Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia proven right

2012-10-12T22:40:13Z

HumanGeographer: Qualify

'''''Conservapedia''''' content has often been proven right on topics ranging from science to politics to the World Cup,<ref>Although incredibly rare, [[Conservapedia proven wrong|Conservapedia has been occasionally wrong]], but usually about trivial matters and even then it is usually mostly right.</ref> even for predictions that some [[liberals]] have ridiculed. Examples include:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Date of ''Conservapedia'' statement
!''Conservapedia'' statement
![[liberal]] claptrap in response
!Result
!Date of Result
|-
|Dec. 26, 2006
|The [[Nobel Prize]] "selection process has become political, as it was not given to Ronald Reagan or Pope John Paul II or to anyone who criticizes the [[theory of evolution]]. The Nobel Prizes for literature and peace are mostly given to outspoken [[liberal]]s, such as Jimmy Carter."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nobel_Prize&oldid=7393</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] insists that the Nobel Prize has integrity, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
|Subsequently the Nobel Peace Prize was absurdly awarded to [[Barack Obama]] despite a lack of any beneficial, meaningful achievement, and even Obama supporters reacted with "shock" and "a belief that the award was premature, a disservice and a potential liability."<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/10/09/a_weighty_prize.html</ref>
|October 2009
|-
|Aug. 18, 2007
|Because [[Jon Stewart]]'s movies "almost always do very badly (critically and financially) people say that there is a 'Jon Stewart Curse' that he brings to all his movies."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jon_Stewart&oldid=271190</ref>
|His audience of [[public school]] kids is clueless.
|The 2008 Oscars, which he hosted, set the modern record for fewest viewers, and except for one very minor part as himself Stewart has not appeared in a movie since Conservapedia's observation in 2007.
|Feb. 24, 2008
|-
|Jan. 10, 2008
|Conservapedia observes that [[Shaken Baby Syndrome]] is a doubtful theory by governmental child protective services, which has resulted in dubious convictions.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Shaken_Baby_Syndrome&oldid=367617</ref>
|The governmental "experts" must be right and Conservapedia must somehow be wrong.
|Years later, even [[National Public Radio]] admitted doubts about a conviction for Shaken Baby Syndrome, and [[Democrat]] Governor [[Jerry Brown]] commmuted a high-profile sentence for it.<ref>http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/04/shaken-baby-case-an-update/#.T4DftOjeRkI.email</ref>
|March and April 2012
|-
|February 2008
|Conservapedia warns against the [[HPV vaccine]], observing that it was not tested for possibly causing infertility.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=HPV_vaccine&oldid=395596</ref>
|How can government and the big pharmaceutical industry be wrong???
|The ''British Medical Journal'' reports on a case study of a severe condition of infertility in a 16-year-old girl subsequent to taking the HPV vaccine.
|October 2012
|-
|summer and fall 2008
|Observed that [[Barack Obama]] is likely Muslim and could become the first Muslim President.
|While liberals would denounce the religion of Obama's future rival, [[Mitt Romney]], they insist that Obama's religion cannot be questioned.
|Once elected, Obama stops attending church, and he eschews using a Bible for his official swearing-in procedure; [[Obama's Religion|Obama makes it clear that he is likely Muslim]] in additional ways.
|January 2009
|-
|2007-2011
|Conservapedia repeatedly calls [[Barack Obama]] and [[Michelle Obama]] [[liberal elite|liberal elitists]] before the 2008 election and throughout 2009. See also: [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism]], [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]] and [[Michelle Obama and liberal elitism]]
|Many liberals have a [[Messiah]] complex about Barack Obama, comparing him unjustifiably to the caring and suffering servant [[Jesus Christ]]. The liberal press gives Obama a free pass on his uncharitable past and his liberal elitism.
|During a time of severe economic problems in the United States and throughout the world, Barack Obama plays game after game of golf and takes lavish vacations while Michelle Obama goes on expensive shopping sprees. The liberal press and the liberal political establishment are increasingly souring on Obama, even calling him lazy and incompetent.
|2008-2011
|-
|2007-2011
|Conservapedia repeatedly declares that [[atheism]] is corrupt and wrongheaded and that the future of atheism does not look promising. See also: [[Atheism]] and [http://conservapedia.com/Category:Atheism Conservapedia atheism articles]
||Many atheists chaffe under the constructive criticism and engage in a lot of kvetching and whining rather than repenting and becoming [[Christianity|Christians]] (see: [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]]).
|In August of 2011, the American Spectator reports that [[Global atheism]] is declining and [[global Christianity]] is experiencing explosive growth.<ref>[http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/28/thriving-christianity Thriving Christianity]</ref>
|2011
|-
|2007-2011
|Conservapedia repeatedly declares since its early beginnings that atheist community is filled with insincere, corrupt and cowardly individuals. See: [[Atheism]] and [http://conservapedia.com/Category:Atheism Conservapedia atheism articles] In addition, in 2010 Conservapedia [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|creates a comedy/satire]] concerning the cowardice of [[Richard Dawkins]] (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]). In July of 2010, a Conservapedia creates a series of comedies/[[satire]]s focusing on the follies of atheism and [[evolutionism]] (see: [[Essay:Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution]]).
||Many atheists chaffe under the constructive criticism and satires and engage in a lot of kvetching and whining rather than repent and become [[Christianity|Christians]]. See also: [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]].
|In 2010, the Global atheist convention dodges a debate with [[Creation Ministries International]]. In 2011, [[Richard Dawkins]] is accused of cowardice in the press and widely criticized in other venues for his refusal to debate Christian apologist [[William Lane Craig]]. [[PZ Myers]] repeatedly refuses to debate [[Vox Day]] in 2011. In a 2011 foul mouthed diatribe, [[Penn Jillette]] gives a lame excuse for why he won't debate a Conservapedian which is later shown to be a farce. Jillette also dodges a debate with the popular YouTube video creator [[Shockofgod]] and with the Christian apologist [[Sye Ten Bruggencate|Sye Ten Bruggencate]]. See also: [[Atheism and cowardice]].
|2010-2011
|-
|2007-2011
|Conservapedia repeatedly says its web traffic prospects look bright.
|Liberals, particularly atheists and [[evolution]]ists, repeatedly proclaim the imminent death of Conservapedia and their predictions repeatedly end in failure.
|According to the web traffic companies Alexa, Compete and Quantcast Conservapedia's web traffic is healthy and has continues to grow. Conservapedia creates the essay [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] which mocks atheists and evolutionists false predictions and obsessiveness.
|2007 to 2011
|-
|2007
|In 2007, Conservapedia creates its [[Homosexuality in animals myth]] article.
|Liberals tout a supposed "gay [[penguin]]" in a California zoo.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/2009/07/15/gay-penguin-flies-straight/</ref> Liberals rabidly deny someone can be an [[ex-homosexuals|ex-homosexual]]. Ex-homosexual is faced with a $10,000 fine, spends $7,000 in legal fees, and is forced to go to pro-homosexuality classes by a liberal judge who claimed he engaged in a aggressive behavior in a discussion with homosexual man (during his discussion the ex-homosexual man was holding a baby).<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56702</ref>
|In 2010, the alleged gay penguin in a California zoo starts a romance with lady penguin and abandons his supposed male penguin lover. The homosexual activist [[Wayne Besen]] claims the penguin is living in denial and not an [[ex-homosexuals|ex-homosexual]] male penguin. (see: [[Homosexuality in animals myth]]).<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/2009/07/15/gay-penguin-flies-straight/</ref>
|2010
|-
|2008-2010
|Beginning in March of 2008, Conservapedia begins chronicling higher education moral corruption via its [[Professor values]] article. Starting in 2010, Conservapedia repeatedly warns students about picking their college majors on its main page. See: [[Worst college majors]] Conservapedia also cites [[Gerald Celente]] about future protests in Europe/Europe and cites Celente concerning useless college majors which needlessly rack up debts in young people. Conservapedia warns about a future "higher educational bubble".<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/archive91</ref>
|Liberal colleges and liberal press do not give enough attention to the issue of picking a college major. Nor does the liberal press sufficiently warn about future protests. Liberal press does not give adequate coverage to the issue of higher education moral corruption. Liberal press and liberal academia do not sufficiently warn about the poor education universities and colleges are often providing.
|In January of 2011, it is reported that a study shows that a very large percentage of college students are not developing higher thinking skills.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/18/106949/study-many-college-students-not.html</ref> The trend of liberal colleges closing their doors continues.<ref>http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/07/09/baldwin</ref><ref>http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/5312/losing_liberal_arts/</ref>

[[Occupy Wall Street]] and other Occupy protests happen in the United States and in Europe in 2011 and young people are very prevalent in the protests. Some protests turn violent and engage in property destruction. In November of 2011, the Daily Mail reports concerning the Occupy Wall Street movement and the trash/garbage associated with it: "If this is the product of our liberal arts colleges, why continue their tax exemptions and tax support? Universities are supposed to produce intelligent people who will make a positive contribution to society. Not these pigs".<ref>http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/46288</ref> In 2011, it is reported that Occupy movements are littering the streets.<ref>http://www.freestaterevolution.com/?p=1967</ref>

Young Occupy Wall Street protestors are caught on film mindlessly doing a pro-[[bestiality]] chant (see: [[Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant]]).
|The Occupy movements of 2011 are still prevalent in the world and the unemployment levels of young people remain high.
|-
|Dec. 22, 2008
|the theory of [[man-made global warming]] is not verified science, and there is no consensus<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&oldid=592227</ref>
|"The science is settled" that rapid [[global warming]] is somehow occurring, despite much evidence to the contrary.
|Frigid temperatures, October blizzards, and rejection of the theory by the American public; liberals try to change the terminology to "[[climate change]]."
|2011
|-
|August 2009 to 2011
|Conservapedia indicates that [[Ben Bernanke]]'s investment portfolio dropped in value in 2008.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/August_2009</ref> In addition, Conservapedia declares, "Given the abysmal economic policy of Bernanke and the [[Obama administration]], Bernanke probably should invest in gold."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/August_2009</ref> During the period of 2010-2011, Conservapedia cited the investor Jim Rogers who repeatedly suggests that people invest in commodites.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=0&search=%22Jim+rogers%22&fulltext=Search&ns0=1</ref><ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLL9YdR2y2g Jim Rogers : Missing out on Commodities?]</ref>
|Liberals call Conservapedians "gold bugs"
|As of November 2011, the price of gold has gone up dramatically. The price has gone from about $950 an ounce to about $1,700 an ounce.<ref>http://www.kitco.com/charts/popup/au1825nyb.html</ref>
Price of gold continues to have an overall upward trend. In August of 2011, the ''[[Financial Times]]'' has an article entitled "Gold remains world's most powerful trend".<ref>[http://video.ft.com/v/1135911356001/Gold-remains-world-s-most-powerful-trend Gold remains world's most powerful trend]</ref> The Wall Street Journal reports in 2011 that "Companies Stock Up as Commodities Prices Rise".<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704775604576120533736097682.html</ref> In November of 2011, Unilever warns about rising commodity prices.<ref>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/unilever-warns-about-rising-commodity-prices-6256894.html</ref>
|August of 2009 to 2011
|-
|September 2009
|Conservapedia mentions that some Americans are turning to self-employment during the economic downturn as jobs are difficult to come by. In addition, Conservapedia mentions developing multiple streams of income in case the economy goes into a depression and many people lose their jobs. Conservapedia also gives resources and suggestions for low cost businesses.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/September_2009</ref>
|The liberal "graduate student at a [[sociology]] department somewhere in the United States" at the Total Drek blog seems to shiver in horror at the hard work involved. In addition, he appears to want people to have a defeatist cry in their beer attitude instead of having a proactive and creative can do attitude.<ref>[http://totaldrek.blogspot.com/2009/09/conservapedia-for-laughs-or-facepalms.html Conservapedia: For laughs or facepalms - Tuesday, September 08, 2009]</ref> In 2011, Conservapedia indicates that a sociology major is one of the [[worst college majors]] to have.
|[[Barack Obama]]'s [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|"stimulus" package]] fails. Many Americans lose their jobs and have their unemployment benefits run out. In 2011, Fox News reports that most unemployed no longer receive unemployment benefits.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/05/most-us-unemployed-no-longer-receive-benefits/</ref> Homelessness increases and "[[Obamaville]]s" spring up.<ref>http://www.thebradentontimes.com/news/2011/11/09/community/national_hunger_and_homelessness_awareness_week_puts_spotlight_on_increasing_need/</ref> Unemployment in the United States and many other countries remains high.<ref>http://www.bls.gov/fls/intl_unemployment_rates_monthly.htm</ref><ref>http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics</ref> In 2011, Cafe Press is selling unemployed sociology major bumper stickers.<ref>http://www.cafepress.com/+unemployed_sociology_major_bumper_sticker,25387924</ref>
|World economy continues to skate on thin ice and the Eurozone is experiencing significant economic problems.
|-
|March 14, 2010<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&oldid=762021</ref>
|''Conservapedia'' predicted that [[Rick Santorum]] was a stalking horse for [[Mitt Romney]]
|Santorum is viewed as the only other option besides Romney, at the expense of [[Newt Gingrich]]
|After taking votes away from Gingrich, Santorum surprised many by dropping out of the race, practically giving the victory to Romney; Santorum then endorsed Romney-like [[Jon Bruning]] instead of the [[conservative]] [[Don Stenberg]] for [[U.S. Senate]] in [[Nebraska]], and then endorsed Romney in a late-night email.
|April to May 7, 2012
|-
|mid-June 2010
|[[Atheistic]] [[Britain]] would embarrass itself in the [[World Cup]]<ref>News archives for June 2010.</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement.
|"England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2010/8814195.stm</ref>
|July 2010
|-
|June 30, 2010
|In an [[Letter to Douglas Moo|open letter to a leader]] of a new revision to the [[NIV]] [[Bible]], ''Conservapedia'' expressed "concern that your Committee might produce a liberal translation that distorts and conceals references to the unborn child in appeasement of the pro-abortion position."
|No response to the letter, and a prior expression of ridicule of the [[Conservapedia Bible Project]] before that.
|The new version [[Feminist Bible|distorts and conceals numerous references]] to the unborn child in the Bible, apparently to appease the pro-abortion position.
|Nov. 1, 2010<ref>http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2010/10/new-niv-text-to-be-made-available-online-november-1/ (announcing availability of online version)</ref>
|-
|Oct. 14, 2010
|Conservapedia observes and predicts increased premature graying as a [[Counterexample to an Old Earth]].<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&oldid=822877</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] that premature graying is increasing.
|A top actress -- Katie Holmes, the wife of Tom Cruise -- is observed having gray hairs at only age 33.
|April 29, 2012
|-
|Feb. 28, 2011
|Predicted that [[Sarah Palin]] will not be the [[Republican]] nominee for president, after observing how [[Facebook]] (which personified her political approach) lost the [[Academy Award]] to ''The King's Speech''.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&oldid=852880</ref>
|The [[lamestream media]] continued to promote Palin as a leading contender for more than six months.
|Palin announced she will not be a candidate for the nomination and has lost political influence.
|October 2011
|-
|August 2011
|In the late summer of 2011, a Conservapedian was very optimistic on [[Creation Ministries International]]'s [[Question evolution! campaign]] and continues to be very optimistic.
|Atheists and evolutionists whine about the campaign plus a YouTube atheist and/or evolutionist creates a fairly popular yet ultimately ineffective video which is easily refuted. See: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRz0ORtoIRg&feature=BFa&list=PL12B8A2B1F72664EC&lf=plpp_play_all 15 Questions Evolutionists STILL can't answer!]
|The website traffic of [[Creation Ministries International]] (CMI) sees significant growth post August 2011 (see: [[Essay: Grinding up American atheism into a fine pulp|CMI web traffic growth]]). Atheists and evolutionists have yet to adequately answer the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions that satisfactorily evolutionists cannot answer] which is the focus of the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. Global atheism continues to fall in the number of its adherents.
|Fall of 2011
|-
|July 2, 2011
|[[Chris Christie]] will endorse [[Mitt Romney]] for president
|The [[lamestream media]] insisted that Christie was a contender himself.
|Chris Christie made a special endorsement of Mitt Romney for president
|Oct. 11, 2011
|-
|Sept. 3, 2011
|Large earthquakes are increasing in frequency.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&oldid=909160</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] becaues this would suggest that [[atheist]]ic claims of a stable [[Old Earth]] are untrue.
|"A remarkable increase in the rate of (magnitude 3) and greater earthquakes is currently in progress," according to a presentation at the Seismological Society of America.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/17/us-earthquakes-usa-idUSBRE83G1FL20120417</ref>
|April 17, 2012
|-
|Nov. 2, 2011
|Conservapedia claimed that [[Pacific Institute]] was not a non-partisan environmental group but deceitful liberals promoting lies.
|Pretend that Peter Gleick and other environmentalists don't utilize bad science or push political agendas
|Pacific Institute's president Peter Gleick promoted bad science and pushed a biased liberal political agenda by admitting to fraud in 2012. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/21/climate-scientist-admits-stealing-docs-from-conservative-think-tank/ Climate scientist admits stealing docs from conservative think tank, Fox News, February 21, 2012]</ref>
|Feb. 21, 2012
|-
|Jan. 3, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' declared [[Rick Santorum]] the winner of the [[Iowa Caucuses]] before all the results were in, and despite polling suggesting he would only attain third place
|For weeks the [[lamestream media]] insisted that [[Mitt Romney]] won.
|Eventually the lamestream media admitted that Rick Santorum was the winner
|late January 2012
|-
|Feb. 7, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' declared [[Rick Santorum]] the winner of the [[Colorado]] primary relatively early in the evening, long before all the results were in, and despite Romney later surpassing Santorum during part of the night
|Liberals delayed for hours before admitting that Santorum would win.
|Eventually the lamestream media admitted that Rick Santorum was the winner
|early February 2012
|-
|mid-March 2012
|"Disney movies, which have churned out liberal claptrap for more than a decade, strike out again on opening night for Disney's lame ''John Carter''. The last Disney movie to qualify for [[Greatest Conservative Movies]] was its brilliant Beauty and the Beast (1991)."
|Liberals don't criticize Disney as long it continues to promote [[feminism]] and other liberal drivel.
|The Disney film unit chairman "resigned following the company’s $200 million loss on the science-fiction picture 'John Carter,' possibly the biggest ever for a single movie."
|April 20, 2012
|-
|June 23, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' adds [[David Beckham]] to the list of [[Overrated Sports Stars]]
|Beckham played a very key part, conveying the torch by speedboat to the Olympic Stadium while the final part of the ceremony was in progress.
|To the amazement of liberals, Beckham was not even selected for the British Olympic soccer team, as only a few members are permitted to be professional players in Olympic football. Subsequently, the media promoted Beckham as the likely final torchbearer, which was instead given to [[the best of the public]] (five unknown young athletes).
|June 28, 2012
|}

==See also==
*[[Conservapedia proven wrong]] - A much shorter list!

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Conservapedia proven right

2012-10-12T22:39:36Z

HumanGeographer: Explained

'''''Conservapedia''''' content has often been proven right on topics ranging from science to politics to the World Cup,<ref>Although incredibly rare, [[Conservapedia proven wrong|Conservapedia has been occasionally wrong]], but usually about trivial matters and even then it is usually mostly right.</ref> even for predictions that some [[liberals]] have ridiculed. Examples include:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Date of ''Conservapedia'' statement
!''Conservapedia'' statement
![[liberal]] claptrap in response
!Result
!Date of Result
|-
|Dec. 26, 2006
|The [[Nobel Prize]] "selection process has become political, as it was not given to Ronald Reagan or Pope John Paul II or to anyone who criticizes the [[theory of evolution]]. The Nobel Prizes for literature and peace are mostly given to outspoken [[liberal]]s, such as Jimmy Carter."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nobel_Prize&oldid=7393</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] insists that the Nobel Prize has integrity, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
|Subsequently the Nobel Peace Prize was absurdly awarded to [[Barack Obama]] despite a lack of any beneficial, meaningful achievement, and even Obama supporters reacted with "shock" and "a belief that the award was premature, a disservice and a potential liability."<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/10/09/a_weighty_prize.html</ref>
|October 2009
|-
|Aug. 18, 2007
|Because [[Jon Stewart]]'s movies "almost always do very badly (critically and financially) people say that there is a 'Jon Stewart Curse' that he brings to all his movies."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jon_Stewart&oldid=271190</ref>
|His audience of [[public school]] kids is clueless.
|The 2008 Oscars, which he hosted, set the modern record for fewest viewers, and except for one very minor part as himself Stewart has not appeared in a movie since Conservapedia's observation in 2007.
|Feb. 24, 2008
|-
|Jan. 10, 2008
|Conservapedia observes that [[Shaken Baby Syndrome]] is a doubtful theory by governmental child protective services, which has resulted in dubious convictions.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Shaken_Baby_Syndrome&oldid=367617</ref>
|The governmental "experts" must be right and Conservapedia must somehow be wrong.
|Years later, even [[National Public Radio]] admitted doubts about a conviction for Shaken Baby Syndrome, and [[Democrat]] Governor [[Jerry Brown]] commmuted a high-profile sentence for it.<ref>http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/04/shaken-baby-case-an-update/#.T4DftOjeRkI.email</ref>
|March and April 2012
|-
|February 2008
|Conservapedia warns against the [[HPV vaccine]], observing that it was not tested for possibly causing infertility.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=HPV_vaccine&oldid=395596</ref>
|How can government and the big pharmaceutical industry be wrong???
|The ''British Medical Journal'' reports on a case study of a severe condition of infertility in a 16-year-old girl subsequent to taking the HPV vaccine.
|October 2012
|-
|summer and fall 2008
|Observed that [[Barack Obama]] is likely Muslim and could become the first Muslim President.
|While liberals would denounce the religion of Obama's future rival, [[Mitt Romney]], they insist that Obama's religion cannot be questioned.
|Once elected, Obama stops attending church, and he eschews using a Bible for his official swearing-in procedure; [[Obama's Religion|Obama makes it clear that he is likely Muslim]] in additional ways.
|January 2009
|-
|2007-2011
|Conservapedia repeatedly calls [[Barack Obama]] and [[Michelle Obama]] [[liberal elite|liberal elitists]] before the 2008 election and throughout 2009. See also: [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism]], [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]] and [[Michelle Obama and liberal elitism]]
|Many liberals have a [[Messiah]] complex about Barack Obama, comparing him unjustifiably to the caring and suffering servant [[Jesus Christ]]. The liberal press gives Obama a free pass on his uncharitable past and his liberal elitism.
|During a time of severe economic problems in the United States and throughout the world, Barack Obama plays game after game of golf and takes lavish vacations while Michelle Obama goes on expensive shopping sprees. The liberal press and the liberal political establishment are increasingly souring on Obama, even calling him lazy and incompetent.
|2008-2011
|-
|2007-2011
|Conservapedia repeatedly declares that [[atheism]] is corrupt and wrongheaded and that the future of atheism does not look promising. See also: [[Atheism]] and [http://conservapedia.com/Category:Atheism Conservapedia atheism articles]
||Many atheists chaffe under the constructive criticism and engage in a lot of kvetching and whining rather than repenting and becoming [[Christianity|Christians]] (see: [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]]).
|In August of 2011, the American Spectator reports that [[Global atheism]] is declining and [[global Christianity]] is experiencing explosive growth.<ref>[http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/28/thriving-christianity Thriving Christianity]</ref>
|2011
|-
|2007-2011
|Conservapedia repeatedly declares since its early beginnings that atheist community is filled with insincere, corrupt and cowardly individuals. See: [[Atheism]] and [http://conservapedia.com/Category:Atheism Conservapedia atheism articles] In addition, in 2010 Conservapedia [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|creates a comedy/satire]] concerning the cowardice of [[Richard Dawkins]] (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]). In July of 2010, a Conservapedia creates a series of comedies/[[satire]]s focusing on the follies of atheism and [[evolutionism]] (see: [[Essay:Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution]]).
||Many atheists chaffe under the constructive criticism and satires and engage in a lot of kvetching and whining rather than repent and become [[Christianity|Christians]]. See also: [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]].
|In 2010, the Global atheist convention dodges a debate with [[Creation Ministries International]]. In 2011, [[Richard Dawkins]] is accused of cowardice in the press and widely criticized in other venues for his refusal to debate Christian apologist [[William Lane Craig]]. [[PZ Myers]] repeatedly refuses to debate [[Vox Day]] in 2011. In a 2011 foul mouthed diatribe, [[Penn Jillette]] gives a lame excuse for why he won't debate a Conservapedian which is later shown to be a farce. Jillette also dodges a debate with the popular YouTube video creator [[Shockofgod]] and with the Christian apologist [[Sye Ten Bruggencate|Sye Ten Bruggencate]]. See also: [[Atheism and cowardice]].
|2010-2011
|-
|2007-2011
|Conservapedia repeatedly says its web traffic prospects look bright.
|Liberals, particularly atheists and [[evolution]]ists, repeatedly proclaim the imminent death of Conservapedia and their predictions repeatedly end in failure.
|According to the web traffic companies Alexa, Compete and Quantcast Conservapedia's web traffic is healthy and has continues to grow. Conservapedia creates the essay [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] which mocks atheists and evolutionists false predictions and obsessiveness.
|2007 to 2011
|-
|2007
|In 2007, Conservapedia creates its [[Homosexuality in animals myth]] article.
|Liberals tout a supposed "gay [[penguin]]" in a California zoo.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/2009/07/15/gay-penguin-flies-straight/</ref> Liberals rabidly deny someone can be an [[ex-homosexuals|ex-homosexual]]. Ex-homosexual is faced with a $10,000 fine, spends $7,000 in legal fees, and is forced to go to pro-homosexuality classes by a liberal judge who claimed he engaged in a aggressive behavior in a discussion with homosexual man (during his discussion the ex-homosexual man was holding a baby).<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56702</ref>
|In 2010, the alleged gay penguin in a California zoo starts a romance with lady penguin and abandons his supposed male penguin lover. The homosexual activist [[Wayne Besen]] claims the penguin is living in denial and not an [[ex-homosexuals|ex-homosexual]] male penguin. (see: [[Homosexuality in animals myth]]).<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/2009/07/15/gay-penguin-flies-straight/</ref>
|2010
|-
|2008-2010
|Beginning in March of 2008, Conservapedia begins chronicling higher education moral corruption via its [[Professor values]] article. Starting in 2010, Conservapedia repeatedly warns students about picking their college majors on its main page. See: [[Worst college majors]] Conservapedia also cites [[Gerald Celente]] about future protests in Europe/Europe and cites Celente concerning useless college majors which needlessly rack up debts in young people. Conservapedia warns about a future "higher educational bubble".<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/archive91</ref>
|Liberal colleges and liberal press do not give enough attention to the issue of picking a college major. Nor does the liberal press sufficiently warn about future protests. Liberal press does not give adequate coverage to the issue of higher education moral corruption. Liberal press and liberal academia do not sufficiently warn about the poor education universities and colleges are often providing.
|In January of 2011, it is reported that a study shows that a very large percentage of college students are not developing higher thinking skills.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/18/106949/study-many-college-students-not.html</ref> The trend of liberal colleges closing their doors continues.<ref>http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/07/09/baldwin</ref><ref>http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/5312/losing_liberal_arts/</ref>

[[Occupy Wall Street]] and other Occupy protests happen in the United States and in Europe in 2011 and young people are very prevalent in the protests. Some protests turn violent and engage in property destruction. In November of 2011, the Daily Mail reports concerning the Occupy Wall Street movement and the trash/garbage associated with it: "If this is the product of our liberal arts colleges, why continue their tax exemptions and tax support? Universities are supposed to produce intelligent people who will make a positive contribution to society. Not these pigs".<ref>http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/46288</ref> In 2011, it is reported that Occupy movements are littering the streets.<ref>http://www.freestaterevolution.com/?p=1967</ref>

Young Occupy Wall Street protestors are caught on film mindlessly doing a pro-[[bestiality]] chant (see: [[Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant]]).
|The Occupy movements of 2011 are still prevalent in the world and the unemployment levels of young people remain high.
|-
|Dec. 22, 2008
|the theory of [[man-made global warming]] is not verified science, and there is no consensus<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&oldid=592227</ref>
|"The science is settled" that rapid [[global warming]] is somehow occurring, despite much evidence to the contrary.
|Frigid temperatures, October blizzards, and rejection of the theory by the American public; liberals try to change the terminology to "[[climate change]]."
|2011
|-
|August 2009 to 2011
|Conservapedia indicates that [[Ben Bernanke]]'s investment portfolio dropped in value in 2008.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/August_2009</ref> In addition, Conservapedia declares, "Given the abysmal economic policy of Bernanke and the [[Obama administration]], Bernanke probably should invest in gold."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/August_2009</ref> During the period of 2010-2011, Conservapedia cited the investor Jim Rogers who repeatedly suggests that people invest in commodites.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=0&search=%22Jim+rogers%22&fulltext=Search&ns0=1</ref><ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLL9YdR2y2g Jim Rogers : Missing out on Commodities?]</ref>
|Liberals call Conservapedians "gold bugs"
|As of November 2011, the price of gold has gone up dramatically. The price has gone from about $950 an ounce to about $1,700 an ounce.<ref>http://www.kitco.com/charts/popup/au1825nyb.html</ref>
Price of gold continues to have an overall upward trend. In August of 2011, the ''[[Financial Times]]'' has an article entitled "Gold remains world's most powerful trend".<ref>[http://video.ft.com/v/1135911356001/Gold-remains-world-s-most-powerful-trend Gold remains world's most powerful trend]</ref> The Wall Street Journal reports in 2011 that "Companies Stock Up as Commodities Prices Rise".<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704775604576120533736097682.html</ref> In November of 2011, Unilever warns about rising commodity prices.<ref>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/unilever-warns-about-rising-commodity-prices-6256894.html</ref>
|August of 2009 to 2011
|-
|September 2009
|Conservapedia mentions that some Americans are turning to self-employment during the economic downturn as jobs are difficult to come by. In addition, Conservapedia mentions developing multiple streams of income in case the economy goes into a depression and many people lose their jobs. Conservapedia also gives resources and suggestions for low cost businesses.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/September_2009</ref>
|The liberal "graduate student at a [[sociology]] department somewhere in the United States" at the Total Drek blog seems to shiver in horror at the hard work involved. In addition, he appears to want people to have a defeatist cry in their beer attitude instead of having a proactive and creative can do attitude.<ref>[http://totaldrek.blogspot.com/2009/09/conservapedia-for-laughs-or-facepalms.html Conservapedia: For laughs or facepalms - Tuesday, September 08, 2009]</ref> In 2011, Conservapedia indicates that a sociology major is one of the [[worst college majors]] to have.
|[[Barack Obama]]'s [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|"stimulus" package]] fails. Many Americans lose their jobs and have their unemployment benefits run out. In 2011, Fox News reports that most unemployed no longer receive unemployment benefits.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/05/most-us-unemployed-no-longer-receive-benefits/</ref> Homelessness increases and "[[Obamaville]]s" spring up.<ref>http://www.thebradentontimes.com/news/2011/11/09/community/national_hunger_and_homelessness_awareness_week_puts_spotlight_on_increasing_need/</ref> Unemployment in the United States and many other countries remains high.<ref>http://www.bls.gov/fls/intl_unemployment_rates_monthly.htm</ref><ref>http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics</ref> In 2011, Cafe Press is selling unemployed sociology major bumper stickers.<ref>http://www.cafepress.com/+unemployed_sociology_major_bumper_sticker,25387924</ref>
|World economy continues to skate on thin ice and the Eurozone is experiencing significant economic problems.
|-
|March 14, 2010<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&oldid=762021</ref>
|''Conservapedia'' predicted that [[Rick Santorum]] was a stalking horse for [[Mitt Romney]]
|Santorum is viewed as the only other option besides Romney, at the expense of [[Newt Gingrich]]
|After taking votes away from Gingrich, Santorum surprised many by dropping out of the race, practically giving the victory to Romney; Santorum then endorsed Romney-like [[Jon Bruning]] instead of the [[conservative]] [[Don Stenberg]] for [[U.S. Senate]] in [[Nebraska]], and then endorsed Romney in a late-night email.
|April to May 7, 2012
|-
|mid-June 2010
|[[Atheistic]] [[Britain]] would embarrass itself in the [[World Cup]]<ref>News archives for June 2010.</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement.
|"England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2010/8814195.stm</ref>
|July 2010
|-
|June 30, 2010
|In an [[Letter to Douglas Moo|open letter to a leader]] of a new revision to the [[NIV]] [[Bible]], ''Conservapedia'' expressed "concern that your Committee might produce a liberal translation that distorts and conceals references to the unborn child in appeasement of the pro-abortion position."
|No response to the letter, and a prior expression of ridicule of the [[Conservapedia Bible Project]] before that.
|The new version [[Feminist Bible|distorts and conceals numerous references]] to the unborn child in the Bible, apparently to appease the pro-abortion position.
|Nov. 1, 2010<ref>http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2010/10/new-niv-text-to-be-made-available-online-november-1/ (announcing availability of online version)</ref>
|-
|Oct. 14, 2010
|Conservapedia observes and predicts increased premature graying as a [[Counterexample to an Old Earth]].<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&oldid=822877</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] that premature graying is increasing.
|A top actress -- Katie Holmes, the wife of Tom Cruise -- is observed having gray hairs at only age 33.
|April 29, 2012
|-
|Feb. 28, 2011
|Predicted that [[Sarah Palin]] will not be the [[Republican]] nominee for president, after observing how [[Facebook]] (which personified her political approach) lost the [[Academy Award]] to ''The King's Speech''.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&oldid=852880</ref>
|The [[lamestream media]] continued to promote Palin as a leading contender for more than six months.
|Palin announced she will not be a candidate for the nomination and has lost political influence.
|October 2011
|-
|August 2011
|In the late summer of 2011, a Conservapedian was very optimistic on [[Creation Ministries International]]'s [[Question evolution! campaign]] and continues to be very optimistic.
|Atheists and evolutionists whine about the campaign plus a YouTube atheist and/or evolutionist creates a fairly popular yet ultimately ineffective video which is easily refuted. See: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRz0ORtoIRg&feature=BFa&list=PL12B8A2B1F72664EC&lf=plpp_play_all 15 Questions Evolutionists STILL can't answer!]
|The website traffic of [[Creation Ministries International]] (CMI) sees significant growth post August 2011 (see: [[Essay: Grinding up American atheism into a fine pulp|CMI web traffic growth]]). Atheists and evolutionists have yet to adequately answer the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions that satisfactorily evolutionists cannot answer] which is the focus of the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. Global atheism continues to fall in the number of its adherents.
|Fall of 2011
|-
|July 2, 2011
|[[Chris Christie]] will endorse [[Mitt Romney]] for president
|The [[lamestream media]] insisted that Christie was a contender himself.
|Chris Christie made a special endorsement of Mitt Romney for president
|Oct. 11, 2011
|-
|Sept. 3, 2011
|Large earthquakes are increasing in frequency.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&oldid=909160</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] becaues this would suggest that [[atheist]]ic claims of a stable [[Old Earth]] are untrue.
|"A remarkable increase in the rate of (magnitude 3) and greater earthquakes is currently in progress," according to a presentation at the Seismological Society of America.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/17/us-earthquakes-usa-idUSBRE83G1FL20120417</ref>
|April 17, 2012
|-
|Nov. 2, 2011
|Conservapedia claimed that [[Pacific Institute]] was not a non-partisan environmental group but deceitful liberals promoting lies.
|Pretend that Peter Gleick and other environmentalists don't utilize bad science or push political agendas
|Pacific Institute's president Peter Gleick promoted bad science and pushed a biased liberal political agenda by admitting to fraud in 2012. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/21/climate-scientist-admits-stealing-docs-from-conservative-think-tank/ Climate scientist admits stealing docs from conservative think tank, Fox News, February 21, 2012]</ref>
|Feb. 21, 2012
|-
|Jan. 3, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' declared [[Rick Santorum]] the winner of the [[Iowa Caucuses]] before all the results were in, and despite polling suggesting he would only attain third place
|For weeks the [[lamestream media]] insisted that [[Mitt Romney]] won.
|Eventually the lamestream media admitted that Rick Santorum was the winner
|late January 2012
|-
|Feb. 7, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' declared [[Rick Santorum]] the winner of the [[Colorado]] primary relatively early in the evening, long before all the results were in, and despite Romney later surpassing Santorum during part of the night
|Liberals delayed for hours before admitting that Santorum would win.
|Eventually the lamestream media admitted that Rick Santorum was the winner
|early February 2012
|-
|mid-March 2012
|"Disney movies, which have churned out liberal claptrap for more than a decade, strike out again on opening night for Disney's lame ''John Carter''. The last Disney movie to qualify for [[Greatest Conservative Movies]] was its brilliant Beauty and the Beast (1991)."
|Liberals don't criticize Disney as long it continues to promote [[feminism]] and other liberal drivel.
|The Disney film unit chairman "resigned following the company’s $200 million loss on the science-fiction picture 'John Carter,' possibly the biggest ever for a single movie."
|April 20, 2012
|-
|June 23, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' adds [[David Beckham]] to the list of [[Overrated Sports Stars]]
|Beckham played a very key part, conveying the torch by speedboat to the Olympic Stadium while the final part of the ceremony was in progress.
|To the amazement of liberals, Beckham was not even selected for the British Olympic soccer team, as only a few members are permitted to be professional players in Olympic football. Subsequently, the media promoted Beckham as the likely final torchbearer, which was instead given to [[the best of the public]].
|June 28, 2012
|}

==See also==
*[[Conservapedia proven wrong]] - A much shorter list!

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Conservapedia proven right

2012-10-12T22:38:23Z

HumanGeographer: Corrected

'''''Conservapedia''''' content has often been proven right on topics ranging from science to politics to the World Cup,<ref>Although incredibly rare, [[Conservapedia proven wrong|Conservapedia has been occasionally wrong]], but usually about trivial matters and even then it is usually mostly right.</ref> even for predictions that some [[liberals]] have ridiculed. Examples include:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Date of ''Conservapedia'' statement
!''Conservapedia'' statement
![[liberal]] claptrap in response
!Result
!Date of Result
|-
|Dec. 26, 2006
|The [[Nobel Prize]] "selection process has become political, as it was not given to Ronald Reagan or Pope John Paul II or to anyone who criticizes the [[theory of evolution]]. The Nobel Prizes for literature and peace are mostly given to outspoken [[liberal]]s, such as Jimmy Carter."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nobel_Prize&oldid=7393</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] insists that the Nobel Prize has integrity, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
|Subsequently the Nobel Peace Prize was absurdly awarded to [[Barack Obama]] despite a lack of any beneficial, meaningful achievement, and even Obama supporters reacted with "shock" and "a belief that the award was premature, a disservice and a potential liability."<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/10/09/a_weighty_prize.html</ref>
|October 2009
|-
|Aug. 18, 2007
|Because [[Jon Stewart]]'s movies "almost always do very badly (critically and financially) people say that there is a 'Jon Stewart Curse' that he brings to all his movies."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jon_Stewart&oldid=271190</ref>
|His audience of [[public school]] kids is clueless.
|The 2008 Oscars, which he hosted, set the modern record for fewest viewers, and except for one very minor part as himself Stewart has not appeared in a movie since Conservapedia's observation in 2007.
|Feb. 24, 2008
|-
|Jan. 10, 2008
|Conservapedia observes that [[Shaken Baby Syndrome]] is a doubtful theory by governmental child protective services, which has resulted in dubious convictions.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Shaken_Baby_Syndrome&oldid=367617</ref>
|The governmental "experts" must be right and Conservapedia must somehow be wrong.
|Years later, even [[National Public Radio]] admitted doubts about a conviction for Shaken Baby Syndrome, and [[Democrat]] Governor [[Jerry Brown]] commmuted a high-profile sentence for it.<ref>http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/04/shaken-baby-case-an-update/#.T4DftOjeRkI.email</ref>
|March and April 2012
|-
|February 2008
|Conservapedia warns against the [[HPV vaccine]], observing that it was not tested for possibly causing infertility.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=HPV_vaccine&oldid=395596</ref>
|How can government and the big pharmaceutical industry be wrong???
|The ''British Medical Journal'' reports on a case study of a severe condition of infertility in a 16-year-old girl subsequent to taking the HPV vaccine.
|October 2012
|-
|summer and fall 2008
|Observed that [[Barack Obama]] is likely Muslim and could become the first Muslim President.
|While liberals would denounce the religion of Obama's future rival, [[Mitt Romney]], they insist that Obama's religion cannot be questioned.
|Once elected, Obama stops attending church, and he eschews using a Bible for his official swearing-in procedure; [[Obama's Religion|Obama makes it clear that he is likely Muslim]] in additional ways.
|January 2009
|-
|2007-2011
|Conservapedia repeatedly calls [[Barack Obama]] and [[Michelle Obama]] [[liberal elite|liberal elitists]] before the 2008 election and throughout 2009. See also: [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism]], [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]] and [[Michelle Obama and liberal elitism]]
|Many liberals have a [[Messiah]] complex about Barack Obama, comparing him unjustifiably to the caring and suffering servant [[Jesus Christ]]. The liberal press gives Obama a free pass on his uncharitable past and his liberal elitism.
|During a time of severe economic problems in the United States and throughout the world, Barack Obama plays game after game of golf and takes lavish vacations while Michelle Obama goes on expensive shopping sprees. The liberal press and the liberal political establishment are increasingly souring on Obama, even calling him lazy and incompetent.
|2008-2011
|-
|2007-2011
|Conservapedia repeatedly declares that [[atheism]] is corrupt and wrongheaded and that the future of atheism does not look promising. See also: [[Atheism]] and [http://conservapedia.com/Category:Atheism Conservapedia atheism articles]
||Many atheists chaffe under the constructive criticism and engage in a lot of kvetching and whining rather than repenting and becoming [[Christianity|Christians]] (see: [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]]).
|In August of 2011, the American Spectator reports that [[Global atheism]] is declining and [[global Christianity]] is experiencing explosive growth.<ref>[http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/28/thriving-christianity Thriving Christianity]</ref>
|2011
|-
|2007-2011
|Conservapedia repeatedly declares since its early beginnings that atheist community is filled with insincere, corrupt and cowardly individuals. See: [[Atheism]] and [http://conservapedia.com/Category:Atheism Conservapedia atheism articles] In addition, in 2010 Conservapedia [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|creates a comedy/satire]] concerning the cowardice of [[Richard Dawkins]] (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]). In July of 2010, a Conservapedia creates a series of comedies/[[satire]]s focusing on the follies of atheism and [[evolutionism]] (see: [[Essay:Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution]]).
||Many atheists chaffe under the constructive criticism and satires and engage in a lot of kvetching and whining rather than repent and become [[Christianity|Christians]]. See also: [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]].
|In 2010, the Global atheist convention dodges a debate with [[Creation Ministries International]]. In 2011, [[Richard Dawkins]] is accused of cowardice in the press and widely criticized in other venues for his refusal to debate Christian apologist [[William Lane Craig]]. [[PZ Myers]] repeatedly refuses to debate [[Vox Day]] in 2011. In a 2011 foul mouthed diatribe, [[Penn Jillette]] gives a lame excuse for why he won't debate a Conservapedian which is later shown to be a farce. Jillette also dodges a debate with the popular YouTube video creator [[Shockofgod]] and with the Christian apologist [[Sye Ten Bruggencate|Sye Ten Bruggencate]]. See also: [[Atheism and cowardice]].
|2010-2011
|-
|2007-2011
|Conservapedia repeatedly says its web traffic prospects look bright.
|Liberals, particularly atheists and [[evolution]]ists, repeatedly proclaim the imminent death of Conservapedia and their predictions repeatedly end in failure.
|According to the web traffic companies Alexa, Compete and Quantcast Conservapedia's web traffic is healthy and has continues to grow. Conservapedia creates the essay [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] which mocks atheists and evolutionists false predictions and obsessiveness.
|2007 to 2011
|-
|2007
|In 2007, Conservapedia creates its [[Homosexuality in animals myth]] article.
|Liberals tout a supposed "gay [[penguin]]" in a California zoo.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/2009/07/15/gay-penguin-flies-straight/</ref> Liberals rabidly deny someone can be an [[ex-homosexuals|ex-homosexual]]. Ex-homosexual is faced with a $10,000 fine, spends $7,000 in legal fees, and is forced to go to pro-homosexuality classes by a liberal judge who claimed he engaged in a aggressive behavior in a discussion with homosexual man (during his discussion the ex-homosexual man was holding a baby).<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56702</ref>
|In 2010, the alleged gay penguin in a California zoo starts a romance with lady penguin and abandons his supposed male penguin lover. The homosexual activist [[Wayne Besen]] claims the penguin is living in denial and not an [[ex-homosexuals|ex-homosexual]] male penguin. (see: [[Homosexuality in animals myth]]).<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/2009/07/15/gay-penguin-flies-straight/</ref>
|2010
|-
|2008-2010
|Beginning in March of 2008, Conservapedia begins chronicling higher education moral corruption via its [[Professor values]] article. Starting in 2010, Conservapedia repeatedly warns students about picking their college majors on its main page. See: [[Worst college majors]] Conservapedia also cites [[Gerald Celente]] about future protests in Europe/Europe and cites Celente concerning useless college majors which needlessly rack up debts in young people. Conservapedia warns about a future "higher educational bubble".<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/archive91</ref>
|Liberal colleges and liberal press do not give enough attention to the issue of picking a college major. Nor does the liberal press sufficiently warn about future protests. Liberal press does not give adequate coverage to the issue of higher education moral corruption. Liberal press and liberal academia do not sufficiently warn about the poor education universities and colleges are often providing.
|In January of 2011, it is reported that a study shows that a very large percentage of college students are not developing higher thinking skills.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/18/106949/study-many-college-students-not.html</ref> The trend of liberal colleges closing their doors continues.<ref>http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/07/09/baldwin</ref><ref>http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/5312/losing_liberal_arts/</ref>

[[Occupy Wall Street]] and other Occupy protests happen in the United States and in Europe in 2011 and young people are very prevalent in the protests. Some protests turn violent and engage in property destruction. In November of 2011, the Daily Mail reports concerning the Occupy Wall Street movement and the trash/garbage associated with it: "If this is the product of our liberal arts colleges, why continue their tax exemptions and tax support? Universities are supposed to produce intelligent people who will make a positive contribution to society. Not these pigs".<ref>http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/46288</ref> In 2011, it is reported that Occupy movements are littering the streets.<ref>http://www.freestaterevolution.com/?p=1967</ref>

Young Occupy Wall Street protestors are caught on film mindlessly doing a pro-[[bestiality]] chant (see: [[Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant]]).
|The Occupy movements of 2011 are still prevalent in the world and the unemployment levels of young people remain high.
|-
|Dec. 22, 2008
|the theory of [[man-made global warming]] is not verified science, and there is no consensus<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&oldid=592227</ref>
|"The science is settled" that rapid [[global warming]] is somehow occurring, despite much evidence to the contrary.
|Frigid temperatures, October blizzards, and rejection of the theory by the American public; liberals try to change the terminology to "[[climate change]]."
|2011
|-
|August 2009 to 2011
|Conservapedia indicates that [[Ben Bernanke]]'s investment portfolio dropped in value in 2008.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/August_2009</ref> In addition, Conservapedia declares, "Given the abysmal economic policy of Bernanke and the [[Obama administration]], Bernanke probably should invest in gold."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/August_2009</ref> During the period of 2010-2011, Conservapedia cited the investor Jim Rogers who repeatedly suggests that people invest in commodites.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=0&search=%22Jim+rogers%22&fulltext=Search&ns0=1</ref><ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLL9YdR2y2g Jim Rogers : Missing out on Commodities?]</ref>
|Liberals call Conservapedians "gold bugs"
|As of November 2011, the price of gold has gone up dramatically. The price has gone from about $950 an ounce to about $1,700 an ounce.<ref>http://www.kitco.com/charts/popup/au1825nyb.html</ref>
Price of gold continues to have an overall upward trend. In August of 2011, the ''[[Financial Times]]'' has an article entitled "Gold remains world's most powerful trend".<ref>[http://video.ft.com/v/1135911356001/Gold-remains-world-s-most-powerful-trend Gold remains world's most powerful trend]</ref> The Wall Street Journal reports in 2011 that "Companies Stock Up as Commodities Prices Rise".<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704775604576120533736097682.html</ref> In November of 2011, Unilever warns about rising commodity prices.<ref>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/unilever-warns-about-rising-commodity-prices-6256894.html</ref>
|August of 2009 to 2011
|-
|September 2009
|Conservapedia mentions that some Americans are turning to self-employment during the economic downturn as jobs are difficult to come by. In addition, Conservapedia mentions developing multiple streams of income in case the economy goes into a depression and many people lose their jobs. Conservapedia also gives resources and suggestions for low cost businesses.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/September_2009</ref>
|The liberal "graduate student at a [[sociology]] department somewhere in the United States" at the Total Drek blog seems to shiver in horror at the hard work involved. In addition, he appears to want people to have a defeatist cry in their beer attitude instead of having a proactive and creative can do attitude.<ref>[http://totaldrek.blogspot.com/2009/09/conservapedia-for-laughs-or-facepalms.html Conservapedia: For laughs or facepalms - Tuesday, September 08, 2009]</ref> In 2011, Conservapedia indicates that a sociology major is one of the [[worst college majors]] to have.
|[[Barack Obama]]'s [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|"stimulus" package]] fails. Many Americans lose their jobs and have their unemployment benefits run out. In 2011, Fox News reports that most unemployed no longer receive unemployment benefits.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/05/most-us-unemployed-no-longer-receive-benefits/</ref> Homelessness increases and "[[Obamaville]]s" spring up.<ref>http://www.thebradentontimes.com/news/2011/11/09/community/national_hunger_and_homelessness_awareness_week_puts_spotlight_on_increasing_need/</ref> Unemployment in the United States and many other countries remains high.<ref>http://www.bls.gov/fls/intl_unemployment_rates_monthly.htm</ref><ref>http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics</ref> In 2011, Cafe Press is selling unemployed sociology major bumper stickers.<ref>http://www.cafepress.com/+unemployed_sociology_major_bumper_sticker,25387924</ref>
|World economy continues to skate on thin ice and the Eurozone is experiencing significant economic problems.
|-
|March 14, 2010<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&oldid=762021</ref>
|''Conservapedia'' predicted that [[Rick Santorum]] was a stalking horse for [[Mitt Romney]]
|Santorum is viewed as the only other option besides Romney, at the expense of [[Newt Gingrich]]
|After taking votes away from Gingrich, Santorum surprised many by dropping out of the race, practically giving the victory to Romney; Santorum then endorsed Romney-like [[Jon Bruning]] instead of the [[conservative]] [[Don Stenberg]] for [[U.S. Senate]] in [[Nebraska]], and then endorsed Romney in a late-night email.
|April to May 7, 2012
|-
|mid-June 2010
|[[Atheistic]] [[Britain]] would embarrass itself in the [[World Cup]]<ref>News archives for June 2010.</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement.
|"England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2010/8814195.stm</ref>
|July 2010
|-
|June 30, 2010
|In an [[Letter to Douglas Moo|open letter to a leader]] of a new revision to the [[NIV]] [[Bible]], ''Conservapedia'' expressed "concern that your Committee might produce a liberal translation that distorts and conceals references to the unborn child in appeasement of the pro-abortion position."
|No response to the letter, and a prior expression of ridicule of the [[Conservapedia Bible Project]] before that.
|The new version [[Feminist Bible|distorts and conceals numerous references]] to the unborn child in the Bible, apparently to appease the pro-abortion position.
|Nov. 1, 2010<ref>http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2010/10/new-niv-text-to-be-made-available-online-november-1/ (announcing availability of online version)</ref>
|-
|Oct. 14, 2010
|Conservapedia observes and predicts increased premature graying as a [[Counterexample to an Old Earth]].<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&oldid=822877</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] that premature graying is increasing.
|A top actress -- Katie Holmes, the wife of Tom Cruise -- is observed having gray hairs at only age 33.
|April 29, 2012
|-
|Feb. 28, 2011
|Predicted that [[Sarah Palin]] will not be the [[Republican]] nominee for president, after observing how [[Facebook]] (which personified her political approach) lost the [[Academy Award]] to ''The King's Speech''.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&oldid=852880</ref>
|The [[lamestream media]] continued to promote Palin as a leading contender for more than six months.
|Palin announced she will not be a candidate for the nomination and has lost political influence.
|October 2011
|-
|August 2011
|In the late summer of 2011, a Conservapedian was very optimistic on [[Creation Ministries International]]'s [[Question evolution! campaign]] and continues to be very optimistic.
|Atheists and evolutionists whine about the campaign plus a YouTube atheist and/or evolutionist creates a fairly popular yet ultimately ineffective video which is easily refuted. See: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRz0ORtoIRg&feature=BFa&list=PL12B8A2B1F72664EC&lf=plpp_play_all 15 Questions Evolutionists STILL can't answer!]
|The website traffic of [[Creation Ministries International]] (CMI) sees significant growth post August 2011 (see: [[Essay: Grinding up American atheism into a fine pulp|CMI web traffic growth]]). Atheists and evolutionists have yet to adequately answer the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions that satisfactorily evolutionists cannot answer] which is the focus of the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. Global atheism continues to fall in the number of its adherents.
|Fall of 2011
|-
|July 2, 2011
|[[Chris Christie]] will endorse [[Mitt Romney]] for president
|The [[lamestream media]] insisted that Christie was a contender himself.
|Chris Christie made a special endorsement of Mitt Romney for president
|Oct. 11, 2011
|-
|Sept. 3, 2011
|Large earthquakes are increasing in frequency.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&oldid=909160</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] becaues this would suggest that [[atheist]]ic claims of a stable [[Old Earth]] are untrue.
|"A remarkable increase in the rate of (magnitude 3) and greater earthquakes is currently in progress," according to a presentation at the Seismological Society of America.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/17/us-earthquakes-usa-idUSBRE83G1FL20120417</ref>
|April 17, 2012
|-
|Nov. 2, 2011
|Conservapedia claimed that [[Pacific Institute]] was not a non-partisan environmental group but deceitful liberals promoting lies.
|Pretend that Peter Gleick and other environmentalists don't utilize bad science or push political agendas
|Pacific Institute's president Peter Gleick promoted bad science and pushed a biased liberal political agenda by admitting to fraud in 2012. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/21/climate-scientist-admits-stealing-docs-from-conservative-think-tank/ Climate scientist admits stealing docs from conservative think tank, Fox News, February 21, 2012]</ref>
|Feb. 21, 2012
|-
|Jan. 3, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' declared [[Rick Santorum]] the winner of the [[Iowa Caucuses]] before all the results were in, and despite polling suggesting he would only attain third place
|For weeks the [[lamestream media]] insisted that [[Mitt Romney]] won.
|Eventually the lamestream media admitted that Rick Santorum was the winner
|late January 2012
|-
|Feb. 7, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' declared [[Rick Santorum]] the winner of the [[Colorado]] primary relatively early in the evening, long before all the results were in, and despite Romney later surpassing Santorum during part of the night
|Liberals delayed for hours before admitting that Santorum would win.
|Eventually the lamestream media admitted that Rick Santorum was the winner
|early February 2012
|-
|mid-March 2012
|"Disney movies, which have churned out liberal claptrap for more than a decade, strike out again on opening night for Disney's lame ''John Carter''. The last Disney movie to qualify for [[Greatest Conservative Movies]] was its brilliant Beauty and the Beast (1991)."
|Liberals don't criticize Disney as long it continues to promote [[feminism]] and other liberal drivel.
|The Disney film unit chairman "resigned following the company’s $200 million loss on the science-fiction picture 'John Carter,' possibly the biggest ever for a single movie."
|April 20, 2012
|-
|June 23, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' adds [[David Beckham]] to the list of [[Overrated Sports Stars]]
|Beckham played a very key part, conveying the torch by speedboat to the Olympic Stadium while the final part of the ceremony was in progress.
|To the amazement of liberals, Beckham was not even selected for the British Olympic soccer team, which itself is far from the best. Subsequently, the media promoted Beckham as the likely final torchbearer, which was instead given to [[the best of the public]].
|June 28, 2012
|}

==See also==
*[[Conservapedia proven wrong]] - A much shorter list!

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Mexico City Policy

2012-10-10T21:18:15Z

HumanGeographer: Bluelink

The '''Mexico City Policy''' prevents government funds from going to supporting foreign [[NGO|non-governmental organizations]] (NGOs) that actively promote or perform abortions in foreign nations.

President [[Ronald Reagan]] instituted this policy in 1984, but [[Democrat]] Presidents have rescinded it when they are in office. [[Mitt Romney]] has promised to reinstate it if he is elected president.

== References ==

*[http://www.frcblog.com/2009/01/what-exactly-is-the-mexico-city-policy/ FRC explanation]

[[Category:abortion]]

Liberal

2012-10-07T18:58:30Z

HumanGeographer: Reword

[[File:President Barack Obama.jpg|thumbnail|right|180px|President [[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]].]]

A '''liberal''' is someone who favors [[censorship]] of [[Christianity]] plus increased government spending and power, as in [[ObamaCare]]. Increasingly, liberals side with the [[homosexual agenda]], including supporting [[same-sex marriage]]. Many liberals favor a [[welfare state]] where people receive endless entitlements without working. Liberals are often anti-[[Christian]], or otherwise disagree with moral or social principles held by many American Christians. The liberal ideology has worsened over the years and degenerated into economically delusional views and intolerant ideology. Some liberals simply support, in knee-jerk fashion, the opposite of [[conservative]] principles without having any meaningful values of their own.

Polling data has consistently shown that a decreasingly large percentage of Americans identify as conservative, rather than as liberal, currently by 38% to 21%. Younger people and those with higher levels of education are more likely to identify as liberal.<ref>http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1042/winds-of-political-change-havent--shifted-publics-ideology-balance</ref>

The decline in liberal principles can be illustrated by how [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred from the private to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties. Yet today, decades later, [[Democrats]] and liberals are in lock-step with public sector unions, as they "donate" money to the reelection campaign in exchange for more taxpayer money in their wallets and fluffed up pensions.

A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices:

* Spending money on government programs (the significant economic problems in the [[Eurozone]] due to government debt will no doubt increasingly discredit this aspect of liberal ideology and make things more difficult for advocates of liberal economic ideologies)
* Government's ability to solve economic problems<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* The belief that terrorism is not a huge threat, and that the main reason for Muslim extremists' hostility towards America is because of bad foreign policy <ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized [[abortion]]
* Censorship of teacher-led [[prayer]] in classrooms and school/state-sponsored religious events
* Support for [[gun control]]
* Affirmative action<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Support of obscenity, pornography and violence in video games as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* Government-funded medical care, such as [[Obamacare]]
* Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled [[public education]]
* Insisting that men and women be placed in the same jobs in the [[military]]
* Legalized [[same-sex marriage]] and homosexual adoption
* [[Tax and spend]]
* Support for economic sector regulations<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Support and spreading of [[political correctness]]
* Support of non-syndicalist [[labor union|labor unions]]
* Encouraging promiscuity through sexual education (the teaching of safe sex) rather than teaching [[abstinence]] from premarital sex<ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* A "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it is thought to have been intended.
* Government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* Abolition of the death penalty
* [[Environmentalism]]<ref> and environmental organizations, for example [[Greenpeace]]</ref>
* [[Globalism]]
* Support for the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state.
* Opposition to full private property rights.<ref> For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref>
* Reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution]].
* Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the [[Patriot Act]]
* Opposition of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]], a major part of the [[War on Terrorism]]
* Withholds support to the [[War on Terrorism]] and the [[War in Iraq]]
* Tolerance of different ideas and lifestyles
* Do not support a laissez-faire capitalist economy and support regulation of business

Liberals currently use two clauses to try and expand their power: the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause. The general welfare clause mentions "promoting the general welfare". This to a liberal means taxing the rich at increased rates and redistributing that money. The commerce clause, on the other hand, says that Congress has the power to regulate trade with foreign nations, between the states and with the indian tribes. Since the days of FDR this clause has been interpreted very loosely and has resulted in the federal government expanding its power. The latest example is The Affordable Care Act(ACA), better know as [[Obamacare]]. In the ACA, the liberals justify the individual mandate by saying it regulates commerce between the states.

Current dictionaries describe the liberal ideology by pretending that a liberal is "a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties" or "a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets,"<ref>http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=liberal&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=00</ref> or "open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc." or "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties."<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>

==Liberals and Uncharitableness==
[[Image:228130875 35181424e3.jpg|thumb|right|175px|[[United States|American]] Liberals have been observed to give less to charity than American conservatives.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> In addition, [[per capita]] [[atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] in the United States [[Atheism and charity|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2] ]]
''For more information please see'': [[Liberals and uncharitableness]] and [[Atheism and charity]]

In March of 2008, [[George Will]] wrote at [[RealClearPolitics]] concerning the [[United States]]:
{{cquote|Sixteen months ago, [[Arthur C. Brooks]], a professor at [[Syracuse University]], published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than [[conservative]]s....

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref>}}
[[Atheism|Atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] often reject [[Bible|Biblical]] [[morality]] (and therefore [[conservative Christianity]] ) and hold to [[moral relativism]].<ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152</ref> Therefore, it is not surprising that [[per capita]] atheists and agnostics in [[United States|America]] [[Atheism and charity|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2]

=== Liberal politicians and uncharitableness ===
The political magazine the [[American Spectator]] featured an article which focused on [[liberal politicians and uncharitableness]] exposing the hypocrisy of the liberal politicians it featured.<ref>http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c5_1238044128&c=1</ref>

In addition, [[Barack Obama]] has been criticized concerning [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|his lack of charitable giving]].

