Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User:Davidspencer

2022-10-10T15:02:22Z

Davidspencer:

I am a brit who registered here some months ago but did not edit for reasons I have explained on Aschlaflys talk page. If things turn out well then I hope to begin to contribute, if not then I expect I will be banned. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 07:44, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
 

8th August 2011 
And unsurprisingly I was blocked and my page was edited. This is what I posted originally with the alleged personal remarks removed.

And having tried to support RobSmith in his efforts to change this mess into a real wiki which can rebuild some sort of reputation within the conservative movement I fully expect this to be my last post on here. Good luck in your campaign RobSmith. Sadly I fully expect you to be unsucessful and Conservapedia will slip even further into the madness of <removed> 'articles' and 'essays'. <removed>.[[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:23, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

For which I fully expect to be once again blocked, probably for longer this time. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 02:34, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

To whoever tried to login as me today 42 times, requesting password resets - bad luck. Better luck next time. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] ([[User talk:Davidspencer|talk]]) 11:02, October 10, 2022 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of EU regulations on Britain

2016-06-28T14:14:20Z

Davidspencer:

Sidewalks? There aren't any in Britain. Same with "cell phones". And "bathrooms" in Britain actually contain baths, not just toilets. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] ([[User talk:AlanE|talk]]) 00:08, 26 June 2016 (EDT)

:It's for an American audience. Pavement, not sidewalks. Mobile, not cell phone. Water closet, not bathroom. Radiator, not towel holder. But thanks for clarifying. --Jpatt 07:47, 26 June 2016 (EDT)

::In articles relating to Britain, perhaps a solution is parenthetical statements. For example, like this: (In Britain sidewalks are referred to as pavement). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:35, 27 June 2016 (EDT)

:::Things are always more complex that they seem Cons. Down here, it's a footpath.

:::I once fiound myself having a chat with a well known British "Best Selling" popular historian who opined that he frequently debated with himself the worth of having his books published in The States because of the time and effort required to bring the American readership up to speed with facts and concepts he could take for granted that his British Commonwealth and even European readers would understand. (There is a certain amount of amusement in this country and the world over the fact that the earlier "Mad Max" movies were dubbed into American English for their American release. Not in Holland, mind you, nor Germany nor elsewhere in the world, where, it seems, the Australian vernacular is understandable within its context. Just in America.)

:::Frankly, I find it not particularly important what is called what unless it is right out out of cultural context... like the Scottish housewife saying to the visiting detective: "do you want cream with that?" [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] ([[User talk:AlanE|talk]]) 02:51, 27 June 2016 (EDT)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAgKHSNqxa8 Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Brexit (HBO)] watch at 4' 20'' - 5' 20'' --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 18:42, 27 June 2016 (EDT)
:AugustO, I don't buy that video for two reasons.

:1. Brexit could cause a chain reaction so others leave the EU too. So the costs of Brexit would be changed - especially if the EU breaks up.

:2. Brexit might have been avoided if the root cause were eliminated. For example, perhaps the immigration issue could have been negotiated to being more Aussie like.[http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/judith-sloan/brexit-remainers-could-learn-from-australias-immigration-policy/news-story/cb7a9cb6f3009f003013acf748dc0f71]] Plus, less Muslim immigrants. The liberals, who are used to getting their way very often in Europe, took an all or nothing approach. Well, the UKIP and other voters chose the nothing approach. It seems to me that the Swiss avoid a lot of simmering resentments by getting the consent of the governed more. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:55, 27 June 2016 (EDT)

::I don't expect anyone to "buy that video" in its entirety. But I think he made a good point about "Brexit - the movie": both sides of the campaign used dubious claims, fear mongering, and made promises (ehem, aspirations) well knowing that they couldn't keep them. "Brexit - the movie" is just one example - it was sloppily researched. They state that a pillow is subject to 109 EU regulations, while in reality they only show that their were 109 regulations using the word pillow, like a classification of breakfast cereals cut into pillow shapes, or "pillow ball joints", etc.
::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 04:51, 28 June 2016 (EDT)
:::Sloppily researched is one way of putting it. Deliberatily mendacious is a much more accurate one. Many of the stories about EU regulations, such as the one about curved bananas, were simply invented by Boris Johnson whilst he was a Daily Telegraph writer. Johnson is an admitted plagarist, liar, adulterer and someone who is on tape conspiring to have a journalist assualted because he was investigating a friend of his (Darius Guppy) over a fraud that Guppy carried out. So far the pro-brexit campaign have backtracked on just about every single claim they made during the campaign. Whatever you think of the EU, and I oppose it on some issues and support it on others, the entire leave campaign has been based on lies, half-truths, distortions and racism. None of which I would like to think Conservapedia will support. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] ([[User talk:Davidspencer|talk]]) 10:14, 28 June 2016 (EDT)
Agreed. Dubious claims were made on both sides.

I think it is a complex situation. According to world surveys, Germany has a good reputation as far as places to live (like top 15 places to live [http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2015/07/15/the-worlds-most-reputable-countries-2015/2/#74a0b12832e4]). German industry needs workers. Merkel needs support of German businessman to be elected and campaigns to be funded (but it is less costly to fund a German political campaign than an American one[http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/why-germany-s-politics-are-much-saner-cheaper-and-nicer-than-ours/280081/]). German unemployment rate is low. I just think it would be smarter to bring in more Christian immigrants than bring in Muslim immigrants (due to terrorism and other inappropriate behavior such as Cologne incident, etc. This causes political dissent).

On the other hand, there is high unemployment rate among the youth in Europe and immigrants from another culture/religion are not wanted by many.

At the same time, if attempts are made to restrict Muslim immigration, the European multiculturists/Muslims complain.

I think things in Europe are going to get worse before they get better. The same situation in the United States. And I think with Christianity growing in Africa/Asia/Latin America that those regions will get better although Christianization of cultures takes time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 09:42, 28 June 2016 (EDT)

User talk:Davidspencer

2015-05-08T14:24:11Z

Davidspencer:

{{welcome|sig=[[User:JMR10|Joaquín Martínez]] 22:50, 9 January 2012 (EST)}}

== Congratulations ==

Congratulations, your account has just been given three new privileges: SkipCatcha, blocking and rollback privileges.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:25, 14 January 2012 (EST)

==Thank you==
David, I appreciate your kindness. Thank you. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 01:29, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Thanks for the kind message. Hope you are well, David. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:18, 4 August 2012 (EDT)

== ==
And in your revert you have removed my message, re added some trolling and deleted the archive link. Please put these back. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 09:50, 19 January 2013 (EST)

== Moto GP ==

I think you'll find that the real name is the Road Racing World Championship Grand Prix, of which MotoGP is only a category. Your article is a bit bare and lacks a certain something. I'm not really a big Moto fan (now that Stoner is in DV8S) so I'll let you fix it [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 11:13, 7 April 2013 (EDT)
::Like you [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]], I'm only a VERY casual follower of MotoGP (or RRWCGP). However, while RRWCGP might be the "official name" of sport, I think MotoGP is the more common name used to refer to it as a whole. Much like F1 is "technically" a division within the FIA World Championship Racing Series (or something like that...) but is commonly used to refer the sport in general with the lower divisions treated as simply "feeder series" to F1 as opposed to serious championship series in their own right. I guess maybe we should have MotoGP redirect to RRCWGP or something? I don't know... 
::Anyway, I digress, that's not why I was posting here. lol. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]], first let me thank you for your efforts to make this site a viable alternative to Wikipedia and keep the few who are trying to push their extreme views and outside interests in check. I find there are too few of us on here who want to simply display the facts and allow them to speak for themselves against the opposition instead of allowing them to be overshadowed by personal opinion. Once again, I'm getting off topic here... 
::I was looking at your [[Moto gp]] page and thinking of ways to improve it. The first major thought I could come up with was something that could be added to any page on racing series. Do you know how to make a table on here? I don't, but I'm sure we could figure it out if you don't either. I was thinking we could add the following tables:
::#'''Previous Seasons:''' with headings "Year", "Champion", "Manufacturer"
::#'''Current Season:''' with headings "Date", "Race Name", "Pole", "Winner(or top 3 finishers in separate columns?)"
::#'''Current Standings''' with headings "Position", "Rider", "Manufacturer", "Points" and "Wins" 
::Let me know what you think, I'll copy the relevant part of this rambling post to [[Talk:Moto gp|Talk Page]] on your MotoGP article. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 12:23, 19 April 2013 (EDT)

== Reverting my Revert ==

I never realized you did not like me. Fine then. Now I ask you - how is that thread at all conductive to Conservapedia's goals of becoming an encyclopedia? From what I see, that thread has devolved into namecalling, especially the unconscionable choice of words from user:conservative. Please explain your actions. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:21, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
:It is nothing to do with like or dislike. It is for your own good. This is a fight you will NOT win. Ropb smith tried this and he now edits at ratwiki, he is an ex-person here. Keep this up and you will be as well. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 16:23, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

== test ==

User talk:ScottH35

2015-02-16T20:35:25Z

Davidspencer:

{{Welcome|ScottH35}}--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:27, 16 February 2015 (EST)
Hi Scott, I saw your recent edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Malala_Yousafzai&curid=128580&diff=1140724&oldid=1116640 here] and I'm not sure it says what you meant it to. I wasn't sure what you wanted it to say so I've not changed it but I guess it you possibly meant either 'was the winner' or for it to say 'won'. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 14:18, 16 February 2015 (EST)
:Thanks, I apparently missed adding "awarded". [[User:ScottH35|ScottH35]] 15:14, 16 February 2015 (EST)
::Oh great, so I was wrong in both my thoughts. Good job I didn't try to 'correct' you. :-) [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 15:35, 16 February 2015 (EST)

User talk:ScottH35

2015-02-16T19:18:49Z

Davidspencer:

Talk:Cheers

2015-01-14T21:16:42Z

Davidspencer: Created page with "Boring, it is NOT a slang term. I'm a Brit and I should know a lot better than any of you. ~~~~"

Boring, it is NOT a slang term. I'm a Brit and I should know a lot better than any of you. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 16:16, 14 January 2015 (EST)

Cheers

2015-01-14T21:15:58Z

Davidspencer: Reverted edits by VargasMilan (talk) to last revision by Davidspencer

A way of saying 'thank you', usually after giving or receiving something. Used frequently used in the [[liberal]], [[atheist]]ic [[United Kingdom]].

Cheers

2015-01-14T21:12:12Z

Davidspencer: Reverted edits by TheAmericanRedoubt (talk) to last revision by BrettMo

A way of saying 'thank you', usually after giving or receiving something. Used frequently used in the [[liberal]], [[atheist]]ic [[United Kingdom]].

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2015-01-04T21:19:02Z

Davidspencer: /* This Site is Being Hijacked */

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>

''This page contains some material that has been moved from [[Talk:Main_Page]]. We are attempting to get general discussion of issues relating to Conservapedia's content and policies on this page, leaving the main talk page for its original purpose of discussing the content of the Main Page.''

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

==Restoring User Pages==

I wonder if you [I was referring to User:Conservative in the original context] would be be so kind as to restore the following user and user-talk pages. Most of these people were long-time respected sysops and administrators, as I'm sure you, being a long-time respected sysop and administrator yourself, well know. Many of our important articles were written by these people. Current users may want to know something about the people that went before them and built Conservapedia. We should show some respect for our history and our founding fathers/mothers.
*[[User:Jallen]]
*[[User:Tash]]
*[[User:Foxtrot]]
*[[User:Ymmotrojam]]
*[[User:DeanS]]
*[[User:TimS]]
*[[User:DanH]]
*[[User:Deborah]]
*[[User:BethanyS]]
*[[User:WilliamBeason]]

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:33, 10 October 2014 (EDT)

:Your suggestion is a reasonable one. I was not in favor of deleting user pages. But once deleted, I don't think it would be time well spent to restore the pages. Time moves on, and time could be better spent by improving substantive entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:37, 11 October 2014 (EDT)

::I can see that all the active users are pretty busy, and are probably disinclined to do this. So how about letting me do it? I'm willing to restore those pages myself. You would have to give me the appropriate temporary rights, which might be "undelete" rights, or maybe full administrator rights, I don't know how this works.

::I'm sure you know, from our many communications, both public and private, that I can be trusted not to harm Conservapedia in any way. During any period in which I have extra rights, I will refrain from annoying, harassing, irritating, teasing, insulting, or otherwise getting under the skin of any other user. I will not react to any taunts. I will not abuse the rights in any way. (Though if my rights include blocking, and I see any vandals come to town, I will of course take action.)

::You didn't want the pages deleted? We can fix that. What say you? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 12:48, 12 October 2014 (EDT)

:There's an extremely troubling aspect to all this. You say you weren't in favor of deleting the pages, and yet, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:JoeyJ&diff=1100430&oldid=1100429 here], Cons says that the owner of the web site was in favor of the deletion. Was Cons lying? Also, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:JoeyJ&diff=1101617&oldid=1100630 here], Cons seems to indicate that he was in communication with you on the subject of giving JoeyJ deletion powers. These powers are not taken lightly. In fact, JoeyJ is the only non-admin who has them. So it looks as though you gave JoeyJ the deletion powers '''knowing full well''' that he would use those powers to delete user pages. What is going on? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:05, 14 October 2014 (EDT)

== God delusion ==

I finished reading the Prof. Dawkin's book. I have to admit that it has shaken my religious foundations... I sometimes wonder whether that has made me an Agnostic now. It has made me question a lot of my upbringing. I was a good catholic girl. I wonder what my mom will say
--[[User:OconnorM|Maria O'Connor]] 12:44, 15 November 2014 (EST)
:Richard Dawkins did not research or fact check his book very well and it has a number of errors in it as can be seen in this PDF version of [http://www.voxday.net/mart/TIA_free.pdf The Irrational Atheist].

:Second, how strong were your foundations before you read the book? How did you build your foundation?

:In the physical life, if you are flabby, don't get enough sleep, etc., it provides an opportunity for disease to enter. The same is true in a person's spiritual life. How familiar are you with the classic [[Arguments for the existence of God|defenses of the existence of God]]? How familiar are you with the various evidences for Christianity? See: [[Christian apologetics websites|Evidence for Christianity]] Did you ever repent of your sins and dedicate your life to following Jesus Christ? How often were you reading your Bible? How often were you praying? What are the most serious arguments against agnosticism? What are the most serious arguments against atheism. See: [[Rebuttals to atheist arguments]].

:Also, Jesus promises that those who repented of their sins and accept Jesus as their Savior and Lord will have communion with Him and will receive the Holy Spirit who will guide them. Did you ever know God or were you just engaging in religious rituals? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:07, 16 November 2014 (EST)

::[http://www.christiantoday.com/article/richard.dawkins.has.had.his.day.says.ravi.zacharias/43042.htm Richard Dawkins has had his day, says Ravi Zacharias] -'' Christianity Today'', November 15, 2014 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:04, 17 November 2014 (EST)

:::@Maria O'Connor: I'm really sorry that you have been abused so badly at Conservapedia. I want you to know that there are quite a number of decent and well-intentioned people here. You should ignore the abusers, and feel welcome to make contributions. We particularly need people who are knowledgeable in matters of science. If you can contribute in this area, dig in! [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:22, 20 November 2014 (EST)

::Sam, you can contribute constructively to Conservapedia, or you can pick fights on the Main Page talk page. You cannot do both. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 17:16, 21 November 2014 (EST)

:::'''Of course''' Sam can contribute constructively to Conservapedia whilst disagreeing with certain other editors. He's been doing it for years..... and more strength to his arm. There are not enough Sams these days. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:36, 21 November 2014 (EST)

==Subject Matter Experts==
I recently had to deal with a case of someone making an edit to a chemistry article (with a note that he has a chemistry degree, which of course we can't verify, but it very well may be true) that was reverted. It's true that his use of "subjective" and "objective" could give the wrong impression to non-experts, and I have cleaned it up. But it just needed to be cleaned up. (The cleanup that someone did afterwards was ridiculous.) '''This person was blocked''', apparently just because of that edit. This should not have happened. Quite a number of good contributors, and potential good contributors—we'll never know—have been reverted and blocked because the people with blocking powers did not know how to evaluate the edits.
Now Conservapedia often has people come here and make stupid/parody/vandalism edits. But it is monitored constantly by the sysops. It is not necessary for people to be trigger-happy. Except of course for clear vandalism.
I would suggest a page, probably in the Conservapedia namespace rather than "mainspace", listing subject matter experts who can make expert analyses of these things. The list should be publicized to all sysops. Contributors can volunteer as experts in various subjects. And sysops could hold off on reverting questionable edits until an expert opinion is rendered. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:45, 28 November 2014 (EST)

=====Best Troll Detection of the Public=====

:You have no proof that '''the person who was blocked''' was merely a Subject Matter Expert and not a '''troll''' as well. This ought to be dealt with by the Best Troll Detection of the Public. Trolling techniques include emphasizing words (when the logic of argument doesn't require it) to trample over anticipated reasonable opposition to one's argument with raw emotion as well as arguing about things on the Main Page talk page that don't appear on the Main Page. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 10:55, 29 November 2014 (EST)
I can assure you that, in my 7 years here, I have developed a good sense for the kinds of vandals, trolls, parodists, sycophants, "mall cops", and other unsavory personalities that we have. I also notice other fascinating types of people, like those who complain about posting to this page not on the topic of improving the main page content while making quite a few such postings themselves (though, in fairness, they also make on-topic postings, which I rarely do), people who [[User_talk:SamHB#Spammer|did not realize that they had been given blocking powers until I told them]], and people who use [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page&diff=1110822&oldid=1110821 spectacularly recondite sentences] while attacking other contributors. You see, I've been around for a while.

On the matter of making posts to this page that are not directly on the topic of improving the content of the main page, I'm sure you know that, for several years, this page has been used for a discussion of CP in general, and that everyone, including Andy and the other admins, is OK with that. A more natural place for such discussion might have been a general discussion page such as [[Conservapedia:Desk]], but, as you can see, it has rarely been used of late. There is actually a (an?) historical reason, from a few years back, for this. I won't bore everyone with the details, but you can email me if you are interested.

Regarding my "subject matter experts" comment above, I wasn't asking for people who are good at detecting trolls. We already have plenty of people (including myself) who are good at this, and plenty of people (including you) who are good at dealing with them. We probably already have the "Best Troll Detection of the Public". I was requesting "subject matter experts", which we don't really have very many of, or don't know who they are on various topics, and requesting that subject matter expertise be used in deciding whether to revert an edit.

In the case of the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Chemical_compound&diff=1118592&oldid=1118584 molar mass] edit, I was well aware that this person might be a troll—his use of the recondite (there's that word again) terms "subjective" and "objective" in a description of quantitative chemical analysis was a bit suspicious—these are quasi-philosophical terms that might be considered provocative on a wiki like this. But he also knew what molar mass means. His change was a vast improvement over the "fuel quantity" phrase. The article just needed to have the "subjective" and "objective" words taken out, which I have done. The person did know his subject matter. There was no urgency in reverting his edit.

A suggestion, Vargas: Let's both try to be nice. You do good work when you're not talking about "withering patrician disdain". We can both do better than fight with each other.

Maybe I should have spent the day shopping instead of this :-) [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:02, 1 December 2014 (EST)

:I will not disregard Andy's express instructions at the top of the page! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 16:12, 2 December 2014 (EST)

::Fair enough. I will try to abide by that policy also. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 17:11, 6 December 2014 (EST)
:::I would be interested to hear what Andy thinks of the "subject matter expert" approach. Wikipedia generally hates experts and does everything to drive them away as editors. Many of the early CP articles were written by home-schooled students. We then had Ed Poor spending years curating a large number of articles. A few other editors undertook work in particular areaa of expertise such as AlanE and BHathorn. I suspect that Andy has his own lists of experts in the back of his mind, if not written down. The problem is that everyone believes that they are an expert while management may not agree with that assessment. So, we have to see whether this proposal is compatible with the "best of the public" concept. Thanks for raising it. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 07:16, 7 December 2014 (EST)

== Growing Conservapedia's conservative readership and editor base ==

Now that Conservapedia's Twitter link on the main page, two things:

1. We could organize our wiki editors to create/expand conservative articles in order to feature them on the Twitter feed.

2. Twitter is popular among conservatives. This book shows people how to attract 200 Twitter fans every single day: http://www.amazon.com/Twitter-Followers-Step---Step-guaranteed-ebook/dp/B00KEX694O/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1417623658&sr=8-3&keywords=twitter+marketing The book is only $1.00 and it should be easy to implement. If it was implemented, the Twitter account would go from 10,000 Twitter fans/followers to 83,000 fans/followers in one year.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:30, 3 December 2014 (EST)
:Has anyone considered taking out some modest ($50-$100) number of Facebook advertising? We could use it to drive traffic to the site and to recruit new editors. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:34, 15 December 2014 (EST)
::Wschact, create a web page called [[Conservapedia: New editors wanted]] which I will feature on the main page. I can also talk to Andy about various ways to drive traffic to the page like online advertising, etc.

::It will not be Facebook advertising because Andy dislikes Facebook. Of course, if you want to take out a Facebook advert to have it go to [[Conservapedia: New editors wanted]], you could certainly do so.

::Regardless, the main page will give the page [[Conservapedia: New editors wanted]] some traffic. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:34, 15 December 2014 (EST)

== Make the username policy more clear ==

:Copied on over from [[Help talk:How To Create a Conservapedia Account]]

I think it should be made clear that the username '''must''' include your real name, as opposed to ''recommending'' your real name; perhaps there could be a help page on Conservapedia's username policy. A few users have been blocked for violating an otherwise nonexistent policy (and also advised to create an account with a real name even though their account creation is disabled for two years). A clear username policy would probably be beneficial for Conservapedia. -- [[User:DanielJackson|DanielJackson]] 10:46, 6 December 2014 (EST)

== Conservative's "Message Area" ==

I seem to be unable to edit it, despite wanting to discuss something with him. As such I put out a general request for a way to contact him or for him to unlock his message area. Hopefully I'm not missing something really obvious! [[User:Nhodgson|Nhodgson]] 20:18, 6 December 2014 (EST)

:You would do well to just ignore him. There's really nothing that you could discuss with him. He is notoriously secretive, seeming to believe that other people go along with his games, and he often locks his own talk page, and the talk pages of his "pet" articles. He seems to expect other people to go along with his fantasy that he might be multiple people. Just ignore him. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 21:37, 6 December 2014 (EST)
::If we could talk to him, we might tell him that his reversion of [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Abraham_Lincoln&curid=3942&diff=1121083&oldid=1084045 this] on purely political grounds was ludicrous and shows a serious failure to observe what is going on. That edit was more than just a minor thing about whether Lincoln was a "classical liberal" or a "post New Deal progressive"—it was blatant and outrageous vandalism, about which most admins are very vigilant. The user ("TheonlySIL", whatever that means) should be blocked permanently. Perhaps some other admin will notice. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 21:48, 6 December 2014 (EST)
Setting aside SamHB's axe to grind because I/we are pro-biblical creationism and anti-Darwinism/liberal Christianity, my/our talk page has just been unlocked.

By the way SamHB, what do you think about the data contained in this article: [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]] ? Can you refute it? It does not appear so! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:00, 7 December 2014 (EST)
:Haven't read it. But thanks for unlocking your talk page, Could you keep it that way, please? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:52, 11 December 2014 (EST)
::SamHB, may lock it again if I/we become extremely busy for an extended period or for other reasons which I/we prefer not to discuss. The talk pages of articles I/we created/contributed can certainly be used. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:59, 12 December 2014 (EST)

== Categories ==

There are two categories that are treating the same topic: [[:Category:Best of Conservapedia]] and [[:Category:Featured articles]]. How do they differ from each other and should they be merged?--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 14:00, 12 December 2014 (EST)
:My guess is that when authors of articles wanted to get extra views for their articles that they spent a lot of time on, they gave their articles these category labels. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:52, 12 December 2014 (EST)
:So should these categories be deleted?--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 16:01, 12 December 2014 (EST)
::While I have the greatest respect for Cons's diligence in spending a lot of time on her articles, and in getting them recognized (all her past SEO talk, for example), I notice that she does not put them into the the "best of CP" category. So I suspect that even she doesn't think the category is worth much. It does not seem to be noticed much. I just removed two obvious vanity/silliness things from it. Only three things remain. But their authors did put a lot of effort into them, and two of them are "flagship articles" by Andy. So I would consult with him on this. He probably wants a better way to promote the CBP and the Conservative words articles. In fact he has a better way: they are on the main page. So maybe you should ask him whether the "best of CP" category is worth keeping. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:23, 13 December 2014 (EST)
:::SamHB, no true analyst would pretend to know the gender/genders of the editor(s) of the User: Conservative account. Solve the mystery of who/whom edited the [[Atheist actions against homosexuals]] article and you will earn the right to declare the gender/genders using the User: Conservative account to edit.

:::But it is a moot point anyways as the feminine [[Sarah Palin]] has more [[machismo]] than all [[Liberal Christianity|liberal "Christians"]] combined!

:::By the way, have you read the [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]] article yet? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:15, 17 December 2014 (EST)
::::Nope. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:58, 21 December 2014 (EST)

==Purpose of this page==
This page provides a forum for editors to discuss matters related to CP and its policies. Please do not use it as a sandbox for drafting article. You can create your own sandbox by making a subpage of your user page. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:43, 13 December 2014 (EST)
:You're right. I was in a hurry before. Haste makes waste. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:17, 13 December 2014 (EST)
::There was no need to be hasty. You, of all people, must have known that it wouldn't be lost. Take a deep breath before editing.
::Speaking of careless editing, I'm pleased that you correctly used "you're" above, though it took another edit, at 10:17 yesterday, to fix it. Haste makes waste. But your recent edit to the bottom of TAR's talk page has that mistake. You're in need of more care in editing. Take a deep breath (and get some sleep!) now and then. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 11:31, 14 December 2014 (EST)
:::@TAR: I've taken out the rest of your stuff. You can move it to your talk page if you like. You can get it out of the page history, of course; nothing is ever lost unless an admin explicitly vapes it, which I don't think is going to happen. You do not need to worry about vandalism; it's easy to revert. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 11:31, 14 December 2014 (EST)
::::@SamHB, thanks, I didn't know I could make a sandbox page beneath my username page that won't be indexed. I will do that from now on for articles I am working on. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 20:11, 14 December 2014 (EST)
:::::There's a quick-and-easy trick to doing it, that I guess I ought to explain, though you might already know it. To create a new page subordinate to your user page, talk page, whatever, edit the user/talk page, and insert something like
:::::<nowiki>[[User talk:TheAmericanRedoubt/sandbox99|My spiffy subpage]]</nowiki>, and save it. When you look at it, it will be a redlink. Click on it, and you will get something like "this page doesn't exist. If you want to create it, enter the text below." Or something like that. Then paste in you new stuff. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:25, 14 December 2014 (EST)

== Deleting material from talk pages, or, even worse, deleting the page outright ==

Talk page material should not be deleted unless it is truly libelous or detrimental. Talk pages should be an ongoing journal of discussion of the corresponding project page. There is nothing wrong with a talk page being very short, and it is perfectly acceptable, albeit unusual, for an article page's author to say something on the talk page.

I recently had to re-create [[Talk:IP_camera]] to make a comment on the article.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 17:05, 15 December 2014 (EST)
:Is there any way to recover the earlier material. Perhaps Andy or an admin could review the situation? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 06:50, 18 December 2014 (EST)

----

== Two millionth page view for the "Counterexamples to Relativity" page ==

The [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] has just gotten its two millionth hit. It is one of Conservapedia's best-known pages.

It seems that this page is very famous all over the internet. A Google search of Conservapedia+Relativity gets about 8000 hits. (Your mileage may vary; the test was done several months ago.) I didn't look at all of them, but I looked at the first 100, other than the CP article itself. Two were completely neutral and matter-of-fact, one was an item on ask.com that was a discussion of what "theory" means in a scientific sense, and was neutral. The other 97 were all derisive, mocking, contemptuous, and sarcastic.

Now I know that principled people are not deterred by popular opinion. But people might want to ask themselves whether the page has convinced '''anyone''' that Relativity is wrong. Or, more generally, whether it has accomplished anywhere near what its goals were. People might also want to ask themselves whether the counterexamples are objectively correct, and whether Relativity is objectively wrong. Now a lot of the discussion at CP has been about '''what people think about Relativity'''—for example, discussion of Laurence Tribe, and Barack Obama, and the folks that designed the GPS system, and the folks that operate that system, and so on. I'd like to get completely away from consideration of what people think about Relativity. Vox Populi and all that. I'd like to propose 3 questions about '''objective, observable facts,''' and ask the senior admins here to explain them without reference to people's opinions. These are matters of ''fact'' and ''incontrovertible observation''.

#It is known that the perihelion of Mercury precesses, beyond Newtonian calculations, by an amount of about 43 arcseconds per (Earth) century. Without getting bogged down into quibbling over thousandths of an arcsecond, and just using the accepted figure of 43 arcseconds, why do you think this is so? Now there has been extensive discussion at Conservapedia over the possibility that the exponent in the "inverse square law" is not exactly 2. People have argued over whether or not that satisfies some principle of theoretical elegance, or makes integration easier, or whatever. I'm not interested in any of that. What I am interested in is that ''it doesn't work''. That theory was proposed by Hall and Newcomb about 100 years ago, and quickly discarded, because it predicts a completely wrong precession for the Moon. So, why do you think this precession occurs? Do you have some theory of gravity that correctly predicts the precession of Mercury, other planets, the Moon, and Earth satellites?
#:
#It is known that the received frequency of GPS satellite clock signals is about 0.44 parts per trillion faster than the frequency at which the signals were transmitted from the satellite. This discrepancy is well known, and there is circuitry in the satellites to compensate for it. Minuscule as this discrepancy is, compensating for it is essential to the correct operation of the system. Without getting into what people believed or were thinking about when the system was designed, or what people believe or think about when they upload correction parameters, why does this discrepancy exist?
#:
#It is known that the mass of a Radium-226 atom (including the electrons--it makes no difference in the final outcome) is 226.025403 amu. When it undergoes alpha decay, it turns into an atom of Radon-222 (222.017571 amu) and an atom of Helium (4.002603 amu). This constitutes a loss of .005229 amu. Why is that? Is the law of conservation of mass not correct?

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:18, 17 December 2014 (EST)

:RESPONSE:

::#The precession of the perihelion of Mercury '''''disproves''''' Relativity. People stopped reporting the discrepancy as technology provided greater precision; yet Relativists still insist that this proves their theory when the actual data disproves it. Newtonians are honest about the issue. Why can't liberal Relativists publicly admit that the data disproves their theory? Every scientist knows that if he questions or criticizes Relativity, then he disqualifies himself from ever winning a Nobel Prize (see, e.g., Robert Dicke), obtaining a doctorate, or receiving any research funding.
::#There are a variety of possible explanations for the GPS discrepancy, starting with the obvious plausibility that the laws of physics are not invariant at every point in the universe. An honest, open-minded discussion of the issue would likely yield some valuable insights.
::#There is nothing startling about an emission or loss of energy when something decays. It certainly does not prove Relativity.

::Liberals make false statements about science all the time. Jimmy Carter became president by claiming that oil would run out in 35 years. There is nothing new about liberals misusing science to advance liberal goals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 17 December 2014 (EST)

:::"''There is nothing startling about an emission or loss of energy when something decays. It certainly does not prove Relativity. ''" - So, you do accept the equivalence of mass and energy, as SamHB was talking about the loss of mass! That's good news... Or maybe, you want to rephrase your point #3. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:55, 21 December 2014 (EST)

::::It requires an enormous leap of [[faith]], far more than is suggested by the [[Bible]], to go from what I said to the silly, illogical ''E=mc2'' equation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:12, 21 December 2014 (EST)

:::::Does it really? SamHB described a process where '''mass''' disappears - you answered that ''there is nothing startling about an emission or loss of '''energy'''''. This gives the impression that you think of mass and energy as somewhat interchangeable. I know that you don't think so, that's why I asked for you to ''"rephrase your point #3"''. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:26, 21 December 2014 (EST)

::::::When something decays to a lower energy state it can emit energy. That is not relativity, that is not E=mc2, and that is not "mass-energy equivalence."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:53, 21 December 2014 (EST)

:::::::Agreed - but you are talking about '''energy'''. The question is where is the '''mass''' of .005229 amu? (Take a look [[Talk:E=mc²#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft and Walton|here]]...)--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:56, 21 December 2014 (EST)

::::::::You rely on primitive technology used in an 82-year-old experiment. The technology is far better now, and the claim of mass-energy equivalence cannot be verified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:51, 21 December 2014 (EST)

I had not intended for this to re-open the entire discussion, including the Cockcroft-Walton experiment. Aside from pointing out the 2 millionth view, the goal was to ask 3 '''very narrowly drawn''' questions. So narrowly drawn that they '''were not about relativity!'''. Not directly, anyway. They were about 3 observable phenomena, and the intent was to ask for explanations, relativity or otherwise, about them. For the second and third questions, Andy sort of did give explanations, though they were totally unsatisfactory by the standards of contemporary science.

I specifically asked for explanations that were indpependent of people's opinions, beliefs, or behavior. I guessed that Andy would either ignore the questions, or give off-topic answers. I got the latter. I got comments about relativity, honesty of "Newtonians", "relativists", liberalism, Nobel prizes, doctorates, research funding, Robert Dicke, Jimmy Carter, oil, and discrepancies with modern measuring technology. (Really? Are you saying that the anomalous precession ''does not occur''? It's been observed since 1843. Are you saying that modern measurements show that the precession is zero, and that Leverrier was seeing something that isn't there?).

Let me restate the questions in their simplest possible form. Note that I am not asking about relativity.
#Anomalous precession. Why does it occur?
#:
#Time dilation. Why does it occur?
#:
#Non-conservation of mass. Why does it occur?

Andy did give a sort of explanation for the 2nd and 3rd of these: "The laws of physics are not invariant at every point" and "There is nothing startling [about this]".

Here is why those answers are completely unsatisfactory. Suppose that Johannes Kepler, when presented with Tycho Brahe's exhaustive data on planetary motion, including the puzzling retrograde motion of Mars, Jupier, and Saturn, had simply said "Well, I guess that, at some points in the Solar System, at some times, some planets go backward for a while." Or "There's nothing startling about this, Mars sometimes just goes backwards." He would simply be abandoning science to the capriciousness of nature. He didn't do that. He was a '''SCIENTIST'''. He looked for an ''explanation''. He and Isaac Newton worked out a formulation that explained it. They didn't just say that the laws of nature are just something random at various places in the solar system, they came up with a physical law that was valid (relative to the measurements of the day) ''at all places and times in the Solar System''.

The time dilation in the Earth's gravitational field is not just something random. It is known, and explained, with great precision. You can set your clock by it. (Literally!) To not be startled, or at least intrigued, by the time dilation, when time can be measured, and found not to dilate, between two points that are at the same altitude, shows a serious lack of scientific curiosity. Can you come up with a theory that explains this phenomenon quantitatively?

The same thing goes for the mass discrepancy. Conservation of mass had been known, with extreme precision, by 1900. Scientists were in fact startled and intrigued by its non-conservation. By the way, it can be measured with greater accuracy now than 82 years ago, and it still holds, or do you deny that it happens? Can you cite modern precise measurements that show that the discrepancy is zero? Can you come up with a theory that explains this phenomenon quantitatively?

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:58, 21 December 2014 (EST)

:I did specifically respond to your three points, and then days went by without a reply from you. Again, the anomalous precession disproves Relativity just as it conflicts with one model of Newtonian gravity in the solar system. Why is there an anomalous precession? The Newtonian model can be tweaked to explain it; Relativity cannot. An honest discussion by scientists of the data would advance the understanding, rather than scientists pretending that the precession proves Relativity (it doesn't).

:Second, time dilation is not directly shown by anything, and certainly not by GPS. The slight variations can be explained by classical physics, or by recognizing that physical laws are probably not invariant across the universe.

:Third, the evidence for non-conservation of mass is almost non-existent, with the leading experiment more than 80 years out of date. But I don't think mass is necessarily always conserved, and Newtonian physics does not depend on it. [[Quantum mechanics]] may have the potential -- if pursued with an open mind -- to shed light on this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:16, 22 December 2014 (EST)

::I'm not interested in what the anomalous precession proves or doesn't prove, or what scientists pretend that it proves or doesn't prove. I want to know why it occurs. The Newtonian model can be tweaked to explain it? Can you say what the tweak is? I hope it's not the Hall-Newcomb exponent tweak that was proved to be incorrect almost immediately after it was proposed. Do you have another tweak in mind?

::Time dilation is most definitely shown, both by GPS, and by the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959. This can be explained by classical physics? Really? Can you give us details? Can you give us a Johannes-Kepler-the-scientist type of explanation, that goes beyond the cop-out of saying that the laws of physics are simply different in different parts of the universe? "Different parts of the universe" is a far bigger chunk of real estate than is needed to show the effect. The Pound-Rebka experiment involved different parts of the ''same building'', and GPS exhibits the discrepancy between different parts of medium Earth orbit. We should have a pretty good handle on how physics works in the vicinity of the Earth. Newton's law of gravitation worked over the whole solar system.

::Evidence for non-conservation of mass is not "almost non-existent"; it is ubiquitous. The specific case of Radium alpha decay can be found on the periodic table charts hanging in high-school science classrooms. "I don't think mass is necessarily always conserved"—well at least you qualified it with "necessarily always", but can you be more specific? To a degree that Johannes-Kepler-the-scientist would respect? You are quite right in that Newtonian physics does not depend on it, but that's not what I was asking.

::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:38, 22 December 2014 (EST)

:::Andy: ''"You rely on primitive technology used in an 82-year-old experiment. The technology is far better now, and the claim of mass-energy equivalence cannot be verified."'' No, the experiment is routinely performed in courses on modern physics around the world, using modern technology. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:37, 22 December 2014 (EST)

::::On the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, tweaking the Newtonian model almost certainly can fit the data. Some objected to anything other than an exponent of precisely -2 for the force, because that muddies up the math, but that is a silly objection. The reality, however, is that anyone who pursues this approach is deemed an enemy of Relativity and won't get another research grant, doctorate, or Nobel prize. Nothing but radio silence by the Relativity promoters about that obvious reality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:01, 22 December 2014 (EST)

:::::''"On the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, tweaking the Newtonian model almost certainly can fit the data."'' That's just a canard - and you know it, Andy: yes, the exponent of Newton's law of gravity can be tweaked (or error terms added), but this results in a model which doesn't fit all the other planets. That's known since Simon Newcomb's days - and [[User:SamHB]] elaborated on this '''[[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity?|nearly five years ago]]'''! The first time you came up with this idea, you could have pretended to be ignorant on this subject. But you repeat it over and over again, without having done the calculations, or looking up why physicists discarded the idea a hundred years ago! That's worse than ignorance, that's willful ignorance.
:::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:36, 28 December 2014 (EST)

Let's not be too hasty with judgements about ignorance, willful or otherwise. Let's see if we can get to the bottom of this (and the other two phenomena). We're making good progress by drawing the questions very narrowly.

I believe that Andy has indeed read the relevant items, like [[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity?|this page]] from nearly five years ago, and [[Relativity#Experiments that Fail to Prove Relativity|this section]], with its table of precessions of the planets. (I did not put in the phrase "fail to", by the way.)

So let's go over the situation again, extremely carefully. The bulk of the table was from me, though the all-important final column was added by [[User:Jloveday]], using some experimental data that he dug up. I'm not in full agreement with the way he rounded the data, but the effect is clear. Even though getting good error bounds on the minuscule precession of planets beyond Mercury is very difficult, one can easily see, from the last few columns, that General Relativity tracks the observed precession very well, while the Newcomb-Hall tweak of 2.000000157 tracks it extremely poorly. Except for Mercury, of course, since the exponent was tweaked specifically for that planet.

So, Andy: What is the tweak to Newtonian mechanics that explains the precession for all the planets? And, while we're at it, can you give a satisfactory explanation for the other two phenomena, time dilation and mass non-conservation?

Andy also says: "Some objected to anything other than an exponent of precisely -2 for the force, because that muddies up the math, but that is a silly objection." I agree, it's silly. Though I am a little curious about who these "some" are. Can you cite something on the subject? Perhaps one of your physics textbooks?

Also: "The reality, however, is that anyone who pursues this approach is deemed an enemy of Relativity and won't get another research grant, doctorate, or Nobel prize." As I said earlier, I'm not interested in the personalities; I just want to know why you think the precession occurs. (Actually, that's not true. I ''am'' deeply interested in the history of science and technology. But not right now. We can discuss that some other time.) So I'll make you an offer: If you get turned down for a research grant, doctorate, or Nobel prize over this, I'll stick up for you. I'll cite the spirited debate you and I have been having over the last several years as evidence that you've thought deeply about these issues. Though I don't think I have much influence over funding agencies or Nobel committees. :-)

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 19:12, 29 December 2014 (EST)

==Categories==
I generally have a "live and let live" attitude towards the edits of others on CP, and don't want to criticize any particular editor. However, CP has experienced over time that editors come here from Wikipedia, where there are millions of articles and a very high number of Categories. Because CP is much smaller, we have opted for fewer categories, Over the past day, someone has created a bunch of new categories like [[:Category:Conservative Authors]]. [[:Category:Christian Authors]], etc. Such narrow new categories will make a lot more work for everyone and may discourage editors from categorizing their articles. Perhaps Andy and management could please take a look? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 06:58, 18 December 2014 (EST)

== To my liberal, sissy boy, atheist critics of guns in Texas! ==

Gentlemen, consider this picture of [http://www.andrewtonnphoto.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=796 Amish women shooting rifles]. When is the last time you heard of Amish women going on shooting rampages? :)

Amish women do not watch violent video games or watch television shows and/or movies with gratuitous violence! See [[Hollywood values]]. And unlike Muslims, the only beheadings Amish women read about is David beheading Goliath (and we know Goliath deserved it for defying the armies of the living God!).

Amish women are peaceful creationists and not violent evolutionists (see: [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]] and [[World War I and Darwinism]] and [[Evolutionary racism]]),

Amish women are loyal wives and are less likely to have their husbands go on jealous/violent rampages (see: [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]]). And Amish men have submissive wives and do not endlessly quarrel with stubborn, feminist wives! And irreligious men are more likely beat their wives/girlfriends than religious men (see: [[Irreligion and domestic violence]]).

Gentlemen, it is the dysfunctional liberals and liberal influence that causes much of the violence in Texas. No true conservative goes on a gun rampage! When is the last time you heard of a gun rampage occurring due to a student in a Bible believing Christian school? Never, my liberal, atheist friends? If only Texas wasn't creating so many jobs and a magnet to unemployed and undisciplined liberals fleeing their liberal welfare states!

And remember this, guns are an insurance policy for rogue states. Surely, you have read about such states (see: [[Atheism and Mass Murder]] and [[Evolutionary racism|Evolution and Nazi Germany]]).

Gentlemen, I hope this clarifies matters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:47, 17 December 2014 (EST)
::By the way, don't even think about saying that the Amish are pacifists and would not kill in self-defense.

::Would an Amish man use violence to protect his wife? Did David eat the show bread?[http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/438/how-does-jesus-argument-from-david-and-the-show-bread-work] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:00, 17 December 2014 (EST)
:::Thank you for giving up your precious time to add these insights to the talk page, Conservative. The world would be a better place if more wives followed your example. [[User:JSamson|JSamson]] 17:25, 17 December 2014 (EST)
::::No true skeptic pretends to know the gender/genders of the editor(s) of the User: Conservative account. Solve the mystery of who/whom edited the [[Atheist actions against homosexuals]] article and you will earn the right to declare the gender/genders using the User: Conservative account to edit.

::::But it is a moot point anyways as the feminine [[Sarah Palin]] has more [[machismo]] than all liberal atheists combined! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:45, 17 December 2014 (EST)
:::::I thought there was to be no further additions from the User: conservative account on the talk page? Perhaps one of the members did not get the memo? -[[User:JaysonK|JaysonK]] 13:51, 18 December 2014 (EST)
::::::Buckling down on time management. Plan to post less on talk pages. Revised plans about talk pages. Will post on talk pages when it is related to article/wiki improvement. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:54, 18 December 2014 (EST)

== References ==

<references/>

== A project for active editors to collaborate on ==

Would you anyone like to collaborate with other editors on a wiki project to help Conservapedia be a strong resource for a given topic.

The topic could be decided by the editors participating.

