Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Light

2007-05-16T01:31:40Z

JLindon: Avoiding redundancy. The starlight problem already is a very narrow sub-case of the speed of light issue, so including it here just like that looks weird - especially when there is an article about it

'''Light''' can refer to [[electomagnetic]] [[radiation]] of any [[wavelength]], or to EM radiation of visible wavelengths <ref>Wavelengths of EM spectrum usbyte.com [http://www.usbyte.com/common/approximate_wavelength.htm]</ref> ; that stimulate the [[organ]]s of sight, having for normal human vision wavelengths ranging from about 3900 to 7700 [[ångstrom]]s (390 to 780 [[nm]]), violet has the shortest wavelength and red has the largest.
It travels at the [[speed of light]]: about 186,300 [[mile]]s (300,000 kilometres) per second.

EM radiation is a disturbance in an electric field, it consists of an energy particle called a "[[photon]]", a photon carries no electric charge and is massless, but since all energy is attracted by gravitation, light rays will bend near planets and stars.

Debate over whether light was a wave, or consists of particles was finally solved when [[quantum physics]] revealed all particles have wavelengths, but this is not generally noticeable in normal matter.

The EM spectrum consists of the following types of photon radiation (in order of increasing wavelength): [[microwaves]], [[gamma ray]]s, [[x-ray]]s, [[ultraviolet light]], [[visible light]], [[infrared light]] and [[radio waves]].

The [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] proved that the speed of light (and everything else that is massless) will always be measured by an observer to be the same, in every frame of reference, no matter how fast the source or the observer are moving, this gives rise to the [[theory of relativity]].

As with any wave. wavelength times frequency equals the speed of a light wave.

In the Biblical creation God created light on the first [[day]]; [[God]] said ''Let there be light,'' and there was light<ref>[[Genesis]] 1:3</ref>.

==See also==
*[[Starlight problem]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Template:Cite

2007-05-15T20:01:18Z

JLindon: Undo revision 162430 by Special:Contributions/HigherEvolution (User talk:HigherEvolution) - Vandalism

{{{author}}}, ''{{{title}}}'', [[{{{publisher}}}]], [[{{{date}}}]].

Template:!

2007-05-15T20:00:36Z

JLindon: Undo revision 162427 by Special:Contributions/HigherEvolution (User talk:HigherEvolution) - Apparently broke the templates that use this (like the Australia userbox)

Talk:Mockery

2007-05-14T19:18:56Z

JLindon: Mockery and confusion?

Shouldn't the personal comments be removed, or at least rephrased? The word "I" does not really belong in an encyclopedia article. By the way, conservatives use mockery, too. And wouldn't a good case example be the Emporer's New Clothes (where mockery would have exposed his vanity)? [[User:Human|Human]] 14:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Good point, mockery isn't always evil. Swift satirized the established church with his egg-shaped island, and his Modest Proposal is, well, a sort of "poster child" of mockery (see [[Satire]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:29, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

How can you honestly have this statement in here "Liberals always do this, so as to distract people from seeing the real facts." Liberals ALWAYS do this? I think this is taking things a step past conservative bias. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 12:23, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:That is a pretty broad and bold statement to make. I'm sure there's a conservative or two out there that has mocked someone before too, should we include that as well? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:38, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Bush's gaffes would not be a big deal if he were a good president--[[User:443276|443276]] 14:48, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

If you want to hear a conservative mocking a liberal, just tune into the Rush Limbaugh show.--[[User:443276|443276]] 14:49, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:Bang! and the stain on the articles reliability has gone? Anyone want to find some hilariously mocking conservative and liberal propaganda posters that I can give as sources? --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]

== Query ==

Is this supposed to be a real article, or is it a self-parody?
I'm just asking, as I have had articles 10x better than this one huffed.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 15:06, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Mockery and confusion? ==

About the whole bit about Bushisms, especially the sentence "''There is no reason to collect and show these for one politician while never showing the same kind of error made by another politician, unless you are trying to make the false point that your candidate is infallible and your opponent is incompetent.''":

I think there is a much more innocent reasoning for these books popping up (compared to the quest to create confusion and boosting one's own candidate): Money.

Books with silly quotes sell like... err... something that sells very quickly. :P Especially if the quotes sound hilarious and if they come from a famous guy. And I'd argue that "President of the United States of America" grants fame by default. It makes perfect sense to sell these books. That's the stuff average John Does like to read for a chuckle. Easy money.

Compare that to the estimated success of selling books with quotes by... *makes random search* Dave Freudenthal (Governor of Wyoming). I think quite a few people will go "...who's that?" (at least when you look at the international market), so "Hilarious quotes by Dave Freudenthal" will most likely sell less copies than "Hilarious quotes by George W. Bush". That's the reason why you see so many "Bushisms" books and almost no quote books about other politicians (to be fair, it should be mentioned that GWB had quite a few slips of the tongue).

Of course, these books won't give long and boring explanations about all the circumstances, and of course most people know that they're just simple slips of the tongue. But they will say "So what? It's still hilarious." and buy it anyway. I can hardly blame the authors for publishing such a book - they just know their target audience and they want to make money.

It's exactly the same for biographies. Somebody steps into the major spotlight and half a week later, the book shops are flooded with books about him or her. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 15:18, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Information asymmetry

2007-05-14T18:26:18Z

JLindon: Initial version. Later on, it could use (among other things) a history section to trace the usage of the word and the context in which it usually appeared in.

In [[economics]], '''information asymmetry''' refers to the cases in which one participant in a deal has more (or better) information than the other participant.

==The problems of hidden information==
The information that is not available to all participants is called "hidden information". The participant that knows this information can use it to his own advantage while (or after) negotiating a deal.

===Example: Work===
In workplace situations, the employer often gives an employee a certain task without knowing exactly how long it might take. For example, fixing a computer could take one day or several days, depending on the skill level of the employee tasked with the repair. In this case, the employee has information his boss doesn't have: If he knows he can fix the problem in one day, he can effectively take the rest of the time off while telling the employer that the repairs will take a few days.

===Example: Used cars===
When buying a used car, the salesman quite likely has the upper hand: He knows which cars aren't as great as he says, but he will still praise it as the best car ever made. The average car buyer will lack the knowledge (or determination) to check the car for flaws and thus relies on what the salesman says. In this case, hidden information may lead to the buyer making a decision he wouldn't have made if he had known of this information.

===Example: Insurances===
When discussing [[insurance]]s, there can be two cases of information asymmetry.

The first one is that the insurance company does not magically know everything about the person applying for an insurance. For example, a person with a chronic illness will not readily give out this information while applying for a health insurance. This behavior is called [[adverse selection]].

The second case happens after the person got the insurance. The insurance company can't monitor the insured individual, so it won't know if the accident it has to pay for was a genuine accident or the result of sloppiness (caused by the "Who cares? I'm insured, anyway!" mindset). This behavior is called [[moral hazard]].

[[category:economics]]

Adverse selection

2007-05-14T17:57:29Z

JLindon: Adding "See also" section to link to Moral hazard

In [[economics]] (especially when discussing [[insurance]]s), '''adverse selection''' describes a problematic result of a market process with [[information asymmetry|information asymmetries]].

At the core of this problem are two things:
*There is information that is only available to Participant A.
*Participant B has an offer that would change if he had access to the missing information.
Adverse selection then happens when Participant A consciously makes use of the offer, causing a disadvantage for Participant B.

Common countermeasures against adverse selection are screening processes to lessen the amount of private information Participant A has.

This is a quite abstract description, but the concept is fairly widespread, as the following examples show:

==Insurances==
For example, somebody with a conviction for drunk driving would have a higher incentive to insure his car against damages than a very experienced and cautious driver. Likewise, members of certain risk groups may have a greater desire to get a life insurance. Without access to the critical information, insurance companies would eventually have to charge higher premiums due to the increased overall risk. This in turn would discourage people with smaller risks to join (since they would have to pay a price that is much too high for them).

In both cases, the insurance companies are at a disadvantage because of the information asymmetry. This is why the usual policy is to have a mandatory screening process (in the case of life insurances, a full medical examination) prior to negotiating the premium levels. This way, insurance companies can charge a higher premium for people with higher risks, allowing people with smaller (observed) risks pay a smaller price (thus making the insurance more attractive for them).

==Factoring==
In non recourse [[factoring]], the factor buys [[accounts receivable]]s (in the form of [[invoice]]s) from a seller and also carries the risk of the [[debt]]or being unable to pay. Some companies sell all their accounts receivables to a factoring company, but others only sell some of them. In that case, the seller may use his knowledge about his debtors to shift the risk to the factoring company (selling exactly those cases that are connected to high-risk debtors).

In this case, one possible way for the factoring company to escape the adverse selection is to create a policy for sellers that only want to sell some of their accounts receivables. For example, sellers may only be allowed to sell a certain percentage of their cases - going alphabetically down the list instead of picking specific cases.

==See also==
*[[Moral hazard]]

==External links==
*[http://ingrimayne.com/econ/RiskExclusion/Risk.html Moral Hazard and Adverse Selection] by Robert Schenk

[[category:economics]]

Moral hazard

2007-05-14T17:56:00Z

JLindon: Expansion and rewrite. Explaining this is a pain, but I think it's okay. I tried to explain it with an eye on the costs for the individual instead of leaving things to intuition.

In [[economics]], the term '''moral hazard''' refers to the observable fact that people will act differently if the risk of their actions has been moved to another participant.

==The costs of good luck and bad luck==
[[Insurance]]s shift the risk (in part or fully) of bad luck away from the individual. Of course, this willingness to take the risk comes at a price.

For the insured individual, this means two things:
#Having ''good'' luck is now associated with costs: If nothing happens, the individual paid the insurance fees for nothing.
#At the same time, the cost of having ''bad'' luck changed: If an insurance pays $900 in the case of an accident with $1000, the cost of the accident (in the eyes of the individual) sinks to $100.

Assuming that individuals act with their own benefit in mind, this change in costs will lead to a change in behavior.

===An example===
A person who purchased full insurance on a rental car (protecting it against all dents and scrapes of any kind) is less likely to take good care of the car because he knows that he will not have to pay for any damage to it.

In this case, the cost of bad luck and the cost of good luck are the same: Whatever the person paid for the insurance. Thus, the [[incentive]] to be careful is quite low (a person may still feel guilty, fear being regarded as a bad driver by his friends, etc.).

==Circular effects in costs==
The presence of these moral hazards leads to an increase of insurance costs due to greater losses than would occur in the absence of insurance. Of course, this increase in costs leads to a change in the reasoning of the individual, moving the costs of good luck and bad luck closer together and thus lowering the incentive to avoid accidents.

==See also==
*[[Adverse selection]]

==External links==
*[http://ingrimayne.com/econ/RiskExclusion/Risk.html Moral Hazard and Adverse Selection] by Robert Schenk

[[category:economics]]

Talk:Debate:Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?

2007-05-12T19:33:39Z

JLindon: Is this REALLY an essay?