== Liberalism and bestiality ==

See also: [[Liberalism and bestiality]]

[[File:Peter-Singer.jpg|right|thumbnail|260px|The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of [[bestiality]] (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]]). Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> See: [[Atheism and bestiality]] ]]
[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of bestiality (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]])<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref>. Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]] (Princeton University is a very liberal school - see: [[Liberalism and bestiality]]).<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> Peter Singer was installed as the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University in 1999 and in 2006 it was reported that he still worked part-time in that capacity. <ref>[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview]</ref> In 2006, it was also reported that Singer worked part-time as Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne in the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics since 2005.<ref>[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview]</ref>

Joe Carter's ''[[First Things]]'' article entitled ''The Dangerous Mind'' declares concerning Peter Singer declared:
{{cquote|Singer has spent a lifetime justifying the unjustifiable. He is the founding father of the [[Animal rights|animal liberation movement]] and advocates ending “the present speciesist bias against taking seriously the interests of nonhuman animals.” He is also a defender of killing the aged (if they have dementia), newborns (for almost any reason until they are two years old), necrophilia (assuming it’s consensual), and bestiality (also assuming it’s consensual).<ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref>}}

On October 5, 2011, the British newspaper The Telegraph wrote an article which discussed how homosexuality "rights" have emboldened individuals to ask for so called bestiality "rights" (see: [[Homosexuality and bestiality]]).<ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100108943/the-gay-rights-movement-has-emboldened-americas-bestiality-advocates/ The dark side of sexual freedom: American 'zoophiles' take on the language of equality - October 5, 2011 - The Telegraph]</ref>

In 2010, the liberal state of [[Washington]] has the highest number of reported cases of bestiality in the United States even though it was merely the 13th most populous state according to the 2010 United States census. (for more information please see: [[Washington state and bestiality]]).<ref>[http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/cruelty_database/statistics/state_ranking.php?year=2010&search=go Pet Abuse -2010]</ref><ref>[http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-pop-text.php 2010 United States Census data]</ref><ref>[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/25/new-poll-identifies-most-liberal-and-conservative-states/ 2011 Political map - CNN]</ref>

In 2005, four legislators in the liberal state of [[Massachusetts]] tried to soften it bestiality laws.<ref>[Massachusetts bill to repeal fornication, adultery, and blasphemy, and to soften bestiality laws]</ref>
[[File:NBC Tower.jpg|thumbnail|200px|[[LifeSiteNews]] reported:"In 46 hours of programming, [[NBC]] contained only one reference to marital sex, but 11 references to non-marital sex and one reference to [[adultery]] were made. References to incest, pedophilia, partner swapping, prostitution, threesomes, transsexuals/transvestites, [[bestiality]], and necrophilia combined outnumbered references to sex in marriage on NBC by a ratio of 27 to 1.<ref>[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/aug/08080602 Study Finds TV Treats Marital Sex as Burdensome, Adultery as Positive]</ref> See also: [[Liberalism and bestiality]] ]]
The Bible says that bestiality is a perversion and, under the [[Old Testament]] [[Pentateuch|Jewish Law]], punishable by death (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]]). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]]).

A study found that "Psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55%) of bestiality than the control groups (10% and 15% respectively)."<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1778686 A prevalence study of bestiality (zoophilia) in psychiatric in-patients, medical in-patients, and psychiatric staff - Int J Psychosom. 1991;38(1-4):45-7.]</ref> The atheist population [[Atheism and suicide|has a higher suicide rate]] and [[Atheism and marriageability|lower marriage rates]] than the general population (see: [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and marriageability]] and [[Atheism and health]]).

For more information please see:

*[[Atheism and bestiality]]

*[[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

*[[Liberalism and bestiality]]

*[[Homosexuality and bestiality]]

*[[Liberal American entertainment industry and bestiality]]

*[[Wikipedia on bestiality]]

*[[Bestiality and Sweden|Liberal Sweden and bestiality]]

*[[Bestiality and Britain|Godless Britain and bestiality]]

*[[Denmark, Sweden, evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

*[[Netherlands and bestiality|The liberal Netherlands and bestiality]]

*[[Skeptic Skatje Myers' comments on bestiality]]

*[[Joseph Stalin's ape-men experiments]]
=== Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant ===

''See also:'' [[Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant]]

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. A crowd at Occupy Wall Street was led to repeat various chants which included a chant involving bestiality and the incident was videotaped.<ref>[http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-10-greatest-moments-from-the-occupy-wall-street-protests-so-far/ The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far]</ref>

Below is an excerpt of the chant:
{{cquote|Everything seems to be possible. [Crowd Parrot Chant] You can travel to the moon. [CPC] You can become immortal [CPC] by biogenetics. You can have sex with animals, or whatever. [CPC].<ref>[http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-10-greatest-moments-from-the-occupy-wall-street-protests-so-far/ The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far]</ref>}}

==Liberals and Superstition==
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|right|150px]]

The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html]</ref>

Also, in September of 2008, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:
{{cquote|The reality is that the [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] campaign, by discouraging [[religion]], won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith — it's what the empirical data tell us.

"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians....

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in [[pseudoscience]], cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>}}

== Liberalism in the United States Today ==
[[File:Smear merchants.jpg|right|200px]]
[[Democrats]] and most media outlets in the [[U.S.]] are blatantly liberal.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp|title=Media Bias basics|publisher=Media Research Center}}</ref> Liberalism in North America today practices three primary tactics to attack the Republican Party, and sometimes to attack American values in general. These three liberal tactics can be pronounced using the following [[acronym]]: SIN. Liberals (1) '''s'''hift the subject, they (2) '''i'''gnore the facts, and they (3) '''n'''ame call.<ref>Scott Baker. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-herman-cain-give-the-dont-miss-speech-at-cpac/ Did Herman Cain Give the ‘Don’t Miss’ Speech at CPAC?], ''[[The Blaze]], February 12, 2011.</ref><ref>[[YouTube]]. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N3-j3HM7-A& Herman Cain: "Stupid People Are Ruining America"], February 11, 2011.</ref>

* Liberals typically support a "mixed" economy, a policy similar to that of [[fascism]]. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://fora.tv/2008/01/30/Liberal_Traits_of_Fascism|title=Video discussion about how modern liberalism is actually fascist by author Jonah Goldberg.}}</ref>

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on [[compassion]], [[decency]], and [[social justice]] (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of [[civic virtue]] against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_disgrace_of_liberalism.html]
{{cquote|There's another goal, from my point of view, which is to try to lay the groundwork for a radical political force which would conceive of itself as distinctly to the left of moderate, reformist American liberals. And that has two aspects. One is to try to change that liberalism, to transform it by analysis, critique, and activism; the second is to build a radical movement which would be an autonomous force in its own right, which would be distinct from the traditional American liberal consensus. This radical part of the program involves not simply supporting the liberal students against conservative students and conservative professors, but trying to act on them, to push them to the left. It also involves trying to find and support, even trying to help create, networks of radical students in law school and of radical professors around the country — students and teachers who see themselves as wanting to go a lot further than most people want to go. <ref> [http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=liberal+teachers&fr=yfp-t-501&fp_ip=MX&u=duncankennedy.net/documents/Liberal%2520Values%2520in%2520Legal%2520Education.pdf&w=liberal+liberals+teachers+teacher&d=BNZFhPReRjC1&icp=1&.intl=us Liberal Values in Legal Education] Duncan Kennedy (professor at Harvard Law School)</ref>}}

===Liberal Rankings of Congress Members===

The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of the United States [[Congress]] is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.

=== American liberalism, demographics and expected tipping point in the decline of American liberalism ===
''
See also:'' [[American atheism]] and [[Decline of atheism]] and [[Global atheism]]

Due to the explosive growth of [[global Christianity]] in traditional cultures and their influence on Western [[Christianity]] and the higher birth rate of [[Conservative Christianity|conservative Christians]] and religious conservatives, social conservatism is expected to rise.

The Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book ''Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth?'' concerning America:
{{cquote|High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will to tip the balance in the [[Culture War|culture wars]] towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as abortion. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/05/why-are-years-2012-and-2020-key-years.html Why are 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?]</ref>}}

==Liberalism in Europe today==

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is a party of the European Parliament that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world,<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref> such as the Liberal Party of Australia.<ref>[http://www.liberal.org.au/]</ref>

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians for promoting lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them "liberals" or [[neoliberal|neoliberals]]. Thus, just as in the US, "liberal" may occasionally be used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called "liberal" in Europe, it has an entirely different meaning than in the US. In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy|social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>

==Historical Liberalism ==
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref>

==Original meaning: Classical Liberalism==
Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and tradition.

See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].

== Infamous liberals ==

''See also:'' [[Infamous liberals]]

* [[Margaret Sanger]]

*[[John Wayne Gacy]] - In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, [[serial killer]] John Wayne Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref> Gacy was also a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with [[Rosalynn Carter]].<ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/image/45527</ref>

==Liberal Organizations ==
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]]
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[ACORN|ACORN - Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now]]
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.|ANSWER - Act Now to Stop War and End Racism]]
*[[CAIR|CAIR - Council on American-Islamic Relations]]
*[[Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism]]
*[[Democratic National Committee]]
*[[Greenpeace]]
*[[MoveOn.org]]
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]
*[[National Education Association]]
*[[National Organization of Women|NOW - National Organization of Women]]
*[[PETA|PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]]
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]
*[[Progressives for Obama]]
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]
*[[SEIU|SEIU - Service Employees International Union]]
*[[U.S. Peace Council]]
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]

==Quotes on Liberals==
"I never use the words [[Democrats]] and [[Republicans]]. It's [[liberals]] and [[Americans]]." -James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under [[Ronald Reagan]]

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

==See Also==

* [[Conservative resources]]
* [[Conservapedia:Articles about liberals|Articles about liberals]]
* [[Classical liberal]]
* [[Drinking Liberally]]
* [[Godless liberal]]
* [[Last wordism]]
* [[Essay:Liberal celebrity obsession|Liberal celebrity obsession]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia|Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]
* [[Liberal Christianity]]
* [[Liberal Democrats]]
* [[Liberal Elite]]
* [[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|Liberal Falsehoods]]
* [[Liberal Fascism]]
* [[Liberal friendship]]
* [[Liberal Gloss]]
* [[Liberal grading]]
* [[Liberal hypocrisy]]
* [[Essay:Liberal hysteria|Liberal hysteria]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Intellectualism|Liberal Intellectualism]]
* [[Liberal labels]]
* [[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right|Liberal Lies About the American Right]]
* [[Liberal logic]]
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|Liberal Mind]]
* [[Liberal Party]]
* [[Liberal supremacist]]
* [[Massachusetts liberal]]
* [[Progressives]]
* [[Scientific Illiteracy and Liberals]]

==Further Information==
* [[Best_New_Conservative_Words#New_Liberal_Terms|New Liberal Terms]]
* [[Conservative Links]]
* http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Political Ideologies]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category: Liberals]]

Mitt Romney

2012-10-01T18:31:47Z

HumanGeographer: Added

{{Officeholder
|name=Willard Mitt Romney
|image=MittPortrait.jpg‎
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=[[Ann Romney]]
|religion=[[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]
|offices=

{{Officeholder/governor
|state=Massachusetts
|terms=January 2, 2003 – January 4, 2007
|preceded=[[Jane Swift]]
|former=n
|succeeded=[[Deval Patrick]]
}}
}}

'''Willard Mitt Romney''', most popularly known as '''Mitt Romney''', (born March 12, 1947) is a [[RINO]], former governor of [[Massachusetts]] and a successful U.S. businessman, and the [[2012 Republican Primary|Republican nominee]] for the [[Presidential Election 2012]]. He was first runner-up for the nomination in 2008. If elected, Romney would become the first [[Mormon]] president. His father [[George Romney]], a former governor of Michigan, ran for the Republican nomination for president in 1968. In 1994, Mitt Romney proved to be the most difficult challenger that incumbent Senator [[Ted Kennedy]] of Massachusetts ever faced for reelection, causing Kennedy to pour far more money into the race than he expected.<ref>[http://archive.newsmax.com/romney/ Romney to the Rescue: Mitt Romney's Got the Right Stuff for 2008] Kessler, Ronald, newsmax.com archives, retrieved April 27, 2012</ref>

Romney leads Obama among many key segments of the electorate: "Romney leads [[Barack Obama|Obama]] 58%-34% among [[veteran]]s, who make up about 13% of the [[electorate]]" and influence many other voters.<ref>http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/05/gallup-romney-tops-obama-with-veterans/1</ref> One national poll showed Romney with a 7-point lead over [[Obama]], 50-43%, in early May.<ref>http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/226943-poll-romney-opens-up-big-lead-nationally</ref> Other polls show different results,<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html</ref> in swing states like Ohio,<ref> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html </ref> Virginia<ref> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/va/virginia_romney_vs_obama-1774.html </ref> and Wisconsin.<ref> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/wi/wisconsin_romney_vs_obama-1871.html </ref>

Before entering politics Romney was a businessman in Boston, having served as CEO of Bain Capital, a management consulting firm known for saving American companies. <ref>Staples, Toys R Us, Babies R Us, Clear Channel Radio, Dunkin Donuts, Domino's Pizza, The Weather Channel, Burger King, Sealy Mattress, Baskin Robbins, Outback Steakhouse, Guitar Center, Gymboree, Bonefish Grill, Burlington Coat Factory, Carrabba's Italian Grill, Michael's, to name a few</ref> His political start began during the financially unsteady 2002 Winter Olympics. He gained popularity in Massachusetts, a state known for being extremely liberal, and was elected governor in 2002. As governor he raised taxes several times. He unashamedly admits creating [[RomneyCare]], which is a complete disaster and forces everyone to buy health insurance and has resulted in long delays for obtaining medical services, such as an ordinary physical, in that state. [[Ted Kennedy]] and other [[liberals]] supported the bill and probably wrote key parts of it. Romney declined to run for reelection and announced his candidacy for President.

During his campaign for the Republican nomination in 2008, Romney was widely but incorrectly supported as a staunch conservative and ran on his business experience in the private sector. Romney fought a rough battle against Senator [[John McCain]] in Florida, Michigan, and other key states, but large losses on the Super Tuesday primaries ended his campaign. Romney dropped out of the race and endorsed Senator [[John McCain]] on February 14, 2008. His name was circulated as a potential running mate for McCain as their relationship improved, though [[Sarah Palin]] eventually became the vice-president nominee.

Romney had supported many far left positions: Romney had a pro-abortion record but is firmly pro-life today; Romney also continues to believe in liberal propaganda claiming global warming; Romney has been criticized for standing behind his 2005 [[RomneyCare|health care plan in Massachusetts]], which featured an 'individual mandate' requiring everyone to purchase health insurance. This plan is very similar to the 2010 ObamaCare bill that was adopted on a national level, and Obama claims Romney's people helped craft it.

==Flip Flopping==
Romney's inconsistent track record on issues such as abortion and gay marriage has gotten to the point where he has gotten the nickname '''Multiple Choice Mitt.''' A man dressed as a dolphin calling himself Flipper has appeared at some recent conservative gatherings to bring attention to Romney's inconsistent stands on abortion and gay marriage. Although Romney now identifies himself as pro-life and anti-same sex marriage, he claimed to be pro choice and supported same-sex rights as late as 2002. These swaps coupled with his Mormon affiliation puts him at odds with much of the Evangelical right, but a PollingReport.com chart from September 2007 indicates that Mitt was still polling at approximately 10% within the GOP primary forecasts.

*Mitt Romney also changed his positions on gun control. He was originally for it, but recently joined the National Rifle Association, an organization opposed to it.

*Following the split of the first three major elections in the 2008 primaries, Ron Kaufman, a top adviser to Romney, stated that the battle between the top three candidates "is going to be like the Bataan Death March."

*Romney changed his position on immigration shortly before the [[2012 Presidential Election]]. He originally supported amnesty for certain illegals and moratoriums on criminal prosecution for drug dealing by illegal immigrants. It is possible that Romney is trying to erode President Obama's support in the Latin community in places like [[Nevada]], where immigration is a hot-button issue and Obama's victory in 2008 was by only a few percentage points.

The Bataan Death March resulted in the death of approximately 9,000 prisoners of war during World War II, and has been labeled as a war crime.

== Personal Life ==
[[Image:MittRomneyYouth05.jpg|thumb|Ann Lois Davies and Willard Mitt Romney]]
Romney is the scion of an old Mormon family. His grandparents were polygamists who fled the United States in the early 20th century when the Mormon Church repudiated polygamy; his father was born in Mexico. The Romneys returned to the U.S. in 1911 when a violent civil war broke out in Mexico.

Mitt Romney is a devout member of [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints]], and spent time as a missionary during his youth converting Catholics and agnostics to Mormonism in France. In fact, his time as a student and missionary helped him defer from military service during the Vietnam draft,<ref>Michael Kranish, "The Making of Mitt Romney: Mormon church obtained Vietnam draft deferrals for Romney, other missionaries" June 24, 2007. The Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/romney/articles/part1_side_2/?page=1 </ref> but he stated during interviews that "he had longed to join the soldiers in Vietnam and support the war effort." His father had stated in 1967 that he felt "brainwashed" by U.S. officials over the justification of the prolonged Vietnam war. This statement had been very costly in George Romney's 1968 campaign for president against Richard Nixon.

Romney claims to maintains a stable marriage with his wife Ann, with whom he has five children.

Romney is the son of former [[Michigan]] governor and presidential candidate [[George Romney]], a "Rockefeller Republican,"<ref>Lisa McGirr, ''Suburban Warriors''(2001) pp. 141, 222.</ref> who amassed a large fortune as an automobile industry magnate during World War II.  George Romney was popular among moderates during his presidential run and was well-equipped for victory; many of his political advisors had come from [[Nelson Rockefeller]]'s 1964 campaign.

==Business Career==
From 1978 to 1984, Romney was a vice president of Bain & Company, Inc. a worldwide management consulting firm, and in 1984, Romney co-founded a spin-off called Bain Capital. He invested in or bought many well-known companies such as Staples, Brookstone, Domino's, Sealy Corporation and Sports Authority. Critics say he advised corporations to cut their U.S. taxes by reincorporating in Caribbean tax havens such as the Caymen Islands, while maintaining their operations in the U.S.

==Record as Governor==
Romney served as governor of Massachusetts (2003-2007), with a generally [[conservative]] record that included economic expansion. He balanced the budget every year of his administration with out increasing taxes or increasing state dept. Romney turned a $3 billion budget deficit into a $500 million surplus by reducing government spending and added 80,000 new jobs by the end of his term. In 2004, 2005, and 2006 Governor Romney proposed cutting the state income tax from 5.3% to 5.0% <ref>http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/08/mitt_romneys_record_on_economi.php</ref>. Although the Democratic super majority in the state legislator refused to budge. Romney vetoed 844 pieces of legislation, with over 700 overridden. <ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Mitt_Romney_Government_Reform.htm</ref> He vetoed an increase in the minimum wage, saying "there's no question raising the minimum wage excessively causes a loss of jobs." <ref>Telegram & Gazette, 08/01/06</ref> Under Governor Romney the state abolished a retroactive capital gains tax that would have forced nearly 50,000 taxpayers to pay additional taxes and fees. <ref>http://www.americansformitt.com/</ref> Massachusetts Citizens For Limited Taxation Executive Director Barbara Anderson praised Romney, saying "There was no one else out on the horizon and with the legislature almost entirely Democratic, we felt it was necessary to have a grown-up in the corner office. … And we were right to back him. He's been a really good friend to the taxpayers."

However, some of the actions Governor Romney took received criticisms from conservatives, such as supporting moderate fee increases and creating and the nation's first universal [[health care]] program. During his 2002 gubernatorial campaign Romney supported [[abortion]], his views evolved and would later take [[pro-life]] positions such as vetoing emergency contraception and vetoing [[stem-cell research]] that would allow cloning of human embryos. In 2006, Governor Romney testified before the [[United States]] [[Senate]] to support the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would limit marriage to one man and one woman. Additionally, Romney filed legislation to reinstate [[capital punishment]], but was defeated in the Massachusetts House of Representatives on a 99-53 vote.

Mitt Romney made no pardons as governor, "My conclusion was, if somebody has been convicted by a jury of their peers, and they’ve been prosecuted and the police were able to get the evidence necessary to put them behind bars, why in the world would I step in and reverse that sentence?" <ref>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/04/romney-on-huckabee-unlike-some-people-i-never-pardoned-anyone/</ref>

On [[Education]] Romney called for the privatization of the University of Massachusetts medical school<ref>Telegram & Gazette, 02/27/03</ref>. In 2004, he established the John and Abigail Adams Scholarship Program, which rewarded the top 25 percent of Massachusetts high school students with tuition-free scholarship to any Massachusetts public [[university]] or [[college]]. In August 2006, Governor Romney refused to allow former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami, an outspoken opponent of the [[United States]] and [[Israel]], state police escorts during his speech at [[Harvard University]]. <ref>http://www.nysun.com/editorials/khatemi-at-harvard/38903/</ref>

In December 2006, Romney signed a memorandum of agreement with the federal government that would allow state troopers to enforce federal immigration laws <ref>http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=96543</ref>, however was revoked when Democrat Deval Patrict took office as Governor in January 2007.

== Political Views ==

===Abortion===
Currently, Romney claims to be pro-life, but his record is very spotty. At times he has claimed to be pro-infantacide.
"I am [[pro-life]]. I believe that [[abortion]] is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by [[judicial mandate]]." ([[Boston]] Globe, Mitt Romney Editorial, July 26, 2005)
<ref>[http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/Values America's Culture and Values] mittromney.com</ref> 

Despite having a largely pro-life record as governor, in a 1994 debate with Senator [[Edward Kennedy]], Romney said that abortion should be legal, declaring that "regardless of one's beliefs about choice, you would hope it would be safe and legal." "Many years ago, I had a dear, close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion", Romney said. "It is since that time my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. And you will not see me wavering on that."<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/07/03/clarity_sought_on_romneys_abortion_stance/?page=2</ref>

In his campaign literature for the 2002 Massachusetts gubernatorial election, Romney expressed a willingness to defend that State's pro-choice status quo.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20021218005104/www.romneyhealey.com/issues/4</ref> He stated in a live, televised debate:<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4</ref>

{{cquote|"I've been very clear on that, I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose, and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard."}}

===Civil Unions===
Romney claims to be opposed to the idea of [[gay marriage]], however he has voiced explicit support for the [[homosexual agenda]]. He has advocated for domestic partnership benefits and equal rights for [[homosexuals]], which is gay marriage in everything but name and an easy stepping stone on the vile gay agenda path towards homosexual recruitment.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20021218005104/www.romneyhealey.com/issues/3</ref>. He also supports adoption for gay couples<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57432292-503544/romney-says-hes-fine-with-gay-couples-adopting-children/</ref>.

===Economic Agenda===
As President, Romney promised to pursue a conservative, pro-growth economic agenda. His number one economic priority would be to grow the economy — helping to create good jobs, raise incomes and preserve American strength. He says he would work to rein in excessive government spending and reform entitlements. To ensure America's continued economic growth, he promises to cut taxes — such as the Death Tax, savings taxes, corporate taxes and marginal tax rates. Despite these claims, he has supported the [[socialist|socialism]] agenda. He claimed credit for the government bailout of the union controlled car companies<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/07/romney-taking-credit-for-auto-industry-success/</ref>. Also his [[RomneyCare]] law started the process of [[socialism|socializing]] medical care in [[Massachusetts]]. He continues to defend this law up to this day, undermining his commitment to repel the similar and equally atrocious [[ObamaCare]]<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/romney-defends-romneycare_560953.html</ref>.

Romney says he would also promote trade, bring market forces to bear in health care, pursue national tort and liability reform, eliminate excessive regulations that put a burden on our economy and strengthen American families.

===Immigration===

<blockquote>Immigration has been an important part of our nation's success. The current system, however, puts up a concrete wall to the best and brightest, yet those without skill or education are able to walk across the border. We must reform the current immigration laws so we can secure our borders, implement a mandatory biometrically enabled, tamper proof documentation and employment verification system, and increase legal immigration into America.<ref>http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/Immigration</ref></blockquote>

Romney supports a strong stance on illegal immigration.<ref>[http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=91722 IowaPolitics.com: Romney Touts Strong Stance On Illegal Immigration]</ref> On 5/24/07, Romney spoke about how he was tolerant about gays and then he discussed the current illegal immigration bill before Congress:
<blockquote>He expressed less tolerance for illegal immigrants, and said he and President Bush have a difference of opinions on a bill that would provide a path toward legalization for an estimated 12 million people unlawfully in the country.

"He has his view, and other people have their views and I have my own," Romney said. "This is for all intents and purposes a form of amnesty in that everyone who is here illegally today will be able to stay under this bill."

The bill is unfair to people who are trying to come to the country legally, he said. People here illegally should be able to apply to come to the United States, but under the same terms as everyone else and behind those who have already applied.

"I don't think that we're going to round up 11 or 12 or however many million people and bus them out of the country. That's not what I'm talking about," Romney said. "Those who committed felonies, of course, would be deported. Those who require government assistance to stay here would surely need to get off government assistance and ultimately could not remain here on government assistance."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May24/0,4670,RomneyGays,00.html</ref></blockquote>

===Stem Cell Research===
Mitt Romney supports the right of scientists to research on embryos created during fertility treatments. Critics consider this to be essentially infantacide.<ref>http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/diseases/articles/2007/02/11/romneys_stem_cell_view_may_upset_the_right/</ref>

==2008 Presidential Campaign==
''Main Article: [[Mitt Romney 2008 Presidential Campaign]]''

[[Image:Dude and mitt romney.jpg|right|180px]] As chairman of the [[Republican Governors Association]], Romney campaigned nationwide for GOP gubernatorial candidates in 2006, building up a network of allies and supporters. While he did not run for reelection as governor, in 2004 Romney set up a federal political action committee (PAC) called the Commonwealth PAC, which raised $2.71 million during the 2006 election cycle. On January 3, 2007, his next-to-last day in office as governor of Massachusetts, Romney filed to form a presidential exploratory committee with the Federal Election Commission. He officially announced his candidacy for President a month later. Romney was the first candidate in either party to start running television and radio ads. The ads focused mainly on his record as governor, running the 2002 Salt Lake Olympics, and his work as a very successful businessman. Romney's five sons had been actively campaigning for their father, traveling around in a campaign bus called the "Mitt Mobile, A Five Brothers Bus."

As a presidential candidate Romney sought the support of the business community and social conservatives. He reversed moderate positions on abortion and gay rights to take a hardline conservative position on them, and on opposition to illegal immigrants. Opponents charged he changed too often. Romney was a leader in fund-raising, augmented by over $35 million from his own fortune. However he was little known outside of Massachusetts, so his strategy was to play for early wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, then "sling-shot" the momentum into national visibility. Romney won the Michigan primary on January 16th, 2008, with 39% of the vote, edging out McCain with 30% and Huckabee with 16%. Romney was favored to win in the state of his birth, where his father, [[George Romney]] was governor from 1963-1969. After losing both the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary (to Huckabee and McCain, respectively), Romney won a low-publicized Wyoming caucus. On January 19, Romney easily won the [[Nevada]] caucuses by 37 percentage points when there were seven candidates on the ballot, however, on that same day he placed a distant fourth in the [[South Carolina]] primary. After a disappointing performance on Super Tuesday, Romney announced the suspension of his campaign on Thursday 7th February. He expressed his wishes not to divide the Republican party and later endorsed Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]]. Commentators correctly speculated on his chances for a return effort in 2012.

===Fundraising===
Mitt Romney had done well in fund raising. During his first fund raiser as a presidential candidate, he raised $6.5 million dollars compared to an original goal of only $1 million. During the first quarter Romney raised more money then any other Republican presidential candidate with $23 million. However, a substantial portion of his funds ($17 million) came from his own personal wealth. [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/16/top_spender_romney_could_soon_run_short/]

==2012 Presidential campaign==
In April 2011, Romney announced his candidacy for President of the United States for the 2012 election, running as a Republican <ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/11/mitt-romney-president-candidate</ref>. Romney was criticized throughout the primary season for being a Republican In Name Only due to his liberal views on social issues as governor and his flip-flops, as well as a controversial business record. His main competitors during the primaries were former conservative Speaker of the House [[Newt Gingrich]], Pro-Life Senator [[Rick Santorum]], and libertarian Congressman [[Ron Paul]]. Romney ended up winning the vast majority of contests, though the race remained close in delegate count throughout. Romney together with Vice Presidential candidate [[Paul Ryan]] are running against President Barack Obama and Vice President [[Joe Biden]] in an election to be held on November 6, 2012. During the campaign, Romney was criticized for saying that the [[Romney's 47 percent comment|47% of Americans who do not pay income taxes consider themselves to be 'victims']].

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

==External links==
*[http://www.mittromney.com Mitt Romney for President 2008]
*[http://www.ldslivingonline.com/article.php?articleId=17633 Mitt Romney: proudly, quietly Mormon]
*[http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/ Evangelicals for Mitt]
*[http://sparklepony.blogspot.com/2007/03/fresh-mitt-romney-juvenalia-hot-off.html Fresh Mitt Romney Juvenalia] Pics - Comments.
*[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjE4MmMyMzVkZjlhZGQzNzlhZjdmMDEzNjI3MzM4ZTA= Mitt Romney: “I Changed My View. Is that So Difficult to Understand?”] The candidate talks about his efforts to convince voters that his pro-life conversion is real. Byron York, National Review Online, November 20, 2007
*[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2ZkMWNkZDkzOTk1YTM0NTNkNmJlZThmYjJmM2ZmOGE= Did Mitt Romney Push Poll Himself?] Mark Hemingway, National Review Online, November 19, 2007
*[http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2EzODZjY2UxZTRhMWE2ZDk1ZWE5MGI0ZmRjMDViZTI= Team Romney on Push-Poll Connections] After reading the Hemingway piece, Kevin Madden, Romney for President campaign spokesman replies. Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review Online, November 19, 2007
*[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzliMDgzOWVlOGEwYThlMzc5ZDVlNzM2YjA4M2ZkYTg= Romney Stands for Faith] The candidate pushes back against push-poll attacks. Larry Kudlow, National Review Online, November 16, 2007
*[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGQ4YmM4Y2U3Yjc3MzYzNDQwYzk3YTVjMTI5YTkwNzg= Romney’s Religion], The Editors, National Review Online, November 16, 2007

==Blogs==
*[http://www.mymanmitt.com/mitt-romney/ My Man Mitt]
*[http://libertariansformitt.wordpress.com/ Libertarians for Romney]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Romney, Mitt}}
[[Category:Massachusetts Governors]]
[[Category:Republican Governors]]
[[Category:2008 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Business People]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]
[[Category:Mormons]]
[[Category:2012 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Rino backers]]
[[Category: Candidates for United States President]]

RomneyCare

2012-09-29T23:58:27Z

HumanGeographer: Improve

'''RomneyCare''' is a small, one-state version of [[ObamaCare]] that was signed into law by [[Mitt Romney]], who defends it to this day despite the fact that it has been a complete disaster costing more than 18,000 jobs and countless lives by creating long delays in [[Massachusetts]] for medical care, such as ordinary physicals.<ref>http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v30n1/cpr30n1-1.html</ref><ref>http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/9042-study-romneycare-killed-18000-massachusetts-jobs</ref> State-run health programs were demanded in order to reduced to rising costs while insuring all citizens. Both pieces of legislation are heavily criticized for the "individual mandate", which requires all eligible adults to purchase health insurance. The legality of which has been challenged, in both state and federal courts, with final outcomes pending. The individual mandate is not new to either plan, as witnessed by the so-called Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993 that was offered by Republicans as an answer to "Hillarycare"<ref>http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/February/23/GOP-1993-health-reform-bill.aspx</ref>. The GOP's HEART Act contained an individual mandate and other similarities to both Romneycare and Obamacare. Today's Republican party stands in stark opposition to such mandates<ref>http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/graphics/2010/022310-bill-comparison.aspx</ref>.

In addition to individual insurance mandates, RomneyCare forces taxpayers to purchase so-called "healthcare" including contraception and [[abortion]], against the moral religious conscience of some Massachusetts citizens. <ref>[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/nov/27/fred-thompson/indeed-abortions-are-covered/ Politifact]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Socialism]]
[[Category:Health]]

United States presidential election, 2012

2012-09-26T15:37:45Z

HumanGeographer: Corrected in accordance with the sources headline

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. No incumbent has won reelection in the past 70 years with unemployment above 7.2%; reported unemployment is at 8.3% (and real unemployment much higher) merely 3 months before the election. The [[economy]] grew less than predicted in the first quarter, and "the last time the economy was this slow was in the last year of President [[George H.W. Bush]]’s one term in office" - '''''who then lost reelection'''''.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0427/GDP-report-puts-Obama-in-economic-gray-zone.-Will-Republicans-profit</ref> The September 7 labor report observed, "Just 63.5% of the working-age population was either employed or actively looking for work -- '''''a 30-year low'''''." <ref>http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/07/news/economy/august-jobs-report/index.html</ref>

This election will be like either the election of 1980, when a large bloc of undecided voters moved to the socially [[conservative]] challenger ([[Ronald Reagan]]) in the last few weeks, or the election of 1948, when the [[RINO]] [[Thomas Dewey]] was unable to attract grassroots voters despite the unpopularity of [[Harry Truman]] and the deteriorating economy. Statistically at 45 days remaining before the election, it is very rare for the challenger to garner a large upswing in the polls <ref>http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/the-statistical-state-of-the-presidential-race/?ref=politics</ref>.

Following the [[2012 Republican Primaries]] the [[Republican National Convention]] nominated the [[RINO]] [[Mitt Romney]] for president and [[Paul Ryan]] for vice president, and their strategy appears to be to duck and avoid social issues as much as possible. The selection and Paul Ryan as VP and polling during the first half of the convention showed only a slight bounce in voter support for Romney.

A handful of [[swing state]]s are expected to select the winner. Currently polls show [[Barack Hussein Obama]] with a slight lead in many of these states, but this may change once the [[Presidential debates 2012]] start. The key swing states are Ohio and Florida, where both campaigns are spending vast amounts of money. As of late September, Mr Obama is widening the lead in both states<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/us/politics/polls-show-obama-widening-lead-in-ohio-and-florida.html?hp</ref>.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Issue or Factor
![[Mitt Romney]]
![[Barack Obama]]
!Comment
|-
|Social issues
|Romney runs away from them.
|Obama is vocally [[pro-abortion]] and pro-[[same-sex marriage]].
|As with Tom Dewey's loss in 1948, Romney's running away from social issues could cause him to lose the election that he should win in a landslide.
|-
|Economic issues
|Romney favors free enterprise, low taxes, and personal responsibility.
|Obama says he inherited the crisis from [[Republicans]].
|The advantage here is Romney's.
|-
|Likability
|Romney's likability rating stands at only 31%, and has been lower.
|Obama's likability rating is at 48%.
|Advantage to Obama.
|-
|Debates
|Romney is a good debater.
|Obama struggles without a teleprompter, but will benefit from liberal moderators.
|Slight -- but perhaps meaningless due to decreasing television viewership -- advantage to Romney.
|-
|VPs
|Paul Ryan has youth, energy, and likability, but is part of the Big Government Republican leadership in Congress, which has an ultra-low approval rating; Romney has been criticized for not using Ryan more effectively in the campaign.<ref>{{cite news|title=In GOP recipe, too little Ryan for conservatives' taste|work=Washington Post|page=A1|date=September 25, 2012|author=Felicia Sonmez and David Fahrenthold}}</ref>
|Joe Biden is a gaffe-prone goofball, but is protected by the [[liberal media]].
|Toss-up here, or maybe a slight edge to Ryan.
|-
|Fundraising
|Mitt's a '''very''' strong fundraiser, but in doing so he has had to sacrifice precious time for the campaign trail<ref>http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/romney-camp-talks-of-dialing-down-fund-raising/?ref=politics</ref>. However he has the support of numerous friendly [[Super PAC]]s.
|Obama's fundraising has been weaker than predicted, but [[limousine liberals]] have donated millions.
|Slight advantage to Romney
|-
|Gaffes/staying on message
|47% of American don't pay income tax and won't vote for me<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2012/0920/Are-Romney-s-47-percent-comments-beginning-to-move-the-polls-video|title=Are Romney's '47 percent' comments beginning to move the polls?|work=Christian Science Monitor|accessdate=September 25, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/1212/Mitt-Romney-gaffes-11-times-the-button-down-candidate-should-have-buttoned-up/My-job-is-not-to-worry-about-those-people|title=Mitt Romney gaffes: 11 times the button-down candidate should have buttoned up|work=Christian Science Monitor|author= Linda Feldmann|accessdate=September 25, 2012}}</ref>/London Olympics not ready comment<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/27/politics/romney-london-troubles/index.html|title=Romney trip begins in shambles|work=CNN|author=Jim Acosta|date=July 27, 2012|accessdate=September 25, 2012}}</ref>
|"[[You didn't build that]]"
|Obama has better control of his message.
|}

== Minor Parties ==

With record-low support for either major party candidate, this could be a year when minor parties do unusually well.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Party
!Candidate
!Comments
|-
|[[Constitution Party]]<ref>http://constitutionparty.com/</ref>
|[[Virgil Goode]]<ref>http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/index.html</ref>
|Popular ex-Congressman from Virginia who had previously won election as a Democrat, Independent, and Republican. Joined the Constitution Party in 2010. Opposes illegal immigration and calls for a reduction in legal immigration as well. Won the Constitution Party nomination for president in April on the first ballot.
|-
|[[Green Party]]<ref>http://www.gp.org/index.php</ref>
|[[Jill Stein]]<ref>http://www.jillstein.org/</ref>
|Defeated [[Roseanne Barr]] for the Green Party nomination. Criticizes Obama for allegedly perpetuating the policies of the Bush administration. Supports the Occupy Wall Street protests. Was previously the Green Party candidate in a series of elections in Massachusetts including a Gubernatorial Election against Mitt Romney (among others).
|-
|Justice Party<ref>http://www.justicepartyusa.org/</ref>
|[[Rocky Anderson]]<ref>http://www.voterocky.org/</ref>
|Former mayor of [[Salt Lake City]], [[Utah]] (2000-08)
|-
||[[Libertarian Party]]<ref>http://www.lp.org/</ref>
|[[Gary Johnson]]<ref>http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/</ref>
|The former [[Republican]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], Johnson favors the fair tax, ending American military actions overseas, legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex marriage. Given Ron Paul's libertarian campaign for the Republican nomination and the exclusion of Johnson from most of the debates, there was little room for Johnson as a Republican this election cycle. He won the Libertarian Party nomination on May 5, 2012.
|-
|Peace and Freedom Party<ref>http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/</ref>
|[[Roseanne Barr]]<ref>http://www.roseanneforpresident2012.org/</ref>
|Comedienne and former TV actress
|-
|Party for Socialism and Liberation<ref>http://www.pslweb.org/</ref>
|Peta Lindsay
|Student and activist (not constitutionally qualified to serve as president - less than 35 years of age)
|-
|America's Party<ref>http://www.selfgovernment.us/</ref>
|[[Tom Hoefling]]<ref>http://www.tomhoefling.com/</ref>
|
|-
|[[Objectivist]] Party<ref>http://www.objectivistparty.us/</ref>
|Tom Stevens
|
|-
|Socialist Workers Party<ref>http://www.themilitant.com/index.shtml</ref>
|[[James Harris]]
|
|-
|Socialist Party USA<ref>http://vote-socialist.org/</ref>
|Stewart Alexander<ref>http://www.stewartalexandercares.com/</ref>
|
|-
|American Third Position Party<ref>http://american3rdposition.com/</ref>
|Merlin Miller<ref>http://merlinmiller2012.com/</ref>
|White Nationalist Party
|-
|Grass Roots Party<ref>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/07/07/grassroots-party-nominates-a-presidential-ticket/</ref>
|Jim Carlson
|
|-
|Freedom Socialist Party<ref>http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/</ref>
|Stephen Durham
|
|-
|Prohibition Party<ref>http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/</ref>
|[[Jack Fellure]]
|
|-
|Socialist Equality Party<ref>http://www.socialequality.com/</ref>
|Jerry White
|
|-
|}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Endorsements 2012]]
*[[Swing States 2012]]
*[[Presidential Election 2012 (disambiguation)]]'' for other presidential elections
*[[Senate Elections 2012]]

[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

United States presidential election, 2012

2012-09-26T15:37:11Z

HumanGeographer: Added with source

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. No incumbent has won reelection in the past 70 years with unemployment above 7.2%; reported unemployment is at 8.3% (and real unemployment much higher) merely 3 months before the election. The [[economy]] grew less than predicted in the first quarter, and "the last time the economy was this slow was in the last year of President [[George H.W. Bush]]’s one term in office" - '''''who then lost reelection'''''.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0427/GDP-report-puts-Obama-in-economic-gray-zone.-Will-Republicans-profit</ref> The September 7 labor report observed, "Just 63.5% of the working-age population was either employed or actively looking for work -- '''''a 30-year low'''''." <ref>http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/07/news/economy/august-jobs-report/index.html</ref>

This election will be like either the election of 1980, when a large bloc of undecided voters moved to the socially [[conservative]] challenger ([[Ronald Reagan]]) in the last few weeks, or the election of 1948, when the [[RINO]] [[Thomas Dewey]] was unable to attract grassroots voters despite the unpopularity of [[Harry Truman]] and the deteriorating economy. Statistically at 45 days remaining before the election, it is very rare for the challenger to garner a large upswing in the polls <ref>http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/the-statistical-state-of-the-presidential-race/?ref=politics</ref>.

Following the [[2012 Republican Primaries]] the [[Republican National Convention]] nominated the [[RINO]] [[Mitt Romney]] for president and [[Paul Ryan]] for vice president, and their strategy appears to be to duck and avoid social issues as much as possible. The selection and Paul Ryan as VP and polling during the first half of the convention showed only a slight bounce in voter support for Romney.

A handful of [[swing state]]s are expected to select the winner. Currently polls show [[Barack Hussein Obama]] with a slight lead in many of these states, but this may change once the [[Presidential debates 2012]] start. The key swing states are Ohio and Florida, where both campaigns are spending vast amounts of money. As of late September, Mr Obama is taking the lead in both states<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/us/politics/polls-show-obama-widening-lead-in-ohio-and-florida.html?hp</ref>.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Issue or Factor
![[Mitt Romney]]
![[Barack Obama]]
!Comment
|-
|Social issues
|Romney runs away from them.
|Obama is vocally [[pro-abortion]] and pro-[[same-sex marriage]].
|As with Tom Dewey's loss in 1948, Romney's running away from social issues could cause him to lose the election that he should win in a landslide.
|-
|Economic issues
|Romney favors free enterprise, low taxes, and personal responsibility.
|Obama says he inherited the crisis from [[Republicans]].
|The advantage here is Romney's.
|-
|Likability
|Romney's likability rating stands at only 31%, and has been lower.
|Obama's likability rating is at 48%.
|Advantage to Obama.
|-
|Debates
|Romney is a good debater.
|Obama struggles without a teleprompter, but will benefit from liberal moderators.
|Slight -- but perhaps meaningless due to decreasing television viewership -- advantage to Romney.
|-
|VPs
|Paul Ryan has youth, energy, and likability, but is part of the Big Government Republican leadership in Congress, which has an ultra-low approval rating; Romney has been criticized for not using Ryan more effectively in the campaign.<ref>{{cite news|title=In GOP recipe, too little Ryan for conservatives' taste|work=Washington Post|page=A1|date=September 25, 2012|author=Felicia Sonmez and David Fahrenthold}}</ref>
|Joe Biden is a gaffe-prone goofball, but is protected by the [[liberal media]].
|Toss-up here, or maybe a slight edge to Ryan.
|-
|Fundraising
|Mitt's a '''very''' strong fundraiser, but in doing so he has had to sacrifice precious time for the campaign trail<ref>http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/romney-camp-talks-of-dialing-down-fund-raising/?ref=politics</ref>. However he has the support of numerous friendly [[Super PAC]]s.
|Obama's fundraising has been weaker than predicted, but [[limousine liberals]] have donated millions.
|Slight advantage to Romney
|-
|Gaffes/staying on message
|47% of American don't pay income tax and won't vote for me<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2012/0920/Are-Romney-s-47-percent-comments-beginning-to-move-the-polls-video|title=Are Romney's '47 percent' comments beginning to move the polls?|work=Christian Science Monitor|accessdate=September 25, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/1212/Mitt-Romney-gaffes-11-times-the-button-down-candidate-should-have-buttoned-up/My-job-is-not-to-worry-about-those-people|title=Mitt Romney gaffes: 11 times the button-down candidate should have buttoned up|work=Christian Science Monitor|author= Linda Feldmann|accessdate=September 25, 2012}}</ref>/London Olympics not ready comment<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/27/politics/romney-london-troubles/index.html|title=Romney trip begins in shambles|work=CNN|author=Jim Acosta|date=July 27, 2012|accessdate=September 25, 2012}}</ref>
|"[[You didn't build that]]"
|Obama has better control of his message.
|}

== Minor Parties ==

With record-low support for either major party candidate, this could be a year when minor parties do unusually well.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Party
!Candidate
!Comments
|-
|[[Constitution Party]]<ref>http://constitutionparty.com/</ref>
|[[Virgil Goode]]<ref>http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/index.html</ref>
|Popular ex-Congressman from Virginia who had previously won election as a Democrat, Independent, and Republican. Joined the Constitution Party in 2010. Opposes illegal immigration and calls for a reduction in legal immigration as well. Won the Constitution Party nomination for president in April on the first ballot.
|-
|[[Green Party]]<ref>http://www.gp.org/index.php</ref>
|[[Jill Stein]]<ref>http://www.jillstein.org/</ref>
|Defeated [[Roseanne Barr]] for the Green Party nomination. Criticizes Obama for allegedly perpetuating the policies of the Bush administration. Supports the Occupy Wall Street protests. Was previously the Green Party candidate in a series of elections in Massachusetts including a Gubernatorial Election against Mitt Romney (among others).
|-
|Justice Party<ref>http://www.justicepartyusa.org/</ref>
|[[Rocky Anderson]]<ref>http://www.voterocky.org/</ref>
|Former mayor of [[Salt Lake City]], [[Utah]] (2000-08)
|-
||[[Libertarian Party]]<ref>http://www.lp.org/</ref>
|[[Gary Johnson]]<ref>http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/</ref>
|The former [[Republican]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], Johnson favors the fair tax, ending American military actions overseas, legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex marriage. Given Ron Paul's libertarian campaign for the Republican nomination and the exclusion of Johnson from most of the debates, there was little room for Johnson as a Republican this election cycle. He won the Libertarian Party nomination on May 5, 2012.
|-
|Peace and Freedom Party<ref>http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/</ref>
|[[Roseanne Barr]]<ref>http://www.roseanneforpresident2012.org/</ref>
|Comedienne and former TV actress
|-
|Party for Socialism and Liberation<ref>http://www.pslweb.org/</ref>
|Peta Lindsay
|Student and activist (not constitutionally qualified to serve as president - less than 35 years of age)
|-
|America's Party<ref>http://www.selfgovernment.us/</ref>
|[[Tom Hoefling]]<ref>http://www.tomhoefling.com/</ref>
|
|-
|[[Objectivist]] Party<ref>http://www.objectivistparty.us/</ref>
|Tom Stevens
|
|-
|Socialist Workers Party<ref>http://www.themilitant.com/index.shtml</ref>
|[[James Harris]]
|
|-
|Socialist Party USA<ref>http://vote-socialist.org/</ref>
|Stewart Alexander<ref>http://www.stewartalexandercares.com/</ref>
|
|-
|American Third Position Party<ref>http://american3rdposition.com/</ref>
|Merlin Miller<ref>http://merlinmiller2012.com/</ref>
|White Nationalist Party
|-
|Grass Roots Party<ref>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/07/07/grassroots-party-nominates-a-presidential-ticket/</ref>
|Jim Carlson
|
|-
|Freedom Socialist Party<ref>http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/</ref>
|Stephen Durham
|
|-
|Prohibition Party<ref>http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/</ref>
|[[Jack Fellure]]
|
|-
|Socialist Equality Party<ref>http://www.socialequality.com/</ref>
|Jerry White
|
|-
|}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Endorsements 2012]]
*[[Swing States 2012]]
*[[Presidential Election 2012 (disambiguation)]]'' for other presidential elections
*[[Senate Elections 2012]]

[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

USA Today

2012-09-26T06:28:03Z

HumanGeographer: Who?

'''USA Today''' is the most read daily [[newspaper]] in the [[United States]], with a daily paid circulation of 2,269,509, as of February, 2007.<ref>Audit Bureau of Circulations: [http://www.accessabc.com/reader/top150.htm Top 200 Newspapers by Largest Reported Circulation]</ref> It is known mostly for its complete and detailed coverage of sports, but also features regional issues ignored by major city-based newspapers. Critics{{who}} have called it "McPaper", having all the nutritional value of a meal at a fast food restaurant such as McDonalds.

It is owned by the [[leftist]] media conglomerate Gannett Corporation, one of the most diverse sources of news, information and communications in the United States. Gannett serves readers and viewers through its operations in 43 states and [[Washington, D.C.]], [[Guam]], the [[United Kingdom]], [[Canada]], [[Belgium]], [[Germany]] and [[Hong Kong]]. One of the world's largest information companies, Gannett today employs approximately 52,500 full-time and part-time employees worldwide and publishes 99 daily newspapers in the U.S. and 17 dailies in the United Kingdom. In addition, the company owns in excess of 800 non-daily publications around the world and USA WEEKEND, a weekly newspaper magazine. Gannett owns and operates 21 television stations in the United States. The company also has a national group of commercial printing facilities and subsidiaries involved in survey research, direct marketing and new media development.

USA TODAY was conceived in Cocoa Beach, [[Florida]] under the code name "Project NN." After two years of research on what readers wanted, what advertisers needed and what technology permitted, on September 15, 1982, USA TODAY began publication to readers news about the USA in an entirely different way; regionalized content was sent to printing plants in the metro areas where Gannett owned newspapers, via satellite.

The newspaper quickly established itself, selling more than 1.3 million copies a day all across the nation by the end of 1983. In 2001, the company moved to a new Gannett/USA TODAY headquarters in McLean, [[Virginia]].<ref>Official site of [http://www.gannett.com/index.html Gannet Company, Inc.]</ref>

'''USA Today''' is particularly [[liberal]] on [[Title IX]] and the issue of women in sports.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:United States Newspapers|USA Today]]

United States presidential election, 2012

2012-09-26T06:08:15Z

HumanGeographer: Advantage to Romney in Fundraising?

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. No incumbent has won reelection in the past 70 years with unemployment above 7.2%; reported unemployment is at 8.3% (and real unemployment much higher) merely 3 months before the election. The [[economy]] grew less than predicted in the first quarter, and "the last time the economy was this slow was in the last year of President [[George H.W. Bush]]’s one term in office" - '''''who then lost reelection'''''.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0427/GDP-report-puts-Obama-in-economic-gray-zone.-Will-Republicans-profit</ref> The September 7 labor report observed, "Just 63.5% of the working-age population was either employed or actively looking for work -- '''''a 30-year low'''''." <ref>http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/07/news/economy/august-jobs-report/index.html</ref>

This election will be like either the election of 1980, when a large bloc of undecided voters moved to the socially [[conservative]] challenger ([[Ronald Reagan]]) in the last few weeks, or the election of 1948, when the [[RINO]] [[Thomas Dewey]] was unable to attract grassroots voters despite the unpopularity of [[Harry Truman]] and the deteriorating economy. Statistically at 45 days remaining before the election, it is very rare for the challenger to garner a large upswing in the polls <ref>http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/the-statistical-state-of-the-presidential-race/?ref=politics</ref>.

Following the [[2012 Republican Primaries]] the [[Republican National Convention]] nominated the [[RINO]] [[Mitt Romney]] for president and [[Paul Ryan]] for vice president, and their strategy appears to be to duck and avoid social issues as much as possible. The selection and Paul Ryan as VP and polling during the first half of the convention showed only a slight bounce in voter support for Romney.

A handful of [[swing state]]s are expected to select the winner. Currently polls show [[Barack Hussein Obama]] with a slight lead in many of these states, but this may change once the [[Presidential debates 2012]] start.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Issue or Factor
![[Mitt Romney]]
![[Barack Obama]]
!Comment
|-
|Social issues
|Romney runs away from them.
|Obama is vocally [[pro-abortion]] and pro-[[same-sex marriage]].
|As with Tom Dewey's loss in 1948, Romney's running away from social issues could cause him to lose the election that he should win in a landslide.
|-
|Economic issues
|Romney favors free enterprise, low taxes, and personal responsibility.
|Obama says he inherited the crisis from [[Republicans]].
|The advantage here is Romney's.
|-
|Likability
|Romney's likability rating stands at only 31%, and has been lower.
|Obama's likability rating is at 48%.
|Advantage to Obama.
|-
|Debates
|Romney is a good debater.
|Obama struggles without a teleprompter, but will benefit from liberal moderators.
|Slight -- but perhaps meaningless due to decreasing television viewership -- advantage to Romney.
|-
|VPs
|Paul Ryan has youth, energy, and likability, but is part of the Big Government Republican leadership in Congress, which has an ultra-low approval rating; Romney has been criticized for not using Ryan more effectively in the campaign.
|Joe Biden is a gaffe-prone goofball, but is protected by the [[liberal media]].
|Toss-up here, or maybe a slight edge to Ryan.
|-
|Fundraising
|Mitt's a '''very''' strong fundraiser, but in doing so he has had to sacrifice precious time for the campaign trail<ref>http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/romney-camp-talks-of-dialing-down-fund-raising/?ref=politics</ref>. However he has the support of numerous friendly [[Super PAC]]s.
|Obama's fundraising has been weaker than predicted, but [[limousine liberals]] have donated millions.
|Slight advantage to Romney
|-
|Gaffes/staying on message
|47% of American don't pay income tax and won't vote for me<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2012/0920/Are-Romney-s-47-percent-comments-beginning-to-move-the-polls-video|title=Are Romney's '47 percent' comments beginning to move the polls?|work=Christian Science Monitor|accessdate=September 25, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/1212/Mitt-Romney-gaffes-11-times-the-button-down-candidate-should-have-buttoned-up/My-job-is-not-to-worry-about-those-people|title=Mitt Romney gaffes: 11 times the button-down candidate should have buttoned up|work=Christian Science Monitor|author= Linda Feldmann|accessdate=September 25, 2012}}</ref>/London Olympics not ready comment<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/27/politics/romney-london-troubles/index.html|title=Romney trip begins in shambles|work=CNN|author=Jim Acosta|date=July 27, 2012|accessdate=September 25, 2012}}</ref>
|"[[You didn't build that]]"
|Obama has better control of his message.
|}

== Minor Parties ==

With record-low support for either major party candidate, this could be a year when minor parties do unusually well.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Party
!Candidate
!Comments
|-
|[[Constitution Party]]<ref>http://constitutionparty.com/</ref>
|[[Virgil Goode]]<ref>http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/index.html</ref>
|Popular ex-Congressman from Virginia who had previously won election as a Democrat, Independent, and Republican. Joined the Constitution Party in 2010. Opposes illegal immigration and calls for a reduction in legal immigration as well. Won the Constitution Party nomination for president in April on the first ballot.
|-
|[[Green Party]]<ref>http://www.gp.org/index.php</ref>
|[[Jill Stein]]<ref>http://www.jillstein.org/</ref>
|Defeated [[Roseanne Barr]] for the Green Party nomination. Criticizes Obama for allegedly perpetuating the policies of the Bush administration. Supports the Occupy Wall Street protests. Was previously the Green Party candidate in a series of elections in Massachusetts including a Gubernatorial Election against Mitt Romney (among others).
|-
|Justice Party<ref>http://www.justicepartyusa.org/</ref>
|[[Rocky Anderson]]<ref>http://www.voterocky.org/</ref>
|Former mayor of [[Salt Lake City]], [[Utah]] (2000-08)
|-
||[[Libertarian Party]]<ref>http://www.lp.org/</ref>
|[[Gary Johnson]]<ref>http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/</ref>
|The former [[Republican]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], Johnson favors the fair tax, ending American military actions overseas, legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex marriage. Given Ron Paul's libertarian campaign for the Republican nomination and the exclusion of Johnson from most of the debates, there was little room for Johnson as a Republican this election cycle. He won the Libertarian Party nomination on May 5, 2012.
|-
|Peace and Freedom Party<ref>http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/</ref>
|[[Roseanne Barr]]<ref>http://www.roseanneforpresident2012.org/</ref>
|Comedienne and former TV actress
|-
|Party for Socialism and Liberation<ref>http://www.pslweb.org/</ref>
|Peta Lindsay
|Student and activist (not constitutionally qualified to serve as president - less than 35 years of age)
|-
|America's Party<ref>http://www.selfgovernment.us/</ref>
|[[Tom Hoefling]]<ref>http://www.tomhoefling.com/</ref>
|
|-
|[[Objectivist]] Party<ref>http://www.objectivistparty.us/</ref>
|Tom Stevens
|
|-
|Socialist Workers Party<ref>http://www.themilitant.com/index.shtml</ref>
|[[James Harris]]
|
|-
|Socialist Party USA<ref>http://vote-socialist.org/</ref>
|Stewart Alexander<ref>http://www.stewartalexandercares.com/</ref>
|
|-
|American Third Position Party<ref>http://american3rdposition.com/</ref>
|Merlin Miller<ref>http://merlinmiller2012.com/</ref>
|White Nationalist Party
|-
|Grass Roots Party<ref>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/07/07/grassroots-party-nominates-a-presidential-ticket/</ref>
|Jim Carlson
|
|-
|Freedom Socialist Party<ref>http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/</ref>
|Stephen Durham
|
|-
|Prohibition Party<ref>http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/</ref>
|[[Jack Fellure]]
|
|-
|Socialist Equality Party<ref>http://www.socialequality.com/</ref>
|Jerry White
|
|-
|}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Endorsements 2012]]
*[[Swing States 2012]]
*[[Presidential Election 2012 (disambiguation)]]'' for other presidential elections
*[[Senate Elections 2012]]

[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

United States presidential election, 2012

2012-09-26T06:07:36Z

HumanGeographer: Added

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. No incumbent has won reelection in the past 70 years with unemployment above 7.2%; reported unemployment is at 8.3% (and real unemployment much higher) merely 3 months before the election. The [[economy]] grew less than predicted in the first quarter, and "the last time the economy was this slow was in the last year of President [[George H.W. Bush]]’s one term in office" - '''''who then lost reelection'''''.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0427/GDP-report-puts-Obama-in-economic-gray-zone.-Will-Republicans-profit</ref> The September 7 labor report observed, "Just 63.5% of the working-age population was either employed or actively looking for work -- '''''a 30-year low'''''." <ref>http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/07/news/economy/august-jobs-report/index.html</ref>

This election will be like either the election of 1980, when a large bloc of undecided voters moved to the socially [[conservative]] challenger ([[Ronald Reagan]]) in the last few weeks, or the election of 1948, when the [[RINO]] [[Thomas Dewey]] was unable to attract grassroots voters despite the unpopularity of [[Harry Truman]] and the deteriorating economy. Statistically at 45 days remaining before the election, it is very rare for the challenger to garner a large upswing in the polls <ref>http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/the-statistical-state-of-the-presidential-race/?ref=politics</ref>.

Following the [[2012 Republican Primaries]] the [[Republican National Convention]] nominated the [[RINO]] [[Mitt Romney]] for president and [[Paul Ryan]] for vice president, and their strategy appears to be to duck and avoid social issues as much as possible. The selection and Paul Ryan as VP and polling during the first half of the convention showed only a slight bounce in voter support for Romney.