If you are interested, please leave comments below. I suggest picking a leader/leaders for the project or least assign people for various tasks associated with the project. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:50, 25 December 2014 (EST)

:I would be happy to help, but my time is limited.[[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 22:06, 25 December 2014 (EST)

::Merry Christmas Cons, and thanks for the thought. I think, however, that I would tend to become a "Devil's Advocate" in any collaboration I can envisage. The token liberal so to speak (and I say that with no malice.) I will need to know more. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:21, 25 December 2014 (EST)
:::AlanE, it doesn't have to be a political project. It can be on a non-political topic. I will let whoever participates decide on the topic and whether or not it will be a political project.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:44, 25 December 2014 (EST)
:::::If AlanE and [[FOIA]] and anyone else who joins wants to decide on a topic tomorrow, the project can start right away. It can be announced on the main page also.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:33, 25 December 2014 (EST)

: I'd be happy to join in and help in any way I can. Merry Christmas. I have been and will mostly focus on the articles [[List of military tactics]] and [[List of military strategies and concepts]]. Long life the Republic! [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 01:33, 26 December 2014 (EST)

:Your invitation was an honor, and I thank you for your confidence. I will be happy to help. As soon as I finish my current "Bible" project, I will look more closely at what you have here and see what I can do. ''Semper Fi!'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] 19:00, 26 December 2014 (EST)
::Sounds great. Thanks for tackling the project. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:16, 27 December 2014 (EST)
=== Ideas for potential articles ===

Political:

*[[Republican beliefs]]

*[[21st Century Republican Party]]

*[[Differences between Republicans and Democrats]]

*[[Social conservatism]] (article needs to be improved)

*<s>[[Islamic terrorism]] (article needs to be improved)</s>

*[[Political fundraising]]

*[[Kim Jong-un]] (article needs to be improved)

*[[Tiananmen Square massacre]] (article needs to be improved)

Less political:

*[[Modern slavery]]

*[[Republican presidents]]

*[[List of military tactics]]

*<s>[[List of military strategies and concepts]]</s>

*[[Socio-cultural indoctrination]]

*[[Rugged individualism vs Christian community (body of Christ)]]

Non-political:

*[[Dog training]]

*[[Chess strategy]]

*[[Marathon]] (needs to be expanded)

*[[Tourism]] (needs to be expanded)

Feel free to add article ideas [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:32, 26 December 2014 (EST)

== Do we really have so few responsible editors ..... ==

that obsessed individuals can materially change the tone and direction of Conservapedia with no one to apply the brakes.? Remember when this was supposed to be a resource for home-school students? A place where they could look up "vibration", for example, and get a concise definition of what it is, at their level, without going off into mystical medical cults? Remember when [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvT5YuDovHI this] was a good description of Conservapedia's vision and goals?

What happened? We now have just a tiny number of people turning the place into a survivalist blog, and an herbal medicine blog, or whatever, with hardly anyone to apply editorial direction. This wiki needs supervision.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 18:30, 2 January 2015 (EST)

:Things like [[:Category:Ayurvedic Medicine]] look very troubling indeed! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:58, 3 January 2015 (EST)
:: I agree with you there AugustO, I would say the content in those articles would be more at home on hippypedia or alternaticemedicinepedia than on conservapedia. Remember, conservatives like to have things backed up by facts, not nonsensical anecdotes that are the backbone of alternative medicine. [[User:PhilH|PhilH]] 02:15, 3 January 2015 (EST)

==Response to [[User:SamHB]], [[User:PhilH]] and [[User:AugustO]] Regarding Ayurvedic - Chinese - Western Herbal Medicine on Conservapedia==

I am reposting-quoting here [[User:AugustO]]'s post on [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Ayurvedic_medicine]] in order to see why I am making such a detailed point-by-point response.

"You know me as conservative on social or fiscal issues, but my conservatism reaches its zenith on medicine. I am very dedicated to Western medicine, and run away from "new age" or other fringe medicine approaches. Andy, you have to draw a line here on whether Conservapedia has the expertise and resources to cover Ayurvedic medicine properly. I doubt that we do and should stay away from it completely. Please decide and tell [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] you decision. Many thanks for all that you do for the Conservative movement. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 21:42, 2 January 2015 (EST)
:[[:Category:Ayurvedic Medicine]] is like an advert for alternative medicine: it has 110 subcategories and is itself in 26 categories:
::[[:Category:Ayurvedic Medicine]]|[[:Category:Tibetan Medicine]]|[[:Category:Complementary Medicine]]|[[:Category:Medicine]]|[[:Category:Health Care]]|[[:Category:Traditional Chinese Medicine]]|[[:Category:Naturopathic Medicine]]|[[:Category:Herbalism]]|[[:Category:Medicinal Plants]]|[[:Category:Herbs]]|[[:Category:Spices]]|[[:Category:Plants used in Traditional Chinese Medicine]]|[[:Category:Plants used in Ayurvedic Medicine]]|[[:Category:Plants used in Western Herbal Medicine]]|[[:Category:Herbalists‎]]|[[:Category:Health]]|[[:Category:Survivalism]]|[[:Category:India]]|[[:Category:Tibet]]|[[:Category:Nepal]]|[[:Category:Mongolia]]|[[:Category:Burma]]|[[:Category:Thailand]]|[[:Category:Sri Lanka]]|[[:Category:Asia]]|[[:Category:Southeast Asia]]|
:That could be a kind of record! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:04, 3 January 2015 (EST)

===Response to [[User:Wschact]] and [[User:AugustO]] Regarding Ayurvedic - Chinese - Western Herbal Medicine on Conservapedia ===
:: Happy New Year [[User:Aschlafly]], [[User:Wschact]], [[User:AugustO]], [[User:Conservapedia]], and [[User:Karajou]]

Thank you for your patience with this detailed point-by-point response.

Like you [[User:Wschact]], I too am a steadfast conservative, but on much more than just social and fiscal issues, as my thousands of conservative point-of-view Conservapedia edits can attest to (Please see my [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] for more information). Also like you [[User:Wschact]], I too am very dedicated to Western medicine and work together with a medical doctor with a busy private practice office in a large hospital setting where he and I integrate both modern pharmaceutical based treatment and the use of custom made Ayurvedic-Chinese-Western herbal formulas, nutrition (based on Ayurvedic and Chinese medicine concepts) and acupuncture. He supervises my practice in that setting. Like you [[User:Wschact]], both he and I also run away from the myriad "new age" medicine approaches. However, Ayurvedic medicine, Chinese medicine - Acupuncture and Western herbal medicine are not "new age". Ayurveda and Chinese medicine - Acupuncture have been in continuous use since at least 250 B.C. according to archaeological evidence and extant classic medical texts in both Chinese characters, Tibetan and Sanskrit (which I can read by the way in Devanagari script).

Conservapedia does indeed have the expertise and resources to cover Ayurvedic medicine and Chinese medicine - acupuncture properly since I am contributing as a dedicated regular editor and have joined the [[Wikiproject:Medicine]] to lend my ongoing support editing/categorizing ALL articles in the realm of medicine / anatomy in addition to my other subject matter expertise areas on my User Page / Talk Page.

[[User:PhilH]] has said there is no clinical evidence to support complementary medicine. Not according to the U.S. National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine of the National Institutes of Health who funds clinical trials on herbal medicines effectiveness, not according to medical doctors in America who integrate modern medicine with complementary medicine, not according to numerous conservatives who rely on complementary medicine including Western herbalism, Chinese Medicine, Ayurveda and Acupuncture. Just the fact that there is licensing for acupuncture in most of the U.S. states (majority of states require the licensing examination or certification, and several states allow oriental medicine practitioners to be "primary care providers" for legal and insurance purposes; nineteen states specifically include Chinese herbology instead of just acupuncture). For naturopathic medicine 17 states, five Canadian provinces, the District of Columbia, and the US territories of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands all have laws regulating naturopathic doctors (See map http://aanmc.org/images/LicensureMapBig.jpg -- even very conservative states such as my home state of Idaho in the [[American Redoubt]], along with Montana and Utah license naturopathy).

All of this attests to complementary medicine's broader acceptance, not to mention the size of the herbal market in the U.S. economy: For herbal medicine "overall sales reached $5.6 billion in 2012" "rising from $4.2 billion in 2000" (http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Markets/Herbal-supplement-sales-rose-5.5-in-US-in-2012-ABC-says)

There are many conservatives blogs and forums that I follow that have regular articles on complementary medicine and herb usage. Complementary/alternative medicine is not some liberal, hippie or New Age thing. It is even paid for by many insurance companies now. There is worker's comp coverage for it in certain U.S. states.

Regarding evidence in my articles, I will indeed be submitting footnoted hyperlinked clinical evidence from MedLine / PubMed.

Regarding the [[:Category:Ayurvedic Medicine]] having lots of sub-categories: There are many sub-categories in the Ayurvedic medicine category since it is a broad science including many diverse health and disease topics and since I am a very detail oriented person as you can see with my contributions for the firearms categorizations (which formerly were all lumped into just the Category of "Guns"). I am using that [[:Category:Ayurvedic Medicine]] and its temporarily numerous subcategories as a way of '''temporarily''' getting a broad view and tracking ability of ALL of the medicine-anatomy categories and articles in order to update them all over the coming months. I promise that I will pare that category down in the next 60 days to something smaller once I have updated-edited-expanded '''ALL''' of the medicine/anatomy related articles to follow a consistent yet detailed categorization scheme. I always start first with detailed Wiki categories in order to flesh out the scope-breadth-depth and a logical structure for the articles I will submit. I am doing the same detailed categorization for Firearms and other areas.

[[User:Conservative]] has been "mentoring" me as to what I should and shouldn't post. I have been following this for guidance as well: [[Conservapedia:Editorial_authority]]. I also received advice from [[User:Karajou]] on Sat, 26 Apr 2014 23:15:17 by e-mail (conservapedia AT zoho.com) who said, "Try your hand at writing complete articles. Conservapedia is not just something containing conservative thought; it is also intended to be a family encyclopedia, so it has to have info on planes, trains, automobiles, animals, sports teams, camera systems, or whatever else comes to mind. So, if you happen to be an expert on - say, rowboats - write an article on rowboats. Karajou".

Thus, following Karajou's advice above and oversight from [[User:Conservative]], I am writing "whatever comes to mind" on what I "happen to be an expert on". Thus, I have be developing a lot of detailed articles and their categorizations for my 6 areas of specialization (in order of my depth of subject matter expertise): 1. Medicine, 2. Computer networks (17 years professional experience), 3. [[Preparedness]]-Survivalism, 4. [[Firearm]]s, 5. [[Permaculture]] [[gardening]], 6. [[Radio communication technologies]] - [[Amateur radio]]. Being a staunch American conservative libertarian "prepper" [[gun enthusiast|"gun nut"]], I obviously write/edit from that perspective.

For these and many other reasons, I don't see a reason for Conservapedia to stay away from complementary medicine completely as you suggest [[User:Wschact]]. Thus, I will continue to contribute such works to Conservapedia until I am told to stop by any of the CP Administrators such as [[User:Aschlafly]], [[User:Conservative]], or user [[User:Karajou]].

Thank you to you all for your work for our Conservative movement. Godspeed. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 06:57, 3 January 2015 (EST)

=="[[Troll]]" Editing by [[User:SamHB]] of Numerous articles I am Working on / Editing / Contributing ==

[[User:SamHB]], First you accuse me of plagiarizing, then you delete my citation correcting your speedy deletion template notice. Are you "[[Troll]]ing" perhaps ("[[Troll|users who purposely make disruptive edits are considered trolls]]") like your friends [[User:PhilH]] and this other friend of yours who made the comment on [[Talk:Free_state]]?

[[User:SamHB]], Please follow these Guidelines rather than making disruptive edits to further your agenda: [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#90.2F10_Rule]]

[[User:SamHB]], Looking at your contribution here: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=SamHB

[[User:SamHB]], I see that the last time you actually contributed any kind new article other than a Talk Page was here 2 years and 6 months ago:
18:54, 1 June 2013 (diff | hist) New! Propositional Calculus ‎ (A start. Ed, it's time for you to step up to the plate (See? I do know a few metaphores, though I'm not a TopDog!) and fill out this article.)

Looking at your contribution logs, a large amount of your recent edits in the last 30 days have been reverting my edits.

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tinospora_cordifolia&action=history:
08:11, 4 January 2015 SamHB (Talk | contribs | block) (7,439 bytes) (Do not "spam" links to extrenal commercial websites. People are routinely banned for that.) (undo)

17:07, 2 January 2015 SamHB (Talk | contribs | block) (6,798 bytes) (If you really think blatantly plagiarized material should stay, please post a note to the community portal explaining this.) (undo)

[[User:SamHB]], It seems you are not listening to my previous Talk page on these articles. This is the second time I am telling you this. Please kindly listen this time and stop [[troll]] editing.

[[User:SamHB]], these links you deleted are ''''not'''' Spam links to external sites. It is a temporary citation for a quote I made to start the rough draft of the article -- the "ref" is to a respected and authoritative source of information on this herb; just as IBM would be an authoritative and respected cite regarding IBM Mainframe computers. Once I type in quotes and/or paraphrase summaries from some of my numerous Ayurvedic herb books listed here [[Tinospora_cordifolia#External_Links]], I will cite them as well to flesh out the article.

Formerly you were here on this very article [[Tinospora cordifolia]] accusing me of plagiarizing by not citing my 1 paragraph quote and nominated the article for deletion. Again, SamHB, please respect as I said before on my user talk page (perhaps you can read it) that I will be completing these articles in the next five days and let me do the editing on my article that I started, otherwise it slows me down to have to constantly go back and check the history of the pager to see if someone is "helping out".

While you can perhaps please consider contributing some new actual articles of your own in your own area of expertise such as math rather than editing one I am in the middle of working on. Thank you for your understanding. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 10:41, 4 January 2015 (EST)

-----

== This Site is Being Hijacked ==

There is no more pleasant way to put that.

This is a continuation of what I wrote above about "Do we really have so few responsible editors". The problem is extremely serious. Ultimately, it is about there being so few people who are responsible, level-headed, and able to put reasonable amounts of time into this, that one person can overwhelm everyone and turn Conservapedia into something far removed from its original goal. The original goal, in case people have forgotten, was a site that home-school students (and others, of course) can use as a general reference source, on a wide variety of topics, without bias from the liberals elsewhere on the Internet.

But [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] is single-handedly steering the site into a very different and troubling direction. Multiple directions, actually. How is he able to do this? '''Because his editing is fanatical, intense, and obsessive, and there aren't enough level-headed editors around who have the time and energy to put the brakes on.'''

He is turning this into a blog on survivalism, one very particular "Vata/Dosha/Ayurvedic" type of nontraditional medicine, and many other things. There is nothing wrong with articles on these topics, but he is overwhelming Conservapedia with his obsessive editing.

He has put dozens and dozens of references to his views on survivalism into a huge number of articles for which such references are totally inappropriate. He seems to think that we should all drop out of society, cash in everything we have into "tangibles" (bullets, beans, batteries, whatever) and move to "redoubt states" like Idaho to spend the rest of our days behind some barricades doing .... I don't know.

His steering of CP into his chosen direction is made all the worse by his fanatical cross-referencing and categorizing. This has put his writings "in your face" when people go to normal topics. For example:

*[[vibration]] used to be a short article explaining what wibration is—a rapid periodic undulating motion. TAR put it into the "VATA" category. When one looks around in same, one finds some new-age touchy-feely nonsense about psychological perceptions of vibration. He polluted [[Fashion industry values]] in the same way.
*Similar irrelevant edits to [[Empirical science]], [[Natural Law]], [[Scientific observation]], [[Color]], [[Hopelessness]], [[Hearing_(sense)]], and [[Salt]].
*Similar survivalist edits to [[Ruthenium]], [[Transformer]] (the electrical device), and [[Wire]] (the electrical conductor).
*He has written extensively about [[amateur radio]], which, as an extra-class licensed ham, I think is fine. But the implication is that hams are just supposed to do this so they can communicate with each other "off the grid" in their "redoubts". I can assure everyone that the vast majority of hams (even those in call sign area 7) are fully engaged in society. We take emergency preparedness very seriously, of course, and have a big annual contest on this topic every year, but this is always done in cooperation with existing local, state, and federal emergency organizations. We have sub-organizations (ARES and RACES) dealing with this. We are very much on the grid and in society, and I object to the implication that we are not.
*His [[IP camera]] article, to pick just one of dozens of examples, links to [[Survivalist retreat]]. This is absurd.

In addition to his fanatical edits to Conservapedia articles that, by themselves, materially alter this site's direction, this huge web of interconnected categories and "see also"s makes it impossible for readers to escape his actions. This is significantly worse than what [[User:Conservative]] has been doing because, in the latter case, one simply needs to ignore any article with "hot button" phrases like "obesity", "evolutionism", "creationism", "atheism", "ponies", "walrus slides", and "long-haired creationist ladies". It's much much harder to escape from [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]]'s behavior.

I urge the administrators to put a stop to this. The rest of us simply can't do it.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:08, 4 January 2015 (EST)
:SamHB, I did a Google search of instances of the phrase "long-haired" on Conservapedia and none of the instances were done by the User: Conservative account. Are you jealous because you suspect that an editor of the User: Conservative account has a long-haired maiden as a sweetheart and you do not? :)

:Second, the odds of you being listened to by Aschlafly in terms of suggestions/complaints, etc. would go dramatically up if you created more content. Right now, I think the odds are pretty much zero given your level of content creation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:21, 4 January 2015 (EST)
:: Quote Right now, I think the odds are pretty much zero given your level of content creation. Doesn't mean SamHB is not right though. The edits from the redoubt are so obviously either parody or highly biased POV pushing that it is difficult to argue otherwise. Woo is not encyclopedic, no matter who peddles the woo. Now I leave both redoubt and the collective known as User:Conservative to indulge in last wordism. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 15:35, 4 January 2015 (EST)
:::Oh, and if the collective editors of the User:conservative account have a long haired maiden as a sweetheart then I would question how multiple people having the same sweetheart is in any way Christian? Seems more liberal hippy type behaviour to me. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 15:37, 4 January 2015 (EST)
::::DavidSpenceer, you may believe that deceitful accusations based on altering the meaning of other people's words is clever. It is not. And it makes the accuser look bad. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:15, 4 January 2015 (EST)
:::::That is not what I was doing and you know it. Luke 4:23 Now, as I said I will leave you and redoubt to indulge in last wordism at this point.[[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 16:17, 4 January 2015 (EST)

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2015-01-04T21:17:54Z

Davidspencer: /* This Site is Being Hijacked */

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>

''This page contains some material that has been moved from [[Talk:Main_Page]]. We are attempting to get general discussion of issues relating to Conservapedia's content and policies on this page, leaving the main talk page for its original purpose of discussing the content of the Main Page.''

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

==Restoring User Pages==

I wonder if you [I was referring to User:Conservative in the original context] would be be so kind as to restore the following user and user-talk pages. Most of these people were long-time respected sysops and administrators, as I'm sure you, being a long-time respected sysop and administrator yourself, well know. Many of our important articles were written by these people. Current users may want to know something about the people that went before them and built Conservapedia. We should show some respect for our history and our founding fathers/mothers.
*[[User:Jallen]]
*[[User:Tash]]
*[[User:Foxtrot]]
*[[User:Ymmotrojam]]
*[[User:DeanS]]
*[[User:TimS]]
*[[User:DanH]]
*[[User:Deborah]]
*[[User:BethanyS]]
*[[User:WilliamBeason]]

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:33, 10 October 2014 (EDT)

:Your suggestion is a reasonable one. I was not in favor of deleting user pages. But once deleted, I don't think it would be time well spent to restore the pages. Time moves on, and time could be better spent by improving substantive entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:37, 11 October 2014 (EDT)

::I can see that all the active users are pretty busy, and are probably disinclined to do this. So how about letting me do it? I'm willing to restore those pages myself. You would have to give me the appropriate temporary rights, which might be "undelete" rights, or maybe full administrator rights, I don't know how this works.

::I'm sure you know, from our many communications, both public and private, that I can be trusted not to harm Conservapedia in any way. During any period in which I have extra rights, I will refrain from annoying, harassing, irritating, teasing, insulting, or otherwise getting under the skin of any other user. I will not react to any taunts. I will not abuse the rights in any way. (Though if my rights include blocking, and I see any vandals come to town, I will of course take action.)

::You didn't want the pages deleted? We can fix that. What say you? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 12:48, 12 October 2014 (EDT)

:There's an extremely troubling aspect to all this. You say you weren't in favor of deleting the pages, and yet, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:JoeyJ&diff=1100430&oldid=1100429 here], Cons says that the owner of the web site was in favor of the deletion. Was Cons lying? Also, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:JoeyJ&diff=1101617&oldid=1100630 here], Cons seems to indicate that he was in communication with you on the subject of giving JoeyJ deletion powers. These powers are not taken lightly. In fact, JoeyJ is the only non-admin who has them. So it looks as though you gave JoeyJ the deletion powers '''knowing full well''' that he would use those powers to delete user pages. What is going on? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:05, 14 October 2014 (EDT)

== God delusion ==

I finished reading the Prof. Dawkin's book. I have to admit that it has shaken my religious foundations... I sometimes wonder whether that has made me an Agnostic now. It has made me question a lot of my upbringing. I was a good catholic girl. I wonder what my mom will say
--[[User:OconnorM|Maria O'Connor]] 12:44, 15 November 2014 (EST)
:Richard Dawkins did not research or fact check his book very well and it has a number of errors in it as can be seen in this PDF version of [http://www.voxday.net/mart/TIA_free.pdf The Irrational Atheist].

:Second, how strong were your foundations before you read the book? How did you build your foundation?

:In the physical life, if you are flabby, don't get enough sleep, etc., it provides an opportunity for disease to enter. The same is true in a person's spiritual life. How familiar are you with the classic [[Arguments for the existence of God|defenses of the existence of God]]? How familiar are you with the various evidences for Christianity? See: [[Christian apologetics websites|Evidence for Christianity]] Did you ever repent of your sins and dedicate your life to following Jesus Christ? How often were you reading your Bible? How often were you praying? What are the most serious arguments against agnosticism? What are the most serious arguments against atheism. See: [[Rebuttals to atheist arguments]].

:Also, Jesus promises that those who repented of their sins and accept Jesus as their Savior and Lord will have communion with Him and will receive the Holy Spirit who will guide them. Did you ever know God or were you just engaging in religious rituals? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:07, 16 November 2014 (EST)

::[http://www.christiantoday.com/article/richard.dawkins.has.had.his.day.says.ravi.zacharias/43042.htm Richard Dawkins has had his day, says Ravi Zacharias] -'' Christianity Today'', November 15, 2014 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:04, 17 November 2014 (EST)

:::@Maria O'Connor: I'm really sorry that you have been abused so badly at Conservapedia. I want you to know that there are quite a number of decent and well-intentioned people here. You should ignore the abusers, and feel welcome to make contributions. We particularly need people who are knowledgeable in matters of science. If you can contribute in this area, dig in! [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:22, 20 November 2014 (EST)

::Sam, you can contribute constructively to Conservapedia, or you can pick fights on the Main Page talk page. You cannot do both. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 17:16, 21 November 2014 (EST)

:::'''Of course''' Sam can contribute constructively to Conservapedia whilst disagreeing with certain other editors. He's been doing it for years..... and more strength to his arm. There are not enough Sams these days. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:36, 21 November 2014 (EST)

==Subject Matter Experts==
I recently had to deal with a case of someone making an edit to a chemistry article (with a note that he has a chemistry degree, which of course we can't verify, but it very well may be true) that was reverted. It's true that his use of "subjective" and "objective" could give the wrong impression to non-experts, and I have cleaned it up. But it just needed to be cleaned up. (The cleanup that someone did afterwards was ridiculous.) '''This person was blocked''', apparently just because of that edit. This should not have happened. Quite a number of good contributors, and potential good contributors—we'll never know—have been reverted and blocked because the people with blocking powers did not know how to evaluate the edits.
Now Conservapedia often has people come here and make stupid/parody/vandalism edits. But it is monitored constantly by the sysops. It is not necessary for people to be trigger-happy. Except of course for clear vandalism.
I would suggest a page, probably in the Conservapedia namespace rather than "mainspace", listing subject matter experts who can make expert analyses of these things. The list should be publicized to all sysops. Contributors can volunteer as experts in various subjects. And sysops could hold off on reverting questionable edits until an expert opinion is rendered. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:45, 28 November 2014 (EST)

=====Best Troll Detection of the Public=====

:You have no proof that '''the person who was blocked''' was merely a Subject Matter Expert and not a '''troll''' as well. This ought to be dealt with by the Best Troll Detection of the Public. Trolling techniques include emphasizing words (when the logic of argument doesn't require it) to trample over anticipated reasonable opposition to one's argument with raw emotion as well as arguing about things on the Main Page talk page that don't appear on the Main Page. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 10:55, 29 November 2014 (EST)
I can assure you that, in my 7 years here, I have developed a good sense for the kinds of vandals, trolls, parodists, sycophants, "mall cops", and other unsavory personalities that we have. I also notice other fascinating types of people, like those who complain about posting to this page not on the topic of improving the main page content while making quite a few such postings themselves (though, in fairness, they also make on-topic postings, which I rarely do), people who [[User_talk:SamHB#Spammer|did not realize that they had been given blocking powers until I told them]], and people who use [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page&diff=1110822&oldid=1110821 spectacularly recondite sentences] while attacking other contributors. You see, I've been around for a while.

On the matter of making posts to this page that are not directly on the topic of improving the content of the main page, I'm sure you know that, for several years, this page has been used for a discussion of CP in general, and that everyone, including Andy and the other admins, is OK with that. A more natural place for such discussion might have been a general discussion page such as [[Conservapedia:Desk]], but, as you can see, it has rarely been used of late. There is actually a (an?) historical reason, from a few years back, for this. I won't bore everyone with the details, but you can email me if you are interested.

Regarding my "subject matter experts" comment above, I wasn't asking for people who are good at detecting trolls. We already have plenty of people (including myself) who are good at this, and plenty of people (including you) who are good at dealing with them. We probably already have the "Best Troll Detection of the Public". I was requesting "subject matter experts", which we don't really have very many of, or don't know who they are on various topics, and requesting that subject matter expertise be used in deciding whether to revert an edit.

In the case of the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Chemical_compound&diff=1118592&oldid=1118584 molar mass] edit, I was well aware that this person might be a troll—his use of the recondite (there's that word again) terms "subjective" and "objective" in a description of quantitative chemical analysis was a bit suspicious—these are quasi-philosophical terms that might be considered provocative on a wiki like this. But he also knew what molar mass means. His change was a vast improvement over the "fuel quantity" phrase. The article just needed to have the "subjective" and "objective" words taken out, which I have done. The person did know his subject matter. There was no urgency in reverting his edit.

A suggestion, Vargas: Let's both try to be nice. You do good work when you're not talking about "withering patrician disdain". We can both do better than fight with each other.

Maybe I should have spent the day shopping instead of this :-) [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:02, 1 December 2014 (EST)

:I will not disregard Andy's express instructions at the top of the page! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 16:12, 2 December 2014 (EST)

::Fair enough. I will try to abide by that policy also. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 17:11, 6 December 2014 (EST)
:::I would be interested to hear what Andy thinks of the "subject matter expert" approach. Wikipedia generally hates experts and does everything to drive them away as editors. Many of the early CP articles were written by home-schooled students. We then had Ed Poor spending years curating a large number of articles. A few other editors undertook work in particular areaa of expertise such as AlanE and BHathorn. I suspect that Andy has his own lists of experts in the back of his mind, if not written down. The problem is that everyone believes that they are an expert while management may not agree with that assessment. So, we have to see whether this proposal is compatible with the "best of the public" concept. Thanks for raising it. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 07:16, 7 December 2014 (EST)

== Growing Conservapedia's conservative readership and editor base ==

Now that Conservapedia's Twitter link on the main page, two things:

1. We could organize our wiki editors to create/expand conservative articles in order to feature them on the Twitter feed.

2. Twitter is popular among conservatives. This book shows people how to attract 200 Twitter fans every single day: http://www.amazon.com/Twitter-Followers-Step---Step-guaranteed-ebook/dp/B00KEX694O/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1417623658&sr=8-3&keywords=twitter+marketing The book is only $1.00 and it should be easy to implement. If it was implemented, the Twitter account would go from 10,000 Twitter fans/followers to 83,000 fans/followers in one year.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:30, 3 December 2014 (EST)
:Has anyone considered taking out some modest ($50-$100) number of Facebook advertising? We could use it to drive traffic to the site and to recruit new editors. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:34, 15 December 2014 (EST)
::Wschact, create a web page called [[Conservapedia: New editors wanted]] which I will feature on the main page. I can also talk to Andy about various ways to drive traffic to the page like online advertising, etc.

::It will not be Facebook advertising because Andy dislikes Facebook. Of course, if you want to take out a Facebook advert to have it go to [[Conservapedia: New editors wanted]], you could certainly do so.

::Regardless, the main page will give the page [[Conservapedia: New editors wanted]] some traffic. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:34, 15 December 2014 (EST)

== Make the username policy more clear ==

:Copied on over from [[Help talk:How To Create a Conservapedia Account]]

I think it should be made clear that the username '''must''' include your real name, as opposed to ''recommending'' your real name; perhaps there could be a help page on Conservapedia's username policy. A few users have been blocked for violating an otherwise nonexistent policy (and also advised to create an account with a real name even though their account creation is disabled for two years). A clear username policy would probably be beneficial for Conservapedia. -- [[User:DanielJackson|DanielJackson]] 10:46, 6 December 2014 (EST)

== Conservative's "Message Area" ==

I seem to be unable to edit it, despite wanting to discuss something with him. As such I put out a general request for a way to contact him or for him to unlock his message area. Hopefully I'm not missing something really obvious! [[User:Nhodgson|Nhodgson]] 20:18, 6 December 2014 (EST)

:You would do well to just ignore him. There's really nothing that you could discuss with him. He is notoriously secretive, seeming to believe that other people go along with his games, and he often locks his own talk page, and the talk pages of his "pet" articles. He seems to expect other people to go along with his fantasy that he might be multiple people. Just ignore him. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 21:37, 6 December 2014 (EST)
::If we could talk to him, we might tell him that his reversion of [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Abraham_Lincoln&curid=3942&diff=1121083&oldid=1084045 this] on purely political grounds was ludicrous and shows a serious failure to observe what is going on. That edit was more than just a minor thing about whether Lincoln was a "classical liberal" or a "post New Deal progressive"—it was blatant and outrageous vandalism, about which most admins are very vigilant. The user ("TheonlySIL", whatever that means) should be blocked permanently. Perhaps some other admin will notice. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 21:48, 6 December 2014 (EST)
Setting aside SamHB's axe to grind because I/we are pro-biblical creationism and anti-Darwinism/liberal Christianity, my/our talk page has just been unlocked.

By the way SamHB, what do you think about the data contained in this article: [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]] ? Can you refute it? It does not appear so! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:00, 7 December 2014 (EST)
:Haven't read it. But thanks for unlocking your talk page, Could you keep it that way, please? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:52, 11 December 2014 (EST)
::SamHB, may lock it again if I/we become extremely busy for an extended period or for other reasons which I/we prefer not to discuss. The talk pages of articles I/we created/contributed can certainly be used. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:59, 12 December 2014 (EST)

== Categories ==

There are two categories that are treating the same topic: [[:Category:Best of Conservapedia]] and [[:Category:Featured articles]]. How do they differ from each other and should they be merged?--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 14:00, 12 December 2014 (EST)
:My guess is that when authors of articles wanted to get extra views for their articles that they spent a lot of time on, they gave their articles these category labels. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:52, 12 December 2014 (EST)
:So should these categories be deleted?--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 16:01, 12 December 2014 (EST)
::While I have the greatest respect for Cons's diligence in spending a lot of time on her articles, and in getting them recognized (all her past SEO talk, for example), I notice that she does not put them into the the "best of CP" category. So I suspect that even she doesn't think the category is worth much. It does not seem to be noticed much. I just removed two obvious vanity/silliness things from it. Only three things remain. But their authors did put a lot of effort into them, and two of them are "flagship articles" by Andy. So I would consult with him on this. He probably wants a better way to promote the CBP and the Conservative words articles. In fact he has a better way: they are on the main page. So maybe you should ask him whether the "best of CP" category is worth keeping. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:23, 13 December 2014 (EST)
:::SamHB, no true analyst would pretend to know the gender/genders of the editor(s) of the User: Conservative account. Solve the mystery of who/whom edited the [[Atheist actions against homosexuals]] article and you will earn the right to declare the gender/genders using the User: Conservative account to edit.

:::But it is a moot point anyways as the feminine [[Sarah Palin]] has more [[machismo]] than all [[Liberal Christianity|liberal "Christians"]] combined!

:::By the way, have you read the [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]] article yet? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:15, 17 December 2014 (EST)
::::Nope. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:58, 21 December 2014 (EST)

==Purpose of this page==
This page provides a forum for editors to discuss matters related to CP and its policies. Please do not use it as a sandbox for drafting article. You can create your own sandbox by making a subpage of your user page. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:43, 13 December 2014 (EST)
:You're right. I was in a hurry before. Haste makes waste. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:17, 13 December 2014 (EST)
::There was no need to be hasty. You, of all people, must have known that it wouldn't be lost. Take a deep breath before editing.
::Speaking of careless editing, I'm pleased that you correctly used "you're" above, though it took another edit, at 10:17 yesterday, to fix it. Haste makes waste. But your recent edit to the bottom of TAR's talk page has that mistake. You're in need of more care in editing. Take a deep breath (and get some sleep!) now and then. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 11:31, 14 December 2014 (EST)
:::@TAR: I've taken out the rest of your stuff. You can move it to your talk page if you like. You can get it out of the page history, of course; nothing is ever lost unless an admin explicitly vapes it, which I don't think is going to happen. You do not need to worry about vandalism; it's easy to revert. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 11:31, 14 December 2014 (EST)
::::@SamHB, thanks, I didn't know I could make a sandbox page beneath my username page that won't be indexed. I will do that from now on for articles I am working on. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 20:11, 14 December 2014 (EST)
:::::There's a quick-and-easy trick to doing it, that I guess I ought to explain, though you might already know it. To create a new page subordinate to your user page, talk page, whatever, edit the user/talk page, and insert something like
:::::<nowiki>[[User talk:TheAmericanRedoubt/sandbox99|My spiffy subpage]]</nowiki>, and save it. When you look at it, it will be a redlink. Click on it, and you will get something like "this page doesn't exist. If you want to create it, enter the text below." Or something like that. Then paste in you new stuff. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:25, 14 December 2014 (EST)

== Deleting material from talk pages, or, even worse, deleting the page outright ==

Talk page material should not be deleted unless it is truly libelous or detrimental. Talk pages should be an ongoing journal of discussion of the corresponding project page. There is nothing wrong with a talk page being very short, and it is perfectly acceptable, albeit unusual, for an article page's author to say something on the talk page.

I recently had to re-create [[Talk:IP_camera]] to make a comment on the article.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 17:05, 15 December 2014 (EST)
:Is there any way to recover the earlier material. Perhaps Andy or an admin could review the situation? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 06:50, 18 December 2014 (EST)

----

== Two millionth page view for the "Counterexamples to Relativity" page ==

The [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] has just gotten its two millionth hit. It is one of Conservapedia's best-known pages.

It seems that this page is very famous all over the internet. A Google search of Conservapedia+Relativity gets about 8000 hits. (Your mileage may vary; the test was done several months ago.) I didn't look at all of them, but I looked at the first 100, other than the CP article itself. Two were completely neutral and matter-of-fact, one was an item on ask.com that was a discussion of what "theory" means in a scientific sense, and was neutral. The other 97 were all derisive, mocking, contemptuous, and sarcastic.

Now I know that principled people are not deterred by popular opinion. But people might want to ask themselves whether the page has convinced '''anyone''' that Relativity is wrong. Or, more generally, whether it has accomplished anywhere near what its goals were. People might also want to ask themselves whether the counterexamples are objectively correct, and whether Relativity is objectively wrong. Now a lot of the discussion at CP has been about '''what people think about Relativity'''—for example, discussion of Laurence Tribe, and Barack Obama, and the folks that designed the GPS system, and the folks that operate that system, and so on. I'd like to get completely away from consideration of what people think about Relativity. Vox Populi and all that. I'd like to propose 3 questions about '''objective, observable facts,''' and ask the senior admins here to explain them without reference to people's opinions. These are matters of ''fact'' and ''incontrovertible observation''.

#It is known that the perihelion of Mercury precesses, beyond Newtonian calculations, by an amount of about 43 arcseconds per (Earth) century. Without getting bogged down into quibbling over thousandths of an arcsecond, and just using the accepted figure of 43 arcseconds, why do you think this is so? Now there has been extensive discussion at Conservapedia over the possibility that the exponent in the "inverse square law" is not exactly 2. People have argued over whether or not that satisfies some principle of theoretical elegance, or makes integration easier, or whatever. I'm not interested in any of that. What I am interested in is that ''it doesn't work''. That theory was proposed by Hall and Newcomb about 100 years ago, and quickly discarded, because it predicts a completely wrong precession for the Moon. So, why do you think this precession occurs? Do you have some theory of gravity that correctly predicts the precession of Mercury, other planets, the Moon, and Earth satellites?
#:
#It is known that the received frequency of GPS satellite clock signals is about 0.44 parts per trillion faster than the frequency at which the signals were transmitted from the satellite. This discrepancy is well known, and there is circuitry in the satellites to compensate for it. Minuscule as this discrepancy is, compensating for it is essential to the correct operation of the system. Without getting into what people believed or were thinking about when the system was designed, or what people believe or think about when they upload correction parameters, why does this discrepancy exist?
#:
#It is known that the mass of a Radium-226 atom (including the electrons--it makes no difference in the final outcome) is 226.025403 amu. When it undergoes alpha decay, it turns into an atom of Radon-222 (222.017571 amu) and an atom of Helium (4.002603 amu). This constitutes a loss of .005229 amu. Why is that? Is the law of conservation of mass not correct?

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:18, 17 December 2014 (EST)

:RESPONSE:

::#The precession of the perihelion of Mercury '''''disproves''''' Relativity. People stopped reporting the discrepancy as technology provided greater precision; yet Relativists still insist that this proves their theory when the actual data disproves it. Newtonians are honest about the issue. Why can't liberal Relativists publicly admit that the data disproves their theory? Every scientist knows that if he questions or criticizes Relativity, then he disqualifies himself from ever winning a Nobel Prize (see, e.g., Robert Dicke), obtaining a doctorate, or receiving any research funding.
::#There are a variety of possible explanations for the GPS discrepancy, starting with the obvious plausibility that the laws of physics are not invariant at every point in the universe. An honest, open-minded discussion of the issue would likely yield some valuable insights.
::#There is nothing startling about an emission or loss of energy when something decays. It certainly does not prove Relativity.

::Liberals make false statements about science all the time. Jimmy Carter became president by claiming that oil would run out in 35 years. There is nothing new about liberals misusing science to advance liberal goals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 17 December 2014 (EST)

:::"''There is nothing startling about an emission or loss of energy when something decays. It certainly does not prove Relativity. ''" - So, you do accept the equivalence of mass and energy, as SamHB was talking about the loss of mass! That's good news... Or maybe, you want to rephrase your point #3. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:55, 21 December 2014 (EST)

::::It requires an enormous leap of [[faith]], far more than is suggested by the [[Bible]], to go from what I said to the silly, illogical ''E=mc2'' equation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:12, 21 December 2014 (EST)

:::::Does it really? SamHB described a process where '''mass''' disappears - you answered that ''there is nothing startling about an emission or loss of '''energy'''''. This gives the impression that you think of mass and energy as somewhat interchangeable. I know that you don't think so, that's why I asked for you to ''"rephrase your point #3"''. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:26, 21 December 2014 (EST)

::::::When something decays to a lower energy state it can emit energy. That is not relativity, that is not E=mc2, and that is not "mass-energy equivalence."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:53, 21 December 2014 (EST)

:::::::Agreed - but you are talking about '''energy'''. The question is where is the '''mass''' of .005229 amu? (Take a look [[Talk:E=mc²#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft and Walton|here]]...)--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:56, 21 December 2014 (EST)

::::::::You rely on primitive technology used in an 82-year-old experiment. The technology is far better now, and the claim of mass-energy equivalence cannot be verified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:51, 21 December 2014 (EST)

I had not intended for this to re-open the entire discussion, including the Cockcroft-Walton experiment. Aside from pointing out the 2 millionth view, the goal was to ask 3 '''very narrowly drawn''' questions. So narrowly drawn that they '''were not about relativity!'''. Not directly, anyway. They were about 3 observable phenomena, and the intent was to ask for explanations, relativity or otherwise, about them. For the second and third questions, Andy sort of did give explanations, though they were totally unsatisfactory by the standards of contemporary science.

I specifically asked for explanations that were indpependent of people's opinions, beliefs, or behavior. I guessed that Andy would either ignore the questions, or give off-topic answers. I got the latter. I got comments about relativity, honesty of "Newtonians", "relativists", liberalism, Nobel prizes, doctorates, research funding, Robert Dicke, Jimmy Carter, oil, and discrepancies with modern measuring technology. (Really? Are you saying that the anomalous precession ''does not occur''? It's been observed since 1843. Are you saying that modern measurements show that the precession is zero, and that Leverrier was seeing something that isn't there?).

Let me restate the questions in their simplest possible form. Note that I am not asking about relativity.
#Anomalous precession. Why does it occur?
#:
#Time dilation. Why does it occur?
#:
#Non-conservation of mass. Why does it occur?

Andy did give a sort of explanation for the 2nd and 3rd of these: "The laws of physics are not invariant at every point" and "There is nothing startling [about this]".

Here is why those answers are completely unsatisfactory. Suppose that Johannes Kepler, when presented with Tycho Brahe's exhaustive data on planetary motion, including the puzzling retrograde motion of Mars, Jupier, and Saturn, had simply said "Well, I guess that, at some points in the Solar System, at some times, some planets go backward for a while." Or "There's nothing startling about this, Mars sometimes just goes backwards." He would simply be abandoning science to the capriciousness of nature. He didn't do that. He was a '''SCIENTIST'''. He looked for an ''explanation''. He and Isaac Newton worked out a formulation that explained it. They didn't just say that the laws of nature are just something random at various places in the solar system, they came up with a physical law that was valid (relative to the measurements of the day) ''at all places and times in the Solar System''.

The time dilation in the Earth's gravitational field is not just something random. It is known, and explained, with great precision. You can set your clock by it. (Literally!) To not be startled, or at least intrigued, by the time dilation, when time can be measured, and found not to dilate, between two points that are at the same altitude, shows a serious lack of scientific curiosity. Can you come up with a theory that explains this phenomenon quantitatively?

The same thing goes for the mass discrepancy. Conservation of mass had been known, with extreme precision, by 1900. Scientists were in fact startled and intrigued by its non-conservation. By the way, it can be measured with greater accuracy now than 82 years ago, and it still holds, or do you deny that it happens? Can you cite modern precise measurements that show that the discrepancy is zero? Can you come up with a theory that explains this phenomenon quantitatively?

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:58, 21 December 2014 (EST)

:I did specifically respond to your three points, and then days went by without a reply from you. Again, the anomalous precession disproves Relativity just as it conflicts with one model of Newtonian gravity in the solar system. Why is there an anomalous precession? The Newtonian model can be tweaked to explain it; Relativity cannot. An honest discussion by scientists of the data would advance the understanding, rather than scientists pretending that the precession proves Relativity (it doesn't).

:Second, time dilation is not directly shown by anything, and certainly not by GPS. The slight variations can be explained by classical physics, or by recognizing that physical laws are probably not invariant across the universe.

:Third, the evidence for non-conservation of mass is almost non-existent, with the leading experiment more than 80 years out of date. But I don't think mass is necessarily always conserved, and Newtonian physics does not depend on it. [[Quantum mechanics]] may have the potential -- if pursued with an open mind -- to shed light on this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:16, 22 December 2014 (EST)

::I'm not interested in what the anomalous precession proves or doesn't prove, or what scientists pretend that it proves or doesn't prove. I want to know why it occurs. The Newtonian model can be tweaked to explain it? Can you say what the tweak is? I hope it's not the Hall-Newcomb exponent tweak that was proved to be incorrect almost immediately after it was proposed. Do you have another tweak in mind?

::Time dilation is most definitely shown, both by GPS, and by the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959. This can be explained by classical physics? Really? Can you give us details? Can you give us a Johannes-Kepler-the-scientist type of explanation, that goes beyond the cop-out of saying that the laws of physics are simply different in different parts of the universe? "Different parts of the universe" is a far bigger chunk of real estate than is needed to show the effect. The Pound-Rebka experiment involved different parts of the ''same building'', and GPS exhibits the discrepancy between different parts of medium Earth orbit. We should have a pretty good handle on how physics works in the vicinity of the Earth. Newton's law of gravitation worked over the whole solar system.

::Evidence for non-conservation of mass is not "almost non-existent"; it is ubiquitous. The specific case of Radium alpha decay can be found on the periodic table charts hanging in high-school science classrooms. "I don't think mass is necessarily always conserved"—well at least you qualified it with "necessarily always", but can you be more specific? To a degree that Johannes-Kepler-the-scientist would respect? You are quite right in that Newtonian physics does not depend on it, but that's not what I was asking.