Snipped from the article by [[User:Hojimachong]]
----
:On the other hand, [[Guantanamo Bay]] still hasn't been shut down, and those pesky Iraqi [[Weapons of Mass Destruction]] remain unfound. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 14:33, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:Just having "pro-American leaders" isn't enough to restore the image, I'm afraid:
::In a recent poll of international travellers, commissioned by Discover America Partnership, a coalition of US tourist organisations, 70 per cent of respondents said they feared US officials more than terrorists or criminals. Another 66 per cent worried they would be detained for some minor blunder, such as wrongly filling out an official form or being mistaken for a terrorist, while 55 per cent say officials are "rude."
:Comes from [http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10436518 this] recent news article. Check [http://www.poweroftravel.org/media.aspx here] for details. Some things that might be worth a look on that page:
:*March 22, 2007 -- New Figures From Dept. of Commerce Show Continued Decline in Overseas Travel to U.S.
:*January 23, 2007 -- Decline in U.S. Share of Global Travelers Since 9/11 Cost Nation $93 Billion; $15 Billion in Lost Taxes
:*November 20, 2006 - Study: Perceived Treatment of Foreign Travelers Driving Away Visitors, Damaging America’s Image Abroad
:I'm most likely not going to engage in a lengthy debate about this since my online time is limited, so I'd rather spend it on working on articles. I just wanted to add this as food for thought. There's more to the US image than the opinion of some leading politicians. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 14:55, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
----
Hojimachong, why did you declare this to be an essay? The posts on the "essay" page are simply signed edits like on a debate or talk page. I'm not sure if I missed something, but I find it odd. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 14:58, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, the "essay" tag was now removed. Does this mean that the above comments can be moved back? I'm confused. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 07:47, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Moved from Essay. Post on the talk page! ==

:On the other hand, [[Guantanamo Bay]] still hasn't been shut down, and those pesky Iraqi [[Weapons of Mass Destruction]] remain unfound. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 14:33, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:Just having "pro-American leaders" isn't enough to restore the image, I'm afraid:
::In a recent poll of international travellers, commissioned by Discover America Partnership, a coalition of US tourist organisations, 70 per cent of respondents said they feared US officials more than terrorists or criminals. Another 66 per cent worried they would be detained for some minor blunder, such as wrongly filling out an official form or being mistaken for a terrorist, while 55 per cent say officials are "rude."
:Comes from [http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10436518 this] recent news article. Check [http://www.poweroftravel.org/media.aspx here] for details. Some things that might be worth a look on that page:
:*March 22, 2007 -- New Figures From Dept. of Commerce Show Continued Decline in Overseas Travel to U.S.
:*January 23, 2007 -- Decline in U.S. Share of Global Travelers Since 9/11 Cost Nation $93 Billion; $15 Billion in Lost Taxes
:*November 20, 2006 - Study: Perceived Treatment of Foreign Travelers Driving Away Visitors, Damaging America’s Image Abroad
:I'm most likely not going to engage in a lengthy debate about this since my online time is limited, so I'd rather spend it on working on articles. I just wanted to add this as food for thought. There's more to the US image than the opinion of some leading politicians. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 14:55, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

You're convinced the Dems hate America, aren't you, JP? At any rate, Blair's out in the UK...so much for Bush's buddy there. [[User:Pendayho|Pendayho]] 16:48, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, many of them do, actually. And, by the way, Blair, a Liberal person, politically, like FDR here, at least knew danger when he saw it, and supported the US policy in Iraq. He is being replaced by an even more pro-US leader, strong Bush supporter, from the Conservative Party, like Thatcher was. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:52, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
:Tony Blair will be replaced by [[Gordon Brown]]. If you're referring to [[David Cameron]] he has made comments distancing himself from Tony Blair's pro-Bush line.[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article637436.ece] In any case there is a difference between the knee-jerk anti-Americanism of the left and criticisms of the Bush administration from the right. A lot of conservatives in Europe dislike Bush for his perceived fiscal irresponsibility. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 05:08, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:*No argument there, about the fiscal irresponsibility. Bush hasn't exactly been a "Tiger" fighting off spending, but Europeans need to remember that in America, only the Congress can appropriate money. Given it was controled by Republicans until recently, all the more shameful, IMO. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:12, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::Most Europeans wouldn't make much distinction between the policies of a Republican president and the policies of a Republican congress that supports him -- they're just seen as parts of the same political movement with collective responsibility for the actions they take. More important is the point that you shouldn't assume politicians from the political right in Europe will be any more pro-Bush or pro-American than those from the Left. That would have been a reasonable assumption during the Cold War when support for the USA was useful in establishing anti-communist credentials, but these days that is no longer an important issue. Similarly the Reagan/Thatcher axis shared common ground in how to tackle common domestic issues, but these days the important domestic issues in Europe are often different from those in the USA, and in any case domestic policy during the Bush administration is not considered to be a shining example to be emulated by most European conservatives. There is no longer any overriding reason for European conservatives to be pro-American or pro-Bush. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 05:51, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

*Yet the new French President seems to contradict what you are saying.....--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:32, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Is this REALLY an essay? ==

The initial poster removed the "Essay" template and inserted a "Debate" template. That kinda told me that this is meant to be a debate, not an essay. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 15:33, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Sysop contest/Nominations/JLindon

2007-05-12T11:17:05Z

JLindon: /* Discussion */

==Rules==
When discussing, please do not set up or participate in a "vote" as this is not an [[election]]. If you wish to participate, write a short explanation of your opinion. Try to avoid repeating the same arguments made by others, instead just state that you agree with them. Try to avoid [[namecalling]] and [[personal attacks]].
==Discussion==

I still don't think that a nomination system is the right way to go in such a [[tournament theory|relative performance competition]], but since you apparently need to have such a page in order to participate, I'll open up this nomination for myself.

I'm a relatively new member ([http://faleg.org/cgi-bin/conservapedia/editcounter_Tool1?username=JLindon 80 edits] so far, not counting this one), but I think I proved my worth (or at least gave a good impression of what I'm capable of).

I seem to get along well enough with users and sysops, and one of my fields of interest (economics) is in an area that's not exactly overcrowded with sysops from what I saw so far, so I would be able to do some maintenance work in this area as I go along.

My major contributions can be found on [[User:JLindon|my user page]]. On the more technical side, I have a good bit of experience with templates and their application (like my correction to the use of the Sysop Nomination Discussion template used on these pages, which I silently fixed before the major discussions started) and know my way around the MediaWiki markup and structure. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 13:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:I endorse this nomination. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:45, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::No, I cannot endorse this user. He has been here for less than one week, and has already shown a lack of judgement. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:32, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I assume this is about me voicing my disapproval of Flippin's block and the following discussion [[User talk:JLindon#Threats and Insults|on my user talk page]] where I said that your addition to CP:Civility is apparently being used to erase all traces of criticism of CP, thus driving away productive contributors? If so, I would hardly call that a "lack of judgment". I just happened to have an opinion that didn't echo yours. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 07:08, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Sysop contest/Nominations/JLindon

2007-05-12T11:08:14Z

JLindon: /* Discussion */

==Rules==
When discussing, please do not set up or participate in a "vote" as this is not an [[election]]. If you wish to participate, write a short explanation of your opinion. Try to avoid repeating the same arguments made by others, instead just state that you agree with them. Try to avoid [[namecalling]] and [[personal attacks]].
==Discussion==

I still don't think that a nomination system is the right way to go in such a [[tournament theory|relative performance competition]], but since you apparently need to have such a page in order to participate, I'll open up this nomination for myself.

I'm a relatively new member ([http://faleg.org/cgi-bin/conservapedia/editcounter_Tool1?username=JLindon 80 edits] so far, not counting this one), but I think I proved my worth (or at least gave a good impression of what I'm capable of).

I seem to get along well enough with users and sysops, and one of my fields of interest (economics) is in an area that's not exactly overcrowded with sysops from what I saw so far, so I would be able to do some maintenance work in this area as I go along.

My major contributions can be found on [[User:JLindon|my user page]]. On the more technical side, I have a good bit of experience with templates and their application (like my correction to the use of the Sysop Nomination Discussion template used on these pages, which I silently fixed before the major discussions started) and know my way around the MediaWiki markup and structure. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 13:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:I endorse this nomination. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:45, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::No, I cannot endorse this user. He has been here for less than one week, and has already shown a lack of judgement. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:32, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I assume this is about me voicing my disapproval of Flippin's block and the following discussion [[User talk:JLindon#Threats and Insults|on my user talk page]] where I said that your addition to CP:Civility is apparently being used to erase all traces of criticism of CP, thus driving away productive contributors? --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 07:08, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Userfy

2007-05-11T23:43:15Z

JLindon: While I'm around - slight expansion and rewording.

In a [[wiki]] system, the verb '''userfy''' refers to the act of moving a page from the "Main" [[namespace]] (which is reserved for articles) to [[userspace]]. Typically, this would be the userspace of the person who created the page or showed interest in working on it.

This procedure is often used to let an editor work on a draft of an article while the mainspace article is deleted or protected. Once the user is done, the draft can be submitted to editor review to determine whether or not it should be moved back into the mainspace.

[[category:MediaWiki]]

Talk:Origin of the Moon

2007-05-11T23:21:48Z

JLindon: Expansion of revert summary

Better. Explained the iron problem and its solution. Removed all mention of Canup, as it is very confusing to refer to: "This scientist said X, which supports my position. But then they said they were wrong, their computer model was off, X is not true at all. Still, they said X, so im going to cite them as supporting my claim."

-----
Who wrote this? It has about as much scientific accuracy as claiming the moon is made of green cheese. Further, the article ''contradicts'' the same source it claims support from regarding angular momentum! --{{unsigned|Suricou}}

The history of the Moon Theories, and the reason for their rejection, has been censored from this content page. Why? We're not going to allow censorship of history here. No one disputes this history, so why are folks trying to censor it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:...wha? The source you cited explained why the current theory is generally accepted and why the previous theories are most likely wrong. The article reflects that. Please explain what is being "censored". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:54, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: What was censored is that the prevailing, accepted theories of the origin of the Moon were disproven by the lunar landings, and then scientists convened to deveop a new theory. That is historical fact. No one disputes it. Why do liberals insist on censoring it???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Uh... there is ''one'' currently accepted theory. And that is not disproven by the lunar landing. The article mentions the three old theories that are in the source AND says what speaks against them. It's right there. In fact, the first three items of the list were left almost completely untouched.
::And what do you expect scientists to say when something speaks against their current theory? Something like "Wow, the new findings go against our theory! So we must not develop a new theory, but instead we should embrace the fact that God the Almighty did it!" maybe? So of course they developed a new theory based on new observations. Welcome to science.
::The current theory (number 4) is not disproven. The source argues in favor of it. Trying to cite it to "prove" or even "suggest" that it's wrong would be extremely deceiving. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:33, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Honest question from a frustrated user ==

Aschlafly, are you going to ban me if I rephrase/expand the current "article" and take some of your anti-scientific spin and quote-mining out it to make it a bit more neutral and balanced? This would normally be a no-brainer, but the article and site history (especially the reverts) show that this is not a trivial question, so I'd rather have permission before I get infinitely banned as a vandal. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:47, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

: Everything in the content page is factual and thoroughly supported. Be specific about what you think is wrong. Obviously this challenges your personal opinions but the point here is to set forth the scientific and historical facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:20, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Andy, I don't think you should let him change a thing. It is a really, really good article as is everything you contribute to this site. Your students are very lucky to have you. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 19:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Let's see... I didn't read into your more recent changes, but let's start with a few cases of ''conveniently'' selective quoting:
{{QuoteBox|Three such tests are discussed here. None of these is supportive of the Giant Impact model, '''but neither do they disprove it'''.}}
{{QuoteBox|Unfortunately, researchers have had trouble getting the giant-impact model to work without the contrivances that scuttled earlier theories. "Putting enough material into orbit to form the moon seemed to require a rather narrow set of impact conditions," says Robin M. Canup of the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colo. '''But a new study by her and Erik Asphaug of the University of California at Santa Cruz may have broken the logjam.'''}}
{{QuoteBox|Four facts and three parameters is a recipe for contradiction. To explain the moon's low iron content, you need to avoid a grazing collision (corresponding to a large impact angle), lest too much of the impactor's iron spill into orbit. Then, to explain the angular momentum, you need to compensate for the smallish angle with a hefty impactor. Then, to explain the moon's mass, you need to adjust the proto-Earth's mass. In the end, you might find that the total mass is incorrect. 
 
