule in the other frame to be shorter.<br />
<br />
The length, <math>l</math>, of an object as seen by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:<br />
<br />
<math> l = l_{0} \sqrt{1- \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}</math><br />
<br />
Where <br />
:<math>l_0</math> is the "proper length" or the length of the object in the observed frame of reference.<br />
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.<br />
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x10<sup>8</sup> ms<sup>-1</sup>).<br />
<br />
==Mass increase==<br />
<br />
We also see that as a body moves with increasing velocity its [[mass]] also increases. <br />
<br />
The mass, <math>m</math>, of an object as detected by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:<br />
<br />
<math> m = \frac{m_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math><br />
<br />
Where <br />
:<math>m_0</math> is the "rest mass" or the mass of the object when it is at rest.<br />
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity of the object.<br />
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x10<sup>8</sup> ms<sup>-1</sup>).<br />
<br />
Since speed is relative, it follows that two observers in different inertial reference frames may disagree on the mass and kinetic energy of a body. Since all inertial reference frames are treated on an equal footing, it follows that mass and energy are interchangeable.<br />
<br />
There is a logical difficulty, however, to an increase in relativistic mass. Such increase would only exist in the direction of motion, and the rest mass would remain intact with respect to a force applied in a direction orthogonal to velocity. But mass is not a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is unacceptable. Accordingly, most physicists today avoid Einstein's original reliance on relativistic mass and his suggestion that mass increases. Instead, most physicists today teach that F=<math>\gamma</math>ma where <math>\gamma</math> varies with velocity as mass m remains constant. Force F is a vector and thus can handle the directional aspect of the relativistic effects better than the concept of relativistic mass can.<br />
<br />
==Evidence for Relativity==<br />
There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity.<ref>[http://nobelprize.org/ Nobelprize.org]</ref><br />
<br />
In 1972, scientists flew extremely accurate clocks around the world in both directions on commercial airlines, and were directly able to observe the relativistic "twin paradox" the eastbound clock gained 273 ns and the westbound clock lost 59 ns, matching the predictions of general relativity to within experimental accuracy <ref>[http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment Hafele-Keating Experiment ]</ref><ref>As described in [http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?], a personal web page, which cites Haefele and Keating (1972), ''Science'' Vol. 177 pp 166-170 as its source</ref><ref>Sullivan, Walter (1972), "Relativity Theory Awaits Affirmation", September 23, 1972, p. 61. Note: Article refers to a different experiment, which Sullivan discusses, saying that if successful it would be "the second time within a year" that relativity had been confirmed, then proceeds to discuss Hafele[sic] and Keating's experiment as the first.</ref><br />
<br />
Predictions of relativity have historically been used to make the [[Global Positioning System]] ([[GPS]]) function properly. A 1996 article says:<br />
<br />
:"The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein's general theory of relativity would seem to require - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter - less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth."<ref>http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf</ref><ref>Some do claim that relativity is "vital" to GPS even though GPS developed independently of theoretical predictions and theoreticians disagree about how the relativistic effects for GPS should be calculated. ''See id. See also'' [http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR614/MR614.appb.pdf]</ref><br />
<br />
This article, which was published in 1996, goes on to propose relativistic corrections that might be used to design more accurate GPS systems. Clocks on board GPS satellites require adjustments to their clock frequencies if they are to be synchronized with those on the surface of the Earth. <br />
<br />
Tom Van Flandern, an astronomer hired to work on GPS in the late 1990s, concluded that "[t]he GPS programmers don't need relativity." He was quoted as saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein."<ref>http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html See also [http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP], where Van Flandern discusses how relativistic corrections might improve GPS accuracy.</ref> Asynchronization can be easily addressed through communications between the satellites and ground stations, so it is unclear why any theory would be needed for GPS. But other obscure physicists having no connection with GPS design claim that Van Flandern is wrong about GPS, and insist that relativity provides the best explanation for its timing adjustments.<ref>''Ibid.''</ref><br />
<br />
Some internet articles claim that GPS timing differences ''confirm'' the Theory of Relativity or its Lorentzian counterpart (which uses a preferred frame of reference). GPS clocks run slower in the weaker gravitation field of the satellites than on ground stations on Earth, with the effects predicted by general relativity far outweighing the effects predicted by special relativity. However, the articles claiming that the slower GPS satellite clocks confirm relativity do not address the effect, if any, of the weaker gravitational force under Newton's theory on the GPS satellite clocks.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Cassini-science-289.jpg|right|thumb|signal dipping into a gravity well around the [[sun]]]]<br />
The effects of relativity have been observed with the frequency shift of the signal being sent back to [[Earth]] several times as various spacecraft have dipped into the gravity wells around massive objects such as the [[sun]] (see image at right)<ref>[http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-releases-03/20031002-pr-a.cfm Saturn-Bound Spacecraft Tests Einstein's Theory]</ref> or Saturn<ref>[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517102.600-science-encounter-with-saturn-confirms-relativity-theory.html Encounter with Saturn confirms relativity theory]</ref>. A satellite called [[Gravity Probe B]] was put in orbit about the Earth to examine the effects of frame dragging and geodetic warping of space<ref>[http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/index.html NASA Gravity Probe B mission page]</ref><ref>[http://einstein.stanford.edu/ Gravity Probe B project page]</ref>, but the results were inconclusive. Note, however, that Newtonian mechanics also predicts deflection of light by gravity, and in the initial theory of relativity it predicted the same amount of deflection.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm</ref> Adjustments to the theory of relativity resulted in a prediction of a greater deflection of light than that predicated by Newtonian mechanics, though it is debatable how much deflection Newtonian mechanics should predict. <br />
<br />
None of the NASA spacecraft incorporates predictions of relativity into their own timing mechanisms, as Newtonian mechanics is adequate even for probes sent deep into space.<ref>There is no reported reliance on relativity by any space probe.</ref><br />
<br />
A decade of observation of the [[pulsar]] pair [[PSR 1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] detected a decline in its orbital period, which was attributed to a loss in energy by the system. It is impossible to measure the masses of the pulsars, their accelerations relative to the observers, or other fundamental parameters. Professors Joseph Taylor and Russell Hulse, who discovered the binary pulsar, found that physical values could be assigned to the pulsars to make the observed decline in orbital period consistent with the Theory of General Relativity, and for this they were awarded the 1993 [[Nobel Prize]] for Physics, which is the only award ever given by the Nobel committee for the Theory of Relativity.<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1993/press.html</ref> In 2004, Professor Taylor utilized a correction to the derivative of the orbital period to fit subsequent data better to the theory.<br />
<br />
The [[perihelion]] of Mercury's [[orbit]] [[precession|precesses]] at a measurable rate, but even after after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets in the [[solar system]], Newton's theory (assuming a precise inverse-square relationship for distance) predicts a rate of precession that differs from the measured rate by approximately 43 [[arcsecond]]s per century. General relativity was developed in part to provide an estimate for this rate of precession that better matches observations.<ref>http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html#SECTION032121000000000000000</ref> <ref> http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/pdf/CP6Doc30_English_pp146-200.pdf</ref> <ref> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/lectures/node117.html</ref><br />
<br />
General relativity predicts twice as much bending in light as it passes near massive objects than Newton's theory predicts,<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm</ref> a phenomenon known as [[gravitational lens|gravitational lensing]]. A large number of instances of gravitational lensing have been observed, and it is now a standard astronomical tool.<ref> http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/grav_lens.html</ref> <ref> http://astro.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/lens.html</ref> <ref> http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html</ref><br />
<br />
== Ostensible Paradoxes ==<br />
<br />
The Theory of Relativity implies that physical constants like the speed of light have remained constant. But at least one study suggests that physical constants, and possibly even the speed of light, have changed as the universe has aged.<ref>James Glanz and Dennis Overbye, "Cosmic Laws Like Speed of Light Might Be Changing, a Study Finds," August 15, 2001.[http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/15/science/15PHYS.html?ex=1185076800&en=d6467b6e3e346796&ei=5070]</ref><br />
<br />
"For the first time, scientists have experimentally demonstrated that sound pulses can travel at velocities faster than the speed of light, c. William Robertson's team from Middle Tennessee State University also showed that the group velocity of sound waves can become infinite, and even negative. ... Although such results may at first appear to violate special relativity (Einstein's law that no material object can exceed the speed of light), the actual significance of these experiments is a little different. These types of superluminal phenomena, Robertson et al. explain, violate neither causality nor special relativity, nor do they enable information to travel faster than c. In fact, theoretical work had predicted that the superluminal speed of the group velocity of sound waves should exist. 'The key to understanding this seeming paradox is that no wave energy exceeded the speed of light,' said Robertson."<ref>http://www.physorg.com/news88249076.html</ref><br />
<br />
"A team of researchers from the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) has successfully demonstrated, for the first time, that it is possible to control the speed of light – both slowing it down and speeding it up – in an optical fiber, using off-the-shelf instrumentation in normal environmental conditions. Their results, to be published in the August 22 issue of Applied Physics Letters, could have implications that range from optical computing to the fiber-optic telecommunications industry."<ref>http://www.scienceblog.com/light.html</ref> Both slowing down and speeding up of light within a substance other than a vacuum is made possible, because the light travels through the material, and that material affects the speed of light, i.e. a photon hits an electron, which then exits and emits a slightly lower energy photon out in the direction that the original photon was traveling, thus maintaining conservation of momentum. No matter how transparent an object may appear, it radically impacts the speed of the light traveling through it, as demonstrated by the refractive production of a rainbow by a crystal, which Newton himself discovered.<br />
<br />
"A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light - an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space and time. ... Dr Nimtz told New Scientist magazine: 'For the time being, this is the only violation of special relativity that I know of.'"<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/scispeed116.xml</ref><br />
<br />
==Pending research==<br />
<br />
Today some physicists are working on hypothesizing how general relativity might have related to the other three forces of nature during the first fraction of a second of the [[Big Bang]]. Two of the more commonly studied attempts are [[string theory]] and [[loop quantum gravity]], but they have failed to produce any evidence that science mandates a science must have, and both typically take large amounts of work to even conform to what scientists believe. Critics increasingly point out that string theory and loop quantum gravity are largely untestable and unfalsifiable, and thus potentially unscientific under the principles of science advanced by [[Karl Popper]].<ref>See, for example, ''Not Even Wrong'', by Peter Woit</ref><br />
<br />
Relativity continues to be tested and some physics professors remain skeptical of the theory, such as University of Maryland physics professor Carroll Alley, who served as the principle physicist on the Apollo lunar project.<ref>http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm</ref><br />
<br />
==Government Support for Relativistic research==<br />
The Theory of Relativity enjoys a disproportionate share of federal funding of physics research today,<ref>The Democratic Congress insisted on the $250 million LIGO project despite substantial criticism by scientists that it was wasting scarce research dollars. John Travis, "LIGO: a $ 250 million gamble; Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory; includes related article," ''Science'' p. 612 (Apr. 30, 1993). "Adding to the acrimony is LIGO's $ 250 million price tag, which some hold responsible for NSF's recent funding woes." ''Id.''</ref>. In at least one case that research has been unsuccessful. The $365 million dollar LIGO project has failed to detect the gravity waves predicted by relativity.<ref>http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/sept/gravitywaves/index.html</ref> <br />
<br />
== Political aspects of relativity ==<br />
<br />
There is a correlation between enthusiasm for the theory of relativity and political views. For example, [[Democratic]] presidential candidate [[Barack Obama]] helped publish an article by liberal law professor [[Laurence Tribe]] to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to [[abortion]].<ref>Tribe and Obama argued that the [[Constitution]] should be interpreted to establish a right to federally funded [[abortion]] and that, more generally, ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' does not go far enough. They insisted that a relativistic "curvature of space" could achieve this result by expanding application of the [[Constitution]] based on its impact on personal choice. "The ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' opinion ignored the way in which laws regulating pregnant women may shape the entire pattern of relationships among men, women, and children. It conceptualized abortion not in terms of the intensely public question of the subordination of women to men through the exploitation of pregnancy, but in terms of the purportedly private question of how women might make intimately personal decisions about their bodies and their lives. That vision described a part of the truth, but only what might be called the Newtonian part. ... [A] change in the surrounding legal setting can constitute state action that most threatens the sphere of personal choice. And it is a 'curved space' perspective on how law operates that leads one to focus less on the visible lines of legal force and more on how those lines are bent and directed by the law's geometry." Laurence H. Tribe, The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 16-17 (1989).</ref> As of June 2008, over 170 law review articles have cited this [[liberal]] application of the theory of relativity to legal arguments.<ref>Search conducted by [[User:Aschlafly]] in the LEXIS database "US Law Reviews and Journals, Combined," conducted June 1, 2008.</ref> Applications of the theory of relativity to change morality have also been common.<ref>"Mistakenly, in the minds of many, the theory of relativity became relativism."[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38081]</ref> Moreover, there is an unmistakable effort to censor or ostracize criticism of relativity.<ref>Although the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|liberally biased Wikipedia]] contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries, and even though publications like ''The Economist'' recognize the lack of scientific satisfaction in the theory (see, e.g., "Weighing the Universe," The Economist (Jan. 25, 2007)), Wikipedia's entry on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Relativity Theory of Relativity] omits one word of criticism.</ref> <br />
<br />
Physicist [[Robert Dicke]] of Princeton University was a prominent critic<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html</ref> of the theory of relativity, and Dicke's alternative "has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."<ref>"Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."[http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Essay_bekenstein.html] </ref> Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was never awarded a Nobel Prize.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Physics]]<br />
<br />
==External Links ==<br />
*[http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity, by H.A. Lorentz.]<br />
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com Relativity Calculator - Learn Special Relativity Mathematics ] The mathematics of special relativity presented in as simple and comprehensive manner possible within philosophical and historical contexts.</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=482329Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog2008-06-26T20:06:03Z<p>Daphnea: Removed answer</p>
<hr />
<div>== Final Copy of Letter Sent Wednesday afternoon ==<br />
<br />
Dear Prof. Lenski,<br />
<br />
This is my second request for your data underlying your recent paper, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of ''Escherichia coli''," published in PNAS (June 10, 2008) and reported in New Scientist ("Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in lab," June 9, 2008).<br />
<br>http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf<br />
<br>http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html<br />
<br />
Your work was taxpayer-funded, and PNAS represents that its authors will make underlying data available. I'd like to review the data myself and ensure availability for others, including experts and my students. Others have expressed interest in access to the data in addition to myself, and your website seems well-suited for public release of these data.<br />
<br />
If the data are voluminous, then I particularly request access to the data that was made available to the peer reviewers of your paper, and to the data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony supposedly developed Cit+. As before, I'm requesting the organized data themselves, not the graphs and summaries set forth in the paper and referenced in your first reply to me. Note that several times your paper expressly states, "data not shown."<br />
<br />
Given that this is my second request for the data, a clear answer is requested as to whether you will make the key underlying data available for independent review. Your response, or lack thereof, will be posted due to the public interest in this issue. Thank you.<br />
<br />
Andy Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D.<br />
<br>www.conservapedia.com<br />
<br>cc: PNAS, New Scientist publications<br />
<br />
:That was disappointing. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I don't blame him if he doesn't respond. What is this about Aschafly wanting to review the information himself. I thought he said that he wouldn't understand it, or something to that effect.[[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:21, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Well, I guess he didn't really need people to sign on with him, after all. Added to the project page.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 17:29, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Draft letter ==<br />
<br />
Dear Prof. Lenski,<br />
<br />
This is my second request for the data underlying your recent paper, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli," published in PNAS (June 10, 2008) and reported in New Scientist ("Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in lab," June 9, 2008).<br />
<br>http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf<br />
<br>http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html<br />
<br />
This work was taxpayer-funded, and PNAS represents that its authors will make underlying data available. I'd like to review the data myself and ensure availability for others, including experts and my students. Others have expressed interested in access to the data in addition to myself, and your website seems well-suited for public release of these data.<br />
<br />
If the data are voluminous, then I particularly request that access to the data made available to the peer reviewers of your paper, and data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony supposedly developed Cit+. As before, I'm requesting the organized data themselves, not the graphs and summaries set forth in the paper. Note that several times your paper expressly states, "data not shown."<br />
<br />
Given that this is my second request for the data, a clear answer is requested as to whether you will make the key data available for independent review. Thank you.<br />
<br />
Andy Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D.<br />
<br />
cc: PNAS, New Scientist publications<br />
<br />
:Given that he was very gracious in his last reply, you think maybe it would be a good idea to at least TRY not to sound like he's being accused of malfeasance? I'd suggest new wording but something much better is already available below. -Drek<br />
<br />
== List of people willing to join an email requesting the public release of Lenski's data ==<br />
<br />
Schedule permitting, a better version of the draft letter below (which someone diluted) will be sent tomorrow to Lenski, noting support by others (unspecified whom) at Conservapedia. Obviously Conservapedia rejects the limits on access to data proposed by several below. Public access to data means access by all, not merely by people having certain preferred credentials or education.<br />
<br />
This will be the second request for the data from Lenski. Given that the research was publicly funded and published in a Journal that has a policy of access to data, the expectation is that Lenski will release the data. But will he?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:40, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
: I'm not sure that you've ever spelt out exactly what data you are expecting. Somebody mentioned on this page that we might be talking about terabytes of data. Is that what you are asking for? Or what?<br />
: Also, I don't recall anybody actually said that the access to the data should be limited (and if you are talking about my comments and those of others that ''we'' should leave it to those who are qualified to see it, then I reject that we are proposing limits as such).<br />
: Neither have you responded to my comments about how it will make creationists look.<br />
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:58, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I "diluted it. I thought it needed to be more specific and polite. Since it is neither again, I am hesitant to put my name to it. There's no need to be brusque, and every reason to be as polite as possible.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 12:35, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
'''Current total of supporters: 7'''<br />
<br />
*[[User:Aschlafly]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:13, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
*[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 20:55, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
*--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 12:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
*--[[User:DeanS|DeanS<sup>talk</sup>]] 14:05, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
*[[User:Conservative]]---[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:52, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Wait a second... if I put my name on this list, is it going to get attached to some combative email? I don't want to just agree, when you seem to be ignoring my attempts to help draft this email. What were you proposing to send, Andy? If you wouldn't mind, could you post the text here before I have to decide if I want to attach my good name to it?--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 14:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::QFT. I likewise said earlier that I'd be happy to sign on, pending a review of the actual text to be sent. So long as the tone remains professional and polite I'm in. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: It will be polite and professional, of course. In fact, someone else can draft the text if he likes, as long as it simply requests '''public release of the data for public scrutiny''' and is free of any obfuscation like that displayed by some detractors on this page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:54, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::There's a draft that some folks are working on, below. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Provisionally willing, pending review of the finished draft. I make it a policy never to sign my name to anything I haven't read. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Let's work up a draft. Here's a start, and improvements are welcome:<br />
<br />
Dear Prof. Lenski,<br />
<br />
Your recent paper in PNAS, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key<br />
innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli,"[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf] has interested us greatly. Knowing PNAS policy of making data available, we were hoping you would accordingly oblige us with your recorded observations for a few key points.<br />
<br />
We respectfully request the data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony developed cit+; while we see excerpts in the paper, we were hoping to examine them in context. Your website[https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/] already discloses some older data, and seems well-suited for public release of the data underlying your recent paper.<br />
<br />
Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this.<br />
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:15, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I think we should probably be more specific, Andy. We're obviously not asking for twenty years' worth of notes, right? Or at least, I don't think we should ask for that.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 21:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I think it's reasonably obvious what the key claims are in the paper, and what the key data are underlying those claims. But, if you like, perhaps you can revise the above letter. The paper itself is not long and feel free to cite to it, if you think that is necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:10, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I just think it helps to be as specific as possible. But I have edited a bit with slightly more polite wording and more specificity. I hope it is acceptable?--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 21:16, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::If we send that version, put my name on the list :) --[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 13:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::I'll add my name to that version as well. It's encouraging to see what teamwork can achieve when we're all focused on the same goal. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:39, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Is it acceptable for the people co-signing this letter to use their Conservapedia user names? I noticed earlier that Arizaphale did not want to use his real name. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:54, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Thanks, Philip. I'm also willing to sign with a generic "John Doe" or even an old-fashioned "X". Or, the letter could simply be signed "Members of the Conservapedia Community," since I'm feeling confident that two or more others aren't sporting their actual names on that list. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:41, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Right, that's no problem. We're polite and professional around here, and signing as "Members of the Conservapedia Community" is a good suggestion, with a number added.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:51, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'd be more comfortable with that, as well. You can't be too careful with putting personal information online nowadays. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Recap ==<br />
<br />
Carafe, TomMoore, and SMaines all defend the withholding from public scrutiny of data underlying a scientific claim. Moreover, note how insulting some of them have become in response below to a request for public scrutiny of the data. No more insults will be allowed here, and their talk pollution may be removed.<br />
<br />
Public scrutiny has obvious benefits, and none of them have given any reason for denying that scrutiny. Journals and even government policy encourage or require it. Ah, but [[evolutionists]] feel they can play by their own rules, and make public claims without making the data public. Rest assured that no one here is fooled by this "make the claim but hide the data from the public" approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:Just for the record, the above as it refers to my own statements is untrue. I think public scrutiny is excellent. I believe, in fact, that given that Lenski so promptly answered your questions, he would probably comply with any specific requests you might make. It does not seem reasonable to demand he send you what must be gigabytes of data off the cuff. If you were a professional in a field even tangentially related, I imagine he might be happy to do so immediately, but as it is, I suspect you are not at the top of the list for someone as busy as he undoubtedly must be.<br />
:Perhaps if you sent him an email asking him a specific question: ("I wonder if you would send me the relevant records from the time at which you believe the bacteria became Cit+" might be one, but I am not a biologist) he would answer it with the records or say why he wouldn't. Or if you wait, they might have time to organize the data into a coherent manner for presentation and make it available on the internet or by request. Cordiality is key, we agree on that much.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 15:05, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::While I appreciate having my name removed from the top list because my position was acknowledged, it's pointless while Carafe, TomMoore, and SMaines are still being represented in the way they are. I'm in agreement with them, and now Philip Rayment too, that simply asking "for all your data" is not only unscientific, but wasteful and disrespectful if there's no meaningful plan in place to use the data productively. None of these people are against disclosure or proper scientific review, so as long as that statement above remains you're continuing to make false statements about CP editors. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:21, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: If you supported public scrutiny of the data, then you would send Lenski an email requesting it. That you have not, and will not, speaks volumes about your view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:40, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::...to me, it says that I'm not a biologist, and doubt I could fairly evaluate it if I received it. I know the degree of training it has required for me to achieve my present position, and I lack the hubris to think I could exercise equivalent powers of discrimination in a field so unrelated to my own. I'm not faulting you - maybe you have a degree in biochemistry, for all I know! But I know that I am not capable of fairly evaluating in context the raw data of biological experiments. My view is not a multi-book set: there's only one volume to it, and it's humility and appreciation of the credentials of the qualified.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 17:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: As I said, TomMoore, you apparently don't support "public scrutiny" of the data. Your own expertise is obviously irrelevant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I assure you, Andy, I do support it. I see no reason to think it isn't forthcoming, even though he didn't send all of the data to Some Internet Guy who demanded it offhand.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 22:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: Andy, I will not join in your support in the wasting of the tax dollars of mine and others to provide irrelevant information which you will then proceed to not use. Your version of "scrutiny", unlike scientific scrutiny, accomplishes nothing but to waste our tax dollars.<br />
<br />
::::: You can either participate with other scientists in public scrutiny by identifying rational weaknesses in Lenski's work and doing verification experiments, or you can continue to ignore public scrutiny and demand that your version of "scrutiny" be done. What will it be?<br />
<br />
::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 20:09, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: Although I support the public release of data, there is no way that I would ask for it or put my name to a request for it unless I first knew that someone was available to analyse it. I mentioned earlier (when this discussion was on Aschlafly's talk page) that creationists might not review Lenski's work because of lack of funding and numbers of creationary scientists available to do the work. Nevertheless, two creationary scientists have or are in the process of critiquing it (and I think an ID proponent has also). But the first (Don Batten) has apparently not seen the need to ask for all the data, and if either of the other two feel the need, they can ask for themselves. But given the aforementioned lack of funding and availability, it would be pointless asking for the data if there was nobody available to analyse it. Of course, if Conservapedia, or someone known to Conservapedia, is offering to fund the analysis, that might change things.<br />
::::: Furthermore, most problems with evolutionary conclusions are not because of misrepresenting the data, but with the conclusions being based on the materialistic worldview. It is usually not necessary to analyse the (in this case) 20 years' worth of data in order to find this fault.<br />
::::: I'm also concerned about the impression this will give of creationists. We cop enough criticism as it is simply by holding creationist views without giving our critics real reasons such as unreasonable demands for data that we will probably never use.<br />
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: Finally. Someone who makes sense. I'll gladly join in an email requesting any relevant data from Lenski, as needed by an identified/funded creationist scientist for Conservapedia.<br />
<br />
:::::: Until that time, Andy's "public scrutiny" just wastes tax dollars.<br />
<br />
:::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 12:08, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Unfortunately, Philip, you've proven to be right on this. If you google "schlafly lenski" there's plenty of criticism over the way this has been handled by CP, and the credibility of the latter. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:25, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Request of Examination of raw data is reasonable given the history of fraud related to the evolutionary position ==<br />
<br />
I do think a request of examination of the alleged raw data is reasonable [[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation|given the history of fraud in relation to the evolutionary position]]. In addition, we know know that [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin was deceitful regarding his public pronouncements regarding his worldview]] and he was actually an [[atheism|atheist]]. So given the history of [[deceit]] in connection with the evolutionary position and its promotion, I do think Andy is quite justified in requesting to see the raw data of Lenski's alleged work. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:14, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: As I wrote above, I'm pretty sure the relevant data would be happily provided as soon as a request a bit more specific than "give me all the data" is given. Some particular weakness that Andy identified in Lenski's reasoning, perhaps? Or some experimental procedure that you deemed especially prone to mistake, or even forgery? What is this "skepticism" that has been "expressed" based on? Or is it some sort of... dogmatic skepticism?<br />
<br />
: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 00:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I had asked a question above that was never answered, so I'll repeat it here: Who does Conservapedia plan on retaining to review the data from on scientific basis? It would be a lot more professional to select a qualified scientist or panel of scientists to do the job, and let them have a ''professional'' dialog with Prof. Lenski to review the raw data and conclusions. This is just grandstanding - "You haven't delivered gigs and gigs of raw data as requested, so you're withholding data". What it comes down to is that the CP leadership wants anything BUT a professional, qualified review of professor Lenski's work, because the outcome of that is not likely to be what they want. This reminds me of Kent Hovind's "Evolution Challenge" - set up ridiculous demands, and then claim victory because reasonable people don't meet them. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:07, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Public scrutiny has obvious benefits. See "recap" above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::I'll repeat my specific point. There's nothing improper about requesting that Professor Lenski share his raw data, but it's disrespectful of his time if there's no intention of using that data purposefully. I had asked what the plan was for having the data reviewed once it's received. Are there any qualified professionals lined up to review it and respond? He showed courtesy and professionalism in responding intra-day to the original request, so it's disrespectful to accuse him of withholding information after a single exchange of emails. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::It's also disrespectful to claim that Carafe, TomMoore, SMaines and I are all defending "the withholding from public scrutiny of data underlying a scientific claim." None of us have made that statement, so please remove it since it's untrue. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:46, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: DinsdaleP, clearly state that you support the public release of the data, and retract any comments to the contrary, and I'll remove your name. <br />
<br />
:::::: Your comment above suggests that you only support requests for data that have a proper purpose (whatever that is), a proper plan for review (whatever that is), and "qualified professionals lined up to review it." If you cling to that very limited approach, then you do oppose "public scrutiny" of data underlying a scientific claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I thought my comments were self-explanatory, but I'll try to simplify it. Yes, I support the public release of the data, and never claimed otherwise. I hope that's clear enough. The point we disagree on is that after a single exchange of emails, it's wrong to accuse Prof. Lenski of withholding data when he made a reasonable attempt to answer your questions and point you to the supporting data in his papers. If you ask him in a courteous manner how the underlying raw data can be made available, I'm sure you'll get a prompt and professional reply. So go ahead, make the request, and get the data. Frankly, I don't care what you do with it, but at least it will stop the insulting accusations of data being withheld. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::A last clarification - my point about having a "proper purpose" in requesting the data simply meant that if you were asking Prof. Lenski to take the time and effort to collect the raw data and send it to you, I'd hope the effort wasn't going to be a waste of time because it never got into the hands of people qualified to evaluate it properly. Time will tell. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:07, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::: Perhaps you're saying you don't oppose public release of the data. You haven't demonstrated you would "support" it, as in joining an email requesting it. Or would you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::"Perhaps"? I thought my statement above was plain enough, but instead of retracting your false accusation, you're just adding new conditions - now I have to add my signature to an email I haven't seen to show my support for disclosure? That's a sad way to avoid accountability for making false statements. Show me the email and a plan for using the data that doesn't make this a waste of time and taxpayer money, and I'll consider signing the request. In the meantime, please remove the false statements at the top of this page. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:17, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::: I'm sure all of us here will gladly join in an email requesting public release of the data in a scientific scrutiny process. I will not however join in your version of "scrutiny", which has nothing to do with scientific scrutiny at all. -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 20:11, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== responses of creation scientists to Lenski matter ==<br />
<br />
Here are the responses of creation scientists to the Lenski matter:<br />
<br />
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5827<br />
<br />
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/06/14/news-to-note-06142008<br />
<br />
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:48, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Another email? ==<br />
<br />
Is there going to be one? It's entirely possible that, having received a request from a lawyer for data, a scientist might very well think that the data provided in the report would be sufficient. Before deciding that he's hiding something, why not give him enough rope to conclusively hang himself?<br />
<br />
"Dear Dr. Lenski,<br />
<br />
I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear enough in the first place. We were hoping to see the entirety of the raw data in order to assess it ourselves."<br />
<br />
Or some such.<br />
<br />
[[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:26, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::If you are running a study on the genetics of a rapidly multiplying bacterial species over many years, the data accumulated will run into many many gigabytes. I don't believe it is practical to hand it out to any Tom, Dick and Harry requesting it. If there are concerns about any particular area of the study which raised suspicion of fraud or misinterpretation of data, then Mr. Schlafly should be asking the raw data pertaining to that particular area. <br />
<br />
::I have published in many medical journals and actively peer review for 2 of them. This is how it works in the field of science. Being a lawyer, Mr. Schlafly may not be familiar with the practice. So I do not think the email Aziraphale prepared is appropriate. This is my opinion and most of the users seem to agree with this as well. --[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 13:35, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
In response to Aziraphale, my email was clear and there is no reason for me to say the same thing again. You're welcome to make your request of Lenski if you really don't think he understood my email.<br />
<br />
In response to SMaines, I'll add your name to the list above of people who oppose the public release of data underlying public claims about the data. (The amount of the data is no obstacle to its release.) SMaines' approach prevents mistakes and fraud from being identified by independent public review. Apparently SMaines does not even request availability of the data when he does peer review. Perhaps he could tell us which journals he does peer review for so that others can have a healthy skepticism about claims made in them. Of course, SMaines is unlikely to disclose the names of those journals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:21, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
It is true that I do not ask for raw data from all the authors that I have peer reviewed articles for. You do not seem to understand how the peer review process works. The role of the peer reviewer is not to repeat all the work the authors have already done. <br />
<br />
First I check whether the authors are asking a relevant question regarding the hypothesis, whether the hypotheses are falsifiable, whether the methodology is sound without any obvious flaws, were the data collected ethically and whether they obtain informed consent of all involved. I also aim to determine the experiments performed adhering to protocol and statistical methods used were sound. Then I determine whether their results actually conclude what they have listed as their conclusions. I check whether the bibliography is complete and up-to-date. Finally I recommend to the editor whether the paper is significant and relevant to the journal. I may have omitted a few steps, but that is in nutshell how a peer review process works. <br />
<br />
I have worked in academic circles for years and I am yet to come across any referee who will ask for the whole set of raw data for all the papers reviewed. Raw data is only asked for if we have any concerns regarding the validity of methodology or conclusions. I have in the past asked for set of raw data to run some specific calculations myself. I have never known any one who will ring an author and ask to send the whole set of data covering years of data collection. <br />
<br />
It works like Carafe described “A, I tried duplicating your experiment, but parameters x, y, and z that I need were not in your article. I need you to disclose to me x, y, and z that you used at the time. What are they?”<br />
<br />
Also, have you come across the different peer review tools? Please familiarize yourself with the process before <br />
<br />
For record, I am not against public scrutiny at all, but you have not even pointed out what your concerns or skepticisms are. What you have effectively said is you paper does not fit my belief patterns, so I do not believe you. Hand over all the raw data. This is childish and silly. <br />
--[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 15:06, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Dear Aschlafly,<br />
<br />
:You've mistaken me for someone who thinks he could diagnose Lenski's work in a meaningful way. You are one who can do so, so I was offering advice. It was free, and worth every penny. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Aziraphale, you still don't get it. I support the public release of the data, so that the public can analyze it. Got it now?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::One of us is certainly not getting something - my suggestion was meant to encourage the release of the data, rather than allowing the conversation to die with a possibility existing that there was a miscommunication rather than a denial of the request. What's more important here: that a political point is scored, or that the data be released? You are 100% mistaken if you think I'm opposed to the release of the data. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:50, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:20, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Absolutely, but I won't divulge my identity to you. If using a pseudonym is alright with you I'll gladly attach my support. If my particular handle is too silly, I could be appended as a John Doe instead. That said, you and I have different ideas of what language is appropriate, so I'd expect to see the exact text in advance. For example, until ''proven'' a liar or charlatan he deserves not to be accused of anything. Rather, just as when a motion for discovery is not compeletely fulfilled to your satisfaction, a firm but courteous clarification of your expectations would be appropriate.<br />
<br />
::::Would you care for me to draft something instead, and you can sign off, or not, as you see fit? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 21:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Rants Against Public Release of Data ==<br />
<br />
:While you're at it, you might do well to explain to Lenski what exactly a "Conservapedia" is. Unless he really likes Lewis Black's "The conservatives think that YOU, THE PUBLIC, HAVE A LIBERAL BIAS." quote, he's unlikely to know. After all, this site gets most of its views from a small group of devout sysops and the snarkers over at RW. Godspeed. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 13:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf Paper 180.] All kinds of data. If you want, I can also link to the protocols and such. Prof. Lenski is way more obliging than we would have any right to expect... I sent him a letter of congratulations, and he even took the time to reply thanking me!--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 15:27, 13 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::So, Andy, when can we expect your in-depth analysis of paper #180? -Drek<br />
<br />
:::With a professional and comprehensive reply having been sent promptly by Professor Lenski, what would be the intended follow-up from Conservapedia? It seems like he answered the letter's first two questions and pointed out that the third was based on a misunderstanding of his paper. Since his study's data and methodology are freely available for review, I'm wondering who CP is looking to engage to independently review and assess his work, which has already passed peer review in order to be published. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:03, 13 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::He answered, everybody scramble! I need that Lack of Evidence in the air NOW! You call artillery and tell them to deploy the Inconclusive Data immediately! Move, move, move! We've got a battle against science to fight, people!--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 17:29, 13 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Lenski's reply did not provide the data as requested. It did clarify that his claims are not as strong as some [[evolutionists]] have insisted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:07, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:"You will find all the relevant methods and data supporting this claim in our paper." If this statement is true then I hardly think he's going to go to the trouble of sending us all his data when it is readily available. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:29, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: StatsMsn, have you ever read a scientific paper? Papers don't set forth the data themselves. At most, they set forth summaries of data, which can be flawed or self-serving.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:31, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Supposing he gave you access to the gigs of raw data, would you:<br />
:::#Be able to understand any of it? <br />
:::#Be prepared to accept that the data accurately reflects the physical facts of the matter in the lab, were you to find it consistent with his conclusions?<br />
:::Given your educational background, I have serious doubts about 1), and given your behaviour on this site, I find myself incapable of believing 2). Please feel free to offer me some reassurance. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 10:26, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::I find this ironic that you suddenly want data to support someone else's claim, given your "Mystery: Young hollywood stars and breast cancer" ballpark figure. The paper provides more than ballpark figures you have previously used to support your hypothses in the past. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: In response to Leda, if for some unexplained reason I can't understand the data, then I'll find someone who can. I don't know how to fly an airplane but obviously that does not stop me from traveling by air. I am not reassured by the withholding of data.<br />
<br />
::::: In response to DanielB, I presented my data and described it as a mystery. What we have here is the unacceptable opposite: a scientific claim without production of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:12, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: ''"I don't know how to fly an airplane but obviously that does not stop me from traveling by air."'' Oh, nobody's objecting to you flying when clueless. But a modicum of flight knowledge might expected of you if you, say, suddenly rush into the cockpit and demand that the pilot repeat to you every single flight procedure done for the last 12 hours, lest you declare him fraudulent and/or incompetent. I mean, isn't that what you're implying?<br />
<br />
:::::: I mean, what are you expecting when you demand "data" of the Cit+ mutation occurance other than a log entry of "Jan 24th, 2008, 2:03pm. Generation 2026 confirmed to express Cit+ mutation"? Then what you do oh-so-politely request? That all of his collaborator's minds be read so you can make sure there is no mistakes?<br />
<br />
:::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 23:08, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: Your attempt to defend the withholding of data underlying a scientific claim is amusing. While you're at it, perhaps you should also protest the Submission guidelines for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science: "(viii) Materials and Data Availability. To allow others to replicate and build on work published in PNAS, authors must make materials, data, and associated protocols available to readers. Authors must disclose upon submission of the manuscript any restrictions on the availability of materials or information." You might also protest policies that recommend or require taxpayer-funded data to be made available.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:21, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::: You thought my poking fun at your inability to form a coherent analogy was supposed to be a defense? The amusement is all on this side of the table, trust me. You see, there is no defending going on here, because there is no withholding going on here.<br />
<br />
:::::::: ''"(viii) Materials and Data Availability..."'' Yes, you can stop repeating yourself now. This was in your letter, which I did in fact read (something that might not be said of you and the myriad articles Richard provided). I did wonder why that was in your letter. I mean, did you think that normal scientific discourse doesn't occur unless by your legal coercion? I'm pretty sure if you had, say, a request just a tad more specific than "give me all your data", Richard would have been more than happy to reply. "Give me all your data" is as an absurd of a data request as demanding that Richard must "right now tell me all you know about E. coli", which, come to think about it, would be pretty much the same thing.<br />
<br />
:::::::: '''''"To allow others to replicate and build on''' work published in PNAS, authors must..."'' Out of curiosity, which part of his experiment are you trying to replicate that need additional information not available in the paper? Maybe you should tell him, he could easily help you with that. If you are not replicating the experiment, then did you have a real question or concern, or a weakness that you identified, like "I had a concern about this-and-that procedure of the strain selection, it seems particularly vulnerable to contamination" he would be quite happy to help you too. But hey, that requires that you have a clue about the subject matter.<br />
<br />
:::::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 00:32, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::::::You really go out of your way to defend a guy who's clearly a fraudulent hack. Even if he released his so called "raw data" it would just be a huge load of numbers no one is going to take the time to analyze. If it took him years and years to do this experiment he can be pretty sure no one is going to waste that much time trying to replicate it, so everyone can assume he's right and the atheist Darwinists can pretend they've proved evolution, even when we know it's impossible. Do you believe everything you read? If someone claimed they had a mountain of evidence that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster had a baby, I suppose you'd believe that too if it were published somewhere? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 14:36, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