::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:38, 22 December 2014 (EST)

:::Andy: ''"You rely on primitive technology used in an 82-year-old experiment. The technology is far better now, and the claim of mass-energy equivalence cannot be verified."'' No, the experiment is routinely performed in courses on modern physics around the world, using modern technology. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:37, 22 December 2014 (EST)

::::On the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, tweaking the Newtonian model almost certainly can fit the data. Some objected to anything other than an exponent of precisely -2 for the force, because that muddies up the math, but that is a silly objection. The reality, however, is that anyone who pursues this approach is deemed an enemy of Relativity and won't get another research grant, doctorate, or Nobel prize. Nothing but radio silence by the Relativity promoters about that obvious reality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:01, 22 December 2014 (EST)

:::::''"On the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, tweaking the Newtonian model almost certainly can fit the data."'' That's just a canard - and you know it, Andy: yes, the exponent of Newton's law of gravity can be tweaked (or error terms added), but this results in a model which doesn't fit all the other planets. That's known since Simon Newcomb's days - and [[User:SamHB]] elaborated on this '''[[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity?|nearly five years ago]]'''! The first time you came up with this idea, you could have pretended to be ignorant on this subject. But you repeat it over and over again, without having done the calculations, or looking up why physicists discarded the idea a hundred years ago! That's worse than ignorance, that's willful ignorance.
:::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:36, 28 December 2014 (EST)

Let's not be too hasty with judgements about ignorance, willful or otherwise. Let's see if we can get to the bottom of this (and the other two phenomena). We're making good progress by drawing the questions very narrowly.

I believe that Andy has indeed read the relevant items, like [[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity?|this page]] from nearly five years ago, and [[Relativity#Experiments that Fail to Prove Relativity|this section]], with its table of precessions of the planets. (I did not put in the phrase "fail to", by the way.)

So let's go over the situation again, extremely carefully. The bulk of the table was from me, though the all-important final column was added by [[User:Jloveday]], using some experimental data that he dug up. I'm not in full agreement with the way he rounded the data, but the effect is clear. Even though getting good error bounds on the minuscule precession of planets beyond Mercury is very difficult, one can easily see, from the last few columns, that General Relativity tracks the observed precession very well, while the Newcomb-Hall tweak of 2.000000157 tracks it extremely poorly. Except for Mercury, of course, since the exponent was tweaked specifically for that planet.

So, Andy: What is the tweak to Newtonian mechanics that explains the precession for all the planets? And, while we're at it, can you give a satisfactory explanation for the other two phenomena, time dilation and mass non-conservation?

Andy also says: "Some objected to anything other than an exponent of precisely -2 for the force, because that muddies up the math, but that is a silly objection." I agree, it's silly. Though I am a little curious about who these "some" are. Can you cite something on the subject? Perhaps one of your physics textbooks?

Also: "The reality, however, is that anyone who pursues this approach is deemed an enemy of Relativity and won't get another research grant, doctorate, or Nobel prize." As I said earlier, I'm not interested in the personalities; I just want to know why you think the precession occurs. (Actually, that's not true. I ''am'' deeply interested in the history of science and technology. But not right now. We can discuss that some other time.) So I'll make you an offer: If you get turned down for a research grant, doctorate, or Nobel prize over this, I'll stick up for you. I'll cite the spirited debate you and I have been having over the last several years as evidence that you've thought deeply about these issues. Though I don't think I have much influence over funding agencies or Nobel committees. :-)

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 19:12, 29 December 2014 (EST)

==Categories==
I generally have a "live and let live" attitude towards the edits of others on CP, and don't want to criticize any particular editor. However, CP has experienced over time that editors come here from Wikipedia, where there are millions of articles and a very high number of Categories. Because CP is much smaller, we have opted for fewer categories, Over the past day, someone has created a bunch of new categories like [[:Category:Conservative Authors]]. [[:Category:Christian Authors]], etc. Such narrow new categories will make a lot more work for everyone and may discourage editors from categorizing their articles. Perhaps Andy and management could please take a look? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 06:58, 18 December 2014 (EST)

== To my liberal, sissy boy, atheist critics of guns in Texas! ==

Gentlemen, consider this picture of [http://www.andrewtonnphoto.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=796 Amish women shooting rifles]. When is the last time you heard of Amish women going on shooting rampages? :)

Amish women do not watch violent video games or watch television shows and/or movies with gratuitous violence! See [[Hollywood values]]. And unlike Muslims, the only beheadings Amish women read about is David beheading Goliath (and we know Goliath deserved it for defying the armies of the living God!).

Amish women are peaceful creationists and not violent evolutionists (see: [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]] and [[World War I and Darwinism]] and [[Evolutionary racism]]),

Amish women are loyal wives and are less likely to have their husbands go on jealous/violent rampages (see: [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]]). And Amish men have submissive wives and do not endlessly quarrel with stubborn, feminist wives! And irreligious men are more likely beat their wives/girlfriends than religious men (see: [[Irreligion and domestic violence]]).

Gentlemen, it is the dysfunctional liberals and liberal influence that causes much of the violence in Texas. No true conservative goes on a gun rampage! When is the last time you heard of a gun rampage occurring due to a student in a Bible believing Christian school? Never, my liberal, atheist friends? If only Texas wasn't creating so many jobs and a magnet to unemployed and undisciplined liberals fleeing their liberal welfare states!

And remember this, guns are an insurance policy for rogue states. Surely, you have read about such states (see: [[Atheism and Mass Murder]] and [[Evolutionary racism|Evolution and Nazi Germany]]).

Gentlemen, I hope this clarifies matters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:47, 17 December 2014 (EST)
::By the way, don't even think about saying that the Amish are pacifists and would not kill in self-defense.

::Would an Amish man use violence to protect his wife? Did David eat the show bread?[http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/438/how-does-jesus-argument-from-david-and-the-show-bread-work] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:00, 17 December 2014 (EST)
:::Thank you for giving up your precious time to add these insights to the talk page, Conservative. The world would be a better place if more wives followed your example. [[User:JSamson|JSamson]] 17:25, 17 December 2014 (EST)
::::No true skeptic pretends to know the gender/genders of the editor(s) of the User: Conservative account. Solve the mystery of who/whom edited the [[Atheist actions against homosexuals]] article and you will earn the right to declare the gender/genders using the User: Conservative account to edit.

::::But it is a moot point anyways as the feminine [[Sarah Palin]] has more [[machismo]] than all liberal atheists combined! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:45, 17 December 2014 (EST)
:::::I thought there was to be no further additions from the User: conservative account on the talk page? Perhaps one of the members did not get the memo? -[[User:JaysonK|JaysonK]] 13:51, 18 December 2014 (EST)
::::::Buckling down on time management. Plan to post less on talk pages. Revised plans about talk pages. Will post on talk pages when it is related to article/wiki improvement. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:54, 18 December 2014 (EST)

== References ==

<references/>

== A project for active editors to collaborate on ==

Would you anyone like to collaborate with other editors on a wiki project to help Conservapedia be a strong resource for a given topic.

The topic could be decided by the editors participating.

If you are interested, please leave comments below. I suggest picking a leader/leaders for the project or least assign people for various tasks associated with the project. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:50, 25 December 2014 (EST)

:I would be happy to help, but my time is limited.[[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 22:06, 25 December 2014 (EST)

::Merry Christmas Cons, and thanks for the thought. I think, however, that I would tend to become a "Devil's Advocate" in any collaboration I can envisage. The token liberal so to speak (and I say that with no malice.) I will need to know more. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:21, 25 December 2014 (EST)
:::AlanE, it doesn't have to be a political project. It can be on a non-political topic. I will let whoever participates decide on the topic and whether or not it will be a political project.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:44, 25 December 2014 (EST)
:::::If AlanE and [[FOIA]] and anyone else who joins wants to decide on a topic tomorrow, the project can start right away. It can be announced on the main page also.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:33, 25 December 2014 (EST)

: I'd be happy to join in and help in any way I can. Merry Christmas. I have been and will mostly focus on the articles [[List of military tactics]] and [[List of military strategies and concepts]]. Long life the Republic! [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 01:33, 26 December 2014 (EST)

:Your invitation was an honor, and I thank you for your confidence. I will be happy to help. As soon as I finish my current "Bible" project, I will look more closely at what you have here and see what I can do. ''Semper Fi!'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] 19:00, 26 December 2014 (EST)
::Sounds great. Thanks for tackling the project. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:16, 27 December 2014 (EST)
=== Ideas for potential articles ===

Political:

*[[Republican beliefs]]

*[[21st Century Republican Party]]

*[[Differences between Republicans and Democrats]]

*[[Social conservatism]] (article needs to be improved)

*<s>[[Islamic terrorism]] (article needs to be improved)</s>

*[[Political fundraising]]

*[[Kim Jong-un]] (article needs to be improved)

*[[Tiananmen Square massacre]] (article needs to be improved)

Less political:

*[[Modern slavery]]

*[[Republican presidents]]

*[[List of military tactics]]

*<s>[[List of military strategies and concepts]]</s>

*[[Socio-cultural indoctrination]]

*[[Rugged individualism vs Christian community (body of Christ)]]

Non-political:

*[[Dog training]]

*[[Chess strategy]]

*[[Marathon]] (needs to be expanded)

*[[Tourism]] (needs to be expanded)

Feel free to add article ideas [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:32, 26 December 2014 (EST)

== Do we really have so few responsible editors ..... ==

that obsessed individuals can materially change the tone and direction of Conservapedia with no one to apply the brakes.? Remember when this was supposed to be a resource for home-school students? A place where they could look up "vibration", for example, and get a concise definition of what it is, at their level, without going off into mystical medical cults? Remember when [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvT5YuDovHI this] was a good description of Conservapedia's vision and goals?

What happened? We now have just a tiny number of people turning the place into a survivalist blog, and an herbal medicine blog, or whatever, with hardly anyone to apply editorial direction. This wiki needs supervision.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 18:30, 2 January 2015 (EST)

:Things like [[:Category:Ayurvedic Medicine]] look very troubling indeed! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:58, 3 January 2015 (EST)
:: I agree with you there AugustO, I would say the content in those articles would be more at home on hippypedia or alternaticemedicinepedia than on conservapedia. Remember, conservatives like to have things backed up by facts, not nonsensical anecdotes that are the backbone of alternative medicine. [[User:PhilH|PhilH]] 02:15, 3 January 2015 (EST)

==Response to [[User:SamHB]], [[User:PhilH]] and [[User:AugustO]] Regarding Ayurvedic - Chinese - Western Herbal Medicine on Conservapedia==

I am reposting-quoting here [[User:AugustO]]'s post on [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Ayurvedic_medicine]] in order to see why I am making such a detailed point-by-point response.

"You know me as conservative on social or fiscal issues, but my conservatism reaches its zenith on medicine. I am very dedicated to Western medicine, and run away from "new age" or other fringe medicine approaches. Andy, you have to draw a line here on whether Conservapedia has the expertise and resources to cover Ayurvedic medicine properly. I doubt that we do and should stay away from it completely. Please decide and tell [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] you decision. Many thanks for all that you do for the Conservative movement. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 21:42, 2 January 2015 (EST)
:[[:Category:Ayurvedic Medicine]] is like an advert for alternative medicine: it has 110 subcategories and is itself in 26 categories:
::[[:Category:Ayurvedic Medicine]]|[[:Category:Tibetan Medicine]]|[[:Category:Complementary Medicine]]|[[:Category:Medicine]]|[[:Category:Health Care]]|[[:Category:Traditional Chinese Medicine]]|[[:Category:Naturopathic Medicine]]|[[:Category:Herbalism]]|[[:Category:Medicinal Plants]]|[[:Category:Herbs]]|[[:Category:Spices]]|[[:Category:Plants used in Traditional Chinese Medicine]]|[[:Category:Plants used in Ayurvedic Medicine]]|[[:Category:Plants used in Western Herbal Medicine]]|[[:Category:Herbalists‎]]|[[:Category:Health]]|[[:Category:Survivalism]]|[[:Category:India]]|[[:Category:Tibet]]|[[:Category:Nepal]]|[[:Category:Mongolia]]|[[:Category:Burma]]|[[:Category:Thailand]]|[[:Category:Sri Lanka]]|[[:Category:Asia]]|[[:Category:Southeast Asia]]|
:That could be a kind of record! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:04, 3 January 2015 (EST)

===Response to [[User:Wschact]] and [[User:AugustO]] Regarding Ayurvedic - Chinese - Western Herbal Medicine on Conservapedia ===
:: Happy New Year [[User:Aschlafly]], [[User:Wschact]], [[User:AugustO]], [[User:Conservapedia]], and [[User:Karajou]]

Thank you for your patience with this detailed point-by-point response.

Like you [[User:Wschact]], I too am a steadfast conservative, but on much more than just social and fiscal issues, as my thousands of conservative point-of-view Conservapedia edits can attest to (Please see my [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] for more information). Also like you [[User:Wschact]], I too am very dedicated to Western medicine and work together with a medical doctor with a busy private practice office in a large hospital setting where he and I integrate both modern pharmaceutical based treatment and the use of custom made Ayurvedic-Chinese-Western herbal formulas, nutrition (based on Ayurvedic and Chinese medicine concepts) and acupuncture. He supervises my practice in that setting. Like you [[User:Wschact]], both he and I also run away from the myriad "new age" medicine approaches. However, Ayurvedic medicine, Chinese medicine - Acupuncture and Western herbal medicine are not "new age". Ayurveda and Chinese medicine - Acupuncture have been in continuous use since at least 250 B.C. according to archaeological evidence and extant classic medical texts in both Chinese characters, Tibetan and Sanskrit (which I can read by the way in Devanagari script).

Conservapedia does indeed have the expertise and resources to cover Ayurvedic medicine and Chinese medicine - acupuncture properly since I am contributing as a dedicated regular editor and have joined the [[Wikiproject:Medicine]] to lend my ongoing support editing/categorizing ALL articles in the realm of medicine / anatomy in addition to my other subject matter expertise areas on my User Page / Talk Page.

[[User:PhilH]] has said there is no clinical evidence to support complementary medicine. Not according to the U.S. National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine of the National Institutes of Health who funds clinical trials on herbal medicines effectiveness, not according to medical doctors in America who integrate modern medicine with complementary medicine, not according to numerous conservatives who rely on complementary medicine including Western herbalism, Chinese Medicine, Ayurveda and Acupuncture. Just the fact that there is licensing for acupuncture in most of the U.S. states (majority of states require the licensing examination or certification, and several states allow oriental medicine practitioners to be "primary care providers" for legal and insurance purposes; nineteen states specifically include Chinese herbology instead of just acupuncture). For naturopathic medicine 17 states, five Canadian provinces, the District of Columbia, and the US territories of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands all have laws regulating naturopathic doctors (See map http://aanmc.org/images/LicensureMapBig.jpg -- even very conservative states such as my home state of Idaho in the [[American Redoubt]], along with Montana and Utah license naturopathy).

All of this attests to complementary medicine's broader acceptance, not to mention the size of the herbal market in the U.S. economy: For herbal medicine "overall sales reached $5.6 billion in 2012" "rising from $4.2 billion in 2000" (http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Markets/Herbal-supplement-sales-rose-5.5-in-US-in-2012-ABC-says)

There are many conservatives blogs and forums that I follow that have regular articles on complementary medicine and herb usage. Complementary/alternative medicine is not some liberal, hippie or New Age thing. It is even paid for by many insurance companies now. There is worker's comp coverage for it in certain U.S. states.

Regarding evidence in my articles, I will indeed be submitting footnoted hyperlinked clinical evidence from MedLine / PubMed.

Regarding the [[:Category:Ayurvedic Medicine]] having lots of sub-categories: There are many sub-categories in the Ayurvedic medicine category since it is a broad science including many diverse health and disease topics and since I am a very detail oriented person as you can see with my contributions for the firearms categorizations (which formerly were all lumped into just the Category of "Guns"). I am using that [[:Category:Ayurvedic Medicine]] and its temporarily numerous subcategories as a way of '''temporarily''' getting a broad view and tracking ability of ALL of the medicine-anatomy categories and articles in order to update them all over the coming months. I promise that I will pare that category down in the next 60 days to something smaller once I have updated-edited-expanded '''ALL''' of the medicine/anatomy related articles to follow a consistent yet detailed categorization scheme. I always start first with detailed Wiki categories in order to flesh out the scope-breadth-depth and a logical structure for the articles I will submit. I am doing the same detailed categorization for Firearms and other areas.

[[User:Conservative]] has been "mentoring" me as to what I should and shouldn't post. I have been following this for guidance as well: [[Conservapedia:Editorial_authority]]. I also received advice from [[User:Karajou]] on Sat, 26 Apr 2014 23:15:17 by e-mail (conservapedia AT zoho.com) who said, "Try your hand at writing complete articles. Conservapedia is not just something containing conservative thought; it is also intended to be a family encyclopedia, so it has to have info on planes, trains, automobiles, animals, sports teams, camera systems, or whatever else comes to mind. So, if you happen to be an expert on - say, rowboats - write an article on rowboats. Karajou".

Thus, following Karajou's advice above and oversight from [[User:Conservative]], I am writing "whatever comes to mind" on what I "happen to be an expert on". Thus, I have be developing a lot of detailed articles and their categorizations for my 6 areas of specialization (in order of my depth of subject matter expertise): 1. Medicine, 2. Computer networks (17 years professional experience), 3. [[Preparedness]]-Survivalism, 4. [[Firearm]]s, 5. [[Permaculture]] [[gardening]], 6. [[Radio communication technologies]] - [[Amateur radio]]. Being a staunch American conservative libertarian "prepper" [[gun enthusiast|"gun nut"]], I obviously write/edit from that perspective.

For these and many other reasons, I don't see a reason for Conservapedia to stay away from complementary medicine completely as you suggest [[User:Wschact]]. Thus, I will continue to contribute such works to Conservapedia until I am told to stop by any of the CP Administrators such as [[User:Aschlafly]], [[User:Conservative]], or user [[User:Karajou]].

Thank you to you all for your work for our Conservative movement. Godspeed. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 06:57, 3 January 2015 (EST)

=="[[Troll]]" Editing by [[User:SamHB]] of Numerous articles I am Working on / Editing / Contributing ==

[[User:SamHB]], First you accuse me of plagiarizing, then you delete my citation correcting your speedy deletion template notice. Are you "[[Troll]]ing" perhaps ("[[Troll|users who purposely make disruptive edits are considered trolls]]") like your friends [[User:PhilH]] and this other friend of yours who made the comment on [[Talk:Free_state]]?

[[User:SamHB]], Please follow these Guidelines rather than making disruptive edits to further your agenda: [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#90.2F10_Rule]]

[[User:SamHB]], Looking at your contribution here: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=SamHB

[[User:SamHB]], I see that the last time you actually contributed any kind new article other than a Talk Page was here 2 years and 6 months ago:
18:54, 1 June 2013 (diff | hist) New! Propositional Calculus ‎ (A start. Ed, it's time for you to step up to the plate (See? I do know a few metaphores, though I'm not a TopDog!) and fill out this article.)

Looking at your contribution logs, a large amount of your recent edits in the last 30 days have been reverting my edits.

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tinospora_cordifolia&action=history:
08:11, 4 January 2015 SamHB (Talk | contribs | block) (7,439 bytes) (Do not "spam" links to extrenal commercial websites. People are routinely banned for that.) (undo)

17:07, 2 January 2015 SamHB (Talk | contribs | block) (6,798 bytes) (If you really think blatantly plagiarized material should stay, please post a note to the community portal explaining this.) (undo)

[[User:SamHB]], It seems you are not listening to my previous Talk page on these articles. This is the second time I am telling you this. Please kindly listen this time and stop [[troll]] editing.

[[User:SamHB]], these links you deleted are ''''not'''' Spam links to external sites. It is a temporary citation for a quote I made to start the rough draft of the article -- the "ref" is to a respected and authoritative source of information on this herb; just as IBM would be an authoritative and respected cite regarding IBM Mainframe computers. Once I type in quotes and/or paraphrase summaries from some of my numerous Ayurvedic herb books listed here [[Tinospora_cordifolia#External_Links]], I will cite them as well to flesh out the article.

Formerly you were here on this very article [[Tinospora cordifolia]] accusing me of plagiarizing by not citing my 1 paragraph quote and nominated the article for deletion. Again, SamHB, please respect as I said before on my user talk page (perhaps you can read it) that I will be completing these articles in the next five days and let me do the editing on my article that I started, otherwise it slows me down to have to constantly go back and check the history of the pager to see if someone is "helping out".

While you can perhaps please consider contributing some new actual articles of your own in your own area of expertise such as math rather than editing one I am in the middle of working on. Thank you for your understanding. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 10:41, 4 January 2015 (EST)

-----

== This Site is Being Hijacked ==

There is no more pleasant way to put that.

This is a continuation of what I wrote above about "Do we really have so few responsible editors". The problem is extremely serious. Ultimately, it is about there being so few people who are responsible, level-headed, and able to put reasonable amounts of time into this, that one person can overwhelm everyone and turn Conservapedia into something far removed from its original goal. The original goal, in case people have forgotten, was a site that home-school students (and others, of course) can use as a general reference source, on a wide variety of topics, without bias from the liberals elsewhere on the Internet.

But [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] is single-handedly steering the site into a very different and troubling direction. Multiple directions, actually. How is he able to do this? '''Because his editing is fanatical, intense, and obsessive, and there aren't enough level-headed editors around who have the time and energy to put the brakes on.'''

He is turning this into a blog on survivalism, one very particular "Vata/Dosha/Ayurvedic" type of nontraditional medicine, and many other things. There is nothing wrong with articles on these topics, but he is overwhelming Conservapedia with his obsessive editing.

He has put dozens and dozens of references to his views on survivalism into a huge number of articles for which such references are totally inappropriate. He seems to think that we should all drop out of society, cash in everything we have into "tangibles" (bullets, beans, batteries, whatever) and move to "redoubt states" like Idaho to spend the rest of our days behind some barricades doing .... I don't know.

His steering of CP into his chosen direction is made all the worse by his fanatical cross-referencing and categorizing. This has put his writings "in your face" when people go to normal topics. For example:

*[[vibration]] used to be a short article explaining what wibration is—a rapid periodic undulating motion. TAR put it into the "VATA" category. When one looks around in same, one finds some new-age touchy-feely nonsense about psychological perceptions of vibration. He polluted [[Fashion industry values]] in the same way.
*Similar irrelevant edits to [[Empirical science]], [[Natural Law]], [[Scientific observation]], [[Color]], [[Hopelessness]], [[Hearing_(sense)]], and [[Salt]].
*Similar survivalist edits to [[Ruthenium]], [[Transformer]] (the electrical device), and [[Wire]] (the electrical conductor).
*He has written extensively about [[amateur radio]], which, as an extra-class licensed ham, I think is fine. But the implication is that hams are just supposed to do this so they can communicate with each other "off the grid" in their "redoubts". I can assure everyone that the vast majority of hams (even those in call sign area 7) are fully engaged in society. We take emergency preparedness very seriously, of course, and have a big annual contest on this topic every year, but this is always done in cooperation with existing local, state, and federal emergency organizations. We have sub-organizations (ARES and RACES) dealing with this. We are very much on the grid and in society, and I object to the implication that we are not.
*His [[IP camera]] article, to pick just one of dozens of examples, links to [[Survivalist retreat]]. This is absurd.

In addition to his fanatical edits to Conservapedia articles that, by themselves, materially alter this site's direction, this huge web of interconnected categories and "see also"s makes it impossible for readers to escape his actions. This is significantly worse than what [[User:Conservative]] has been doing because, in the latter case, one simply needs to ignore any article with "hot button" phrases like "obesity", "evolutionism", "creationism", "atheism", "ponies", "walrus slides", and "long-haired creationist ladies". It's much much harder to escape from [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]]'s behavior.

I urge the administrators to put a stop to this. The rest of us simply can't do it.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:08, 4 January 2015 (EST)
:SamHB, I did a Google search of instances of the phrase "long-haired" on Conservapedia and none of the instances were done by the User: Conservative account. Are you jealous because you suspect that an editor of the User: Conservative account has a long-haired maiden as a sweetheart and you do not? :)

:Second, the odds of you being listened to by Aschlafly in terms of suggestions/complaints, etc. would go dramatically up if you created more content. Right now, I think the odds are pretty much zero given your level of content creation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:21, 4 January 2015 (EST)
:: Quote Right now, I think the odds are pretty much zero given your level of content creation. Doesn't mean SamHB is not right though. The edits from the redoubt are so obviously either parody or highly biased POV pushing that it is difficult to argue otherwise. Woo is not encyclopedic, no matter who peddles the woo. Now I leave both redoubt and the collective known as User:Conservative to indulge in last wordism. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 15:35, 4 January 2015 (EST)
:::Oh, and if the collective editors of the User:conservative account have a long haired maiden as a sweetheart then I would question how multiple people having the same sweetheart is in any way Christian? Seems more liberal hippy type behaviour to me. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 15:37, 4 January 2015 (EST)
::::DavidSpenceer, you may believe that deceitful accusations based on altering the meaning of other people's words is clever. It is not. And it makes the accuser look bad. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:15, 4 January 2015 (EST)
:::::That is not what I was doing and you know it. Luke 4:23 [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 16:17, 4 January 2015 (EST)

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2015-01-04T20:37:54Z

Davidspencer: /* This Site is Being Hijacked */

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2015-01-04T20:35:39Z

Davidspencer: /* This Site is Being Hijacked */

User talk:AugustO

2014-07-11T18:41:18Z

Davidspencer: /* Short note */

{{useful links}}

==User:PetyrB has been blocked ==

User:PetyrB has been blocked. He was Markman. It will be much harder for him to give a repeat performance. And if he manages to give a repeat performance, it will be very short lived. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:14, 7 July 2014 (EDT)
:He blocked everyone except me. I feel left out. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 22:23, 7 July 2014 (EDT)
::I wasn't blocked either. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 22:58, 7 July 2014 (EDT)
:::I notice that he blocked you three times last year. Perhaps he's mellowed. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 00:09, 8 July 2014 (EDT)

== Short note ==

If you ever get banned again, let me know at [[User:Conservative/mail|HERE]] and I will unblock you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:57, 11 July 2014 (EDT)
:If he is blocked he will not be able to notify you. He will have been blocked surely? There really does need to be a better way to contact admins here in the case of parodists like markman blocking people imo. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 14:27, 11 July 2014 (EDT)
::He can create another user account solely for the purpose of contacting me at another IP address.
:::Ok, I will remember that in case markman comes back. He previously banned me several times as well [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 14:41, 11 July 2014 (EDT)

::From the Conservapedia commandments page: "Administrators have discretion to act on matters not specifically mentioned here, such as vandalism and sockpuppets."[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments] Clearly, common sense discretion can be exercised by Administrators. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:39, 11 July 2014 (EDT)

User talk:AugustO

2014-07-11T18:28:41Z

Davidspencer: /* Short note */

User talk:AugustO

2014-07-11T18:27:49Z

Davidspencer: /* Short note */

Talk:Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals

2014-04-26T13:40:29Z

Davidspencer:

Welcome to the most hypocritical article ever posted online.
Are you know on the side of those poor limp wristed effete sissy boys? What's next, Atheism and the persecution of obesity?--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 15:46, 25 April 2014 (EDT)
:JerryCa, a few things:

:1. Have you ever heard the saying, "First socks, then shoes". You need to first determine how many editors are using the [[User: Conservative]] account.

:2. As you may recall, I am largely taking a vacation from the topic of atheism at this time. I am doing so due to competing priorities and due to a greatly diminished interest in the subject of atheism which I find to be a stale/boring topic at this time.

:3. Feel free to discuss this article with someone who has more interest in the subject of atheism.

:4. I think you meant to write "now" instead of "know". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:53, 25 April 2014 (EDT)
::1.You need to first determine '''how many editors''' are using the [[User: Conservative]] account.
::2.As you may recall, '''I am''' largely taking a vacation from the topic of atheism at this time.--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 20:43, 25 April 2014 (EDT)
:::The article was not the most hypocritical article you ever saw posted online. Consider the possibility that you made an incorrect assumption as far as who wrote the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:21, 26 April 2014 (EDT)
::::Hint: The person in the User: Conservative network that most dislikes atheism wrote this article. 2nd Hint: It isn't the person you think. I am largely on a vacation from writing about atheism. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:52, 26 April 2014 (EDT)
:::::[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheism&curid=6104&diff=1084480&oldid=1084223 Really]? Are you [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=History_of_Atheism&curid=65089&diff=1084486&oldid=1065328 sure] you are largely on vacation from writing about atheism? [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 09:40, 26 April 2014 (EDT)

Apartheid

2013-12-06T18:56:13Z

Davidspencer: /* The Troubles */

'''Apartheid''' (meaning ''separateness'' in [[Afrikaans language|Afrikaans]]), was a social, economic and political policy of racial [[segregation]] which was enforced by white minority governments in [[South Africa]] from 1948 until June 17 1991 when the final Apartheid laws were abolished in Parliament.

==Verwoerd and the Bantustans==
Laws passed in 1950 forced a separation of non-whites from whites in South African society. The first, the ''Population Registration Act'', had people register with a racial classification board to determine "officially" if they belonged to one of four racial groups: White, African, or Coloured (the later split into Coloured and Indian). The second, the Group Areas Act, was the enforced relocation of non-whites into designated urban areas; to compel these people into the new "townships", which were in essence little more than shanty towns. The government ordered the bulldozing of once-vibrant mixed-race communities; the non-white inhabitants, especially the Africans, were ordered to carry passbooks to go from place to place in white areas. [http://overcomingapartheid.msu.edu/unit.php?id=5&page=2] Likewise, whites were ordered to relocate from the areas which they settled, that historically belonged to blacks.

Dr. [[Hendrik F. Verwoerd]], Prime Minister of South Africa from 1957 until 1966, designed a system that expanded the scope and impact of apartheid. Blacks were given a limited education which guaranteed them menial job opportunities as opposed to Whites [http://www.stanford.edu/~jbaugh/saw/Chloe_Bantu_Education.html]. The ''Reservation of Separate Amenities Act'', passed in 1953, ordered the segregation of blacks at all public facilities, including post offices, public transportation, beaches, sports venues, parks, toilets, and even cemeteries. [http://overcomingapartheid.msu.edu/unit.php?id=5&page=2]

:''"There is no place for him [the African] in the European community above the level of certain forms of labor. Within his own community, however, all doors are open. For that reason it is to no avail for him to receive a training which has as its aim absorption in the European community, where he cannot be absorbed."'' Hendrik F. Verwoerd (1954) [http://overcomingapartheid.msu.edu/unit.php?id=5]

Verwoerd had also insisted, and succeeded in getting, limited self-administration in the black reservations (called "homelands") of the Transkei, Ciskei, Bophuthatswana, Venda, Ganzankulu, KwaNdebele, KwaZulu, [[Lebowa]], and QwaQwa, which meant they were semi-autonomous. This had also meant that the homelands were now responsible for their own societal and economic problems. 'Africans' were denied citizenship and were instead granted full voting rights in several 'homelands' or bantustans. [http://www.suedafrika.net/history/eh_apart2.htm]

==Independence of four Bantustans==
Four of the Bantustans, Transkei (1976), Ciskei (1981), Bophuthatswana (1977), and Venda (1979), were eventually declared independent nations by South Africa, albeit without any international recognition other than from each other.

During their period of independence, these four nations were often derided by critics claiming they were [[puppet government]]s of South Africa, but the Transkei government had a rocky relationship with South Africa, breaking diplomatic relations between 1978 and 1980 over territorial disputes, and then undergoing a military [[coup d'etat]] in 1987 after which Transkei became an ally of, and safe haven for, the [[African National Congress]].

In Bophuthatswana on the other hand, an attempted coup in 1988 was suppressed by South Africa, who restored president Kgosi Lucas Manyane Mangope. The Sun City [[casino]] was located in Bophuthatswana, where [[gambling]] was legal (it was illegal in South Africa). Ciskei and Venda both underwent military coups in 1990, which South Africa did not suppress.

All four countries were re-incorporated into South Africa in April 1994 following the end of Apartheid and the adoption of a new South African constitution, but Bophuthatswana and Ciskei at first declared their refusal to re-integrate and their intention to remain independent nations. Both stand-offs ended after mutinies and coup d'etats deposed their respective leaders within two weeks of each other in March 1994.

==1983 Whites-only referendum==
In 1983 President PW Botha put the question of allowing Colored and Indian representation to the White electorate. 66% of whites voted to allow Coloreds and Indians their own houses of parliament (called the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates respectively).

Although many ultra-nationalistic and conservative Whites attacked the move as it was power-sharing (which they feared would result in Black rule)

==The Troubles==
The followers of Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi (Zulu King) and his Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) were staunchly pro-separation and even entered into a short-lived non-aggression pact with the [[Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging|AWB]] in 1993.

However the African National Congress, who drew members from most other Black tribes, were pro-integration and, as such, Zulu workers who had migrated to White South Africa were frequently involved in clashes with ANC supporters in the townships (Black areas adjoining many White towns and cities).

Between 1986 and 1994 some 10,000 IFP members were murdered by ANC supporters, many in a brutal fashion, the practice of "necklacing" was very popular amongst ANC members. Necklacing entailed placing a petrol-filled tire around the neck of a victim and then setting it alight.

Since the abolition of apartheid due to changes demanded by [[liberal]] outsiders South Africa has struggled as a society [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=1070795&oldid=1070781].

==References==
{{reflist}}

==Sources==
*''Apartheid: A History'' by Brian Lapping

[[Category:Apartheid]]
[[Category:South Africa]]

Essay:God's love

2013-10-20T14:30:01Z

Davidspencer: Reverted edits by DanAP (talk) to last revision by WesleyS

Only love can set us free from the bonds that tie us to [[Satan]]. Only when people are loved - and really feel that love - will they be willing to enter into a relationship with so authoritative a Being as our [[Creator]] and Heavenly Father. We [[rebel]] because we don't feel - or believe in - his love. The opponents who brag of their [[rationality]] are actually [[irrational]] when they reject this love. They fear a chimera. They have distorted the attributes of God into a monster to be shunned at all costs.

A major obstacle to perceiving the love of the invisible God is that we cannot see Him. We must have faith, and many who pride themselves on their rationality have difficulty with faith. Trusting in His commandments is especially difficult for some; the first temptation Satan gave humanity undermined that trust. (Genesis 3:1-5)

God wants us to become like Him (Matt. 5:48), but Satan has been opposing this.
[[Category:Religion Essays]]

Duck Dynasty

2013-08-28T12:53:28Z

Davidspencer: Morrisey is not a band, he is a single person backed by a band.

'''Duck Dynasty''' is a reality television series shown on the A&E cable channel. The show follows the Robertson family of Monroe, [[Louisiana]], who patented and market a duck call whistle for duck hunters. The cast is a unique blend of family members with long beards, their wives, children and co-workers of Duck Commander. The theme is consistently traditional [[American values]]. Their appearance is mostly regarded as Redneck. The show typically ends with the family around the table giving thanks to [[Jesus Christ]].

In 2013, the premier of the fourth season of the show was watched by 11.8 million viewers, making it the most-watched reality show of all time.

In typical [[liberal]] rejection, progressives are appalled that these men hunt animals. The Robertsons' appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live was boycotted by the scheduled singer (and well known animal rights activist) Morrisey, calling them "serial animal killers". Meanwhile, most liberals hypocritically eat meat purchased at the supermarket.

==External Links==
* [http://www.aetv.com/duck-dynasty/ Official Duck Dynasty A&E website]

[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Television]]

==See Also==
[[Liberal Hypocrisy]]

[[Real America]]

Akira Kurosawa

2013-06-14T18:34:48Z

Davidspencer:

[[Image:Akira Kurosawa.jpg|right|thumb|On the set of '''Ran''' in 1985]]
'''Akira Kurosawa''' Akira Kurosawa (Kyūjitai: 黒澤明, Shinjitai: 黒沢明, Kurosawa Akira, 23 March 1910—6 September 1998) was a prominent [[Japanese]] film director, film producer, and screenwriter. His first credited film (Sugata Sanshiro) was released in 1943; his last (Madadayo) in 1993.

His film Ran is said to have been based on [[William Shakespeare]] play [[King Lear]] although Kurosawa himself said that he only became aware of the similarities after planing for the film had started. Throne of Blood was based on [[Macbeth]]. Hidden Fortress was later credited by [[George Lucas]] as being the inspiration for his first [[Star Wars]] film [[Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope]].

Additionally several of his films were later remade as the so called Spaghetti Westerns. Specifically Seven Samurai was later filmed as The Magnificent Seven whilst Yojimbo became the inspiration for A Fistful of Dollars

==Films==

Directed:

*Stray Dog (1949)
*Rashomon (1950)
*Ikiru (1952)
*Seven Samurai (1954)
*Throne of Blood (1957)
*[[Hidden Fortress]] (1958)
*The Bad Sleep Well (1960)
*Yojimbo (1961)
*Sanjuro (1962)
*High and Low (1963)
*Red Beard (1965)
*Kagemusha (1980)
*Ran (1985)
*Rhapsody in August (1991)

==Links==
*[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000041/ Akira Kurosawa] at the Internet Movie Database

{{DEFAULTSORT:Kurosawa, Akira}}

[[Category:Directors]][[Category:Japanese People]]

Lord of the Flies

2013-06-05T19:55:54Z

Davidspencer:

'''''The Lord of the Flies''''' is an important novel by [[William Golding]]. As one somewhat shallow precis put it: "A plane full of British schoolboys crashes on a Deserted Island, and the darkness of humanity spills forth as they turn against each other." <ref>[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LordOfTheFlies]</ref>

Set against both the atrocities of the Second World War and the prospect of nuclear war, it is partly an allegory for the state of humanity.

The title refers to [http://conservapedia.com/Devil Beelzebub], mentioned several times in the Bible. In one notable scene, a boy named Simon - who can be seen as a loose allegory of Christ - takes himself off into the jungle where he confronts and understands the Lord of the Flies before returning and being killed by the other boys.

Although it can be read as a largely conservative novel, with its exploration of faith and doubt and its depiction of the importance of self-suffiency and responsibility, its bleak ending suggests there can be no hope of redemption only a perpetuation of sin and violence.

== References ==

{{reflist}}
[[Category:Novels]]

Lord of the Flies

2013-06-05T19:55:08Z

Davidspencer: Typo and I've never that word it spelt that way before.

'''''The Lord of the Flies''''' is an important novel by [[William Golding]]. As one somewhat shallow precis put it: "A plane full of British schoolboys crashes on a Deserted Island, and the darkness of humanity spills forth as they turn against each other." <ref>[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LordOfTheFlies]</ref>

Set against both the atrocities of the Second World War and the prospect of nuclear war, it is partly an allegory for the state of humanity.

The title refers to Beelzebub, mentioned several times in the Bible. In one notable scene, a boy named Simon - who can be seen as a loose allegory of Christ - takes himself off into the jungle where he confronts and understands the Lord of the Flies before returning and being killed by the other boys.

Although it can be read as a largely conservative novel, with its exploration of faith and doubt and its depiction of the importance of self-suffiency and responsibility, its bleak ending suggests there can be no hope of redemption only a perpetuation of sin and violence.

== References ==

{{reflist}}
[[Category:Novels]]

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2013-06-03T17:40:45Z

Davidspencer:

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]

I've put together a blog that applies tenets of the Christian faith to everyday life and our responsibility as citizens. I add a new article every few days and I would love it if you guys could start following and get people to read this. Remember James 2:17- "faith without works is dead." We have to start teaching those who come after us. Here is the link- I don't know how to get this in the News Feed on the main page.

I am an active military officer in my 20s and a combat veteran. It serves me best to keep my identity to myself for now. Below is the link.

http://www.defendingamericanvalues.blogspot.com

== Insults ==

On Dec 16, 2011, I wrote an email to aschlafly@aol.com and conservapedia@zoho.com. No one bothered to answer me, though I asked repeatedly. So, that seems to be an insufficient way of communication, therefore I repeat the text of my email here:

''Hi,

''I use this way of communication as I want to stay away from public mud-slinging. But I expect that something is done about the tone at Conservapedia. Please have a look at this comment by User:Conservative, directed to me:

''http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=945748&oldid=945729

''Excerpt: '''I know you are a so called "liberal Christianity" adherent. Face it liberal Christianity is an immoral, heretical and wimpified version of Christianity that tries to turn God into some kind of permissive Santa Clause. The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]!'''

''I once stated that I'm a member of a mainstream Protestant Church (in fact, the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck) But I'm not liberal, pro-abortion, pro-sodomy or pro-adultery!

''It seems to be impossible to get into a productive discussion with User:Conservative: Bullying, intimidating,and outright insulting the target-audience of Conservapedia is nearly always the consequence...

This has been worse enough. But today I read [[Talk:Essay: Militant atheism and short man's syndrome]], where User:Conservative asks: '''''By the way, is your "liberal Christianity" "pastor" a lesbian or sodomite?''''' I fail to see any humor in it and I would expect that such accusations aren't made in a conservative environment.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:11, 1 January 2012 (EST)

Aschlafly, would you please stop to ''trim'' my contributions? Ignoring a problem generally doesn't lead to a satisfactory conclusion! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:02, 2 January 2012 (EST)

::AugustO, I am perfectly willing to apologize if necessary. Let me ask you a few questions for clarification. Is the Protestant denomination you belong to pro-evolution? Does the Protestant denomination you belong to ordain women as pastors? Does the Protestant denomination you belong to marry homosexuals? Is the Protestant denomination you belong to shrinking in membership? While I don't agree with this blog's entire contents, I have a feeling the Protestant denomination you belong to is [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on this slope] and has a [http://creation.com/truth-decay significant case of "truth decay".] If you could provide additional clarification, it would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:39, 2 January 2012 (EST)

:*The EKKW is one of the more conservative ''Landeskirchen'' of the EKD.
:*Generally in Germany you don't shop for a church - a relict of ''cuius regio eius religio''. So under the tent of a ''Landeskirche'' you will find various, often struggling opinions.
:*'''All such questions should have been asked before you made your insulting remarks.''' You insulted my faith and my church without bothering to make the most basic inquiries.
:*I'm not the first one to be treated this way - [[User:MaxFletcher]] was insulted similarly.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:20, 2 January 2012 (EST)
AugustO, I have found that liberals are often evasive and don't want to be called liberals. I will ask for further clarification: Do most of the churches in your Protestant denomination you belong to take a pro-evolution stance? Do most of the churches in your Protestant denomination that you belong to ordain women as pastors? Do most of the churches in your Protestant denomination you belong to marry homosexuals? Is the Protestant denomination you belong to shrinking in membership?

I did do some cursory investigation into your denomination's stances (unfortunately the sources in English were very scarce and I could only find Wikipedia as a source) and it appears as if your denomination is generally pro-homosexual marriage, ordains women and the denomination you belong to is shrinking in size (But again, I only have one source and I don't take that source as the gospel truth). Given the cultural landscape of Europe, this does not surprise me if it is true.

Lastly, are you pro-evolution, are you for or against the ordination of women, are you for or against homosexuals being able to marry? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:05, 2 January 2012 (EST)

:Funny, I found that conservatives are often straightforward and don't want to be called liberals neither. As for the rest of your comment: it may be that the EKD is less to your liking. But I'm fairly sure that almost all of our brothers and sisters in the various ''Landeskirchen'' would repelled by your statement that the only thing they love more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]. What percentage of Christian in the world do you try to alienate?
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:51, 2 January 2012 (EST)
::::You didn't answer my simple questions regarding your views on evolution, ordination of women, an whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry (I should have said by a church) and if your denomination is declining in membership. I conclude therefore that you are not a conservative and you are liberal and that denomination is generally liberal also and declining in membership. There are consequences to rejecting biblical authority and some of them are: an increase in sex outside of a marriage (specifically marriage between a man and a women which is a legitimate marriage), an increase in abortions and a church that is spiritually dying and declining in membership. Generally speaking, churches/individuals that start the process of rejecting biblical authority drift more and more away from biblical authority and become more and more liberal and licentious. While I may have being wrong about the degree of licentiousness within your denomination and if so I apologize, but it does appear as if it is on the decline spiritually, morally and in membership. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:23, 2 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Addendum: The Book of Revelation declares: “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: 'These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.'" Based on your replies, I regrettably have to say that you and many if not all of the churches in your denomination are not hot but are very lukewarm and you and those churches have been spit out. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:54, 2 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::Personal attacks are unbecoming and unproductive. I would suggest you stop, User:Conservative. You have passed the line from satire to the crude and tawdry--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:40, 2 January 2012 (EST)
::Camille, you certainly made quite an allegation there. If you are confident your allegation can withstand scrutiny, I suggest you take it up with the owner of the website. We both know your allegation will be ignored/trimmed though, don't we? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:08, 2 January 2012 (EST)

*User:Conservative, you have made up your mind about my belief, and no simple statement of mine will change this. But that doesn't matter: ''I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.''
*Your ability to condemn your Christian brothers and sisters ('''''I regrettably have to say that you and many if not all of the churches in your denomination are not hot but are very lukewarm and you and those churches have been spit out. '''''), while admitting that you have not much information ('''''I did do some cursory investigation ''''') is truly amazing!
*A statement like '''The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]!''' is just wrong, insulting, and should be rejected by ''all'' Christians. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:26, 3 January 2012 (EST)

August, I asked you a few simple questions about biblical beliefs and received no reply as to your positions on these matters. For example, I asked if it is right for a church to marry two homosexuals and you gave no reply. You have given me no reason to believe that you are a bona fide Christian. Jesus warned about wolves in sheep's clothing so I see no reason to believe that every person who professes to be Christian is truly a Christian. There are plenty of cases in history of false/heretical people and sects proclaiming to be Christian when they have radically different beliefs than orthodox forms of Christianity.