In 1997 Alastair G. W. Cameron, one of the fathers of the giant-impact theory, now at the University of Arizona, arrived at a total mass that was a third too low. He suggested that subsequent asteroid impacts made up the difference. But few liked the idea, as the asteroids would have added extra iron. 
 
'''Canup and Asphaug argue that the fault lies not in the stars but in our simulations.''' The calculations rely on a technique known as smoothed-particle hydrodynamics, which subdivides the bodies and applies the laws of physics to each piece. Early runs tracked 3,000 pieces--leaving the iron core of the moon to be represented by just a single piece. Even the slightest computational imprecision could vastly overstate the iron content, in which case the computer compensated by reducing the impact angle. The result was a bias toward heavy impactors and light proto-Earths. '''Because Canup and Asphaug use 30,000 particles, they get by with a much smaller impactor. Everything--mass, iron, momentum--clicks into place.'''}}
::I'm not trying to say that there are no problems with the theory (and criticism should be mentioned in the article, of course), but you try to make things look as if scientists only cling to a completely silly theory that has been effectively disproven already.

::: No, I say it is impossible to disprove this theory, and therefore the theory is not even science. The theory is no different from saying that a UFO placed the Moon by hand there 4 billion years ago. That cannot be disproven, no matter how silly it is.

::::Funny, I see this argument being used against creationism. Yes, the UFO theory is silly. Just as silly as the "God created it. The end." theory. The criticism could lead to a prove against the impact theory. Right now, we have a bunch of scientists who voice their concern. Research has to be done to see if it actually shows that the theory is wrong or not. If it is wrong (this is, of course, quite possible), then they have to work on a new theory, based on the new observations. This is science. Just not the "Let's quotemine articles and label it proof!" sort of science that is used on this site. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I'm quite clear that the tests that people have done are "not supportive of the theory," just as I say (and even quote the scientists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::The only thing I credit you for is the omission of any overly "Of course, the only truth is that God created the Moon during Creation Week, and Answers in Genesis shows undeniable proof." bias... yet.

::: That's a silly comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No. If you want "silly comment", look at [[Moon]], for example: "Only one sun and only one moon: this uniqueness may reflect the existence of only one God." --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::An attempt to balance things would begin with a rewrite the condensed list with things that speak for the impact theory (which you "expanded" by a slightly biased view of the events leading to it - you really couldn't resist inserting the "non-creationist scientists" bit, could you?).

::: There is nothing factual that supports the theory. It's pure speculation by a few scientists whose prior theories have been completely disproven. I don't even see evidence that most scientists even support this new theory. They didn't for ten years after it was proposed, and the scientists who wrote those articles that I cite plainly don't support it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to create an ultra-super-"Why that theory has been proven without doubt!" article. I just want a bit of fairness and a bit of style correction to make the article look halfway presentable. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:51, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Everything in the article is factual, and no significant facts have been left out of the article. Really, you have be specific about what you propose adding or deleting.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Weren't the huge quote blocks specific enough? You left out anything that speaks in favor of the theory. No wonder you think that [[Theory of evolution]] is a good article. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually... nevermind. Judging from your replies (here and at the top of the page) and edits, I sense that this would be way more trouble than it's worth. I'll leave the article to you. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:12, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: OK, fine. But you really shouldn't be complaining then. The facts are not always what we expect or want, and clearly your preconceived views have been challenged. I urge you to reconsider you views rather than oppose the facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Okay, serious case of WTF here. I'm not leaving the article because of "the facts" or because "my views" have been challenged. Look at my long post (which you butchered up into many small posts). Look at where I stated that I didn't want to turn this into an ultra-pro-this-theory playground and that I acknowledge the criticism. I was aiming for BALANCE. You know, FAIRNESS. Unlike your little propaganda piece that only tries to aim as much doubt at the current theory as possible.
:::::'''The reason why I'm leaving the article''' (and quite possibly the site soon enough) '''is YOU.''' Your completely inane posts and "articles" drive me crazy. Blogs and news sites in several countries openly mock you and your site, yet you are completely immune to any sort of criticism. Of course, you are not alone there. Don't worry. I don't just think that you alone are a sad joke on this site. Conservative gets to be your first mate on the S.S. Flawed Perception. Didn't you ever consider that you might be wrong and that the several news sites (and the whole bunch of blogs) around the world may actually have a point or two?
:::::The Moon Theory article was doomed the second you decided that the currently accepted theory is wrong. I could try to add balance to the article, but my efforts would instantly be neutralized; either through reverts or by bloating the criticism section even more. I apologize for wasting your time. I had assumed for a minute that you'd actually be interested in anything but complete bias. In retrospec, I honestly don't know why I ever assumed such a silly thing.
:::::Why don't you just deliver the ''coup de grâce'' and "protect" it against liberal vandalism? You could even give control over it to Conservative, I'm sure he'll be delighted. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::That was one of the funniest exchanges yet on this site. --[[User:Redscare|Redscare]] 22:19, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I enjoy reading arguements from someone who refuses to listen to another viewpoint by telling people they're not listening to theirs. There are several users on this site who do it all the time. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The criticism section is incoherent. If the Giant-Impact theory fail lacks testability and falsifiability, then why does it matter that the Moon lacks in siderophilic elements? The article goes on to discuss other tests. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

: Once I realized that the Giant-Impact theory isn't science, the other articles don't matter to me. But obviously some people insist on clinging to the Giant-Impact theory even though it isn't science. To them, these other facts might matter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:: So what is the point of citing the evidence if Giant-Impact theory is not scientific anyway? I really don't understand your position. Why are you willing to say that the other models were disproven? Does the evidence show that the Giant-Impact theory is better than the other models or not? If yes, then the Giant-Impact theory must be scientific. If not, then I guess the other models weren't really disproven. Either way, you make no sense. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:53, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::If a theory can be proven wrong (as is alledged in the article), then it is by definition "falsifiable". [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Following is incorrect ==

From the article "This new theory fail lacks testability and falsifiability",

The theory is falsifaiable if future mineral analysis detects materials which could not have originated from Earth, or if closer examination of Earths mineral content produces results which are inconsistant with the theory.

The theory can be tested by carrying out mineral analysis upon the moon (for example in deep moon bores), which would either support the theory or falsify it.

Thus this sentence is factually incorrect. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Furthermore, in the Criticisms section there is actually a report quoted which details three possible tests! If something can be proved wrong, that means it is "falsifiable", it isn't really all that difficult to understand. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Clinging to unsupported theories==

*The current theory was the result of the scientists not being able to think of any other atheistic explanation. That's all.

This, unfortunately, has been the norm throughout scientific history. In the 1860s, nobody had been able to come up with the [[germ theory of disease]]. More soldiers died of communicable illnesses in the Civil War than of wounds suffered in battle.

I look forward to a renaissance in science, wherein scientists are able to say, "We just don't know." Then maybe they'll be open to alternatives to their [[methodological naturalism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:...and what comes after the "We just don't know"? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

We say that all the time, and '''then''' we develop hypotheses to test in order to learn more. We, as scientists (yes im one of those) do not first try to come up with a ''supernatural'' explanation, when a ''natural'' one is more proper. A "[[Renaissance]]" like you describe is more properly called the "[[Dark Ages]]".
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:46, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Er, no, by renaissance I did not actually mean the death of curiosity and objectivity. I had in mind something more like conservatives and liberal honestly sharing their insights and working together to improve the world. You have to say "I don't know" before you can say "Let's find out." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:31, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::But fighting with each other is more rewarding and fnu! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, scientific advances have improved the world tremendously, with the obvious exceptions of WMDs, etc. I'm not sure what avoiding the scientifc method has done for the world.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 23:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== New Scientist Article ==

This article in New Scientist would seem to be relevant: http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19325875.700-did-the-new-moon-lose-its-iron-heart.html --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:Quite interesting! I've got some time on my hands, so unless you're on it, I'll include it and do some rephrasing along the way. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 06:49, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Go for it Sid. I'm off to work.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:52, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:Decided to go with a full rewrite (got a bit sidetracked by other issues here), now I just have to source it and then I'll post. I also included AmesG's edits to some degree (thanks for pointing out the bit about the impactor's contribution). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sid, the joys of LexisNexis know no bounds.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'll keep that in mind in the future, thanks for the tip! But my current "problem" isn't the lack of sources - I wrote the whole thing based on them - but the fact that I rephrased stuff so often that I figured it'd be easier to write first and add Ref-tags later :P --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Sid, I await your edits with bated breath.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:There you go. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:28, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I like it Sid.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Suggested move ==

Since the title is somewhat misleading, I suggest a move to [[Origin of the Moon]]. Opinions? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:28, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I like the move. All of the theories discussed in the article relate to the moon's origin, so that's a much more descriptive title. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (PDT)

:Went ahead with it since there doesn't seem to be anything speaking against it. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== AustinM!!! ==

Next time you plan to revert HOURS of hard work that involved looking up new and insightful articles and actually READING a few of the cited sources, '''USE THE TALK PAGE!'''

I left in all the criticism that was in the original article. I merely put it into the context of the sources (read: I was actually being honest and not just mining for convenient quotes.) and moved things around so that they actually make some structured sense. There was quite a bit of nonsense in Aschlafly's version, such as the "completely disproven" bit (The fact that somebody RECENTLY revived one of the discarded theories KINDA speaks against that, doesn't it?). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:24, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== swap article and discussion pages for superior treatment, more fun ==

"Look at the moon, look at the moon...." (from HAIR)

Forget about how old the moon is. Article needs substantial changes, mainly for stylistic reasons. Currently (7 APRIL, 2007 AD)article springs current scientific theory half way thru, which is not a good pedagogical technique.(But then neither is employing "pedagogical" when "educational" would have sufficed.)Here below are the first 2 pars as I see them. If no one objects, I will put them when next I am around these parts.

-------------------------------------------
There is not (blah blah)coalesce as the Moon over a period of time.
-----------------------------------------
[[user:mylesP|MylesP]]

:I didn't do a deep-down analysis of your changes so far, but they look nice! From what I see, you add a more professional tone to it. I'm not quite sure what you want to do with the above paragraphs. Do you want to insert them into the intro (above the ToC)? If so, I'm all for it - they're a nice summary of the article that comes after it. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:24, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks Sid, I have rewritten intro, and first 2 pars are changed to incorporate initial ref to new theory "Big Whack" at very start. Normal stylistic changes made to body of article. No change in content. Would suggest writers use brackets sparingly - they are not commas. Also, frowned on appearance of terms FeO and “siderophilic” without definition. Turns out former is Ferrous Oxide, and latter means “iron loving”. Have incorporated that as well. All this could be made a little clearer. From what I rem from my own casual reading, reason Moon is poor in iron is because in collision and subsequent heat, most of the heavy stuff sank to Earth’s core. Moon ended up with very little. Basically, Moon is a lot of sterilised accreted dust, fairly boring, and that’s why we stopped going there after we found out what it was made of. Question of angular momentum is dealt with in VERY shallow way. Once again, I’m no expert, but I think there are some big misconceptions here. Will leave note in another section here. [[user:mylesP|MylesP]]

::You're my personal hero for your walk-through there! Excellent points regarding style and usage of words, too. I'll try to keep them in mind.
::The whole issue with the lack of iron of the moon is not really trivial from what I gathered. Depending on the "when", much/most of the iron had sunk to the core already, thus leaving lots of non-iron-y material in the mantle to form the Moon. But then there are the issues of how much material and force you'd need to form the moon in the first place.
::I'm definitely no expert in this field, and I agree that a few things could/should be covered in more detail. Angular momentum being one of them. I just went with the sources I found during an afternoon, and they didn't really go into detail there. It's a start, but it of course needs more work. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:53, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

== Young Earth Creation Hypothesis ==

Let me explain what is the problem with this section.