A handful of [[swing state]]s are expected to select the winner. Currently polls show [[Barack Hussein Obama]] with a slight lead in many of these states, but this may change once the [[Presidential debates 2012]] start.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Issue or Factor
![[Mitt Romney]]
![[Barack Obama]]
!Comment
|-
|Social issues
|Romney runs away from them.
|Obama is vocally [[pro-abortion]] and pro-[[same-sex marriage]].
|As with Tom Dewey's loss in 1948, Romney's running away from social issues could cause him to lose the election that he should win in a landslide.
|-
|Economic issues
|Romney favors free enterprise, low taxes, and personal responsibility.
|Obama says he inherited the crisis from [[Republicans]].
|The advantage here is Romney's.
|-
|Likability
|Romney's likability rating stands at only 31%, and has been lower.
|Obama's likability rating is at 48%.
|Advantage to Obama.
|-
|Debates
|Romney is a good debater.
|Obama struggles without a teleprompter, but will benefit from liberal moderators.
|Slight -- but perhaps meaningless due to decreasing television viewership -- advantage to Romney.
|-
|VPs
|Paul Ryan has youth, energy, and likability, but is part of the Big Government Republican leadership in Congress, which has an ultra-low approval rating; Romney has been criticized for not using Ryan more effectively in the campaign.
|Joe Biden is a gaffe-prone goofball, but is protected by the [[liberal media]].
|Toss-up here, or maybe a slight edge to Ryan.
|-
|Fundraising
|Mitt's a '''very''' strong fundraiser, but in doing so he has had to sacrifice precious time for the campaign trail<ref>http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/romney-camp-talks-of-dialing-down-fund-raising/?ref=politics</ref>. However he has the support of numerous friendly [[Super PAC]]s.
|Obama's fundraising has been weaker than predicted, but [[limousine liberals]] have donated millions.
|Toss-up here.
|-
|Gaffes/staying on message
|47% of American don't pay income tax and won't vote for me<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2012/0920/Are-Romney-s-47-percent-comments-beginning-to-move-the-polls-video|title=Are Romney's '47 percent' comments beginning to move the polls?|work=Christian Science Monitor|accessdate=September 25, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/1212/Mitt-Romney-gaffes-11-times-the-button-down-candidate-should-have-buttoned-up/My-job-is-not-to-worry-about-those-people|title=Mitt Romney gaffes: 11 times the button-down candidate should have buttoned up|work=Christian Science Monitor|author= Linda Feldmann|accessdate=September 25, 2012}}</ref>/London Olympics not ready comment<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/27/politics/romney-london-troubles/index.html|title=Romney trip begins in shambles|work=CNN|author=Jim Acosta|date=July 27, 2012|accessdate=September 25, 2012}}</ref>
|"[[You didn't build that]]"
|Obama has better control of his message.
|}

== Minor Parties ==

With record-low support for either major party candidate, this could be a year when minor parties do unusually well.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Party
!Candidate
!Comments
|-
|[[Constitution Party]]<ref>http://constitutionparty.com/</ref>
|[[Virgil Goode]]<ref>http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/index.html</ref>
|Popular ex-Congressman from Virginia who had previously won election as a Democrat, Independent, and Republican. Joined the Constitution Party in 2010. Opposes illegal immigration and calls for a reduction in legal immigration as well. Won the Constitution Party nomination for president in April on the first ballot.
|-
|[[Green Party]]<ref>http://www.gp.org/index.php</ref>
|[[Jill Stein]]<ref>http://www.jillstein.org/</ref>
|Defeated [[Roseanne Barr]] for the Green Party nomination. Criticizes Obama for allegedly perpetuating the policies of the Bush administration. Supports the Occupy Wall Street protests. Was previously the Green Party candidate in a series of elections in Massachusetts including a Gubernatorial Election against Mitt Romney (among others).
|-
|Justice Party<ref>http://www.justicepartyusa.org/</ref>
|[[Rocky Anderson]]<ref>http://www.voterocky.org/</ref>
|Former mayor of [[Salt Lake City]], [[Utah]] (2000-08)
|-
||[[Libertarian Party]]<ref>http://www.lp.org/</ref>
|[[Gary Johnson]]<ref>http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/</ref>
|The former [[Republican]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], Johnson favors the fair tax, ending American military actions overseas, legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex marriage. Given Ron Paul's libertarian campaign for the Republican nomination and the exclusion of Johnson from most of the debates, there was little room for Johnson as a Republican this election cycle. He won the Libertarian Party nomination on May 5, 2012.
|-
|Peace and Freedom Party<ref>http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/</ref>
|[[Roseanne Barr]]<ref>http://www.roseanneforpresident2012.org/</ref>
|Comedienne and former TV actress
|-
|Party for Socialism and Liberation<ref>http://www.pslweb.org/</ref>
|Peta Lindsay
|Student and activist (not constitutionally qualified to serve as president - less than 35 years of age)
|-
|America's Party<ref>http://www.selfgovernment.us/</ref>
|[[Tom Hoefling]]<ref>http://www.tomhoefling.com/</ref>
|
|-
|[[Objectivist]] Party<ref>http://www.objectivistparty.us/</ref>
|Tom Stevens
|
|-
|Socialist Workers Party<ref>http://www.themilitant.com/index.shtml</ref>
|[[James Harris]]
|
|-
|Socialist Party USA<ref>http://vote-socialist.org/</ref>
|Stewart Alexander<ref>http://www.stewartalexandercares.com/</ref>
|
|-
|American Third Position Party<ref>http://american3rdposition.com/</ref>
|Merlin Miller<ref>http://merlinmiller2012.com/</ref>
|White Nationalist Party
|-
|Grass Roots Party<ref>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/07/07/grassroots-party-nominates-a-presidential-ticket/</ref>
|Jim Carlson
|
|-
|Freedom Socialist Party<ref>http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/</ref>
|Stephen Durham
|
|-
|Prohibition Party<ref>http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/</ref>
|[[Jack Fellure]]
|
|-
|Socialist Equality Party<ref>http://www.socialequality.com/</ref>
|Jerry White
|
|-
|}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Endorsements 2012]]
*[[Swing States 2012]]
*[[Presidential Election 2012 (disambiguation)]]'' for other presidential elections
*[[Senate Elections 2012]]

[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

United States presidential election, 2012

2012-09-26T06:00:49Z

HumanGeographer: Added

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. No incumbent has won reelection in the past 70 years with unemployment above 7.2%; reported unemployment is at 8.3% (and real unemployment much higher) merely 3 months before the election. The [[economy]] grew less than predicted in the first quarter, and "the last time the economy was this slow was in the last year of President [[George H.W. Bush]]’s one term in office" - '''''who then lost reelection'''''.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0427/GDP-report-puts-Obama-in-economic-gray-zone.-Will-Republicans-profit</ref> The September 7 labor report observed, "Just 63.5% of the working-age population was either employed or actively looking for work -- '''''a 30-year low'''''." <ref>http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/07/news/economy/august-jobs-report/index.html</ref>

This election will be like either the election of 1980, when a large bloc of undecided voters moved to the socially [[conservative]] challenger ([[Ronald Reagan]]) in the last few weeks, or the election of 1948, when the [[RINO]] [[Thomas Dewey]] was unable to attract grassroots voters despite the unpopularity of [[Harry Truman]] and the deteriorating economy. Statistically at 45 days remaining before the election, it is very rare for the challenger to garner a large upswing in the polls <ref>http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/the-statistical-state-of-the-presidential-race/?ref=politics</ref>.

Following the [[2012 Republican Primaries]] the [[Republican National Convention]] nominated the [[RINO]] [[Mitt Romney]] for president and [[Paul Ryan]] for vice president, and their strategy appears to be to duck and avoid social issues as much as possible. The selection and Paul Ryan as VP and polling during the first half of the convention showed only a slight bounce in voter support for Romney.

A handful of [[swing state]]s are expected to select the winner. Currently polls show [[Barack Hussein Obama]] with a slight lead in many of these states, but this may change once the [[Presidential debates 2012]] start.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Issue or Factor
![[Mitt Romney]]
![[Barack Obama]]
!Comment
|-
|Social issues
|Romney runs away from them.
|Obama is vocally [[pro-abortion]] and pro-[[same-sex marriage]].
|As with Tom Dewey's loss in 1948, Romney's running away from social issues could cause him to lose the election that he should win in a landslide.
|-
|Economic issues
|Romney favors free enterprise, low taxes, and personal responsibility.
|Obama says he inherited the crisis from [[Republicans]].
|The advantage here is Romney's.
|-
|Likability
|Romney's likability rating stands at only 31%, and has been lower.
|Obama's likability rating is at 48%.
|Advantage to Obama.
|-
|Debates
|Romney is a good debater.
|Obama struggles without a teleprompter, but will benefit from liberal moderators.
|Slight -- but perhaps meaningless due to decreasing television viewership -- advantage to Romney.
|-
|VPs
|Paul Ryan has youth, energy, and likability, but is part of the Big Government Republican leadership in Congress, which has an ultra-low approval rating; Romney has been criticized for not using Ryan more effectively in the campaign.
|Joe Biden is a gaffe-prone goofball, but is protected by the [[liberal media]].
|Toss-up here, or maybe a slight edge to Ryan.
|-
|Fundraising
|Mitt's a '''very''' strong fundraiser, but in doing so he has had to sacrifice precious time for the campaign trail<ref>http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/romney-camp-talks-of-dialing-down-fund-raising/?ref=politics</ref>.
|Obama's fundraising has been weaker than predicted, but [[limousine liberals]] have donated millions.
|Toss-up here.
|-
|Gaffes/staying on message
|47% of American don't pay income tax and won't vote for me<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2012/0920/Are-Romney-s-47-percent-comments-beginning-to-move-the-polls-video|title=Are Romney's '47 percent' comments beginning to move the polls?|work=Christian Science Monitor|accessdate=September 25, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/1212/Mitt-Romney-gaffes-11-times-the-button-down-candidate-should-have-buttoned-up/My-job-is-not-to-worry-about-those-people|title=Mitt Romney gaffes: 11 times the button-down candidate should have buttoned up|work=Christian Science Monitor|author= Linda Feldmann|accessdate=September 25, 2012}}</ref>/London Olympics not ready comment<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/27/politics/romney-london-troubles/index.html|title=Romney trip begins in shambles|work=CNN|author=Jim Acosta|date=July 27, 2012|accessdate=September 25, 2012}}</ref>
|"[[You didn't build that]]"
|Obama has better control of his message.
|}

== Minor Parties ==

With record-low support for either major party candidate, this could be a year when minor parties do unusually well.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Party
!Candidate
!Comments
|-
|[[Constitution Party]]<ref>http://constitutionparty.com/</ref>
|[[Virgil Goode]]<ref>http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/index.html</ref>
|Popular ex-Congressman from Virginia who had previously won election as a Democrat, Independent, and Republican. Joined the Constitution Party in 2010. Opposes illegal immigration and calls for a reduction in legal immigration as well. Won the Constitution Party nomination for president in April on the first ballot.
|-
|[[Green Party]]<ref>http://www.gp.org/index.php</ref>
|[[Jill Stein]]<ref>http://www.jillstein.org/</ref>
|Defeated [[Roseanne Barr]] for the Green Party nomination. Criticizes Obama for allegedly perpetuating the policies of the Bush administration. Supports the Occupy Wall Street protests. Was previously the Green Party candidate in a series of elections in Massachusetts including a Gubernatorial Election against Mitt Romney (among others).
|-
|Justice Party<ref>http://www.justicepartyusa.org/</ref>
|[[Rocky Anderson]]<ref>http://www.voterocky.org/</ref>
|Former mayor of [[Salt Lake City]], [[Utah]] (2000-08)
|-
||[[Libertarian Party]]<ref>http://www.lp.org/</ref>
|[[Gary Johnson]]<ref>http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/</ref>
|The former [[Republican]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], Johnson favors the fair tax, ending American military actions overseas, legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex marriage. Given Ron Paul's libertarian campaign for the Republican nomination and the exclusion of Johnson from most of the debates, there was little room for Johnson as a Republican this election cycle. He won the Libertarian Party nomination on May 5, 2012.
|-
|Peace and Freedom Party<ref>http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/</ref>
|[[Roseanne Barr]]<ref>http://www.roseanneforpresident2012.org/</ref>
|Comedienne and former TV actress
|-
|Party for Socialism and Liberation<ref>http://www.pslweb.org/</ref>
|Peta Lindsay
|Student and activist (not constitutionally qualified to serve as president - less than 35 years of age)
|-
|America's Party<ref>http://www.selfgovernment.us/</ref>
|[[Tom Hoefling]]<ref>http://www.tomhoefling.com/</ref>
|
|-
|[[Objectivist]] Party<ref>http://www.objectivistparty.us/</ref>
|Tom Stevens
|
|-
|Socialist Workers Party<ref>http://www.themilitant.com/index.shtml</ref>
|[[James Harris]]
|
|-
|Socialist Party USA<ref>http://vote-socialist.org/</ref>
|Stewart Alexander<ref>http://www.stewartalexandercares.com/</ref>
|
|-
|American Third Position Party<ref>http://american3rdposition.com/</ref>
|Merlin Miller<ref>http://merlinmiller2012.com/</ref>
|White Nationalist Party
|-
|Grass Roots Party<ref>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/07/07/grassroots-party-nominates-a-presidential-ticket/</ref>
|Jim Carlson
|
|-
|Freedom Socialist Party<ref>http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/</ref>
|Stephen Durham
|
|-
|Prohibition Party<ref>http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/</ref>
|[[Jack Fellure]]
|
|-
|Socialist Equality Party<ref>http://www.socialequality.com/</ref>
|Jerry White
|
|-
|}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Endorsements 2012]]
*[[Swing States 2012]]
*[[Presidential Election 2012 (disambiguation)]]'' for other presidential elections
*[[Senate Elections 2012]]

[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

Todd Akin

2012-09-26T05:50:22Z

HumanGeographer: /* 2012 Senate Campaign */ Fixed formatting

'''William Todd Akin''' (born July 5, 1947) is the [[Republican Party|Republican]] [[House of Representatives|Representative]] for [[Missouri]]'s second congressional district and is the Republican nominee for one of the most-watched races for the [[U.S. Senate]] in 2012. Akin was first elected to Congress in 2000. Prior to that he served 12 years in the Missouri General Assembly.

Akin has taken a strong position on the role of [[faith]] in politics. In late July 2011 he said, "... at the heart of [[liberalism]] really is a hatred for God and a belief that government should replace [[God]]." [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/rep-todd-akin-refuses-to-apologize-for-saying-at-the-heart-of-liberalism-is-a-hatred-for-god/] [http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2011/06/28/congressmans-claim-liberals-hate-god/]

Akin is the son of Nancy Perry (née Bigelow) and Paul B. Akin. Both Akin's father and grandfather served as the Chief Executive Officer of the Laclede Steel Company. He graduated from the Worcester Polytechnic Institute]] in Worcester, Massachusetts, with a B.S. degree in engineering in 1971.<ref name=bluebook/>

Following his college graduation, he served as an officer in the [[United States Army|U.S. Army]] with the Army Combat Engineers, then served in the Army Reserve until 1980.<ref name=bluebook>[http://cdm.sos.mo.gov/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=%2Fstatepub&CISOPTR=99477&REC=17&CISOBOX=akin Official Manual of the State of Missouri, 1993-1994], p. 157</ref><ref>[http://akin.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9&Itemid=2 Biography], Congressman Todd Akin, Missouri's 2nd District, retrieved August 23, 2012.</ref> After leaving active duty, Akin worked as a salesman for IBM marketing large computer systems, and later went to work in management in the family steel business.<ref name=bluebook/>

In 1984, Akin earned a divinity degree from Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, but entered politics rather than the ministry.<ref name=legacy>{{cite news|title=Small legacy, loyal allies|author=Stephanie McCrummen and David A Fahrenthold|work=Washington Post|date=August 23, 2012|page=A1}}</ref> He was elected to the Missouri legislature in 1988.<ref name=legacy/>

Todd Akin has never lost an election, and has repeatedly won upset victories against more [[liberal]] opponents who have spent far more money than he has.

A [[veteran]], Congressman Akin has been a leader on military issues in the [[Republican Party]] in [[Congress]]. He is also a minister who has championed the greater use of [[prayer]] and [[charity]]. His family has [[homeschooled]] their children.

== 2012 Senate Campaign ==
Akin won the August 7, 2012 Republican primary for the U.S. Senate seat in a three-way field.<ref name=wsj2>{{cite news|title=Todd Akin's Sinking Ship|work=Wall Street Journal|page=A12|date=August 21, 2012}}</ref> The [[Club for Growth]] and the [[U.S. Chamber of Commerce]] backed John Brunner in the primary, while [[Sarah Palin]] supported former state official Sarah Steelman.<ref>{{cite news|title=Akin case tests power of GOP's heirarchy|author=Paul Kane and Ed O'Keefe|work=Washington Post|page=A4|date=August 22, 2012}}</ref> In an April primary debate, Akin said that federally guaranteed student loans were a "Stage 3 cancer of socialism."<ref name=wp910>{{cite news|title=With Senate at stake, GOP awaits Akin's next move|author=Rosalind S. Helderman and Jason Horowitz|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/with-senate-at-stake-gop-waits-on-akins-next-move-mccaskill-goes-on-offense/2012/09/09/584d77bc-f8ef-11e1-8398-0327ab83ab91_story.html|work=Washington Post|page=A1|date=September 10, 2012}}</ref>

Akin is running against the Democratic incumbent [[Claire McCaskill]] in the general election. Two weeks after his primary victory, Akin defended his principled [[pro-life]] position by indicating his opposition to abortion for pregnancy supposedly due to rape. A media firestorm ensued (see below), perhaps initiated by [[RINO]]s, but [[conservatives]] defended Akin's principled remarks. For example, Connie Mackey of the [[Family Research Council]] called the discussion of Akin's remarks "another case of 'gotcha politics' against a conservative leader."<ref name=wsj/> On August 22, Akin met with leaders of the [[Council for National Policy]] in Tampa, Florida, who indicated their unwavering support for his campaign.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80027.html|title=Todd Akin in Tampa with top social conservatives|date=August 22, 2012|work=Politico|first=Kate|last=Nocera|accessdate=August 23, 2012}}</ref> On August 24, 2012, Akin held a press conference to announce, "We are going to be here through the November election and we are going to be here to win,” he said. Akin added, “there may be some negotiations but they don’t include me.”<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/08/24/todd-akin-we-are-going-to-be-here-through-the-november-election/|title=Todd Akin: ‘We are going to be here through the November election’|work=Washington Post|date=August 24, 2012|first=Sean|last=Sullivan|accessdate=August 25, 2012}}</ref> At the Missouri delegation breakfast at the Republican National Convention, many delegates voiced support for Akin's candidacy.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80203.html?hp=t3_3|title=Missouri delegates angry at Mitt Romney over Todd Akin|first=Manu|last=Raju|date=August 27, 2012|accessdate=September 2, 2012|work=Politico}}</ref>

McCaskill is not commenting directly on Akin's abortion remarks in her campaign, but instead focuses upon Akin's remarks comparing student loans to Stage 3 cancer.<ref name=wp910/> [[RINO Backers]] demand that Todd Akin remove his name from the ballot by September 25, 2012, even though the principled Akin has repeatedly made it clear that he is campaigning to win, and is likely to better on [[Election Day]] than many of the RINOs will.<ref name=wp910/>

By September 23, as the polls nationwide showed the Senate races tightening and Akin showed no sign of giving up the fight, Newt Gingrich urged the party to let him back into the fold and at least one campaign finance group started to reconsider the wisdom of leaving Akin to fight alone. <ref>http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2012/09/24/2703769/conservative-fund-considers-backing.html</ref>

Since making such comments, Akin has drawn over $600,000 in small donations<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/us/politics/todd-akin-counts-on-support-of-home-schoolers.html?ref=politics</ref>.

== Comments on rape and pregnancy ==
''See also'' [[Media bullying]].

On August 19, 2012, in a local television interview with KTVI, Todd Akin rejected a suggestion that there should be a broad [[rape]] exception to limits on [[abortion]]. Akin distinguished between an actual rape and a false allegation of rape by referring to the former as a "legitimate rape," terminology that the [[liberal media]] then unfairly took out of context to engage in demagoguery against him.

Akin's statement from the interview was:<ref>McMorris-Santoro, Evan. "Republican Senate Nominee: Victims Of ‘Legitimate Rape’ Don’t Get Pregnant." August 19, 2012. Talking Points Memo. http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/todd-akin-legitimate-rape.php</ref>
{{cquote|First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn't work or something, I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.}}
Akin restated the same fact that has been published in the medical literature, which is that the incidence of pregnancy due to rape is rare. For example, the 6th Edition (2012) of the classic textbook by Lentz confirms:<ref>Lentz: Comprehensive Gynecology, 6th ed. (2012)</ref>
{{cquote|In the experience of most sexual assault centers, the chance of pregnancy occurring is quite low.}}
An objective medical commentator, citing a published statistic that pregnancy from rape occurs only 1 in 50 times, observed that Akin was not wrong in his medical observation, and that false allegations of rape obviously do occur.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/akin-not-far-off-base-in-rape-comment/</ref>

Published peer-reviewed studies confirm that stress -- which rape would induce -- interferes with the establishment and maintenance of a pregnancy:<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22687324</ref>
{{cquote|stress-related biomarkers ... affect establishment of pregnancy.}}
"Hormones and other chemicals wreak havoc on the uterus" due to stress, as reported in 2003 in this peer-reviewed study:<ref>http://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-reproduction/news/20030605/how-stress-causes-miscarriage</ref>
{{cquote|In what may prove to be a breakthrough finding, a team of scientists from Tufts University and Greece have identified a suspected chain reaction detailing exactly how stress hormones and other chemicals wreak havoc on the uterus and fetus.}}
The [[Mitt Romney|Romney]]-[[Paul Ryan|Ryan]] campaign, which had already caved in to [[liberals]] on abortion and other important social issues, then ran away from Todd Akin's principled stance in a manner that reflected poorly on Romney and Ryan.<ref>http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/mitt-romney-slams-lawmaker-todd-akins-rape-comments/story-fnd134gw-1226454546819</ref> [[RINO]]s tried to pressure Akin into withdrawing from the race for [[U.S. Senate]], so that a more [[liberal]], Establishment-supported candidate could be nominated. Akin stood up against the pressure and rejected the liberal demands.

Todd Akin has stood up against [[media bullying]] and namecalling by [[liberals]] such as [[Piers Morgan]] of ''[[CNN]]''.<ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/08/piers-morgan-calls-todd-akin-gutless-little-twerp-132635.html</ref>

=== Apology about the Wording ===

In response to the demagoguery against him, Akin issued a general apology to anyone who misunderstood what he was saying.<ref>"Akin says he misspoke when making a comment about rape and abortion during the taping of The Jaco Report on FOX 2." [http://fox2now.com/2012/08/19/the-jaco-report-august-19-2012/] </ref> "I made a mistake. What I said was ill-conceived and it was wrong and for that I apologize." <ref> [http://www.akin.org/]</ref>

President Obama tried unsuccessfully to exploit the issue for personal gain with an unusual statement to the press on August 21: "So what I think these comments do underscore is why we shouldn't have a bunch of politicians, a majority of whom are men, making health-care decisions on behalf of women."<ref name=wsj/> [[RINO Backers]], including Senators [[Mitch McConnell]], [[John Cornyn]], [[Scott Brown]] and [[Ron Johnson]], appeared to be acting on talking points provided to them as they rudely and unsuccessfully urged Akin to withdraw from the race.<ref name=wp>{{cite news|title=Republicans look to force Akin out of Senate race|author=Paul Kane and Nia-Malika Henderson|work=Washington Post|date=August 21, 2012|page=A1}}</ref><ref name=wsj>{{cite news|title=Crucial Senate Race in Uproar|author=Naftali Bendavid and Louise Radnofsky|work=Wall Street Journal|date=August 21, 2012|page=A1}}</ref>

In September, Akin's wife, Lulli, brought more media attention to the "rape" comment by using a rape metaphor in an interview with the ''National Journal''. She said, "Party bosses dictating who is allowed to advance through the party and make all of the decisions — it's just like 1776 in that way." She added that colonalists "rose up and said, 'Not in my home, you don't come and rape my daughters and my ... wife.' But that is where we are again."<ref>{{cite news|title=In Mo. race, that word again|page=A4|work=Washington Post|author=Diana Reese|date=September 18, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/09/18/todd-akin-wife-rape-tyranny-missouri-senate/70000588/1#.UFi2hRg5V4s|title=Akin's wife compares GOP moves to 'tyranny'|work=USAToday|author= Catalina Camia|date=September 18, 2012|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Akin, Todd}}
[[category:politics]]

Todd Akin

2012-09-26T05:49:37Z

HumanGeographer: /* 2012 Senate Campaign */ Added about $600,000 and sourced.

'''William Todd Akin''' (born July 5, 1947) is the [[Republican Party|Republican]] [[House of Representatives|Representative]] for [[Missouri]]'s second congressional district and is the Republican nominee for one of the most-watched races for the [[U.S. Senate]] in 2012. Akin was first elected to Congress in 2000. Prior to that he served 12 years in the Missouri General Assembly.

Akin has taken a strong position on the role of [[faith]] in politics. In late July 2011 he said, "... at the heart of [[liberalism]] really is a hatred for God and a belief that government should replace [[God]]." [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/rep-todd-akin-refuses-to-apologize-for-saying-at-the-heart-of-liberalism-is-a-hatred-for-god/] [http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2011/06/28/congressmans-claim-liberals-hate-god/]

Akin is the son of Nancy Perry (née Bigelow) and Paul B. Akin. Both Akin's father and grandfather served as the Chief Executive Officer of the Laclede Steel Company. He graduated from the Worcester Polytechnic Institute]] in Worcester, Massachusetts, with a B.S. degree in engineering in 1971.<ref name=bluebook/>

Following his college graduation, he served as an officer in the [[United States Army|U.S. Army]] with the Army Combat Engineers, then served in the Army Reserve until 1980.<ref name=bluebook>[http://cdm.sos.mo.gov/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=%2Fstatepub&CISOPTR=99477&REC=17&CISOBOX=akin Official Manual of the State of Missouri, 1993-1994], p. 157</ref><ref>[http://akin.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9&Itemid=2 Biography], Congressman Todd Akin, Missouri's 2nd District, retrieved August 23, 2012.</ref> After leaving active duty, Akin worked as a salesman for IBM marketing large computer systems, and later went to work in management in the family steel business.<ref name=bluebook/>

In 1984, Akin earned a divinity degree from Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, but entered politics rather than the ministry.<ref name=legacy>{{cite news|title=Small legacy, loyal allies|author=Stephanie McCrummen and David A Fahrenthold|work=Washington Post|date=August 23, 2012|page=A1}}</ref> He was elected to the Missouri legislature in 1988.<ref name=legacy/>

Todd Akin has never lost an election, and has repeatedly won upset victories against more [[liberal]] opponents who have spent far more money than he has.

A [[veteran]], Congressman Akin has been a leader on military issues in the [[Republican Party]] in [[Congress]]. He is also a minister who has championed the greater use of [[prayer]] and [[charity]]. His family has [[homeschooled]] their children.

== 2012 Senate Campaign ==
Akin won the August 7, 2012 Republican primary for the U.S. Senate seat in a three-way field.<ref name=wsj2>{{cite news|title=Todd Akin's Sinking Ship|work=Wall Street Journal|page=A12|date=August 21, 2012}}</ref> The [[Club for Growth]] and the [[U.S. Chamber of Commerce]] backed John Brunner in the primary, while [[Sarah Palin]] supported former state official Sarah Steelman.<ref>{{cite news|title=Akin case tests power of GOP's heirarchy|author=Paul Kane and Ed O'Keefe|work=Washington Post|page=A4|date=August 22, 2012}}</ref> In an April primary debate, Akin said that federally guaranteed student loans were a "Stage 3 cancer of socialism."<ref name=wp910>{{cite news|title=With Senate at stake, GOP awaits Akin's next move|author=Rosalind S. Helderman and Jason Horowitz|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/with-senate-at-stake-gop-waits-on-akins-next-move-mccaskill-goes-on-offense/2012/09/09/584d77bc-f8ef-11e1-8398-0327ab83ab91_story.html|work=Washington Post|page=A1|date=September 10, 2012}}</ref>

Akin is running against the Democratic incumbent [[Claire McCaskill]] in the general election. Two weeks after his primary victory, Akin defended his principled [[pro-life]] position by indicating his opposition to abortion for pregnancy supposedly due to rape. A media firestorm ensued (see below), perhaps initiated by [[RINO]]s, but [[conservatives]] defended Akin's principled remarks. For example, Connie Mackey of the [[Family Research Council]] called the discussion of Akin's remarks "another case of 'gotcha politics' against a conservative leader."<ref name=wsj/> On August 22, Akin met with leaders of the [[Council for National Policy]] in Tampa, Florida, who indicated their unwavering support for his campaign.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80027.html|title=Todd Akin in Tampa with top social conservatives|date=August 22, 2012|work=Politico|first=Kate|last=Nocera|accessdate=August 23, 2012}}</ref> On August 24, 2012, Akin held a press conference to announce, "We are going to be here through the November election and we are going to be here to win,” he said. Akin added, “there may be some negotiations but they don’t include me.”<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/08/24/todd-akin-we-are-going-to-be-here-through-the-november-election/|title=Todd Akin: ‘We are going to be here through the November election’|work=Washington Post|date=August 24, 2012|first=Sean|last=Sullivan|accessdate=August 25, 2012}}</ref> At the Missouri delegation breakfast at the Republican National Convention, many delegates voiced support for Akin's candidacy.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80203.html?hp=t3_3|title=Missouri delegates angry at Mitt Romney over Todd Akin|first=Manu|last=Raju|date=August 27, 2012|accessdate=September 2, 2012|work=Politico}}</ref>

McCaskill is not commenting directly on Akin's abortion remarks in her campaign, but instead focuses upon Akin's remarks comparing student loans to Stage 3 cancer.<ref name=wp910/> [[RINO Backers]] demand that Todd Akin remove his name from the ballot by September 25, 2012, even though the principled Akin has repeatedly made it clear that he is campaigning to win, and is likely to better on [[Election Day]] than many of the RINOs will.<ref name=wp910/>

By September 23, as the polls nationwide showed the Senate races tightening and Akin showed no sign of giving up the fight, Newt Gingrich urged the party to let him back into the fold and at least one campaign finance group started to reconsider the wisdom of leaving Akin to fight alone. <ref>

Since making such comments, Akin has drawn over $600,000 in small donations<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/us/politics/todd-akin-counts-on-support-of-home-schoolers.html?ref=politics</ref>.

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2012/09/24/2703769/conservative-fund-considers-backing.html</ref>

== Comments on rape and pregnancy ==
''See also'' [[Media bullying]].

On August 19, 2012, in a local television interview with KTVI, Todd Akin rejected a suggestion that there should be a broad [[rape]] exception to limits on [[abortion]]. Akin distinguished between an actual rape and a false allegation of rape by referring to the former as a "legitimate rape," terminology that the [[liberal media]] then unfairly took out of context to engage in demagoguery against him.

Akin's statement from the interview was:<ref>McMorris-Santoro, Evan. "Republican Senate Nominee: Victims Of ‘Legitimate Rape’ Don’t Get Pregnant." August 19, 2012. Talking Points Memo. http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/todd-akin-legitimate-rape.php</ref>
{{cquote|First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn't work or something, I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.}}
Akin restated the same fact that has been published in the medical literature, which is that the incidence of pregnancy due to rape is rare. For example, the 6th Edition (2012) of the classic textbook by Lentz confirms:<ref>Lentz: Comprehensive Gynecology, 6th ed. (2012)</ref>
{{cquote|In the experience of most sexual assault centers, the chance of pregnancy occurring is quite low.}}
An objective medical commentator, citing a published statistic that pregnancy from rape occurs only 1 in 50 times, observed that Akin was not wrong in his medical observation, and that false allegations of rape obviously do occur.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/akin-not-far-off-base-in-rape-comment/</ref>

Published peer-reviewed studies confirm that stress -- which rape would induce -- interferes with the establishment and maintenance of a pregnancy:<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22687324</ref>
{{cquote|stress-related biomarkers ... affect establishment of pregnancy.}}
"Hormones and other chemicals wreak havoc on the uterus" due to stress, as reported in 2003 in this peer-reviewed study:<ref>http://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-reproduction/news/20030605/how-stress-causes-miscarriage</ref>
{{cquote|In what may prove to be a breakthrough finding, a team of scientists from Tufts University and Greece have identified a suspected chain reaction detailing exactly how stress hormones and other chemicals wreak havoc on the uterus and fetus.}}
The [[Mitt Romney|Romney]]-[[Paul Ryan|Ryan]] campaign, which had already caved in to [[liberals]] on abortion and other important social issues, then ran away from Todd Akin's principled stance in a manner that reflected poorly on Romney and Ryan.<ref>http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/mitt-romney-slams-lawmaker-todd-akins-rape-comments/story-fnd134gw-1226454546819</ref> [[RINO]]s tried to pressure Akin into withdrawing from the race for [[U.S. Senate]], so that a more [[liberal]], Establishment-supported candidate could be nominated. Akin stood up against the pressure and rejected the liberal demands.

Todd Akin has stood up against [[media bullying]] and namecalling by [[liberals]] such as [[Piers Morgan]] of ''[[CNN]]''.<ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/08/piers-morgan-calls-todd-akin-gutless-little-twerp-132635.html</ref>

=== Apology about the Wording ===

In response to the demagoguery against him, Akin issued a general apology to anyone who misunderstood what he was saying.<ref>"Akin says he misspoke when making a comment about rape and abortion during the taping of The Jaco Report on FOX 2." [http://fox2now.com/2012/08/19/the-jaco-report-august-19-2012/] </ref> "I made a mistake. What I said was ill-conceived and it was wrong and for that I apologize." <ref> [http://www.akin.org/]</ref>

President Obama tried unsuccessfully to exploit the issue for personal gain with an unusual statement to the press on August 21: "So what I think these comments do underscore is why we shouldn't have a bunch of politicians, a majority of whom are men, making health-care decisions on behalf of women."<ref name=wsj/> [[RINO Backers]], including Senators [[Mitch McConnell]], [[John Cornyn]], [[Scott Brown]] and [[Ron Johnson]], appeared to be acting on talking points provided to them as they rudely and unsuccessfully urged Akin to withdraw from the race.<ref name=wp>{{cite news|title=Republicans look to force Akin out of Senate race|author=Paul Kane and Nia-Malika Henderson|work=Washington Post|date=August 21, 2012|page=A1}}</ref><ref name=wsj>{{cite news|title=Crucial Senate Race in Uproar|author=Naftali Bendavid and Louise Radnofsky|work=Wall Street Journal|date=August 21, 2012|page=A1}}</ref>

In September, Akin's wife, Lulli, brought more media attention to the "rape" comment by using a rape metaphor in an interview with the ''National Journal''. She said, "Party bosses dictating who is allowed to advance through the party and make all of the decisions — it's just like 1776 in that way." She added that colonalists "rose up and said, 'Not in my home, you don't come and rape my daughters and my ... wife.' But that is where we are again."<ref>{{cite news|title=In Mo. race, that word again|page=A4|work=Washington Post|author=Diana Reese|date=September 18, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/09/18/todd-akin-wife-rape-tyranny-missouri-senate/70000588/1#.UFi2hRg5V4s|title=Akin's wife compares GOP moves to 'tyranny'|work=USAToday|author= Catalina Camia|date=September 18, 2012|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Akin, Todd}}
[[category:politics]]

Underdog

2012-09-26T05:39:27Z

HumanGeographer: Added

An '''underdog''' is a contestant, typically in sports or politics, who is considered likely to lose the contest.

In the [[Christian]] [[United States]], people tend to favor the underdog, particularly in sports. In [[atheistic]] [[Britain]], the opposite is true. For example ''The Weakest Link'', a popular game show in both Britain and the United States, featured a British host who would continually put down the underdog.

In politics, [[Mitt Romney]] has been described by [[Ann Romney|his wife]] as being the underdog during the [[2012 Presidential Election]]. Mr Romney has himself admitted, “It’s always a good thing to be seen as the underdog.” <ref>http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/underdogged/?ref=politics</ref>

== References ==
<references />

== See also ==
*[[Best of the public]]

[[Category:Sports]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Underdog

2012-09-26T05:38:54Z

HumanGeographer: Corrected

An '''underdog''' is a contestant, typically in sports or politics, who is considered likely to lose the contest.

In the [[Christian]] [[United States]], people tend to favor the underdog, particularly in sports. In [[atheistic]] [[Britain]], the opposite is true. For example ''The Weakest Link'', a popular game show in both Britain and the United States, featured a host who would continually put down the underdog.

In politics, [[Mitt Romney]] has been described by [[Ann Romney|his wife]] as being the underdog during the [[2012 Presidential Election]]. Mr Romney has himself admitted, “It’s always a good thing to be seen as the underdog.” <ref>http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/underdogged/?ref=politics</ref>

== References ==
<references />

== See also ==
*[[Best of the public]]

[[Category:Sports]]
[[Category:Politics]]

United States presidential election, 2012

2012-09-26T05:37:50Z

HumanGeographer: Added

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. No incumbent has won reelection in the past 70 years with unemployment above 7.2%; reported unemployment is at 8.3% (and real unemployment much higher) merely 3 months before the election. The [[economy]] grew less than predicted in the first quarter, and "the last time the economy was this slow was in the last year of President [[George H.W. Bush]]’s one term in office" - '''''who then lost reelection'''''.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0427/GDP-report-puts-Obama-in-economic-gray-zone.-Will-Republicans-profit</ref> The September 7 labor report observed, "Just 63.5% of the working-age population was either employed or actively looking for work -- '''''a 30-year low'''''." <ref>http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/07/news/economy/august-jobs-report/index.html</ref>

This election will be like either the election of 1980, when a large bloc of undecided voters moved to the socially [[conservative]] challenger ([[Ronald Reagan]]) in the last few weeks, or the election of 1948, when the [[RINO]] [[Thomas Dewey]] was unable to attract grassroots voters despite the unpopularity of [[Harry Truman]] and the deteriorating economy. Statistically at 45 days remaining before the election, it is very rare for the challenger to garner a large upswing in the polls <ref>http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/the-statistical-state-of-the-presidential-race/?ref=politics</ref>.

Following the [[2012 Republican Primaries]] the [[Republican National Convention]] nominated the [[RINO]] [[Mitt Romney]] for president and [[Paul Ryan]] for vice president, and their strategy appears to be to duck and avoid social issues as much as possible. The selection and Paul Ryan as VP and polling during the first half of the convention showed only a slight bounce in voter support for Romney.

A handful of [[swing state]]s are expected to select the winner. Currently polls show [[Barack Hussein Obama]] with a slight lead in many of these states, but this may change once the [[Presidential debates 2012]] start.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Issue or Factor
![[Mitt Romney]]
![[Barack Obama]]
!Comment
|-
|Social issues
|Romney runs away from them.
|Obama is vocally [[pro-abortion]] and pro-[[same-sex marriage]].
|As with Tom Dewey's loss in 1948, Romney's running away from social issues could cause him to lose the election that he should win in a landslide.
|-
|Economic issues
|Romney favors free enterprise, low taxes, and personal responsibility.
|Obama says he inherited the crisis from [[Republicans]].
|The advantage here is Romney's.
|-
|Likability
|Romney's likability rating stands at only 31%, and has been lower.
|Obama's likability rating is at 48%.
|Advantage to Obama.
|-
|Debates
|Romney is a good debater.
|Obama struggles without a teleprompter, but will benefit from liberal moderators.
|Slight -- but perhaps meaningless due to decreasing television viewership -- advantage to Romney.
|-
|VPs
|Paul Ryan has youth, energy, and likability, but is part of the Big Government Republican leadership in Congress, which has an ultra-low approval rating; Romney has been criticized for not using Ryan more effectively in the campaign.
|Joe Biden is a gaffe-prone goofball, but is protected by the [[liberal media]].
|Toss-up here, or maybe a slight edge to Ryan.
|-
|Fundraising
|Mitt's a strong fundraiser
|Obama's fundraising has been weaker than predicted, but [[limousine liberals]] have donated millions.
|Toss-up here.
|-
|Gaffes/staying on message
|47% of American don't pay income tax and won't vote for me<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2012/0920/Are-Romney-s-47-percent-comments-beginning-to-move-the-polls-video|title=Are Romney's '47 percent' comments beginning to move the polls?|work=Christian Science Monitor|accessdate=September 25, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/1212/Mitt-Romney-gaffes-11-times-the-button-down-candidate-should-have-buttoned-up/My-job-is-not-to-worry-about-those-people|title=Mitt Romney gaffes: 11 times the button-down candidate should have buttoned up|work=Christian Science Monitor|author= Linda Feldmann|accessdate=September 25, 2012}}</ref>/London Olympics not ready comment<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/27/politics/romney-london-troubles/index.html|title=Romney trip begins in shambles|work=CNN|author=Jim Acosta|date=July 27, 2012|accessdate=September 25, 2012}}</ref>
|"[[You didn't build that]]"
|Obama has better control of his message.
|}

== Minor Parties ==

With record-low support for either major party candidate, this could be a year when minor parties do unusually well.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Party
!Candidate
!Comments
|-
|[[Constitution Party]]<ref>http://constitutionparty.com/</ref>
|[[Virgil Goode]]<ref>http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/index.html</ref>
|Popular ex-Congressman from Virginia who had previously won election as a Democrat, Independent, and Republican. Joined the Constitution Party in 2010. Opposes illegal immigration and calls for a reduction in legal immigration as well. Won the Constitution Party nomination for president in April on the first ballot.
|-
|[[Green Party]]<ref>http://www.gp.org/index.php</ref>
|[[Jill Stein]]<ref>http://www.jillstein.org/</ref>
|Defeated [[Roseanne Barr]] for the Green Party nomination. Criticizes Obama for allegedly perpetuating the policies of the Bush administration. Supports the Occupy Wall Street protests. Was previously the Green Party candidate in a series of elections in Massachusetts including a Gubernatorial Election against Mitt Romney (among others).
|-
|Justice Party<ref>http://www.justicepartyusa.org/</ref>
|[[Rocky Anderson]]<ref>http://www.voterocky.org/</ref>
|Former mayor of [[Salt Lake City]], [[Utah]] (2000-08)
|-
||[[Libertarian Party]]<ref>http://www.lp.org/</ref>
|[[Gary Johnson]]<ref>http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/</ref>
|The former [[Republican]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], Johnson favors the fair tax, ending American military actions overseas, legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex marriage. Given Ron Paul's libertarian campaign for the Republican nomination and the exclusion of Johnson from most of the debates, there was little room for Johnson as a Republican this election cycle. He won the Libertarian Party nomination on May 5, 2012.
|-
|Peace and Freedom Party<ref>http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/</ref>
|[[Roseanne Barr]]<ref>http://www.roseanneforpresident2012.org/</ref>
|Comedienne and former TV actress
|-
|Party for Socialism and Liberation<ref>http://www.pslweb.org/</ref>
|Peta Lindsay
|Student and activist (not constitutionally qualified to serve as president - less than 35 years of age)
|-
|America's Party<ref>http://www.selfgovernment.us/</ref>
|[[Tom Hoefling]]<ref>http://www.tomhoefling.com/</ref>
|
|-
|[[Objectivist]] Party<ref>http://www.objectivistparty.us/</ref>
|Tom Stevens
|
|-
|Socialist Workers Party<ref>http://www.themilitant.com/index.shtml</ref>
|[[James Harris]]
|
|-
|Socialist Party USA<ref>http://vote-socialist.org/</ref>
|Stewart Alexander<ref>http://www.stewartalexandercares.com/</ref>
|
|-
|American Third Position Party<ref>http://american3rdposition.com/</ref>
|Merlin Miller<ref>http://merlinmiller2012.com/</ref>
|White Nationalist Party
|-
|Grass Roots Party<ref>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/07/07/grassroots-party-nominates-a-presidential-ticket/</ref>
|Jim Carlson
|
|-
|Freedom Socialist Party<ref>http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/</ref>
|Stephen Durham
|
|-
|Prohibition Party<ref>http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/</ref>
|[[Jack Fellure]]
|
|-
|Socialist Equality Party<ref>http://www.socialequality.com/</ref>
|Jerry White
|
|-
|}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Endorsements 2012]]
*[[Swing States 2012]]
*[[Presidential Election 2012 (disambiguation)]]'' for other presidential elections
*[[Senate Elections 2012]]

[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

Underdog

2012-09-25T03:58:40Z

HumanGeographer: Undo revision 1008881 by MattyD (talk). Leave out unsourced material until can be verified.

An '''underdog''' is a contestant, typically in sports or politics, who is considered likely to lose the contest.

In the [[Christian]] [[United States]], people tend to favor the underdog, particularly in sports.

In politics, [[Mitt Romney]] has been described by [[Ann Romney|his wife]] as being the underdog during the [[2012 Presidential Election]]. Mr Romney has himself admitted, “It’s always a good thing to be seen as the underdog.” <ref>http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/underdogged/?ref=politics</ref>

== References ==
<references />

== See also ==
*[[Best of the public]]

[[Category:Sports]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Education in the United Kingdom

2012-09-25T01:21:14Z

HumanGeographer: Removed contradiction

In the [[United Kingdom]], the term "public school" means the exact opposite of its American usage, and refers to the most expensive and prestigious ''private'' schools, such as [[Eton College]], [[Harrow]], and a few others. The term public was used because the school was open to all public applicants, albeit ones that could afford to pay the fees. The UK equivalent of US public schools are called state schools which provide education for free to all pupils.

The first UK state school, Beverley Grammar School, was founded in 700AD. Despite the fact that around 90% of UK children are educated at one, some state schools are looked down upon due to poor test results and bullying. Recently many of the worst schools have opted to become [[Academy|Academies]] which receive public and private money and must accept local children but are more free to set their own wages<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2007/nov/13/newschools.schools</ref>.

In Britain, many UK state schools, particularly Primary (Elementary) schools, are Christian schools and have daily prayers and hymns at the beginning of the day. Over 1 million children in Britain attend schools connected with the [[Church of England]]. Such schools are funded by the government but attached to churches and as such, the children attend a religious service at least once a week during school time for a service where they pray together and receive blessings. Church schools are recognised for their distinctive Christian ethos and the impact this has on standards and all round education. The proportions of Church schools regarded as 'outstanding' (by Ofsted) is much higher than the national norm and yet the Church schools are fully inclusive. <ref>http://www.churchofengland.org/education/church-schools-academies.aspx</ref>

In addition to the existence of faith schools it a legal requirement for all "maintained schools" (i.e. government funded) within England and Wales to have an act of [[Classroom prayer|collective worship]]. This was signed into law as part of the 1988 Education Act and "must reflect the traditions of this country which are, in the main, broadly [[Christian]]". <ref>http://www.education.gov.uk/a0064979/collective-worship</ref> Liberal teachers often ignore this law and use time available for collective worship to indoctrinate their pupils into their [[Liberalism|ideology]].
==References==
<references/>
[[Category:United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Education]]

Underdog

2012-09-25T01:16:01Z

HumanGeographer: Undo revision 1008872 by MattyD (talk). Please discuss this on edit page.

An '''underdog''' is a contestant, typically in sports or politics, who is considered likely to lose the contest.

In the [[Christian]] [[United States]], people tend to favor the underdog, particularly in sports.

In politics, [[Mitt Romney]] has been described by [[Ann Romney|his wife]] as being the underdog during the [[2012 Presidential Election]]. Mr Romney has himself admitted, “It’s always a good thing to be seen as the underdog.” <ref>http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/underdogged/?ref=politics</ref>

== References ==
<references />

== See also ==
*[[Best of the public]]

[[Category:Sports]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Talk:Underdog

2012-09-25T01:03:03Z

HumanGeographer: Gameshow

==Gameshow==
I've removed the sentence, "In [[atheistic]] [[Britain]], the opposite is true. For example, a popular game show in Britain consisted of putdowns against the underdogs." I don't care who wrote it. If it's going to be in the article, it needs to at least mention WHAT gameshow it was, and preferably a source. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 21:03, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

Underdog

2012-09-25T01:01:16Z

HumanGeographer: Removed. See talk page.

An '''underdog''' is a contestant, typically in sports or politics, who is considered likely to lose the contest.

In the [[Christian]] [[United States]], people tend to favor the underdog, particularly in sports.

In politics, [[Mitt Romney]] has been described by [[Ann Romney|his wife]] as being the underdog during the [[2012 Presidential Election]]. Mr Romney has himself admitted, “It’s always a good thing to be seen as the underdog.” <ref>http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/underdogged/?ref=politics</ref>

== References ==
<references />

== See also ==
*[[Best of the public]]

[[Category:Sports]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Harvard Law School

2012-09-24T16:18:33Z

HumanGeographer: Added

The '''Harvard Law School''' is located in [[Cambridge, Massachusetts|Cambridge]], [[Massachusetts]] just north of [[Harvard Square]] and across the street from the [[Agassiz Museum]]. Many important people have graduated from Harvard Law School, such as the 19th president, [[Rutherford B. Hayes]]; the current president, [[Barack Obama]] and his wife, [[Michelle Obama]].

* [http://www.law.harvard.edu/ Website of Harvard Law School]

[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:Education]]

Underdog

2012-09-23T02:52:31Z

HumanGeographer: Added

An '''underdog''' is a contestant, typically in sports or politics, who is considered likely to lose the contest.

In the [[Christian]] [[United States]], people tend to favor the underdog, particularly in sports.

In politics, Mitt Romney has been described by his wife as being the underdog during the [[2012 Presidential Election]]. Mr Romney has himself admitted, “It’s always a good thing to be seen as the underdog.” <ref>http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/underdogged/?ref=politics</ref>

== References ==
<references />

== See also ==

*[[best of the public]]
[[Category:Sports]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Underdog

2012-09-23T02:51:09Z

HumanGeographer: Corrected

An '''underdog''' is a contestant, typically in sports or politics, who is considered likely to lose the contest.

In the [[Christian]] [[United States]], people tend to favor the underdog, particularly in sports.

In politics, Mitt Romney has been described by his wife as being the underdog during the [[2012 Presidential Election]]<ref>http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/underdogged/?ref=politics</ref>.

== References ==
<references />

== See also ==

*[[best of the public]]
[[Category:Sports]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Underdog

2012-09-23T02:50:42Z

HumanGeographer: Added reflist

An '''underdog''' is a contestant, typically in sports or politics, who is considered likely to lose the contest.

In the [[Christian]] [[United States]], people tend to favor the underdog, particularly in sports.

In politics, Mitt Romney has been described by his wife as being the underdog during the [[2012 Presidential Election]]<ref>http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/underdogged/?ref=politics</ref>.

== References ==
<reflist />

== See also ==

*[[best of the public]]
[[Category:Sports]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Underdog

2012-09-23T02:50:11Z

HumanGeographer: Added about politics

An '''underdog''' is a contestant, typically in sports or politics, who is considered likely to lose the contest.

In the [[Christian]] [[United States]], people tend to favor the underdog, particularly in sports.

In politics, Mitt Romney has been described by his wife as being the underdog during the [[2012 Presidential Election]]<ref>http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/underdogged/?ref=politics</ref>.

== See also ==

*[[best of the public]]
[[Category:Sports]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Underdog

2012-09-23T02:49:17Z

HumanGeographer: Removed claim with no reference

Wikipedia

2012-08-15T22:47:19Z

HumanGeographer: Undo revision 1000481 by AngusT (talk) Vandalism.

[[File:Wikipedia-logo.png|right|200px]]

'''Wikipedia''' is [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|a politically left leaning]] [[communist]] online [[wiki]]-based [[encyclopedia]]<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm</ref> project written and edited by an ''ad hoc'' assemblage of mostly [[anonymous]] persons who are mostly, according to the ''Register'' (UK),<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/mar/08/media.comment</ref><ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref> teenagers and [[unemployment|unemployed persons]].<ref>[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]</ref> Wikipedia editors, unlike Conservapedia, are overwhelmingly young males<ref>In 2009, a survey conducted by the Wikipedia Foundation came out concerning the typical Wikipedia editor that declared the average age of an editor is 26.8 years and 87% of the editors are men. [http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds]</ref> - a demographic associated with self-centered belief systems and behavior.

In 2008, the ''American Journalism Review'' declared concerning Wikipedia:
{{cquote|"An even more blunt assessment appears in the encyclopedia's "Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia" posting: "We do not expect you to trust us. It is in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish." It also reminds users not to use Wikipedia as a primary source or for making "critical decisions."<ref>http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4461</ref>}}
The project was initiated by [[atheism|atheist]] and [[entrepreneur]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and the [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[philosophy]] [[professor]] [[Larry Sanger]] on January 15, 2001.<ref>http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/</ref> An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's "spiritual leader".<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/</ref> Despite its official "neutrality policy," [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias.]] In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'' [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation at the Wikipedia website.<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> In December of 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".<ref>http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia</ref>

Wikipedia has millions of entries on topics ranging from an explanation for "duh"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh (only after Conservapedia criticized the entry on the English word "duh" did Wikipedia eventually remove it)</ref> to singles by obscure rock bands<ref>such as ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honk_If_You_Love_Fred_Durst Honk If You Love Fred Durst]'' (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> to arcane British nobility.<ref>Part of the article about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell Henry Liddell], a 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University and author, includes that his grandfather was the youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, and that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, and 130 have more than 1000 articles.<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia], accessed April 1, 2007.</ref> After about four years Wikipedia had about 450,000 entries,<ref>Aaron Weiss, The Unassociated Press, N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2005, at G5.</ref> and after six years it had about 1.7 million entries.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed April 1, 2007</ref> Four years later this number had more than doubled again: in November 2011, there are more than 3.8 million content pages.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed May 6, 2011</ref> On However, the quality of these articles is up for dispute, given the [[Wikipedia#Leftist_bias|evidence of systematic bias]].

==Origins==
[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|200px|Multilingual Wikipedia Home Page]]
Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.<ref>Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts, "WIKIPEDIA," The Independent (London) p. 12 (Feb 13, 2006)</ref> In 2003, Jimbo Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation to oversee the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that provides support for Wikipedia and other similar projects,<ref>[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home Wikimedia Foundation] accessed April 7, 2007</ref> and also the free MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia and Conservapedia.<ref>[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki home] accessed April 7, 2007</ref>
== Leftist bias ==

See also: [[Leftist roots of Wikipedia]]

David Swindle writes at [[FrontPage Magazine]]:
{{cquote|There was not a single ideological vision driving Wikipedia’s founders and core contributors as they launched the project. Jimmy Wales, who would become the face of the project and its “benevolent dictator,” according to Andrew Lih’s ''The Wikipedia Revolution'', is a libertarian and [[Ayn Rand|Ayn Randian]] [[Objectivism|Objectivist]]. Also important in shaping Wikipedia was the so-called “hacker ethos,” the culture that has developed amongst computer programmers over the last 40 years and been shaped by the Left, the counterculture, popular culture, and [[anarchism|anarchist]] thought.

What binds together these ideologies is a [[Utopia|utopian]] ideal that human beings are more prone to [[altruism]] rather than self-interest. In Wikipedia Revolution Wales is quoted as saying, “Generally we find most people out there on the internet are good… It’s one of the wonderful humanitarian discoveries in Wikipeda, that most people only want to help us and build this free nonprofit, charitable resource.” Ward Cunningham was the programmer who created the wiki concept and software. According to Lih, he believed in the Wiki because “People are generally good.”

Lih explains how this philosophy is embedded within Wikipedia’s rules:

A core idea Wikipedia embraced.. was to assume good faith when interacting with others. The guideline promoted optimistic production rather than pessimistic nay-saying, and reads, “Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it; avoid accusing others of harmful motives without particularly strong evidence.

But as it worked out, Wikipedia in practice has strayed from these utopian ideas because of the ease with which political and social bias trumps altruism.

After almost a decade of rapid growth and free-wheeling experimentation the situation at the site by the Summer of 2009 was chaos. Political operatives would sabotage one another in electoral contests by vandalizing pages. More malicious misinformation filtered in freely, with living historical figures accused of involvement in conspiratorial plots.<ref>http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/</ref>}}

[[File:Peter-Singer.jpg|right|thumbnail|250px|The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of [[bestiality]] (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]]). Despite holding these immoral views the [[liberal]] and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> See: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] ]]

=== Research ===

On August 23, 2011, David Swindle published an article at ''[[FrontPage Magazine]]'' detailing how Wikipedia has been taken over by the [[Leftist|political left]] and he cited statistics relating to Wikipedia's articles on [[Anne Coulter]], [[Michael Moore]], [[Glenn Beck]] and [[Keith Olbermann]] which helped demonstrate the Wikipedia has a leftist/[[liberal]] bias plus he discussed the liberal/leftist cultural foundations of Wikipedia.<ref>[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]</ref>

For example, Swindle wrote:

<blockquote>"Consider Ann Coulter versus Michael Moore. Coulter’s entry (on August 9, 2011) was 9028 words long.* Of this longer-than-usual entry, 3220 words were devoted to “Controversies and criticism” in which a series of incidents involving Coulter and quotes from her are cited with accompanying condemnations, primarily from her opponents on the Left. That’s 35.6 percent of Coulter’s entry devoted to making her look bad. By contrast, Moore’s entry is 2876 words (the more standard length for entries on political commentators), with 130 devoted to “Controversy.” That’s 4.5% of the word count, a fraction of Coulter’s. Does this mean that an “unbiased” commentator would find Coulter eight times as “controversial” as Moore?"<ref>[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]</ref></blockquote>

==Hearsay==
Wikipedia has a policy that information can only be added if a reference stating it can already be found elsewhere. In other words, it relies on [[hearsay]] and discourages independent thought, the application of [[logic]] and new development of new insights. The result is a colossal agglomeration of reheated "consensus" with little or no intellectual merit of its own; in particular, it is impossible to challenge orthodoxy, received wisdom or commonly held misconceptions through the Wikipedia system, no matter how factually incorrect those orthodoxies might be.

Worse still, Wikipedia's ubiquity has caused this attitude to be widely adopted in some circles outside the site, creating a [[hearsay society]] where all the above problems are reproduced and magnified, to the intellectual and material detriment of all.

== Wikipedia on bestiality ==

''See also:'' [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]]

As noted earlier, the Wikipedia project was initiated by [[atheism|atheists]] and [[entrepreneur]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and the [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[philosophy]] [[professor]] [[Larry Sanger]] on January 15, 2001.<ref>http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/</ref>

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. As of July 18, 2012, Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia zoophilia/bestiality] has an entire section on "arguments for zoophilia" plus pictures depicting zoophilia as well as a section on "arguments against zoophilia". No worthwhile encyclopedia in existence has an article on zoophilia/bestiality with an entire section on "arguments for zoophilia" plus pictures depicting zoophilia. As of September 24, 2011, Wikipedia has a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law Zoophilia and the law"] article which has a section on the impact of zoophilia laws where eight alleged negative impacts of zoophilia laws are given, but no positive impacts of the laws are given.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law#Impact_of_laws|title=Impact of laws section of "Zoopilia and the law"|date=July 17, 2012|accessdate=July 18, 2012}}</ref>

See also: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

==Economics==

Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the [[Wikia]] project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/|title=Wikipedia: Special Treatment for Wikia and some other Wikis|author=Nik Cubrilovic|date=April 28, 2007|accessdate=July 22, 2012}}</ref><ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-January/061137.html</ref>

''The Register'' said:<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref>
:Wikipedia has tried to balance the Utopian goal of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" with the more utilitarian goal of "a website anyone would want to read". With over a million articles, and a rulebook almost as dense, Wikipedia has demonstrated an insatiable desire to participate, create lists and generate procedures. The result is a huge silo of recorded trivia, and perhaps the world's largest, most distributed bureaucracy - mostly manned by a casual staff of teenagers and the unemployed.

==Quality==
''In other words—and this is the rock-solid principle on which the whole of the Corporation’s Galaxywide success is founded—their fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws.''
—Douglas Adams

Wikipedia, which is written by anyone, still struggles to solve the need for traditional quality controls characteristic of conventional [[encyclopedia]]s. The self-policing practices has produced results and accuracy far better than originally expected. But still the lack of consistency and uniform supervision leaves an ever present shadow over any given piece of information. It has come to receive high grades for accuracy, but still many in the [[academy]] insist that it is unreliable source for [[research]] and an unacceptable reference in many classrooms. Perhaps these reactions are inevitable. Nevertheless, Wikipedia steers people to original [[source material]], and with the use of [[hyperlink]]s and [[search engine]]s, it has become the most widely used intermediary [[reference]] tool on the [[Internet]].

==[[Liberal bias]]==

''See also:'' [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]

Wikipedia shows a systematic bias in that tiny proportion of articles which treat controversial issues. It ignores its own [[NPOV]] policy when it allows contributors to "delete well-referenced information" merely because it comes from a [[scientist]] who holds a [[minority view]]. It would only be a violation, if the article used the information to give a false impression of the proportion of scientists adhering to that view, but liberals use "[[undue weight]]" like a sledge hammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias.

This is not surprising, given this [[Zogby]] poll:

While 97% of [[Republican]]s surveyed said the media are [[liberal]], two-thirds of [[political independent]]s feel the same, but fewer than one in four independents (23%) said they saw a "conservative bias". [[Democrat]]s, while much more likely to perceive a conservative bias than other groups, were not nearly as sure the [[media]] was against them as were the Republicans. While Republicans were unified in their perception of a [[left-wing]] media, just two-thirds of Democrats were certain the media skewed [[right-wing|right]] – and 17% said the bias favored the left.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262

==Scandals and decline==

[[Image:Wikipedia scandals.jpg|thumb|450px|right|Decline in Wikimedia Foundation donations.<ref>[http://centiare.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia scandals]. Retrieved from centiare.com October 10, 2007.</ref> Graph courtesy [http://www.centiare.com/Directory:Gregory_J._Kohs Gregory Kohs]. Used with Permission.]]The cumulative effect of multiple scandals and revelations has led to declining activity on the English Wikipedia. The rate of new account creation peaked in early 2007 and has declined ~30% since. Overall editing activity showed a steady decline beginning in February 2007. An independent analysis reported, "The rate at which edits were being made to Wikipedia articles appears to have peaked in February to April 2007 and declined since. This decline is unprecedented in Wikipedia's history.... Though it may be purely coincidental, this time frame also corresponds to the Essjay controversy appearing in the press."<ref>[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-October/033661.html Statistical Decline of the English Wikipedia], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_flight/Log_analysis Dragons flight/Log analysis], October 9, 2007.</ref>

Even after the hoax was revealed of high level intimates promoted by the Wikimedia Foundation as experts in fields that they were not, to persuade college professors to allow students to cite Wikipedia as a reliable source, and entrusted with the ability to invade users privacy which could affect, in their words, "life and death," Wikipedia still appealed to students with a Jim and Tammy Faye Baker-style fundraising slogan across one million project space pages that read, "OMG! Wikipedia is gone! I’ll flunk my exams!" [http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/11/24/omg-wikipedia-is-gone-ill-flunk-my-exams/]

==False claim about Brent Bozell==

In March 2007, Brent Bozell described this falsehood in Wikipedia:<ref>http://www.creators.com/opinion/brent-bozell/not-your-father-s-encyclopedia.html</ref>

:The other day, Bernie Goldberg emailed me, upset. He pointed me to his Wikipedia entry. To read what was written was to conclude that apparently I must hate his guts. But we are friends. He is a man for whom I have profound respect, professional and personal. He knew there was foul play.

:Right there on the screen, under the heading "Criticism," it stated that I had attacked him, "claiming that Goldberg merely lifted material he had been producing for years, and only published the book because he had an ax to grind with his former employers and was attempting to make a 'quick buck,' noting that Goldberg never mentioned the alleged liberal bias of the media until it was 'convenient' and 'profitable' for him to do so." ...

:In fact, those words have never been uttered by me. The accusation would be false. Back in 1996, Goldberg used the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal publicly to castigate his own network for its one-sided oafish bashing of Steve Forbes. It was anything but "convenient" or "profitable" for him. It ruined his friendship with Dan Rather and put him on a path to the outer fringes of CBS "News. Ultimately, it ruined his newscaster career.

:My attorney contacted Wikipedia by email demanding the removal of this false entry. No response. So we edited out the offensive material ourselves, after which in writing counsel alerted Wikipedia to the legal action that might befall them should this be repeated. Here's full disclosure, Wikipedia-style: You can see how each article is altered, sometimes hour by hour, in its "History" section. But there is no mention of the attorney's complaints. In the Goldberg article's history, an editor simply now scolds: "Bozell's article is a mock-jealous swipe at Goldberg's opportunism. PLEASE REREAD IT." (Capitals theirs.)

:Goldberg and I are not alone. The website Conservapedia.com has a [[Bias in Wikipedia|long list]] of 41 allegations of bias and factual errors at Wikipedia. You can add to that the problem with the credentials of its staff. One of its editors, named only "Essjay" online and described on his user profile "as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law," was recently exposed as a 24-year-old college kid in Kentucky. He resigned in disgrace — even though Wikipedia tried to retain him, claiming he'd edited thousands of articles with flair.

Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, '''Wikipedia instead says "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism."'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell accessed April 1, 2007</ref>

==Rewriting its own history==

The Associated Press and others credit Larry Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2007/mar/25/032502465.html
</ref> But the Associated Press quotes Jimmy Wales as denying it:<ref>''id.''</ref>

:"When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger's absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia."

:"I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable," he added. This is an interesting comment, considering that Larry Sanger takes credit for coining the name, "Wikipedia."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_20#Sorry.2C_Jimbo.2C_but_not_buying_it. User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 20, Larry Sanger 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)]</ref>

:"I am not bent out of shape about it," he wrote. "The facts are on my side, which is why I bother so little about it."

According to the Associated Press, Jimmy Wales "has repeatedly tried to address this - even going so far as editing his own Wikipedia biography to tone down credit for Sanger. Such autobiographical contributions are frowned upon in Wikipedia's community, and Wales apologized after his changes were noticed and publicized by blogger Rogers Cadenhead in 2005."<ref>''id.''</ref>

Jimmy Wales has admitted that certain administrators, contrary to their own rules, have at times completely removed editing evidence.

== Seigenthaler scandal ==

In early October 2005 a prominent and respected journalist [[John Seigenthaler Sr.]], contacted Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] about false and libelous content in his biographical entry. Essjay, a 24 year old Wikipedia Administrator who was advancing rapidly in the organization, was dispatched to handle the situation.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> An anonymous contributor added to Seigenthaler's biography the previous May,
:"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General [[Robert Kennedy]] in the early 1960s. For a short time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both [[John F. Kennedy|John]], and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven," and "John Seigenthaler moved to the [[Soviet Union]] in 1971, and returned to the [[United States]] in 1984. He started one of the country's largest public relations firms shortly thereafter."

Wales told Seignethaler that Wikipedia is "accountable" and corrects mistakes immediately, but that the internet service provider of the anonymous user probably would not be helpful in identifying who placed the content.<ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref> Accountability activist [[Daniel Brandt]], a victim of a spurious biographical entry by Wikipedia Administrators, identified the place of employment of the anonymous user, and from there the person accountable was identified.<ref>http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&article=336&author=India+Camm</ref>

Seigenthaler returned to the editorial pages of ''USA Today'' from which he retired as its first editorial manager to write an Op-Ed piece critical of Wikipedia and the threat it poses to free speech due of its overt provocation of government regulation, its irresponsible self regulation and lack of accountability.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm A false Wikipedia 'biography'], By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref>

=== CNN interview ===

On December 5, 2005 Wales and Seigenthaler appeared on [[CNN]]. An exchange between CNN moderator [[Kyra Phillips]] and Wales went like this:
{{Cquote|PHILLIPS:...I ran my name. I was shocked to see what was under my name. ...I'm telling you right now, Jimmy, that's not how I want people to see me and understand me. And what I'm about and what I write about in my interviews, et cetera. So, you know, it's not just individuals like John, but me and many other people, that just have concerns that this is creating gossip that can be very harmful. And people go to these sites thinking that this is the truth.}}
{{Cquote|WALES: Well, I mean, I think the real key is that the site matures over time, the -- all of the articles are edited over and over and over, and improved. Anyone's free to contribute. You're free to go and contribute.}}

This in fact is not the case. Phillips was not free to remove objectionable content within her biographical entry, as Daniel Brandt at that exact moment was discovering. Not four days prior, Wales told ''Editor & Publisher'' magazine regarding Brandt's objections to a false Wikipedia biography created by Wikipedia Administrators about him, "I find it hard to take him very seriously at all," and libelous slanders remained in Brandt's biography for a year and half. Wales told CNN, "we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns."

Seigenthaler told the audience "with accountability comes credibility" and expressed fear that, "I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result."<ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html</ref>

On December 9, Seigenthaler appeared on C-SPAN's ''Washington Journal'' with Brian Lamb and articulated his concern that members of Congress or other powerful figures in government may likewise be targeted. On November 2, 2006, days before the mid-term Congressional elections, an anonymous IP address traced to the ''[[New York Times]]'' changed [[U.S. House of Representatives]] [[Majority Leader]] [[Tom DeLay]]'s Wikipedia biographical entry from "a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]" to "Grand Dragon of the Republican Party."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&diff=prev&oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]</ref><ref>[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&location= WikiScanner]</ref>

Seigenthaler wrote a more expansive column in the ''The Tennessean'' after the November 30 ''USA Today'' piece appeared,
{{Cquote|a sudden stream of invective — homophobic, anti-Semitic and racist — spilled, as if from a sewer, onto the Wikipedia page under my name. ..It identified me as ...a "Nazi," "fascist-oriented" ....murderer ...there also was the profile picture of Adolf Hitler over the caption, "Press photo of Seigenthaler." The accompanying line: "He is secretly responsible for killing all the Jews." }}

=== Accountability and Section 230 ===
[[Image:Wikifascists.JPG|thumb|275px|right|From Wikipedia Watch. [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/] The inscription reads, ''"Two wikifascists find someone without a biography."'']]
Upon his retirement from ''USA Today'', Seigenthaler founded of the First Amendment Center, an organization dedicated to a national dialogue about [[First Amendment]] rights and values. Seigenthaler criticized passage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 states that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker." Unlike print and broadcast companies, internet service providers (ISP's) cannot be sued for disseminating defamatory attacks on citizens posted by others. Seigenthaler noted [[Jimbo Wales]] told [[Brian Lamb]] in a [[C-Span]] interview that Wikipedia is accountable and that mistakes are corrected within minutes, but the false information remained in Seigenthaler's biography for five months. Seigenthaler concluded,
{{Cquote|And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research — but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects.<ref>A false Wikipedia 'biography', By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref>}}

In the case of ''Zeran v. AOL'', Zeran sued AOL for refusing to screen and remove defamatory messages, even after Zeran notified the ISP of their existence. The lower court ruled for the service provider and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the decision, noting that the intent of Section 230 was to (1) remove incentives on service providers to restrict speech on the Internet and (2) encourage self regulation by service providers.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=916529</ref><ref>http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/newcyber.pdf</ref>

An American citizen who posts material on the Internet that is illegal in a foreign country could be prosecuted if he subjected himself to the jurisdiction of that country. Internet users who export material that is illegal, that is to say, post material that is accessible and illegal in some foreign countries may be subject to prosecution in that country. However, under American law, the United States will not extradite a person for engaging in a constitutionally protected activity even if that activity violates a criminal law elsewhere.<ref>http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/nazism.pdf</ref>

=== Essjay given oversight ===
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Essjay scandal]]

Essjay wrote a professor to persuade her to allow her students to use Wikipedia as a viable source of information and posted a verbatim copy of the email for others to use. Essjay stated, "I was the administrator who deleted the inappropriate revisions when Mr. Seigenthaler contacted our founder, [[Jimmy Wales]]; it is quite unfortunate that a relatively minor issue on a relatively minor figure has provided so much negative publicity.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> Seigenthaler noted in his Op-Ed piece, "The motive for the salacious stuff directed at me is reasonably obvious," and quoted some comments, "We all at Wikipedia think he (Seigenthaler) is a horrible, stupid p...k for complaining about small inaccuracies in his biography."<ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref>

Others said, "Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," and “if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it.” This again, was not true. Even prior to the Wikipedia policy, '''Biographies of Living Persons''', [[conflict of interest]] restrictions existed on the subject of an article editing their own entry. Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat."<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
[[Image:Seigraph.gif|400px|thumb|right|The Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia" as curiosity seekers to view the [[misinformation]] skyrocketed Alexa rankings.]]
Despite the damage to an innocent person and divulgence of Wikipedia's precarious claim as a viable source, the Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as a triumph and considered "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Seigenthaler,_Sr.#The_best_thing_that_ever_happened_to_Wikipedia Talk:John Seigenthaler Sr.#The best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia], retrieved 23 March 2007.</ref> catapulting it into a top ten most visited website as curiosity seekers responded to the negative publicity.<ref>[http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t1100.html Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander], Joel Leyden, Israel News Agency, 8 May 2006.</ref>

The scandal was originally billed as a "hoax", then "controversy," then downgraded to "incident," and now re-upgraded to "controversy," evidently in response to criticism. The Wikipedia entry on "Seigenthaler controversy" contains [[disinformation]], making the claim, "After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages." No actions were ever taken to require disclosure of the real life identities of contributors. Barring unregistered users from creating new pages had nothing to do with the Seigenthaler scandal--the page already existed when an anonymous IP added the false information. Registration of accounts requires no accountability of the real life identity of the contributor. Indeed many experienced Wikipedia editors and Administrators have dozens of registered accounts, called "sockpuppet accounts." Protecting the identities of anonymous high-level Administrators has always been more of a priority to the WikiMedia Foundation than the propagation of false information about real life persons whose identities are known. Wales was asked by ''BusinessWeek'' magazine, “Why do you feel it is important to allow contributors and site administrators to remain anonymous?” Wales responded, “there are definitely people working in Wikipedia who may have privacy reasons for not wanting their name on the site….there are lots of reasons for privacy online that aren’t nefarious.”<ref> http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm</ref> In the Seigenthaler case, it was the odd circumstance that a victim of false information had a large enough platform to respond, coupled with the welcome fact that the victim fundamentally opposes government regulation of internet speech.

Wikipedia's "Seigenthaler controversy" also states, "The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction].</ref> one of whom was Essjay.

This ban on anonymous page creation “reform” was abandoned less than two years later as Wikipedia's usage and ratings slumped in the wake of yet more scandals and questions about Wikipedia's culture, core content policies, and endemic lack of accountability.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084292.html</ref>

==Brandt / Berlet feud==
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Daniel Brandt controversy]]
An ugly far-left sectarian dispute<ref>[http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/5.html Laird Wilcox], ''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups'', Second Edition, Part 2, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 21. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.</ref> reared its head in 2005 with disastrous consequences for the site's credibility. The feud had been dormant for many years until the need to elevate a “controversial and notable expert” above the level of “partisan and extreme” defined by its own policies became apparent which would have precluded the so-called “expert” as "a source for anything other than himself,” as Wikipedia's ever fluid policies dictate.

Daniel Brandt, founder of Namebase,<ref>http://www.namebase.org/</ref> Google Watch, and Wikipedia Watch, removed [[Chip Berlet]] from his Board of Advisors in 1991 when Berlet refused to sit on the same Board which included Fletcher Prouty." Prouty, a retired Air Force colonel whose intelligence career stretched back to accompanying President [[Franklin Roosevelt]] to the [[Teheran conference]], was allegorically portrayed as the mysterious “Man X”<ref>[http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/lfprouty.htm Leroy Fletcher Prouty, Jr., Colonel, United States Air Force], [[Arlington National Cemetery]] Website, Retrieved November 4, 2007.</ref> by [[Donald Southerland]] in [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, [[JFK]]. A Brandt biographical page was created using Berlet as the source for unsavory attacks on Brandt. Brandt describes himself as an "accountability activist"<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/your_take_roundupbelievers_neg.html Believers, Negativists Debate Wikipedia’s Trustworthiness], by Mark Glaser, 20 April 2006. Retrieved from pbs.org October 29, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt Wikiquote/Daniel Brandt#Sourced]</ref> and claims he originally began working with Wikipedia editors in good faith during October 2005 but any biographical information he revealed was spun against him to depict him in a negative light. Brandt states,
{{Cquote|I soon realized that it was also about Berlet, who was still bent on undermining me. Berlet was using Wikipedia as part of his political agenda, and he was successful in this.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&st=40&p=21441&mode=linear#entry21441</ref>}}
Berlet's biography underwent an extensive revision with most of the substantive NPOV criticism cut out. The revising editor commented, "I kept Daniel Brandt, not because I feel he's a credible source, but because there's so little published criticism of Berlet, that I felt I had to retain something."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&diff=prev&oldid=9161554 Chip Berlet/Talk, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 January 2005].</ref> This is an extraordinary statement and raises the question why the same high-level Administrator and author of several of Wikipedia's core content and citation policies, including '''Wikipedia:Reliable Sources''' and '''Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons''' ('''BLP'''),<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> would use a source she did not consider credible.

===Biographies of living persons===

Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP) policy did not come into being because of the [[Seigenthaler scandal]], but rather over the Brandt controversy, as the originating editor noted in an edit summary.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> Brandt requested Wikipedia delete his biographical entry, and ceased working with editors he suspected of working to further the propagation of false information about him.

''Editor & Publisher'' magazine bills itself as the nation’s oldest trade journal serving the newspaper industry with roots dating back to 1884. Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] responded to questions from ''Editor & Publisher'' in a prepared statement on December 1, 2005 about Daniel Brandt saying,
{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all<ref>[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor & Publisher'', December 01, 2005.</ref>}}

Wales comments added '''undue weight'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight</ref> ('''WP:UNDUE''') to criticism of Brandt when placed within his biographical entry. Brandt demanded accountability from the army of unidentified Wikipedia Administrators furthering [[Chip Berlet]]'s agenda to destroy Brandt's credibility, and elevate Berlet's own as a Wikipedia "expert."
[[Image:294577483 90fd22f5cd m.jpg|thumb|300px|right|From '''WikiTruth''', the inscription reads, 
"''The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!'']]
Brandt became known as the scourge of the Wikipedia Admin community. WikiTruth says in its ''Brandt the Boogeyman'' entry,
{{Cquote|he dates back to a time when people would look up facts in books and would verify information without just doing a copy and paste from an AP news article and thinking they were done. He compares writing styles, he calls government agencies, and he writes letters. And when he's done, he tends to know. Or at least, he knows where he stands in terms of information. He's rather tenacious about getting stuff right.

Wikipedia, of course, doesn't do this much at all: depending on the day, they'll laud a link to a website as being absolutely useless (it's on the WEB, of course) and then the next minute link to a different website to back a "fact" up. Citing books and printed materials is often a no-go, because nobody can read the original citation, so it gets swept away as well. Really, you have no idea what's good and what's bad, and it's all one big happy soup-hug.

Therefore, guys like Daniel Brandt are horrible for Wikipedia: he researches. He finds laws that pertain to situations. He asks the tough questions that could upset the whole Wiki-cart.}}

==The Wordbomb Saga==
[[Image:Patrick byrne overstock small.jpg|thumb|right|Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne [http://www.overstock.com/Patrick-Byrne-and-naked-short-selling/7371/static.html]]]
One of Wikipedia’s most bitter and drawn-out disputes, chronicled in ''The Register,''<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/</ref> centers around the assertion by representatives of Overstock.com<ref>http://www.overstock.com/community</ref> that a [[Mainstream media|mainstream financial journalist]] Gary Weiss had been editing Wikipedia to impose his point of view on a series of articles relevant to the company. Weiss was once a reporter with BusinessWeek, in 2007 became a columnist with Forbes, and had for over 10 years been posting under fake names to confuse, distort, hijack Usenet groups, stock message boards, and Wikipedia, to prevent the public from understanding criminal activity.<ref>http://www.deepcapture.com/gary-weiss-scaramouch-psychopath/</ref> Weiss was notorious around the Internet for his public feud with Overstock<ref>http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/2007/05/overstockcoms-ethical-dilemma.html</ref> and its CEO Patrick Byrne,<ref>http://allantyoung.com/2008/09/22/patrick-byrne-vindicated/</ref> ridiculing their campaign against the controversial practice of [[Naked Short Selling]].

In 2006, Judd Bagley, an ally of Overstock’s Patrick Byrne having interviewed the CEO for a personal project, began editing Wikipedia to counter what was perceived to be a skewed representation of Naked Short Selling and Overstock.com. He was swiftly dispatched by influential Wikipedia administrators.

Shortly after, Bagley became Overstock’s Director of Communications, and embarked on an aggressive campaign to publicize the dispute on various websites, aiming to expose the administrators he held responsible for protecting Weiss. Using the moniker “Wordbomb”, Bagley presented evidence<ref>http://antisocialmedia.net/final-word-on-weiss/</ref> suggesting that not only was Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia using the name “User:Mantanmoreland“,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mantanmoreland</ref> but that he was operating other accounts to manipulate consensus and protect his interests in the dispute. Mantanmoreland violated Wikipedia policies against Conflict of Interest and No Self Promotion by creating an article about himself.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Weiss&diff=prev&oldid=48341962</ref> Bagley proved Weiss had edited Wikipedia from one of two main IPs used by the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC),<ref>http://www.dtcc.com/about/business/index.php</ref> the organization charged with settling about a quadrillion stock trades each year. The DTCC is also the organization Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne said acts an enabler of perpetrators of illegal naked short selling of many public companies.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=10360&st=0&p=36485&mode=linear#entry36485</ref>

Wikipedia responded to Bagley’s campaign in typical schoolyard fashion. The dispute was escalated by a small clique of powerful Wikipedians who seemed less interested in the truth of Bagley’s assertions, and more concerned with attacking perceived threats to the status quo at Wikipedia. With the approval of [[Jimbo Wales]], administrators sided with “Mantanmoreland” / Gary Weiss, and anointed Bagley / Wordbomb an “Enemy Of The Wiki” who needed to be silenced — a “stalker” and a “harasser” for publicizing the details of the person who had been editing relevant articles on Wikipedia, and the people who had been stopping him from doing the same.

For nearly two years, Bagley’s name was invoked to inspire paranoia in the Wikipedia Admin Community to keep questioning editors in line. It became a textbook case for analysis of the intense group-think Wikipedia has become notorious for.
[[Image:Judd bagley overstock.jpg|thumb|left|175px|Judd Bagley was made a target at the highest levels of Wikipedia and became a victim of a global [[witchhunt]] by the Wikipedia Admin Community for daring to expose an unholy alliance of abuse and [[corruption]] on [[Wall Street]] and in the Wikipedia cabal. [http://antisocialmedia.net/] ]]
Bagley was repeatedly disparaged<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15897</ref> by a cabal of out-of-control administrators such as Guy Chapman, who denounced Bagley as “lunatic” and “evil” when it suited. UK Wikimedia representative David Gerard banned an entire area of Utah to prevent Bagley raising his issues and made personally disparaging remarks.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard/archive_5#User:204.15.84.2</ref> Wikipedia Arbitrator Fred Bauder claimed that Bagley’s blog AntiSocialMedia.net showed “moral depravity”<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision&diff=158954587&oldid=158809362</ref> for challenging the Wiki-elite. Administrator Phil Sandifer dismissed Bagley in highly personal and offensive language while boasting<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083509.html</ref> that he himself had become a “powerful and trusted administrator on the 9th biggest website in the world.”

Other editors who raised Overstock’s quite legitimate complaints were banned as proxies of Judd Bagley. Paranoia had taken such a hold that editors with productive records from all over the US, and as far afield as Europe and Asia found themselves accused of being Bagley. When the editor Cla68<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Cla68</ref> questioned the issue of Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia, he was swiftly blocked by administrator Durova on the orders of Jimbo Wales who wrote,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Weiss&diff=165916446&oldid=165916313</ref> “Durova and Guy have my full support here. No nonsense, zero tolerance, shoot on sight. No kidding, this has gone on long enough”.

A study<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie/Investigation</ref> undertaken by concerned administrators into the editing patterns of “Mantanmoreland” came to fruition. Despite the “Mantanmoreland” account ceasing edits on Overstock / Naked Short Selling articles in September 2007, the study revealed evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the same person had been operating several accounts to “control” articles. Thus affirming Bagley’s claims.

More worryingly for good faith Wikipedians was the revelation<ref>http://www.wikback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2762#Post2757</ref><ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting/print.html</ref> that [[Jimbo Wales]], alongside leading administrators, had considered that this person was almost certainly Gary Weiss in a private discussion as long ago as September 2007 (the same month the “Mantanmoreland” account quit editing the relevant articles). Meaning that behind the scenes, they were admitting that Bagley was probably right all along, yet in public were vilifying or blocking anyone who publicly stated so.

After the [[financial meltdown of 2008]], the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] issued directives aimed at curbing abusive naked short selling.<ref>[http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20090728_SEC_short-selling_rule_is_permanent.html]</ref> Patrick Byrne has been widely recognized as in the forefront of the movement aimed at curbing such abuses.<ref>http://www.investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/?q=node/425</ref>

==Michael Moore==
[[Image:Moorecagan.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Moore with [[Leslie Cagan]] [[United For Peace and Justice]] [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=629] ]]
The website MichaelMoore.com, dissatisfied with a Wikipedia editor's edits to ''[[Sicko]]'', published an image of a Wikipedia user on its main page. This was combined with links to edit both ''Sicko'' and the editor's user page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Michael_Moore] Several Wikipedia editors and Administrators regarded this action on the part of [[Michael Moore]]'s official website as an egregious violation of a well publicized ruling to protect Wikipedia editors from outside harassment. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Michael_Moore][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Michael_Moore_2] The consensus, per Wikipedia's policy was to remove links from Wikipedia to Michael Moore's attack site which was urging vengeance and reprisals against an editor who posted criticism of Moore's film.

In Arbitration, Wikipedia's internal policy making and dispute resolution arm, the Arbitration chairman publicly admitted,
{{Cquote|No question it contained an attack, including a link to edit our user's page. The problem is that many of us like Michael Moore very much and don't care much for the viewpoint of the user involved. Applying our policy in a rote manner (Without consideration of '''the unwritten rule that we support prominent subjects that we like''') yields removal of the link (At least while it contained the personal attack).<ref>Wikien-1 [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082980.html Harassment sites], Fred Bauder, Sun Oct 14 19:03:28 UTC 2007.</ref>}}

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#_note-0] The ArbCom chairman further stated, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", the ArbCom chairman responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] The editor whom Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]

==Sinbad hoax==
On March 16 2007, Wikipedia entry on the 50-year old entertainer Sinbad, born David Adkins, states: "He succumbed to a fatal heart attack on the morning of March, 14, 2007." This hoax was widely reported in the media<ref>http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2891&iArticleId=3734818</ref>.

==Rutgers-Ivy League hoax==
A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:

:You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys."<ref>Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.</ref>

==Barbara Bauer vs. Wikimedia Foundation==
Wikimedia Foundation is one of 17 defendants in a lawsuit suit filed in New Jersey, by Barbara Bauer and her literary agency. Her Wikipedia article was deleted on March 25, 2007 by Wikipedia administrator Doc Glasgow as a "bloody disgrace".<ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert1.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert2.html</ref>

==GFDL License Issue==
Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Brian+Peppers</ref> without reference to the original article, the author(s)/publisher(s) of the article, and the history and title(s) of the article, including modification history, description and appropriate dates, is a direct violation of at least GFDL version 1.2. Additionally, the GFDL License states that if the article/document contains Copyright notices, that said notices must be preserved at all times. If those notices are removed, then they are in violation of Copyright Law, as well as the terms of the GFDL license. Furthermore, the question of them removing anything outright at all comes into quite a grey area. If one reads the GFDL License literally, then it implies that once the article document is posted, it is in distribution, and technical measures are not allowed to be taken to prevent the use of the document in question, and that no other conditions whatsoever can be added by the user to those of the GFDL license.<ref>http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikipocalypse:GF'DL</ref><ref>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#TOC1</ref>

However, beginning June 15, 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation began transitioning content on Wikipedia to be dual licensed under both the GFDL and Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 3.0.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-06-15/News_and_notes</ref>

==Cyberbullying==
The press have reported on incidents of [[cyberbullying]] on Wikipedia.<ref name="LATimes">{{cite news| url=http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/29/local/me-wikipedia29 | work=Los Angeles Times | first=Molly | last=Hennessy-Fiske | title=Wikipedia threats went unchecked – Los Angeles Times | date=29 April 2008}}</ref><ref name="ABCLocal">[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local&id=6087243 Hacienda Heights school receives possible threat | abc7.com]</ref><ref name="LATimes2">{{cite news |title=Student arrested for violent threats on Wikipedia |first= |last= |url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/04/wiki.html?cid=6a00d8341c630a53ef011571abd811970b |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=29 April 2008}}</ref> An editor threatened an Asian student at the [[Glen A. Wilson High School]] in 2008,<ref name="LATimes" /><ref name="ABCLocal" /><ref name="LATimes2" /> and a 14-year-old boy was arrested for making a threat against [[Niles West High School]] on Wikipedia in 2006.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.pantagraph.com/news/article_baef01f3-e56f-52e1-b9af-e90eb83e811b.html|title=Teen charged after threat to school on Wikipedia|date=31 October 2006|agency=Associated Press |publisher=Pantagraph.com|accessdate=26 January 2011|location=Bloomington, IL}}</ref>

== Humorous quotes concerning Wikipedia ==

''See also:'' [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd]] - [[satire]]

An article entitled ''Wikipedia Gridlocked by Wikipedia Nerds'' declared:
{{Cquote|So who are these Gatekeepers to all the internet's knowledge?

A survey the foundation conducted last year determined that the average age of an editor is 26.8 years, and that 87% of them are men.

As you suspected: [[nerd]]s.<ref>http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds</ref>}}

[[Jimmy Wales]] said the typical profile of a Wikipedia contributor is "a 26-year-old geeky male" who moves on to other ventures, gets married and leaves the website.<ref>[http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5397593/Wikipedia-losing-contributors-founder-says Wikipedia losing contributors, founder says]</ref>

=== Song excerpt ===

{{Cquote|All of my action figures are Cherry,
[[Stephen Hawking]]'s in my library....

I edit Wikipedia...I'm nerdy in the extreme,
whiter than sour cream...

They see me strollin', they're laughin'
And rollin' their eyes cause I'm so
White and nerdy". - ''White and Nerdy'', Weird Al Yankovic<ref>http://www.musiclyricsfyi.com/white-nerdy-lyrics.htm</ref>}}

==Unbaised editor recruitment==
Wikipedia claims that anyone can edit it. It is to an extent, its editor pool is self-selecting. However, on January 25–29, 2012, the Wikimedia Foundation paid for Gregory Varnum and others to attend and staff a booth at the "24th National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change" conference in Baltimore, Maryland. The purpose of the Wikimedia booth was to create more LGBT activists to edit Wikipedia. Although Wikimedia has outreach efforts at other conferences, there has been no outreach at conservative events.

Wikipedia editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch Sarah Stierch] was the volunteer moderator of the Gender Gap email list where she departed from discussing Wikipedia to freely share her negative experiences with men in her life. In fall 2011, she was hired by the WMF as a Community Fellow to work on creating a "Teahouse" for newer Wikipedia editors. The report on the Teahouse Pilot Project<ref>{{cite web|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research:Teahouse/Pilot_Report&oldid=3832292|title=Teahouse: Pilot Report|date=June 14, 2012}}</ref> explained, "If you click through to the Teahouse, it’s clearly aiming to broaden female participation - just look at the pastel background and references to tea." Stierch tried to use Twitter to recruit more female editors into Teahouse and the English Wikipedia. The report concluded, "Because so much time and energy needed to be spend during the pilot on setting up and maintaining the space, we weren't able to focus as much as we'd have liked on gender-targeted strategies for recruiting female guests and hosts. There are clearly more experiments that need to be run in order to better integrate the space with other gender gap efforts and WikiWomen's calls to actions."

==See also ==
*[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Wikipedia|Articles about '''Wikipedia''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Essay:The Protocols of Ritual Defamation]]
*[[Wikipedia prejudice and KAL 007]] (Wikipedia deletion material related to [[New World Order]] and [[Larry McDonald]], touching [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]])

==Further reading==
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/print.html Wikipedia black helicopters circle Utah's Traverse Mountain], By Cade Metz, ''The Register'', 6th December 2007.
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/15/wikipedia_can_damage_your_grades/ Avoid Wikipedia, warns Wikipedia chief - It can seriously damage your grades] by Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', June 15, 2006
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/ Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems] by Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', October 18, 2005
*[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia Who Writes Wikipedia?] by Aaron Swartz, 2006

==References==
{{reflist|3}}

==External links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://www.wikitruth.info/ Wikitruth]
*[http://www.citizendium.com Citizendium(Beta)]
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]
*[http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review]
*[http://www.mises.org/story/2704 Wikipedia: What Is It Good For?], By Dick Clark, 9/19/2007. Retrieved from The Ludwig von Mises Institute, http://www.mises.org/ November 5, 2007.
{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:Encyclopedias]]

2012 Summer Olympics

2012-08-15T21:57:24Z

HumanGeographer: Undo revision 1000455 by Gambleputty (talk). Article talks about 'faith-based achievement'. Islam is a faith.

The '''2012 Summer Olympic Games''', officially known as the '''Games of the XXX Olympiad''' and informally as '''London 2012''', is occurring in [[London]] from July 27 through August 12.<ref>This makes London the first city to host the Games three times - the previous occasions being in 1908 and 1948.</ref> '''''During the Modern Olympic Games, the pagan origins of the Olympics have been replaced by [[faith]]-based achievement by the participating athletes'''''.
__NOTOC__
== Political Questions Resolved by the Games ==

Athletes from 204 National Olympic Committees participated.<ref>Independent Olympic Athletes from [[South Sudan]], who does not yet have a National Olympic Committee, and the former Netherlands Antilles, who no longer has a National Olympic Committee due to their dissolution, will also compete under the Olympic Flag.</ref> Sports contests having the greatest political interest are (note especially the growing list of lack of [[public schools]] for the gold medalists below):

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Sport
!Political issue
!Answer
|-
|Multiple
|How many athletes will do the equivalent of [[Tebowing]] after a victory? American Meb Keflezighi, who won the silver medal in the marathon in 2004, typically gives glory to [[God]] with the sign of the [[Cross]] after finishing a race.<ref>http://www.letsrun.com/2009/nycmen1101.php</ref>
|The first American medalist (silver) in the 10k since 1964, Galen Rupp, reportedly has a strong [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] [[faith]] and attended Catholic high school.

The first gold medalist for [[Ireland]] since 1996, boxer Katie Taylor said after winning: "I serve an amazing God and without Him I wouldn't be here without this gold medal around my neck." Her boxing robe contained the verse, "The [[Lord]] is my shepherd and my shield."<ref>http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2012/08/09/2990989/the-lord-shepherds-irelands-taylor.html#storylink=cpy</ref>

After winning the all-around women's gymnastic title, Gabby Douglas tweeted, "Let all that I am praise the [[Lord|LORD]]; may I never forget the good things he does for me."

Missy Franklin, who ranks second behind Michael Phelps (he's won 4 gold in 2012, 18 in career) with three gold medals at the 2012 games, thanked [[God]] as one of her first comments after winning.

Bernard Lagat, a medalist at prior Olympics, did the [[Sign of the Cross]] just before he was introduced to the crowd for the 5k race. He then "finished fourth after being clipped from behind in the final 200 meters," but showed tremendous sportsmanship, praised the winner, and gave thanks afterward as "the most blessed person during my career."<ref>http://espn.go.com/espnw/olympics/8260406/2012-olympics-mo-farah-makes-5000-win-look-easy</ref> Indeed, at least three out of the eight athletes running in the 5k finals did the Sign of the Cross shortly before being introduced for the race, and a fourth runner is known to be a devout Catholic.

Ethiopian Tiki Gelana remarkably overcame a mid-race fall to win the women's marathon, after thinking "thank God" at the beginning of the race for the rain because she grew up running in rainy weather - but the [[lamestream media]] reported her quote with a small "g" for "God".<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/rain-queen-gelana-wins-soggy-maratho-175353459--spt.html</ref>

Soccer players in the United Arab Emirates team kneeled towards Mecca when they scored a goal. They did not advance to the quarterfinals. Mohamed Farah (GB) gave thanks to Allah by kneeling towards Mecca after he won the 10000 metres track race.

Double-amputee runner Oscar Pistorius noted that he thanks God "Because He is the reason for my success and the one that takes me from strength to strength."[http://assistnews.net/Stories/2012/s12060047.htm]

British 5000m Gold Medalist and sporting hero, Mo Farah, prayed on the track after becoming world champion. He is a devout Muslim.
|-
|Multiple
|Will almost no athletes from [[public school]] sports programs win any gold medals, despite how public schools spend more than $500 billion annually to teach and train [[American]]s?
|The [[lamestream media]] state that Missy Franklin, the star swimmer, is a high school student, but fail to mention that she attends ''[[Catholic]]'' school rather than [[public school]].

'''American 2012 Olympic gold medal winners (as of 8/1/2012)'''
*Private: Missy Franklin ([[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] high school)<ref> Franklin's swimming has been with a swim club</ref>, Katie Ledecky (Catholic high school)
*[[Homeschooled]]: Gabby Douglas, McKayla Maroney
*College or adult: Michael Phelps,<ref>Phelps' swimming has been with a private swim club.</ref> Dana Vollmer, Vincent Hancock, Conor Dwyer, Kristin Armstrong, Nathan Adrian, Allison Schmitt, Shannon Vreeland, Kim Rhode, Ryan Lochte, Matt Grevers, Aly Raisman, Ricky Berens, Jamie Lynn Gray, Bob Bryan, Mike Bryan, Serena Williams.
*[[Public school]]: Kyla Ross and Jordyn Wieber won a group gold medal as part of the team led by [[homeschooled]] Gabby Douglas
|-
|Multiple
|How many athletes will be unfairly expelled based on [[liberal]] [[censorship]] of their [[free speech]]?
|One athlete -- Greek triple-jumper Voula Papachristou -- was expelled from the Greek National team by her own country's Olympic committee '''''before it officially opened''''' based on a one-sentence joke about immigration, even though she apologized. The joke in question was this from her Twitter: "With so many Africans in Greece, the West Nile mosquitoes will be getting home food!!!" It should be noted that Papachristou apologized for the tweet.

In addition to the Greek Olympic Committee's decision on Papachristou, the IOC's own twitter-use policy has been criticized for hindering free speech. The policy, which is claimed to protect the IOC's commercial rights, goes as far as to prevent athletes from "reporting on events". According to The Globe and Mail, even a tweet such as "Won our games against China, USA. Next up, the Brazilians," could get an athlete expelled from the Games without notice. As of yet, no athletes have been expelled by the IOC for this [[social media]] [[censorship]] policy.

Lolo Jones, a pro-[[abstinence]] [[American]] hurdler, is being criticized by the [[lamestream media]] for sending out a pro-[[Second Amendment]] tweet.

The [[liberal]] thought police expelled a Swiss soccer player for tweeting that South Koreans are "retards."<ref>[[http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/07/another-racist-twitter-scandal-gets-another-olympic-athlete-boot/55197/] </ref>
|-
|Opening Ceremonies
|Will [[Overrated Sports Stars|Overrated Sports Star]] David Beckham be selected to light the Olympic cauldron?
|Beckham was not selected as the final torchbearer. He was, however, a passenger on the speedboat that carried the torch up the River Thames. He assisted in the hand-off of the torch to Sir Steve Redgrave, one of Britain's greatest Olympians. Sebastian Coe, chairman of London 2012, stated, "He [Beckham] will be more than an ambassador given what he has done, the commitment he has given and the amount of time he has spent with us in London on this project. He was not only alongside us when we won [the right to host the Olympics], he was alongside us when we threw our hats in the ring."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/football/9388462/London-2012-Olympics-David-Beckham-will-be-more-than-an-ambassador-at-the-Games.html London 2012 Olympics: David Beckham will be 'more than an ambassador' at the Games] telegraph.co.uk, July 10, 2012, retrieved July 28, 2012</ref>
|-
|Multiple
|will [[atheist]] nations underachieve in team sports?
|In women's soccer, France defeated Sweden in the quarterfinals but lost to Japan in the semifinals. They lost to Canada in the bronze medal game.

On the men's side, Great Britain won their group with 2 wins and a draw. They lost to South Korea in the quarterfinals.

Australia failed to qualify for either soccer event. This was their first time attempting to qualify out of the Asian Zone instead of the significantly weaker Oceanic Zone, so this may have been a factor. They will, however, send teams in most other team sports, since they qualify from the Oceanic Zone in those.

In women's basketball, France won Group B with a 5-0 record, while Australia finished 4-1 in the same group. Great Britain is 0-5. France and Australia won their quarterfinals. France will face Russia in the semifinals while Australia will face the United States.

In women's handball, Great Britain finished 0-5-0 and France is 4-0-1 (W-L-D). France lost to Montenegro the quarterfinals. Handball is almost unknown in GB, with only a dozen or so clubs, in stark contrast to most other countries in Western Europe.

In men's basketball, Great Britain finished 1-4 in the group stage and was eliminated. Australia finished 3-2, fourth in their group, and lost to the USA in the quarterfinals. France finished 4-1 and will face Spain in the quarterfinals. Basketball is a minor sport in GB, much less played than in continental Europe, and GB would have considered themselves lucky if they had won a match.

In men's volleyball, Great Britain finished 0-5 and Australia finished 2-3. Neither advanced to the quarterfinals. Volleyball is very much a minor sport in GB. They only had a volleyball team in the Olympics because they were host nation and they did not expect to win any of their matches.
|-
|Multiple
|Similarly, will atheist nations underachieve in general?
|China, an officially atheist and communist country, led in gold medals in the first week but then dropped badly to a distant second place behind the United States, despite China having more than three times the population of the United States and despite having a national program designed to produce champion athletes. Increasingly atheistic Australia performed much worse than expectations. Australia has 35 medals, but only 7 gold medals. France has 34 medals, of which 11 are gold. In 2008, Australia won 46 medals and France won 41. Australia won 14 golds that year, a total that they are unlikely to surpass at this point.
|-
|wrestling
|have [[feminist]] [[Title IX quotas]] destroyed the [[U.S.]] team?
|The U.S. men's wrestling team won only three medals - less than half that won by much-smaller and less prosperous Iran, and only a fraction of the medals won by Russian, despite the U.S. winning far more medals overall than both nations.

Men's track has also been ravaged by feminist Title IX quotas, and [[Team U.S.A.]] won only one bronze medal out of 12 medals in the marquee events of the men's 100m, 200m, 400m, and 800m events -- which the U.S. previously dominated.
|-
|men's basketball
|will selfless play by outspoken [[Christian]] [[Kevin Durant]] overcome ball-hogging by [[Overrated Sports Stars|Overrated Sports Star]]s [[Kobe Bryant]] and [[LeBron James]] on [[USA Basketball]]?
|Outspoken Christian Kevin Durant set an all-time Olympic record of 147 points, including a game-high of 30 points in the tight final game, while the media-promoted players did not do as well.
|-
|men's tennis
|will one of the [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]] -- such as Novak Djokovic -- win the gold medal? Will [[Andy Murray]] of atheistic Britain underperform?
|Both players advanced to the semifinals, where Murray defeated Djokovic in straight sets. Murray defeated Roger Federer of Switzerland for the gold in straight sets, while Djokovic underperformed and lost to Juan Martin del Potro of Argentina in the bronze medal match. Murray then went on to play in mixed doubles match that same day and medalled silver with Laura Robson, losing to the heavily favoured Mirnyi and Azarenka.
|-
|8-month pregnant athlete
|Will the [[lamestream media]] report on Nur Suryani Mohamed Taibi of Malaysia, who is competing while being 8 months pregnant, or does that send too [[pro-life]] of a message?
|Taibi was eliminated from the Olympics on the first day of official competition after finishing in 34th place. Few articles mentioned her prior to her elimination; there was more publicity about her after her defeat.<ref>[http://blog.sfgate.com/olympics/2012/07/28/pregnant-shooter%E2%80%99s-olympics-end-after-34th-place-finish-in-qualifying/ Pregnant shooter’s Olympics end after 34th-place finish in qualifying] sfgate.com, July 28, 2012, retrieved July 28, 2012</ref><ref>[http://msn.foxsports.com/olympics/shooting/story/Pregnant-Malaysian-shooter-does-baby-proud-at-London-Olympics-072812 Pregnant shooter does baby proud] foxsports.com, July 28, 2012, retrieved July 28, 2012</ref><ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/london/shooting/story/2012-07-28/pregnant-shooter-nur-suryani-mohd-taibi-malaysia-misses-final/56551354/1 Pregnant shooter misses final, treasures experience] usatoday.com, July 28, 2012, retrieved July 28, 2012</ref><ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/28/london-2012-pregnant-shooting London 2012: 'Be quiet, mummy's shooting,' says pregnant competitor] guardian.co.uk, July 28, 2012, retrieved July 28, 2012</ref> The New York Times ran an article on the athlete on 16 July 2012,<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/sports/olympics/17iht-oly17.html?_r=1] </ref> The Guardian <ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/28/london-2012-pregnant-shooting]</ref> and ESPN <ref>[http://www.espnstar.com/olympics/shooting/news/detail/item832224/Nur-Suryani-off-target-in-London/]</ref> both reported on her results in the competition.
|-
|women's soccer
|ranked #1 and won the gold in the last two Olympics, most recently with a foreign coach. Now that this [[U.S.]] team is [[politically correct]], will it underachieve?<ref>A foreigner, reportedly a lesbian, was selected as the head coach of the already champion American Olympic women's soccer team in 2007, and in the following year that team repeated its gold medal-winning performance of 2004. Aren't there American, although perhaps not politically correct, soccer coaches good enough to run the Olympic team?</ref> Major rivals will be Japan, Brazil and France.
|The U.S. women's team advanced to the finals only because of a controversial call that is almost never made in a big game: holding the ball too long by the Canadian goalie.<ref>http://www.thestar.com/sports/london2012/football/article/1238210--london-2012-soccer-controversial-call-against-canada-in-u-s-semifinal-rarely-made</ref> In the finals the women's team then won the gold by a margin of only goal against an underfunded team from Japan that had to fly to the Olympics in economy class.
|-
|Gun events
|Will the [[lamestream media]] downplay the gun events because they want to continue to push [[gun control]]?
|Great Britain shooter Peter Wilson's gold medal success in the double-trap clay pigeon event was widely reported and celebrated in the British media, despite Britain being strong in favor of gun control. The victory of South Korean air pistol shooter Jin in winning the first gold medal of the games was reported in most GB media. Coverage is similar to other sports with modest national following. See the entry above on the Malaysian shooter for an exception to this lack of coverage.
|-
|Openly [[homosexual]] athletes
|Will the [[liberal media]] overpromote [[homosexual]] athletes, far beyond their achievements?
|Several months before the games, ''Sports Illustrated'' ran a feature article entitled "The Transgender Athlete", which included significant overage of a transgender female-to-male shotputter attempting to qualify for the United States women's Olympic team. However, she failed to qualify at the US Olympic Trials, and as such has not received coverage during the actual Olympics.
|-
|Multiple
|Will countries that have implemented same-sex marriage underperform? (See below for a more lengthy explanation)
|The total number of medals decreased by 15%: a decline of 11 out of 73.<ref>South Africa is excluded from this analysis for several reasons: it did not change its Marriage Act to include same-sex marriage, it has relatively few same-sex civil unions, and its medal total in average medal total in the Olympics prior to 2008 was almost identical to its medal total in 2012.</ref>
: Belgium - 5 in 2000, 3 in 2012
: Canada - 18 in 2008, 18 in 2012
: Netherlands - 25 in 2000, 20 in 2012
: Norway - 6 in 2004, 4 in 2012
: Spain - 19 in 2004, 17 in 2012
: Total - 73 expected, 62 actual - '''''decline by 15%'''''
|-
|Men's Handball
|Will heavy underdogs [[Tunisia]] overperform in Group A? Group A should perhaps be dubbed the "Group of Left", since the other five teams are Sweden, Iceland, and Argentina, where same-sex marriage is legal, and increasingly atheistic Great Britain and France.
|Tunisia went 2-3 in the group stage, becoming just the second African team ever to advance to the quarterfinals. They then lost to Croatia, the winner of Group B.
|-
|[[Joke sports]]
|Will underperforming countries pad their medal totals by excelling in many varieties of [[swimming]] and in non-serious sports like [[badminton]] and [[dressage]]?
|Depends on what is a "joke sport". For instance, although swimming is a competitive, tough, sport, nations are able to pad their medal total due to the large number of events. The USA has 31 medals in swimming, Great Britain has only three. In Equestrian, a clear joke sport, but with far fewer events than swimming, Great Britain has five medals and the USA has none. Neither country received a medal in badminton.
|-
|}

== 2012 Olympics - Sports performance: Religious faith vs. atheism ==

See also: [[Sports performance: Religious faith vs. atheism ]]

''The Sports Journal'' is a monthly refereed journal published by the United States Sports Academy.
A journal article appeared in the Sports Journal entitled ''Strength of Religious Faith of Athletes and Nonathletes at Two NCAA Division III Institutions''. The article was submitted by Nathan T. Bell, Scott R. Johnson, and Jeffrey C. Petersen from Ball State University.<ref>[http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/strength-religious-faith-athletes-and-nonathletes-two-ncaa-division-iii-institutions ''Strength of Religious Faith of Athletes and Nonathletes at Two NCAA Division III Institutions'']</ref>

An excerpt from the abstract of the journal article ''Strength of Religious Faith of Athletes and Nonathletes at Two NCAA Division III Institutions'' declares:
{{cquote|Numerous studies report athletes to be more religious than nonathletes (Fischer, 1997; Storch, Kolsky, Silvestri, & Storch, 2001; Storch et al., 2004). According to Storch, Kolsky, Silvestri, and Storch (2001), four reasons may explain why religion interacts with athletic performance. First, athletes may identify with religious beliefs for direction and humility. Second, athletes may turn to religion to gain a sense of optimism and security, benefiting from such beliefs following a disappointing athletic performance. Third, religion can be used for emotional and psychological support in stressful circumstances like the uncertainty of athletic competition, which can cause athletes an overwhelming amount of anxiety. Religious beliefs can offer the internal strength to persevere through the stress. Fourth, religion “provides a cognitive framework conducive to the relief of anxiety associated with competition” (Storch et al., 2001, p. 347). This framework allows relief from fear and anxiety on the basis of the athlete’s understanding (i.e., belief) that a supreme being is in complete control of the situation. For example, athletes may rely on religious faith to place a poor athletic performance in perspective...

Religion can be an important aspect in athletes’ lives and may serve a protective function against psychological distress and maladaptive behaviors such as substance use or aggression (Storch, Roberti, Bravata, & Storch, 2004). Viewers of sporting events can frequently observe athletes pointing to the sky, engaging in team prayer on the court or field, and glorifying God following athletic competitions.<ref>[http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/strength-religious-faith-athletes-and-nonathletes-two-ncaa-division-iii-institutions ''Strength of Religious Faith of Athletes and Nonathletes at Two NCAA Division III Institutions'']</ref>}}

=== Atheism and sports performance ===

Besides lacking the aforementioned benefits that religion bestows on athletes, atheists have higher rates of depression and suicide than the religious (see: [[Atheism and mental health]] and [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]). This suggests that atheism is a detriment to sports performance.

=== 2012 Olympics: faith vs. atheism ===

A number of Christian athletes have thanked God for their 2012 Olympic medals (see below). To date, no Olympic athlete at the 2012 Olympic games has credited atheism with providing them enhanced sport performance.

== Nations that have implemented [[same-sex marriage]] ==

===[[Argentina]]===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+Argentina's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || 1 || 3 || 2 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam || 3 || 3 || 1 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || 3 || 1 || 0 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 2 || 2 || 3 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 3 || 3 || 1 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 1 || 2 || 2 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1956 Melbourne/Stockholm || 0 || 1 || 1 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 0 || 1 || 1 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 0 || 0 || 2 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 0 || 1 || 1 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 0 || 0 || 1 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 0 || 2 || 1 || 3
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 0 || 2 || 2 || 4
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 2 || 0 || 4 || 6
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 2 || 0 || 4 || 6
|-
|align=left| July 22, 2010 || colspan=4| ''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
! Total || 17 || 23 || 26 || 66
|}

===[[Belgium]]===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+Belgium's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| 1896 Athens || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || 5 || 5 || 5 || 15
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || 1 || 5 || 2 || 8
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || 2 || 1 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp (host) || 14 || 11 || 11 || 36
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || 3 || 7 || 3 || 13
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 0 || 0 || 2 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 2 || 2 || 3 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 2 || 2 || 0 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1956 Stockholm/Melbourne || 0 || 2 || 0 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 0 || 2 || 2 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 2 || 0 || 1 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 0 || 1 || 1 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 0 || 2 || 0 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal || 0 || 3 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || 1 || 0 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 1 || 1 || 2 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 0 || 0 || 2 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 2 || 2 || 2 || 6
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 0 || 2 || 3 || 5
|-
|align=left| January 30, 2003 || colspan=4| ''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 1 || 0 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 1 || 1 || 0 || 2
|-
|align=left| 2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
! Total !! 37 !! 51 !! 51 !! 139
|}

===[[Canada]]===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+Canada's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| ''1896 Athens'' || colspan=4|''did not compete''
|-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || 1 || 0 || 1 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || 4 || 1 || 1 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || 3 || 3 || 10 || 16
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || 3 || 2 || 3 || 8
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp || 3 || 3 || 3 || 9
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || 0 || 3 || 1 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam || 4 || 4 || 7 || 15
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || 2 || 5 || 8 || 15
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 1 || 3 || 5 || 9
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 1 || 2 || 0 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1956 Stockholm/Melbourne || 2 || 1 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 1 || 2 || 1 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 1 || 3 || 1 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 0 || 2 || 3 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal (host) || 0 || 5 || 6 || 11
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || colspan=4|''did not compete''
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 10 || 18 || 16 || 44
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 3 || 2 || 5 || 10
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 7 || 4 || 7 || 18
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 3 || 11 || 8 || 22
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 3 || 3 || 8 || 14
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 3 || 6 || 3 || 12
|-
|align=left| July 20, 2005 || colspan=4|''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 3 || 9 || 6 || 18
|-
|align=left| 2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
!| Total || 58 || 94 || 108 || 260
|}

===[[Denmark]]===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+Denmark's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| 1896 Athens || 1 || 2 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || 1 || 3 || 2 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || colspan=4| ''did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || 0 || 2 || 3 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || 1 || 6 || 5 || 12
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp || 3 || 9 || 1 || 13
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || 2 || 5 || 2 || 9
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam || 3 || 1 || 2 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || 0 || 3 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 0 || 2 || 3 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 5 || 7 || 8 || 20
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 2 || 1 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1956 Melbourne/Stockholm || 1 || 2 || 1 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 2 || 3 || 1 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 2 || 1 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 1 || 4 || 3 || 8
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 1 || 0 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal || 1 || 0 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || 2 || 1 || 2 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 0 || 3 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 2 || 1 || 1 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 1 || 1 || 4 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 4 || 1 || 1 || 6
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 2 || 3 || 1 || 6
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 2 || 0 || 6 || 8
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 2 || 2 || 3 || 7
|-
|align=left| June 15, 2012 || colspan=4| ''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
! Total !! 41 !! 63 !! 66 !! 170
|}

===[[Iceland]]===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+Iceland's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| 1896 Athens || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || colspan=4| ''did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1956 Melbourne/Stockholm || 0 ||1 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 0 || 0 || 1 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 0 || 0 || 1 || 1
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| June 27, 2010 || colspan=4| ''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
! Total !! 0 !! 2 !! 2 !! 4
|}

===[[Netherlands]]<ref>Although part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, [[Aruba]] competes separately at the Olympic Games. Same-sex marriage is not legal in Aruba, although marriages performed in the European mainland Netherlands are recognized per the Kingdom's requirements. Additionally, the territories of Curacao and Sint Maarten, who will compete as "Independent Olympic Athletes" under the Olympic Flag following the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles and the loss of recognition of their Olympic Committee, have the same regulations as Aruba with regards to same-sex marriage. Since citizens of these territories are also Dutch citizens, they are also eligible to compete for Team Netherlands. Therefore, they may have won some of the Dutch medals. In all three territories, the population is heavily Catholic and there is large opposition to same-sex marriage in spite of the Kingdom's requirements. When Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, and Saba opted to integrate fully with the Netherlands as part of the dissolution, the Dutch House of Representatives passed a law that will make same sex-marriage legal in those territories effective in October 2012. However, this law was strongly opposed by locals. Athletes from those three territories were permitted to compete as Independent Olympic Athletes as well. However, of the four IOAs at the Olympics, three are from Curacao and one is a marathoner from South Sudan, which does not yet have a national Olympic Committee.</ref>===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+The Netherland's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| 1896 Athens || colspan=4| ''did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || 0 || 1 || 3 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || colspan=4| ''did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || 0 || 0 || 2 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || 0 || 0 || 3 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp || 4 || 2 || 5 || 11
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || 4 || 1 || 5 || 10
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam (host) || 6 || 9 || 4 || 19
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || 2 || 5 || 0 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 6 || 4 || 7 || 17
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 5 || 2 || 9 || 16
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 0 || 5 || 0 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1956 Stockholm/Melbourne || colspan=4| ''did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 2 || 4 || 4 || 10
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 3 || 3 || 1 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 3 || 1 || 1 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal || 0 || 2 || 3 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 5 || 2 || 6 || 13
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 2 || 2 || 5 || 9
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 2 || 6 || 7 || 15
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 4 || 5 || 10 || 19
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 12 || 9 || 4 || 25
|-
|align=left| April 1, 2001 || colspan=4| ''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 4 || 9 || 9 || 22
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 7 || 5 || 4 || 16
|-
|align=left| 2012 Summer Olympics|2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
! Total !! 71 !! 79 !! 96 !! 246
|}

===[[Norway]]===
===[[Portugal]]===
===[[South Africa]]===
===[[Spain]]===
===[[Sweden]]===

Underachievement by nations allowing same sex marriage will be particularly evident.<ref>In the [[United States]], 6 out of 50 states permit same-sex marriage (Washington, D.C. also permits same-sex marriage), and 8 additional states permit civil unions. Two states (including Washington, which had previously recognized civil unions) have declared same-sex marriage legal, but implementation is postponed until after voter referendums on the laws in November 2012. Additionally, in [[Mexico]], same-sex marriage is legal in Mexico City, a federal district roughly equivalent to Washington, DC, as well as in the state of Quintana Roo. </ref>

== Nations that are increasingly [[atheist]]ic ==

*[[Britain]]
*[[France]]
*[[Australia]]<ref> Since the 2001 Australians have increasingly answered "no religion" in the official census. The growing numbers of those answering "no religion" has coincided with fewer people self-identifying as Christian: [http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/636F496B2B943F12CA2573D200109DA9?opendocument Year Book Australia, 2008]</ref>

Underachievement by atheistic nations will be particularly evident in the '''''team''''' sports, where spiritual motivation is usually non-existent. Expect the atheistic nations to underachieve most notably in soccer, where teamwork is paramount.

Also, since Great Britain is the host nation, it may receive a boost in performance in spite of its increasingly atheistic nature. One should be careful to account for this when comparing Britain's performance this year to that in previous Olympic Games.

== Winners ==

=== Individual Events ===

{| class="wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed"
|-
!Athlete
!Achievement
!Religion, or Atheist?
|-
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|-
|}

=== Team Events ===

{| class="wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed"
|-
!Event
!Country
!Religious Category
|-
|Women's 4x100m Freestyle (Swimming)
|Australia
|Increasingly Atheistic
|-
|Men's Team Archery
|Italy
|Christian
|-
|Women's Team Archery
|South Korea
|Atheistic
|-
|Men's 4x100m Freestyle (Swimming)
|France
|Increasingly Atheistic
|-
|Women's Synchronized 3m Springboard (Diving)
|China
|Buddhist
|-
|Men's Synchronized 10m Platform (Diving)
|China
|Buddhist
|-
|Men's Artistic Team All-round (Gymnastics)
|China
|Buddhist
|-
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|-
|}

==Expected Medals==

Many factors contribute to a country's success in the Olympics (e.g., population, proximity to host country, culture), and [[Gross Domestic Product]] cannot be used as a fair proxy, due to low (per capita) GDP China comfortably coming first in the 2008 Olympics and Russia ranking third. Below is how the Olympic medals would be awarded if each country earned medals in proportion to their GDP, which vastly overestimates the United States' performance.

{| class="wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed"
|-
!Country
!Expected Medals
|-
|Afghanistan
|0.2
|-
|Albania
|0.2
|-
|Andorra
|0.1
|-
|Antigua and Barbuda
|0
|-
|Angola
|1.2
|-
|Algeria
|2.3
|-
|Argentina
|5.3
|-
|Armenia
|0.1
|-
|Aruba
|0
|-
|Australia
|16.2
|-
|Austria
|5.4
|-
|Azerbaijan
|0.7
|-
|Bahamas
|0.1
|-
|Bangladesh
|1.4
|-
|Barbados
|0
|-
|Burundi
|0
|-
|Belgium
|6.7
|-
|Belize
|0
|-
|Benin
|0.1
|-
|Bermuda
|0.1
|-
|Bhutan
|0
|-
|Bolivia
|0.3
|-
|Bosnia-Herzegovina
|0.2
|-
|Bahrain
|0.3
|-
|Botswana
|0.2
|-
|Belarus
|0.8
|-
|Brazil
|29.9
|-
|Virgin Islands
|0
|-
|Bulgaria
|0.7
|-
|Burkina Faso
|0.1
|-
|Cameroon
|0.3
|-
|Cambodia
|0.2
|-
|Canada
|22.6
|-
|Cayman Islands
|0
|-
|Central African Republic
|0
|-
|Chad
|0.1
|-
|Chile
|3
|-
|China
|98.8
|-
|Taiwan
|7.2
|-
|Colombia
|4.1
|-
|Comoros
|0
|-
|Cape Verde
|0
|-
|Congo
|0.2
|-
|Cook Islands
|0
|-
|Costa Rica
|0.5
|-
|Cote-d´lvoire
|0.3
|-
|Croatia
|0.9
|-
|Cuba
|0.9
|-
|Cyprus
|0.4
|-
|Czech Republic
|2.8
|-
|Denmark
|4.4
|-
|Djibouti
|0
|-
|Dominica
|0
|-
|Dominican Republic
|0.7
|-
|Ecuador
|0.8
|-
|Egypt
|3.1
|-
|El Salvador
|0.3
|-
|Equatorial Guinea
|0.2
|-
|Eritrea
|0
|-
|Estonia
|0.3
|-
|Ethiopia
|0.4
|-
|Fiji
|0
|-
|Finland
|3.4
|-
|France
|39.8
|-
|Gabon
|0.2
|-
|Gambia
|0
|-
|Germany
|47
|-
|Ghana
|0.4
|-
|United Kingdom
|32.4
|-
|Guinea-Bissau
|0
|-
|Georgia
|0.2
|-
|Greece
|4.3
|-
|Grenada
|0
|-
|Guam
|0
|-
|Guatemala
|0.6
|-
|Guinea
|0.1
|-
|Guyana
|0
|-
|Haiti
|0.1
|-
|Honduras
|0.2
|-
|Hong Kong
|3.2
|-
|Hungary
|1.8
|-
|Iceland
|0.2
|-
|India
|24.7
|-
|Indonesia
|10.1
|-
|Iran
|4.7
|-
|Iraq
|1.2
|-
|Ireland
|3
|-
|Italy
|29.5
|-
|Israel
|3.1
|-
|Jamaica
|0.2
|-
|Japan
|78.2
|-
|Jordan
|0.4
|-
|Kazakhstan
|2.3
|-
|Kyrgyzstan
|0.1
|-
|Kenya
|0.4
|-
|South Korea
|14.8
|-
|North Korea
|0.4
|-
|Kuwait
|2
|-
|Laos
|0.1
|-
|Latvia
|0.4
|-
|Saint Lucia
|0
|-
|Lebanon
|0.5
|-
|Lesotho
|0
|-
|Libya
|0.9
|-
|Lichtenstein
|0.1
|-
|Luxembourg
|0.8
|-
|Macedonia
|0.1
|-
|Madagascar
|0.1
|-
|Malawi
|0.1
|-
|Malaysia
|3.3
|-
|Moldova
|0.1
|-
|Marshall Islands
|0
|-
|Maldives
|0
|-
|Malta
|0.1
|-
|Mali
|0.1
|-
|Mauritania
|0.2
|-
|Mauritius
|0.1
|-
|Mexico
|16.2
|-
|Micronesia
|0
|-
|Monaco
|0.1
|-
|Montenegro
|0.1
|-
|Mongolia
|0.1
|-
|Morocco
|1.3
|-
|Mozambique
|0.1
|-
|Myanmar
|0.7
|-
|Namibia
|0.2
|-
|Nepal
|0.2
|-
|Netherlands
|11.2
|-
|New Zealand
|1.8
|-
|Nicaragua
|0.1
|-
|Niger
|0.1
|-
|Niger
|0.1
|-
|Norway
|5.9
|-
|Oman
|0.7
|-
|Pakistan
|2.4
|-
|Palau
|0
|-
|Panama
|0.4
|-
|Papua New Guinea
|0.1
|-
|Paraguay
|0.3
|-
|Peru
|2.3
|-
|Philippines
|2.9
|-
|Poland
|6.7
|-
|Portugal
|3.3
|-
|Puerto Rico
|1.4
|-
|Qatar
|1.4
|-
|Romania
|2.3
|-
|Rwanda
|0.1
|-
|Saint Lucia
|0
|-
|Saint Kitts and Nevis
|0
|-
|Samoa
|0
|-
|San Marino
|0
|-
|Saudi Arabia
|6.2
|-
|Seychelles
|0
|-
|Sierra Leone
|0
|-
|Senegal
|0.2
|-
|Slovenia
|0.7
|-
|Solomon Islands
|0
|-
|South Africa
|5.2
|-
|Sri Lanka
|0.7
|-
|Slovakia
|1.3
|-
|Swaziland
|0.1
|-
|Serbia
|0.6
|-
|Singapore
|3
|-
|Spain
|20.2
|-
|Sudan
|0.9
|-
|Suriname
|0
|-
|Syria
|0.8
|-
|Sweden
|6.6
|-
|Switzerland
|7.6
|-
|Tanzania
|0.3
|-
|Tonga
|0
|-
|Thailand
|4.6
|-
|Togo
|0
|-
|Trinidad and Tobago
|0.3
|-
|Tajikistan
|0.1
|-
|Timor-Leste
|0
|-
|Turkmenistan
|0.3
|-
|Tunisia
|0.6
|-
|Turkey
|10.5
|-
|Tuvalu
|0
|-
|Uganda
|0.2
|-
|Ukraine
|2
|-
|United Arab Emirates
|4.3
|-
|United States
|209
|-
|Uruguay
|0.6
|-
|Uzbekistan
|0.6
|-
|Vanuatu
|0
|-
|Venezuela
|5.6
|-
|Vietnam
|1.5
|-
|Yemen
|0.4
|-
|Zambia
|0.2
|-
|Zimbabwe
|0.1
|-
|}

== Commemoration ==

The 2012 games mark the 40th anniversary of 11 [[Israeli]] Olympic team members taken hostage and killed by [[Palestinian]] [[terrorist]] group Black September. The Internal Olympic Committee has been urged to offer a commemorative moment of silence for the athletes at the opening ceremony. The IOC has rejected the moment of silence or any mention of the tragic event so as not to upset [[Muslim]] countries. <ref>[http://www.eju.org/news/world/ioc-refuses-request-memorial-munich-victims IOC refuses request for a memorial to Munich victims, EJU News, may 22, 2012]</ref> Sportscaster Bob Costas says NBC will honor the Munich 11 despite IOC’s refusal to allow it. <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2012/07/21/bob-costas-says-he-will-observe-moment-of-silence-for-victims-of-1972-munich-massacre-during-live-broadcast-of-london-olympics-opening-ceremony-despite-iocs-refusal-to-allow-it/ Bob Costas Says He Will Observe Moment of Silence For Victims of 1972 Munich Massacre, WeaselZippers, July 21, 2012]</ref>

== NBC Coverage ==

Scorn for Comcast's [[NBC]] coverage of the Olympic games hit America coast to coast. Viewers have taken to the internet with the trend #NBCfail for days now. The groans began at the opening ceremony when [[American]] viewers were denied the tribute to British victims of [[Islamic]] terrorism. As the games moved forward, live events were interrupted or had already finished, replaced with commercials and NBC commentators talking about the athletes. It has been reported the Comcast spent $1 billion for the rights to televise the 2012 Olympics.

== See also ==

*[http://www.london2012.com/schedule-and-results/ Schedule and Results]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Olympics]]

Talk:2012 Summer Olympics

2012-08-15T15:15:53Z

HumanGeographer: /* Team Sports */

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== One fair way to analyze ==

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

== Baseball not an Olympic sport in 2012 ==

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

== Baseball being removed from list ==

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

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

== Same sex marriage and underachievement. ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If we look just at Gold Medals...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Expected Medals ==

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

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

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

== Added info re same-sex marriage ==

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

== Joke sports ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Move page ==

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

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

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

== Tables for medals ==

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

== This page is preposterous ==

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

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

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

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

== Where is the UK... ==

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

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

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

== GDP ==

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

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

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

== Rowing -> soccer ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== The Olympics and Economics 2012 ==

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

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

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

== Group of Left ==

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

== Women's Soccer ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Beckham and the Olympic torch ==

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

== Black Power salute controversy ==

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

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

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

== Reformat ==

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

== Public Schools ==

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

== The Swiss tweet in question. ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Atheistic Brits ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Oh no, the tennis! ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Medal weighting ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Team Sports ==

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

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

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

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

::::: Having lived in Japan, I would define it as agnostic. Virtually noone actively disbelieves in God (or a god). Most people have a very open mind to religion and are happy to visit the temples and partake in the rituals (both Shinto and Buddhist ones) and also to dip into church once in a while. Most Japanese people even get married in church, not at the temple! Nonetheless while my Japanese church had a core group of worshippers, the general attitude to religion in Japan is "Born a Shinto, convert to Christian in middle age, die a Buddhist!". The challenge for the church in Japan is keeping people saved once they get interested. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 11:15, 15 August 2012 (EDT)

== A bit confused ==

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

Talk:2012 Summer Olympics

2012-08-15T15:15:07Z

HumanGeographer: /* Team Sports */

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== One fair way to analyze ==

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

== Baseball not an Olympic sport in 2012 ==

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

== Baseball being removed from list ==

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

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

== Same sex marriage and underachievement. ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If we look just at Gold Medals...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Expected Medals ==

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

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

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

== Added info re same-sex marriage ==

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

== Joke sports ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Move page ==

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

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

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

== Tables for medals ==

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

== This page is preposterous ==

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

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

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

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

== Where is the UK... ==

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

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

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

== GDP ==

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

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

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

== Rowing -> soccer ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== The Olympics and Economics 2012 ==

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

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

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

== Group of Left ==

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

== Women's Soccer ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Beckham and the Olympic torch ==

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

== Black Power salute controversy ==

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

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

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

== Reformat ==

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

== Public Schools ==

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

== The Swiss tweet in question. ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Atheistic Brits ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Oh no, the tennis! ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Medal weighting ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Team Sports ==

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

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

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

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

::::: Having lived in Japan, I would define it as agnostic. Virtually noone actively disbelieves in God (or a god). Most people have a very open mind to religion and are happy to visit the temples and partake in the rituals (both Shinto and Buddhist ones) and also to dip into church once in a while. Nonetheless while my Japanese church had a core group of worshippers, the general attitude to religion in Japan is "Born a Shinto, convert to Christian in middle age, die a Buddhist!". The challenge for the church in Japan is keeping people saved once they get interested. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 11:15, 15 August 2012 (EDT)

== A bit confused ==

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

2012 Summer Olympics

2012-08-15T12:50:19Z

HumanGeographer: /* Political Questions Resolved by the Games */ Added Mo Farah

Joke sports

2012-08-09T22:11:23Z

HumanGeographer: Poor performance from European/American nations (notably excluding Denmark) should NOT be justification for ruling Badminton as a joke sport. In Asian nations, Badminton receives mass participatio

'''Joke sports''' are games that are poor substitutes for strenuous athletic endeavors that bring out the best in human achievement. The inclusion of the sports in the [[2012 Summer Olympics]] detracts from the serious events.

Examples of joke sports are:

*synchronized swimming
*rhythmic gymnastics
*table tennis
*women's boxing
*beach volleyball
*non-racing bicycle events
*skateboarding

(add to list)

2012 Summer Olympics

2012-07-17T15:45:29Z

HumanGeographer: /* Expected Medals */

The '''2012 Summer Olympic Games''', officially known as the '''Games of the XXX Olympiad''' and informally as '''London 2012''', will be held in [[London]] from July 15 through August 12. This makes London the first city to host the Games three times - the previous occasions being in 1908 and 1948. The Olympic Games have pagan origins; the torch relay was first used for the 1936 Summer Olympic Games in Nazi Berlin. '''''During the Modern Olympic Games, the pagan origins of the Olympics have been replaced by [[faith]]-based achievement by the participating athletes'''''.

The 2012 games mark the 40th anniversary of 11 [[Israeli]] Olympic team members taken hostage and killed by [[Palestinian]] [[terrorist]] group Black September. The Internal Olympic Committee has been urged to offer a commemorative moment of silence for the athletes at the opening ceremony. As of July 6th, promises have been made but nothing has been made official. <ref>[http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?ID=276469&R=R1 Ayalon hails planned Munich 11 memorial at Olympics, Jerusalem Post, July 6th, 2012]</ref>

Athletes from 204 National Olympic Committees will be participating. Sports contests having the greatest political interest are:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Sport
!Political issue
|-
|men's soccer
|will atheist nations underachieve in team sports?
|-
|women's soccer
|will the [[U.S.]] team underachieve?
|-
|wrestling
|have [[feminist]] [[Title IX quotas]] destroyed the [[U.S.]] team?
|-
|men's basketball ([[Team USA]])
|will [[Overrated Sports Stars]] disappoint again, with outspoken [[Christian]] [[Kevin Durant]] overachieving?
|-
|
|
|-
|}

(add more)

== Nations that have implemented [[same-sex marriage]] ==

===[[Argentina]]===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+Argentina's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || 1 || 3 || 2 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam || 3 || 3 || 1 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || 3 || 1 || 0 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 2 || 2 || 3 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 3 || 3 || 1 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 1 || 2 || 2 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1956 Melbourne/Stockholm || 0 || 1 || 1 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 0 || 1 || 1 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 0 || 0 || 2 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 0 || 1 || 1 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 0 || 0 || 1 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 0 || 2 || 1 || 3
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 0 || 2 || 2 || 4
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 2 || 0 || 4 || 6
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 2 || 0 || 4 || 6
|-
|align=left| July 22, 2010 || colspan=4| ''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
! Total || 17 || 23 || 26 || 66
|}

===[[Belgium]]===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+Belgium's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| 1896 Athens || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || 5 || 5 || 5 || 15
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || 1 || 5 || 2 || 8
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || 2 || 1 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp (host) || 14 || 11 || 11 || 36
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || 3 || 7 || 3 || 13
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 0 || 0 || 2 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 2 || 2 || 3 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 2 || 2 || 0 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1956 Stockholm/Melbourne || 0 || 2 || 0 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 0 || 2 || 2 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 2 || 0 || 1 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 0 || 1 || 1 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 0 || 2 || 0 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal || 0 || 3 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || 1 || 0 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 1 || 1 || 2 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 0 || 0 || 2 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 2 || 2 || 2 || 6
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 0 || 2 || 3 || 5
|-
|align=left| January 30, 2003 || colspan=4| ''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 1 || 0 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 1 || 1 || 0 || 2
|-
|align=left| 2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
! Total !! 37 !! 51 !! 51 !! 139
|}

===[[Canada]]===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+Canada's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| ''1896 Athens'' || colspan=4|''did not compete''
|-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || 1 || 0 || 1 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || 4 || 1 || 1 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || 3 || 3 || 10 || 16
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || 3 || 2 || 3 || 8
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp || 3 || 3 || 3 || 9
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || 0 || 3 || 1 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam || 4 || 4 || 7 || 15
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || 2 || 5 || 8 || 15
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 1 || 3 || 5 || 9
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 1 || 2 || 0 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1956 Stockholm/Melbourne || 2 || 1 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 1 || 2 || 1 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 1 || 3 || 1 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 0 || 2 || 3 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal (host) || 0 || 5 || 6 || 11
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || colspan=4|''did not compete''
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 10 || 18 || 16 || 44
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 3 || 2 || 5 || 10
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 7 || 4 || 7 || 18
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 3 || 11 || 8 || 22
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 3 || 3 || 8 || 14
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 3 || 6 || 3 || 12
|-
|align=left| July 20, 2005 || colspan=4|''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 3 || 9 || 6 || 18
|-
|align=left| 2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
!| Total || 58 || 94 || 108 || 260
|}

===[[Denmark]]===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+Denmark's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| 1896 Athens || 1 || 2 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || 1 || 3 || 2 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || colspan=4| ''did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || 0 || 2 || 3 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || 1 || 6 || 5 || 12
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp || 3 || 9 || 1 || 13
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || 2 || 5 || 2 || 9
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam || 3 || 1 || 2 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || 0 || 3 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 0 || 2 || 3 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 5 || 7 || 8 || 20
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 2 || 1 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1956 Melbourne/Stockholm || 1 || 2 || 1 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 2 || 3 || 1 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 2 || 1 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 1 || 4 || 3 || 8
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 1 || 0 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal || 1 || 0 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || 2 || 1 || 2 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 0 || 3 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 2 || 1 || 1 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 1 || 1 || 4 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 4 || 1 || 1 || 6
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 2 || 3 || 1 || 6
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 2 || 0 || 6 || 8
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 2 || 2 || 3 || 7
|-
|align=left| June 15, 2012 || colspan=4| ''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
! Total !! 41 !! 63 !! 66 !! 170
|}

===[[Iceland]]===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+Iceland's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| 1896 Athens || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || colspan=4| ''did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1956 Melbourne/Stockholm || 0 ||1 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 0 || 0 || 1 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 0 || 0 || 1 || 1
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| June 27, 2010 || colspan=4| ''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
! Total !! 0 !! 2 !! 2 !! 4
|}

===[[Netherlands]]<ref>Although part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, [[Aruba]] competes separately at the Olympic Games. Same-sex marriage is not legal in Aruba, although marriages performed in the European mainland Netherlands are recognized per the Kingdom's requirements. Additionally, the territories of Curacao and Sint Maarten, who will compete as "Independent Olympic Participants" under the Olympic Flag following the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles and the loss of recognition of their Olympic Committee, have the same regulations as Aruba with regards to same-sex marriage. Since citizens of these territories are also Dutch citizens, they are also eligible to compete for Team Netherlands. Therefore, they may have won some of the Dutch medals. In all three territories, the population is heavily Catholic and there is large opposition to same-sex marriage in spite of the Kingdom's requirements.</ref>===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+The Netherland's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| 1896 Athens || colspan=4| ''did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || 0 || 1 || 3 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || colspan=4| ''did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || 0 || 0 || 2 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || 0 || 0 || 3 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp || 4 || 2 || 5 || 11
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || 4 || 1 || 5 || 10
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam (host) || 6 || 9 || 4 || 19
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || 2 || 5 || 0 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 6 || 4 || 7 || 17
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 5 || 2 || 9 || 16
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 0 || 5 || 0 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1956 Stockholm/Melbourne || colspan=4| ''did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 2 || 4 || 4 || 10
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 3 || 3 || 1 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 3 || 1 || 1 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal || 0 || 2 || 3 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 5 || 2 || 6 || 13
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 2 || 2 || 5 || 9
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 2 || 6 || 7 || 15
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 4 || 5 || 10 || 19
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 12 || 9 || 4 || 25
|-
|align=left| April 1, 2001 || colspan=4| ''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 4 || 9 || 9 || 22
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 7 || 5 || 4 || 16
|-
|align=left| 2012 Summer Olympics|2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
! Total !! 71 !! 79 !! 96 !! 246
|}

===[[Norway]]===
===[[Portugal]]===
===[[South Africa]]===
===[[Spain]]===
===[[Sweden]]===

Underachievement by nations allowing same sex marriage will be particularly evident.<ref>In the [[United States]], 44 out of 50 states prohibit same-sex marriage (Washington, D.C. also permits same-sex marriage), and 8 additional states permit civil unions. Two states (including Washington, which had previously recognized civil unions) have declared same-sex marriage legal, but implementation is postponed until after voter referendums on the laws in November 2012. Additionally, in [[Mexico]], same-sex marriage is legal in Mexico City, a federal district roughly equivalent to Washington, DC, as well as in the state of Quintana Roo. </ref>

== Nations that are increasingly [[atheist]]ic ==

*[[Britain]]
*[[France]]
*[[Australia]]<ref> Since the 2001 Australians have increasingly answered "no religion" in the official census. The growing numbers of those answering "no religion" has coincided with fewer people self-identifying as Christian: [http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/636F496B2B943F12CA2573D200109DA9?opendocument Year Book Australia, 2008]</ref>

Underachievement by atheistic nations will be particularly evident in the '''''team''''' sports, where spiritual motivation is usually non-existent. Expect the atheistic nations to underachieve most notably in soccer, where teamwork is paramount.

Also, since Great Britain is the host nation, it may receive a boost in performance in spite of its increasingly atheistic nature. One should be careful to account for this when comparing Britain's performance this year to that in previous Olympic Games.

== Winners ==

{| class="wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed"
|-
!Athlete
!Achievement
!Religion, or Atheist?
|-
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|-
|}

==Expected Medals==

There are many factors that contribute to a countries success in the Olympics (population, proximity host country, culture) and [[Gross Domestic Product]] cannot be used as a fair proxy, due to low-GDP China comfortably coming first in the 2008 Olympics and Russia ranking third. Below is how the Olympic medals would be awarded if each country earned medals in proportion to their GDP, which vastly overestimates the United States' performance.

{| class="wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed"
|-
!Country
!Expected Medals
|-
|Afghanistan
|0.2
|-
|Albania
|0.2
|-
|Andorra
|0.1
|-
|Antigua and Barbuda
|0
|-
|Angola
|1.2
|-
|Algeria
|2.3
|-
|Argentina
|5.3
|-
|Armenia
|0.1
|-
|Aruba
|0
|-
|Australia
|16.2
|-
|Austria
|5.4
|-
|Azerbaijan
|0.7
|-
|Bahamas
|0.1
|-
|Bangladesh
|1.4
|-
|Barbados
|0
|-
|Burundi
|0
|-
|Belgium
|6.7
|-
|Belize
|0
|-
|Benin
|0.1
|-
|Bermuda
|0.1
|-
|Bhutan
|0
|-
|Bolivia
|0.3
|-
|Bosnia-Herzegovina
|0.2
|-
|Bahrain
|0.3
|-
|Botswana
|0.2
|-
|Belarus
|0.8
|-
|Brazil
|29.9
|-
|Virgin Islands
|0
|-
|Bulgaria
|0.7
|-
|Burkina Faso
|0.1
|-
|Cameroon
|0.3
|-
|Cambodia
|0.2
|-
|Canada
|22.6
|-
|Cayman Islands
|0
|-
|Central African Republic
|0
|-
|Chad
|0.1
|-
|Chile
|3
|-
|China
|98.8
|-
|Taiwan
|7.2
|-
|Colombia
|4.1
|-
|Comoros
|0
|-
|Cape Verde
|0
|-
|Congo
|0.2
|-
|Cook Islands
|0
|-
|Costa Rica
|0.5
|-
|Cote-d´lvoire
|0.3
|-
|Croatia
|0.9
|-
|Cuba
|0.9
|-
|Cyprus
|0.4
|-
|Czech Republic
|2.8
|-
|Denmark
|4.4
|-
|Djibouti
|0
|-
|Dominica
|0
|-
|Dominican Republic
|0.7
|-
|Ecuador
|0.8
|-
|Egypt
|3.1
|-
|El Salvador
|0.3
|-
|Equatorial Guinea
|0.2
|-
|Eritrea
|0
|-
|Estonia
|0.3
|-
|Ethiopia
|0.4
|-
|Fiji
|0
|-
|Finland
|3.4
|-
|France
|39.8
|-
|Gabon
|0.2
|-
|Gambia
|0
|-
|Germany
|47
|-
|Ghana
|0.4
|-
|United Kingdom
|32.4
|-
|Guinea-Bissau
|0
|-
|Georgia
|0.2
|-
|Greece
|4.3
|-
|Grenada
|0
|-
|Guam
|0
|-
|Guatemala
|0.6
|-
|Guinea
|0.1
|-
|Guyana
|0
|-
|Haiti
|0.1
|-
|Honduras
|0.2
|-
|Hong Kong
|3.2
|-
|Hungary
|1.8
|-
|Iceland
|0.2
|-
|India
|24.7
|-
|Indonesia
|10.1
|-
|Iran
|4.7
|-
|Iraq
|1.2
|-
|Ireland
|3
|-
|Italy
|29.5
|-
|Israel
|3.1
|-
|Jamaica
|0.2
|-
|Japan
|78.2
|-
|Jordan
|0.4
|-
|Kazakhstan
|2.3
|-
|Kyrgyzstan
|0.1
|-
|Kenya
|0.4
|-
|South Korea
|14.8
|-
|North Korea
|0.4
|-
|Kuwait
|2
|-
|Laos
|0.1
|-
|Latvia
|0.4
|-
|Saint Lucia
|0
|-
|Lebanon
|0.5
|-
|Lesotho
|0
|-
|Libya
|0.9
|-
|Lichtenstein
|0.1
|-
|Luxembourg
|0.8
|-
|Macedonia
|0.1
|-
|Madagascar
|0.1
|-
|Malawi
|0.1
|-
|Malaysia
|3.3
|-
|Moldova
|0.1
|-
|Marshall Islands
|0
|-
|Maldives
|0
|-
|Malta
|0.1
|-
|Mali
|0.1
|-
|Mauritania
|0.2
|-
|Mauritius
|0.1
|-
|Mexico
|16.2
|-
|Micronesia
|0
|-
|Monaco
|0.1
|-
|Montenegro
|0.1
|-
|Mongolia
|0.1
|-
|Morocco
|1.3
|-
|Mozambique
|0.1
|-
|Myanmar
|0.7
|-
|Namibia
|0.2
|-
|Nepal
|0.2
|-
|Netherlands
|11.2
|-
|New Zealand
|1.8
|-
|Nicaragua
|0.1
|-
|Niger
|0.1
|-
|Niger
|0.1
|-
|Norway
|5.9
|-
|Oman
|0.7
|-
|Pakistan
|2.4
|-
|Palau
|0
|-
|Panama
|0.4
|-
|Papua New Guinea
|0.1
|-
|Paraguay
|0.3
|-
|Peru
|2.3
|-
|Philippines
|2.9
|-
|Poland
|6.7
|-
|Portugal
|3.3
|-
|Puerto Rico
|1.4
|-
|Qatar
|1.4
|-
|Romania
|2.3
|-
|Rwanda
|0.1
|-
|Saint Lucia
|0
|-
|Saint Kitts and Nevis
|0
|-
|Samoa
|0
|-
|San Marino
|0
|-
|Saudi Arabia
|6.2
|-
|Seychelles
|0
|-
|Sierra Leone
|0
|-
|Senegal
|0.2
|-
|Slovenia
|0.7
|-
|Solomon Islands
|0
|-
|South Africa
|5.2
|-
|Sri Lanka
|0.7
|-
|Slovakia
|1.3
|-
|Swaziland
|0.1
|-
|Serbia
|0.6
|-
|Singapore
|3
|-
|Spain
|20.2
|-
|Sudan
|0.9
|-
|Suriname
|0
|-
|Syria
|0.8
|-
|Sweden
|6.6
|-
|Switzerland
|7.6
|-
|Tanzania
|0.3
|-
|Tonga
|0
|-
|Thailand
|4.6
|-
|Togo
|0
|-
|Trinidad and Tobago
|0.3
|-
|Tajikistan
|0.1
|-
|Timor-Leste
|0
|-
|Turkmenistan
|0.3
|-
|Tunisia
|0.6
|-
|Turkey
|10.5
|-
|Tuvalu
|0
|-
|Uganda
|0.2
|-
|Ukraine
|2
|-
|United Arab Emirates
|4.3
|-
|United States
|209
|-
|Uruguay
|0.6
|-
|Uzbekistan
|0.6
|-
|Vanuatu
|0
|-
|Venezuela
|5.6
|-
|Vietnam
|1.5
|-
|Yemen
|0.4
|-
|Zambia
|0.2
|-
|Zimbabwe
|0.1
|-
|}

== See also ==

*[http://www.london2012.com/schedule-and-results/ Schedule and Results]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Olympics]]

Talk:2012 Summer Olympics

2012-07-16T15:16:28Z

HumanGeographer: /* Rowing -> soccer */

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2012-06-13T21:33:43Z

HumanGeographer: /* It Really Is Amazing... */

'''[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]''' 
'''[[/archive2 | Archive 2 ]]''' 
'''[[/archive3 | Archive 3 ]]'''
----

== Additional liberal terms? ==

What about "ethnocentrism" (1905-1910) and "multiculturalism" (1960-1965)? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 09:34, 16 January 2011 (EST)

: Superb suggestions. Please add as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:37, 16 January 2011 (EST)
==Refudiate==
Even though liberal dictionaries added this word, Palin admitted it was an error on her part. If it stays then we must add Corpse men for lib terms.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:01, 23 January 2011 (EST)
:Not necessarily--no dictionaries made "corpse man" a [http://www.execdigital.com/business/leader/who-s-laughing-now-sarah-palin-s-refudiate-oxford-s-top-word-2010 word of the year]. Moreover, the word seems to be getting some leverage and use on its own terms. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 14:43, 23 January 2011 (EST)

::Perhaps time will tell. The term "Big Bang" was born of mockery also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:15, 23 January 2011 (EST)
:::Andy, could that explain the perceived scarcity of conservative words dating from the 21st century? Because I think the notion that a word can "mature" to be conservative is a fascinating and powerful insight. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:10, 4 February 2011 (EST)

== Charisma? ==

I have doubts that charisma, despite its etymology, is a conservative term. It seems to elevate style over substance -- a definite [[liberal]] trait. Nowhere does the Bible refer to Jesus as having charisma.

I suspect the original meaning of charisma was for religious charisma.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 4 February 2011 (EST)
:I would suggest, (if we do ''indeed,'' keep it), to change the phrasing to something more on the order of:
::'''literally "a gift from God", charisma is the quality of a person imbued by God to leadership, often found in [[conservative]] public figures.'''
:This nixes the "magic" from the sentence since as wonderful as a gift from God is, it isn't "magic". [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 20:20, 4 February 2011 (EST)
::Andy, that's a good point. I prefer to think of charisma as ''the style of substance'', but that's definitely not the case for everyone (especially liberals). While the etymology is undoubtedly conservative, perhaps "difficult to classify" may be a better resting place for charisma. Devon, either way, definitely an improvement on your part, thanks. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 22:21, 4 February 2011 (EST)
==New words added==

Hi, I have added 4 new words: deference (1660), idealist (1701), god-fearing (1835) & Rogue state (1993). If everyone accepts these, they will fill out the doubling pattern for those centuries. Shall I change the numbers in the summary at the top of the page?

I have also added 'liberal creep' (2008). [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 01:08, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

:All your additions look superb except "deference," which I'm not sure is [[conservative]]. Please do update the counts the top (I already did increment the 1800s count for "God-fearing").--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:05, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

::I added 'deference' because CP has 'giving those in authority due respect' listed as a [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_values Conservative Value]. I will tweak the definition a bit to emphasis the necessary legitimacy of the superior. Thanks for the positive feedback. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 02:21, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

:::But look at the remainder of the chat quote: "giving those in authority due respect, but not to the point of accepting orders or assertions that are contrary to logic or morality."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:34, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

:::: Let's continue this discussion later Monday morning. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:40, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

Hi again. Firstly, let me tell you that I am an Aussie and my timezone is GMT+10. This makes me 12-15 hours ahead of you. Our conversations may be a bit disjointed because of this. Right now it is my bedtime, so I will post this comment & then go, leaving it for your consideration. (Editing has been switched off for a while, is that correct? I realise that you do this most nights. I didn't expect it to be on again tonight.)

To return to 'deference': to me the word embodies respect and consideration which I would regard as being conservative values, but not necessarily 'giving in'. However, I do not have the right American nuances to interpret this as you do and will not push this strongly and am happy to remove it from the list.

I have a couple of alternatives for consideration:

atheistic (1625-35) An adjective pertaining to or characteristic of atheists or atheism; containing, suggesting, or disseminating atheism.

secularize (1611) To make secular; to transfer from ecclesiastical to civil or lay use, possession, or control

To me, these are useful words for conservatives. They do not describe conservatives. My reading of the list suggests that useful words are acceptable eg alarmist. Anyway, goodnight for now, catch up with you tomorrow. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 08:32, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

: "atheistic" is good. Let's go with that. I didn't see why "patriarchy" was conservative, so I removed that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 18 March 2011 (EDT)
::No worries. I'll add 'atheistic'. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 22:36, 18 March 2011 (EDT)

== "Copacetic" ==

I'm not sure how conservative this word is. There's no reasoning given for its inclusion, apart from the fact that Bojangles Robinson supposedly created it (and even that is extremely weak evidence and I'm not sure what it adds. I'm going to remove it from the list if no one raises any opposition. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:37, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

: "Copacetic" is the very satisfactory result of conservative values. It is associated with good and honest living. I do object to removal of this conservative term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

== Moral Majority - A suggestion ==

Andy, I saw your addition "silent majority" and it made me immediately think of "Moral Majority". [http://www.answers.com/topic/moral-majority This page credits it to Jerry Falwell in 1979]. Although in it's strictest sense it describes a movement it is still has greater symbolism. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:30, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

:Great suggestion. Please included it ... and increment the total near the beginning for the 1900s.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
::Done! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:22, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

== Obambulate ==

Maybe it's just my public school education at work, but I fail to see how obambulate is conservative. Apart from its obvious similarities with "Obama", it simply means "to walk around". I know that Obama has been bumbling and whatnot, but it's an innocuous word that is being assigned a special significance due to coincidence. I'm not sure it belongs on this list. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:05, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:It is probably as a result of it being mentioned on Rush Limbaugh's show and the liberal reactions to it during the past week. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:08, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::What was the reaction? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:14, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

:::Denny, your comment is a valid one, but the modern usage of the term "obambulate" is to criticize the directionless wandering characteristic of liberal leadership. None of the terms in the list should be viewed in a vacuum independent of their usage.

::: Hey, my response used another candidate: "directionless". ''Trying to find its date of origin next ....''--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:35, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

== Agitprop ==
Sorry if I get the etiquette wrong, first time commenting. I was just wondering if there was a source for Agitprop? I always understood it to be derived from Soviet Russian institutions, so would be quite keen to see the conservative routes of it. Everything I have tried so far has turned up the term as being derived from Russian e.g. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=agitprop&searchmode=none , and I would be surprised if the internal machinations of the USSR would come up with something conservative, so would be keen to find out the alternative you uncovered"[[User:JTpldl|JTlpdl]] 09:18, 28 March 2011 (EDT)"

== Page dividing ==

Due to the success of this essay, it's really slow, so can I split it into pages by century of origin? This would allow the page to load faster and be easier to navigate. Any thoughts on the idea? [[User:BenDylan|BenDylan]] 20:09, 14 April 2011 (EDT)
:I'd like to see it be broken up by century and automatically numbered. I'm not sure that breaking it up into many pages would facilitate more than inconvenience. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:55, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

==Audit==
I'm getting 25,48,100,201,17 as the counts. If so, this wouldn't be the first time I've seen them wrong. As I mentioned above, we should consider breaking the list up by century to help avoid counting errors. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 18:37, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

== Word for 1700's ==
Could belittle be the word we are looking for to perfect the list? It was coined in 1785 by Thomas Jefferson himself, and is certainly a way to describe an action often done by liberals to protect their ideas. [[User:JoshuaL|JoshuaL]] 19:34, 28 April 2011 (EDT)
:Joshua, I'm inclined to agree, as Jefferson likely coined the term in response to critics trying to deceptively minimize issues he raised. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 02:07, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

::Not sure "belittle" is conservative. But how about "axiomatic"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:20, 30 April 2011 (EDT)
If you're still looking for an 18th century word, 'nationalist' would fit well - it's a core conservative value, synonymous with 'patriot', the antithesis of 'internationalist', and one of the defining features of the 18th century. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:17, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

== Liberal creep ==

How do we reconcile this with liberal creep? If language is becoming more conservative, why is opinion and perception becoming more liberal? Do liberals or conservatives dictate the terms of the national conversation? If someone could take a look at the two phenomena and find out what makes one move in one direction and the other in the opposite, it would make a great essay. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 15:05, 8 May 2011 (EDT)
:I've also brought this up for discussion [[Talk:Essay:Conservapedia's_Law#Putting_Conservapedia.27s_Law_in_perspective|here]]. Conservapedia's Law, the observation that conservative insights double over time, is clearly incomplete, perhaps even flawed. I agree that there could be a complex relationship between liberal creep and Conservapedia's Law and it is worth investigating. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 15:15, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

== Graph of words over time ==

While I was drawing graphs, I wrote a quick script to generate a graph of the data in this page. [http://static.inky.ws/image/405/image.jpg This graph] shows the growth in conservative terms year-by-year, rather than just per-century. The red line is the data from this page, the green line is a quadratic curve. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:59, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:Wow, that's a spectacular graph! Can you give permission for me to include it in the entry page?

:The graph disproves the theory that there were bursts of new words during certain periods. I'll remove that from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
::Please do use the graph as you see fit. I can generate new graphs from the latest data with no trouble at all, so if you'd like it can be updated periodically. I'm currently trying to find a suitably analogous source of data for liberal words/ideas, which would allow comparative analysis. This kind of data is very interesting as it seems to avoid the short-term political cycles which characterize much of popular discourse, focusing on the really significant point of the growth of ideas. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:59, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

:::I posted the graph and your idea is marvelous. However, I don't think the graph is completely accurate: the curve for the actual data should intersect the predicted curve at each turning of the centuries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:45, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

:::*Is the green curve really a fit for the data according to Aschlafly's theory? I mean, Jcw says ''the green line is a quadratic curve'' - at best it's a second approximation for the geometric curve...
:::*Personally, I find quite hard to judge the existance of ''bursts'' from a [[cdf]]. Perhaps Jcw could create a histogram - perhaps for decades?
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:30, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
::::You both raise valid points, which hopefully will be answered soon. Andy and August both mention that the x^2 curve isn't a perfect fit - it certainly isn't, and I'm pretty sure a 2^x curve with appropriate constants will fit better; I'm planning to do that tonight. August mentions different ways of representing the data - I'll happily produce a histogram of the data if that'd be interesting, but the reason for plotting it as I have is to produce a curve that I can use for my more grandiose scheme, of which more later. My background is not so much in statistics - although I've done a fair bit of that - but in purer maths, so my thinking is mostly based around the relationships between smooth(-ish) functions. That may not be the best way to deal with these data qua data, but to extract patterns for further, more abstract work, it's ideal. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:43, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
::::[http://static.inky.ws/image/412/image.jpg Et voila], a better fit. This is an exponential curve fitted to the same data. Note that it fits much better in the region with the most words, but is a bit out for the earlier period where there are fewer words in the list. This is because we can more easily find suitable words from more recent periods, so naturally the pattern is most exact there. No doubt if we could go through a large, representative corpus and extract words uniformly, it would fit nicely all the way along. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:25, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::'''@Aschlafly: ''' Could you recount the words? My count gave me 26-51-103-210-18 (Sum: 408) instead of 26-52-103-208-18 (Sum: 407). Perhaps a fourth column for the century (or even better, the decade) could be added? That would make it much easier to keep track of the numbers!

:::::'''@Jcw: ''' I don't think that your ''better fit'' is the function which Aschlafly has in mind: it should be <math>F_{theo}(t) = \frac{\#words }{15}</math><math>(2^{\frac{t-1599}{100}}-1)</math>, where ''#words'' is the number of words created before 2000, i.e., 390. This function touches/intersects the empirical cdf at the turn of each century, a fact which betrays the biased method of looking for these words.

:::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:12, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::August, so you've constructed a function which you claim 'betrays the biased method of looking for these words'? I'd be interested to see a more thorough explanation of that point. Another editor has attempted a similar argument above, but without success. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:42, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::::August, I have an open mind about this. I don't see how we could so easily find [[conservative]] words that double by century if the underlying pattern were not there. But please explain if you think that is in error.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:27, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

I hope we can agree on the function ''Ftheo'' - it should be uncontroversial:

*one layer exists from 1 - 2 - 4 - 8 words, i.e., 20, 21,22 and 23
*the partial sums are 1 - 3 - 7 - 15, i.e., 21-1, 22-1, 23-1, and 24-1
*so, with the turn of the n-th century, there should be 2n+1-1 words
*for K layers, the number is K * (2n+1-1). Each layer has 15 words, thus, if there are '''N''' feasible words, the number of layers is '''N'''/15
*now adjust for years instead of centuries, and don't start with the first, but with the 17th, and you get the formula <math>F_{theo}(t) = \frac{\#words }{15}</math><math>(2^{\frac{t-1599}{100}}-1)</math>.

'''@jcw: ''' ''Another editor has attempted a similar argument above, but without success.'' I read the sections above, and I ''was'' convinced by the argument.

'''@Aschlafly:''' ''I don't see how we could so easily find [[conservative]] words that double by century if the underlying pattern were not there.'' The effects of the miscount ([[Talk:Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words#PERFECTION: 20-40-80-160 BY CENTURY]]) have shown that you are able to match any pattern you were looking for.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:11, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

August's contrary theory aside, here's an interesting consequence of this trend: [http://static.inky.ws/image/421/image.jpg this graph] shows the curve from above in green, an hypothetical linear growth of liberalism ([liberal creep], in blue) and the effect of the latter on the former (in red). Note how the red line - the net effect of liberal and conservative ideas - falls for a while, reaching a minimum in the twentieth century before shooting up. This is because the exponential growth of conservatism is slower at first that the linear growth of liberalism, but gets very much faster later on, easily overtaking the linear function and increasing to infinity. Obviously the liberalism line is hypothetical, but it's interesting nonetheless. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:41, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

:That's remarkably insightful. In other words, the combination of linear [[liberal creep]] and the geometric growth rate of [[Best New Conservative Words]] results in a liberal trend for a while (until the [[Great Depression]]), and then a rapidly increasing conservative trend thereafter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:16, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

::Exactly. The precise shape of the final curve depends on the values assumed for the [[liberal creep]] line, but any reasonable values give a final curve with much the same shape. It agrees rather remarkably with the observed facts, especially as nothing in the calculations refers to historical events at all. Purely linguistic inputs produce an undeniably historical result, demonstrating the power of language very clearly. As ever, feel free to use the graph however you please. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:48, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

::: I am skeptical that the complexities of human society and political philosophies can be summed up simply as an exponential function minus a linear function. What evidence is there that this [[liberal creep]] is linear? How is that even quantified? Does this hypothesis make any specific predictions, in order to make it [[falsifiable]] and thus scientific? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 02:09, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: Good questions. I'll consider them (as others probably will also) and reply after some thought.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:15, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: Good questions indeed. The immediate answer is 'no': of course all the complexities of human society can't be summed up as simply as this. Quantifying complex abstract phenomena is a very rough business, most especially on a short timescale. The goal of my graphs isn't to present concrete mathematical laws, or anything like them, but just to illustrate a conceptual relationship using mathematics.
:::: To answer your specific questions:
:::: * 'how is that even quantified?': Crudely and by guesswork, like many first attempts in all sciences, especially those relating to human activity. The crude guess is justified by the answer to:
:::: * 'Does this hypothesis make any specific predictions...': In one way, the hypothesis is supported by the same kind of evidence as is used to defend evolution - the hypothesis I've produced now gives results which agree with events in the past. As we all agree, that's not the best kind of evidence, but in this case it's rather compelling. Secondly, it does make concrete predictions - indeed, it makes an inescapable prediction which can't be fudged or avoided - the 'conservatism' curve increases very rapidly to infinity, rather than going up and down or settling into a steady state. This suggests a discontinuity in the future, where the level of conservatism rises to something quite outside our experience. I'm not sure what that would look like, but I think we'd recognize it if we saw it. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:49, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: In furtherance of Jcw's remarks, it is perhaps easier to study the development of language and politics, which are closely related to each other, than it is to study and predict ... the weather. Nobody had a problem with [[Al Gore]] trying to predict the weather, so why object when a simpler task is undertaken?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:01, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::: @Jcw How specifically does your graph "agree with events in the past"? Also, the claim that "the level of conservatism rises to something quite outside our experience" is not a specific prediction. I'm not even sure what that means. Finally, in [http://static.inky.ws/image/421/image.jpg your graph] what does the y-axis represent? Words? Aschlafly above links the exponential function to the growth of conservative terms. If so, why is [[liberal creep]] linear? Is there any empirical or theoretical reason to believe this? Looking at [[Essay:New_Liberal_Terms|liberal terms]] by century it seems like liberal terms are also growing exponentially, even though the article claims they don't grow "geometrically" and are "heavily influenced by culture". In any case, it doesn't look linear. Wouldn't the diminishing intelligence of humans mean liberal terms would be growing quickly?
:::::: @Aschlafly Weather and climate are distinct things. I don't think anyone believes Al Gore is a climate scientist qualified to make scientific predictions, only a spokesman. Many people do have a problem with him and the whole idea of climate change.
:::::: Also, human beings are extremely complicated and it isn't obvious to me that accurately predicting and quantifying the political philosophy of a complex society is much simpler than either meteorology or climatology. Even if the development of politics and language are closely related (I'm not sure they are), why would studying them be necessarily be a simpler task than studying climates?--[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:39, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

(unindent)Matthew: now you're asking questions that have already been answered or are clear from the context. I note that your edits on this site are almost exclusively to talk pages; may we assume that you are here simply to argue rather than to contribute? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:44, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

The interesting question is, what would an (effectively) infinite level of conservatism look like? I'm afraid I don't know enough about the US to answer that: over here 'conservatism' looks a great deal like US liberalism... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:32, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

: One characteristic of infinite conservatism might be when it is impossible to notice a difference in the level of service and attitude between government and a perfectly competitive industry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:18, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
:: In a perfectly conservative society, would there be any need for government as we now know it? I suppose there are limits to how conservative a society can be in a fallen world... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:52, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Conservatives aren't [[libertarian]]s or [[anarchist]]s, so a '''''limited''''' government would exist ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:48, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: I'm sorry, I still don't understand what 'infinite conservatism' means. Perhaps an article detailing how conservatism can be quantified and what happens in the limit as it approaches infinity would help. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 21:32, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: That's an interesting idea, Matthew. I think that in the US conservatism is closely correlated with Evangelical Christianity, which is not at all the case here in the UK, where our conservatives are more likely to belong to the Church of England - a decidedly liberal institution by US standards. Andy's suggestion above is concise, but if you think about it it's a very acute description of a hypothetical perfectly conservative government. I shudder to think what a perfectly liberal government would be like. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:33, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Jcw, your description of US conservatism compared with the UK is interesting, and I've thought about it. While certainly there are more evangelicals here than there, not all are conservative. Moreover, the cause-and-effect is less than clear: does the conservative nature of America allow evangelicalism to develop more fully than in a liberal nation? If so, there still remains an underlying mystery of why America is more conservative than the UK.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, a very interesting question. Our two nations have a great deal of shared history, but today are vastly different in fundamental ways. I think the Reformation is particularly important in this context - the UK experienced it directly, while the nascent US only experienced the aftereffects; the US was never a Catholic nation in the Mediaeval sense. Another - perhaps related - aspect is the persistence of monarchy in the UK compared to its outright rejection by the US. There's a lot to be said on this topic, so I'll begin an essay with some of my thoughts and see how it compares with a US view. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:39, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Please do start an essay on this, hopefully here so that I can contribute to it too! Religious differences between the US and the UK are surely part of the explanation for the political differences, but I think there is more to it than that. [[Federalism]], for example, prevents [[liberals]] from gaining control over the US, while that protection does not exist in the UK. I will say this: the UK media is much more free with respect to American politics than the American press is!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:13, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

'''@Jcw: ''' What are the parameters of your interpolating function? And how did you calculate them? Could you also display:

:<math>F_{theo}(t) = \frac{\#words }{15}</math><math>(2^{\frac{t-1599}{100}}-1)</math>

And why not use these paramaters - they are the direct result of applying Aschlafly's rule of doubling-by-century...

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:08, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

August, if you'd like to do those calculations, please feel free - the data isn't kept secret, it's right there on the page. If you'd like to see another presentation of it, go ahead. I'm very happy to explain things - and to justify my choices! - to well-meaning editors with genuine questions, but you seem to be on the wrong side of every argument around here, as if you're deliberately disagreeing for the sake of it. The amount of time and attention you're willing to give to criticizing other people's ideas is remarkable. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:35, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

: Well put, Jcw. Actually, the entries begin with the year 1612, after the publication of the [[KJV]] and the completion of nearly all of [[Shakespeare]]'s works. So August's date in his exponent appears wrong, but your graph is correct in show an intersection with the x-axis over a decade after 1600.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:45, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

'''@Jcw:''' ''August, if you'd like to do those calculations, please feel free - the data isn't kept secret, it's right there on the page.'' I can't reproduce your calculations as there is not enough data: You say that it is a fit, but you don't explain how you fitted it:
::#How did you treat words like ''atheistic'' (1625-1635), ''deadweight loss'' (1930s) and ''design by committee'' (before 1958)
::#Which kind of fit did you use? For me, Maximum-Likelihood would be an obvious choice.
::#Which family of functions did you look at? Obviously a*2^x. Why not a*2^x+b?
::#Did you use any weights? Which ones (or why not)?
All these choices result in different interpolating functions. So, which choices did you make and what was your result?

''If you'd like to see another presentation of it, go ahead. I'm very happy to explain things - and to justify my choices! - to well-meaning editors with genuine questions'' Obviously I won't promise ''not'' to criticize your choices. Does this make me a not-well-meaning editor?

''You seem to be on the wrong side of every argument around here'' I seem to be constantly on the other side than you are. Doesn't make my side always wrong!

'''@Aschlafly: ''' ''Well put, Jcw.'' Do you condone the policy to share data only with those who you expect not to criticize it? When reading [[Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog]] and its talk page, I got quite another impression!

''So August's date in his exponent appears wrong, but your graph is correct in show an intersection with the x-axis over a decade after 1600'' Jcw's graph (the green line!) doesn't intersect the x-axis at ~1610. I doubt that it intersects the x-axis at all! The red line shows the empirical data, so of course it begins at 1612 with the first word found - though ''obambulate'' (1600) is the oldest word in the table, and seems to be always counted in the ''perfect counts''. OTOH, the graph which I proposed intersects the x-axis at the turn of the 16th century, and crosses the empirical curve at the turn of each century (whether you shift the function by 1599 or 1600 is just a matter of taste...).

== Americanadians ==

How about 'Americanadians'? I've observed many good Americans being influenced by the blatant propaganda of our socialist neighbors, and starting to espouse their flawed line of thought. What do others think? Let me know.

== Claptrap ==

I suggest "claptrap." I'm surprised it's not on the list already. --[[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 00:20, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:Superb suggestion! I'll add it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:45, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

::It was already on the list. I added an 1800s term instead.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:10, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== free speech ==

Perhaps I simply fail to understand the context you provided, but is free speech really a "conservative word?" Terms like "political correctness" and "obamacare" are undeniably conservative (to the point where liberals won't use them), but free speech is at best non-partisan, and at worst (I am attempting to write from a conservative viewpoint- I may fail miserably at this) a term co-opted by liberals to justify their perversions and excesses. </attempt to write from conservative viewpoint>--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 01:20, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:You raise a valid point. But isn't it the conservatives who protect, for example, corporate and many other types of expenditures in elections as "free speech"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:28, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
::Indeed, you are correct. But I think it's fair to say now that it is a word used by conservatives as well as liberals to represent their agendas. I do not know how this factors into this particular list--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 02:13, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:::I'll continue to think about your valid criticism. Maybe I can search Supreme Court opinions and see who is using the term "free speech" most. I don't think [[liberals]] are using it as much as [[conservatives]] are today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== Decades ==

I added a column for the decades (rather than for the centuries). I hope this will help to keep the count of the words up-to-date.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:05, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

:I'm not sure how that will help - surely the decade is already contained in the 'year' column? If you'd like a more accurate count, I suggest doing what I do - use a perl script to parse the wikitext and print out whatever information you want. To me the decade column looks annoyingly redundant, but perhaps I've missed something... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:27, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::I wanted to facilitate the count: as some of the dates are not purely numeric (1950s, before 1958, 1625-1635), it's hard to sort the table by the column ''date''. If there is a purely numeric column, the table can be easily copied into a spreadsheet and recounted even by those who don't know anything about regular expressions.

::If you have a script, please use it to keep an eye on the count: I'm surprised that you didn't spot the miscount earlier on.

::I'll add the column for the decades again, this time at the last place. This should be more pleasing...

::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:07, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

I don't know how to upload a picture, so here is an ascii-graphic for the distribution by decades:

*1600: *
*1610: ****
*1620: *****
*1630: *
*1640: ******
*1650: ****
*1660: **
*1670:
*1680: **
*1690: *
*1700: *
*1710: ***
*1720: *****
*1730: ****
*1740: ****
*1750: *****
*1760: ******
*1770: ******
*1780: ********
*1790: *********
*1800: ********
*1810: *********
*1820: ***************
*1830: ***************
*1840: *********
*1850: **********
*1860: **********
*1870: *******
*1880: ************
*1890: **********
*1900: ***********************
*1910: ***********************
*1920: **********************
*1930: *******************
*1940: ***************************
*1950: **************************
*1960: *************************
*1970: ****************
*1980: **********************
*1990: ******
*2000: ***************
*2010: ***

1820/1830,1900/1910, and 1940/1950 seem to be decades in which significantly more conservative terms were created than one would have expected... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:15, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

== Suggested additions ==

Eurabia - what Europe will become if people don't stand up for themselves.

Islamofascism - repressive muslim shariah regimes/totalitarian islamism.

[[User:MeganH|MeganH]] 01:01, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

: Go ahead and add if you have some dates of origin, even if only approximate. I hadn't heard of the first one ("Eurabia") before.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

== Dumpster diving ==

Was 'dumping diving' added because food is not going to waste, or am I misunderstanding why it's conservative? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 09:54, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

:I'll take a stab at it. Conservative words can describe liberal actions. I am not saying dumpster divers are liberal, those poor folks maybe hungry. Dumpster Diving is not limited to food. It's also a method to get trade secrets from companies or dig up dirt against somebody. Most likely, Dumpster Diving is used for deceitful purposes for example gaining a social security number from discarded bills used for the creation of fraudulent IDs. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:06, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

::Great points. This is a list of [[conservative]] terms, often insightful, about activities that may be conservative or liberal, harmful or helpful, or none of the above. Evidently this term was developed by small businessmen to describe an unhelpful activity outside their restaurants and other stores. Dumpster diving may sometimes be the equivalent of recycling or getting a hungry person some food, but in any event '''the term''' is a perfect description of the activity. And once there is a good term for something, then the activity can be understood and addressed better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:39, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

::: Good analysis. But is dumpster diving a conservative act? --[[User:GeorgeZ|GeorgeZ]] 15:53, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Read Andy's post. He specifically says that that does not matter. It was created by conservatives. Therefore it is a conservative word. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:12, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Right that it does not matter whether it is a conservative act. In the case of dumpster diving, whether it is ever conservative depends on what the purpose and effect are. It also doesn't matter if a conservative coined it; a liberal can sing a [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs|conservative song]]. The point is whether the insight is conservative. In this case, small businessmen (a conservative line of work) coined the term to criticize how homeless people were digging through their trash.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:19, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::I see Andy. Thanks for explaining. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:22, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Indeed, one might suggest that liberals have indirectly contributed to the increase in conservative terms by constantly inventing new ways to avoid work and personal responsibility. Conservatives are then, naturally, obligated to develop terms for these behaviors. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:18, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

== 2000s ==
It's fascinating how the new Conservative words and insights do seem to grow geometrically by century, but I'm curious as to why the 2000s seem to be pretty far behind. We're 11 years in, so you'd expect there to be roughly 40 new words so far, but we've got less than half that many. With the rise of the TEA Party, I'd expect to be much closer. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:06, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

: Excellent point. Possible reasons could include that it is too soon to recognize new words in the most recent decade ... or maybe there has been a short-term decline in conservative intellectualism? At any rate, I've been meaning to add the term "Tea Party" itself with its etymology in the last decade!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:12, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

::I have to agree with you, Andy. Even though we're in 2011 now, it might be too early to be able to fully appreciate all the new conservative words created last decade. I think "Tea Party" might just be one of the most important words to add and I think the movement itself will produce a lot of new, conservative words in its own right! [[User:BobSherman|BobSherman]] 19:58, 20 July 2011 (EDT)

:::Very perceptive, Andy. It takes time for the gatekeepers of knowledge to acknowledge the validity of new terms; therefore, while the public production of new conservative insights and terms may be quite rapid, the assimilation of those insights and terms into formal reference works is likely to be much slower. This is, I would suggest, exacerbated by reliance on archaic forms of knowledge dissemination such as print dictionaries.

An interesting side project might be to evaluate dictionaries (both online and print) to see how rapidly they accept and incorporate new conservative words versus new liberal words. In this way, it might be possible to determine which dictionaries are reliable and which are liberally biased. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:19, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

== Help! ==

I tried to archive the page - at least the parts which were from last year, but I totally botched it: my browser can't handle long pages, I have difficulties with the captchas & I created the wrong page for an archive [[Archive 3]] instead of [[Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words/Archive 3]] ([[Archive 3]] should be moved there...)

So I give up... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:58, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:I archived 2010... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:44, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

::Thank you - I had problems with the captchas! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:26, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== Maybe these two ==
Here's two possibilities I found in [[Federal debt limit]], "leveraged loss" and "debt spiral", but I'm not sure how to fit them in. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:01, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== More possibilities... ==

Constructionist (1835-45)
Inalienable (1635-45)
Hubris (1880-1885)
Scientism (1875-1880)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:11, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== Trickle-down? ==

As a descriptor for the trickle-down theory of economics, it dates to 1950-1955. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:43, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

: I think "trickle-down" is pejorative, and thus more a [[liberal]] term than a [[conservative]] one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::If trickle-down is the pejorative would the standard, conservative, phrase be "supply-side"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:53, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Yes, it would - and "supply side" is already on the list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::::ah, excellent. my work here is done! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:00, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

== Civil body politic ==

"Civil body politic" is an interesting bit of history but does not seem to have caught on as widely used term, and hence would not seem to warrant inclusion in this list. Does anyone disagree?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:43, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Medal of Honor (and other proper names) ==

I'm not sure that a proper name given to an award is inherently conservative-- the Medal itself reflects conservative values of course, but would do so even if had been called, say, the Award of Bravery or the Citation of Courage. "Coolant," "transistor" and "greasy spoon" are all truly conservative both in terms of content and syntax. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 19:50, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:Your point is valid. Perhaps it does not fit this particular list, but I'm reluctant to delete it. Isn't there something conservative about simply recognizing "honor", and calling the medal after the concept, rather than after, say, a liberal politician?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:15, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

==alcoholism ?==
Could you please explain how alcoholism is a conservative word ? Alcoholism is more of a liberal trait.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:24, 17 November 2011 (EST)

:"Alcoholism" is a criticism of excessive drinking, and thus is a conservative word. Words that end in "ism" are often pejoratives, as in "alarmism" and "collectivism" (which are also on the list).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:41, 17 November 2011 (EST)
:: And do you feel the same way about the word "liberalism"?--[[User:JeanB|JeanB]] 21:49, 17 November 2011 (EST)
::: Word that end in -ism are not always pejorative, capitalism is good. And when the words socialism or communism were invented, they were meant to be good.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:53, 17 November 2011 (EST)

==Handout==
1882, I wanted to add this to best new conservative words as it describes a liberal policy of government giveaways. But it also could be the conservative position of helping the poor through charity. Either way it is a conservative word but the proper way to describe alludes me. Op?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 09:28, 25 November 2011 (EST)

:That would a superb addition! It would also leave the list only two 20-century words shy of another perfect doubling by century.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:48, 25 November 2011 (EST)

== Level Playing Field ==

I added the term "level playing field" for two main reasons: 1) It is an intuitive metaphor used in its [http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/228650.html first recorded use] to describe how markets usually work best when they are fair for all participants and free of interference. 2) The term has since been used by liberals to describe policies such as affirmative action, progressive taxation, and government handouts, but it obvious to anyone who looks at these policies objectively that they actually distort the playing field.

I believe that is enough for the term to stand on its own merits, but it looks even more conservative if we compare it to other words on the list such as "motivation," "quantify," or "coolant."

Maybe I have overlooked something and the word does not belong on the list. Comments are welcome. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 21:03, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

:As you point out, the term is often used by liberals, so that makes it a doubtful candidate for "best" new conservative words. The term seems to imply that government is needed to level the playing field. Level playing fields rarely occur in nature, for example. The term almost sounds like the famous "life's not fair" expression ... which is not conservative either.

:"Motivation" is a far more conservative term - one can find motivation whether the playing field islevel or not. "Quantify" is logic, which is an essential difference between conservative and liberal approaches. "Coolant" is an essential part of nuclear energy -- which liberals loathe.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:51, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

== A.M. ==

This entry is an abbreviation for ''ante meridiem'', which originates from 1563 [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ante%20meridiem]. I'm not clear on whether the abbreviation is being claimed as a new conservative word or the phrase for which it stands. Additionally, it is unclear where the given date of origin in the article of 1762 comes from. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:43, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

:The online etymology dictionary gives a date of 1762. Perhaps it's referring to common usage.

:While you're right that the "A" in A.M. is from a Latin word that is different from the "A" in A.D., the popularity of "A.D." could have led to the popularity of "A.M."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:37, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
::Just seen this catch my attention on the mainpage. I highly doubt that the two could be related in any conservative sense. Of course "AD" refers to "In the year of our lord". But back in the 18th century, Latin was still being routinely taught in schools (especially in [[Britain]]), bring us many other Latin abbreviations, such as eg, etc, ie, RIP (from 'requiescat in pace', and later backronymed into 'rest in peace'). I highly doubt the link between any apparent 'popularity' of AD spurred the formation of AM, and personally I'd remove it. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 15:57, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

:::But what percentage of the overall British population learned Latin in school in the 1700s? Perhaps only 10%? Most Latin appreviations did not catch on with the general population the way that "A.M." did. The most plausible explanation is its proximity to "[[A.D.]]"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:19, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
::::Nonetheless etymological creation power lies not with those who use the language the most. One must remember that our records of language from the 1700s (both Britain and America) are not vernacular English of the working classes but written English of those who were educated. This was before widespread adoption of clocks and timepieces, which came later with the [[industrial revolution]] and the railways. Again, I highly disagree that likeness to AM would be a significant contributor. Those that would have used the world in our written records would have been educated in Latin, and would therefore be aware of the etymological roots of '''both''' AM and AD. Since the A stands for '''anno''' and '''ante''' respectively, there is no etymological proximity at all between the two. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 18:35, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::But "A.D." did gain widespread currency with the masses, and then "A.M." became popular in a similar manner. Many other Latin abbreviations, like "Q.E.D.", did not follow in their footsteps.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:54, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::You mean, the masses had a choice whether to use "A.M" or something else? It wasn't determined by the use of that convention by those few who created, say, railroad timetables or other documents? Incidentally, do we know what that date of "1762" refers to? Refering to some "online etymology dictionary" seems a bit like relying on hearsay. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 02:44, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::I still maintain that Mr Schlafly is assuming correlation from causation. While of course nowadays we might view AD in a more conservative light since the introduction (especially amongst the humanities communities) of [[CE]], then back in the case it certainly wasn't the case and due to the pervasiveness of the Christian terms I highly doubt that its religious connotations had any contributing factor over its use as a year marker. If it's another conservative word that's being looked for, I can have a think over the next few days for an alternative word that might not be as debatable. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 17:27, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

== It Really Is Amazing... ==

It really is amazing that the pattern of perfect doubling by century is so strong that almost every "layer" is complete before the next layer starts, even though words are added to the list pretty much randomly whenever a user thinks of one. --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 17:47, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

:Great discoveries are rarely random. In this case, it would not be possible to discover such a perfect geometric fit unless the underlying pattern existed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:12, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

::I don't actually believe in this theory, but I think it's interesting nonetheless to think about the etymologies of such words and why we might consider them conservative or not. Thus this essay has potential for insights, whether or not one believes in the underlying theory. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 17:33, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2012-06-13T21:27:10Z

HumanGeographer: /* A.M. */

Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2012-06-12T22:43:11Z

HumanGeographer: 1950s should not use apostrophe

[[File:Conservative words.jpg|thumb|480px|The growth in conservative words on an annual basis (red), compared with a geometric growth rate (Courtesy [[User:Jcw]])]]Each year the [[English language]] develops about a thousand new words. The [[King James Version]] of the [[Bible]] contains only about 8,000 different words;<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8013859.stm</ref> many good words have developed since then.

[[Conservative]] terms, expressing [[conservative insights]], originate at a faster rate, and with much higher quality, than [[liberal]] terms. Conservative triumph over liberalism is thus inevitable.

Powerful new conservative terms have grown at a [[geometric progression|geometric rate]], roughly doubling every century. For each new conservative term originating in the 1600s,<ref>The King James Version of the Bible was published in 1611, by then [[William Shakespeare]] had written nearly all his plays.</ref> there are two new terms originating in the 1700s, four new terms in the 1800s, and eight new terms in the 1900s, for a pattern of "1-2-4-8". This implies a conservative future and a correlation between conservatism and truth.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Century
!# New Conservative Terms
|-
|1600s
|29
|-
|1700s
|58
|-
|1800s
|116
|-
|1900s
|232
|-
|2000s
|22 (preliminary)
|-
|}

==Conservative words and terms==

{{clear}}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|A.M.
|1762
|"A.M." means "before noon" in [[Latin]] (ante meridiem); it became popular much as "[[A.D.]]" did.
|-
|[[accountability]]
|1794
|the willingness or obligation to be held responsible for one's actions- a fundamental conservative ideal, unlike liberals who believe that 'society,' and not individuals, are responsible for their wrongdoing.
|-
|accuracy
|1660
|conservatives strive for accuracy, while many liberals are masters of [[deceit]]
|-
|[[action-at-a-distance]]
|1693
|[[Newton]]'s acceptance of this concept -- which became fundamental to [[electrostatics]] and [[quantum mechanics]] and has a basis in Christianity<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Jesus]]'s cure of the centurion's slave.</ref> -- was central to the development of his theory of gravity.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-philosophy/#ActDis</ref> [[Materialists]] censor this concept, while Einstein criticized it as "spooky".
|-
|activism
|1915
|this differentiates conservatives from inactive people; this term might have originated in connection with [[Prohibition]] and efforts to pass the [[Eighteenth Amendment]]
|-
|aerobics
|1967
|invented by the [[Christian]] Dr. Kenneth H. Cooper<ref>http://www.christianadvice.net/famous_christians.htm</ref> to describe his self-help program to improve health; he gave the title "Aerobics" to his ground-breaking book in 1968, and eventually it revolutionized attitudes toward exercise.
|-
|agitprop
|1929
|propaganda designed to incite agitation, originally coined to describe communist propaganda
|-
|alarmism
|1867
|needless warnings, as in the politically motivated claims of [[global warming]]
|-
|{{#ifexist: alcoholism | [[alcoholism]] | alcoholism }}
|1860
|excessive or addictive drinking of alcohol
|-
|algorithm
|1894
|an efficient and consistent step-by-step methodology for achieving a goal, the opposite of [[liberal style]]
|-
|altruism
|1853
|selfless assistance of others; this also occurs in the animal kingdom, and is a [[counterexample to evolution]]
|-
|ambulance chaser
|1896
|a lawyer who searches for victims to persuade them to sue for his profit
|-
|[[American dream]]
|1911<ref>1911 is the date given by the "OED", which refers to the Oxford English Dictionary. The Merriam-Webster dictionary gives a date of 1931.</ref>
|the vision that, with hard work, anyone in American can attain happiness and prosperity
|-
|[[American exceptionalism]]
|1835
|the idea that the United States and the American people hold a special place in the world, by offering opportunity and hope for humanity
|-
|American Way
|1930s
|later conservative entrepreneurs used this to coin a new name for what became a highly successful and uniquely American business model: "Amway"
|-
|[[anti-Christian]]
|1900s
|opposing Christian ideals and institutions
|-
|anticompetitive
|1952
|interfering with open competition and the enormous benefits that flow from it
|-
|antilife
|1929
|term criticizing a tendency to oppose life and lifesaving care
|-
|apathetic
|1744
|term critical of the those who are deliberately inactive and disengaged mentally
|-
|apple pie
|1780
|honesty, simplicity, wholesomeness. Relating to, or characterized by traditionally American values. <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apple%20pie Merriam-webster- Apple pie]</ref>
|-
|assimilate
|1880s<ref>estimate only; this originated sometime in the late 1880s.</ref>
|the desired absorption of immigrant groups into the culture and mores of the resident population
|-
|atheistic
|1625-35
|An adjective pertaining to or characteristic of atheists or atheism; containing, suggesting, or disseminating atheism.
|-
|attention span
|1934
|correlated with intelligence, the attention span is how long someone can concentrate on something. It is rapidly shortening; the Lincoln-Douglas debates 150 years ago lasted for hours, but none do today.<ref>http://www.help4teachers.com/ras.htm</ref> The average length of sentences in speech is another indication of attention span, and it has been shortening significantly.
|-
|axiomatic
|1797
|self-evident (first usage), and later it developed the meaning of being based on a set of axioms
|-
|baby boom
|1941
|an increase in birthrate, which is a good thing; note that the baby boom actually started before World War II, contrary to what textbooks teach.
|-
|back burner
|1963
|inactive status away from attention, as in "RINOs try to put social issues on the back burner"
|-
|[[bailout]]
|1951
|wasting taxpayer money to rescue, temporarily, a failing company
|-
|balkanize
|1919
|to break a region or neighborhood into divisive components; the opposite of the American concept of assimilation or "[[E pluribus unum]]"
|-
|bedrock
|1840-1850
|an American term for unbroken solid rock underneath fragments or soil, which adopted the figurative meaning of strong values: "bedrock principles"<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bedrock</ref>
|-
|beltway mentality
|1986
|popularized by [[Paul Weyrich]] though possibly first used by then-Governor [[John Sununu]] ("captives of yourselves"), it refers to a governing style that sees only as far as the highway that surrounds its capital, especially the one around D.C.
|-
|[[Best of the Public]]
|2009
|A term coined by [[Andy Schlafly]] to express the idea that one does not need [[liberal]] credentials that so-called "experts" have. Indeed, many great historical figures would have failed the liberal "expert" test.
|-
|biased
|1649
|to show prejudice for or against something; American society is rapidly becoming ''biased'' against Christian and Conservative beliefs.
|-
|Big Brother
|1949
|government constantly watching its citizens; [[George Orwell]] first coined this term in his classic, ''[[1984]]''
|-
|biological clock
|1955
|how each woman begins to lose her ability to have children at age 27, no matter how much [[feminists]] try to conceal this scientific fact from women
|-
|Blame America Crowd<ref>Or "Blame-America-First Crowd"</ref>
|1984
|Michael Barone quoted [[Jeane Kirkpatrick]] as saying that the "San Francisco Democrats" (site of the Democratic National Convention in 1984) "always blame America first."<ref>http://www.creators.com/opinion/michael-barone/the-blame-america-first-crowd.html</ref>
|-
|blank check
|1884
|irresponsibly giving someone unlimited spending authority or power, as in "a Con Con would be a blank check to destroy the nation"
|-
|blather
|1719
|nonsensical or insignificant babble, as in "liberal blather is common in the [[lamestream media]]"
|-
|[[Blue Dog Democrat]]
|1995
|a person who adheres to conservative principles within the Democratic party, once called a Boll Weevil; as of 2009 there are 45-50 Blue Dog Democrats in the [[House of Representatives]], which is enough to form a majority with [[Republicans]]
|-
|boondoggle
|1935
|"popularized during the [[New Deal]] as a contemptuous word for make-work projects for the unemployed." <ref>http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=boondoggle&searchmode=none</ref> The term gained popularity in [[Canada]] following a corruption scandal tied to the [[Liberal]] government in 2000.
|-
|boomerang
|1825
|originally coined to describe a throwing device that returns to the thrower, the term became increasingly useful to describe how wrongful conduct returns to bite the perpetrator
|-
|bootstrap
|1913
|unaided effort, personal merit, hard work
|-
|bork
|1988
|coined by William Safire to refer to how Democrats savage a conservative nominee, such as their defeat of Supreme Court nominee [[Robert H. Bork]].
|-
|born-again
|1961
|it takes an open mind and heart
|-
|brainstorm
|1894
|a burst of productive thought
|-
|brainwashing
|1950
|derived from the Chinese term "xǐnǎo" soon after the [[communist]] takeover of China, "brainwashing" means forced abandonment of [[faith]] in favor of regimented [[atheism]]. In a more general sense, it refers to the manipulation and control of the human mind through torture and propaganda techniques.
|-
|bright-line rule
|1971<ref>First used by [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice [[John Harlan II]] in ''United States v. Jorn'', 400 U.S. 470, 486 (1971), where he rejected adopting a bright-line rule for that case.</ref>
|a clear, unwavering line dividing what is allowed from what is prohibited; increasingly favored to avoid confusion and requirements that arbitrarily change
|-
|brinkmanship
|1956
|the art of displaying a willingness to use military force in order to obtain a just resolution to a conflict between nations
|-
|[[bureaucracy]]
|1818
|
|-
|busywork
|1910
|meaningless activity under the pretense of accomplishing something
|-
|can-do
|1903 <ref> according to the Oxford English Dictionary. [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/can-do Miram-webster] gives the date of 1945 </ref>
|Phrase coined in a short story by [[Rudyard Kipling]] that has come to refer to an attitude that espouses individual ability and responsibility and not reliance on [[entitlements]]
|-
|[[capitalism]]
|1850-1855
|creating jobs and wealth based on a private invention, ownership and investments rather than state-controlled resources
|-
|career politician
|1974<ref>First use found by ''Conservapedia'' was in an article describing a controversy in communist [[Yugoslavia]] over their "career politicians," published in the ''New York Times'' and authored by Malcolm W. Browne, sect. 4, p. 3, col. 1.</ref>
|a term used for the entrenched communist government officials in Yugoslavia, with whom even President Tito was fed up
|-
|[[carpetbagger]]
|1868
|a politician who moves to a new area to be elected to a government position, as in [[Hillary Clinton]] moving to [[New York]] to become a U.S. Senator
|-
|carte blanche
|1645-1655
|unconditional authority or power, without any limits on misuse of that power
|-
|catharsis
|1775
|facilitating forgiveness and spiritual renewal by expression, as in writing or teaching or confession
|-
|caucus
|1763
|citizens or representatives gathering to meet and reach political decisions as a group while harnessing aspects of the [[best of the public]]; first coined by John Adams<ref>The future author of the Massachusetts Constitution who also played a role in developing the [[Declaration of Independence]].</ref> when he described a meeting of political Boston elders as a "caucus club"; the word may be from an Algonquian term for a group of advisers or elders.
|-
|cesspool
|1782
|an evil or corrupt place or state.
|-
|chaperone
|1720
|care and well-being of youths overseen by adults
|-
|charisma
|1930
|literally "a gift from God", charisma is a personal magic of leadership found in [[conservative]] public figures (but beware of the liberal tendency to put style before substance!)
|-
|Chicken Little
|1895
|one who falsely predicts disaster, especially for silly reasons: "global alarmists" are the Chicken Littles of our time<ref>In characteristically [[liberal]] style, the online Merriam-Webster spins the [[global warming]] example usage by saying the data showed he wasn't a Chicken Little.</ref>
|-
|churchgoer
|1687
|a person who makes an effort, during the 168 hours in a week, to attend a church service
|-
|circle the wagons
|1800s
|regroup with family and friends, when under attack. usage from settlers in the old US west.
|-
|citizen's arrest
|1941
|private enforcement of the law without the need of a taxpayer-funded police officer
|-
|civil defense
|1939
|civilians protecting themselves and their community against attack or natural disasters
|-
|claptrap
|1799
|pretentious, verbose, and often liberal nonsense; example usage: "the professor wasted the rest of the class on his liberal claptrap"
|-
|class act
|1976
|exemplify conservative principles with values, integrity and a work ethic
|-
|class warfare
|1848
|this concept was initially coined by [[Karl Marx]] in ''[[The Communist Manifesto]]'', but it has become so discredited that it is now used mostly by conservatives to point out liberal demagoguery
|-
|closed shop
|1904
|a business that requires membership in a union as a condition of working there; 22 conservative states prohibit this
|-
|clueless
|1943
|hopelessly ignorant about something important, as liberals often are
|-
|[[Coase theorem|Coasean]]
|1980s
|an efficient result or bargain based on market forces without the distortions caused by [[transaction costs]]
|-
|cogent
|1659
|compelling with the powerful force of reason, the opposite of [[liberal]] claptrap
|-
|Columbian
|1757
|relating to Christopher Columbus ''or the United States''
|-
|Cold War
|1945
|coined by [[George Orwell]] shortly after he wrote ''Animal Farm'',<ref>http://www.worldwar2history.info/war/causes/Cold-War.html</ref> as recognition that communist nations were at war with American freedom even in the absence of actual military conflict
|-
|collectivism
|1880
|when decision-making by a group takes priority over the good ideas of an individual, often preventing progress
|-
|common sense
|1726
|sound judgment based on facts
|-
|competitive
|1829
|
|-
|Con Con
|1980s
|popularized by [[Phyllis Schlafly]] to highlight the deception and risks inherent in proposed national constitutional conventions
|-
|conniption
|1833
|hysteria or alarm, as in "having a conniption fit"; a typical response by [[liberals]] when confronted with their [[double standards]] and illogical positions
|-
|conservation of charge
|1949
|overall charge does not change in an isolated system; it is neither created nor destroyed; the concept was first suggested by [[Benjamin Franklin]] but the date of origin for this term is surprisingly recent
|-
|[[conservative]]
|1831
|someone who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral values<ref>http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=conservative</ref>
|-
|[[conservative field]]
|1870s?
|a type of physical force over a region such that items moving throughout the region can store energy ''without loss'', as in the planetary system and electrical products<ref>The mathematical definition of a conservative field -- which arises in [[multivariable calculus]] -- is that a scalar potential exists for the function and, alternatively, it is [[irrotational]].</ref>
|-
|[[consumer surplus]]
|1890<ref>First coined by Cambridge University Professor Alfred Marshall in his acclaimed text, ''Principles of Economics'' (1890).</ref>
|the extra benefit received by consumers above the price they paid for a good or service, illustrating the value of the [[free market]]; specifically, consumer surplus is the difference between what consumers would have paid for something, and the lower price they did pay.
|-
|constant
|1832
|(noun) something unchanging in value
|-
|constitutionality
|1787
|its date of origin is the year of the [[Constitutional Convention]] that proposed the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|cooking the data
|1830
|[[Charles Babbage]] used it in his book, "Reflections on the Decline of Science in England".<ref>http://www.scientus.org/Church-Science-History.html</ref>
|-
|coolant
|1926
|a fluid, typically water, that facilitates efficient energy production, especially nuclear energy to cool a reactor and slow down the fission of neutrons
|-
|copacetic
|1890s<ref>Merriam-Webster officially lists its date of origin as 1919 and its source as unknown, but that is well after when Robinson says he developed it.</ref>
|Bill “Bojangles” Robinson, tap dancer extraordinaire, claimed the invention of this word; it was first popularized by African Americans
|-
|copyright
|1735
|extending private property to protect expressive works
|-
|corporate socialism
|1970s
|the tendency of large corporations to act in a socialistic manner, at the expense of meritocracy and productivity
|-
|correlate
|1742
|(verb) to show that one thing relates to another, such as [[atheism]] or [[homosexuality]] and selfishness or lack of charity; [[liberal]]s falsely rely on anecdotes to deny the general relationship
|-
|[[countability (Mathematics)|countability]]
|1874
|[[Georg Cantor]], loathed by the leading contemporary [[mathematicians]], developed this in proving that the real numbers are ''uncountable''
|-
|counterexample
|1957
|an example that is contrary to the proposition. A common point in logical, reasoned debate.
|-
|counterfactual
|1946
|especially assumptions that are contrary to fact; Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] wrote for the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], "petitioners' standing does not require precise proof of what the Board's policies might have been in that counterfactual world."<ref>''Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd.'', 130 S. Ct. 3138, 3163 (2010) (5-4 decision).</ref>
|-
|counterproductive
|1959
|interfering with a worthy goal. Example usage: "nearly everything a liberal supports is counterproductive."
|-
|crackpot
|1884
|crazy talk, lunacy, a person on the fringe of reality
|-
|[[creation science]]
|1970s
|a term coined by the anti-[[evolution|evolutionist]] [[Henry Morris]].<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/28/AR2006022801716.html</ref>
|-
|cross-examination
|1824
|the most effective tool against [[liberal]] [[deceit]], better than even the requirement of an oath
|-
|crystal clear
|1815
|liberals are the opposite
|-
|[[culture war]]
|1991
|widespread use after the book ''Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America'' by James Davison Hunter
|-
|cyberbullying
|2000s
|a type of obnoxious and hurtful liberal behavior on the internet
|-
|[[deadweight loss]]
|1930s<ref>Confirmation of the first use is desired.</ref>
|the loss in overall wealth and efficiency imposed by monopolies and taxation, due to the loss in extra value that someone would have received beyond what he would have paid for a good at a free market price
|-
|death panel
|2009
|a provision of [[Obamacare]] that will enable a panel of government bureaucrats to decide who receives medical treatment
|-
|death tax
|1989
|interestingly, the term was coined by Canadians opposed to the high estate tax on their assets held in the United States; Frank Luntz is credited with later popularizing this term in the United States.<ref>''See'' Dr. Frank Luntz, ''Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear''</ref>
|-
|decentralization
|1846
|the dispersion of power, as in a shift from national to local control
|-
|decrypt
|1935
|military code-breaking, which played an instrumental role in World War II in deciphering enemy codes that many felt were unbreakable; illustrates the "can do" approach of conservatism in a patriotic way
|-
|[[defeatism]]
|1918
|a negative attitude that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy
|-
|defensive driving
|1964
|a style of driving a car that always focuses on avoiding accidents, even those potentially caused by others; nearly a half-century later, dictionaries still do not recognize this term
|-
|deflation
|1891
|an increase in the value of savings
|-
|defund
|1948
|refers especially to termination of government funding of a wasteful or hurtful program
|-
|deliberative assembly
|1774<ref>''Introduction to Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised'' (19th Ed. 2000), xxv.</ref>
|used by Edmund Burke in describing the British parliament during a speech to voters in Bristol; he meant a body of persons meeting to discuss and decide common action under parliamentary law
|-
|demagogue
|1648
|
|-
|Den mother
|1936
|leader of children's group
|-
|[[deregulation]]
|1963
|Reagan won in 1980 by campaigning on this.
|-
|design by committee
|before 1958
|pejorative term directed against collective production by a group
|-
|despotism
|1727
|a ruler with unlimited powers
|-
|[[deterrence]]
|1861
|Disincentive of committing a crime based on the amount of punishment
|-
|devalue
|1918
|describing an unwelcome attitude or act, as in "devaluing human life"
|-
|devil's advocate
|1760
|someone who espouses the position of the wrong side, in order to test, sharpen and strengthen the right side
|-
|devotee
|1645
|ardent follower, supporter, or loyalty to. 56 years separates devotee and devoted
|-
|disinformation
|1950s
|false information spread (and sometimes manufactured) by groups with a strong political agenda
|-
|division of labor
|1776
|increasing productivity through specialization of labor, as in a husband working in manufacturing while his wife cares for children
|-
|dog and pony show
|1970
|an overblown event, typically having more fanfare than substance; liberals like to run a "dog and pony show" in towns having a large public university, where students brainwashed by liberal professors are led like cattle to the events
|-
|domino effect
|1966
|how the fall of one nation to communism can result in its harmful spread to neighboring nations
|-
|double standard
|1894
|applying harsher criticism against one group, such as churchgoers or conservatives, than against another group, such as atheists or liberals; recognition of a double standard by the [[Prodigal Son]] led him to repent and convert
|-
|doublethink
|1949
|a term first coined by [[George Orwell]] in his dystopian novel ''[[1984]]''; it means simultaneously holding contradictory beliefs, which is a characteristic of [[status worship]]
|-
|doubting Thomas
|1883
|someone who believes only what he can see and touch, and doubts all else
|-
|duh science
|2000
|First coined by the ''LA Weekly'' to criticize the ''[[LA Times]]'' for failing to criticize a publicly funded study that concluded that pessimistic people are often in bad moods.<ref>Originally "duh!" science: "But couldn't we have been treated to just a soupcon of critical thinking, some irony even -- perhaps a glancing reference to the wisdom of public funding for 'duh!' science?"
"L.A. TIMES WHO KNEW? DEPARTMENT", ''LA Weekly'' p. 12 (Jan. 14, 2000).</ref>
|-
|dumb down
|1933
|
|-
|dumpster diving
|1982
|Searching through dumpsters for food or other material that can used rather than discarded; first known use: "Restaurant and store owners have complained about drunks panhandling during the day and 'dumpster diving' through trash at night."<ref>Phil Long, "Special Wing for Drunks Suggested at Future Jail," Miami Herald D1 (Nov. 24, 1982).</ref>
|-
|Eagle Scout
|1913
|the highest rank in the [[Boy Scouts]], the term also means "a straight-arrow and self-reliant man."<ref>Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (1994).</ref>
|-
|editorialize
|1856
|"to introduce opinion into the reporting of facts"<ref>Merriam-Webster (1994).</ref>
|-
|[[efficiency]]
|1633
|ultimately from the Latin ''efficientem'', meaning ''"working out, or accomplishing"''<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=efficient Online Etymological Dictionary]</ref>
|-
|egotism
|1714
|the root of atheism, as explained by Paul in Romans 1:21-22; the root of depression and anxiety also
|-
|electioneering
|1780s
|to work for the success of a particular candidate, party, ticket, etc., in an election.
|-
|[[elementary proof]]
|1865
|a mathematical proof based on the minimum assumptions associated with real analysis; term probably does not predate [[complex analysis]] and its first use may have been the English mathematician James Joseph Sylvester's paper, "On an elementary proof and generalisation of Sir Isaac Newton's hitherto undenionstrated rule for the discovery of imaginary roots."<ref>http://www.archive.org/stream/circular129johnuoft/circular129johnuoft_djvu.txt</ref>
|-
|[[elitism]]
|1950
|
|-
|[[embryoscopy]]
|1967<ref>The first endoscopic image of the unborn child was in 1967, by Mandelbaum. The date of origin of the term "embryoscopy" may have been later, but likely before the 1990s.</ref>
|Search this term on the internet and see the spectacular photos of the unborn child ("embryo") that were "scoped" by tiny cameras.
|-
|empowerment
|1986
|facilitating power for the ordinary; see also [[best of the public]]
|-
|[[entitlement]]
|1944
|
|-
|entrepreneur
|1852
|
|-
|[[ethnic voting]]
|1900s
|widely recognized and even advocated by some,<ref>http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/5/2/3/4/p152345_index.html</ref> yet the dictionary doesn't yet recognize it
|-
|etiquette
|1740
|social standards of behavior that promote dignity and discourage inept communications (or lack thereof)
|-
|Eurabia
|1970s
|A satirical word based on the idea that Europe is rapidly becoming Islamized.
|-
|Eurosceptic
|1970s
|someone who opposes joining the super-socialist [[European Union]]; some prefer the term "Eurorealist" to express this opposition, and sometimes "Eurosceptic" is used to criticize opponents of the EU
|-
|everyman
|1906
|the typical person
|-
|exceptional
|1787
|same year of origin as the [[U.S. Constitution]]!
|-
|exculpatory
|1781
|often used in the phrase "exculpatory evidence," it took nearly 50 years to develop this term after origination of the legal term suggesting guilt: "incriminate"
|-
|expatriate
|1768
|to give up one's own citizenship, or be banished by one's own nation
|-
|expose
|1803
|(noun) a statement of the facts, typically to discredit wrongdoing by government
|-
|facade
|1845<ref>1845 is the date of origin for the figurative use. The literal use dates back to 1650s, meaning the front of a building.</ref>
|Example usage: "The facade of a liberal politician is often conservative."
|-
|fair shake
|1830
|approaching an idea or concept with an open mind
|-
|faith healing
|1885
|
|-
|[[falsifiability]]
|1934
|first emphasized by Karl Popper in 1934, this helps define science: if a proposition is false, then it can be shown to be false. If not, then the proposition is not scientific.
|-
|[[family values]]
|1916
|widespread use after a speech by Vice President [[Dan Quayle]], 1992
|-
|fat farm
|1969
|a place where obese people -- such as self-centered [[atheists]] -- might go to try to lose weight
|-
|father figure
|1934
|someone who fulfills the essential role of a father
|-
|[[federalism]]
|1789
|the unique system of dual sovereigns, state and federal (national), established by the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|fear-mongering
|1938<ref>The ''[[New York Times]]'' attributed the first use -- ironically -- to President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]].</ref>
|stir up exaggerated fear by the public, typically to expand government
|-
|feedback
|1920
|an all-important element of accountability and improvement, and a key consideration in good engineering design
|-
|[[fellow traveller]]
|1925
|may have existed earlier, but popularized in 1924 by Leon Trotsky. Describes a sympathizer of a cause but who does not formally belong to the cause, such as a [[communist]] sympathizer who is not part of the communist party. The term was invented by the communists in its original, non-negative sense, but the conservatives were the first to use it as a pejorative term.
|-
|[[Flip flop (politics)|flip-flop]]
|1976
|''verb'', meaning to change political position, typically due to [[liberal]] pressure. First used by the Republican S.I. Hayakawa campaign to describe California Democratic incumbent U.S. Senator John Tunney, whom Hayakawa defeated in an upset.
|-
|force-feed
|1901
|what liberals do to students in [[public schools]] today in training them to be [[atheist]]ic socialists
|-
|forward-looking
|1800
|planning for the future rather than dwelling on the past
|-
|Founding Fathers
|1914
|the several dozen [[Christian]] men <ref>[http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html Religious Affiliation of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, Adherents.com]</ref> who helped draft the formative documents of the United States
|-
|[[free enterprise]]
|1820
|
|-
|free lunch
|1949
|something acquired ostensibly without paying for it, as in welfare; often used to remind people that "there's no such thing as a free lunch" in order to point out that it must cost someone something, now or later.
|-
|free market
|1907
|
|-
|free speech
|1873
|shorthand for "freedom of speech," but with a connotation that extends to non-citizens and listeners; first used in a U.S. Supreme Court opinion in dissent in the [[Slaughter-House Cases]] by Justice Bradley
|-
|free world
|1949
|areas of the world free of communism
|-
|freeloader
|1934
|someone who avoids paying or working for his share of a benefit
|-
|frontiersmen
|1814
|living and working in a self-sufficient manner and with courage in a new land.
|-
|fuzzy math
|1937
|non-computational math designed to obscure the differences between the correct answers and the incorrect -- but perhaps politically motivated -- answers
|-
|galvanize
|1802
|as in, "the liberal proposals ''galvanized'' the grassroots in opposition"
|-
|[[gambit]]
|1656
|a sacrifice that obtains an advantageous position, as in the game of [[chess]] ([[Bobby Fischer]]'s queen's gambit was a masterpiece) or in real life (the [[Passion of Christ]])
|-
|gang up
|1925
|group pressure
|-
|gateway drug
|1982
|abuse of alcohol/marijuana eventually leads to harder drugs cocaine/heroin
|-
|gerrymandering
|1812
|coined by a newspaper editor to criticize the manipulation of the lines of a new district into a salamander shape<ref>http://www.allbusiness.com/information/publishing-industries/251259-1.html</ref> that favored election of a liberal politician
|-
|gimmick
|1922
|originally meant a deceptive mechanical device for controlling a [[gambling]] machine, and then its meaning expanded to include all trickery to attract attention
|-
|globalism
|1997
|Merriam-Webster states it was first used in 1943<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/globalism</ref> and the OED gives a date of 1965 for the exact term "globalism";<ref>http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50095613/50095613se2?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=globalism&first=1&max_to_show=10&hilite=50095613se2</ref> the term "globalization" was first used in the mid-1980s in a different, complimentary sense.
|-
|God-fearing
|1835
|Living by the rules of God; living in a way that is considered morally right.
|-
|godsend
|1820
|
|-
|go-getter
|1921
|
|-
|gold standard
|1831
|the highest standard; in currency, when money could be exchanged for a fixed amount of gold
|-
|golden parachute
|1981
|a pejorative term for a pre-arranged handout to a corporate executive when fired, as when the company is taken over by new ownership
|-
|good book
|1860
|the [[Bible]]
|-
|Good Samaritan
|1640
|how genuine charity is the best approach
|-
|goon
|1926
|a dim-witted thug, espec. one who intimidates on behalf of a union
|-
|government school
|1955
|coined by [[economist]] [[Milton Friedman]] as a more accurate name for [[public schools]]
|-
|[[grade inflation]]
|1975
|the tendency by Liberal educationalists and public schools to increase marks, irrespective of merit or actual achievement.
|-
|[[grassroots]]
|1901
|
|-
|greasy spoon
|1902
|a free enterprise term for a small, cheap restaurant - which in many places is just what the public wants; reflects Jesus' [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] about the digestive system
|-
|Great Awakening
|1730-1740
|Christian spiritualism recurs periodically. See [[Essay:The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America]].
|-
|Gresham's law
|1858
|the tendency in a free market for bad money (which loses its value) to drive out (be used more often in transactions) than good money (which retains its value), because people want to horde the good money while getting rid of the bad money; a similar effect can be seen when profanity drives out intelligent discussion
|-
|groupthink
|1952
|a style of thought consisting of conformity to a manufactured consensus and self-deception; coined by William H. Whyte in 1952.
|-
|half-baked
|1855
|an idea that can appear reasonable at first, but with just a little thought it is recognized to be absurd
|-
|hallmark
|1721
|purity, authentic, official seal, distinguishing feature
|-
|handout
|1882
|describes charity and government giveaways
|-
|hardworking
|1774
|
|-
|harmless error
|1861
|an insignificant violation of a duty or procedural rule; first used in ''Western Ins. Co. v. The Goody Friends'', 29 F. Cas. 764 (S.D. Ohio 1861) (referring to a duty)
|-
|hatchet job
|1944
|still looking for the context of its first use; today it means an article, typically by a liberal, that misleadingly smears someone, typically a conservative
|-
|Hawthorne effect
|1962
|the increase in achievement resulting merely from being observed; this was demonstrated by experiment at the Hawthorne Works of Western Electric in Cicero, Illinois
|-
|heckler's veto
|1965
|coined by University of Chicago Law Professor Harvey Kalven, Jr., a strong supporter of free speech in politics, this term has been used in [[Supreme Court]] decisions by Justices [[Sam Alito]],<ref>''See'' ''Pleasant Grove City v. Summum'', 129 S. Ct. 1125 (2009); ''see also'' ''Child Evangelism Fellowship of N.J., Inc. v. Stafford Twp. Sch. Dist.'', 386 F.3d 514 (3rd Cir. 2004).</ref> [[Antonin Scalia]], and [[Clarence Thomas]].<ref>''Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch.'', 533 U.S. 98 (2001)</ref>
|-
|hippie
|1965
|someone who rejects traditional morality and does what he wants, often growing long hair and smoking [[marijuana]] rather than working hard; this term became increasingly pejorative over time
|-
|hissy fit
|1970
|an unjustified tantrum, typically female in nature, as in "[[feminist]]s had a hissy fit when [[Lawrence Summers]] suggested (but criticized) the possibility that women have weaker scientific aptitude than men, and Summers ultimately resigned."
|-
|Hobson's choice
|1649<ref>this term has the entertaining history of originating with an English liveryman who required customers to "choose" the horse closest to the door.</ref>
|an ostensible choice that disguises a lack of freedom, because each alternative is completely unacceptable. This term is invoked to criticize an illusory freedom of choice. This term has been used in 48 cases by Supreme Court Justices, more often by conservatives than by liberals.
|-
|hokey
|1927
|phony, in an obvious or corny way
|-
|honor system
|1903
|an approach to discipline that emphasizes and encourages trust, honesty and personal responsibility rather than constant supervision
|-
|[[homeschool]]
|1980<ref>the OED assigns a date of origin of 1850 to "homeschool".</ref>
|
|-
|[[homemaker]]
|1876
|a wife and mother whose efforts are wisely spent running the household for the family
|-
|hometown
|1912
|the place where someone grew up and typically obtained some benefit
|-
|[[homosexual agenda]]
|1989
|used to promote the agenda in the book ''After the Ball'', but then used to criticize the movement by Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] in his dissent in''Lawrence v. Texas'' (2003)''
|-
|human rights
|1766
|rights of all peoples, such as to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as set forth in the [[Declaration of Independence]]
|-
|hype
|1931
|originally meant to deceive or "put on," and then its meaning shifted slightly to represent extravagant promotion of something as the liberal media often do
|-
|hyphenated American
|1889
|President Theodore Roosevelt said in 1915, "There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American."
|-
|hypothesis
|1656
|a suggestion, typically scientific in nature, which must be tested and proven before asserted as truth
|-
|hysteria
|1801
|From the Latin ''hystericus'', from Greek ''hystera '' meaning ''"womb"''<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hysteria Meriam Webster Dictionary]</ref> (an old notion that hysteria was caused by the [[womb]]).
|-
|idealist
|1701
|a person guided by ideals
|-
|illiteracy
|1660
|liberals seek to produce illiterate voters who lack independence, and many graduates of the [[public schools]] are illiterate today
|-
|inalienable
|1640s
|cannot be taken away, especially by government, as in "inalienable rights" in the [[Declaration of Independence]]
|-
|incentivize
|1970
|create a reward to encourage good work
|-
|incidental inequality
|2009
|inequalities that result as side effects of an objectively just system
|-
|incoherent
|1626
|the term often applies to liberal [[double standard]]s
|-
|incompleteness
|1931
|a system of logic or mathematics that includes propositions that are impossible to prove or disprove; term coined as a result of [[Kurt Godel]]'s work in 1931
|-
|incrementalism
|1966
|imposing bad political or social change slowly
|-
|independence
|1640
|free will
|-
|individualism
|1827
|values, rights and duties arise from the individual
|-
|inerrancy
|1834
|free from error, as in "biblical inerrancy"
|-
|inflationary
|1920
|policies causing inflation of the monetary supply
|-
|informed consent
|1967
|consent to surgery is meaningful only if informed, a requirement that should apply to abortion
|-
|initiative
|1793
|self-starting first step toward improvement
|-
|insightful
|1907
|what conservatism is about: gaining insights into the truth, and bettering individuals and society with them
|-
|intangible
|1914
|something valuable that cannot be seen or touched, such as goodwill
|-
|intellectual property
|1845
|"we [should] protect intellectual property, the labors of the mind, productions and interests as much a man's own, and as much the fruit of his honest industry, as the wheat he cultivates, or the flocks he rears." ''Davoll v. Brown'', 7 F. Cas. 197 (Cir. Ct. Mass. 1845) (Woodbury, federal judge).
|-
|interventionism
|1923
|"governmental interference in economic affairs at home or in political affairs of another country"<ref>Merriam-Webster (1994).</ref>
|-
|invisible hand
|1776
|coined by Adam Smith in the ''Wealth of Nations'' and widely used today.
|-
|[[invisible hand of marriage]]
|2008
|discovered on Conservapedia, it is the unseen force of productivity that results from marriage (only between a man and woman).
|-
|Iron curtain
|1945
|coined by Winston Churchill in a speech in Missouri just after World War II, to describe the communist's figurative wall against freedom
|-
|[[irreducible complexity]]
|1935
|coined<ref>[[Alan Turing]] reportedly used the term for a completely different meaning that went nowhere. [http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/nasty-feelings-in-the-ool-community-toward-yockey/]</ref> and later adopted and developed by [[Michael Behe]] to describe structure or system that could not possibly have evolved, because removing any part makes it nonfunctional, thereby showing that [[God]] must have created it whole into biology; if the [[Nobel Prize]] were not dominated by [[atheism]], Behe could win one for this insight.
|-
|[[Islamofascism]]
|1990?
|A form of totalitarian Muslim fundamentalist rule, or extreme Islamism.
|-
|ivory tower
|1910
|a description of the pampered culture of liberal [[professor values|professors]], and how far out of touch with the truth it is
|-
|John Hancock
|1903
|a personal signature, especially in a bold style that stands up for principles as John Hancock did with his signing the Declaration of Independence
|-
|[[judicial activism]]
|1947
|first coined in an article in ''Fortune'' magazine by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.,<ref>http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/278089</ref> and repeatedly used in U.S. Supreme Court opinions since 1967,<ref>''United States v. Wade'',
388 U.S. 218 (1967).</ref> yet as of 2009 [[Merriam-Webster]] dictionary still fails to recognize this widely used term.
|-
|judicial prejudice
|2009
|the bias of a judge in favor of a political correct identity group intended to rig outcome equality in favor of that group based on subjective bias rather than objective justice.
|-
|judicial restraint
|1942
|"Assuming that this court has power to act, it does not necessarily follow that it should act. ... In a number of situations, and in a number of cases, it has been held that courts should voluntarily refrain from using or asserting power. Where the use or assertion of power might be destructive of a well defined purpose of law or of a declared public policy such voluntarily imposed '''judicial restraint''' may be commendable."<ref>Osage Tribe of Indians v. Ickes, 45 F. Supp. 179, 184-85 (D.D.C. 1942) (emphasis added).</ref>
|-
|judicial supremacist
|2004
|one who advocates that the courts should be supreme over the other branches of government for certain legal issues; first coined in a book by [[Phyllis Schlafly]]; first used by the judiciary by the Michigan Supreme Court in ''Paige v. City of Sterling Heights'', 476 Mich. 495 (2006).<ref>A similar yet different concept, "judicial supremacy," was coined by [[conservative]] Supreme Court Justice [[Robert H. Jackson]] as the title of his book,'' The Struggle for Judicial Supremacy: A Study of a Crisis in American Political Power'' (New York: Knopf, 1941).</ref>
|-
|[[judicial taking]]
|1982
|the deprivation of private property due to a court decision; this concept was introduced by conservative Justice [[Potter Stewart]] in 1967, and the term was used for the first time independently by the Michigan and Hawaii Supreme Courts in the same month (!) in December 1982, and then used often in law review articles and Circuit Court decisions in the 2000s, and then four Justices of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] endorsed the principle in a decision in 2010, with two others accepting the possibility.
|-
|[[junk science]]
|1962<ref>http://rated.com/dir/Society/Issues/Environment/Opposing_Views/Junk_Science</ref>
|the corruption of the scientific method to advance other, often political, goals (such as [[Global Warming]])
|-
|jury nullification
|1948
|the power of a jury to overrule the law and acquit an ostensibly guilty defendant; the power was established in the colonies in 1735 in the trial of [[John Peter Zenger]], but this term was first used in state court by Pfeuffer v. Haas, 55 S.W.2d 111 (Tex. Civ. App. 1932) and in federal court by ''Skidmore v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.'', 167 F.2d 54 (2nd Cir. 1948)
|-
|killjoy
|1776
|one who spoils the pleasure of others. <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/killjoy Killjoy 1776 Mer-Web]</ref> ''Example''-Vandals seek to disrupt conservative wikis, an education project. They are a killjoy to the learning process.
|-
|kiss of death
|1943
|from Judas's betrayal of Jesus with a kiss, Mark 14:44-4
|-
|kleptocrat
|1819
|A politician who seeks status and personal gain at the expense of the governed
|-
|kowtow
|1826
|obsequious, unthinking obedience to someone or something, used especially in the context of dictatorships and liberal belief systems
|-
|Kremlinology
|1958
|the study of the otherwise indecipherable behavior of the government of the [[communist]] [[Soviet Union]]. Refers to the Kremlin, the traditional seat of Russian government (Soviet or not).
|-
|la-la land
|1979<ref>First known use was in an article by Tom Zito, "Mr. Mike's Mania; Sick Humor, Very Well Indulged," [[Washington Post]] F1 (Nov. 8, 1979): "But now, it's off to La-La land, and his movie deal. 'The thing about Southern Californians,' he says, 'is this: They wake up and say, 'Gee, what a wonderful morning. I think I'll make a salad.' And that takes them the whole day. ..."</ref>
|a term for the decadent, liberal culture of [[Hollywood]]-driven [[Los Angeles]], originally capitalized as "La-La land."; Merriam-Webster is in denial about this etymology and claims a later origin of 1983.
|-
|labor camp
|1900
|forced work prison
|-
|laissez-faire
|1825
|opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond what is minimally necessary
|-
|lame duck
|1761
|one falling being in achievement, especially a public official whose power is limited because his term in office is set to expire without possibility of reelection.
|-
|lamestream media
|2009
|coined by Bernie Goldberg to describe the clueless [[Mainstream media]] that repeat superficial, discredited liberal claptrap
|-
|landslide
|1838
|In the political sense, an overwhelming election victory. A clear, democratic expression of popular will.
|-
|leadership
|1821
|an ability and willingness to lead, often by example
|-
|leftism
|1920
|principles and doctrine of leftists
|-
|level-headed
|1876
|"balanced", "having common sense and sound judgment"
|-
|leverage
|1830
|
|-
|liberal creep
|2008
|liberal bias that gradually creeps or distorts an entry, definition, explanation, description, or historical account.
|-
|life vest
|1939
|a pro-life invention
|-
|lifelong
|1855
|something, usually a commitment, that lasts a lifetime, as in "a lifelong commitment to [[Christ]]"
|-
|limousine liberal
|1969
|a multi-millionaire who pretends to be compassionate about the poor, but supports liberal policies that increase burdens on working Americans
|-
|local
|1824<ref>This date refers to its first usage as a ''noun'', which is an estimate of its adoption as a concept.</ref>
|common usage: "all politics is local"
|-
|lockstep
|1802
|mindless conformity, often to liberal values
|-
|locomotive
|1829
|a great engine of economic growth during the [[Industrial Revolution]]
|-
|lone wolf
|1909
|a person who prefers to work, act, or live alone,<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lone%20wolf Lone wolf, Merriam-Webster]</ref> synonymous with self-sufficiency
|-
|loose cannon
|1973
|an undisciplined person or program that dangerously lacks forethought; used in mid-November 1976 to describe $11 billion in unspent appropriations by the Ford Administration: "'That money,' says Arnold Packer, a senior Senate Budget Committee economist who is helping Carter draw up his shadow budget, 'is like a loose cannon rolling around the deck' because a sudden reappearance of the funds could be inflationary." (''BusinessWeek'')
|-
|lowest common denominator
|1854
|the lowest in work ethic, morals, or knowledge among a group; typically used to criticize the liberal practice of dumbing down content
|-
|lunatic fringe
|1913
|coined by U.S. President [[Theodore Roosevelt]] to describe members of eccentric, radical or extremist groups<ref> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=lunatic</ref>
|-
|machismo
|1948
|a word never used favorably by feminists!
|-
|mainstay
|1787
|the primary support, typically for something good
|-
|man-hater
|1970s<ref>This was during the epic struggle -- and defeat -- of the so-called [[Equal Rights Amendment]].</ref>
|William Safire wrote in the ''New York Times'' in 1983, "Misandry, from the Greek misandros for 'hating men,' is in the 1961 Merriam-Webster New International Dictionary, and the Oxford Dictionary Supplement traces it to 1946. The word is pronounced as 'Ms. Andry,' but I wonder why we need the Greek word for it. What's wrong with good, old-fashioned man-hater?"<ref>Sunday, Oct. 30, 1983, Section 6, Page 12, Column 3.</ref>
|-
|make-work
|1923
|inefficient or useless activity that has the false appearance of being productive; a favorite endeavor of liberals
|-
|[[market failure]]
|1958<ref>[Coined as the title of a scholarly article by Francis M. Bator, "The Anatomy of Market Failure," ''The Quarterly Journal of Economics'' (1958) [http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/Courses/econ335/out/bator_qje.pdf]</ref>
|instances where the free market does not provide a desirable result, as when information is withheld from an unsuspecting consumer
|-
|manifest destiny
|1845
|Providential design over future events, which originated in the context of expanding the United States to the Pacific Ocean
|-
|materialism
|1748
|the view of life that physical matter is all that exists; as an "ism", the term criticizes such view
|-
|meat and potatoes
|1951
|the most interesting or fundamental part
|-
|[[Medal of Honor]]
|1898
|a special American honor for bravery on the battlefield
|-
|melting pot
|1912
|requires "social and cultural assimilation" for successful immigration<ref>Merriam-Webster dictionary (1994)</ref>
|-
|[[meritocracy]]
|1958
|a system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement
|-
|[[microeconomics]]
|1947
|the study of the economics of the individual person or business
|-
|micromanage
|1985
|insistence on controlling details, typically by liberals to [[censorship|censor]] progress; [[Ronald Reagan]] was critical of this style by [[Democrat]] Presidents
|-
|mind control
|1944
|a pejorative term for how an atheistic government influences what people believe, especially through public education
|-
|mindset
|1909
|close-minded point-of-view, typically in adherence to a liberal falsehood and often to the exclusion of Christ
|-
|missile defense
|1980s
|popularized by President Ronald Reagan as part of [[SDI]]
|-
|missionary
|1625
|someone sent on a mission, typically a religious mission
|-
|mobocracy
|1754
|rule by a mob, as at Wikipedia
|-
|monogamy
|1612
|this has the same date of origin as "productive", and that may not be a coincidence!
|-
|moonlighting
|1957
|working more than a full-time job in order to be as productive as possible; the [[work ethic]] at its best
|-
|moral majority
|1979
|coined by Jerry Falwell to describe the movement of growing moral, Christian conservatives.
|-
|motivation
|1873
|can you believe the word did not exist before 1873?!
|-
|muckety–muck
|1912
|a pejorative term for an arrogant person who holds a title or position considered to be important by others
|-
|muckraker
|1910
|a person who searches out and publicly exposes [[deceit]]<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/muckraker Merriam-Webster - Muckraker]</ref>
|-
|Murphy's Law
|1958
|if something can go wrong, then it will go wrong: this was a conservative insight by an engineer Edward Murphy
|-
|muscle car
|1967
|placing a powerful engine in a classic two-door car for highly efficient performance; also celebrate masculine style against erosion by feminism
|-
|myopic
|1752
|originally a term in optometry, 1990's used to describe liberals' lack of foresight
|-
|name-dropping
|1950
|a term critical of the [[liberal]] practice of seeking to impress others by casually mentioning personal association with prominent people, despite its lack of relevance to the conversation
|-
|nanny state
|1978
|"Under the New Economic Policy, [the new French Prime Minister Raymond] Barre has made it clear that industrial lame ducks can no longer count on the generosity of Nanny i.e. the state - for bailing out."<ref>Leo Ryan, "Economy Shored up: France's new surge of liberalism," The Globe and Mail (Canada) (Aug. 1, 1978)</ref> Note how two powerful new conservative terms led to a third here!
|-
|negativism
|1824
|mental attitude that tends that is skeptical about almost everything, except one's own views
|-
|newspeak
|1949
|political or media expressions using circumlocution and euphemisms to disguise or distract from the truth; first coined by [[George Orwell]] in ''[[1984]]''
|-
|non-justiciable
|1922<ref>Used by the state attorneys for West Virginia (including Philip Steptoe, founder of Steptoe & Johnson) in ''Pennsylvania v. West Virginia'', 262 U.S. 553 (1923): "It is not the 'subject of judicial cognizance,' Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 15; Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S 1, 15; Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 233, or 'susceptible of judicial solution.' Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S. 1, 18, 22; Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 233, 234."</ref>
|a difficult issue that the courts should not attempt to resolve, often because it is too political in nature
|-
|non-locality
|1920s
|[[action at a distance]] at the atomic level; even though proven, it is still opposed by those who believe in [[relativity]] and still not recognized by Merriam-Webster
|-
|nullification
|1798
|assertion of authority by a State against encroachment by the federal government, in defense of liberty
|-
|obambulate
|1600
|From Latin ''obambulatus'', to walk to or before, akin to ''wander''. Word currently claimed to have been invented by Rush Limbaugh in 2011 and used in reference to [[Barack Obama]], yet it is found in Oxford and Webster's dictionaries prior to 1991.
|-
|obstructionism
|1879
|deliberate interference with free speech or legislative progress, as when liberal legislators (the "fleebaggers") fled Wisconsin to try to block a reform
|-
|Old Glory
|1862
|the ''United States of America'' flag, Stars & Stripes
|-
|one-size-fits-all
|1996<ref>Was there an earlier conservative use? Frank Zappa's album cover in the 1970s does not count!</ref>
|Lee Wishing, director of communications for conservative [[Grove City College]], in criticism of how the government administers student loans: "Unfortunately, with government programs, it's one size fits all."<ref>http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1996/dec96/er-dec96.html</ref> The 2008 Republican platform states, "We reject a one-size-fits-all approach and support parental options, including home schooling, and local innovations such as schools or classes for boys only or for girls only and alternative and innovative school schedules."<ref>http://platform.gop.com/2008Platform.pdf</ref>
|-
|one-trick pony
|1980
|a person or group that relies repeatedly on the same gimmick, as in "the media are a one-trick pony in their criticism of [[Rand Paul]]"
|-
|open-minded
|1828
|see [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]
|-
|[[opportunity cost]]
|1911
|
|-
|optimism
|1759
|
|-
|originalism
|1985
|taken from original intent, The belief that the United States Constitution should be interpreted in the way the authors originally intended it
|-
|Orwellian
|1960s
|terminology or style that advances the power of big government but is hurtful or nonsensical<ref>http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=604</ref>
|-
|ostensibly
|1765
|having an outward appearance that may not reflect the underlying truth; good potential use is Luke 3:23 in describing Jesus as the son of Joseph
|-
|outflank
|1765
|to move swiftly around an opponent, a military tactic mastered by [[conservative]] [[General]] [[George Patton]] to crush the [[Germans]] in [[World War II]]
|-
|parenting
|1958
|children raising
|-
|Parkinson's Law
|1955
|how bureaucracies expand regardless of the productivity, and how inefficient work expands to fill the time available for its completion
|-
|[[Parthian shot]]
|1832
|a negative term for the tactic of expressing a criticism while one exits, just as the ancient Parthians would shoot arrows while retreating in battle. This tactic is common among those who reject [[conservative]] truths, as seen when left-leaning editors leave ''Conservapedia''.
|-
|[[patent troll]]
|2001
|a company that obtains or buys up patents for the sole purpose of asserting infringement claims, and without any intention of actually manufacturing the invention; the term was first coined by Peter Detkin, in-house counsel to Intel
|-
|patriotism
|1726
|
|-
|Pavlovian
|1926
|a conditioned, automatic and unthinking response to a signal; it has been used twice by [[conservative]] Supreme Court Justices. "It is well established that this Court does not, or at least should not, respond in Pavlovian fashion to confessions of error by the [[Solicitor General]]." ''De Marco v. United States'', 415 U.S. 449, 451 (1974) ([[Rehnquist]], J., dissenting); "'[[Incorporation doctrine|Incorporation]]' has become so Pavlovian that my Brother BLACK barely mentions the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] in the course of an 11-page opinion dealing with the procedural rule the State of [[Florida]] has adopted for cases tried in Florida courts under Florida's criminal laws." '' Williams v. Fla.'', 399 U.S. 78, 144 (1970) ([[Potter Stewart|Stewart]], J., dissenting and concurring).
|-
|perestroika
|1986
|increasing economic freedom and free speech under [[communism]], which led to the unraveling of the [[communist]] [[Soviet Union]]
|-
|perpetual war
|1947
|Coined by historian Charles A. Beard,<ref>Charles A. Beard is best known for interpreting the Constitution as being primarily motivated by economic interests.</ref> it has been used most recently by [[Ann Coulter]]
|-
|[[personhood]] <ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/personhood Personhood] Dictionary.com</ref>
|1955
|Inherent rights guaranteed to all human beings from the beginning of their biological development, including the pre-born, partially born. Also, the state or fact of being a person.
|-
|Philadelphia
|1682
|coined by [[William Penn]] and meaning "city of brotherly love," the concept captures the "[[best of the public]]" approach
|-
|[[phonics]]
|1684
|conservatives have long championed phonics to promote literacy, Bible-reading, and informed voters; liberals take the opposite position
|-
|phony
|1900<ref>This surprisingly recent origin appears to be derived from a British confidence game.</ref>
|needed to address [[liberal deceit]]
|-
|plasticity
|1783
|having a plastic quality that conforms to molding or pressure; in pejorative usage, someone who easily conforms to [[peer pressure]] or [[liberal]] falsehoods
|-
|poetic justice
|1890
|when virtue is rewarded and/or wrongdoing is punished in an indirect or unexpected way
|-
|political machine
|1905
|a pejorative term for local and typically Democratic power structures that prevent outsiders from winning elections; first used by George Washington Plunkitt to criticize the Tammany Hall machine for which he served
|-
|[[politically correct]]
|1983
|This term originated among radicals at the [[University of Wisconsin-Madison]] to enforce radical orthodoxy, but immediately flipped in usage to become a term of mockery of radicals.<ref>For an early different usage of the word, see 1793 J. WILSON in U.S. Rep. (U.S. Supreme Court) 2 (1798) 462 Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our..language... ‘The United States’, instead of the ‘People of the United States’, is the toast given. This is not politically correct.</ref> The term may have come from Chairman Mao in 1936.
|-
|politicize
|1846
|seeking political gain at the expense of truth or quality<ref>The Merriam-Webster definition (1994 ed.) is incomplete and unclear: "to give a political tone or character to"</ref>
|-
|politics of envy
|2011
|used by Australian [[conservative]] Christopher Pine to describe the philosophy behind taking money from private schools and giving it to public ones.
|-
|pork barrel
|1909
|government as a source of handouts that redistribute money from hard-working people to those who avoid work
|-
|[[post-abortive]]
|1986
|the unexpected trauma and physical harm -- which can worsen over time -- that is experienced by a woman after having an [[abortion]]; coined by Dr. Kaye Cash in an editorial describing what she learned during a 365-mile walk in southeast Arkansas to speak with the public about abortion<ref>Editorial by Kaye Cash, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock, AR), October 23, 1986.</ref>
|-
|potential
|1817<ref>Usage here refers to "promise", not "possibility".</ref>
|
|-
|pothead
|1959
|someone who smokes marijuana and doesn't realize how it destroys people
|-
|powerhouse
|1881
|source of energy and strength - which is what the conservative movement is
|-
|[[price discrimination]]
|1920
|charging different prices for the exact same service or good; first coined by the British economist (and critic of [[John Maynard Keynes]]) Arthur Cecil Pigou in ''The Economics of Welfare''.
|-
|prioritize
|1961
|to recognize that some goals and activities are more important than others, and then focus accordingly
|-
|private sector
|1952
|non-governmental businesses and jobs functioning in free enterprise
|-
|privatize
|1940
|to return a business or enterprise from state to private control; to de-nationalize.
|-
|proactive
|1933
|
|-
|Procrustean
|1832
|a pejorative description of the one-size-fits-all mentality, which disregards individual differences
|-
|productive
|1612
|
|-
|productivity
|1810
|the gap of about 200 years between the creation of "productive" and "productivity" is astounding
|-
|[[pro-life]]
|1960
|
|-
|property right
|1853
|
|-
|provocateur
|1919
|someone who spends more time causing unproductive conflicts rather than advancing knowledge, accomplishing legitimate goals, or helping anyone
|-
|pseudoscience
|1844
|worthless claims written with the appearance of scientific rigor to gain an aura of credibility
|-
|publicity stunt
|1969<ref>Earlier usage in the 1900s may have occurred, but the term "stunt" was not coined until 1878.</ref>
|Used on April 10, 1969 by Republican Senators who withdrew from a tour and probe by Senator [[Ted Kennedy]], criticizing him for his "publicity stunt" in preparation for his expected run for the presidency; the [[Chappaquiddick incident]] sunk his chances three months later.
|-
|quantify
|1840
|
|-
|race card
|1995<ref>This is the date of its widespread familiarity.</ref>
|"Playing the race card" consists of relying on racial emotions or charges of racism in order to overcome the truth and logic in politics, legal proceedings, or otherwise; this term became familiar in the criticism of the defense and acquittal of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife and her friend.
|-
|rapture
|1629
|spiritual ecstasy[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rapture]
|-
|[[recidivism]]
|1886
|the tendency for people lacking in [[faith]] and determination to revert to prior patterns of harmful behavior, such as repeat criminal offenders
|-
|recuse
|1949
|self-removal by a decision-maker (especially a judge) because of possible bias with respect to the pending issue
|-
|red tape
|1736
|excessive bureaucracy and procedural complexity which frustrate meaningful activity and progress
|-
|refudiate
|2010
|combination of ''refute'' and ''repudiate'', as coined by [[Sarah Palin]]
|-
|[[relativism]]
|1865
|the view that ethical truths are not absolute, but depend on the person or group that holds them
|-
|[[responsibility]]
|1737
|HAMILTON Federalist No. 63 (1988) II. 193 Responsibility in order to be reasonable must be limited to objects within the power of the responsible party.
|-
|reverse discrimination
|1969
|the use of quotas or affirmative action to use race or gender to discriminate against a better qualified person
|-
|revisionism
|1903<ref>The first use of this term, now obscure, refers to a Marxist movement that preferred evolutionary rather than revolutionary change.</ref>
|distortions of history to promote liberal bias
|-
|revolving-door
|1973
|the liberal practice of repeatedly transferring into and out of government in a way that impedes progress and access by others, like the same people going round-and-round in a real revolving door
|-
|riot act
|1715<ref>Its colloquial use, as in "read them the riot act," began in 1819.</ref>
|the Riot Act was a law passed in England in 1715 to authorize officials to disperse riots
|-
|Rogue state
|1993
|(Originally used in 1993 then reintroduced in 2002.) A 'rogue state' displays no regard for international law. It attempts to acquire weapons of mass destruction and other military technology with which to threaten neighbouring countries and support terrorism. Rogue states often reject human values and brutalize their own people.
|-
|rubber-stamp
|1918
|unthinking repetition or endorsement of something, despite having the responsibility to make an independent decision, as in "Democrats rubber-stamp demands by the abortion industry."
|-
|run of the mill
|1930
|meaning "merely average, commonplace," the term is critical of a failure to strive for excellence
|-
|sacred cow
|1910
|a person or idea, typically liberal, that becomes immune from criticism because of its political usefulness rather than its truthfulness, as in the theories of [[evolution]] and [[relativity]]
|-
|scapegoating
|1943
|a term criticizing how people, particularly liberals, deflect accountability and blame from themselves to others; inspired by Leviticus 16:8.
|-
|salutary neglect
|1775
|coined by the [[conservative]] [[Edmund Burke]] in his 1775 speech to the British [[House of Commons]] entitled "On Moving His Resolutions for Conciliation with the Colonies"<ref>http://www.archive.org/stream/burkesspeechonco00burkuoft/burkesspeechonco00burkuoft_djvu.txt</ref>
|-
|school choice
|1980
|popularized by Milton Friedman in his book, ''Free to Choose''
|-
|[[scientific fascism]]
|2009
|a coordinated effort by a group of scientists to enforce a certain point of view upon others.
|-
|[[secularism]]
|1850-55
|attempts to educate, particularly through [[public school]], without including [[faith]] or even acknowledgment of [[God]]
|-
|Segway
|2001
|Dean Kamen's trademark spelling of "segue" for use of Yankee Ingenuity to improve efficiency, to refer to a form of battery-powered transportation.
|-
|[[self-defense]]
|1651
|
|-
|self-destruct
|1968
|often the tragic result of liberal falsehoods
|-
|[[Discipline|self-discipline]]
|1838
|
|-
|self-preservation
|1614
|preservation of oneself from destruction or harm
|-
|self-reliant
|1848
|
|-
|separation of powers
|1748
|the fundamental insight underlying the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|shotgun marriage
|1929
|pregnancy => get married. Think of someone besides yourself for a change.
|-
|show trial
|1937
|trials, especially in communist countries, which have preordained outcomes but are used for propaganda purposes
|-
|sidewalk counseling
|1975
|the practice of volunteers exercising their right of [[free speech]] to advise women against [[abortion]] as they walk on sidewalks toward abortion clinics; liberals have passed laws to restrict and [[censorship|censor]] this
|-
|silent majority
|1969
|coined by President [[Richard Nixon]] in his speech to the nation on Nov. 3, 1969<ref>http://watergate.info/nixon/silent-majority-speech-1969.shtml</ref>
|-
|skullduggery
|1867
|underhanded or unscrupulous behavior
|-
|slippery slope
|1900s
|term has been widely used for decades to expose the fallacy of "it doesn't hurt to try"
|-
|smoke and mirrors
|1979
|something intended to disguise or draw attention away from an often embarrassing or unpleasant issue. <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/smoke%20and%20mirrors Smoke and Mirrors, Merriam-Webster]</ref> Widely used during the 1990s to describe [[Bill Clinton]]'s political strategy.
|-
|smoke-filled room
|1920
|a pejorative term describing how a few political insiders sometimes pick a candidate or make a decision in a secret room (in the old days, filled with cigar smoke)
|-
|smoking gun
|1974
|a law-and-order term, "smoking gun" was first used as figurative term in a reported judicial decision in ''Rodgers v. United States Steel Corp.'', 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12775 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 20, 1975), and many literal uses of the term in court decisions before that!
|-
|soapbox
|1907
|staging for a typically liberal, unproductive rant having little substance
|-
|soccer mom
|1987
|a mother who devotes herself to her children's activities and a significant voting bloc or demographic group
|-
|[[socialist]]
|1827
|someone who advocates government control over the economy, and particularly state control of the means of production
|-
|social justice rhetoric
|2009
|Language and rhetorical ploys equating equality of outcome with justice.
|-
|spend-and-tax
|2009<ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/02/morning-bell-the-obama-tax-and-spend-economy-is-here/</ref>
|a variation on "tax-and-spend" (see below), "spend-and-tax" consists of spending the money first and then trying to justify raising taxes based on the deficit created by the spending
|-
|spin doctor
|1984
|someone ensuring that others interpret an event from a particular point of view. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/world/asia/22policy.html?_r=2 General Petraeus describes Axelrod by Bob Woodward]</ref>
|-
|spot-on
|1949
|precisely correct, as in a prediction or in overcoming imprecision in a challenging task; its origin is from the military
|-
|squirrelly
|1928
|like a squirrel; jumpy and unpredictable; as in liberals get squirrelly when confronted with facts.
|-
|[[stagflation]]
|1965
|inflation ''and'' high [[unemployment]] ''and'' stagnant demand by consumers, typically due to [[liberal]] policies as in the late 1970s under President [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
|stalking horse
|1788
|a candidate or issue that serves to increase the chances that ''another'' will win, as in "antifederalists attempted to win elections by using 'the stalking horse of amendments.'"<ref>''Centinel'', 1788 (quoted in ''The Federalist party in Massachusetts to the year 1800'', By Anson Ely Morse).</ref>
|-
|[[statism]]
|1919
|advocates for centralized government and government ownership
|-
|straightforward
|1806
|something liberals are not
|-
|straw man
|1896
|an imaginary argument or example set up for the purpose of easily knocking down, while distracting from valid arguments
|-
|Stupaked
|2010
|hurt by someone who reassured everyone he would do the right thing, but then switched at the last minute to do the opposite (refers especially to [[abortion betrayal]]s)<ref>Columnist Kathleen Parker is credited with first coining this term.</ref>
|-
|[[subsidiarity]]
|1936
|the concept (opposed by liberals) that responsibilities performed by local or subordinate organizations should not be usurped by centralized government
|-
|supply-side
|1976
|the economic theory that reducing taxes expands economic activity by encouraging greater earnings and investments; proven successful during the Reagan Administration in the 1980s
|-
|takeover
|1917
|as in the takeover of government by the communist revolution in that year
|-
|tax-and-spend
|1937
|not yet recognized by Merriam-Webster, it is included in dictionary.com and it means the liberal policy of raising taxes and increasing government spending
|-
|taxpayer
|1816
|the word highlights who is really paying for things
|-
|tea party
|2007
|an amorphous group of ordinary citizens unified against a more expensive government
|-
|Tebowing
|2011
|bending on one knee in public to give glory to God (named after [[pro-life]] [[NFL]] [[QB]] [[Tim Tebow]])
|-
|[[term limits]]
|1861
|can you believe this is not in the dictionary yet? Merriam-Webster omits it, but dictionary.com has it<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/term+limit</ref>
|-
|terrorism
|1795
|this was during the French Revolution
|-
|[[textualism]]
|1952
|first used by Justice [[Robert Jackson]] in his influential concurrence in ''[[Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer]]'', 343 U.S. 579 (1952), it now describes the legal philosophy of Justice [[Antonin Scalia]]
|-
|[[think tank]]
|1940s
|first coined in [[Britain]] to describe intelligence organizations that helped the military, think tanks became part of the rise of conservatism in the 1970s and 1980s; is ''Conservapedia'' the think tank of the future?
|-
|top-notch
|1900
|the highest quality, which requires respect for merit to recognize
|-
|[[totalitarianism]]
|1926
|term which identifies the similarities of fascist and communist regimes and ideologies and urges resistance
|-
|tour de force
|1802
|a feat of skill
|-
|trademark
|1838
|extends the concept of private property to the marks used by business
|-
|traditionalist
|1856
|"adherence to the doctrines or practices of a tradition...the beliefs of those opposed to modernism, liberalism, or radicalism"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/traditionalist</ref>
|-
|[[transaction cost]]
|1961
|Economist [[Ronald Coase]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] for this.
|-
|[[transistor]]
|1948
|named by John R. Pierce and developed at the [[conservative]] [[Bell Labs]], this invention epitomized Yankee ingenuity; Pierce was a critic of claims of [[artificial intelligence]] and was the future developer of [[Telstar]], a precursor to the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]]
|-
|tree huggers
|1970s
|still not recognized by the dictionary, this term criticizes extreme environmentalists, but they proudly use the term also to describe what they literally do
|-
|trivia
|1920
|insignificant detail, which can sometimes obscure what is important and distract people from the Bible; liberal [[Wikipedia]] is filled with trivial junk
|-
|Trojan horse
|1837
|describes a type of liberal [[deceit]]: subversion from within
|-
|trust but verify
|1980s
|popularized by President Ronald Reagan as the approach to use towards communist [[deceit]]
|-
|ugly duckling
|1883
|an unpromising appearance but often with great unseen potential
|-
|ultra vires
|1793
|beyond the authority, especially of a government or corporate official
|-
|unborn child
|1791
|the rights of the unborn child have been recognized in English law since the 1600s, but the specific term "unborn child" itself may have been first used by an attorney arguing before the New Jersey Supreme Court in ''Den v. Sparks'', 1 N.J.L. 67 (Sup. Ct. 1791)
|-
|underachiever
|1952
|a typically liberal person who fails to accomplish what he could
|-
|underdog
|1887
|[[David]] v. [[Goliath]], [[Cinderella]], [[best of the public]], etc.
|-
|[[underemployed]]
|1908
|having less than full-time or suitable employment
|-
|underwater basket weaving
|Mid 1950s
|A pejorative that describes worthless college courses and a declining educational system; see [[Worst College Majors]].
|-
|unscripted
|1950
|speaking sincerely without parroting a script; "[[Rand Paul]] and [[Chris Christie]] are effective because, unlike [[Obama]], they are unscripted."
|-
|unsung hero
|1860
|someone who accomplishes good without receiving recognition for it
|-
|useful idiot
|1920<ref>[http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=135140 Attributed originally to Lenin], but since used by others like [[Nobel Prize]] winner (Literature) Doris Lessing to describe how she was manipulated by the [[communists]]: “I was taken around and shown things as a ‘useful idiot’... that’s what my role was. I can’t understand why I was so gullible.” [http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/2010/07/100624_doc_useful_idiots_lenin.shtml]</ref>
|Sample usage: "There are not as many useful idiots on college campuses for the Obama reelection campaign in 2012 as there were in 2008, and it's doubtful he can fill a stadium rally unless the campaign pays students to attend."
|-
|vandalism
|1798
|malicious destruction of someone else's property
|-
|veracity
|1623
|devotion to truthfulness
|-
|vet
|1904<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2199254/?from=rss</ref>
|a verb meaning to screen for flaws
|-
|[[victimization]]
|1840
|
|-
|volunteer
|1618
|someone who freely offers to help
|-
|wannabe
|1981
|a word that criticizes liberal [[status worship]]
|-
|War on Terror
|2001
|no listing at Merriam-Webster February 2, 2009 Obama ends use of the conservative lexicon. <ref>[http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=17455 Obama administration drops 'war on terror' phrase] Pew Forum, February 2, 2009</ref>
|-
|washed-up
|1928
|no longer productive, as in "the washed-up liberal professor has not contributed anything to his field in 30 years."
|-
|waterloo
|1816
|a final defeat or setback, coined merely one year after the [[English]] defeated [[Napoleon]] at the [[Battle of Waterloo]]; there has never been a "waterloo" for [[Christianity]] or [[conservatism]]
|-
|wildcatter
|1883
|a pro-energy term that describes someone who drills for oil in fields not known to have oil
|-
|wishy-washy
|1873<ref>An archaic meaning of poor quality dates to 1690.</ref>
|easily changing in opinion, usually due to peer pressure
|-
|word poverty
|2001<ref>http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/summer2001/lang_gap_moats.html</ref>
|popularized by President [[George W. Bush]]
|-
|work (physical sense)
|1826
|a physical measure<ref>Work equals force times distance.</ref> of effort used to increase energy
|-
|work ethic
|1951
|a habit of working as a moral good
|-
|workaholic
|1968
|coined by a Southern Baptist pastor to describe the work habits of himself and other ministers<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2000/01/02/magazine/the-lives-they-lived-on-language-wordplayers.html</ref>
|-
|worldview
|1858
|a comprehensive way of looking at life and the world; sometimes used to criticize a liberal's irrational belief system
|-
|Yankee
|1758
|Inhabitants of New England, United States. Dutch slang in 1698- Americanized 50 years later.
|-
|Yankee Ingenuity
|1761
|America's inhabitants had a knack for clever design and capitalist success. The early Americans had applied their exceptional skills prior to the terms existence, see [[Eli Whitney]] and [[Benjamin Franklin]].
|-
|yellow journalism
|1898
|the practice, started by newspaper publishers Joseph Pulitzer and his rival William Randolph Hearst, of sensationalizing and biasing newspaper headlines and articles in order to influence public opinion
|-
|}

__TOC__ 

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

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

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Not Yet Recognized Terms
!Suggestions
!Comments
|-
|pre-9/11 thinking
|9/10 mindset
|terror is jurisdiction of the courts
|-
|anti-family
|tradition opposer, familiopathic
|
|-
|blame shift
|false accusations
|e.g., guns blamed for an increasing murder rate
|-
|buycott
|counter support
|An effort to cooperate and promote an organization or a process to nullify campaigns that are targeted by boycott protests.
|-
|causing harm by spreading falsehoods
|deceit
|e.g., denying or concealing disease and infertility caused by promiscuity
|-
|Constitutional values
|adherence to righteousness as set forth by the [[Founding Fathers]]
|principles set in the Declaration
|-
|Counterfeit Marriage
|uncivil union
|Manipulating Man's laws by usurping God's laws.
|-
|cradle to grave <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/spanish/from%20cradle%20to%20grave cradle to grave- no entry found] Merriam-Websters</ref>
|sanctity of life, conception to natural death
|pro-life stance, also can mean socialist entitlement programs
|-
|cut and run
|surrender advocates
|when the going gets tough, run away from the problem
|-
|debtucation
|tuition noose
|College student debt is now larger than credit card debt in the US
|-
|[[deliberate ignorance]]
|mind-locked, self-centered pride obscuring the truth
|the term exists; the dictionary does not yet include it
|-
|denial that [[Hell]] exists
|Hell-denier? Antinfernal? (Should be "antihadessic" so as not to mix Hellenate and Latinate roots)
|
|-
|[[abstinence denial|denier of the effectiveness of abstinence]]
|abstinence-denier?
|
|-
|drive-by media
|partisan slander
|liberal mainstream media assault on the GOP or conservative principles, deceitful attacks for opposing viewpoints
|-
|[[earmark]]
|
|spending on specific projects at the request of a particular congressman, and without meaningful examination by others voting on it
|-
|easily amused by [[deceit]]
|dolophile
|from Greek/Latin root ''dolo-'' meaning guile, deceit, deception [http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/664]
|-
|family-friendly
|wholesome
|describes TV programming, websites, social events that are not offensive
|-
|Fleebagger
|Oath breakers
|Describes [[liberal]] politicians who avoid their sworn duties as a way to advance their political agenda.
|-
|Hatred of one's country, refusal to recognize the good elements of it, or unreasonably critical of it
|misopatria, misopatrist
|From Greek ''misein'', to hate, and Latin ''patria'', nation or homeland
|-
|heavenly body
|celestial body
|natural objects visible in the sky
|-
|hellbound
|
|recognized by over 1.3 million sites in a Google search and no substitute term is available, yet dictionaries refuse to recognize it
|-
|Hoax and Chains
|[[Keynesian economics]]
|a phonetic play on the rhetoric slogan of Hope and Change. Hope replaced by unemployment and Change represents obsessive tax burdens.
|-
|hoax plant
|fake townhall, kkk teaparty
|a term to describe a deceitful method of placing an operative that appears to be part of a group in order to push an agenda or to make a competing agenda look ridiculous.
|-
|[[Hollywood values]]
|West Coast Hedonism
|Over 800,000 results on Google, not yet recognized by Merriam-Webster
|-
|homo-fascist <ref>[http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1318230 LaBarbera: Apple's action stems from 'homo-facism', OneNewsNow, March 25, 2011]</ref>
|LGBT Stormtrooper, Gay-vangelist
|Guardians of gender identity ideology
|-
|[[Illegal Alien|illegal alien]]
|
|widely used in court decisions and political discourse for years, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it is as a term.
|-
|Ineptocracy
|circle of failure
|a government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing.
|-
|infotainment
|tabloid news, dramacast
|mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Datelin
|-
|[[limited government]]
|we the people democracy
|first testament to this was the [[U.S. Constitution]], defining [[Reagan]]s presidency, can't be found in Merriam-Websters. <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/limited%20government Limited government - Not found] Merriam-Webster's</ref>
|-
|manufactured outrage
|fake tears
|liberal politicians and the liberal media's method of stroking anger to pursue an agenda.
|-
|media vigilantism
|soviet-style censorship
|media's public campaign to demonize dissent against people or groups, such as [[Juan Williams]].
|-
|Mediscare
|fear card
|Democrats opposed to entitlement reform use fear to stop changes to Medicare
|-
|merit pay
|performance bonus
|Doing your job better with perks as a reward. The typical liberal union teacher avoids merit pay at all costs, self before students.
|-
|[[militant gays]]
|intimidating homosexual
|
|-
|modern idolatry
|"media idolatry"; "money idolatry"; "celebrity idolatry"
|idolatry conjures images of golden calves, and a modern version is needed
|-
|moral fabric
|domestic tranquility
|ethics and virtues united for the common good of all
|-
|morally bankrupt
|[[atheism]], self-void
|ethically and spiritually challenged souls
|-
|narrative hysteria
|delusional finger-pointing
|a frantic attempt to capitalize on calamity by casting their opponents as somehow responsible for an act of madness and evil
|-
|opposite of [[global warming]]
|regional warming
|the North pole shrinks as the South pole increases
|-
|opposite of [[materialism]]
|spiritualism and idealism have been its philosophical opposites, historically
|[[dualism]] has been suggested, but it is not the ''opposite'' of [[materialism]]; "spiritualism" is not a common term and is the "opposite" of materialism
|-
|[[peer pressure]]
|used in titles to professional journal articles as early as 1994
|can you believe that isn't recognized by Merriam-Webster?
|-
|proven wrong, a refusal to admit it
|mulism; heel-digger?
|cf. mulish. This refusal is what promoted the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]].
|-
|religious right
|Christian conservatives
|religion in America almost exclusively a conservative institution, no religious left term in existence.
|-
|reward failure
|TARP
|too big to fail, bailout bankrupt, mismanagement subsidized
|-
|rewrite history <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/rewrite%20history rewrite history not found, Merriam-Websters]</ref>
|[[deceit]], mislead
|Commonly used term describing liberal deceit to hide, defraud others about factual history.
|-
|rogue states
|rogue nations
|nations defying international law, only rogue is listed in Merriman-Websters
|-
|runaway jury
|The term has existed for decades, but Merriam-Webster has not recognized it yet.
|
|-
|Rule of Law
|
|
|-
|[[schlockumentary]]
|propaganda film
|documentary films based on falsehoods and half-truths
|-
|[[Second generation atheist|second-generation atheist]]
|cradle atheist
|
|-
|selective outrage
|partisan hypocrisy, bipolar
|to be against something to further a cause and reject, stay silent, ignore or discount something similar.
|-
|smear merchant
|serial slander
|to constantly hurl degrading or false accusations against others
|-
|strict constructionism
|
|an important term for over 200 years to describe adherence to the text of the Constitution, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it.
|-
|[[Conservative| Traditional Values]]
| principles of Conservatism
|much the same as family values but incorporating all aspects society; family, religion, self-sufficiency, the truth, hard work. Only listed in Merriam-Websters to describe what Nilihism is against.
|-
|true emergency
|life support
|meaning a high probability of serious injury or death to an individual or property. Emergency has been watered down, e.g. to be locked out of one's car.
|-
|Unaffected by, or impervious to, the media
|mediaproof
|cf. bulletproof. ''Once John became aware of the extent of [[liberal deceit]], he set about mediaproofing his mind''.
|-
|[[Wikipedia]]'s undue influence on people's thinking (eg the [[hearsay society]])
|wikiwashing
|comparable to brainwashing - Wikipedia's claims and procedures become more important than reality or [[logic]].
|-
|}

== Terms Difficult to Classify ==

These new terms are difficult to classify:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[affirmative action|affirmative action]]
|1961
|first used in [http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal6/eo10925.htm JFK's Executive Order 10925] in 1961 and subsequently promoted by [[LBJ]].
|-
|Americanism
|1781
|Originally, a phrase unique to American English, later, loyalty to America and its principles
|-
|bipartisan
|1909
|emphasized by liberals when they are in the minority in power, but ignored by liberals when they are the majority in power
|-
|colonist
|1701
|settlers of a new country
|-
|compartmentalize
|1925
|compartmentalizing the Bible away from knowledge and education leads to ignorance and despair
|-
|contrarian
|1657
|someone who delights in taking a position contrary to others
|-
|eclectic
|1683
|taking the best from among different styles or ideas; compare [[best of the public]]
|-
|evangelism
|1620-30
|"isms" are usually pejorative, though this acquired a positive meaning over time, and perhaps from the outset
|-
|genetics
|1905
|perhaps this should be on the conservative list?
|-
|identity politics
|1988
|exploiting racial, ethnic, gender alliances for political gain
|-
|inane
|1662
|refers to comments, often made by liberals, that are utterly devoid of substance
|-
|junk legislation
|1980s
|used initially by liberals to complain about the lack of meaningful legislation
|-
|missionary
|1635-1645
|conservative?
|-
|multitasking
|1966
|performing multiple tasks all at once
|-
|polar coordinates
|1694
|Newton may have used it earlier
|-
|republican
|1685
|
|-
|reverse engineer
|1973
|to deconstruct a product (or software) in order to understand how it works, often with the purpose of copying it
|-
|scrooge
|1843
|the main character in Charles Dickens' ''A Christmas Carol''; the story is based on materialism and is often used as a substitute for the Biblical account, but charity is a conservative value
|-
|smoke and mirrors
|1982
|describes the use of deceit, particularly in politics; probably a conservative term, but will await more etymology about it
|-
|soapbox
|1907
|now used pejoratively, but probably not initially when it was a way for the public to participate
|-
|states' rights
|1790
|liberals often invoke this too; Democrats were its biggest champions in the 1800s (in connection with slavery), and even today on issues like legalizing drugs and same-sex marriage
|-
|technocrat
|1932
|technical expert
|-
|telecommute
|1974<ref>The first use of this term was in the British magazine ''The Economist''.</ref>
|a combination of a Greek root ("tele", which means "far off") and a Latin root ("commutare", which means "to exchange")
|-
|toady
|1826
|a toady caves into peer pressure to seek acceptance by others: "the largest gathering of toadies is by college students herded into Obama campaign rallies"
|-
|tomfoolery
|1812
|playful or foolish behavior
|-
|traditionalism
|1856
|"beliefs of those opposed to [[modernism]], [[liberalism]], or [[radicalism]]"
|-
|[[twilight zone]]
|1949
|the realm of imagination that seems impossible but is difficult to disprove, and which challenges ordinary views of reality; also the terminator between night and day on a planetary body
|-
|Whip<ref>In its political usage.</ref>
|late 1800s
|An elected position in each political party for the legislator responsible for gathering and confirming support for the party position on particular bills. This term is derived from "whipper-in," which in fox-hunting refers to the man who prevents hunting dogs from straying amid a chase.<ref>http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/11/durbin_re-elected_number_two_s.html</ref>
|-
|wiki
|1995
|a website (or website software) that facilitates contributions and corrections by the public
|-
|working class
|1789
|those who work regular, 40-hour weeks in manual labor, such as factory jobs
|-
|}

== Downgraded Conservative Terms ==

These conservative terms are less significant:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|byzantine
|1794<ref>The usage here -- in sense of complex governmental rules -- probably developed later.</ref>
|
|-
|connive
|1601
|to pretend ignorance
|-
|eleemosynary
|1616
|relating to charity
|-
|[[entropy]]
|1868
|disorder
|-
|[[filibuster]]
|1851
|
|-
|incandescent
|1794
|bright and radiant, conquering darkness, precursor to the invention of the incandescent lamp (light bulb)
|-
|jabberwocky
|1902
|talking nonsense
|-
|level playing field
|1977
|A term originally used to describe fair, competitive [[free market]] conditions.<ref>http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/228650.html</ref> Liberal policies such as [[affirmative action]] and [[progressive taxation]] have been enacted in the name of leveling the playing field, but by favoring certain groups of people these policies do the opposite.
|-
|luddite
|1811
|one who opposes and even destroys technological advances
|-
|media
|1923
|
|-
|[[milquetoast]]
|1933
|timid and unassertive; easily persuaded or exploited; inspired by Caspar Milquetoast, the unassertive character in "The Timid Soul" cartoon strip by Harold T. Webster, which ran in the New York Herald Tribune on Sundays beginning in 1924.
|-
|normalcy
|1920
|related to the election of [[Warren G. Harding]] by the largest margin yet in history
|-
|ne'er-do-well
|1736
|"an idle worthless person" - Merriam-Webster
|-
|reticent
|1834
|restrained in expression, presentation, or appearance
|-
|self-indulgence
|1753
|
|-
|smart aleck
|1856
|an obnoxiously conceited and self-assertive person with pretensions to being superior to others. Etymology: Aleck, nickname for Alexander <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smart%20alec Smart Aleck Merriam-Websters]</ref>
|-
|}

== Sources ==

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

== See also ==

*[[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]]
*[[Essay:New Liberal Terms]]
*[[Essay:Surprising Dates of Origin for Terms]]
*[[Linguistic Analysis of Candidates]]
*[[Conservative Bible Project]]
*[[Secularized Language‎]]

{{Conservatism}}
{{Conservapedia}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Essays]]
[[Category:Conservative Bible]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:Best of Conservapedia]]

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2012-06-12T22:36:14Z

HumanGeographer: /* A.M. */

'''[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]''' 
'''[[/archive2 | Archive 2 ]]''' 
'''[[/archive3 | Archive 3 ]]'''
----

== Additional liberal terms? ==

What about "ethnocentrism" (1905-1910) and "multiculturalism" (1960-1965)? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 09:34, 16 January 2011 (EST)

: Superb suggestions. Please add as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:37, 16 January 2011 (EST)
==Refudiate==
Even though liberal dictionaries added this word, Palin admitted it was an error on her part. If it stays then we must add Corpse men for lib terms.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:01, 23 January 2011 (EST)
:Not necessarily--no dictionaries made "corpse man" a [http://www.execdigital.com/business/leader/who-s-laughing-now-sarah-palin-s-refudiate-oxford-s-top-word-2010 word of the year]. Moreover, the word seems to be getting some leverage and use on its own terms. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 14:43, 23 January 2011 (EST)

::Perhaps time will tell. The term "Big Bang" was born of mockery also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:15, 23 January 2011 (EST)
:::Andy, could that explain the perceived scarcity of conservative words dating from the 21st century? Because I think the notion that a word can "mature" to be conservative is a fascinating and powerful insight. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:10, 4 February 2011 (EST)

== Charisma? ==

I have doubts that charisma, despite its etymology, is a conservative term. It seems to elevate style over substance -- a definite [[liberal]] trait. Nowhere does the Bible refer to Jesus as having charisma.

I suspect the original meaning of charisma was for religious charisma.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 4 February 2011 (EST)
:I would suggest, (if we do ''indeed,'' keep it), to change the phrasing to something more on the order of:
::'''literally "a gift from God", charisma is the quality of a person imbued by God to leadership, often found in [[conservative]] public figures.'''
:This nixes the "magic" from the sentence since as wonderful as a gift from God is, it isn't "magic". [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 20:20, 4 February 2011 (EST)
::Andy, that's a good point. I prefer to think of charisma as ''the style of substance'', but that's definitely not the case for everyone (especially liberals). While the etymology is undoubtedly conservative, perhaps "difficult to classify" may be a better resting place for charisma. Devon, either way, definitely an improvement on your part, thanks. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 22:21, 4 February 2011 (EST)
==New words added==

Hi, I have added 4 new words: deference (1660), idealist (1701), god-fearing (1835) & Rogue state (1993). If everyone accepts these, they will fill out the doubling pattern for those centuries. Shall I change the numbers in the summary at the top of the page?

I have also added 'liberal creep' (2008). [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 01:08, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

:All your additions look superb except "deference," which I'm not sure is [[conservative]]. Please do update the counts the top (I already did increment the 1800s count for "God-fearing").--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:05, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

::I added 'deference' because CP has 'giving those in authority due respect' listed as a [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_values Conservative Value]. I will tweak the definition a bit to emphasis the necessary legitimacy of the superior. Thanks for the positive feedback. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 02:21, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

:::But look at the remainder of the chat quote: "giving those in authority due respect, but not to the point of accepting orders or assertions that are contrary to logic or morality."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:34, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

:::: Let's continue this discussion later Monday morning. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:40, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

Hi again. Firstly, let me tell you that I am an Aussie and my timezone is GMT+10. This makes me 12-15 hours ahead of you. Our conversations may be a bit disjointed because of this. Right now it is my bedtime, so I will post this comment & then go, leaving it for your consideration. (Editing has been switched off for a while, is that correct? I realise that you do this most nights. I didn't expect it to be on again tonight.)

To return to 'deference': to me the word embodies respect and consideration which I would regard as being conservative values, but not necessarily 'giving in'. However, I do not have the right American nuances to interpret this as you do and will not push this strongly and am happy to remove it from the list.

I have a couple of alternatives for consideration:

atheistic (1625-35) An adjective pertaining to or characteristic of atheists or atheism; containing, suggesting, or disseminating atheism.

secularize (1611) To make secular; to transfer from ecclesiastical to civil or lay use, possession, or control

To me, these are useful words for conservatives. They do not describe conservatives. My reading of the list suggests that useful words are acceptable eg alarmist. Anyway, goodnight for now, catch up with you tomorrow. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 08:32, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

: "atheistic" is good. Let's go with that. I didn't see why "patriarchy" was conservative, so I removed that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 18 March 2011 (EDT)
::No worries. I'll add 'atheistic'. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 22:36, 18 March 2011 (EDT)

== "Copacetic" ==

I'm not sure how conservative this word is. There's no reasoning given for its inclusion, apart from the fact that Bojangles Robinson supposedly created it (and even that is extremely weak evidence and I'm not sure what it adds. I'm going to remove it from the list if no one raises any opposition. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:37, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

: "Copacetic" is the very satisfactory result of conservative values. It is associated with good and honest living. I do object to removal of this conservative term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

== Moral Majority - A suggestion ==

Andy, I saw your addition "silent majority" and it made me immediately think of "Moral Majority". [http://www.answers.com/topic/moral-majority This page credits it to Jerry Falwell in 1979]. Although in it's strictest sense it describes a movement it is still has greater symbolism. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:30, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

:Great suggestion. Please included it ... and increment the total near the beginning for the 1900s.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
::Done! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:22, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

== Obambulate ==

Maybe it's just my public school education at work, but I fail to see how obambulate is conservative. Apart from its obvious similarities with "Obama", it simply means "to walk around". I know that Obama has been bumbling and whatnot, but it's an innocuous word that is being assigned a special significance due to coincidence. I'm not sure it belongs on this list. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:05, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:It is probably as a result of it being mentioned on Rush Limbaugh's show and the liberal reactions to it during the past week. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:08, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::What was the reaction? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:14, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

:::Denny, your comment is a valid one, but the modern usage of the term "obambulate" is to criticize the directionless wandering characteristic of liberal leadership. None of the terms in the list should be viewed in a vacuum independent of their usage.

::: Hey, my response used another candidate: "directionless". ''Trying to find its date of origin next ....''--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:35, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

== Agitprop ==
Sorry if I get the etiquette wrong, first time commenting. I was just wondering if there was a source for Agitprop? I always understood it to be derived from Soviet Russian institutions, so would be quite keen to see the conservative routes of it. Everything I have tried so far has turned up the term as being derived from Russian e.g. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=agitprop&searchmode=none , and I would be surprised if the internal machinations of the USSR would come up with something conservative, so would be keen to find out the alternative you uncovered"[[User:JTpldl|JTlpdl]] 09:18, 28 March 2011 (EDT)"

== Page dividing ==

Due to the success of this essay, it's really slow, so can I split it into pages by century of origin? This would allow the page to load faster and be easier to navigate. Any thoughts on the idea? [[User:BenDylan|BenDylan]] 20:09, 14 April 2011 (EDT)
:I'd like to see it be broken up by century and automatically numbered. I'm not sure that breaking it up into many pages would facilitate more than inconvenience. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:55, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

==Audit==
I'm getting 25,48,100,201,17 as the counts. If so, this wouldn't be the first time I've seen them wrong. As I mentioned above, we should consider breaking the list up by century to help avoid counting errors. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 18:37, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

== Word for 1700's ==
Could belittle be the word we are looking for to perfect the list? It was coined in 1785 by Thomas Jefferson himself, and is certainly a way to describe an action often done by liberals to protect their ideas. [[User:JoshuaL|JoshuaL]] 19:34, 28 April 2011 (EDT)
:Joshua, I'm inclined to agree, as Jefferson likely coined the term in response to critics trying to deceptively minimize issues he raised. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 02:07, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

::Not sure "belittle" is conservative. But how about "axiomatic"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:20, 30 April 2011 (EDT)
If you're still looking for an 18th century word, 'nationalist' would fit well - it's a core conservative value, synonymous with 'patriot', the antithesis of 'internationalist', and one of the defining features of the 18th century. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:17, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

== Liberal creep ==

How do we reconcile this with liberal creep? If language is becoming more conservative, why is opinion and perception becoming more liberal? Do liberals or conservatives dictate the terms of the national conversation? If someone could take a look at the two phenomena and find out what makes one move in one direction and the other in the opposite, it would make a great essay. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 15:05, 8 May 2011 (EDT)
:I've also brought this up for discussion [[Talk:Essay:Conservapedia's_Law#Putting_Conservapedia.27s_Law_in_perspective|here]]. Conservapedia's Law, the observation that conservative insights double over time, is clearly incomplete, perhaps even flawed. I agree that there could be a complex relationship between liberal creep and Conservapedia's Law and it is worth investigating. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 15:15, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

== Graph of words over time ==

While I was drawing graphs, I wrote a quick script to generate a graph of the data in this page. [http://static.inky.ws/image/405/image.jpg This graph] shows the growth in conservative terms year-by-year, rather than just per-century. The red line is the data from this page, the green line is a quadratic curve. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:59, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:Wow, that's a spectacular graph! Can you give permission for me to include it in the entry page?

:The graph disproves the theory that there were bursts of new words during certain periods. I'll remove that from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
::Please do use the graph as you see fit. I can generate new graphs from the latest data with no trouble at all, so if you'd like it can be updated periodically. I'm currently trying to find a suitably analogous source of data for liberal words/ideas, which would allow comparative analysis. This kind of data is very interesting as it seems to avoid the short-term political cycles which characterize much of popular discourse, focusing on the really significant point of the growth of ideas. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:59, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

:::I posted the graph and your idea is marvelous. However, I don't think the graph is completely accurate: the curve for the actual data should intersect the predicted curve at each turning of the centuries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:45, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

:::*Is the green curve really a fit for the data according to Aschlafly's theory? I mean, Jcw says ''the green line is a quadratic curve'' - at best it's a second approximation for the geometric curve...
:::*Personally, I find quite hard to judge the existance of ''bursts'' from a [[cdf]]. Perhaps Jcw could create a histogram - perhaps for decades?
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:30, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
::::You both raise valid points, which hopefully will be answered soon. Andy and August both mention that the x^2 curve isn't a perfect fit - it certainly isn't, and I'm pretty sure a 2^x curve with appropriate constants will fit better; I'm planning to do that tonight. August mentions different ways of representing the data - I'll happily produce a histogram of the data if that'd be interesting, but the reason for plotting it as I have is to produce a curve that I can use for my more grandiose scheme, of which more later. My background is not so much in statistics - although I've done a fair bit of that - but in purer maths, so my thinking is mostly based around the relationships between smooth(-ish) functions. That may not be the best way to deal with these data qua data, but to extract patterns for further, more abstract work, it's ideal. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:43, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
::::[http://static.inky.ws/image/412/image.jpg Et voila], a better fit. This is an exponential curve fitted to the same data. Note that it fits much better in the region with the most words, but is a bit out for the earlier period where there are fewer words in the list. This is because we can more easily find suitable words from more recent periods, so naturally the pattern is most exact there. No doubt if we could go through a large, representative corpus and extract words uniformly, it would fit nicely all the way along. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:25, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::'''@Aschlafly: ''' Could you recount the words? My count gave me 26-51-103-210-18 (Sum: 408) instead of 26-52-103-208-18 (Sum: 407). Perhaps a fourth column for the century (or even better, the decade) could be added? That would make it much easier to keep track of the numbers!

:::::'''@Jcw: ''' I don't think that your ''better fit'' is the function which Aschlafly has in mind: it should be <math>F_{theo}(t) = \frac{\#words }{15}</math><math>(2^{\frac{t-1599}{100}}-1)</math>, where ''#words'' is the number of words created before 2000, i.e., 390. This function touches/intersects the empirical cdf at the turn of each century, a fact which betrays the biased method of looking for these words.

:::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:12, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::August, so you've constructed a function which you claim 'betrays the biased method of looking for these words'? I'd be interested to see a more thorough explanation of that point. Another editor has attempted a similar argument above, but without success. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:42, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::::August, I have an open mind about this. I don't see how we could so easily find [[conservative]] words that double by century if the underlying pattern were not there. But please explain if you think that is in error.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:27, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

I hope we can agree on the function ''Ftheo'' - it should be uncontroversial:

*one layer exists from 1 - 2 - 4 - 8 words, i.e., 20, 21,22 and 23
*the partial sums are 1 - 3 - 7 - 15, i.e., 21-1, 22-1, 23-1, and 24-1
*so, with the turn of the n-th century, there should be 2n+1-1 words
*for K layers, the number is K * (2n+1-1). Each layer has 15 words, thus, if there are '''N''' feasible words, the number of layers is '''N'''/15
*now adjust for years instead of centuries, and don't start with the first, but with the 17th, and you get the formula <math>F_{theo}(t) = \frac{\#words }{15}</math><math>(2^{\frac{t-1599}{100}}-1)</math>.

'''@jcw: ''' ''Another editor has attempted a similar argument above, but without success.'' I read the sections above, and I ''was'' convinced by the argument.

'''@Aschlafly:''' ''I don't see how we could so easily find [[conservative]] words that double by century if the underlying pattern were not there.'' The effects of the miscount ([[Talk:Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words#PERFECTION: 20-40-80-160 BY CENTURY]]) have shown that you are able to match any pattern you were looking for.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:11, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

August's contrary theory aside, here's an interesting consequence of this trend: [http://static.inky.ws/image/421/image.jpg this graph] shows the curve from above in green, an hypothetical linear growth of liberalism ([liberal creep], in blue) and the effect of the latter on the former (in red). Note how the red line - the net effect of liberal and conservative ideas - falls for a while, reaching a minimum in the twentieth century before shooting up. This is because the exponential growth of conservatism is slower at first that the linear growth of liberalism, but gets very much faster later on, easily overtaking the linear function and increasing to infinity. Obviously the liberalism line is hypothetical, but it's interesting nonetheless. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:41, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

:That's remarkably insightful. In other words, the combination of linear [[liberal creep]] and the geometric growth rate of [[Best New Conservative Words]] results in a liberal trend for a while (until the [[Great Depression]]), and then a rapidly increasing conservative trend thereafter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:16, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

::Exactly. The precise shape of the final curve depends on the values assumed for the [[liberal creep]] line, but any reasonable values give a final curve with much the same shape. It agrees rather remarkably with the observed facts, especially as nothing in the calculations refers to historical events at all. Purely linguistic inputs produce an undeniably historical result, demonstrating the power of language very clearly. As ever, feel free to use the graph however you please. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:48, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

::: I am skeptical that the complexities of human society and political philosophies can be summed up simply as an exponential function minus a linear function. What evidence is there that this [[liberal creep]] is linear? How is that even quantified? Does this hypothesis make any specific predictions, in order to make it [[falsifiable]] and thus scientific? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 02:09, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: Good questions. I'll consider them (as others probably will also) and reply after some thought.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:15, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: Good questions indeed. The immediate answer is 'no': of course all the complexities of human society can't be summed up as simply as this. Quantifying complex abstract phenomena is a very rough business, most especially on a short timescale. The goal of my graphs isn't to present concrete mathematical laws, or anything like them, but just to illustrate a conceptual relationship using mathematics.
:::: To answer your specific questions:
:::: * 'how is that even quantified?': Crudely and by guesswork, like many first attempts in all sciences, especially those relating to human activity. The crude guess is justified by the answer to:
:::: * 'Does this hypothesis make any specific predictions...': In one way, the hypothesis is supported by the same kind of evidence as is used to defend evolution - the hypothesis I've produced now gives results which agree with events in the past. As we all agree, that's not the best kind of evidence, but in this case it's rather compelling. Secondly, it does make concrete predictions - indeed, it makes an inescapable prediction which can't be fudged or avoided - the 'conservatism' curve increases very rapidly to infinity, rather than going up and down or settling into a steady state. This suggests a discontinuity in the future, where the level of conservatism rises to something quite outside our experience. I'm not sure what that would look like, but I think we'd recognize it if we saw it. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:49, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: In furtherance of Jcw's remarks, it is perhaps easier to study the development of language and politics, which are closely related to each other, than it is to study and predict ... the weather. Nobody had a problem with [[Al Gore]] trying to predict the weather, so why object when a simpler task is undertaken?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:01, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::: @Jcw How specifically does your graph "agree with events in the past"? Also, the claim that "the level of conservatism rises to something quite outside our experience" is not a specific prediction. I'm not even sure what that means. Finally, in [http://static.inky.ws/image/421/image.jpg your graph] what does the y-axis represent? Words? Aschlafly above links the exponential function to the growth of conservative terms. If so, why is [[liberal creep]] linear? Is there any empirical or theoretical reason to believe this? Looking at [[Essay:New_Liberal_Terms|liberal terms]] by century it seems like liberal terms are also growing exponentially, even though the article claims they don't grow "geometrically" and are "heavily influenced by culture". In any case, it doesn't look linear. Wouldn't the diminishing intelligence of humans mean liberal terms would be growing quickly?
:::::: @Aschlafly Weather and climate are distinct things. I don't think anyone believes Al Gore is a climate scientist qualified to make scientific predictions, only a spokesman. Many people do have a problem with him and the whole idea of climate change.
:::::: Also, human beings are extremely complicated and it isn't obvious to me that accurately predicting and quantifying the political philosophy of a complex society is much simpler than either meteorology or climatology. Even if the development of politics and language are closely related (I'm not sure they are), why would studying them be necessarily be a simpler task than studying climates?--[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:39, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

(unindent)Matthew: now you're asking questions that have already been answered or are clear from the context. I note that your edits on this site are almost exclusively to talk pages; may we assume that you are here simply to argue rather than to contribute? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:44, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

The interesting question is, what would an (effectively) infinite level of conservatism look like? I'm afraid I don't know enough about the US to answer that: over here 'conservatism' looks a great deal like US liberalism... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:32, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

: One characteristic of infinite conservatism might be when it is impossible to notice a difference in the level of service and attitude between government and a perfectly competitive industry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:18, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
:: In a perfectly conservative society, would there be any need for government as we now know it? I suppose there are limits to how conservative a society can be in a fallen world... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:52, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Conservatives aren't [[libertarian]]s or [[anarchist]]s, so a '''''limited''''' government would exist ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:48, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: I'm sorry, I still don't understand what 'infinite conservatism' means. Perhaps an article detailing how conservatism can be quantified and what happens in the limit as it approaches infinity would help. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 21:32, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: That's an interesting idea, Matthew. I think that in the US conservatism is closely correlated with Evangelical Christianity, which is not at all the case here in the UK, where our conservatives are more likely to belong to the Church of England - a decidedly liberal institution by US standards. Andy's suggestion above is concise, but if you think about it it's a very acute description of a hypothetical perfectly conservative government. I shudder to think what a perfectly liberal government would be like. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:33, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Jcw, your description of US conservatism compared with the UK is interesting, and I've thought about it. While certainly there are more evangelicals here than there, not all are conservative. Moreover, the cause-and-effect is less than clear: does the conservative nature of America allow evangelicalism to develop more fully than in a liberal nation? If so, there still remains an underlying mystery of why America is more conservative than the UK.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, a very interesting question. Our two nations have a great deal of shared history, but today are vastly different in fundamental ways. I think the Reformation is particularly important in this context - the UK experienced it directly, while the nascent US only experienced the aftereffects; the US was never a Catholic nation in the Mediaeval sense. Another - perhaps related - aspect is the persistence of monarchy in the UK compared to its outright rejection by the US. There's a lot to be said on this topic, so I'll begin an essay with some of my thoughts and see how it compares with a US view. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:39, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Please do start an essay on this, hopefully here so that I can contribute to it too! Religious differences between the US and the UK are surely part of the explanation for the political differences, but I think there is more to it than that. [[Federalism]], for example, prevents [[liberals]] from gaining control over the US, while that protection does not exist in the UK. I will say this: the UK media is much more free with respect to American politics than the American press is!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:13, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

'''@Jcw: ''' What are the parameters of your interpolating function? And how did you calculate them? Could you also display:

:<math>F_{theo}(t) = \frac{\#words }{15}</math><math>(2^{\frac{t-1599}{100}}-1)</math>

And why not use these paramaters - they are the direct result of applying Aschlafly's rule of doubling-by-century...

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:08, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

August, if you'd like to do those calculations, please feel free - the data isn't kept secret, it's right there on the page. If you'd like to see another presentation of it, go ahead. I'm very happy to explain things - and to justify my choices! - to well-meaning editors with genuine questions, but you seem to be on the wrong side of every argument around here, as if you're deliberately disagreeing for the sake of it. The amount of time and attention you're willing to give to criticizing other people's ideas is remarkable. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:35, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

: Well put, Jcw. Actually, the entries begin with the year 1612, after the publication of the [[KJV]] and the completion of nearly all of [[Shakespeare]]'s works. So August's date in his exponent appears wrong, but your graph is correct in show an intersection with the x-axis over a decade after 1600.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:45, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

'''@Jcw:''' ''August, if you'd like to do those calculations, please feel free - the data isn't kept secret, it's right there on the page.'' I can't reproduce your calculations as there is not enough data: You say that it is a fit, but you don't explain how you fitted it:
::#How did you treat words like ''atheistic'' (1625-1635), ''deadweight loss'' (1930s) and ''design by committee'' (before 1958)
::#Which kind of fit did you use? For me, Maximum-Likelihood would be an obvious choice.
::#Which family of functions did you look at? Obviously a*2^x. Why not a*2^x+b?
::#Did you use any weights? Which ones (or why not)?
All these choices result in different interpolating functions. So, which choices did you make and what was your result?

''If you'd like to see another presentation of it, go ahead. I'm very happy to explain things - and to justify my choices! - to well-meaning editors with genuine questions'' Obviously I won't promise ''not'' to criticize your choices. Does this make me a not-well-meaning editor?

''You seem to be on the wrong side of every argument around here'' I seem to be constantly on the other side than you are. Doesn't make my side always wrong!

'''@Aschlafly: ''' ''Well put, Jcw.'' Do you condone the policy to share data only with those who you expect not to criticize it? When reading [[Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog]] and its talk page, I got quite another impression!

''So August's date in his exponent appears wrong, but your graph is correct in show an intersection with the x-axis over a decade after 1600'' Jcw's graph (the green line!) doesn't intersect the x-axis at ~1610. I doubt that it intersects the x-axis at all! The red line shows the empirical data, so of course it begins at 1612 with the first word found - though ''obambulate'' (1600) is the oldest word in the table, and seems to be always counted in the ''perfect counts''. OTOH, the graph which I proposed intersects the x-axis at the turn of the 16th century, and crosses the empirical curve at the turn of each century (whether you shift the function by 1599 or 1600 is just a matter of taste...).

== Americanadians ==

How about 'Americanadians'? I've observed many good Americans being influenced by the blatant propaganda of our socialist neighbors, and starting to espouse their flawed line of thought. What do others think? Let me know.

== Claptrap ==

I suggest "claptrap." I'm surprised it's not on the list already. --[[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 00:20, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:Superb suggestion! I'll add it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:45, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

::It was already on the list. I added an 1800s term instead.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:10, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== free speech ==

Perhaps I simply fail to understand the context you provided, but is free speech really a "conservative word?" Terms like "political correctness" and "obamacare" are undeniably conservative (to the point where liberals won't use them), but free speech is at best non-partisan, and at worst (I am attempting to write from a conservative viewpoint- I may fail miserably at this) a term co-opted by liberals to justify their perversions and excesses. </attempt to write from conservative viewpoint>--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 01:20, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:You raise a valid point. But isn't it the conservatives who protect, for example, corporate and many other types of expenditures in elections as "free speech"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:28, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
::Indeed, you are correct. But I think it's fair to say now that it is a word used by conservatives as well as liberals to represent their agendas. I do not know how this factors into this particular list--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 02:13, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:::I'll continue to think about your valid criticism. Maybe I can search Supreme Court opinions and see who is using the term "free speech" most. I don't think [[liberals]] are using it as much as [[conservatives]] are today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== Decades ==

I added a column for the decades (rather than for the centuries). I hope this will help to keep the count of the words up-to-date.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:05, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

:I'm not sure how that will help - surely the decade is already contained in the 'year' column? If you'd like a more accurate count, I suggest doing what I do - use a perl script to parse the wikitext and print out whatever information you want. To me the decade column looks annoyingly redundant, but perhaps I've missed something... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:27, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::I wanted to facilitate the count: as some of the dates are not purely numeric (1950s, before 1958, 1625-1635), it's hard to sort the table by the column ''date''. If there is a purely numeric column, the table can be easily copied into a spreadsheet and recounted even by those who don't know anything about regular expressions.

::If you have a script, please use it to keep an eye on the count: I'm surprised that you didn't spot the miscount earlier on.

::I'll add the column for the decades again, this time at the last place. This should be more pleasing...

::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:07, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

I don't know how to upload a picture, so here is an ascii-graphic for the distribution by decades:

*1600: *
*1610: ****
*1620: *****
*1630: *
*1640: ******
*1650: ****
*1660: **
*1670:
*1680: **
*1690: *
*1700: *
*1710: ***
*1720: *****
*1730: ****
*1740: ****
*1750: *****
*1760: ******
*1770: ******
*1780: ********
*1790: *********
*1800: ********
*1810: *********
*1820: ***************
*1830: ***************
*1840: *********
*1850: **********
*1860: **********
*1870: *******
*1880: ************
*1890: **********
*1900: ***********************
*1910: ***********************
*1920: **********************
*1930: *******************
*1940: ***************************
*1950: **************************
*1960: *************************
*1970: ****************
*1980: **********************
*1990: ******
*2000: ***************
*2010: ***

1820/1830,1900/1910, and 1940/1950 seem to be decades in which significantly more conservative terms were created than one would have expected... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:15, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

== Suggested additions ==

Eurabia - what Europe will become if people don't stand up for themselves.

Islamofascism - repressive muslim shariah regimes/totalitarian islamism.

[[User:MeganH|MeganH]] 01:01, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

: Go ahead and add if you have some dates of origin, even if only approximate. I hadn't heard of the first one ("Eurabia") before.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

== Dumpster diving ==

Was 'dumping diving' added because food is not going to waste, or am I misunderstanding why it's conservative? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 09:54, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

:I'll take a stab at it. Conservative words can describe liberal actions. I am not saying dumpster divers are liberal, those poor folks maybe hungry. Dumpster Diving is not limited to food. It's also a method to get trade secrets from companies or dig up dirt against somebody. Most likely, Dumpster Diving is used for deceitful purposes for example gaining a social security number from discarded bills used for the creation of fraudulent IDs. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:06, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

::Great points. This is a list of [[conservative]] terms, often insightful, about activities that may be conservative or liberal, harmful or helpful, or none of the above. Evidently this term was developed by small businessmen to describe an unhelpful activity outside their restaurants and other stores. Dumpster diving may sometimes be the equivalent of recycling or getting a hungry person some food, but in any event '''the term''' is a perfect description of the activity. And once there is a good term for something, then the activity can be understood and addressed better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:39, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

::: Good analysis. But is dumpster diving a conservative act? --[[User:GeorgeZ|GeorgeZ]] 15:53, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Read Andy's post. He specifically says that that does not matter. It was created by conservatives. Therefore it is a conservative word. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:12, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Right that it does not matter whether it is a conservative act. In the case of dumpster diving, whether it is ever conservative depends on what the purpose and effect are. It also doesn't matter if a conservative coined it; a liberal can sing a [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs|conservative song]]. The point is whether the insight is conservative. In this case, small businessmen (a conservative line of work) coined the term to criticize how homeless people were digging through their trash.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:19, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::I see Andy. Thanks for explaining. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:22, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Indeed, one might suggest that liberals have indirectly contributed to the increase in conservative terms by constantly inventing new ways to avoid work and personal responsibility. Conservatives are then, naturally, obligated to develop terms for these behaviors. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:18, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

== 2000s ==
It's fascinating how the new Conservative words and insights do seem to grow geometrically by century, but I'm curious as to why the 2000s seem to be pretty far behind. We're 11 years in, so you'd expect there to be roughly 40 new words so far, but we've got less than half that many. With the rise of the TEA Party, I'd expect to be much closer. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:06, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

: Excellent point. Possible reasons could include that it is too soon to recognize new words in the most recent decade ... or maybe there has been a short-term decline in conservative intellectualism? At any rate, I've been meaning to add the term "Tea Party" itself with its etymology in the last decade!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:12, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

::I have to agree with you, Andy. Even though we're in 2011 now, it might be too early to be able to fully appreciate all the new conservative words created last decade. I think "Tea Party" might just be one of the most important words to add and I think the movement itself will produce a lot of new, conservative words in its own right! [[User:BobSherman|BobSherman]] 19:58, 20 July 2011 (EDT)

:::Very perceptive, Andy. It takes time for the gatekeepers of knowledge to acknowledge the validity of new terms; therefore, while the public production of new conservative insights and terms may be quite rapid, the assimilation of those insights and terms into formal reference works is likely to be much slower. This is, I would suggest, exacerbated by reliance on archaic forms of knowledge dissemination such as print dictionaries.

An interesting side project might be to evaluate dictionaries (both online and print) to see how rapidly they accept and incorporate new conservative words versus new liberal words. In this way, it might be possible to determine which dictionaries are reliable and which are liberally biased. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:19, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

== Help! ==

I tried to archive the page - at least the parts which were from last year, but I totally botched it: my browser can't handle long pages, I have difficulties with the captchas & I created the wrong page for an archive [[Archive 3]] instead of [[Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words/Archive 3]] ([[Archive 3]] should be moved there...)

So I give up... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:58, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:I archived 2010... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:44, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

::Thank you - I had problems with the captchas! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:26, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== Maybe these two ==
Here's two possibilities I found in [[Federal debt limit]], "leveraged loss" and "debt spiral", but I'm not sure how to fit them in. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:01, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== More possibilities... ==

Constructionist (1835-45)
Inalienable (1635-45)
Hubris (1880-1885)
Scientism (1875-1880)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:11, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== Trickle-down? ==

As a descriptor for the trickle-down theory of economics, it dates to 1950-1955. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:43, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

: I think "trickle-down" is pejorative, and thus more a [[liberal]] term than a [[conservative]] one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::If trickle-down is the pejorative would the standard, conservative, phrase be "supply-side"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:53, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Yes, it would - and "supply side" is already on the list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::::ah, excellent. my work here is done! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:00, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

== Civil body politic ==

"Civil body politic" is an interesting bit of history but does not seem to have caught on as widely used term, and hence would not seem to warrant inclusion in this list. Does anyone disagree?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:43, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Medal of Honor (and other proper names) ==

I'm not sure that a proper name given to an award is inherently conservative-- the Medal itself reflects conservative values of course, but would do so even if had been called, say, the Award of Bravery or the Citation of Courage. "Coolant," "transistor" and "greasy spoon" are all truly conservative both in terms of content and syntax. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 19:50, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:Your point is valid. Perhaps it does not fit this particular list, but I'm reluctant to delete it. Isn't there something conservative about simply recognizing "honor", and calling the medal after the concept, rather than after, say, a liberal politician?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:15, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

==alcoholism ?==
Could you please explain how alcoholism is a conservative word ? Alcoholism is more of a liberal trait.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:24, 17 November 2011 (EST)

:"Alcoholism" is a criticism of excessive drinking, and thus is a conservative word. Words that end in "ism" are often pejoratives, as in "alarmism" and "collectivism" (which are also on the list).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:41, 17 November 2011 (EST)
:: And do you feel the same way about the word "liberalism"?--[[User:JeanB|JeanB]] 21:49, 17 November 2011 (EST)
::: Word that end in -ism are not always pejorative, capitalism is good. And when the words socialism or communism were invented, they were meant to be good.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:53, 17 November 2011 (EST)

==Handout==
1882, I wanted to add this to best new conservative words as it describes a liberal policy of government giveaways. But it also could be the conservative position of helping the poor through charity. Either way it is a conservative word but the proper way to describe alludes me. Op?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 09:28, 25 November 2011 (EST)

:That would a superb addition! It would also leave the list only two 20-century words shy of another perfect doubling by century.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:48, 25 November 2011 (EST)

== Level Playing Field ==

I added the term "level playing field" for two main reasons: 1) It is an intuitive metaphor used in its [http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/228650.html first recorded use] to describe how markets usually work best when they are fair for all participants and free of interference. 2) The term has since been used by liberals to describe policies such as affirmative action, progressive taxation, and government handouts, but it obvious to anyone who looks at these policies objectively that they actually distort the playing field.

I believe that is enough for the term to stand on its own merits, but it looks even more conservative if we compare it to other words on the list such as "motivation," "quantify," or "coolant."

Maybe I have overlooked something and the word does not belong on the list. Comments are welcome. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 21:03, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

:As you point out, the term is often used by liberals, so that makes it a doubtful candidate for "best" new conservative words. The term seems to imply that government is needed to level the playing field. Level playing fields rarely occur in nature, for example. The term almost sounds like the famous "life's not fair" expression ... which is not conservative either.

:"Motivation" is a far more conservative term - one can find motivation whether the playing field islevel or not. "Quantify" is logic, which is an essential difference between conservative and liberal approaches. "Coolant" is an essential part of nuclear energy -- which liberals loathe.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:51, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

== A.M. ==

This entry is an abbreviation for ''ante meridiem'', which originates from 1563 [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ante%20meridiem]. I'm not clear on whether the abbreviation is being claimed as a new conservative word or the phrase for which it stands. Additionally, it is unclear where the given date of origin in the article of 1762 comes from. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:43, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

:The online etymology dictionary gives a date of 1762. Perhaps it's referring to common usage.

:While you're right that the "A" in A.M. is from a Latin word that is different from the "A" in A.D., the popularity of "A.D." could have led to the popularity of "A.M."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:37, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
::Just seen this catch my attention on the mainpage. I highly doubt that the two could be related in any conservative sense. Of course "AD" refers to "In the year of our lord". But back in the 18th century, Latin was still being routinely taught in schools (especially in [[Britain]]), bring us many other Latin abbreviations, such as eg, etc, ie, RIP (from 'requiescat in pace', and later backronymed into 'rest in peace'). I highly doubt the link between any apparent 'popularity' of AD spurred the formation of AM, and personally I'd remove it. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 15:57, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

:::But what percentage of the overall British population learned Latin in school in the 1700s? Perhaps only 10%? Most Latin appreviations did not catch on with the general population the way that "A.M." did. The most plausible explanation is its proximity to "[[A.D.]]"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:19, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
::::Nonetheless etymological creation power lies not with those who use the language the most. One must remember that our records of language from the 1700s (both Britain and America) are not vernacular English of the working classes but written English of those who were educated. This was before widespread adoption of clocks and timepieces, which came later with the [[industrial revolution]] and the railways. Again, I highly disagree that likeness to AM would be a significant contributor. Those that would have used the world in our written records would have been educated in Latin, and would therefore be aware of the etymological roots of '''both''' AM and AD. Since the A stands for '''anno''' and '''ante''' respectively, there is no etymological proximity at all between the two. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 18:35, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

== It Really Is Amazing... ==

It really is amazing that the pattern of perfect doubling by century is so strong that almost every "layer" is complete before the next layer starts, even though words are added to the list pretty much randomly whenever a user thinks of one. --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 17:47, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

:Great discoveries are rarely random. In this case, it would not be possible to discover such a perfect geometric fit unless the underlying pattern existed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:12, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2012-06-12T22:35:51Z

HumanGeographer: /* A.M. */

'''[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]''' 
'''[[/archive2 | Archive 2 ]]''' 
'''[[/archive3 | Archive 3 ]]'''
----

== Additional liberal terms? ==

What about "ethnocentrism" (1905-1910) and "multiculturalism" (1960-1965)? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 09:34, 16 January 2011 (EST)

: Superb suggestions. Please add as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:37, 16 January 2011 (EST)
==Refudiate==
Even though liberal dictionaries added this word, Palin admitted it was an error on her part. If it stays then we must add Corpse men for lib terms.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:01, 23 January 2011 (EST)
:Not necessarily--no dictionaries made "corpse man" a [http://www.execdigital.com/business/leader/who-s-laughing-now-sarah-palin-s-refudiate-oxford-s-top-word-2010 word of the year]. Moreover, the word seems to be getting some leverage and use on its own terms. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 14:43, 23 January 2011 (EST)

::Perhaps time will tell. The term "Big Bang" was born of mockery also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:15, 23 January 2011 (EST)
:::Andy, could that explain the perceived scarcity of conservative words dating from the 21st century? Because I think the notion that a word can "mature" to be conservative is a fascinating and powerful insight. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:10, 4 February 2011 (EST)

== Charisma? ==

I have doubts that charisma, despite its etymology, is a conservative term. It seems to elevate style over substance -- a definite [[liberal]] trait. Nowhere does the Bible refer to Jesus as having charisma.

I suspect the original meaning of charisma was for religious charisma.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 4 February 2011 (EST)
:I would suggest, (if we do ''indeed,'' keep it), to change the phrasing to something more on the order of:
::'''literally "a gift from God", charisma is the quality of a person imbued by God to leadership, often found in [[conservative]] public figures.'''
:This nixes the "magic" from the sentence since as wonderful as a gift from God is, it isn't "magic". [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 20:20, 4 February 2011 (EST)
::Andy, that's a good point. I prefer to think of charisma as ''the style of substance'', but that's definitely not the case for everyone (especially liberals). While the etymology is undoubtedly conservative, perhaps "difficult to classify" may be a better resting place for charisma. Devon, either way, definitely an improvement on your part, thanks. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 22:21, 4 February 2011 (EST)
==New words added==

Hi, I have added 4 new words: deference (1660), idealist (1701), god-fearing (1835) & Rogue state (1993). If everyone accepts these, they will fill out the doubling pattern for those centuries. Shall I change the numbers in the summary at the top of the page?

I have also added 'liberal creep' (2008). [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 01:08, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

:All your additions look superb except "deference," which I'm not sure is [[conservative]]. Please do update the counts the top (I already did increment the 1800s count for "God-fearing").--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:05, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

::I added 'deference' because CP has 'giving those in authority due respect' listed as a [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_values Conservative Value]. I will tweak the definition a bit to emphasis the necessary legitimacy of the superior. Thanks for the positive feedback. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 02:21, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

:::But look at the remainder of the chat quote: "giving those in authority due respect, but not to the point of accepting orders or assertions that are contrary to logic or morality."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:34, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

:::: Let's continue this discussion later Monday morning. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:40, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

Hi again. Firstly, let me tell you that I am an Aussie and my timezone is GMT+10. This makes me 12-15 hours ahead of you. Our conversations may be a bit disjointed because of this. Right now it is my bedtime, so I will post this comment & then go, leaving it for your consideration. (Editing has been switched off for a while, is that correct? I realise that you do this most nights. I didn't expect it to be on again tonight.)

To return to 'deference': to me the word embodies respect and consideration which I would regard as being conservative values, but not necessarily 'giving in'. However, I do not have the right American nuances to interpret this as you do and will not push this strongly and am happy to remove it from the list.

I have a couple of alternatives for consideration:

atheistic (1625-35) An adjective pertaining to or characteristic of atheists or atheism; containing, suggesting, or disseminating atheism.

secularize (1611) To make secular; to transfer from ecclesiastical to civil or lay use, possession, or control

To me, these are useful words for conservatives. They do not describe conservatives. My reading of the list suggests that useful words are acceptable eg alarmist. Anyway, goodnight for now, catch up with you tomorrow. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 08:32, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

: "atheistic" is good. Let's go with that. I didn't see why "patriarchy" was conservative, so I removed that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 18 March 2011 (EDT)
::No worries. I'll add 'atheistic'. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 22:36, 18 March 2011 (EDT)

== "Copacetic" ==

I'm not sure how conservative this word is. There's no reasoning given for its inclusion, apart from the fact that Bojangles Robinson supposedly created it (and even that is extremely weak evidence and I'm not sure what it adds. I'm going to remove it from the list if no one raises any opposition. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:37, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

: "Copacetic" is the very satisfactory result of conservative values. It is associated with good and honest living. I do object to removal of this conservative term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

== Moral Majority - A suggestion ==

Andy, I saw your addition "silent majority" and it made me immediately think of "Moral Majority". [http://www.answers.com/topic/moral-majority This page credits it to Jerry Falwell in 1979]. Although in it's strictest sense it describes a movement it is still has greater symbolism. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:30, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

:Great suggestion. Please included it ... and increment the total near the beginning for the 1900s.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
::Done! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:22, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

== Obambulate ==

Maybe it's just my public school education at work, but I fail to see how obambulate is conservative. Apart from its obvious similarities with "Obama", it simply means "to walk around". I know that Obama has been bumbling and whatnot, but it's an innocuous word that is being assigned a special significance due to coincidence. I'm not sure it belongs on this list. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:05, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:It is probably as a result of it being mentioned on Rush Limbaugh's show and the liberal reactions to it during the past week. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:08, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::What was the reaction? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:14, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

:::Denny, your comment is a valid one, but the modern usage of the term "obambulate" is to criticize the directionless wandering characteristic of liberal leadership. None of the terms in the list should be viewed in a vacuum independent of their usage.

::: Hey, my response used another candidate: "directionless". ''Trying to find its date of origin next ....''--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:35, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

== Agitprop ==
Sorry if I get the etiquette wrong, first time commenting. I was just wondering if there was a source for Agitprop? I always understood it to be derived from Soviet Russian institutions, so would be quite keen to see the conservative routes of it. Everything I have tried so far has turned up the term as being derived from Russian e.g. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=agitprop&searchmode=none , and I would be surprised if the internal machinations of the USSR would come up with something conservative, so would be keen to find out the alternative you uncovered"[[User:JTpldl|JTlpdl]] 09:18, 28 March 2011 (EDT)"

== Page dividing ==

Due to the success of this essay, it's really slow, so can I split it into pages by century of origin? This would allow the page to load faster and be easier to navigate. Any thoughts on the idea? [[User:BenDylan|BenDylan]] 20:09, 14 April 2011 (EDT)
:I'd like to see it be broken up by century and automatically numbered. I'm not sure that breaking it up into many pages would facilitate more than inconvenience. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:55, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

==Audit==
I'm getting 25,48,100,201,17 as the counts. If so, this wouldn't be the first time I've seen them wrong. As I mentioned above, we should consider breaking the list up by century to help avoid counting errors. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 18:37, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

== Word for 1700's ==
Could belittle be the word we are looking for to perfect the list? It was coined in 1785 by Thomas Jefferson himself, and is certainly a way to describe an action often done by liberals to protect their ideas. [[User:JoshuaL|JoshuaL]] 19:34, 28 April 2011 (EDT)
:Joshua, I'm inclined to agree, as Jefferson likely coined the term in response to critics trying to deceptively minimize issues he raised. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 02:07, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

::Not sure "belittle" is conservative. But how about "axiomatic"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:20, 30 April 2011 (EDT)
If you're still looking for an 18th century word, 'nationalist' would fit well - it's a core conservative value, synonymous with 'patriot', the antithesis of 'internationalist', and one of the defining features of the 18th century. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:17, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

== Liberal creep ==

How do we reconcile this with liberal creep? If language is becoming more conservative, why is opinion and perception becoming more liberal? Do liberals or conservatives dictate the terms of the national conversation? If someone could take a look at the two phenomena and find out what makes one move in one direction and the other in the opposite, it would make a great essay. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 15:05, 8 May 2011 (EDT)
:I've also brought this up for discussion [[Talk:Essay:Conservapedia's_Law#Putting_Conservapedia.27s_Law_in_perspective|here]]. Conservapedia's Law, the observation that conservative insights double over time, is clearly incomplete, perhaps even flawed. I agree that there could be a complex relationship between liberal creep and Conservapedia's Law and it is worth investigating. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 15:15, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

== Graph of words over time ==

While I was drawing graphs, I wrote a quick script to generate a graph of the data in this page. [http://static.inky.ws/image/405/image.jpg This graph] shows the growth in conservative terms year-by-year, rather than just per-century. The red line is the data from this page, the green line is a quadratic curve. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:59, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:Wow, that's a spectacular graph! Can you give permission for me to include it in the entry page?

:The graph disproves the theory that there were bursts of new words during certain periods. I'll remove that from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
::Please do use the graph as you see fit. I can generate new graphs from the latest data with no trouble at all, so if you'd like it can be updated periodically. I'm currently trying to find a suitably analogous source of data for liberal words/ideas, which would allow comparative analysis. This kind of data is very interesting as it seems to avoid the short-term political cycles which characterize much of popular discourse, focusing on the really significant point of the growth of ideas. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:59, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

:::I posted the graph and your idea is marvelous. However, I don't think the graph is completely accurate: the curve for the actual data should intersect the predicted curve at each turning of the centuries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:45, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

:::*Is the green curve really a fit for the data according to Aschlafly's theory? I mean, Jcw says ''the green line is a quadratic curve'' - at best it's a second approximation for the geometric curve...
:::*Personally, I find quite hard to judge the existance of ''bursts'' from a [[cdf]]. Perhaps Jcw could create a histogram - perhaps for decades?
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:30, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
::::You both raise valid points, which hopefully will be answered soon. Andy and August both mention that the x^2 curve isn't a perfect fit - it certainly isn't, and I'm pretty sure a 2^x curve with appropriate constants will fit better; I'm planning to do that tonight. August mentions different ways of representing the data - I'll happily produce a histogram of the data if that'd be interesting, but the reason for plotting it as I have is to produce a curve that I can use for my more grandiose scheme, of which more later. My background is not so much in statistics - although I've done a fair bit of that - but in purer maths, so my thinking is mostly based around the relationships between smooth(-ish) functions. That may not be the best way to deal with these data qua data, but to extract patterns for further, more abstract work, it's ideal. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:43, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
::::[http://static.inky.ws/image/412/image.jpg Et voila], a better fit. This is an exponential curve fitted to the same data. Note that it fits much better in the region with the most words, but is a bit out for the earlier period where there are fewer words in the list. This is because we can more easily find suitable words from more recent periods, so naturally the pattern is most exact there. No doubt if we could go through a large, representative corpus and extract words uniformly, it would fit nicely all the way along. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:25, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::'''@Aschlafly: ''' Could you recount the words? My count gave me 26-51-103-210-18 (Sum: 408) instead of 26-52-103-208-18 (Sum: 407). Perhaps a fourth column for the century (or even better, the decade) could be added? That would make it much easier to keep track of the numbers!