For example, consider this: "In 1984, David Jenkins, Anglican Bishop of Durham, described Christ’s resurrection as “a conjuring trick with bones” (“English Bishop Calls Christ’s Resurrection Conjuring Trick,” AP, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Oct. 28, 1984). Jenkins also said, “The Christian is not bound up with freak biology or corpses getting up and walking around” and “You don’t have to believe in the virgin birth.” (On July 9, 1984, three days after Jenkins was consecrated bishop, lightning struck his cathedral and caused extensive damage. A spokesman for the fire brigade said that though the roof was fully wired with lightning rods, none of them worked that morning; the smoke detectors in the ceiling did not go off, even though they were tested only a month before; and there was no thunder accompanying the lightning. EP News Service, Dec. 21, 1984)."[http://www.wayoflife.org/files/4fa466c4c219ef7377db25265f553ab7-183.html]

If you were more forthcoming, I might shed my skepticism, but instead you have given me no option but to still retain it. That's your choice. But you have to accept responsibility for the consequences of that choice. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:29, 3 January 2012 (EST)
:::: Lieber AugustO hoffe es macht dir nichts aus, wenn ich ihm seine Fragen beantworte (leider nur über Online-Recherche). Falls doch, so entschuldige ich mich und bitte dich meinen Eintrag zu streichen.
::::@ user:conservative: Since I speak German I checked out the website of the EKKW. This is what I found: Women can be ordained. Homosexuals can '''not''' be married. Unfortunately the membership of the EKKW is slightly declining. As for evolution: I could not find any information. As far as I can say, evolution vs. creationism is not that big of a deal in Europe, or at least the German speaking parts. I for one have never seen a discussion about it on TV or in a newspaper. Hope this helped to clarify your questions, so you can go back to the actual argument, which was that AugustO felt insulted by your remarks.
::::AugustO denk doch auch an Lk. 6.29: ''Dem, der dich auf die eine Wange schlägt, halt auch die andere hin, und dem, der dir den Mantel wegnimmt, lass auch das Hemd.'' Herzlich --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 08:25, 3 January 2012 (EST)

@VPropp: Thanks for your contribution! Sorry if I created the impression that I was after a personal apology by User:Conservative. That is somewhat meaningless for me. It is the language I just don't want to encounter in a '''family-friendly encyclopediay'''. I would like User:Conservative to stop spouting invectives without (or even) with reason.

Recently I discussed with friends whether it would be a good idea to steer candidates for conformation to Conservapedia, to help them to improve there knowledge of English (and the little they know already on Greek). We agreed that this wouldn't be a good idea:
*they are more likely to stumble upon articles on homosexuality etc. on Conservapedia than on Wikipedia
*there is a high probability that they get insulted after a short period of editing
*frankly, the ''Popular articles at Conservapedia '' aren't written that well - and I can detect this though I'm not a native speaker!
*finally: what should I answer a catechumen if he asks me whether our pastor is a lesbian or sodomite? Or what he loves most, extramarital sex, pro-abortion policies or gay bathhouses?
It is deeply disturbing that User:Conservative can be sure that all such concerns will be ''ignored/trimmed''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:41, 3 January 2012 (EST)

: Sorry if I misunderstood you AugustO. I can see your point, why you would not want candidates for confirmation working on Conservapedia. But I have to interject a few things: 1. I think a far bigger problem, language wise are not the active users here, but the vandals, who very often post disgusting things in a disgusting language. 2. Conservapedia is, in my opinion, still far more family friendly than Wikipedia. I strongly discourage you from bringing your confirmation candidates to Wikipedia. In my experience, one of the first things teenagers will look up are the articles on reproductive organs. On Wikipedia those articles are accompanied by, at the very least, borderline pornographic images. There is also a lot of extremely vile language on the talkpages, which is usually not reverted, unlike (with as you pointed out, a few exceptions) on Conservapedia.
: If you want to improve their English language skills, there are other playfull methods to do so. For instance: watching English movies, discussing song lyrics, writing essays in English, which you or another member of your congregation could proof read. You can give all of those suggestions a strong Chritian focus rather easily. --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 11:03, 3 January 2012 (EST)
:::Despite his refusal to answer my simple questions, it is obvious that August belongs to a so called "liberal Christianity" denomination and that they are [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope] and a denomination in moral, spiritual, and numerical decline. It is also equally obvious to anyone who has read Conservapedia's [[Christian apologetics]], [[evolution]], [[homosexuality]] and [[liberal]] articles that liberal theology is errant. I see no point in wrangling with someone who takes issue with what I am saying, but is unwilling to answer a few simple questions which are a starting point to a fruitful discussion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:46, 3 January 2012 (EST)
:: Dear user:conservative, I'm hesitant to call the EKKW a "liberal Christianity" denomination. Since I just gathered some infos from their website and you just read a very short article on Wikipedia, I think we should hear AugustO out, since he's the one that frequents this chruch and is thus more qualified to make statements about its principles. I'm also not quite sure I agree with the blog post you provided about liberal Christianity denomination being "on the slope". While I can see how ordaining homosexuals can bring sexual depravity to a church, I don't see how this is connected with women being ordained. Unfortunately I have also to add that ''my'' [[catholic church|church]] has had some history of sexual depravity. Regretfully I have to say, that among those depravities was just the one that was mentioned in the blog post. Is my church now on the slope. Is my church liberal? I don't think we should judge whole churches based on the errors of a few of its sheep and shepards. I also am a bit disappointed that you refuse to discuss the issue any further with AugustO Sincerely --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 19:12, 3 January 2012 (EST)

The EKKW is perhaps the most conservative church within the EKD. But that doesn't matter - even if I lived a couple of kilometers to the west in an enclave of the EKIR, I should be save from being accused from being a "liberal Christian". Fact is that Protestant churches in Europe generally work in a different way than in the U.S.: you have little choice which church to go to, but this is balanced by a greater spectrum within the membership of a church. And therefore, there often aren't official positions of a church, and rivaling views can be seen within a church (though the idea of "special creation" and especially the idea of a "Young Earth" is a minority position - held by only few people in Europe.)

As I said: this all is irrelevant. I shouldn't read a statement like '''The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]''' in a family-friendly encyclopedia, and I find the various interrogations into my faith - and whether my '''"liberal Christianity" "pastor" '''[is]''' a lesbian or sodomite''' insulting.

I'm not looking for an apology, I'd like the management of this site (this means [[User:Aschlafly]]) to step in and prevent such language. Unfortunately that won't happen - as [[User:Conservative]] has observed so smugly.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:10, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::August, the EKKW is in spiritual decline and losing members, while Bible believing churches are vibrant and prospering in the world. Maybe you will find someone interested in talking about you and your dying denomination, but it is not going to be me given your stubbornness and unwillingness to have a fruitful conversation. I tried to help you discover the root cause of the problem that you and your church suffer from via some simple questions, but you didn't want to cooperate. When a church or individual starts getting slack about biblical authority and clear teachings within the Bible, church history shows they very often decline and enter into moral decline. The EKKW and EKD is [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope]. I did say that if I overestimated the amount of moral decline at this juncture, my apologies. However, you didn't want to accept my apology. But nonetheless, they are [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope] and in need of repentance. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:24, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::::By the way, I seem to recall that you are the one who picked a fight with me. Then you get mad when I point out the shortcomings of your belief system in return. I wouldn't be surprised if you poke sleeping dogs with sticks in your neighborhood and then complain when you get bitten. I would suggest throwing your stick in the bushes if you can dish it out, but you get angry when criticism is directed towards your errant beliefs which you obviously cannot defend. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:47, 4 January 2012 (EST)

:*''August, the EKKW is in spiritual decline and losing members, while Bible believing churches are vibrant and prospering in the world. '' Show me some examples ''Bible believing churches'' in Germany - I would be surprised if their vibrancy and prosperity reaches the degree of my church though she is in ''spiritual decline''. I assume that your ''Bible believing churches'' are as energetic as the ''Question Evolution campaign!''.
:*''Maybe you will find someone interested in talking about you and your dying denomination, but it is not going to be me given your stubbornness and unwillingness to have a fruitful conversation.'' It was you who asked about my denomination, so I assumed that you have some interest in it.
:*''I tried to help you discover the root cause of the problem that you and your church suffer from via some simple questions, but you didn't want to cooperate.'' Sorry, but I don't trust your remote diagnosis.
:*''When a church or individual starts getting slack about biblical authority and clear teachings within the Bible, church history shows they very often decline and enter into moral decline.'' Another hidden attack against my church - and me...
:*''The EKKW and EKD is [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope].'' You obviously aren't well informed. That's generally not a problem, as long as you don't offer advice.
:*''I did say that if I overestimated the amount of moral decline at this juncture, my apologies. However, you didn't want to accept my apology.'' Of course, I would accept an apology. I just don't expect one. And I'm right: this isn't an apology, it's just another insult.
:*''But nonetheless, they are [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope] and in need of repentance. '' Again, you gave no reason for having confidence in your remote diagnosis.
:*''By the way, I seem to recall that you are the one who picked a fight with me. '' I didn't pick a fight with you, I criticized one of your statements: see [[Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/106#Conundrum|here]]
:*''Then you get mad when I point out the shortcomings of your belief system in return.'' I got ''mad'' because you aren't able to stay on the subject. Try to differ between the ''debate'' and the ''debaters'' - a good argument should be valid without judging the person who makes it.
:*''I wouldn't be surprised if you poke sleeping dogs with sticks in your neighborhood and then complain when you get bitten.'' Sorry, not my sport.
:*''I would suggest throwing your stick in the bushes if you can dish it out, but you get angry when criticism is directed towards your errant beliefs which you obviously cannot defend. '' *LOL*

:So, let's summarize: my church and I are in moral decline, I adhere to errant beliefs, and my pastor has to be a lesbian or a sodomite. And the whole reason for this conclusion: I don't share your beliefs on ''Young Earth Creationism'' and you have read something on wikipedia about the EKKW.

:Don't you see that this is quite ridiculous? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:23, 4 January 2012 (EST)

::I'm intrigued by all this about "liberal" Christianity versus "Bible-believing" churches. User:Conservative, which denominations do you consider to be "liberal"? What about the Church of England, for example? Are you saying that these aren't true Christians? How many "true" Christians would you estimate that there are worldwide? Which do you consider more pressing: evangelising to "liberal" Christians, or to atheists?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:05, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::::CPalmer, there are a lot of denominations and I don't pretend to know all of their doctrinal beliefs nor do I want to take the time to do the requisite research. Plus, there are a lot of non-denomination churches and churches which are split between conservatives and liberals. For example, as far as the Anglicans it is well known there is a struggle going on between Bible believing Anglicans and liberal Anglicans and the flash point in recent times has been the homosexuality issue. Third, it is well known that moderate/liberal churches are losing members in the West and conservative, Bible believing churches are seeing growth. There have been numerous books/articles about this matter and this has been happening for decades. As far as evangelizing, a general principle is that Jesus said to preach to those who had ears to hear and to move on and shake the dust off your feet for heavily resistant populations. But that is a general principle, an atheist who just hit rock bottom might be open so you have to be Spirit led. I think prevention is far more effective when it comes to something like atheism as atheists tend to be very resistant to the gospel. On the other hand, if very tough economic times hit I think the atheist population could see big declines. Men do tend to arrogant when wealthy and tend to be more humble when experiencing economic problems. Next, I don't care to speculate on the amount of bona fide Christians in the world as I am not done a significant amount of research in terms of the current Christian population. I am encouraged though as Bible believing churches have seen significant growth worldwide and they appear to be the fastest growing faith in the world. Here is what I do know: 1) The Apostle Paul said to examine yourself and see if you are a member of the faith. 2) In the Book of Revelation a church body was warned that they were lukewarm and were about to be spit out of Christ's mouth. In addition, the Bible says God rewards those who diligently seek Him. However, information on Christianity is publicly available and church bodies do issue statements of faith, so if you are very interested in this matter, I am sure you can find out estimates of the amount of Bible believing Christians in the world. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:01, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::Just as I suspected! It appears the reason why August0 fired the first shot in this small series of exchanges is that he is upset about the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. I can see why since once it hits Germany, God willing, it will no doubt further accelerate his declining denomination's membership should they decide to be recalcitrant and continue to flout biblical authority. Given Germany's population relative to the European population, it wouldn't be surprised if the members of this young social movement have plans concerning Germany. Since evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer the questions, it would certainly be interesting to watch creationist throw spanners into the machinery of German evolutionary indoctrination. Spanner is a word for wrench with Germanic roots. :) Oh, look [http://questionevolutionde.blogspot.com/ HERE], it seems as though Question Evolution! Germany preparations have started! :) I wonder when Germany will see waves of biblical creation material sweep across their land! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:38, 4 January 2012 (EST)

I don't know what gave you the impression that the reason I ''fired the first shot in this small series of exchanges is that he is upset about the [[Question evolution! campaign]]'' - I criticized two sentences in which you described how to debate atheists, namely:
*''Bring down the banhammer early and often at Christian/creationist forums and wikis when it comes to these types of atheists/evolutionists. It's fun and entertaining! Mr. Militant, Rude and Ignorant Atheist/Evolutionists, don't get sassy with me! Bam! You're out of here! '' and
*''Never read more than a few words or sentences of inane and socially challenged atheist/evolutionist comments before deleting them''
I think that these ideas don't help to have a ''fruitful dialog''. AFAIK, you elaborated these ideas at first without mentioning ''Question Evolution!'', though you published them on the blog of the campaign.

My position to the campaign: I'll judge it by its fruits. And as you stated [[Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign#Who_is_this_campaign_aimed_to_.3F|here]], this gives me ample time... At the moment, I'm reminded of the ''Hornberger Schiessen''.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 20:07, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::::Did I publish "them"? Secondly, where in the New Testament does it say to have dialogues with rude and militant people? Didn't Jesus talk about not casting pearls before swine and shaking the dust off your feet? Am I missing something? Lastly, I am still not impressed with the fruits of your declining denomination and I have noticed your silence on the issue of marrying homosexuals in the church and other matters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:53, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::::::AugustO, some Flickr user by the username "atheism" has a rather [http://www.flickr.com/photos/evolution_atheism/3360230417/ unique picture] relative to criticizing Darwinism. User: Atheism also has pictures taken in Germany in his/her photostream as can be seen [http://www.flickr.com/photos/evolution_atheism/3676931503/in/photostream HERE] and [http://www.flickr.com/photos/evolution_atheism/3666454904/in/photostream HERE]. Do you think the creationist "User: Atheism" has been to Germany? Do you think User: Atheism knows fellow creationists in Germany? There may be some Bible believing churches in Germany. If so, I would guess there is a good chance they are growing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:27, 4 January 2012 (EST)

:*'' Am I missing something? '' Yes, the point: whether you were convinced by my arguments is secondary, the statement ''August0 fired the first shot in this small series of exchanges is that he is upset about the [[Question evolution! campaign]]'' is just not true.
:*''Do you think the creationist "User: Atheism" has been to Germany?'' And to Greece, the Netherlands and France. Looks like a guided tour - the probability that he could engage some people living there in a discussion on creationism is fairly small.
:*''If so, I would guess there is a good chance they are growing.'' One of the main problems with your arguments - you take your ''guesses'' as something to bolster your ''convictions''!
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:16, 5 January 2012 (EST)
:::It does appear as if you didn't take a poke at me and merely criticized my approach. I do stand by my approach as far as dealing with militant atheists who are rude though. Second, because I had limited information about your church in Germany at the time of my initial comments, I do think I should have had a more measured response at the time and I assumed too much. Given that my atheism, evolution and homosexuality articles have factual content which is upsetting to liberals, I do get my share of attacks, but I needn't have a hair trigger in terms of letting someone have it with both barrels which is what happened in your case. However, given that it appears as if your denomination appears to flout what the Bible says about homosexuality and other issues and is losing membership, it does appear as if it is in need of repentance. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:40, 5 January 2012 (EST)

*''It does appear as if you didn't take a poke at me and merely criticized my approach.'' Indeed.
*''I do stand by my approach as far as dealing with militant atheists who are rude though.'' Your prerogative. But it won't strengthen your position, doesn't help to evolve debating skills, and can be often seem to be overly defensive. BTW, how to you deal with rude Christians?
*''Second, because I had limited information about your church in Germany at the time of my initial comments, I do think I should have had a more measured response at the time and I assumed too much.'' Yes, you should have had a more measured response - but not only because of your lack of knowledge! Before writing sentences like '''The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]!''' you should ask yourself whether this is something you want to read in a family-friendly environment.
*''Given that my atheism, evolution and homosexuality articles have factual content which is upsetting to liberals, I do get my share of attacks, but I needn't have a hair trigger in terms of letting someone have it with both barrels which is what happened in your case.'' Especially under attack you should try to show the superiority of your position by levelheaded responses.
*''However, given that it appears as if your denomination appears to flout what the Bible says about homosexuality and other issues and is losing membership, it does appear as if it is in need of repentance.'' A ''non sequitur''. Yes, not all is well in the EKD, and even not in the EKKW. And I'm generally willing to discuss the problems, though I don't see any benefit in doing so with you: it would put to much strain on you to make yourself acquainted with the situation so that you can provide fruitful advice. Generalities and tautologies are easy to come by.

As a conclusion from my experiences: when asking about the religious beliefs of somebody, you should be as polite as possible, as this is a sensitive area. And even if you think that your interlocutor isn't honest about his beliefs, you shouldn't insult him - as you may alienate those readers who share his ''pretended'' belief.

Not spouting vitriol against anyone who doesn't share your beliefs completely doesn't make you lukewarm.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:53, 6 January 2012 (EST)
::AugustO, as far as the issue of dealing with a difficult people: our recent discussion, other events and material I read recently, has caused me to rethink matters and make some beneficial changes.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:58, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::::Conservative, you seem a bit obsessed with gay bathhouses, gay marriage, and homosexuality in general...is there something that you would like to share with the class? --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 09:26, 9 January 2012 (EST)

== Deletion of debate aboute 15 questions ==

User:Conservative deleted [[Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists.]] and stated as the reason for this action ‎''if you want to keep deleting my posts to this debate page fine - bye page!''

This comment strikes me as a little juvenile, especially for an administrator (''I'll take my ball and go home''), therefore I created [[Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists]]. The debate is important, as the '''15 questions''' are featured all over Conservapedia and not showing the attempts to answer them could lead to accusations of censorship.

To avoid further tit-for-tat, I try to get a moderated debate.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::It is interesting that he justified deleting it based on the fact that his repeated comments (calling me a "shyster") were deleted. It seems that these are the 15 questions that no biologist ("evolutionist" is a rather empty neologism) is '''allowed''' to answer...--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:28, 12 January 2012 (EST)

== 90/10 block of Rudrick Boucher ==

[[User:RudrickBoucher]] was blocked for '''two years''' for breaking the [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ARudrickBoucher 90/10 rule]. As he is a first-time offender this seems to be an extraordinary long ban - and therefore smacks of ideological censorship.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:15, 14 January 2012 (EST)

:I do find the 90/10 rule a bit of a strange one. Considering how so many articles here are protected, in many cases for no apparent reason it seems, and how the [[Conservapedia:Editing etiquette]] encourages a cautious approach to editing with an emphasis on discussing changes first, the best contributor could be someone who actually violates the 90/10 rule, because they are careful to ensure there is agreement about the change they want to make or simply that they can't edit the article due to protection. Then of course there are the debate pages which are clearly venues for people to talk about issues. The ratio of talk page to article edits alone is a very poor measure of the value of a contributor. It does seem one rule that can easily be abused. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 08:14, 14 January 2012 (EST)

==Page protect requests==
What is the point of getting a page protect request granted from the site owner so editors can work collaboratively on a sub page, only to have the site owners action undone and opening of a key article to vandals and revert wars? Does the unlocking sysop's action encourage collaborative editing by good faith users, forcing them to waste their time that could be used contributing content, rather than revert warring with trolls? What recourse do good faith editors have for sysop actions from sysops that are incommunicado? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:05, 28 January 2012 (EST)

== We should be nicer ==

After seeing all the ranting and harsh words to Liberals, Democrats, and Conservative users that are trying to fix something that's wrong (that category includes me), I want to share 2 Bible passages:

1 John 3:11-15 NIV
11 For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. 12 Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous. 13 Do not be surprised, my brothers and sisters, if the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 15 Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.

Proverbs 15:1
1 A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

-[[User:JonnyAmerican|JonnyAmerican]] 10:23, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

== Libertarians ==

I noticed that the rules of conservapedia state the libertarian views are considered "conservative". Presumably, this would apply to economic issues only as their views on social issues are typically quite liberal. I don't have a problem with this, seeing as I am a libertarian myself and have essentially agreed to disagree on the social stuff and focus on the economic stuff. But, since we allow libertarians, who are fiscally conservative/socially liberal, would we allow groups like Peronists, who are fiscally liberal/socially conservative? I forget the link where I saw libertarians specifically mentioned as allowed, but I'll try to find it. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:33, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

==Mediawiki features==
Wondering if these features are implemented here:
*<nowiki><categorytree></nowiki>
*page transclusion, e.g.:
:{{Wikiproject:Ex-gay movement/Members}}
Thanks, [[User:LJoseph|LJoseph]] 00:44, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

== Requesting well-written response ==

Having recently found the wikipedia page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religiosity_and_intelligence Religiosity and intelligence], I found myself in the strange situation of not knowing where to look for another perspective. Clearly they misinterpret the results of the few studies cited, but it would be very interesting to see if any studies provide different results or at least discuss the accuracy of the cited studies. It would be great to see an article [[Religiosity and intelligence]] on Conservapedia to provide a rebuttal to the other wiki. -- [[User:Jehoshaphat|Jehoshaphat]] 00:20, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
:Clearly there is a link. Newton was a devout Christian and look what he achieved!! Whether the link is causative or merely correlative is hard to say. On the one hand God is likely to look with favour on his adherents, but on the other it may be that intelligent people are just more likely to believe in God. I am not aware of any biblical references that will help you with your research, but others may be able to assist. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 07:14, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
:::see: [[Atheism and intelligence]]. I hope that helps. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:37, 7 September 2012 (EDT)

== Proposed update to Mediawiki 1.18.x ==

This is a redux of User:Conservative's suggestion to update Mediawiki to version 1.18.x (where x is any release version that is stable). His rational for this is to allow support for Extension:Wikilog (a wiki blogging device), and to update the php script used to create titles (so AT&T shows up instead of AT%20T in search, etc).

==Pros==
*I agree, as it will also allow for the installation of various extensions, that I find are incredibly useful on a wiki community, such as [http://www.uesp.net/wiki/User:Nx/vandalbrake VandalBrake] (a extension that slows down vandals significantly, but still lets them lodge complaints, etc [The original link is apparently blacklisted: rhymes with nationalpikcy]), the WIGO extension, by Nx again, and even core reversion deletion. The update itself is a simple, clicking proccess that ASchafly could spend a matter of minutes configuring.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 00:10, 25 September 2012 (EDT)
==Cons==

==Vote==
This is not open for voting yet 

== question ==

I'm pretty sure that on wikipedia there is the ability to see the number of page views, does this website allow you to do anything similar? [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 08:59, 4 October 2012 (EDT)
:Yes. Please look at the very bottom of each page in the white "margin". Also please look at [[Special:PopularPages]], which gives a sorted list. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:05, 4 October 2012 (EDT)
==Editor retention==
Do we have any statistics on editor retention? I know that the [[Special:Statistics]] page says that 719 people have edited in the past 91 days, but I suspect that this includes spammers and sockpuppets who are promptly blocked. What is the current size of our editor corps? What can we do to retain more editors or to recognize and reward editors for their service?

Wikipedia has a "Wikimania" conference. Has CP considered a face-to-face event to encourage comraderie among our volunteers? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 11:58, 16 November 2012 (EST)
==Main Page proposal==
Currently only two editors control most of the content for the main page. Rather than promote the great content of Conservapedia, the main page promotes off-wiki content. Obvious suggestions, such as noting the passing of Senator [[Daniel Inouye]], do not receive serious consideration. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/119#Main_Page_Right Other proposals have been ignored.] I have just proposed on [[Talk:Main Page]] that we establish a three person committee to filter and edit main page items. If there is a disagreement about an item, they can vote to decide the issue. Because this would be a lot of day-to-day work, I propose that people would serve on the committee for 9 months, with staggared terms. So, every calendar quarter, the membership of the Committee would be different. People would volunteer and Andy would select among the volunteers. Nobody would be selected to serve a second time until all volunteers had a chance to serve once. I would welcome the thoughts of others on this plan. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:15, 18 December 2012 (EST)
: Please leave your comments [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#Formal_Proposal_to_Establish_a_Main_Page_Committee here.] Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 14:14, 20 December 2012 (EST)

== Conservative Hypocrisy (Please read FULLY before judging/deleting/blocking ==
I know I'm new here and that my opinions have already run counter to a few of the more senior users here; however I'd like to reiterate how much I respect the work you're doing and my desire to help make this site a respected alternative to wikipedia. Now, onto the point of this post.
One of the biggest and most frequent complaints I've seen on this site in my time here, first just as a read and now as an editor, seems to have been the lack of a [[Conservative Hypocrisy]] page. Now, I know that this has been a very unpopular topic, but I also think it's a large enough issue to require addressing if we want to be taken seriously by the center/undecided population in the political, social and religious aspects of society. The true conservatives already agree with what is being presented on this site and will no matter what, we need to gain acceptance from those who are not already on our side in order to expand.
Now, does gaining that acceptance mean we have to weaken our stances or compromise our beliefs? Not in the least. I merely suggest that it means we need to be honest and open about all of the truth, not just the parts we like.
So, if anyone is still reading with an open mind at this point, here my suggestion for a [[Conservative Hypocrisy]] page. We already have pages on [[RINO]]s, [[PLINO]]s and [[XINO]]s as well as personal biography pages on public figures who claim to be conservative while demonstrating the complete opposite through their actions. Like it or not, these are all examples (to my understanding of the definition of the word hypocrisy) of [[Conservative Hypocrisy]].
As far as I can tell, I'm going about making this suggestion in the right way and in the right place, but I'll be the first to admit that I'm no expert on wiki-etiquette, so please feel free to move it to the proper place and let me know if I've made a mistake. Thank you for your time and I hope to hear some feedback in the near future, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 11:19, 7 April 2013 (EDT)
::I find it very hard to believe that no one has any opinion on this so I'm assuming it just got missed... I'll give it 24 more hours and if there's still no objection or comment I'm going to start working on drafting a [[Conservative Hypocrisy]] page according to the outline I described above. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 23:18, 8 April 2013 (EDT)
:::You can write a page concerning the abandonment of conservative principles by some, but the answer is no for a "conservative hypocrisy" page. This was attempted by trolls and thugs several years ago when they tried to force their way on the site, and it won't be allowed now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:02, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
::I think you missed my point while actually making my point for me at the same time... I haven't been here long, yet I've already seen the trolls and thugs repeatedly bring it up and attempt vandalization through the fact that the page doesn't exist. If we make the page, present the facts and admit while that conservatives as a whole are not perfect, we are still much better than the alternatives, we take that power away from them. Please reread my initial post, take some time to contemplate 1 John 1:10 and/or Romans 3:23 and then if you still believe we should not publicly admit the shortcomings of some of our conservative brothers and sisters in order to make this site a more accepted and viable alternative to wikipedia, then I'll drop the subject. Thanks, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:54, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
:::The answer is still no. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:11, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
::Thank you for being open minded enough to give my suggestion a full 17 minutes and 5 words worth of your time. As promised, I won't bring it up again. Sincerely, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 10:02, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

== Moving / renaming pages ==

Please could someone explain how to rename pages on CP so as to preserve the editing history. I know it can be done on WP but I guess it isn't done the same way on CP. (I know it can be done on WP because I couldn't figure out how to do it on CP, so I looked up how to do it on WP, then I saw that their method doesn't apply to CP - a button is missing or something.) I want to do this because I've been studying British History at school and I want to change the names of pages about their Prime Ministers to those that people would recognise, e.g. Marquess of Rockingham instead of Charles Wentworth-Watson, Duke of Portland instead of William Cavendish-Bentinck, etc. This would make CP easier to use for studying British History. Thanks to anyone who can help me here. [[User:StaceyT|StaceyT]] 17:06, 13 April 2013 (EDT)
:Is any sysop monitoring this page? If so, please could you answer my question. [[User:StaceyT|StaceyT]] 20:35, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

==over 12 hours of not being able to edit==
I posted this problem last week elsewhere and never received a response, just as I received no response from the email I sent when it happened the week before that... So I guess I'll try it here. From 10am to 1030pm (Eastern Time) I was unable to edit any page on this site, including my own user and user:talk pages. It occurred suddenly while I was removing dead end pages and according to my "block records" I have never been blocked, yet this is at least the 4th time it has happened. Can someone please explain this to me? Thanks, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 22:56, 22 April 2013 (EDT)

== Public notice to evolutionists - 6/1/2013 ==

The Sherman tank(s), also known as [[User: Conservative]] :), is/are not going to be bogged down in the talk page [http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/hedgerowbreakout.aspx hedgerows] fighting pointless, low priority battles with insincere, evolutionist posers who are too afraid to debate the creationist [[VivaYehshua]] (the biology major at a university) on the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions] for evolutionists. See: [[VivaYehshua]].

I/we hear the pings of your sniper fire in the recent changes log of CP, but your rifle fire is having no effect! I/we are not bogged down!

Do not get you hopes up that I/we will be checking the Community Portal frequently or at all. I/we reserve the right to read the Community Portal or post in the Community Portal whenever I/we are so inclined. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:58, 1 June 2013 (EDT)
:News from a Question evolution campaign blog: On June 3, 2013, VivaYehshua said he was pleased that evolutionist were afraid to debate him via a debate offer that has repeatedly been given to evolutionists.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/06/evolutionists-failed-to-overturn.html]
::VivaYehshua's ability to make evolutionists quake in their boots (especially Fergus Mason) is becoming more widely known.[http://templestream.xanga.com/771564827/top-problems-with-evolutionary-teaching-today/] :)[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:00, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

== QuestyCaptcha ==
I noticed that in the RC, there's been a large amount of spammers. Perhaps implementing QuestyCaptcha, a system that uses questions that Mr. Schlafly chooses, could stem the onslaught. It works excellently at my wiki. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 21:10, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

== VivaYehshua vs. Fergus Mason. VivaYehshua won hands down and effortlessly ==

[[File:David head goliath.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|When the agnostic and evolutionist Fergus Mason agreed to debate [[VivaYehshua]] (who is a creationist and a biology major at a university) and then reneged on the debate, he intellectually decapitated himself as a Darwinist.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/06/fergus-mason-anytime-you-want-your-head.html] ]]
Mr. Mason, anytime you want your head back, just agree to debate VivaYehshua and actually carry through with the debate this time. Unless of course, you are still a quivering bowl of jelly! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:23, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
: Haha, all the evolutionists I have ever met are like this, they run away from fights at every chance. [[User:RowanO|RowanO]] 11:12, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
It has been agreed that debating this person is not a reason for being blocked, I think your hatred is a valid reason for a block, you are a coward and a bully. I am seriously considering reporting user:Conservative to UK immigration and having him declared "Persona non Grata" in the UK--[[User:Patmac|Patmac]] 11:22, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::Patmac, you are an endless source of amusement! How many people do you think go by the name of [[User: Conservative]] on their passports when entering the UK. :) Second, Fergus Mason agreed to debate VivaYehshua. Now all he has to do to remove his stain of intellectual weakness, cowardice and dishonor is carry through on his promise and debate VivaYehshua. Unless of course, Fergus is afraid of being soundly thrashed in a debate and having the debate widely distributed. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:15, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
:::Patmac, are you going to get Scotland Yard on this case or are you going to report [[User: Conservative]] to Interpol for high crimes and misdemeanors instead? You are acting like a yappy, little dog that is all bark and no bite. Patmac, liberalism is rapidly heading towards financial bankruptcy in the West and will collapse under its own weight. It happened in the Soviet Union and it will happen to Western nations which ignore the lessons of Greece and what is starting to be played out in California. Empty threats by members of teetering ideologies are not impressive in the least. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:00, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::::Unsurprisingly patmac has been blocked user:c so he will not be able to respond. It's a shame really, I would have loved to hear the British Home Secretary's reply to any communication from him. I reckon I would have heard her laughing here where I live in the UK 40 miles from London, in fact I suspect you would have heard the laughing all the way over in the US. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 13:40, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

User talk:Brenden

2013-05-17T20:24:28Z

Davidspencer: /* It is nothing to do with like or disliek */

{{Useful links}}
[[User talk:Brenden/Archive]]

== Regarding the Anonymous page ==

I've looked into the Anon/WBC incident before for an essay on freedom of speech as it relates to Internet culture, and while both WBC and Anon showed their typical lack of civility and good manners towards each other they didn't violate the 1st Amendment in any way. I might have made a mistake in the report, though, so if you could show me where one side or the other violated 1st Amendment rights I'd be happy to concede the point. [[User:JGrant|Blessings of the Almighty on you :)]] 16:25, 3 October 2012 (EDT)

== Seeing as you've blocked me in the past for sometimes having a less-than-cheerful attitude... ==

....you'll love [http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/PaulDiFoglio this guy's] stream of edit comments. Hugs and kisses, [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 21:00, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

== What the hell are you doing? ==

Why have you just unblocked this user - you better have a good reason! [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 17:23, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
:No need to block non-malicious morons. Just let them know that they are being ignored.[[User:Brenden|Brenden]] 17:39, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

::DON'T DO IT AGAIN~! Look at the history you moron! [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 17:46, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

You've just made yourself look a total idiot. I can't believe I was the one who recommended for promotion. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 17:58, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
:::[Comments retracted by poster]<del>Thank you, EJamesW </sarcasm>[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 18:00, 2 November 2012 (EDT)</del>

What does </sarcasm> mean?

Does that mean you're trying to be sarcastic? But you can't think of anything witty or amusing to type?

Brenden, why don't you just say sorry and leave it at that? (Have you looked at the history of User:Reactionary22, you will see that I gave this guy a chance to respond and chandged his block settings.)

I suppose some Christians never can admit they're wrong...

[[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 18:17, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

:Ease up E, Brendan has done the same on more than one occasion. Normally we frown upon adjusting others' blocks but no harm, no foul.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:04, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
::My apologies, I failed to take a look at the history, and the tone you took kind of distracted me from looking. Sorry about that.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:54, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
==Editing==
Editing is fully restored. Sorry I didn't notice this earlier.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:55, 11 November 2012 (EST)
:Thanks, Mr. Schlafly[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 00:39, 12 November 2012 (EST)

==Conservative==
If you have a personal problem with a sysop, you take it up with Aschlafly. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:12, 19 November 2012 (EST)

== Personal Honeypot ==

Just registered. I think an interesting experiment/test could be to add a few articles copied from wikipedia into the wiki after deleting all the spam and see if the content of those articles changes what is being written in the spam. Dvergne 23:57, 17 December 2012 (EST)
:I also think we should start and anti-spam squad here to help combat the spam by collecting the IP's and the like and adding those to such sites as Stopforumspam. I also think that copying the spam IP block list from wikipedia is a good Idea as I imagine they would have to have pretty good countermeasures against spam over there. Dvergne 00:02, 18 December 2012 (EST)
==Thanks==
Thank you for your thoughtfulness. My only concern is accuracy and credibility. I think that sometimes, people can't see how a stranger will react to their writing because we all have internal writing voices which remember all of our intentions rather than what is on the page. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:34, 6 January 2013 (EST)

:Thank you for your tireless work against vandals. Your efforts are appreciated. :-) Regards, [[User:Taj|Taj]] 17:27, 13 January 2013 (EST)

== Spambots ==

It seems the spambots are active again. I might start to port over the new spambot IP blocks from Wikipedia again, as that seamed to be quite efficient at stopping them for a while last time. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 06:29, 3 February 2013 (EST)

:I think I might upgrade that to very active! Have you been getting much spam at your honeypot mate? [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 19:27, 3 February 2013 (EST)
::It's been ok-ish. I blocked most of the ranges that were targeting my honeypot. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 19:50, 3 February 2013 (EST)

== I removed your latest round of "personal attacks removed" censorship ==
I think it is poor form to edit talk page comments left by others. If an editor wishes to run afoul of the rules by speaking their mind, it should be their freedom to do so. If that editor happens to be immune to the rules (as with the user in this case), then I think their unfettered comments should stand as testimony to their true nature. Thanks --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 21:16, 7 February 2013 (EST)
:Well, the last time that specific user left his comments, a lot of people were offended. While I agree, that generally, it is inappropriate to censor users, in certain cases, especially when personal attacks are involved, it should be fine. Furthermore, the use of such tags, causes the poster understand that such attacks are not welcome on Conservapedia.

Thanks for your input anyways, though. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 22:04, 7 February 2013 (EST)

== Editing should work now ==

Try now - your account has been promoted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:25, 19 February 2013 (EST)
:Thanks! [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:59, 19 February 2013 (EST)

==Maybe you're right==

I still retain my suspicion, but if that contributor wants to reregister we should let him. I probably should have enabled account recreation after the block. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:34, 1 March 2013 (EST)

==AlanE==
Thanks Brenden. I needed that! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:20, 6 March 2013 (EST)
:NP [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 21:30, 6 March 2013 (EST)

== Reverting admins ==

Hi Brenden. You do not have the authority to undo admin's blocks. If you have an issue, you raise it. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 15:30, 7 March 2013 (EST)
:KK got it. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:47, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

== Block ==

Thanks. [[User:JohanZ|JohanZ]] 11:56, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
:No problem[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:25, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

== CameronD ==

Sorry I had been playing around with my signature I have now corrected it. [[User:CameronD|CameronD]] 13:45, 12 April 2013 (EDT)

== Unleash the <s>Kraken</s> Bot! ==
If you really do have the ability to implement some technical means to protect this wiki from a certain user's flagrant deletion sprees, I implore you to do so. Asking him to stop won't do a thing. He literally is incapable of changing his ways. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 22:57, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
:Well I do hope that asking him to change will help him overcome his irritating habit of deleting pages, I am prepared to create a bot. Unfortunately, I have no experience with the MW api, sooo, I see a lot of googling, and asking for technical help in my foreseeable future. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:42, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

==User:C Reply==
I have no intention of leaving, but between C's actions and [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] choosing to ignore the problem(as well as any message I write to him now), it's hard to stay motivated to keep trying to make the site better. I'll stick around for now and continue to fight for this site, but I have this sinking feeling that it is only a matter of time before I'm perma-banned. Thanks for the support though, hopefully those of us who actually care will be able to prevail in the end. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 14:24, 25 April 2013 (EDT)
:On a related note... am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy in C's repeated use of the 90/10 rule as a reason for banning (including the block of [[User:FWilliamM|FWilliamM]] a mere 40 minutes after your unbanning him) when 38% of his own last 500 edits were to talk pages? [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:28, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
::I do try to unblock the users unfairly blocked by that admin. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 01:17, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
:::I know you do and my earlier comment wasn't aimed at you. I was just frustrated with his antics last night and needed to express that to someone. Thank you for doing what you can. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 08:32, 27 April 2013 (EDT)

That is enough from both of you. Brendan, you have no business or authority unblocking users because of a pet peeve against Conservative, especially when I look into the matter and discover they are proven trolls previously blocked for hostility. User Fnarrow, your whining about being bullied is now over and done with. You chose to come into the site, and you chose to put yourself into conflict with another user when you could have chosen otherwise. This site is an encyclopedia; it is not a site where anyone can cause a fight with anyone else. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:51, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
::: Karajou, I've always respected you, and found you to be a fair, and rational person, despite whatever ideological differences we may have. On the other hand, I must protest that contrary to what you said about FNarrow, ''"you chose to put yourself into conflict with another user when you could have chosen otherwise."'' is actually an incorrect take on what happened. FNarrow was according to his contributions, merely being a productive editor, when s/he was provoked by User:C's ad-hominem attacks, and blatant violation of the Commandments. As per my authority to undo blocks placed by a superior, I feel, (and I'm pretty sure that Mr. Schlafly agrees with me), that blocks placed to censor users, and to subvert the policies here, are worthy of an immediate unblock. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:44, 27 April 2013 (EDT)

::::This edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=1036560] says a lot in support of my argument; this individual also created three additional accounts via a Philippine proxy in order to cause an attack on user Conservative...and you unblocked two of those socks. What you and FNarrow need to do is not only read the Conservapedia Commandments, but read and heed the warnings at the bottom of my user page. Everyone coming in is going to respect this website and the people in it, or they are out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:04, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

Respect,K.? Ha!! Whose wife was implied to be a slut, K; and by whom, and who stood by and let that worm, Cons, get away with it? Who said one thing on Gmail and something else in public when he realised he had to show solidarity with a certain Mexican "gentleman" who backed a coward who has not bothered to do what he said he would do. I am still here, K. Where did Markman go when he realised he had given himself some work to do?

Just one question - why, if lack of citations is such a crime, wasn't I pulled up in 2007? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:55, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

Sorry Brenden for smeering your page with my anger. One takes the opportunity when it arises. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 03:12, 28 April 2013 (EDT)
::@User:Karajou
I don't have the checkuser ability, so I cannot tell if the people I block and unblock are socks. As per respecting the website, and the people (Especially user:C), I do try to respect the person, even if I cannot respect their actions. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:37, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

==Fnarrow infinite block==
I am a friend of Fnarrow and he asked me to post the copy of this email which he sent to cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com on the user talk pages ofa few people whom he said had always been fair to him. <blockquote>
I got banned for a day and then Karajou immediately changed it to infinite for no apparent reason immediately after it expired. I have cut the dead end pages by nearly half during my short time there and feel i have made substantive improvements to other articles during that time. While i have had disagreements with Karajou and Conservative, i have always been respectful and adhered to the Conservapedia commandments. Finally, I never had a chance to respond to my accuser and did nothing to deserve this treatment. Please forward this to Mr. Schlafly for review.
Thank you, Fnarrow
</blockquote>
If my opinion counts for anything, Frank really is a great and passionate guy who could add a lot of valuable knowledge to yosite. That is all, please keep up the great work. [[User:JSandler|JSandler]] 14:35, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

== If you hide another civil discussion I am having with another editor again, I will ask that you be removed from the website ==

If you hide another civil discussion that I am having with another editor again, I will ask that you be removed from the website. Thank you. I am sure Karajou and others would agree with me on this matter if I bring up this matter with other Admins. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:12, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
:How dare you? You insulted Patmac, and a vast host of other anglicans, you dragged me into this fight, and if you don't tone down your insults, I will bring it up with Mr. Schlafly, who certainly agrees that your words are unnacceptable. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:14, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
::I don't consider my post to you daring. And I do mean to carry out what I said I would do should you do it again. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:15, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
:::That discussion was civil? Calling user:Patmac a untrue christian, who is also a "lying evolutionist"? Really? I have brought this matter with the site's owner already. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:19, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

==It is nothing to do with like or dislike ==
It is nothing to do with like or dislike. It is for your own good. This is a fight you will NOT win. Rob Smith tried this and he now edits at ratwiki, he is an ex-person here. Keep this up and you will be as well. Davidspencer 16:23, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

User talk:Brenden

2013-05-17T20:24:00Z

Davidspencer:

{{Useful links}}
[[User talk:Brenden/Archive]]

== Regarding the Anonymous page ==

I've looked into the Anon/WBC incident before for an essay on freedom of speech as it relates to Internet culture, and while both WBC and Anon showed their typical lack of civility and good manners towards each other they didn't violate the 1st Amendment in any way. I might have made a mistake in the report, though, so if you could show me where one side or the other violated 1st Amendment rights I'd be happy to concede the point. [[User:JGrant|Blessings of the Almighty on you :)]] 16:25, 3 October 2012 (EDT)

== Seeing as you've blocked me in the past for sometimes having a less-than-cheerful attitude... ==

....you'll love [http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/PaulDiFoglio this guy's] stream of edit comments. Hugs and kisses, [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 21:00, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

== What the hell are you doing? ==

Why have you just unblocked this user - you better have a good reason! [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 17:23, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
:No need to block non-malicious morons. Just let them know that they are being ignored.[[User:Brenden|Brenden]] 17:39, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

::DON'T DO IT AGAIN~! Look at the history you moron! [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 17:46, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

You've just made yourself look a total idiot. I can't believe I was the one who recommended for promotion. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 17:58, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
:::[Comments retracted by poster]<del>Thank you, EJamesW </sarcasm>[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 18:00, 2 November 2012 (EDT)</del>

What does </sarcasm> mean?