(i) The reference is NOT to a paper written by "Astronomer Dr Don DeYoung (Professor of Physics, Grace College, Indiana), ... presented at the Second International Conference on Creationism in Pittsburgh, USA, in 1990", but to the website ttp://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/moon.asp
which is basically a blog, or at best a re-interpretation of someone else's material.

About half way down the article, we find:

"Because the presence of the moon over any part of the earth does not cause an immediate bulging response, this slight delay results in a continuous, slight, forward 'pull' on the moon, causing it to spiral slowly outwards, away from the earth. '''The rate at which the earth-moon distance is presently increasing is actually being measured at about 4 centimetres a year. It would have been even greater in the past.'''

This immediately raises the question as to whether the earth-moon system could be 4.5 billion years old, as most evolutionists insist. Would we not have lost our moon a long time ago? Using the appropriate differential equation (which takes into account the fact that the force of gravity varies with distance), Dr DeYoung shows that this gives an upper limit of 1.4 billion years." (my emboldenment)

The emboldened claim is actually crucial for the argument that the moon is only 10,000 years old at most. Now, I have no idea whether or not DeYoung has any evidence for the the emboldened claim, and nowhere in the blog is it explained why the rate of increase should have been greater in the past rather than less, the same or even variable over time. More to the point, I do not think the author of the blog has such evidence, or even considered the possibility. What is clear, is that this whole section is based on a claim taken from something which is little more than a blog, and which, in itself, has no academic credibility. If you wish this section to be credible, search out DeYoung's actual paper and use his argument and his evidence; not someone's assertions based on his or her potentially flawed interpretations of them.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

... oh and by the way; try to find someone who refutes his arguments, and clarify why, and if you can find a response where deYoung refutes the refutations, even better!--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:34, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:In my experience, AiG has (so far) been pretty much a dead end in terms of sources. However, I would applaud the finding of the original paper and maybe a few better-researched claims (or just better research and reasoning for that one claim at least). What I find odd is that AiG (didn't check if it's that source link or another one) basically echoes most things that are being said in this article and then adds the distance calculation. Sorta makes me wonder why they even bother with the other things when the distance argument supposedly is the ultimate proof. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:43, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

== Expansion of revert summary ==

The revert summary didn't let me write my point fully. From what I gather, all of the "Big Three" have been proven "wrong" (in the sense of needing better explanations that take the new evidence into account - if that is possible). The arguments against it come later on, but the first part seems to be meant to show what had been assumed back then, and I think the source says just that (and also gives the countering explanation). Tectonics isn't exactly my special field, so I won't touch it much, but I invite you to include the argument in the "problems with the big three" section, it appears to me critical for full understanding of the problems with that theory. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 19:21, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Origin of the Moon

2007-05-11T23:17:26Z

JLindon: I believe the point is to present the point of view of that theory. The arguments against it come in a later section, so I'd rather include the tectonics argument there and leave this section alone.

==The Young Earth Creationist Position==
According to [[Young Earth Creationism|young earth creationist]] scientists, naturalistic explanations for the origin of the moon are inadequate and the [[Moon]] is approximately 6,000 years old. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/moon.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences8.html</ref> One argument against the its age is that the Moon would have been lost to the pull of Earth's gravity a long time ago<ref>Answers in Genesis: [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/moon.asp "Is the moon really old?"]</ref>

== Old Moon View ==

There is not a complete consensus amongst contemporary scientists as to how the Moon came into existence. Historically , three hypotheses were widely seen as plausible contenders for such an explanation: they were the “Fission Hypothesis”, which held that the Moon was ejected by the ancient, swiftly-spinning Earth; the “Capture Hypothesis”, in which the Earth’s gravity captured another planet; and the “Co-accretion Hypothesis” in which both the Earth and the Moon came into being side by side formed together from the same primordial loose aggregation of space dust.

All of these scenarios had serious defects as theories, and all were formulated before the Apollo Moon Program of the late 1960s and early 1970s brought back tons of Moon rock to provide scientists with unprecedented data about the Moon’s composition and history. That data, and the more sophisticated measurements of the Moon’s mass and orbit available to recent researchers, led to the earlier theories losing favor and the promotion of a new one: “The Big Impact Hypothesis”. This theory envisages a massive collision between an ancient Earth and a large asteroid, one in which the early Earth melted and the asteroid disintegrated, only to re-coalesce as the Moon over a period of time.

==The "Big Three"==
Prior to the lunar landings, there had been three major hypotheses that all had been considered valid explanations for the origin of the Moon.

===Hypothesis 1: Fission===
Developed in 1878, this hypothesis by [[George Howard Darwin]] (son of [[Charles Darwin]]) argued that the Moon had been a part of a rapidly spinning [[Earth]]. This rapid spin, enhanced by the Sun's gravitational influence, led to a piece of the Earth breaking free and forming the Moon. Osmond Fisher held that the Pacific ocean basin is actually the scar of this process.<ref name="Nova1">PBS NOVA: "To the Moon - Origins" [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tothemoon/origins.html (Page 1)]</ref>

===Hypothesis 2: Capture===
In 1909, [[Thomas Jefferson Jackson See]] proposed that the Moon was actually a planet that had been created elsewhere and that had been caught by Earth's gravity after being slowed down by debris.<ref name="Nova1"/>

===Hypothesis 3: Coaccretion===
Many scientists, including [[Edouard Roche|Édouard Roche]], supported the hypothesis that the Earth and the Moon formed side by side from the material that formed all planets of this solar system. The name comes from the term "accretion disc", which is a disc formed by diffuse material that orbits a central body.<ref name="Nova1"/>

==Observations and calculations==
For a long time, these three models had been accepted as describing possible lunar origins. However, later research was to produce evidence that worked against them.
After the Apollo program, rock samples taken from the Moon revealed two important things:
#The Moon lacks iron. This is important to note because the Earth, in comparison, has a lot of it (in the core).
#The Moon and the Earth have exactly the same oxygen isotope composition.
Along with calculations in the field of energy and angular momentum, these two points spoke against the "Big Three" hypotheses as follows:

===Consequences for the Fission Hypothesis===
Since the material that spun off the Earth would have come from the mantle, the lack of iron would not have been a problem (Earth's iron drained towards the core early on, leaving a depleted mantle).<ref name="PSI">Planetary Science Institute: [http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html "The Origin of the Moon"]</ref> This would also explain why the Moon has such a small core.<ref name="Nova1"/> For obvious reasons, the theory also covers the issue of the oxygen isotope composition.

However, the total angular momentum today is too small to back this hypothesis.<ref name="NovaCelestia">Nova Celestia: [http://www.novacelestia.com/space_art_solar_system/earth.html#moon_earth_creation "The Creation of the Earth-Moon System"]</ref>

===Consequences for the Capture Hypothesis===
There is only a very small chance that a stray planet would ease into an orbit around the Earth similar to the one the Moon has. Moreover, this hypothesis fails to explain the oxygen isotope similarity between the two bodies, and also leaves unexplained the issue of why the Moon's core is so small.<ref name="Nova1"/>

===Consequences for the Coaccretion Hypothesis===
This model does not require low probability events to occur, in contrast to the Capture model, and provides a cogent explanation as to why the Earth and Moon share a common oxygen isotope composition. However, there are unanswered questions regarding the angular momentum of the two bodies (It should be mentioned that there have been attempts to address this problem recently: see [[#Current Status|Current Status]].).<ref name="Nova1"/>

==Giant Impact Hypothesis==
===Development===
In 1974, William Hartmann and Donald Davis suggested the hypothesis that a planetoid, estimated in some calculations to be the size of Mars - impacted with a relatively young Earth and blasted mantle material into orbit, where this would eventually form the Moon. This model also became known as the "Big Whack" hypothesis. Around the same time, Alastair Cameron and William Ward had come to a similar conclusion. However, their research had been motivated by studies of the combined angular momentum of the Earth and Moon.<ref name="PSI"/><ref name="Nova2">PBS NOVA: "To the Moon - Origins" [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tothemoon/origins2.html (Page 2)]</ref>

Initially, the hypothesis was rejected with the claim that a catastrophic event of such a dimension and with such drastic results seemed extremely unlikely.<ref name="Nova2"/> Still, it explained the lack of iron, the oxygen isotope issue and the angular momentum.

Ten years later, the Giant Impact Hypothesis emerged as the leading model after a conference about Moon origin in Kona, Hawaii. In the 1990s, Robin Canup picked up the research and created simulations to determine possible scenarios that might explain the formation of the Moon.<ref name="PSI"/><ref name="Nova2"/>

Canup initially came to the conclusion that much of the material blasted off by a "Big Whack" would either fall back to Earth or fly off into space, thus requiring a very large impactor, two or three times larger than initially envisaged. However, later on, improved computer simulations suggested that the size of the impactor might not have to be so large after all, thus leaving all calculations regarding mass and momentum intact.<ref name="PSI"/><ref name="SciAm">Scientific American: [http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=5&articleID=000A90B0-C919-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21 "Earth-Shattering Theory"]</ref>

===Criticism===
The hypothesis is far from complete, though. Despite addressing the issues raised in the light of the first lunar landings, the Giant Impact Hypothesis leaves quite a few issues currently not fully addressed:
*One study suggested three tests of the hypothesis, based on things that should have occurred after such an impact. The result of these tests did not prove the Giant Impact Hypothesis, but it also did not disprove it. Still, the paper raised a few points that have to be factored into the model.<ref>J. H. Jones: [http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/origin98/pdf/4045.pdf "Tests of the Giant Impact Hypothesis"]</ref>
*A study analysing the bulk composition has come to the conclusion that "the high bulk FeO (Ferrous Oxide)content of the Moon rules out the derivation of the proto-lunar material from any but a small fraction of the terrestrial mantle".<ref>S. R. Taylor: [http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc97/pdf/1070.PDF "The Bulk Composition of the Moon"]</ref>
*Addressing the above concern, the Giant Impact Hypothesis raised the point that the impactor also contributed a large share of the base material that formed the Moon. But as another paper pointed out, the Moon is lacking siderophilic (iron-loving)elements that should be present in such a case.<ref>Galimov and Krivtsov: [http://www.ias.ac.in/jessci/dec2005/ilc-3.pdf "Origin of the Earth–Moon system"]</ref>

==Current Status==
As of now, the Giant Impact Hypothesis still stands. Research on it is not yet complete, and the model is currently neither proven nor disproven. Nevertheless, scientists consider it to be the most plausible theory formulated so far.

Independently of the Giant Impact Hypothesis, Peter Noerdlinger from Saint Mary's University in Halifax, Canada, proposed an expansion of the Coaccretion model. He suggested that the Moon formed next to the Earth, complete with an iron core. But this core was then ripped out by the Earth's gravity shortly after the formation, leaving an iron-less Moon behind to orbit the Earth.<ref>New Scientist: [http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19325875.700-did-the-new-moon-lose-its-iron-heart.html "Did the new moon lose its iron heart?"]</ref>

Further research will show if either of these hypotheses is correct, or if scientists will develop a new theory based on new observations.

== Reference ==
<references/>
[[category:astronomy]]

Debate:Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?

2007-05-11T21:33:15Z

JLindon: Re-inserting old comments (see Talk page) that had been snipped when this had been temporarily(?) declared to be an essay.