:::::'''@Jcw: ''' I don't think that your ''better fit'' is the function which Aschlafly has in mind: it should be <math>F_{theo}(t) = \frac{\#words }{15}</math><math>(2^{\frac{t-1599}{100}}-1)</math>, where ''#words'' is the number of words created before 2000, i.e., 390. This function touches/intersects the empirical cdf at the turn of each century, a fact which betrays the biased method of looking for these words.

:::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:12, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::August, so you've constructed a function which you claim 'betrays the biased method of looking for these words'? I'd be interested to see a more thorough explanation of that point. Another editor has attempted a similar argument above, but without success. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:42, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::::August, I have an open mind about this. I don't see how we could so easily find [[conservative]] words that double by century if the underlying pattern were not there. But please explain if you think that is in error.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:27, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

I hope we can agree on the function ''Ftheo'' - it should be uncontroversial:

*one layer exists from 1 - 2 - 4 - 8 words, i.e., 20, 21,22 and 23
*the partial sums are 1 - 3 - 7 - 15, i.e., 21-1, 22-1, 23-1, and 24-1
*so, with the turn of the n-th century, there should be 2n+1-1 words
*for K layers, the number is K * (2n+1-1). Each layer has 15 words, thus, if there are '''N''' feasible words, the number of layers is '''N'''/15
*now adjust for years instead of centuries, and don't start with the first, but with the 17th, and you get the formula <math>F_{theo}(t) = \frac{\#words }{15}</math><math>(2^{\frac{t-1599}{100}}-1)</math>.

'''@jcw: ''' ''Another editor has attempted a similar argument above, but without success.'' I read the sections above, and I ''was'' convinced by the argument.

'''@Aschlafly:''' ''I don't see how we could so easily find [[conservative]] words that double by century if the underlying pattern were not there.'' The effects of the miscount ([[Talk:Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words#PERFECTION: 20-40-80-160 BY CENTURY]]) have shown that you are able to match any pattern you were looking for.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:11, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

August's contrary theory aside, here's an interesting consequence of this trend: [http://static.inky.ws/image/421/image.jpg this graph] shows the curve from above in green, an hypothetical linear growth of liberalism ([liberal creep], in blue) and the effect of the latter on the former (in red). Note how the red line - the net effect of liberal and conservative ideas - falls for a while, reaching a minimum in the twentieth century before shooting up. This is because the exponential growth of conservatism is slower at first that the linear growth of liberalism, but gets very much faster later on, easily overtaking the linear function and increasing to infinity. Obviously the liberalism line is hypothetical, but it's interesting nonetheless. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:41, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

:That's remarkably insightful. In other words, the combination of linear [[liberal creep]] and the geometric growth rate of [[Best New Conservative Words]] results in a liberal trend for a while (until the [[Great Depression]]), and then a rapidly increasing conservative trend thereafter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:16, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

::Exactly. The precise shape of the final curve depends on the values assumed for the [[liberal creep]] line, but any reasonable values give a final curve with much the same shape. It agrees rather remarkably with the observed facts, especially as nothing in the calculations refers to historical events at all. Purely linguistic inputs produce an undeniably historical result, demonstrating the power of language very clearly. As ever, feel free to use the graph however you please. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:48, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

::: I am skeptical that the complexities of human society and political philosophies can be summed up simply as an exponential function minus a linear function. What evidence is there that this [[liberal creep]] is linear? How is that even quantified? Does this hypothesis make any specific predictions, in order to make it [[falsifiable]] and thus scientific? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 02:09, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: Good questions. I'll consider them (as others probably will also) and reply after some thought.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:15, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: Good questions indeed. The immediate answer is 'no': of course all the complexities of human society can't be summed up as simply as this. Quantifying complex abstract phenomena is a very rough business, most especially on a short timescale. The goal of my graphs isn't to present concrete mathematical laws, or anything like them, but just to illustrate a conceptual relationship using mathematics.
:::: To answer your specific questions:
:::: * 'how is that even quantified?': Crudely and by guesswork, like many first attempts in all sciences, especially those relating to human activity. The crude guess is justified by the answer to:
:::: * 'Does this hypothesis make any specific predictions...': In one way, the hypothesis is supported by the same kind of evidence as is used to defend evolution - the hypothesis I've produced now gives results which agree with events in the past. As we all agree, that's not the best kind of evidence, but in this case it's rather compelling. Secondly, it does make concrete predictions - indeed, it makes an inescapable prediction which can't be fudged or avoided - the 'conservatism' curve increases very rapidly to infinity, rather than going up and down or settling into a steady state. This suggests a discontinuity in the future, where the level of conservatism rises to something quite outside our experience. I'm not sure what that would look like, but I think we'd recognize it if we saw it. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:49, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: In furtherance of Jcw's remarks, it is perhaps easier to study the development of language and politics, which are closely related to each other, than it is to study and predict ... the weather. Nobody had a problem with [[Al Gore]] trying to predict the weather, so why object when a simpler task is undertaken?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:01, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::: @Jcw How specifically does your graph "agree with events in the past"? Also, the claim that "the level of conservatism rises to something quite outside our experience" is not a specific prediction. I'm not even sure what that means. Finally, in [http://static.inky.ws/image/421/image.jpg your graph] what does the y-axis represent? Words? Aschlafly above links the exponential function to the growth of conservative terms. If so, why is [[liberal creep]] linear? Is there any empirical or theoretical reason to believe this? Looking at [[Essay:New_Liberal_Terms|liberal terms]] by century it seems like liberal terms are also growing exponentially, even though the article claims they don't grow "geometrically" and are "heavily influenced by culture". In any case, it doesn't look linear. Wouldn't the diminishing intelligence of humans mean liberal terms would be growing quickly?
:::::: @Aschlafly Weather and climate are distinct things. I don't think anyone believes Al Gore is a climate scientist qualified to make scientific predictions, only a spokesman. Many people do have a problem with him and the whole idea of climate change.
:::::: Also, human beings are extremely complicated and it isn't obvious to me that accurately predicting and quantifying the political philosophy of a complex society is much simpler than either meteorology or climatology. Even if the development of politics and language are closely related (I'm not sure they are), why would studying them be necessarily be a simpler task than studying climates?--[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:39, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

(unindent)Matthew: now you're asking questions that have already been answered or are clear from the context. I note that your edits on this site are almost exclusively to talk pages; may we assume that you are here simply to argue rather than to contribute? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:44, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

The interesting question is, what would an (effectively) infinite level of conservatism look like? I'm afraid I don't know enough about the US to answer that: over here 'conservatism' looks a great deal like US liberalism... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:32, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

: One characteristic of infinite conservatism might be when it is impossible to notice a difference in the level of service and attitude between government and a perfectly competitive industry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:18, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
:: In a perfectly conservative society, would there be any need for government as we now know it? I suppose there are limits to how conservative a society can be in a fallen world... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:52, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Conservatives aren't [[libertarian]]s or [[anarchist]]s, so a '''''limited''''' government would exist ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:48, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: I'm sorry, I still don't understand what 'infinite conservatism' means. Perhaps an article detailing how conservatism can be quantified and what happens in the limit as it approaches infinity would help. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 21:32, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: That's an interesting idea, Matthew. I think that in the US conservatism is closely correlated with Evangelical Christianity, which is not at all the case here in the UK, where our conservatives are more likely to belong to the Church of England - a decidedly liberal institution by US standards. Andy's suggestion above is concise, but if you think about it it's a very acute description of a hypothetical perfectly conservative government. I shudder to think what a perfectly liberal government would be like. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:33, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Jcw, your description of US conservatism compared with the UK is interesting, and I've thought about it. While certainly there are more evangelicals here than there, not all are conservative. Moreover, the cause-and-effect is less than clear: does the conservative nature of America allow evangelicalism to develop more fully than in a liberal nation? If so, there still remains an underlying mystery of why America is more conservative than the UK.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, a very interesting question. Our two nations have a great deal of shared history, but today are vastly different in fundamental ways. I think the Reformation is particularly important in this context - the UK experienced it directly, while the nascent US only experienced the aftereffects; the US was never a Catholic nation in the Mediaeval sense. Another - perhaps related - aspect is the persistence of monarchy in the UK compared to its outright rejection by the US. There's a lot to be said on this topic, so I'll begin an essay with some of my thoughts and see how it compares with a US view. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:39, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Please do start an essay on this, hopefully here so that I can contribute to it too! Religious differences between the US and the UK are surely part of the explanation for the political differences, but I think there is more to it than that. [[Federalism]], for example, prevents [[liberals]] from gaining control over the US, while that protection does not exist in the UK. I will say this: the UK media is much more free with respect to American politics than the American press is!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:13, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

'''@Jcw: ''' What are the parameters of your interpolating function? And how did you calculate them? Could you also display:

:<math>F_{theo}(t) = \frac{\#words }{15}</math><math>(2^{\frac{t-1599}{100}}-1)</math>

And why not use these paramaters - they are the direct result of applying Aschlafly's rule of doubling-by-century...

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:08, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

August, if you'd like to do those calculations, please feel free - the data isn't kept secret, it's right there on the page. If you'd like to see another presentation of it, go ahead. I'm very happy to explain things - and to justify my choices! - to well-meaning editors with genuine questions, but you seem to be on the wrong side of every argument around here, as if you're deliberately disagreeing for the sake of it. The amount of time and attention you're willing to give to criticizing other people's ideas is remarkable. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:35, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

: Well put, Jcw. Actually, the entries begin with the year 1612, after the publication of the [[KJV]] and the completion of nearly all of [[Shakespeare]]'s works. So August's date in his exponent appears wrong, but your graph is correct in show an intersection with the x-axis over a decade after 1600.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:45, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

'''@Jcw:''' ''August, if you'd like to do those calculations, please feel free - the data isn't kept secret, it's right there on the page.'' I can't reproduce your calculations as there is not enough data: You say that it is a fit, but you don't explain how you fitted it:
::#How did you treat words like ''atheistic'' (1625-1635), ''deadweight loss'' (1930s) and ''design by committee'' (before 1958)
::#Which kind of fit did you use? For me, Maximum-Likelihood would be an obvious choice.
::#Which family of functions did you look at? Obviously a*2^x. Why not a*2^x+b?
::#Did you use any weights? Which ones (or why not)?
All these choices result in different interpolating functions. So, which choices did you make and what was your result?

''If you'd like to see another presentation of it, go ahead. I'm very happy to explain things - and to justify my choices! - to well-meaning editors with genuine questions'' Obviously I won't promise ''not'' to criticize your choices. Does this make me a not-well-meaning editor?

''You seem to be on the wrong side of every argument around here'' I seem to be constantly on the other side than you are. Doesn't make my side always wrong!

'''@Aschlafly: ''' ''Well put, Jcw.'' Do you condone the policy to share data only with those who you expect not to criticize it? When reading [[Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog]] and its talk page, I got quite another impression!

''So August's date in his exponent appears wrong, but your graph is correct in show an intersection with the x-axis over a decade after 1600'' Jcw's graph (the green line!) doesn't intersect the x-axis at ~1610. I doubt that it intersects the x-axis at all! The red line shows the empirical data, so of course it begins at 1612 with the first word found - though ''obambulate'' (1600) is the oldest word in the table, and seems to be always counted in the ''perfect counts''. OTOH, the graph which I proposed intersects the x-axis at the turn of the 16th century, and crosses the empirical curve at the turn of each century (whether you shift the function by 1599 or 1600 is just a matter of taste...).

== Americanadians ==

How about 'Americanadians'? I've observed many good Americans being influenced by the blatant propaganda of our socialist neighbors, and starting to espouse their flawed line of thought. What do others think? Let me know.

== Claptrap ==

I suggest "claptrap." I'm surprised it's not on the list already. --[[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 00:20, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:Superb suggestion! I'll add it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:45, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

::It was already on the list. I added an 1800s term instead.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:10, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== free speech ==

Perhaps I simply fail to understand the context you provided, but is free speech really a "conservative word?" Terms like "political correctness" and "obamacare" are undeniably conservative (to the point where liberals won't use them), but free speech is at best non-partisan, and at worst (I am attempting to write from a conservative viewpoint- I may fail miserably at this) a term co-opted by liberals to justify their perversions and excesses. </attempt to write from conservative viewpoint>--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 01:20, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:You raise a valid point. But isn't it the conservatives who protect, for example, corporate and many other types of expenditures in elections as "free speech"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:28, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
::Indeed, you are correct. But I think it's fair to say now that it is a word used by conservatives as well as liberals to represent their agendas. I do not know how this factors into this particular list--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 02:13, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:::I'll continue to think about your valid criticism. Maybe I can search Supreme Court opinions and see who is using the term "free speech" most. I don't think [[liberals]] are using it as much as [[conservatives]] are today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== Decades ==

I added a column for the decades (rather than for the centuries). I hope this will help to keep the count of the words up-to-date.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:05, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

:I'm not sure how that will help - surely the decade is already contained in the 'year' column? If you'd like a more accurate count, I suggest doing what I do - use a perl script to parse the wikitext and print out whatever information you want. To me the decade column looks annoyingly redundant, but perhaps I've missed something... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:27, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::I wanted to facilitate the count: as some of the dates are not purely numeric (1950s, before 1958, 1625-1635), it's hard to sort the table by the column ''date''. If there is a purely numeric column, the table can be easily copied into a spreadsheet and recounted even by those who don't know anything about regular expressions.

::If you have a script, please use it to keep an eye on the count: I'm surprised that you didn't spot the miscount earlier on.

::I'll add the column for the decades again, this time at the last place. This should be more pleasing...

::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:07, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

I don't know how to upload a picture, so here is an ascii-graphic for the distribution by decades:

*1600: *
*1610: ****
*1620: *****
*1630: *
*1640: ******
*1650: ****
*1660: **
*1670:
*1680: **
*1690: *
*1700: *
*1710: ***
*1720: *****
*1730: ****
*1740: ****
*1750: *****
*1760: ******
*1770: ******
*1780: ********
*1790: *********
*1800: ********
*1810: *********
*1820: ***************
*1830: ***************
*1840: *********
*1850: **********
*1860: **********
*1870: *******
*1880: ************
*1890: **********
*1900: ***********************
*1910: ***********************
*1920: **********************
*1930: *******************
*1940: ***************************
*1950: **************************
*1960: *************************
*1970: ****************
*1980: **********************
*1990: ******
*2000: ***************
*2010: ***

1820/1830,1900/1910, and 1940/1950 seem to be decades in which significantly more conservative terms were created than one would have expected... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:15, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

== Suggested additions ==

Eurabia - what Europe will become if people don't stand up for themselves.

Islamofascism - repressive muslim shariah regimes/totalitarian islamism.

[[User:MeganH|MeganH]] 01:01, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

: Go ahead and add if you have some dates of origin, even if only approximate. I hadn't heard of the first one ("Eurabia") before.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

== Dumpster diving ==

Was 'dumping diving' added because food is not going to waste, or am I misunderstanding why it's conservative? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 09:54, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

:I'll take a stab at it. Conservative words can describe liberal actions. I am not saying dumpster divers are liberal, those poor folks maybe hungry. Dumpster Diving is not limited to food. It's also a method to get trade secrets from companies or dig up dirt against somebody. Most likely, Dumpster Diving is used for deceitful purposes for example gaining a social security number from discarded bills used for the creation of fraudulent IDs. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:06, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

::Great points. This is a list of [[conservative]] terms, often insightful, about activities that may be conservative or liberal, harmful or helpful, or none of the above. Evidently this term was developed by small businessmen to describe an unhelpful activity outside their restaurants and other stores. Dumpster diving may sometimes be the equivalent of recycling or getting a hungry person some food, but in any event '''the term''' is a perfect description of the activity. And once there is a good term for something, then the activity can be understood and addressed better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:39, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

::: Good analysis. But is dumpster diving a conservative act? --[[User:GeorgeZ|GeorgeZ]] 15:53, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Read Andy's post. He specifically says that that does not matter. It was created by conservatives. Therefore it is a conservative word. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:12, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Right that it does not matter whether it is a conservative act. In the case of dumpster diving, whether it is ever conservative depends on what the purpose and effect are. It also doesn't matter if a conservative coined it; a liberal can sing a [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs|conservative song]]. The point is whether the insight is conservative. In this case, small businessmen (a conservative line of work) coined the term to criticize how homeless people were digging through their trash.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:19, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::I see Andy. Thanks for explaining. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:22, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Indeed, one might suggest that liberals have indirectly contributed to the increase in conservative terms by constantly inventing new ways to avoid work and personal responsibility. Conservatives are then, naturally, obligated to develop terms for these behaviors. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:18, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

== 2000s ==
It's fascinating how the new Conservative words and insights do seem to grow geometrically by century, but I'm curious as to why the 2000s seem to be pretty far behind. We're 11 years in, so you'd expect there to be roughly 40 new words so far, but we've got less than half that many. With the rise of the TEA Party, I'd expect to be much closer. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:06, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

: Excellent point. Possible reasons could include that it is too soon to recognize new words in the most recent decade ... or maybe there has been a short-term decline in conservative intellectualism? At any rate, I've been meaning to add the term "Tea Party" itself with its etymology in the last decade!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:12, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

::I have to agree with you, Andy. Even though we're in 2011 now, it might be too early to be able to fully appreciate all the new conservative words created last decade. I think "Tea Party" might just be one of the most important words to add and I think the movement itself will produce a lot of new, conservative words in its own right! [[User:BobSherman|BobSherman]] 19:58, 20 July 2011 (EDT)

:::Very perceptive, Andy. It takes time for the gatekeepers of knowledge to acknowledge the validity of new terms; therefore, while the public production of new conservative insights and terms may be quite rapid, the assimilation of those insights and terms into formal reference works is likely to be much slower. This is, I would suggest, exacerbated by reliance on archaic forms of knowledge dissemination such as print dictionaries.

An interesting side project might be to evaluate dictionaries (both online and print) to see how rapidly they accept and incorporate new conservative words versus new liberal words. In this way, it might be possible to determine which dictionaries are reliable and which are liberally biased. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:19, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

== Help! ==

I tried to archive the page - at least the parts which were from last year, but I totally botched it: my browser can't handle long pages, I have difficulties with the captchas & I created the wrong page for an archive [[Archive 3]] instead of [[Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words/Archive 3]] ([[Archive 3]] should be moved there...)

So I give up... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:58, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:I archived 2010... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:44, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

::Thank you - I had problems with the captchas! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:26, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== Maybe these two ==
Here's two possibilities I found in [[Federal debt limit]], "leveraged loss" and "debt spiral", but I'm not sure how to fit them in. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:01, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== More possibilities... ==

Constructionist (1835-45)
Inalienable (1635-45)
Hubris (1880-1885)
Scientism (1875-1880)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:11, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== Trickle-down? ==

As a descriptor for the trickle-down theory of economics, it dates to 1950-1955. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:43, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

: I think "trickle-down" is pejorative, and thus more a [[liberal]] term than a [[conservative]] one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::If trickle-down is the pejorative would the standard, conservative, phrase be "supply-side"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:53, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Yes, it would - and "supply side" is already on the list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::::ah, excellent. my work here is done! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:00, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

== Civil body politic ==

"Civil body politic" is an interesting bit of history but does not seem to have caught on as widely used term, and hence would not seem to warrant inclusion in this list. Does anyone disagree?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:43, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Medal of Honor (and other proper names) ==

I'm not sure that a proper name given to an award is inherently conservative-- the Medal itself reflects conservative values of course, but would do so even if had been called, say, the Award of Bravery or the Citation of Courage. "Coolant," "transistor" and "greasy spoon" are all truly conservative both in terms of content and syntax. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 19:50, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:Your point is valid. Perhaps it does not fit this particular list, but I'm reluctant to delete it. Isn't there something conservative about simply recognizing "honor", and calling the medal after the concept, rather than after, say, a liberal politician?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:15, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

==alcoholism ?==
Could you please explain how alcoholism is a conservative word ? Alcoholism is more of a liberal trait.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:24, 17 November 2011 (EST)

:"Alcoholism" is a criticism of excessive drinking, and thus is a conservative word. Words that end in "ism" are often pejoratives, as in "alarmism" and "collectivism" (which are also on the list).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:41, 17 November 2011 (EST)
:: And do you feel the same way about the word "liberalism"?--[[User:JeanB|JeanB]] 21:49, 17 November 2011 (EST)
::: Word that end in -ism are not always pejorative, capitalism is good. And when the words socialism or communism were invented, they were meant to be good.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:53, 17 November 2011 (EST)

==Handout==
1882, I wanted to add this to best new conservative words as it describes a liberal policy of government giveaways. But it also could be the conservative position of helping the poor through charity. Either way it is a conservative word but the proper way to describe alludes me. Op?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 09:28, 25 November 2011 (EST)

:That would a superb addition! It would also leave the list only two 20-century words shy of another perfect doubling by century.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:48, 25 November 2011 (EST)

== Level Playing Field ==

I added the term "level playing field" for two main reasons: 1) It is an intuitive metaphor used in its [http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/228650.html first recorded use] to describe how markets usually work best when they are fair for all participants and free of interference. 2) The term has since been used by liberals to describe policies such as affirmative action, progressive taxation, and government handouts, but it obvious to anyone who looks at these policies objectively that they actually distort the playing field.

I believe that is enough for the term to stand on its own merits, but it looks even more conservative if we compare it to other words on the list such as "motivation," "quantify," or "coolant."

Maybe I have overlooked something and the word does not belong on the list. Comments are welcome. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 21:03, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

:As you point out, the term is often used by liberals, so that makes it a doubtful candidate for "best" new conservative words. The term seems to imply that government is needed to level the playing field. Level playing fields rarely occur in nature, for example. The term almost sounds like the famous "life's not fair" expression ... which is not conservative either.

:"Motivation" is a far more conservative term - one can find motivation whether the playing field islevel or not. "Quantify" is logic, which is an essential difference between conservative and liberal approaches. "Coolant" is an essential part of nuclear energy -- which liberals loathe.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:51, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

== A.M. ==

This entry is an abbreviation for ''ante meridiem'', which originates from 1563 [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ante%20meridiem]. I'm not clear on whether the abbreviation is being claimed as a new conservative word or the phrase for which it stands. Additionally, it is unclear where the given date of origin in the article of 1762 comes from. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:43, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

:The online etymology dictionary gives a date of 1762. Perhaps it's referring to common usage.

:While you're right that the "A" in A.M. is from a Latin word that is different from the "A" in A.D., the popularity of "A.D." could have led to the popularity of "A.M."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:37, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
::Just seen this catch my attention on the mainpage. I highly doubt that the two could be related in any conservative sense. Of course "AD" refers to "In the year of our lord". But back in the 18th century, Latin was still being routinely taught in schools (especially in [[Britain]]), bring us many other Latin abbreviations, such as eg, etc, ie, RIP (from 'requiescat in pace', and later backronymed into 'rest in peace'). I highly doubt the link between any apparent 'popularity' of AD spurred the formation of AM, and personally I'd remove it. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 15:57, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

:::But what percentage of the overall British population learned Latin in school in the 1700s? Perhaps only 10%? Most Latin appreviations did not catch on with the general population the way that "A.M." did. The most plausible explanation is its proximity to "[[A.D.]]"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:19, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
::::Nonetheless etymological creation power lies not with those who use the language. One must remember that our records of language from the 1700s (both Britain and America) are not vernacular English of the working classes but written English of those who were educated. This was before widespread adoption of clocks and timepieces, which came later with the [[industrial revolution]] and the railways. Again, I highly disagree that likeness to AM would be a significant contributor. Those that would have used the world in our written records would have been educated in Latin, and would therefore be aware of the etymological roots of '''both''' AM and AD. Since the A stands for '''anno''' and '''ante''' respectively, there is no etymological proximity at all between the two. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 18:35, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

== It Really Is Amazing... ==

It really is amazing that the pattern of perfect doubling by century is so strong that almost every "layer" is complete before the next layer starts, even though words are added to the list pretty much randomly whenever a user thinks of one. --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 17:47, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

:Great discoveries are rarely random. In this case, it would not be possible to discover such a perfect geometric fit unless the underlying pattern existed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:12, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2012-06-12T19:57:39Z

HumanGeographer: /* A.M. */

George Zimmerman

2012-04-21T11:52:48Z

HumanGeographer: Incredibly important part when considering this case.

'''George Zimmerman''' is an Hispanic who had long worked as a volunteer to patrol his gated neighborhood in [[Florida]], which had been subjected to a series of crimes. One rainy evening in March 2012, Zimmerman encountered an African American youth wearing a hoodie. After some kind of confrontation, the youth was killed from the firing of Zimmerman's gun, which he had a permit to carry. The youth, Travon Martin was unarmed<ref>http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-14/news/os-trayvon-martin-shooting-death-rally-20120314_1_shooting-death-bryant-chief-bill-lee</ref>.

After a media sensation that included distortions of the facts, George Zimmerman was subsequently charged with second-degree murder after being denied the protection of a [[grand jury]], despite his claim that he acted in [[self defense]].<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0409/No-grand-jury-What-does-that-mean-for-George-Zimmerman</ref> In the analogous case of Bernhard Goetz, the protection of a grand jury was important when the first grand jury declined to [[indictment|indict]] on the biggest charges.

== Media bias ==

"The revelation that [[NBC News]] altered the recorded 911 call that George Zimmerman made to police before he fatally shot Trayvon Martin has brought down heavy criticism on NBC."<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0404/George-Zimmerman-911-call-what-the-fallout-is-from-botched-editing</ref> NBC News altered the 911 call to make it look like George Zimmerman was obsessed with Trayvon Martin's ethnicity, when in fact Zimmerman merely complied with a direct demand by the 911 operator to provide the ethnicity of Mr. Martin.

For political reasons (to avoid creating an animosity between two [[Democrat]] voting blocs), the [[liberal media]] invented the term "white Hispanic" rather than "Hispanic", over the objection of George Zimmerman's family. It would typically be considered racist to play that word game in another context; no one in the media would refer to a politician as a "white African American."

A writer for [[CNN]] observed:<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/29/opinion/navarrette-white-hispanic/index.html?hpt=po_r1</ref>
{{cquote|Now, courtesy of the [[mainstream media]], there is a new phrase to add to our national lexicon: 'white Hispanic.' ... I've written about the thorny subjects of race and ethnicity for nearly a quarter century, and I rarely hear this term. ... Wherever this road leads, it's not good -- not for Hispanics nor the rest of the country.}}

== External links ==

*[http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/video-witnesses-claim-george-zimmerman-didnt-help-trayvon-martin Witnesses Claim George Zimmerman Didn't Help Trayvon Martin.]
*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/30/trayvon-martin-witness-zimmerman-uninjured Trayvon Martin killing: witness says he saw Zimmerman walk away uninjured.]

== References ==

<references/>

George Zimmerman

2012-04-20T22:09:45Z

HumanGeographer: Improve

'''George Zimmerman''' is an [[mixed race]]<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/who-is-george-zimmerman/2012/03/22/gIQAkXdbUS_story.html</ref> White and Hispanic who had long worked as a volunteer to patrol his gated neighborhood in [[Florida]], which had been subjected to a series of crimes. One rainy evening in March 2012, Zimmerman encountered an Trayvon Martin, an African American youth wearing a hoody. After some kind of confrontation, Martin was killed from the firing of Zimmerman's gun, which he had a permit to carry. Martin was unarmed<ref>http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-14/news/os-trayvon-martin-shooting-death-rally-20120314_1_shooting-death-bryant-chief-bill-lee</ref>.

After a media sensation that included distortions of the facts{{Citation needed}} , George Zimmerman was subsequently charged with second-degree murder after being denied the protection of a [[grand jury]], despite his claim that he acted in [[self defense]].<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0409/No-grand-jury-What-does-that-mean-for-George-Zimmerman</ref> In the analogous case of Bernhard Goetz, the protection of a grand jury was important when the first grand jury declined to [[indictment|indict]] on the biggest charges.

== External links ==

*[http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/video-witnesses-claim-george-zimmerman-didnt-help-trayvon-martin Witnesses Claim George Zimmerman Didn't Help Trayvon Martin.]
*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/30/trayvon-martin-witness-zimmerman-uninjured Trayvon Martin killing: witness says he saw Zimmerman walk away uninjured.]

== References ==

<references/>

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2012-03-12T19:06:11Z

HumanGeographer: /* The Iron Lady */ new section

[[Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies/archive1|Archive 1]]
 [[Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies/archive2|Archive 2]]

== Public Discussion Here ==

(post comments here by clicking "Edit this page")

Okay who keeps mispelling "Mr. Skeffington"? THERE IS A G IN THE NAME see www.imdb.com/title/tt0037094/

The Conservapedia entry for "Gen. George S. Patton" has a great section on the classic 1969 film, "Patton;" why is it not on the list?? A few years back "National Review" listed 100 great conservative films ("A Man for All Seasons" led NR editors' list). Immediately readers (including me) sent in their own nominations and "Patton" came in #1!!!!

CW Miller PhD

:It should be. Would you like to add it? Note, however, that the film was not as conservative as the person it featured!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:00, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

I think 'Tears of the Sun' should've definitely been on the list. Its extremely pro-military.

:Perhaps, would you like to add it with an explanation of why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:00, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

What is the conservative message taught by "The Way We Were"? Just curious.

:Pretty obvious, isn't it? The [[liberal]] rants predictably got too tiresome for the man to put up with, and he inevitably broke off the relationship with the woman in order to find a replacement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:00, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
::And in the process of breaking off the relationship, he broke his marriage vows and committed adultery. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 23:44, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

I think The Graduate (1967) needs to be on this list. This is a film about a boy growing up, by facing harsh reality, owning up to his mistakes, and making a decision about his life, thus becoming a man. It's also about how we can overcome sin and corruption by taking control of our lives. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 14:47, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

Another film is the 1948 Alfred Hitchcock film Rope, starring James Stewart, John Dall, and Stewart Granger. Based loosely on the Leopold-Loeb killing, Rope is about two Harvard scholars who decide to kill an acquaintance of their simply for the sake of killing, because they believe they are superior to others, all taught from one of their headmasters (James Stewart). This film goes into one of the reasons why we have laws, why we cherish human life, and slightly goes into the immorality taught by ivory tower intellectuals that seems so prevalent today.--[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 22:00, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

Hud (1963), starring Paul Newman, Melvyn Douglas, and Patricia Neal, needs to be in this roster too. At the heart of Conservative Philosophy lies the strength of a man's character and how that character influences others. Hud, played by Newman, is a man who's completely selfish in a way that liberals are. He doesn't care about anyone but himself, and his own ego, and he gives no restraint to his appetites. He doesn't give a damn about anything, because to him the world is full of excrement. And that sooner or later, you're going to have to swim in that muck like everybody else. A great line is said that "The look of the country changes by the people we admire." As you watch this film, things get progressively worse for the ranch that Hud lives on, part and parcel because of his own crass behavior. Hud's willingness both to pass bad beef off onto his neighbors and take the ranch out from his old father indicates the sourness of his character. A brilliant film about human character.--[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 22:28, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== The Blind Side ==
It's a story about the shortcomings of public education and how the power of private Christian charity helped a young homeless man overcome his disadvantages and play in the NFL.[[User:AdamDiscordia|AdamDiscordia]] 19:03, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Brokeback Mountain ==

I was thinking about this topic earlier and had an interesting thought about a seemingly non-conservative movie that, in a way, is actually quite so. I'm going to throw this out there for some (hopefully productive and civil) debate and see what people think.

The movie is Brokeback Mountain. Now hold on to your outrage, people. I have justifications for my point. Please hear me out. (Oh, and spoilers, just in case you planned to see/read it and hadn't)

As you probably know, the movie (and the novella on which its based) is about two men who fall into a homosexual lifestyle. But what struck me as conservative about this film is that it doesn't glorify the lifestyle; the two mens' choice to indulge in homosexuality is a disastrous choice that ends up ruining both their lives. One man's marriage is destroyed and his relationship with his child is forever tainted. The other man's choice actually leads to his violent death (Incidentally, I'm not saying that killing someone for being gay is a conservative value. But the point is that this movie is actually very up-front about acknowledging the catastrophic consequences of a homosexual lifestyle).

Considering all that, my next though was whether this movie might be unintentionally conservative, in which case it certainly doesn't belong on this list. But I don't think it is (haven't seen it since it first came out though, so I could be wrong).

So, there's my point. I would appreciate some discussion. I imagine some CPers will think I'm trolling or just trying to start an argument. Not so. I feel like it's a valid point but that there are probably strong arguments for and against, and I'd really like to hear what other people think. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 17:11, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

:You are partially right, but I think the homosexuals were meant to be sympathetic and on that basis alone, I don't think that movie belongs on this list. [[User:AdamDiscordia|AdamDiscordia]] 19:05, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

: I agree that the movie is anti-homosexuality. Based on the publicity, I expected the movie to be pro-homosexuality, but I was quite surprised by what was actually in the movie. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:15, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:This would be true, except that you have to consider the film's intent. It's not necessarily suggesting that what these men did is the result of their choice. It's suggesting that what happens to these men is the result of bigotry, prejudice, and hate on the part of the world around them. That they are blameless, in spite of their choices. A stark contrast, which I think also ought to be listed as a Conservative Film, would be Midnight Cowboy. In Midnight Cowboy, Joe Buck (played by Jon Voight) recognizes that the life he chose, as a male prostitute, and begins to make an effort to change, to get out of New York, with Ratso (Dustin Hoffman). Ratso's death underscored the decadent life they had led in NYC, and how Joe barely escaped with his own. In Brokeback Mountain, you do not see such recognition on the part of Ennis and Jack. They don't really consider what they did as wrong, necessarily. So where Midnight Cowboy underscores the devastation the immoral life can lead, Brokeback Mountain places the responsibility for that devastation on everyone else but the two men most responsible. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 19:56, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== U-571 ==

I deleted U-571 from this list. It portrays the capture of an Enigma machine from a German U-boat by US forces. As pretty much everyone with any interest in WW2 knows, the naval Enigma machine was stolen by Polish forces and decoded by British code-breakers at Bletchley. My Brit friends think U-571 is a joke because it minimises the role of the British ("you arrogant Yankees"). Poles are offended because it cuts out the Polish involvement altogether - including the very brave men who risked their lives to steal an Enigma machine and hand it over to British Intelligence. (BTW, Britain and Poland were allies of ours in WW2 and still are now.) Deceit isn't a conservative virtue - so I crossed U-571 off the list. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 16:51, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

: I'd say it's very questionable whether there's any deceit involved. The movie makes an on-screen written acknowledgment that the the first (and the majority) of enigmas were captured by British sailors. The whole movie is so over-the-top that nobody with a lick of intelligence would believe it's true. American sailors did capture an enigma machine during the war too, so this movie is obviously "inspired by a true story" even if it's not especially true. Most of the movie-going public knows that Hollywood "true" stories are highly fictionalized. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:13, 21 September 2010 (EDT)

==The Lives of Others==

Where on earth is The Lives of Others? it is, surely, the best recent critique of Communism and, for that matter, one of the best films ''of any type'' released in the past five years. It certainly deserves a place ahead of, for example, the obscure Dark Matter. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 12:13, 28 November 2010 (EST)

: It's in German, right, and about the former [[East Germany]]? I'll add it on your recommendation, but I can't agree it ranks higher than the English-language Dark Matter, which speaks to today and not just the past.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:41, 28 November 2010 (EST)

::Fair enough, Andy. Though I don't quite understand the argument against foreign-language films. If the issue is obscurity, The Lives of Others was seen by far more people in the US than Dark Matter. A glance at Box-Office Mojo confirms that Dark Matter took in a staggeringly tiny $30,591 on its domestic run. The Lives of Others took in $11,286,112 in the US (plus another $66 million in the rest of the world). I am, however, content to abide by your criteria. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 15:40, 28 November 2010 (EST)

:::Oprah Winfrey's daytime talk show rakes in far higher revenues than both, but I'm not sure what that proves. Dark Matter was apparently victimized and downplayed by liberals who finally figured out its conservative message, after it won first place in one of the Sundance Film Festival categories. The liberal backlash against Dark Matter is particularly surprising given that Meryl Streep starred in it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:48, 28 November 2010 (EST)

::::P.S. Your suggestion of "The Lives of Others" is a fine addition. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:02, 28 November 2010 (EST)
http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/button_sig.png
::::No problem. Keep up the good work. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 20:47, 28 November 2010 (EST)

== Fiddler on the Roof? ==

A film celebrating the value of community, tradition, family, and faith, all against the historical context of the harm done by the rise of Communism in Russia...worthy of a spot on the list? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:30, 6 January 2011 (EST)

:Sounds good to me ... please add it as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:48, 6 January 2011 (EST)

:I disagree. Look at the overall film/play. This was definitely a counter-culture film thinly disguised as a quaint musical drama. The message was that Tradition is bad, illogical, and keeps people stuck in their ways when they should embrace the new, simply because it's new. When Tevye explains the traditions and why they're there in the beginning, he mentioned that they keep their heads covered and they wear their prayer shawl. He then asks, "How did this tradition get started?," and he responds, "I don't know." This sets up the rest of the show. Because never do they explain why they use a Matchmaker, or why they don't let people arrange their own matches, or why men and women dance separately. They even have the old rabbi getting down with the new changes, never defending what was before. Message: Traditions are stale and old and have no place in the modern world. Relax and just let things happen. Then the film gives us the drama of Chava marrying a Christian, marrying outside of her faith, and that's where Tevye can't abide it. By then, it seems that Tevye's objection is only based on ridiculous emotion, rather than anything objective. All this, in spite of the fact that change is coming, one that cannot be stopped by the traditions these people hold. This is not a Conservative message at all, but one that is quite subversive. If this had been written from a Conservative approach, we would've gone into the reasons behind the traditions, because they're not irrational or unreasonable. The reason for a Matchmaker, the way they dress, and the way they eat, and the dancing, all is meant to preserve their heritage as Jews living in Tsarist Russia. The Matchmaker keeps the Jewish men and women within the community, and within the faith, all the while helping to maintain peace and stability within the community itself. The point I'm making is that Traditions have a purpose, even if we disagree with them. And the notion that happiness comes from something material, as in the case of the marriage between Motel and Tzeital, is a direct message against a person's obligations to his or her duty, both to themselves and their community they live in. No, I'd say Fiddler on the Roof is not a Conservative film. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 20:15, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== Gattaca ==

A condemnation of genetic experiments on humans, and a wonderful triumph of individualism in an extremely controlled society. No matter how much scientists play to be God, and try to improve the human race by using genetics, there will always be an individual, based on original God design, who, despite his health shortcomings, will triumph over this genetically modified, supposedly perfect human beings.

I don’t immediately put it on the list because the movie is a bit atheist. In the final scene, the hero finally managed to travel to space and cites the phrase: “They say every atom in our bodies was once a part of a star. So, maybe I'm not leaving, maybe I'm going home."

So, I’ll say that the movie has a conservative message, unfortunately diluted with atheist overtones. I’ll wait for someone else opinion before posting this. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 23:03, 10 March 2011 (EST)

:Feel free to post this with the caveat you mention. Thanks for explaining it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
::We talked about this movie at my fellowship a few months ago - pure hokum about a guy who might have been alright on his own but for a disgusting patriarchy forcing human engineering. I'll write this if AlejandroJ doesn't. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 00:51, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
:::Thanks, I posted it. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 15:31, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

The argument that this film has atheistic overtones actually adds to this film. It shows how we have reduced a person not to his ability but to purely material characteristics, and the effects this has on society. In Gattaca, people are judged not by their ability, not by their merit or accomplishments, but their potential. Gore Vidal, who plays the director of Gattaca, says "No one exceeds their potential." This is, I think, a fundamental statement in the whole movie; that it is the potential that is important, not the action, not the accomplishment. If Vincent became exposed even after he is confirmed to go to Titan, we know what would happen; he would be expelled from Gattaca, and possibly imprisoned for using a "borrowed ladder." Which also points to Eugene's suicide and why he took his own life. Eugene doesn't value his life, but his potential. "Jerome Morrow," he said, "was never meant to be one step lower on the podium." In such an atheistic society that only values the material, the potential, the beautiful, but not the competent or the accomplished, Eugene's suicide underscores this conceit. Eugene could not be anything less than what he felt his potential was. Or, put it another way, he could not be anything less but what others said he should be. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 14:58, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== Disney cartoons ==

Most, and perhaps all, of the Disney cartoons for the past 15 or so years have pushed the [[feminist]] ideology. I welcome any counterexamples, but doubt there are any. Hence the reversion of the "Princess and the Frog (2009)" addition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:31, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
:''The Lion King'', a 1994 Disney movie, is definitely conservative. A main message of the movie is honoring thy father, and the power-hungry main antagonist, once he becomes ruler, favors big government, pushes [[liberal values]] and destroys their territory. I'll add it with your approval. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 15:45, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

::Sounds like a good choice. Please add and if anyone has a different view of the movie, then he can let us know.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:26, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

:::Added. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 16:41, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

Mr Schlafly I would agree with your reversion of my contribution of the Princess and the Frog if that movie were feminist-ideology-promoting (like, for instance Mulan (1998)) but frankly, it is not a feminist movie. I am not a woman, nor a feminist - I am staunchly conservative. The Princess and the Frog promotes monogamous marriage (which feminism does not) as well as the other conservative values I listed (such as saving money, hard work, free enterprise etc). In fact, the main character is so pro-marriage that she changes her licentious friend's behavior from debauchery (which feminism promotes) to monogamy. It is possibly the most conservative-value-laden animated movie I have ever seen.

''The Lion King'' on the other hand promotes re-incarnation with its "Circle of Life" song. Jack, the hero of ''Titanic'' commits fornication and mocks a man reciting the 23rd Psalm; Cal, the main antagonist is depicted as a church-service-attending hypocrite.

You are doubtless correct about the feminist ideology pushed by many Disney animations, but this is not one of them. I respectfully request that you consider returning my contribution of 'The Princess and the Frog'. [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 23:17, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

:I have to disagree with you about The Lion King. As far as I can interpret, "The Circle of Life" is either about the bond all humans share or the journey from life to death and the afterlife, not reincarnation. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 00:36, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::Spotsbunch, I think you have a valid point about the Lion King, but from what I've heard about the "Princess and the Frog," it's feminist claptrap with the woman wearing the pants and doing everything except having children and homeschooling her kids. It's more Disney tripe about a successful businesswoman towing along an inept man, which is hardly typical in the real world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::Arguably, any movie where people turn into frogs, or where in Beauty and the Beast, people have transmogrified into furniture is not "real world". Fantasies they may be, (like many movies listed here) but they are still conservative. I (finally) put it to your kind consideration that if you would watch the Princess and the Frog, you would find it contains less feminism and more conservativism than Beauty and the Beast. Whatever your judgment, I respect your decision and will refrain from further debate, even though I (thus far) disagree. Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 08:43, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Feminism]] is unmistakable: it has women acting like men and vice-versa, contrary to reality. Disney cartoons have been ''heavily'' feminist for at least 15 years. ''Beauty and the Beast'', made 20 years ago, was not feminist in any way. But having a "Princess" act like a businessman and aspire to run a restaurant is feminist. What's next - Cinderella aspires to be a CEO of a Fortune 500 company???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:10, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::Is there any reason a woman can't run a restaurant or a fortune 500 company? No really, Andy, I want to know. Why is it feminist to portray a woman doing anything but cooking, cleaning, and rearing children? [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 13:40, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::Who said anything about cooking and cleaning? And, no, there isn't a reason why a woman can't aspire to any field, such as plumbers (almost no women plumbers), gas station attendants (ditto), or professional football players (ditto). The fact is that the vast majority of women ''do not aspire'' to do such activities (or running a restaurant or a Fortune 500 company), and it's false for feminists or feminist movies to repeatedly pretend otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:48, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::I apologize for my abrasiveness, it just seemed that you were implying that's all they're supposed to do. I can see where you're coming from. While a woman can do what she wants, feminists are wrong for telling woman that they should only aspire to do things traditionally done by men. Men normally aren't beauty consultants, clothing designers, or nail salon technicians, so why don't we see any men urging more men to do these things? [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 14:00, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::[[Feminism]] repeatedly tries to persuade women not to have children and raise them, pretending that aspiring to work in a job is somehow better. I can't think of a single Disney movie in the last 15 years that has been realistic about the homemaker role that most women prefer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:00, 26 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Up. A key part of the story is that the old man's wife had given up her dreams of being an explorer as real life concerns around the home took precedence. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 15:03, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::As promised, I will make my petition no further. However, as others have continued this debate, I will contribute to that. The Bible, our ultimate authority, disagrees (as I read it) that "a woman aspiring to run a business" (restaurant or otherwise) is feminist. Proverbs 31:10-31 describes at length "the wife of noble character" to be involved in business by working with eager hands; importing food from merchant ships; providing food for her family; purchasing property for farming; trading profitably; making and selling expensive cloth and having enough money left over to give to the poor. Anyone with a definition of feminism which includes activities like these, who also respects the Bible as God's authoritative Word should reconsider his definition. Respectfully and with kindest regards, [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 19:15, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Not surprisingly, you left out the verse saying "her children wake up, and call her 'blessed,' so does her husband" ([[CBP]] version), as well as several other verses that feminist movies do not include.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:06, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::Then would it be acceptable to put the Princess and the Frog in the "Debatable Whether Conservative" section of this page? [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 15:44, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::There are high quality movies in the "Debatable" section. The [[feminist]] "Princess and the Frog" doesn't even come close to that level of quality and arguably conservatism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:46, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

== Titanic ==

The movie ''Titanic'' also shows the rich and privileged getting on the half-empty life boats while the poor and lower class passengers are locked below (which is actually historical). Should it truly be included in this list? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:50, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

:No, I disagree. The movie accurately portrays the wealthiest men on the boat (Guggenheim, Astor, etc.) giving up their lives so that poorer women and children could be saved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:53, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

::While I'm ''not'' denying there were individual acts of chivalry and that Guggenheim et al declined seats (although there is historical conflicting testimony about Astor) on the lifeboats (of which there were too few given the number of people on the ship), the numbers show a definite declining survival rate by class. This was also a theme in the movie and not one that should be ignored.

::The movie showed the lower class passengers being locked in the bowels of the ship, blocking escape. There is historical conflicting testimony on this subject as well: several people reported gates between decks being locked and armed guards blocking passageways while one steerage passenger testified that the gates were not locked. Another passenger stated that not only did the staff ''not'' sound an alarm in third class, but that steerage passengers who came up on deck were told to return to their rooms because there was no danger.

::'''First Class''' Women - 4/141 died (97% survival rate)1; Children: 1/7 died2 (86% survival rate); Men - 104/171 died (39% survival rate); Totals: 109/319 died (66% overall survival rate)

::12 of the 4 first class female passengers who died chose to remain with their husbands. *corrected mistype.

::2Lorraine Allison remained on board with her family because they had been separated from her infant brother, who was on a lifeboat with his nurse. The entire family died, with the exception of the baby.

::'''Second Class''' Women: 13/92 died (86% survival rate); Children: 0/25 died (100% survival rate); Men: 135/152 died (11% survival rate); Totals: 148/269 died (45% overall survival rate)

::'''Third Class''' Women: 91/179 died (49% survival rate); Children: 55/80 died (31% survival rate); Men: 381/440 died (13% survival rate); Totals: 527/699 died (25% overall survival rate)

::'''Staff and crew''' Female: 2/22 died (91% survival rate); Male: 701/896 died (22% survival rate); Overall: 703/918 died (23% overall survival rate)

::There are some servants left out of these numbers due to confusion

::Sorry for the over-long reply, but the ''Titanic'' has been a subject of fascination to me since my teenage years (about a century ago!) so I'm rather verbose about it. 8^) I don't agree with you on the subject, but I won't remove the movie from the list. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:51, 7 April 2011 (EDT)
==Move The Dark Knight To the Debatable category?==
I'm wondering whether of not The Dark Knight should be truly considered conservative-while it does have the message of not giving in to terrorist, it also includes themes of everyone being corruptible and having their limits (like the good public defendant, Harvey Dent, turning into a villain, Two Face) and seems fascinated with darkness and chaos ("Madness is like gravity all you need is a little push"). Given this all, and the fact that Patrick Leahy had a cameo in it, I think this might well be reconsidered. Thoughts?
Armond White, who generally sees through liberal bias and is a more conservative viewer, wrote this about it: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fTJ_tj1IKooJ:www.nypress.com/article-18545-knight-to-remember.html+armond+white+the+dark+knightr&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com]

:Thanks for your comments. I'll move "Dark Knight" to the debatable category as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:22, 13 April 2011 (EDT)

::I watched it when it came out, and I didn't notice anything particularly Conservative about it. The only thing really good about it was the citizen response to the terrorist dilemma the arch-villain sets up, whereby two boatloads of passengers "must" each ensure their own survival by blowing up the other's boat; a quick-witted passenger takes the remote control and throws it overboard. But this has nothing to do with Batman.

::The movie shows how vicious bad people can be, and how bullies support (and recruit) other bullies. But that is hardly fodder for the liberal-conservative debate. Both sides claim to despise bullying.

::I daresay the [[Batman]] character of the 1960s comic books had some "[[conservative]]" qualities, such as the ''noblesse oblige'' of the superior man and idea that society can be benefited by the actions of a heroic individual. Both of these run counter to Communist ideas of history. But the Batman movies I've seen are about a different, darker man. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:45, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

:Let me help explain why this film needs to be in the list. At the beginning of this film, crime had been quelled enough that when you saw the Bat-Signal a drug dealer, who probably would've made a quick buck and easily got away with it, chose not to make a deal (you see this guy just refuse a deal to some other man in a car). But this didn't mean that the city was totally crime free, or that corruption was gone. Bruce realized that Batman could not change Gotham. He could help, but he was only one man. Gotham needed someone to be the influence Batman could never be. And that man was Harvey Dent. This speaks to how important culture is to a society. There's a great saying from another film, called Hud, which says "The look of the country changes by the people we admire." Meaning, that if you want a good, upstanding, moral society, you back people who are good, upstanding, and moral. You choose good, even if it means your death. I think the best moment in this film is where the Joker has got the two ferries, one loaded with convicts and the other loaded with civilians, each rigged to blow. But it's a convict that understands the problem, and makes a decision not to play Joker's game. What does this mean? I nearly cried when I saw that scene. It meant that someone understood that there's more to life than living. There's more to life than just existing. There's more to life than doing what is expected, rather than doing what is GOOD. Because GOOD has VALUE, which, I believe, is at the heart of the Conservative Philosophy. Liberals believe quite the opposite. Or rather, they believe that there is no Good or Evil, that everything is relative. Just as the Joker believes. It is what we stand for, and are willing to die for, that make us good or evil. This is what Christ said. To take up your Cross, even if it means your death, even if it means the deaths of others, because Life is not predicated strictly on comfort or survival, but on the propagation of Good. That's why The Dark Knight needs to be here. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 22:20, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

::He may be darker in the movies, that's not to say he still doesn't have conservative values, and he does whatever he can so other people don't go through what he want through. [[User:Jm920|Jm920]] 19:00, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== "The Sandlot" as 1950s America as a time when "every boy had a chance to be great." ==

I suppose, maybe. It's harder to achieve greatness when one couldn't necessarily ride at the front of the bus/use the same drinking fountain/eat at the same counter/go to the same university as other folks. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 14:15, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

: Your point is valid. Feel free to include your point in the entry itself. I don't think the 1950s were as [[conservative]] as today. In addition to your comment, [[homeschooling]] was prohibited in the 1950s, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:29, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

== Rollerball (1975) ==

Rollerball (1975) is frequently overlooked as one of the great conservative films. A dystopian tale in which a corporate oligarchy maintains control over the peoples of the world by distracting them with a hedonistic culture of sex, drugs, and violent entertainment. Rollerball was designed by the corporations to hypnotize and distract the minions with gladiatorial combat disguised as sport. The world watches these spectacles and subconsciously receives the message their corporate masters are feeding them - that individual achievement is not possible, because every Rollerballer ultimately faces the same gruesome fate. However, when Jonathan E (James Caan) proves dominate and (more importantly) invincible in the sport - the corporations attempt to force him to retire through an ever horriflying series of rule changes designed to bring about his death or capitulation.
Jonathan E's defiance is a captivating and uplifting example of a man asserting the freedom of the individual in the face
of totalitarianism. JFarren 17:38, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

== Indiana Jones ==

I am very surprised that the Indiana Jones films are not included in here, when they are certainly conservative. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 23:25, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Would you like to add them?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

== Rebuilt ==
I've rewritten the page as a table. Everything is sortable now. The gross is the US gross value, not worldwide (with one referenced exception). Everything else is the same. Films listed with NA - TV means that they were a TV program, and thus did not have a gross. NA - DVD means that they were released straight to DVD. None of the values are adjusted for inflation. While that would be interesting to do, I don't think wikis support computed columns, and it seems like a waste of time to update every number here. [[user:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

: Well done. Your format is better, and your additional information about revenues is interesting, although not of great significance due to (1) inflation and (2) popularity typically doesn't mean much.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

==Space Jam is not a "Great" film==
Conservative or not, Space Jam sucks! It must be removed.

== Two Thoughts ==

1. What about "Fiddler on the Roof"? About the important role of tradition in societies.

2. Also, the caption for "Hilary: The Movie" is awkward if not misleading. It didn't result in the McCain-Feingold Act being overturned so much as it was the impetus for the lawsuit. The current description seems to imply that it was a crucial piece of evidence or something similar.

Would anyone be opposed to these changes? [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 14:17, 1 November 2011 (EDT)

==Film suggestions==

The Whit Stillman film, "Metropolitan", has been included on various lists of conservative films, including one by National Review. The story is of a group of bourgeois college students who meet a middle-class socialist peer. he later becomes good friends with them. Another National Review's list is "Ghostbusters" for its portrayal of an EPA bureaucrat as the main antagonist human antagonist and a message that "the solution to a public menace comes from the private sector". Another on the list I think may be worthy of inclusion is "Groundhog Day."

The full article from National Review can be viewed here [http://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/article/?q=YWQ4MDlhMWRkZDQ5YmViMDM1Yzc0MTE3ZTllY2E3MGM=] --[[User:TedM|TedM]] 22:42, 10 March 2012 (EST)

:update; Another film I saw a while ago, while containing some crude humor, may still qualify. It would probably fit in the "debatable whether great" category. The film is "House Arrest" and is about some teenagers who go to extreme lengths (locking them in the basement) to stop their fighting parents from getting a divorce. --[[User:TedM|TedM]] 13:46, 12 March 2012 (EDT)

== The Iron Lady ==

I highly suggest seeing The Iron Lady. I'm not sure how widespread the release was but it received critical acclaim in Britain, and a good insight into the other side of the Atlantic during the time of Reaganism. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 15:06, 12 March 2012 (EDT)

Essay:The Invisible Hand of Marriage

2012-03-12T17:37:40Z

HumanGeographer: Added link

The '''invisible hand of marriage''' is an unseen force of productivity that results from the marriage of a man and woman.<ref>This concept was first discovered and developed on Conservapedia. When this entry was generated here, a Google search on "'''invisible hand of marriage'''" did not find a single reference on the [[Internet]]: "No results found for 'invisible hand of marriage.'"</ref>

The '''invisible hand of marriage''' is more powerful and influential than the "[[invisible hand]]" identified by [[Adam Smith]] in [[economics]]. Indeed, the source of productivity from Smith's invisible hand has been erroneously attributed to purely economic considerations, without properly factoring in the productive force of [[marriage]]. Self-interest and [[greed]] are not the primary driving forces of the invisible hand, but marriage is. Much of the sociological explanation can be found within the well-grounded academic [[Preference theory]].

Key elements of the '''invisible hand of marriage''' include:

* the powerful incentive to work for the benefit of someone else who needs your efforts, such as a spouse or child
* the motivation to work for a future that will likely extend beyond one's own life
* the [[checks and balances]] against unproductive activity, anxiety, depression and addiction, from the very different perspectives of a man and a woman
* the insights and wisdom that result from complementary outlooks by a man and woman in marriage
* the pushing and prodding, analogous to what a supervisor, coach or sergeant does, that encourages and compels people in marriage to achieve their best
* a division of labor that enables each spouse to work on what he or she does best
* the ability to raise and educate children better by utilizing both the male and female perspectives and experiences on life
* the ability to raise children with the combined wisdom of a male and a female
* a solid God-like relationship of love such that each partner desires one another to make it to the finish line, Heaven.
* reducing the impact of health difficulties by providing care.
* maintaining relationship stability and monogamy with a public declaration of fidelity.

== Studies ==

Just as the economy is worse off without the [[invisible hand]] identified by [[Adam Smith]], nearly everyone is worse off when they lose the benefit of the [[invisible hand of marriage]]. Anxiety, depression, addiction and other unproductive activity begin to dominate the person who rejects or ignores the [[invisible hand of marriage]].

"Married people are generally healthier than unmarried people, as measured by numerous health outcomes. ... These studies find, for example, that marriage improves certain mental health outcomes, reduces the use of some high-cost health services (such as nursing home care), and increases the likelihood of having health insurance coverage. In addition, an emerging literature suggests that growing up with married parents is associated with better health as an adult. Marriage has mixed effects on health behaviors — leading to healthier behaviors in some cases (reduced heavy drinking) and less healthy behaviors in others (weight gain)."<ref>http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/07/marriageonhealth/rb.htm</ref>

== Same-sex marriage ==

There is no '''invisible hand of marriage''' if those purporting to be married are of the same gender. Virtually none of the above elements exist in a same-sex "marriage". Same-sex "marriage" is a recipe for unproductive activity, anxiety, depression and addiction, and lacks the enormously beneficial checks and balances provided by a true marriage.
==See Also==
*[[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Essays]]

Preference theory

2012-03-12T17:36:28Z

HumanGeographer: /* References */

'''Preference Theory''' is a theory developed by the influential [[British]] sociologist, Catherine Hakim to describe, explain and predict women's preferences with regards to lifestyle choices. It is noteworthy for attempting to explain the difference between the outcomes of men and women, especially with regards to employment and pay. Preference theory is an advancement on Gary Becker's [[Human Capital Theory]], for which he won the Nobel Prize for in the early 1990s.

==Preference Theory==
The theory is founded on the expansion of women into employment out of the traditional domestic sphere, which occurred because of the following 5 main societal shifts<ref>Hakim, Catherine (2000). Work-Lifestyle Choices in the 21st Century. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press.</ref>:

1. The contraceptive revolution gives women reliable control over their own fertility for the first time in history. 
2. The equal opportunities revolution gives women genuine access to all positions and occupations for the first time in history 
3. The expansion of white-collar occupations, which are more attractive to women. 
4. The creation of jobs for secondary earners, such as part-time jobs, working at home, teleworking, and annual hours contracts. 
5. The increasing importance of attitudes and values in affluent modern societies, which gives everyone the freedom to choose their lifestyle.

Whereas men are constrained by a work role, women are able to ''choose'' or ''prefer'' either a work role, a home role, or a combination of the two. Hakim divides women into three categories:

'''Work Centred''' (20-40%). These women are usually childless and can be viewed on the same level as men. They tend to perform well in the job market since all of their human capital is invested into their career at all times.

'''Home Centred''' (20-40%). These women tend to be married and choose to leave the labour market to raise the children of the family. They may still attend university and gain qualifications to meet a man of the intended high calibre, but not necessarily to advance any career as such. These women may have a career but will drop out of the labour market long-term to raise children.

'''Adaptive''' (40-80%). These women are of the most interest to sociologists, since they can choose either the role of worker or child carer at the same time. Choice of employment tends to veer towards convenience and part-time working hours, rather than career progression or high salary. Women in this category tend to be less ambitious and regard the progress of their family unit as a whole (especially their children) as more important than their own career.

==Gender Pay Gap==

To be written.

==Preference Theory and Conservatism==

To be written.

==Criticism of Preference Theory==

To be written.

==References==
<references/>

Preference theory

2012-03-12T17:36:14Z

HumanGeographer:

Preference theory

2012-03-12T17:35:42Z

HumanGeographer: A start

'''Preference Theory''' is a theory developed by the influential [[British]] sociologist, Catherine Hakim to describe, explain and predict women's preferences with regards to lifestyle choices. It is noteworthy for attempting to explain the difference between the outcomes of men and women, especially with regards to employment and pay. Preference theory is an advancement on Gary Becker's [[Human Capital Theory]], for which he won the Nobel Prize for in the early 1990s.

==Preference Theory==
The theory is founded on the expansion of women into employment out of the traditional domestic sphere, which occurred because of the following 5 main societal shifts<ref>Hakim, Catherine (2000). Work-Lifestyle Choices in the 21st Century. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press.</ref>:

1. The contraceptive revolution gives women reliable control over their own fertility for the first time in history.
2. The equal opportunities revolution gives women genuine access to all positions and occupations for the first time in history
3. The expansion of white-collar occupations, which are more attractive to women.
4. The creation of jobs for secondary earners, such as part-time jobs, working at home, teleworking, and annual hours contracts.
5. The increasing importance of attitudes and values in affluent modern societies, which gives everyone the freedom to choose their lifestyle.

Whereas men are constrained by a work role, women are able to ''choose'' or ''prefer'' either a work role, a home role, or a combination of the two. Hakim divides women into three categories:

'''Work Centred''' (20-40%). These women are usually childless and can be viewed on the same level as men. They tend to perform well in the job market since all of their human capital is invested into their career at all times.

'''Home Centred''' (20-40%). These women tend to be married and choose to leave the labour market to raise the children of the family. They may still attend university and gain qualifications to meet a man of the intended high calibre, but not necessarily to advance any career as such. These women may have a career but will drop out of the labour market long-term to raise children.

'''Adaptive''' (40-80%). These women are of the most interest to sociologists, since they can choose either the role of worker or child carer at the same time. Choice of employment tends to veer towards convenience and part-time working hours, rather than career progression or high salary. Women in this category tend to be less ambitious and regard the progress of their family unit as a whole (especially their children) as more important than their own career.

==Gender Pay Gap==

To be written.

==Preference Theory and Conservatism==

To be written.

==Criticism of Preference Theory==

To be written.