::::::::::So let me see if I understand you correctly, Tony. If Lenski doesn't release all of the raw data accumulated over twenty years as Mr. Schlafly requests, it's proof that he's a fraud. If Lenski releases all of the raw data accumulated over twenty years as Mr. Schlafly requests, the sheer volume is proof that he's trying to pull a fast one, and he's a fraud. <br />
::::::::::Is that correct?<br />
::::::::::Given this and other comments you have made, I suspect that you're a satirist attempting to make conservatives look unreasonable. If so, please stop. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:06, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I resent being called a satirist. You assume that anyone who doesn't hold your liberal views must be joking! Well, the majority of the people in this country are "satirists" if that is the case. It doesn't much matter if Lenski releases his data or not. Us right thinking people know he's a fraud because he claims to have witnessed evolution, and we know that is impossible. That is a fact! I'd like to see his data. I bet it's so seriously flawed even someone with little background in biology will be able to tell. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 21:54, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::::::::::: Do not call Lenski or anyone else a fraud without good evidence. Evolution is impossible, but for Lenski to be a fraud he would have to be claiming something that he ''knows'' to be wrong, and you've provided no evidence of that, and I doubt that it exists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT) (Administrator)<br />
::::::::::::: Not at all, Tony. I assume that anyone who is genuinely conservative is going to present a reasonable and rational demeanor, refrain from a priori reasoning, and generally engage in mature conduct. I assume that those who wish to promulgate a stereotype of conservatism with an eye to demonization is going to engage in name-calling, refuse to engage in rational discussion, and declare himself right without adequate support for the position. Such actions are entirely consistent with liberals masquerading as conservatives. If you resent being called a satirist, I would suggest attempting to conduct yourself in a manner becoming a conservative. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:22, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::: Where did the 20 years come from? Lenski was asked for the data supporting his claim. He has produced some information on a website, but not that data. Yes, making a claim while withholding the data, even after a request, can reasonably lead one to doubt the claim. Wouldn't you agree with that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
'''(Unindent)'''<br />
<br />
Certainly, Mr. Schlafly. What I'm taking issue with is Tony's claim that even if Lenski releases his data, it's not worth taking the time to analyze or "waste the time" trying to replicate. It seems very much to me as if he's trying to portray conservatives as closed-minded and unwilling to look at the evidence. Perhaps I'm mistaken on that point, but I certainly think you'd agree that such individuals have turned up here before, wouldn't you? <br />
<br />
With respect to the 'twenty years' portion: I was under the impression that you wanted the full and complete data to be made available. Given that the experiment took twenty years, I assumed that you would want the full twenty years of data included for evaluation. I apologize if I was mistaken.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:28, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
I was wondering how anyone possibly could conclude from this exchange that Lenski was hiding something. I came to the conclusion that some people must not understand how scientific scrutiny works. I wrote a guide.<br />
<br />
<u>Scientific scrutiny works like this:</u><br><br />
{| width="500px"<br />
|-<br />
|<i>'''Scientist A''' publishes results.<br><br />
'''Scientist B''': A, I tried duplicating your experiment, but parameters x, y, and z that I need were not in your article. I need you to disclose to me x, y, and z that you used at the time. What are they?<br><br />
'''A''': x, y, and z are such and such.<br><br />
'''B''': Using x, y, and z, my result doesn't agree with yours at all. Are you sure you did the procedures that you claimed?<br><br />
'''A''': ...<br><br />
'''B''': You fraud!</i><br />
<br />
<u>Scientific scrutiny ''does not'' work like this:</u><br><br />
<i><br />
'''A''' publishes results.<br><br />
'''B''': I have Generic Skepticism toward your article. Under code viii of the Publication Criteria, I demand that you give me all of your data!<br><br />
'''A''': ... ok...? It seems that everything you would need is already in the article. Did you have something specific in mind?<br><br />
'''B''': A has refused to attach all data he has ever used for the experiment. He is withholding information and thus hiding something.<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
-- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 01:42, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:This is it. This one is my favorite post. Carafe has won Conservapedia, roll the credits.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 01:49, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Beautiful! What else can I say?--[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 13:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Not much, apparently. I think you've exhausted your meaningful comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Aschlafly, have you read the paper? ==<br />
<br />
I have. It pretty fairly lays out all the important data. Unless you want to run the experiments yourself - which I don't know if you could do, given the equipment he used - I think it's probably the best you'll ever get. I think a fair reply to Lenski would be point out elements of his analysis that you don't like, and put that in a reply e-mail. Otherwise, your lack of reply makes it look like you've given up, and your defensive parries here ("he didn't give all his data!") look like a losing rearguard action.-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 17:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::May I sign-with-qualifier? As in, signed, "A. Shephard - please do show as much as reasonably possible; the truth will out and convince those who doubt you, and this will hasten it along."?-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 22:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Something to note ==<br />
<br />
From the AiG article:<br />
<br />
"AiG’s Dr. Georgia Purdom is studying the research for an upcoming semi-technical article in the journal Answers In Depth."<br />
<br />
Apparently, Lenski has released his data to Purdom. Presumably, Dr. Purdom wouldn't settle for fragmentary data that wouldn't allow her to fully evaluate the claims. Had Lenski refused to disclose, it seems certain that AiG would have made note of it.<br />
<br />
{{unsigned|Benp}}<br />
<br />
==Hypothetical==<br />
Let's say that a second email is enough for Lenski to release his data. What are you going to do with it all? Previous discussions show you don't what you are doing with small, simple to analyse data sets. You would need a degree in biochemistry and biostats to even begin to know what you are going to do with it. The people who have peer reviewed the paper a by far better qualified and if they had concerns they would have asked specifically for what they wanted without sounding like .... Well I want say what you sound like writting emails singed with a law degree demanding data. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:25, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Sure, but like the human genome it will probably be released in time anyway in a way that is useful. You standing there making demands, signing letters JD, makes you look like some lawyer with an axe to grind rather than someone interested in research. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Proposed Follow-up Email==<br />
Since Andy wants to send a second email for some of the rest of us to sign as well, here is a space to work out the wording. I wonder if MainS and Carafe would help us write something that seems reasonable and polite, since you guys seem to have sufficient knowledge in the field to describe what we are looking to find out?<br />
<br />
I would suggest something along these lines:<br />
<br />
''Dear Professor Lenski''<br />
''We are writing in regards to your recent experiment with cit+ development in observed E. coli populations. We were wondering if you would oblige us by sending the relevant raw data from your observations during the period in which the bacteria population developed the ability to utilize citrase. We are intensely curious about that information. If it will be made available through some other venue and you wish to direct us to that instead, then we would very much like to be made aware of that.''<br />
''Thank you,''<br />
''Andy Schlafly, Thomas Moore, etc.''<br />
<br />
Is that a reasonable request? I am afraid biology protocol is quite beyond me, so some help would be appreciated.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 22:47, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Looks like a good start, Tom, but from the comments so far it seems like nothing short of the full set of observations is going to be satisfactory for some of the skeptics here. I'd suggest the following revision to the second and third sentences:<br />
::''We were wondering if you would oblige us by sending the relevant raw data for the full set of your observations for this population. We are intensely curious about the period in which the bacteria population developed the ability to utilize citrase, but would like the complete set of observations instead of a subset to facilitate an independent analysis of the research.'' --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:07, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::It doesn't seem reasonable to demand twenty years' worth of observations, which would be the full set. Or at least, it doesn't seem reasonable to me.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 00:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::It doesn't seem reasonable to me, either, which is why Professor Lenski's response pointed readers to the relevant subsets of data, and that would be sufficient for most reasonable people. I was just pointing out that unreasonable people here will consider anything less than all 20 years to be withholding data, so what's needed to satisfy the skeptics is a way for that full body of observations to be accessible. If the response is that it would take too much time and/or money to satisfy the request, then the burden of proof falls on the skeptics to justify why they can't start with the data already made available and only request additional data when they have specific questions that require it for an answer. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:32, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Well, maybe they will feel differently. I think this is the polite and reasonable approach, rather than asking for all twenty years. Other comments? Andy?--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 18:51, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==What is the plan for a Conservapedia review of Lenski's work?==<br />
<br />
One thing that keeps getting lost in the rhetoric - who is looking at the Lenski work on behalf of Conservapedia? More than a few people here, including a CP sysop, have pointed out that a proper scientific review can begin using the data already made available by Professor Lenski. If this review surfaces any questions or criticisms, then that would prompt an exchange with Lenski on the specifcs, and I'm sure the related data would be made available. While I see that there are reviews of the work being done by some creationist groups (who apparently see no need to have all the raw data first), the Conservapedia approach is more like a set of lawyers looking for discovery than a set of scientists looking for truth. Why can't CP review Lenski's work in a scientific manner like AiG instead? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:31, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: The issue is '''public''' release and scrutiny of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::No one investigating Lenski's work in a scientific manner is accusing him of withholding any data from them, or from the public. You're setting a new, and unprofessional, precedent in expecting a scientist to take the time to collect and send you decades of raw data on his research simply because you're asking him to, when you haven't even shown the courtesy of demonstrating why this effort is necessary. I repeat the question you keep avoiding - is this exercise going to be a waste of Lenski's time so you can make a point, or do you have a plan to use that raw data and a timetable for publishing your findings? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: DinsdaleP, it sounds like your name should be added back to the list of those who oppose public release and scrutiny of the data above. The questions you keep harping on are irrelevant to the issue of public release and scrutiny of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:02, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Feel free to add me back to your ridiculous list, then. Anyone who can read knows where I stand, just as they can see your continued avoidance of my question. There is no plan, is there? I'll be glad to stand corrected if I'm wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:17, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: How is asking about "scrutiny of the data" irrelevant to the issue of "public release and '''scrutiny of the data'''"? Color me confused!--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:03, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
You don't seem to understand the scientific method at all. There is a reason peer review is so called. It is a review of work by your peers, that is fellows engaged in similar fields of research. You are not a peer of Dr. Lenski. You don't even hold an undergraduate degree in a related field. You aren't even qualified to be a research assistant in his lab. You're a lawyer, and I'm sure you're good at your job and all, but don't try to pretend to qualifications you simply do not have to serve a political purpose.<br />
<br />
Lets face it, the good doctor has been extremely kind to you thus far. I would not recommend pushing your luck. Had it been me, your email would have hit the bit bucket faster than you can say "plunk". As far as I can tell, you haven't even had the good grace to read the poor guy's paper as he suggested. I did, and I found it extremely accessible compared to the cryptography papers I'm used to reviewing. I believed I followed the bulk of it, and I'm sure you could too if you were so minded.<br />
<br />
But of course, you aren't minded to. You're not at all interested in his findings, because you assume they're false before you even know the details. If he were correct, it would yet further discredit your young earth creationist beliefs. Here is research that gives the lie to the old "mutations never produce new information" talking point, while at the same time demonstrating how a feature that seems incredibly unlikely were it to happen in one big bang, can in fact become trivial via building up a "potentiated genome" as alluded to by Lenski in his email (see the section headed "Historical Contingency in the Evolution of Cit+" for details of the experiments they performed to confirm this.)<br />
<br />
This experiment yet again confirms the predictions of the theory of evolution, while contradicting your own creation hypothesis (The capacity for citrate utilisation starts out weak and gets stronger over time, via additional mutations that out compete the peers they fissioned from.) This result scares you. You aren't interested at all in Dr. Lenski's data are you? All you want is to make an unreasonable request, and then when it is sensibly refused or ignored to trumpet that clearly the scientists working on LEE are attempting to hide something. Nobody is impressed by your transparent posturing. --[[User:Taciturn|Taciturn]] 15:08, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
: Although some of your comments, such as those about peer review, are reasonable, the last half particularly is begging the question. His research is ''claimed to'' give the lie to the "mutations never produce new information" claim, but whether they ''actually'' do is one of the points that are in contention. Trying to make your point by assuming your point and simply restating it is not a valid form of argument. Further, although misunderstanding this is understandable, creationists have acknowledged that mutations might ''extremely rarely'' produce new genetic information by chance. Their argument is more that you can't use mutations as a source of new information, not because it never ever happens, but because it very rarely happens and would be swamped by all the information-losing mutations. So Lenski's claim, even if it turned out to be true (which seems unlikely: see creationist responses linked above), does not disprove creationism anyway, as ''one'' example of an information-gaining mutation is consistent with creationism and inconsistent with evolution, which requires ''many'' such mutations. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:05, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Ugh. Don't get me started on those "creationist responses." They're clearly written for a scientifically illiterate and unthinking audience. People who won't notice that the author's idea of a literature survey is to read and fail to understand an abstract, and then cite the paper in support of whatever gibberish they want to commit to paper. The AiG response is just talking points recycled for the occasion, which no meaningful content, while creation on the web is so intellectually dishonest it beggars belief. Take this wonderful paragraph:<br />
<br />
{{cquote|Furthermore, E. coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions, with a whole suite of genes involved in its fermentation. This includes a citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein embedded in the cell wall that takes citrate into the cell.}}<br />
<br />
:: Wrong, wrong, wrong. E. Coli is not, and has never been observed to be capable of utilising citrate natively. Any E. Coli that have this ability have it because it is coded for be invasive plasmids. That's the point of the paper the author cites. Lenski takes great pains to point out that the Cit+ and Cit- strains DO NOT possess these plasmids, since the issue of external contamination would be foremost in any reviewer's mind. <br />
<br />
:: The whole creation on the web article is like this throughout. It takes parts of the paper out of context and uses them as an attack on the work. Whole sentences and paragraphs are copied wholesale without attribution. The author makes totally unfounded claims about the what the LTEE team are doing, accusing them of "giving up on observing evolution." It's the most astonishingly asinine thing I've read this month, and only "died-in-the-wool" (sic) creationist would take it seriously.<br />
<br />
:: So, here's the thing. Lets assume that Lenski's claims are false or exaggerated (and I don't think for a moment that is the case.) How exactly is Schlafly, a lawyer, going to show this regardless of how much raw data he has? He doesn't even know what to ask for, let alone what he's going to do with it once he has it. I don't believe it would be overly cynical to ascribe an ulterior motive to this request. At very best, he wants to pester a person doing productive research and force him to do extra work, unpaid, on his behalf. That would be fine if Schlafly was a peer of Lenski's seeking verification of the result. Defending one's work is part of the scientific process, but there have to be limits. If you really want to analyse the result, first find a working biologist with time and equipment to do the analysis, then and only then will I support the request for further data.<br />
<br />
:: To all others supporting the request currently, I'd ask they withdraw their support until such time as this condition is fulfilled. I cannot believe that Schlafly seriously wants the data, simply that he wishes the request to be refused such that he can make outlandish claims about scientific transparency. --[[User:Taciturn|Taciturn]] 08:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Taciturn, I'm not requesting merely my personal review of the data (although certainly I will review it if Lenski produces it), but rather the ''public scrutiny'' of the data. Unless you think that Lenski's team is perfect or has a monopoly on knowledge, you should agree that additional review of the data by others can yield additional insights, and possibly identify flaws.<br />
<br />
::: Andrew Wiles is undeniably a bright mathematician, as are his friends who reviewed his claim to have proven Fermat's Last Theorem. But when he made his initial proof available more widely, others saw flaws in it that took a long time to repair. Obviously the same may be true about anyone's work ... including Lenski's.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:37, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: [Edit conflict] Mr. Schlafly, given that Lenski is required to release the data to any scientist who asks, who exactly is preventing public scrutiny? A lawyer such as yourself quite simply does not have the training to understand the data, and you're quite unlikely to find a scientist sympathetic to your cause. Even if he releases twenty years worth of research to you, nothing changes. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 10:19, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: Are you saying that only a "scientist" may see the data? I hold an engineering degree and worked at Bell Labs, but perhaps you have some special definition to limit access to the data as much as possible. If someone drops out of college, does that disqualify him from being able to look at the data? I certainly hope that isn't your view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Andy, only someone with proper training in biology could hope to understand the raw data. You can look at it, yes, fine, but you won't understand it, and you'll quickly demand that Lenski release it in a "clear and comprehensive format", at which point you'll promptly be pointed right back to Paper 180. Your engineering degree doesn't help you here. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 11:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Taciturn, one more bigoted derogatory comment like those in your first paragraph and the end of your third paragraph and you will earn yourself a block.<br />
::: Now, to your specific claims regarding AiG and CMI:<br />
::: * The articles are written for a lay audience, but that doesn't mean that they are written for a "scientifically illiterate and unthinking audience". On the contrary, they aim to make them scientifically accurate.<br />
::: * The AiG article was clearly a preliminary response, so your derogatory comment about no meaningful content is unwarranted.<br />
::: * "''Whole sentences and paragraphs are copied wholesale without attribution.''": Please back that claim with evidence or retract it.<br />
::: * "''The author makes totally unfounded claims about the what the LTEE team are doing, accusing them of "giving up on observing evolution."''": On the contrary, it appears that you did not read the article properly (with an open mind?). It actually says that "...Lenski seemed [note both the lack of definiteness/lack of accusation and the past tense] to have given up on ‘evolution in the lab’ ..."<br />
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: Taciturn discredited himself, and probably won't even defend his behavior.<br />
<br />
:::: But Philip, I have a question for you: do you support public release of the data to enable others (including creationists) to review it? It's hard for me to see how outside reviewers (including creationists) can do a thorough job without access to the data. Undeniably outside reviewers could do a better job if the data were public.<br />
<br />
:::: I'm starting to think that even the peer reviewers for the paper never checked the data, if the data continue to be withheld.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::::: I've already given my answer to whether or not I support release of the data. Do a search of this page for a post with a timestamp of 09:34. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: Well, OK, I found your prior posting and reread it, but didn't find any answer to the basic question I just asked: wouldn't outside reviewers (including creationists) be better off with an availability of the data? And to your point about funding, wouldn't funding be easier to obtain (to the extent necessary) if it were known that the data are available? Seems obvious to me, and probably to the co-signers (11 and growing), that the answer is "yes" to both.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::::::: Actually, that was not a question that you had just asked. And yes, outside reviewers, including creationists, ''would'' be better off with the data being available, ''if they plan on reviewing all that data''. But that's a big "if", because, as I did say above, there is a shortage of available creationary scientists and funding for them. As for obtaining funding, no, I don't think it would make a difference. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Lenski has not refused to release the data; it's just that you plan on asking him to do so ''now'' rather than wait for someone who is actually going to review the data to ask. That is, I assume that the data would be made available in due course to a serious researcher who requested it.<br />
:::::::: I also pointed out that creationary scientists may not be interested in reviewing all the data. They probably have better things to do with their time and funds than to analyse 20 years worth of data, when all they likely need to do is find out a bit more about his actual results. Further, as I said elsewhere on this page, it's even ''possible'' that Lenski has actually found a mutation that has added genetic information. Creationists don't rule out that there may be very rare examples of this, and ''perhaps'' this is the first known case of such. But that doesn't disprove creation nor prove evolution because, as I said, creationism can handle the odd exception to the rule, whereas the evolution requires millions of such information-gaining mutations, and one example is not that evidence. So why would a creationary scientist waste his time (unless someone was employing him to do it)?<br />
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Which would mean that it would not even be published in the journal, Andy. Your final claim is unfounded and, quite frankly, slanderous. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 10:19, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: If the peer reviewers saw the data, then it is no problem to make that data publicly available. So where is it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::In the paper, Andy. Everything that you could need to know about the experiment and much more is in the paper. If you don't believe me, you can ask Lenski for something extra, however general questions like the ones you've sent him so far will only get you pointed back to the paper. If you've got a specific part of the work you want, ask and I'm sure he'll happily throw the raw, incomprehensible data at you. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 11:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::This would seem to come down to a fundamental misunderstanding. Few biologists are going to want to see Lenski's raw data like this, because the observations will be relatively simple to make - or at least simple for a biologist. Instead, they will want to examine his methodology (which is already freely available) to see if they can find any flaws. For example, if he had stored them in a non-sterile environment or something, the colonies could have been contaminated, and it would invalidate his conclusions. They will also want to see the conclusions he draws from his observations, which might be unwarranted or otherwise explainable. For example, if they know as biologists that e. coli can use citrase under certain conditions (not the case, actually, but it's an example), they would call his conclusions into question. And of course some scientists are going to want to imitate his whole set-up to reproduce his result... although it will take a while. But because Prof. Lenski is a highly skilled and reputable scientist, few are going to demand to see his raw data, because there is little reason not to trust his integrity. That is generally just not how this science is done, to the best of my knowledge.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 13:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I can't believe I'm getting into this particular mess but, here goes: hypothetically, let's say that Andy contacts Lenski and Lenski graciously releases all of the raw data anyone could want. Let's further say that Andy manages to secure the services of a qualified analyst who has the time and training to properly analyze said data and that, further, that analyst confirms that Lenski's interpretations are correct. In other words, the analyst says that Lenski is- as far as anyone can tell- correct. What happens then? Will Andy or anyone else publicly acknowledge this to be the case, or will the story suddenly become that Lenski "falsified" his raw data? Because, really and truly folks, the "raw data" we keep talking about is not the same thing as actually having access to Lenski's samples. Moreover, Lenski is not about to release any part of his samples to folks who haven't the slightest idea how to store them, much less how to analyze. And I don't have imagination enough to think that Conservapedia is going to set up an adequately equipped and staffed research lab capable of taking possession of such samples, much less fund it long enough to replicate Lenski's research. As far as I can tell, this entire thing is a lot of sound and fury that will ultimately come to nothing (apologies Will). So what's with all the grandstanding, Andy? Okay, I've said my bit. I'll go back to editing statistics articles now. -Drek<br />
::I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:23, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: I've just posted above in a reply to Andy why I think a creationary scientist would ''not'' be interested. I'll add here that, according to Don Batten of CMI (link elsewhere on this page), it fits with what Behe has written about in his latest book, so there's no reason to think that this case would bother ID proponents either. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::''"I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data."'' Yeah, but I was specifically referring to qualified analysts, so the ID/C.S. folks won't help. Snark aside, however, neither you nor anyone else has addressed the underlying issue: what happens if Lenski DOES provide the full database? It isn't like someone couldn't claim he faked that and the only way to confirm it would be to evaluate his samples. Look, I DO in fact support public availability of data derived from publicly funded research. That said, however, if we don't even have a plausible case for how we ourselves could verify output, much less carry out a replication, we're just being nuisances. Lenski's job is to do research, not bow to every request made of him by random unqualified amateurs. And even if he has tenure and that somehow made him utterly invulnerable to firing (oddly, failing to produce is one of those things that can kill tenure) he still has a responsibility to his Post-Docs and grad students. -Drek<br />
::::: I've warned two others on this page about derogatory comments, and you've gone and added your own. For that you've earned yourself a block for the "snark". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:57, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
It interesting that Rayment has given Derek a block for 'snarking'. Presumably this is to maintain a decent, respectful, and intelligent tone in the body of the discussion. However, Schafly's entire tone in his addresses to Dr. Lenski have been openly insulting and ignorant from the start, yet there has been no attempt to address that problem from Rayment. A number of others have flung open insults, yet no blocks are in placefor them as long as they insult Dr. Lenski. How is that not a double standard? {{unsigned|Bithead}}<br />
: For one thing, there's not much point in blocking someone who has the ability to unblock themselves. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:24, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Really, starting a conversation with "I will post your reply, or lack thereof" then maintaining that one only wants to participate in a scientific conversation and is chiefly concerned with freedom of information is hypocritical to say the very least. As someone who can't be blocked, he has clearly set the standard for conservapedia. Also, others on this thread have tendered obvious insults yet enjoyed no admonitions - again so long as they insult Lenski. Isn't there something in the 'conservapedia commandments' about double standards?<br />
<br />
==Question==<br />
I am going to make it clear that I am not willing to put my name on this. I whole-heartedly support the release of Professor Lenski's data, but not to a faceless group of individuals with no clear purpose for demanding the data. My question is, as Mr. Schlafly seems to be avoiding it, have you Mr. Schlafly read the paper that Professor Lenski directed you to? I hope that this request is more than an attempt to add Professor Lenski to the [[professor values]] list. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 15:18, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Your argument is irrelevant to the ''public'' release of the data. I hadn't read Andrew Wiles' attempt to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, but I sure am glad that he publicized it so that people could identify serious flaws after Wiles' expert friends declared it to be complete.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::You already emailed Professor Lenski, and he kindly took the time to respond. But you didn't even bother to read the answers he gave you. Sending him another email demanding even more information, without even reading the information he already gave you seems rude. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 15:49, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Now you're making up things about me. Perhaps you think you can distract attention from the simple issue of public release of the data. You failed if that was your goal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::That never was my intention. I was simply trying to understand your reasoning behind this email. I am interested in something else at the moment actually. You seem to enjoy mentioning Andrew Wiles and Fermat's Last Theorem. Who proved that Andrew Wiles was wrong. Was it a layperson, or a mathematician? [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:58, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::At the end of the introduction to the revised paper, Wiles indicates that the original error was detected in discussions between himself, Nick Katz, Luc Illusie and Richard Taylor. Katz is a professor at Princeton, Illusie at Paris Sud, and Taylor at Harvard. Between the three of them they now have over 200 peer reviewed papers on elliptic curves and Galois representation theory. Of course their records were weaker at the relevant time in 1993, but they were certainly all established mathematicians. I think they were all at the Isaac Newton Institute when Wiles first explained his work in lectures there. So it is far from the truth to suggest that Wiles's expert friends declared the proof complete, or that errors were found by random other people after the release of the preprint. --[[User:Npstrick|Npstrick]] 17:42, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: If you're trying to exclude people from looking at the data based on their education or credentials, then just say so. There are many bright people who never graduated from college, and I oppose making education or credentials a test for who can review the data. In Wiles' case, I don't know what the credentials were of the multiple people who found serious flaws.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
== Two Questions for Aschlafly==<br />
<br />
I have two questions for Aschlafly. Please answer them plainly and in brief as I've no use for obfuscation typical of what I've seen above. As you know, failing to answer is an answer of sorts. Here are my questions:<br />
# Have you read Lenski's paper as he suggested?<br />
# What do you plan to do with his "raw" data should you receive it?<br />
The answers to these two questions will tell much about your intent and your character. [[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 18:34, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::So your answers are <br />
<br />
# you "skimmed" it<br />
# you won't do anythnig with the "raw data" should he send it to you<br />
Thank you for your honesty. I hope your readership takes these answers in their full measure. [[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 19:30, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I hope you recognize and admit to the benefits of public access. You haven't yet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
=== Two Questions for Aschlafly: comments from others===<br />
*I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:21, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I know your question was not directed at me, but isn't the point of public release that it would be open to ''everyone'' to examine; ie - that this isn't solely about Aschlafly? I doubt if there is anyone on this site who would be capable of understanding Lenski's raw data, if it were to be made available, but that is not a reason to oppose the public release of the data ''per se'', is it? If released publicly, anyone capable of understanding it can see it for themselves, and those who cannot understand it will be unaffected. What's wrong with that?[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:44, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I would encourage people to watch the movie of what the physical form of the raw data looks like. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNaXlK_3Fik They tested 4 trillion cells.[http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php] Assuming even a simple 'y/n' for the 'can metabolize citrate' that is about 4 terabytes of data. This doesn't go into the other genes that they have studied. Are you going to send him some hard drives to copy the data onto? Do you have the bandwidth to host that data for public scrutiny (at a full T1 speed with 100% utilization, if I did my math correctly, it would take about 2 years to download all of the data)? Granted, that is one extreme of the data but this could potentially be more than you can handle or host. And if he says its a terrabyte of data or so, will you host it? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No, I wouldn't host it. If the data were made publicly available, I would have no interest in downloading it or reading it because I am not a biologist and wouldn't be able to understand it. But I am not opposed to the data - whatever size the files are - being made available for people who can understand it (and have sufficiently spacious hard drives). [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:01, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::to clarify, I am not opposed to it '''in principle'''. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:03, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I did skim Lenski's paper, and saw that on multiple occasions he says the data are not shown. In addition, his figures and tables are oddly uninformative. I recall that one figure is complete speculation. After skimming his paper the need for public disclosure of the data became even more apparent.<br />
<br />
What would I do with the raw data? I don't propose that access to it be limited based on education or credentials. I would expect many people, including folks just as bright as Lenski, to examine it and possibly identify flaws or make suggestions.<br />
<br />
I repeat: does anyone here really think Lenski's team is perfect or has a monopoly on knowledge???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
)<br />
<br />
:I don't think they have a monopoly on knowledge, and nobody's perfect. On the other hand, I do think the volume of data might prove to be a problem. If a response indicates that the complete data is simply too massive to be mailed/posted to a website, what's the next reasonable step? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:50, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::It is becoming clear that this campaign to release the data has more to do with your hope that Lenski won't and you can dismiss his claims on those grounds. I am sure the data is available to the people who need to see it and depending on the copyright restrictions that research unfortunatly comes with these day (usually through funding by non-government entities) it will be made available as publically as it can.<br />
<br />
:: Someone earlier mentioned ID theorist, they tend to have about as much qualifications on this as Andrew Schalfly, BSE. JD. so I won't hold much hope in them being able to understand it. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:22, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::: As I've warned someone else already on this page, one more derogatory comment like that in your second paragraph and you will earn yourself a block. Despite anti-creationist and anti-ID urban myth, the credentials of ID proponents and creationary scientists are every bit as good as those of other scientists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Really, ID theorist are scientist? [http://www.discovery.org/fellows/ Look at the Discovery Institute's board members and fellows]. Cihak is a MD, every other person on that list either has a degree in history, political science or law. Behe use to be a fellow so that is one biochemist, Dempski(?) was a mathematician who use to be there once. Only one relevently qualified and two semi-qualified experts that is it. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:02, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::: The Discovery Institute is not the only source of ID proponents. Just as with evolutionists, there are those that are qualified and those that are not, but still believe it, promote it, and etc. Your comment that I warned you about was ID theorists ''in general'', not DI board members and fellows specifically. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:01, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::But go to an equivalent one evolution supporting organisation and it will be full of PhD's in biology. Can you name any of these ID theorists ''in general'', Behe is the only one that comes to my mind. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 00:27, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::::: Really? I looked at the NCSE's staff list, and here's what I found.<br />
:::::::* Glenn Branch: no PhD. MA in philosophy from (UCLA).<br />
:::::::* Barbara Forrest: PhD in philosophy (Tulane University).<br />
:::::::* Peter Hess: PhD in a theological field, Science and Religion, (Graduate Theological Union).<br />
:::::::* Louise Mead: PhD in Organismic and Evolutionary Biology (UMass).<br />
:::::::* Eric Meikle: PhD in anthropology (Berkeley).<br />
:::::::* Kevin Padian: PhD in vertebrate evolution (Yale).<br />
:::::::* Andrew Petto: PhD in bioanthropology (UMass).<br />
:::::::* Joshua Rosenau: PhD candidate, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (University of Kansas).<br />
:::::::* Eugenie Scott: PhD in physical anthropology (University of Missouri).<br />
:::::::* Susan Spath: PhD in history of science, MA in molecular and cell biology (Berkeley).<br />
:::::::* Philip Spieth: PhD in genetics (University of Oregon).<br />
::::::: Biologists, yes. "full of PhD's in biology"? No.<br />
::::::: As for ID theorists, off the top of my head there's Michael Denton and Dean Kenyon. Not to mention the creationary scientists, such as Don Batten, David Catchpoole, Gary Parker, Jeff Downes, and many others.<br />
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:26, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I made some edits showing the location of where their graduate degrees were awarded (this is important for those who receive degrees from non-accredited schools). I would not cite NCSE anyway for they are only a PR group. I will point out that 9 out of the 11 are PhDs, that is pretty high (over 80%)(while one of the two non-PhDs is a PhD candidate). The question I might ask is how often do those of a non-related field write or evaluate a topic or paper? This should also be asked about CMI and such.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:58, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::::::: So which is the DI nearest to? A scientific research lab or a PR group?<br />
::::::::: Okay Able806, you implicitly questioned the legitimacy of the qualifications of creationists. So you now have a job: List, like I did and you expanded, the qualifications of the CMI staff ([http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/45/ here's] your starting point). And when you've done that, tell us how many of those are from non-accredited schools. Else you just might earn yourself a block for implicit accusations of dishonesty (that they are claiming to be something that they are not). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No need to threaten a block Philip, for to block me due to said accusation would require a block from those who are stating that Lenski is with holding his work from review. Here is a list I compiled from the website you gave me. Please correct me if I am wrong or missing names. I will add the information just as I did above as I discover it. Oh, does AU have a system to list accreditation? I will need to know that as well for those who received their Ph.Ds in AU.<br />
:Carl Wieland<br />
:Don Batten<br />
:Gary Bates<br />
:Jonathan Sarfati<br />
:Tas Walker<br />
:David Catchpoole<br />
:Pierre Jerlström<br />
:Peter Sparrow<br />
:Russell Grigg<br />
:Mark Harwood<br />
:John Hartnett<br />
:Rod Walsh<br />
:Barry Tapp<br />
:Stephen Grocott<br />
:Richard Fangrad <br />
:Emil Silvestru<br />
:Calvin Smith <br />
:Jeff Chiasson <br />
:Adrian Bates<br />
:Johan Kruger <br />
:Philip Bell<br />
:Rob Carter<br />
:Skip Tilton<br />
:The above list is a working list.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 12:27, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I've never heard of an accreditation list in Australia, but calling yourself a University when your not is an offence. [http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=University+act&meta= If you scroll down a bit] Each universities relevent act shows up eventually. It is a unique Australian phenomenon the act of parliment to create a university.<br />
<br />
::PJR giving Able806 a stupid job to do to deflect from the fact that you are severlly losing an argument is petty. All the Australians above have by and large from some of Austalia's top universities. Okay you have made your point. However I will note that one of them is famous for his twin publishing record. He publishes in top quality geology journals with the rock is 2.6bya, this glacier formed 100mya, and he has another list where he publishes in his creation "journal" he is on the board for defending his rediculous 6000 year hypothesis. Yes these days crationist have PhD either through abandoning their when that "have been saved" in which case they corrupt the scientific method to prove their new belief or they went through doing their PhD all the time not believing what they write. As someone currently studying a PhD I can't see how they managed but being slightly divorced from reality probably helped. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:24, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I read Lenski's paper, and as a trained microbiologist, I thought that it was both thorough and well done. His claims are backed by good data, namely that which was presented in the figures. I went through each of the figures after Aschlafly said that they were uninformative. Actually, they are basic figures that show the population explosion of the bacterial cultures after the Cit+ mutation occurred. These figures show that the cultures increased in size and mass at a given timepoint, being able to do so because they had evolved a mechanism to utilize a new nutrient, without the assistance of helper plasmids.<br />
<br />
I know that my post is getting long, but I just wanted to say that in addition to this that of course there is going to be a figure with some speculation when it is covering an alternate hypothesis. That is what a lot of science is really about; the scientist creates a battery of hypotheses, and through experimentation narrows down the field. Lenksi's paper, while not the most definite I've seen, is still a very well-researched paper that supports its claims nicely. --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]<br />
<br />
==Detractor Lineup==<br />
<br />
Ok, there seems to be some confusion about whether we are opposing the public release of information based on principle or practicality. So, let's make a list to make our position clear (please add a brief explanation and feel free to discuss in the comments section). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:54, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose Public Release based on PRINCIPLE'''<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Oppose Public Release based on PRACTICALITY'''<br />
<br />
* Because it is time consuming, costly (both in terms of money and resources) and the data is too big to be readily transfered. If we had a genuine reason to want the data and we were actually going to do something with it then it would be worth the effort (for example if we disputed a particular conclusion, in which case we could probably narrow down the data we wanted) however demanding a release based solely on principle is simply impractical and not going to happen. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:54, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:To illustrate that "big" means, a little ilustration from my own work. I work for the LOFAR project's future data proccesing center, we plan on recieving several dozen gigabits per second, or about a 60 meter stack of paper a second.. Now, I know biology research doesn't produce as much data as radiotelescopes do, but they've been working for 20 years.<br />
:By demanding all the original data, you are asking for several shipping containers full of dvd's. It's just not acceptable to spend so much time and money on everyone who asks for it, especially when you have no real desire to reproduce anything. I do think you should be able to see the data, but you obviously have to be more specific in your questions for information.<br />
:Again, I am not a biologist, but in astronomy when you want raw data, you request information about a specific part of measurements. You call someone and ask for data for 10 seconds from this-and-that time and of such-and-so area of sky. You do not send an open letter and demand "All research data". I think Richard Lenski was increadibly kind not to laugh in your face for such a demand, because it shows the asker has no idea how the scientific community functions.<br />
[[User:Alcari|Alcari]] 14:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
'''Comments'''<br />
<br />
StatsMsn, your objection is purely speculative and, frankly, implausible. Lenski has not asserted your claim and I doubt he will.<br />
<br />
But if you're right about the key data, then that suggests the peer reviewers did not have access to it, and the conclusion is this: claims based on that data should not be published in a Journal that says the data will be made available. Instead, one could publish such claims in a Journal saying the data will not be made available, and we can all take the claims with a grain of salt.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:03, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I think it's more likely that Lanski hasn't released the information to you based on practicalities than a conspiracy to publish false results. Note that I did not say the peer reviewers did not have access to the raw data, only that you did not. If there was a genuine reason to provide the data to someone (that is, someone who had a genuine reason to have it, such as to confirm or dispute a conclusion) then I have no doubt that any ethical research team would work out a way to transmit it. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:24, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: StatsMsn, I stopped reading at your word "conspiracy". No is alleging a "conspiracy". Post in a rational manner and don't pollute this page. Apologize and clean up your edit or please leave. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'm sorry Mr. Schlafly, but you seem to be trying to say that Lenski fudged 20 years of work, and that is being hidden by the people reviewing his work. That sounds like a conspiracy. Perhaps you should apologize, or clarify your edits. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: Has anyone considered the possiblility that some data was removed in the reviewing process? From my experience with journal publications (moderate at best) page numbers is important. Pages and pages of data and graphs are expensive to print. The reviewer would have seen it, the editor would look at it and thought it is too much and edit the paper so as to say the data is not presented. Ask for a preprint of the paper that will contain more data. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== False Claim of a Bad motive ==<br />
<br />
Let's face the truth, there is no real desire here for Andrew Schlafly or anyone on Conservapedia to get the raw data. The reason that this is even an issue is because placing this demand and getting no response somehow makes Lenski look bad and therefore automatically discredits him and his research and therefor the theory of evolution. The position of Mr. Schlafly is that the Bible is inerrant and the Genesis creation story is true. No amount of scientific data is going to change that. So why argue with him? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 10:05, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: You're clueless about my motivation and your account has been blocked for violating our [[90/10 rule]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Wow. I'm actually afraid to post my opinion now...Well, at the risk of being banned...Aschlafly: Was it really necessary to block MAnderson? I get the feeling (And this is simply an opinion based on personal observation) that the action taken against MAnderson was due more to the nature of his accusation of bias against you and not due to any violation of code, since bias is indeed a word that gets used around here often without reprimand. That being said I feel that the intended letter in question would severely discredit this website. Unless members of this site have the facilities necessary to conduct research into the validity of the Doctor's claims then we have no reason to request such massive documentation. Furthermore, the purpose of such counter-research should always be with the intent to ultimately strengthen a proposed line of research, even if it is by bringing to light flaws in the original findings. The purpose of peer review is not to discredit, but to strengthen through careful examination and criticism. If the originals researchers conclusions are eventually found to be flawed beyond renovation then the entire thing is thrown out, strengthening our scientific pool of knowledge as a whole by protecting it against faulty findings. It is my belief that a peer-reviewer should always have a most critical eye, but should also ultimately have the best at heart for the purported research. I do not believe such a mindset exists in this case. The letter itself seems to indicate a specific desire and hope of discrediting the E-coli findings, which should never be the purpose of peer review. To seek discredit simply for the sake of discredit is the very anti-thesis of why the peer-review system exists IMO. And it is my opinion that the intended letter gives the impression that discredit is the goal. In my opinion. --[[User:RobinGoodfellow|RobinGoodfellow]] 13:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:There's a difference between expressing your thoughts on a matter and saying of someone else "here is why you did it" and then make statements that are derogatory and degrading. The one at least expresses opinion. The other just makes things up with the followup assumption being now you must defend yourself against what I just made up. That's inappropriate and was handled as being inappropriate.<br />
<br />
:That being said, what you wrote is a different matter. I see no difficulty in the form of your speech, or the expression of your ideas. Do not equate your writings to what was put above by MAnderson; they are not the same. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:27, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I think there's a great deal of misunderstanding here from the critics of Mr. Schlafly and obfuscation on the part of Prof. Lenski and his supporters. The real data that we need are not in the paper. Rather they are in the bacteria used in the experiments themselves. Prof. Lenski claims that these bacteria "evolved" novel traits and that these were preceded by the evolution of "potentiated genotypes", from which the traits could be "reëvolved" using preserved colonies from those generations. But how are we to know if these traits weren't "potentiated" by the Creator when He designed the bacteria thousands of years ago, such that they would eventually reveal themselves when the time was right? The only way this can be settled is if we have access to the genetic sequences of the bacteria colonies so that we can apply CSI techniques and determine if these "potentiated genotypes" originated through blind chance or intelligence. But with the physical specimens in the hands of Darwinists, who claim they will get around to the sequencing at some unspecifed future time, how can we trust that this data will be forthcoming and forthright? Thus, Prof. Lenski et al. should supply Conservapedia, as stewards, with samples of the preserved ''E. coli'' colonies so that the data can be accessible to unbiased researchers outside of the hegemony of the Darwinian academia, even if it won't be put to immediate examination by Mr. Schlafly. This is simply about keeping tax-payer-funded scientists honest. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 20:03, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:'Dr. Paley', that's about the most ridiculous suggestion I've heard yet. I'm not going to even dignify that kind of nonsense with a response. But I will suggest, generally, that if you are that convinced there is a worldwide scientific conspiracy to perpretate fraud by hiding 'the potentiating hand of the creator', then there's nothing I could say to you anyway.<br />