{{Unofficial}}

Restoring USA image in the world, a common liberal talking point. They have determined that America, with it unilateral approach on Iraq has damaged our image. False. The image has been damaged for some time now. First, is was a coalition of the willing, not the USA alone. Second, now that the Europeans have chimed into the Iraq debate as America wrong, liberals see it as the whole world hates America now. Before 9/11, extremists plotted to kill Americans. Why? We are the richest nation on Earth, do you think others hate us for that? Many nations are appalled at our pornagraphic industry that we export to them, can that be a part of it? Our support of Israel? We give women equal rights and a voice, many women in the world can't even leave their house alone or without a veil or go to school. My belief, and I am always correct, that liberals have found a hammer to hit conservatives with because the Europeans dislike our capitalism, and we are against socialism.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:20, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Update, Europe heading toward pro-American leaders. Victory in Germany by Merkel replacing anti-American Schroeder. Now victory in France replacing Chirac. Coupled with victory by Harper in Canada, it now seems we have support of major nations that took a direct stand against the USA foreign policy. Restoring the USA image in the world has worked itself out without the Democrats help.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:16, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:On the other hand, [[Guantanamo Bay]] still hasn't been shut down, and those pesky Iraqi [[Weapons of Mass Destruction]] remain unfound. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 14:33, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:Just having "pro-American leaders" isn't enough to restore the image, I'm afraid:
::In a recent poll of international travellers, commissioned by Discover America Partnership, a coalition of US tourist organisations, 70 per cent of respondents said they feared US officials more than terrorists or criminals. Another 66 per cent worried they would be detained for some minor blunder, such as wrongly filling out an official form or being mistaken for a terrorist, while 55 per cent say officials are "rude."
:Comes from [http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10436518 this] recent news article. Check [http://www.poweroftravel.org/media.aspx here] for details. Some things that might be worth a look on that page:
:*March 22, 2007 -- New Figures From Dept. of Commerce Show Continued Decline in Overseas Travel to U.S.
:*January 23, 2007 -- Decline in U.S. Share of Global Travelers Since 9/11 Cost Nation $93 Billion; $15 Billion in Lost Taxes
:*November 20, 2006 - Study: Perceived Treatment of Foreign Travelers Driving Away Visitors, Damaging America’s Image Abroad
:I'm most likely not going to engage in a lengthy debate about this since my online time is limited, so I'd rather spend it on working on articles. I just wanted to add this as food for thought. There's more to the US image than the opinion of some leading politicians. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 14:55, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

You're convinced the Dems hate America, aren't you, JP? At any rate, Blair's out in the UK...so much for Bush's buddy there. [[User:Pendayho|Pendayho]] 16:48, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, many of them do, actually. And, by the way, Blair, a Liberal person, politically, like FDR here, at least knew danger when he saw it, and supported the US policy in Iraq. He is being replaced by an even more pro-US leader, strong Bush supporter, from the Conservative Party, like Thatcher was. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:52, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-05-11T20:23:07Z

JLindon: /* Current Alerts */

'''This is where you can report abuse of editing privileges. Please make notes short and concise. Unsigned posts will be removed.'''
__TOC__
Sysops, please move notes down to 'old alerts' once the incident is closed.

Archives:
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive1|1]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive2|2]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive3|3]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive4|4]]

Other links:
*[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]]
*[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]]
*[[Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion|Articles for Deletion]]
*[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Articles for Speedy Deletion]]
*[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]]

==Current Alerts==

*[[User:Flippin|Flippin]] Posted he was leaving for a while, left attack on CP and other users on page. Blocked two weeks. Pray for his returning rested and positive! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:15, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
**It appears that our "castles" are built out of very thin paper... gives me article/essay ideas, though. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 16:23, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|Cookieman}} - replacing pages with llamas. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:44, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
*Blocked by PhillipRayment. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 15:50, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|SeanTheSheep}} 2nd warning. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:09, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

*{{alert|Favor}} sock of icewedge --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 20:52, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Proof? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:56, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
:He has a user box that says AmesG is the leader of conservapedia. And I have been seeing a lot of vandalism on this site that has been saying icewedge thinks AmesG should be unbanned. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 20:57, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
That's not proof. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:58, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
:It is easier to block and unblock later than to fix the pages that a person has vandalized. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 21:00, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
::AmesG does a better job of getting himself blocked than any Admin here. He likes the attention, but I agree with DanH, that box isn't much "proof" and check it, several others do, or did, have that same box. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:36, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

*{{alert|Sacrificialzeus}} vandalized my user page and other pages. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 15:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|Jesuslover143}} vandal. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 15:08, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
*04:37, 8 May 2007, TK blocked Muschifresser (infinite, account creation blocked) (Parodist/Subtle Vandal: "Owing to their diet of eucalyptus leaves, which contain a volatile oil, Koalas are highly flammable. For this reason, it is recommended to consume them raw in the form of a carpaccio or Koala tartare."Also has sock,LordWhimsey‎ )
*04:38, 8 May 2007, TK blocked LordWhimsey (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Sock of Muschifresser )

*{{alert|YouGuysSuck}}, replaced Theory of Relativity with insults.
:Blocked infinitely Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|Commodore Morgan}}, replacing user talk pages with "Icewedge has pwned Bronzefinger", in my case. [[User:Bronzefinger|Bronzefinger]] 13:04, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked infinitely Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|Muschifresser}}, user name needs explanation. No apparent justification for blocking, but "Fresser" means "to eat like an animal," and "Muschi" is, uh, blocked by Google's Safe Search filtering. I'm about to leave a note on his Talk page. watch for his reply. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:50, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{alert|Swordofdestiny}} using specious reasoning to defend a troublemaker. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:11, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked by ed poor Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Boris Johnson, MP}} obscenity [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 15:45, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|The Black Angel of Death}} [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 15:40, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Czolgolz}} - Karajou says he lied about sources. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor#Zugstein] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:User made a mistake Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Tennis Sweatshirt}} I think he might be icewedge and he also posted "This place is pretty worthless so I would leave Tennis Sweatshirt 12:29, 29 April 2007 (EDT)." So I am not sure if you can trust any of his edits as being of any worth. --'''[[User:AdrianP|Adrian]][[User talk:AdrianP|P]] 20:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Pokeisthemon}} mostly hunch, but I'm sure it's a sock of Icewedge. Should be watched closely, if not pre-emptively blocked. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Inconclusive on checkuser Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 16:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::Cool. My apologies to Poke. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:33, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|JoshuaZ}} Misleading edit summary + removed valid information from [[Noah]] article. Last 3 edits are questionable. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:11, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** I reviewed his unproductive edits and a short block is appropriate. Please proceed as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Fred]] -- questionable edits intended to embarass CP. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Censorship&diff=prev&oldid=46203][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Separation_of_church_and_state&diff=prev&oldid=41507] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|GeorgeJ.W.}} keeps to add seemingly parodic, biased nonsense to articles, often attacking free software for being "communist". --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 19:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
: Silly edits by GeorgeJ.W., I agree. Not quite enough to block him, but he's getting there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
::They're parodic, Andy, not silly, unless he's an utterly ignorant moron. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 07:47, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|Scorpion}}, vote fraud via sockpuppets. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 21:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|Hacker}} Review of Hacker's edits: slightly less than 500 edits, of which only about 6 are new entries and only about 10 are substantive edits of existing entries. One of the new entries was "Geek". Unless this improves quickly, I propose blocking this account because this violates the 90/10 rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::That seems disingenuous. Yes, he has only a few new pages, but he has made a number of templates. And, maybe I read the "total" incorrectly, but it said 307 edits? At the risk of sounding tautological, this user is quite useful, IMHO. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Flippin|Flippin]] defaced my user page [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Auld_Nick&oldid=151416 here] (my castle? [[User_talk:Aschlafly#User_page_a_person.27s_castle.3F|see here]]) also
:[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] added to [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]]'s user page [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Ian_St_John&diff=151723&oldid=151721 here] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Ian_St_John&diff=151726&oldid=151723 here]. (his castle? [[User_talk:Aschlafly#User_page_a_person.27s_castle.3F|see here]]) [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 15:17, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

===Dealt with===
*All socks. Blocked infinite. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:23, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
#Hope (Latest: 02:38, 9 May 2007) (Earliest: 02:36, 9 May 2007) [3]
#Solstace (Latest: 01:46, 9 May 2007) (Earliest: 01:37, 9 May 2007) [2]
#Talk for me (Latest: 01:20, 8 May 2007) (Earliest: 01:20, 8 May 2007) [1]
*[[User:Auld Nick]]. In [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Kilt&diff=152957&oldid=152944 this edit], he added [[:Image:Soldiers wearing Kilts.jpg]], with the edit comment "Image of soldiers in kilts" and the picture caption "Kilted Scottish Soldiers paying respect to their fallen comrades." He does not say in the talk page or in an edit comment why he chose an image in which one soldier's kilt has been lifted by wind to expose part of his bare buttocks. The use of such an image ought to have been discussed in Talk. If the point was to illustrate that kilts are worn without underwear, and if he sincerely thought such an image was appropriate, then the edit comment should have said something like "Image showing that kilts are worn without underwear." Therefore, I consider the edit comment misleading, and that trips my threshold for labeling it as "abuse." Put plainly, it's my opinion that Auld Nick is figuratively mooning Conservapedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:57, 10 May 2007 (EDT) P. S. Undoubtedly a copyright violation, too, although widely reproduced all over the Net. It appears to be an Associated Press photograph of one Lee Wotherspoon in Hong Kong on April 24, 1997. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:05, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked for two hours. That'll larn 'im. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:40, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|CaptainCAVEMAN}} ought to be blocked. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked.
*{{user|Pussyfooter}} check out edits to [[Pudding]] [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|JeffersonDarcy}} He put "this user doesn't have a problem with calling a person a faggot" on my user page. He also deleted my post putting his name on the current alerts. --[[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 14:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked for 1 week. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Auld Nick}} User name means Satan ("Old Nick"). Uploaded picture of a man in a skirt and frilly blouse, mislabeled as "traditional attire". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*:- Ed, a kilt (pleated male skirt) and (on formal occasions) dress shirt with ruffles ''is'' traditional Scottish dress. [[User:Unthank|Unthank]] 07:26, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#You are both on probation. Let's see your writing plans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*Terreista and LambChop -blocked, socks of each other --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Alfa Papa}} causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 17:18, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's a sock of Icewedge. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::'''Blocked''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:39, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Aydindrill}} Causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 22:09, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
**'''Blocked''' by Aschlafly as a sock of icewedge. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 12:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Staple]] -- vandalism and other questionable content. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
** Feel free to make my one-month block permanent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** Staple has many counterproductive edits, and potentially offensive ones by labeling users with categories. I lengthened his block to 1 month. I don't know anything about a "swastika" but feel free to make his block permanent if that is what it sounds like.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
***He had a swastika on his userpage[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
****The [[:Category:Liberal Users]] he created as a subcat of [[:Category:Communists]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Liberal_Users]; he & I were the only [[:Category:Conservative Users]] in that cat after he put a swastika on his User page.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Staple&diff=prev&oldid=132099] At a minimum this is incivility and trolling, and has little to do with his own use of his User page. A permanent block is warranted. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 02:04, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** Swastika alone justifies it. Good block.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:33, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[user:MontyZuma]], for instances of minor vandalism, and the creation of a profane page which involved moving an article into and changing the content. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm going to unblock him; this particular article he wrote is actually a dish, as I just found out. My apologies. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