Does that mean you're trying to be sarcastic? But you can't think of anything witty or amusing to type?

Brenden, why don't you just say sorry and leave it at that? (Have you looked at the history of User:Reactionary22, you will see that I gave this guy a chance to respond and chandged his block settings.)

I suppose some Christians never can admit they're wrong...

[[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 18:17, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

:Ease up E, Brendan has done the same on more than one occasion. Normally we frown upon adjusting others' blocks but no harm, no foul.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:04, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
::My apologies, I failed to take a look at the history, and the tone you took kind of distracted me from looking. Sorry about that.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:54, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
==Editing==
Editing is fully restored. Sorry I didn't notice this earlier.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:55, 11 November 2012 (EST)
:Thanks, Mr. Schlafly[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 00:39, 12 November 2012 (EST)

==Conservative==
If you have a personal problem with a sysop, you take it up with Aschlafly. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:12, 19 November 2012 (EST)

== Personal Honeypot ==

Just registered. I think an interesting experiment/test could be to add a few articles copied from wikipedia into the wiki after deleting all the spam and see if the content of those articles changes what is being written in the spam. Dvergne 23:57, 17 December 2012 (EST)
:I also think we should start and anti-spam squad here to help combat the spam by collecting the IP's and the like and adding those to such sites as Stopforumspam. I also think that copying the spam IP block list from wikipedia is a good Idea as I imagine they would have to have pretty good countermeasures against spam over there. Dvergne 00:02, 18 December 2012 (EST)
==Thanks==
Thank you for your thoughtfulness. My only concern is accuracy and credibility. I think that sometimes, people can't see how a stranger will react to their writing because we all have internal writing voices which remember all of our intentions rather than what is on the page. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:34, 6 January 2013 (EST)

:Thank you for your tireless work against vandals. Your efforts are appreciated. :-) Regards, [[User:Taj|Taj]] 17:27, 13 January 2013 (EST)

== Spambots ==

It seems the spambots are active again. I might start to port over the new spambot IP blocks from Wikipedia again, as that seamed to be quite efficient at stopping them for a while last time. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 06:29, 3 February 2013 (EST)

:I think I might upgrade that to very active! Have you been getting much spam at your honeypot mate? [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 19:27, 3 February 2013 (EST)
::It's been ok-ish. I blocked most of the ranges that were targeting my honeypot. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 19:50, 3 February 2013 (EST)

== I removed your latest round of "personal attacks removed" censorship ==
I think it is poor form to edit talk page comments left by others. If an editor wishes to run afoul of the rules by speaking their mind, it should be their freedom to do so. If that editor happens to be immune to the rules (as with the user in this case), then I think their unfettered comments should stand as testimony to their true nature. Thanks --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 21:16, 7 February 2013 (EST)
:Well, the last time that specific user left his comments, a lot of people were offended. While I agree, that generally, it is inappropriate to censor users, in certain cases, especially when personal attacks are involved, it should be fine. Furthermore, the use of such tags, causes the poster understand that such attacks are not welcome on Conservapedia.

Thanks for your input anyways, though. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 22:04, 7 February 2013 (EST)

== Editing should work now ==

Try now - your account has been promoted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:25, 19 February 2013 (EST)
:Thanks! [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:59, 19 February 2013 (EST)

==Maybe you're right==

I still retain my suspicion, but if that contributor wants to reregister we should let him. I probably should have enabled account recreation after the block. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:34, 1 March 2013 (EST)

==AlanE==
Thanks Brenden. I needed that! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:20, 6 March 2013 (EST)
:NP [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 21:30, 6 March 2013 (EST)

== Reverting admins ==

Hi Brenden. You do not have the authority to undo admin's blocks. If you have an issue, you raise it. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 15:30, 7 March 2013 (EST)
:KK got it. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:47, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

== Block ==

Thanks. [[User:JohanZ|JohanZ]] 11:56, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
:No problem[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:25, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

== CameronD ==

Sorry I had been playing around with my signature I have now corrected it. [[User:CameronD|CameronD]] 13:45, 12 April 2013 (EDT)

== Unleash the <s>Kraken</s> Bot! ==
If you really do have the ability to implement some technical means to protect this wiki from a certain user's flagrant deletion sprees, I implore you to do so. Asking him to stop won't do a thing. He literally is incapable of changing his ways. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 22:57, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
:Well I do hope that asking him to change will help him overcome his irritating habit of deleting pages, I am prepared to create a bot. Unfortunately, I have no experience with the MW api, sooo, I see a lot of googling, and asking for technical help in my foreseeable future. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:42, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

==User:C Reply==
I have no intention of leaving, but between C's actions and [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] choosing to ignore the problem(as well as any message I write to him now), it's hard to stay motivated to keep trying to make the site better. I'll stick around for now and continue to fight for this site, but I have this sinking feeling that it is only a matter of time before I'm perma-banned. Thanks for the support though, hopefully those of us who actually care will be able to prevail in the end. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 14:24, 25 April 2013 (EDT)
:On a related note... am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy in C's repeated use of the 90/10 rule as a reason for banning (including the block of [[User:FWilliamM|FWilliamM]] a mere 40 minutes after your unbanning him) when 38% of his own last 500 edits were to talk pages? [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:28, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
::I do try to unblock the users unfairly blocked by that admin. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 01:17, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
:::I know you do and my earlier comment wasn't aimed at you. I was just frustrated with his antics last night and needed to express that to someone. Thank you for doing what you can. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 08:32, 27 April 2013 (EDT)

That is enough from both of you. Brendan, you have no business or authority unblocking users because of a pet peeve against Conservative, especially when I look into the matter and discover they are proven trolls previously blocked for hostility. User Fnarrow, your whining about being bullied is now over and done with. You chose to come into the site, and you chose to put yourself into conflict with another user when you could have chosen otherwise. This site is an encyclopedia; it is not a site where anyone can cause a fight with anyone else. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:51, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
::: Karajou, I've always respected you, and found you to be a fair, and rational person, despite whatever ideological differences we may have. On the other hand, I must protest that contrary to what you said about FNarrow, ''"you chose to put yourself into conflict with another user when you could have chosen otherwise."'' is actually an incorrect take on what happened. FNarrow was according to his contributions, merely being a productive editor, when s/he was provoked by User:C's ad-hominem attacks, and blatant violation of the Commandments. As per my authority to undo blocks placed by a superior, I feel, (and I'm pretty sure that Mr. Schlafly agrees with me), that blocks placed to censor users, and to subvert the policies here, are worthy of an immediate unblock. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:44, 27 April 2013 (EDT)

::::This edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=1036560] says a lot in support of my argument; this individual also created three additional accounts via a Philippine proxy in order to cause an attack on user Conservative...and you unblocked two of those socks. What you and FNarrow need to do is not only read the Conservapedia Commandments, but read and heed the warnings at the bottom of my user page. Everyone coming in is going to respect this website and the people in it, or they are out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:04, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

Respect,K.? Ha!! Whose wife was implied to be a slut, K; and by whom, and who stood by and let that worm, Cons, get away with it? Who said one thing on Gmail and something else in public when he realised he had to show solidarity with a certain Mexican "gentleman" who backed a coward who has not bothered to do what he said he would do. I am still here, K. Where did Markman go when he realised he had given himself some work to do?

Just one question - why, if lack of citations is such a crime, wasn't I pulled up in 2007? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:55, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

Sorry Brenden for smeering your page with my anger. One takes the opportunity when it arises. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 03:12, 28 April 2013 (EDT)
::@User:Karajou
I don't have the checkuser ability, so I cannot tell if the people I block and unblock are socks. As per respecting the website, and the people (Especially user:C), I do try to respect the person, even if I cannot respect their actions. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:37, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

==Fnarrow infinite block==
I am a friend of Fnarrow and he asked me to post the copy of this email which he sent to cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com on the user talk pages ofa few people whom he said had always been fair to him. <blockquote>
I got banned for a day and then Karajou immediately changed it to infinite for no apparent reason immediately after it expired. I have cut the dead end pages by nearly half during my short time there and feel i have made substantive improvements to other articles during that time. While i have had disagreements with Karajou and Conservative, i have always been respectful and adhered to the Conservapedia commandments. Finally, I never had a chance to respond to my accuser and did nothing to deserve this treatment. Please forward this to Mr. Schlafly for review.
Thank you, Fnarrow
</blockquote>
If my opinion counts for anything, Frank really is a great and passionate guy who could add a lot of valuable knowledge to yosite. That is all, please keep up the great work. [[User:JSandler|JSandler]] 14:35, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

== If you hide another civil discussion I am having with another editor again, I will ask that you be removed from the website ==

If you hide another civil discussion that I am having with another editor again, I will ask that you be removed from the website. Thank you. I am sure Karajou and others would agree with me on this matter if I bring up this matter with other Admins. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:12, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
:How dare you? You insulted Patmac, and a vast host of other anglicans, you dragged me into this fight, and if you don't tone down your insults, I will bring it up with Mr. Schlafly, who certainly agrees that your words are unnacceptable. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:14, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
::I don't consider my post to you daring. And I do mean to carry out what I said I would do should you do it again. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:15, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
:::That discussion was civil? Calling user:Patmac a untrue christian, who is also a "lying evolutionist"? Really? I have brought this matter with the site's owner already. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:19, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

==It is nothing to do with like or disliek ==
It is nothing to do with like or dislike. It is for your own good. This is a fight you will NOT win. Ropb smith tried this and he now edits at ratwiki, he is an ex-person here. Keep this up and you will be as well. Davidspencer 16:23, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

User talk:Davidspencer

2013-05-17T20:23:17Z

Davidspencer: /* Reverting my Revert */

Hayley Mills

2013-05-14T19:53:31Z

Davidspencer: I can't spell sometimes.

'''Hayley Mills''' is a British actress, famous for [[Pollyanna]] (1960) and [[The Parent Trap]] (1961). She is probably most famous for the flim whistle Down the Wind in which a group of children find an escaped criminal whom they mistake for Jesus Christ.

==Links==
*[http://www.blockbuster.com/browse/catalog/personDetails/43509 bio] at Blockbuster

{{DEFAULTSORT:Mills, Hayley}}
[[Category: Actresses]]

Hayley Mills

2013-05-14T19:53:05Z

Davidspencer: removing an extra 'a'

'''Hayley Mills''' is a British actress, famous for [[Pollyanna]] (1960) and [[The Parent Trap]] (1961). She is probably most famous for the flim whistle Down the Wind in which a group of children find an excaped criminal whom they mistake for Jesus Christ.

==Links==
*[http://www.blockbuster.com/browse/catalog/personDetails/43509 bio] at Blockbuster

{{DEFAULTSORT:Mills, Hayley}}
[[Category: Actresses]]

Hayley Mills

2013-05-14T19:52:44Z

Davidspencer:

'''Hayley Mills''' is a a British actress, famous for [[Pollyanna]] (1960) and [[The Parent Trap]] (1961). She is probably most famous for the flim whistle Down the Wind in which a group of children find an excaped criminal whom they mistake for Jesus Christ.

==Links==
*[http://www.blockbuster.com/browse/catalog/personDetails/43509 bio] at Blockbuster

{{DEFAULTSORT:Mills, Hayley}}
[[Category: Actresses]]

Hayley Mills

2013-05-14T19:50:40Z

Davidspencer: Who wrote this rubbish, Hayley Mills is still very much alive.

'''Hayley Mills''' is a child actress, famous for [[Pollyanna]] (1960) and [[The Parent Trap]] (1961).

==Links==
*[http://www.blockbuster.com/browse/catalog/personDetails/43509 bio] at Blockbuster

{{DEFAULTSORT:Mills, Hayley}}
[[Category: Actresses]]

Moto gp

2013-04-19T15:09:30Z

Davidspencer:

Moto GP is the premier form of motorcycle road racing. The main class is contested on 1000 cc four stroke machines, with the current champion being the Spaniard Jorge Lorenzo.
The lower classes are Moto2, which is contested on 600cc four stroke machines, and moto3 which is contested on 250cc single cylinder four stroke machines with an open chassis formula.

The 2013 season began on 7th April 2013 in [[Qatar]]. The victor in that race was Jorge Lorenzo riding a factory Yamaha.

The next race takes place on the 19th April at the Circuit of the Americas in the US.

==External links==
*[http://www.motogp.com The Official MotoGP Website]

Talk:Moto gp

2013-04-08T18:58:10Z

Davidspencer:

== "Islamic Qatar" ==
I understand that this is conservapedia and some of the users might actually care about this, but I personally don't see how the majority religion in any country has any effect on Moto GP... I think it's unnecessary, but I don't want to change it if it's there for a justifiable reason, please let me know. Thanks, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 11:38, 7 April 2013 (EDT)
:I gave it 24 hours and as there seem to be no objections, I'm going to remove it. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 13:07, 8 April 2013 (EDT)
::I've been busy today or I would have done the same. The fact that Qatar is an Islamic state matters not in the least to MotoGP I agree. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 14:58, 8 April 2013 (EDT)

Moto gp

2013-04-07T13:04:32Z

Davidspencer: A start

Moto GP is the premier form of motorcycle road racing. The main class is contested on 1000 cc four stroke machines and the current champion for 2012 is jorge Lorenzo.
Subsidiary classes are Moto2, contested on 600cc four stroke machines, and moto3, contested on 250cc single cylinder four stroke machines.

The 2013 season starts on 7th April 2013 in Qatar.

==External links==
*[http://www.motogp.com The Official MotoGP Website]

Talk:E=mc²

2013-01-19T14:48:58Z

Davidspencer: Please give contributors the chance to respond to you before simply archiving. Elements of this page are being refered to in the current debate and you should have the good grace to allow others, the

==This article is complete garbage==
E=mc^2 is only a simplified version created to be understood easier. If people had put dedicated effort for any amount of time, they could find the truth behind it. And "the bible says it's false" does not work, especially since the rest of the world completely agrees with the theory of relativity.
http://news.discovery.com/space/the-famous-emc2-is-incomplete-gotta-see-video-121030.html

:Beware of claims that the rest of the world completely agrees with something. Unanimously passed legislation is often the very worst kind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 16 December 2012 (EST)
::But wouldn't unanimously passed legislation be a good example of the [[Best of the Public]]? [[User:Wonders|Wonders]] 23:31, 8 January 2013 (EST)

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

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

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

== Humbug ==

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

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

If not, just erase the first section.

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

== Nobel Lecture ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Some points ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::The quotes were solicited to describe the meaning of the equation to laymen, not to illustrate how difficult that is. The difficulty arises from the meaningless nature of the equation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::Actually the meaning of the equation is very clear: the total energy contained in matter is its mass multiplied by the speed of light in a vaccum squared. Experiment after experiment, and nuclear reactor after nuclear reactor, has clearly demonstrated that the total energy released by a reaction is the lost mass multiplied by c2. Therefore whether the theories of relativity are true or not, E=mc2 is true. Equally, even if classical Newtonian mechanics was false, the kinetic energy of a moving mass would still be accurately described by Ek=1/2mv2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:34, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::::Indeed. Internet quotes are really not very useful. A skilled researcher can always find someone saying something to justify their position however bizarre or immoral. This is a typical weakness (and response!) of those who have no real moral or religious basis for their convictions. --[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 19:04, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::These quotes are absolutely meaningless. It looks like you took random sentences from the PBS article and then inserted them into the article as if they had any real significance. This is made even more moot when you consider the fact that the article claims that "Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc²" and then you go on to quote three. Not to mention, most of the quotes aren't actually explaining what the equation means - a basic understanding of algebra and what the symbols mean is sufficient to understand its basic meaning - but rather what it entails, its implications. Tim Halpin-Healy's quote I think is better than taking some random sentences and then implying that they mean that physicists don't know what E=mc² means. --[[User:Tyg13|Tyg13]] 15:58, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::The problem is that '''E=m2does not meaning anythimg that makes sense. Anyone is welcome to try to explain it here. Eating a pound of cake does not cause one's energy to increase by the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:06, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::No, it doesn't. It causes your energy to increase by a number of foot-pounds equal to '''one pound''' times the speed of light squared. I've explained this to you already and it isn't difficult. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:23, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::The equation is essentially just a conversion ratio, its not difficult to understand that units of energy (Whether it is Joules, pound-foot, or erg) look essentially like a velocity squared times a mass (in SI units - kg m^2/s^2) this is not relativity or theory dependent, its the definition of Energy. The Special Relativistic analysis that results in the basic equation just determines that the conversion ratio is precisely that universal constant '''c''' in whatever units are convenient. There is no blindingly obvious or intuitive reason why this SHOULD be the case (conceivably the conversion ratio could have any number of complicated dimensionless constants in front), but basic mathematical logic allows us to derive this simple relationship from the postulates of Special Relativity. That being said, its a rather useless equation on everyday scales. In reality, after consuming a pound of cake your body begins to break down the chemical bonds in the sugars/fats/proteins to extract usable energy, about 1500 food calories worth of it. If you had a precise enough scale and could somehow keep a human in a hermetically sealed bag that prevents the escape of any moisture/gas etc. you would be able to measure that after consuming and digesting the cake your bodyweight would not be +1 lb, but about 70 pg (picograms - 10^-12 grams) less, so if you weighed 150.0lb and ate a pound of cake (total of 151lb), after digestion you would actually weigh 70pg less than 151lb. It is important to note that this "mass" isn't "lost" it is merely the "weight" of the energy stored in the chemical bonds, in other words in a pound of cake there is (1lb - 70pg) of stuff and 70pg worth of "chemical energy" with a conversion ratio of c^2. If you had some magic machine that could convert mass to energy at 100% efficiency the detonation of a body sized bomb would release 20 times more energy than the largest nuclear weapon detonated by man kind, however due to the nature of nuclear transitions/processes such a 100% conversion rate is not possibe . On the scale of nuclear bonds (order of MeV) this difference becomes conceivably measurable, but even so, in the detonation of a hiroshima sized nuclear weapon, the loss of mass due to the nuclear fission is approximately 500mg, the rest of the nuclear material is dispersed as fallout, considering that there was ~60kg of nuclear material in the weapon, this corresponds to an energy "efficiency" ~1%, which is typical of fission devices. In a 100MT nuclear bomb this is conceivably larger at nearly 5kg, and the fusion type weapon that can achieve this high yields has considerably higher mass-energy conversion efficiency at around ~20% [[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 16:53, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::: Another way of thinking about is this. Consider your typical AA batery, it is not a difficult stretch of the mind to understand that this battery stores electrical energy, approximately 2Ampere-hours at 1.5v which is approximately 5000J worth of STORED electical energy. Now, CONSUMING this battery does not cause your kinetic energy to increase by 5000J the same way that consuming a pound of cake does not cause your kinetic energy to increase by 1lb*c^2, you are still limited by your ability to convert between different energy sources. So A RC car would be able to use that battery to move around for several hours, YOU on the other hand will most likely just pass the battery through your body and the basic chemicals that are storing this electric energy will come out unaltered. The same way that a pound of cake can sustain you for a day, but try stuffing it into the battery compartment of your RC car and it won't move an inch. "Mass-energy" works much the same way, sure consuming a pound of cake increases your "rest energy" or by an enormous amount, but in reality there is no way to convert mass directly to energy so its much the same as swallowing a battery or stuffing cake into the RC car. [[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 17:05, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:At any rate, eating a pound of cake, is not nuclear physics, it is chemistry, where your cells digest and utilize the sugars within. Protiens are also converted into sugar.[[User:JonM|JonM]] 18:28, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Restoration ==

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

== Instead of the source - tag ==

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

== A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton ==

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

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

'''2.''' Do you accept the measurements for the mass of the particles as used by Cockcroft¹ and Walton, i.e.
:::{|
!particle
!mass
|-
|1H||1.0072 amu
|-
|4He||4.0011 amu
|-
|7Li||7.0130 amu
|}
If not, which values do you think to be right?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aschlafly, you haven't answered any of the questions above! Instead you are talking about something completely different:
*We are not talking about a ''chemical'' reaction! You should know the difference.
*Cockcroft¹ claims that the energy comes from the loss of mass - and he calculates it according to ''E=mc²''. Please read (and understand!) his lecture.
*Please give a list of a few (or at least a single) experiment which contradicts the formula. This should be easy, as you stated that ''Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula''. Oh, wait, you made that up...
*Please answer the questions 1 to 9: all the question are covered in Cockcroft's¹ lecture, so I'd be interested in your explanation!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:32, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
:AugustO, if you cannot even spell Cockcroft's name properly, how can Andy take anything you say seriously? --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 22:03, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

(1) : spelling of ''Cockcroft corrected [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:22, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

== Move ==

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

== Experimental Facts ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Misleading footnote ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Protection of the Article ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course this is hearsay - and so it should be. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia - a collection of established information cited from other sources. Hearsay may be inappropriate in court, but it is the lifeblood of an encyclopedia. Anything that is not 'hearsay' is personal opinion or original research, and should be reserved for articles prefixed 'Essay:'. --[[User:JasperK|JasperK]] 08:23, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:Then again, heresy tends to be more reputable when it comes from a professional who has studied the issue for years, instead of a man who doesn't understand how food works. [[User:JackFerner|JackFerner]] 12:23, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Bare links ==

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

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

== Niels Bohr ==
Andy, for how often you rail against the Nobel Prize I'm surprised that you would try and use a former winner as an authority to support your misguided assertion. [[User:DennisR|DennisR]] 21:48, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:Even a broken clock (like the Nobel Prize) gets it right every once in a while!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:07, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

::''. As a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light, it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, including Niels Bohr. '' Who were these physicists? And what said Niels Bohr? I couldn't find anything. In the famous ''Gedankenexperiment'' at Solvay, he accepted ''E=mc²! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:14, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

:::And of course it ''isn't'' a "general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light." It's a statement of equivalence between energy and matter. Andy seems to be obsessed with the idea that light is involved somehow, and that conflicts with his rather odd idea that the Bible forbids a unified theory. I can only wonder what he'll do if science comes up with a unified theory. Probably deny that too. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:16, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly, according to the information I found (Einstein and Bohr at the Solvay-conference), Niels Bohr accepted ''E=mc²''. So, a fact-tag was the only alternative to downright deleting the sentence: it allows you to bring up your sources! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:31, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
:I'd have been amazed if he hadn't. Bohr was on the British team for the Manhattan Project, and he wouldn't have been much use at nuclear weapon design if he didn't accept E=mc2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:41, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, you have a tendency to make up claims (''As a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light, it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, including Niels Bohr. '', ''Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula'', and, yes, '' "suddenly" or "at that time" is a nuance of the Greek ἰδού''). And when your bluff is called, you are miffed! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:00, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
::''Protected "E=mc²": insertion of a fact tag instead of finding and adding a reference.'' That is ridiculous: there is no way of ''finding and adding a reference'' for this made-up "''fact''"!
::It is, however, not very difficult to show that the ''fact'' was invented: just take a look into ''"Foundations of Quantum Physics I''", a book written by Niels Bohr and Jorgen Kalckar. Here Bohr uses what he calls ''Einstein's relation'' without any trepidation! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:00, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Presumably, then, the relevant text should be changed to something like "it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, although Niels Bohr later accepted it." and then add the citation. Or you could clarify with something like "the liberal Nobel Prizewinner Niels Bohr".--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:18, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
::::*There is no reason to think that there was a time at which Niels Bohr didn't accept it!
::::*Is there any source which shows that it was ''widely rejected at the time''? Of course, there was the [[Deutsche Physik]], but does this count?
::::*That said: the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag was absolutely appropriate.
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:44, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::You make some valid points as the online evidence is remarkably scant, even though the disagreement between Bohr and Einstein is well-known. This may be a (rare) example where the internet is less adequate than books. I did add an explanatory footnote and the protection to the page should be expiring soon, if not already.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

*Einstein disagreed with Bohr regarding quantum mechanics. Could you provide a source that Bohr disagreed with Einstein on the theory of relativity? I can't find one!
*As I said, the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag was absolutely appropriate, and I'll reinsert it, as I don't think that there are any sources to back-up your claim.
*Furthermore, I have difficulties to believe that Lord Rutherford had problems with ''E=mc²'', he seemed to appreciate the liquid-drop-model of Gamov, Bohr, et al.
*''a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light'': no one claims that the '''three''' are equivalent!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:22, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== First sentence ==

I've changed the introduction to something a bit more encyclopaedic. Please don't revert without discussing it first. Thanks. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:28, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Political Pressure ==

''Political pressure has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of this nonsensical equation''

More likely the fact that similar experiments as the one Cockcroft and Walton are performed by undergraduates in each department teaching physics around the world! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:30, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

:No, that would not explain why it "is impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of" E=mc2. Even if you think the formula is somehow true, surely you do not deny the political pressure in academia against anyone who might consider questioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:37, 3 April 2012 (EDT)
::It's entirely possible for someone who questions the validity of E=mc2 to pursue a career in science; scientists are encouraged to question the validity ''everything''. However if they ''deny'' the validity of E=mc2 then a scientific career is indeed off-limits to them, for the same reason as it's off-limits to someone who denies that 1+1=2. The fact is, E=mc2. It's been verified time and time again. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 18:44, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

To talk about political pressure in this context is ridiculous. The conversion of Mass to Energy and vice versa and the validity of E=mc2 has been demonstrated experimentally so often(an early example is given in the main page) that to deny that the equation describes observed nature flies in the face of observation and is thus unscientific. To question its validity without hard experimental evidence or a sound theoretical argument (neither of which has been demonstrated) would simply be a matter of scientific (in)competance.[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:16, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

:*Aschlafly, if you argue against ''E=mc²'' out of a position of (willful) ignorance, you won't be taken seriously. Unfortunately this is what you are doing, as your (non-) answer [[Talk:E=mc²#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockroft and Walton|above]] is showing.
:*Criticism of ''E=mc²'' on ideological grounds just doesn't work, as the adherents of the [[Deutsche Physik]] found out in the early 1940s.
:*But obviously, the theory is under constant discussion, as is the concept of energy or mass.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:34, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

== Matter-light relationship ==

Mr. Schafly, I think you are misunderstanding the nature of the <math>E=mc^2</math> relationship. To illustrate, I will give an example.

Suppose we have a map where 1 inch of distance on the map corresponds to 5 miles actual distance. If points A and B are located 2.5 inches apart on the map, we can compute the actual distance between them as follows:
:<math>2.5 \textrm{ map\,in} \cdot \frac{5 \textrm{ mi}}{\textrm{map\,in}} = 12.5 \textrm{ mi}</math>
In general, if the map distance between two points is <math>d</math> and the actual distance between the points is <math>D</math>, then the following formula is satisfied:
:<math>D = dc</math>
where <math>c</math> is the conversion factor <math>\frac{5 \textrm{ mi}}{\textrm{map\,in}}</math>. The equation above does not relate distance to five or map distance to quintessence. Rather, it posits a direct relationship (or equivalence) between the map distance and the actual distance, related by a conversion factor.

Likewise, <math>E=mc^2</math> posits a direct relationship between mass and energy. It does not relate mass to the speed of light (or light itself), nor does the equation related light to energy. Rather, <math>c^2</math> is a conversion factor, just like the <math>c</math> was in our equation for computing actual distances from map distances. I hope this helps explain why some editors have concern with your statement of the relationship posited by <math>E=mc^2</math>. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:19, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:But Energy and mass have known meanings in other contexts, unlike the distances (in inches) on the map page in your example. If Energy or mass were being redefined by E=mc2, then I think your analogy would work. But people are not defending E=mc2 by saying it entails a redefinition of Energy or mass.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
::The equation postulates how mass and energy can be interchanged while conserving the total amount of mass energy. For example, according to the equation, a nuclear reaction that causes 1.0 kg of mass to be lost will produce 9.0 x 1016 J energy. The amount of energy produced ''by the loss of mass'' is proportional to the mass lost. It is the same sort of equivalence between the number of pounds you get at a currency exchange and the number of dollars you pay (which, come to think of it, is probably an even better analogy). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:13, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:::(inserted reply here) E=mc2 claims more than the relation between mass and energy is linear (which is itself implausible). It also claims that the proportional factor is precisely equal to the speed of light squared. Restating the meaning of the equation in plain terms demonstrates how implausible it is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:41, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Energy and mass have known meanings in THIS context! The equation tells us how much energy will be liberated by losing a set amount of mass, or how much energy (for example hard gamma rays) is required to create a set amount of mass. It is a valid equation. It doesn't matter ''what'' objections anyone has to it based on principle or logic; it's been tested and it's correct. This is getting pretty frustrating. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 01:56, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

Perhaps we should have two articles [[E=mc² (science)]] and [[E=mc² (new age)]]: every sentence Aschlafly writes on this subjects shows that he knows so very little about the science involved - and has no interest to get informed any further. Instead his methods reminds me of homeopaths and other quacks advertising their craft by misrepresenting sources, cherry-picking evidence and generally repeating false statements over and over again despite of better knowledge. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:05, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

===A question===

Mr Schlafly, you've said that this equation "purports" to describe the equivalence of matter and energy. The fact is, it's been repeatedly tested and it ''does'' describe the equivalence of matter and energy. However I get the feeling that there's some misunderstanding here. What, exactly, is your objection to E=mc2? Do you think it's incorrect - in which case go check the experimental data - or do you think it's being used to advance some sort of political agenda? I think we've reached a deadlock here and to make any progress on improving the article it would be helpful to know what you think is wrong with the equation. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:02, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
:The problem is that it is a self-sustaining myth presented as "fact" by the same self-serving scientific establishment who have built an tautological edifice on nothing. It is designed to subtly indoctrinate children into the world of moral, social and scientific relativity by suggesting that "everything is relative".--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 17:03, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:The equation is nonsensical. Mass has nothing to do with the speed of light, and cannot be equated to energy simply by multiplying it twice by the speed of light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
::Andy, how do you explain the result of the Cockcroft- Walton experiment? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 01:42, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:::A very good question! Aschlafly, you could try to answer it by responding to [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|this section above]]! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:01, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

== Bohr disagreed with Einstein's 1905 paper ==

Aschlafly, do you have any source for this claim? It seems to be factual incorrect. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:27, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

I looked into it and for me it is an ''ad-hoc'' fabrication to make a point - even the time-line doesn't work out: a '''''trustworthy''''' encyclopedia shouldn't work this way! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:58, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:My dad's grandfather [[Charles Lane Poor]] also disagreed with this paper, although I think he eventually came around once enough evidence piled up for it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:36, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::Why ''also''? There is no evidence that Bohr disagreed with the paper (therefore the statement about Bohr is ''factually incorrect'', i.e., false) and the fabrication was removed from the article. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:18, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

:Bohr and Einstein, though friends, had a famous debate about the new theories. If it was not about the particular 1905 paper you have in mind, then what were the Bohr–Einstein debates about? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:22, 11 June 2012 (EDT)
::They had famous debates about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates quantum mechanics], which has nothing to do with the 1905 paper. I'm not aware of any debates about relativity. Can you provide a reference? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:09, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

:::Indeed, it is well known that Bohr and Einstein discussed quantum-mechanics - here is Niels Bohr's own account of these discussions: ''[http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/dk/bohr.htm Discussions with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics]''. Please keep in mind that Bohr was just 20 years old in 1905 - and only decided that year to drop philosophy and take up physics! If you can find any debate of Bohr and Einstein on purely relativistic matters, that will come as a surprise. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:41, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

== Some questions ==

I still don't understand why (a) Andy Schlafly doesn't know the difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass and (b) he seems obsessed over the speed of light in the equation. The m in the equation is inertial mass! As others have stated, when talking about gravitational mass, you need to consider general relativity.What E=mc^2 says is that mass is just a form of energy. It says nothing about the unification of electromagnetism and gravity (it doesn't even say anything about gravity!). Moreover, do you, Andy Schlafly, understand that electromagnetism is not the only theory that has c as a special value? All massless particles travel at the speed of light. In GR, gravity travels at the speed of light.

If you deny it, how do you account for changes in mass in nuclear reactions? How do you account for electron-positron annihilation as well as dozens of other examples of reactions that don't conserve mass in particle physics?

And by the way, as has been pointed out, if you deny special relativity, you have to reject Maxwell's equations. Are they a liberal conspiracy as well? --[[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:"Usually when we speak of an object's mass we do not distinguish whether we are referring to its inertial mass or its gravitational mass. This is because the quantity of matter present in an object, i.e., its mass, does not depend on the method by which it is measured." [http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=Dynamics_InertialGravitationalMass%2525252Exml] Indeed, no measurement has ever detected a difference between the two.

:As to your second point, chemical reactions can cause energy to be released, and the remaining mass to be reduced. This is hardly astounding and certainly does not imply that E=mc2.

:Your third point is often repeated by Relativists but overlooks that Maxwell's equations were developed and demonstrated decades before the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Maxwell's equations survived just fine for years without anyone claiming that somehow E=mc2. Indeed, an assertion that people "have to reject Maxwell's equations" based on relativity suggests a mathematical approach to physics, rather than an observational one. Are you aware of how Eddington claimed that a physical constant "must" have a certain value due to some mathematical rationale? (He was wrong, of course.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:06, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

::Your first point: It's good that we all agree that inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same thing. (This is the fundamental hypothesis of general relativity, by the way.) But the term "mass" always means "inertial mass". Gravity never appears anywhere in special relativity. Even if Newton's constant of universal gravitation ("G") were zero, that is, we lived in a hypothetical universe in which there is no gravity, special relativity, the Lorentz transform, and E=mc^2 would still be true. There should be no mention of gravity anywhere in the article. But the second sentence of the article refers to "mass (i.e., gravity)". Please take that out. I would do it myself, but I'd get it wrong, since I don't know what point you were trying to make.

::Your second point: That chemical reactions that cause energy to be released result in a reduction of the final mass most certainly '''''is''''' astounding. No one had ever seen this, or suspected it, before E=mc^2, and it is doubtful that anyone has seen it to this day, since the effect is so small for chemical reactions. The phenomenon is known only because we know that E=mc^2 is true.

::Your third point: Yes, Maxwell's equations were developed decades before relativity, and survived just fine before anyone suspected that E=mc^2. Your claimed "assertion that people 'have to reject Maxwell's equations' based on relativity" is not made by anyone. It's the ''denial'' of relativity that would necessitate a denial of Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations imply relativity, though Maxwell didn't realize it. In fact, it was an analysis of Maxwell's equations, not the Michelson-Morley experiment, that led to relativity. If we lived in a hypothetical universe in which there were no electric or magnetic forces, relativity would still be true.

::[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 23:36, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:::You didn't respond to my point about [[Arthur Eddington]], who was the biggest promoter of the [[Theory of Relativity]] in the English world.
::::The reason is that has nothing to do with E=mc^2. Your point about Eddington was presumably referring to the alpha=1/137 business, right? I am aware of that. It was in the late 1930's. Would you like me to write an article about it? I'd be glad to do so. Eddington's promotion of relativity in England was in the 1920's, after the eclipse (his book was in 1923), and was about ''general'' relativity. E=mc^2 is in ''special'' relativity, and was widely accepted by then. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 17:59, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Simply put, the [[Theory of Relativity]] is a mathematical theory (which, by the way, is taught in math departments in some universities); this mathematical theory has never been based on meaningful physical observations. Any statement that someone must reject Maxwell's equations if he rejects the [[Theory of Relativity]] shows how the mathematical cart can be incorrectly placed before the physical horse.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:21, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Of course it's been based on meaningful physical observations. To be more precise, it's based on repeated experiments where the relation between the observed mass loss and the observed energy release is E=mc2. I really don't know what your problem is, but to challenge the validity of something as thoroughly confirmed as E=mc2 is not going to get you anywhere. The equation is valid. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 03:17, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::My comments were aimed at people who accept that both mathematical theory and experimental observations have a role to play, and that they complement each other. There is no cart and no horse. Relativity, like Newtonian mechanics, involves both elegant mathematics and observation, and the observations buttress the theory very well. It's possible for people to get carried away with the mathematics, as Eddington did with the 137 business, but that hasn't happened with relativity. And yes, if you don't accept relativity, you can't make Maxwell's equations work correctly, though Maxwell didn't realize that at the time. It was only later that Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein fixed that. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 17:59, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

''As to your second point, chemical reactions can cause energy to be released, and the remaining mass to be reduced. This is hardly astounding and certainly does not imply that E=mc². ''
Aschlafy, it may not come as a surprise, but you are wrong again:
*The mass of the products of a chemical reaction is nearly equal to the mass of the reagents, because the energy which is involved is so much less than that of a nuclear fusion or fission.
*A kilogram of [[TNT]] will release 4.484 MJ of energy, if you break this down for a single molecule, you see that less than 10 eV are released per molecule in the explosion. Compare this with the 17,200,000 eV per nucleus in the experiment of Corckcroft and Walton!
*In fact, if you let the products of the explosion cool down, the equivalent of this energy will be missing - but it is such a small amount that it is hard to detect it. But nevertheless, E=mc² could be observed.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:40, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

===Answer to the above===

Cockcroft's experiments were not performed until 1932 [http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-speech.html], and recognition for his work did not occur from the Nobel Prize committee until 1951. I could find nothing in the Prize, Cockcroft's acceptance speech, or anything else contemporaneous that suggests that Cockcroft proved that E=mc2.

One comment above suggests that E=me2 was accepted long before 1932. Based on what, mere politics? This formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically even to this day, and the first (dubious) proof for it was not observed until 1932. Folks, E=mc2 seems to be based on politics rather than physics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:02, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:"This formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically"--It is more correct to say that the formula cannot be mathematically derived from first principles (in the way that Kepler's laws can be derived from Newton's law of universal gravitation) rather than that the formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically. Indeed, experimental observation reveals that the added energy is proportional to the mass lost in a linear fashion, with <math>c^2</math> as the slope. These are the same sorts of phyiscal observations that allow you to deduce laws like <math>F = ma</math> (apply varying amounts of force to a mass and see what the resulting acceleration is). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 18:38, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::The formula cannot be derived ''in any sensible way'', not merely a rigorous way. Numerous attempts to derive it have been failures. Moreover, the first claimed experimental observation for the formual was not dates from 1932, long after the formula was declared to be unquestionable dogma.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:20, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Could you please give us some references to these failed attempts? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 19:22, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::::This took only one search on the internet: [http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/01-einstein.s-23-biggest-mistakes 7 failed attempts to prove E=mc2].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:27, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::Aschlafly, your reading of Cockcroft lecture is insufficient. He writes: ''It was obvious then that lithium was being disintegrated into two α-particles with a total energy release of 17.2 million volts. This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass units, '' so he thinks that energy can be provided by decreasing the mass of an object. And if you do a little math, you can see for yourself that he uses Einstein's formula to calculate the amount.
:::::As for the ''seven failed attempts'': Even if there were mathematical errors in the papers as your ''"source"'' suggests, it is not clear that they render the calculations invalid!
:::::I'm impressed which sources you are willing to ignore, and which seem to be absolutely acceptable,,,
:::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:29, 9 April 2012 (EDT)
::::I assume you've read the book and not just that chronology, Andy? Looks like an interesting read, even though the [http://einsteinsmistakes.com/the_author_5.html author] is a [[Professor values|professor]] in liberal [[Vermont]] and has written a [http://www.amazon.com/Special-Relativity-A-Modern-Introduction/dp/0971313415/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333999210&sr=8-1 textbook] on special relativity. Incidentally, amazon.com gives access to a few pages of "Einstein's mistakes". Let me quote from page 330: "His (Einstein's) first derivations of this equation, although flawed, convinced physicists that the energy-mass relation ought to be of general validity. In 1905, Einstein did not have available the mathematical tensor techniques needed for a correct derivation of this formula, but he instigated the theoretical investigations that later led von Laue and Klein to the correct derivation." Could you explain in more detail why you think the attempts failed? Von Laue and Klein's attempts would be particularly interesting, because your reference claims they were correct. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:28, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::A recent peer-reviewed scientific paper, which has been cited in this entry, also confirms that E=mc2 cannot be mathematically derived.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:53, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::Aschlafly, have you read the paper? I doubt it, as your statement isn't entirely correct. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:06, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::You mean the paper by Hecht (2011)? That's also interesting. Let me quote from the Conclusions (I happen to have access to the paper): "Einstein produced about 18 virtuoso derivations and demonstrations all aimed at establishing the mass-energy principle. We have shown that although each of them gave evidence for the applicability of E=mc^2 to a particular set of circumstances, no one derivation, or collection of them taken together, succeeded in providing a definitive proof of its complete generality. That should not be surprising because the same situation occurs, for example, with F=ma, which is a different kind of relation than E0=mc2. Even so, 300 years of successful theoretical work have not proven the correctness of F=ma." ... "That aside, countless experiments from Cockcroft and Walton63 to Rainville et al.64 have, with increasing accuracy, confirmed that E0=mc2 is one of the greatest insights of the 20th century." But maybe that's not the paper you mean? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 17:18, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::::That sounds like what the paper would have to say in order to be published, yes. An academic journal will withdraw its acceptance of a paper if it conflicts with the [[Theory of Relativity]] in any way. Anyone in academia who criticizes the Theory of Relativity in any way, no matter how minor, is risking the end of his professional career due to liberal orthodoxy. [[Robert Dicke]], the greatest American physicist ever, was denied the [[Nobel Prize]] because he criticized the Theory of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::::And that doesn't sound like someone who actually read the paper! Drawing your conclusions just from your interpretation of the abstract (and wishful thinking) doesn't make a compelling argument. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:01, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::How does Asclafly explain electron-positron annihilation? How do you explain that quantum electrodynamics (which is a relativistic theory) is the most accurately tested theory in physics? What's the theoretical basis for the spin of the electron if you deny SR? And are you telling me that Maxwell's equations are invariant under the Galilean transformations? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:13, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::The claim that something "is the most accurately tested theory in physics" is a canard often heard by defenders of the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Step back, look at the phrase objectively, and it's easy to see that such a claim is unscientific. Indeed, such a claim sounds like something one would hear in politics. Not only are there more than three dozen [[Counterexamples to Relativity|counterexamples disproving the Theory of Relativity]], but the claim on which it was based (the advance of the perihelion of Mercury) is now disproof of the theory. But notice how few people are interested in reviewing more precise data, and instead cite imprecise data that are a half-century old or more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:49, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::::You're getting a bit muddled here. One valid counterexample can deliver a fatal, knockdown blow to a purely philosophical / logical argument. Scientific theories (and their corresponding mathematical equations), however, are judged on the width and depth of their explanatory power, rather than on their ability to hold true in ''all'' cases. This is why we can still use Newton's equations to describe the motion of everything we can reasonably expect to bump into in everyday life. They might not hold true in ''all'' cases, but they still have sufficient explanatory bite to be very, very useful.

:::::::::::If you wish to pursue this line of reasoning, then you'll have to reject Newton's equations because of the instances where they fall down and fail to make accurate predictions. I'm pretty sure that you don't want to do that. --[[User:JohanZ|JohanZ]] 20:23, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Andy, I think you are underestimating both the scientific savvy and the inquisitiveness of the contributors here. First, as you well know, but presumably don't like, those "counterexamples" are all wrong, and probably everyone here, except you, knows it. They have been refuted on the "rebuttal" page. Second, and this is my more important point, your claim that "few people are interested in reviewing more precise data" is not correct. I would be interested in reviewing such data, as would nearly everyone else here. Please post the data. Don't bother with the full observed precession of 5600 (or whatever) seconds relative to the old equinoctial frame, or 574 seconds with the new celestial frame. However that is calculated, the precession, after accounting for all the usual factors like gravitational effects of other planets and solar oblateness, is supposed to be 42.98 seconds or so. Please give a citation for the data showing that the GR figure is wrong. This argument has gone on for too long. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:17, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

===Robert Dicke===
*Aschlafly, have you any reason to believe that R. Dicke had any problem with the special theory of relativity?
*Your reverence for R. Dicke is understandable, but surprising in light of your statement about the equivalence principle: ''It's hair-splitting jargon of doubtful significance. 99% of people know what mass is, and it's directly related to weight, not electrostatic energy.'' R. Dicke took quite an effort to perform experiments on this ''hair-splitting jargon of doubtful significance''.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 00:12, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

:Robert Dicke's criticism of the general theory of relativity is well-known. For that, he was disqualified from receiving the Nobel Prize, despite being the most accomplished American physicist ever.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:41, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

::Robert Dicke's criticism of the '''general''' theory of relativity may be well known, but we are here firmly in the realm of the '''special''' theory of relativity. And he didn't have problems with that one - so why have you? Are you a more able physicist than Robert Dicke? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:21, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

== Speed and Kinetic Energy of Relativistic Electrons ==

William Bertozzi [http://muj.optol.cz/richterek/data/media/ref_str/bertozzi1964.pdf performed some experiments] in 1964 to exemplify the effects of the theory of special relativity. W. Bertozzi undertook the effort to measure the values involved as directly as possible. He writes:
:''In the past few decades, the successful operation of multi-MeV accelerators and the planning and interpretations of many high-energy physics experiments have affirmed and illustrated the results of special relativity. However, because these efforts generally involved many other concepts, the relations of relativity are not demonstrable from the data in a simple quantitative manner. The purpose of this paper is to describe an experiment that was performed to help fill the need for such simple and direct data for the teaching of relativity.'' (p. 551)
And from the concluding remarks:
:''The Newtonian relation, usually adequate for the description of the motion of bodies at very low speeds, is obviously in disagreement with this high-speed data. Equally apparent is the conformity of the experimental data to the Einstein relation with its prediction of a limiting speed.''
So, these experiments seem to be performed with Aschlafly in mind! Perhaps Aschlafly can explain the data in a non-relativistic way (via quantum dynamics, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or even nuance of ἰδού?)
But there are even [http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5977 experiments for undergraduates] which show relativistic effects:
:''We have developed an undergraduate laboratory experiment to make independent measurements of the momentum and kinetic energy of relativistic electrons from a \beta -source. The momentum measurements are made with a magnetic spectrometer and a silicon surface-barrier detector is used to measure the kinetic energy. A plot of the kinetic energy as a function of momentum compared to the classical and relativistic predictions clearly shows the relativistic nature of the electrons. Accurate values for the rest mass of the electron and the speed of light are also extracted from the data. '' Robert E. Marvel, Michael F. Vineyard
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:02, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::Then why hasn't William Bertozzi won a [[Nobel Prize]] for this work?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:11, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Why should he? It is a relatively simple demonstration of a basic principle. Do you intend to ignore everyone who didn't get a Nobel prize? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 23:58, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::::If this were a "simple demonstration of a basic principle," then that would be all the more reason why it should be recognized with a [[Nobel Prize]], given the lack of a prize for the same principle. Indeed, has any [[Nobel Prize]] been awarded for a purported confirmation of E=mc2? (Cockcroft's work did not claim to confirm the equation.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:40, 14 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::I find it fascinating how you on the one hand use the Nobel Prize as a source of authority when it hasn't been awarded for things you don't believe in and on the other hand berate the Nobel Prize as nothing more than liberal claptrap when it hasn't been awarded for things you do believe in. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 14:52, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::It's completely logical. Some liberal claptrap is even too much for the [[Nobel Prize]] committee, and that's worth pointing out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

== A reminder ==

Aschlafly, could you please answer the questions in the questions in the section above: [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockcroft.C2.B9_and_Walton|A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton ]]?