<br />
:But I have this question for Andy and the rest of the supporters of the 'public access to data' line: if it is the ''principle'' of public access to data that you are fighting for--and this is not some kind of publicity stunt, as many have suggested--then why are you picking on this one experiment, and not the ''tens of thousands'' of scientific papers that have been published just, say, in the last decade? After all, Lenski's paper is no different than any scientific paper, in that is summarizes, but does not publish, the raw data on which it was based. So shouldn't you be asking every scientist who has published a paper in which raw data has not been published to present that data? Why just Lenski? Aren't there potentially ''thousands'' of 'new insights' that could be produced from public scrutiny of this data?<br />
<br />
:I think your motivations speak pretty clearly for themselves. [[User:porkchop]]<br />
<br />
:: (Note porkchop's use of [[Liberal tools]] #11 and #13.) Anyway, if Prof. Lenski has no fraud to hide, then he won't mind allowing other researchers access to the physical data. Again, it is simply a matter of keeping tax-funded activities honest. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 21:44, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Sorry, Richard. I guess you need your stupidity spelled out for you: no laboratory in the world is going to send ''the actual biological samples they worked on'' to a bunch of faceless internet nuts or anyone else. Even if such a request were possible (i.e. transport could be arranged safely and at no expense to Lenski, he could spare the material, etc.) what on earth would the 'scientists' at Conservapedia ''do'' with it? Keep it in Andy's refrigerator and look at it under his Kid Scientist microscope?<br />
<br />
:::And I'm waiting to hear whether anyone has a response to my question about the selective targeting of Lenski. [[User:porkchop]]<br />
<br />
:::: Taxpayers paid for Lenski's work, he published it in a journal that claims its authors will make underlying data available, his research claims were publicized in New Scientist, yet he hasn't complied with a request for his data. If that's true of others also as you suggest, then please give examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::What is your response to the view that Lenski has not released the data because it is too big to simply send to someone? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:50, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: That "view" is without any basis and, by the way, the suggestion is that Lenski post it rather than send it. Are you suggesting that Lenski did not make his key data available to the peer reviewers on his paper?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:59, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Someone said above that considering just one variable would result 4 terabytes worth of data, this is a ridiculous and costly amount of data to host (to put it in perspective, it's about 200 full DVD's). And yes it pretty much is all key (to ensure the mutations were not due to an environmental factor, to ensure that they were inherited, to ensure that they were not simply repressed genes which had previously appearing in the colonies etc). I am not suggesting that Lenski did not make his key data avaliable to peer reviewers, I'm fairly sure that had they wished to view it they could have done so (possibly by physically visiting his labs to access it, or by using a dedicated stream). Perhaps it's something you could ask in the email you send him, and while you're at it perhaps you could ask if researchers such as yourself or others would be able to access the data on request (this is essentially public access so long as nobody is turned away for ideological reasons). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:24, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::: So you're suggesting that the peer reviewers could only access the data by physically visiting Lenski's labs or by using "a dedicated stream"? That's tantamount to suggesting that the peer reviewers did not practically have access to the data, which creates an even bigger cloud of doubt about the claimed results. If that's the case, then obviously that should have been disclosed to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<- No, I was offering a couple of options. It's is equally (or even more likely) that Lenski's team spent a bit of money and transferred the data onto physical media and sent it to them. That is a question that you can ask in your email, lest we be accused of jumping to conclusions. Peer reviewers aside, the point remains that the reason Lenski has not published the data is due to its size and the cost of posting it, not their opposition to the public release of data. Again this will only be answered through a reply to your email, perhaps you could ask if it would be possible for you (and other researchers) to access the data, rather than demanding he post it on the internet or send it to you. This would overcome any refusal based on practicality, but still allow the public access to data. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:42, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: StatsMsn, note that:<br />
<br />
:* Lenski replied once and did not himself raise the objection you suggest<br />
:* the objection you suggest has no factual basis<br />
:* the objection you suggest would make it impossible to peer review the paper, or most types of collaborative work<br />
<br />
: At some point, StatsMsn, an open mind requires admitting the possibility that the data have not been made available because there is concern about what an independent reviewer may conclude from it. Are you open-minded enough to admit that possibility? It's a waste of time arguing with a closed mind, and if you won't admit at least that possibility then this discussion is unproductive.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:00, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm more than happy to admit that Lenski is preventing public access to his data, if there was some solid evidence for it. At the moment he has not refused to allow public access to it. <br />
<br />
::*Correct<br />
::*How so? People have already stated how large the raw data you are requesting is and how impractical it would be to host it. Where do you believe the factual error is, on the estimates of the size or the ability to make it readily avaliable to the general public?<br />
::*No, as measures could be taken to allow the peer reviewers access to the data if they required it. <br />
<br />
::The reason I keep arguing is because I know how difficult it is to transmit data to the general public. The university where I study originally provided a number of high resolution pictures to the general public via a ftp stream, however as each individual picture grew in size and the number of pictures grew the university had to cut off access, first to the general public and then to students, despite our internet connection greatly increasing in speed at the same time. At present the only way to access the images is either to physically enter the premises or request images via DVD (with a small cost for material and administration charges). Everyone including the general public is still able to access the images, however they cannot be made readily avaliable for reasons of practicality.<br />
<br />
::If the statistics above are correct then the size of the raw data you are requesting is much larger than the combined size of all our image files, it is highly impractical to simply request someone send it to you or post it on the internet. And yes I am willing to admit that this discussion is unproductive, that's why I'm going to send Lenski an email myself and request information on how the raw data can be accessed. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:10, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: You haven't yet admitted the possibility I describe, which suggests you may not yet have an open mind about this. If so, this discussion is unproductive, but please do feel free to contact Lenski directly with your theory about the data. I bet you do not receive a clear answer.<br />
<br />
::: I'm confident that Lenski has the data in a manageable form that enables him and his fellow researchers to access and examine it. If not, then frankly that raises even bigger questions about the reliability and verifiability of the claimed results.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<- I'm more than willing to admit the possibility that the peer reviewers have not had access to the raw data, it is entierly possible and we still see it happening when commercial interests become entangled with science (for instance, many pharamacological companies will not release negative studies concerning their products). In this case there is a need for further review in order to confirm the results, and if it is shown that Lenski skewed his results then appropriate action must be taken.<br />
<br />
Now, are you willing to admit the possibility that I describe?<br />
<br />
And I too am confident that Lenski has his data in a manageable form, what we disagree on is whether this data can be readily made avaliable to the public (like by hosting 4 terabytes on the internet) or to people who request it out of the blue. I am fairly confident that if you or another researcher requested access to the data and had a genuine reason for doing so then you would be provided with access to the data, either by physically accessing it on site or by arranging an appropriate means of transfer (with costs considered). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:26, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I admit the possibility that all the data is too voluminous to transfer easily, which is why my letter addressed that and requested the data made available to peer reviewers. By definition, that data cannot be too voluminous to transfer.<br />
<br />
: You said you would ask Lenski. Have you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:44, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Read below, and I have emailed him. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 10:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[Edit Conflict] I just read the paper for a second time, paying particular attention to the results section. There is an adequate summary of the data provided for peer reviewers. I admit that I was wrong with my terminology above (I'm having a late night and my brain's shutting down), the peer reviewers of the paper are not sent the raw data, they rely on the facts presented. Any subsequent reviews could have access to the raw data if necessary.<br />
<br />
Right now we have 4 possible scenarios that could be proposed:<br />
<br />
* The summary of the data Lenski presented is correct and the conclusion drawn is correct<br />
* The summary of the data Lenski presented is correct but the conclusion drawn is incorrect<br />
* The summary of the data is wrong due to unintentional mistakes<br />
* The summary of the data is wrong due to a deliberate attempt to skew results<br />
<br />
If the first is correct we have nothing to argue about. If the second is correct then you do not need access to the raw data in order to prove your results. If the third is correct then access to the raw data would be essential, however it would call into question the integrity of Lenski's laboratory and quite frankly I do not believe you have the resources to do better (let alone detect any irregularities). If the fourth is correct then you are accusing Lenski of academic dishonesty, a libelous claim that you would need solid evidence to support.<br />
<br />
Andy, could you please outline why you want to have access to the raw data when the summary provided in the paper is more than adequate to draw a conclusion. Do you believe that there has been a mistake made in the organisation of the data, or is this just to prove that you can (or cannot) gain access to the data, even though this is not at all required. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 10:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Failure to supply data? ==<br />
<br />
Aschlafly, you say above that Lenski "hasn't complied with a request for his data." Where did he do that? In his reply to your original letter he bends over backwards to accommodate your requests and answer your questions, and he's hardly had time to reply to the second letter! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:55, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Piltdown All Over Again ==<br />
<br />
The [[Piltdown Man | Piltdown hoax]] was possible precisely because the physical data was kept under lock-and-key and away from the eyes of unbiased non-Darwinians, who, if given the chance, would have spotted that the bones were unrelated right away. Even if Prof. Lenski were to provide the public with digital versions of the data, what assurances would we have that the data wasn't doctored? If we assume his Darwinian principles were no check on his willingness to publish a falsified paper, then why would we then assume they would prevent him from falsifying data? On the other hand, it would be impossible for Prof. Lenski to falsify the physical data residing in the actual bacteria, as that would require a massive program of genetic engineering. Only by allowing unbiased conservative scientists access to samples of the bacteria colonies can we assure that we aren't witnessing another Piltdown hoax, as the Darwinian community has a reputation for perpetrating them.<br />
<br />
As to the practicality of this, only scrapings of the cultures would be needed for reculturing, not the entire original petri dish as "porkchop" implies above. These can be stored in standard cryogenic ampules that take up very little space. The Discovery Institute surely has cryogenic facilities in their labs and would be willing to host the collection under the auspices of Conservapedia. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 10:50, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Excellent idea! Go for it. Send off a third letter at once! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:09, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Until Lenksi himself states that "no I will not give you the data, you crazy conservatives", in no way can you compare this to Piltdown. To do so is to further your own agenda of discrediting a scientific experiment that makes the minor point that traits can evolve. I believe that Lenski has provided enough data for all of you to examine and make claims about his research; honestly, what would you possibly do with scrapings of cultures? "Ok, Culture #95324 is Cit-, had me #95325"? I doubt that you people would even do that. Chances are, you would glance at the mountain of raw data Lenski would send, and then summarily dismiss it based on your own desire to see it fail. This is disgusting. --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]<br />
<br />
::''This is disgusting'' What is disgusting is that you are doing to Andy precisely what you suppose he will do to the data if and when it comes - that is, use it to back up a preconceived idea. You do not know how he or other Conservapedians will treat the data. Do not criticise him for something he hasn't done but which you assume he will do. To do so is arrant hypocricy. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:57, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::That is a fair point, Bugler. I'm just frustrated by the serious bias already lined up against Lenski's research, even before raw data has been seen. --Aaronp<br />
<br />
:: Well put, Bugler. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Aaronp, either you're naive or you're engaging in bullying if you maintain that Lenski plans to release his raw data soon for independent, public review. I asked him last Friday to release it, and his reply declined to do so. I asked him again yesterday, and he predictably has not replied. It now seems to me to be likely that the peer reviewers for his paper did not even see the raw data. I think it's likely that only Lenski and his grad student have seen the raw data underlying that paper (note its footnote). Don't pretend that Lenski welcomes independent review of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:15, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: My understanding is that peer reviewers do not normally see raw data. Absent reason to believe otherwise, they assume data is correctly reported in the submitted paper. But I could be wrong about this. Why do you think reviewers would normally be shown raw data? Also, I do not have a good idea what the data would look like? Do you have an opinion of what it looks like and what form it is in? -divaricatum 13:04, 19 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::: Data should be made available to peer reviewers. If I'm reading the dates on the front of this particular paper correctly, I think peer review was a mere 15 days or so. Looks to me like a rubber-stamp process for this subject matter despite making claims that were reported as being newsworthy.<br />
<br />
::::: The raw data have to already be in a form that allows collaborative work, so I don't see that as much of an obstacle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:47, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
[unidenting] You did not really respond to my points. I asked whether, according to your understanding, peer reviewers are normally shown raw data. I said my understanding was they were not. You say "data should be made available..." Is that your opinion, or are you describing actual practice? Second, the usable data is in the paper, as far as I can tell. The graphs do not permit knowing exact value, but you do not seem to be asking for the exact figures used to generate the graph. Look at, for example, figure 1: X axis is generation, Y axis is Optical Density. The caption says:<br />
<br />
: Population expansion during evolution of the Cit+ phenotype. Samples frozen at various times in the history of population Ara-3 were revived, and three DM25 cultures were established for each generation. Optical density (OD) at 420 nm was measured for each culture at 24 h. Error bars show the range of three values measured for each generation.<br />
<br />
The graph shows a dramatic rise around generation 33000, from less than 0.05 to about .25. What additional data would you like? There are presumably lab books with 33000+ OD measurements (or some multiple of that) but in what sense is the data not available? What exactly regarding this graph would you like to see? <br />
<br />
Finally, in the second letter you talk about instances where it is noted that data is not shown. I found 3 such instances:<br />
<br />
: page 3 Also, growth on citrate is inhibited by the citrate analog 5-fluorocitrate (data not shown), as was observed for the one previously reported Cit� mutant of E. coli (42, 43).<br />
<br />
: page 3 After depleting the glucose in DM25, the earliest Cit+ clones grow almost imperceptibly, if at all, for many hours before they begin efficiently using the citrate (data not shown), whereas later Cit+ cones switch to growth on citrate almost immediately (Fig. 2).<br />
<br />
: page 6 These differences were also evident when we monitored the intraday dynamics of mixtures of Cit+ and Cit- cells (data not shown).<br />
<br />
In no case do the data seem relevant to the main point of the paper (in the first case, there may be data in the references; in the second case, he is simply noting that early clones grow slowly, but the point is later clones grow fast, for which data are shown; and the third case -- discussing utilization of glucose -- is again tangential to the main conclusion). Why are you interested in these data? -divaricatum 14:21 June 19, 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Lenski has "predictably" not replied? That's exactly what I'm talking about. You're so biased against him purely because you don't agree with the subject of his work. I would be frustrated in the same way if you were doing this with any research paper, not just Lenski's. "Predictably" he hasn't replied... maybe that is because he is a busy man who was kind enough to respond to your first email, but now simply does not want to (or have to) cater to the whims of some random hyper-conservative blogger who is asking him to release 20 years of raw data that the blogger does not have the knowledge set to critique! God forbid the man takes a week to respond to your email; if after two are three days of no answer are you going to condemn him by saying "he's obviously not talking to me because he's hiding something"? --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
"''If we assume his Darwinian principles were no check on his willingness to publish a falsified paper, then why would we then assume they would prevent him from falsifying data?''": Whilst it is true that Darwinism and atheism provide no basis for morals, hence honesty, it does not follow that individual Darwinists and atheists have no morals. In most cases, they have adopted a form of the morality held to by their society, which (in the case of western countries) has its basis in Christianity. So there is no reason to assume that Lenski would be dishonest with the data itself. The comparison with Piltdown has no basis.<br />
<br />
Peer review, as I understand it, is not meant as a check on all the research of a scientist, but merely as a basic check that the scientist has used suitable methodology, that his conclusions can be justified from his data, that he has explained the research clearly enough for the readers to understand, and so forth. Therefore all the detailed data would not normally be provided to the reviewers, although they may (I'm not certain) be able to request it if they are not satisfied by the data provided. Certainly they could reject the paper if they weren't satisfied, or request that more data be included in the paper if they felt that not enough was.<br />
<br />
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== General Reply ==<br />
<br />
Lenski has essentially refused my request that he make his underlying data available for public scrutiny, despite his use of public funding. Given the remarkably short time between submission of his PNAS manuscript and its acceptance (only 14 days), I doubt his paper even had meaningful peer review. <br />
<br />
It's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data. I wonder if PNAS violated its own stated policies by publishing Lenski's paper, and I'm going to email its Editor-in-Chief to request an explanation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:19, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
: How long does peer review normally take? And what PNAS policies do you think may have been violated? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:32, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Other articles in the same issue of PNAS:<br />
<br />
Effective tumor treatment targeting a melanoma/melanocyte-associated antigen triggers severe ocular autoimmunity approved April 14, 2008 (received for review November 18, 2007)<br />
<br />
Localized and extended deformations of elastic shells<br />
approved March 11, 2008 (received for review August 7, 2007)<br />
<br />
Characterization of the structure–function relationship at the ligament-to-bone interface approved April 11, 2008 (received for review December 28, 2007)<br />
<br />
Mutations in the telomerase component NHP2 cause the premature ageing syndrome dyskeratosis congenita approved April 14, 2008 (received for review January 3, 2008)<br />
<br />
Experimental evidence for negative selection in the evolution of a Yersinia pestis pseudogene approved April 15, 2008 (received for review February 13, 2008)<br />
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:36, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The average length of peer review for PNAS, based on a sample, is over 120 days. Lenski's paper was accepted within only 14 days of submission.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:53, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Andy, I'm not sure there's sufficient reason to claim that it probably didn't get a meaningful peer review. 2 weeks is certainly enough time for reviewers to read and critique the article. You may have noticed that Blount et al.'s article is identified as part of a special series, which could explain why it was reviewed more quickly than usual. I hope you will post the editor's reply here. Incidentally, in light of your view on this page of the importance of allowing research to be scrutinized by others, I would like to re-open my request for you to share your methodology on the hollywood breast cancer mystery page. Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:18, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I intended peer review in general, not just at the PNAS, but that's a fair comparison. Like Murray, I would have thought that a fortnight is sufficient, but you do appear to be correct that the Lenski paper was much quicker than normal at the PNAS. So that just leaves the question of broken policies... [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:24, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::If you take Lenski's paper for what it is, peer review of the paper would not take long after all. The majority of his data could be kick out for his paper is just the documentation of the bacteria using the citrate. Murry, what is this about breast cancer?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 12:30, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: Murray is referring to [http://www.conservapedia.com/Mystery:Young_Hollywood_Breast_Cancer_Victims this poorly researched thesis proposed by ASchlafly], Able806. No data to support the thesis was ever provided by ASchlafly. I'd invite you to take a look. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 12:40, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Looking at the paper, it seems to me almost all the experimental data is shown in figure 1: the ability of the bacteria to utilize citrate as revealed by optical density measurements. Something clearly happened around generation 33000, and the OD measurements jumped fivefold (from 0.05 to 0.25) with the range of measurements over three samples being way, way less that 0.2 (the size of the jump). That seems to be it experimentally. The rest of the paper describes the methodology and discusses what could have caused the change.<br />
<br />
::: People keep talking about raw data. Would someone who says that explain what they mean? To me, raw data is relevant when what is reported is derived data. For example, suppose you have a study of health effects of working at a facility that handles nuclear material. You report the radiation exposure over background of workers. That is derived data. The raw data are the workers' dosimeter readings and the background radiation measurements. That is what you would ask for when you wanted the raw data which supported the derived data.<br />
<br />
::: But in the Lenski paper, as far as I can tell, the data reported is the actual measured data: they measured the optical density of the samples and reported those numbers in figure 1. Of course, I could be wrong, I am not an expert in this field, but if someone disagrees with me, please tell me what the raw data would be and how the data in figure 1 was derived from it. (Lenski said that all the data being asked for is in paper. That statement is consistent with what I am saying.)<br />
<br />
::: As to 14 days, I do not see any problem. This is a very exciting result to people in the field and the reviewers would very likely put it on top of their to do lists. As I say, the experimental data is simple and unambiguous (something significant happened at generation 33000), the description of the methodology is clear and straightforward, and the discussion of the causes is at least consistent and believable. What is there to object to?<br />
<br />
::: Aschlafly talks of 'concealed data'. Could you please tell me what data you believe is being concealed? Specifically, what measurements are not revealed? (I know you can say 'how could I know if they do not tell me', but can someone at least suggest what kind of information is not being revealed?) -divaricatum 10:03 June 20 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::: If Aschlafly is talking about the "data not shown" parts of the paper as being "concealed", then he is being ignorant about normal scientific paper submission. Due to length constraints and other factors, most (read: all) researchers will leave out unimportant pieces of data that aren't necessarily the key points of the paper. For example, a paper could catalog the radiation levels of all the workers at a given nuclear power plant, and have a main point that workers who are in a certain part of the plant are getting higher exposure rates. Because it had to catalog all workers of the plant, it might also have to take dosage readings of people who work off-site. Obviously, people who aren't working at the plant will not have high radiation doses, and thus in the paper that result might look like "Predictably, those workers who perform their duties off-site had no detectable radiation doses that were above background (data not shown)". It would be pointless to show that "hey look, people who don't work around the radiation don't have readings above background! Here's a chart proving it!". That is why almost all papers have at least one data set that isn't shown. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]<br />
<br />
I have to run an errand but want to you everyone know, as I've said before, that it's only productive to discuss something with somebody who has an open mind. If you agree with my statement that "It's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data," then let's talk. If not, then please rant somewhere else. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:34, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: In the 'Piltdown all over again' thread above, I list all three instances of 'data not shown' from the paper and point out that, according to my understanding of what is being reported, the conclusions are not relevant to the point being made. Therefore (reinforcing what aaronp says) I would not expect the data to be shown and do not understand what use it would be to anyone interested in arguing with the paper's conclusions. Again, I could be wrong, but please if you disagree, address the point by explaining how the unshown data would be relevant to the conclusions of the paper. <br />
<br />
:::: With regard to aschlafly's last comment, please tell me what data you believe has not been revealed. My contention is all the relevant data is in figure 1. I am happy to be shown to be wrong, but please explain what data you think has not been revealed. -divaricatum 10:40 June 20 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::: : The data hasn't been concealed! "Concealed" from you, perhaps, but I blame that more on who you represent rather than some vague plot to get this information published without going through checks and balances. The data was peer-reviewed. The data was presented in a clear and logical manner. The data supported the conclusions. This is your run-of-the-mill publication, and has satisfied all it needs to in order to be recognized. I agree that if some person were to make an unverified claim (like all those crazy people who claim to have cloned a human being, but haven't shown the clones or released any data) and depict it as truth, then yes, that would be unscientific. But this paper hasn't done that. As for being close-minded, I believe it is you that is being close-minded. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]] 13:40, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
For reasons already explained, I'm not going to waste time with close-minded argument here. If you agree that it's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data, then clearly say so. Otherwise, it's a futile exercise. Anyone at any time could make an unverified claim based on concealed data, and people could be found to defend it. Only fools would try to reason with them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:17, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: If you are referring to me, please show where I have been close-minded. Sure I agree that "it's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data", but I am asking whether that is the case here. I ask repeatedly about what data have been concealed, and no one, particularly you, responds. There are two claims made in the paper: that a strain of E. colii evolved the ability to utilize citrate, and that the strain first had a mutation which while it did not allow the utilization of citrate, in some fashion potentiated the later mutation. The first claim is supported by the optical density data in figure 1. I contend that that is direct data and there is no associated raw data to look at, and that the ability to utilize citrate is clearly shown by the data provided.<br />
<br />
: The second claim is demonstrated by repeat experiments using stored samples. In some cases, the ability to utilize citrate evolved, in some cases not. They report on the strains used, how often the ability evolved, etc. I again do not see what data are not being supplied. All I am asking from you is to explain what data you believe is available to the researches that would be relevant in evaluating their results which is not in the paper. I do not see what is unreasonable about that request.<br />
<br />
: Lenski said in his letter to you that all the relevant data was in the paper. From my reading, that seems to be true. I am of course open to an argument that something additional needs to be revealed but I would like to understand what that additional something is, and no one, specifically not you, has said.<br />
<br />
: Now perhaps you are suggesting that the data reported in the paper is not the actual data collected (whether accidentally or intentionally mistranscribed, or whatever). If that is what you are saying is possible, please say so explicitly so we can understand your point, and also say how you would like the matter resolved (xeroxes of lab books? Computer backup tapes? what?)<br />
<br />
: I would just like to understand what people think has not been revealed. I do not see why asking that question indicates a closed mind or any such thing. -divaricatum 11:30 June 20 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: OK, divaricatum, we're arguing from the same logical basis, so let's proceed. The underlying data are not in the papers. The papers have an interpretative summary of the data which may be mistaken, incomplete, or worse. The underlying data were only analyzed by two people: Lenski and a grad student (presumably under the control of Lenski). Let's see what they analyzed. We may see things they missed or ignored. Or there may be defects in the data that they didn't realize or disclose. In less than 14 days between submission and acceptance of the paper, it's unlikely any peer review did this.<br />
<br />
:: If this were a court of law, the judge would not even allow Lenski and his grad student to present their summaries to the jury without first providing the underlying data to the other side. Surely scientific standards have not fallen lower than legal ones.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:52, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
(this discussion is limited to those who accept the logical premise repeated above: "it's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data." Sermons, rants and illogical postings can be made elsewhere. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:14, 20 June 2008 (EDT))<br />
<br />
::: Thank you. Let us look at claim number 1, that a strain of E. coli evolved the ability to utilize citrate. This is from page 2 of the paper (and onto page 3):<br />
<br />
:::: After 33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1). A number of Cit+ clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all were Ara-, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2). DNA sequencing also showed that Cit+ clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, and each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all of the others (30). Therefore, the Cit+ variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant. The evolved Cit+ variant grows to high density in DM0 (a citrate-only medium), produces vigorous colonies on minimal citrate (MC) agar plates, and causes a positive color change on Simmon’s citrate agar, all of which indicate that it can use citrate as a sole carbon source. In DM25, Cit+ cells undergo a period of rapid growth on glucose that is followed by slower growth on citrate (Fig. 2). Also, growth on citrate is inhibited by the citrate analog 5-fluorocitrate (data not shown), as was observed for the one previously reported Cit+ mutant of E. coli (42, 43).<br />
<br />
::: So, there was a population that could utilize citrate. The claims made are (1) it was not a contaminate (the data asserted is that it had the markers of the earlier populations), (2) it had mutations found in earlier strains from the same evolving populations. (3) It grows in a glucose-free environment and can use citrate as a carbon source. (4) It continues to grow on citrate/glucose medium after the glucose is exhausted (while other E. coli stops growing).<br />
<br />
::: Data explicitly supplied (figure 1) shows the ability of strains after the mutation to grow on citrate only (glucose free) medium. I assert this is direct (not derived) data since (I believe) the optical density is directly measured and that is what is shown in figure 1. Further data (figure 2) compares a strain with the mutation and one without and shows the with strain continues to grow after the glucose is exhausted while the without strain stops growing. Again, this is OD data directly reported. (I could of course be mistaken and OD data is in fact derived from other data, like excess radiation exposure, in which case someone please correct me.)<br />
<br />
::: The derived data is that the mutated strain has markers from the ancestral source and has specific mutations from more recent ancestors (that is, there are presumably DNA and other analyses which show these things which are not shown). He also reports on growth on other specific media (minimal citrate (MC) agar plates and Simmon’s citrate agar) where we are told only that on the first, the growth is vigorous, and on the second produces a color change. Finally (in what seems to be a parenthetical comment) growth in inhibited by the "citrate analog 5-fluorocitrate", but that data is not shown, and it is noted that was reported by the other known E. coli variant that can utilize citrate. (I interpret this as simply reporting that the variant they found is likely the same or very similar to the variant previously reported. That is interesting but not, it seems to me, relevant to the result of the paper, so the lack of supplied data does not seem significant to me.)<br />
<br />
::: So, what could you ask for? The OD reports from saved samples shown in figure 1 seem unambiguous as to the ability of the strain, after 33000 to utilize citrate, and so, except as qualified next, the basic claim seems to me to be verified. I cannot imagine what additional data with respect to OD you could ask for unless you are claiming that they mistranscribed the data (in which case, I repeat, resolve it how? Look at Lab books?)<br />
<br />
::: So here is the qualification: could it be a contamination? They explain how they reject the contamination hypothesis. You could say that was very important to your confidence and so you would like to see the specific test results for the markers and mutations. That is certainly a specific question and one that could be answered, although with some (perhaps significant) expenditure of time and money.<br />
<br />
::: As to the growth on other media (minimal citrate (MC) agar plates and Simmon’s citrate agar) the paper simply describes the growth as vigorous and the color changing. But these reports seem unambiguous in that they could be in error only if the investigators were misrepresenting their findings. Here again, what would you like to see? Lab books? Because this could only be false through fraud, the lab books would presumably in that case also be fraudulent.<br />
<br />
::: So it seems to me that all one could ask for is the dna/marker data that verifies that the cit+ samples are not contaminates. Perhaps, if you were willing to pay for the tests, one could ask for ancestral, close to mutation, and post mutation samples on which to repeat the tests.<br />
<br />
::: Let us leave fraud aside. So then the question is, did they make (honest) mistakes? It frankly seems unlikely to me because the tests seem straightforward: the ability to utilize citrate seems very easy to test unambiguously (smear some on a citrate/no glucose base and see what happens). The differences between growing vigorously and hardly are surely great enough that one could not mistake one for the other. The contamination tests, while much more complicated, also seem standard. DNA sequencing is a well-established technique. There are looking for specific loci ("DNA sequencing also showed that Cit+ clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population"). I am not sure how the markers mentioned are identified but I again think this is a standard test.<br />
<br />
::: So, to repeat my conclusion: the only thing I feel is worth asking about (all this is about result 1, there was a mutation which allowed utilization of citrate) is the contamination question. There they presumably have data which confirms there statements but I am not sure whether it is reasonably to ask them for it absent some specific concern. (Here an experienced microbiogist would be helpful, if I have the field right: is their description of how they determined that the strain was not contaminated reasonable and the tests they did straightforward and unambiguous, or is there room for reasonable doubt? Answering that is beyond my knowledge. I would be pleased to hear from such an expert.)<br />
<br />
::: As to claim 2, I understand it less well, but could discuss it in more detail but I feel I have gone on long enough discussing claim 1. I would be pleased to read differing analyses of claim 1, particularly with regard to where the authors might reasonably be incorrect, absent fraud. divaricatum 13:09 June 20, 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Thank you, Divaricatum, for putting what I wanted to say so eloquently on the page. I believe that Lenski was being straight when he published his findings, and that barring gross fraud, the paper is very well-researched. -- Aaronp<br />
<br />
==Note re. article==<br />
As an aside, I' wonder if someone couldn't place some information at the head of the article here? At present, the article simply starts into a "first letter" to "a Prof. Lenski". The article should have a little setup to introduce readers to what on Earth it's all about. There is no reference in the article to the rest of the debate, basically. Just an FYI. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 13:17, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Lenski's second reply==<br />
Are you happy now? He has answered everything you asked. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 06:21, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:Andy should be thanked and congratulated by everyone here for his efforts on behalf of truth and openness. Those of us not blinded by Liberal deceit can now see atheistic pseudo-science for what it is. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:04, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:Really, Bugler? After that statement, I have trouble believing you're real. Atheistic pseudo-science? Liberal deceit? Do you even know what you're talking about? This isn't pseudo-science. Just because you don't understand it, it doesn't mean the information is suddenly invalid. In fact, after what is seemingly a post purely to stroke Andy's ego just a little bit more, even in the face of Lenski's reply, I believe that you are just a sock of Aschlafly. By the way, I'm expecting a 90/10 for this. --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]<br />
::I wouldn't give you the satisfaction of dignifying such a ridiculous post in that manner. Nor does the exchange require my poor talents to explain it to you. The messages stand by themselves, and Andy's honest intentions and integrity stand out. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:22, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::Sir Bugler, why do you cite something called "Liberal Deceit." Please allow me to clarify, explain to me what basis you have to slap on deceit towards liberals. I know that you are not inferring that all liberals engage in deceit, or that deceit is only inherent to liberals, but you are making a statement in some form, am I wrong? For every time that there is a liberal engaging in a form of deceit, there is also a conservative engaging in that same type of deceit. <br />
P.S. You are seeking data to scrutinize the integrity of an "Atheistic" scientist's work, who, as we've learned now from the Lenski's most recent letter that he is in fact, not at all an atheist, but a church attender. SO please accordingly revise your attacks. {{unsigned|Eligus}}<br />
<br />
:::Ok Bugler, to be fair, I will let go of my frustration and attempt to make a "valid" point. Can we at least respect Lenski for taking the time to write out his replies? The man is incredibly busy (trust me, I know), and still managed to communicate to a random person from the internet who was challenging 20 years worth of work. In addition to this, Lenski was very courteous with his replies! Surely we can't demonize the man purely because of his work on a bacterial strain? I can respect that Andy was doing what he thought was right, but can't we also give the same courtesy to Lenski, who put equal heart into his own work? -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]<br />
::::I can't say I noticed sarcasm or mockery in Andy's messages. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::True, but I did notice some serious (unfounded) allegations of fraud in his statements on the talk page; since the talk page is public domain, it means that Lenski saw them as well. I would say that Andy was being very rude, accusing someone of gross fraud without concrete evidence. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]<br />
<br />
::::: Really, Aaronp? When was I "accusing someone of gross fraud without concrete evidence"? Perhaps you can provide a quote for your claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:11, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Anyway back to my question, are you now satisfied in the response? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 08:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
"Given the remarkably short time between submission of his PNAS manuscript and its acceptance (only 14 days), I doubt his paper even had meaningful peer review..." "It's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data..." Both of these quotes, Mr. Schlafly, imply that Lenski falsified his data and collaborated in an elaborate conspiracy to get his paper published! You already assume that Lenski was fraudulent with his data when you said this! How is that not accusing him of fraud? -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]] Also, sorry to distract from your question, Daniel. Andy, please answer Dan first. Thank you.<br />
<br />
: Aaronp, your quote does not support your accusation, and I suggest you retract it immediately. I leave that up to you. Obviously there are many types of possible flaws in scientific claims that are not "gross fraud." For example, I don't think Andrew Wiles' (an example I used) was fraudulent in presenting his initial proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]], which general scrutiny found to be flawed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::''You already assume that Lenski was fraudulent with his data when you said this!'' You are a mind-reader, Aaron! Truly remarkable! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:32, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::You're right. What can I say? I am omniscient. As for the quote, by stating you doubted the paper was peer-reviewed, you are claiming that Lenski didn't actually go through the proper steps to get his data published, which is accusing him of fraud. I don't see how that can be any more straightforward. --Aaronp<br />
<br />
::::The responsibility for peer review is on the peers that do the reviewing. I don't know why you would assume that Andy would be accusing Linski of dubious scientific practice, when the more likely explanation is that he was accusing the reviewers. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 08:51, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Don't be naive, Drochld. Andy was attacking Lenski specifically. -- Aaronp<br />
That is enough. If you persist with these ludicrous accusations of malevolence you will be blocked. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:58, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:AaronP to be safe you should preface every truth you say with "it seems" so that way it isn't an accusation... '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 09:02, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Bugler, if Andy was not assuming that Lenski's data was frauduflent, wouldn't that mean that he was being openminded about the possibility of the Bible being incorrect? [[User:RWilson|RWilson]] 13:52, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::: I'm not sure what you are getting at there, but I ''think'' you are saying that either Lenski is a fraud or the Bible is incorrect, yet I see no reason for thinking it has to be one or the other. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:29, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Once again, the above seriously misrepresents the situation with Fermat's Last Theorem. While I was very happy that he released his manuscript immediately after his lectures at the Newton Institute, the fact remains that the error was detected in conversations between Wiles and consummate insiders like Nick Katz [http://www.math.princeton.edu/~nmk/], not after general scrutiny by random people around the internet. --[[User:Npstrick|Npstrick]] 10:23, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Thanks, DLerner. "It seems" I've made my point anyway. No more accusations of malevolence from this gentleman, no sir! --Aaronp<br />
<br />
Lenski's reply in a nutshell, once all the talk pollution and ad hominem attacks are removed: No, I will not give you my raw data or my E. Coli samples, not to you or any other non-Darwinist. <br />
<br />
And we're still supposed to believe his research is legitimate??? This is exactly what Andy predicted he would do, only not necessarily so rudely. Andy wins. Game. Set. Match. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 10:36, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Really? He said he would put the data on his website, and I think [[Behe]] meets Lenski's three qualifications for a scientist to whom he would release the bacteria. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 10:55, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Behe? Are you serious? He's supposed to be a Creation Scientist? The guy believes in the big bang, an earth billions of years old, and evolution. He does not believe in a young Earth, Adam and Eve, or the true word of the Bible. He's an evolutionist who happens to say "oh yeah, God guided evolution." As if there was anything on the Earth ''not'' guided by God! Just because he's one of the few scientists who isn't an atheist he's supposed to be one of us? No thanks. I'd rather go with someone who didn't drink the Old Earth Kool-aid. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 11:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::In spite of his Old Earth views or sympathies to evolution, Behe would be the perfect person for the job. He's a scientist! Has anyone contacted him yet? I bet he would jump at the opportunity to do research like this and having it published in a peer review journal would make ID more credible. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I for one am really, really glad that Lenski is '''not''' prepared to send dangerous bacteria to someone without checking on their credentials first. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 18:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Settle down, TonyT. Nobody claimed that he was a creationist, but as one who doesn't believe in naturalistic evolution, he would be a good person to check this out. On the other hand, as I've pointed out already, creationists and ID theorists don't necessarily have a problem with this research, so really, there may be nothing worth checking out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:25, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== "P.P.P.P.S.?" == <br />
<br />
Wow. Professional. The guy writes like a 12-year-old girl. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:25, 24 June 2008 (EDT) <br />
:Wow. besides the ad hom, does anyone care to contest the substance of what the guy said? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:36, 24 June 2008 (EDT) <br />
<br />
<br />
::Fair enough. I think Lenski raises a valid point that honestly hadn't occurred to me--namely, the logistics of transporting and storing biological materials. While a request for data stored in electronic form is one thing, a request for actual samples of the cultures is another. Unless facilities for the storage of such material are available, I don't think this issue can be brought to a conclusion that will be satisfactory for everyone. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:54, 24 June 2008 (EDT) <br />
<br />
== E. coli in our bowels == <br />
<br />
So if they're mutating and evolving, why don't they kill us? Our bodies obviously have defenses that protect us from the E. coli in our guts, but with all this evolving supposedly going on, you'd think they'd have evolved into something that could overcome those defenses and kill us so they could feast on our corpses. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Or you'd think that our bodies have evolved ways to deal with that. Or you'd think that there would be no advantage for e.coli to evolve a trait that would kill off its host environment. Or you'd think that humans would have evolved wings and third arms and eyes in the back of their heads in order to better adapt to their environments. Where exactly is it written in evolutionary science that all organism will eveolve the traits that you happen to think would improve their chances? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT) <br />
: Not to mention that evolution doesn't have a "goal." Yeesh, the ignorance here is astounding.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 15:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT) + <br />
:: Shows what you know! The goal of evolution is obviously to "evolve" in whatever manner it takes to destroy all of humanity. Who's ignorant now? Bobdobbs 15:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Jinxmchue perhaps you should better familiarise yourself with the principles of evolution and basic human biology before making claims such as the above. The theory of evolution states that organisms will undergo mutations, and the process of natural selection will determine which prosper (and hence are carried on) and which do not. A parasitic organism is not going to be doing itself any favours by killing its host, if it did then it would have minimal ability to survive and its genes would not be passed on to future generations.<br />
<br />
:::In addition, some bacteria do evolve (or have evolved in the past) to overcome their host's defences, the thing is that the body contains millions upon millions of variations of white blood cells and eventually one that possesses the capability to destroy the bacteria will encounter it, proliferate and destroy it. This likelihood is increased by the inflammatory response accompanying most organisms. In some caes our bodies cannot fight off infection, and that is the reason we develop modern antibiotics.<br />
<br />
:::Furthermore, a single mutated bacteria, or even a few hundred of its spawn, are not going to be capable of producing sufficient protetin to kill their host. Even if every protein produced was capable of destroying a cell (which never happens) it would take thousands if not millions of bacteria over a long time period to kill the host. Now this is where the catch is, it takes energy to produce proteins which the bacteria could otherwise be utilising for other things, like surviving. If a bacteria is pumping out enough proteins to kill the surrounding cells it will be diverted from its normal tasks (but please remember that a bacteria is not actually capable of thought) and will not stand much of a change of survival. <br />
<br />