* Please investigate [[User:RSchlafly]]'s edits to [[Geocentric theory]]. They are simply cutting out well-justified and relevant material, and there is no rationale given for the decision. This is tantamount to vandalism. [[User:OfficerDibble]]
:* I second that. [[User:RSchlafly]] hs been deleting and reverting a lot of my stuff and instead of debating the changes on the talk page he made statments like "Your beliefs are ridiculous". He has now protected the page so I can't make any changes.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:22, 6 May 2007 (EDT) This user is a sock of Icewedge and has been blocked.
:::I oppose this alert, at the risk of POV-pushing, geocentrism is risible IMO. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:39, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::This is not the place for insults. Please see my detailed account on [[Talk:Geocentric theory]] before you make such judgements. --[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 04:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
*Insults? Where? Please don't make random accusatory posts, OfficerDibble, okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:01, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::"I oppose this alert, at the risk of POV-pushing, geocentrism is '''risible'''" I take "Risible" to be insulting, since I have worked long and hard to make the points I have on the article. --[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 05:27, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
*Well, if you object to furious editing of your work, and debate about it, a wiki is the wrong place for you. Your tone borders on the dramatic. If you are into drama, might I suggest working on one of the acting/dramatic arts pages? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:33, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
*:OfficerDibble and myself have been following the comandments of conservapedia, RSchlafly has been deleting our work with out discussing our valid points. Be even objects to relevent bible verses being included. And the page block prevents us from making any changes. Clearly we are in the right here, as can plainly be seen in the history and talk page of the article. Also I have not been blocked and I am not a "sock of icewedge".[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:11, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:'''No Action''' Rschlafly is a Sysop Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 12:12, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::So are we to take this to mean that Sysops have carte blanche and can do whatever they want whenever? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:44, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:*You are to take it per the CP Guidelines. [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Guidelines]] Failure to follow the directions of an Administrator, as to what is, and is not, appropriate behavior/content/actions, is a blockable offense. So is never-ending argument. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::TK, is a simple precise answer such as '''''No''', Sysops do not have carte blanche and cannot do whatever they want whenever they want'' to much to ask? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 05:02, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

*When you leave your glass house, Auld Nick, perhaps you would make a better spokesperson for transparency and short comments. Either you are completely obtuse, or just ignoring what the Guidelines say, for a better (read dramatic) retort. Obviously at any website in the world, Administrators have more leeway than users. Just as that aging hippy Jimbo has at WP. Anything else on your mind? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:48, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::Thank you for the [[Conservapedia:Civility|civil]] answer. That has clarified things for me. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 06:49, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I greatly resent users putting me on the spot about what another Sysop does or does not do. First, it isn't fair or polite. Secondly, if the intentions of the user were honorable, in my opinion, they wouldn't seek to make a public scene about it, and might, if they were using good manners, email about it. Is that really so unreasonable? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:03, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::::For the record we (or maybe just myself) didn't put you on the spot, the question was asked of Geo and you chose to respond. And I disagree about the honorable thing, if it is honorable, why not talk about it in public to let others decide. Doing things by email, behind everyone's backs make it seem like someone has something to hide. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:18, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Well of course you do. But I was addressing Auld Nick. Sorry, we all don't agree with your wiki ways of doing things. It is a software, not a way of life. Your post smacks of Wikipedia bullying, it won't work here. You are now warned. Don't continue this. Take it up with the Sysop in question. Geo, BTW, answered you; "No Action". --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:32, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::When you say your wiki ways, are you refering to me or Auld Nick again? And am I warned or Auld Nick? What wikipedia bullying tactics am I or Auld Nick using that are so different from you warning to block me or Auld Nick from this wiki? It is very hard to fill in the blanks and figure out what you mean when replies are very cryptic and sarcastic. And I did take it up with the sysop in question (as seen above), I asked Geo for an answer ''after'' he stated "No Action", he never replied. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:42, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

*Well, sorry to have confused you. By the way, the Sysop in question is RSchlafly, not Geo, not me. We merely attempted to provide answers, for which we have been whipped for. Now, take me seriously, no more on this. You have been given instruction by a Administrator to take it up with the Sysop you were/are complaining about, and told no action will be taken. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:54, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
*In response to the question by Jssr5, the reason for no action is that this is not the appropriate forum to debate tohe actions of a current Sysop. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 22:17, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Debate:Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?

2007-05-11T11:47:11Z

JLindon:

Talk:Debate:Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?

2007-05-10T18:58:45Z

JLindon:

Debate:Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?

2007-05-10T18:55:40Z

JLindon:

{{essay}}
Restoring USA image in the world, a common liberal talking point. They have determined that America, with it unilateral approach on Iraq has damaged our image. False. The image has been damaged for some time now. First, is was a coalition of the willing, not the USA alone. Second, now that the Europeans have chimed into the Iraq debate as America wrong, liberals see it as the whole world hates America now. Before 9/11, extremists plotted to kill Americans. Why? We are the richest nation on Earth, do you think others hate us for that? Many nations are appalled at our pornagraphic industry that we export to them, can that be a part of it? Our support of Israel? We give women equal rights and a voice, many women in the world can't even leave their house alone or without a veil or go to school. My belief, and I am always correct, that liberals have found a hammer to hit conservatives with because the Europeans dislike our capitalism, and we are against socialism.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:20, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Update, Europe heading toward pro-American leaders. Victory in Germany by Merkel replacing anti-American Schroeder. Now victory in France replacing Chirac. Coupled with victory by Harper in Canada, it now seems we have support of major nations that took a direct stand against the USA foreign policy. Restoring the USA image in the world has worked itself out without the Democrats help.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:16, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:On the other hand, [[Guantanamo Bay]] still hasn't been shut down, and those pesky Iraqi [[Weapons of Mass Destruction]] remain unfound. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 14:33, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:Just having "pro-American leaders" isn't enough to restore the image, I'm afraid:
::In a recent poll of international travellers, commissioned by Discover America Partnership, a coalition of US tourist organisations, 70 per cent of respondents said they feared US officials more than terrorists or criminals. Another 66 per cent worried they would be detained for some minor blunder, such as wrongly filling out an official form or being mistaken for a terrorist, while 55 per cent say officials are "rude."
:Comes from [http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10436518 this] recent news article. Check [http://www.poweroftravel.org/media.aspx here] for details. Some things that might be worth a look on that page:
:*March 22, 2007 -- New Figures From Dept. of Commerce Show Continued Decline in Overseas Travel to U.S.
:*January 23, 2007 -- Decline in U.S. Share of Global Travelers Since 9/11 Cost Nation $93 Billion; $15 Billion in Lost Taxes
:*November 20, 2006 - Study: Perceived Treatment of Foreign Travelers Driving Away Visitors, Damaging America’s Image Abroad
:I'm most likely not going to engage in a lengthy debate about this since my online time is limited, so I'd rather spend it on working on articles. I just wanted to add this as food for thought. There's more to the US image than the opinion of some leading politicians. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 14:55, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Sysop contest/Nominations/JLindon

2007-05-10T17:31:47Z

JLindon: Nomination, even though I had hoped/assumed that this contest would automatically include all editors on Conservapedia.

Category:Tournament Theory

2007-05-09T17:20:12Z

JLindon: Small description and cat to avoid the red link

When a reward will be given out, based on relative performance differences (rather than absolute performance levels), the scenario falls out of the more traditional economic theory and into tournament theory.

[[category:economics]]

Tournament theory

2007-05-09T17:09:41Z

JLindon: Adding sabotage and rat race as problems. Also making minor edits here and there.

In [[economics]], the concept of '''tournament theory''' explains that large differences in power or [[wage]]s are often based on very small, relative differences in performance of the participants.

This explanation goes against the more traditional reasoning in economic theory, which puts great emphasis on [[marginal productivity]] when it comes to determining wage levels.

The most obvious examples of this can be found in high-profile "Winner takes all" situations like the competition for the position of [[CEO]] of a company. However, the mechanism can be found at various levels in a company. For example, the members of a team might know that one of them is going to be promoted in a month. This creates competition among the members, which in turn (usually) leads to an increase in productivity.

In such tournaments, the deciding factor is relative performance, not absolute performance. Putting it in a less formal way, a worker does not have to be perfect to get the reward - he just has to be better than everybody else, no matter how small the difference is in the end.

This emphasis on relative performance leads to certain problems that can also be observed in real life. Such problems include [[sabotage]] and the potential of the situation escalating into a [[rat race]].

==External links==
[http://ingrimayne.com/econ/resouceProblems/Tournament.html Tournament Theory] by Robert Schenk

[[category:economics]]
[[category:tournament theory]]

Sabotage

2007-05-09T17:05:33Z

JLindon: Creating first version. Could really use sections on origins and more tangible real life applications - help is welcome. I just covered the aspect I need in tournament theory for now.

'''Sabotage''' describes deliberate actions that weaken an opponent. The methods of sabotage include, but are not limited to destruction of property and disruption of the work flow.

==Tournament theory==
The basic premise of [[tournament theory]] is that the participant with the "best result" (only compared to the other participants, not by some sort of absolute criterion) will get a major reward.

To achieve this aim (become better than all participants), a participant may either increase his own performance or sabotage the others in order to look better without actually having improved.

As with the [[rat race]] problem, possible countermeasures are decreasing the reward (in order to discourage such behavior) and separating the participants (to decrease the information needed to determine when to use sabotage).

[[category:tournament theory]]

Rat race

2007-05-09T15:46:07Z

JLindon: Creating article.

In [[tournament theory]], a '''rat race''' is a situation in which the "race" towards a reward escalates. The "rat race" situation comes into effect when all participants focus only on being the best in the criteria that decides over who gets the reward. Usually, this leads to them using more "energy" (time, effort, etc.) than is efficient and neglecting other criteria that are not important for the reward.

==Origin==
The term "rat race" comes from the image of two [[rat]]s spotting a piece of cheese at the other end of the room. Both start to run, and eventually, one rat increases its speed to be in the lead. The second rat increases its own speed even more, causing the first rat to increase its speed even more, and so on. In the end, both rats will have spend far more energy than could be recovered by eating the piece of cheese.

==Real life situations==
In real life, it is often easy to spot a potential rat race before it happens. For example, a company that makes it clear that the employee with the most billed hours will be promoted at the end of the year, this sets a clear criterion that the employees will keep in mind. The resulting rat race could appear in the form of an enormous increase in overtime, or it could lead to employees billing more hours than they actually worked. At the same time, other criteria (such as making decisions that are good for the company or the customer, being a good team player, making an effort to be nice to customers, etc.) are pushed into the background.

==Countermeasures==
There are two simple ways to defuse a tournament and to avoid a rat race.

The first one is to keep the employees separated. This countermeasure uses the fact that participants in a rat race rely on closely observing the other participants (in order to find out when it is necessary to increase their own efforts). For example, giving more workers their own offices automatically slows down (or even stops) this information flow.

The second one is to reduce the reward. With a lower reward, the [[probability]] of participants going out of their way to reach it also drops. This is not always a possible solution (when the position of CEO is available, it's impossible to downgrade the reward), but it works in cases in which the reward is an adjustable incentive like higher wages. Of course, the reward should not be too low - the goal is to make the participants compete (thus increasing their productivity), just without escalating the situation.

==See also==
A rat race can be compared to the [[prisoner's dilemma]] because it can also lead to a [[Nash equilibrium]] that is not [[pareto optimal]]: Both participants choose the high effort (and escalate the situation), even though it would be better for them if both chose the low effort.

[[category:economics]]
[[category:tournament theory]]

Tournament theory

2007-05-09T14:58:49Z

JLindon: Initial version. The last one or two lines are missing - I'll add them once I made the articles (and decided on the exact names).

In [[economics]], the concept of '''tournament theory''' explains that large differences in power or [[wage]]s are often based on very small, relative differences in performance of the participants.