I'm interested in your interpretation of their results. (But please take into consideration that a chemical reaction releases perhaps the 1,000,000th part of the energy per unit of mass as the reaction observed by Cockcroft and Walton.)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:28, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

== Does Andy Schlafly Understand what E=mc^2 means? ==

Aschlafly, do you know what E=mc^2 means? You say that "E=mc² is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement that purports to relate all matter to light." No. What it says is that matter is just another form of energy. That's it! It says nothing about unification of electromagnetism and gravity. Moreover, the m in the equation is inertial mass, not gravitational mass! If you look at any decent book on SR, it is the inertial mass that appears in the equations of relativistic energy-momentum. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 09:42, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

== Open questions ==

Many questions in the sections above are still unanswered and I'm especially waiting for Aschlafly to answer those in the section ''[[Talk:E%3Dmc%C2%B2#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockcroft.C2.B9_and_Walton|A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]''.

Aschlafly, could you at least provide me with your interpretation of the bolded sentence of Cockcroft's lecture: ''It was obvious then that lithium was being disintegrated into two α-particles with a total energy release of 17.2 million volts. '''This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass units'''''? Feel free to show your calculations!

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:03, 5 May 2012 (EDT)

== Many leading scientists ... ==

...(including Lord Rutherford and Princeton Physics Professor [[Robert Dicke]]) rejected the [[Theory of Relativity]].

This article is about a result of the ''special theory of relativity''.
*Robert Dicke had no problems with the ''special theory'', he proposed an alternative to the ''general theory''. Or do you have a source where he attacked the ''special theory''?
*Ernest Rutherford thought that it was not beautiful, but he didn't reject the theory. Or do you have a source where he attacked theory for any other reason than being not beautiful?

Without any source, the statement in the article is meaningless - it's more a reflection of the opinion of the main author of the piece and is as convincing as a sentence like ''Sir Isaac Newton wouldn't have liked the theory neither.''

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:12, 10 May 2012 (EDT)

== Let's not dilute the truth here, OK? ==

Well, the truth is that more than 99% of all today's physics think that this formula is a marvel to behold. That this formula is ''liberal claptrap'' is only your personal opinion, Aschlafly. You haven't given any contemporary source to back this up. Are we expected to take your personal insights for the truth? I'm willing to do so only if you are able to present these insights in a comprehensible way, simply making a statement - and then repeating it over and over again - is not enough. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:59, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

Agreed, let's not dilute the truth. E=MC2 is experimentally proven every time you look at the sun or any stars, it's proven every time an atom splits in a reactor to generate heat that in turn makes steam to spin a turbine and make electricity. I'm guessing the Sun being the center of the solar system is also "liberal claptrap" too. The part that I think is so funny is that everyone here is debating the topic so much when there probably isn't a single person on earth that would turn to Conservapedia for an explanation of anything even remotely scientific. [[User:Ntyson|Ntyson]] 17:45, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

== A little clarification? ==

Mr. Schlafly, I'm trying to understand your assertion that the "energy" of an object is a function of "electrostatics." I wonder if you can explain a little more about this.

For example, how is energy derived from electrostatic charge? Can you show the equation for doing this?

Are you basing this on the common practice of expressing energy in electron-volts?

Do neutral particles such as neutrons or uncharged atoms have energy, even though they have no charge?
[[User:Pscott|Pscott]] 21:54, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

:Energy can be viewed as the ability to do work, as in applying a force. Electrostatic charge can certainly do that.

:Mass applies, at most, a very weak force, and it has no connection with the speed of light squared. It's almost comical to claim that any meaningful statement of energy is found by multiplying mass times the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

::Unfortunately this doesn't really answer any of my questions. Yes, an electric field can apply a force. But the "strength" of an electric field is actually the same as a gravitational field: both decrease inversely as the square of the radius. The difference is that the strength of an electric field increases much more rapidly in proportion to charge than gravity does in proportion to mass.

::Also, electric fields exert a force only on charged particles, which why I asked how we can calculate the energy of uncharged particles such as neutrons. Do they even have energy in the sense that you mean it?

::And finally, I would still like to see the equations used to calculate the energy of a particle based on electrostatic charge. How much energy does an electron have? Is it the same as the energy of a proton (the charge is equal but opposite, but the mass is greater)?[[User:Pscott|Pscott]] 15:05, 16 August 2012 (EDT)

:: Why is it preposterous to claim that if one gains a pound in weight then their energy has thereby increased in proportion to the speed of light squared, but not preposterous to claim that if one gains a pound in weight then their '''''kinetic''''' energy has thereby increased in proportion to their speed squared? [[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 16:53, 21 August 2012 (EDT)

== "E=mc2 does expressly purport to relate all matter to light" ==

Mr. Schlafly, could you please explain this statement? It appears that this is a misunderstanding of the relationship of the mass-energy equivalence embodied by the equation <math>E=mc^2</math>. If a math student were to lambast the formula for the surface area of a sphere (<math>A = 4\pi r^2</math>) as relating roundness to the number 4 or spheres to squares, they would rightly be criticized for this obvious misunderstanding of a mathematical formula. I think your misunderstanding of what <math>E=mc^2</math> means is similar. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 19:00, 11 November 2012 (EST)

:The surface area of a sphere is related to its radius, and to <math>\pi</math>. But the claim that mass and the speed of light have any relation at all to each other, through energy or anything else, is absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:21, 11 November 2012 (EST)
::Is your concern that the constant "c" happens to be the speed of light? Or do you dispute the concept of relativistic mass, where
::<math>m_{\mathrm{rel}} = \frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}\,\, ? </math> Are you saying that the speed of light does not belong in either equation, and that the "c" should be something else? There are a number of equations in Einstein's Special Theory besides E=mc2 and they hold together as far as they go. Everyone agrees that a general theory of relativity has not been developed, but the ideas of mass energy equivalence and relativistic mass fit the data. The designers of nuclear reactors and satellite systems use these equations with success. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:47, 12 November 2012 (EST)

:::It's a liberal fiction that E=mc2 has ever been applied in any practical way. The equation defines rest mass in terms of the speed of light - an absurdity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 12 November 2012 (EST)
::::With all due respect, relativity was factored into the design of the GPS satellite system. If you want to calculate the energy release of an atomic bomb, E=mc2 is very useful. We don't know with great precision the speed of light, and we don't know with great precision the value of "c". But God gave us brains and curiosity, so we will learn more precise values for both. So far, they match. If someday in the future, someone calculates "c" and measures the speed of light to more decimal places and discovers that they are different, I will have an open mind as to why. The constant "c" carries through consistently in Einstein's calculations for the Special Theory. The coincidence that "c" happens to equal the speed of light is one of the beautiful things about God's universe. Although I do not spend my life's work on theoretical physics, I am pleased that God has inspired some very smart people to devote their lives to thinking about relativity, and I wish them success and happiness. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 11:15, 12 November 2012 (EST)

:::::Relativity was not factored into the GPS design, and E=mc2 has never been useful in any other way.

:::::We've discussed the claim about relativity and GPS over and over on this site, and as a matter of historical fact (not to mention obvious engineering efficiency), theoretical relativity was not part of its design. It is far easier and more accurate simply to synchronize directly based on observation, as may be needed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:20, 12 November 2012 (EST)

::::::If relativity isn't factored into the GPS design, why does the "[http://www.gps.gov/technical/ps/1995-SPS-signal-specification.pdf GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM STANDARD POSITIONING SERVICE SIGNAL SPECIFICATION]" (and you can't get more official than ''that'') state that they have to compensate for relativistic effects? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:30, 12 November 2012 (EST)

Andy, why don't you answer August's question? What happens to that lost mass? And how do you explain E=mc 2 accounting for it exactly? The truth is that you live in a dream world. Your "insights" may sound like a nice way to view the world but when faced with a REAL counterexample and asked to back up your assertions you always just hide your head in the sand and fail to respond. Or use your classic 2+2=4 argument. Lol.--[[User:DamonRoss|DamonRoss]] 12:23, 12 November 2012 (EST)

:::::The equation does not define rest mass in terms of the speed of light. The equation defines relativistic mass in terms of the speed of light. If the equation were to define rest mass in terms of the speed of light it would have rest mass on the opposite side of the equation to the speed of light. Is your objection down to a fundamental flaw in your understanding of how equations work? [[User:VictorA|VictorA]] 08:03, 14 November 2012 (EST)

== Still waiting for an answer.... ==

In March 2012 I asked this question:
:'' Aschlafly, two protons (1.0073amu) and two neutrons (1.0087amu) have a combined mass of 4.0320 amu. An alpha-particle - existing from two protons and two neutrons - has a mass of 4.0015 amu. How do you explain this diminution of mass? ''
I'm still waiting for an answer! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:55, 12 November 2012 (EST)

:It's widely recognized that E=mc2 has not been experimentally verified. There has been no Nobel Prize awarded for it, for example, and there is no logical basis for even deriving the equation.

:But a broken clock is correct twice a day. Would someone claim that proves the clock is working??--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:21, 12 November 2012 (EST)

::Do you say that the size of the diminution of mass just ''"happens"'' to coincide with the observed energy calculated via E=mc²?
::But how can there be a loss of mass? If you don't think that the energy-mass-equivalence is valid, what's about conservation of mass?
::Your "answer" is as good as a link to a video of fluffy kittens - or some proverb written in Chinese. In short, it is no answer at all, as '''you don't explain the diminution of mass.'''
::''"It's widely recognized that E=mc2 has not been experimentally verified. "'' That's just not true, I'm afraid.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:55, 13 November 2012 (EST)
:::I know a number of physicists who are good conservatives and good Christians. They take their children to Sunday school. They don't like seeing government wasting money. And they believe in Einstein's theory of special relativity. At one time, the Roman Catholic Church taught that the Earth was the center of the solar system rather than the Sun. I personally believe that the Church's view on that subject did not have a reliable source in the Bible. I understand how the Book of Genesis has been viewed as being in tension with Darwin's theory of evolution, but I don't see special relativity having the same tension with the Bible.
:::The question is whether the contradiction between the Bible and the equation E=mc2 is so direct and widely acknowledged that CP's users should receive an article that disparages the equation? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:32, 14 November 2012 (EST)
==Problematic edit==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&action=historysubmit&diff=1018287&oldid=1018232 This edit] is a bit vexing and does not reflect the consensus reached on the talk page. I understand the criticism directed toward the General Theory of Relativity, but for the reasons stated further down the article, E=mc2 does fit the experimental data. Based on everything that I have read, it is consistent with the Bible. I do not want to get into the middle of a pre-existing emotional dispute, but I thought that I had come up with language that fit both sides. CP is short on editorial manpower, and all of our time is very valuable. I am disappointed on how this was handled. Many thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:46, 15 November 2012 (EST)
: Perhaps we could separate the experimental results from the general validity of E=mc2. I was thinking of something like:
:''Some experimental results appear to show that when a small amount of mass is lost in a nuclear reaction there is an accompanying release of energy (approx x eV per amu of mass lost).''
:Sorry I can't calculate x, but it can be just a number without any c, light speed etc 
:''The conversion factor (x) is indeed close to the square of the speed of light if appropriate units are used. However:''
*:''The experiement has been done with only a limited number of nuclear reactions and in specific environments. This does not prove that this will occur for every nuclear reaction in every environment, and cannot possibly prove that E=mc2 is always true''
:I'm assuming here that we accept the experiemental results as far as they go. If not, even better - we can link to some evidence that they are flawed
*:''The experimental results do not prove that the conversion factor (x) is '''exactly''' the square of the speed of light. More accurate measurements may show that it is different'' 
*:''No one has a convincing explanation of '''why''' E might possibly equal mc2. The most likely explanation is that the Creator designed it this way for some reason that we don't understand.''
:Would something like that help clarify the true position?
:[[User:Peterw|Peterw]] 15:47, 8 January 2013 (EST)

::No [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for this implausible formula, so no meaningful experimental verification of it has occurred. There is utterly no logical explanation for the formula. It's in the realm of science fiction at best, and not as good as other types of science fiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:52, 8 January 2013 (EST)

:::*''No [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for this implausible formula, so no meaningful experimental verification of it has occurred.'' That's just a ''non sequitur''
:::*''There is utterly no logical explanation for the formula.'' Why should there by? It works!
:::*''It's in the realm of science fiction at best, and not as good as other types of science fiction.'' No, it's not - that's just wishful thinking of you part. Even undergraduates can perform experiments which show relativistic effects - see [http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5977v1 Relativistic Electron Experiment for the Undergraduate Laboratory]
:::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:11, 8 January 2013 (EST)

Actually, it gets demonstrated in practice about 3x1010 times for every watt-second of power generated by a nuclear power plant. Aside from observation, the theoretical question of ''why'' it should be true (and why the proportionality constant must be c2) was logically deduced, by Poincare, Einstein, and perhaps others (Roger Schlafly would be an expert on this point), before it was ever observed. The last paragraph of Einstein's 1905 paper, after deducing it theoretically, speculated that it might actually be observed in Radium decay. It was, and the rest is history.

Clear expositions of why it must be true on theoretical grounds are not always easy to come by. I like to think that the page I wrote on another wiki gives a clear and concise proof. Anyone interested in my making it available here? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:06, 8 January 2013 (EST)

I know that Albert Einstein won the 1921 Nobel Prize for his work on the photoelectric effect, and that no prizes were awarded during World War II. But didn't E=mc2 show up a lot in the work of [[Hans Bethe]] on nuclear reactions and energy production in stars (1967 prize). Hans Bethe lead the theoretical team at Los Alamos which designed the bombs dropped on Japan and certainly used the relationship on a day to day basis. So, I don't believe it is correct to say that "No Nobel Prize has been given for this implausible formula." I think that so many Nobel Prize winning discoveries in high energy physics depend on E=mc2 or further confirm the relationship that it would be hard to argue that the Nobel committee has been boycotting E=mc2 as pseudoscience. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:46, 9 January 2013 (EST)

:@SamHB: Having performed such an experiment for yourself is much more impressive than just thinking about actions in nuclear power plants or stars far away. Such an experiment [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|inoculate]]s you against arguments which are b|ased on wishful thinking alone.
:@Wschact: the formula E=mc² is virtually omnipresent: I've shown [[#Aschlafly, could you give us... |above]] that Cockcroft used the formula in his Nobel-lecture. Aschlafly tends to ignore such information.
:@Aschlafly: What do you think of the experiment for undergraduates ([http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5977v1 Relativistic Electron Experiment for the Undergraduate Laboratory])? Have thousands of students falsified their results to fit the current "dogma"? Do you have another theory which makes predictions that are different from those of Einstein's theory, but which is consistent with this experiment? And could you give the answers to [[#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockcroft.C2.B9_and_Walton]]? The energy involved is to much for a chemical reaction...
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:34, 9 January 2013 (EST)

::Broken clocks are precisely correct twice a day too. One or two bizarre experiments in more than a century of trying to prove the formula as a general proposition are hardly persuasive. The [[Nobel Prize]] committee wants to recognize the formula has being demonstrated, but can't. There is no logical support for the formula, as peer reviewed articles have virtually admitted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:11, 9 January 2013 (EST)

:::The experiment for the undergraduates is hardly bizarre - what results would you expect? If you don't get the results as described, this means that '''your clock''' is broken, while the clock which most of us use is correct uncountable times a day. And please, could you give the answers to [[#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockcroft.C2.B9_and_Walton]]? This is another non-bizarre and often repeated experiment... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:25, 9 January 2013 (EST)

:::[Sorry, I think I put this in the wrong place originally]. It's certainly a strange-looking formula. When refuting it should I be saying that mass is not actually being converted to energy in these reactions (i.e. the experiments are flawed and either mass is not being lost or the energy comes from somewhere else or something)? Or is it that mass is indeed being converted to energy but E=mc2 is not a correct/meaningful/useful way to describe it? [[User:Peterw|Peterw]] 15:06, 9 January 2013 (EST)
::::Thank you Peterw. Clearly, energy is converted from matter. Just consider the energy source of hydrogen bombs and the Sun. Does anyone object to reverting the edit cited at the top of this section? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:04, 9 January 2013 (EST)

:::::Mass is not a function of the speed of light. A century of effort (and billions of taxpayer dollars) to try to connect the two has struck out. Chemical reactions can yield a release of energy, but mass is neither created nor destroyed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:40, 9 January 2013 (EST)

::::::*This is neither an answer to the question "''What do you think of the experiment for undergraduates ([http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5977v1 Relativistic Electron Experiment for the Undergraduate Laboratory])?''" nor to the ''"[[#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockcroft.C2.B9_and_Walton|few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft and Walton]]''".
::::::*We are not talking about chemical reactions - that's just a diversion, showing a lack of understanding of the processes involved. We are talking about energies much greater than those involved in a chemical reaction! May I refer you to one of my comments above which you ignored earlier:
::::::{|class="wikitable" style="background:lightgrey"
|
*The mass of the products of a chemical reaction is nearly equal to the mass of the reagents, because the energy which is involved is so much less than that of a nuclear fusion or fission.
*A kilogram of [[TNT]] will release 4.484 MJ of energy, if you break this down for a single molecule, you see that less than 10 eV are released per molecule in the explosion. Compare this with the 17,200,000 eV per nucleus in the experiment of Corckcroft and Walton!
*In fact, if you let the products of the explosion cool down, the equivalent of this energy will be missing - but it is such a small amount that it is hard to detect it. But nevertheless, E=mc² could be observed.
|}
::::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:36, 10 January 2013 (EST)

::::::Thanks Andy, that's pretty clear - mass is not being converted to energy, therefore E=mc2 is nonsense. I've got two kids who are being taught this stuff at school so I can now set them straight.
::::::Regards [[User:Peterw|Peterw]] 17:22, 10 January 2013 (EST)

== High School Experiment ==

August, please explain below any high school experiment that you think proves the formula. You might your view why a [[Nobel Prize]] was not given for it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 9 January 2013 (EST)

:*Aschlafly, you are a [[Andrew Schlafly|former engineer]], therefore you should have the competence to review an experiment for undergraduates!
:*Not everything which is true can be shown at a high-school. You may say that in this case, the theory is beyond the scope of this project, but that is not the case: certainly the readers of this encyclopedia should be informed about such things, even if they can't do the maths themselves - or perform the experiments. This demands of the editors of articles like this one that they are willing to get the knowledge of the subject! Indeed they should get more information than is put into the article at the end. A good teacher should know a little bit more than the curriculum of his pupils...
:*And please, could you give the answers to [[#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockcroft.C2.B9_and_Walton]]? I always try to answer your questions - and the questions in the section above aren't that demanding...
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:52, 9 January 2013 (EST)
::What's the relevance of the Nobel Prize? Was a Nobel Prize ever given for Intelligent Design, Flood Geology, Baraminolgy, anti-vaccine experiments, the link between breast cancer and abortion or creation science? [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 15:00, 9 January 2013 (EST)
:::As to why no Nobel Prize was given for it, I believe that the main factor was that Albert Einstein had already received the prize for his related work and since the prize was so new, there was a great reluctance to give it to the same person twice. There are a number of other Nobel Prizes awarded for related work that involve E=mc2 such as Hans Bethe's explanation of how energy is generated inside the Sun. Turning to the experimental side, there was a Nobel Prize given to John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton. While a high school student does not have the instrumentation sensitive enough to recreate that experiment, you could take high schools students to an "atom smasher" facility for a tour. For example, Fermilab outside Chicago has an excellent visitor's center which has a number of exhibits and demonstrations suitable for high school (and younger) students. The models help visualize the various aspects of atomic (and subatomic) interactions.

:::One interesting calculation is to give high school students the size of a hydrogen bomb and ask them to calculate the amount of energy that will be released when the bomb detonates. (I certainly would not want that experiment to be conducted for real at my high school.) I hope this helps, and if so, perhaps some of the materials from the talk page can be incorporated into the main article. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 15:10, 9 January 2013 (EST)
::::*Wschact, I agree with you on the matter of the Nobel Prize
::::*The calculation is interesting, but it is impossible to prove its validity: the mass-defect simply can't be measured... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:19, 9 January 2013 (EST)

::::::The significance of no [[Nobel Prize]] for this is the same as the significance of the dog that didn't bark: dogs want to bark, and the Nobel Prize committee wants to honor atheistic, nonsensical theories like relativity, but there is nothing there, there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:24, 9 January 2013 (EST)
:::::::That's your opinion. Wschact offered another explanation. We could talk about this all day without getting closer to the truth - so let's get on more solid ground:
:::::::*Aschlafly, how do you interpret the [http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5977v1 Relativistic Electron Experiment for the Undergraduate Laboratory] ?
:::::::*Could you give the answers to [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]? You only have to follow the steps...
:::::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:53, 9 January 2013 (EST)

::::::::I agree with AugustO's comments as well. If Andy could respond to those questions, we will know how to proceed to fix up this article and to write others. For example, if E does not equal mc2, what can we say in the Hans Bethe article about his contributions? How can we discuss synchrotrons? Why does it take more energy to push a particle as the speed of the particle approaches c? I understand the controversy on this website about evolution vs. creation vs. intelligent design, but E=mc2 appears to be an isolated debate with opponents of the equation lacking biblical support or a coherent world-view. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 18:52, 9 January 2013 (EST)

:::::::::Isn't someone going to explain the high school experiment that supposedly proves that Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, thereby unifying gravity and light???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:55, 9 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::::Please read what I wrote above. For your convenience: ''"Not everything which is true can be shown at a high-school. You may say that in this case, the theory is beyond the scope of this project, but that is not the case: certainly the readers of this encyclopedia should be informed about such things, even if they can't do the maths themselves - or perform the experiments. This demands of the editors of articles like this one that they are willing to get the knowledge of the subject! Indeed they should get more information than is put into the article at the end. A good teacher should know a little bit more than the curriculum of his pupils... "''
::::::::::And please, could you give the answers to [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:15, 9 January 2013 (EST)
:::::::::::With all due respect, as discussed many times on this page, E=mc2 does ''not'' "unify gravity and light". It addresses the conversion between matter and energy. The ''m'' is not gravitational mass. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 07:06, 10 January 2013 (EST)
===An experiment performed at high-schools===
I think that experiments on [[Compton Scattering]] are performed at high-schools. While generally used to show that electromagnetic rays may act like particles, Einstein's mass-energy relationship is used in the process. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:33, 9 January 2013 (EST)
:I agree about the Compton scattering validates E=mc2. I also believe that the [http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5977v1 Relativistic Electron Experiment for the Undergraduate Laboratory] could be performed by high school students with proper adult supervision. It would make a great science project. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 06:57, 10 January 2013 (EST)
::Aschlafly, you created the article on [[Compton Scattering]], but I can only guess how much you know about this subject, as it was just one in a flurry of [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20070602221148&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Aschlafly similar very short articles], all copied and pasted from the [Talk:Compton Scattering|public domain]. So if you are not familiar with the experiment, have a look at the derivation of the Compton formula: it relies heavily on the mass-energy equivalence [[E=mc²]]!
::This experiment was performed at my gymnasium by our teacher - due to the gamma radiation it would be a nightmare to have pupils to conduct the experiment for themselves.
::Aschlafly, I reread your comments on this talk-page, and for me they are strangely disappointing: you are rarely arguing from physics, but mostly from politics. Or to quote you: ''You restate the claim as though its repetition would make it true.''
::Please answer [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]] and show us that you actually know what you are talking about.
::Thank you, --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:58, 10 January 2013 (EST)

Neither the high school experiment, nor anything else about E=mc^2, purports to unify gravity and light. E=mc^2 does not relate to gravity; it would work in outer space. The "m" is ''inertial mass'', not gravitational mass. The correspondence between the two is incidental, and relates to Einstein's equivalence principle (a completely different phenomenon) and the Eotvos experiment.

"Chemical reactions can yield a release of energy, but mass is neither created nor destroyed". Not so. It is a common misconception that E=mc^2 relates only to nuclear processes. It actually relates to all processes, though nuclear ones are the only ones for which the difference in mass can be reasonably measured. No one doubts the quantitative results, for nuclear processes, detailed on the article page. The equation E=mc^2, initially formulated on theoretical grounds, is in excellent agreement with those results. There is nothing about the theoretical underpinnings to suggest that there is some "threshold" below which Δm is zero, or that it only applies to certain types of interactions. There is good reason to believe that it applies everywhere, even though the mass difference, in the case of chemical reactions, is not readily measurable.

By the way, another "table-top" demonstration of relativity may be found [http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/outreach/QOTW/arch11/q218unipolar.pdf here]. It does not demonstrate E=mc^2; it's about electrodynamics under the Lorentz transform.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 19:36, 10 January 2013 (EST)
:Thank you for sharing that experiment about generating and measuring DC current. A high school student could easily understand the physics, and the equipment could be made in the Industrial Arts shop. I miss my high school science fair days. (sigh) [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 00:28, 11 January 2013 (EST)

== Source of heat in a nuclear power station ==

Andy, I explained this to the kids yesterday and it was an eye-opener for them. The teacher hadn't mentioned that E=mc2 was only a theory and might not be happening (well,what would you expect?). Anyway, they did ask me a good question that I couldn't answer. Where does the heat come from in a nuclear power station? They're only 12 so I just need something simple.

It looks to me like Uranium is reacting and turning into other things. Is this just a normal chemical reaction and the heat comes from the chemical changes just like, say, gunpowder? Of course they're being told that the heat comes from a loss of mass, and is thousands of times more than a chemical reaction would produce, so I want to make sure I'm on solid ground saying that it isn't. I did a search but couldn't find references to where the heat comes from other than mass being converted into energy and something called Free Energy which I don't understand.

[[User:Peterw|Peterw]] 08:20, 11 January 2013 (EST)
:Learn out to spell "yesterday" and "happening"! :) LOL [[User:DanAP|DanAP]] 09:52, 11 January 2013 (EST)

::If those are my biggest problems then I'm fairly happy :-) Now corrected. [[User:Peterw|Peterw]] 09:57, 11 January 2013 (EST)

== It is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement that purports to relate all [[matter]] to [[light]]. ==

I changed this sentence to ''It is a statement that purports to relate all [[matter]] to [[energy]]. ''. My reasons:
*The reader should decide for himself whether the statement is meaningless or nonsensical
*The older version showed a misunderstanding of [[proportionality]]: in a proportionality, two variables (in this case matter and energy) are related by use of a constant (in this case c²). The older version implied a relationship between matter and the proportionality constant - which is nonsense. As Aschlafly stated above ''"Mass is not a function of the speed of light."'' Here he is right - as the function of a constant would be necessarily constant itself, but we know that there are different masses....

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:58, 14 January 2013 (EST)

:Aschlafly, before your next reversion of my edit, please address my concerns above. And you still haven't answered [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:08, 16 January 2013 (EST)

== Citations Needed ==
This article really needs many citations. If a statement is made, for example, about people being unable to pursue a career in the sciences without accepting the topic of the article, some sort of source really should demonstrate that. Similar citations are needed elsewhere in the article. [[User:Avilister|Avilister]] 19:14, 15 January 2013 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The truth is defined by logic, not by consensus at liberal universities.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 16 January 2013 (EST)
:The truth is that there is absolutely no relationship whatsoever between between politics and E=mc2, and the idea that there is one is only your personal opinion. Why do you think that you receive such little support on this idea?--[[User:RobertDW|RobertDW]] 21:25, 16 January 2013 (EST)
::Additionally, the page for this is just a mess. The opening section claims it to be liberal claptrap, while the rest of the article lists experiments that conclusively prove it to be true (None of which I think I've ever seen you directly address). If real-world results contradict your supposed logic, perhaps there is a problem with your logic?--[[User:RobertDW|RobertDW]] 21:31, 16 January 2013 (EST)

:::Aschlafly, that's not an explanation, that's just rhetoric: it's not about truth, it's about physics. Until now, you have failed to show that you have any knowledge of the matters discussed: you won't address any questions which require you to actually think about the subject and perhaps even take out a bit of paper and a pen (like [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]])! Your position seems to be rooted in ignorance and wishful thinking, your arguments are just political talking points. That's not good enough when everybody else is talking about physics.
:::A little bit annoyed, yours [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 00:50, 17 January 2013 (EST)
::::''science is not by liberal consensus'': not an answer to [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]], again. Are you stalling? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:42, 17 January 2013 (EST)

:The truth, it seems, is what ''you'' define it to be, and not what dozens or hundreds of rigorously performed scientific studies support. Studies that have been repeated and re-tested for the better part of a century. Frankly, you're entirely unqualified to present yourself as an authority on a scientific topic like this. Have you ever looked into the data? Ever? Like, even a little? If you had, you'd have seen all sorts of phenomena that can't really be explained without E=mc^2. The fact that it can't be derived from first principles is entirely irrelevant in the face of all of the empirical data. For example, how can you explain the difference between the mass of an alpha particle and the sum of the masses of its four separate constituents? Hint: That missing mass didn't just go nowhere. [[User:Avilister|Avilister]] 11:23, 17 January 2013 (EST)

== Andrew Schlafly's comments ==

I reread the talk-page and gathered Andrew Schlafly's comments:
{|class="wikitable"
!1
|Beware of claims that the rest of the world completely agrees with something. Unanimously passed legislation is often the very worst kind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 16 December 2012 (EST)
|-
!2
|It's a start for now, and will expand over time. That's how wikis work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:18, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!3
|Peer-reviewed journals won't publish a criticism of relativity. That's obvious. Although I don't have a copy of the full paper, I doubt it attempts to fully support the [[hearsay]] that was excluded, and I would not be surprised if it was included simply to safeguard against complaints for what followed. It adds nothing to the basic point that follows and is quoted here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!4
|JoshuaB, do you accept the possibility that the [[Theory of Relativity]] may be false, and would you approve a well-written paper that criticized it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!5
|The qualifications on your answer render it almost meaningless. I'm not asking whether your approval of a paper would make a difference, or your opinion about whether you think the replacement of the [[Theory of Relativity]] will "most likely" be another theory of relativity. The question was simple and straightforward, referring to a paper critical of the theory of relativity without any appeasement to those who insist on believing in it. An unqualified answer is requested.

Also, did you ever answer my simple question on [[Talk:Main Page]] about how much time you've spent reading the [[Bible]] this month?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!6
|The quotes (and others that could be added) illustrate how meaningless the formula is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!7
|The quotes were solicited to describe the meaning of the equation to laymen, not to illustrate how difficult that is. The difficulty arises from the meaningless nature of the equation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!8
|The problem is that '''E=m2''' does not meaning anythimg that makes sense. Anyone is welcome to try to explain it here. Eating a pound of cake does not cause one's energy to increase by the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:06, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!9
|No, I don't. E=mc2 is supposedly a general truth of universal applicability. The case for it, if true, needs to be far stronger than what is quoted above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:15, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!10
|AugustO, chemical reactions can release energy, typically based not on the size of their mass but on the electrostatic energy prior to the reaction. Cockcroft's own paper accepting the Nobel Prize does not claim that his work proved that '''''E=mc2'''''. Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula, or else we'd have seen far more claims of experimental verification of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:20, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!11
|It's hair-splitting jargon of doubtful significance. 99% of people know what mass is, and it's directly related to weight, not electrostatic energy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:38, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!12
|The lead focus of the entry was converted into a parade of [[hearsay]] rather than logical analysis. Simply put, the entry had denigrated into the ''antithesis'' of the truth-seeking integrity expected of ''Conservapedia''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:41, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!13
|The entry explains how nonsensical the formula is as a general principle -- and how it has never been derived as a matter of logic or demonstrated in any general, meaningful manner. Reliance on [[hearsay]] is not a serious alternative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!14
|You restate the claim as though its repetition would make it true. It doesn't. If someone gains one pound in weight, then it is preposterous for anyone to claim that his energy has thereby increased in proportion to the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!15
|The formula '''E=mc2''' does assert that his energy for a fixed gain in weight would increase in proportion to the speed of light squared and, as you say, that is preposterous.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!16
|Great point. I retrieved and added many of the citations back. If I missed any then I'd be happy to add them also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
|-
!17
|Even a broken clock (like the Nobel Prize) gets it right every once in a while!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:07, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!18
|You make some valid points as the online evidence is remarkably scant, even though the disagreement between Bohr and Einstein is well-known. This may be a (rare) example where the internet is less adequate than books. I did add an explanatory footnote and the protection to the page should be expiring soon, if not already.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!19
|No, that would not explain why it "is impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of" E=mc2. Even if you think the formula is somehow true, surely you do not deny the political pressure in academia against anyone who might consider questioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:37, 3 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!20
|But Energy and mass have known meanings in other contexts, unlike the distances (in inches) on the map page in your example. If Energy or mass were being redefined by E=mc2, then I think your analogy would work. But people are not defending E=mc2 by saying it entails a redefinition of Energy or mass.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]]
|-
!21
|(inserted reply here) E=mc2 claims more than the relation between mass and energy is linear (which is itself implausible). It also claims that the proportional factor is precisely equal to the speed of light squared. Restating the meaning of the equation in plain terms demonstrates how implausible it is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:41, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!22
|The equation is nonsensical. Mass has nothing to do with the speed of light, and cannot be equated to energy simply by multiplying it twice by the speed of light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!23
|"Usually when we speak of an object's mass we do not distinguish whether we are referring to its inertial mass or its gravitational mass. This is because the quantity of matter present in an object, i.e., its mass, does not depend on the method by which it is measured." [http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=Dynamics_InertialGravitationalMass%2525252Exml] Indeed, no measurement has ever detected a difference between the two.

As to your second point, chemical reactions can cause energy to be released, and the remaining mass to be reduced. This is hardly astounding and certainly does not imply that E=mc2.

Your third point is often repeated by Relativists but overlooks that Maxwell's equations were developed and demonstrated decades before the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Maxwell's equations survived just fine for years without anyone claiming that somehow E=mc2. Indeed, an assertion that people "have to reject Maxwell's equations" based on relativity suggests a mathematical approach to physics, rather than an observational one. Are you aware of how Eddington claimed that a physical constant "must" have a certain value due to some mathematical rationale? (He was wrong, of course.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:06, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!24
|Simply put, the [[Theory of Relativity]] is a mathematical theory (which, by the way, is taught in math departments in some universities); this mathematical theory has never been based on meaningful physical observations. Any statement that someone must reject Maxwell's equations if he rejects the [[Theory of Relativity]] shows how the mathematical cart can be incorrectly placed before the physical horse.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:21, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!25
|Cockcroft's experiments were not performed until 1932 [http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-speech.html], and recognition for his work did not occur from the Nobel Prize committee until 1951. I could find nothing in the Prize, Cockcroft's acceptance speech, or anything else contemporaneous that suggests that Cockcroft proved that E=mc2.

One comment above suggests that E=me2 was accepted long before 1932. Based on what, mere politics? This formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically even to this day, and the first (dubious) proof for it was not observed until 1932. Folks, E=mc2 seems to be based on politics rather than physics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:02, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!26
|The formula cannot be derived ''in any sensible way'', not merely a rigorous way. Numerous attempts to derive it have been failures. Moreover, the first claimed experimental observation for the formual was not dates from 1932, long after the formula was declared to be unquestionable dogma.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:20, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!27
|This took only one search on the internet: [http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/01-einstein.s-23-biggest-mistakes 7 failed attempts to prove E=mc2].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:27, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!28
|A recent peer-reviewed scientific paper, which has been cited in this entry, also confirms that E=mc2 cannot be mathematically derived.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:53, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!29
|That sounds like what the paper would have to say in order to be published, yes. An academic journal will withdraw its acceptance of a paper if it conflicts with the [[Theory of Relativity]] in any way. Anyone in academia who criticizes the Theory of Relativity in any way, no matter how minor, is risking the end of his professional career due to liberal orthodoxy. [[Robert Dicke]], the greatest American physicist ever, was denied the [[Nobel Prize]] because he criticized the Theory of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!30
|The claim that something "is the most accurately tested theory in physics" is a canard often heard by defenders of the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Step back, look at the phrase objectively, and it's easy to see that such a claim is unscientific. Indeed, such a claim sounds like something one would hear in politics. Not only are there more than three dozen [[Counterexamples to Relativity|counterexamples disproving the Theory of Relativity]], but the claim on which it was based (the advance of the perihelion of Mercury) is now disproof of the theory. But notice how few people are interested in reviewing more precise data, and instead cite imprecise data that are a half-century old or more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:49, 18 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!31
|Robert Dicke's criticism of the general theory of relativity is well-known. For that, he was disqualified from receiving the Nobel Prize, despite being the most accomplished American physicist ever.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:41, 18 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!32
|Then why hasn't William Bertozzi won a [[Nobel Prize]] for this work?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:11, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!33
|If this were a "simple demonstration of a basic principle," then that would be all the more reason why it should be recognized with a [[Nobel Prize]], given the lack of a prize for the same principle. Indeed, has any [[Nobel Prize]] been awarded for a purported confirmation of E=mc2? (Cockcroft's work did not claim to confirm the equation.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:40, 14 April 2012 (EDT)
|-
!34
|It's completely logical. Some liberal claptrap is even too much for the [[Nobel Prize]] committee, and that's worth pointing out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

Energy can be viewed as the ability to do work, as in applying a force. Electrostatic charge can certainly do that.
|-
!35
|Mass applies, at most, a very weak force, and it has no connection with the speed of light squared. It's almost comical to claim that any meaningful statement of energy is found by multiplying mass times the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 14 August 2012 (EDT)
|-
!36
|The surface area of a sphere is related to its radius, and to <math>\pi</math>. But the claim that mass and the speed of light have any relation at all to each other, through energy or anything else, is absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:21, 11 November 2012 (EST)
|-
!37
|It's a liberal fiction that E=mc2 has ever been applied in any practical way. The equation defines rest mass in terms of the speed of light - an absurdity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 12 November 2012 (EST)
|-
!38
|We've discussed the claim about relativity and GPS over and over on this site, and as a matter of historical fact (not to mention obvious engineering efficiency), theoretical relativity was not part of its design. It is far easier and more accurate simply to synchronize directly based on observation, as may be needed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:20, 12 November 2012 (EST)
|-
!39
|It's widely recognized that E=mc2 has not been experimentally verified. There has been no Nobel Prize awarded for it, for example, and there is no logical basis for even deriving the equation.

But a broken clock is correct twice a day. Would someone claim that proves the clock is working??--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:21, 12 November 2012 (EST)
|-
!40
|No [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for this implausible formula, so no meaningful experimental verification of it has occurred. There is utterly no logical explanation for the formula. It's in the realm of science fiction at best, and not as good as other types of science fiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:52, 8 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!41
|Broken clocks are precisely correct twice a day too. One or two bizarre experiments in more than a century of trying to prove the formula as a general proposition are hardly persuasive. The [[Nobel Prize]] committee wants to recognize the formula has being demonstrated, but can't. There is no logical support for the formula, as peer reviewed articles have virtually admitted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:11, 9 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!42
|Mass is not a function of the speed of light. A century of effort (and billions of taxpayer dollars) to try to connect the two has struck out. Chemical reactions can yield a release of energy, but mass is neither created nor destroyed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:40, 9 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!43
|August, please explain below any high school experiment that you think proves the formula. You might your view why a [[Nobel Prize]] was not given for it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 9 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!44
|The significance of no [[Nobel Prize]] for this is the same as the significance of the dog that didn't bark: dogs want to bark, and the Nobel Prize committee wants to honor atheistic, nonsensical theories like relativity, but there is nothing there, there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:24, 9 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!45
|The truth is defined by logic, not by consensus at liberal universities.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 16 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!46
|Folks, a century of attempts to unify gravity and light '''''have been unsuccessful'''''. E=mc2 is a science fiction goal that billions of dollars in attempts have been unable to achieve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:59, 17 January 2013 (EST)
|-
!47
|Perhaps it is easier to copy my answers than to respond to them. Is there anyone here who really thinks that a theory unifying gravity and light has been discovered???--Andy Schlafly 20:25, 17 January 2013 (EST)
|}

Andrew (Aschlafly? Andy?), these comments show that you may understand politics, but not physics. Indeed, some are contradictory: in '''24''' you say ''Simply put, the Theory of Relativity is a mathematical theory (which, by the way, is taught in math departments in some universities); this mathematical theory has never been based on meaningful physical observations.'', while in '''27''' we read ''This formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically even to this day, and the first (dubious) proof for it was not observed until 1932.'' and in '''42''' ''there is no logical basis for even deriving the equation. ''

What is it: we have experiments which show that the formula is applicable in many occasions: indeed, no situation has been found where it doesn't work. And what is a ''mathematical theory'' other than a logical conclusion?

Other comments are simply untrue, like '''39''': ''It's widely recognized that E=mc2 has not been experimentally verified. '' E=mc² has been used in countless experiments!

Not one of the comments shows that you are willing to put some work into your answers - like looking at the experiments or the data. These comments are best described by your own words:

'''You restate the claim as though its repetition would make it true.'''

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:42, 17 January 2013 (EST)
:This is impressive AugustO! I think I understand Mr. Schlafly's opposition to E=mc2 now. The theory states that mass and energy are equivalent. But looking at Aschlafly's hand waiving exercise, that is simply not the case. For he clearly has expended a great deal of energy to produce very little substance. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 15:23, 17 January 2013 (EST)

::Folks, a century of attempts to unify gravity and light '''''have been unsuccessful'''''. E=mc2 is a science fiction goal that billions of dollars in attempts have been unable to achieve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:59, 17 January 2013 (EST)
:::Have you even read anything that anyone has posted here? Address the experiments that prove it true. The main article and talk page are full of them. What is wrong with them? How are they flawed? How is E=mc2 used incorrectly in each of them? How do you explain E=mc2 fitting perfectly into each of them? You have essentially repeated yourself, over and over, without addressing any actual facts, once.--[[User:RobertDW|RobertDW]] 20:10, 17 January 2013 (EST)

Perhaps it is easier to copy my answers than to respond to them. Is there anyone here who really thinks that a theory unifying gravity and light has been discovered???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 17 January 2013 (EST)
:No, there has been no [[unified field theory]] discovered that joins the 4 known forces of nature. Now, let's get back to E=mc2.--[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 20:32, 17 January 2013 (EST)

::Yet that is precisely what E=mc2 purports to do. After a century of trying, many realize it is impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 17 January 2013 (EST)
:::Andy, I know you pride yourself on having an [[Essay:Quantifying_Openmindedness|Open mind]], so let me ask you this: Has the possibility ever occurred to you that you do not really know what you are talking about when it comes to subjects outside your field of expertise, theoretical physics being an example? --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 21:21, 17 January 2013 (EST)
::::@Aschlafly, Einstein did not claim E=mc2 to be a unified theory. If he had, he would have said so and called it a day back in 1905 instead of spending the latter years of his research in the 1950's looking for a unifying theory. You do understand that the 'c2' portion of the equation is just a constant, right? It's simply the maximum speed that any change in a field or massless particle can propagate. So we can actually remove "light" (which seems to be a sticking point for you) from the equation and substitute any wave or field whose speed is independent of the motion of the observer and the wave's source. So you could replace light with anything that travels that fast. You could even plug in gravity in lieu of light if that better suits your fancy. If it could be proven that "bad news" traveled at the speed of light you could plug that in as well.