:::Oh (and this sort of relates to all of the last three points), you should be aware that bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract (our guts) are in most cases not under attack by the human immune system as they are technically outside of the body. Therefore evolving to overcome the host's defences is not going to have any difference, and will just be wasting energy. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 19:14, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Alice, according to evolutionary theory, species that fail to evolve die. And there are no evolutionary dead ends other than those that die off. If it's alive, it's evolving. Yet we don't see any evolving going on despite the fact that the rate of evolution has to be so phenomenally fast that it should easily be seen. In fact, this lack of obvious evolution has led to someone inventing the idea of "punctuated equilibrium" to explain away why we don't see it happening all the time. It's a load of nonsensical, unprovable bull. I used to believe every word of it, but when I approached it with a critical eye (something that is NEVER allowed by the evolutionary dogmatists), I found it to be very, very wanting. This "evolving" E. coli proves nothing. It's still E. coli. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:02, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Jinxmchue, wrong. Evolutionary theory gives various examples of species that have not evolved (or evolved very little) in millions of years; coelacanths are one. Species that fail to evolve ''when their environment changes'' die; species in an unchanging habitat have no need to evolve one they have adapted to it sufficiently. [[User:Bmalee|bmalee]] 07:56, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::The coelacanth is very likely the greatest example of how wrong the theory of evolution is. Evolutionists are beside themselves trying to explain how this supposedly millions of years extinct animal showed up in modern times showing absolutely no evolution. Are we to believe that the coelacanths' environment never changed in the millions of years since they were claimed to have died off? That must be quite a stable part of the earth indeed! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:04, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: You are both correct. Evolution does indeed say that creatures in non-changing environments have no need to evolve. bmalee is correct on that. However, you are also correct with your example of the coelacanth. Basically, the evolutionary argument that a given creature hasn't evolved because its environment didn't change is an ''ad hoc'' explanation without empirical evidence and without explanatory power. I don't know that the coelacanth is the greatest example, though, as there are much older living things that show no sign of change either. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:18, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: How is Jinx correct with that example, though? The current living species of coelacanth are not the same as the ones in fossils, which as far as we know are all extinct (although the most recent fossils do resemble the living ones found). It seems that 'modern' coelacanth are substantially larger than their ancestors, and live birth is also speculated to be (relatively) new to the species. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:27, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Peer Review Process==<br />
<br />
My apologies if I am contributing to a debate that has already closed, but skimmed through the letters exchanged and the debate here and noticed a slight discrepancy in understanding. The peer reviewers of a paper do not receive any data other than that which is eventually published in the journal (although some may be removed by the editor, such as for page restrictions). They exist to judge the method and to ensure that the conclusions are accurately drawn from the results provided in the paper. They do not check to make sure the raw data is properly summarised in the results, nor do they ever have access to the raw data. The checking of raw data is carried out after the paper is published, either through scientists reproducing the experiment or (such as in this case) obtaining materials and records directly from the scientist involved.<br />
<br />
Hope this clears things up. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 09:06, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Well I don't know the details of the peer review process. I also dunno about anyone else. But I did get a chuckle out of his little anecdote. For what its worth, it lightened my mood after 38 hours without sleep, (recipe for regret, I don't recommend it). [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 23:44, 24 June 2008<br />
<br />
== Reply to Lenski's second-last paragraph ==<br />
<br />
Dr. Lenski, I hope you get to read this.<br />
<br />
I have no dispute with most of your second letter (or your first one), and you will note above my objections to the letters being sent to you, but do wish to respond to your second-last paragraph (the P.P.P.S.). You point out earlier in your letter than Andy Schlafly lacks expertise in the relevant fields, but you then proceed to pontificate on an area in which you appear to have no expertise, biblical [[exegesis]].<br />
<br />
The main problem with your claim that God may have used evolution is not that He could not have, but that He said that he didn't (or, more precisely, what He said that He did is incompatible with evolution). What is "insulting to God" is rejecting what He has plainly told us that He did.<br />
<br />
This point has been made over and over by creationists, so your lack of awareness of this demonstrates that you have little idea of what creationists actually claim and believe, yet it seems that you yourself are willing to go beyond your expertise when it suits you.<br />
<br />
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:22, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
P.S. Don't take too much notice of some of the messages posted above, a few of which are likely parodist troublemakers.<br />
<br />
:He wasn't talking about Creationism (specifically Young Earth Creationism) though, Philip. As you are aware, many Christians, possibly the majority, reject YEC and use very similar arguments that Lenski iterated, i.e. that evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive and it is presumptuous of any of us to claim knowledge of how precisely God created the universe. Of course, that's the core disagreement between YEC and more theistic evolution positions. You would expect an evolutionary biologist to side with the latter in his appreciation and understanding of Christianity. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:39, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:Just to clarify - I'm not deliberately arguing, just pointing out what I understood to be his position on that bit. I agree wholeheartedly with your other sentiments. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:01, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Reading past all the deliberate insults the scientists tossed, we come to the claim that "God created living things via evolution". Taking a stab at [[theistic evolution]], the scientist twists the knife by speculating that God would use set in motion some sort of blind watchmaker mechanism to create everything. <br />
<br />
::As Philip indicated, this is so obviously incompatible with YE Creationism that you have to wonder how stupid the scientists thinks our readers are. And even OE Creationism (the only major kind left to consider) '''specifically''' posits that God intervened creatively. <br />
<br />
::So, once again, the scientists has made assertions without giving adequate explanation. Everything is either assumed to have been "already explained" or is embargoed information (so he and has colleagues can take credit). If I may use a Jewish expression, God forbid he should every give us a straight answer! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:48, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::Not "speculating", Ed; '''observing'''. The speculation lies in the assumption that what someone you trust, who was told by someone they trust who was told by someone ''they'' trusted - and so on throughout many generations and translations - told ''you'' is an objective fact, and that ''somewhere'' down the line, not a single person - most of whose names you will never know - either made an error in judgment about who to trust, mistranslated, took artistic license at filling in the blanks, or at the very least had unwittingly consumed some rather questionable mushrooms. This is precisely why empirical data is valued in science over anecdotal. <br />
<br />
:::You say God said so, I say bring him here to tell me in person. You say God doesn't work that way, I say my how convenient for you, now leave me alone, I'm busy doing science. [[User:Cantle|Cantle]] 23:48, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Ajkgordon, did I mention anything about YEC? Lenski was clearly talking about the God of the Bible, and the biblical description of creation, specifically including the length of time taken and the order of creation, is totally incompatible with the evolutionary story. If it is "presumptuous" to claim knowledge of how God created, then why do so many do that very thing by claiming that God used evolution? Rather, it's arrogant and presumptuous to reject His clear revelation for man-made ideas that ''presume'' that He wasn't involved!<br />
<br />
Cantle, that you must misrepresent the basis for believing in creation suggests that without doing so your case is weak, if valid at all. The ''evidence'' is that the Bible has been transmitted through time very accurately. The Bible is not "anecdotal"; it is ''eye-witness history'', exactly the same sort of thing that allows you to know about almost anything that you did not personally experience, such as World War I (assuming you're not old enough to remember that) or even the date of your birth. Yes, ''your'' argument is convenient that you arbitrarily require particular evidence and reject all the evidence that is available.<br />
<br />
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:46, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Philip, you mentioned Creationism and implicitly Biblical inerrancy, therefore, yes , you mentioned YEC by default. In other words, you appear to take any mention of Lenski's about Christianity to de-facto mean that he's talking about YEC, the only form of Christianity that you believe is right. But he wasn't. He was talking about Christianity in more general terms reflecting what a great deal of Christians believe - that is that evolution and Christianity are not mutually incompatible. Surely you can see this while not agreeing with it. This is the type of Christianity he was talking about and how he can maintain respect for it (which he explicitly states) while carrying out his work. It is not pontification about an expertise he doesn't hold. It is a theological position of many many Christians, some of whom are academics of the highest standing in both science and theology. Again, you may vehemently deny that these Christians are right (or even possibly that they are not real Christians). But that doesn't change the fact that Lenski was talking about that Christian position and not Biblical inerrency. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:43, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Ed, similar reply. Lenski wasn't talking about Creationism. He was repeating the theological position of many learned Christian theologians that evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant. Many do. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:43, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I don't understand the phrase, "evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive." Are you speaking about the meaning of evolution in the sense of, "All forms of life evolved naturally, i.e., by the action of physical forces alone, and without any direct intervention by God"? If so, then I wonder which denominations of Christianity accept this disavowal of Creationism? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:17, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks for the question, Ed. Please remember this isn't me saying this but many academic theologians from mainstream Christianity including Roman Catholics, Anglicans and Protestants. In most cases it seems to mean that the jury is out - that their Christianity doesn't exclude evolution in the same way that it doesn't exclude the Big Bang. This seems to be borne from the position that mortals shouldn't limit God's creativity and that the Bible, particularly the Genesis account, shouldn't taken literally. While this might not be a majority position in the US (I don't know), it probably is in the rest of the Christian world - not necessarily by the layman (the subject doesn't really crop up that often!) but by members of Christian academia. In fact, admitting my ignorance, it might not even be a majority elsewhere but it certainly is a firmly held belief among a significant section of Christianity.<br />
:::What I am trying to suggest to Philip's original point in reply to Lenski, is that Lenski almost certainly wasn't referring to Creationist Christianity. (I doubt he would be that ignorant to not understand the basic principles of YEC.) Many of us only have experience of Christianity as non-scientific and non-political spirituality and faith and, for the scientists among us, NOMA applies. This is amply demonstrated by the various scientists who were Christians developing scientific discoveries that would not agree with the YEC view; the most recent famous example probably being Father George Lemaitre, arguably the "discoverer" of the Big Bang. Whether we, as individual Christians, believe in these scientific theories or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that many others do and it was to this Christian view that I presume Lenski was referring. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 09:46, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::You thanked me for "the question", but I asked two questions. And you didn't answer either one, so I will repeat them here (with numbers for easy reference):<br />
::# Are you speaking about the meaning of evolution in the sense of, "All forms of life evolved naturally, i.e., by the action of physical forces alone, and without any direct intervention by God"? ::#If so, then I wonder which denominations of Christianity accept this disavowal of Creationism?<br />
<br />
::When you respond again, please indicate by number which question(s) you are answering. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:18, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
"''...you mentioned Creationism...''": I actually mentioned creation''ists'', with reference to what they've pointed out about what ''the Bible'' teaches. And despite the existence of "useful idiots" who try and force the text to say something contrary to what it clearly says, the Bible ''very clearly''&mdash;arguably ''overly'' clearly&mdash;says that creation took six days. That is not (just) a YEC view: That is the clear, unambiguous, indisputable (except by people who don't understand the language and have try and force-fit an anti-biblical view into the Bible) record of Scripture. Any five-year-old can read the Bible and learn that. And experts in Hebrew agree. And the church believed that until the anti-biblical views of uniformitarianism changed that (that is, long ages wasn't something that was learned from Scripture, but from outside).<br />
<br />
"''He was talking about Christianity in more general terms reflecting what a great deal of Christians believe...''": Yes, but in doing so he was making a theological claim, which is (presumably) outside his area of expertise.<br />
<br />
"''This seems to be borne from the position that mortals shouldn't limit God's creativity and that the Bible, particularly the Genesis account, shouldn't taken literally.''": However, this position only arose as an attempt to incorporate what ''seemed'' to these ''non-scientists'' a scientific fact&mdash;''which it is not''. So basically they've been hoodwinked by scientists proclaiming a supposed scientific truth that is actually an anti-biblical philosophy. Prior to around 200 years ago, the Genesis account was taken literally. Again, the move to taking it non-literally was not based on theological understanding nor a better appreciation of the language, but an attempt to accommodate the supposedly-scientific but actually anti-biblical ideas of fallible men.<br />
<br />
"''Lenski almost certainly wasn't referring to Creationist Christianity''": No, he was referring to the God of the Bible, and that is what I was talking about in response.<br />
<br />
"''I doubt he would be that ignorant to not understand the basic principles of YEC''": From what I've seen many times over, I'd be surprised if he ''did'' understand.<br />
<br />
"''...for the scientists among us, NOMA applies.''" You mean that principle dreamt up by a Marxist that tries to claim for science areas that the Bible claims, such as how things got started? NOMA itself is anti-biblical.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3855/#noma]<br />
<br />
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:01, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Philip, it was not my intention to get involved in a debate about YEC and non-YEC Christianity. You appear to have missed my point almost certainly due to my clumsiness. My apologies. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 09:40, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Fair Warning==<br />
Your own senior sysops [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=next&oldid=475426 warned you] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=next&oldid=475433 repeatedly] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=next&oldid=476314 that this would not go well]. I think it's only fair that those fair warnings are acknowledged by those of us who claim to "know better" - some here know better too, but couldn't turn the ship around in time. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 11:26, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:What sort of Liberal defeatism are you bound up in, and why do you assume, without examining the facts of the matter, that this has not gone well? Have a look at the lead on the front page, and read Professor Lenski's message. 'By their words shall ye know them'! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:39, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::'By their words shall ye know them'. Is that a quote? And if so where is it from? It sounds like it's a corruption of Matthew 7:16, but I don't know if it's just made up or from somewhere else or just a mistake.[[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 14:30, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Please be charitable==<br />
<br />
[[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] was trying to warn you about the risk of ridicule. Please be charitable and unblock him.[[User:Veronica|Veronica]] 10:02, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&oldid=478060 See this]<br />
<br />
:Veronica, please see my response to 'Fair Warning' above. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Questions for Aschlafly , not Bugler ==<br />
(only because Bugler seems to be answering all the questions to Aschlafly)<br />
<br />
* I am repeating DanielB's question. Prof. Lenski has agreed to share the data.. actually the real samples to anyone with the credentials. Are you satisfied by his response?<br />
<br />
* How can I obtain an uncensored version of the letter?<br />
<br />
Please answer... I would love to hear from the top man himself. not any of the acolytes. <br />
<br />
thank you in anticipation. --[[User:Kajira|Kajira]] 14:10, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Seconded, I'd love to hear Mr. Schlafly's responce to Lenki's second letter. He basically agreed to all demands, stating the required conditions under which they can be met, so what's going to happen now? (now signed) --[[User:Alcari|Alcari]] 17:45, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Well I hope we're not going to stop here. It's not just an issue of will the evolutionist make their data open to the public, but we must validate that data, yes? I'm curious to know which university Mr Schlafly will be working with to receive the biological samples and also I'm curious to know what researcher(s) he will ask to experiment/validate the data. I don't recall an evolutionist ever being this open with their data so this is all so very intriguing. Perhaps the Discovery Institute could help, they have a laboratory in Seattle Washington where they conduct intelligent design experiments and biology research all the time. That would be a logical resource. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Kajira, I realise that you want to hear from Andy, but as for your second question, I guess that you could write to him yourself.<br />
<br />
Miles, from a quick bit of research, it seems that although the DI ''fund'' a laboratory, it's not part of the DI. Second, as I've mentioned before and repeated just now, the DI is not likely to have too much of an issue with this research (apart from the claims that it supports evolution, which it doesn't), so they may not want to waste their time with it.<br />
<br />
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:36, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Why do you say that it does not support evolution?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 15:05, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Question concerning deletions==<br />
<br />
Bugler,<br />
<br />
I notice that one of your recent edits deleted a substantial amount of discussion. Might I ask whether this was intentional, and if so, why it was necessary to do so? Thanks. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:No. I don't know how this happened. I shall restore the [passage concerned. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:23, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Thank you! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Liberal Deceit + Atheistic Pseudo-Science ==<br />
<br />
People on this board have made "broad generalizations" against Lenski and assumed that he is: 1. An atheist, 2. A liberal. <br />
<br />
Who says that he doesn't have socially conservative values? Also, he states in his most recent letter that he's also a church-goer. He never said that he's a raging Richard Dawkins, PZ Meyers atheist, or an atheist at all. So someone please clarify for me, is it possible to be conservative and also be a scientist who has discovered "alleged" evidence of evolution? Is it also OK for that person to not be an atheist or a liberal? --eligus<br />
<br />
Point well-taken. However, I don't see how his faith or lack thereof is at all relevant. The scope of the argument is microevolution in E. coli, not Lenski's personal beliefs. --[[User:R2d2fan|R2d2fan]] 23:53, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Evidence of Conservative Christian Evolutionist ==<br />
<br />
I am relatively new here - I created this account so that I could respond to the above question. Although I have been around here for about a year reading. I graduated from Westmont College in (gasp!) California. It is a Conservative Christian College (because the faculty and staff are Conservative Christians). The keynote speaker for my graduation was Condeleeza Rice. What am I getting at? Well at least two of the Professors in the Biology department believe in Evolution, which I don't find much problem with. I don't see how it makes God any less powerful or awesome if he set Evolution in motion. The Bible speaks of Free will given to mankind so that we might chose to love God. Why couldn't God give Free Will to nature...it mentions how all of creation also worships and rejoices God.<br />
<br />
I think that this whole Evolution vs. Creationism is an overblown Non-issue. Much like how the Medieval Catholic Church argued against Galileo regarding the Rotation of the Earth around the Sun. Just because the Bible isn't Crystal Clear on this point doesn't mean that we have to accept some very narrow idea of HOW God created everything. If we need something to get rilled up about why aren't we concerned about all the money that we (Conservatives) are losing from the out of control banks and Commodities Speculators (Enron Loophole). That's something we Conservatives should legitimately get pissed off about!<br />
<br />
{{unsigned|Stgulik}}<br />
<br />
: The issue is not so much what God ''could'' have done, but what He ''said'' He did. And He said (and this is something that the Bible ''is'' "Crystal Clear" about) that He created everything in six days. That by itself (and there's much more) means that evolution is wrong. And why do we need to get "rilled up" about it? Simply because evolution undermines the very foundations of the Bible. According to evolution, death (and suffering, etc.) is a natural part of life, and there was no Adam and Eve. In fact, if creatures didn't die (the less fit ones), then evolution could not have progressed. According to the Bible, death (and suffering, etc.) was not part of the original creation, but the result of sin. So if evolution is true, there was no original sin, and therefore no need of a Saviour&mdash;Jesus is out of a job! This is a very simple explanation, but basically if evolution is true, then the entire teaching of the Bible (not just the first chapter or so of Genesis) is dead wrong. Christians ''need'' to get "rilled up" about it. And even the atheists realise this: <br />
{{QuoteBox|And the creationists have also shown irrefutably that those liberal and neo–orthodox Christians who regard the creation stories as myths or allegories are undermining the rest of Scripture, for if there was no Adam, there was no fall; and if there was no fall there was no hell; and if there was no hell, there was no need of Jesus as Second Adam and Incarnate Savior, crucified and risen. As a result, the whole biblical system of salvation collapses.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3459]}}<br />
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:11, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks, Philip. Now I think I understand.--[[User:Aristotle56|Aristotle56]] 09:19, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::: You're welcome. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:29, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Why... ==<br />
<br />
...is Mr. Schlafly criticizing Professor Lenski's attitude, when it was Mr. Schafley and other Conservapedia editors who rudely accused Prof. Lenski of deliberate fraud, without proof?<br />
<br />
Both of Professor Lenski's responses appear to be thoughtful, well-written, and thorough. He addressed the misconceptions regarding the disputed claims and also addressed how other editors on this website had attempted to explain to Mr. Schlafly how such rude behavior is inconsistent with Christian values. He has also made the data from the study available and even offered the actual bacteria themselves - what else is left?<br />
<br />
As a Christian, I am disappointed by Mr. Schlafly's behavior and the personal attacks made by his followers and I will pray for them to examine their hearts and see if their motives are prideful or simply overzealous.<br />
<br />
"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth." ~Matthew 5:5<br />
<br />
[[User:Blessed|Blessed]] 23:56, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Closure?==<br />
<br />
Given Professor Lenski's second response, it would be good if we can finally achieve closure on this issue. Not only has Professor Lenski identified where the relevant data is in his published work, but he's offered to share additional details and even samples of the bacteria from the experiment, provided the request is made in a professional manner by qualified individuals. <br />
<br />
It's unfortunate that the only official response from CP has been a sarcastic comment on the main page news section. That comment is particularly ironic in implying that the tone of Professor Lenski's second response was inappropriate, given the following assertions by Andrew Schlafly on this page:<br />
<br />
* "What we have here is the unacceptable opposite: a scientific claim without production of the data." --Aschlafly 21:12, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
* "I'm starting to think that even the peer reviewers for the paper never checked the data, if the data continue to be withheld." --Aschlafly 10:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
* "If I'm reading the dates on the front of this particular paper correctly, I think peer review was a mere 15 days or so. Looks to me like a rubber-stamp process for this subject matter despite making claims that were reported as being newsworthy." --Aschlafly 16:47, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
* "Don't pretend that Lenski welcomes independent review of the data." --Aschlafly 15:15, 19 June 2008 (EDT) <br />
<br />
What ''would'' be appropriate is a statement from Andrew Schlafly acknowledging that these statements were out of line, along with a retraction of them. I would hope in any case to have a meaningful statement of response to Professor Lenski's second note come from Mr. Schlafly himself, without the intervention of others looking to speak on his behalf.<br />
<br />
What I expect, frankly, is for this entry to be removed and my ID to be blocked, just as it was last week in answer to my request to stop speculating and allow Professor Lenski to respond himself. I appreciated the integrity shown in publishing the text of Lenski's second response, so maybe this request for professional closure will last more than a few minutes after all. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:57, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Reply to the above ==<br />
<br />
: The comments above by defenders of withholding data have been unsatisfactory, to say the least. <br />
<br />
: Lenski says in his published paper: "Z.D.B. and R.E.L. [Lenski] analyzed data"[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf]<br />
<br />
: So where are all the data Lenski said he analyzed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:27, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::As clearly stated in Professor Lenski's second response:<br />
<br />
::: ''"Finally, let me now turn to our data. As I said before, the relevant methods and data about the evolution of the citrate-using bacteria are in our paper. In three places in our paper, we did say 'data not shown', which is common in scientific papers owing to limitations in page length, especially for secondary or minor points. None of the places where we made such references concern the existence of the citrate-using bacteria; they concern only certain secondary properties of those bacteria. We will gladly post those additional data on my website." ''<br />
<br />
::If the additional data is not on his website by now, I'm sure it will be soon. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 07:45, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Off for Vacation==<br />
Wow, off for a bit of vacation and I find this when I return, I can not believe how far this has gone. For someone to even suggest testing the bacterial samples without identifying a lab and storage facility is amazing. (I guess not many here know much about -80 freezers, culturing cryopreserved cells, sequencing the genome and associated costs for such work, not to mention MTAs.) I am a bit ashamed that I was associated in the final reply from Lenski due to the stance I held through out this debackaul. <br />
<br />
Andy, I hope this finally answers your questions and puts to rest your argument about Lenski withholding data and such. His response was, to say the least, colorful but informative and provided enough information that this argument can be put to rest. It is not Lenski's responsibility to train everyone who inquires about his work in the sciences needed to understand such work. When you could not identify an ARA that should have been an indicator that perhaps you needed a professional biological scientist to assist you. (A BSE will not get you very far in understanding gene expression or differentiating between bacterial mutants) Your insistence that Lenski is still with holding data seems to be without limits; what data would you accept? I believe you are not evaluating what Lenski has said in an objective manner, thus allowing for a limited understanding of the material. If you wish to continue then I recommend this (which seems to have been recommended by Philip), wait till other qualified labs have evaluated the work then question if the Lenski's work is found to be questionable.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:31, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Anyone a biologist?==<br />
Just for the sake of asking is ''anyone'' involved in this discussion an actual biologist? You know, like having a bachelor's degree in it or something? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:57, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I have a BS in Microbiology, but I don't think my credentials matter. If I try to claim that I know more, I'll be blocked for bullying. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]<br />
<br />
Point 14 of [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]] says "We do not drive away experts by pretending that some random anonymous user who just signed up is as knowledgeable and authoritative as a scholar with decades of experience in teaching or research.". I would have though your views would be listened to with extra attention. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:35, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Obviously, you have not been at Conservapedia very long.--[[User:Fernandez|Fernandez]] 14:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:What do you mean, Fernandez? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:23, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::The reply by Fernandez was deleted by an Admin. Can we either remove the questions or put the reply back? Otherwise it looks as if Bugler asked a question and Fernandez never replied to it. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:06, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Attitude? ==<br />
<br />
He makes some good points. To be entirely honest I could care less about the "attitude" that my tax dollars appropriate. I just want results. I'll take an effective, mean spirited president any day over an incompetent, polite one (Jimmy Carter anyone?). --[[User:RobinGoodfellow|RobinGoodfellow]] 15:46, 26 June 2008 (EDT)</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Daphnea&diff=482328User talk:Daphnea2008-06-26T20:01:21Z<p>Daphnea: sp</p>
<hr />
<div>{{welcome}}<br />
==Richard Dawkins==<br />
It appears I made a mistake. Please accept my apologies. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]]<sup>[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]]</sup> 20:02, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Thank you. No problem. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 20:04, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Stop making positive edits, part of the lulz from this place comes from their HI-larious "definitions". Make more troll edits, but don't give advice on how to correct page. Jesus, dude.--[[User:Ivysaur|Ivysaur]] 22:41, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Answer to your question. ==<br />
<br />
Bugler did not seem to want to answer, so here is the best answer I can come up with. I would suggest steering clear of any pages that start with the word "liberal," or contain the word "values." Those pages are watched pretty closely, and any dissenting information is pretty quickly reverted. Other than that there is no easy way to tell what pages are dangerous ground. [[Barack Obama]] is another. If you look at the talk page and see alot of arguing and debate, that might be an indicator. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup> <sup>[[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]]</sup> 11:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I'll repeat what I said on Bugler's talk page, and on your talk page. Feel free to carry on the conversation at any of these.<br />
:When you say "dissenting information" what do you mean? My edits were to fix factual problems. One was to correct something said about Wikipedia (the Wikipedia article we talk about no longer says what we say it does). The other was to clear up a statement that was not backed up by references, and so not verifiable according to the Conservapedia Commandments. <br />
:When I came here I thought that this was a wiki, like Wikipedia but written from a Conservative point of view. Are there actually restrictions on who can edit articles? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 11:56, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Thanks for chipping in on the [[compass]] article ==<br />
<br />
I think it's safe to say that contributing to the [[compass]] article is "safe ground." I'm still trying to figure out "the rules" here and am finding that a lot of them are unspoken - you find out when it's too late that you've transgressed. I've been shunned (blocked) once already for violating some obscure rule that said if you talk too much, rather than directly make major edits, you'll be blocked. This implies that anyone (like me) who would rather discuss something contentious before actually changing an article has to learn simply to shut up. I personally think that is counterproductive.<br />
<br />
Writing about compasses is much more soothing (and as an ex-navigation type, something I rather enjoy). -- [[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 16:21, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree in principle, though if that's all I do I'm beginning to wonder why I wouldn't do it on another wiki. It's hard to see how an article on compasses written from a conservative viewpoint is different from one written from any other viewpoint. Some of the rules are very strange. Apparently there are some articles (no-one seems to know exactly which ones) where you have to ask permission of [[User:Aschlafly]] if you want to edit them. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:38, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Reversions==<br />
Thanks! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:16, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
And again! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:06, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==You can wait==<br />
''"I did as you said and asked [[User:Aschlafly]] about the edits to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]. That was 48 hours ago and he hasn't got back to me. How about we apply the legal doctrine "silence gives consent" and make the edits again? If he's that busy he probably won't notice, and if he objects he can always tell me why when he does notice."''<br />
<br />
How about waiting for an answer from him first? Making an over-riding decision like what you indicated above is not allowed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:02, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:This is starting to sound very worrying. Is this an "unwritten rule" - you can't disagree with [[User:Aschlafly]]? I understand that he set up the website, but if he had wanted it to contain only his views why didn't he make it a regular website instead of a wiki?<br />
:Incidentally the edits I made (that were undone and need to be "discussed" were to fix cases where the article was contravening the '''written''' rules of Conservapedia. One was a factual in accuracy and the other was a case where the reference given did not back up what was said in the article. Do the unwritten rules take precedence over the written ones? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 15:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Pretty much.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:11, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No, I wasn't referring to an unwritten rule; what I was referring to was an attempt by you to make changes that he told you not to do, and those changes would be done behind his back. It's not going to happen. So, wait until he gets back online, broach the question again, and see what comes of it. If he says no, accept it and move on. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Andy has been online several times since I asked him the question more than 48 hours ago. He has been online several times since I reminded him about it 24 hours ago. If he actually answered me and explained the reasons why my edits were bad I would be happy - it is his site after all. For that matter '''not one other editor''' has ventured to give me a reason why my edits were considered bad, including the several sysops who have been involved in this and (I would hope) have a pretty good idea of how Conservapedia works by now. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 15:20, 26 June 2008 (EDT)</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hollywood_values&diff=482323Hollywood values2008-06-26T19:40:26Z<p>Daphnea: /* Productions */</p>
<hr />
<div>The phrase '''Hollywood values''' refers to the lack of [[morals]] and [[values]] in [[Hollywood]] culture, which is characterized by decadence, narcissism, rampant [[drug|drug use]], extramarital sex, sexually-transmitted [[disease]], lawlessness and death. A poll by MSNBC said that 60% of [[Americans]] agree that "Hollywood's values are not in line with the rest of America and that the quality of movies has dimished in recent years."<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11714540/</ref><br />
<br />
Not all people who currently work or have worked in Hollywood espouse Hollywood values. [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Charlton Heston]], [[Walt Disney]] and many others practiced conservative values while working in Hollywood.<br />
<br />
Hollywood values can include a flagrant disrespect and disregard for:<br />
<br />
* [[marriage]] and [[abstinence]]<br />
* [[patriotism]]<br />
* [[religion]]<br />
* [[accountability]]<br />
* family responsibilities, like childrearing<ref>[[Britney Spears]] "doesn't want [her] kids back." [http://www.nypost.com/seven/02132008/news/nationalnews/brit_doesnt_want_her_kids__1st_ex_97425.htm]</ref><br />
* laws that apply to everyone else<br />
* normal behavioural boundaries and values of human decency<br />
<br />
==Deaths ==<br />
Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4174733&page=1</ref><ref>http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_18845.aspx</ref><br />
*[[John Barrymore]], 60, cirrhosis of the liver from heavy drinking<br />
*[[Bix Beiderbecke]], 28, [[alcoholism]]<br />
*[[John Belushi]], 33, was a repeated drug abuser who ultimately died of a lethal injection of cocaine and heroin<br />
*[[Clara Blandick]], 81, suicide<br />
*[[John Bonham]], 32, after too much drinking, asphyxiated on vomit<br />
*[[Kurt Cobain]], 27, "turned to drugs and alcohol to help him cope," then committed suicide<br />
*[[Karl Dane]], 47, suicide by gunshot<br />
*[[James Dean]], 24, auto accident (see also crime, below)<br />
*[[Eazy-E]], 31. [[AIDS]] contracted through drug use.<br />
*[[Brian Epstein]], 32, overdosed on sleeping pills and alcohol<br />
*[[Chris Farley]], 33, overdose of morphine and cocaine<br />
*[[Judy Garland]], 47, overdosed on sleeping pills<br />
*[[Margaux Hemingway]], 42, suicide<br />
*[[Jimi Hendrix]], 27, an enthusisatic abuser of illegal drugs, choked on his own vomit after overdose of sleeping pills.<br />
*[[Rock Hudson]], 59, AIDS<br />
*[[Michael Hutchence]], 37, asphyxiated during an auto-erotic act while alone in a Sydney hotel. His wife, Paula Yates (see below), also fell victim to Hollywood Values.<br />
*[[Richard Jeni]], 49, suicide<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258231,00.html</ref><br />
*[[Janis Joplin]], 27, heroin overdose<br />
*[[Rob Knox]], 18, star of a [[Harry Potter]] film, was stabbed to death during a fight after midnight in or outside a bar<ref>http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1204418.ece</ref><ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/05/24/international/i140113D92.DTL</ref><br />
*[[Heath Ledger]], 28, found dead in his [[Manhattan]] apartment. "Prescription sleeping pills and anti-anxiety pills were found in bottles in Ledger's bedroom and bathroom, and police have speculated the death was caused by an accidental drug overdose."<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_en_ce/obit_ledger</ref> "Ledger died of an accidental overdose of painkillers, sleeping pills, anti-anxiety medication and other prescription drugs, the New York City medical examiner said Wednesday." <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328828,00.html</ref><br />
*[[Bruce Lee]] (Li Xiaolong), actor, 33, collapsed and died; cannabis found in bloodstream at post-mortem. <br />
*[[Stuart Lubbock]], 31, found dead in the swimming pool of popular TV entertainer [[Michael Barrymore]], having suffered severe anal trauma, after a drug-fuelled party at the star's home<br />
*[[Sal Mineo]], 37, murdered under circumstances that suggested "a homosexual motive"<br />
*[[Marilyn Monroe]], 36, overdosed on sleeping pills<br />
*[[Keith Moon]], drummer of [[The Who]], 32, overdose of Clomethiazole prescribed to treat his [[alcoholism]].<br />
*[[Jim Morrison]], 27, died of an apparent heroin overdose<br />
*[[Chris Penn]], 40, brother of [[Sean Penn]], "died accidentally from an enlarged heart and the effects of a mix of multiple medications"<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/02/13/entertainment/e162146S51.DTL</ref><br />
*[[River Phoenix]], 23, died from an overdose cocaine and heroin<br />
*[[Dana Plato]], 34, ''Diff'rent Strokes'' star, suicide by drugs overdose after posing for lesbian pornography.<br />
*[[Elvis Presley]], 42, large drug intake causes a cardiac arrhythmia and rumoured to have suffocated on the carpet when he collpased from a drug overdose.<br />
*[[Virginia Rappe]], 30, died of a ruptured bladder incurred at a party hosted by [[Roscoe Arbuckle]]<br />
*[[George Reeves]], 45, suicide<br />
*[[Brad Renfro]], 25, became addicted to heroin and was found dead after a night of drinking<br />
*[[Anna Nicole Smith]], 39, accidental overdose on prescription drugs<br />
*[[Sharon Tate]], 26, an actress with a [[hippie]] lifestyle who was murdered by followers of [[Charles Manson]], a [[Beatles]]-obsessed musician wannabee; Manson's followers murdered Tate, who was pregnant and only two weeks from birth, her unborn child, her prior lover, who was staying with her while her husband, paedophile movie producer [[Roman Polanski]] (see 'Crime', below), was away, and another unmarried couple staying in the house<br />
*[[Lou Tellegen]], 52, suicide<br />
*[[Sid Vicious]], 21. [[Heroin]] overdose while awaiting trial for his girlfriend's murder.<br />
*[[Kenneth Williams]], 62, overdose.<br />
*[[Natalie Wood]], 43. Drowned while intoxicated.<br />
*[[Paula Yates]], 41, heroin overdose.<br />
<br />
== Crime ==<br />
Hollywood values often include being arrested or convicted for a variety of crimes. Here are some examples:<br />
<br />
* [[Winona Ryder]] was convicted of convicted of vandalism and grand theft for stealing designer merchandise worth $5,560.40.<ref>http://www.courttv.com/trials/ryder/</ref><br />
* [[O.J. Simpson]] is widely believed to have murdered his wife and her friend, and was found liable in a civil (but not criminal) trial. He has since been arrested again on an unrelated charge.<br />
* [[Paris Hilton]] was convicted of driving while intoxicated, and then violated the terms of her probation, leading to a 45-day prison sentence.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18472845/ Paris Hilton sentenced to 45 days in jail], msnbc, May 4, 2007</ref><br />
*[[Hugh Grant]] was arrested in 1995 when found in a car with a prostitute.<ref>[http://www.mugshots.org/hollywood/hugh-grant.html]</ref><br />
*[[Stacy Keach]], movie actor, was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment in the [[United Kingdom]] in 1984 after being arrested at [[London]] [[Heathrow Airport]] in possession of a large quantity of [[cocaine]].<br />
*[[Kiefer Sutherland]] was given a 48-day sentence for DUI in 2007, an offence committed while still on probation following a 2004 conviction for DUI.<ref>Sutherland is released from jail [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7200633.stm BBC]</ref><br />
*[[George Michael]] was convicted of "Committing a lewd act in public", having been arrested in a public restroom by a plain clothes police officer.<ref>Police confirm George Michael arrest [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/75904.stmBBC]</ref><br />
*[[Snoop Dogg]], a popular [[rap|rapper]], was arrested in 2006 for [[marijuana]] possession.<br />
*[[Roman Polanski]], Polish-born film producer, is unable to return to Hollywood as he skipped bail and fled to [[France]] after being convicted in 1978 on charges of unlawful sexual intercourse with a thirteen-year old girl.<br />
* Rapper DMX (Earl Simmons) was caught on camera drag racing at a speed over 110 miles on a freeway, and then a SWAT team was used to arrest him three days later on drug and animal cruelty charges. "The Maricopa County sheriff's office says the 37-year-old, whose real name is Earl Simmons, at first tried to barricade himself in his bedroom. He came out as a SWAT team entered during the early-morning raid Friday."<ref>http://news.aol.com/entertainment/music/music-news-story/ar/_a/dmx-arrested-on-animal-cruelty-charges/20080509163709990001</ref><br />
*[[Tatum O'Neal]] arrested in 2008 for [[cocaine]] possession. <ref><br />
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361361,00.html Tatum O'Neal Released After Drug Arrest], [[Associated Press]], ''[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]]'', June 02, 2008.</ref><br />
*[[James Dean]] displayed an unhealthy interest in a twelve-year-old boy. His former director Elia Kazan later commented: "I've known many actors who have been twisted up in their sex lives, but never anybody as sick and unhealthy as Dean was."<br />
<br />
== Falsehoods ==<br />
<br />
[[Hollywood values]] perpetuates [[liberal]]-driven falsehoods:<br />
<br />
*[[Matthew Shepard Fallacy]] <br />
:Adherents to Hollywood values "green-lighted a troika of [[Matthew Shepard]] movies after he was senselessly killed because it affirmed their gut feeling that a gay young man living in backward America is destined for death at the hands of hateful ultraconservatives. A street in West Hollywood still stands in his name despite ABC News reporting the story false: He was killed by crazed meth addicts for drugs and money -- not because he was gay. Isn't that tragic enough? Yet Shepherd is still the icon of gay victims' rights, and the mistaken story of his 'fate' soon thereafter befell Jake Gyllenhaal's character in 'Brokeback Mountain.' The Oscar statuette stands as the exclamation point."<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup26sep26,0,1800794,full.story</ref><br />
<br />
*[[Inherit the Wind]] <br />
:<fill in><br />
<br />
==Divorce==<br />
<br />
*[[Elizabeth Taylor]] has been married eight (8) times.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000072/bio</ref><br />
*[[Valerie Bertinelli]] said her divorce from [[Eddie Van Halen]] was caused by infidelity and drug use - by her too. She said she was "destroying my body," trying to keep up with a rock-star lifestyle. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332551,00.html Valerie Bertinelli About Divorce From Eddie Van Halen: 'I Wasn't An Angel Either'], [[Fox News Channel]], ''[[Associated Press]]'', February 26, 2008</ref><br />
*[[Zsa Zsa Gabor]] has been married nine (9) times.<br />
*[[Mickey Rooney]] has been married eight (8) times, but has been with his last wife for 30 years after embracing religion and abandoning his previous lifestyle.<br />
*[[Charlie Chaplin]] married four (4) times, including his marriage at the age of 54 to an 18-year-old bride.<br />
<br />
== Offensive Behavior ==<br />
<br />
* Trashing hotel rooms is a favorite form of offensive behavior by Hollywood types. Many examples are readily available on the [[internet]].<ref>See, e.g., [http://www.budgettravel.com/bt-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101034.html]</ref><br />
*[[Mel Gibson]], who had started drinking again, was arrested after being stopped for driving at 84 mph in a 45 mph zone on a notoriously dangerous road in Malibu, California.<ref>''Mel Gibson apologizes after DUI arrest'' [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14080210/ Associated Press]</ref> A breathalyzer test confirmed he was drunk and next to him was an open bottle of Tequila; after being arrested he hurled Anti-Semitic abuse at a Jewish police officer.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2292336,00.html Mel Gibson rants against Jews in drink-drive arrest], Times Online, July 30, 2006</ref><br />
*The parents of [[Miley Cyrus]], just 15 years old, allowed [[Annie Liebowitz]] to pose the starlet without a shirt or bra (aka [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/topless "topless"]) and with just a sheet covering her front for Vanity Fair magazine.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/business/media/28hannah.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</ref><ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20195785,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23608789-5001026,00.html</ref> "I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed," Cyrus said Sunday in a statement through her publicist. "I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about." <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref><br />
:"... a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines," a network statement said. <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref><br />
<br />
== Rehab ==<br />
Hollywood values often result in [[Celebrity|celebrities]] going into rehab. Here are some examples:<br />
<br />
*[[Kirsten Dunst]] checked into the [[Cirque Lodge]] treatment facility in [[Utah]] after a week of hard partying at the [[Sundance Film Festival]], according to a source at the lodge, although the lodge's director of operations denies this. <ref name = "foxkirsten"><br />
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329545,00.html Reports Say Kirsten Dunst in Rehab; Rep for Facility Denies It], ''[[Fox News]]'', February 08, 2008</ref><br />
<br />
The following all checked into the above facility seeking treatment for various psychological problems:<br />
<br />
*[[Lindsay Lohan]] <ref name = "foxkirsten"/><br />
*[[Eva Mendes]] <ref name = "foxkirsten"/><br />
*[[Mary-Kate Olsen]] <ref name = "foxkirsten"/><br />
<br />
== Hypocrisy ==<br />
<br />
Hollywood personalities often propose legislation such as outlawing private gun ownership, or speak out against things such as anti-gun laws, but have at the same time acted in movies contrary to their public opinions: <br />
<br />
* [[George Clooney]] on hearing that fellow actor and guns-rights advocate, [[Charlton Heston]], suffers from Alzheimer's disease, said: ''"I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the [[National Rifle Association]]. He deserves whatever anyone says about him."''<ref>http://www.funnyreign.com/quotes-georgeclooney.shtml</ref> Clooney starred in the film ''The Peacemaker'', in which he played an American military man defending the country from a nuclear attack; scenes in the film showed him using a gun to defend himself and others. <br />
<br />
* [[Mark Wahlberg]] upon meeting Charlton Heston on the set of the remake of ''Planet of the Apes'', Wahlberg rudely told Heston, "It was very disturbing meeting you." Later, Wahlberg would have this to say at the MTV Movie Awards: ''"I believe Charlton Heston is America's best villain because he loves guns so much. Maybe he should get the award for being president of the National Rifle Association."''<ref>http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2360</ref> Wahlberg's character in ''Planet of the Apes'' uses a gun to defend himself and other humans from the apes who would rule over them.<br />
<br />
==Moral depravity==<br />
*[[Woody Allen]] seduced and took pornographic photographs of the adolescent daughter of his wife [[Mia Farrow]].<br />
<br />
==Using appearances to promote themselves and their causes or air their pet peeves==<br />
*Rapper Kanye West infamously went way off script during a live benefit concert for victims of Hurricane Katrina, criticizing the media's treatment of images of black and white people and saying President [[George W. Bush]] "hates black people."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090300165.html</ref><br />
*During the live broadcast of the 2007 Emmy Awards, actress Sally Field went on a sputtering anti-war rant, eventually concluding by saying, "If the mothers ruled the world, there would be no g**d*** war in the first place." She received thunderous applause from the Hollywood audience for her vulgar remark.<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=3610891</ref><br />
*[[Michael Moore]] surprised no one by criticizing President Bush during his 2003 Oscar acceptance speech for "Bowling for Columbine," saying, "We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man who's sending us to war for fictitious reasons, whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts. We are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush. Shame on you."<ref>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20030323-2028-oscars-moore.html</ref><br />
*Actress Jessica Lange verbally attacked President Bush and the Iraq War during a 2008 commencement speech at Sarah Lawrence College in Yonkers, New York, stating, "We are living in an America that, in the last seven and a half years, has waged an unnecessary war, established prison camps, condoned torture, employed corporate armies, eliminated the right of habeas corpus, practiced extraordinary rendition, and believe me, this is only a partial list."<ref>http://cbs5.com/politics/Jessica.Lange.President.2.732264.html</ref><br />
<br />
==Productions==<br />
The diseased moral values of the Liberal-dominated entertainments industry are manifested all too clearly in many of the products of that industry - motion pictures and television programmes that offer no edification or instruction to the viewer, but plumb a cess-pit of licence and depravity. Some recent examples include the television series ''Desperate Housewives'' and the tv series/movie ''[[Sex and the City]]''. However there are also many movies and tv series that are full of conservative values, including [[The Chronicles of Narnia]], [[Pay It Forward]], [[Air Force One]], [[Independence Day]], [[Dave]], [[Touched by an Angel]], [[Toy Story]], [[The Incredibles]].<br />
<br />
==Books==<br />
* ''Hollywood Against America''<br />
* ''Hollywood Babylon'' (1965) by Kenneth Anger (US edition)<br />
* ''Hollywood Babylon II'' (1984) by Kenneth Anger<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
{{liberalism}}<br />
<br />
[[category:entertainment]]<br />