This concept goes against the more traditional reasoning in economic theory, which puts great emphasis on [[marginal productivity]] when it comes to determining wage levels.

The most obvious examples of this can be found in high-profile "Winner takes all" situations like the competition for the position of [[CEO]] of a company. However, the mechanism can be found at various levels in a company. For example, the members of a team might know that one of them is going to be promoted in a month.

In such tournaments, the important thing is relative performance, not absolute performance. Putting it in a less formal way, a worker does not have to be perfect, he just has to be better than everybody else, no matter how small the difference is in the end.

This emphasis on relative performance differences leads to certain problems that can be observed in real life. 

==External links==
[http://ingrimayne.com/econ/resouceProblems/Tournament.html Tournament Theory] by Robert Schenk

[[category:economics]]
[[category:tournament theory]]

Template talk:Welcome

2007-05-09T12:31:27Z

JLindon: /* Preventing the Useful Links from breaking out of the Welcome box */

Personal Edit Counter does not seem to be working, and perhaps should be removed? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:34, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
:Works for me... (keep in mind that clicking this link on the template page will try to look up the contributions of the non-existent or inactive [[User:Welcome]]. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 16:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

==Preventing the Useful Links from breaking out of the Welcome box==
Just insert '''<nowiki>{{clear}}</nowiki>''' right behind the last exclamation mark to make the box look less broken:

<div style="background: #ffc; width:95%; border: 1px solid blue; padding:0.5em;">
{{useful links|background=off|float=right}}
'''<big>Welcome!</big>'''

Hello, {{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}, and '''''welcome''''' to [[Conservapedia]]!

We're glad you are here to edit. To the right are some handy links, some of which you should read as soon as you can.

(You can include these links on your user page by putting {{tl|Useful links}} on your page.)

Thanks for reading, {{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}!{{clear}}
</div>

This is how it would look like after the fix. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 16:10, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:Done. :-)

::Sweet, thanks for the fast edit! :) --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 16:14, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

*Someone please let me know if adding the three ~ doesn't auto add the sig of the person placing the template! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:35, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::Interesting idea, but it didn't work (see how [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Welcome&diff=150277&oldid=149805 your edit] actually inserted your signature into the template). I'll try one or two things in the few remaining minutes I got today... maybe it'll work, hold on... --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 20:53, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::The things I threw at it didn't work as I had hoped. I now included a workaround: Just call the template as '''<nowiki>{{welcome|sig=~~~}}</nowiki>''' to get (in my case):

{{welcome|sig=[[User:JLindon|JLindon]]}}

It's not perfect, but it should be good enough... at least that's my current limit of knowledge. If I learn more, I'll mention it. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 21:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks! Maybe Philip will have some ideas, but that looks great to me. So, now we have two welcome templates? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:20, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::Well, I didn't find anything about this in the Wikipedia help right now. It's quite possible I overlooked something, but right now, it doesn't look too great, unless there's some hack that lets us do it. And I only know of this one... it's just more flexible now since it has an added parameter: Call <nowiki>{{welcome}}</nowiki> for the regular version or <nowiki>{{welcome|sig=~~~}}</nowiki> for the signed one. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 21:24, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

*From here, it looks exactly the same as the original, except for the poster's name at the bottom. Perfect! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:32, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't know of any way to ''automatically'' include the poster's signature. There may be; I'm not ''that'' much of an expert on these things, but I suspect not. Ed Poor might know.

What was wrong with the appearance of the box that the {{tl|clear}} was needed? It always looked okay to me, and doesn't look any different (in that respect) than before. I use IE, so perhaps it was a problem in another browser? Anyway, I'm just curious to know what the problem actually was.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:33, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:It's quite possible that Explorer is more forgiving there. The issue had been that the yellow box had been auto-sized so that the lower border was right under "Thanks for reading, Welcome!". So the link box at the right side suddenly broke out of the box at the bottom. The clear-template makes sure that there is enough space for all elements inside the box. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 08:31, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Template talk:Welcome

2007-05-09T01:25:24Z

JLindon:

Template talk:Welcome

2007-05-09T01:24:47Z

JLindon:

Personal Edit Counter does not seem to be working, and perhaps should be removed? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:34, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
:Works for me... (keep in mind that clicking this link on the template page will try to look up the contributions of the non-existent or inactive [[User:Welcome]]. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 16:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

==Preventing the Useful Links from breaking out of the Welcome box==
Just insert '''<nowiki>{{clear}}</nowiki>''' right behind the last exclamation mark to make the box look less broken:

<div style="background: #ffc; width:95%; border: 1px solid blue; padding:0.5em;">
{{useful links|background=off|float=right}}
'''<big>Welcome!</big>'''

Hello, {{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}, and '''''welcome''''' to [[Conservapedia]]!

We're glad you are here to edit. To the right are some handy links, some of which you should read as soon as you can.

(You can include these links on your user page by putting {{tl|Useful links}} on your page.)

Thanks for reading, {{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}!{{clear}}
</div>

This is how it would look like after the fix. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 16:10, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:Done. :-)

::Sweet, thanks for the fast edit! :) --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 16:14, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

*Someone please let me know if adding the three ~ doesn't auto add the sig of the person placing the template! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:35, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::Interesting idea, but it didn't work (see how [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Welcome&diff=150277&oldid=149805 your edit] actually inserted your signature into the template). I'll try one or two things in the few remaining minutes I got today... maybe it'll work, hold on... --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 20:53, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::The things I threw at it didn't work as I had hoped. I now included a workaround: Just call the template as '''<nowiki>{{welcome|sig=~~~}}</nowiki>''' to get (in my case):

{{welcome|sig=[[User:JLindon|JLindon]]}}

It's not perfect, but it should be good enough... at least that's my current limit of knowledge. If I learn more, I'll mention it. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 21:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks! Maybe Philip will have some ideas, but that looks great to me. So, now we have two welcome templates? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:20, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:Well, I didn't find anything about this in the Wikipedia help right now. It's quite possible I overlooked something, but right now, it doesn't look too great, unless there's some hack that lets us do it. And I only know of this one... it's just more flexible now since it has an added parameter: Call <nowiki>{{welcome}}</nowiki> for the regular version or {{welcome|sig=[[User:JLindon|JLindon]]}} for the signed one. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 21:24, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Template talk:Welcome

2007-05-09T01:18:09Z

JLindon:

Template:Welcome

2007-05-09T01:17:05Z

JLindon:

<div style="background: #ffc; width:95%; border: 1px solid blue; padding:0.5em;">
{{useful links|background=off|float=right}}
'''<big>Welcome!</big>'''

Hello, {{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}, and '''''welcome''''' to [[Conservapedia]]!

We're glad you are here to edit. To the right are some handy links, some of which you should read as soon as you can.

(You can include these links on your user page by putting {{tl|Useful links}} on your page.)

Thanks for reading, {{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}!

:{{{sig|}}}{{clear}}</div>

Template:Welcome

2007-05-09T01:13:36Z

JLindon:

Template:Welcome

2007-05-09T01:09:38Z

JLindon: Workaround for now

Template:Welcome

2007-05-09T00:54:13Z

JLindon: The last thing didn't work - it signed the template itself instead of leaving a variable. Test...

Template talk:Welcome

2007-05-09T00:53:25Z

JLindon: Interesting, but...

Template talk:Welcome

2007-05-08T20:14:01Z

JLindon: Talk about prompt service!

Template talk:Welcome

2007-05-08T20:10:10Z

JLindon: /* Preventing the Useful Links from breaking out of the Welcome box */

Template talk:Welcome

2007-05-08T20:09:24Z

JLindon: Reply to TK and a solution for the box break problem

Fringe benefit

2007-05-08T19:51:42Z

JLindon: Going wild with wiki-links and adding category

A '''fringe benefit''' is a form of pay for the performance of services, in addition to a persons base pay.

A Fringe Benefit is any non-wage payment or benefit (e.g., [[pension]] plans, profit-sharing programs, vacation pay, and company-paid life, health, and unemployment [[insurance]] programs) granted to employees by employers. They may be required by law, granted unilaterally by employers, or obtained through collective bargaining. Employers' payments for fringe benefits are included in employee-compensation packages.

Fringe benefits constitute a higher proportion of total employee compensation in [[Europe]] than in the [[United States]]. In Europe they are often the result of [[legislation]]; in the United States collective bargaining has been more important in gaining such benefits. The prevalence of fringe-benefit programs increased sharply during [[World War II]] because controls on this type of compensation were less stringent than controls on wages.

== References ==

*http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9035448/fringe-benefit
*http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15b.pdf
*http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/3347981.html

[[category:economics]]

Fringe benefits

2007-05-08T19:30:11Z

JLindon: Setting a redirect in anticipation of the move suggested on User_talk:Aschlafly#Some non-crisis stuff to ease the flow around here

#REDIRECT [[fringe benefit]]

Time value of money

2007-05-08T17:57:57Z

JLindon: Major rewrite to expand things with equations and an example since it's an important and non-trivial concept. I pray to God that the example I constructed is correct, but it should be.

The '''time value of money''' is the concept that allows somebody to compare the value of money at two different points in time. It relies on the principle that money that is available now could be invested to generate [[interest]] and that receiving money at a later point in time has implied [[opportunity cost]]s.

==Present Value and Future Value==
The most basic application of the time value of money is the conversion between the Present Value (PV) and the Future Value (FV) of money. The important assumption is that, at the beginning of each period (often, this is one year), ''all'' the available money is invested at an interest rate of ''r'' per period.

After Period 1:

<math>FV = PV \cdot (1+r)</math>

After Period 2:

<math>FV = (PV \cdot (1+r)) \cdot (1+r) = PV \cdot (1+r)^2</math>

After Period ''n'':

<math>FV = PV \cdot (1+r)^n</math>

Likewise, the Present Value of an amount of money we get after ''n'' periods would be:

<math>PV = \frac{FV}{(1+r)^n}</math>

==Present and Future Value - an example==
A shop has an offer: When you buy a certain product, you can choose between paying $950 now or $1000 in one year. We assume that our bank would give us 5% interest for a 1-year investment.

The Future Value of $950 after 1 year (1 period) would be:

<math>FV = \$950 \cdot (1+0.05) = \$997.5</math>

So the Future Value of the $950 is less than what we would have to pay for the product in the future. This means that we wouldn't be able to pay the $1000 for the product using only the the $950 we invest today. So it's better to pay right away.

We also could have calculated the Present Value of "$1000 in one year":

<math>PV = \frac{\$1000}{(1+0.05)} = \$952.38</math>

The conclusion is (of course) the same: The Present Value of "$1000 in one year" is higher than the $950 we would have to pay today, so we gain nothing from waiting (on the contrary, even).

==External links==
[http://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/082703.asp Understanding The Time Value Of Money] by Shauna Croome on Investopedia

[[category:economics]]

Factoring

2007-05-07T20:00:31Z

JLindon: Adding category

When a business sells its [[accounts receivable]]s (in the form of [[invoice]]s) to another business, the process is called '''factoring'''.

==Why and how it works==
Factoring usually includes three parties:
#The ''seller'' of the product who is waiting for his money and sells the accounts receivable
#The ''debtor'' who bought the product
#The ''factor'' (factoring company) who buys the accounts receivable

The factor pays the [[time value of money]] (minus a factor's fee) to the seller. Some factoring companies pay a certain percentage (80%-95%) instantly and pay the rest once the debtor pays the factor.

The main incentive for factoring is to get money instantly (instead of often having to wait 30 to 90 days for the payment), thus increasing the present [[cash flow]].

==Types of factoring==
There are two parameters that can influence the way a factor works: risk and openness.
===Risk===
The risk of the accounts receivable can transfer to the factor, or it can stay with the seller.