::::The point being is I think somewhere along the way you got tripped up on the what the formula actually expresses versus what you ''think'' it says. This is witnessed by your statement of: "''Eating a pound of cake does not cause one's energy to increase by the speed of light squared''". Indeed. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 22:42, 17 January 2013 (EST)

:::::''Perhaps it is easier to copy my answers than to respond to them.'' No, it isn't. If you take a look at the sections above, you will see that you generally get responses. I'm afraid we are missing substantial answers from you, like to [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]].
:::::''Is there anyone here who really thinks that a theory unifying gravity and light has been discovered???'' That's not what ''E=mc²'' is about, in the same way that ''A=πr²'' isn't about unifying area and π
:::::If you don't start to do actual physics, your list of answers just becomes a parade of ignorance. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:00, 18 January 2013 (EST)

So does a mass of 1 kg have energy of c2, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:06, 18 January 2013 (EST)

:No - as you messed up the units. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:08, 18 January 2013 (EST)
::The mass energy in 1 kg is <math>1\,\textrm{kg}\cdot\left(3.0 \times 10^8 \frac{\textrm{m}}{\textrm{s}}\right)^2 = 9.0 \times 10^{16}\,\textrm{J}</math> (keeping in mind, of course, that a joule is a kilogram-meter-squared-per-second-squared). That's a lot of energy! [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:22, 18 January 2013 (EST)
:::Or about 21 kilotons of explosive power... or 25 TWh... Or... --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 01:36, 18 January 2013 (EST)
:::: You are out by a factor of 1000. A kiloton of TNT-equiv is approximately 4.185*10e12 Joules. The kiloton equivalent for the figure GregG gave would be about (given he didn't use the approapriate figure for the speed of light in a vacuum I'll approximate as well) 20000 kilotons (20 megatons). [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 01:53, 18 January 2013 (EST)
:::::Correct. I was doing the conversion in my head. It's should be something around 21,500 kilotons (21.5 megatons). Which of course would make my subsequent conversion incorrect as well. I guess that would make me.... wait for it... wrong. Thanks for the correction DVergne. Wow! It's surprisingly easy to admit you're wrong! Maybe other people will try it... --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 02:04, 18 January 2013 (EST)
::::::Indeed, 1kg has an equivalent energy of <math>9 \times 10^{16}J</math> - a immense number: it equals 25TWh - the output of all German power-stations combined in a fortnight. On the other hand, the sun emits <math>3.8 \times 10^{26}W</math> this means that it loses roughly 15 Trillion kg each second - or the mass of our Moon in less than 57 days.
::::::But we have had other examples of the equation on this talk-page:
::::::*In Cockroft's experiment, a mass of <math>3.0616 \times 10^{-29}kg </math> is transformed into an energy of <math>2,755 \times 10^{-12}J</math>
::::::*In Compton's experiment, rays having a frequency of a couple of EHz are used. The photons have an energy W=h*f, and interact with electrons as having a mass of W/c².
::::::This is about measurement, not politics. And please, Andrew, answer [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]: those questions may be difficult for a lawyer, but nor for an engineer. So, I'd like the engineer in you to answer the questions, not the lawyer to give another political statement. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:11, 18 January 2013 (EST)

Science fiction is great stuff ... as long as one doesn't start believing it, or allow it to take time away from truths, such as the [[Bible]]. Suppose I drink a glass of water, which has mass of about 0.5 pounds (roughly 1 kg). Zero calories, of course. Yet do you maintain that my energy increases in proportion to the speed of light squared?

What percentage of people who believe relativity's crass, silly materialism are likely to read the [[Bible]] earnestly, or pursue other real truths?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:29, 18 January 2013 (EST)
:Andy, first 0.5 pounds is not roughly 1 kg. Second, your gastrointestinal tract performs chemical reactions, it's not a nuclear fusion plant. Thirdly, I have no clue what percentage of people who accept the theory of relativity are likely to read the Bible, but I'm guessing you have some sort of figure in mind. From your line of questioning it would appear that a) you fundamentally do not understand the topic under discussion and b) you're trying to change the subject. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 23:50, 18 January 2013 (EST)

::Good point about the arithmetic - a glass of water is closer to 0.22 kg in weight than to 1 kg. But the underlying point remains the same: drinking a class of water does not increase one's energy in proportion to the speed of light squared. It's science fiction, and not very good at that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:29, 19 January 2013 (EST)

:::*The underlying point is that '''you are not doing science but rhetorics'''. I get the impression that you are not able to answer [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]]: have you forgotten everything you learned to become an engineer?
:::*''[it] does not increase one's energy in proportion to the speed of light squared. '' Don't you even understand [[proportionality]]?
:::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:17, 19 January 2013 (EST)
:::P.S.: I just created [[proportionality]]. Hope that helps. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:21, 19 January 2013 (EST)

=== Andrew Schlafly's answers in the section above ===
Andrew, you still ignore experimental evidence, but repeat and repeat again that [[E=mc²]] is nonsensical, etc. Furthermore, you offer a thought experiment: ''drinking a class of water does not increase one's energy in proportion to the speed of light squared. '' Well, if you drank this glass of water and then got transferred to the center of the sun, it would burn a tiny little bit longer then if you would have been transferred without drinking it. For you this may seem counterintuitive: therefore take a step back and answer [[#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton]] - keep an open mind! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:41, 19 January 2013 (EST)
::I wonder if Andy has ever tried feeding his car instead of filling it with petrol. If we can derive energy from food, then surely a car can too? Just as my farts power my house if I get drunk and eat uranium. [[User:RyanFT|RyanFT]] 09:19, 19 January 2013 (EST)

== Robert Dicke, the greatest physicist of the 20th century ==

Andrew, such over-the-top statements just help to erode your credibility when it comes to physics. I understand that you won't accept [[Albert Einstein]] - the common choice - for this title. But [[Werner Heisenberg]], [[Max Planck]], [[Niels Bohr]], [[Lise Meitner]], [[Erwin Schrödinger]], [[Richard Feynman]] were at least his equals! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:14, 18 January 2013 (EST)

:You seem to prefer liberal theoreticians who were long on speculation, but short on experimental achievements. Robert Dicke actually built and discovered things, like the lock-in amplifier, in addition to theorizing.unsigned comment from Aschlafly 23:32, 18 January 2013
::If you prefer experimentalists, what's about [[Edward Teller]], [[Richard Oppenheimer]], [[Stanislaw Ulam]] or [[Enrico Fermi]]? I don't claim that any of those is the ''greatest physicist of the 20th century'', but they are not less great than [[Robert Dicke]]. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:24, 19 January 2013 (EST)

Talk:E=mc²

2013-01-19T14:40:38Z

Davidspencer: Reverted edits by Dvergne (talk) to last revision by RyanFT

User talk:BHathorn

2012-09-15T05:27:25Z

Davidspencer:

{{welcome}}--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 10:18, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

== Articles ==

I assume you wrote them.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 20:56, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:Yes, I am the author of the two articles. [[User:BHathorn|BHathorn]] 22:43, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
::Then how is it that a Wikipedia editor doesn't know how to format pages? [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 12:08, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

== Anita Perry ==

The section you've added about her brother is almost half of the article, and would probably fit better in the Rick Perry and/or G.W. Bush articles. It was the interaction between the men that's caused whatever stress there might be. The way the section in the article is written, Mrs. Perry doesn't appear to be involved at all, other than being a sister and wife. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 12:08, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

== Article format ==

I've tried to fix the formatting and references on your article [[Chuck Hopson]]. Please take the time to correct your other articles, and try to use the correct formatting on any new articles you write. Thanks! --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:53, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

== Articles from WP ==

Could you please attribute them from WP written by you on the talk page? There's a template for it, and I'll find you the link. Thanks!--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 19:02, 13 November 2011 (EST)
:{{Copied from|site=|user=|site user=}}
::There you go!--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 19:06, 13 November 2011 (EST)

== Congratulations ==

Congratulations, your account has been granted extra rights (blocking and SkipCatcha)!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:03, 15 November 2011 (EST)

== Bryan Hughes ==

The [[Bryan Hughes]] article you wrote needs to have the in-line references fixed. Was it copy/pasted from somewhere? If it was, and you wrote the original, the talk page needs a disclaimer. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 12:50, 24 November 2011 (EST)

== Edit reversion ==

I'm curious why you reversed my edit about the name format for Ray Garofalo? The proper format for names is '''First Middle "Nickname" Last". [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:03, 11 September 2012 (EDT)

I don't know what was done. The name was misspelled "Garofolo in the heading, and I corrected it to Garofalo. I did not know that I had altered the name. Sorry for the confusion. [[User:BHathorn|BHathorn]] 18:16, 11 September 2012 (EDT)

== Shreveport Journal. ==

[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Shreveport_Journal&curid=123027&diff=1005524&oldid=1005329 Any reason why you took out these ref tags?] [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 21:29, 11 September 2012 (EDT)

No, I don't know what happened. The article could not be edited on Sept. 11. [[User:BHathorn|BHathorn]] 22:15, 11 September 2012 (EDT)

== Reference tags, again? ==

[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Carlos_Truan&curid=123326&diff=1006241&oldid=1005996 This edit] leaves all kinds of weird stuff in the text of the article. what are you trying to do? [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 11:38, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

Are you saying not to use <nowiki><ref name=></nowiki> ? Many of the current articles I checked are not allowing editing today. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 01:25, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

== This one is really weird as well... ==

Look at [[Four Price]] after you made [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Four_Price&curid=104177&diff=1006350&oldid=940392 this edit]]. As they say, "that ain't right. Please, tell me what you're trying to do with the references and I'll try to help you out, but right now, it looks unreadable. Thanks! [[User:MattyD|MattyD]]

User talk:BHathorn

2012-09-15T05:25:22Z

Davidspencer: Adding nowiki tag to make the page show.

Neil Armstrong

2012-08-27T15:48:01Z

Davidspencer: This seemingly got missed.

[[Image:NeilArmstrong.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Neil Armstrong, Astronaut]]
'''Neil Armstrong''' (August 5, 1930--August 25, 2012) was a member of the [[Boy Scouts of America]] in his youth, and he earned the highest [[rank]] of [[Eagle Scout]] before the age of 18. He was a [[United States Navy]] pilot for three years, and flew over [[Korea]]; he left to become a test pilot in 1952. He became a [[NASA]] astronaut and flew on Gemini 8, carrying out the first space-docking with the Agena docking module. He was made mission commander for [[Apollo 11]]. The crew boarded the [[Saturn V]] before sunrise on the 16th of July, [[1969]] and took off at 9:32 am. On July 20, 1969 at 10:56:15 p.m. EDT, he became the first man on the [[moon]].<ref>http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/armstrong-na.html</ref>
[[Image:NASA Moon Flag.jpg‎|left|thumb|250px|Neil Armstrong, First Man on the Moon - Apollo 11, July 20, 1969]]

==One Small Step==
When Armstrong stepped onto the moon surface, he said the well-known words ''"That's one small step for a man; one giant leap for mankind."'' that are even today associated to the moon landing. These words are an interesting example of the problems historians faced in finding out what really happened in history. His words were broadcast and millions of people heard them. Yet, for a long time, there was disagreement about ''what'' he had said.<ref>The dispute is significant because it changes the meaning of the sentence. If he meant "man", it's redundant because man and mankind are the same. If he meant "a man", he was comparing and contrasting his personal accomplishment with the implications for all of humanity.
See [http://www.snopes.com/quotes/onesmall.asp One Small Misstep], Snopes urban legend site. A video clip and sound recording are available at [http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/a11v_1092338.mpg NASA]. At the time, many listeners perceived his words as "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." Major newspapers and wire services reported it without the "a;" the ''New York Times'' did so as their July 21, 1969 "Quotation of the Day" (p. 35, also in the seventh sentence of their front-page story). Various small noises, short pauses, or transmission artifacts have sometimes been interpreted as the missing word, obscured by technical problems. In September 2006 an audio analyst claimed to have found the missing "a" but this, too is disputed.</ref>

The broadcast seemingly omitted the "a", reducing Armstrong's quote to the senseless "That's one small step for man; one giant leap for mankind.".<ref>[http://www.nasa.gov/62284main_onesmall2.wav "...one small step for (a) man..."] NASA's official recording</ref>

For almost 40 years, historians, academics and fans of space travel debated about the recording, some claiming that Armstrong had forgotten the word while others said that it was merely lost in transmission. Armstrong always said that he had not forgotten the word, but couldn't offer an explanation why it was not heard in the transmission.

However, in 2006, the Australian programmer Peter Shann Ford found the trace of the missing "a" in a downloaded recording he analyzed with audio software and presented his findings at the [[Smithsonian Institution]]'s Air and Space Museum (Washington, D.C.) and at NASA's Washington headquarters. The conclusion is that the transmission reduced Armstrong's "a" to a 35ms sound bit - 10 times too quickly to be heard by human ears.<ref>[http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4225856.html One small step for clarity] Houston Chronicle, Oct. 3, 2006</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Armstrong, Neil}}

[[Category: Astronauts]]
[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: Space Exploration]]

Talk:Todd Akin

2012-08-24T15:03:17Z

Davidspencer:

Nothing in Akin's comment suggests he wanted to distinguish between "legitimate" rape and false accusations of rape.

:The context of the remark, as well as common sense, demonstrate that meaning. No other meaning is plausible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:15, 22 August 2012 (EDT)

:I suspect that a large part of what has worked so many people up is his idea that the female body has ways of shutting down a pregnancy due to rape. --[[User:Bogart12|Bogart 12]] 15:22, 22 August 2012

Why were my comments deleted?--[[User:PatMc|PatMc]] 10:29, 24 August 2012 (EDT)
:I think there has been a major issue with the database. Everything between last night and a few minutes ago seems to have disappeared. It's not just your comments. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:03, 24 August 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Essay: Richard Dawkins and peanut butter

2012-07-14T18:36:56Z

Davidspencer:

Man this page is insane. :) [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 08:42, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

:Could you make your criticism more specific, please? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:16, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
:::User Ed Poor, the person who wrote this comment can't be more specific, they have been blocked for 1 day. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 12:53, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

::::(chuckle) That's even funnier than the page itself. ^_^ --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:32, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::Yep, possibly. It wasn't really intended to be that though. But thanks anyway, now lets see what he says. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 14:36, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
::Why this page is beyond substandard and quite frankly embarrassing:
::* It is not actually an essay. It is actually a collection of captioned pictures and links. In fact, there are no words in it that are not links or captions to pictures.
::* It claims that one's "machismo" is linked to one's preference in peanut butter, despite no link ever being shows between the two.
::* The main thesis, that Richard Dawkins likes creamy peanut butter, has never been proven anywhere.
::* Other main points of this piece, like the claims that Chuck Norris and John Wayne enjoy/enjoyed chunky peanut butter, have never been proven.
::* Large components of it, namely the bunny and bullfighting pictures, have been used in countless other "essays" by User:Conservative and don't really prove anything.
::Ed Poor, if you can't see that this page is an utter embarassment to the readers and editors of Conservapedia, then I don't know what else to say. I am interested in hearing your defense of this article. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 11:20, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

:::I agree that it's not actually an essay. It looks like a joke: i.e., the page author is probably using it to tease atheists.

:::Please don't respond as if you think it wasn't meant humorously. There's no "thesis"; he's just kidding around.

:::You may wonder whether kidding and teasing atheists will promote Conservapedia's cause. But if you can't tell it was comedic material, there's probably no point discussing it further. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:33, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
::::There isn't much sign that this is intended as humor, given User:Conservative's other output (much of which is in this style). If it is humor I propose it be moved from the essay space to the humor space, along with other "essays" like this one. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 13:46, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

User talk:Ed Poor

2012-07-14T18:29:34Z

Davidspencer: Thank you.

Archive:
[[/1|1]]
[[/2|2]]
[[/3|3]]
[[/4|4]]
[[/5|5]]
[[/6|6]]
[[/7|7]]
[[/8|8]]
[[/9|9]]
[[/10|10]]
[[/11|11]]
[[/12|12]]
[[/13|13]]
[[/14|14]]
[[/15|15]]
[[/16|16]]
[[/17|17]]
[[/18|18]]
----

[[Image:Ed poor grinning.jpg|right|thumb|114px|Ed Poor on campus]]



== Writing Plan ==

Hello Mr. Poor,
I would like to submit a writing plan. While I haven't been asked for one, I feel this would best help keep me on task and contribute the most productively. You seem to know an awful lot about this wiki stuff, and I'm still new at it, so if you could help me that would be great.
I think I'd first like to help contribute to the various book articles around the site by adding in examples of the influence of Christianity, as a lot of books have Christian overtones that aren't currently listed. I'm thinking I'd like to start by drawing parallels between the story of Jesus in the Gospels with One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Please let me know if this would be acceptable.--[[User:JeremiahJ|JeremiahJ]] 18:10, 6 January 2011 (EST)

:Probably not. Please email me a draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:02, 17 January 2011 (EST)

== Request ==

Hello Mr. Poor, I have submitted a request [[Talk:Atheism#Addition_of_Information_on_Charity_and_External_Links_Request|here]] but it was never attended to. Could you please have a look at it? Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 23:19, 28 February 2011 (EST)

== Image Upload Request ==

Hello Ed Poor, I hope this message finds you doing well. I was wondering if you could upload [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Young_Galaxy_Accreting_Material.jpg this image] for use in the article I recently created. I look forward to hearing your response. Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 03:32, 7 March 2011 (EST)
:Hello Ed Poor, could you please add [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] to [[Template:Nb Atheism|this template]]? I really appreciate it! With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 11:14, 7 March 2011 (EST)
::Hello Ed Poor, I need two more images for the article I created which are available [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Independent_assortment_%26_segregation.svg here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_Lennox.jpg here]. Recently, [[User:JMR10]] uploaded my previous one, for which I am thankful. Could you ask him to do the same for these two or could you please do these for me? I highly appreciate it. Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 19:40, 7 March 2011 (EST)

== I seem to have messed up the Ada article ==

My proxy keeps dropping stuff, so the picture at the top is busted. Also, I had to cut down the reference, because the captcha can't make it through. It should have a left bracket, and h,t,t,p, etc., and a right bracket after the "pdf". I wonder if you could please fix it for me. I will contact Andy about getting my IP range restored.

What I was going to put in the talk page (and will do once things get straightened out) is that the two cited articles are very shallow, having only 7 and 3 sentences, respectively. They both refer to a "plan", but that's because the word "program" hadn't been coined in the computer context. She really was the first person to write "code".

I'm sorry about this. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:08, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

:I read her notes, and it doesn't look like a [[computer program]] to me. A charitable view might be that it's a [[specification|spec]], but there's no flowchart and no [[source code]]. Don't be sorry, just get it right. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:21, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

What did you expect this "source code" to look like? The term "source code" implies both a programming language and "machine code" that the source code is assembled or compiled into. Assemblers, compilers, and programming languages wouldn't be invented for another hundred years (by Grace Murray Hopper, John Backus, and others.) The same goes for the other accoutrements of modern software development, like flow charts and specifications. In fact, even the terms "software" and "program" hadn't been invented.

Furthermore, assuming that you accept that she had to write "machine code", what would you expect machine code to look like for a machine that reads its instructions with rods poking through holes in large punched cards running around on a track, and does its arithmetic by counting teeth on turning gears? It wouldn't look much like Intel 586 code.

The fact is, the lines of Ada's written algorithm were intended to be punched into lines of holes in Babbage's cards, once the "analytical engine" was built, which it wasn't.

By the way, what I was being "sorry" for was not the content of my edit, but the fact that an extremely buggy proxy messed up the article and wouldn't let me fix it, despite several tries. Andy has been working with me to fix the network problems, and DMorris fixed the broken picture and hyperlink while my access was broken. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:39, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

:Then it would be more accurate to say that she described an algorithm. That's not the same as a computer program, even if she was hoping that Babbage's machine might be programmed to carry out the algorithm.

:An encyclopedia should be precise and unbiased, not used to create "factoids" for use in publicity campaigns, such as promoting [[women in science]].

:I don't say she had to write machine code, but rather to be the "first programmer" she would have had to produce a [[computer program]]. If you have seen it, please show it to me. Otherwise, I'm going to make an editorial decision that she produced an algorithm rather than a program. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:18, 7 April 2011 (EDT)

:*Let's say that [[Ada Lovelace]] wrote one of the first comprehensive descriptions of an algorithm to generate [[Bernoulli numbers]]. But until I see the actual sequence of instructions, including [[if-then]] or [[loop control]] statements, I'd hesitate to call it an actual [[computer program]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:17, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

==The anti-Semitism of liberals==
I love how libs reveal their true selves. No matter what we say or do in describing them, they come here just to confirm it all. So when they want to emphasize "Jew" in "karajou", I'll be more then happy to get a gold Magen David to wear around my neck, join my brothers and sisters in the synagogue every week, and show everyone else just how hate-filled and intolerant these liberals really are. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:20, 12 April 2011 (EDT)

== Please help! ==

Hi! I tried to add the information for Edo to the Tokyo article and for some reason,. it stripped a bunch of stuff out when I saved. Now when I try and revert the edit I made, I keep getting a internal server 500 error. Please can you revert for me? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:19, 14 April 2011 (EDT)
:It's ok, I fixed it! [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:30, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

::I'm glad it worked out for you. My Japanese name is "Edo". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:04, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

== Nice speed on reverts ==

You beat me to every one! Nicely done--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:05, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks. I'll pass that on to my secret bot. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:10, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

== Thanks for noticing me ==

I must be doing something right. Every time I mention alternate viewpoints, and no one sees fit to revert my edits, I get vandalism to my talk page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:48, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

== Jeb Bush ==

I'm trying to reorganize the information, not leave it out. If you notice, I'm working on the article quite a bit. May I please revert your revision? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:05, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

:Sure. I'm frequently too bold and hasty. And that's the wonderful thing about a wiki. Nothing is ever really deleted; it's all in the article history. Go for it! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:09, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

== Technical question ==

I'm lobbying for a separate namespace for the Conservapedia Bible Project. The idea is that each verse gets its own ''article'', which can be used rather as a template. I see a couple of advantages:
*verses can be quoted more easily: instead of copying the whole verse, only a short link (like <nowiki>{{:CBP:John 20:8}}</nowiki> ) is neccessary to get a neat result: {{:CBP:John 20:8}}
*thereby, the use of the CBP is encouraged over other translations.
*if there is a change in the CBP, the afflicted verses don't have to be tracked down manually, but the change is applied automatically throughout the wiki.

To accomplish this, a new namespace has to be created. That shouldn't be too difficult, as there are only a few exemplary pages prefixed with ''CBP:'' at this moment.

But after this, the namespace has to be filled with the existing translated verses. My question: is your bot up to this task?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:53, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

== madonna ==

Hi, please strongly reconsider your desire to create a "kinder article." In stating that madonna is a person who has changed to being more spiritual you are buying to the liberal media's lies. It sounds like a madonna fan attempting to weave their bias in, which of course you are not. I think you may want to do more research, and read my recent additions as she is still, if not more so, a wicked and hateful person who has sucked millions of children into raunchy culture, dated murderers and mocked our Lord Jesus Christ who gave his life for us. Madonna deserves only the truth.[[User:Legolas2186|Legolas2186]] [[User talk:Legolas2186|Talk]] 13:14, 14 July 2011 (EST)

:And I just had a long conversation with some Wikipedians in Central Park last month, about whether CP is more neutral than WP. Now you want "conservative bias" to denounce [[Madonna Ciccone]]? Not even Wikipedia's BLP policy would allow that.

:I wonder whether you are a liberal '''tempting me''' to add bias, just so you can accuse us of being biased. Well, if so, I choose not to cooperate, my dear elf. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:45, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::I think Legolas here might be a parodist. Would you mind looking into him? [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:12, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

Ed, your compassion sounds a little misplaced to me. Do you also visit the Fred Phelps, Bernie Madoff, Ted Bundy, and Charles Manson pages asking people for some "Christian charity" to tone those down too? Look into me all you want please. I dislike Madonna because she has mocked our lord Jesus Christ. Conservative people have respect for Christ end of story. The reason society has degraded is by giving raunchy people like madonna a free pass and pity. I'm the one who wants to print the ACTUAL history of madonna that the liberal media has left out such her dating the felon Chris Paciello. I only want the truth about her in the article. Why is that so bad? I thought this was the one place that might allow the truth.[[User:Legolas2186|Legolas2186]] [[User talk:Legolas2186|Talk]] 10:34, 17 July 2011 (EST)
:Ed, can you please look into this guy? He is an obvious parodist. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:55, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
First of all - Ed is a senior sysop at this site - I don't know why a few of you have taken upon yourself to post on [[User talk:Aschlafly|Andy's talk page]] when Ed is more than capable of dealing with an alleged parodist on his own. Secondly, just because he is posting radical things on a talk page does not make him a parodist. Looking at his contributions, you ''could'' argue that he is edit warring, but since Ed is simultaneously the user in the revert war and an admin, it is up to his judgement as to whether or not a block is deserving. Your collective alarmism has now spread across three talk pages. That's enough.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:00, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::@NickP, your very.... quick to call somebody else a parodist. Why not leave that to the pro.'s to decide?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:06, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Several others have also pointed out the fact that he acts very suspicious. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:13, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Saying he "acts suspicious" and saying he's a 100% no way im wrong about this Parodist is two completely different things.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:16, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I prefer what Wikipedia old-timers used to call "soft security". Just help me fix the articles in question. Everything will sort itself out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:34, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

==EdBot==
Ed, I left three (actually six) problem Categories that need some sort of merging at [[User_talk:EdBot]]. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:56, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

:Sorry, EdBot did not survive the MediaWiki upgrades. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:21, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
::Does that mean it's all got to be done manually? Moving 200 entries into another Category?

:::Only if they really have to be moved. (Meanwhile, if anyone has an idea how a bot can "log in" with the new MediaWiki software, let me know.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:33, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Creating_a_bot#Logging_in This] should help. Indeed, the whole [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Creating_a_bot page] is quite interesting. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:40, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

== A request concerning recent events ==

Hi Ed,

I'm very sorry to come to you with this, but I honestly don't know where else to turn at this point. You have always struck me as the voice of reason and level-headedness here.

Simply put: the current altercation on Andy's talk page is out of control. I recognize that I have no authority to tell sysops what they should or shouldn't do, but it seems to me that basic common courtesy calls for not filling up Andy's talk page with arguments and accusations. Moreover, the very public nature of the dispute is encouraging other users to join in. Some of them are doubtless sincere; others, I suspect, may in fact be parodists seeking to fan the flames (I notice a LOT of recently created accounts.)

Regardless, the fact remains that Andy's talk page has been turned into a general forum for accusations and arguments. At this point, it's degenerated to the level where people are making absolutely vicious personal attacks against certain of the participants. (Kudos to JamesWilson for promptly reverting the most egregious of these.)

You know the other sysops better than most of us; you talk to them; I would certainly hope they trust and respect your opinion. Is there anything you can do to persuade them to take a step back, cool down, and wait for Andy to respond at this point? Everyone involved has made their positions clear; further acrimony can serve no useful purpose.

I'm sorry to trouble you with this, but I really feel that this is both inconsiderate to Andy and deleterious to the Conservapedia project as a whole.

Respectfully,

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:05, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks for the vote of confidence, but shouldn't I check with Andy before barging in? It may be that he prefers to let everyone air their opinions. It is not just his courage but his wisdom and compassion that attracted me to this project. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:59, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

==[[User:MRellek]]==
Ed, per the site owner, Administrators [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=892763 "instructions...are to be followed"] is no longer operable. I have emailed you a copy of Mr. Schlafly's approval. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:32, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

:Oh, sorry. I was hasty. Feel free to unban MRellek, if you feel I was out of line. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:32, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
::Thank you, Ed. I'm trying to get the other sysops to do more warnings & shorter blocks; let's get a sense of community here. After all, we've known many of these editors (the RW neighbors) for several years now. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:37, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

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

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

:I think I got signed up somehow, after jumping into a discussion.

:Can we have non-sysops on the panel? I'd like to invite a friend from Wikipedia to join it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:00, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== If I understand correctly, you are the local math expert. ==

If so, maybe you can take a look at [[Relativistic mass|this]] and some of that editor's other contributions. They seem pretty obscure/specialized for the general reader, to me, at least. Thanks! [[User:MrMorganH|MrMorganH]] 10:15, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

:Not an expert, but I know a lot about high school math. Andy's brother knows much more than I do. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:55, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== Revert ==

Good morning (afternoon?) Ed, why was my comment reverted? I can't see why it should be? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:54, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

:Gosh, you're quick on the trigger. See your talk page for my response. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:58, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::I am indeed quick on the trigger, I like Westerns you see..:-) I have responded to you on my talk-page and re asked the question in a more cordial manner. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:59, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun ==

The panel proceeding have begun here: [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings]] You can start making your edits to the page should you wish to do so. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:59, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Farewell ==

Ed, in all sincerity you are by far the most interesting person I have met at Conservapedia. I regret that we couldn't get along better, though we did manage to improve a number of things. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:12, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

:We'd have gotten along better if we more goals in common. Building a trustworthy encyclopedia apparently was not one of them.

:In [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=893745 this drive by attack] you dodged my request for specific instances of the problem you complained of. (Note: saying "all of them" is a a typical liberal dodge. That's like global warming alarmists saying, "Just look at the temperature record; the evidence is all there."

:For those listening in to this fascinating drama, the difference between real science and liberal junk science is that real scientists provide examples of what they're talking about, so that anyone can check it out and see for themselves. Liberals and other pseudoscientists '''pretend''' that they've already made the point.

:It reminds me of Japan, which always (1) says that it "already apologized" for the [[comfort women]] episode while steadfastly (2) refusing ever to admit that it did anything wrong. They are hoping we'll all be too polite to mention that #1 contradicts #2.

:Nice try on the parting shot, but your pretense of trying oh so hard fools no one. You're always welcome to come back if you '''ever''' choose to help this project instead of undermining it with trickery. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:41, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

==Pontiac==
Hi Ed, thanks for your help archiving my page. I know you are very experienced with Wikis, but I was wondering why you removed what I wrote about the government shut down of Pontiac destroying American history. A lot of people were really upset about Pontiac's closure and there are lots of websites and articles proving this, why can't it be in the article? I will differ to your judgement because you are so experienced, but just want to understand your reasoning. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 22:46, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

:It can't be in the article until you find a way to make it trustworthy. Use references. You can't just write stuff off the top of your head, because you are not an established author. You are in fact an anonymous person, and we don't even know whether Craig is your real name.

:If there's a lot of proof for your assertion, be sure to provide references, like:
:*The New York Times reported that after GM was taken over by the government, brands like Saturn and Pontiac were sold or eliminated (link and/or date)

:If you need help formatting references, lots of people here can help. But '''you''' must supply them. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:43, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
==Pictures==
Hi Ed, how do I add pictures? --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 16:08, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

:You can't add pictures, until you've made enough useful contributions to earn upload rights. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:34, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

::In addition, Craig, you can use [[Conservapedia:Image upload requests]] until you earn uploading privileges. A Sysop will do it for you.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:59, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Ok, I'll work even harder to earn my rights! I also wanted to apologize for being so familiar, my mom pointed out that I should be calling you Mr. Poor. I always call adults by their last names in real life, but on the internet I usually forget. Also thanks Mr. Wilson for your advice about upload requests. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 13:24, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::::No worries. I wouldn't mind if you called me James or Jim, but I'm glad your mother has taught you well. Also, you will need a lot more work to earn uploading privileges, just so you know. Happy editing in the meantime!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 14:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

== Edit conflict ==

Just got edit conflicted by you on the Morse code page - what are the odds we'd both be working on it! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:19, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

:One thought leads to another ... not such long odds. Sorry about stepping on your work. Feel free to revert, and I'll recover later. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:22, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
::Its all OK, I added my work to your version. Great minds think alike, more like an average mind in my case but you catch my drift...:-) [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:24, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

== signature ==

I hope you don't mind, but I borrowed the format of your signature to use for my own. It's simple and to the point, but looks nice as well, so I thought I would use it as well. Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 16:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:I copied mine from someone else, so "[[Pay It Forward]]." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:27, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
::Oh, ok. Thanks for letting me know! [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 09:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

== like wikipedia? ==

i looked up [[milk]] and [[butter]] how is this conserivtive? is it like wikipedia at all what can i add? ty. --[[User:Rainbowboiz|Rainbowboiz]] 00:35, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:Not unless your spelling improves. And we are not so much "conservative" as [[trustworthy]]. Unlike Wikipedia, we really do try to avoid political bias. Add anything that is correct and useful. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:17, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

== Meat Loaf ==

I know his stage name is much better known (I'm writing the article on him, obviously), but wouldn't you think using the subject's real name is more appropriate for an encyclopedia? If you think the article should be titled under his stage name, you're the boss, but I thought I might want to point that out. Thanks!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 11:14, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

== Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage ==

Please help me as I am fairly new to this wiki. I have attempted to propose a discussion for deletion on this particular page. Before disccussing this, I have followed the instructions on templates via the help index [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Articles_for_deletion]] to add it to a discussion for deletion but this does not seem to work so I have not proceded further - with hindsight I should have guessed there was something wrong by the lack of entries on this page.
My reason for wishing to commence this discussion is that I suspect the article (created by a user who does not appear to have an active talk page) seems to me to be parody and trolling to debase the credibility of this project. In my opinion, most of the logic followed in nearly every assertion is spurious and often uses blatant synthesis that a ten year old could question. It is to such an extent that I don't think an "improved" version would be posible. Of course, others may have different oppinions which is why I am trying to be fair and open it for rational discussion. What is the correct procedure? Thank you in advance - answer to my talk page [[User:DavidMilton|DavidMilton]] 19:54, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

:I'm not sure what the correct procedure is. Maybe you could post on the talk page, showing a few examples of "spurious" assertions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:46, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

::Ok I can do this, but I'm surprised that hte Help feature supplies a redundant page on discoussing articles for deletion. I was also under the impression that you had Sysop/Admin powers and would be familiar with such policies as it is a feature on other wikis. [[User:DavidMilton|DavidMilton]] 13:31, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Actually I know policy fairly well and do have Sysop/Admin powers. Either provide the requested examples, or drop the matter. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:47, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

== Sid 3050 ==

Sid 3050 was blocked for three month for ''trolling''. The only edit he made during the day before his block seems to be to answer to your question in a section above (''So, will it go away if you ignore it?'') - see his [[Special:Contributions/Sid 3050|list of contributions]]. You had personally addressed this comment (''But I'll take a look at Sid's material below now, just to be a good sport.''), so you should be able to judge whether such a comment is ''trolling''. Could you please review Sid's block? In a timely fashion? Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:17, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:Sid was trolling. Whether this justifies a three month block is up to the admin in question.

:I'm always open to suggestions for making Conservapedia more trustworthy. If you have anything specific in mind, please speak up.

:Of particular interest to me would be any material relating to the contrast between conservative and liberal viewpoints on American political issues, as well as philosophy, religion and science. To my regret, repeated invitations to include users who are ideological opponents of this project have not met with an enthusiastic response. It's almost as if they wish to conceal their ideological differences; ironically, this could be seen as self-censorship.

:If anyone wants to describe liberal POV here they may, provided only that it is clearly labeled as such - not presented as gospel. This should not be an onerous requirement: it's the same as Wikipedia's NPOV policy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:42, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== Vandalism ==

Help! A user called CortA is currently vandalising articles. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:15, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:OK, Andy blocked him. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:17, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== Misled by RonLar ==

I was quite astonished by your last actions. I slept over it and want to clarify my earlier remark.

*I'd appreciate if you would be less generous with your slight innuendos (''"thanks for nothing!"'', ''"misled by RonLar"''): these make it difficult to assume ''good faith'' on your side. And they have the annoying tendency to backfire...

*my statement ''"Where is the right place to propose an alternative viewpoint? Surely not in the article itself, but on its talk-page. This is a simple necessity for all protected articles, but a good idea for most of those articles some sysops feel strongly about."'' is hardly misleading - even though it is not written by a native speaker! In fact, it is echoing the sentiments of Conservapedia's [[Conservapedia:Editing etiquette|editing etiquettes]]:

:::* '''You should discuss changes made by an Administrator before reverting their edits. Administrators are charged with seeing that article content is in line with Conservapedia guidelines. [[Edit war]]ring with an Administrator usually results in a temporary block.'''
:::* '''You should not alter the editorial content of an article away from a [[conservative]], or [[Christian]], or [[family friendly]] "tone" without discussing proposed changes on the talk page.'''
:::*'''Never make substantial edits to an article without discussing your changes first on the talk page. If you have a reasonable expectation that other editors will accept your change(s), the changes are just formatting / copy editing, you should proceed.'''

*Inserting an alternative viewpoint is most certainly a ''substantial edit'' - and the etiquettes advise you to discuss such an edit at first on the talk-page.

*So, I made a true statement, in accordance with Conservapedia's policy on editing, and you '''misread''' it. To reiterate: You weren't '''misled''', you simply '''misread''' it. And this misunderstanding (of your part) you took as a reason to erase the whole section and seemingly not to read the rest of my comment? Deleting a section on censorship is always a little bit ironic...

*BTW: whether the article is protected or not is not of any interest for the discussion of censorship! A library does not only censor the books it throws from it shelves, but the books it doesn't allow into it shelves in the first place!

*I put the whole section up [[User:RonLar|here]], so you can read it carefully again. Take your time, but nevertheless, react timely - you said that would be important....

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 12:05, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:At this point, I think it's become abundantly clear that complaining about censorship will get you nowhere. I realize users will come up and be frustrated by certain site traditions, but that's just the way Conservapedia is run, RonLar.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 13:41, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

::Sorry, I thought you were saying the article was protected.

::Also, I'm astonished to think that you consider adding alternative viewpoints to be something that has to be '''cleared''' with a sysop first. My understanding of project policy is that all contributors are free to describe non-conservative, non-Christian views ... especially on an article describing a controversy between the two sides.

::Has someone told you you can't describe the liberal or secular viewpoint on some topic? (Or did you try to sneak in such a viewpoint without proper attribution)? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]]
[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:38, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

:::*Apology accepted. Perhaps you could revert your reaction to this misunderstanding by reintroducing the section which you erased from your talk-page?
:::*Please read [[User:RonLar#Again, the previous example of ideological censorship, in detail]] - all of it, not only the first sentence. This should answer some of your questions.
:::*Please address the incident which I mentioned there.
:::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 16:56, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Eh? I thought you wanted help. Please answer my question: Has someone told you you can't describe the liberal or secular viewpoint on some topic? (Or did you try to sneak in such a viewpoint without proper attribution)? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:39, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::How is it a sensible use of my time to answer new questions when you seem to ignore my answers to your old ones? Please remember your statements:
:::::{{Cquote|
:::::''Unless you can show at least one diff, where a senior editor censored something ... merely because it disagreed with some conservative shibboleth ... than you ought to stop saying this. I address this not so much to you, as to those who follow you or travel alongside you.'' }}
:::::and
:::::{{Cquote|
:::::''I asked for an instance of ideological censorship.''}}
:::::Well, you find it here: [[User:RonLar#Again.2C_the_previous_example_of_ideological_censorship.2C_in_detail]] Of course I am willing to answer any question concerning this specific example of censorship, especially those which indicate that you read the whole comment.

:::::Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 02:41, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Nearly two weeks later: Did you take a look? Or even better, did you read the whole thing? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:17, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

== Anti-Clancy cracks? ==

In general I'm a Clancy fan but I think some of the criticism you removed was valid. For example by the time he wrote "The Bear and the Dragon" his standards of research had perceptibly dropped (The AH-64 has a 20mm gun? Really?) and "Red Rabbit" and "The Teeth of the Tiger" were frankly rubbish. Maybe some of the criticisms should stay? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:09, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

:Anything can stay if properly sourced: X said Y about Z. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:10, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::What would be an acceptable source? I have all Clancy's books; would they be acceptable sources for pointing out declining standards of technical accuracy? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:20, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

:::LOL, '''your''' interpretation of Clancy's writings would be (what is called at Wikipedia) original research. If you don't know what I meant by 'properly sourced', then you're unqualified to contribute anything further to this project. If you do know, you're just toying with me. Godspeed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:23, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough. What I'd do is reference both Clancy's books and technical sources that contradict them, such as the fact that the AH-64 does NOT have a 20mm gun. Like I said I'm generally a Clancy fan - "Without Remorse" may just be the best thriller ever written - but his last few books have been a bit disappointing and his research has definitely slipped. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:28, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::::What I would propose is to remove the comments about "The sum of all fears" - a nuclear weapon could be built with a table saw and a small lathe, never mind optical milling equipment - but keep and expand on the comment about the declining level of technical accuracy. The divergence of the Ryanverse from reality isn't important because it IS fiction, but the declining level of research and tendency towards unrealistic assessments of real-world capabilities IS important. For example "The Bear and the Dragon" is utterly unrealistic even in the Ryanverse. If China invaded Russia they'd get about ten feet over the border before being annihilated. The fortifitions on the Sino-Russian border make the Maginot line look like a sand castle on the beach, and they were actually designed by strategic thinkers. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:44, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

On second thought, maybe I'm being too hard on you. I recently started tutoring schoolchildren, and I'm learning to be more patient with their quaint notions. After all, making wrong guesses and getting them corrected is often the best way to learn. Shall I not condescend to grant you the same grace? ;-)

I've read all Tom Clancy's [[Jack Ryan]] and [[John Clark]] novels. I always assumed that any discrepancies were inserted on purpose; Clancy certainly would have no reason to put correct information on how to make a suitcase-sized nuclear bomb in his books: what conservative would want to inspire a copycat crime?

If you want to include "criticism" by some published author who says an attack helicopter does or does not have a certain sized gun, go ahead. He's also not very accurate about the software used in the stock market, although it was a key plot element in ''[[Debt of Honor]]''. (Come to think of it, if a man knew everything and wanted to make money betting on horse races, he would know not to put all his winnings on the next race ("[[John Doe]]" TV series pilot). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:56, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

== Language ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Big_Bang_theory Language like this] makes me extremely uncomfortable: "when grownups talk", "woman's logic is strange, don't you think", etc. (especially this in his earlier statements: "and being educated briefly by my grandpa in matters "of faith", mostly about "Catholic errors", and the absolute need to be trufhful, my concern was that the Catholics are wrong on one more point since the Big Bang was proven wrong in 1985")

First, I am not a woman. My identity is very well known and I am quite easy to find. Ottava means eight, and Ottava Rima means Eight Rhyme, a type of rhyming pattern used in Italian epic poetry. Second, his language is condescending, misogynistic, religiously bigoted, etc. Third, his claims about the Big Bang Theory are rather strange, conspiratorial, and nothing I have ever heard by any legitimate scientist. I cannot honestly believe that he is a real conservative but I believe he is a plant just like many of the people who vandalize. His job is to produce some of the most absurd stuff to try and make conservatives look awful. If I am wrong, I am wrong, but his language does not seem like something that is appropriate. I talked to Geoff Plourde about this quite a bit tonight because it bothered me a lot. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 22:44, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Um ==

[[Atheism and obesity]] - is this a joke? It seems to be just a list of fat atheists. It even has random tidbits like "Chuck Norris endorses the Total Gym exercise system.[59]" I know many priests who are overweight, and many religious people who are. I know many atheists who are ultra thing and anorexic.

"Christian and Library of Congress researcher's explanations of reports of UFOs " How would that even deal with atheism and obesity? Yet it is in there.

The page looks like it was created to make Conservapedia and conservatism look really bad. Sigh. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 22:58, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

:User:Conservative is good at attracting readership to this website. The [[Atheism and obesity]] seems to me a bit of payback for the liberals who call Rush Limbaugh a big, fat idiot. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:57, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

::And in his payback, he demeans everyone who is overweight, including myself. I've dealt with mean-spirited behavior from people about weight the majority of my life - there is no acceptable reason for being hostile about the issue. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:53, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

== You were looking for ideological censorship? ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bestiality&curid=88619&diff=920267&oldid=920266 easy to find] --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 23:52, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

:Not as easy as you say. See [[Talk:Bestiality]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:44, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

== Senior Admin assistance ==

Hi Ed, I would like to bring something to your attention as a senior administrator. I have been in private communication with User:SamCoulter over the last few weeks. There is nothing in his attitude and comments to me in private and his behaviour here on Conservapedia to suggest this user is anything but sincere. He was recently blocked for the edit [http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/SamCoulter here] (the last edit he made - I will not link directly to it because the topics are extremely offensive and not family friendly). For this effort he was blocked for three months. His edit was a) relevant b) correct according to the article linked and c) was a link which was on the front page already. It seems that some users wanted to quote the article without implying the articles conclusions as they were at loggerheads with a users personal opinion. I don't think the user should have been blocked but now he is I won't remove it but I do believe that 3 months is extremely heavy-handed. I don't want to create controversy so I will not chnage the block myself but I am bringing this up with you and User:Karajou also (I am unable to contact the blocking sysop). Thank you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:11, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Keep him blocked. He vandalized twice. In fact, I am going to increase the time blocked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Do you have evidence of this vandalism? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:04, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::If you want to defend those recent contributions be my guest. If you want to wrangle with me about them, it is not going to happen. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:09, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::I tell you now '''there was no vandalism''' you are blocking a user for adding sourced and factual material. You are blocking him for no reason! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:09, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

Sorry, but it's actually very easy to avoid a block. I suggest you start coaching new users about courtesy, project goals, etc.

I myself disagree with the project goals of RW, but they haven't given me any long blocks. Why? Because I follow their rules in their house.

Adolescents often have trouble figuring out what the rules are, or trouble realizing the benefits of following them. (In the long run, civil disobedience campaigns against beneficial institutions such as Democracy and Free Markets simply backfire.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:52, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

:I respectfully disagree with you. It's incredibly ''easy'' to get blocked on this site, because honestly, it appears to depend on the whim of the blocking editor (doesn't like what's being said because it's contrary to the blocking editor's opinion, got up on the wrong side of the bed, had a fight with someone in real life and are taking it out on editors here at CP.) You yourself just handed out an ''infinite'' block for ''defending'' someone.

:Many editors, myself included, have protested User:Conservative's articles and his method of defending them. If anyone objects, he automatically deems them an atheist/evolutionist, etc., which at least in my case, is far from the truth. I object to several things. First, his use of "obese" as a ''ad hominem'' attack against people whose ideas he disagrees with. I've dealt with bullying behavior about weight most of my life, and have tried to point out to him how hurtful his taunts are, but he thinks it's amusing, and the other sysops here (yourself included) appear to agree. I'm all for a good discussion about ''ideas'', but when the attacks become personal, and all-inclusive, then yes, I'm going to protest.

:Second, most of the articles are just ''badly, badly written''. They meander ''miles'' away from the original topic, they tend to be a bunch of quotes lumped together, and in many of them, the point that he's trying to make is missed completely. The actual subjects might be valid, and important enough to warrent an article on them, but creating 10 articles that say the same thing, and that can (and should) be consolidated into one, '''''well-researched and well-written document''''', is just poor scholarship. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 12:53, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

::Well, thank you for not giving me an excuse to block you! ;-) Very well written . . .

::As I've said elsewhere, [http://ameriwiki.wikkii.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=4073&oldid=4071] I disagree with the stance of "the admin" who is making ''[[ad hominem]]'' attacks on atheists; I think it's a misguided attempt to attract readership.

::If anyone's had a '''good''' edit reverted for a bad reason, they can just let me know. Just remember: if anyone is criticizing to condemn, I'm not interested, but if they want me to change things, I'm the man who can do it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:03, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

== BrentH's block ==

I see you blocked BrentH for trolling and reverted 2 of his edits. He linked [[Professor]] to an existing article here on CP, [[Professor values]]. Why was that trolling? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:55, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:Perhaps prior edits?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:01, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
::User: Ed Poor did not appreciate the section right above this one--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:14, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:::BrentH made a perfectly reasonable and respectful suggestion. It would appear from the edit history that he was referring to an article about Winona Ryder, created by Ed Poor, which contained one piece of trivia but no basic information regarding the person whatsoever. What BrentH said is simply common sense, and I too cannot see how this can justify a block. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:45, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Indeed, certain longstanding members of this community seem to have rather thin skin. I did not see BrentH's post as offensive or out of line--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:54, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

== This is an encyclopedia. ==

You wrote that on my talkpage. ''This is an encyclopedia.''. Well, if it is articles like [[bestiality and Britain]] ahould be deleted because, as I have pointed out numerous times, it has nothing to do with bestiality and Britain. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:27, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

:Article deleted. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Ed+Poor&page=&year=&month=-1&hide_patrol_log=1]
::Hey thanks Ed. Just for the record though I wasn't "bothered" by the content so much as bothered by the ''lack'' of content. As the commandments say - everything must be true and verifiable which that article clearly wasn't. Many thanks. I must admit - I have a lot of respect for you and karajou. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:54, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Ed, evolution was birthed in Britain and secularism has grown rampant in their country. Now their society is a mess and there is rioting in the streets. In addition, the'' Guardian'' just published a puff piece on bestiality. I say enough is enough and it's time their moral rot is exposed. I realize that pointing out that folly and consequences of atheism/evolutionism annoys liberals, but so what. Not only are they grossly and obviously in error, but atheists/evolutionists have shown themselves [[Atheism and cowardice|to be timid little bunnies]]. I restored the article because I feel confident that Conservapedia can stand up to foolish and timid little bunnies. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:21, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Enough with the insults conservative. I am neither a liberal nor an atheist and am sick to death of you accusing me of such. The article has nothing, I repeat '''nothing''' about the practice in Britain. I say again '''nothing'''. You poor scholarship is on show and we can ''all'' see it. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:02, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::Ed, a Brit was trying to bring over his deviant farming practices to the United States as can be seen [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7600523/British-man-51-arrested-at-bestiality-farm.html HERE]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:28, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::You misread the article, Conservative. The Oregon farm is owned by an American. The British man was visiting it. Read [http://www.examiner.com/headlines-in-seattle/seattle-convicted-cocaine-smuggler-arrested-likely-into-bestiality-liking-sex-with-animals here] for a version of the story that makes who owned the farm clearer.
[[File:Keldaby goats.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|An exclusive British art gallery was criticised for displaying a highly offensive bestiality oriented painting which featured a [[goat]] just yards from The Ritz hotel and where it could be seen by children.- The Daily Mail online (MailOnline), August 5, 2011 ''The explicit art that shows bestiality with a goat just yards from The Ritz'']]
::::::::There is no way I'd let children any where this site with Conservatives despicable articles all over the place. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:54, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Max, I heard Oregon was pretty liberal. It figures the farm was in Oregon. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:30, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::I heard that most states are pretty liberal... But that doesn't make the rumors true. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 22:34, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
Oregon voted for Obama plus fairly recently they had the most atheists per capita in the United States. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:57, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:Omaha, Nebraska also voted for obama but calling it liberal is very silly--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:58, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/25/new-poll-identifies-most-liberal-and-conservative-states/ Oregon is liberal] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:07, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:I'm slightly confused as to why it's relevant or not that Oregon is liberal. After all the state DOES have a law against bestiality, so that argues against liberals being tolerant of it. --[[User:ColSharp|ColSharp]] 08:33, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
::Since when do liberals obey the laws on the books in the first place? This photo [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:1915b7ec753fa9d0352885dc23da4469.jpg] is proof that liberals have no intention of obeying laws regarding littering. They trashed Washington D.C. ''when they got their way'', January 20, 2009. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:10, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
:::There's a law in New Jersey about recycling, yet I know several conservatives who refuse to recycle. Why is this? [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 13:26, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

== Request for Admin assistance ==

To all senior admins and sysops. I am being repeatedly abused by user:conservative who, among other things, accuses me continuously of being an atheist simply because I point out some of the holes in his articles. See [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=113357&diff=924642&oldid=924636 here for the latest accusation]. I have asked him numerous times to desist with his sneering name calling as I find it offensive to have my faith questioned and nothing is ever done. He state’s I am atheist because I don’t agree with some of his ridiculous contentions. In actual fact it isn’t even that I disagree with him it is that I point out his shoddy research, poor scholarship and his berating, insulting and sarcastic behaviour towards others. I am of the opinion now that he is purposely calling me names because he knows I don’t like it which is unchristian, impolite and, above all, insulting. Is anyone going to teach this man some manners? Has Conservapedia become a place where Conservative is allowed to behave this way without any warning or comeuppance but all other editors and warned and blocked for minor infractions. He is in continual violation of the commandments yet NOTHING is done whereas people like myself are always watching out to avoid being banned. Well, fine, ban me if you like. I probably will be after this posting and no doubt Conservative will cackle with glee at “winning” again. But laugh Conservative, you win nothing. I post this is full knowledge that I might be blocked banned and insulted by you in my absence and I have always remained polite and civil plus I can hold my head up high. Hopefully one of you will take a stand and insist on standards of civility. But I don’t hold out much hope. Thanks, many of you were kind, decent people whom I enjoyed working with and I pray for you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:21, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
:I am disappointed in you most of all Ed. Coming from wikipedia and being the first to jump on others for incivility you ignore when it comes to the ruling chaste of Conservapedia. You should be ashamed. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:48, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Max, I think you assume entirely too much about my dispositions. You really don't know what extent I "cackle" or if I "cackle" at all. You also don't know what value I place on "winning". In fact, you don't even know if I am one person or a team. I/we remain inscrutable. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:24, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
::::User:Conservative, this is getting silly. You wrote for instance:
::::::''Actually KhalidM, I have a very outgoing personality and a university professor friend of mine told me that I would make a great administrator because I can be very diplomatic. While I realize that I will never cultivate a large atheist or liberal fan club, I can live with that. Conservative 20:34, 5 October 2011 (EDT) ''
::::So, while your grammatical gender may be undetermined, your number isn't. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:44, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

== King George I ==

The article of [[King George I]] was deleted as a ''creation of vandals''. On the talk page I read the comment of User:RJJense: ''I added much new text, all of which I wrote, and previously posted on Citizendium.'' I looked up the article at Citizendium and it seemed to be quite informative - certainly not vandalistic! Could it be restored? I'd like to insert a valid link into [[elector]]s.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:57, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
:::I restored the last version by RJJense. I feel confident that his last version was a good article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:34, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks - it really seems so! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:57, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

=="New Ordeal"==
Hello, I noticed that you placed the quotation marks around the term "New Ordeal." As you have probably noticed I have been attempting to fix that article. Quite frankly, the article is pretty bad to start with and several of the references that prior authors cited have nothing to do with the topic. Do you know if there is procedure in which this article may be recommended for deletion? --[[User:Padams|Padams]] 15:33, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

:Better to mark it as an essay. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:31, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

== Block of AugustO ==

I looked at [[Conservapedia:Editor's_guide#If_you_get_blocked]]:

''If you get blocked, it's probably because you (1) broke the rules and (2) ignored hints, requests and/or warnings. So the first thing you should do is review your communications with others here, particularly those who are admins. Have you been trying to get along by following our practices and supporting our goals, or have you been trying to change our ways? If you are new here, it's best to go along to get along. After you have contributed a lot, we'll be more likely to listen to your suggestions, but breaking the rules will just end up with eliminating you from the project. ''

::*I can't think of any rule which I broke
::*I was requested to ''to do some charitable work somewhere instead''. I'm already engaged in such work, so this doesn't apply...
::*I don't try to ''change our ways''. I try to correct factual errors (e.g., ιδού can be translated as ''at this moment'' or that it is right to call ''Carolus Martellus'' the grandson of ''Carolus Magnus''.)

''Perhaps upon reflection you may realize that you'd rather be part of the project than insist on your own way. You might want to apologize and get unblocked. ''

::*I don't insist on my own way and I apologize if anyone feels insulted by my criticism.

''If you want to discuss your block, '''do not create a new account'''. Rather, use one of the following methods to appeal the decision (listed in order of preference). ''

::*Here, I obviously failed.

1. ''Contact the person who blocked you (see below).
::*tried
2. ''If you get no reply after a reasonable amount of time, you may contact any Administrator.
::*tried
3. ''Email cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com giving the name of the Administrator or editor who blocked you, and the date, and it will be forwarded on to them.
::*tried

''If you contact more than one person about this, please do them the courtesy of letting them know who else you have tried contacting. ''
::*This should be obvious from the header of my emails.

''Contacting an Administrator or editor can usually be done by one of the following methods: ''
*''Use the "Email this user" link in the toolbox. This, however, will only work if both you and the Administrator or editor have enabled this on your/their respective accounts.
*''The Administrator or editor may have provided an email address or other contact information (e.g. AIM) on their user page.

::*This section seems to be obsolete: ''email this user'' doesn't work for any of the administrators I tried to reach. And I couldn't get Ed Poor's email address via his user page. So we are in a [[Catch 22]] kind of situation...
::*I emailed to <code>aschlafy@aol.com</code>, <code>conservapedia@zoho.com</code> and <code>cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com</code>. I didn't get any reply (is 1-2 days a ''reasonable amount of time'' to wait? I thinks so...) to my short email which stated: ''I understand that my criticisms of CBP and the World History Lectures are quite unwelcome, but they are hardly trolling! I'd appreciate if you lift my block.''
::*So I decided to create a new account to appeal the block, hoping that the advice against this action is as obsolete as other sections of the ''editor's guide''.
[[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 07:56, 26 October 2011 (EDT) (AugustO)
:::August, I think you should start a career in sales. You certainly have the persistence to be a good salesman. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:47, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Ed Poor, the block of AugustO is now more than a week old. I tried to reach you via various channels - could you please lift the block as the stated reason ("trolling") doesn't apply? [[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 11:09, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

:Please get a [[writing plan]] from him and get it to me, and I'll consider it. Meanwhile, any sysop is free to unblock him. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:01, 31 October 2011 (EDT)
::Is that any official Sysop, or anyone with Block rights? I'd be happy to unblock Mr O so that he can post his writing plan.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:25, 1 November 2011 (EDT)
:::On second thoughts, perhaps I'll just go ahead. Please reverse my action if I'm overstepping the mark.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:33, 1 November 2011 (EDT)

*Thanks for the unblock!
*I read the article on the [[writing plan]], and I'll try to provide you with one. This would be easier if a ''sample plan'' were provided. But nonetheless, here it is:

Mainly I'm interested in the CBP. Mind you, I'm not ''Junker Jörg'', I'm not capable to create a translation on my own which stands for hundreds of years. But I think that translating the Bible in a group, and extensively discussing your work is a marvelous way to get a greater insight into the ''Book of books''. While doing so, I try to dig into what Conservative calls the ''ANE culture'', as you can see [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#Issue_with_translation_of_John_4:53|here]], where I try to shed light on timekeeping during the Roman empire.

When I came here, I thought that there would be a group of likewise interested individuals, but at the moment there seems to be only one other editor with similar interests.

As my approach to the CBP generates quite a few edits on talk-pages, I balance these with edits to articles. These tend to by connected somehow with my namesakes (August of Saxony, Ernest August of Hanover), the history - or just happen on pages where I read something which puzzled me :-)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)

== Abortion issue ==

It would be a great idea to merge the articles. In fact, if you were interested in expanding the article, I might be interested in helping.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 14:28, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

:Yes, please help me organize this. We should give prominence to conservative views, but let's steer away from censoring liberal views. It would be nice if liberals could see '''why''' conservatives believe differently. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:43, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
::OK!--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 14:48, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
::I merged the articles and added a bit on abortion and political ideology. How is it?--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 21:53, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

==Thanks for the change but==
perhaps it should be bed bugs (plural), and now when i make an edit and it goes thru, if i try to make another one i get "Someone else has changed this page since you started editing it" but no one has. Going back to page and trying anew results in the same. 3.1: longetivity should be longevity.

Jesus is Lord, thanks[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 07:58, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

== Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback here ==

Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback [http://conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Panel_members.2C_please_give_your_feedback_below HERE]

Your assistance would be much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:05, 16 November 2011 (EST)

:I have explained my ideas in private email to you and Andy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:50, 11 December 2011 (EST)

== a few messages to you ==

There are a few messages to you here: http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Air_superiority [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:14, 26 May 2012 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for picking up some of my "wiki litter" that I left behind (redirects to non-existent pages). I will try to be more diligent as far as not littering in the future. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:22, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

:You're welcome. And don't bother yourself: it's better for you to focus your time on building the wiki, while less talented contributors like myself do the routine housekeeping.

:If I had your writing skill, I'd be making whole article like you do. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:34, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

== A message to you from Cipe ==

Fixing a MediaWiki message:

Hello,

Could you perform the edit I described [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&oldid=992864#Edit_request here, on very bottom of the page]? I asked Aschlafly but he's probably busy now.

Best [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 15:33, 13 July 2012 (EDT)
::I know the basics of Wiki coding and not the advanced level coding. I would ask someone else. Try Ed Poor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:32, 13 July 2012 (EDT)
:::Unfortunately, I cannot edit Ed's talk page. Could you suggest someone different? Or message him?

:::The change is rather small and requires only copy-and-paste. More directly: you can copy contents of this: [[User:Cipe/MW_fix]] to: [[MediaWiki:Revision-info]]. Even if my suggestion is wrong, it can be reverted, so there is no danger. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 16:41, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

Okay, I did it. But where can I see the results? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:53, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

Thank you very much. You'll see it when checking older revision. Here is an example: [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=991546].

I noticed that MediaWiki has a different message when you're checking current revision. I'll prepare fix in a moment. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 17:55, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

:The message seems to have logged me out. I think it needs fixing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:56, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

::I also got logged out, but only once. I can consistently see the new message now. Perhaps the software logs out when a edit to MediaWiki is made. Could you please copy [[User:Cipe/MW fix 2]] to [[MediaWiki:Revision-info-current]]? I promise it's the last change :) It is shown for a permalink to current revision. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 18:08, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

:::I don't think that's it. I think you need to put the '''www.''' in front of '''www.conservapedia.com''' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:09, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

::::It seems to work. I can see the messages: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=991546 for past revisions] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=992065 for current revision]. Thanks for changing. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 18:19, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

== Thank you for unlocking your talk page ==

I really appreciate being able to get in contact with you directly when the circumstances arise. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 18:39, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

== Thank you ==
Now he can try to justify what he said about the article. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 14:29, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

Debate:Do agnostics have proof and evidence that agnosticism is valid?

2012-07-14T17:14:56Z

Davidspencer: Reverted edits by ChickenBot (talk) to last revision by CPalmer

== No ==

[[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[Norman Geisler]] wrote on complete [[agnosticism]]:

"Complete agnosticism is self-defeating; it reduces to the self-destructing assertion that "one knows enough about reality in order to affirm that nothing can be known about reality." This statement provides within itself all that is necessary to [[falsify]] itself. For if one knows something about reality, then he surely cannot affirm in the same breath that all of reality is unknowable. And of course if one knows nothing whatsoever about reality, then he has no basis whatsoever for making a statement about reality. It will not suffice to say that his knowledge about reality is purely and completely negative, that is, a knowledge of what one cannot meaningfully affirm that something is not – that it follows that total agnosticism is self-defeating because it assumes some knowledge about reality in order to deny any knowledge of reality (Geisler, Apologetics, p. 20)[http://www.greatcom.org/resources/secular_religions/ch01/default.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:34, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

== Question is meaningless ==
As defined by the ''American Heritage College Dictionary'', 4th ed. (2002):
;agnostic
:''n.'' '''1.''' One who believes that there is no proof of the existence of God but does not deny the possibility that God exists.
;valid
:''adj.'' '''1.''' Well grounded; just. ... '''4.''' ''Logic'' '''a.''' Containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived. '''b.''' Correctly inferred or deduced from a premise.
Because agnosticism is the belief that there is no proof of God's existence, it makes no sense to me to ask them for proof or evidence of their skepticism. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 17:14, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
[[Category:Epistemology]]
[[Category:Debate]]
[[Category:Agnosticism]]

Talk:Essay: Richard Dawkins and peanut butter

2012-07-14T16:53:40Z

Davidspencer:

Man this page is insane. :) [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 08:42, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

:Could you make your criticism more specific, please? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:16, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
:::User Ed Poor, the person who wrote this comment can't be more specific, they have been blocked for 1 day. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 12:53, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

::Why this page is beyond substandard and quite frankly embarrassing:
::* It is not actually an essay. It is actually a collection of captioned pictures and links. In fact, there are no words in it that are not links or captions to pictures.
::* It claims that one's "machismo" is linked to one's preference in peanut butter, despite no link ever being shows between the two.
::* The main thesis, that Richard Dawkins likes creamy peanut butter, has never been proven anywhere.
::* Other main points of this piece, like the claims that Chuck Norris and John Wayne enjoy/enjoyed chunky peanut butter, have never been proven.
::* Large components of it, namely the bunny and bullfighting pictures, have been used in countless other "essays" by User:Conservative and don't really prove anything.
::Ed Poor, if you can't see that this page is an utter embarassment to the readers and editors of Conservapedia, then I don't know what else to say. I am interested in hearing your defense of this article. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 11:20, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

:::I agree that it's not actually an essay. It looks like a joke: i.e., the page author is probably using it to tease atheists.

:::Please don't respond as if you think it wasn't meant humorously. There's no "thesis"; he's just kidding around.

:::You may wonder whether kidding and teasing atheists will promote Conservapedia's cause. But if you can't tell it was comedic material, there's probably no point discussing it further. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:33, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

National Health Service

2012-07-06T13:42:36Z

Davidspencer: COMMONERS? Really? Why not call us peasants and go the whole hog?

The '''National Health Service (NHS)''' is the [[United Kingdom]]'s nationalized [[health]] care system. It was established in 1948 as part of [[Clement Attlee]]'s post-[[World War II]] [[Labour Party|Labour]] government's socialist program, and has been supported (at least publicly) by politicians of every party since then. The wealthy in [[Britain]] typically use private health insurance, for which there are tax breaks, <ref>http://www.aviva.co.uk/healthcarezone/document-library/files/ge/gen2326.pdf</ref> while the general public and some politicians use the NHS system.<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161011/Samantha-Cameron-shares-difficulties-looking-late-disabled-son-Ivan.html</ref>

As pharmaceutical companies began rationing drugs since 2008, the British healthcare system faces drug stortages in 2012. Officials within their health care system warned about a severe shortage of pharmaceuticals, putting patients' lives at risk.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9350508/Lives-put-at-risk-by-shortage-of-drugs-NHS-leaders-warn.html</ref>

The NHS is nominally funded out of "National Insurance contributions", a form of personal [[taxation]] comparable to the US [[Social Security]] system, albeit capped below average earnings. The NHS revenue stream is, in theory, entirely separate in operation from income tax.<ref>http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1394285&</ref> In practice, the NHS is funded from general taxation, and is accepted by the British electorate as being funded in this way. All prescription medicines (however not over-the-counter ones) are available for a low standard fee in [[England]]. Prescriptions are entirely free of charge in [[Wales]]<ref>http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Healthcare/Medicinespharmacyandindustry/Prescriptions/NHScosts/DH_508</ref>. NHS treatment is available to all residents of the UK. Most services, including complex and expensive surgical procedures and drugs, are free at the point of use, and those that are not (such as the provision of glasses and dental care) are free to people on low incomes. This ensures that everyone is able to be treated, no matter what their individual wealth or means may be.<ref>http://www.nhs.uk/England/AboutTheNhs/Default.cmsx</ref> "Private" (i.e. non-NHS) doctors and hospitals do exist in Britain, but fewer than 10% of Britons choose to buy private health insurance in preference to using the NHS. (The big exception to this is in the area of dental care: NHS dentists are relatively difficult to find in many areas, and many people are forced to "go private", even if uninsured.)

The NHS is Britain's largest direct and indirect employer with 1.3 million workers. It is not, despite maverick MEP Daniel Hannan's assertion, the second largest employer in the world<ref>http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2012/02/nhs-rank-world-employer-char</ref>. This cradle-to-grave entitlement costs Britain $158 billion (USD) per year. Britain’s Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron is looking to reform the state-run health-care system, which he called "second-rate" due to the program’s massive cost and lackluster performance. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/17/prime-minister-cameron-plans-to-reform-britains-government-run-health-care-system/ Prime Minister Cameron plans to reform Britain’s government-run health-care system, The Daily Caller, Jaunuary 17, 2011]</ref>

==Rationing==
Official figures published in 2009 revealed that more than 230,000 patients are being forced to wait more than 18 weeks for hospital treatment. <ref>[http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/120458/Burnham-forgets-230-000-on-list BURNHAM FORGETS 230,000 ON LIST, Daily Express UK, August 14, 2009]</ref> As a result of its comprehensive coverage, the resources of the NHS have been consistently tightly stretched for many years, leading to lengthy waiting lists for everything from dental work to surgery. This was the case in the 1980s and 1990s in particular. Since 1997, the NHS has benefited from substantially increased spending under the Labour Party, but there is a perception among many in Britain that the extra money has not been well spent or delivered appropriate improvements. Read more about ''"Delay, Denial and Dilution, The Impact of NHS Rationing on Heart Disease and Cancer."'' <ref>[http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/rationreport.pdf Rationing PDF Report]</ref>

==Poor quality care==
One million NHS patients have been the victims of appalling care in hospitals across Britain, according to a major report released Aug. 27, 2009. In the last six years, says the Patients Association, hundreds of thousands have suffered from poor standards of nursing, often with 'neglectful, demeaning, painful and sometimes downright cruel' treatment.
<ref> Rebecca Smith, "'Cruel and neglectful' care of one million NHS patients exposed," [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6092658/Cruel-and-neglectful-care-of-one-million-NHS-patients-exposed.html ''Telegraph'' (London) 27 Aug 2009]</ref>
Many critics, including Daniel Hannan, have expressed serious concern over the failure of the NHS in providing Britain with an acceptable health care. Criticism included the immense wasteful costs of the NHS, shortage of doctors and other vital employees, lack of available care, and poor quality of facilities and care.

However, in 2009, according to the OECD's Health Data report, Britain was found to spend less public money per capita on health provision than the USA, despite NHS care being free at the point of need for all citizens, and the USA system requiring citizens to also pay for private insurance. Life expectancy in the USA is less than that in Britain. [http://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/the-nhs-as-good-as-us-heathcare-but-much-much-cheaper/]

==NICE==
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) proudly boasts of "Developing a series of national clinical guidelines to secure consistent, high quality, evidence based care for patients." NICE is responsible for giving advice which effectively rations the supply of government provided treatments and drugs. It does this by a careful and complicated consideration of Quality Adjusted Life Years (the QALY), taking into account how a particular treatment affects this figure on average. Ultimately the number of dollars per QALY is what dictates whether a medicine is then made available via the NHS. These decisions are inevitably controversial at times and some even go so far as to accuse them of denying life saving medication.<ref>[http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/campaigns/nhsinjustice/8251183.Anger_as_Nice_denies_cancer_patient_life_extending_drug/ END NHS INJUSTICE, The Northern Echo, July 2, 2010]</ref>

==All party support==
The NHS is supported by politicians of all parties in the UK, but is widely regarded as the child of the Labour Party, and inspires particular affection in the supporters of this party. All post [[World War II]] governments have consistently supported the National Health Service. British voters take great pride in what they regard as the free provision of basic human needs such as healthcare and schooling. Many politicians including [[Margaret Thatcher]] have worked to reform the National Health Service and make it more efficient <Ref>http://www.margaretthatcher.org/essential/biography.asp#ess87-90</Ref>. However, perhaps due to its overwhelming size and entrenched popularity, this has continued to be a difficult and controversial task.

==References==

<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.nhs.uk/ NHS Official Homepage]

[[Category:British Politics]]
[[Category:Health]]

Talk:Essay: Gallery of obese atheists

2012-06-30T06:09:28Z

Davidspencer: /* Seriously? */

CPalmer, could you assemble our overweight Christian brothers and sisters in a similar gallery? ''And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?'' ([[Matthew_1-9_(Translated)#7:3]]) Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:10, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

:August, a couple of points in response to this:
:#This isn't intended as a page in its own right, only as an adjunct to [[Atheism and obesity]]. It doesn't make sense to list the obese Christians in the absence of a [[Christianity and obesity]] page, although Thomas Aquinas would be a good one to start with.
:#This is intended as satire, so there's no need to be comprehensive or authoritative, only funny and incisive.
:#There's no mote in my eye in this case, since for all my many failings, I'm not obese (at time of writing). (You don't need to quote Matthew - I am familiar with the passage.)
:I don't really plan to spend much more time on this little page, so I hope I've answered your concerns satisfactorily.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:19, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

::Dear CPalmer
::#I dislike [[atheism and obesity]], I think it's a badly written article on a meritless subject. It isn't much of a satire, neither, it isn't marked as an essay, so I'd expect it to adhere to the standards of an encyclopedia. Sadly, that's not the case. Perhaps the proposed gallery would help to give it some balance?
::#In my experience, ''I was just kidding'' is often used as an lame excuse for ditching responsibility when someone is insulted...
::#You are not obese? So you are not an atheist? This kind of reasoning is quite unsound...
::#You created this page, certainly with the intention that ''someone'' links to it. It will pop up in [[Special:Search/gallery]], where it certainly doesn't fit in well.
::But I suppose you are aware of all the above and you are just having a little fun, no harm done and all that...
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:33, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

:::I agree with you that [[atheism and obesity]] could be improved, which is really why I created this page. Given the presence of this neatly organized gallery, I'm hoping a lot of the sections of Atheism and obesity that only exist to contain one picture could be taken out, which will make the article better. Again, I'm not adding anything new here, and I'm not insulting anyone who isn't already being amply insulted.
:::I believe you've suggested in the past that [[Atheism and obesity]] should be deleted entirely. Well, that is not on the cards, so I hope you'd be in favor of alternative action that should at least tidy it up a bit and shorten it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:40, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

== Gallery of obese Christians ==

I took a quick look through our images and found the following:
<center>
<gallery perrow="5">
File:Pierre de Fermat.jpg|[[Pierre de Fermat]]
File:Santa Claus 1.jpg|[[Santa Claus]]
File:CPAC rush limbaugh.jpg|[[Rush Limbaugh]]
File:Chester arthur.jpg|[[Chester Arthur]]
File:Chris-christie3.jpg|[[Christopher Christie]]
File:George clinton.jpg|[[George Clinton]]
File:GeorgeWestinghouse.jpg|[[George Westinghouse]]
File:Haley Barbour2006.jpg|[[Haley Barbour]]
File:Millard fillmore.jpg|[[Millard Fillmore]]
File:Henry8.jpg|[[Henry VIII]]
File:John-23.jpg|[[Pope John XXIII]]
</gallery></center>

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:56, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

: I like the inclusion of Santa Claus - most amusing.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:55, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
::I hope you don't mind me adding some as I come across them. Thanks! --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:02, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

You won't see Jesus, Moses, Apostle Paul or the Apostle Peter in your list. They pretty much ate a Mosaic diet or Mediterranean diet employing reasonable portions and had sufficient exercise.
::Conveniently, there doesn't exist any portraits of these people that were done from life, so you're making an assumption here. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:29, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

Here are some interesting articles on weight loss and maintaining a healthy weight:

*[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mediterranean-diet/CL00011 Mediterranean diet] by [[Mayo Clinic]]
*[http://www.motleyhealth.com/fitness/how-much-exercise-is-needed-to-get-fit-and-lose-weight How much exercise is needed to get fit and lose weight]
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/treatments/healthy_living/fitness/daily_howmuch.shtml Exercise: How much? - BBC News]
*[http://www.acsm.org/about-acsm/media-room/news-releases/2011/08/01/acsm-issues-new-recommendations-on-quantity-and-quality-of-exercise American College of Sports Medicine]

My thoughts on this matter agree with this material: [[Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity]]

I have met people from various parts of the world and there is far less obesity in the [[Eastern World]] than in many parts of the [[Western World]] and I think the reason is that they eat better, get more exercise and are often more disciplined. Also, Asian Americans generally lead more healthy lives too than many westerners. I have a feeling that Amy Chua doesn't allow her kid(s) to eat a lot of snacks and watch a lot of television. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:31, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:Non sequitur. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:00, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

== Richard Dawkins ==

Im surprised Richard Dawkins wasn;t there. Then again, it makes sense. The entire essay revolves around a fictional premise that atheists are obese in comparison to Christians.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:04, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:Isn't Richard Dawkins an agnostic? It is rather humorous that a founder of the [[New Atheism]] movement was an agnostic. :) Also, didn't 3/5 of the New Atheism movmement's founders have excess weight? See: [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:19, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

== Seriously? ==

User:Conservative - you have once again deleted a comment of mine. It was not offensive, nor was it trolling. I request that you please restore it. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:22, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
::The brief discussion was pointless and was only going to lead to bickering. I have decided to move on. I will say for the record that I didn't initially create the gallery nor did I add any pictures of new people. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:28, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Do try to remember that you had to delete and oversight our "brief discussion" the next time you want to call someone a coward. And yes, while you didn't initially create ''this'' gallery, you are the only one on this site obsessed with creating all of the "Conservapedia hates fat people" articles - you know the ones where you say fat people are atheists, lesbians, homosexuals, blah, blah, blah. You pretend you're being helpful by providing the links to diets, etc., but the disdainful language surrounding the links trumps them. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:55, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::For the record, I have never said that all overweight people are atheists or lesbians/homosexuals nor have I said that CP hates overweight people.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:01, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::But you do not deny deleting and oversighting a discussion you had with SharonW. As she says, please remember that next time you throw out an accusation of cowardice or unwillingness to debate. I know that all those you make the accusation against certainly will. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 17:07, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::David, if you want to accuse me of cowardice despite my offers to debate prominent atheists/evolutionists, I am not particularly concerned. If you are a fan of the agnostic/evolutionist [[Richard Dawkins]] or [[Penn Jillette]] or fan of any other prominent evolutionists or atheists, I would encourage you to ask them to engage in written debate with me. For example, feel free to contact Dawkins about this open debate offer: [[Essay: Debate challenge for Richard Dawkins]]. My material has been read by a lot of people and given the current decline of [[global atheism]] and global agnosticism which is expected to accelerate and the decline of American evolutionism in the last 17 months [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/american-young-earth-creationism.html], they clearly need to do something if the care about their religions. But if they want to fiddle while [[Essay: Penn Jillette, don't just stand there! Do something!|global atheism/agnosticism/evolutionism burns]] that is fine with me. My fellow Bible believing Christians and I have no problem roasting hot dogs and marshmellows (in moderation of course) on the bonfire of global atheism/agnosticism/evolutionism burning. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
Addendum: As far as oversighting a few sentences of material because I didn't want to be dragged into the ridiculous debate of whether Jesus was overweight, I have no regrets. Being charged with cowardice about the matter was rather humorous though. In retrospect, it was definitely one of the most humorous things to occur on CP. Jesus was a carpenter before the days of power tools and then he became a traveling preacher/prophet who did a lot of walking. Plus, he lived in the Middle East about 2,000 years ago and ate a healthy Mosaic diet. I very much doubt anyone is going to give someone an extended debate about this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:07, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::::Way to go once again with a strawman. You know nothing about me but because I point out that you removed a comment to prevent debate, whilst accusing others of cowardice of when they do not reply to your invitations on this site to debate, you feel free to make unfounded and unsupported assertions about me. But we all know that is your modus operandi and my pointing it out will not change anything will it? Incidentally, can you point me to a shop where I can but marshmellows, I rather fancy trying some roasted. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 02:09, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
:I don't want to indulge [[User:Conservative]] any more than I absolutely have to, but making a claim about an individual's diet 2000 years ago based on (what appear to be) cultural norms is fallacious and entirely speculative. For one, my guess would be that polytheists, in general, would also have a similar diet. By your argument, Christians are obese because Christian Americans eat fatty food (see the gallery above). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:12, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
:I forgot to add that it's really not fair to compare average weights of people in societies over 2000 years old (when starvation and food production are major issues) and today (where we have significantly increased our food production capacity; very few first-world people are starving to death). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:14, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
::GregG, why don't you ask [[William Lane Craig]] to debate someone on this topic. If he thinks it is a serious topic, I am sure he will hold a debate on this matter. I hope you will forgive me for saying this, but I have my doubts Craig is going to hold a debate about this topic. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:34, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

Good grief, Conservative - you were blathering on about nobody wanting to buy a picture of a fat Jesus, and I pointed out that people buy pictures of Jesus portrayed as blond, blue-eyed Caucasian all the time, and that I doubted that Jesus actually looked like that. Those were the comments you over-sighted. There was no argument about whether or not Jesus was fat - I just pointed out that ''you can't possibly know for certain''. I have offered to debate you about your treatment of obese people, and you have refused. You are the one who accuses people of cowardice over not debating. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 01:00, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Essay: Gallery of obese atheists

2012-06-29T21:07:16Z

Davidspencer: /* Seriously? */

Talk:UK prescription drug prices

2012-06-25T20:28:57Z

Davidspencer:

Crumbs, that was quick! Nice one DavidSpencer.

I've added a bit on private prescriptions. [[User:Rafael|Rafael]] 15:52, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

:Thanks [[User:Rafael|Rafael]]. Good point on private prescriptions and the point that I was refering to NHS prescribed drugs only. And David Cameron has also very publicly supported the care provided by the NHS during the tragic life, and ultimate death, of his son. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 16:28, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

UK prescription drug prices

2012-06-25T18:04:14Z

Davidspencer: Corrected some apparent misunderstandings about the way in which NHS drugs prescriptions are purchased, dispensed and supplied.

In the United Kingdom drugs prescribed on prescription are supplied by pharmacies at a set maximum price. This price bears no relation to the price that the pharmaceutical companies charge the National Health Service, this price is set in negotiations between the individual companies and the NHS.

The majority of prescriptions dispensed are in fact free to the recipient as most are either on benefit, are eligible for free prescriptions (people such as expectant mothers) or elderly (the retired).

However due to currency fluctuations some pharmacies and wholesalers have become drug exporters, because they can't make as much money retailing drugs in the UK as selling them abroad.

* "a group of MPs on the all-party pharmacy group blamed shortages on pharmacists and wholesalers trying to make extra profits selling drugs to Europe, where they can get a better price than in Britain."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9350508/Lives-put-at-risk-by-shortage-of-drugs-NHS-leaders-warn.html Lives put at risk by shortage of drugs, NHS leaders warn]</ref> Because of this drugs companies have restricted the supply of drugs to some pharamacies and this has resulted in drug shortages in the UK.

==References==
<references />

==See also==
*[[Price controls]]

Health care

2012-06-18T13:33:49Z

Davidspencer: Reverted edits by Nooksco (talk) to last revision by JudyJ

'''Health care''' is the prevention, treatment, and management of [[illness]] and the preservation of mental and physical well being. It usually involves preventive medicine as well as [[drugs]] and [[surgery]].

In the [[United States of America]], people pay for [[health]] care using [[insurance]]. In other countries throughout the world, the governments use tax revenue as a method of providing insurance ([[socialized medicine]]). This has the effect of generally less efficient health care, as well as providing a disincentive to work.

Here are remarkable government statistics on health care:

* As the largest industry in 2006, health care provided 14 million jobs—13.6 million jobs for wage and salary workers and about 438,000 jobs for the self-employed.
* 7 of the 20 fastest growing occupations are health care related.
* Health care will generate 3 million new wage and salary jobs between 2006 and 2016, more than any other industry.<ref>http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs035.htm</ref>
* In 2005, health care spending was 4.3 times the amount spent on national defense.<ref>California Health Care Foundation. Health Care Costs 101</ref>
* The annual healthcare costs of obesity could be as high as 147 billion dollars for 2008. The medical costs for an obese person are 42 per cent higher than for a person of normal weight.<ref>http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/printerfriendlynews.php?newsid=158948</ref>
*With 19 million sexually transmitted diseases in the United States — almost half occur among the 14-to-25 age group — the cost to the health care system in 2008 was $15 billion a year.<ref>Dr. Kevin Fenton of the CDC</ref>
* The monthly medical cost for people with HIV from diagnosis until death in optimal HIV care averages to be $2,100. The lifetime (now 24.2 years avg.) HIV care cost per persons is now $618,900 per person.<ref>[http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/printerfriendlynews.php?newsid=55870]</ref>
* Federal budget funding for AIDS treatment and care in America in 2009 totaled 24.8 billion. Medicare spending on HIV totaled $4.5 billion in 2008, with four in ten people living with HIV and who were receiving care being covered by Medicaid.<ref>Kaiser Family Foundation (2009, February) ''Medicaid and HIV/AIDS Fact sheet''</ref> The numbers of people living with HIV grows by around 56,000 every year.<ref>Hall, H.I. et al (2008, 6th August) 'Estimation of HIV incidence in the United States' JAMA 300(5)</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18677024</ref>

==Politics of health care==

[[Heritage Foundation]] expert Robert Moffitt observed:
*Liberal candidates generally embrace expanding government programs. Expanding government control over the financing and delivery of medical services will guarantee even bigger bureaucracy, higher taxes, and increasingly detailed regulations governing the delivery of care. Conservative candidates generally emphasize the need to re-energize the market and make individuals and families the key decision-makers in the system. [http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/08/09/couricandco/entry3152298.shtml]

==Universal health care==

On the morning of March 23, 2010, President Obama signed America's first universal health care bill into law, after it was passed, 220 to 212, by the Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Representatives. The bill is expected to extend coverage to 32 million Americans, and will ban will insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions.

Congress has never required Americans to purchase anything before, and most [[conservatives]] see this as a violation of the [[Constitution]]. Heritage Institute scholars Randy Barnett, Nathaniel Stewart, and Todd F. Gaziano state,

{{cquote|Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given the power to mandate that an individual enter into a contract with a private party or purchase a good or service...Therefore, because this claim of power by Congress would literally be without precedent, it could only be upheld if the Supreme Court is willing to create a new constitutional doctrine.<ref>[http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/12/Why-the-Personal-Mandate-to-Buy-Health-Insurance-Is-Unprecedented-and-Unconstitutional ''Why the Personal Mandate to Buy Health Insurance Is Unprecedented and Unconstitutional''], December 9, 2009</ref>}}

==See also==

*[[Health insurance]]
*[http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_12523427 ''Denver Post'', Debunking Canadian Health Care, 6/7/2009].

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Medicine]]

Militant gays

2012-06-18T13:33:46Z

Davidspencer: Reverted edits by Nooksco (talk) to last revision by JudyJ

'''Militant gays''' is a term to describe the intolerant behavior of [[homosexual activist]]s that seek to intimidate, suppress, vandalize, and assault anybody that opposes their [[homosexual]] movement. Militant gays seek civil rights, [[same-sex marriage|marriage for their same-sex partners]], adoption of children, and federal and state benefits. They try to indoctrinate younger generations, organize protests to further their agenda and oppose traditional family values. Harmless Christians are almost always their target. <ref>[http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09b/ParkStreetChurch_0428/index2.html Gay activists terrorize Boston church] Mass Resistance, May 1, 2009</ref>

Militant gays have powerful allies including [[Democrats]], Hollywood, Big Media and last but not least lawyers. When they are denied their agenda by legal means or through the [[democratic]] process, the results are mob assaults, death threats <ref>[http://www.thevoicemagazine.com/society/607-gay-hate-crimes-against-churches.html Gay Hate Crimes against Churches?] The Voice Magazine</ref><ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=81310 Sparks fly as 'gay' activist mob swarms Christians] WND.com, November 17, 2008
</ref> and vandalism. <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=41858 San Francisco Catholic Church Attacked by Pro-Homosexual Marriage Vandals] CNSNews.com, January 13, 2009</ref>

==Examples of morally offensive, anti-American behavior==
The radical homosexual anarchist group known as "Bash Back! planned for over a month the assault on the Mt. Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan. November 9, 2008 a band of about 30 homosexuals stormed the church during services shouting “Jesus was a homo” on a megaphone and carrying an upside-down pink cross. They distributed fliers to passersby, threw condoms at parishioners and set off the fire alarms. <ref>[http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111104.html Homosexualist Anarchists Storm Michigan Church During Sunday Service] Lifesitenews.com, November 11, 2008</ref> Catholic League president [[Bill Donohue]] responded, ''“This is urban [[fascism]] come to America’s heartland."''

Mass Resistance has compiled a list of militant gay actions in the wake of California's successful [[Proposition 8]] campaign. <ref>[http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08c/Prop8/church_attacks.html Mormons singled out for special wrath] MassResistance.org, November 13, 2008</ref>

:More than 200 protesters screamed and chanted in front of the Catholic [[Cathedral]] of Our Lady of the Angels in [[Los Angele]]s during Sunday services, intimidating families.

:In Palm Springs, an enraged crowd of homosexual activists attacked an elderly woman carrying a cross.

:Pastor [[Rick Warren]]'s Saddleback Church was targeted, a [[swastika]] constructed. Same situation occurred targeting parishioners at a [[Catholic church]] in Riverside, Ca.

:A disgusting anti-[[Mormon]] TV ad was broadcast across California, portraying LDS missionaries invading a home of lesbians.

:Several thousand [[homosexual]] activists rioted at a Mormon temple in the Los Angeles

:Lesbians parked a van with a big sign "Bigots" in front of a Mormon family's house (parents and five kids) near [[San Francisco]].

:A Mormon church near [[Sacramento]] was spray-painted with "No on 8" .

:A Sacramento theater director was forced to resign from his job after it was revealed that he had given a $1000 donation to the Yes on Prop 8 committee.

:There were instances of cars vandalized with Hate 8 engraved with a knife.

Gay activists have disrupted and viciously vandalized churches nationwide for their stances against gay "marriage."<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/blogs/liberty/2010/05/churches-vandalized-ransacked-and-threatened-with-disruption-27/ Churches Vandalized, Ransacked, and Threatened with Disruption]</ref>

==See Also==
[[Christian persecution]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

==External Links==
* [http://store.nicenecouncil.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=527 Shaky Town: Homosexuality & the City of San Francisco]

{{liberalism}}