[[Category:Liberals]]</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hollywood_values&diff=482322Hollywood values2008-06-26T19:38:24Z<p>Daphnea: /* Productions */</p>
<hr />
<div>The phrase '''Hollywood values''' refers to the lack of [[morals]] and [[values]] in [[Hollywood]] culture, which is characterized by decadence, narcissism, rampant [[drug|drug use]], extramarital sex, sexually-transmitted [[disease]], lawlessness and death. A poll by MSNBC said that 60% of [[Americans]] agree that "Hollywood's values are not in line with the rest of America and that the quality of movies has dimished in recent years."<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11714540/</ref><br />
<br />
Not all people who currently work or have worked in Hollywood espouse Hollywood values. [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Charlton Heston]], [[Walt Disney]] and many others practiced conservative values while working in Hollywood.<br />
<br />
Hollywood values can include a flagrant disrespect and disregard for:<br />
<br />
* [[marriage]] and [[abstinence]]<br />
* [[patriotism]]<br />
* [[religion]]<br />
* [[accountability]]<br />
* family responsibilities, like childrearing<ref>[[Britney Spears]] "doesn't want [her] kids back." [http://www.nypost.com/seven/02132008/news/nationalnews/brit_doesnt_want_her_kids__1st_ex_97425.htm]</ref><br />
* laws that apply to everyone else<br />
* normal behavioural boundaries and values of human decency<br />
<br />
==Deaths ==<br />
Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4174733&page=1</ref><ref>http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_18845.aspx</ref><br />
*[[John Barrymore]], 60, cirrhosis of the liver from heavy drinking<br />
*[[Bix Beiderbecke]], 28, [[alcoholism]]<br />
*[[John Belushi]], 33, was a repeated drug abuser who ultimately died of a lethal injection of cocaine and heroin<br />
*[[Clara Blandick]], 81, suicide<br />
*[[John Bonham]], 32, after too much drinking, asphyxiated on vomit<br />
*[[Kurt Cobain]], 27, "turned to drugs and alcohol to help him cope," then committed suicide<br />
*[[Karl Dane]], 47, suicide by gunshot<br />
*[[James Dean]], 24, auto accident (see also crime, below)<br />
*[[Eazy-E]], 31. [[AIDS]] contracted through drug use.<br />
*[[Brian Epstein]], 32, overdosed on sleeping pills and alcohol<br />
*[[Chris Farley]], 33, overdose of morphine and cocaine<br />
*[[Judy Garland]], 47, overdosed on sleeping pills<br />
*[[Margaux Hemingway]], 42, suicide<br />
*[[Jimi Hendrix]], 27, an enthusisatic abuser of illegal drugs, choked on his own vomit after overdose of sleeping pills.<br />
*[[Rock Hudson]], 59, AIDS<br />
*[[Michael Hutchence]], 37, asphyxiated during an auto-erotic act while alone in a Sydney hotel. His wife, Paula Yates (see below), also fell victim to Hollywood Values.<br />
*[[Richard Jeni]], 49, suicide<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258231,00.html</ref><br />
*[[Janis Joplin]], 27, heroin overdose<br />
*[[Rob Knox]], 18, star of a [[Harry Potter]] film, was stabbed to death during a fight after midnight in or outside a bar<ref>http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1204418.ece</ref><ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/05/24/international/i140113D92.DTL</ref><br />
*[[Heath Ledger]], 28, found dead in his [[Manhattan]] apartment. "Prescription sleeping pills and anti-anxiety pills were found in bottles in Ledger's bedroom and bathroom, and police have speculated the death was caused by an accidental drug overdose."<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_en_ce/obit_ledger</ref> "Ledger died of an accidental overdose of painkillers, sleeping pills, anti-anxiety medication and other prescription drugs, the New York City medical examiner said Wednesday." <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328828,00.html</ref><br />
*[[Bruce Lee]] (Li Xiaolong), actor, 33, collapsed and died; cannabis found in bloodstream at post-mortem. <br />
*[[Stuart Lubbock]], 31, found dead in the swimming pool of popular TV entertainer [[Michael Barrymore]], having suffered severe anal trauma, after a drug-fuelled party at the star's home<br />
*[[Sal Mineo]], 37, murdered under circumstances that suggested "a homosexual motive"<br />
*[[Marilyn Monroe]], 36, overdosed on sleeping pills<br />
*[[Keith Moon]], drummer of [[The Who]], 32, overdose of Clomethiazole prescribed to treat his [[alcoholism]].<br />
*[[Jim Morrison]], 27, died of an apparent heroin overdose<br />
*[[Chris Penn]], 40, brother of [[Sean Penn]], "died accidentally from an enlarged heart and the effects of a mix of multiple medications"<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/02/13/entertainment/e162146S51.DTL</ref><br />
*[[River Phoenix]], 23, died from an overdose cocaine and heroin<br />
*[[Dana Plato]], 34, ''Diff'rent Strokes'' star, suicide by drugs overdose after posing for lesbian pornography.<br />
*[[Elvis Presley]], 42, large drug intake causes a cardiac arrhythmia and rumoured to have suffocated on the carpet when he collpased from a drug overdose.<br />
*[[Virginia Rappe]], 30, died of a ruptured bladder incurred at a party hosted by [[Roscoe Arbuckle]]<br />
*[[George Reeves]], 45, suicide<br />
*[[Brad Renfro]], 25, became addicted to heroin and was found dead after a night of drinking<br />
*[[Anna Nicole Smith]], 39, accidental overdose on prescription drugs<br />
*[[Sharon Tate]], 26, an actress with a [[hippie]] lifestyle who was murdered by followers of [[Charles Manson]], a [[Beatles]]-obsessed musician wannabee; Manson's followers murdered Tate, who was pregnant and only two weeks from birth, her unborn child, her prior lover, who was staying with her while her husband, paedophile movie producer [[Roman Polanski]] (see 'Crime', below), was away, and another unmarried couple staying in the house<br />
*[[Lou Tellegen]], 52, suicide<br />
*[[Sid Vicious]], 21. [[Heroin]] overdose while awaiting trial for his girlfriend's murder.<br />
*[[Kenneth Williams]], 62, overdose.<br />
*[[Natalie Wood]], 43. Drowned while intoxicated.<br />
*[[Paula Yates]], 41, heroin overdose.<br />
<br />
== Crime ==<br />
Hollywood values often include being arrested or convicted for a variety of crimes. Here are some examples:<br />
<br />
* [[Winona Ryder]] was convicted of convicted of vandalism and grand theft for stealing designer merchandise worth $5,560.40.<ref>http://www.courttv.com/trials/ryder/</ref><br />
* [[O.J. Simpson]] is widely believed to have murdered his wife and her friend, and was found liable in a civil (but not criminal) trial. He has since been arrested again on an unrelated charge.<br />
* [[Paris Hilton]] was convicted of driving while intoxicated, and then violated the terms of her probation, leading to a 45-day prison sentence.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18472845/ Paris Hilton sentenced to 45 days in jail], msnbc, May 4, 2007</ref><br />
*[[Hugh Grant]] was arrested in 1995 when found in a car with a prostitute.<ref>[http://www.mugshots.org/hollywood/hugh-grant.html]</ref><br />
*[[Stacy Keach]], movie actor, was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment in the [[United Kingdom]] in 1984 after being arrested at [[London]] [[Heathrow Airport]] in possession of a large quantity of [[cocaine]].<br />
*[[Kiefer Sutherland]] was given a 48-day sentence for DUI in 2007, an offence committed while still on probation following a 2004 conviction for DUI.<ref>Sutherland is released from jail [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7200633.stm BBC]</ref><br />
*[[George Michael]] was convicted of "Committing a lewd act in public", having been arrested in a public restroom by a plain clothes police officer.<ref>Police confirm George Michael arrest [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/75904.stmBBC]</ref><br />
*[[Snoop Dogg]], a popular [[rap|rapper]], was arrested in 2006 for [[marijuana]] possession.<br />
*[[Roman Polanski]], Polish-born film producer, is unable to return to Hollywood as he skipped bail and fled to [[France]] after being convicted in 1978 on charges of unlawful sexual intercourse with a thirteen-year old girl.<br />
* Rapper DMX (Earl Simmons) was caught on camera drag racing at a speed over 110 miles on a freeway, and then a SWAT team was used to arrest him three days later on drug and animal cruelty charges. "The Maricopa County sheriff's office says the 37-year-old, whose real name is Earl Simmons, at first tried to barricade himself in his bedroom. He came out as a SWAT team entered during the early-morning raid Friday."<ref>http://news.aol.com/entertainment/music/music-news-story/ar/_a/dmx-arrested-on-animal-cruelty-charges/20080509163709990001</ref><br />
*[[Tatum O'Neal]] arrested in 2008 for [[cocaine]] possession. <ref><br />
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361361,00.html Tatum O'Neal Released After Drug Arrest], [[Associated Press]], ''[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]]'', June 02, 2008.</ref><br />
*[[James Dean]] displayed an unhealthy interest in a twelve-year-old boy. His former director Elia Kazan later commented: "I've known many actors who have been twisted up in their sex lives, but never anybody as sick and unhealthy as Dean was."<br />
<br />
== Falsehoods ==<br />
<br />
[[Hollywood values]] perpetuates [[liberal]]-driven falsehoods:<br />
<br />
*[[Matthew Shepard Fallacy]] <br />
:Adherents to Hollywood values "green-lighted a troika of [[Matthew Shepard]] movies after he was senselessly killed because it affirmed their gut feeling that a gay young man living in backward America is destined for death at the hands of hateful ultraconservatives. A street in West Hollywood still stands in his name despite ABC News reporting the story false: He was killed by crazed meth addicts for drugs and money -- not because he was gay. Isn't that tragic enough? Yet Shepherd is still the icon of gay victims' rights, and the mistaken story of his 'fate' soon thereafter befell Jake Gyllenhaal's character in 'Brokeback Mountain.' The Oscar statuette stands as the exclamation point."<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup26sep26,0,1800794,full.story</ref><br />
<br />
*[[Inherit the Wind]] <br />
:<fill in><br />
<br />
==Divorce==<br />
<br />
*[[Elizabeth Taylor]] has been married eight (8) times.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000072/bio</ref><br />
*[[Valerie Bertinelli]] said her divorce from [[Eddie Van Halen]] was caused by infidelity and drug use - by her too. She said she was "destroying my body," trying to keep up with a rock-star lifestyle. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332551,00.html Valerie Bertinelli About Divorce From Eddie Van Halen: 'I Wasn't An Angel Either'], [[Fox News Channel]], ''[[Associated Press]]'', February 26, 2008</ref><br />
*[[Zsa Zsa Gabor]] has been married nine (9) times.<br />
*[[Mickey Rooney]] has been married eight (8) times, but has been with his last wife for 30 years after embracing religion and abandoning his previous lifestyle.<br />
*[[Charlie Chaplin]] married four (4) times, including his marriage at the age of 54 to an 18-year-old bride.<br />
<br />
== Offensive Behavior ==<br />
<br />
* Trashing hotel rooms is a favorite form of offensive behavior by Hollywood types. Many examples are readily available on the [[internet]].<ref>See, e.g., [http://www.budgettravel.com/bt-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101034.html]</ref><br />
*[[Mel Gibson]], who had started drinking again, was arrested after being stopped for driving at 84 mph in a 45 mph zone on a notoriously dangerous road in Malibu, California.<ref>''Mel Gibson apologizes after DUI arrest'' [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14080210/ Associated Press]</ref> A breathalyzer test confirmed he was drunk and next to him was an open bottle of Tequila; after being arrested he hurled Anti-Semitic abuse at a Jewish police officer.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2292336,00.html Mel Gibson rants against Jews in drink-drive arrest], Times Online, July 30, 2006</ref><br />
*The parents of [[Miley Cyrus]], just 15 years old, allowed [[Annie Liebowitz]] to pose the starlet without a shirt or bra (aka [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/topless "topless"]) and with just a sheet covering her front for Vanity Fair magazine.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/business/media/28hannah.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</ref><ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20195785,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23608789-5001026,00.html</ref> "I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed," Cyrus said Sunday in a statement through her publicist. "I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about." <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref><br />
:"... a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines," a network statement said. <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref><br />
<br />
== Rehab ==<br />
Hollywood values often result in [[Celebrity|celebrities]] going into rehab. Here are some examples:<br />
<br />
*[[Kirsten Dunst]] checked into the [[Cirque Lodge]] treatment facility in [[Utah]] after a week of hard partying at the [[Sundance Film Festival]], according to a source at the lodge, although the lodge's director of operations denies this. <ref name = "foxkirsten"><br />
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329545,00.html Reports Say Kirsten Dunst in Rehab; Rep for Facility Denies It], ''[[Fox News]]'', February 08, 2008</ref><br />
<br />
The following all checked into the above facility seeking treatment for various psychological problems:<br />
<br />
*[[Lindsay Lohan]] <ref name = "foxkirsten"/><br />
*[[Eva Mendes]] <ref name = "foxkirsten"/><br />
*[[Mary-Kate Olsen]] <ref name = "foxkirsten"/><br />
<br />
== Hypocrisy ==<br />
<br />
Hollywood personalities often propose legislation such as outlawing private gun ownership, or speak out against things such as anti-gun laws, but have at the same time acted in movies contrary to their public opinions: <br />
<br />
* [[George Clooney]] on hearing that fellow actor and guns-rights advocate, [[Charlton Heston]], suffers from Alzheimer's disease, said: ''"I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the [[National Rifle Association]]. He deserves whatever anyone says about him."''<ref>http://www.funnyreign.com/quotes-georgeclooney.shtml</ref> Clooney starred in the film ''The Peacemaker'', in which he played an American military man defending the country from a nuclear attack; scenes in the film showed him using a gun to defend himself and others. <br />
<br />
* [[Mark Wahlberg]] upon meeting Charlton Heston on the set of the remake of ''Planet of the Apes'', Wahlberg rudely told Heston, "It was very disturbing meeting you." Later, Wahlberg would have this to say at the MTV Movie Awards: ''"I believe Charlton Heston is America's best villain because he loves guns so much. Maybe he should get the award for being president of the National Rifle Association."''<ref>http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2360</ref> Wahlberg's character in ''Planet of the Apes'' uses a gun to defend himself and other humans from the apes who would rule over them.<br />
<br />
==Moral depravity==<br />
*[[Woody Allen]] seduced and took pornographic photographs of the adolescent daughter of his wife [[Mia Farrow]].<br />
<br />
==Using appearances to promote themselves and their causes or air their pet peeves==<br />
*Rapper Kanye West infamously went way off script during a live benefit concert for victims of Hurricane Katrina, criticizing the media's treatment of images of black and white people and saying President [[George W. Bush]] "hates black people."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090300165.html</ref><br />
*During the live broadcast of the 2007 Emmy Awards, actress Sally Field went on a sputtering anti-war rant, eventually concluding by saying, "If the mothers ruled the world, there would be no g**d*** war in the first place." She received thunderous applause from the Hollywood audience for her vulgar remark.<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=3610891</ref><br />
*[[Michael Moore]] surprised no one by criticizing President Bush during his 2003 Oscar acceptance speech for "Bowling for Columbine," saying, "We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man who's sending us to war for fictitious reasons, whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts. We are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush. Shame on you."<ref>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20030323-2028-oscars-moore.html</ref><br />
*Actress Jessica Lange verbally attacked President Bush and the Iraq War during a 2008 commencement speech at Sarah Lawrence College in Yonkers, New York, stating, "We are living in an America that, in the last seven and a half years, has waged an unnecessary war, established prison camps, condoned torture, employed corporate armies, eliminated the right of habeas corpus, practiced extraordinary rendition, and believe me, this is only a partial list."<ref>http://cbs5.com/politics/Jessica.Lange.President.2.732264.html</ref><br />
<br />
==Productions==<br />
The diseased moral values of the Liberal-dominated entertainments industry are manifested all too clearly in many of the products of that industry - motion pictures and television programmes that offer no edification or instruction to the viewer, but plumb a cess-pit of licence and depravity. Some recent examples include the television series ''Desperate Housewives'' and the tv series/movie ''[[Sex and the City]]''. However there are also many movies and tv series that are full of conservative values, including [[The Chronicles of Narnia]], [[Pay It Forward]], [[Air Force One]], [[Independence Day]], [[Dave]], [[Touched by an Angel]].<br />
<br />
==Books==<br />
* ''Hollywood Against America''<br />
* ''Hollywood Babylon'' (1965) by Kenneth Anger (US edition)<br />
* ''Hollywood Babylon II'' (1984) by Kenneth Anger<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
{{liberalism}}<br />
<br />
[[category:entertainment]]<br />
[[Category:Liberals]]</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hollywood_values&diff=482320Hollywood values2008-06-26T19:37:31Z<p>Daphnea: </p>
<hr />
<div>The phrase '''Hollywood values''' refers to the lack of [[morals]] and [[values]] in [[Hollywood]] culture, which is characterized by decadence, narcissism, rampant [[drug|drug use]], extramarital sex, sexually-transmitted [[disease]], lawlessness and death. A poll by MSNBC said that 60% of [[Americans]] agree that "Hollywood's values are not in line with the rest of America and that the quality of movies has dimished in recent years."<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11714540/</ref><br />
<br />
Not all people who currently work or have worked in Hollywood espouse Hollywood values. [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Charlton Heston]], [[Walt Disney]] and many others practiced conservative values while working in Hollywood.<br />
<br />
Hollywood values can include a flagrant disrespect and disregard for:<br />
<br />
* [[marriage]] and [[abstinence]]<br />
* [[patriotism]]<br />
* [[religion]]<br />
* [[accountability]]<br />
* family responsibilities, like childrearing<ref>[[Britney Spears]] "doesn't want [her] kids back." [http://www.nypost.com/seven/02132008/news/nationalnews/brit_doesnt_want_her_kids__1st_ex_97425.htm]</ref><br />
* laws that apply to everyone else<br />
* normal behavioural boundaries and values of human decency<br />
<br />
==Deaths ==<br />
Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4174733&page=1</ref><ref>http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_18845.aspx</ref><br />
*[[John Barrymore]], 60, cirrhosis of the liver from heavy drinking<br />
*[[Bix Beiderbecke]], 28, [[alcoholism]]<br />
*[[John Belushi]], 33, was a repeated drug abuser who ultimately died of a lethal injection of cocaine and heroin<br />
*[[Clara Blandick]], 81, suicide<br />
*[[John Bonham]], 32, after too much drinking, asphyxiated on vomit<br />
*[[Kurt Cobain]], 27, "turned to drugs and alcohol to help him cope," then committed suicide<br />
*[[Karl Dane]], 47, suicide by gunshot<br />
*[[James Dean]], 24, auto accident (see also crime, below)<br />
*[[Eazy-E]], 31. [[AIDS]] contracted through drug use.<br />
*[[Brian Epstein]], 32, overdosed on sleeping pills and alcohol<br />
*[[Chris Farley]], 33, overdose of morphine and cocaine<br />
*[[Judy Garland]], 47, overdosed on sleeping pills<br />
*[[Margaux Hemingway]], 42, suicide<br />
*[[Jimi Hendrix]], 27, an enthusisatic abuser of illegal drugs, choked on his own vomit after overdose of sleeping pills.<br />
*[[Rock Hudson]], 59, AIDS<br />
*[[Michael Hutchence]], 37, asphyxiated during an auto-erotic act while alone in a Sydney hotel. His wife, Paula Yates (see below), also fell victim to Hollywood Values.<br />
*[[Richard Jeni]], 49, suicide<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258231,00.html</ref><br />
*[[Janis Joplin]], 27, heroin overdose<br />
*[[Rob Knox]], 18, star of a [[Harry Potter]] film, was stabbed to death during a fight after midnight in or outside a bar<ref>http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1204418.ece</ref><ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/05/24/international/i140113D92.DTL</ref><br />
*[[Heath Ledger]], 28, found dead in his [[Manhattan]] apartment. "Prescription sleeping pills and anti-anxiety pills were found in bottles in Ledger's bedroom and bathroom, and police have speculated the death was caused by an accidental drug overdose."<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_en_ce/obit_ledger</ref> "Ledger died of an accidental overdose of painkillers, sleeping pills, anti-anxiety medication and other prescription drugs, the New York City medical examiner said Wednesday." <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328828,00.html</ref><br />
*[[Bruce Lee]] (Li Xiaolong), actor, 33, collapsed and died; cannabis found in bloodstream at post-mortem. <br />
*[[Stuart Lubbock]], 31, found dead in the swimming pool of popular TV entertainer [[Michael Barrymore]], having suffered severe anal trauma, after a drug-fuelled party at the star's home<br />
*[[Sal Mineo]], 37, murdered under circumstances that suggested "a homosexual motive"<br />
*[[Marilyn Monroe]], 36, overdosed on sleeping pills<br />
*[[Keith Moon]], drummer of [[The Who]], 32, overdose of Clomethiazole prescribed to treat his [[alcoholism]].<br />
*[[Jim Morrison]], 27, died of an apparent heroin overdose<br />
*[[Chris Penn]], 40, brother of [[Sean Penn]], "died accidentally from an enlarged heart and the effects of a mix of multiple medications"<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/02/13/entertainment/e162146S51.DTL</ref><br />
*[[River Phoenix]], 23, died from an overdose cocaine and heroin<br />
*[[Dana Plato]], 34, ''Diff'rent Strokes'' star, suicide by drugs overdose after posing for lesbian pornography.<br />
*[[Elvis Presley]], 42, large drug intake causes a cardiac arrhythmia and rumoured to have suffocated on the carpet when he collpased from a drug overdose.<br />
*[[Virginia Rappe]], 30, died of a ruptured bladder incurred at a party hosted by [[Roscoe Arbuckle]]<br />
*[[George Reeves]], 45, suicide<br />
*[[Brad Renfro]], 25, became addicted to heroin and was found dead after a night of drinking<br />
*[[Anna Nicole Smith]], 39, accidental overdose on prescription drugs<br />
*[[Sharon Tate]], 26, an actress with a [[hippie]] lifestyle who was murdered by followers of [[Charles Manson]], a [[Beatles]]-obsessed musician wannabee; Manson's followers murdered Tate, who was pregnant and only two weeks from birth, her unborn child, her prior lover, who was staying with her while her husband, paedophile movie producer [[Roman Polanski]] (see 'Crime', below), was away, and another unmarried couple staying in the house<br />
*[[Lou Tellegen]], 52, suicide<br />
*[[Sid Vicious]], 21. [[Heroin]] overdose while awaiting trial for his girlfriend's murder.<br />
*[[Kenneth Williams]], 62, overdose.<br />
*[[Natalie Wood]], 43. Drowned while intoxicated.<br />
*[[Paula Yates]], 41, heroin overdose.<br />
<br />
== Crime ==<br />
Hollywood values often include being arrested or convicted for a variety of crimes. Here are some examples:<br />
<br />
* [[Winona Ryder]] was convicted of convicted of vandalism and grand theft for stealing designer merchandise worth $5,560.40.<ref>http://www.courttv.com/trials/ryder/</ref><br />
* [[O.J. Simpson]] is widely believed to have murdered his wife and her friend, and was found liable in a civil (but not criminal) trial. He has since been arrested again on an unrelated charge.<br />
* [[Paris Hilton]] was convicted of driving while intoxicated, and then violated the terms of her probation, leading to a 45-day prison sentence.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18472845/ Paris Hilton sentenced to 45 days in jail], msnbc, May 4, 2007</ref><br />
*[[Hugh Grant]] was arrested in 1995 when found in a car with a prostitute.<ref>[http://www.mugshots.org/hollywood/hugh-grant.html]</ref><br />
*[[Stacy Keach]], movie actor, was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment in the [[United Kingdom]] in 1984 after being arrested at [[London]] [[Heathrow Airport]] in possession of a large quantity of [[cocaine]].<br />
*[[Kiefer Sutherland]] was given a 48-day sentence for DUI in 2007, an offence committed while still on probation following a 2004 conviction for DUI.<ref>Sutherland is released from jail [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7200633.stm BBC]</ref><br />
*[[George Michael]] was convicted of "Committing a lewd act in public", having been arrested in a public restroom by a plain clothes police officer.<ref>Police confirm George Michael arrest [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/75904.stmBBC]</ref><br />
*[[Snoop Dogg]], a popular [[rap|rapper]], was arrested in 2006 for [[marijuana]] possession.<br />
*[[Roman Polanski]], Polish-born film producer, is unable to return to Hollywood as he skipped bail and fled to [[France]] after being convicted in 1978 on charges of unlawful sexual intercourse with a thirteen-year old girl.<br />
* Rapper DMX (Earl Simmons) was caught on camera drag racing at a speed over 110 miles on a freeway, and then a SWAT team was used to arrest him three days later on drug and animal cruelty charges. "The Maricopa County sheriff's office says the 37-year-old, whose real name is Earl Simmons, at first tried to barricade himself in his bedroom. He came out as a SWAT team entered during the early-morning raid Friday."<ref>http://news.aol.com/entertainment/music/music-news-story/ar/_a/dmx-arrested-on-animal-cruelty-charges/20080509163709990001</ref><br />
*[[Tatum O'Neal]] arrested in 2008 for [[cocaine]] possession. <ref><br />
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361361,00.html Tatum O'Neal Released After Drug Arrest], [[Associated Press]], ''[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]]'', June 02, 2008.</ref><br />
*[[James Dean]] displayed an unhealthy interest in a twelve-year-old boy. His former director Elia Kazan later commented: "I've known many actors who have been twisted up in their sex lives, but never anybody as sick and unhealthy as Dean was."<br />
<br />
== Falsehoods ==<br />
<br />
[[Hollywood values]] perpetuates [[liberal]]-driven falsehoods:<br />
<br />
*[[Matthew Shepard Fallacy]] <br />
:Adherents to Hollywood values "green-lighted a troika of [[Matthew Shepard]] movies after he was senselessly killed because it affirmed their gut feeling that a gay young man living in backward America is destined for death at the hands of hateful ultraconservatives. A street in West Hollywood still stands in his name despite ABC News reporting the story false: He was killed by crazed meth addicts for drugs and money -- not because he was gay. Isn't that tragic enough? Yet Shepherd is still the icon of gay victims' rights, and the mistaken story of his 'fate' soon thereafter befell Jake Gyllenhaal's character in 'Brokeback Mountain.' The Oscar statuette stands as the exclamation point."<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup26sep26,0,1800794,full.story</ref><br />
<br />
*[[Inherit the Wind]] <br />
:<fill in><br />
<br />
==Divorce==<br />
<br />
*[[Elizabeth Taylor]] has been married eight (8) times.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000072/bio</ref><br />
*[[Valerie Bertinelli]] said her divorce from [[Eddie Van Halen]] was caused by infidelity and drug use - by her too. She said she was "destroying my body," trying to keep up with a rock-star lifestyle. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332551,00.html Valerie Bertinelli About Divorce From Eddie Van Halen: 'I Wasn't An Angel Either'], [[Fox News Channel]], ''[[Associated Press]]'', February 26, 2008</ref><br />
*[[Zsa Zsa Gabor]] has been married nine (9) times.<br />
*[[Mickey Rooney]] has been married eight (8) times, but has been with his last wife for 30 years after embracing religion and abandoning his previous lifestyle.<br />
*[[Charlie Chaplin]] married four (4) times, including his marriage at the age of 54 to an 18-year-old bride.<br />
<br />
== Offensive Behavior ==<br />
<br />
* Trashing hotel rooms is a favorite form of offensive behavior by Hollywood types. Many examples are readily available on the [[internet]].<ref>See, e.g., [http://www.budgettravel.com/bt-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101034.html]</ref><br />
*[[Mel Gibson]], who had started drinking again, was arrested after being stopped for driving at 84 mph in a 45 mph zone on a notoriously dangerous road in Malibu, California.<ref>''Mel Gibson apologizes after DUI arrest'' [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14080210/ Associated Press]</ref> A breathalyzer test confirmed he was drunk and next to him was an open bottle of Tequila; after being arrested he hurled Anti-Semitic abuse at a Jewish police officer.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2292336,00.html Mel Gibson rants against Jews in drink-drive arrest], Times Online, July 30, 2006</ref><br />
*The parents of [[Miley Cyrus]], just 15 years old, allowed [[Annie Liebowitz]] to pose the starlet without a shirt or bra (aka [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/topless "topless"]) and with just a sheet covering her front for Vanity Fair magazine.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/business/media/28hannah.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</ref><ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20195785,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23608789-5001026,00.html</ref> "I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed," Cyrus said Sunday in a statement through her publicist. "I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about." <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref><br />
:"... a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines," a network statement said. <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref><br />
<br />
== Rehab ==<br />
Hollywood values often result in [[Celebrity|celebrities]] going into rehab. Here are some examples:<br />
<br />
*[[Kirsten Dunst]] checked into the [[Cirque Lodge]] treatment facility in [[Utah]] after a week of hard partying at the [[Sundance Film Festival]], according to a source at the lodge, although the lodge's director of operations denies this. <ref name = "foxkirsten"><br />
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329545,00.html Reports Say Kirsten Dunst in Rehab; Rep for Facility Denies It], ''[[Fox News]]'', February 08, 2008</ref><br />
<br />
The following all checked into the above facility seeking treatment for various psychological problems:<br />
<br />
*[[Lindsay Lohan]] <ref name = "foxkirsten"/><br />
*[[Eva Mendes]] <ref name = "foxkirsten"/><br />
*[[Mary-Kate Olsen]] <ref name = "foxkirsten"/><br />
<br />
== Hypocrisy ==<br />
<br />
Hollywood personalities often propose legislation such as outlawing private gun ownership, or speak out against things such as anti-gun laws, but have at the same time acted in movies contrary to their public opinions: <br />
<br />
* [[George Clooney]] on hearing that fellow actor and guns-rights advocate, [[Charlton Heston]], suffers from Alzheimer's disease, said: ''"I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the [[National Rifle Association]]. He deserves whatever anyone says about him."''<ref>http://www.funnyreign.com/quotes-georgeclooney.shtml</ref> Clooney starred in the film ''The Peacemaker'', in which he played an American military man defending the country from a nuclear attack; scenes in the film showed him using a gun to defend himself and others. <br />
<br />
* [[Mark Wahlberg]] upon meeting Charlton Heston on the set of the remake of ''Planet of the Apes'', Wahlberg rudely told Heston, "It was very disturbing meeting you." Later, Wahlberg would have this to say at the MTV Movie Awards: ''"I believe Charlton Heston is America's best villain because he loves guns so much. Maybe he should get the award for being president of the National Rifle Association."''<ref>http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2360</ref> Wahlberg's character in ''Planet of the Apes'' uses a gun to defend himself and other humans from the apes who would rule over them.<br />
<br />
==Moral depravity==<br />
*[[Woody Allen]] seduced and took pornographic photographs of the adolescent daughter of his wife [[Mia Farrow]].<br />
<br />
==Using appearances to promote themselves and their causes or air their pet peeves==<br />
*Rapper Kanye West infamously went way off script during a live benefit concert for victims of Hurricane Katrina, criticizing the media's treatment of images of black and white people and saying President [[George W. Bush]] "hates black people."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090300165.html</ref><br />
*During the live broadcast of the 2007 Emmy Awards, actress Sally Field went on a sputtering anti-war rant, eventually concluding by saying, "If the mothers ruled the world, there would be no g**d*** war in the first place." She received thunderous applause from the Hollywood audience for her vulgar remark.<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=3610891</ref><br />
*[[Michael Moore]] surprised no one by criticizing President Bush during his 2003 Oscar acceptance speech for "Bowling for Columbine," saying, "We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man who's sending us to war for fictitious reasons, whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts. We are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush. Shame on you."<ref>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20030323-2028-oscars-moore.html</ref><br />
*Actress Jessica Lange verbally attacked President Bush and the Iraq War during a 2008 commencement speech at Sarah Lawrence College in Yonkers, New York, stating, "We are living in an America that, in the last seven and a half years, has waged an unnecessary war, established prison camps, condoned torture, employed corporate armies, eliminated the right of habeas corpus, practiced extraordinary rendition, and believe me, this is only a partial list."<ref>http://cbs5.com/politics/Jessica.Lange.President.2.732264.html</ref><br />
<br />
==Productions==<br />
The diseased moral values of the Liberal-dominated entertainments industry are manifested all too clearly in many of the products of that industry - motion pictures and television programmes that offer no edification or instruction to the viewer, but plumb a cess-pit of licence and depravity. Some recent examples include the television series ''Desperate Housewives'' and the tv series/movie ''[[Sex and the City]]''. However there are also many movies and tv series that are full of conservative values, including [[The Chronicles of Narnia]], [[Pay It Forward]], [[Air Force One]], [[Independence Day]], [[Dave]].<br />
<br />
==Books==<br />
* ''Hollywood Against America''<br />
* ''Hollywood Babylon'' (1965) by Kenneth Anger (US edition)<br />
* ''Hollywood Babylon II'' (1984) by Kenneth Anger<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
{{liberalism}}<br />
<br />
[[category:entertainment]]<br />
[[Category:Liberals]]</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hollywood_values&diff=482316Hollywood values2008-06-26T19:36:17Z<p>Daphnea: </p>
<hr />
<div>The phrase '''Hollywood values''' refers to the lack of [[morals]] and [[values]] in [[Hollywood]] culture, which is characterized by decadence, narcissism, rampant [[drug|drug use]], extramarital sex, sexually-transmitted [[disease]], lawlessness and death. A poll by MSNBC said that 60% of [[Americans]] agree that "Hollywood's values are not in line with the rest of America and that the quality of movies has dimished in recent years."<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11714540/</ref><br />
<br />
Not all people who currently work or have worked in Hollywood espouse Hollywood values. [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Charlton Heston]], [[Walt Disney]] and many others practiced conservative values while working in Hollywood.<br />
<br />
Hollywood values can include a flagrant disrespect and disregard for:<br />
<br />
* [[marriage]] and [[abstinence]]<br />
* [[patriotism]]<br />
* [[religion]]<br />
* [[accountability]]<br />
* family responsibilities, like childrearing<ref>[[Britney Spears]] "doesn't want [her] kids back." [http://www.nypost.com/seven/02132008/news/nationalnews/brit_doesnt_want_her_kids__1st_ex_97425.htm]</ref><br />
* laws that apply to everyone else<br />
* normal behavioural boundaries and values of human decency<br />
<br />
==Deaths ==<br />
Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4174733&page=1</ref><ref>http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_18845.aspx</ref><br />
*[[John Barrymore]], 60, cirrhosis of the liver from heavy drinking<br />
*[[Bix Beiderbecke]], 28, [[alcoholism]]<br />
*[[John Belushi]], 33, was a repeated drug abuser who ultimately died of a lethal injection of cocaine and heroin<br />
*[[Clara Blandick]], 81, suicide<br />
*[[John Bonham]], 32, after too much drinking, asphyxiated on vomit<br />
*[[Kurt Cobain]], 27, "turned to drugs and alcohol to help him cope," then committed suicide<br />
*[[Karl Dane]], 47, suicide by gunshot<br />
*[[James Dean]], 24, auto accident (see also crime, below)<br />
*[[Eazy-E]], 31. [[AIDS]] contracted through drug use.<br />
*[[Brian Epstein]], 32, overdosed on sleeping pills and alcohol<br />
*[[Chris Farley]], 33, overdose of morphine and cocaine<br />
*[[Judy Garland]], 47, overdosed on sleeping pills<br />
*[[Margaux Hemingway]], 42, suicide<br />
*[[Jimi Hendrix]], 27, an enthusisatic abuser of illegal drugs, choked on his own vomit after overdose of sleeping pills.<br />
*[[Rock Hudson]], 59, AIDS<br />
*[[Michael Hutchence]], 37, asphyxiated during an auto-erotic act while alone in a Sydney hotel. His wife, Paula Yates (see below), also fell victim to Hollywood Values.<br />
*[[Richard Jeni]], 49, suicide<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258231,00.html</ref><br />
*[[Janis Joplin]], 27, heroin overdose<br />
*[[Rob Knox]], 18, star of a [[Harry Potter]] film, was stabbed to death during a fight after midnight in or outside a bar<ref>http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1204418.ece</ref><ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/05/24/international/i140113D92.DTL</ref><br />
*[[Heath Ledger]], 28, found dead in his [[Manhattan]] apartment. "Prescription sleeping pills and anti-anxiety pills were found in bottles in Ledger's bedroom and bathroom, and police have speculated the death was caused by an accidental drug overdose."<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_en_ce/obit_ledger</ref> "Ledger died of an accidental overdose of painkillers, sleeping pills, anti-anxiety medication and other prescription drugs, the New York City medical examiner said Wednesday." <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328828,00.html</ref><br />
*[[Bruce Lee]] (Li Xiaolong), actor, 33, collapsed and died; cannabis found in bloodstream at post-mortem. <br />
*[[Stuart Lubbock]], 31, found dead in the swimming pool of popular TV entertainer [[Michael Barrymore]], having suffered severe anal trauma, after a drug-fuelled party at the star's home<br />
*[[Sal Mineo]], 37, murdered under circumstances that suggested "a homosexual motive"<br />
*[[Marilyn Monroe]], 36, overdosed on sleeping pills<br />
*[[Keith Moon]], drummer of [[The Who]], 32, overdose of Clomethiazole prescribed to treat his [[alcoholism]].<br />
*[[Jim Morrison]], 27, died of an apparent heroin overdose<br />
*[[Chris Penn]], 40, brother of [[Sean Penn]], "died accidentally from an enlarged heart and the effects of a mix of multiple medications"<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/02/13/entertainment/e162146S51.DTL</ref><br />
*[[River Phoenix]], 23, died from an overdose cocaine and heroin<br />
*[[Dana Plato]], 34, ''Diff'rent Strokes'' star, suicide by drugs overdose after posing for lesbian pornography.<br />
*[[Elvis Presley]], 42, large drug intake causes a cardiac arrhythmia and rumoured to have suffocated on the carpet when he collpased from a drug overdose.<br />
*[[Virginia Rappe]], 30, died of a ruptured bladder incurred at a party hosted by [[Roscoe Arbuckle]]<br />
*[[George Reeves]], 45, suicide<br />
*[[Brad Renfro]], 25, became addicted to heroin and was found dead after a night of drinking<br />
*[[Anna Nicole Smith]], 39, accidental overdose on prescription drugs<br />
*[[Sharon Tate]], 26, an actress with a [[hippie]] lifestyle who was murdered by followers of [[Charles Manson]], a [[Beatles]]-obsessed musician wannabee; Manson's followers murdered Tate, who was pregnant and only two weeks from birth, her unborn child, her prior lover, who was staying with her while her husband, paedophile movie producer [[Roman Polanski]] (see 'Crime', below), was away, and another unmarried couple staying in the house<br />
*[[Lou Tellegen]], 52, suicide<br />
*[[Sid Vicious]], 21. [[Heroin]] overdose while awaiting trial for his girlfriend's murder.<br />
*[[Kenneth Williams]], 62, overdose.<br />
*[[Natalie Wood]], 43. Drowned while intoxicated.<br />
*[[Paula Yates]], 41, heroin overdose.<br />
<br />
== Crime ==<br />
Hollywood values often include being arrested or convicted for a variety of crimes. Here are some examples:<br />
<br />
* [[Winona Ryder]] was convicted of convicted of vandalism and grand theft for stealing designer merchandise worth $5,560.40.<ref>http://www.courttv.com/trials/ryder/</ref><br />
* [[O.J. Simpson]] is widely believed to have murdered his wife and her friend, and was found liable in a civil (but not criminal) trial. He has since been arrested again on an unrelated charge.<br />
* [[Paris Hilton]] was convicted of driving while intoxicated, and then violated the terms of her probation, leading to a 45-day prison sentence.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18472845/ Paris Hilton sentenced to 45 days in jail], msnbc, May 4, 2007</ref><br />
*[[Hugh Grant]] was arrested in 1995 when found in a car with a prostitute.<ref>[http://www.mugshots.org/hollywood/hugh-grant.html]</ref><br />
*[[Stacy Keach]], movie actor, was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment in the [[United Kingdom]] in 1984 after being arrested at [[London]] [[Heathrow Airport]] in possession of a large quantity of [[cocaine]].<br />
*[[Kiefer Sutherland]] was given a 48-day sentence for DUI in 2007, an offence committed while still on probation following a 2004 conviction for DUI.<ref>Sutherland is released from jail [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7200633.stm BBC]</ref><br />
*[[George Michael]] was convicted of "Committing a lewd act in public", having been arrested in a public restroom by a plain clothes police officer.<ref>Police confirm George Michael arrest [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/75904.stmBBC]</ref><br />
*[[Snoop Dogg]], a popular [[rap|rapper]], was arrested in 2006 for [[marijuana]] possession.<br />
*[[Roman Polanski]], Polish-born film producer, is unable to return to Hollywood as he skipped bail and fled to [[France]] after being convicted in 1978 on charges of unlawful sexual intercourse with a thirteen-year old girl.<br />
* Rapper DMX (Earl Simmons) was caught on camera drag racing at a speed over 110 miles on a freeway, and then a SWAT team was used to arrest him three days later on drug and animal cruelty charges. "The Maricopa County sheriff's office says the 37-year-old, whose real name is Earl Simmons, at first tried to barricade himself in his bedroom. He came out as a SWAT team entered during the early-morning raid Friday."<ref>http://news.aol.com/entertainment/music/music-news-story/ar/_a/dmx-arrested-on-animal-cruelty-charges/20080509163709990001</ref><br />
*[[Tatum O'Neal]] arrested in 2008 for [[cocaine]] possession. <ref><br />
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361361,00.html Tatum O'Neal Released After Drug Arrest], [[Associated Press]], ''[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]]'', June 02, 2008.</ref><br />
*[[James Dean]] displayed an unhealthy interest in a twelve-year-old boy. His former director Elia Kazan later commented: "I've known many actors who have been twisted up in their sex lives, but never anybody as sick and unhealthy as Dean was."<br />
<br />
== Falsehoods ==<br />
<br />
[[Hollywood values]] perpetuates [[liberal]]-driven falsehoods:<br />
<br />
*[[Matthew Shepard Fallacy]] <br />
:Adherents to Hollywood values "green-lighted a troika of [[Matthew Shepard]] movies after he was senselessly killed because it affirmed their gut feeling that a gay young man living in backward America is destined for death at the hands of hateful ultraconservatives. A street in West Hollywood still stands in his name despite ABC News reporting the story false: He was killed by crazed meth addicts for drugs and money -- not because he was gay. Isn't that tragic enough? Yet Shepherd is still the icon of gay victims' rights, and the mistaken story of his 'fate' soon thereafter befell Jake Gyllenhaal's character in 'Brokeback Mountain.' The Oscar statuette stands as the exclamation point."<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup26sep26,0,1800794,full.story</ref><br />
<br />
*[[Inherit the Wind]] <br />
:<fill in><br />
<br />
==Divorce==<br />
<br />
*[[Elizabeth Taylor]] has been married eight (8) times.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000072/bio</ref><br />
*[[Valerie Bertinelli]] said her divorce from [[Eddie Van Halen]] was caused by infidelity and drug use - by her too. She said she was "destroying my body," trying to keep up with a rock-star lifestyle. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332551,00.html Valerie Bertinelli About Divorce From Eddie Van Halen: 'I Wasn't An Angel Either'], [[Fox News Channel]], ''[[Associated Press]]'', February 26, 2008</ref><br />
*[[Zsa Zsa Gabor]] has been married nine (9) times.<br />
*[[Mickey Rooney]] has been married eight (8) times, but has been with his last wife for 30 years after embracing religion and abandoning his previous lifestyle.<br />
*[[Charlie Chaplin]] married four (4) times, including his marriage at the age of 54 to an 18-year-old bride.<br />
<br />
== Offensive Behavior ==<br />
<br />
* Trashing hotel rooms is a favorite form of offensive behavior by Hollywood types. Many examples are readily available on the [[internet]].<ref>See, e.g., [http://www.budgettravel.com/bt-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101034.html]</ref><br />
*[[Mel Gibson]], who had started drinking again, was arrested after being stopped for driving at 84 mph in a 45 mph zone on a notoriously dangerous road in Malibu, California.<ref>''Mel Gibson apologizes after DUI arrest'' [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14080210/ Associated Press]</ref> A breathalyzer test confirmed he was drunk and next to him was an open bottle of Tequila; after being arrested he hurled Anti-Semitic abuse at a Jewish police officer.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2292336,00.html Mel Gibson rants against Jews in drink-drive arrest], Times Online, July 30, 2006</ref><br />
*The parents of [[Miley Cyrus]], just 15 years old, allowed [[Annie Liebowitz]] to pose the starlet without a shirt or bra (aka [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/topless "topless"]) and with just a sheet covering her front for Vanity Fair magazine.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/business/media/28hannah.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</ref><ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20195785,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23608789-5001026,00.html</ref> "I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed," Cyrus said Sunday in a statement through her publicist. "I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about." <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref><br />
:"... a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines," a network statement said. <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref><br />
<br />
== Rehab ==<br />
Hollywood values often result in [[Celebrity|celebrities]] going into rehab. Here are some examples:<br />
<br />
*[[Kirsten Dunst]] checked into the [[Cirque Lodge]] treatment facility in [[Utah]] after a week of hard partying at the [[Sundance Film Festival]], according to a source at the lodge, although the lodge's director of operations denies this. <ref name = "foxkirsten"><br />
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329545,00.html Reports Say Kirsten Dunst in Rehab; Rep for Facility Denies It], ''[[Fox News]]'', February 08, 2008</ref><br />
<br />
The following all checked into the above facility seeking treatment for various psychological problems:<br />
<br />
*[[Lindsay Lohan]] <ref name = "foxkirsten"/><br />
*[[Eva Mendes]] <ref name = "foxkirsten"/><br />
*[[Mary-Kate Olsen]] <ref name = "foxkirsten"/><br />
<br />
== Hypocrisy ==<br />
<br />
Hollywood personalities often propose legislation such as outlawing private gun ownership, or speak out against things such as anti-gun laws, but have at the same time acted in movies contrary to their public opinions: <br />
<br />
* [[George Clooney]] on hearing that fellow actor and guns-rights advocate, [[Charlton Heston]], suffers from Alzheimer's disease, said: ''"I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the [[National Rifle Association]]. He deserves whatever anyone says about him."''<ref>http://www.funnyreign.com/quotes-georgeclooney.shtml</ref> Clooney starred in the film ''The Peacemaker'', in which he played an American military man defending the country from a nuclear attack; scenes in the film showed him using a gun to defend himself and others. <br />
<br />
* [[Mark Wahlberg]] upon meeting Charlton Heston on the set of the remake of ''Planet of the Apes'', Wahlberg rudely told Heston, "It was very disturbing meeting you." Later, Wahlberg would have this to say at the MTV Movie Awards: ''"I believe Charlton Heston is America's best villain because he loves guns so much. Maybe he should get the award for being president of the National Rifle Association."''<ref>http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2360</ref> Wahlberg's character in ''Planet of the Apes'' uses a gun to defend himself and other humans from the apes who would rule over them.<br />
<br />
==Moral depravity==<br />
*[[Woody Allen]] seduced and took pornographic photographs of the adolescent daughter of his wife [[Mia Farrow]].<br />
<br />
==Using appearances to promote themselves and their causes or air their pet peeves==<br />
*Rapper Kanye West infamously went way off script during a live benefit concert for victims of Hurricane Katrina, criticizing the media's treatment of images of black and white people and saying President [[George W. Bush]] "hates black people."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090300165.html</ref><br />
*During the live broadcast of the 2007 Emmy Awards, actress Sally Field went on a sputtering anti-war rant, eventually concluding by saying, "If the mothers ruled the world, there would be no g**d*** war in the first place." She received thunderous applause from the Hollywood audience for her vulgar remark.<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=3610891</ref><br />
*[[Michael Moore]] surprised no one by criticizing President Bush during his 2003 Oscar acceptance speech for "Bowling for Columbine," saying, "We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man who's sending us to war for fictitious reasons, whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts. We are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush. Shame on you."<ref>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20030323-2028-oscars-moore.html</ref><br />
*Actress Jessica Lange verbally attacked President Bush and the Iraq War during a 2008 commencement speech at Sarah Lawrence College in Yonkers, New York, stating, "We are living in an America that, in the last seven and a half years, has waged an unnecessary war, established prison camps, condoned torture, employed corporate armies, eliminated the right of habeas corpus, practiced extraordinary rendition, and believe me, this is only a partial list."<ref>http://cbs5.com/politics/Jessica.Lange.President.2.732264.html</ref><br />
<br />
==Productions==<br />
The diseased moral values of the Liberal-dominated entertainments industry are manifested all too clearly in many of the products of that industry - motion pictures and television programmes that offer no edification or instruction to the viewer, but plumb a cess-pit of licence and depravity. Some recent examples include the television series ''Desperate Housewives'' and the tv series/movie ''[[Sex and the City]]''. However there are also many movies and tv series that are full of conservative values, including [[The Chronicles of Narnia]] and [[Pay It Forward]].<br />
<br />
==Books==<br />
* ''Hollywood Against America''<br />
* ''Hollywood Babylon'' (1965) by Kenneth Anger (US edition)<br />
* ''Hollywood Babylon II'' (1984) by Kenneth Anger<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
{{liberalism}}<br />
<br />
[[category:entertainment]]<br />
[[Category:Liberals]]</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Daphnea&diff=482304User talk:Daphnea2008-06-26T19:20:22Z<p>Daphnea: /* You can wait */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{welcome}}<br />
==Richard Dawkins==<br />
It appears I made a mistake. Please accept my apologies. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]]<sup>[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]]</sup> 20:02, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Thank you. No problem. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 20:04, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Stop making positive edits, part of the lulz from this place comes from their HI-larious "definitions". Make more troll edits, but don't give advice on how to correct page. Jesus, dude.--[[User:Ivysaur|Ivysaur]] 22:41, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Answer to your question. ==<br />
<br />
Bugler did not seem to want to answer, so here is the best answer I can come up with. I would suggest steering clear of any pages that start with the word "liberal," or contain the word "values." Those pages are watched pretty closely, and any dissenting information is pretty quickly reverted. Other than that there is no easy way to tell what pages are dangerous ground. [[Barack Obama]] is another. If you look at the talk page and see alot of arguing and debate, that might be an indicator. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup> <sup>[[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]]</sup> 11:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I'll repeat what I said on Bugler's talk page, and on your talk page. Feel free to carry on the conversation at any of these.<br />
:When you say "dissenting information" what do you mean? My edits were to fix factual problems. One was to correct something said about Wikipedia (the Wikipedia article we talk about no longer says what we say it does). The other was to clear up a statement that was not backed up by references, and so not verifiable according to the Conservapedia Commandments. <br />
:When I came here I thought that this was a wiki, like Wikipedia but written from a Conservative point of view. Are there actually restrictions on who can edit articles? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 11:56, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Thanks for chipping in on the [[compass]] article ==<br />
<br />
I think it's safe to say that contributing to the [[compass]] article is "safe ground." I'm still trying to figure out "the rules" here and am finding that a lot of them are unspoken - you find out when it's too late that you've transgressed. I've been shunned (blocked) once already for violating some obscure rule that said if you talk too much, rather than directly make major edits, you'll be blocked. This implies that anyone (like me) who would rather discuss something contentious before actually changing an article has to learn simply to shut up. I personally think that is counterproductive.<br />
<br />
Writing about compasses is much more soothing (and as an ex-navigation type, something I rather enjoy). -- [[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 16:21, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree in principle, though if that's all I do I'm beginning to wonder why I wouldn't do it on another wiki. It's hard to see how an article on compasses written from a conservative viewpoint is different from one written from any other viewpoint. Some of the rules are very strange. Apparently there are some articles (no-one seems to know exactly which ones) where you have to ask permission of [[User:Aschlafly]] if you want to edit them. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:38, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Reversions==<br />
Thanks! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:16, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
And again! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:06, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==You can wait==<br />
''"I did as you said and asked [[User:Aschlafly]] about the edits to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]. That was 48 hours ago and he hasn't got back to me. How about we apply the legal doctrine "silence gives consent" and make the edits again? If he's that busy he probably won't notice, and if he objects he can always tell me why when he does notice."''<br />
<br />
How about waiting for an answer from him first? Making an over-riding decision like what you indicated above is not allowed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:02, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:This is starting to sound very worrying. Is this an "unwritten rule" - you can't disagree with [[User:Aschlafly]]? I understand that he set up the website, but if he had wanted it to contain only his views why didn't he make it a regular website instead of a wiki?<br />
:Incidentally the edits I made (that were undone and need to be "discussed" were to fix cases where the article was contravening the '''written''' rules of Conservapedia. One was a factual in accuracy and the other was a case where the reference given did not back up what was said in the article. Do the unwritten rules take precedence over the written ones? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 15:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Pretty much.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:11, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No, I wasn't referring to an unwritten rule; what I was referring to was an attempt by you to make changes that he told you not to do, and those changes would be done behind his back. It's not going to happen. So, wait until he gets back online, broach the question again, and see what comes of it. If he says no, accept it and move on. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Andy has been online several limes since I asked him the question more than 48 hours ago. He has been online several times since I reminded him about it 24 hours ago. If he actually answered me and explained the reasons why my edits were bad I would be happy - it is his site after all. For that matter '''not one other editor''' has ventured to give me a reason why my edits were considered bad, including the several sysops who have been involved in this and (I would hope) have a pretty good idea of how Conservapedia works by now. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 15:20, 26 June 2008 (EDT)</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Daphnea&diff=482291User talk:Daphnea2008-06-26T19:09:24Z<p>Daphnea: /* You can wait */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{welcome}}<br />
==Richard Dawkins==<br />
It appears I made a mistake. Please accept my apologies. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]]<sup>[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]]</sup> 20:02, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Thank you. No problem. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 20:04, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Stop making positive edits, part of the lulz from this place comes from their HI-larious "definitions". Make more troll edits, but don't give advice on how to correct page. Jesus, dude.--[[User:Ivysaur|Ivysaur]] 22:41, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Answer to your question. ==<br />
<br />
Bugler did not seem to want to answer, so here is the best answer I can come up with. I would suggest steering clear of any pages that start with the word "liberal," or contain the word "values." Those pages are watched pretty closely, and any dissenting information is pretty quickly reverted. Other than that there is no easy way to tell what pages are dangerous ground. [[Barack Obama]] is another. If you look at the talk page and see alot of arguing and debate, that might be an indicator. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup> <sup>[[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]]</sup> 11:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I'll repeat what I said on Bugler's talk page, and on your talk page. Feel free to carry on the conversation at any of these.<br />
:When you say "dissenting information" what do you mean? My edits were to fix factual problems. One was to correct something said about Wikipedia (the Wikipedia article we talk about no longer says what we say it does). The other was to clear up a statement that was not backed up by references, and so not verifiable according to the Conservapedia Commandments. <br />
:When I came here I thought that this was a wiki, like Wikipedia but written from a Conservative point of view. Are there actually restrictions on who can edit articles? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 11:56, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Thanks for chipping in on the [[compass]] article ==<br />
<br />
I think it's safe to say that contributing to the [[compass]] article is "safe ground." I'm still trying to figure out "the rules" here and am finding that a lot of them are unspoken - you find out when it's too late that you've transgressed. I've been shunned (blocked) once already for violating some obscure rule that said if you talk too much, rather than directly make major edits, you'll be blocked. This implies that anyone (like me) who would rather discuss something contentious before actually changing an article has to learn simply to shut up. I personally think that is counterproductive.<br />
<br />
Writing about compasses is much more soothing (and as an ex-navigation type, something I rather enjoy). -- [[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 16:21, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree in principle, though if that's all I do I'm beginning to wonder why I wouldn't do it on another wiki. It's hard to see how an article on compasses written from a conservative viewpoint is different from one written from any other viewpoint. Some of the rules are very strange. Apparently there are some articles (no-one seems to know exactly which ones) where you have to ask permission of [[User:Aschlafly]] if you want to edit them. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:38, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Reversions==<br />
Thanks! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:16, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
And again! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:06, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==You can wait==<br />
''"I did as you said and asked [[User:Aschlafly]] about the edits to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]. That was 48 hours ago and he hasn't got back to me. How about we apply the legal doctrine "silence gives consent" and make the edits again? If he's that busy he probably won't notice, and if he objects he can always tell me why when he does notice."''<br />
<br />
How about waiting for an answer from him first? Making an over-riding decision like what you indicated above is not allowed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:02, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:This is starting to sound very worrying. Is this an "unwritten rule" - you can't disagree with [[User:Aschlafly]]? I understand that he set up the website, but if he had wanted it to contain only his views why didn't he make it a regular website instead of a wiki?<br />
:Incidentally the edits I made (that were undone and need to be "discussed" were to fix cases where the article was contravening the '''written''' rules of Conservapedia. One was a factual in accuracy and the other was a case where the reference given did not back up what was said in the article. Do the unwritten rules take precedence over the written ones? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 15:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)</div>Daphneahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=482279Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog2008-06-26T19:02:09Z<p>Daphnea: Was this removed by accident?</p>
<hr />
<div>== Final Copy of Letter Sent Wednesday afternoon ==<br />
<br />
Dear Prof. Lenski,<br />
<br />
This is my second request for your data underlying your recent paper, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of ''Escherichia coli''," published in PNAS (June 10, 2008) and reported in New Scientist ("Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in lab," June 9, 2008).<br />
<br>http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf<br />
<br>http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html<br />
<br />
Your work was taxpayer-funded, and PNAS represents that its authors will make underlying data available. I'd like to review the data myself and ensure availability for others, including experts and my students. Others have expressed interest in access to the data in addition to myself, and your website seems well-suited for public release of these data.<br />
<br />
If the data are voluminous, then I particularly request access to the data that was made available to the peer reviewers of your paper, and to the data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony supposedly developed Cit+. As before, I'm requesting the organized data themselves, not the graphs and summaries set forth in the paper and referenced in your first reply to me. Note that several times your paper expressly states, "data not shown."<br />
<br />
Given that this is my second request for the data, a clear answer is requested as to whether you will make the key underlying data available for independent review. Your response, or lack thereof, will be posted due to the public interest in this issue. Thank you.<br />
<br />
Andy Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D.<br />
<br>www.conservapedia.com<br />
<br>cc: PNAS, New Scientist publications<br />
<br />
:That was disappointing. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I don't blame him if he doesn't respond. What is this about Aschafly wanting to review the information himself. I thought he said that he wouldn't understand it, or something to that effect.[[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:21, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Well, I guess he didn't really need people to sign on with him, after all. Added to the project page.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 17:29, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Draft letter ==<br />
<br />
Dear Prof. Lenski,<br />
<br />
This is my second request for the data underlying your recent paper, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli," published in PNAS (June 10, 2008) and reported in New Scientist ("Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in lab," June 9, 2008).<br />
<br>http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf<br />
<br>http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html<br />
<br />
This work was taxpayer-funded, and PNAS represents that its authors will make underlying data available. I'd like to review the data myself and ensure availability for others, including experts and my students. Others have expressed interested in access to the data in addition to myself, and your website seems well-suited for public release of these data.<br />
<br />
If the data are voluminous, then I particularly request that access to the data made available to the peer reviewers of your paper, and data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony supposedly developed Cit+. As before, I'm requesting the organized data themselves, not the graphs and summaries set forth in the paper. Note that several times your paper expressly states, "data not shown."<br />
<br />
Given that this is my second request for the data, a clear answer is requested as to whether you will make the key data available for independent review. Thank you.<br />
<br />
Andy Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D.<br />
<br />
cc: PNAS, New Scientist publications<br />
<br />
:Given that he was very gracious in his last reply, you think maybe it would be a good idea to at least TRY not to sound like he's being accused of malfeasance? I'd suggest new wording but something much better is already available below. -Drek<br />
<br />
== List of people willing to join an email requesting the public release of Lenski's data ==<br />
<br />
Schedule permitting, a better version of the draft letter below (which someone diluted) will be sent tomorrow to Lenski, noting support by others (unspecified whom) at Conservapedia. Obviously Conservapedia rejects the limits on access to data proposed by several below. Public access to data means access by all, not merely by people having certain preferred credentials or education.<br />
<br />
This will be the second request for the data from Lenski. Given that the research was publicly funded and published in a Journal that has a policy of access to data, the expectation is that Lenski will release the data. But will he?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:40, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
: I'm not sure that you've ever spelt out exactly what data you are expecting. Somebody mentioned on this page that we might be talking about terabytes of data. Is that what you are asking for? Or what?<br />
: Also, I don't recall anybody actually said that the access to the data should be limited (and if you are talking about my comments and those of others that ''we'' should leave it to those who are qualified to see it, then I reject that we are proposing limits as such).<br />
: Neither have you responded to my comments about how it will make creationists look.<br />
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:58, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I "diluted it. I thought it needed to be more specific and polite. Since it is neither again, I am hesitant to put my name to it. There's no need to be brusque, and every reason to be as polite as possible.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 12:35, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
'''Current total of supporters: 7'''<br />
<br />
*[[User:Aschlafly]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:13, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
*[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 20:55, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
*--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 12:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
*--[[User:DeanS|DeanS<sup>talk</sup>]] 14:05, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
*[[User:Conservative]]---[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:52, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Wait a second... if I put my name on this list, is it going to get attached to some combative email? I don't want to just agree, when you seem to be ignoring my attempts to help draft this email. What were you proposing to send, Andy? If you wouldn't mind, could you post the text here before I have to decide if I want to attach my good name to it?--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 14:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::QFT. I likewise said earlier that I'd be happy to sign on, pending a review of the actual text to be sent. So long as the tone remains professional and polite I'm in. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: It will be polite and professional, of course. In fact, someone else can draft the text if he likes, as long as it simply requests '''public release of the data for public scrutiny''' and is free of any obfuscation like that displayed by some detractors on this page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:54, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::There's a draft that some folks are working on, below. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Provisionally willing, pending review of the finished draft. I make it a policy never to sign my name to anything I haven't read. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Let's work up a draft. Here's a start, and improvements are welcome:<br />
<br />
Dear Prof. Lenski,<br />
<br />
Your recent paper in PNAS, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key<br />
innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli,"[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf] has interested us greatly. Knowing PNAS policy of making data available, we were hoping you would accordingly oblige us with your recorded observations for a few key points.<br />
<br />
We respectfully request the data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony developed cit+; while we see excerpts in the paper, we were hoping to examine them in context. Your website[https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/] already discloses some older data, and seems well-suited for public release of the data underlying your recent paper.<br />
<br />
Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this.<br />
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:15, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I think we should probably be more specific, Andy. We're obviously not asking for twenty years' worth of notes, right? Or at least, I don't think we should ask for that.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 21:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I think it's reasonably obvious what the key claims are in the paper, and what the key data are underlying those claims. But, if you like, perhaps you can revise the above letter. The paper itself is not long and feel free to cite to it, if you think that is necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:10, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I just think it helps to be as specific as possible. But I have edited a bit with slightly more polite wording and more specificity. I hope it is acceptable?--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 21:16, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::If we send that version, put my name on the list :) --[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 13:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::I'll add my name to that version as well. It's encouraging to see what teamwork can achieve when we're all focused on the same goal. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:39, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Is it acceptable for the people co-signing this letter to use their Conservapedia user names? I noticed earlier that Arizaphale did not want to use his real name. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:54, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Thanks, Philip. I'm also willing to sign with a generic "John Doe" or even an old-fashioned "X". Or, the letter could simply be signed "Members of the Conservapedia Community," since I'm feeling confident that two or more others aren't sporting their actual names on that list. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:41, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Right, that's no problem. We're polite and professional around here, and signing as "Members of the Conservapedia Community" is a good suggestion, with a number added.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:51, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'd be more comfortable with that, as well. You can't be too careful with putting personal information online nowadays. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Recap ==<br />
<br />
Carafe, TomMoore, and SMaines all defend the withholding from public scrutiny of data underlying a scientific claim. Moreover, note how insulting some of them have become in response below to a request for public scrutiny of the data. No more insults will be allowed here, and their talk pollution may be removed.<br />
<br />
Public scrutiny has obvious benefits, and none of them have given any reason for denying that scrutiny. Journals and even government policy encourage or require it. Ah, but [[evolutionists]] feel they can play by their own rules, and make public claims without making the data public. Rest assured that no one here is fooled by this "make the claim but hide the data from the public" approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:Just for the record, the above as it refers to my own statements is untrue. I think public scrutiny is excellent. I believe, in fact, that given that Lenski so promptly answered your questions, he would probably comply with any specific requests you might make. It does not seem reasonable to demand he send you what must be gigabytes of data off the cuff. If you were a professional in a field even tangentially related, I imagine he might be happy to do so immediately, but as it is, I suspect you are not at the top of the list for someone as busy as he undoubtedly must be.<br />
:Perhaps if you sent him an email asking him a specific question: ("I wonder if you would send me the relevant records from the time at which you believe the bacteria became Cit+" might be one, but I am not a biologist) he would answer it with the records or say why he wouldn't. Or if you wait, they might have time to organize the data into a coherent manner for presentation and make it available on the internet or by request. Cordiality is key, we agree on that much.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 15:05, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::While I appreciate having my name removed from the top list because my position was acknowledged, it's pointless while Carafe, TomMoore, and SMaines are still being represented in the way they are. I'm in agreement with them, and now Philip Rayment too, that simply asking "for all your data" is not only unscientific, but wasteful and disrespectful if there's no meaningful plan in place to use the data productively. None of these people are against disclosure or proper scientific review, so as long as that statement above remains you're continuing to make false statements about CP editors. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:21, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: If you supported public scrutiny of the data, then you would send Lenski an email requesting it. That you have not, and will not, speaks volumes about your view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:40, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::...to me, it says that I'm not a biologist, and doubt I could fairly evaluate it if I received it. I know the degree of training it has required for me to achieve my present position, and I lack the hubris to think I could exercise equivalent powers of discrimination in a field so unrelated to my own. I'm not faulting you - maybe you have a degree in biochemistry, for all I know! But I know that I am not capable of fairly evaluating in context the raw data of biological experiments. My view is not a multi-book set: there's only one volume to it, and it's humility and appreciation of the credentials of the qualified.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 17:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: As I said, TomMoore, you apparently don't support "public scrutiny" of the data. Your own expertise is obviously irrelevant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I assure you, Andy, I do support it. I see no reason to think it isn't forthcoming, even though he didn't send all of the data to Some Internet Guy who demanded it offhand.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 22:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: Andy, I will not join in your support in the wasting of the tax dollars of mine and others to provide irrelevant information which you will then proceed to not use. Your version of "scrutiny", unlike scientific scrutiny, accomplishes nothing but to waste our tax dollars.<br />
<br />
::::: You can either participate with other scientists in public scrutiny by identifying rational weaknesses in Lenski's work and doing verification experiments, or you can continue to ignore public scrutiny and demand that your version of "scrutiny" be done. What will it be?<br />
<br />
::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 20:09, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: Although I support the public release of data, there is no way that I would ask for it or put my name to a request for it unless I first knew that someone was available to analyse it. I mentioned earlier (when this discussion was on Aschlafly's talk page) that creationists might not review Lenski's work because of lack of funding and numbers of creationary scientists available to do the work. Nevertheless, two creationary scientists have or are in the process of critiquing it (and I think an ID proponent has also). But the first (Don Batten) has apparently not seen the need to ask for all the data, and if either of the other two feel the need, they can ask for themselves. But given the aforementioned lack of funding and availability, it would be pointless asking for the data if there was nobody available to analyse it. Of course, if Conservapedia, or someone known to Conservapedia, is offering to fund the analysis, that might change things.<br />
::::: Furthermore, most problems with evolutionary conclusions are not because of misrepresenting the data, but with the conclusions being based on the materialistic worldview. It is usually not necessary to analyse the (in this case) 20 years' worth of data in order to find this fault.<br />
::::: I'm also concerned about the impression this will give of creationists. We cop enough criticism as it is simply by holding creationist views without giving our critics real reasons such as unreasonable demands for data that we will probably never use.<br />
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: Finally. Someone who makes sense. I'll gladly join in an email requesting any relevant data from Lenski, as needed by an identified/funded creationist scientist for Conservapedia.<br />
<br />
:::::: Until that time, Andy's "public scrutiny" just wastes tax dollars.<br />
<br />
:::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 12:08, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Unfortunately, Philip, you've proven to be right on this. If you google "schlafly lenski" there's plenty of criticism over the way this has been handled by CP, and the credibility of the latter. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:25, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Request of Examination of raw data is reasonable given the history of fraud related to the evolutionary position ==<br />
<br />
I do think a request of examination of the alleged raw data is reasonable [[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation|given the history of fraud in relation to the evolutionary position]]. In addition, we know know that [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin was deceitful regarding his public pronouncements regarding his worldview]] and he was actually an [[atheism|atheist]]. So given the history of [[deceit]] in connection with the evolutionary position and its promotion, I do think Andy is quite justified in requesting to see the raw data of Lenski's alleged work. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:14, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: As I wrote above, I'm pretty sure the relevant data would be happily provided as soon as a request a bit more specific than "give me all the data" is given. Some particular weakness that Andy identified in Lenski's reasoning, perhaps? Or some experimental procedure that you deemed especially prone to mistake, or even forgery? What is this "skepticism" that has been "expressed" based on? Or is it some sort of... dogmatic skepticism?<br />
<br />
: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 00:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I had asked a question above that was never answered, so I'll repeat it here: Who does Conservapedia plan on retaining to review the data from on scientific basis? It would be a lot more professional to select a qualified scientist or panel of scientists to do the job, and let them have a ''professional'' dialog with Prof. Lenski to review the raw data and conclusions. This is just grandstanding - "You haven't delivered gigs and gigs of raw data as requested, so you're withholding data". What it comes down to is that the CP leadership wants anything BUT a professional, qualified review of professor Lenski's work, because the outcome of that is not likely to be what they want. This reminds me of Kent Hovind's "Evolution Challenge" - set up ridiculous demands, and then claim victory because reasonable people don't meet them. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:07, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Public scrutiny has obvious benefits. See "recap" above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::I'll repeat my specific point. There's nothing improper about requesting that Professor Lenski share his raw data, but it's disrespectful of his time if there's no intention of using that data purposefully. I had asked what the plan was for having the data reviewed once it's received. Are there any qualified professionals lined up to review it and respond? He showed courtesy and professionalism in responding intra-day to the original request, so it's disrespectful to accuse him of withholding information after a single exchange of emails. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::It's also disrespectful to claim that Carafe, TomMoore, SMaines and I are all defending "the withholding from public scrutiny of data underlying a scientific claim." None of us have made that statement, so please remove it since it's untrue. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:46, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: DinsdaleP, clearly state that you support the public release of the data, and retract any comments to the contrary, and I'll remove your name. <br />
<br />
:::::: Your comment above suggests that you only support requests for data that have a proper purpose (whatever that is), a proper plan for review (whatever that is), and "qualified professionals lined up to review it." If you cling to that very limited approach, then you do oppose "public scrutiny" of data underlying a scientific claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I thought my comments were self-explanatory, but I'll try to simplify it. Yes, I support the public release of the data, and never claimed otherwise. I hope that's clear enough. The point we disagree on is that after a single exchange of emails, it's wrong to accuse Prof. Lenski of withholding data when he made a reasonable attempt to answer your questions and point you to the supporting data in his papers. If you ask him in a courteous manner how the underlying raw data can be made available, I'm sure you'll get a prompt and professional reply. So go ahead, make the request, and get the data. Frankly, I don't care what you do with it, but at least it will stop the insulting accusations of data being withheld. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::A last clarification - my point about having a "proper purpose" in requesting the data simply meant that if you were asking Prof. Lenski to take the time and effort to collect the raw data and send it to you, I'd hope the effort wasn't going to be a waste of time because it never got into the hands of people qualified to evaluate it properly. Time will tell. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:07, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::: Perhaps you're saying you don't oppose public release of the data. You haven't demonstrated you would "support" it, as in joining an email requesting it. Or would you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::"Perhaps"? I thought my statement above was plain enough, but instead of retracting your false accusation, you're just adding new conditions - now I have to add my signature to an email I haven't seen to show my support for disclosure? That's a sad way to avoid accountability for making false statements. Show me the email and a plan for using the data that doesn't make this a waste of time and taxpayer money, and I'll consider signing the request. In the meantime, please remove the false statements at the top of this page. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:17, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::: I'm sure all of us here will gladly join in an email requesting public release of the data in a scientific scrutiny process. I will not however join in your version of "scrutiny", which has nothing to do with scientific scrutiny at all. -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 20:11, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== responses of creation scientists to Lenski matter ==<br />
<br />
Here are the responses of creation scientists to the Lenski matter:<br />
<br />
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5827<br />
<br />
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/06/14/news-to-note-06142008<br />
<br />
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:48, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Another email? ==<br />
<br />
Is there going to be one? It's entirely possible that, having received a request from a lawyer for data, a scientist might very well think that the data provided in the report would be sufficient. Before deciding that he's hiding something, why not give him enough rope to conclusively hang himself?<br />
<br />
"Dear Dr. Lenski,<br />
<br />
I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear enough in the first place. We were hoping to see the entirety of the raw data in order to assess it ourselves."<br />
<br />
Or some such.<br />
<br />
[[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:26, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::If you are running a study on the genetics of a rapidly multiplying bacterial species over many years, the data accumulated will run into many many gigabytes. I don't believe it is practical to hand it out to any Tom, Dick and Harry requesting it. If there are concerns about any particular area of the study which raised suspicion of fraud or misinterpretation of data, then Mr. Schlafly should be asking the raw data pertaining to that particular area. <br />
<br />
::I have published in many medical journals and actively peer review for 2 of them. This is how it works in the field of science. Being a lawyer, Mr. Schlafly may not be familiar with the practice. So I do not think the email Aziraphale prepared is appropriate. This is my opinion and most of the users seem to agree with this as well. --[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 13:35, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
In response to Aziraphale, my email was clear and there is no reason for me to say the same thing again. You're welcome to make your request of Lenski if you really don't think he understood my email.<br />
<br />
In response to SMaines, I'll add your name to the list above of people who oppose the public release of data underlying public claims about the data. (The amount of the data is no obstacle to its release.) SMaines' approach prevents mistakes and fraud from being identified by independent public review. Apparently SMaines does not even request availability of the data when he does peer review. Perhaps he could tell us which journals he does peer review for so that others can have a healthy skepticism about claims made in them. Of course, SMaines is unlikely to disclose the names of those journals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:21, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
It is true that I do not ask for raw data from all the authors that I have peer reviewed articles for. You do not seem to understand how the peer review process works. The role of the peer reviewer is not to repeat all the work the authors have already done. <br />
<br />
First I check whether the authors are asking a relevant question regarding the hypothesis, whether the hypotheses are falsifiable, whether the methodology is sound without any obvious flaws, were the data collected ethically and whether they obtain informed consent of all involved. I also aim to determine the experiments performed adhering to protocol and statistical methods used were sound. Then I determine whether their results actually conclude what they have listed as their conclusions. I check whether the bibliography is complete and up-to-date. Finally I recommend to the editor whether the paper is significant and relevant to the journal. I may have omitted a few steps, but that is in nutshell how a peer review process works. <br />
<br />
I have worked in academic circles for years and I am yet to come across any referee who will ask for the whole set of raw data for all the papers reviewed. Raw data is only asked for if we have any concerns regarding the validity of methodology or conclusions. I have in the past asked for set of raw data to run some specific calculations myself. I have never known any one who will ring an author and ask to send the whole set of data covering years of data collection. <br />
<br />
It works like Carafe described “A, I tried duplicating your experiment, but parameters x, y, and z that I need were not in your article. I need you to disclose to me x, y, and z that you used at the time. What are they?”<br />
<br />
Also, have you come across the different peer review tools? Please familiarize yourself with the process before <br />
<br />
For record, I am not against public scrutiny at all, but you have not even pointed out what your concerns or skepticisms are. What you have effectively said is you paper does not fit my belief patterns, so I do not believe you. Hand over all the raw data. This is childish and silly. <br />
--[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 15:06, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Dear Aschlafly,<br />
<br />
:You've mistaken me for someone who thinks he could diagnose Lenski's work in a meaningful way. You are one who can do so, so I was offering advice. It was free, and worth every penny. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Aziraphale, you still don't get it. I support the public release of the data, so that the public can analyze it. Got it now?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::One of us is certainly not getting something - my suggestion was meant to encourage the release of the data, rather than allowing the conversation to die with a possibility existing that there was a miscommunication rather than a denial of the request. What's more important here: that a political point is scored, or that the data be released? You are 100% mistaken if you think I'm opposed to the release of the data. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:50, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:20, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Absolutely, but I won't divulge my identity to you. If using a pseudonym is alright with you I'll gladly attach my support. If my particular handle is too silly, I could be appended as a John Doe instead. That said, you and I have different ideas of what language is appropriate, so I'd expect to see the exact text in advance. For example, until ''proven'' a liar or charlatan he deserves not to be accused of anything. Rather, just as when a motion for discovery is not compeletely fulfilled to your satisfaction, a firm but courteous clarification of your expectations would be appropriate.<br />
<br />
::::Would you care for me to draft something instead, and you can sign off, or not, as you see fit? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 21:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Rants Against Public Release of Data ==<br />
<br />
:While you're at it, you might do well to explain to Lenski what exactly a "Conservapedia" is. Unless he really likes Lewis Black's "The conservatives think that YOU, THE PUBLIC, HAVE A LIBERAL BIAS." quote, he's unlikely to know. After all, this site gets most of its views from a small group of devout sysops and the snarkers over at RW. Godspeed. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 13:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf Paper 180.] All kinds of data. If you want, I can also link to the protocols and such. Prof. Lenski is way more obliging than we would have any right to expect... I sent him a letter of congratulations, and he even took the time to reply thanking me!--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 15:27, 13 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::So, Andy, when can we expect your in-depth analysis of paper #180? -Drek<br />
<br />
:::With a professional and comprehensive reply having been sent promptly by Professor Lenski, what would be the intended follow-up from Conservapedia? It seems like he answered the letter's first two questions and pointed out that the third was based on a misunderstanding of his paper. Since his study's data and methodology are freely available for review, I'm wondering who CP is looking to engage to independently review and assess his work, which has already passed peer review in order to be published. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:03, 13 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::He answered, everybody scramble! I need that Lack of Evidence in the air NOW! You call artillery and tell them to deploy the Inconclusive Data immediately! Move, move, move! We've got a battle against science to fight, people!--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 17:29, 13 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Lenski's reply did not provide the data as requested. It did clarify that his claims are not as strong as some [[evolutionists]] have insisted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:07, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:"You will find all the relevant methods and data supporting this claim in our paper." If this statement is true then I hardly think he's going to go to the trouble of sending us all his data when it is readily available. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:29, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: StatsMsn, have you ever read a scientific paper? Papers don't set forth the data themselves. At most, they set forth summaries of data, which can be flawed or self-serving.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:31, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Supposing he gave you access to the gigs of raw data, would you:<br />
:::#Be able to understand any of it? <br />
:::#Be prepared to accept that the data accurately reflects the physical facts of the matter in the lab, were you to find it consistent with his conclusions?<br />
:::Given your educational background, I have serious doubts about 1), and given your behaviour on this site, I find myself incapable of believing 2). Please feel free to offer me some reassurance. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 10:26, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::I find this ironic that you suddenly want data to support someone else's claim, given your "Mystery: Young hollywood stars and breast cancer" ballpark figure. The paper provides more than ballpark figures you have previously used to support your hypothses in the past. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: In response to Leda, if for some unexplained reason I can't understand the data, then I'll find someone who can. I don't know how to fly an airplane but obviously that does not stop me from traveling by air. I am not reassured by the withholding of data.<br />
<br />
::::: In response to DanielB, I presented my data and described it as a mystery. What we have here is the unacceptable opposite: a scientific claim without production of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:12, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: ''"I don't know how to fly an airplane but obviously that does not stop me from traveling by air."'' Oh, nobody's objecting to you flying when clueless. But a modicum of flight knowledge might expected of you if you, say, suddenly rush into the cockpit and demand that the pilot repeat to you every single flight procedure done for the last 12 hours, lest you declare him fraudulent and/or incompetent. I mean, isn't that what you're implying?<br />
<br />
:::::: I mean, what are you expecting when you demand "data" of the Cit+ mutation occurance other than a log entry of "Jan 24th, 2008, 2:03pm. Generation 2026 confirmed to express Cit+ mutation"? Then what you do oh-so-politely request? That all of his collaborator's minds be read so you can make sure there is no mistakes?<br />
<br />
:::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 23:08, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: Your attempt to defend the withholding of data underlying a scientific claim is amusing. While you're at it, perhaps you should also protest the Submission guidelines for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science: "(viii) Materials and Data Availability. To allow others to replicate and build on work published in PNAS, authors must make materials, data, and associated protocols available to readers. Authors must disclose upon submission of the manuscript any restrictions on the availability of materials or information." You might also protest policies that recommend or require taxpayer-funded data to be made available.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:21, 14 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::: You thought my poking fun at your inability to form a coherent analogy was supposed to be a defense? The amusement is all on this side of the table, trust me. You see, there is no defending going on here, because there is no withholding going on here.<br />
<br />
:::::::: ''"(viii) Materials and Data Availability..."'' Yes, you can stop repeating yourself now. This was in your letter, which I did in fact read (something that might not be said of you and the myriad articles Richard provided). I did wonder why that was in your letter. I mean, did you think that normal scientific discourse doesn't occur unless by your legal coercion? I'm pretty sure if you had, say, a request just a tad more specific than "give me all your data", Richard would have been more than happy to reply. "Give me all your data" is as an absurd of a data request as demanding that Richard must "right now tell me all you know about E. coli", which, come to think about it, would be pretty much the same thing.<br />
<br />
:::::::: '''''"To allow others to replicate and build on''' work published in PNAS, authors must..."'' Out of curiosity, which part of his experiment are you trying to replicate that need additional information not available in the paper? Maybe you should tell him, he could easily help you with that. If you are not replicating the experiment, then did you have a real question or concern, or a weakness that you identified, like "I had a concern about this-and-that procedure of the strain selection, it seems particularly vulnerable to contamination" he would be quite happy to help you too. But hey, that requires that you have a clue about the subject matter.<br />
<br />
:::::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 00:32, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::::::You really go out of your way to defend a guy who's clearly a fraudulent hack. Even if he released his so called "raw data" it would just be a huge load of numbers no one is going to take the time to analyze. If it took him years and years to do this experiment he can be pretty sure no one is going to waste that much time trying to replicate it, so everyone can assume he's right and the atheist Darwinists can pretend they've proved evolution, even when we know it's impossible. Do you believe everything you read? If someone claimed they had a mountain of evidence that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster had a baby, I suppose you'd believe that too if it were published somewhere? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 14:36, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
::::::::::So let me see if I understand you correctly, Tony. If Lenski doesn't release all of the raw data accumulated over twenty years as Mr. Schlafly requests, it's proof that he's a fraud. If Lenski releases all of the raw data accumulated over twenty years as Mr. Schlafly requests, the sheer volume is proof that he's trying to pull a fast one, and he's a fraud. <br />
::::::::::Is that correct?<br />
::::::::::Given this and other comments you have made, I suspect that you're a satirist attempting to make conservatives look unreasonable. If so, please stop. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:06, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I resent being called a satirist. You assume that anyone who doesn't hold your liberal views must be joking! Well, the majority of the people in this country are "satirists" if that is the case. It doesn't much matter if Lenski releases his data or not. Us right thinking people know he's a fraud because he claims to have witnessed evolution, and we know that is impossible. That is a fact! I'd like to see his data. I bet it's so seriously flawed even someone with little background in biology will be able to tell. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 21:54, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::::::::::: Do not call Lenski or anyone else a fraud without good evidence. Evolution is impossible, but for Lenski to be a fraud he would have to be claiming something that he ''knows'' to be wrong, and you've provided no evidence of that, and I doubt that it exists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT) (Administrator)<br />
::::::::::::: Not at all, Tony. I assume that anyone who is genuinely conservative is going to present a reasonable and rational demeanor, refrain from a priori reasoning, and generally engage in mature conduct. I assume that those who wish to promulgate a stereotype of conservatism with an eye to demonization is going to engage in name-calling, refuse to engage in rational discussion, and declare himself right without adequate support for the position. Such actions are entirely consistent with liberals masquerading as conservatives. If you resent being called a satirist, I would suggest attempting to conduct yourself in a manner becoming a conservative. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:22, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::: Where did the 20 years come from? Lenski was asked for the data supporting his claim. He has produced some information on a website, but not that data. Yes, making a claim while withholding the data, even after a request, can reasonably lead one to doubt the claim. Wouldn't you agree with that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
'''(Unindent)'''<br />
<br />
Certainly, Mr. Schlafly. What I'm taking issue with is Tony's claim that even if Lenski releases his data, it's not worth taking the time to analyze or "waste the time" trying to replicate. It seems very much to me as if he's trying to portray conservatives as closed-minded and unwilling to look at the evidence. Perhaps I'm mistaken on that point, but I certainly think you'd agree that such individuals have turned up here before, wouldn't you? <br />
<br />
With respect to the 'twenty years' portion: I was under the impression that you wanted the full and complete data to be made available. Given that the experiment took twenty years, I assumed that you would want the full twenty years of data included for evaluation. I apologize if I was mistaken.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:28, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
I was wondering how anyone possibly could conclude from this exchange that Lenski was hiding something. I came to the conclusion that some people must not understand how scientific scrutiny works. I wrote a guide.<br />
<br />
<u>Scientific scrutiny works like this:</u><br><br />
{| width="500px"<br />
|-<br />
|<i>'''Scientist A''' publishes results.<br><br />
'''Scientist B''': A, I tried duplicating your experiment, but parameters x, y, and z that I need were not in your article. I need you to disclose to me x, y, and z that you used at the time. What are they?<br><br />
'''A''': x, y, and z are such and such.<br><br />
'''B''': Using x, y, and z, my result doesn't agree with yours at all. Are you sure you did the procedures that you claimed?<br><br />
'''A''': ...<br><br />
'''B''': You fraud!</i><br />
<br />
<u>Scientific scrutiny ''does not'' work like this:</u><br><br />
<i><br />
'''A''' publishes results.<br><br />
'''B''': I have Generic Skepticism toward your article. Under code viii of the Publication Criteria, I demand that you give me all of your data!<br><br />
'''A''': ... ok...? It seems that everything you would need is already in the article. Did you have something specific in mind?<br><br />
'''B''': A has refused to attach all data he has ever used for the experiment. He is withholding information and thus hiding something.<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
-- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 01:42, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:This is it. This one is my favorite post. Carafe has won Conservapedia, roll the credits.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 01:49, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Beautiful! What else can I say?--[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 13:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Not much, apparently. I think you've exhausted your meaningful comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Aschlafly, have you read the paper? ==<br />
<br />
I have. It pretty fairly lays out all the important data. Unless you want to run the experiments yourself - which I don't know if you could do, given the equipment he used - I think it's probably the best you'll ever get. I think a fair reply to Lenski would be point out elements of his analysis that you don't like, and put that in a reply e-mail. Otherwise, your lack of reply makes it look like you've given up, and your defensive parries here ("he didn't give all his data!") look like a losing rearguard action.-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 17:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::May I sign-with-qualifier? As in, signed, "A. Shephard - please do show as much as reasonably possible; the truth will out and convince those who doubt you, and this will hasten it along."?-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 22:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Something to note ==<br />
<br />
From the AiG article:<br />
<br />
"AiG’s Dr. Georgia Purdom is studying the research for an upcoming semi-technical article in the journal Answers In Depth."<br />
<br />
Apparently, Lenski has released his data to Purdom. Presumably, Dr. Purdom wouldn't settle for fragmentary data that wouldn't allow her to fully evaluate the claims. Had Lenski refused to disclose, it seems certain that AiG would have made note of it.<br />
<br />
{{unsigned|Benp}}<br />
<br />
==Hypothetical==<br />
Let's say that a second email is enough for Lenski to release his data. What are you going to do with it all? Previous discussions show you don't what you are doing with small, simple to analyse data sets. You would need a degree in biochemistry and biostats to even begin to know what you are going to do with it. The people who have peer reviewed the paper a by far better qualified and if they had concerns they would have asked specifically for what they wanted without sounding like .... Well I want say what you sound like writting emails singed with a law degree demanding data. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:25, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Sure, but like the human genome it will probably be released in time anyway in a way that is useful. You standing there making demands, signing letters JD, makes you look like some lawyer with an axe to grind rather than someone interested in research. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Proposed Follow-up Email==<br />
Since Andy wants to send a second email for some of the rest of us to sign as well, here is a space to work out the wording. I wonder if MainS and Carafe would help us write something that seems reasonable and polite, since you guys seem to have sufficient knowledge in the field to describe what we are looking to find out?<br />
<br />
I would suggest something along these lines:<br />
<br />
''Dear Professor Lenski''<br />
''We are writing in regards to your recent experiment with cit+ development in observed E. coli populations. We were wondering if you would oblige us by sending the relevant raw data from your observations during the period in which the bacteria population developed the ability to utilize citrase. We are intensely curious about that information. If it will be made available through some other venue and you wish to direct us to that instead, then we would very much like to be made aware of that.''<br />
''Thank you,''<br />
''Andy Schlafly, Thomas Moore, etc.''<br />
<br />
Is that a reasonable request? I am afraid biology protocol is quite beyond me, so some help would be appreciated.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 22:47, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Looks like a good start, Tom, but from the comments so far it seems like nothing short of the full set of observations is going to be satisfactory for some of the skeptics here. I'd suggest the following revision to the second and third sentences:<br />
::''We were wondering if you would oblige us by sending the relevant raw data for the full set of your observations for this population. We are intensely curious about the period in which the bacteria population developed the ability to utilize citrase, but would like the complete set of observations instead of a subset to facilitate an independent analysis of the research.'' --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:07, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::It doesn't seem reasonable to demand twenty years' worth of observations, which would be the full set. Or at least, it doesn't seem reasonable to me.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 00:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::It doesn't seem reasonable to me, either, which is why Professor Lenski's response pointed readers to the relevant subsets of data, and that would be sufficient for most reasonable people. I was just pointing out that unreasonable people here will consider anything less than all 20 years to be withholding data, so what's needed to satisfy the skeptics is a way for that full body of observations to be accessible. If the response is that it would take too much time and/or money to satisfy the request, then the burden of proof falls on the skeptics to justify why they can't start with the data already made available and only request additional data when they have specific questions that require it for an answer. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:32, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Well, maybe they will feel differently. I think this is the polite and reasonable approach, rather than asking for all twenty years. Other comments? Andy?--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 18:51, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==What is the plan for a Conservapedia review of Lenski's work?==<br />
<br />
One thing that keeps getting lost in the rhetoric - who is looking at the Lenski work on behalf of Conservapedia? More than a few people here, including a CP sysop, have pointed out that a proper scientific review can begin using the data already made available by Professor Lenski. If this review surfaces any questions or criticisms, then that would prompt an exchange with Lenski on the specifcs, and I'm sure the related data would be made available. While I see that there are reviews of the work being done by some creationist groups (who apparently see no need to have all the raw data first), the Conservapedia approach is more like a set of lawyers looking for discovery than a set of scientists looking for truth. Why can't CP review Lenski's work in a scientific manner like AiG instead? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:31, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: The issue is '''public''' release and scrutiny of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::No one investigating Lenski's work in a scientific manner is accusing him of withholding any data from them, or from the public. You're setting a new, and unprofessional, precedent in expecting a scientist to take the time to collect and send you decades of raw data on his research simply because you're asking him to, when you haven't even shown the courtesy of demonstrating why this effort is necessary. I repeat the question you keep avoiding - is this exercise going to be a waste of Lenski's time so you can make a point, or do you have a plan to use that raw data and a timetable for publishing your findings? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: DinsdaleP, it sounds like your name should be added back to the list of those who oppose public release and scrutiny of the data above. The questions you keep harping on are irrelevant to the issue of public release and scrutiny of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:02, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Feel free to add me back to your ridiculous list, then. Anyone who can read knows where I stand, just as they can see your continued avoidance of my question. There is no plan, is there? I'll be glad to stand corrected if I'm wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:17, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: How is asking about "scrutiny of the data" irrelevant to the issue of "public release and '''scrutiny of the data'''"? Color me confused!--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:03, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
You don't seem to understand the scientific method at all. There is a reason peer review is so called. It is a review of work by your peers, that is fellows engaged in similar fields of research. You are not a peer of Dr. Lenski. You don't even hold an undergraduate degree in a related field. You aren't even qualified to be a research assistant in his lab. You're a lawyer, and I'm sure you're good at your job and all, but don't try to pretend to qualifications you simply do not have to serve a political purpose.<br />
<br />
Lets face it, the good doctor has been extremely kind to you thus far. I would not recommend pushing your luck. Had it been me, your email would have hit the bit bucket faster than you can say "plunk". As far as I can tell, you haven't even had the good grace to read the poor guy's paper as he suggested. I did, and I found it extremely accessible compared to the cryptography papers I'm used to reviewing. I believed I followed the bulk of it, and I'm sure you could too if you were so minded.<br />
<br />
But of course, you aren't minded to. You're not at all interested in his findings, because you assume they're false before you even know the details. If he were correct, it would yet further discredit your young earth creationist beliefs. Here is research that gives the lie to the old "mutations never produce new information" talking point, while at the same time demonstrating how a feature that seems incredibly unlikely were it to happen in one big bang, can in fact become trivial via building up a "potentiated genome" as alluded to by Lenski in his email (see the section headed "Historical Contingency in the Evolution of Cit+" for details of the experiments they performed to confirm this.)<br />
<br />
This experiment yet again confirms the predictions of the theory of evolution, while contradicting your own creation hypothesis (The capacity for citrate utilisation starts out weak and gets stronger over time, via additional mutations that out compete the peers they fissioned from.) This result scares you. You aren't interested at all in Dr. Lenski's data are you? All you want is to make an unreasonable request, and then when it is sensibly refused or ignored to trumpet that clearly the scientists working on LEE are attempting to hide something. Nobody is impressed by your transparent posturing. --[[User:Taciturn|Taciturn]] 15:08, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
: Although some of your comments, such as those about peer review, are reasonable, the last half particularly is begging the question. His research is ''claimed to'' give the lie to the "mutations never produce new information" claim, but whether they ''actually'' do is one of the points that are in contention. Trying to make your point by assuming your point and simply restating it is not a valid form of argument. Further, although misunderstanding this is understandable, creationists have acknowledged that mutations might ''extremely rarely'' produce new genetic information by chance. Their argument is more that you can't use mutations as a source of new information, not because it never ever happens, but because it very rarely happens and would be swamped by all the information-losing mutations. So Lenski's claim, even if it turned out to be true (which seems unlikely: see creationist responses linked above), does not disprove creationism anyway, as ''one'' example of an information-gaining mutation is consistent with creationism and inconsistent with evolution, which requires ''many'' such mutations. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:05, 16 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Ugh. Don't get me started on those "creationist responses." They're clearly written for a scientifically illiterate and unthinking audience. People who won't notice that the author's idea of a literature survey is to read and fail to understand an abstract, and then cite the paper in support of whatever gibberish they want to commit to paper. The AiG response is just talking points recycled for the occasion, which no meaningful content, while creation on the web is so intellectually dishonest it beggars belief. Take this wonderful paragraph:<br />
<br />
{{cquote|Furthermore, E. coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions, with a whole suite of genes involved in its fermentation. This includes a citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein embedded in the cell wall that takes citrate into the cell.}}<br />
<br />
:: Wrong, wrong, wrong. E. Coli is not, and has never been observed to be capable of utilising citrate natively. Any E. Coli that have this ability have it because it is coded for be invasive plasmids. That's the point of the paper the author cites. Lenski takes great pains to point out that the Cit+ and Cit- strains DO NOT possess these plasmids, since the issue of external contamination would be foremost in any reviewer's mind. <br />
<br />
:: The whole creation on the web article is like this throughout. It takes parts of the paper out of context and uses them as an attack on the work. Whole sentences and paragraphs are copied wholesale without attribution. The author makes totally unfounded claims about the what the LTEE team are doing, accusing them of "giving up on observing evolution." It's the most astonishingly asinine thing I've read this month, and only "died-in-the-wool" (sic) creationist would take it seriously.<br />
<br />
:: So, here's the thing. Lets assume that Lenski's claims are false or exaggerated (and I don't think for a moment that is the case.) How exactly is Schlafly, a lawyer, going to show this regardless of how much raw data he has? He doesn't even know what to ask for, let alone what he's going to do with it once he has it. I don't believe it would be overly cynical to ascribe an ulterior motive to this request. At very best, he wants to pester a person doing productive research and force him to do extra work, unpaid, on his behalf. That would be fine if Schlafly was a peer of Lenski's seeking verification of the result. Defending one's work is part of the scientific process, but there have to be limits. If you really want to analyse the result, first find a working biologist with time and equipment to do the analysis, then and only then will I support the request for further data.<br />
<br />
:: To all others supporting the request currently, I'd ask they withdraw their support until such time as this condition is fulfilled. I cannot believe that Schlafly seriously wants the data, simply that he wishes the request to be refused such that he can make outlandish claims about scientific transparency. --[[User:Taciturn|Taciturn]] 08:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Taciturn, I'm not requesting merely my personal review of the data (although certainly I will review it if Lenski produces it), but rather the ''public scrutiny'' of the data. Unless you think that Lenski's team is perfect or has a monopoly on knowledge, you should agree that additional review of the data by others can yield additional insights, and possibly identify flaws.<br />
<br />
::: Andrew Wiles is undeniably a bright mathematician, as are his friends who reviewed his claim to have proven Fermat's Last Theorem. But when he made his initial proof available more widely, others saw flaws in it that took a long time to repair. Obviously the same may be true about anyone's work ... including Lenski's.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:37, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: [Edit conflict] Mr. Schlafly, given that Lenski is required to release the data to any scientist who asks, who exactly is preventing public scrutiny? A lawyer such as yourself quite simply does not have the training to understand the data, and you're quite unlikely to find a scientist sympathetic to your cause. Even if he releases twenty years worth of research to you, nothing changes. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 10:19, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: Are you saying that only a "scientist" may see the data? I hold an engineering degree and worked at Bell Labs, but perhaps you have some special definition to limit access to the data as much as possible. If someone drops out of college, does that disqualify him from being able to look at the data? I certainly hope that isn't your view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Andy, only someone with proper training in biology could hope to understand the raw data. You can look at it, yes, fine, but you won't understand it, and you'll quickly demand that Lenski release it in a "clear and comprehensive format", at which point you'll promptly be pointed right back to Paper 180. Your engineering degree doesn't help you here. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 11:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Taciturn, one more bigoted derogatory comment like those in your first paragraph and the end of your third paragraph and you will earn yourself a block.<br />
::: Now, to your specific claims regarding AiG and CMI:<br />
::: * The articles are written for a lay audience, but that doesn't mean that they are written for a "scientifically illiterate and unthinking audience". On the contrary, they aim to make them scientifically accurate.<br />
::: * The AiG article was clearly a preliminary response, so your derogatory comment about no meaningful content is unwarranted.<br />
::: * "''Whole sentences and paragraphs are copied wholesale without attribution.''": Please back that claim with evidence or retract it.<br />
::: * "''The author makes totally unfounded claims about the what the LTEE team are doing, accusing them of "giving up on observing evolution."''": On the contrary, it appears that you did not read the article properly (with an open mind?). It actually says that "...Lenski seemed [note both the lack of definiteness/lack of accusation and the past tense] to have given up on ‘evolution in the lab’ ..."<br />
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: Taciturn discredited himself, and probably won't even defend his behavior.<br />
<br />
:::: But Philip, I have a question for you: do you support public release of the data to enable others (including creationists) to review it? It's hard for me to see how outside reviewers (including creationists) can do a thorough job without access to the data. Undeniably outside reviewers could do a better job if the data were public.<br />
<br />
:::: I'm starting to think that even the peer reviewers for the paper never checked the data, if the data continue to be withheld.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::::: I've already given my answer to whether or not I support release of the data. Do a search of this page for a post with a timestamp of 09:34. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: Well, OK, I found your prior posting and reread it, but didn't find any answer to the basic question I just asked: wouldn't outside reviewers (including creationists) be better off with an availability of the data? And to your point about funding, wouldn't funding be easier to obtain (to the extent necessary) if it were known that the data are available? Seems obvious to me, and probably to the co-signers (11 and growing), that the answer is "yes" to both.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::::::: Actually, that was not a question that you had just asked. And yes, outside reviewers, including creationists, ''would'' be better off with the data being available, ''if they plan on reviewing all that data''. But that's a big "if", because, as I did say above, there is a shortage of available creationary scientists and funding for them. As for obtaining funding, no, I don't think it would make a difference. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Lenski has not refused to release the data; it's just that you plan on asking him to do so ''now'' rather than wait for someone who is actually going to review the data to ask. That is, I assume that the data would be made available in due course to a serious researcher who requested it.<br />
:::::::: I also pointed out that creationary scientists may not be interested in reviewing all the data. They probably have better things to do with their time and funds than to analyse 20 years worth of data, when all they likely need to do is find out a bit more about his actual results. Further, as I said elsewhere on this page, it's even ''possible'' that Lenski has actually found a mutation that has added genetic information. Creationists don't rule out that there may be very rare examples of this, and ''perhaps'' this is the first known case of such. But that doesn't disprove creation nor prove evolution because, as I said, creationism can handle the odd exception to the rule, whereas the evolution requires millions of such information-gaining mutations, and one example is not that evidence. So why would a creationary scientist waste his time (unless someone was employing him to do it)?<br />
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Which would mean that it would not even be published in the journal, Andy. Your final claim is unfounded and, quite frankly, slanderous. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 10:19, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: If the peer reviewers saw the data, then it is no problem to make that data publicly available. So where is it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::In the paper, Andy. Everything that you could need to know about the experiment and much more is in the paper. If you don't believe me, you can ask Lenski for something extra, however general questions like the ones you've sent him so far will only get you pointed back to the paper. If you've got a specific part of the work you want, ask and I'm sure he'll happily throw the raw, incomprehensible data at you. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 11:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::This would seem to come down to a fundamental misunderstanding. Few biologists are going to want to see Lenski's raw data like this, because the observations will be relatively simple to make - or at least simple for a biologist. Instead, they will want to examine his methodology (which is already freely available) to see if they can find any flaws. For example, if he had stored them in a non-sterile environment or something, the colonies could have been contaminated, and it would invalidate his conclusions. They will also want to see the conclusions he draws from his observations, which might be unwarranted or otherwise explainable. For example, if they know as biologists that e. coli can use citrase under certain conditions (not the case, actually, but it's an example), they would call his conclusions into question. And of course some scientists are going to want to imitate his whole set-up to reproduce his result... although it will take a while. But because Prof. Lenski is a highly skilled and reputable scientist, few are going to demand to see his raw data, because there is little reason not to trust his integrity. That is generally just not how this science is done, to the best of my knowledge.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 13:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I can't believe I'm getting into this particular mess but, here goes: hypothetically, let's say that Andy contacts Lenski and Lenski graciously releases all of the raw data anyone could want. Let's further say that Andy manages to secure the services of a qualified analyst who has the time and training to properly analyze said data and that, further, that analyst confirms that Lenski's interpretations are correct. In other words, the analyst says that Lenski is- as far as anyone can tell- correct. What happens then? Will Andy or anyone else publicly acknowledge this to be the case, or will the story suddenly become that Lenski "falsified" his raw data? Because, really and truly folks, the "raw data" we keep talking about is not the same thing as actually having access to Lenski's samples. Moreover, Lenski is not about to release any part of his samples to folks who haven't the slightest idea how to store them, much less how to analyze. And I don't have imagination enough to think that Conservapedia is going to set up an adequately equipped and staffed research lab capable of taking possession of such samples, much less fund it long enough to replicate Lenski's research. As far as I can tell, this entire thing is a lot of sound and fury that will ultimately come to nothing (apologies Will). So what's with all the grandstanding, Andy? Okay, I've said my bit. I'll go back to editing statistics articles now. -Drek<br />
::I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:23, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: I've just posted above in a reply to Andy why I think a creationary scientist would ''not'' be interested. I'll add here that, according to Don Batten of CMI (link elsewhere on this page), it fits with what Behe has written about in his latest book, so there's no reason to think that this case would bother ID proponents either. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::''"I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data."'' Yeah, but I was specifically referring to qualified analysts, so the ID/C.S. folks won't help. Snark aside, however, neither you nor anyone else has addressed the underlying issue: what happens if Lenski DOES provide the full database? It isn't like someone couldn't claim he faked that and the only way to confirm it would be to evaluate his samples. Look, I DO in fact support public availability of data derived from publicly funded research. That said, however, if we don't even have a plausible case for how we ourselves could verify output, much less carry out a replication, we're just being nuisances. Lenski's job is to do research, not bow to every request made of him by random unqualified amateurs. And even if he has tenure and that somehow made him utterly invulnerable to firing (oddly, failing to produce is one of those things that can kill tenure) he still has a responsibility to his Post-Docs and grad students. -Drek<br />
::::: I've warned two others on this page about derogatory comments, and you've gone and added your own. For that you've earned yourself a block for the "snark". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:57, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
It interesting that Rayment has given Derek a block for 'snarking'. Presumably this is to maintain a decent, respectful, and intelligent tone in the body of the discussion. However, Schafly's entire tone in his addresses to Dr. Lenski have been openly insulting and ignorant from the start, yet there has been no attempt to address that problem from Rayment. A number of others have flung open insults, yet no blocks are in placefor them as long as they insult Dr. Lenski. How is that not a double standard? {{unsigned|Bithead}}<br />
: For one thing, there's not much point in blocking someone who has the ability to unblock themselves. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:24, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Really, starting a conversation with "I will post your reply, or lack thereof" then maintaining that one only wants to participate in a scientific conversation and is chiefly concerned with freedom of information is hypocritical to say the very least. As someone who can't be blocked, he has clearly set the standard for conservapedia. Also, others on this thread have tendered obvious insults yet enjoyed no admonitions - again so long as they insult Lenski. Isn't there something in the 'conservapedia commandments' about double standards?<br />
<br />
==Question==<br />
I am going to make it clear that I am not willing to put my name on this. I whole-heartedly support the release of Professor Lenski's data, but not to a faceless group of individuals with no clear purpose for demanding the data. My question is, as Mr. Schlafly seems to be avoiding it, have you Mr. Schlafly read the paper that Professor Lenski directed you to? I hope that this request is more than an attempt to add Professor Lenski to the [[professor values]] list. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 15:18, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Your argument is irrelevant to the ''public'' release of the data. I hadn't read Andrew Wiles' attempt to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, but I sure am glad that he publicized it so that people could identify serious flaws after Wiles' expert friends declared it to be complete.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::You already emailed Professor Lenski, and he kindly took the time to respond. But you didn't even bother to read the answers he gave you. Sending him another email demanding even more information, without even reading the information he already gave you seems rude. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 15:49, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Now you're making up things about me. Perhaps you think you can distract attention from the simple issue of public release of the data. You failed if that was your goal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::That never was my intention. I was simply trying to understand your reasoning behind this email. I am interested in something else at the moment actually. You seem to enjoy mentioning Andrew Wiles and Fermat's Last Theorem. Who proved that Andrew Wiles was wrong. Was it a layperson, or a mathematician? [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:58, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::At the end of the introduction to the revised paper, Wiles indicates that the original error was detected in discussions between himself, Nick Katz, Luc Illusie and Richard Taylor. Katz is a professor at Princeton, Illusie at Paris Sud, and Taylor at Harvard. Between the three of them they now have over 200 peer reviewed papers on elliptic curves and Galois representation theory. Of course their records were weaker at the relevant time in 1993, but they were certainly all established mathematicians. I think they were all at the Isaac Newton Institute when Wiles first explained his work in lectures there. So it is far from the truth to suggest that Wiles's expert friends declared the proof complete, or that errors were found by random other people after the release of the preprint. --[[User:Npstrick|Npstrick]] 17:42, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: If you're trying to exclude people from looking at the data based on their education or credentials, then just say so. There are many bright people who never graduated from college, and I oppose making education or credentials a test for who can review the data. In Wiles' case, I don't know what the credentials were of the multiple people who found serious flaws.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
== Two Questions for Aschlafly==<br />
<br />
I have two questions for Aschlafly. Please answer them plainly and in brief as I've no use for obfuscation typical of what I've seen above. As you know, failing to answer is an answer of sorts. Here are my questions:<br />
# Have you read Lenski's paper as he suggested?<br />
# What do you plan to do with his "raw" data should you receive it?<br />
The answers to these two questions will tell much about your intent and your character. [[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 18:34, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::So your answers are <br />
<br />
# you "skimmed" it<br />
# you won't do anythnig with the "raw data" should he send it to you<br />
Thank you for your honesty. I hope your readership takes these answers in their full measure. [[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 19:30, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I hope you recognize and admit to the benefits of public access. You haven't yet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
=== Two Questions for Aschlafly: comments from others===<br />
*I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:21, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I know your question was not directed at me, but isn't the point of public release that it would be open to ''everyone'' to examine; ie - that this isn't solely about Aschlafly? I doubt if there is anyone on this site who would be capable of understanding Lenski's raw data, if it were to be made available, but that is not a reason to oppose the public release of the data ''per se'', is it? If released publicly, anyone capable of understanding it can see it for themselves, and those who cannot understand it will be unaffected. What's wrong with that?[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:44, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I would encourage people to watch the movie of what the physical form of the raw data looks like. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNaXlK_3Fik They tested 4 trillion cells.[http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php] Assuming even a simple 'y/n' for the 'can metabolize citrate' that is about 4 terabytes of data. This doesn't go into the other genes that they have studied. Are you going to send him some hard drives to copy the data onto? Do you have the bandwidth to host that data for public scrutiny (at a full T1 speed with 100% utilization, if I did my math correctly, it would take about 2 years to download all of the data)? Granted, that is one extreme of the data but this could potentially be more than you can handle or host. And if he says its a terrabyte of data or so, will you host it? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No, I wouldn't host it. If the data were made publicly available, I would have no interest in downloading it or reading it because I am not a biologist and wouldn't be able to understand it. But I am not opposed to the data - whatever size the files are - being made available for people who can understand it (and have sufficiently spacious hard drives). [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:01, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::to clarify, I am not opposed to it '''in principle'''. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:03, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I did skim Lenski's paper, and saw that on multiple occasions he says the data are not shown. In addition, his figures and tables are oddly uninformative. I recall that one figure is complete speculation. After skimming his paper the need for public disclosure of the data became even more apparent.<br />
<br />
What would I do with the raw data? I don't propose that access to it be limited based on education or credentials. I would expect many people, including folks just as bright as Lenski, to examine it and possibly identify flaws or make suggestions.<br />
<br />
I repeat: does anyone here really think Lenski's team is perfect or has a monopoly on knowledge???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
)<br />
<br />
:I don't think they have a monopoly on knowledge, and nobody's perfect. On the other hand, I do think the volume of data might prove to be a problem. If a response indicates that the complete data is simply too massive to be mailed/posted to a website, what's the next reasonable step? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:50, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::It is becoming clear that this campaign to release the data has more to do with your hope that Lenski won't and you can dismiss his claims on those grounds. I am sure the data is available to the people who need to see it and depending on the copyright restrictions that research unfortunatly comes with these day (usually through funding by non-government entities) it will be made available as publically as it can.<br />
<br />
:: Someone earlier mentioned ID theorist, they tend to have about as much qualifications on this as Andrew Schalfly, BSE. JD. so I won't hold much hope in them being able to understand it. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:22, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::: As I've warned someone else already on this page, one more derogatory comment like that in your second paragraph and you will earn yourself a block. Despite anti-creationist and anti-ID urban myth, the credentials of ID proponents and creationary scientists are every bit as good as those of other scientists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Really, ID theorist are scientist? [http://www.discovery.org/fellows/ Look at the Discovery Institute's board members and fellows]. Cihak is a MD, every other person on that list either has a degree in history, political science or law. Behe use to be a fellow so that is one biochemist, Dempski(?) was a mathematician who use to be there once. Only one relevently qualified and two semi-qualified experts that is it. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:02, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::: The Discovery Institute is not the only source of ID proponents. Just as with evolutionists, there are those that are qualified and those that are not, but still believe it, promote it, and etc. Your comment that I warned you about was ID theorists ''in general'', not DI board members and fellows specifically. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:01, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::But go to an equivalent one evolution supporting organisation and it will be full of PhD's in biology. Can you name any of these ID theorists ''in general'', Behe is the only one that comes to my mind. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 00:27, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::::: Really? I looked at the NCSE's staff list, and here's what I found.<br />
:::::::* Glenn Branch: no PhD. MA in philosophy from (UCLA).<br />
:::::::* Barbara Forrest: PhD in philosophy (Tulane University).<br />
:::::::* Peter Hess: PhD in a theological field, Science and Religion, (Graduate Theological Union).<br />
:::::::* Louise Mead: PhD in Organismic and Evolutionary Biology (UMass).<br />
:::::::* Eric Meikle: PhD in anthropology (Berkeley).<br />
:::::::* Kevin Padian: PhD in vertebrate evolution (Yale).<br />
:::::::* Andrew Petto: PhD in bioanthropology (UMass).<br />
:::::::* Joshua Rosenau: PhD candidate, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (University of Kansas).<br />
:::::::* Eugenie Scott: PhD in physical anthropology (University of Missouri).<br />
:::::::* Susan Spath: PhD in history of science, MA in molecular and cell biology (Berkeley).<br />
:::::::* Philip Spieth: PhD in genetics (University of Oregon).<br />
::::::: Biologists, yes. "full of PhD's in biology"? No.<br />
::::::: As for ID theorists, off the top of my head there's Michael Denton and Dean Kenyon. Not to mention the creationary scientists, such as Don Batten, David Catchpoole, Gary Parker, Jeff Downes, and many others.<br />
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:26, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I made some edits showing the location of where their graduate degrees were awarded (this is important for those who receive degrees from non-accredited schools). I would not cite NCSE anyway for they are only a PR group. I will point out that 9 out of the 11 are PhDs, that is pretty high (over 80%)(while one of the two non-PhDs is a PhD candidate). The question I might ask is how often do those of a non-related field write or evaluate a topic or paper? This should also be asked about CMI and such.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:58, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::::::: So which is the DI nearest to? A scientific research lab or a PR group?<br />
::::::::: Okay Able806, you implicitly questioned the legitimacy of the qualifications of creationists. So you now have a job: List, like I did and you expanded, the qualifications of the CMI staff ([http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/45/ here's] your starting point). And when you've done that, tell us how many of those are from non-accredited schools. Else you just might earn yourself a block for implicit accusations of dishonesty (that they are claiming to be something that they are not). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No need to threaten a block Philip, for to block me due to said accusation would require a block from those who are stating that Lenski is with holding his work from review. Here is a list I compiled from the website you gave me. Please correct me if I am wrong or missing names. I will add the information just as I did above as I discover it. Oh, does AU have a system to list accreditation? I will need to know that as well for those who received their Ph.Ds in AU.<br />
:Carl Wieland<br />
:Don Batten<br />
:Gary Bates<br />
:Jonathan Sarfati<br />
:Tas Walker<br />
:David Catchpoole<br />
:Pierre Jerlström<br />
:Peter Sparrow<br />
:Russell Grigg<br />
:Mark Harwood<br />
:John Hartnett<br />
:Rod Walsh<br />
:Barry Tapp<br />
:Stephen Grocott<br />
:Richard Fangrad <br />
:Emil Silvestru<br />
:Calvin Smith <br />
:Jeff Chiasson <br />
:Adrian Bates<br />
:Johan Kruger <br />
:Philip Bell<br />
:Rob Carter<br />
:Skip Tilton<br />
:The above list is a working list.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 12:27, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I've never heard of an accreditation list in Australia, but calling yourself a University when your not is an offence. [http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=University+act&meta= If you scroll down a bit] Each universities relevent act shows up eventually. It is a unique Australian phenomenon the act of parliment to create a university.<br />
<br />
::PJR giving Able806 a stupid job to do to deflect from the fact that you are severlly losing an argument is petty. All the Australians above have by and large from some of Austalia's top universities. Okay you have made your point. However I will note that one of them is famous for his twin publishing record. He publishes in top quality geology journals with the rock is 2.6bya, this glacier formed 100mya, and he has another list where he publishes in his creation "journal" he is on the board for defending his rediculous 6000 year hypothesis. Yes these days crationist have PhD either through abandoning their when that "have been saved" in which case they corrupt the scientific method to prove their new belief or they went through doing their PhD all the time not believing what they write. As someone currently studying a PhD I can't see how they managed but being slightly divorced from reality probably helped. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:24, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I read Lenski's paper, and as a trained microbiologist, I thought that it was both thorough and well done. His claims are backed by good data, namely that which was presented in the figures. I went through each of the figures after Aschlafly said that they were uninformative. Actually, they are basic figures that show the population explosion of the bacterial cultures after the Cit+ mutation occurred. These figures show that the cultures increased in size and mass at a given timepoint, being able to do so because they had evolved a mechanism to utilize a new nutrient, without the assistance of helper plasmids.<br />
<br />
I know that my post is getting long, but I just wanted to say that in addition to this that of course there is going to be a figure with some speculation when it is covering an alternate hypothesis. That is what a lot of science is really about; the scientist creates a battery of hypotheses, and through experimentation narrows down the field. Lenksi's paper, while not the most definite I've seen, is still a very well-researched paper that supports its claims nicely. --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]<br />
<br />
==Detractor Lineup==<br />
<br />
Ok, there seems to be some confusion about whether we are opposing the public release of information based on principle or practicality. So, let's make a list to make our position clear (please add a brief explanation and feel free to discuss in the comments section). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:54, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose Public Release based on PRINCIPLE'''<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Oppose Public Release based on PRACTICALITY'''<br />
<br />
* Because it is time consuming, costly (both in terms of money and resources) and the data is too big to be readily transfered. If we had a genuine reason to want the data and we were actually going to do something with it then it would be worth the effort (for example if we disputed a particular conclusion, in which case we could probably narrow down the data we wanted) however demanding a release based solely on principle is simply impractical and not going to happen. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:54, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:To illustrate that "big" means, a little ilustration from my own work. I work for the LOFAR project's future data proccesing center, we plan on recieving several dozen gigabits per second, or about a 60 meter stack of paper a second.. Now, I know biology research doesn't produce as much data as radiotelescopes do, but they've been working for 20 years.<br />
:By demanding all the original data, you are asking for several shipping containers full of dvd's. It's just not acceptable to spend so much time and money on everyone who asks for it, especially when you have no real desire to reproduce anything. I do think you should be able to see the data, but you obviously have to be more specific in your questions for information.<br />
:Again, I am not a biologist, but in astronomy when you want raw data, you request information about a specific part of measurements. You call someone and ask for data for 10 seconds from this-and-that time and of such-and-so area of sky. You do not send an open letter and demand "All research data". I think Richard Lenski was increadibly kind not to laugh in your face for such a demand, because it shows the asker has no idea how the scientific community functions.<br />
[[User:Alcari|Alcari]] 14:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
'''Comments'''<br />
<br />
StatsMsn, your objection is purely speculative and, frankly, implausible. Lenski has not asserted your claim and I doubt he will.<br />
<br />
But if you're right about the key data, then that suggests the peer reviewers did not have access to it, and the conclusion is this: claims based on that data should not be published in a Journal that says the data will be made available. Instead, one could publish such claims in a Journal saying the data will not be made available, and we can all take the claims with a grain of salt.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:03, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I think it's more likely that Lanski hasn't released the information to you based on practicalities than a conspiracy to publish false results. Note that I did not say the peer reviewers did not have access to the raw data, only that you did not. If there was a genuine reason to provide the data to someone (that is, someone who had a genuine reason to have it, such as to confirm or dispute a conclusion) then I have no doubt that any ethical research team would work out a way to transmit it. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:24, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: StatsMsn, I stopped reading at your word "conspiracy". No is alleging a "conspiracy". Post in a rational manner and don't pollute this page. Apologize and clean up your edit or please leave. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'm sorry Mr. Schlafly, but you seem to be trying to say that Lenski fudged 20 years of work, and that is being hidden by the people reviewing his work. That sounds like a conspiracy. Perhaps you should apologize, or clarify your edits. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: Has anyone considered the possiblility that some data was removed in the reviewing process? From my experience with journal publications (moderate at best) page numbers is important. Pages and pages of data and graphs are expensive to print. The reviewer would have seen it, the editor would look at it and thought it is too much and edit the paper so as to say the data is not presented. Ask for a preprint of the paper that will contain more data. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== False Claim of a Bad motive ==<br />
<br />
Let's face the truth, there is no real desire here for Andrew Schlafly or anyone on Conservapedia to get the raw data. The reason that this is even an issue is because placing this demand and getting no response somehow makes Lenski look bad and therefore automatically discredits him and his research and therefor the theory of evolution. The position of Mr. Schlafly is that the Bible is inerrant and the Genesis creation story is true. No amount of scientific data is going to change that. So why argue with him? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 10:05, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: You're clueless about my motivation and your account has been blocked for violating our [[90/10 rule]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Wow. I'm actually afraid to post my opinion now...Well, at the risk of being banned...Aschlafly: Was it really necessary to block MAnderson? I get the feeling (And this is simply an opinion based on personal observation) that the action taken against MAnderson was due more to the nature of his accusation of bias against you and not due to any violation of code, since bias is indeed a word that gets used around here often without reprimand. That being said I feel that the intended letter in question would severely discredit this website. Unless members of this site have the facilities necessary to conduct research into the validity of the Doctor's claims then we have no reason to request such massive documentation. Furthermore, the purpose of such counter-research should always be with the intent to ultimately strengthen a proposed line of research, even if it is by bringing to light flaws in the original findings. The purpose of peer review is not to discredit, but to strengthen through careful examination and criticism. If the originals researchers conclusions are eventually found to be flawed beyond renovation then the entire thing is thrown out, strengthening our scientific pool of knowledge as a whole by protecting it against faulty findings. It is my belief that a peer-reviewer should always have a most critical eye, but should also ultimately have the best at heart for the purported research. I do not believe such a mindset exists in this case. The letter itself seems to indicate a specific desire and hope of discrediting the E-coli findings, which should never be the purpose of peer review. To seek discredit simply for the sake of discredit is the very anti-thesis of why the peer-review system exists IMO. And it is my opinion that the intended letter gives the impression that discredit is the goal. In my opinion. --[[User:RobinGoodfellow|RobinGoodfellow]] 13:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:There's a difference between expressing your thoughts on a matter and saying of someone else "here is why you did it" and then make statements that are derogatory and degrading. The one at least expresses opinion. The other just makes things up with the followup assumption being now you must defend yourself against what I just made up. That's inappropriate and was handled as being inappropriate.<br />
<br />
:That being said, what you wrote is a different matter. I see no difficulty in the form of your speech, or the expression of your ideas. Do not equate your writings to what was put above by MAnderson; they are not the same. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:27, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I think there's a great deal of misunderstanding here from the critics of Mr. Schlafly and obfuscation on the part of Prof. Lenski and his supporters. The real data that we need are not in the paper. Rather they are in the bacteria used in the experiments themselves. Prof. Lenski claims that these bacteria "evolved" novel traits and that these were preceded by the evolution of "potentiated genotypes", from which the traits could be "reëvolved" using preserved colonies from those generations. But how are we to know if these traits weren't "potentiated" by the Creator when He designed the bacteria thousands of years ago, such that they would eventually reveal themselves when the time was right? The only way this can be settled is if we have access to the genetic sequences of the bacteria colonies so that we can apply CSI techniques and determine if these "potentiated genotypes" originated through blind chance or intelligence. But with the physical specimens in the hands of Darwinists, who claim they will get around to the sequencing at some unspecifed future time, how can we trust that this data will be forthcoming and forthright? Thus, Prof. Lenski et al. should supply Conservapedia, as stewards, with samples of the preserved ''E. coli'' colonies so that the data can be accessible to unbiased researchers outside of the hegemony of the Darwinian academia, even if it won't be put to immediate examination by Mr. Schlafly. This is simply about keeping tax-payer-funded scientists honest. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 20:03, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:'Dr. Paley', that's about the most ridiculous suggestion I've heard yet. I'm not going to even dignify that kind of nonsense with a response. But I will suggest, generally, that if you are that convinced there is a worldwide scientific conspiracy to perpretate fraud by hiding 'the potentiating hand of the creator', then there's nothing I could say to you anyway.<br />
<br />
:But I have this question for Andy and the rest of the supporters of the 'public access to data' line: if it is the ''principle'' of public access to data that you are fighting for--and this is not some kind of publicity stunt, as many have suggested--then why are you picking on this one experiment, and not the ''tens of thousands'' of scientific papers that have been published just, say, in the last decade? After all, Lenski's paper is no different than any scientific paper, in that is summarizes, but does not publish, the raw data on which it was based. So shouldn't you be asking every scientist who has published a paper in which raw data has not been published to present that data? Why just Lenski? Aren't there potentially ''thousands'' of 'new insights' that could be produced from public scrutiny of this data?<br />
<br />
:I think your motivations speak pretty clearly for themselves. [[User:porkchop]]<br />
<br />
:: (Note porkchop's use of [[Liberal tools]] #11 and #13.) Anyway, if Prof. Lenski has no fraud to hide, then he won't mind allowing other researchers access to the physical data. Again, it is simply a matter of keeping tax-funded activities honest. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 21:44, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Sorry, Richard. I guess you need your stupidity spelled out for you: no laboratory in the world is going to send ''the actual biological samples they worked on'' to a bunch of faceless internet nuts or anyone else. Even if such a request were possible (i.e. transport could be arranged safely and at no expense to Lenski, he could spare the material, etc.) what on earth would the 'scientists' at Conservapedia ''do'' with it? Keep it in Andy's refrigerator and look at it under his Kid Scientist microscope?<br />
<br />
:::And I'm waiting to hear whether anyone has a response to my question about the selective targeting of Lenski. [[User:porkchop]]<br />
<br />
:::: Taxpayers paid for Lenski's work, he published it in a journal that claims its authors will make underlying data available, his research claims were publicized in New Scientist, yet he hasn't complied with a request for his data. If that's true of others also as you suggest, then please give examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::What is your response to the view that Lenski has not released the data because it is too big to simply send to someone? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:50, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: That "view" is without any basis and, by the way, the suggestion is that Lenski post it rather than send it. Are you suggesting that Lenski did not make his key data available to the peer reviewers on his paper?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:59, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Someone said above that considering just one variable would result 4 terabytes worth of data, this is a ridiculous and costly amount of data to host (to put it in perspective, it's about 200 full DVD's). And yes it pretty much is all key (to ensure the mutations were not due to an environmental factor, to ensure that they were inherited, to ensure that they were not simply repressed genes which had previously appearing in the colonies etc). I am not suggesting that Lenski did not make his key data avaliable to peer reviewers, I'm fairly sure that had they wished to view it they could have done so (possibly by physically visiting his labs to access it, or by using a dedicated stream). Perhaps it's something you could ask in the email you send him, and while you're at it perhaps you could ask if researchers such as yourself or others would be able to access the data on request (this is essentially public access so long as nobody is turned away for ideological reasons). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:24, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::: So you're suggesting that the peer reviewers could only access the data by physically visiting Lenski's labs or by using "a dedicated stream"? That's tantamount to suggesting that the peer reviewers did not practically have access to the data, which creates an even bigger cloud of doubt about the claimed results. If that's the case, then obviously that should have been disclosed to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<- No, I was offering a couple of options. It's is equally (or even more likely) that Lenski's team spent a bit of money and transferred the data onto physical media and sent it to them. That is a question that you can ask in your email, lest we be accused of jumping to conclusions. Peer reviewers aside, the point remains that the reason Lenski has not published the data is due to its size and the cost of posting it, not their opposition to the public release of data. Again this will only be answered through a reply to your email, perhaps you could ask if it would be possible for you (and other researchers) to access the data, rather than demanding he post it on the internet or send it to you. This would overcome any refusal based on practicality, but still allow the public access to data. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:42, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: StatsMsn, note that:<br />
<br />
:* Lenski replied once and did not himself raise the objection you suggest<br />
:* the objection you suggest has no factual basis<br />
:* the objection you suggest would make it impossible to peer review the paper, or most types of collaborative work<br />
<br />
: At some point, StatsMsn, an open mind requires admitting the possibility that the data have not been made available because there is concern about what an independent reviewer may conclude from it. Are you open-minded enough to admit that possibility? It's a waste of time arguing with a closed mind, and if you won't admit at least that possibility then this discussion is unproductive.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:00, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm more than happy to admit that Lenski is preventing public access to his data, if there was some solid evidence for it. At the moment he has not refused to allow public access to it. <br />
<br />
::*Correct<br />
::*How so? People have already stated how large the raw data you are requesting is and how impractical it would be to host it. Where do you believe the factual error is, on the estimates of the size or the ability to make it readily avaliable to the general public?<br />
::*No, as measures could be taken to allow the peer reviewers access to the data if they required it. <br />
<br />
::The reason I keep arguing is because I know how difficult it is to transmit data to the general public. The university where I study originally provided a number of high resolution pictures to the general public via a ftp stream, however as each individual picture grew in size and the number of pictures grew the university had to cut off access, first to the general public and then to students, despite our internet connection greatly increasing in speed at the same time. At present the only way to access the images is either to physically enter the premises or request images via DVD (with a small cost for material and administration charges). Everyone including the general public is still able to access the images, however they cannot be made readily avaliable for reasons of practicality.<br />
<br />
::If the statistics above are correct then the size of the raw data you are requesting is much larger than the combined size of all our image files, it is highly impractical to simply request someone send it to you or post it on the internet. And yes I am willing to admit that this discussion is unproductive, that's why I'm going to send Lenski an email myself and request information on how the raw data can be accessed. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:10, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: You haven't yet admitted the possibility I describe, which suggests you may not yet have an open mind about this. If so, this discussion is unproductive, but please do feel free to contact Lenski directly with your theory about the data. I bet you do not receive a clear answer.<br />
<br />
::: I'm confident that Lenski has the data in a manageable form that enables him and his fellow researchers to access and examine it. If not, then frankly that raises even bigger questions about the reliability and verifiability of the claimed results.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<- I'm more than willing to admit the possibility that the peer reviewers have not had access to the raw data, it is entierly possible and we still see it happening when commercial interests become entangled with science (for instance, many pharamacological companies will not release negative studies concerning their products). In this case there is a need for further review in order to confirm the results, and if it is shown that Lenski skewed his results then appropriate action must be taken.<br />
<br />
Now, are you willing to admit the possibility that I describe?<br />
<br />
And I too am confident that Lenski has his data in a manageable form, what we disagree on is whether this data can be readily made avaliable to the public (like by hosting 4 terabytes on the internet) or to people who request it out of the blue. I am fairly confident that if you or another researcher requested access to the data and had a genuine reason for doing so then you would be provided with access to the data, either by physically accessing it on site or by arranging an appropriate means of transfer (with costs considered). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:26, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I admit the possibility that all the data is too voluminous to transfer easily, which is why my letter addressed that and requested the data made available to peer reviewers. By definition, that data cannot be too voluminous to transfer.<br />
<br />
: You said you would ask Lenski. Have you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:44, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Read below, and I have emailed him. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 10:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[Edit Conflict] I just read the paper for a second time, paying particular attention to the results section. There is an adequate summary of the data provided for peer reviewers. I admit that I was wrong with my terminology above (I'm having a late night and my brain's shutting down), the peer reviewers of the paper are not sent the raw data, they rely on the facts presented. Any subsequent reviews could have access to the raw data if necessary.<br />
<br />
Right now we have 4 possible scenarios that could be proposed:<br />
<br />
* The summary of the data Lenski presented is correct and the conclusion drawn is correct<br />
* The summary of the data Lenski presented is correct but the conclusion drawn is incorrect<br />
* The summary of the data is wrong due to unintentional mistakes<br />
* The summary of the data is wrong due to a deliberate attempt to skew results<br />
<br />
If the first is correct we have nothing to argue about. If the second is correct then you do not need access to the raw data in order to prove your results. If the third is correct then access to the raw data would be essential, however it would call into question the integrity of Lenski's laboratory and quite frankly I do not believe you have the resources to do better (let alone detect any irregularities). If the fourth is correct then you are accusing Lenski of academic dishonesty, a libelous claim that you would need solid evidence to support.<br />
<br />
Andy, could you please outline why you want to have access to the raw data when the summary provided in the paper is more than adequate to draw a conclusion. Do you believe that there has been a mistake made in the organisation of the data, or is this just to prove that you can (or cannot) gain access to the data, even though this is not at all required. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 10:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Failure to supply data? ==<br />
<br />
Aschlafly, you say above that Lenski "hasn't complied with a request for his data." Where did he do that? In his reply to your original letter he bends over backwards to accommodate your requests and answer your questions, and he's hardly had time to reply to the second letter! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:55, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Piltdown All Over Again ==<br />
<br />
The [[Piltdown Man | Piltdown hoax]] was possible precisely because the physical data was kept under lock-and-key and away from the eyes of unbiased non-Darwinians, who, if given the chance, would have spotted that the bones were unrelated right away. Even if Prof. Lenski were to provide the public with digital versions of the data, what assurances would we have that the data wasn't doctored? If we assume his Darwinian principles were no check on his willingness to publish a falsified paper, then why would we then assume they would prevent him from falsifying data? On the other hand, it would be impossible for Prof. Lenski to falsify the physical data residing in the actual bacteria, as that would require a massive program of genetic engineering. Only by allowing unbiased conservative scientists access to samples of the bacteria colonies can we assure that we aren't witnessing another Piltdown hoax, as the Darwinian community has a reputation for perpetrating them.<br />
<br />
As to the practicality of this, only scrapings of the cultures would be needed for reculturing, not the entire original petri dish as "porkchop" implies above. These can be stored in standard cryogenic ampules that take up very little space. The Discovery Institute surely has cryogenic facilities in their labs and would be willing to host the collection under the auspices of Conservapedia. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 10:50, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Excellent idea! Go for it. Send off a third letter at once! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:09, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Until Lenksi himself states that "no I will not give you the data, you crazy conservatives", in no way can you compare this to Piltdown. To do so is to further your own agenda of discrediting a scientific experiment that makes the minor point that traits can evolve. I believe that Lenski has provided enough data for all of you to examine and make claims about his research; honestly, what would you possibly do with scrapings of cultures? "Ok, Culture #95324 is Cit-, had me #95325"? I doubt that you people would even do that. Chances are, you would glance at the mountain of raw data Lenski would send, and then summarily dismiss it based on your own desire to see it fail. This is disgusting. --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]<br />
<br />
::''This is disgusting'' What is disgusting is that you are doing to Andy precisely what you suppose he will do to the data if and when it comes - that is, use it to back up a preconceived idea. You do not know how he or other Conservapedians will treat the data. Do not criticise him for something he hasn't done but which you assume he will do. To do so is arrant hypocricy. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:57, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::That is a fair point, Bugler. I'm just frustrated by the serious bias already lined up against Lenski's research, even before raw data has been seen. --Aaronp<br />
<br />
:: Well put, Bugler. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Aaronp, either you're naive or you're engaging in bullying if you maintain that Lenski plans to release his raw data soon for independent, public review. I asked him last Friday to release it, and his reply declined to do so. I asked him again yesterday, and he predictably has not replied. It now seems to me to be likely that the peer reviewers for his paper did not even see the raw data. I think it's likely that only Lenski and his grad student have seen the raw data underlying that paper (note its footnote). Don't pretend that Lenski welcomes independent review of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:15, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: My understanding is that peer reviewers do not normally see raw data. Absent reason to believe otherwise, they assume data is correctly reported in the submitted paper. But I could be wrong about this. Why do you think reviewers would normally be shown raw data? Also, I do not have a good idea what the data would look like? Do you have an opinion of what it looks like and what form it is in? -divaricatum 13:04, 19 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::: Data should be made available to peer reviewers. If I'm reading the dates on the front of this particular paper correctly, I think peer review was a mere 15 days or so. Looks to me like a rubber-stamp process for this subject matter despite making claims that were reported as being newsworthy.<br />
<br />
::::: The raw data have to already be in a form that allows collaborative work, so I don't see that as much of an obstacle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:47, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
[unidenting] You did not really respond to my points. I asked whether, according to your understanding, peer reviewers are normally shown raw data. I said my understanding was they were not. You say "data should be made available..." Is that your opinion, or are you describing actual practice? Second, the usable data is in the paper, as far as I can tell. The graphs do not permit knowing exact value, but you do not seem to be asking for the exact figures used to generate the graph. Look at, for example, figure 1: X axis is generation, Y axis is Optical Density. The caption says:<br />
<br />
: Population expansion during evolution of the Cit+ phenotype. Samples frozen at various times in the history of population Ara-3 were revived, and three DM25 cultures were established for each generation. Optical density (OD) at 420 nm was measured for each culture at 24 h. Error bars show the range of three values measured for each generation.<br />
<br />
The graph shows a dramatic rise around generation 33000, from less than 0.05 to about .25. What additional data would you like? There are presumably lab books with 33000+ OD measurements (or some multiple of that) but in what sense is the data not available? What exactly regarding this graph would you like to see? <br />
<br />
Finally, in the second letter you talk about instances where it is noted that data is not shown. I found 3 such instances:<br />
<br />
: page 3 Also, growth on citrate is inhibited by the citrate analog 5-fluorocitrate (data not shown), as was observed for the one previously reported Cit� mutant of E. coli (42, 43).<br />
<br />
: page 3 After depleting the glucose in DM25, the earliest Cit+ clones grow almost imperceptibly, if at all, for many hours before they begin efficiently using the citrate (data not shown), whereas later Cit+ cones switch to growth on citrate almost immediately (Fig. 2).<br />
<br />
: page 6 These differences were also evident when we monitored the intraday dynamics of mixtures of Cit+ and Cit- cells (data not shown).<br />
<br />
In no case do the data seem relevant to the main point of the paper (in the first case, there may be data in the references; in the second case, he is simply noting that early clones grow slowly, but the point is later clones grow fast, for which data are shown; and the third case -- discussing utilization of glucose -- is again tangential to the main conclusion). Why are you interested in these data? -divaricatum 14:21 June 19, 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Lenski has "predictably" not replied? That's exactly what I'm talking about. You're so biased against him purely because you don't agree with the subject of his work. I would be frustrated in the same way if you were doing this with any research paper, not just Lenski's. "Predictably" he hasn't replied... maybe that is because he is a busy man who was kind enough to respond to your first email, but now simply does not want to (or have to) cater to the whims of some random hyper-conservative blogger who is asking him to release 20 years of raw data that the blogger does not have the knowledge set to critique! God forbid the man takes a week to respond to your email; if after two are three days of no answer are you going to condemn him by saying "he's obviously not talking to me because he's hiding something"? --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
"''If we assume his Darwinian principles were no check on his willingness to publish a falsified paper, then why would we then assume they would prevent him from falsifying data?''": Whilst it is true that Darwinism and atheism provide no basis for morals, hence honesty, it does not follow that individual Darwinists and atheists have no morals. In most cases, they have adopted a form of the morality held to by their society, which (in the case of western countries) has its basis in Christianity. So there is no reason to assume that Lenski would be dishonest with the data itself. The comparison with Piltdown has no basis.<br />
<br />
Peer review, as I understand it, is not meant as a check on all the research of a scientist, but merely as a basic check that the scientist has used suitable methodology, that his conclusions can be justified from his data, that he has explained the research clearly enough for the readers to understand, and so forth. Therefore all the detailed data would not normally be provided to the reviewers, although they may (I'm not certain) be able to request it if they are not satisfied by the data provided. Certainly they could reject the paper if they weren't satisfied, or request that more data be included in the paper if they felt that not enough was.<br />
<br />
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== General Reply ==<br />
<br />
Lenski has essentially refused my request that he make his underlying data available for public scrutiny, despite his use of public funding. Given the remarkably short time between submission of his PNAS manuscript and its acceptance (only 14 days), I doubt his paper even had meaningful peer review. <br />
<br />
It's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data. I wonder if PNAS violated its own stated policies by publishing Lenski's paper, and I'm going to email its Editor-in-Chief to request an explanation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:19, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
: How long does peer review normally take? And what PNAS policies do you think may have been violated? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:32, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Other articles in the same issue of PNAS:<br />
<br />
Effective tumor treatment targeting a melanoma/melanocyte-associated antigen triggers severe ocular autoimmunity approved April 14, 2008 (received for review November 18, 2007)<br />
<br />
Localized and extended deformations of elastic shells<br />
approved March 11, 2008 (received for review August 7, 2007)<br />
<br />
Characterization of the structure–function relationship at the ligament-to-bone interface approved April 11, 2008 (received for review December 28, 2007)<br />
<br />
Mutations in the telomerase component NHP2 cause the premature ageing syndrome dyskeratosis congenita approved April 14, 2008 (received for review January 3, 2008)<br />
<br />
Experimental evidence for negative selection in the evolution of a Yersinia pestis pseudogene approved April 15, 2008 (received for review February 13, 2008)<br />
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:36, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The average length of peer review for PNAS, based on a sample, is over 120 days. Lenski's paper was accepted within only 14 days of submission.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:53, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Andy, I'm not sure there's sufficient reason to claim that it probably didn't get a meaningful peer review. 2 weeks is certainly enough time for reviewers to read and critique the article. You may have noticed that Blount et al.'s article is identified as part of a special series, which could explain why it was reviewed more quickly than usual. I hope you will post the editor's reply here. Incidentally, in light of your view on this page of the importance of allowing research to be scrutinized by others, I would like to re-open my request for you to share your methodology on the hollywood breast cancer mystery page. Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:18, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I intended peer review in general, not just at the PNAS, but that's a fair comparison. Like Murray, I would have thought that a fortnight is sufficient, but you do appear to be correct that the Lenski paper was much quicker than normal at the PNAS. So that just leaves the question of broken policies... [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:24, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::If you take Lenski's paper for what it is, peer review of the paper would not take long after all. The majority of his data could be kick out for his paper is just the documentation of the bacteria using the citrate. Murry, what is this about breast cancer?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 12:30, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: Murray is referring to [http://www.conservapedia.com/Mystery:Young_Hollywood_Breast_Cancer_Victims this poorly researched thesis proposed by ASchlafly], Able806. No data to support the thesis was ever provided by ASchlafly. I'd invite you to take a look. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 12:40, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Looking at the paper, it seems to me almost all the experimental data is shown in figure 1: the ability of the bacteria to utilize citrate as revealed by optical density measurements. Something clearly happened around generation 33000, and the OD measurements jumped fivefold (from 0.05 to 0.25) with the range of measurements over three samples being way, way less that 0.2 (the size of the jump). That seems to be it experimentally. The rest of the paper describes the methodology and discusses what could have caused the change.<br />
<br />
::: People keep talking about raw data. Would someone who says that explain what they mean? To me, raw data is relevant when what is reported is derived data. For example, suppose you have a study of health effects of working at a facility that handles nuclear material. You report the radiation exposure over background of workers. That is derived data. The raw data are the workers' dosimeter readings and the background radiation measurements. That is what you would ask for when you wanted the raw data which supported the derived data.<br />
<br />
::: But in the Lenski paper, as far as I can tell, the data reported is the actual measured data: they measured the optical density of the samples and reported those numbers in figure 1. Of course, I could be wrong, I am not an expert in this field, but if someone disagrees with me, please tell me what the raw data would be and how the data in figure 1 was derived from it. (Lenski said that all the data being asked for is in paper. That statement is consistent with what I am saying.)<br />
<br />
::: As to 14 days, I do not see any problem. This is a very exciting result to people in the field and the reviewers would very likely put it on top of their to do lists. As I say, the experimental data is simple and unambiguous (something significant happened at generation 33000), the description of the methodology is clear and straightforward, and the discussion of the causes is at least consistent and believable. What is there to object to?<br />
<br />
::: Aschlafly talks of 'concealed data'. Could you please tell me what data you believe is being concealed? Specifically, what measurements are not revealed? (I know you can say 'how could I know if they do not tell me', but can someone at least suggest what kind of information is not being revealed?) -divaricatum 10:03 June 20 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::: If Aschlafly is talking about the "data not shown" parts of the paper as being "concealed", then he is being ignorant about normal scientific paper submission. Due to length constraints and other factors, most (read: all) researchers will leave out unimportant pieces of data that aren't necessarily the key points of the paper. For example, a paper could catalog the radiation levels of all the workers at a given nuclear power plant, and have a main point that workers who are in a certain part of the plant are getting higher exposure rates. Because it had to catalog all workers of the plant, it might also have to take dosage readings of people who work off-site. Obviously, people who aren't working at the plant will not have high radiation doses, and thus in the paper that result might look like "Predictably, those workers who perform their duties off-site had no detectable radiation doses that were above background (data not shown)". It would be pointless to show that "hey look, people who don't work around the radiation don't have readings above background! Here's a chart proving it!". That is why almost all papers have at least one data set that isn't shown. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]<br />
<br />
I have to run an errand but want to you everyone know, as I've said before, that it's only productive to discuss something with somebody who has an open mind. If you agree with my statement that "It's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data," then let's talk. If not, then please rant somewhere else. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:34, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: In the 'Piltdown all over again' thread above, I list all three instances of 'data not shown' from the paper and point out that, according to my understanding of what is being reported, the conclusions are not relevant to the point being made. Therefore (reinforcing what aaronp says) I would not expect the data to be shown and do not understand what use it would be to anyone interested in arguing with the paper's conclusions. Again, I could be wrong, but please if you disagree, address the point by explaining how the unshown data would be relevant to the conclusions of the paper. <br />
<br />
:::: With regard to aschlafly's last comment, please tell me what data you believe has not been revealed. My contention is all the relevant data is in figure 1. I am happy to be shown to be wrong, but please explain what data you think has not been revealed. -divaricatum 10:40 June 20 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::: : The data hasn't been concealed! "Concealed" from you, perhaps, but I blame that more on who you represent rather than some vague plot to get this information published without going through checks and balances. The data was peer-reviewed. The data was presented in a clear and logical manner. The data supported the conclusions. This is your run-of-the-mill publication, and has satisfied all it needs to in order to be recognized. I agree that if some person were to make an unverified claim (like all those crazy people who claim to have cloned a human being, but haven't shown the clones or released any data) and depict it as truth, then yes, that would be unscientific. But this paper hasn't done that. As for being close-minded, I believe it is you that is being close-minded. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]] 13:40, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
For reasons already explained, I'm not going to waste time with close-minded argument here. If you agree that it's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data, then clearly say so. Otherwise, it's a futile exercise. Anyone at any time could make an unverified claim based on concealed data, and people could be found to defend it. Only fools would try to reason with them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:17, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: If you are referring to me, please show where I have been close-minded. Sure I agree that "it's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data", but I am asking whether that is the case here. I ask repeatedly about what data have been concealed, and no one, particularly you, responds. There are two claims made in the paper: that a strain of E. colii evolved the ability to utilize citrate, and that the strain first had a mutation which while it did not allow the utilization of citrate, in some fashion potentiated the later mutation. The first claim is supported by the optical density data in figure 1. I contend that that is direct data and there is no associated raw data to look at, and that the ability to utilize citrate is clearly shown by the data provided.<br />
<br />
: The second claim is demonstrated by repeat experiments using stored samples. In some cases, the ability to utilize citrate evolved, in some cases not. They report on the strains used, how often the ability evolved, etc. I again do not see what data are not being supplied. All I am asking from you is to explain what data you believe is available to the researches that would be relevant in evaluating their results which is not in the paper. I do not see what is unreasonable about that request.<br />
<br />
: Lenski said in his letter to you that all the relevant data was in the paper. From my reading, that seems to be true. I am of course open to an argument that something additional needs to be revealed but I would like to understand what that additional something is, and no one, specifically not you, has said.<br />
<br />
: Now perhaps you are suggesting that the data reported in the paper is not the actual data collected (whether accidentally or intentionally mistranscribed, or whatever). If that is what you are saying is possible, please say so explicitly so we can understand your point, and also say how you would like the matter resolved (xeroxes of lab books? Computer backup tapes? what?)<br />
<br />
: I would just like to understand what people think has not been revealed. I do not see why asking that question indicates a closed mind or any such thing. -divaricatum 11:30 June 20 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: OK, divaricatum, we're arguing from the same logical basis, so let's proceed. The underlying data are not in the papers. The papers have an interpretative summary of the data which may be mistaken, incomplete, or worse. The underlying data were only analyzed by two people: Lenski and a grad student (presumably under the control of Lenski). Let's see what they analyzed. We may see things they missed or ignored. Or there may be defects in the data that they didn't realize or disclose. In less than 14 days between submission and acceptance of the paper, it's unlikely any peer review did this.<br />
<br />
:: If this were a court of law, the judge would not even allow Lenski and his grad student to present their summaries to the jury without first providing the underlying data to the other side. Surely scientific standards have not fallen lower than legal ones.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:52, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
(this discussion is limited to those who accept the logical premise repeated above: "it's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data." Sermons, rants and illogical postings can be made elsewhere. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:14, 20 June 2008 (EDT))<br />
<br />
::: Thank you. Let us look at claim number 1, that a strain of E. coli evolved the ability to utilize citrate. This is from page 2 of the paper (and onto page 3):<br />
<br />
:::: After 33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1). A number of Cit+ clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all were Ara-, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2). DNA sequencing also showed that Cit+ clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, and each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all of the others (30). Therefore, the Cit+ variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant. The evolved Cit+ variant grows to high density in DM0 (a citrate-only medium), produces vigorous colonies on minimal citrate (MC) agar plates, and causes a positive color change on Simmon’s citrate agar, all of which indicate that it can use citrate as a sole carbon source. In DM25, Cit+ cells undergo a period of rapid growth on glucose that is followed by slower growth on citrate (Fig. 2). Also, growth on citrate is inhibited by the citrate analog 5-fluorocitrate (data not shown), as was observed for the one previously reported Cit+ mutant of E. coli (42, 43).<br />
<br />
::: So, there was a population that could utilize citrate. The claims made are (1) it was not a contaminate (the data asserted is that it had the markers of the earlier populations), (2) it had mutations found in earlier strains from the same evolving populations. (3) It grows in a glucose-free environment and can use citrate as a carbon source. (4) It continues to grow on citrate/glucose medium after the glucose is exhausted (while other E. coli stops growing).<br />
<br />
::: Data explicitly supplied (figure 1) shows the ability of strains after the mutation to grow on citrate only (glucose free) medium. I assert this is direct (not derived) data since (I believe) the optical density is directly measured and that is what is shown in figure 1. Further data (figure 2) compares a strain with the mutation and one without and shows the with strain continues to grow after the glucose is exhausted while the without strain stops growing. Again, this is OD data directly reported. (I could of course be mistaken and OD data is in fact derived from other data, like excess radiation exposure, in which case someone please correct me.)<br />
<br />
::: The derived data is that the mutated strain has markers from the ancestral source and has specific mutations from more recent ancestors (that is, there are presumably DNA and other analyses which show these things which are not shown). He also reports on growth on other specific media (minimal citrate (MC) agar plates and Simmon’s citrate agar) where we are told only that on the first, the growth is vigorous, and on the second produces a color change. Finally (in what seems to be a parenthetical comment) growth in inhibited by the "citrate analog 5-fluorocitrate", but that data is not shown, and it is noted that was reported by the other known E. coli variant that can utilize citrate. (I interpret this as simply reporting that the variant they found is likely the same or very similar to the variant previously reported. That is interesting but not, it seems to me, relevant to the result of the paper, so the lack of supplied data does not seem significant to me.)<br />
<br />
::: So, what could you ask for? The OD reports from saved samples shown in figure 1 seem unambiguous as to the ability of the strain, after 33000 to utilize citrate, and so, except as qualified next, the basic claim seems to me to be verified. I cannot imagine what additional data with respect to OD you could ask for unless you are claiming that they mistranscribed the data (in which case, I repeat, resolve it how? Look at Lab books?)<br />
<br />
::: So here is the qualification: could it be a contamination? They explain how they reject the contamination hypothesis. You could say that was very important to your confidence and so you would like to see the specific test results for the markers and mutations. That is certainly a specific question and one that could be answered, although with some (perhaps significant) expenditure of time and money.<br />
<br />
::: As to the growth on other media (minimal citrate (MC) agar plates and Simmon’s citrate agar) the paper simply describes the growth as vigorous and the color changing. But these reports seem unambiguous in that they could be in error only if the investigators were misrepresenting their findings. Here again, what would you like to see? Lab books? Because this could only be false through fraud, the lab books would presumably in that case also be fraudulent.<br />
<br />
::: So it seems to me that all one could ask for is the dna/marker data that verifies that the cit+ samples are not contaminates. Perhaps, if you were willing to pay for the tests, one could ask for ancestral, close to mutation, and post mutation samples on which to repeat the tests.<br />
<br />
::: Let us leave fraud aside. So then the question is, did they make (honest) mistakes? It frankly seems unlikely to me because the tests seem straightforward: the ability to utilize citrate seems very easy to test unambiguously (smear some on a citrate/no glucose base and see what happens). The differences between growing vigorously and hardly are surely great enough that one could not mistake one for the other. The contamination tests, while much more complicated, also seem standard. DNA sequencing is a well-established technique. There are looking for specific loci ("DNA sequencing also showed that Cit+ clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population"). I am not sure how the markers mentioned are identified but I again think this is a standard test.<br />
<br />
::: So, to repeat my conclusion: the only thing I feel is worth asking about (all this is about result 1, there was a mutation which allowed utilization of citrate) is the contamination question. There they presumably have data which confirms there statements but I am not sure whether it is reasonably to ask them for it absent some specific concern. (Here an experienced microbiogist would be helpful, if I have the field right: is their description of how they determined that the strain was not contaminated reasonable and the tests they did straightforward and unambiguous, or is there room for reasonable doubt? Answering that is beyond my knowledge. I would be pleased to hear from such an expert.)<br />
<br />
::: As to claim 2, I understand it less well, but could discuss it in more detail but I feel I have gone on long enough discussing claim 1. I would be pleased to read differing analyses of claim 1, particularly with regard to where the authors might reasonably be incorrect, absent fraud. divaricatum 13:09 June 20, 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Thank you, Divaricatum, for putting what I wanted to say so eloquently on the page. I believe that Lenski was being straight when he published his findings, and that barring gross fraud, the paper is very well-researched. -- Aaronp<br />
<br />
==Note re. article==<br />
As an aside, I' wonder if someone couldn't place some information at the head of the article here? At present, the article simply starts into a "first letter" to "a Prof. Lenski". The article should have a little setup to introduce readers to what on Earth it's all about. There is no reference in the article to the rest of the debate, basically. Just an FYI. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 13:17, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Lenski's second reply==<br />
Are you happy now? He has answered everything you asked. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 06:21, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:Andy should be thanked and congratulated by everyone here for his efforts on behalf of truth and openness. Those of us not blinded by Liberal deceit can now see atheistic pseudo-science for what it is. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:04, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:Really, Bugler? After that statement, I have trouble believing you're real. Atheistic pseudo-science? Liberal deceit? Do you even know what you're talking about? This isn't pseudo-science. Just because you don't understand it, it doesn't mean the information is suddenly invalid. In fact, after what is seemingly a post purely to stroke Andy's ego just a little bit more, even in the face of Lenski's reply, I believe that you are just a sock of Aschlafly. By the way, I'm expecting a 90/10 for this. --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]<br />
::I wouldn't give you the satisfaction of dignifying such a ridiculous post in that manner. Nor does the exchange require my poor talents to explain it to you. The messages stand by themselves, and Andy's honest intentions and integrity stand out. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:22, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::Sir Bugler, why do you cite something called "Liberal Deceit." Please allow me to clarify, explain to me what basis you have to slap on deceit towards liberals. I know that you are not inferring that all liberals engage in deceit, or that deceit is only inherent to liberals, but you are making a statement in some form, am I wrong? For every time that there is a liberal engaging in a form of deceit, there is also a conservative engaging in that same type of deceit. <br />
P.S. You are seeking data to scrutinize the integrity of an "Atheistic" scientist's work, who, as we've learned now from the Lenski's most recent letter that he is in fact, not at all an atheist, but a church attender. SO please accordingly revise your attacks. {{unsigned|Eligus}}<br />
<br />
:::Ok Bugler, to be fair, I will let go of my frustration and attempt to make a "valid" point. Can we at least respect Lenski for taking the time to write out his replies? The man is incredibly busy (trust me, I know), and still managed to communicate to a random person from the internet who was challenging 20 years worth of work. In addition to this, Lenski was very courteous with his replies! Surely we can't demonize the man purely because of his work on a bacterial strain? I can respect that Andy was doing what he thought was right, but can't we also give the same courtesy to Lenski, who put equal heart into his own work? -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]<br />
::::I can't say I noticed sarcasm or mockery in Andy's messages. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::True, but I did notice some serious (unfounded) allegations of fraud in his statements on the talk page; since the talk page is public domain, it means that Lenski saw them as well. I would say that Andy was being very rude, accusing someone of gross fraud without concrete evidence. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]<br />
<br />
::::: Really, Aaronp? When was I "accusing someone of gross fraud without concrete evidence"? Perhaps you can provide a quote for your claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:11, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Anyway back to my question, are you now satisfied in the response? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 08:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
"Given the remarkably short time between submission of his PNAS manuscript and its acceptance (only 14 days), I doubt his paper even had meaningful peer review..." "It's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data..." Both of these quotes, Mr. Schlafly, imply that Lenski falsified his data and collaborated in an elaborate conspiracy to get his paper published! You already assume that Lenski was fraudulent with his data when you said this! How is that not accusing him of fraud? -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]] Also, sorry to distract from your question, Daniel. Andy, please answer Dan first. Thank you.<br />
<br />
: Aaronp, your quote does not support your accusation, and I suggest you retract it immediately. I leave that up to you. Obviously there are many types of possible flaws in scientific claims that are not "gross fraud." For example, I don't think Andrew Wiles' (an example I used) was fraudulent in presenting his initial proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]], which general scrutiny found to be flawed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::''You already assume that Lenski was fraudulent with his data when you said this!'' You are a mind-reader, Aaron! Truly remarkable! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:32, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::You're right. What can I say? I am omniscient. As for the quote, by stating you doubted the paper was peer-reviewed, you are claiming that Lenski didn't actually go through the proper steps to get his data published, which is accusing him of fraud. I don't see how that can be any more straightforward. --Aaronp<br />
<br />
::::The responsibility for peer review is on the peers that do the reviewing. I don't know why you would assume that Andy would be accusing Linski of dubious scientific practice, when the more likely explanation is that he was accusing the reviewers. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 08:51, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Don't be naive, Drochld. Andy was attacking Lenski specifically. -- Aaronp<br />
That is enough. If you persist with these ludicrous accusations of malevolence you will be blocked. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:58, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:AaronP to be safe you should preface every truth you say with "it seems" so that way it isn't an accusation... '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 09:02, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Bugler, if Andy was not assuming that Lenski's data was frauduflent, wouldn't that mean that he was being openminded about the possibility of the Bible being incorrect? [[User:RWilson|RWilson]] 13:52, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::: I'm not sure what you are getting at there, but I ''think'' you are saying that either Lenski is a fraud or the Bible is incorrect, yet I see no reason for thinking it has to be one or the other. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:29, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Once again, the above seriously misrepresents the situation with Fermat's Last Theorem. While I was very happy that he released his manuscript immediately after his lectures at the Newton Institute, the fact remains that the error was detected in conversations between Wiles and consummate insiders like Nick Katz [http://www.math.princeton.edu/~nmk/], not after general scrutiny by random people around the internet. --[[User:Npstrick|Npstrick]] 10:23, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Thanks, DLerner. "It seems" I've made my point anyway. No more accusations of malevolence from this gentleman, no sir! --Aaronp<br />
<br />
Lenski's reply in a nutshell, once all the talk pollution and ad hominem attacks are removed: No, I will not give you my raw data or my E. Coli samples, not to you or any other non-Darwinist. <br />
<br />
And we're still supposed to believe his research is legitimate??? This is exactly what Andy predicted he would do, only not necessarily so rudely. Andy wins. Game. Set. Match. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 10:36, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Really? He said he would put the data on his website, and I think [[Behe]] meets Lenski's three qualifications for a scientist to whom he would release the bacteria. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 10:55, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Behe? Are you serious? He's supposed to be a Creation Scientist? The guy believes in the big bang, an earth billions of years old, and evolution. He does not believe in a young Earth, Adam and Eve, or the true word of the Bible. He's an evolutionist who happens to say "oh yeah, God guided evolution." As if there was anything on the Earth ''not'' guided by God! Just because he's one of the few scientists who isn't an atheist he's supposed to be one of us? No thanks. I'd rather go with someone who didn't drink the Old Earth Kool-aid. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 11:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::In spite of his Old Earth views or sympathies to evolution, Behe would be the perfect person for the job. He's a scientist! Has anyone contacted him yet? I bet he would jump at the opportunity to do research like this and having it published in a peer review journal would make ID more credible. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I for one am really, really glad that Lenski is '''not''' prepared to send dangerous bacteria to someone without checking on their credentials first. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 18:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Settle down, TonyT. Nobody claimed that he was a creationist, but as one who doesn't believe in naturalistic evolution, he would be a good person to check this out. On the other hand, as I've pointed out already, creationists and ID theorists don't necessarily have a problem with this research, so really, there may be nothing worth checking out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:25, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== "P.P.P.P.S.?" == <br />
<br />
Wow. Professional. The guy writes like a 12-year-old girl. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:25, 24 June 2008 (EDT) <br />
:Wow. besides the ad hom, does anyone care to contest the substance of what the guy said? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:36, 24 June 2008 (EDT) <br />
<br />
<br />
::Fair enough. I think Lenski raises a valid point that honestly hadn't occurred to me--namely, the logistics of transporting and storing biological materials. While a request for data stored in electronic form is one thing, a request for actual samples of the cultures is another. Unless facilities for the storage of such material are available, I don't think this issue can be brought to a conclusion that will be satisfactory for everyone. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:54, 24 June 2008 (EDT) <br />
<br />
== E. coli in our bowels == <br />
<br />
So if they're mutating and evolving, why don't they kill us? Our bodies obviously have defenses that protect us from the E. coli in our guts, but with all this evolving supposedly going on, you'd think they'd have evolved into something that could overcome those defenses and kill us so they could feast on our corpses. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Or you'd think that our bodies have evolved ways to deal with that. Or you'd think that there would be no advantage for e.coli to evolve a trait that would kill off its host environment. Or you'd think that humans would have evolved wings and third arms and eyes in the back of their heads in order to better adapt to their environments. Where exactly is it written in evolutionary science that all organism will eveolve the traits that you happen to think would improve their chances? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT) <br />
: Not to mention that evolution doesn't have a "goal." Yeesh, the ignorance here is astounding.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 15:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT) + <br />
:: Shows what you know! The goal of evolution is obviously to "evolve" in whatever manner it takes to destroy all of humanity. Who's ignorant now? Bobdobbs 15:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Jinxmchue perhaps you should better familiarise yourself with the principles of evolution and basic human biology before making claims such as the above. The theory of evolution states that organisms will undergo mutations, and the process of natural selection will determine which prosper (and hence are carried on) and which do not. A parasitic organism is not going to be doing itself any favours by killing its host, if it did then it would have minimal ability to survive and its genes would not be passed on to future generations.<br />
<br />
:::In addition, some bacteria do evolve (or have evolved in the past) to overcome their host's defences, the thing is that the body contains millions upon millions of variations of white blood cells and eventually one that possesses the capability to destroy the bacteria will encounter it, proliferate and destroy it. This likelihood is increased by the inflammatory response accompanying most organisms. In some caes our bodies cannot fight off infection, and that is the reason we develop modern antibiotics.<br />
<br />
:::Furthermore, a single mutated bacteria, or even a few hundred of its spawn, are not going to be capable of producing sufficient protetin to kill their host. Even if every protein produced was capable of destroying a cell (which never happens) it would take thousands if not millions of bacteria over a long time period to kill the host. Now this is where the catch is, it takes energy to produce proteins which the bacteria could otherwise be utilising for other things, like surviving. If a bacteria is pumping out enough proteins to kill the surrounding cells it will be diverted from its normal tasks (but please remember that a bacteria is not actually capable of thought) and will not stand much of a change of survival. <br />
<br />
:::Oh (and this sort of relates to all of the last three points), you should be aware that bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract (our guts) are in most cases not under attack by the human immune system as they are technically outside of the body. Therefore evolving to overcome the host's defences is not going to have any difference, and will just be wasting energy. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 19:14, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Alice, according to evolutionary theory, species that fail to evolve die. And there are no evolutionary dead ends other than those that die off. If it's alive, it's evolving. Yet we don't see any evolving going on despite the fact that the rate of evolution has to be so phenomenally fast that it should easily be seen. In fact, this lack of obvious evolution has led to someone inventing the idea of "punctuated equilibrium" to explain away why we don't see it happening all the time. It's a load of nonsensical, unprovable bull. I used to believe every word of it, but when I approached it with a critical eye (something that is NEVER allowed by the evolutionary dogmatists), I found it to be very, very wanting. This "evolving" E. coli proves nothing. It's still E. coli. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:02, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Jinxmchue, wrong. Evolutionary theory gives various examples of species that have not evolved (or evolved very little) in millions of years; coelacanths are one. Species that fail to evolve ''when their environment changes'' die; species in an unchanging habitat have no need to evolve one they have adapted to it sufficiently. [[User:Bmalee|bmalee]] 07:56, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::The coelacanth is very likely the greatest example of how wrong the theory of evolution is. Evolutionists are beside themselves trying to explain how this supposedly millions of years extinct animal showed up in modern times showing absolutely no evolution. Are we to believe that the coelacanths' environment never changed in the millions of years since they were claimed to have died off? That must be quite a stable part of the earth indeed! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:04, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: You are both correct. Evolution does indeed say that creatures in non-changing environments have no need to evolve. bmalee is correct on that. However, you are also correct with your example of the coelacanth. Basically, the evolutionary argument that a given creature hasn't evolved because its environment didn't change is an ''ad hoc'' explanation without empirical evidence and without explanatory power. I don't know that the coelacanth is the greatest example, though, as there are much older living things that show no sign of change either. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:18, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: How is Jinx correct with that example, though? The current living species of coelacanth are not the same as the ones in fossils, which as far as we know are all extinct (although the most recent fossils do resemble the living ones found). It seems that 'modern' coelacanth are substantially larger than their ancestors, and live birth is also speculated to be (relatively) new to the species. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:27, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Peer Review Process==<br />
<br />
My apologies if I am contributing to a debate that has already closed, but skimmed through the letters exchanged and the debate here and noticed a slight discrepancy in understanding. The peer reviewers of a paper do not receive any data other than that which is eventually published in the journal (although some may be removed by the editor, such as for page restrictions). They exist to judge the method and to ensure that the conclusions are accurately drawn from the results provided in the paper. They do not check to make sure the raw data is properly summarised in the results, nor do they ever have access to the raw data. The checking of raw data is carried out after the paper is published, either through scientists reproducing the experiment or (such as in this case) obtaining materials and records directly from the scientist involved.<br />
<br />
Hope this clears things up. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 09:06, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Well I don't know the details of the peer review process. I also dunno about anyone else. But I did get a chuckle out of his little anecdote. For what its worth, it lightened my mood after 38 hours without sleep, (recipe for regret, I don't recommend it). [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 23:44, 24 June 2008<br />
<br />
== Reply to Lenski's second-last paragraph ==<br />
<br />
Dr. Lenski, I hope you get to read this.<br />
<br />
I have no dispute with most of your second letter (or your first one), and you will note above my objections to the letters being sent to you, but do wish to respond to your second-last paragraph (the P.P.P.S.). You point out earlier in your letter than Andy Schlafly lacks expertise in the relevant fields, but you then proceed to pontificate on an area in which you appear to have no expertise, biblical [[exegesis]].<br />
<br />
The main problem with your claim that God may have used evolution is not that He could not have, but that He said that he didn't (or, more precisely, what He said that He did is incompatible with evolution). What is "insulting to God" is rejecting what He has plainly told us that He did.<br />
<br />
This point has been made over and over by creationists, so your lack of awareness of this demonstrates that you have little idea of what creationists actually claim and believe, yet it seems that you yourself are willing to go beyond your expertise when it suits you.<br />
<br />
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:22, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
P.S. Don't take too much notice of some of the messages posted above, a few of which are likely parodist troublemakers.<br />
<br />
:He wasn't talking about Creationism (specifically Young Earth Creationism) though, Philip. As you are aware, many Christians, possibly the majority, reject YEC and use very similar arguments that Lenski iterated, i.e. that evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive and it is presumptuous of any of us to claim knowledge of how precisely God created the universe. Of course, that's the core disagreement between YEC and more theistic evolution positions. You would expect an evolutionary biologist to side with the latter in his appreciation and understanding of Christianity. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:39, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:Just to clarify - I'm not deliberately arguing, just pointing out what I understood to be his position on that bit. I agree wholeheartedly with your other sentiments. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:01, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Reading past all the deliberate insults the scientists tossed, we come to the claim that "God created living things via evolution". Taking a stab at [[theistic evolution]], the scientist twists the knife by speculating that God would use set in motion some sort of blind watchmaker mechanism to create everything. <br />
<br />
::As Philip indicated, this is so obviously incompatible with YE Creationism that you have to wonder how stupid the scientists thinks our readers are. And even OE Creationism (the only major kind left to consider) '''specifically''' posits that God intervened creatively. <br />
<br />
::So, once again, the scientists has made assertions without giving adequate explanation. Everything is either assumed to have been "already explained" or is embargoed information (so he and has colleagues can take credit). If I may use a Jewish expression, God forbid he should every give us a straight answer! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:48, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::Not "speculating", Ed; '''observing'''. The speculation lies in the assumption that what someone you trust, who was told by someone they trust who was told by someone ''they'' trusted - and so on throughout many generations and translations - told ''you'' is an objective fact, and that ''somewhere'' down the line, not a single person - most of whose names you will never know - either made an error in judgment about who to trust, mistranslated, took artistic license at filling in the blanks, or at the very least had unwittingly consumed some rather questionable mushrooms. This is precisely why empirical data is valued in science over anecdotal. <br />
<br />
:::You say God said so, I say bring him here to tell me in person. You say God doesn't work that way, I say my how convenient for you, now leave me alone, I'm busy doing science. [[User:Cantle|Cantle]] 23:48, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Ajkgordon, did I mention anything about YEC? Lenski was clearly talking about the God of the Bible, and the biblical description of creation, specifically including the length of time taken and the order of creation, is totally incompatible with the evolutionary story. If it is "presumptuous" to claim knowledge of how God created, then why do so many do that very thing by claiming that God used evolution? Rather, it's arrogant and presumptuous to reject His clear revelation for man-made ideas that ''presume'' that He wasn't involved!<br />
<br />
Cantle, that you must misrepresent the basis for believing in creation suggests that without doing so your case is weak, if valid at all. The ''evidence'' is that the Bible has been transmitted through time very accurately. The Bible is not "anecdotal"; it is ''eye-witness history'', exactly the same sort of thing that allows you to know about almost anything that you did not personally experience, such as World War I (assuming you're not old enough to remember that) or even the date of your birth. Yes, ''your'' argument is convenient that you arbitrarily require particular evidence and reject all the evidence that is available.<br />
<br />
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:46, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Philip, you mentioned Creationism and implicitly Biblical inerrancy, therefore, yes , you mentioned YEC by default. In other words, you appear to take any mention of Lenski's about Christianity to de-facto mean that he's talking about YEC, the only form of Christianity that you believe is right. But he wasn't. He was talking about Christianity in more general terms reflecting what a great deal of Christians believe - that is that evolution and Christianity are not mutually incompatible. Surely you can see this while not agreeing with it. This is the type of Christianity he was talking about and how he can maintain respect for it (which he explicitly states) while carrying out his work. It is not pontification about an expertise he doesn't hold. It is a theological position of many many Christians, some of whom are academics of the highest standing in both science and theology. Again, you may vehemently deny that these Christians are right (or even possibly that they are not real Christians). But that doesn't change the fact that Lenski was talking about that Christian position and not Biblical inerrency. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:43, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Ed, similar reply. Lenski wasn't talking about Creationism. He was repeating the theological position of many learned Christian theologians that evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant. Many do. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:43, 25 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I don't understand the phrase, "evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive." Are you speaking about the meaning of evolution in the sense of, "All forms of life evolved naturally, i.e., by the action of p