Non recourse factoring refers to the first case - the factor has the risk and cannot turn to the seller if the debtor is unable to pay.

Recourse factoring refers to the case in which the risk stays with the seller.

===Openness===
Often enough, the debtor does not know of the factor being involved. This is called confidential factoring.

In the case of notified factoring, the factor collects the debts by engaging the debtor directly.

==External links==
*[http://www.bankexperts.co.uk/factoring.htm Factoring and invoice discounting] - Banking Liaison Group
*[http://www.is4profit.com/business-advice/finance-money/debt-factoring-invoice-discounting.html Debt Factoring and Invoice Discounting] - is4profit

[[category:economics]]

Factoring

2007-05-07T19:54:37Z

JLindon: Wiki-links, formatting, merging sections

Factoring

2007-05-07T19:51:56Z

JLindon: A start. Can and should be improved and expanded, but it covers some of the most important aspects. Links come from Google and look okay to me. Feel free to insert better ones, if available.

When a business sells its accounts receivables (in the form of [[invoice]]s) to another business, the process is called '''factoring'''.

==Terminology==
Factoring usually includes three parties:
#The seller of the product who is waiting for his money and sells the accounts receivable
#The debtor who bought the product
#The factor (factoring company) who buys the accounts receivable

==Why and how it works==
The main incentive for factoring is to get money instantly (instead of often having to wait 30 to 90 days for the payment), thus increasing the present [[cash flow]].

The factor pays the [[time value of money]] (minus a factor's fee) to the seller. Some factoring companies pay a certain percentage (80%-95%) instantly and pay the rest once the debtor pays the factor.

==Types of factoring==
There are two parameters that can influence the way a factor works: risk and openness.
===Risk===
The risk of the accounts receivable can transfer to the factor, or it can stay with the seller.

Non recourse factoring refers to the first case - the factor has the risk and cannot turn to the seller if the debtor is unable to pay.

Recourse factoring refers to the case in which the risk stays with the seller.

===Openness===
Often enough, the debtor does not know of the factor being involved. This is called confidential factoring.

In the case of notified factoring, the factor collects the debts by engaging the debtor directly.

==External links==
*[http://www.bankexperts.co.uk/factoring.htm Factoring and invoice discounting] - Banking Liaison Group
*[http://www.is4profit.com/business-advice/finance-money/debt-factoring-invoice-discounting.html Debt Factoring and Invoice Discounting] - is4profit

Adverse selection

2007-05-07T18:35:37Z

JLindon: Should be a good start...

In [[economics]] (especially when discussing [[insurance]]s), '''adverse selection''' describes a problematic result of a market process with [[information asymmetry|information asymmetries]].

At the core of this problem are two things:
*There is information that is only available to Participant A.
*Participant B has an offer that would change if he had access to the missing information.
Adverse selection then happens when Participant A consciously makes use of the offer, causing a disadvantage for Participant B.

Common countermeasures against adverse selection are screening processes to lessen the amount of private information Participant A has.

This is a quite abstract description, but the concept is fairly widespread, as the following examples show:

==Insurances==
For example, somebody with a conviction for drunk driving would have a higher incentive to insure his car against damages than a very experienced and cautious driver. Likewise, members of certain risk groups may have a greater desire to get a life insurance. Without access to the critical information, insurance companies would eventually have to charge higher premiums due to the increased overall risk. This in turn would discourage people with smaller risks to join (since they would have to pay a price that is much too high for them).

In both cases, the insurance companies are at a disadvantage because of the information asymmetry. This is why the usual policy is to have a mandatory screening process (in the case of life insurances, a full medical examination) prior to negotiating the premium levels. This way, insurance companies can charge a higher premium for people with higher risks, allowing people with smaller (observed) risks pay a smaller price (thus making the insurance more attractive for them).

==Factoring==
In non recourse [[factoring]], the factor buys [[accounts receivable]]s (in the form of [[invoice]]s) from a seller and also carries the risk of the [[debt]]or being unable to pay. Some companies sell all their accounts receivables to a factoring company, but others only sell some of them. In that case, the seller may use his knowledge about his debtors to shift the risk to the factoring company (selling exactly those cases that are connected to high-risk debtors).

In this case, one possible way for the factoring company to escape the adverse selection is to create a policy for sellers that only want to sell some of their accounts receivables. For example, sellers may only be allowed to sell a certain percentage of their cases - going alphabetically down the list instead of picking specific cases.

==External links==
*[http://ingrimayne.com/econ/RiskExclusion/Risk.html Moral Hazard and Adverse Selection] by Robert Schenk

[[category:economics]]

Pareto optimal

2007-05-06T02:36:11Z

JLindon: Creating redirect

#REDIRECT [[Pareto efficiency]]

Pareto efficiency

2007-05-06T02:33:44Z

JLindon: Avoid layout glitches

In [[Game Theory]] and [[economics]], the concept of '''Pareto efficiency''' (or '''Pareto optimality''') is a method to judge the [[efficiency]] of a set of decisions made by the participants. It was named after [[Vilfredo Pareto]].

A set of decisions "x/y" (meaning that participant A chooses "x" while participant B chooses "y") is called Pareto optimal if there is '''no''' other state in which:
#at least one participant can improve his own outcome while
#no other participants receives a worse outcome than he does now.
Putting it into less formal style: As long as a player can improve his outcome without hurting anybody else, the situation is not Pareto efficient.

If a participant can improve his outcome without hurting anybody else, the new decision set '''Pareto dominates''' the old one.

==An example==
<div style="float:right">
{|style="border-collapse:collapse; background:none; text-align:center"
|
|
!colspan=2 style="padding:0px 0px 6px 0px"|''B''
|-
|
|
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:6px"|1
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:6px"|2
|-
!rowspan=2 style="padding:6px 6px 6px 30px"|''A''
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:6px"|1
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:6px"|A: bad / B: bad
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:6px"|A: bad / B: good
|-
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:6px"|2
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:6px"|A: good / B: bad
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:6px; background:#999999"|A: good / B: good
|}
</div>
In the case shown at the right side, participants A and B can choose between "1" and "2". The result can either be "good" or "bad".

The highlighted field ("2/2") is the Pareto optimal situation. All other situations can be improved.

For example, in "1/2" ("bad" for A, "good" for B), A could switch to "2". The result improves A's result to "good" while leaving B's result unchanged.
{{clear}}
==External links==
*[http://wilcoxen.cp.maxwell.syr.edu/pages/225.html Pareto Efficiency] by Peter J. Wilcoxen
*[http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~osborne/2x3/tutorial/PE.HTM Definition of Pareto efficiency] by Martin J. Osborne

[[category:economics]]

Pareto efficiency

2007-05-06T02:29:12Z

JLindon: Added a few useful references I found online via a quick search. Also added the reference back to Mr. Pareto and included the term "Pareto dominate"

In [[Game Theory]] and [[economics]], the concept of '''Pareto efficiency''' (or '''Pareto optimality''') is a method to judge the [[efficiency]] of a set of decisions made by the participants. It was named after [[Vilfredo Pareto]].

A set of decisions "x/y" (meaning that participant A chooses "x" while participant B chooses "y") is called Pareto optimal if there is '''no''' other state in which:
#at least one participant can improve his own outcome while
#no other participants receives a worse outcome than he does now.
Putting it into less formal style: As long as a player can improve his outcome without hurting anybody else, the situation is not Pareto efficient.

If a participant can improve his outcome without hurting anybody else, the new decision set '''Pareto dominates''' the old one.

==An example==
<div style="float:right">
{|style="border-collapse:collapse; background:none; text-align:center"
|
|
!colspan=2 style="padding:0px 0px 6px 0px"|''B''
|-
|
|
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:6px"|1
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:6px"|2
|-
!rowspan=2 style="padding:6px 6px 6px 30px"|''A''
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:6px"|1
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:6px"|A: bad / B: bad
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:6px"|A: bad / B: good
|-
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:6px"|2
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:6px"|A: good / B: bad
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:6px; background:#999999"|A: good / B: good
|}
</div>

In the case shown at the right side, participants A and B can choose between "1" and "2". The result can either be "good" or "bad".

The highlighted field ("2/2") is the Pareto optimal situation. All other situations can be improved.

For example, in "1/2" ("bad" for A, "good" for B), A could switch to "2". The result improves A's result to "good" while leaving B's result unchanged.

==External links==
*[http://wilcoxen.cp.maxwell.syr.edu/pages/225.html Pareto Efficiency] by Peter J. Wilcoxen
*[http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~osborne/2x3/tutorial/PE.HTM Definition of Pareto efficiency] by Martin J. Osborne

[[category:economics]]

Pareto optimum

2007-05-06T02:15:02Z

JLindon: Redirecting to Pareto efficiency

#REDIRECT [[Pareto efficiency]]

Pareto efficiency

2007-05-06T02:13:36Z

JLindon: This should be a good start.

In [[Game Theory]] and [[economics]], the concept of '''Pareto efficiency''' (or '''Pareto optimality''') is a method to judge the [[efficiency]] of a set of decisions made by the participants.

A set of decisions "x/y" (meaning that participant A chooses "x" while participant B chooses "y") is called Pareto optimal if there is '''no''' other state in which:
#at least one participant can improve his own outcome while
#no other participants receives a worse outcome than he does now.
Putting it into less formal style: As long as a player can improve his outcome without hurting anybody else, the situation is not Pareto efficient.

==An example==
<div style="float:right">
{|style="border-collapse:collapse; background:none; text-align:center"
|
|
!colspan=2 style="padding:0px 0px 6px 0px"|''B''
|-
|
|
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:6px"|1
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:6px"|2
|-
!rowspan=2 style="padding:6px 6px 6px 30px"|''A''
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:6px"|1
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:6px"|A: bad / B: bad
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:6px"|A: bad / B: good
|-
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:6px"|2
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:6px"|A: good / B: bad
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:6px; background:#999999"|A: good / B: good
|}
</div>

In the case shown at the right side, participants A and B can choose between "1" and "2". The result can either be "good" or "bad".

The highlighted field ("2/2") is the Pareto optimal situation. All other situations can be improved.

For example, in "1/2" ("bad" for A, "good" for B), A could switch to "2". The result improves A's result to "good" while leaving B's result unchanged.

[[category:economics]]

Talk:Nash equilibrium

2007-05-06T01:14:57Z

JLindon: Nice observation!

Your changes are excellent but it's not clear to me why you say the Nash equilibrium is sub-optimal for the [[prisoner's dilemma]]. Could you elaborate on that a bit more? Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:Well, the prisoner's dilemma is one of those cases where the Nash equilibrium is not the Pareto optimal solution.
:The optimal case would be for both participants to stay silent (in the specific example in the article, both would get six months). However, this is not a Nash equilibrium: If A knows that B chose to stay silent, A would switch to "confess" and improve his own outcome (causing a 10 year punishment for B).
:The only Nash equilibrium is the "confess/confess" scenario (in which both prisoners get a 2 year punishment), which is sub-optimal, compared to the possible outcome if both participants cooperated.
:I could insert this into the article here, but it would be slightly redundant since this is explained in the PD article (with a fancy table and all that). --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 20:54, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:: That's good stuff, and I see your concern about redundancy. I'll supplement the entry and you can improve as you think best. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:06, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Very interesting analysis you added there! I think I'll leave it like that for now since I couldn't think of a way to improve it right now. :)
:::I'm also working on [[Pareto efficiency]] (and then redirect [[Pareto optimum]] to it) now to remove the red link in the PD article. So far, it's only covered briefly in [[Efficiency]]. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 21:14, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Nash equilibrium

2007-05-06T00:54:55Z

JLindon: