Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:PNAS Response to Letter

2008-09-19T13:59:01Z

KennyMac: /* Data from several experiments */ Answering Aschafly's query

Notice: misrepresentations are not going to be allowed on this page. Substantive comments only, please.

==Initial discussion ==

In this day and age, scientists have their own agenda and have corrupted science. Just look at global warming or cloning or stem cells as proof. With that said, the only way to get the real truth is by suing in court. Unfortunately, scientists are bound to vast wealth and have the power to defend themselves vigorously. If ever a fund was set up to pay for a suit, I would contribute. It is a classic case whereby the truth be known, the truth will prevail. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:14, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks, Jpatt. One additional beauty of the truth is that it remains the truth no how much some deny it. PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

::Well said, Andy and Jpatt. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the President of the NAS is a "climate scientist". If the Academy is dominated by [[pseudoscience]] of that kind, it's hardly a surprise that their response was to cover up and deny the truth. Nevertheless, they had to be given their chance to make good before further steps are taken. I suggest now that the issue be put to potentially supportive congressmen/women and senators, given the public funding for Lenski's activities. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:46, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::: Right. The next step is to criticize the taxpayer funding of this junk science. When the authors and the publishing organization will not even address statistical errors in the work, then it's time to pull the public funding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::They did address your claims of statistical errors: they said that you were wrong to the degree that they were able to determine what you were talking about. You made a qualitative argument and got a qualitative response.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:00, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Which of the 5 specific errors do you think they addressed? None, as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::The response addresses your qualitative claims about the paper's statistical methods raised in points two, three, and five by the following:"Nevertheless, from a statistical point of view, it is proper to combine the results of independent experiments, as Blount et al. '''did correctly in their original paper'''"(emphasis added); in fact the longest paragraph in the response deals entirely with the statistical claims of the letter and dismisses them.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::But that's never going to happen because the data availability requirements for public funding have already been met. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)10:56, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: No, I don't think the researchers have met NSF guidelines as referenced in the letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Proof?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

: As I said, the NSF guidelines are references in the [[Letter to PNAS|letter]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:29, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

You mean the notebooks and ect? [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:Oh my dear God, I can't believe this!! Where has this beautiful country gone to if even science is not reliable anymore nowadays. Hope things will change in the future. Good thing there still are people like Mr. Schlafly, <includeonly>suckadick moron</includeonly>who have the brains and power to stand up, and turn the people of America in the right direction again. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:24, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I have a question BTW. Was this letter received on a paper, or electronically? Because if it was on a paper, perhaps it would be a good idea to scan it, and post it. It would add a lot to the encyclopedic value of the article. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

: PNAS procedures required me to submit the letter electronically using its own electronic submission software. When the PNAS acknowledged that my submission complied with all its requirements, it also said that the authors of the original paper had been notified of my letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Too bad. It doesn't make much sense though, guess that tells a lot about PNAS. What they should care about is the actual text, not the medium it is in. That's not the case IMHO for encyclopedias however. If not for anything else, a scan would have been useful as a reference for the digital text. Oh well... [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:53, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Honest question, is it against the rules to disagree with Andrew Schlafly or criticize that letter? I just want to know so I don't end up in the same situation as other people who have been censored here.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 17:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
:I believe this this page is only for discussion of the response, which is quite straightforward. Criticism of the letter should have gone on it's talk page, but it's too late now. Oh well. There is no censorship on Conservapedia. Your comment is not substantive - please refactor it. Praise Jesus, [[User:Pila|Pila]] 17:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:: if you REALLY believe that Lenski has committed acedemic FRAUD then lodge a formal complaint with his University. They are taken very seriously and can lead to loss of tenure and dismissal from the university, and with that on his record no other institution would hire him on any basis. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:40, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

(deleted non-substantive comments). Again, the heading on this page will be enforced: "Substantive comments only, please." If you have a substantive comment about the identified errors and the PNAS's failure to address them, then please comment. Non-substantive comments will be removed. This is an encyclopedic-based search for the truth, not a blog or a place to refuse to contribute in a substantive manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:Since you've taken the liberty of deciding what is substantive or not in deleting posts like my last one, then I have a serious, respectful question to ask; What exactly do you mean by "substantive"? I didn't attack you or your letter; I was attempting to state that the PNAS response did, in fact, address the points of your letter. Whether one considers the PNAS response to be ''correct'' or not is a separate matter - they read your objections and responded to them instead of ignoring them, that's all.

:My last post would therefore seem to have met Webster's definition of ''substantive'' - "having or expressing substance", but apparently the measure of "substantive" for a comment on this page appears to be whether it agrees with your view or not. That's your prerogative, but if you intended to allow comments on this page other than endorsements of your view, then please let me know what I did wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:: Dinsdale, we're here to think and learn. You can look at my letter, look at the PNAS's response, and provide some ''substantive'' insights. We're not here to say something like, uh, go ask someone else if a (9th grade-level) graph is correct or not. If you think the substantive issues are beyond your depth, and I don't, then comment on them in a substantive and intellectual and specific way. This is not another waste-of-time blog, and it's not going to become one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:::DinsdaleP, you did attack ASchalfy at least indirectly. Suggesting that the PNAS response has merit might also be interpreted by some that the letter ASchafly sent wasn't the very best it could be. Now, contrast that to my deleted comment suggesting that a time-tested response would be to actually try reproducing the experiment. Many bad experiments are exposed when others fail to get the same results as the original authors. I think this would be an excellent, substantive avenue to pursue.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

ASchlafly- you said above, "PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors". As you say, in a fair discussion of the merits of two sides of an argument, it's important that both sides take a good, hard look at their own propositions. Since your position is that PNAS has errors on its own side, I'm just curious to know if you are in any way prepared to accept that there might be errors in your own argument, or are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' that your position is error-free? I'm wondering if perhaps before submitting this issue to funding authorities, you would be prepared to have an independent statistical expert take a look at your proposal? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:The only thing I was criticizing in my original comment today was the Main Page headline statement that "PNAS refuses to address the 5 errors in the Lenski study identified by the Letter to PNAS". What I pointed out is the fact that they ''did'' in fact respond, by criticizing the statistical analysis used by Aschlafly. I'm not supporting or attacking Mr. Schlafly's analysis, because I'm the first one to admit that I have no expertise in this area. My conclusion was a constructive suggestion that Mr. Schlafly present a rebuttal to the PNAS decision by showing how his analysis and conclusions were not erroneous in the manner they claimed. A public, statistical defense of Mr. Schlafly's work, perhaps accompanied by the endorsement of some regarded experts in the field, would be the best response to PNAS choosing to respond by email instead of through the journal.

:I wrote both the original draft letter to PNAS from Mr. Schlafly's notes and my earlier comments today with the intent of contributing constructively. I hope this clarification of my view is substantive enough to remain. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:24, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Folks, I've pointed out five ''very specific'' statistical (logical) errors. The torrent of nonsense above even includes an absurd demand for me to try to repeat the experiments, as thought that would somehow correct a flawed paper.

The math is wrong in the PNAS paper. No one at PNAS is even willing to put his name on a response claiming that the math is correct, because it isn't. I'm not going to allow further nonsensical postings here. If you want to address the statistical (logical) errors in a specific way, fine. If you feel it is beyond your depth to do so, then move on. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:"The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events." Specifically, why is it incorrect to apply a Monte Carlo test in this circumstance, or why was their application incorrect? Do your own calculations produce a p-value that differs from the published p-value of 0.08?

:"The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance." This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments, or believe that the Z-transform analysis was performed incorrectly. Which do you disagree with - the technique, the application, or both, and why? --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:: {removed personal and non-substantive attack that violated clear rules for this discussion; also, unsubstantiated claims of expertise are not allowed - --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 15 September 2008 (EDT))

::: I'm still a little unclear on your position ASchlafly - are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' your own statistical analysis is correct on this? Before you proceed further it's important to know that the technical analysis you are presenting is indeed indisputable. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 12:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: Ben, if you have at least a 9th grade-level education, then you can look at the 5 errors and decide for yourself, and comment in a substantive manner. Yes, they are obvious and basic errors, and the fact that the reviewer of my letter at PNAS would not attach his name to a specific denial speaks volumes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly, I'm a little confused as to why you [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&curid=73292&diff=517424&oldid=517408 removed this comment of mine]? I did not cast any aspersions on your argument, and was merely answering your question as you posed it to me? Is "declining to comment" an indictable offense? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Your comment was not an "indictable offense," but it violated the rules of this page: "Substantive comments only, please." Got it? Either say something substantive, or edit somewhere else. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:33, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: This is confusing. Is "I agree with your thesis" or "your methods are 100% correct" a substantive comment? It can be very hard to infer your intent, Mr.Schalfly, I'm sorry to say. I have no quarrel with you, but I'm becoming confused as to what is and isn't appropriate comment on what is labelled a "Talk Page". Are there special rules for this Talk Page? If so, perhaps the title on the page might be changed? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:42, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: No, your quoted phrases are obviously not substantive comments. Your statement of agreement means nothing. I doubt you are even using your real name, for starters, which renders your agreement evens sillier. I repeat for the nth time, say something substantive or edit somewhere else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: (removed another non-substantive posting)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::Aschafly, perhaps you did not realize that my earlier questions were meant for you. I wish to address the statistical errors in a specific way, which requires a better understanding of your position. I will repeat my main questions: why was it incorrect to apply Monte Carlo techniques to the data in the paper, or in what way was the Monte Carlo technique performed incorrectly? Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly? In lieu of the Monte Carlo/Z-transform techniques, what statistical calculations ''should'' have been performed? Feel free to be technical; I have more than a ninth grade education.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: If you're skipping over the main points, then concede their validity or explain why you've skipped over them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response to my previously-stated questions about points three and five: your statements about the incorrect application of Monte Carlo resampling and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation). --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:00, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Substantive postings are welcome, but I still don't have an explanation for why you skipped over the main points 1 and 2. Do you concede them?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:04, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: With all due respect Aschlafly, and excuse me if I feel the need to tiptoe as gently as possible here, but I would cautiously disagree with your statement that "Substantive postings are welcome". It seems to me that you have explicitly removed ''only'' the substantive comments from this page. What is left are weak and non-substantive comments, to be sure. It seems very difficult to comment in any way here on this matter, as you seem to be of the opinion that you and you alone are correct. WIth the best will in the world, I certainly don't feel able to speak freely here, despite being well qualified to do so. Perhaps a slightly more lenient approach might help your own cause? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:23, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: Since I am new here I am a bit timid about chiming in on this discussion, but I feel compelled to say that (as I pointed out in the section below), I think this page should be reserved for appropriate responses to the PNAS letter - not for opinions regarding how Aschlafly is running this website. If you think you have valid points to bring out about that - maybe post them to his talk page? --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 22:31, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) No, I do not concede points one and two; I've commented on them on the [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]] page. I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to. Similarly, your point four is not something that can be resolved by argument. The only way to prove that the results were due to contamination would be to repeat the experiment with different controls in place and demonstrate different results - which might spur some other labs to run a third or fourth trial to see who was right. It seemed to me that the only points that could be solved by discussion were three and five, since they made statements about the statistical methods that can potentially be resolved through debate. So, once again, what is your response to my questions regarding points three and five?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:34, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

: Brossa, I could not find a meaningful rebuttal by you of point 1, and I found no comments by you on point 2, at [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]]. Are you trying the classic trick of "the answer is over there," when it isn't? Point 2 alone completely disproves the PNAS paper's thesis, and yet you avoid it and skip towards less obvious errors. I'm happy to address the subtle errors once you address the obvious ones.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, you are avoiding Brossa's question. Why can't you just answer it? Brossa said that he wanted to limit the discussion to these points. The reason that he wants to do that is because it the PNAS response targets your approach to the statistical analysis. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 16:24, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:I don't mind addressing points one and two; I just don't think that we'll come to an agreement about them. Point one represents a misunderstanding of the figure 3, which is labeled "Alternative hypotheses for the origin of the Cit+ function..." The figure does not represent the results of the experiments and does not conflict with them. It is a cartoon of the a priori hypothesis that was generated before the experiments were performed; it is not itself the hypothesis (the map is not the country). Note that the vertical axis lacks a scale; there is no way of knowing what the actual mutation rates are ahead of time. The location of the vertical jump on the graph is abitrary; it has to lie somewhere between 0 and 31,500 generations, but that point could be anywhere. Quoting from the paper: "The historical contingency hypothesis predicts that the mutation rate to Cit+ should increase after some potentiating genetic background has evolved. Thus, Cit+ variants should re-evolve more often in the replays using clones sampled from later generations of the Ara-3 population." The hypothesis as stated does not specify a generation at which the potentiating mutation occured. The hypothesis is not that potentiation took place at generation 31,000 rather than some other generation; it is that there ''was'' a potentiating mutation ''rather than'' a rare-mutation event. The results of the experiment do not disprove the contingency hypothesis; they confirm it and suggest that the potentiating mutation took place at generation 20,000. You think that the figure is the hypothesis; I think that the hypothesis is what is stated explicitly in the text of the paper; I doubt that we'll agree.

:Point two states: "Both hypotheses propose fixed mutation rates, but the failure of mutations to increase with sample size disproves this." I disagree with this statement. The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were similar, but not the same. One could imagine a hypothesis that men commit murder most often between the ages of 25 and 35, with samples taken from the male populations of L.A., Singapore, and London. One would find different murder rates among the men of those three cities, but still might find (or not) that murderers in those cities tend to be between 25 and 35 years old. The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were not the same, just as Singapore is not the same as Los Angeles. The rare-mutation hypothesis does not mean that the mutation rate to Cit+ is the same for ''all experimental conditions anywhere''; just that the mutation rate is constant ''given the conditions of a particular replay''. It is possible to have different baseline mutation rates among the three replays, all of which follow the historical contingency pattern. Or the mutation rate could actually be the same across all three replays, and the results seen here are just a statistical fluke that would vanish if the replays could be run thousands of times. Either way, it's not fatal to the paper's conculsions.

:Point two also states "If the authors claim that it is inappropriate to compare for scale the Second and Third Experiments to each other and to the First Experiment, then it was also an error to treat them similarly statistically." This is also incorrect in my view. One can state that the murder rate is different between two cities, and yet the murderers have some characteristic in common. Combining results from different samples is the bread and butter of statistical analysis. Meta-analysis, for example, is used to combine the results of studies that are much different than replay experiments one, two, and three. If you wish to make a more specific argument about the '''techniques''' used to combine the three replay experiments into a single result, I'll address it. I think that the second part of point two is essentially the same as point five in that it criticizes the statistical method used to combine the results of the three replays (the Z-transform), as opposed to point three which mentions the Monte Carlo technique separately.

:I therefore repeat my questions about points three and five, as stated previously. If you have other questions that I must answer first, please list them all at once, as I'm eager to move on to that discussion.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:53, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:: It's foolish to debate someone who has already closed his mind. Point 1 is plainly correct: the PNAS article should admit and disclose that the false hypothesis was indeed proven to be false. If you stand behind the falsehood, then you'll refuse to admit other errors also.

:: Your refusal to concede point 2 is even more egregious. Lenski combined his experiments, and you can't claim that combination was simultaneously correct and incorrect. Moreover, the lack of scale also exists between Experiment 2 and 3, again disproving the underlying thesis of the paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:31, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I already said that I didn't think that we would reach common ground on points one, two, and four, and that it would be a waste of time to rehash them. You asked me to, so I did. It seems foolish to then treat those points as a shibboleth and refuse to discuss the other points, which I am fully prepared to concede provided you elaborate on why the Monte Carlo technique and the Z-transform were either the wrong tests or performed incorrectly. I am capable of accepting two items from a list of five even if I reject the other three. Even if I were completely incapable of agreeing with you, I still don't see why you won't put your best mathematical argument forward about the paper's statistics. Were there too few Monte Carlo resamplings? Do you feel that the Z-transformation was performed incorrectly? Is the Z-transform itself suspect? Do you propose some other statistical analysis? If you do, there are any number of us here who can crunch the numbers again. What a coup it would be for you if we could use a technique that you suggested to obtain results that smashed Lenski's smug complacency!

:::I don't claim that the combination was simultaneously correct and incorrect, by the way - I claim that it was correct. Where do I imply otherwise? Also, it's not only improper to compare replay one with replays two and three ''for scale'': it's impossible. Replay one involved constantly changing numbers of cells whereas replays two and three started with fixed numbers. How do you count the number of cells in the first replay to compare it to the other two? Is it the number of cells transferred each time? Is it the maximum population achieved in each flask prior to transfer? 750 generations passed in one case and 3700 generations in another before the Cit+ trait was seen - how do you factor that into the 'scale' equation? It is only the superficial resemblance of replays two and three that brings up the concept of 'scale'. The "underlying thesis" of the paper is not that there is a unique rate of mutation to Cit+ that applies across ''any and all'' experimental conditions.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 19:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: Brossa, you don't address how Lenski ''did'' combine the three experiments, and how Experiment 3 does not scale with Experiment 2. Given that you don't address the main errors, it's foolish to waste time discussing more subtle points with you. Put another way, there are plenty of open-minded contributors on this site. Why would one waste time discussing with a close-minded person instead?

:::: Your account will be blocked for your [[90/10 rule]] violation unless you improve soon. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::ASchlafly:"Brossa, you don't address how Lenski ''did'' combine the three experiments"
::::::Me, earlier on this page:"This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments." "Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly?" "...and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation)." "If you wish to make a more specific argument about the techniques used to combine the three replay experiments into a single result, I'll address it. I think that the second part of point two is essentially the same as point five in that it criticizes the statistical method used to combine the results of the three replays (the Z-transform)..."
::::::Blount and Lenski used Monte Carlo to derive a p-value for each of the three replay experiments; then used the Z-transformation to derive a final p-value from the three Monte Carlo p-values. I've mentioned the Z-transformation multiple times in connection to combining the results of the three experiments.

:::::ASchlafly: "Brossa, you don't address...how Experiment Three does not scale with Experiment 2."
::::::Me, earlier on this page: "The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were similar, but not the same." "It is possible to have different baseline mutation rates among the three replays, all of which follow the historical contingency pattern. Or the mutation rate could actually be the same across all three replays, and the results seen here are just a statistical fluke that would vanish if the replays could be run thousands of times. Either way, it's not fatal to the paper's conculsions." "It is only the superficial resemblance of replays two and three that brings up the concept of 'scale'. The "underlying thesis" of the paper is not that there is a unique rate of mutation to Cit+ that applies across any and all experimental conditions"

:::::ASchlafly: "Your account will be blocked for your [[90/10 rule]] violation unless you improve soon."
::::::Me, earlier on this page:"If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response..." "I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to." "I already said that I didn't think that we would reach common ground on points one, two, and four, and that it would be a waste of time to rehash them. You asked me to, so I did."
::::::I came into this discussion wanting to discuss specific issues: the basis of your objections to the Monte Carlo technique and the Z-transformation used to combine the results of the three replays into one final p-value. This could have been resolved quite quickly, but you said that I had to address all the points of your letter before you would answer my questions. I said repeatedly that I did not wish to do so without your explicit permission, which it seemed that you gave. So I jumped through those hoops, only to be accused of a 90/10 violation. Have I simply walked into an cunning trap?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 21:20, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

== Please provide your statistical analysis ==

Andrew, If you are so sure that your statistical analysis of the Lenski paper is correct, you should publish it on Conservapedia. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

: I did. Which point don't you understand?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 08:50, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

I think regardless of what the details behind the statistical analysis are, the shame here is that PNAS refused to address anything specific in their response. They simply glossed over everything that was said in the letter sent to them and gave a generic, unsubstantive response. All the people here that are trying to argue with ASchlafly about his position should instead focus on why is it that PNAS refuses to directly address our concerns. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 21:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:: It is not the function of the editorial board to "defend" a paper. They mainly said that, from what Mr. Schlafly has written they could not see the mistake in Dr. Lenskis statisics suggested by Mr. Schlafly. It is neither the function of a reviewer to "put his name" on something. A reviewer should check if the average reader of a journal will be able to learn something from a letter. If he thinks there is nothing to learn, either because the letter fails to bring new insight, or because the readers may not understand how using only conservative methods in statistics and nothing which is mathematically considered to be fragile by people who have average mathematical knowledge, is favourable, then they should reject the letter. Although I had the impression from the wording of the response that the reviewer did have at least a brief look at the original article. And PNAS refuses the Letter for the very same reason people her are asking, namely the complete absence of alternative estimations for the numbers. I dont want to check the calculations, if Mr. Schlafly states that by using a well defined method, he finds another result and states this result clearly, i am a priori very willing to believe that, because i see no reason not to believe his word on that (Since he has, to my best knowledge, no record of scientific fraud). After he states his result, i may find the time trying to reproduce it (although i am very busy). --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 13:00, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 15:41, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

==Improper==
I have no knowledge on this branch of science, so I won't comment on whether the results were correct, or if PNAS's letter was unbiased. Then again neither does Schlafly, who, of what info about him is known to the public is not a biologist. I find it somewhat ''inappropriate'' for someone with no training on a specifict field to come and tell someone that has actually learned something about that field, and say he hasn't done his job right. It's common sense. [[User:Fred1776|Fred1776]] 14:30, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:That's an extraordinary and offensive remark from someone who admits complete ignorance. How come you - Fred1776 - have an exact knowledge of how expert Andrew Schlafly's knowledge of the issue is? He may not be a mathematician, but he is an experienecd educator, amongst other things, with a legal training that enables his mind to get to the crux of a problem, as has been demonstrated very many times in this project. Biologists are properly open to the scrutiny of others. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:34, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::I simply can't turn down the opportunity of agreeing with Bugler! Biologists, as with all experts, should be open to scrutiny from everyone. It's good to use people's expertise, but not at the expense of raising their pronouncements to the status of dogma. True, the lay person may not be able to formulate much criticism but sometimes, and especially when they stray outside the purely technical, all experts make mistakes that are evident to others. We should respect expertise, but stopping all questioning is giving respect beyond what is due. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 15:45, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::(EC)Well, the PNAS seems to think his understanding of statistical analysis is less than "elementary". The question is, given that virtually none of us are experts in statistics, why wouldn't we believe the PNAS? I mean, they are the trained scientists, right? If they told me my mis-understanding of statistical analysis was too fundamental to warrant a response in their journal, I'd show some humility and accept that as valid criticism. But hey, that's just me. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 15:48, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Kim, if you're naive enough to believe everything that the [[Liberal]] establishment tells you, well, hey, don't let us stop you. But don't think that you will be allowed to infect this site with your credulity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:54, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Well if I'm credulous because I'd accept the opinion of an expert in very difficult and technical field I have no formal training in, then so be it. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 15:57, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::Bugler, is it possible for you to talk without threatening someone? Try some civility. --[[User:IanG|IanG]] 16:08, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::(At the risk of a block) Not "believe everything on the basis that they are experts", but neither "disbelieve everything on the basis that they are assumed to be Liberal". If one is to make use of expertise then you need to accept ''something'' told you on the basis of expertise: you will have to revise at least one belief because of what the expert says. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:09, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

KimEide, the experts on Christianity are overwhelmingly in agreement: Jesus rose from the dead. Yet I expect that you don't accept that expert view. Meanwhile, you seem to accept the "expert" view of Lenski about statistics despite his having, as far as I can tell, no expertise in that subject.

Those who don't want to think for themselves can return to Wikipedia and other playpens. Those who have substantive insights about the logical and statistical issues here, please do comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:16, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:I happen to know for a fact that Lenski is thoroughly trained in the statistical analysis of experiments like the one in question. In fact, he's published extensively in that area. And I'm afraid the historicity of the Resurrection is a minority view among New Testament scholars. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 16:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::What might wash with [[Liberal]] [[agnostic]] [[theology]] [[professor values|professors]] won't wash with true [[Christians]]. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:27, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::I agree completely. That doesn't change the empirical fact that it's a minority view among scholars. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 16:28, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::::I disagree. I have found that when people use the word "scholars" that it is very specific to their side. So what is your definition of a scholar? In my life I have had the privilege of attending a number of different churches, three of which were run by men with PHDs. All three of them believed in the bodily resurrection of Christ. Taken across America, that number would be much higher. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::If those men had PhDs in New Testament studies (or something related) from a serious University, I would certainly count them as scholars. But they would be in the minority in the field of New Testament studies. That's just an empirical fact I happen to know from being employed by a Liberal Arts University. In general though, I think of a scholar as someone who has 1)Studied the literature extensively 2)Defended his knowledge before a panel of other people who have studied the literature extensively (i.e. been awarded an advanced degree) 3)Published in peer-reviewed journals 4)And is or was actively engaged in the professional field, either through writing, teaching (or preaching), researching, giving papers at conferences, etc. That's just off the top of my head though. Most scholars will have all four of those. Some will only have three. Maybe occasionally one might just have two. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 17:49, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::This is a ridiculous arguement. The resurrection of Jesus is a matter of faith and can not be verified except by referring to the Bible. Statistical analysis is a branch of mathematics. The truths of mathematics are not subject to debate and are not matters of faith. Appealing to authorities in mathematics is completely different than appealing to a religious authority. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:52, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
(undent)We're not arguing whether the opinion of a majority of biblical scholars is a reliable indicator of whether Jesus rose from the dead or not. We're just arguing what that majority opinion is. It may seem irrelevant, but it is a crucially important to the issue at hand...ummm...somehow. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 18:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

: Christian theologians hold the equivalent of PhDs, and yet you reject the conclusion of those "experts". I have found nothing in Lenski's published background to indicate any expertise by him in statistics. Yet you accept Lenski's view on statistics without even thinking through the issues on your own, while rejecting the consensus of Christian experts. Why? The answer is obvious: bias and lack of open-mindedness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:25, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:: Biological studies routinely require at least some application of statistical theory, especially when studying populations of organisms or molecules which molecular (and evolutionary) biology usually involves. Biostatistics (the statistical theories commonly used in biomedicine) is often a required course for PhD students for this reason. Established researchers in the life sciences do not need to have a degree in statistics to indicate expertise - Lenski's publication record itself indicates that he has successfully applied statistical theory in his analyses many times. At any rate, if someone can simply claim without proof that he has taken (and understood) statistics courses on the level needed to evaluate Lenski's paper, then he has no basis on which to accuse others of lacking expertise.

::: Malarkey. I've taken and excelled in upperclass statistics courses, and there were not biology students, college or graduate, in them. If Lenski has expertise in statistics then let's see it. His own "biographical sketch" doesn't even disclose what his undergraduate major was at Oberlin or what his PhD concentration at the University of North Carolina were
in.[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/BioSketch.html]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:26, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Andy, the bottom line is the PNAS publishes letters online criticizing their publication all the time. Every single issue. It's the whole function of "Letters to the PNAS". It's the only reason the letters section of the PNAS exists. They would have published your letter if it had shown the requisite understanding of the issues at hand. How do we know this? Because they do it all the time. Why didn't they publish yours? Because your understanding of how to statistically analyze experiments involving bacteria populations isn't up to snuff. How could it be? A man who was truly interested in learning would show humility, accept criticism, and dive into the relevant literature about Monte Carlo, z-transformations, etc. A man who was only interested in protecting his ego would carry on the lie that Lenski and the PNAS don't know what they are talking about. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 09:27, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: PNAS won't publish any letter critical of evolution in any way, even when the letter points out 5 obvious statistical flaws.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:58, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::I still, having read your previous comments on the original letter, don't feel that you've explained either a) why the use of Monte Carlo was wrong, b) why the use of Z-transformation was wrong, nor c) critically, what alternative analysis you would have used, and what p-values you would have obtained with it. That last point is what I feel you really need to address if you want PNAS to really take notice. What would you use, and what p-values would you obtain?

:::::Additionally, graduate level statistics is really quite basic by scientific standards. The gap between a Ph.D. and degree level knowledge is like the gap between a degree and junior high school. Biology as a field is hugely intertwined with complex statistics, and many biologists will have gained an understanding well beyond graduate level.

:::::I'm not "anti" this letter, I'm not a liberal agitator, I've made decent contributions in my time here, but I really feel that this letter needs somebody to just take a step back, and consider that maybe the first attempt can be improved. As I mentioned previously, I think some good, proactive steps would be to concentrate more on the missing data claim, and to bring on board somebody with an expert knowledge of statistics or biology to help refine the claims, and double check whether you're right on some of these points or not. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 09:55, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: MikeR, PNAS never publishes a letter containing a meaningful criticism of a pro-evolution article, no matter how obvious and egregious the flaws. If the Lenski evolution article had incorporated a flaw tantamount to claiming that 2+2=5, the PNAS would still not admit the error. Check out [[evolution syndrome]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:14, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Perhaps but Andy, with respect, I'm not convinced you were correct in your belief that all of those 5 points were genuine flaws. That's why I think it's worth getting a second opinion from an unbiased outsider with post-graduate expertise in statistics. You've not really given an explanation of why the Monte Carlo or Z-Transformation approaches were wrong, nor have you stated what you believe the correct p-value should have been, and until you do I'm going to continue to have doubts about your analysis, based on my own knowledge. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 12:27, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: MikeR, I obviously welcome another unbiased outside opinion. Let us know when you get one. But beware, the [[evolution syndrome]] you've seen here will make anyone think twice before they criticize any aspect of any paper that promotes evolution. Anyone seeking funding or tenure will think twice before daring to question any aspect of an evolution paper, lest they be subjected to the hysteria you've seen here. So I'm not optimistic that you will be able to find anyone willing to attach his name to this dispute. You may have to use your own mind on this one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:32, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: I've not really seen any "hysteria" here, it's just that a number of us are not entirely convinced that you're right. You could persuade us by explaining, specifically, why you believe that the Monte Carlo or Z-transformation approaches were wrong, and what p-values you believe should have been obtained. I think the PNAS letter is somewhat rude, but there's nothing much in it that I can really disagree with regarding the statistics (although they don't exactly say a lot either). I don't see a problem with combining samples of different sizes using a Z-transformation, for example, as it's a technique I use on a regular basis, and what I believe is a pretty standard statistical approach at this level. Indeed, that's why Fisher's Z-transformation technique was invented, to combine samples of different sizes. I'm genuinely interested to know what the issue is with it in this case.

::::::::As a side note, some of these statistical terms might be worth elaborating on in articles here on Conservapedia. I might make that my next project actually, if anyone wants to help. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 15:13, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::Aschlafly, would you accept that your description of PNAS is directly analagous to your own resistance to criticism of an anti-evolution stance? I ask you again - i) are you 100% certain that your analysis is correct, ii) do you believe you are the best person to make that judgement, and iii) would you consider bringing in an unbiased third-party statistician to review your methodology? What could be wrong with that if you are certain you are correct? It could only but strengthen your argument. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 13:15, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::Aschlafly - here are three links to letters published in 2008 by PNAS which do, in fact, contain meaningful criticism of pro-evolution articles.:

* [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/2/E3.full Ancient lineages in the genome: A response to Fagundes et al]
* [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/22/E27.extract Natural selection does not explain cultural rates of change]
* [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/35/E56.extract When sleep or hide makes the difference in macroevolution]

Perhaps you might care to modify your claims in the light of this....[[User:BillK|BillK]] 12:41, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

: Your first example is a ''defense'' of a theory of evolution, and thus tends to support my point. Given the failure of your first citation to support your point, I did not bother to look at your other two.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:48, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::The first article clearly is criticizing a pro-evolution article. You said '''MikeR, PNAS never publishes a letter containing a meaningful criticism of a pro-evolution article, no matter how obvious and egregious the flaws.''' Above are the links to three articles that "contain meaningful criticism of a pro-evolution article." I don't know how to be more clear. There are pro-evolution articles published in the PNAS. Three of them are criticized in the letters above. What more do you want? [[User:JohnDee|JohnDee]] 21:38, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

what if the other two were indeed the type of articles you were asking for? [[User:Fred1776|Fred1776]] 16:02, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

==Clarification on peer review and anonymity==
There has been, I think, undue outrage over the fact that the reviewer's name was not included in the response to Schlafly's letter. To clarify, this is standard procedure when reviewing manuscripts for scientific journals and does NOT in any way indicate cowardice or uncertainty. Anonymous peer review allows for reviews that are rigorous, honest, and, most importantly, objective, since if no one knows your identity, no one can threaten you, bribe you, or otherwise influence your evaluation of the material. Thus, you can carry out your professional duties without concern over how your review of Person A's paper will affect Person A's opinion of you or his/her review of your paper in the future, for example.

The anonymity of the response is standard procedure in scientific publishing and necessary to ensure objectivity of the evaluation process, and should not be construed negatively as has been done here.

== Statistics examples ==

I see lots of people are clamoring for some specific statistical data on here, and although I am no expert on statistics, I can
give a simple example that demonstrates flaw #5 in the letter to PNAS (that combining different samples is invalid). So lets say
I am testing some hypothesis, and I got a 100 samples, of which 48 are "pro" (support) and 52 are "con" (against) the hypothesis.
So this doesn't support my hypothesis at all. But just for fun lets do another, smaller, experiment, with just 10 samples. And suppose
in this smaller (statistically insignificant by itself) experiment I only used 1- samples, of which 8 were "pro" and 2 were "con."
If I combine the 2 experiments, I get a total of 56 "pro" and 54 "con", so more than 50% "pro" (in a large total sample size!),
appearing to support the hypothesis, even though that's obviously not the case! --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 14:33, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

== Data from several experiments ==

I would like to contribute to this discussion because I have taught statistics to graduate biology students for 16 years.

The combination of data from several experiments is a specialist and sometimes difficult area of statistical theory but a simple example shows why Aschafly’s concern about combining the results of three different experiments is not justified and why this aspect of his criticism of Lenski’s recent paper in PNAS is not valid.

Suppose we want to conduct a test of whether or not men are taller than women on average. For the sake of the example, I generated random heights of people from a population in which men had an average height of 175cm (5’10’) and women of 165cm (5’6”). The standard deviations of height in both sexes were 7cm. I think these numbers are approximately correct for people in the UK but the details aren’t important.

Suppose we take 5 samples of 2 men and 2 women. Here are the numbers I generated:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Man1 !! Man2 !! Woman1 !! Woman2 !! Men mean !! Women mean !! Mean difference !! t !! P
|-
| 176 || 179 || 157 || 148 || 177.5 || 152.5 || 25 || 5.27 || 0.017
|-
| 180 || 176 || 160 || 164 || 178 || 162 || 16 || 5.66 || 0.015
|-
| 176 || 175 || 167 || 165 || 175.5 || 166 || 9.5 || 8.50 || 0.0068
|-
| 169 || 171 || 168 || 173 || 170 || 170.5 || -0.5 || -0.19 || 0.57
|-
| 179 || 175 || 166 || 178 || 177 || 172 || 5 || 0.79 || 0.26
|-
|}

P in the last column is the t-test probability for a one-side test of women being shorter than men. (Formally, it’s the probability of getting a value of t greater than that calculated from the data if women are in fact taller than men on average.)

Should the fact that, in the fourth sample, the average height of the women is taller than that of the men make us doubt that men are in fact taller on average? Should we be concerned about the last sample, in which the difference in height of the two sexes is rather small, though in the expected direction? No, in both cases. When we combine the data on all 10 men and all 10 women, we get this:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Men mean !! Women mean !! Mean difference !! t !! ''P''
|-
| 175.6 || 164.6 || 11 || 3.85 || 0.00058
|-
|}

Clearly, combining the data from several similar experiments strengthens the conclusions considerably, as shown by the fact that ''P'' is much smaller for the combined data than for any individual sample.

Although the combination of data from several experiments is a specialised area of statistics, I see nothing particularly incorrect about the approach used by Lenski and his colleagues. The general point is that it is valid to combine the results of different experiments if it is scientifically meaningful to do so. (For example: A. Combining the results of five samples of the heights of men and women is clearly valid. B. Combining three samples of heights of men and women with two samples of lengths of male and female squid clearly isn’t.) Generally speaking, the outcome of a combined analysis of several small experiments which all point in the same direction (or at least in a similar direction) will be more significant than that of any one of those experiments, as is shown in the larger table above.

I hope this clarifies the extensive discussion on this point and puts Aschafly’s mind at rest on this subject. [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 08:20, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

:That's very nicely put, thanks. You should work on some of the stats pages here. Of course, technically any sample is ultimately just a combination of ''n'' samples of size 1. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 13:28, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

:I'll take a look at this Friday. It's not immediately obvious what the point is to your analysis above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:46, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
::"''The general point is that it is valid to combine the results of different experiments if it is scientifically meaningful to do so"''--[[User:KingOfNothing|KingOfNothing]] 00:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

:::This makes no sense as an argument. It may be true in this simple case that you can do one large or several small samples and get similar results - which is quite obvious and wouldn't need such a detailed rant. However, you provide no mathematical proof, just one example. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 01:08, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

::KingOfNothing is correct. The point is that, if a series of experiments all indicate (or tend to indicate) the same conclusion, the result of analysing the complete series of tests may be much stronger than that of any one test (i.e. it may have a much lower significance test probability). This is as true of Lenski's experiments as of the simple example above. Hence Aschafly's criticism of Lenski's paper in this respect is invalid.
:: Regarding Etc's point: If you paraphrase Aschafly's argument in his [[Letter to PNAS]] as the hypothesis that one weak result should cast doubt on several stronger results, even though they all tend to lead to the same conclusion, the example above disproves that hypothesis. No further mathematical analysis is necessary. (By the way, a carefully argued text is not a rant.) [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 09:59, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

:''"It's not immediately obvious what the point is to your analysis above"''. No surprise, Aschlafly, really. Maybe you should take your own advice: ''"I suggest you try harder with an open mind"''. --[[User:CrossC|CrossC]] 02:46, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

== Dear Aschlafly, ==

After reading your letter, the response from the PNAS, and the entire Lenski affair you dragged yourself into, I have some information you might want to read. Simply put, the PNAS was on the right track, see below for why

1.Figure 3 depicts an "historical contingency" hypothesis around the 31,000th generation, but the abstract states that mutations "arose by 20,000 generations." The paper fails to admit that the Third Experiment disproved the contingency hypothesis depicted in Figure 3.

Reading over the paper, I didn’t find anything about a “historical contigency” around the 31,000th generation. What I believe I am seeing is a misunderstanding, Lenski was looking for two scenerios, First he indicates that if the ability for the E. Coli to consume citrate was due to a mutation, than the rate of the mutation would remain constant, but if it was population that made the mutation more likely, there would be a point where the mutation rate would increase. The graph simply showed both options, so I believe there was a misunderstanding of the graph.

2.Both hypotheses propose fixed mutation rates, but the failure of mutations to increase with sample size disproves this. If the authors claim that it is inappropriate to compare for scale the Second and Third Experiments to each other and to the First Experiment, then it was also an error to treat them similarly statistically.

I am not sure what you are trying to point out here. As the PNAS pointed out, mutations are random. Another note is that Lenski adressed this in his paper, and highlighted it in the article, even pointing out changes in the third experiment. Just a question, what do you mean by treating “them similarly statistically.”?

3. The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events. The Third Experiment results are consistent with the null hypothesis, contrary to the paper's claim.

Erm… why was the Monte Carlo resampling incorrect? I cannot make heads nor tail of what you were thinking when you wrote this. Also, the result was inconsistant with the null hypothesis by a margin of 92 percent.

4. It was error to include generations of the E. coli already known to contain trace Cit+ variants. The highly improbable occurrence of four Cit+ variants from the 32,000th generation in the Second Experiment suggests an origin from undetected, pre-existing Cit+ variants.

First off, modern technology grants quite a decent abaility to detect the amount of bacteria in the sample, and there were NO Cit+ variants in it, nor were they mentioned in the paper. Honestly, do you believe that Lenski and his assistants were playing “toss the bacteria around”? Your assumption that there *had* to be Cit+ bacteria in the sample is incorrect, and seems to be based off your misunderstanding of the field.

5. The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance.

Again… what? There is simply nothing “wrong” or “incorrect” about combining different sized samples to test the results. There are correct techniques for testing this kind of things (“Z-transformation” method, to be specific!) and it was used to make the test.

Finially, your claim about the paper not being publically available is false, as you can easily find it by going to Lenski’s site. [https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/] has it all right there, and 3 clicks away from a Google search.

Might I ask you to clairify the questions and insight I have provided above?

Waiting for your response, [[User:AlexaJ|AlexaJ]]

: Your posting is filled with gross misspellings, "I don't get it" type of statements, and a general link that shows nothing. I suggest you try harder with an open mind. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:47, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

::... 7 slightly misspelled words doesn't give an apt enough excuse not to respond, Andy.[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 01:03, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

::Can we assume from your lack of response to these points (and others above) that you don't have the expertise to answer these questions? It's okay if you don't, you should just be humble and admit it. [[User:JohnDee|JohnDee]] 09:37, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Are you not making an assumption here, JohnDee? If you were in his position, would you have answered a letter with all these mistakes and a condescending tone?--[[User:Carolyn|Carolyn]] 09:54, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:PNAS Response to Letter

2008-09-18T15:45:40Z

KennyMac: /* Data from several experiments */ A little clarification

Talk:PNAS Response to Letter

2008-09-18T15:30:36Z

KennyMac: /* Data from several experiments */

Notice: misrepresentations are not going to be allowed on this page. Substantive comments only, please.

==Initial discussion ==

In this day and age, scientists have their own agenda and have corrupted science. Just look at global warming or cloning or stem cells as proof. With that said, the only way to get the real truth is by suing in court. Unfortunately, scientists are bound to vast wealth and have the power to defend themselves vigorously. If ever a fund was set up to pay for a suit, I would contribute. It is a classic case whereby the truth be known, the truth will prevail. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:14, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks, Jpatt. One additional beauty of the truth is that it remains the truth no how much some deny it. PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

::Well said, Andy and Jpatt. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the President of the NAS is a "climate scientist". If the Academy is dominated by [[pseudoscience]] of that kind, it's hardly a surprise that their response was to cover up and deny the truth. Nevertheless, they had to be given their chance to make good before further steps are taken. I suggest now that the issue be put to potentially supportive congressmen/women and senators, given the public funding for Lenski's activities. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:46, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::: Right. The next step is to criticize the taxpayer funding of this junk science. When the authors and the publishing organization will not even address statistical errors in the work, then it's time to pull the public funding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::They did address your claims of statistical errors: they said that you were wrong to the degree that they were able to determine what you were talking about. You made a qualitative argument and got a qualitative response.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:00, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Which of the 5 specific errors do you think they addressed? None, as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::The response addresses your qualitative claims about the paper's statistical methods raised in points two, three, and five by the following:"Nevertheless, from a statistical point of view, it is proper to combine the results of independent experiments, as Blount et al. '''did correctly in their original paper'''"(emphasis added); in fact the longest paragraph in the response deals entirely with the statistical claims of the letter and dismisses them.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::But that's never going to happen because the data availability requirements for public funding have already been met. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)10:56, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: No, I don't think the researchers have met NSF guidelines as referenced in the letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Proof?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

: As I said, the NSF guidelines are references in the [[Letter to PNAS|letter]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:29, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

You mean the notebooks and ect? [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:Oh my dear God, I can't believe this!! Where has this beautiful country gone to if even science is not reliable anymore nowadays. Hope things will change in the future. Good thing there still are people like Mr. Schlafly, <includeonly>suckadick moron</includeonly>who have the brains and power to stand up, and turn the people of America in the right direction again. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:24, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I have a question BTW. Was this letter received on a paper, or electronically? Because if it was on a paper, perhaps it would be a good idea to scan it, and post it. It would add a lot to the encyclopedic value of the article. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

: PNAS procedures required me to submit the letter electronically using its own electronic submission software. When the PNAS acknowledged that my submission complied with all its requirements, it also said that the authors of the original paper had been notified of my letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Too bad. It doesn't make much sense though, guess that tells a lot about PNAS. What they should care about is the actual text, not the medium it is in. That's not the case IMHO for encyclopedias however. If not for anything else, a scan would have been useful as a reference for the digital text. Oh well... [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:53, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Honest question, is it against the rules to disagree with Andrew Schlafly or criticize that letter? I just want to know so I don't end up in the same situation as other people who have been censored here.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 17:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
:I believe this this page is only for discussion of the response, which is quite straightforward. Criticism of the letter should have gone on it's talk page, but it's too late now. Oh well. There is no censorship on Conservapedia. Your comment is not substantive - please refactor it. Praise Jesus, [[User:Pila|Pila]] 17:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:: if you REALLY believe that Lenski has committed acedemic FRAUD then lodge a formal complaint with his University. They are taken very seriously and can lead to loss of tenure and dismissal from the university, and with that on his record no other institution would hire him on any basis. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:40, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

(deleted non-substantive comments). Again, the heading on this page will be enforced: "Substantive comments only, please." If you have a substantive comment about the identified errors and the PNAS's failure to address them, then please comment. Non-substantive comments will be removed. This is an encyclopedic-based search for the truth, not a blog or a place to refuse to contribute in a substantive manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:Since you've taken the liberty of deciding what is substantive or not in deleting posts like my last one, then I have a serious, respectful question to ask; What exactly do you mean by "substantive"? I didn't attack you or your letter; I was attempting to state that the PNAS response did, in fact, address the points of your letter. Whether one considers the PNAS response to be ''correct'' or not is a separate matter - they read your objections and responded to them instead of ignoring them, that's all.

:My last post would therefore seem to have met Webster's definition of ''substantive'' - "having or expressing substance", but apparently the measure of "substantive" for a comment on this page appears to be whether it agrees with your view or not. That's your prerogative, but if you intended to allow comments on this page other than endorsements of your view, then please let me know what I did wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:: Dinsdale, we're here to think and learn. You can look at my letter, look at the PNAS's response, and provide some ''substantive'' insights. We're not here to say something like, uh, go ask someone else if a (9th grade-level) graph is correct or not. If you think the substantive issues are beyond your depth, and I don't, then comment on them in a substantive and intellectual and specific way. This is not another waste-of-time blog, and it's not going to become one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:::DinsdaleP, you did attack ASchalfy at least indirectly. Suggesting that the PNAS response has merit might also be interpreted by some that the letter ASchafly sent wasn't the very best it could be. Now, contrast that to my deleted comment suggesting that a time-tested response would be to actually try reproducing the experiment. Many bad experiments are exposed when others fail to get the same results as the original authors. I think this would be an excellent, substantive avenue to pursue.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

ASchlafly- you said above, "PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors". As you say, in a fair discussion of the merits of two sides of an argument, it's important that both sides take a good, hard look at their own propositions. Since your position is that PNAS has errors on its own side, I'm just curious to know if you are in any way prepared to accept that there might be errors in your own argument, or are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' that your position is error-free? I'm wondering if perhaps before submitting this issue to funding authorities, you would be prepared to have an independent statistical expert take a look at your proposal? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:The only thing I was criticizing in my original comment today was the Main Page headline statement that "PNAS refuses to address the 5 errors in the Lenski study identified by the Letter to PNAS". What I pointed out is the fact that they ''did'' in fact respond, by criticizing the statistical analysis used by Aschlafly. I'm not supporting or attacking Mr. Schlafly's analysis, because I'm the first one to admit that I have no expertise in this area. My conclusion was a constructive suggestion that Mr. Schlafly present a rebuttal to the PNAS decision by showing how his analysis and conclusions were not erroneous in the manner they claimed. A public, statistical defense of Mr. Schlafly's work, perhaps accompanied by the endorsement of some regarded experts in the field, would be the best response to PNAS choosing to respond by email instead of through the journal.

:I wrote both the original draft letter to PNAS from Mr. Schlafly's notes and my earlier comments today with the intent of contributing constructively. I hope this clarification of my view is substantive enough to remain. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:24, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Folks, I've pointed out five ''very specific'' statistical (logical) errors. The torrent of nonsense above even includes an absurd demand for me to try to repeat the experiments, as thought that would somehow correct a flawed paper.

The math is wrong in the PNAS paper. No one at PNAS is even willing to put his name on a response claiming that the math is correct, because it isn't. I'm not going to allow further nonsensical postings here. If you want to address the statistical (logical) errors in a specific way, fine. If you feel it is beyond your depth to do so, then move on. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:"The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events." Specifically, why is it incorrect to apply a Monte Carlo test in this circumstance, or why was their application incorrect? Do your own calculations produce a p-value that differs from the published p-value of 0.08?

:"The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance." This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments, or believe that the Z-transform analysis was performed incorrectly. Which do you disagree with - the technique, the application, or both, and why? --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:: {removed personal and non-substantive attack that violated clear rules for this discussion; also, unsubstantiated claims of expertise are not allowed - --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 15 September 2008 (EDT))

::: I'm still a little unclear on your position ASchlafly - are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' your own statistical analysis is correct on this? Before you proceed further it's important to know that the technical analysis you are presenting is indeed indisputable. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 12:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: Ben, if you have at least a 9th grade-level education, then you can look at the 5 errors and decide for yourself, and comment in a substantive manner. Yes, they are obvious and basic errors, and the fact that the reviewer of my letter at PNAS would not attach his name to a specific denial speaks volumes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly, I'm a little confused as to why you [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&curid=73292&diff=517424&oldid=517408 removed this comment of mine]? I did not cast any aspersions on your argument, and was merely answering your question as you posed it to me? Is "declining to comment" an indictable offense? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Your comment was not an "indictable offense," but it violated the rules of this page: "Substantive comments only, please." Got it? Either say something substantive, or edit somewhere else. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:33, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: This is confusing. Is "I agree with your thesis" or "your methods are 100% correct" a substantive comment? It can be very hard to infer your intent, Mr.Schalfly, I'm sorry to say. I have no quarrel with you, but I'm becoming confused as to what is and isn't appropriate comment on what is labelled a "Talk Page". Are there special rules for this Talk Page? If so, perhaps the title on the page might be changed? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:42, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: No, your quoted phrases are obviously not substantive comments. Your statement of agreement means nothing. I doubt you are even using your real name, for starters, which renders your agreement evens sillier. I repeat for the nth time, say something substantive or edit somewhere else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: (removed another non-substantive posting)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::Aschafly, perhaps you did not realize that my earlier questions were meant for you. I wish to address the statistical errors in a specific way, which requires a better understanding of your position. I will repeat my main questions: why was it incorrect to apply Monte Carlo techniques to the data in the paper, or in what way was the Monte Carlo technique performed incorrectly? Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly? In lieu of the Monte Carlo/Z-transform techniques, what statistical calculations ''should'' have been performed? Feel free to be technical; I have more than a ninth grade education.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: If you're skipping over the main points, then concede their validity or explain why you've skipped over them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response to my previously-stated questions about points three and five: your statements about the incorrect application of Monte Carlo resampling and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation). --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:00, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Substantive postings are welcome, but I still don't have an explanation for why you skipped over the main points 1 and 2. Do you concede them?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:04, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: With all due respect Aschlafly, and excuse me if I feel the need to tiptoe as gently as possible here, but I would cautiously disagree with your statement that "Substantive postings are welcome". It seems to me that you have explicitly removed ''only'' the substantive comments from this page. What is left are weak and non-substantive comments, to be sure. It seems very difficult to comment in any way here on this matter, as you seem to be of the opinion that you and you alone are correct. WIth the best will in the world, I certainly don't feel able to speak freely here, despite being well qualified to do so. Perhaps a slightly more lenient approach might help your own cause? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:23, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: Since I am new here I am a bit timid about chiming in on this discussion, but I feel compelled to say that (as I pointed out in the section below), I think this page should be reserved for appropriate responses to the PNAS letter - not for opinions regarding how Aschlafly is running this website. If you think you have valid points to bring out about that - maybe post them to his talk page? --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 22:31, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) No, I do not concede points one and two; I've commented on them on the [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]] page. I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to. Similarly, your point four is not something that can be resolved by argument. The only way to prove that the results were due to contamination would be to repeat the experiment with different controls in place and demonstrate different results - which might spur some other labs to run a third or fourth trial to see who was right. It seemed to me that the only points that could be solved by discussion were three and five, since they made statements about the statistical methods that can potentially be resolved through debate. So, once again, what is your response to my questions regarding points three and five?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:34, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

: Brossa, I could not find a meaningful rebuttal by you of point 1, and I found no comments by you on point 2, at [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]]. Are you trying the classic trick of "the answer is over there," when it isn't? Point 2 alone completely disproves the PNAS paper's thesis, and yet you avoid it and skip towards less obvious errors. I'm happy to address the subtle errors once you address the obvious ones.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, you are avoiding Brossa's question. Why can't you just answer it? Brossa said that he wanted to limit the discussion to these points. The reason that he wants to do that is because it the PNAS response targets your approach to the statistical analysis. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 16:24, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:I don't mind addressing points one and two; I just don't think that we'll come to an agreement about them. Point one represents a misunderstanding of the figure 3, which is labeled "Alternative hypotheses for the origin of the Cit+ function..." The figure does not represent the results of the experiments and does not conflict with them. It is a cartoon of the a priori hypothesis that was generated before the experiments were performed; it is not itself the hypothesis (the map is not the country). Note that the vertical axis lacks a scale; there is no way of knowing what the actual mutation rates are ahead of time. The location of the vertical jump on the graph is abitrary; it has to lie somewhere between 0 and 31,500 generations, but that point could be anywhere. Quoting from the paper: "The historical contingency hypothesis predicts that the mutation rate to Cit+ should increase after some potentiating genetic background has evolved. Thus, Cit+ variants should re-evolve more often in the replays using clones sampled from later generations of the Ara-3 population." The hypothesis as stated does not specify a generation at which the potentiating mutation occured. The hypothesis is not that potentiation took place at generation 31,000 rather than some other generation; it is that there ''was'' a potentiating mutation ''rather than'' a rare-mutation event. The results of the experiment do not disprove the contingency hypothesis; they confirm it and suggest that the potentiating mutation took place at generation 20,000. You think that the figure is the hypothesis; I think that the hypothesis is what is stated explicitly in the text of the paper; I doubt that we'll agree.

:Point two states: "Both hypotheses propose fixed mutation rates, but the failure of mutations to increase with sample size disproves this." I disagree with this statement. The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were similar, but not the same. One could imagine a hypothesis that men commit murder most often between the ages of 25 and 35, with samples taken from the male populations of L.A., Singapore, and London. One would find different murder rates among the men of those three cities, but still might find (or not) that murderers in those cities tend to be between 25 and 35 years old. The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were not the same, just as Singapore is not the same as Los Angeles. The rare-mutation hypothesis does not mean that the mutation rate to Cit+ is the same for ''all experimental conditions anywhere''; just that the mutation rate is constant ''given the conditions of a particular replay''. It is possible to have different baseline mutation rates among the three replays, all of which follow the historical contingency pattern. Or the mutation rate could actually be the same across all three replays, and the results seen here are just a statistical fluke that would vanish if the replays could be run thousands of times. Either way, it's not fatal to the paper's conculsions.

:Point two also states "If the authors claim that it is inappropriate to compare for scale the Second and Third Experiments to each other and to the First Experiment, then it was also an error to treat them similarly statistically." This is also incorrect in my view. One can state that the murder rate is different between two cities, and yet the murderers have some characteristic in common. Combining results from different samples is the bread and butter of statistical analysis. Meta-analysis, for example, is used to combine the results of studies that are much different than replay experiments one, two, and three. If you wish to make a more specific argument about the '''techniques''' used to combine the three replay experiments into a single result, I'll address it. I think that the second part of point two is essentially the same as point five in that it criticizes the statistical method used to combine the results of the three replays (the Z-transform), as opposed to point three which mentions the Monte Carlo technique separately.

:I therefore repeat my questions about points three and five, as stated previously. If you have other questions that I must answer first, please list them all at once, as I'm eager to move on to that discussion.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:53, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:: It's foolish to debate someone who has already closed his mind. Point 1 is plainly correct: the PNAS article should admit and disclose that the false hypothesis was indeed proven to be false. If you stand behind the falsehood, then you'll refuse to admit other errors also.

:: Your refusal to concede point 2 is even more egregious. Lenski combined his experiments, and you can't claim that combination was simultaneously correct and incorrect. Moreover, the lack of scale also exists between Experiment 2 and 3, again disproving the underlying thesis of the paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:31, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I already said that I didn't think that we would reach common ground on points one, two, and four, and that it would be a waste of time to rehash them. You asked me to, so I did. It seems foolish to then treat those points as a shibboleth and refuse to discuss the other points, which I am fully prepared to concede provided you elaborate on why the Monte Carlo technique and the Z-transform were either the wrong tests or performed incorrectly. I am capable of accepting two items from a list of five even if I reject the other three. Even if I were completely incapable of agreeing with you, I still don't see why you won't put your best mathematical argument forward about the paper's statistics. Were there too few Monte Carlo resamplings? Do you feel that the Z-transformation was performed incorrectly? Is the Z-transform itself suspect? Do you propose some other statistical analysis? If you do, there are any number of us here who can crunch the numbers again. What a coup it would be for you if we could use a technique that you suggested to obtain results that smashed Lenski's smug complacency!

:::I don't claim that the combination was simultaneously correct and incorrect, by the way - I claim that it was correct. Where do I imply otherwise? Also, it's not only improper to compare replay one with replays two and three ''for scale'': it's impossible. Replay one involved constantly changing numbers of cells whereas replays two and three started with fixed numbers. How do you count the number of cells in the first replay to compare it to the other two? Is it the number of cells transferred each time? Is it the maximum population achieved in each flask prior to transfer? 750 generations passed in one case and 3700 generations in another before the Cit+ trait was seen - how do you factor that into the 'scale' equation? It is only the superficial resemblance of replays two and three that brings up the concept of 'scale'. The "underlying thesis" of the paper is not that there is a unique rate of mutation to Cit+ that applies across ''any and all'' experimental conditions.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 19:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: Brossa, you don't address how Lenski ''did'' combine the three experiments, and how Experiment 3 does not scale with Experiment 2. Given that you don't address the main errors, it's foolish to waste time discussing more subtle points with you. Put another way, there are plenty of open-minded contributors on this site. Why would one waste time discussing with a close-minded person instead?

:::: Your account will be blocked for your [[90/10 rule]] violation unless you improve soon. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::ASchlafly:"Brossa, you don't address how Lenski ''did'' combine the three experiments"
::::::Me, earlier on this page:"This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments." "Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly?" "...and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation)." "If you wish to make a more specific argument about the techniques used to combine the three replay experiments into a single result, I'll address it. I think that the second part of point two is essentially the same as point five in that it criticizes the statistical method used to combine the results of the three replays (the Z-transform)..."
::::::Blount and Lenski used Monte Carlo to derive a p-value for each of the three replay experiments; then used the Z-transformation to derive a final p-value from the three Monte Carlo p-values. I've mentioned the Z-transformation multiple times in connection to combining the results of the three experiments.

:::::ASchlafly: "Brossa, you don't address...how Experiment Three does not scale with Experiment 2."
::::::Me, earlier on this page: "The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were similar, but not the same." "It is possible to have different baseline mutation rates among the three replays, all of which follow the historical contingency pattern. Or the mutation rate could actually be the same across all three replays, and the results seen here are just a statistical fluke that would vanish if the replays could be run thousands of times. Either way, it's not fatal to the paper's conculsions." "It is only the superficial resemblance of replays two and three that brings up the concept of 'scale'. The "underlying thesis" of the paper is not that there is a unique rate of mutation to Cit+ that applies across any and all experimental conditions"

:::::ASchlafly: "Your account will be blocked for your [[90/10 rule]] violation unless you improve soon."
::::::Me, earlier on this page:"If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response..." "I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to." "I already said that I didn't think that we would reach common ground on points one, two, and four, and that it would be a waste of time to rehash them. You asked me to, so I did."
::::::I came into this discussion wanting to discuss specific issues: the basis of your objections to the Monte Carlo technique and the Z-transformation used to combine the results of the three replays into one final p-value. This could have been resolved quite quickly, but you said that I had to address all the points of your letter before you would answer my questions. I said repeatedly that I did not wish to do so without your explicit permission, which it seemed that you gave. So I jumped through those hoops, only to be accused of a 90/10 violation. Have I simply walked into an cunning trap?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 21:20, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

== Please provide your statistical analysis ==

Andrew, If you are so sure that your statistical analysis of the Lenski paper is correct, you should publish it on Conservapedia. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

: I did. Which point don't you understand?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 08:50, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

I think regardless of what the details behind the statistical analysis are, the shame here is that PNAS refused to address anything specific in their response. They simply glossed over everything that was said in the letter sent to them and gave a generic, unsubstantive response. All the people here that are trying to argue with ASchlafly about his position should instead focus on why is it that PNAS refuses to directly address our concerns. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 21:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:: It is not the function of the editorial board to "defend" a paper. They mainly said that, from what Mr. Schlafly has written they could not see the mistake in Dr. Lenskis statisics suggested by Mr. Schlafly. It is neither the function of a reviewer to "put his name" on something. A reviewer should check if the average reader of a journal will be able to learn something from a letter. If he thinks there is nothing to learn, either because the letter fails to bring new insight, or because the readers may not understand how using only conservative methods in statistics and nothing which is mathematically considered to be fragile by people who have average mathematical knowledge, is favourable, then they should reject the letter. Although I had the impression from the wording of the response that the reviewer did have at least a brief look at the original article. And PNAS refuses the Letter for the very same reason people her are asking, namely the complete absence of alternative estimations for the numbers. I dont want to check the calculations, if Mr. Schlafly states that by using a well defined method, he finds another result and states this result clearly, i am a priori very willing to believe that, because i see no reason not to believe his word on that (Since he has, to my best knowledge, no record of scientific fraud). After he states his result, i may find the time trying to reproduce it (although i am very busy). --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 13:00, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 15:41, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

==Improper==
I have no knowledge on this branch of science, so I won't comment on whether the results were correct, or if PNAS's letter was unbiased. Then again neither does Schlafly, who, of what info about him is known to the public is not a biologist. I find it somewhat ''inappropriate'' for someone with no training on a specifict field to come and tell someone that has actually learned something about that field, and say he hasn't done his job right. It's common sense. [[User:Fred1776|Fred1776]] 14:30, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:That's an extraordinary and offensive remark from someone who admits complete ignorance. How come you - Fred1776 - have an exact knowledge of how expert Andrew Schlafly's knowledge of the issue is? He may not be a mathematician, but he is an experienecd educator, amongst other things, with a legal training that enables his mind to get to the crux of a problem, as has been demonstrated very many times in this project. Biologists are properly open to the scrutiny of others. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:34, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::I simply can't turn down the opportunity of agreeing with Bugler! Biologists, as with all experts, should be open to scrutiny from everyone. It's good to use people's expertise, but not at the expense of raising their pronouncements to the status of dogma. True, the lay person may not be able to formulate much criticism but sometimes, and especially when they stray outside the purely technical, all experts make mistakes that are evident to others. We should respect expertise, but stopping all questioning is giving respect beyond what is due. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 15:45, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::(EC)Well, the PNAS seems to think his understanding of statistical analysis is less than "elementary". The question is, given that virtually none of us are experts in statistics, why wouldn't we believe the PNAS? I mean, they are the trained scientists, right? If they told me my mis-understanding of statistical analysis was too fundamental to warrant a response in their journal, I'd show some humility and accept that as valid criticism. But hey, that's just me. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 15:48, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Kim, if you're naive enough to believe everything that the [[Liberal]] establishment tells you, well, hey, don't let us stop you. But don't think that you will be allowed to infect this site with your credulity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:54, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Well if I'm credulous because I'd accept the opinion of an expert in very difficult and technical field I have no formal training in, then so be it. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 15:57, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::Bugler, is it possible for you to talk without threatening someone? Try some civility. --[[User:IanG|IanG]] 16:08, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::(At the risk of a block) Not "believe everything on the basis that they are experts", but neither "disbelieve everything on the basis that they are assumed to be Liberal". If one is to make use of expertise then you need to accept ''something'' told you on the basis of expertise: you will have to revise at least one belief because of what the expert says. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:09, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

KimEide, the experts on Christianity are overwhelmingly in agreement: Jesus rose from the dead. Yet I expect that you don't accept that expert view. Meanwhile, you seem to accept the "expert" view of Lenski about statistics despite his having, as far as I can tell, no expertise in that subject.

Those who don't want to think for themselves can return to Wikipedia and other playpens. Those who have substantive insights about the logical and statistical issues here, please do comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:16, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:I happen to know for a fact that Lenski is thoroughly trained in the statistical analysis of experiments like the one in question. In fact, he's published extensively in that area. And I'm afraid the historicity of the Resurrection is a minority view among New Testament scholars. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 16:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::What might wash with [[Liberal]] [[agnostic]] [[theology]] [[professor values|professors]] won't wash with true [[Christians]]. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:27, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::I agree completely. That doesn't change the empirical fact that it's a minority view among scholars. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 16:28, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::::I disagree. I have found that when people use the word "scholars" that it is very specific to their side. So what is your definition of a scholar? In my life I have had the privilege of attending a number of different churches, three of which were run by men with PHDs. All three of them believed in the bodily resurrection of Christ. Taken across America, that number would be much higher. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::If those men had PhDs in New Testament studies (or something related) from a serious University, I would certainly count them as scholars. But they would be in the minority in the field of New Testament studies. That's just an empirical fact I happen to know from being employed by a Liberal Arts University. In general though, I think of a scholar as someone who has 1)Studied the literature extensively 2)Defended his knowledge before a panel of other people who have studied the literature extensively (i.e. been awarded an advanced degree) 3)Published in peer-reviewed journals 4)And is or was actively engaged in the professional field, either through writing, teaching (or preaching), researching, giving papers at conferences, etc. That's just off the top of my head though. Most scholars will have all four of those. Some will only have three. Maybe occasionally one might just have two. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 17:49, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::This is a ridiculous arguement. The resurrection of Jesus is a matter of faith and can not be verified except by referring to the Bible. Statistical analysis is a branch of mathematics. The truths of mathematics are not subject to debate and are not matters of faith. Appealing to authorities in mathematics is completely different than appealing to a religious authority. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:52, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
(undent)We're not arguing whether the opinion of a majority of biblical scholars is a reliable indicator of whether Jesus rose from the dead or not. We're just arguing what that majority opinion is. It may seem irrelevant, but it is a crucially important to the issue at hand...ummm...somehow. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 18:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

: Christian theologians hold the equivalent of PhDs, and yet you reject the conclusion of those "experts". I have found nothing in Lenski's published background to indicate any expertise by him in statistics. Yet you accept Lenski's view on statistics without even thinking through the issues on your own, while rejecting the consensus of Christian experts. Why? The answer is obvious: bias and lack of open-mindedness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:25, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:: Biological studies routinely require at least some application of statistical theory, especially when studying populations of organisms or molecules which molecular (and evolutionary) biology usually involves. Biostatistics (the statistical theories commonly used in biomedicine) is often a required course for PhD students for this reason. Established researchers in the life sciences do not need to have a degree in statistics to indicate expertise - Lenski's publication record itself indicates that he has successfully applied statistical theory in his analyses many times. At any rate, if someone can simply claim without proof that he has taken (and understood) statistics courses on the level needed to evaluate Lenski's paper, then he has no basis on which to accuse others of lacking expertise.

::: Malarkey. I've taken and excelled in upperclass statistics courses, and there were not biology students, college or graduate, in them. If Lenski has expertise in statistics then let's see it. His own "biographical sketch" doesn't even disclose what his undergraduate major was at Oberlin or what his PhD concentration at the University of North Carolina were
in.[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/BioSketch.html]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:26, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Andy, the bottom line is the PNAS publishes letters online criticizing their publication all the time. Every single issue. It's the whole function of "Letters to the PNAS". It's the only reason the letters section of the PNAS exists. They would have published your letter if it had shown the requisite understanding of the issues at hand. How do we know this? Because they do it all the time. Why didn't they publish yours? Because your understanding of how to statistically analyze experiments involving bacteria populations isn't up to snuff. How could it be? A man who was truly interested in learning would show humility, accept criticism, and dive into the relevant literature about Monte Carlo, z-transformations, etc. A man who was only interested in protecting his ego would carry on the lie that Lenski and the PNAS don't know what they are talking about. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 09:27, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: PNAS won't publish any letter critical of evolution in any way, even when the letter points out 5 obvious statistical flaws.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:58, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::I still, having read your previous comments on the original letter, don't feel that you've explained either a) why the use of Monte Carlo was wrong, b) why the use of Z-transformation was wrong, nor c) critically, what alternative analysis you would have used, and what p-values you would have obtained with it. That last point is what I feel you really need to address if you want PNAS to really take notice. What would you use, and what p-values would you obtain?

:::::Additionally, graduate level statistics is really quite basic by scientific standards. The gap between a Ph.D. and degree level knowledge is like the gap between a degree and junior high school. Biology as a field is hugely intertwined with complex statistics, and many biologists will have gained an understanding well beyond graduate level.

:::::I'm not "anti" this letter, I'm not a liberal agitator, I've made decent contributions in my time here, but I really feel that this letter needs somebody to just take a step back, and consider that maybe the first attempt can be improved. As I mentioned previously, I think some good, proactive steps would be to concentrate more on the missing data claim, and to bring on board somebody with an expert knowledge of statistics or biology to help refine the claims, and double check whether you're right on some of these points or not. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 09:55, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: MikeR, PNAS never publishes a letter containing a meaningful criticism of a pro-evolution article, no matter how obvious and egregious the flaws. If the Lenski evolution article had incorporated a flaw tantamount to claiming that 2+2=5, the PNAS would still not admit the error. Check out [[evolution syndrome]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:14, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Perhaps but Andy, with respect, I'm not convinced you were correct in your belief that all of those 5 points were genuine flaws. That's why I think it's worth getting a second opinion from an unbiased outsider with post-graduate expertise in statistics. You've not really given an explanation of why the Monte Carlo or Z-Transformation approaches were wrong, nor have you stated what you believe the correct p-value should have been, and until you do I'm going to continue to have doubts about your analysis, based on my own knowledge. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 12:27, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: MikeR, I obviously welcome another unbiased outside opinion. Let us know when you get one. But beware, the [[evolution syndrome]] you've seen here will make anyone think twice before they criticize any aspect of any paper that promotes evolution. Anyone seeking funding or tenure will think twice before daring to question any aspect of an evolution paper, lest they be subjected to the hysteria you've seen here. So I'm not optimistic that you will be able to find anyone willing to attach his name to this dispute. You may have to use your own mind on this one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:32, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: I've not really seen any "hysteria" here, it's just that a number of us are not entirely convinced that you're right. You could persuade us by explaining, specifically, why you believe that the Monte Carlo or Z-transformation approaches were wrong, and what p-values you believe should have been obtained. I think the PNAS letter is somewhat rude, but there's nothing much in it that I can really disagree with regarding the statistics (although they don't exactly say a lot either). I don't see a problem with combining samples of different sizes using a Z-transformation, for example, as it's a technique I use on a regular basis, and what I believe is a pretty standard statistical approach at this level. Indeed, that's why Fisher's Z-transformation technique was invented, to combine samples of different sizes. I'm genuinely interested to know what the issue is with it in this case.

::::::::As a side note, some of these statistical terms might be worth elaborating on in articles here on Conservapedia. I might make that my next project actually, if anyone wants to help. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 15:13, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::Aschlafly, would you accept that your description of PNAS is directly analagous to your own resistance to criticism of an anti-evolution stance? I ask you again - i) are you 100% certain that your analysis is correct, ii) do you believe you are the best person to make that judgement, and iii) would you consider bringing in an unbiased third-party statistician to review your methodology? What could be wrong with that if you are certain you are correct? It could only but strengthen your argument. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 13:15, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::Aschlafly - here are three links to letters published in 2008 by PNAS which do, in fact, contain meaningful criticism of pro-evolution articles.:

* [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/2/E3.full Ancient lineages in the genome: A response to Fagundes et al]
* [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/22/E27.extract Natural selection does not explain cultural rates of change]
* [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/35/E56.extract When sleep or hide makes the difference in macroevolution]

Perhaps you might care to modify your claims in the light of this....[[User:BillK|BillK]] 12:41, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

: Your first example is a ''defense'' of a theory of evolution, and thus tends to support my point. Given the failure of your first citation to support your point, I did not bother to look at your other two.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:48, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::The first article clearly is criticizing a pro-evolution article. You said '''MikeR, PNAS never publishes a letter containing a meaningful criticism of a pro-evolution article, no matter how obvious and egregious the flaws.''' Above are the links to three articles that "contain meaningful criticism of a pro-evolution article." I don't know how to be more clear. There are pro-evolution articles published in the PNAS. Three of them are criticized in the letters above. What more do you want? [[User:JohnDee|JohnDee]] 21:38, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

what if the other two were indeed the type of articles you were asking for? [[User:Fred1776|Fred1776]] 16:02, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

==Clarification on peer review and anonymity==
There has been, I think, undue outrage over the fact that the reviewer's name was not included in the response to Schlafly's letter. To clarify, this is standard procedure when reviewing manuscripts for scientific journals and does NOT in any way indicate cowardice or uncertainty. Anonymous peer review allows for reviews that are rigorous, honest, and, most importantly, objective, since if no one knows your identity, no one can threaten you, bribe you, or otherwise influence your evaluation of the material. Thus, you can carry out your professional duties without concern over how your review of Person A's paper will affect Person A's opinion of you or his/her review of your paper in the future, for example.

The anonymity of the response is standard procedure in scientific publishing and necessary to ensure objectivity of the evaluation process, and should not be construed negatively as has been done here.

== Statistics examples ==

I see lots of people are clamoring for some specific statistical data on here, and although I am no expert on statistics, I can
give a simple example that demonstrates flaw #5 in the letter to PNAS (that combining different samples is invalid). So lets say
I am testing some hypothesis, and I got a 100 samples, of which 48 are "pro" (support) and 52 are "con" (against) the hypothesis.
So this doesn't support my hypothesis at all. But just for fun lets do another, smaller, experiment, with just 10 samples. And suppose
in this smaller (statistically insignificant by itself) experiment I only used 1- samples, of which 8 were "pro" and 2 were "con."
If I combine the 2 experiments, I get a total of 56 "pro" and 54 "con", so more than 50% "pro" (in a large total sample size!),
appearing to support the hypothesis, even though that's obviously not the case! --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 14:33, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

== Data from several experiments ==

I would like to contribute to this discussion because I have taught statistics to graduate biology students for 16 years.

The combination of data from several experiments is a specialist and sometimes difficult area of statistical theory but a simple example shows why Aschafly’s concern about combining the results of three different experiments is not justified and why this aspect of his criticism of Lenski’s recent paper in PNAS is not valid.

Suppose we want to conduct a test of whether or not men are taller than women on average. For the sake of the example, I generated random heights of people from a population in which men had an average height of 175cm (5’10’) and women of 165cm (5’6”). The standard deviations of height in both sexes were 7cm. I think these numbers are approximately correct for people in the UK but the details aren’t important.

Suppose we take 5 samples of 2 men and 2 women. Here are the numbers I generated:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Man1 !! Man2 !! Woman1 !! Woman2 !! Men mean !! Women mean !! Mean difference !! t !! P
|-
| 176 || 179 || 157 || 148 || 177.5 || 152.5 || 25 || 5.27 || 0.017
|-
| 180 || 176 || 160 || 164 || 178 || 162 || 16 || 5.66 || 0.015
|-
| 176 || 175 || 167 || 165 || 175.5 || 166 || 9.5 || 8.50 || 0.0068
|-
| 169 || 171 || 168 || 173 || 170 || 170.5 || -0.5 || -0.19 || 0.57
|-
| 179 || 175 || 166 || 178 || 177 || 172 || 5 || 0.79 || 0.26
|-
|}

P in the last column is the t-test probability for a one-side test of women being shorter than men. (Formally, it’s the probability of getting a value of t greater than that calculated from the data if women are in fact taller than men on average.)

Should the fact that, in the fourth sample, the average height of the women is taller than the men make us doubt that men are in fact taller on average? Should we be concerned about the last sample, in which the difference in height of the two sexes is rather small, though in the expected direction? No, in both cases. When we combine the data on all 10 men and all 10 women, we get this:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Men mean !! Women mean !! Mean difference !! t !! ''P''
|-
| 175.6 || 164.6 || 11 || 3.85 || 0.00058
|-
|}

Clearly, combining the data from several similar experiments strengthens the conclusions considerably, as shown by the fact that ''P'' is much smaller for the combined data than for any individual sample.

The combination of data from several experiments is a specialised and sometimes difficult area of statistical theory but I see nothing particularly incorrect about the approach used by Lenski and his colleagues. The general point is that it is valid to combine the results of different experiments if it is scientifically meaningful to do so. (For example: A. Combining the results of five samples of the heights of men and women is clearly valid. B. Combining three samples of heights of men and women with two samples of lengths of male and female squid clearly isn’t.)

I hope this clarifies the extensive discussion on this point and puts Aschafly’s mind at rest on this subject. [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 08:20, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:PNAS Response to Letter

2008-09-18T12:45:26Z

KennyMac: Content box to top of page

Notice: misrepresentations are not going to be allowed on this page. Substantive comments only, please.

==Initial discussion ==

In this day and age, scientists have their own agenda and have corrupted science. Just look at global warming or cloning or stem cells as proof. With that said, the only way to get the real truth is by suing in court. Unfortunately, scientists are bound to vast wealth and have the power to defend themselves vigorously. If ever a fund was set up to pay for a suit, I would contribute. It is a classic case whereby the truth be known, the truth will prevail. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:14, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks, Jpatt. One additional beauty of the truth is that it remains the truth no how much some deny it. PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

::Well said, Andy and Jpatt. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the President of the NAS is a "climate scientist". If the Academy is dominated by [[pseudoscience]] of that kind, it's hardly a surprise that their response was to cover up and deny the truth. Nevertheless, they had to be given their chance to make good before further steps are taken. I suggest now that the issue be put to potentially supportive congressmen/women and senators, given the public funding for Lenski's activities. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:46, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::: Right. The next step is to criticize the taxpayer funding of this junk science. When the authors and the publishing organization will not even address statistical errors in the work, then it's time to pull the public funding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::They did address your claims of statistical errors: they said that you were wrong to the degree that they were able to determine what you were talking about. You made a qualitative argument and got a qualitative response.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:00, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Which of the 5 specific errors do you think they addressed? None, as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::The response addresses your qualitative claims about the paper's statistical methods raised in points two, three, and five by the following:"Nevertheless, from a statistical point of view, it is proper to combine the results of independent experiments, as Blount et al. '''did correctly in their original paper'''"(emphasis added); in fact the longest paragraph in the response deals entirely with the statistical claims of the letter and dismisses them.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::But that's never going to happen because the data availability requirements for public funding have already been met. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)10:56, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: No, I don't think the researchers have met NSF guidelines as referenced in the letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Proof?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

: As I said, the NSF guidelines are references in the [[Letter to PNAS|letter]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:29, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

You mean the notebooks and ect? [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:Oh my dear God, I can't believe this!! Where has this beautiful country gone to if even science is not reliable anymore nowadays. Hope things will change in the future. Good thing there still are people like Mr. Schlafly, <includeonly>suckadick moron</includeonly>who have the brains and power to stand up, and turn the people of America in the right direction again. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:24, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I have a question BTW. Was this letter received on a paper, or electronically? Because if it was on a paper, perhaps it would be a good idea to scan it, and post it. It would add a lot to the encyclopedic value of the article. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

: PNAS procedures required me to submit the letter electronically using its own electronic submission software. When the PNAS acknowledged that my submission complied with all its requirements, it also said that the authors of the original paper had been notified of my letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Too bad. It doesn't make much sense though, guess that tells a lot about PNAS. What they should care about is the actual text, not the medium it is in. That's not the case IMHO for encyclopedias however. If not for anything else, a scan would have been useful as a reference for the digital text. Oh well... [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:53, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Honest question, is it against the rules to disagree with Andrew Schlafly or criticize that letter? I just want to know so I don't end up in the same situation as other people who have been censored here.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 17:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
:I believe this this page is only for discussion of the response, which is quite straightforward. Criticism of the letter should have gone on it's talk page, but it's too late now. Oh well. There is no censorship on Conservapedia. Your comment is not substantive - please refactor it. Praise Jesus, [[User:Pila|Pila]] 17:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:: if you REALLY believe that Lenski has committed acedemic FRAUD then lodge a formal complaint with his University. They are taken very seriously and can lead to loss of tenure and dismissal from the university, and with that on his record no other institution would hire him on any basis. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:40, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

(deleted non-substantive comments). Again, the heading on this page will be enforced: "Substantive comments only, please." If you have a substantive comment about the identified errors and the PNAS's failure to address them, then please comment. Non-substantive comments will be removed. This is an encyclopedic-based search for the truth, not a blog or a place to refuse to contribute in a substantive manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:Since you've taken the liberty of deciding what is substantive or not in deleting posts like my last one, then I have a serious, respectful question to ask; What exactly do you mean by "substantive"? I didn't attack you or your letter; I was attempting to state that the PNAS response did, in fact, address the points of your letter. Whether one considers the PNAS response to be ''correct'' or not is a separate matter - they read your objections and responded to them instead of ignoring them, that's all.

:My last post would therefore seem to have met Webster's definition of ''substantive'' - "having or expressing substance", but apparently the measure of "substantive" for a comment on this page appears to be whether it agrees with your view or not. That's your prerogative, but if you intended to allow comments on this page other than endorsements of your view, then please let me know what I did wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:: Dinsdale, we're here to think and learn. You can look at my letter, look at the PNAS's response, and provide some ''substantive'' insights. We're not here to say something like, uh, go ask someone else if a (9th grade-level) graph is correct or not. If you think the substantive issues are beyond your depth, and I don't, then comment on them in a substantive and intellectual and specific way. This is not another waste-of-time blog, and it's not going to become one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:::DinsdaleP, you did attack ASchalfy at least indirectly. Suggesting that the PNAS response has merit might also be interpreted by some that the letter ASchafly sent wasn't the very best it could be. Now, contrast that to my deleted comment suggesting that a time-tested response would be to actually try reproducing the experiment. Many bad experiments are exposed when others fail to get the same results as the original authors. I think this would be an excellent, substantive avenue to pursue.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

ASchlafly- you said above, "PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors". As you say, in a fair discussion of the merits of two sides of an argument, it's important that both sides take a good, hard look at their own propositions. Since your position is that PNAS has errors on its own side, I'm just curious to know if you are in any way prepared to accept that there might be errors in your own argument, or are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' that your position is error-free? I'm wondering if perhaps before submitting this issue to funding authorities, you would be prepared to have an independent statistical expert take a look at your proposal? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:The only thing I was criticizing in my original comment today was the Main Page headline statement that "PNAS refuses to address the 5 errors in the Lenski study identified by the Letter to PNAS". What I pointed out is the fact that they ''did'' in fact respond, by criticizing the statistical analysis used by Aschlafly. I'm not supporting or attacking Mr. Schlafly's analysis, because I'm the first one to admit that I have no expertise in this area. My conclusion was a constructive suggestion that Mr. Schlafly present a rebuttal to the PNAS decision by showing how his analysis and conclusions were not erroneous in the manner they claimed. A public, statistical defense of Mr. Schlafly's work, perhaps accompanied by the endorsement of some regarded experts in the field, would be the best response to PNAS choosing to respond by email instead of through the journal.

:I wrote both the original draft letter to PNAS from Mr. Schlafly's notes and my earlier comments today with the intent of contributing constructively. I hope this clarification of my view is substantive enough to remain. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:24, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Folks, I've pointed out five ''very specific'' statistical (logical) errors. The torrent of nonsense above even includes an absurd demand for me to try to repeat the experiments, as thought that would somehow correct a flawed paper.

The math is wrong in the PNAS paper. No one at PNAS is even willing to put his name on a response claiming that the math is correct, because it isn't. I'm not going to allow further nonsensical postings here. If you want to address the statistical (logical) errors in a specific way, fine. If you feel it is beyond your depth to do so, then move on. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:"The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events." Specifically, why is it incorrect to apply a Monte Carlo test in this circumstance, or why was their application incorrect? Do your own calculations produce a p-value that differs from the published p-value of 0.08?

:"The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance." This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments, or believe that the Z-transform analysis was performed incorrectly. Which do you disagree with - the technique, the application, or both, and why? --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:: {removed personal and non-substantive attack that violated clear rules for this discussion; also, unsubstantiated claims of expertise are not allowed - --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 15 September 2008 (EDT))

::: I'm still a little unclear on your position ASchlafly - are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' your own statistical analysis is correct on this? Before you proceed further it's important to know that the technical analysis you are presenting is indeed indisputable. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 12:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: Ben, if you have at least a 9th grade-level education, then you can look at the 5 errors and decide for yourself, and comment in a substantive manner. Yes, they are obvious and basic errors, and the fact that the reviewer of my letter at PNAS would not attach his name to a specific denial speaks volumes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly, I'm a little confused as to why you [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&curid=73292&diff=517424&oldid=517408 removed this comment of mine]? I did not cast any aspersions on your argument, and was merely answering your question as you posed it to me? Is "declining to comment" an indictable offense? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Your comment was not an "indictable offense," but it violated the rules of this page: "Substantive comments only, please." Got it? Either say something substantive, or edit somewhere else. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:33, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: This is confusing. Is "I agree with your thesis" or "your methods are 100% correct" a substantive comment? It can be very hard to infer your intent, Mr.Schalfly, I'm sorry to say. I have no quarrel with you, but I'm becoming confused as to what is and isn't appropriate comment on what is labelled a "Talk Page". Are there special rules for this Talk Page? If so, perhaps the title on the page might be changed? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:42, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: No, your quoted phrases are obviously not substantive comments. Your statement of agreement means nothing. I doubt you are even using your real name, for starters, which renders your agreement evens sillier. I repeat for the nth time, say something substantive or edit somewhere else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: (removed another non-substantive posting)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::Aschafly, perhaps you did not realize that my earlier questions were meant for you. I wish to address the statistical errors in a specific way, which requires a better understanding of your position. I will repeat my main questions: why was it incorrect to apply Monte Carlo techniques to the data in the paper, or in what way was the Monte Carlo technique performed incorrectly? Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly? In lieu of the Monte Carlo/Z-transform techniques, what statistical calculations ''should'' have been performed? Feel free to be technical; I have more than a ninth grade education.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: If you're skipping over the main points, then concede their validity or explain why you've skipped over them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response to my previously-stated questions about points three and five: your statements about the incorrect application of Monte Carlo resampling and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation). --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:00, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Substantive postings are welcome, but I still don't have an explanation for why you skipped over the main points 1 and 2. Do you concede them?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:04, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: With all due respect Aschlafly, and excuse me if I feel the need to tiptoe as gently as possible here, but I would cautiously disagree with your statement that "Substantive postings are welcome". It seems to me that you have explicitly removed ''only'' the substantive comments from this page. What is left are weak and non-substantive comments, to be sure. It seems very difficult to comment in any way here on this matter, as you seem to be of the opinion that you and you alone are correct. WIth the best will in the world, I certainly don't feel able to speak freely here, despite being well qualified to do so. Perhaps a slightly more lenient approach might help your own cause? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:23, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: Since I am new here I am a bit timid about chiming in on this discussion, but I feel compelled to say that (as I pointed out in the section below), I think this page should be reserved for appropriate responses to the PNAS letter - not for opinions regarding how Aschlafly is running this website. If you think you have valid points to bring out about that - maybe post them to his talk page? --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 22:31, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) No, I do not concede points one and two; I've commented on them on the [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]] page. I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to. Similarly, your point four is not something that can be resolved by argument. The only way to prove that the results were due to contamination would be to repeat the experiment with different controls in place and demonstrate different results - which might spur some other labs to run a third or fourth trial to see who was right. It seemed to me that the only points that could be solved by discussion were three and five, since they made statements about the statistical methods that can potentially be resolved through debate. So, once again, what is your response to my questions regarding points three and five?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:34, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

: Brossa, I could not find a meaningful rebuttal by you of point 1, and I found no comments by you on point 2, at [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]]. Are you trying the classic trick of "the answer is over there," when it isn't? Point 2 alone completely disproves the PNAS paper's thesis, and yet you avoid it and skip towards less obvious errors. I'm happy to address the subtle errors once you address the obvious ones.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, you are avoiding Brossa's question. Why can't you just answer it? Brossa said that he wanted to limit the discussion to these points. The reason that he wants to do that is because it the PNAS response targets your approach to the statistical analysis. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 16:24, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:I don't mind addressing points one and two; I just don't think that we'll come to an agreement about them. Point one represents a misunderstanding of the figure 3, which is labeled "Alternative hypotheses for the origin of the Cit+ function..." The figure does not represent the results of the experiments and does not conflict with them. It is a cartoon of the a priori hypothesis that was generated before the experiments were performed; it is not itself the hypothesis (the map is not the country). Note that the vertical axis lacks a scale; there is no way of knowing what the actual mutation rates are ahead of time. The location of the vertical jump on the graph is abitrary; it has to lie somewhere between 0 and 31,500 generations, but that point could be anywhere. Quoting from the paper: "The historical contingency hypothesis predicts that the mutation rate to Cit+ should increase after some potentiating genetic background has evolved. Thus, Cit+ variants should re-evolve more often in the replays using clones sampled from later generations of the Ara-3 population." The hypothesis as stated does not specify a generation at which the potentiating mutation occured. The hypothesis is not that potentiation took place at generation 31,000 rather than some other generation; it is that there ''was'' a potentiating mutation ''rather than'' a rare-mutation event. The results of the experiment do not disprove the contingency hypothesis; they confirm it and suggest that the potentiating mutation took place at generation 20,000. You think that the figure is the hypothesis; I think that the hypothesis is what is stated explicitly in the text of the paper; I doubt that we'll agree.

:Point two states: "Both hypotheses propose fixed mutation rates, but the failure of mutations to increase with sample size disproves this." I disagree with this statement. The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were similar, but not the same. One could imagine a hypothesis that men commit murder most often between the ages of 25 and 35, with samples taken from the male populations of L.A., Singapore, and London. One would find different murder rates among the men of those three cities, but still might find (or not) that murderers in those cities tend to be between 25 and 35 years old. The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were not the same, just as Singapore is not the same as Los Angeles. The rare-mutation hypothesis does not mean that the mutation rate to Cit+ is the same for ''all experimental conditions anywhere''; just that the mutation rate is constant ''given the conditions of a particular replay''. It is possible to have different baseline mutation rates among the three replays, all of which follow the historical contingency pattern. Or the mutation rate could actually be the same across all three replays, and the results seen here are just a statistical fluke that would vanish if the replays could be run thousands of times. Either way, it's not fatal to the paper's conculsions.

:Point two also states "If the authors claim that it is inappropriate to compare for scale the Second and Third Experiments to each other and to the First Experiment, then it was also an error to treat them similarly statistically." This is also incorrect in my view. One can state that the murder rate is different between two cities, and yet the murderers have some characteristic in common. Combining results from different samples is the bread and butter of statistical analysis. Meta-analysis, for example, is used to combine the results of studies that are much different than replay experiments one, two, and three. If you wish to make a more specific argument about the '''techniques''' used to combine the three replay experiments into a single result, I'll address it. I think that the second part of point two is essentially the same as point five in that it criticizes the statistical method used to combine the results of the three replays (the Z-transform), as opposed to point three which mentions the Monte Carlo technique separately.

:I therefore repeat my questions about points three and five, as stated previously. If you have other questions that I must answer first, please list them all at once, as I'm eager to move on to that discussion.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:53, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:: It's foolish to debate someone who has already closed his mind. Point 1 is plainly correct: the PNAS article should admit and disclose that the false hypothesis was indeed proven to be false. If you stand behind the falsehood, then you'll refuse to admit other errors also.

:: Your refusal to concede point 2 is even more egregious. Lenski combined his experiments, and you can't claim that combination was simultaneously correct and incorrect. Moreover, the lack of scale also exists between Experiment 2 and 3, again disproving the underlying thesis of the paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:31, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I already said that I didn't think that we would reach common ground on points one, two, and four, and that it would be a waste of time to rehash them. You asked me to, so I did. It seems foolish to then treat those points as a shibboleth and refuse to discuss the other points, which I am fully prepared to concede provided you elaborate on why the Monte Carlo technique and the Z-transform were either the wrong tests or performed incorrectly. I am capable of accepting two items from a list of five even if I reject the other three. Even if I were completely incapable of agreeing with you, I still don't see why you won't put your best mathematical argument forward about the paper's statistics. Were there too few Monte Carlo resamplings? Do you feel that the Z-transformation was performed incorrectly? Is the Z-transform itself suspect? Do you propose some other statistical analysis? If you do, there are any number of us here who can crunch the numbers again. What a coup it would be for you if we could use a technique that you suggested to obtain results that smashed Lenski's smug complacency!

:::I don't claim that the combination was simultaneously correct and incorrect, by the way - I claim that it was correct. Where do I imply otherwise? Also, it's not only improper to compare replay one with replays two and three ''for scale'': it's impossible. Replay one involved constantly changing numbers of cells whereas replays two and three started with fixed numbers. How do you count the number of cells in the first replay to compare it to the other two? Is it the number of cells transferred each time? Is it the maximum population achieved in each flask prior to transfer? 750 generations passed in one case and 3700 generations in another before the Cit+ trait was seen - how do you factor that into the 'scale' equation? It is only the superficial resemblance of replays two and three that brings up the concept of 'scale'. The "underlying thesis" of the paper is not that there is a unique rate of mutation to Cit+ that applies across ''any and all'' experimental conditions.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 19:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: Brossa, you don't address how Lenski ''did'' combine the three experiments, and how Experiment 3 does not scale with Experiment 2. Given that you don't address the main errors, it's foolish to waste time discussing more subtle points with you. Put another way, there are plenty of open-minded contributors on this site. Why would one waste time discussing with a close-minded person instead?

:::: Your account will be blocked for your [[90/10 rule]] violation unless you improve soon. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::ASchlafly:"Brossa, you don't address how Lenski ''did'' combine the three experiments"
::::::Me, earlier on this page:"This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments." "Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly?" "...and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation)." "If you wish to make a more specific argument about the techniques used to combine the three replay experiments into a single result, I'll address it. I think that the second part of point two is essentially the same as point five in that it criticizes the statistical method used to combine the results of the three replays (the Z-transform)..."
::::::Blount and Lenski used Monte Carlo to derive a p-value for each of the three replay experiments; then used the Z-transformation to derive a final p-value from the three Monte Carlo p-values. I've mentioned the Z-transformation multiple times in connection to combining the results of the three experiments.

:::::ASchlafly: "Brossa, you don't address...how Experiment Three does not scale with Experiment 2."
::::::Me, earlier on this page: "The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were similar, but not the same." "It is possible to have different baseline mutation rates among the three replays, all of which follow the historical contingency pattern. Or the mutation rate could actually be the same across all three replays, and the results seen here are just a statistical fluke that would vanish if the replays could be run thousands of times. Either way, it's not fatal to the paper's conculsions." "It is only the superficial resemblance of replays two and three that brings up the concept of 'scale'. The "underlying thesis" of the paper is not that there is a unique rate of mutation to Cit+ that applies across any and all experimental conditions"

:::::ASchlafly: "Your account will be blocked for your [[90/10 rule]] violation unless you improve soon."
::::::Me, earlier on this page:"If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response..." "I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to." "I already said that I didn't think that we would reach common ground on points one, two, and four, and that it would be a waste of time to rehash them. You asked me to, so I did."
::::::I came into this discussion wanting to discuss specific issues: the basis of your objections to the Monte Carlo technique and the Z-transformation used to combine the results of the three replays into one final p-value. This could have been resolved quite quickly, but you said that I had to address all the points of your letter before you would answer my questions. I said repeatedly that I did not wish to do so without your explicit permission, which it seemed that you gave. So I jumped through those hoops, only to be accused of a 90/10 violation. Have I simply walked into an cunning trap?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 21:20, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

== Please provide your statistical analysis ==

Andrew, If you are so sure that your statistical analysis of the Lenski paper is correct, you should publish it on Conservapedia. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

: I did. Which point don't you understand?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 08:50, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

I think regardless of what the details behind the statistical analysis are, the shame here is that PNAS refused to address anything specific in their response. They simply glossed over everything that was said in the letter sent to them and gave a generic, unsubstantive response. All the people here that are trying to argue with ASchlafly about his position should instead focus on why is it that PNAS refuses to directly address our concerns. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 21:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:: It is not the function of the editorial board to "defend" a paper. They mainly said that, from what Mr. Schlafly has written they could not see the mistake in Dr. Lenskis statisics suggested by Mr. Schlafly. It is neither the function of a reviewer to "put his name" on something. A reviewer should check if the average reader of a journal will be able to learn something from a letter. If he thinks there is nothing to learn, either because the letter fails to bring new insight, or because the readers may not understand how using only conservative methods in statistics and nothing which is mathematically considered to be fragile by people who have average mathematical knowledge, is favourable, then they should reject the letter. Although I had the impression from the wording of the response that the reviewer did have at least a brief look at the original article. And PNAS refuses the Letter for the very same reason people her are asking, namely the complete absence of alternative estimations for the numbers. I dont want to check the calculations, if Mr. Schlafly states that by using a well defined method, he finds another result and states this result clearly, i am a priori very willing to believe that, because i see no reason not to believe his word on that (Since he has, to my best knowledge, no record of scientific fraud). After he states his result, i may find the time trying to reproduce it (although i am very busy). --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 13:00, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 15:41, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

==Improper==
I have no knowledge on this branch of science, so I won't comment on whether the results were correct, or if PNAS's letter was unbiased. Then again neither does Schlafly, who, of what info about him is known to the public is not a biologist. I find it somewhat ''inappropriate'' for someone with no training on a specifict field to come and tell someone that has actually learned something about that field, and say he hasn't done his job right. It's common sense. [[User:Fred1776|Fred1776]] 14:30, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:That's an extraordinary and offensive remark from someone who admits complete ignorance. How come you - Fred1776 - have an exact knowledge of how expert Andrew Schlafly's knowledge of the issue is? He may not be a mathematician, but he is an experienecd educator, amongst other things, with a legal training that enables his mind to get to the crux of a problem, as has been demonstrated very many times in this project. Biologists are properly open to the scrutiny of others. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:34, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::I simply can't turn down the opportunity of agreeing with Bugler! Biologists, as with all experts, should be open to scrutiny from everyone. It's good to use people's expertise, but not at the expense of raising their pronouncements to the status of dogma. True, the lay person may not be able to formulate much criticism but sometimes, and especially when they stray outside the purely technical, all experts make mistakes that are evident to others. We should respect expertise, but stopping all questioning is giving respect beyond what is due. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 15:45, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::(EC)Well, the PNAS seems to think his understanding of statistical analysis is less than "elementary". The question is, given that virtually none of us are experts in statistics, why wouldn't we believe the PNAS? I mean, they are the trained scientists, right? If they told me my mis-understanding of statistical analysis was too fundamental to warrant a response in their journal, I'd show some humility and accept that as valid criticism. But hey, that's just me. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 15:48, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Kim, if you're naive enough to believe everything that the [[Liberal]] establishment tells you, well, hey, don't let us stop you. But don't think that you will be allowed to infect this site with your credulity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:54, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Well if I'm credulous because I'd accept the opinion of an expert in very difficult and technical field I have no formal training in, then so be it. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 15:57, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::Bugler, is it possible for you to talk without threatening someone? Try some civility. --[[User:IanG|IanG]] 16:08, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::(At the risk of a block) Not "believe everything on the basis that they are experts", but neither "disbelieve everything on the basis that they are assumed to be Liberal". If one is to make use of expertise then you need to accept ''something'' told you on the basis of expertise: you will have to revise at least one belief because of what the expert says. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:09, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

KimEide, the experts on Christianity are overwhelmingly in agreement: Jesus rose from the dead. Yet I expect that you don't accept that expert view. Meanwhile, you seem to accept the "expert" view of Lenski about statistics despite his having, as far as I can tell, no expertise in that subject.

Those who don't want to think for themselves can return to Wikipedia and other playpens. Those who have substantive insights about the logical and statistical issues here, please do comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:16, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:I happen to know for a fact that Lenski is thoroughly trained in the statistical analysis of experiments like the one in question. In fact, he's published extensively in that area. And I'm afraid the historicity of the Resurrection is a minority view among New Testament scholars. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 16:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::What might wash with [[Liberal]] [[agnostic]] [[theology]] [[professor values|professors]] won't wash with true [[Christians]]. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:27, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::I agree completely. That doesn't change the empirical fact that it's a minority view among scholars. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 16:28, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::::I disagree. I have found that when people use the word "scholars" that it is very specific to their side. So what is your definition of a scholar? In my life I have had the privilege of attending a number of different churches, three of which were run by men with PHDs. All three of them believed in the bodily resurrection of Christ. Taken across America, that number would be much higher. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::If those men had PhDs in New Testament studies (or something related) from a serious University, I would certainly count them as scholars. But they would be in the minority in the field of New Testament studies. That's just an empirical fact I happen to know from being employed by a Liberal Arts University. In general though, I think of a scholar as someone who has 1)Studied the literature extensively 2)Defended his knowledge before a panel of other people who have studied the literature extensively (i.e. been awarded an advanced degree) 3)Published in peer-reviewed journals 4)And is or was actively engaged in the professional field, either through writing, teaching (or preaching), researching, giving papers at conferences, etc. That's just off the top of my head though. Most scholars will have all four of those. Some will only have three. Maybe occasionally one might just have two. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 17:49, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::This is a ridiculous arguement. The resurrection of Jesus is a matter of faith and can not be verified except by referring to the Bible. Statistical analysis is a branch of mathematics. The truths of mathematics are not subject to debate and are not matters of faith. Appealing to authorities in mathematics is completely different than appealing to a religious authority. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:52, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
(undent)We're not arguing whether the opinion of a majority of biblical scholars is a reliable indicator of whether Jesus rose from the dead or not. We're just arguing what that majority opinion is. It may seem irrelevant, but it is a crucially important to the issue at hand...ummm...somehow. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 18:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

: Christian theologians hold the equivalent of PhDs, and yet you reject the conclusion of those "experts". I have found nothing in Lenski's published background to indicate any expertise by him in statistics. Yet you accept Lenski's view on statistics without even thinking through the issues on your own, while rejecting the consensus of Christian experts. Why? The answer is obvious: bias and lack of open-mindedness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:25, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:: Biological studies routinely require at least some application of statistical theory, especially when studying populations of organisms or molecules which molecular (and evolutionary) biology usually involves. Biostatistics (the statistical theories commonly used in biomedicine) is often a required course for PhD students for this reason. Established researchers in the life sciences do not need to have a degree in statistics to indicate expertise - Lenski's publication record itself indicates that he has successfully applied statistical theory in his analyses many times. At any rate, if someone can simply claim without proof that he has taken (and understood) statistics courses on the level needed to evaluate Lenski's paper, then he has no basis on which to accuse others of lacking expertise.

::: Malarkey. I've taken and excelled in upperclass statistics courses, and there were not biology students, college or graduate, in them. If Lenski has expertise in statistics then let's see it. His own "biographical sketch" doesn't even disclose what his undergraduate major was at Oberlin or what his PhD concentration at the University of North Carolina were
in.[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/BioSketch.html]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:26, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Andy, the bottom line is the PNAS publishes letters online criticizing their publication all the time. Every single issue. It's the whole function of "Letters to the PNAS". It's the only reason the letters section of the PNAS exists. They would have published your letter if it had shown the requisite understanding of the issues at hand. How do we know this? Because they do it all the time. Why didn't they publish yours? Because your understanding of how to statistically analyze experiments involving bacteria populations isn't up to snuff. How could it be? A man who was truly interested in learning would show humility, accept criticism, and dive into the relevant literature about Monte Carlo, z-transformations, etc. A man who was only interested in protecting his ego would carry on the lie that Lenski and the PNAS don't know what they are talking about. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 09:27, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: PNAS won't publish any letter critical of evolution in any way, even when the letter points out 5 obvious statistical flaws.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:58, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::I still, having read your previous comments on the original letter, don't feel that you've explained either a) why the use of Monte Carlo was wrong, b) why the use of Z-transformation was wrong, nor c) critically, what alternative analysis you would have used, and what p-values you would have obtained with it. That last point is what I feel you really need to address if you want PNAS to really take notice. What would you use, and what p-values would you obtain?

:::::Additionally, graduate level statistics is really quite basic by scientific standards. The gap between a Ph.D. and degree level knowledge is like the gap between a degree and junior high school. Biology as a field is hugely intertwined with complex statistics, and many biologists will have gained an understanding well beyond graduate level.

:::::I'm not "anti" this letter, I'm not a liberal agitator, I've made decent contributions in my time here, but I really feel that this letter needs somebody to just take a step back, and consider that maybe the first attempt can be improved. As I mentioned previously, I think some good, proactive steps would be to concentrate more on the missing data claim, and to bring on board somebody with an expert knowledge of statistics or biology to help refine the claims, and double check whether you're right on some of these points or not. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 09:55, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: MikeR, PNAS never publishes a letter containing a meaningful criticism of a pro-evolution article, no matter how obvious and egregious the flaws. If the Lenski evolution article had incorporated a flaw tantamount to claiming that 2+2=5, the PNAS would still not admit the error. Check out [[evolution syndrome]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:14, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Perhaps but Andy, with respect, I'm not convinced you were correct in your belief that all of those 5 points were genuine flaws. That's why I think it's worth getting a second opinion from an unbiased outsider with post-graduate expertise in statistics. You've not really given an explanation of why the Monte Carlo or Z-Transformation approaches were wrong, nor have you stated what you believe the correct p-value should have been, and until you do I'm going to continue to have doubts about your analysis, based on my own knowledge. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 12:27, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: MikeR, I obviously welcome another unbiased outside opinion. Let us know when you get one. But beware, the [[evolution syndrome]] you've seen here will make anyone think twice before they criticize any aspect of any paper that promotes evolution. Anyone seeking funding or tenure will think twice before daring to question any aspect of an evolution paper, lest they be subjected to the hysteria you've seen here. So I'm not optimistic that you will be able to find anyone willing to attach his name to this dispute. You may have to use your own mind on this one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:32, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: I've not really seen any "hysteria" here, it's just that a number of us are not entirely convinced that you're right. You could persuade us by explaining, specifically, why you believe that the Monte Carlo or Z-transformation approaches were wrong, and what p-values you believe should have been obtained. I think the PNAS letter is somewhat rude, but there's nothing much in it that I can really disagree with regarding the statistics (although they don't exactly say a lot either). I don't see a problem with combining samples of different sizes using a Z-transformation, for example, as it's a technique I use on a regular basis, and what I believe is a pretty standard statistical approach at this level. Indeed, that's why Fisher's Z-transformation technique was invented, to combine samples of different sizes. I'm genuinely interested to know what the issue is with it in this case.

::::::::As a side note, some of these statistical terms might be worth elaborating on in articles here on Conservapedia. I might make that my next project actually, if anyone wants to help. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 15:13, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::Aschlafly, would you accept that your description of PNAS is directly analagous to your own resistance to criticism of an anti-evolution stance? I ask you again - i) are you 100% certain that your analysis is correct, ii) do you believe you are the best person to make that judgement, and iii) would you consider bringing in an unbiased third-party statistician to review your methodology? What could be wrong with that if you are certain you are correct? It could only but strengthen your argument. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 13:15, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::Aschlafly - here are three links to letters published in 2008 by PNAS which do, in fact, contain meaningful criticism of pro-evolution articles.:

* [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/2/E3.full Ancient lineages in the genome: A response to Fagundes et al]
* [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/22/E27.extract Natural selection does not explain cultural rates of change]
* [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/35/E56.extract When sleep or hide makes the difference in macroevolution]

Perhaps you might care to modify your claims in the light of this....[[User:BillK|BillK]] 12:41, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

: Your first example is a ''defense'' of a theory of evolution, and thus tends to support my point. Given the failure of your first citation to support your point, I did not bother to look at your other two.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:48, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::The first article clearly is criticizing a pro-evolution article. You said '''MikeR, PNAS never publishes a letter containing a meaningful criticism of a pro-evolution article, no matter how obvious and egregious the flaws.''' Above are the links to three articles that "contain meaningful criticism of a pro-evolution article." I don't know how to be more clear. There are pro-evolution articles published in the PNAS. Three of them are criticized in the letters above. What more do you want? [[User:JohnDee|JohnDee]] 21:38, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

what if the other two were indeed the type of articles you were asking for? [[User:Fred1776|Fred1776]] 16:02, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

==Clarification on peer review and anonymity==
There has been, I think, undue outrage over the fact that the reviewer's name was not included in the response to Schlafly's letter. To clarify, this is standard procedure when reviewing manuscripts for scientific journals and does NOT in any way indicate cowardice or uncertainty. Anonymous peer review allows for reviews that are rigorous, honest, and, most importantly, objective, since if no one knows your identity, no one can threaten you, bribe you, or otherwise influence your evaluation of the material. Thus, you can carry out your professional duties without concern over how your review of Person A's paper will affect Person A's opinion of you or his/her review of your paper in the future, for example.

The anonymity of the response is standard procedure in scientific publishing and necessary to ensure objectivity of the evaluation process, and should not be construed negatively as has been done here.

== Statistics examples ==

I see lots of people are clamoring for some specific statistical data on here, and although I am no expert on statistics, I can
give a simple example that demonstrates flaw #5 in the letter to PNAS (that combining different samples is invalid). So lets say
I am testing some hypothesis, and I got a 100 samples, of which 48 are "pro" (support) and 52 are "con" (against) the hypothesis.
So this doesn't support my hypothesis at all. But just for fun lets do another, smaller, experiment, with just 10 samples. And suppose
in this smaller (statistically insignificant by itself) experiment I only used 1- samples, of which 8 were "pro" and 2 were "con."
If I combine the 2 experiments, I get a total of 56 "pro" and 54 "con", so more than 50% "pro" (in a large total sample size!),
appearing to support the hypothesis, even though that's obviously not the case! --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 14:33, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

== Data from several experiments ==

I would like to contribute to this discussion because I have taught statistics to graduate biology students for 16 years.

The combination of data from several experiments is a specialist and sometimes difficult area of statistical theory but a simple example shows why Aschafly’s concern about combining the results of three different experiments is not justified and why his criticism of Lenski’s recent paper in PNAS is not valid.

Suppose we want to conduct a test of whether or not men are taller than women on average. For the sake of the example, I generated random heights of people from a population in which men had an average height of 175cm (5’10’) and women of 165cm (5’6”). The standard deviations of height in both sexes were 7cm. I think these numbers are approximately correct for people in the UK but the details aren’t important.

Suppose we take 5 samples of 2 men and 2 women. Here are the numbers I generated:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Man1 !! Man2 !! Woman1 !! Woman2 !! Men mean !! Women mean !! Mean difference !! t !! P
|-
| 176 || 179 || 157 || 148 || 177.5 || 152.5 || 25 || 5.27 || 0.017
|-
| 180 || 176 || 160 || 164 || 178 || 162 || 16 || 5.66 || 0.015
|-
| 176 || 175 || 167 || 165 || 175.5 || 166 || 9.5 || 8.50 || 0.0068
|-
| 169 || 171 || 168 || 173 || 170 || 170.5 || -0.5 || -0.19 || 0.57
|-
| 179 || 175 || 166 || 178 || 177 || 172 || 5 || 0.79 || 0.26
|-
|}

P in the last column is the t-test probability for a one-side test of women being shorter than men. (Formally, it’s the probability of getting a value of t greater than that calculated from the data if women are in fact taller than men on average.)

Should the fact that, in the fourth sample, the average height of the women is taller than the men make us doubt that men are in fact taller on average? Should we be concerned about the last sample, in which the difference in height of the two sexes is rather small, though in the expected direction? No, in both cases. When we combine the data on all 10 men and all 10 women, we get this:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Men mean !! Women mean !! Mean difference !! t !! P
|-
| 175.6 || 164.6 || 11 || 3.85 || 0.00058
|-
|}

Clearly, combining the data from several similar experiments strengthens the conclusions considerably, as shown by the fact that ‘’P’’ is much smaller for the combined data than for any individual sample.

The combination of data from several experiments is a specialised and sometimes difficult area of statistical theory but I see nothing particularly incorrect about the approach used by Lenski and his colleagues. The general point is that it is valid to combine the results of different experiments if it is scientifically meaningful to do so. (For example: A. Combining the results of five samples of the heights of men and women is clearly valid. B. Combining three samples of heights of men and women with two samples of lengths of male and female squid clearly isn’t.)

I hope this clarifies the extensive discussion on this point and puts Aschafly’s mind at rest on this subject. [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 08:20, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:PNAS Response to Letter

2008-09-18T12:20:56Z

KennyMac: /* Data from several experiments */ new section

Notice: misrepresentations are not going to be allowed on this page. Substantive comments only, please.

In this day and age, scientists have their own agenda and have corrupted science. Just look at global warming or cloning or stem cells as proof. With that said, the only way to get the real truth is by suing in court. Unfortunately, scientists are bound to vast wealth and have the power to defend themselves vigorously. If ever a fund was set up to pay for a suit, I would contribute. It is a classic case whereby the truth be known, the truth will prevail. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:14, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks, Jpatt. One additional beauty of the truth is that it remains the truth no how much some deny it. PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

::Well said, Andy and Jpatt. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the President of the NAS is a "climate scientist". If the Academy is dominated by [[pseudoscience]] of that kind, it's hardly a surprise that their response was to cover up and deny the truth. Nevertheless, they had to be given their chance to make good before further steps are taken. I suggest now that the issue be put to potentially supportive congressmen/women and senators, given the public funding for Lenski's activities. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:46, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::: Right. The next step is to criticize the taxpayer funding of this junk science. When the authors and the publishing organization will not even address statistical errors in the work, then it's time to pull the public funding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::They did address your claims of statistical errors: they said that you were wrong to the degree that they were able to determine what you were talking about. You made a qualitative argument and got a qualitative response.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:00, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Which of the 5 specific errors do you think they addressed? None, as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::The response addresses your qualitative claims about the paper's statistical methods raised in points two, three, and five by the following:"Nevertheless, from a statistical point of view, it is proper to combine the results of independent experiments, as Blount et al. '''did correctly in their original paper'''"(emphasis added); in fact the longest paragraph in the response deals entirely with the statistical claims of the letter and dismisses them.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::But that's never going to happen because the data availability requirements for public funding have already been met. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)10:56, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: No, I don't think the researchers have met NSF guidelines as referenced in the letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Proof?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

: As I said, the NSF guidelines are references in the [[Letter to PNAS|letter]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:29, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

You mean the notebooks and ect? [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:Oh my dear God, I can't believe this!! Where has this beautiful country gone to if even science is not reliable anymore nowadays. Hope things will change in the future. Good thing there still are people like Mr. Schlafly, <includeonly>suckadick moron</includeonly>who have the brains and power to stand up, and turn the people of America in the right direction again. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:24, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I have a question BTW. Was this letter received on a paper, or electronically? Because if it was on a paper, perhaps it would be a good idea to scan it, and post it. It would add a lot to the encyclopedic value of the article. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

: PNAS procedures required me to submit the letter electronically using its own electronic submission software. When the PNAS acknowledged that my submission complied with all its requirements, it also said that the authors of the original paper had been notified of my letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Too bad. It doesn't make much sense though, guess that tells a lot about PNAS. What they should care about is the actual text, not the medium it is in. That's not the case IMHO for encyclopedias however. If not for anything else, a scan would have been useful as a reference for the digital text. Oh well... [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:53, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Honest question, is it against the rules to disagree with Andrew Schlafly or criticize that letter? I just want to know so I don't end up in the same situation as other people who have been censored here.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 17:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
:I believe this this page is only for discussion of the response, which is quite straightforward. Criticism of the letter should have gone on it's talk page, but it's too late now. Oh well. There is no censorship on Conservapedia. Your comment is not substantive - please refactor it. Praise Jesus, [[User:Pila|Pila]] 17:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:: if you REALLY believe that Lenski has committed acedemic FRAUD then lodge a formal complaint with his University. They are taken very seriously and can lead to loss of tenure and dismissal from the university, and with that on his record no other institution would hire him on any basis. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:40, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

(deleted non-substantive comments). Again, the heading on this page will be enforced: "Substantive comments only, please." If you have a substantive comment about the identified errors and the PNAS's failure to address them, then please comment. Non-substantive comments will be removed. This is an encyclopedic-based search for the truth, not a blog or a place to refuse to contribute in a substantive manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:Since you've taken the liberty of deciding what is substantive or not in deleting posts like my last one, then I have a serious, respectful question to ask; What exactly do you mean by "substantive"? I didn't attack you or your letter; I was attempting to state that the PNAS response did, in fact, address the points of your letter. Whether one considers the PNAS response to be ''correct'' or not is a separate matter - they read your objections and responded to them instead of ignoring them, that's all.

:My last post would therefore seem to have met Webster's definition of ''substantive'' - "having or expressing substance", but apparently the measure of "substantive" for a comment on this page appears to be whether it agrees with your view or not. That's your prerogative, but if you intended to allow comments on this page other than endorsements of your view, then please let me know what I did wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:: Dinsdale, we're here to think and learn. You can look at my letter, look at the PNAS's response, and provide some ''substantive'' insights. We're not here to say something like, uh, go ask someone else if a (9th grade-level) graph is correct or not. If you think the substantive issues are beyond your depth, and I don't, then comment on them in a substantive and intellectual and specific way. This is not another waste-of-time blog, and it's not going to become one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:::DinsdaleP, you did attack ASchalfy at least indirectly. Suggesting that the PNAS response has merit might also be interpreted by some that the letter ASchafly sent wasn't the very best it could be. Now, contrast that to my deleted comment suggesting that a time-tested response would be to actually try reproducing the experiment. Many bad experiments are exposed when others fail to get the same results as the original authors. I think this would be an excellent, substantive avenue to pursue.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

ASchlafly- you said above, "PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors". As you say, in a fair discussion of the merits of two sides of an argument, it's important that both sides take a good, hard look at their own propositions. Since your position is that PNAS has errors on its own side, I'm just curious to know if you are in any way prepared to accept that there might be errors in your own argument, or are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' that your position is error-free? I'm wondering if perhaps before submitting this issue to funding authorities, you would be prepared to have an independent statistical expert take a look at your proposal? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:The only thing I was criticizing in my original comment today was the Main Page headline statement that "PNAS refuses to address the 5 errors in the Lenski study identified by the Letter to PNAS". What I pointed out is the fact that they ''did'' in fact respond, by criticizing the statistical analysis used by Aschlafly. I'm not supporting or attacking Mr. Schlafly's analysis, because I'm the first one to admit that I have no expertise in this area. My conclusion was a constructive suggestion that Mr. Schlafly present a rebuttal to the PNAS decision by showing how his analysis and conclusions were not erroneous in the manner they claimed. A public, statistical defense of Mr. Schlafly's work, perhaps accompanied by the endorsement of some regarded experts in the field, would be the best response to PNAS choosing to respond by email instead of through the journal.

:I wrote both the original draft letter to PNAS from Mr. Schlafly's notes and my earlier comments today with the intent of contributing constructively. I hope this clarification of my view is substantive enough to remain. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:24, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Folks, I've pointed out five ''very specific'' statistical (logical) errors. The torrent of nonsense above even includes an absurd demand for me to try to repeat the experiments, as thought that would somehow correct a flawed paper.

The math is wrong in the PNAS paper. No one at PNAS is even willing to put his name on a response claiming that the math is correct, because it isn't. I'm not going to allow further nonsensical postings here. If you want to address the statistical (logical) errors in a specific way, fine. If you feel it is beyond your depth to do so, then move on. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:"The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events." Specifically, why is it incorrect to apply a Monte Carlo test in this circumstance, or why was their application incorrect? Do your own calculations produce a p-value that differs from the published p-value of 0.08?

:"The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance." This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments, or believe that the Z-transform analysis was performed incorrectly. Which do you disagree with - the technique, the application, or both, and why? --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:: {removed personal and non-substantive attack that violated clear rules for this discussion; also, unsubstantiated claims of expertise are not allowed - --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 15 September 2008 (EDT))

::: I'm still a little unclear on your position ASchlafly - are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' your own statistical analysis is correct on this? Before you proceed further it's important to know that the technical analysis you are presenting is indeed indisputable. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 12:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: Ben, if you have at least a 9th grade-level education, then you can look at the 5 errors and decide for yourself, and comment in a substantive manner. Yes, they are obvious and basic errors, and the fact that the reviewer of my letter at PNAS would not attach his name to a specific denial speaks volumes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly, I'm a little confused as to why you [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&curid=73292&diff=517424&oldid=517408 removed this comment of mine]? I did not cast any aspersions on your argument, and was merely answering your question as you posed it to me? Is "declining to comment" an indictable offense? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Your comment was not an "indictable offense," but it violated the rules of this page: "Substantive comments only, please." Got it? Either say something substantive, or edit somewhere else. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:33, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: This is confusing. Is "I agree with your thesis" or "your methods are 100% correct" a substantive comment? It can be very hard to infer your intent, Mr.Schalfly, I'm sorry to say. I have no quarrel with you, but I'm becoming confused as to what is and isn't appropriate comment on what is labelled a "Talk Page". Are there special rules for this Talk Page? If so, perhaps the title on the page might be changed? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:42, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: No, your quoted phrases are obviously not substantive comments. Your statement of agreement means nothing. I doubt you are even using your real name, for starters, which renders your agreement evens sillier. I repeat for the nth time, say something substantive or edit somewhere else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: (removed another non-substantive posting)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::Aschafly, perhaps you did not realize that my earlier questions were meant for you. I wish to address the statistical errors in a specific way, which requires a better understanding of your position. I will repeat my main questions: why was it incorrect to apply Monte Carlo techniques to the data in the paper, or in what way was the Monte Carlo technique performed incorrectly? Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly? In lieu of the Monte Carlo/Z-transform techniques, what statistical calculations ''should'' have been performed? Feel free to be technical; I have more than a ninth grade education.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: If you're skipping over the main points, then concede their validity or explain why you've skipped over them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response to my previously-stated questions about points three and five: your statements about the incorrect application of Monte Carlo resampling and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation). --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:00, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Substantive postings are welcome, but I still don't have an explanation for why you skipped over the main points 1 and 2. Do you concede them?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:04, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: With all due respect Aschlafly, and excuse me if I feel the need to tiptoe as gently as possible here, but I would cautiously disagree with your statement that "Substantive postings are welcome". It seems to me that you have explicitly removed ''only'' the substantive comments from this page. What is left are weak and non-substantive comments, to be sure. It seems very difficult to comment in any way here on this matter, as you seem to be of the opinion that you and you alone are correct. WIth the best will in the world, I certainly don't feel able to speak freely here, despite being well qualified to do so. Perhaps a slightly more lenient approach might help your own cause? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:23, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: Since I am new here I am a bit timid about chiming in on this discussion, but I feel compelled to say that (as I pointed out in the section below), I think this page should be reserved for appropriate responses to the PNAS letter - not for opinions regarding how Aschlafly is running this website. If you think you have valid points to bring out about that - maybe post them to his talk page? --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 22:31, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) No, I do not concede points one and two; I've commented on them on the [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]] page. I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to. Similarly, your point four is not something that can be resolved by argument. The only way to prove that the results were due to contamination would be to repeat the experiment with different controls in place and demonstrate different results - which might spur some other labs to run a third or fourth trial to see who was right. It seemed to me that the only points that could be solved by discussion were three and five, since they made statements about the statistical methods that can potentially be resolved through debate. So, once again, what is your response to my questions regarding points three and five?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:34, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

: Brossa, I could not find a meaningful rebuttal by you of point 1, and I found no comments by you on point 2, at [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]]. Are you trying the classic trick of "the answer is over there," when it isn't? Point 2 alone completely disproves the PNAS paper's thesis, and yet you avoid it and skip towards less obvious errors. I'm happy to address the subtle errors once you address the obvious ones.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, you are avoiding Brossa's question. Why can't you just answer it? Brossa said that he wanted to limit the discussion to these points. The reason that he wants to do that is because it the PNAS response targets your approach to the statistical analysis. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 16:24, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:I don't mind addressing points one and two; I just don't think that we'll come to an agreement about them. Point one represents a misunderstanding of the figure 3, which is labeled "Alternative hypotheses for the origin of the Cit+ function..." The figure does not represent the results of the experiments and does not conflict with them. It is a cartoon of the a priori hypothesis that was generated before the experiments were performed; it is not itself the hypothesis (the map is not the country). Note that the vertical axis lacks a scale; there is no way of knowing what the actual mutation rates are ahead of time. The location of the vertical jump on the graph is abitrary; it has to lie somewhere between 0 and 31,500 generations, but that point could be anywhere. Quoting from the paper: "The historical contingency hypothesis predicts that the mutation rate to Cit+ should increase after some potentiating genetic background has evolved. Thus, Cit+ variants should re-evolve more often in the replays using clones sampled from later generations of the Ara-3 population." The hypothesis as stated does not specify a generation at which the potentiating mutation occured. The hypothesis is not that potentiation took place at generation 31,000 rather than some other generation; it is that there ''was'' a potentiating mutation ''rather than'' a rare-mutation event. The results of the experiment do not disprove the contingency hypothesis; they confirm it and suggest that the potentiating mutation took place at generation 20,000. You think that the figure is the hypothesis; I think that the hypothesis is what is stated explicitly in the text of the paper; I doubt that we'll agree.

:Point two states: "Both hypotheses propose fixed mutation rates, but the failure of mutations to increase with sample size disproves this." I disagree with this statement. The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were similar, but not the same. One could imagine a hypothesis that men commit murder most often between the ages of 25 and 35, with samples taken from the male populations of L.A., Singapore, and London. One would find different murder rates among the men of those three cities, but still might find (or not) that murderers in those cities tend to be between 25 and 35 years old. The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were not the same, just as Singapore is not the same as Los Angeles. The rare-mutation hypothesis does not mean that the mutation rate to Cit+ is the same for ''all experimental conditions anywhere''; just that the mutation rate is constant ''given the conditions of a particular replay''. It is possible to have different baseline mutation rates among the three replays, all of which follow the historical contingency pattern. Or the mutation rate could actually be the same across all three replays, and the results seen here are just a statistical fluke that would vanish if the replays could be run thousands of times. Either way, it's not fatal to the paper's conculsions.

:Point two also states "If the authors claim that it is inappropriate to compare for scale the Second and Third Experiments to each other and to the First Experiment, then it was also an error to treat them similarly statistically." This is also incorrect in my view. One can state that the murder rate is different between two cities, and yet the murderers have some characteristic in common. Combining results from different samples is the bread and butter of statistical analysis. Meta-analysis, for example, is used to combine the results of studies that are much different than replay experiments one, two, and three. If you wish to make a more specific argument about the '''techniques''' used to combine the three replay experiments into a single result, I'll address it. I think that the second part of point two is essentially the same as point five in that it criticizes the statistical method used to combine the results of the three replays (the Z-transform), as opposed to point three which mentions the Monte Carlo technique separately.

:I therefore repeat my questions about points three and five, as stated previously. If you have other questions that I must answer first, please list them all at once, as I'm eager to move on to that discussion.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:53, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:: It's foolish to debate someone who has already closed his mind. Point 1 is plainly correct: the PNAS article should admit and disclose that the false hypothesis was indeed proven to be false. If you stand behind the falsehood, then you'll refuse to admit other errors also.

:: Your refusal to concede point 2 is even more egregious. Lenski combined his experiments, and you can't claim that combination was simultaneously correct and incorrect. Moreover, the lack of scale also exists between Experiment 2 and 3, again disproving the underlying thesis of the paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:31, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I already said that I didn't think that we would reach common ground on points one, two, and four, and that it would be a waste of time to rehash them. You asked me to, so I did. It seems foolish to then treat those points as a shibboleth and refuse to discuss the other points, which I am fully prepared to concede provided you elaborate on why the Monte Carlo technique and the Z-transform were either the wrong tests or performed incorrectly. I am capable of accepting two items from a list of five even if I reject the other three. Even if I were completely incapable of agreeing with you, I still don't see why you won't put your best mathematical argument forward about the paper's statistics. Were there too few Monte Carlo resamplings? Do you feel that the Z-transformation was performed incorrectly? Is the Z-transform itself suspect? Do you propose some other statistical analysis? If you do, there are any number of us here who can crunch the numbers again. What a coup it would be for you if we could use a technique that you suggested to obtain results that smashed Lenski's smug complacency!

:::I don't claim that the combination was simultaneously correct and incorrect, by the way - I claim that it was correct. Where do I imply otherwise? Also, it's not only improper to compare replay one with replays two and three ''for scale'': it's impossible. Replay one involved constantly changing numbers of cells whereas replays two and three started with fixed numbers. How do you count the number of cells in the first replay to compare it to the other two? Is it the number of cells transferred each time? Is it the maximum population achieved in each flask prior to transfer? 750 generations passed in one case and 3700 generations in another before the Cit+ trait was seen - how do you factor that into the 'scale' equation? It is only the superficial resemblance of replays two and three that brings up the concept of 'scale'. The "underlying thesis" of the paper is not that there is a unique rate of mutation to Cit+ that applies across ''any and all'' experimental conditions.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 19:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: Brossa, you don't address how Lenski ''did'' combine the three experiments, and how Experiment 3 does not scale with Experiment 2. Given that you don't address the main errors, it's foolish to waste time discussing more subtle points with you. Put another way, there are plenty of open-minded contributors on this site. Why would one waste time discussing with a close-minded person instead?

:::: Your account will be blocked for your [[90/10 rule]] violation unless you improve soon. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::ASchlafly:"Brossa, you don't address how Lenski ''did'' combine the three experiments"
::::::Me, earlier on this page:"This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments." "Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly?" "...and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation)." "If you wish to make a more specific argument about the techniques used to combine the three replay experiments into a single result, I'll address it. I think that the second part of point two is essentially the same as point five in that it criticizes the statistical method used to combine the results of the three replays (the Z-transform)..."
::::::Blount and Lenski used Monte Carlo to derive a p-value for each of the three replay experiments; then used the Z-transformation to derive a final p-value from the three Monte Carlo p-values. I've mentioned the Z-transformation multiple times in connection to combining the results of the three experiments.

:::::ASchlafly: "Brossa, you don't address...how Experiment Three does not scale with Experiment 2."
::::::Me, earlier on this page: "The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were similar, but not the same." "It is possible to have different baseline mutation rates among the three replays, all of which follow the historical contingency pattern. Or the mutation rate could actually be the same across all three replays, and the results seen here are just a statistical fluke that would vanish if the replays could be run thousands of times. Either way, it's not fatal to the paper's conculsions." "It is only the superficial resemblance of replays two and three that brings up the concept of 'scale'. The "underlying thesis" of the paper is not that there is a unique rate of mutation to Cit+ that applies across any and all experimental conditions"

:::::ASchlafly: "Your account will be blocked for your [[90/10 rule]] violation unless you improve soon."
::::::Me, earlier on this page:"If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response..." "I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to." "I already said that I didn't think that we would reach common ground on points one, two, and four, and that it would be a waste of time to rehash them. You asked me to, so I did."
::::::I came into this discussion wanting to discuss specific issues: the basis of your objections to the Monte Carlo technique and the Z-transformation used to combine the results of the three replays into one final p-value. This could have been resolved quite quickly, but you said that I had to address all the points of your letter before you would answer my questions. I said repeatedly that I did not wish to do so without your explicit permission, which it seemed that you gave. So I jumped through those hoops, only to be accused of a 90/10 violation. Have I simply walked into an cunning trap?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 21:20, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

== Please provide your statistical analysis ==

Andrew, If you are so sure that your statistical analysis of the Lenski paper is correct, you should publish it on Conservapedia. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

: I did. Which point don't you understand?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 08:50, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

I think regardless of what the details behind the statistical analysis are, the shame here is that PNAS refused to address anything specific in their response. They simply glossed over everything that was said in the letter sent to them and gave a generic, unsubstantive response. All the people here that are trying to argue with ASchlafly about his position should instead focus on why is it that PNAS refuses to directly address our concerns. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 21:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:: It is not the function of the editorial board to "defend" a paper. They mainly said that, from what Mr. Schlafly has written they could not see the mistake in Dr. Lenskis statisics suggested by Mr. Schlafly. It is neither the function of a reviewer to "put his name" on something. A reviewer should check if the average reader of a journal will be able to learn something from a letter. If he thinks there is nothing to learn, either because the letter fails to bring new insight, or because the readers may not understand how using only conservative methods in statistics and nothing which is mathematically considered to be fragile by people who have average mathematical knowledge, is favourable, then they should reject the letter. Although I had the impression from the wording of the response that the reviewer did have at least a brief look at the original article. And PNAS refuses the Letter for the very same reason people her are asking, namely the complete absence of alternative estimations for the numbers. I dont want to check the calculations, if Mr. Schlafly states that by using a well defined method, he finds another result and states this result clearly, i am a priori very willing to believe that, because i see no reason not to believe his word on that (Since he has, to my best knowledge, no record of scientific fraud). After he states his result, i may find the time trying to reproduce it (although i am very busy). --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 13:00, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 15:41, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

==Improper==
I have no knowledge on this branch of science, so I won't comment on whether the results were correct, or if PNAS's letter was unbiased. Then again neither does Schlafly, who, of what info about him is known to the public is not a biologist. I find it somewhat ''inappropriate'' for someone with no training on a specifict field to come and tell someone that has actually learned something about that field, and say he hasn't done his job right. It's common sense. [[User:Fred1776|Fred1776]] 14:30, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:That's an extraordinary and offensive remark from someone who admits complete ignorance. How come you - Fred1776 - have an exact knowledge of how expert Andrew Schlafly's knowledge of the issue is? He may not be a mathematician, but he is an experienecd educator, amongst other things, with a legal training that enables his mind to get to the crux of a problem, as has been demonstrated very many times in this project. Biologists are properly open to the scrutiny of others. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:34, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::I simply can't turn down the opportunity of agreeing with Bugler! Biologists, as with all experts, should be open to scrutiny from everyone. It's good to use people's expertise, but not at the expense of raising their pronouncements to the status of dogma. True, the lay person may not be able to formulate much criticism but sometimes, and especially when they stray outside the purely technical, all experts make mistakes that are evident to others. We should respect expertise, but stopping all questioning is giving respect beyond what is due. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 15:45, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::(EC)Well, the PNAS seems to think his understanding of statistical analysis is less than "elementary". The question is, given that virtually none of us are experts in statistics, why wouldn't we believe the PNAS? I mean, they are the trained scientists, right? If they told me my mis-understanding of statistical analysis was too fundamental to warrant a response in their journal, I'd show some humility and accept that as valid criticism. But hey, that's just me. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 15:48, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Kim, if you're naive enough to believe everything that the [[Liberal]] establishment tells you, well, hey, don't let us stop you. But don't think that you will be allowed to infect this site with your credulity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:54, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Well if I'm credulous because I'd accept the opinion of an expert in very difficult and technical field I have no formal training in, then so be it. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 15:57, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::Bugler, is it possible for you to talk without threatening someone? Try some civility. --[[User:IanG|IanG]] 16:08, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::(At the risk of a block) Not "believe everything on the basis that they are experts", but neither "disbelieve everything on the basis that they are assumed to be Liberal". If one is to make use of expertise then you need to accept ''something'' told you on the basis of expertise: you will have to revise at least one belief because of what the expert says. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:09, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

KimEide, the experts on Christianity are overwhelmingly in agreement: Jesus rose from the dead. Yet I expect that you don't accept that expert view. Meanwhile, you seem to accept the "expert" view of Lenski about statistics despite his having, as far as I can tell, no expertise in that subject.

Those who don't want to think for themselves can return to Wikipedia and other playpens. Those who have substantive insights about the logical and statistical issues here, please do comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:16, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:I happen to know for a fact that Lenski is thoroughly trained in the statistical analysis of experiments like the one in question. In fact, he's published extensively in that area. And I'm afraid the historicity of the Resurrection is a minority view among New Testament scholars. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 16:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::What might wash with [[Liberal]] [[agnostic]] [[theology]] [[professor values|professors]] won't wash with true [[Christians]]. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:27, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::I agree completely. That doesn't change the empirical fact that it's a minority view among scholars. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 16:28, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::::I disagree. I have found that when people use the word "scholars" that it is very specific to their side. So what is your definition of a scholar? In my life I have had the privilege of attending a number of different churches, three of which were run by men with PHDs. All three of them believed in the bodily resurrection of Christ. Taken across America, that number would be much higher. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::If those men had PhDs in New Testament studies (or something related) from a serious University, I would certainly count them as scholars. But they would be in the minority in the field of New Testament studies. That's just an empirical fact I happen to know from being employed by a Liberal Arts University. In general though, I think of a scholar as someone who has 1)Studied the literature extensively 2)Defended his knowledge before a panel of other people who have studied the literature extensively (i.e. been awarded an advanced degree) 3)Published in peer-reviewed journals 4)And is or was actively engaged in the professional field, either through writing, teaching (or preaching), researching, giving papers at conferences, etc. That's just off the top of my head though. Most scholars will have all four of those. Some will only have three. Maybe occasionally one might just have two. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 17:49, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::This is a ridiculous arguement. The resurrection of Jesus is a matter of faith and can not be verified except by referring to the Bible. Statistical analysis is a branch of mathematics. The truths of mathematics are not subject to debate and are not matters of faith. Appealing to authorities in mathematics is completely different than appealing to a religious authority. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:52, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
(undent)We're not arguing whether the opinion of a majority of biblical scholars is a reliable indicator of whether Jesus rose from the dead or not. We're just arguing what that majority opinion is. It may seem irrelevant, but it is a crucially important to the issue at hand...ummm...somehow. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 18:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

: Christian theologians hold the equivalent of PhDs, and yet you reject the conclusion of those "experts". I have found nothing in Lenski's published background to indicate any expertise by him in statistics. Yet you accept Lenski's view on statistics without even thinking through the issues on your own, while rejecting the consensus of Christian experts. Why? The answer is obvious: bias and lack of open-mindedness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:25, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:: Biological studies routinely require at least some application of statistical theory, especially when studying populations of organisms or molecules which molecular (and evolutionary) biology usually involves. Biostatistics (the statistical theories commonly used in biomedicine) is often a required course for PhD students for this reason. Established researchers in the life sciences do not need to have a degree in statistics to indicate expertise - Lenski's publication record itself indicates that he has successfully applied statistical theory in his analyses many times. At any rate, if someone can simply claim without proof that he has taken (and understood) statistics courses on the level needed to evaluate Lenski's paper, then he has no basis on which to accuse others of lacking expertise.

::: Malarkey. I've taken and excelled in upperclass statistics courses, and there were not biology students, college or graduate, in them. If Lenski has expertise in statistics then let's see it. His own "biographical sketch" doesn't even disclose what his undergraduate major was at Oberlin or what his PhD concentration at the University of North Carolina were
in.[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/BioSketch.html]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:26, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Andy, the bottom line is the PNAS publishes letters online criticizing their publication all the time. Every single issue. It's the whole function of "Letters to the PNAS". It's the only reason the letters section of the PNAS exists. They would have published your letter if it had shown the requisite understanding of the issues at hand. How do we know this? Because they do it all the time. Why didn't they publish yours? Because your understanding of how to statistically analyze experiments involving bacteria populations isn't up to snuff. How could it be? A man who was truly interested in learning would show humility, accept criticism, and dive into the relevant literature about Monte Carlo, z-transformations, etc. A man who was only interested in protecting his ego would carry on the lie that Lenski and the PNAS don't know what they are talking about. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 09:27, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: PNAS won't publish any letter critical of evolution in any way, even when the letter points out 5 obvious statistical flaws.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:58, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::I still, having read your previous comments on the original letter, don't feel that you've explained either a) why the use of Monte Carlo was wrong, b) why the use of Z-transformation was wrong, nor c) critically, what alternative analysis you would have used, and what p-values you would have obtained with it. That last point is what I feel you really need to address if you want PNAS to really take notice. What would you use, and what p-values would you obtain?

:::::Additionally, graduate level statistics is really quite basic by scientific standards. The gap between a Ph.D. and degree level knowledge is like the gap between a degree and junior high school. Biology as a field is hugely intertwined with complex statistics, and many biologists will have gained an understanding well beyond graduate level.

:::::I'm not "anti" this letter, I'm not a liberal agitator, I've made decent contributions in my time here, but I really feel that this letter needs somebody to just take a step back, and consider that maybe the first attempt can be improved. As I mentioned previously, I think some good, proactive steps would be to concentrate more on the missing data claim, and to bring on board somebody with an expert knowledge of statistics or biology to help refine the claims, and double check whether you're right on some of these points or not. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 09:55, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: MikeR, PNAS never publishes a letter containing a meaningful criticism of a pro-evolution article, no matter how obvious and egregious the flaws. If the Lenski evolution article had incorporated a flaw tantamount to claiming that 2+2=5, the PNAS would still not admit the error. Check out [[evolution syndrome]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:14, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Perhaps but Andy, with respect, I'm not convinced you were correct in your belief that all of those 5 points were genuine flaws. That's why I think it's worth getting a second opinion from an unbiased outsider with post-graduate expertise in statistics. You've not really given an explanation of why the Monte Carlo or Z-Transformation approaches were wrong, nor have you stated what you believe the correct p-value should have been, and until you do I'm going to continue to have doubts about your analysis, based on my own knowledge. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 12:27, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: MikeR, I obviously welcome another unbiased outside opinion. Let us know when you get one. But beware, the [[evolution syndrome]] you've seen here will make anyone think twice before they criticize any aspect of any paper that promotes evolution. Anyone seeking funding or tenure will think twice before daring to question any aspect of an evolution paper, lest they be subjected to the hysteria you've seen here. So I'm not optimistic that you will be able to find anyone willing to attach his name to this dispute. You may have to use your own mind on this one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:32, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: I've not really seen any "hysteria" here, it's just that a number of us are not entirely convinced that you're right. You could persuade us by explaining, specifically, why you believe that the Monte Carlo or Z-transformation approaches were wrong, and what p-values you believe should have been obtained. I think the PNAS letter is somewhat rude, but there's nothing much in it that I can really disagree with regarding the statistics (although they don't exactly say a lot either). I don't see a problem with combining samples of different sizes using a Z-transformation, for example, as it's a technique I use on a regular basis, and what I believe is a pretty standard statistical approach at this level. Indeed, that's why Fisher's Z-transformation technique was invented, to combine samples of different sizes. I'm genuinely interested to know what the issue is with it in this case.

::::::::As a side note, some of these statistical terms might be worth elaborating on in articles here on Conservapedia. I might make that my next project actually, if anyone wants to help. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 15:13, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::Aschlafly, would you accept that your description of PNAS is directly analagous to your own resistance to criticism of an anti-evolution stance? I ask you again - i) are you 100% certain that your analysis is correct, ii) do you believe you are the best person to make that judgement, and iii) would you consider bringing in an unbiased third-party statistician to review your methodology? What could be wrong with that if you are certain you are correct? It could only but strengthen your argument. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 13:15, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::Aschlafly - here are three links to letters published in 2008 by PNAS which do, in fact, contain meaningful criticism of pro-evolution articles.:

* [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/2/E3.full Ancient lineages in the genome: A response to Fagundes et al]
* [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/22/E27.extract Natural selection does not explain cultural rates of change]
* [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/35/E56.extract When sleep or hide makes the difference in macroevolution]

Perhaps you might care to modify your claims in the light of this....[[User:BillK|BillK]] 12:41, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

: Your first example is a ''defense'' of a theory of evolution, and thus tends to support my point. Given the failure of your first citation to support your point, I did not bother to look at your other two.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:48, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::The first article clearly is criticizing a pro-evolution article. You said '''MikeR, PNAS never publishes a letter containing a meaningful criticism of a pro-evolution article, no matter how obvious and egregious the flaws.''' Above are the links to three articles that "contain meaningful criticism of a pro-evolution article." I don't know how to be more clear. There are pro-evolution articles published in the PNAS. Three of them are criticized in the letters above. What more do you want? [[User:JohnDee|JohnDee]] 21:38, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

what if the other two were indeed the type of articles you were asking for? [[User:Fred1776|Fred1776]] 16:02, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

==Clarification on peer review and anonymity==
There has been, I think, undue outrage over the fact that the reviewer's name was not included in the response to Schlafly's letter. To clarify, this is standard procedure when reviewing manuscripts for scientific journals and does NOT in any way indicate cowardice or uncertainty. Anonymous peer review allows for reviews that are rigorous, honest, and, most importantly, objective, since if no one knows your identity, no one can threaten you, bribe you, or otherwise influence your evaluation of the material. Thus, you can carry out your professional duties without concern over how your review of Person A's paper will affect Person A's opinion of you or his/her review of your paper in the future, for example.

The anonymity of the response is standard procedure in scientific publishing and necessary to ensure objectivity of the evaluation process, and should not be construed negatively as has been done here.

== Statistics examples ==

I see lots of people are clamoring for some specific statistical data on here, and although I am no expert on statistics, I can
give a simple example that demonstrates flaw #5 in the letter to PNAS (that combining different samples is invalid). So lets say
I am testing some hypothesis, and I got a 100 samples, of which 48 are "pro" (support) and 52 are "con" (against) the hypothesis.
So this doesn't support my hypothesis at all. But just for fun lets do another, smaller, experiment, with just 10 samples. And suppose
in this smaller (statistically insignificant by itself) experiment I only used 1- samples, of which 8 were "pro" and 2 were "con."
If I combine the 2 experiments, I get a total of 56 "pro" and 54 "con", so more than 50% "pro" (in a large total sample size!),
appearing to support the hypothesis, even though that's obviously not the case! --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 14:33, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

== Data from several experiments ==

I would like to contribute to this discussion because I have taught statistics to graduate biology students for 16 years.

The combination of data from several experiments is a specialist and sometimes difficult area of statistical theory but a simple example shows why Aschafly’s concern about combining the results of three different experiments is not justified and why his criticism of Lenski’s recent paper in PNAS is not valid.

Suppose we want to conduct a test of whether or not men are taller than women on average. For the sake of the example, I generated random heights of people from a population in which men had an average height of 175cm (5’10’) and women of 165cm (5’6”). The standard deviations of height in both sexes were 7cm. I think these numbers are approximately correct for people in the UK but the details aren’t important.

Suppose we take 5 samples of 2 men and 2 women. Here are the numbers I generated:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Man1 !! Man2 !! Woman1 !! Woman2 !! Men mean !! Women mean !! Mean difference !! t !! P
|-
| 176 || 179 || 157 || 148 || 177.5 || 152.5 || 25 || 5.27 || 0.017
|-
| 180 || 176 || 160 || 164 || 178 || 162 || 16 || 5.66 || 0.015
|-
| 176 || 175 || 167 || 165 || 175.5 || 166 || 9.5 || 8.50 || 0.0068
|-
| 169 || 171 || 168 || 173 || 170 || 170.5 || -0.5 || -0.19 || 0.57
|-
| 179 || 175 || 166 || 178 || 177 || 172 || 5 || 0.79 || 0.26
|-
|}

P in the last column is the t-test probability for a one-side test of women being shorter than men. (Formally, it’s the probability of getting a value of t greater than that calculated from the data if women are in fact taller than men on average.)

Should the fact that, in the fourth sample, the average height of the women is taller than the men make us doubt that men are in fact taller on average? Should we be concerned about the last sample, in which the difference in height of the two sexes is rather small, though in the expected direction? No, in both cases. When we combine the data on all 10 men and all 10 women, we get this:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Men mean !! Women mean !! Mean difference !! t !! P
|-
| 175.6 || 164.6 || 11 || 3.85 || 0.00058
|-
|}

Clearly, combining the data from several similar experiments strengthens the conclusions considerably, as shown by the fact that ‘’P’’ is much smaller for the combined data than for any individual sample.

The combination of data from several experiments is a specialised and sometimes difficult area of statistical theory but I see nothing particularly incorrect about the approach used by Lenski and his colleagues. The general point is that it is valid to combine the results of different experiments if it is scientifically meaningful to do so. (For example: A. Combining the results of five samples of the heights of men and women is clearly valid. B. Combining three samples of heights of men and women with two samples of lengths of male and female squid clearly isn’t.)

I hope this clarifies the extensive discussion on this point and puts Aschafly’s mind at rest on this subject. [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 08:20, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Roman Catholicism

2008-09-15T23:02:33Z

KennyMac: /* What a waste of time */

==This is a rough start and others will need to help==
I'm out of my depth here. I really wanted to write something that explains that "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are not synonyms. I think what I've written is sorta-kinda-roughly correct, and I'm not knowingly trying to push any particular point of view. If I've inadvertently stepped on any Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican toes here, my apologies, and please fix whatever I've gotten wrong. (Try to keep it "as simple as possible, but no simpler.") [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Generally, catholic (lowercase) means "universal", whereas Catholic refers to the RCC, by default. If speaking of an Orthodox Catholic church usually it's denoted as to which branch is being discussed. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:39, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, "Catholic" doesn't refer to the Roman Catholic Church. The "Roman Catholic Church" refers to a specific Rite of the Catholic Church. It's the largest rite, by far, but is not the only rite in the Catholic Church. (These rites are also distinct from the Orthodox Churches. They have little to do with the Great Schism.) I'll try to see if I can clean this up a bit. As it now stands, it's more wrong than right. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 22:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::In the last edit, we lost the information about non-Roman and non-Latin rites:
::''Catholics, on the other hand, believe that the Roman Catholic Church, as the single true church founded by Christ, is the universal Catholic Church. Some prefer not to refer to their own church as the "Roman" Catholic Church, on the grounds that such formulations implicitly deny this point of doctrine.''
::I'd argue that it's not the ''Roman'' Catholic Church that is the single true church, but, rather, the ''Catholic'' Church. I understand that in the US (and in the west, in general) the two terms seem interchangeable, but I'd rather not lose the distinction between Roman Catholic and Catholic.[[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 03:01, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Moved here, until sourced:
:Findings of an investigation determined that sexual abuse of children could probably be almost halved if women were allowed to be ordained in the church.
I've never seen any such study, and I'm not sure how it would even be determined. I also changed hebephilia to ephebophilia, which is more commonly used (both words mean an attraction towards adolescents). [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 22:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==Lone sentence==

:Roman Catholics claim to be the apostolic successors of Saint Peter, who was given authority over his flock in the Bible.

Can this be merged? Was at [[Roman Catholics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:35, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:This should be attributed to the Pope, not specifically to Catholics themselves.[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

<s>==Second Vatican Council==
This should be its own subsection as "The Church" prior and post to the Council were almost two different churches?[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
</s>

Oops, wrote too soon, I didn't realize the "Roman Catholic Church" article already existed.[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Controversy?==
I dont know if it is so smart to put that in yet. I mean like put some factual stuff then put in the controversy, because making an article negative is not very appeasing to a reader. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 08:41, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

What do you expect on this site? Conservapedia has a deeply unhealthy obsession with paedophiles and gay sex. Really makes me worried about a lot of the editors. --[[User:Bible Mike|Bible Mike]] 10:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

lol i do not have an obsession witht that. that is nasty. ew why would you ever say that? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 10:29, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

This paragraph is just a bad copy of wikipedia and media, in their obvious attempt to discredit the Roman Catholic church and the worthy work in education of children. Child abuse is a mortally sin, no doubt and deserves severe prosecution, but where are the facts showing that child abuse happens more often by catholic clergymen than by other teachers or male relatives? --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:09, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

:To do a little nitpicking, I'm not sure child molesting has ever been given formal recognition as a mortal sin in any way recognised by the Roman Catholic church. Though it doesn't really matter - fornication definatly is a mortal sin, and since child molesting means implicit fornication... it makes no difference at all, the result is still hell unless confessed. Recognising child molesting as mortal sin has about as much practical effect as imposing a death penalty for suicide :) [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 18:38, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

==Requirements==
Currently, the article states:
:To belong to the Catholic Church one must accept as factually true the gospel of our lord Jesus Christ. "The chief teachings of the Catholic church are: God’s objective existence; God’s interest in individual human beings, who can enter into relations with God (through prayer); the Trinity; the divinity of Jesus; the immortality of the soul of each human being, each one being accountable at death for his or her actions in life, with the award of heaven or hell; the resurrection of the dead; the historicity of the Gospels; and the divine commission of the church. In addition the Roman Catholic Church stresses that since the members, living and dead, share in each other’s merits, the Virgin Mary and other saints and the dead in purgatory are never forgotten."

I might argue some of those points. Primarily, to be Catholic is to be baptized (including, possibly, a baptism of faith) and to participate in the sacraments. I'd accept creedal statements along the lines of the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed as possible requirements of faith. Belief in the existence of God, sure. In Jesus, in his death and resurrection, sure. In the resurrection of the body, in the communion of saints in life everlasting, sure. But the historicity of the Gospels? The divine commission of the Church? Sure, these are things that are taught by the Church. But I don't know that they're necessary to being Catholic. (I'm not sure why one would be Catholic if one didn't believe the divine commission of the Church, but still...) And, more importantly, I'd say that to belong to the Catholic Church is to participate in the sacraments--to receive the Eucharist, to be baptized, to be reconciled to God, and so on. The church is at least as much a sacramental church as a creedal church (and, I'd argue, it's more a sacramental church than a creedal church). [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 23:34, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Catholics not as Christians? ==
Do we really need that part? It just doesn't really sound very encyclopedic. According to two websites Catholics aren't Christians, but according to some other websites out there aliens are secretly in control of the government. I feel I have to raise a question concerning that bit. Recomend it is deleted, or the contention be in some way justified.[[User:Jnl001|Jnl001]] 14:49, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:It's a matter of definitions. They are christian in the loosest sense - they worship Christ. But many protestants consider that this definition is too loose, the RCC cannot be considered 'true' christians because they do not follow some of the fundamental teachings contained in the bible (eg, salvation by faith alone) or because they introduce some major elements that are not present in the bible (eg, a succession of popes, infant babtism, a church heirachy). Conversely, the Catholic Church will not recognise any *other* church as Christian formally, except the Orthodox church, because they consider a church is not legitimate unless it can trace ancestry back to Peter. Personally, I think the Catholic church isn't Christian in the most important sense of all: It's members are not Saved, because they are placing their faith in the church organisation and their rituals rather than in the personal salvation of Jesus. For this reason, while I will admit they are Christian, I personally consider them misguided and unintentionally extremally dangerous, and an organisation I am obliged to oppose. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 07:36, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

== Roman Catholicism ==

The Title of this Entry should actually be Latin Rite Catholicism. The Latin Rite ("Roman Catholic") Church does not actually identify itself as "Roman Catholic", it Calls itself the "Latin Rite" of the "Catholic Church"

This said their needs to be a separate entry for "Catholicism".

{{unsigned|Pyranima}}

== Are Roman Catholics Christians? ==

Now, I have been thinking about this for some time. As seen from many sources like Wikipedia, the Roman Catholics are indeed Christian. However, according to many Christian fundamentalist sources, the Roman Catholics are not Christian because they believe in many unbiblical things such as the infant baptism, sacraments, Mary worship, etc.

My question is, should the articles in Conservapedia concerning Christianity have the idea that Christianity is really a "biblical, based-on-the-Bible Christianity", not just a religion whose people are Christians just because they say "We are Christians"?

(To any born-again Christians, you may understand my question)

[[User:MaveYEL]]
: I understand the question. Whether or not someone is a Christian depends on their own relationship with God, not on what church they belong to. Also, probably no Christian has a perfect set of beliefs: probably every Christian believes ''something'' that is contrary to biblical teaching. So "believing many unbiblical things" does not, of itself, mean that someone is not a Christian.
: I would classify the Roman Catholic Church as "Christian", because it holds that Jesus is God, but I would also think that ''many'' people who are members of the church are not Christians, partly because many are members of the church out of tradition rather than conversion, and partly because there is insufficient emphasis on faith-based conversion. But that doesn't mean that there are not (many?) Christians in the Roman Catholic church.
: I feel that some "fundamentalist" Christians are too harsh on Catholics, although that is not to dismiss their valid objections to many Catholic teachings, such as the ones you mention. And I would ask, is the Catholic church any worse than many liberal churches that reject the historicity of the creation account, accept homosexuality, reject miracles, etc. etc.? I do feel that there is a fair bit of inconsistency there.
: Does Conservapedia handle this issue the best way it can? Probably not, but then Conservapedia's not perfect either!
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:22, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

(This is a discussion that may take a long time and much effort. I try not to talk too much on it, although I would like to clarify all doubts in this issue)

Hmm, here is my answer.

First: I do believe that some Catholics may be indeed Christians, that is receiving Jesus as their own personal Savior, as many Protestant fundamentalists say. However, if a Catholic is a Christian, his "Catholic" status is just a label. I see many people in Malaysia that are practically Christians, but have "Islam" status in their citizenship cards because of discrimination to the ex-Muslim converts in the country. The same thing may apply to some Catholics.

However, folks, this kind of case whereby a "Catholic" is a Christian is very unlikely to happen. A person, if saved and a Christian, knows the truth of salvation (except if he is an infant). For practising Catholics, do you really think they are Christians if everytime they think they are born again, it is because they are baptized (sprinkled)? Or, do you think they are Christians if everytime they think they received Jesus as Lord and Savior, it is because they eat the wafer god?

Second: I agree that the Catholics are no different with the liberal "Protestants". There is such a thing as true converts and false converts. (See Ray Comfort video for that one)

Third: If we have to classify Roman Catholicism as a Christian church, I think we have to define what Christianity means. My belief of Christianity is the biblical teaching of Jesus and the Bible. The "Christianity" mentioned everywhere else and the more common one is a collection of my biblical Christianity and the so-called pseudo-Christianity. Even if we have to choose the more common "Christianity" as the definition, I hope the term is defined first. Otherwise, some people including me will be upset with the statement like "Christianity comprises you-know-what".

:This will be a tricky one. What one church considers an indisputable fundamental of the faith, another will consider heresy. There are even some who claim to be Christian, yet deny the miracles described in the Gospels. About the only thing that everyone who calls themself a Christian can agree on is that Jesus was important, somehow. Obviously we need a defintion just to stop the really strange churches from declaring themselves in. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 07:36, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

[[User:MaveYEL]]

I think that this is a prime canidate to be a debate page, and though I`m not clear on how to make a debate page, maybe someone could for me

Just a thought but this article implies that the catholic church is the church that followed on from the ministry of Jesus. This isn't the case. The early Catholic church (it is alleged)known by scholars as the Pauline church (as it subscribed to the teachings of Paul of Tarsus,) engaged in a power struggle with what was at the time the established "Jerusalem Church" led by Jesus' brother James the Just. After the killing of James by a follower of the Pauline tradition (by throwing him off the corner of the temple mount and finishing him off with a fullers mallet)the Jerusalem church fled into the diaspora and the catholic church has done its best to suppress its existance ever since.
Would this be a worthwile edition?
The article is fairly scanty on the catholics role in evangalism accross the globe and its repository of history and knowledge particularly after the collapse of the Roman Empire. I realise that website is conservative in nature and the rift between The episcapalian ministry and The catholic church run's pretty deep in america and conservapedia tends to see people or groups with either a white hat or a black one, but surely Catholocism's influence on art, histiography and western culture in generalneeds to be acknowledged.

[[Trident1222]]

:Conspiracy theories that are not supported in the ancient documents will not get play here. You are taking a historical event, the death of James the brother of Jesus as recorded in history, and then adding on a fanciful addition of a "Pauline" cause. No. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:08, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

==What a waste of time==
I've tried three times to correct egregious mistakes in the Early History of this section and each time they've been reverted by a sysop with no explanation. The moral of this story is, if you write factual content that the people who run Conservapedia (which doesn't at all mean the same thing as people who are politically conservative, as understood anywhere outside the USA) find uncomfortable, the Conservapedia hierarchy will simply make an ex cathedra pronouncement that you're wrong and zap your edits.

I really can't be bothered arguing with them any longer. If their attitude to something as abstruse as the early history of the Catholic Church is that they'll believe what they want to believe, not what modern scholarship has discovered, then you can't believe a single word you read in this so-called encyclopedia about much more important subjects, like global warming or USA Presidential candidates. [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 09:47, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

:You have chosen to alter the article to put your own spin by simply removing enmasse what you did not like and adding what you wished, without discussing in talk, and without sources. When you were told this was not the way we operate and to rework it, you refused and simply put back the same unacceptable material. Even now you have an aggrandized view of yourself by putting this at the top of the talk section and not appending it to the bottom of the page in chronological order like everyone else has done. (I have move it for you). You do not work with others for the bettermen of the article. When you are serious about article improvement then you will be welcomed to return, but until that time, your departure will not be mourned. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:49, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

::All my edits were aimed at improving the factual content on the article. Much of the section of this article dealing with the early period is basically the agreed mythology of the church and has little connection with history. If you're seriously interested in the history of the early church, you should read 'The Formation of Christendom' by Judith Herrin (1987, Fontana). Professor Herrin is one of the leading scholars of church between 400 and 800 AD. But I warn you, this isn't a comfortable read for anyone who wants to believe in a myth of a unified church with Constantine the Great establishing an benign empire based on Christian principles.

::Anyway, Learn together, I've seen here and from many other edits you've made to other articles, that you - like most of the Conservapedia sysops (Philip J Rayment being an honourable exception - there may be others but I haven't seen them) - are perfectly happy to revert factual corrections to articles made by others if they happen to disagree with the cosy world view of American "conservatives", without explanation of any kind. Now, there may be many facts which are uncomfortable for the world-view of American "conservatives" (I repeat that this has very little connection with conservative politics outside the USA) but you and the other conservative sysops have to decide if you want to construct an encyclopedia of knowledge or an encyclopedia of approved prejudices for American "conservatives".

::I'm going to correct this article once more (this time, I'll add the Herrin reference). If you revert my edits, I'll conclude that facts which conflict with American "conservative" prejudices aren't welcome here. Your choice.[[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 17:42, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::What I see is that you are simply reinserting the same information, again without discussion as to individual merit, and basically saying that should be enough and any effort to revert it will look poorly upon me - no. I also have to ask what edits of Philip's in Roman Catholicism or the other articles you have edited led you to your conclusions?

:::I have allowed you to stay because you do have knowledge which I believe could be beneifical, but your approach must improve. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:13, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::::That's an improvement on your first contribution to this discussion. Which, if you recall, was to block me for a fortnight and label my contribution as vandalism, simply because I had corrected some serious errors in the article. [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 18:01, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::Oh, everyone gets banned by an overzealous admin. I've been there. With so many trolls sneaking around here, it's to be expected - have to keep on the alert, and take action at any suspicion. That, and this is a '''conservative''' encyclopedia - we are quite open in admitting we have a political agenda to advance. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 18:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::Understood, but what does any particular view of the history of the Catholic church have to do with conservatism in a political sense? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 19:02, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Essay: Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution

2008-09-15T16:57:27Z

KennyMac: /* Flawed Logic */

==Article or Essay?==

This is a great essay. However, it's not an encyclopedia article. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 11:25, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
:What on Earth are you talking about? This is a great conservative encyclopedia article. Secular humanist suppression of the truth doesn't hold water here on CP. [[User:PerMoberg|PerMoberg]] 19:10, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== This is a great article ==

Keep up the good work. [[User:DaiseyCutter|DaiseyCutter]] 17:00, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== No, it is certainly NOT a great article... ==
Saying that the "theory" of evolution is why people like Hitler and Stalin exist or have existed is absolute trash and intellectually faulty.[[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 20:53, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
: Agreed - it's a very poor article indeed. If you believe the theory of evolution is wrong because it influenced Hitler, then you MUST believe that Christianity is wrong because it influenced Pope Innocent III (and various other, extremely unpleasant, so-called religious leaders).

:By the way, Stalin didn't believe in Darwinian evolution. That was precisely the problem with Trofim [[Lysenko]], who persuaded Stalin that Soviet plant breeding should be based on the pre-Darwinian idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics - with disastrous results.[[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 18:59, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
::KennyMac, thank you for your strawman. The article never states that macroevolution never happened because it influenced Hitler and Stalin. The article merely states that it influenced Hitler and Stalin in a negative way. Secondly, Christianity may have influenced Pope Innocent III, but the question is how did it influence him? Is there anything in Christ's teaching that influenced that Pope in a negative way? If so, and I don't believe it is so, you have certainly failed to mention it. Of course, perhaps if the Pope in question was not influenced by Christianity he would have been a far worse individual in terms of his actions. I say that as a Protestant who is not exactly enamored with many of the acts of the Pope in question. Certainly Stalin and Hitler were individuals who were at the bottom of the barrel in terms of their deeds.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:57, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Ah well, you're distinguishing between what a modern, bible-based Protestant calls Christianity and the much broader, more general idea of Christianity elsewhere in the world and at other times. No, I can't point to a specific passage of the bible that influenced Pope I3 but I don't think you can say that he would have been an even worse person if he hadn't been influenced by Xtianity. His actions followed a very consistent pattern with an aim of strengthening the Catholic (i.e. universal) church on the basis of all authority stemming from the pope in Rome. That accounts for his promotion of crusades within Europe and the fourth crusade which he encouraged to destroy the Byzantine Empire.

:::The serious point is that you (or at least other CP users) can't attack the theory of evolution just because some of the worst people in history have been influenced by it. Exactly the same is true of Christianity. [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 19:19, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

== Flawed Logic ==
Following the arguments made within this article, all articles focusing on Christianity should be lined with pictures and references to those who have appropriated the tenets of Christianity for evil and despicable ends. There shouldn't be a shortage. [[User:Reeperbahn|Reeperbahn]] 20:06, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
:re: alleged no shortage: I see you did not name one. The irony is delicious. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:49, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
::Happy to start the list: Pope Innocent III (see above). Vile by present standards and despised by many people in his own day (early 13th century). He extended the control of the Catholic church over previously non-Catholic or pagan parts of Europe but the people who became Catholicised (or Christianised) didn't exactly have much choice in the matter. Not to mention his leadership role in the destruction of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade, the centre of the Christian world at the time, a fact which was very inconvenient for a pope who aspired to rule the Christian world from Rome.
::Others please continue. The list could be very long indeed. Many people involved in the First Crusade (who merrily destroyed several Greek towns before massacring the Muslim, Jewish AND Christian inhabitants of Jerusalem), almost anyone involved in the Fourth Crusade (see above), the Teutonic Knights (forced conversion of Prussia), the Spanish Inquisition (you should know this one), several Byzantine emperors (for whom narrow-minded religious bigotry was a perfectly good reason for massacring thousands of their subjects)... [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 19:11, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:: For the sake of fairness, I could add that many great and worthy people have been motivated by Christianity just as they have by other religions. [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 12:57, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-09-15T16:54:38Z

KennyMac: /* Muslim & Catholic holidays */

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]

== No longer presumptive ==

He's the real-deal nominee at this point. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]] 13:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:He's presumptive in the sense that Obama is far too inexperienced to be President. [[User:Redstatepride|Redstatepride]] 18:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

== Education In Jakarta, Indonesia ==

All students in Indonesia, regardless of religion get off for Islamic holy days including Nabi Isa which we know as Christmas. It's disengenuous to make a claim that because he went to a public school and got an Islamic holy day off that there's some nefarious connection. Muslims that attend Catholic school have to attend Mass whether they like it or not.--[[User:EmpressG1973|EmpressG1973]] 17:01, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

I think the point is that Barack Hussein Obama was observing an islamic holy day when he is claiming to be Christian. It just does'nt add up to alot of people and should make Christians think twice about him. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Actually it was his '''school''' that was observing the holiday. When a child attends a school, they can't just choose which days they want to take off. Your argument is ridiculous.-- [[User:rkstiner|rkstiner]]

How is my point incorrect? You can nit-pick it all you want but Obama attended a muslim school and observed muslim holidays. Thats all there is to it. Take your liberal name-calling elsewhere. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Name calling?....where?[[User:Rkstiner|Rkstiner]]

:So a Jew who attends a public school in this country doesn't go to school on Christmas, so he is therefore observing a Christian holiday? Making him, I suppose, a Christian? Doesn't make sense. [[User:MichaelR|MichaelR]] 16:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

::You shouldn't have to defend it at all. Barack Hussein Obama is very likely a muslim there is strong evidence to suggest it. Since when is being a muslim such a bad thing? It's not, unless your running for President and try to lie about it. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

== Reversion Explained ==

We don't post a politician's self-serving claptrap. Obama catered to anti-patriotic donors to win the nomination. There's no real dispute about that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:Remember, Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy, and children read this website. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::What's your point? That children don't need to know he flip flopped on wearing a flag pin? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 15:39, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::The point is that children especially should be told the truth. Include the flip-flopping by all means, but also include his explanation for why he did flip-flop. This has more validity then stating "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." Adequate to whom? By what criteria is the inadequacy judged? If he had explained it by saying "it's none of your business", or did not offer an explanation, then certainly that would qualify as "without adequate explanation." Remember: Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:56, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I agree that citing his explanation and then explaining why conservatives find it inadequate would be an improvement. I would make said improvement, but I am currently hard "at work". [[User:TJason|TJason]] 16:09, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action President ==

I reverted the removal of "affirmative action president" for now. Corey, can you explain why this is racist? If affirmative action isn't racist, why is describing someone as an "affirmative action president" racist? Is your problem with the description that it is racist? Or that it is untrue? I think these are two separate issues. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 10:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:This speaks to what I think is an enormous problem with affirmative action (no, I'm not a complete supporter), claiming that a minority only got a job because they are a minority. I think that claiming that Barack Obama's political success comes only from his being black is racist demagoguery, or at least rhetoric designed to incite racial tensions. I have no doubt that there are some people who support Obama only because of the color of his skin, just the same as there are those who oppose him only for the same reason. Also, I will not say that there isn't a desire by many people to see somebody other than white male in the White House. But this is not the ''only'' reason most of Obama's supporters have for supporting him, as the term "affirmative action president" suggests. He has political experience and he is a deft politician, which figures greatly in a political campaign. I would implore anybody who considers Obama to have no accomplishments to compare his life to that of our sitting president before 2000. Some time in office, a string of business failures, and questionable service in the Texas Air National Guard. Fortunately for G.W. Bush, his father is Bush 41. Bush supporters discuss his successes as his own doing. Claiming that Obama's are not his own because he is black sounds rather racist to me. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::George W. Bush was governor of Texas; some people consider that to be a political accomplishment. I think you will have to go pretty far back to find a candidate for President whose entire political career was two years as a Senator. In 1988 Dan Quayle was blasted for his lack of experience for a Vice Presidential candidate, and he had already served many more years in the Congress than Barack Obama has. Like it or not Obama was fasttracked and bypassed the usual protocols because of the color of his skin. Whether or not this is appropriate is left to each individual to decide. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::A governorship is certainly a political accomplishment, one which George W. Bush would probably have been unable to attain were it not for his father's name. There is hardly any information on the George W. Bush entry on this site pertaining to his life before his presidency, the details of which would likely lead many people to conclude that were George H.W. Bush not so well-connected his son would not be president. In contrast, the opening paragraph of Obama's entry uses his race to attack him politically. I find this hard to rationalize. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::There is not usually an understood litmus test for governor. Some people are longterm politicians, others are not. For instance Arnold held only minor political appointments before he became governor of California. But the Presidency has generally required proving yourself in some capacity. Bush was a well respected governor who received high marks. Carter, Clinton, and Reagan had all been governors. Someone running for President who has not successfully governed a state and has only been in Congress for 2 years is very out of the ordinary. Again, note what Quayle was put through and he was only a Vice Presidential candidate. That being said, I am not necessarily supporting the article in the form it has taken. I have not read it in quite some time, but if it is a leadoff then that would seem to be inappropriate. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:47, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Obama's experience is fair game, and I agree that he has not had as much time in political office as the average candidate. I think that using race as an issue detracts from this fair and logical line of debate. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::I don't think that the term "affirmative action president" suggests that affirmative action is the '''only''' reason Obama is where he is. I think the term is supposed to denote that his being black is a '''major''' force behind his success. Also, I think the term brings to light that, historically, this is a first. No previous nominee has been the beneficiary of affirmative action in the way Obama has. At any rate, ''I'' won't revert the edit if you remove it again, since you've made your case and I am not willing to fight to keep it in. I suspect others might, though. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Where has he explicitly benefited from affirmative action programs? This is a "heads, I win, tails, you lose" situation. If he doesn't get into Harvard Law or win an election, it's because of lack of merit. If he succeeds, it's because the standards were lowered due to his race. This is an extremely dubious political argument. Attack him on his policies, voting record, character, or fitness to lead: fire as they bear! That's our process, and it's a good process. But these race arguments are petty, desperate, and drag our political discourse down to a despicable level. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I am pretty sure that Harvard Law Review has an affirmative action policy, but I will have to check. Regardless, I think the term also covers "implicit" affirmative action that has benefited Obama (e.g. a white candidate with his experience would not be taken seriously). [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:10, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::"Implicit" affirmative action seems to be in the realm of vagueness and speculation. I refer you to Conservapedia Commandment 1: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:25, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Like I said, I'm not really willing to fight over this. We are at least in agreement that this is a distraction from the real issue: his actual positions. I reverted the edit because I thought what was said in the edit comment should have been spelled out in the talk page. It has been. Therefore, if you want to remove the reference again, I won't revert it again.[[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I have no intention of perpetuating a pointless revert war, either, and I agree that discussion of the real issues suffer because of such statements. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== "Alleged" birth revert ==

Even the National Review doesn't dispute the [http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk= authenticity of Obama's birth certificate.] Why is Obama's birth information being censored by this website? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:30, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::There is no censorship here. Removing any mention that there is doubt about the authenticity of his birth certificate is censorship, imho. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:34, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::However, the way rumor is so prominently injected into the article within the first five words is clear weasel-wording. A separate section regarding the issue would be more appropriate than saying that he was "allegedly" born somewhere, and I wouldn't oppose such a section. Seeing as how you usually hear the word "allegedly" on the news while watching a video of a perp walk, it is unnecessarily loaded language. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:42, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And accusing senior CP members of "weasel-wording" isn't loaded? You should watch your step. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:46, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:: We know many [[liberal]]s love [[deceit]], and the birth certificate posted by [[Obama]]'s campaign has obvious defects. Even its number is blotted out for unexplained reasons. There are still unanswered questions about his place and date of birth, and what is on his real certificate, which his campaign has not released. We provide the information about this and let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:12, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Then maybe the thing to do would be to dedicate a separate section to present the issue. It would be much clearer and provide more information than the status quo. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 14:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::I have reverted another removal of the word "alleged" since there are still unanswered questions about his birth certificate. Is the consensus that this should be made into a new section? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 17:18, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would agree with a section. This entire article could do with a better layout and more sectioning. Our John McCain article is better in this regard - perhaps we could use this as a blueprint? [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 17:38, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) We seem to be in agreement. I'll make a section tomorrow, under the "Published Criticism" section. I would like to add that I love it when people of different viewpoints can meet in the middle. Good night. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:44, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:I like the changes you have made. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::(edit conflict) Thank you. As discussed, I added a section regarding the birth certificate controversy and removed "alleged" from the intro paragraph. I tried to make it as evenly written as I could. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:40, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::Also, what is up with the tag at the beginning of the article? I don't know what this is used for, but it doesn't appear to be doing anything except make "span" the first word in the article. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:44, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

:::1. You're right- I scanned the diff and thought he removed the Daily Kos ref. 2. I don't know. I never noticed it before. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:46, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

== We have a problem ==

Okay... to start things off I am deathly afraid of this man getting elected and think he would ruin our wonderful nation. I do think that the media is helping him and realize that he is basically "the chosen one." My conservative principles help me make all of those opinions. Heres the thing. This place exists because someone thought that wikipedia was biased and unfair... but honestly... some of this stuff borders on propaganda! For Pete's sake our job as conservatives is too tell the truth and expose things about him. This page is going too far. I'm embarrassed to know that my fellow conservatives wrote this! This page can still be dedicated to exposing the truth about "the chosen one." But we'll be SO much more effective if we do it properly and fairly. If you want to contact me its easier to do so at my wikipedia talk page of the same name. Thank you and lets try to do better please. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 15:32, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: A true conservative would be appalled at Wikipedia and not contribute to their cause-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:39, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

== Hussein Obama's Birth Certificate Number ==

I copied this from the [[Talk:Main_Page#Obama_Born_In_U.S.A.|Main Page Talk section]] to here because you all might find it of interest. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

----
:[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Look at this photo], is this Barack Obama's birth certificate? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 23:44, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

::It's interesting that they finally give the, so-called authentic, birth certificate number in this supposedly unfaked photo. It is '''151 1961 - 010641'''. The reason I bring this up, and I think the REAL reason this was masked, is because numerological analysis shows something very disturbing. If you add up the three sets of digits thus:<blockquote>151 + 1961 + 010641 = 12753</blockquote>and then add the individual digits of the result thus:<blockquote>1 + 2 + 7 + 5 + 3 = 18</blockquote>the final result, 18, is the product of three sixes (3 x 6 = 18). Three sixes, or [[666]], sort of speaks for itself. I just thought this was interesting. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:22, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
----

I think it's rather obvious that AdmiralNelson doesn't take this site seriously. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 20:51, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Does anyone? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:05, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm giving it a chance. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 21:14, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:::So am I. I new here and was hoping to find stuff that would challenge my beliefs, so far not much luck. [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:21, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I quote myself? '''I just thought this was interesting.''' For "seriousness" [[Special:Contributions/AdmiralNelson|I stand by my record]]. Feel free to check it out. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:29, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

==Lawsuit==
The guy filing the lawsuit doesn't dispute the fact that he he was born in Honolulu. He is disputing that Obama is a US citizen after he lived in Indonesia. So why does it say allegedly born still? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 19:08, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

: I think he does dispute it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Dilution ==

Don't dilute the entry by referring to the silly text messaging stunt in the first paragraph.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I put it down in the Presidential Campaign section instead then? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:49, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Requested change ==
Original text:
{{Cquote|On June 3rd, Barack Obama had received enough pledged delegates and the endorsement of superdelegates to be called the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party by the Democratic National Committee. The nomination became official when Hillary Clinton conceded on June 7th.}}
Requested new text:
{{Cquote|Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 3rd after receiving a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. His only remaining primary opponent, [[Hillary Clinton]], conceded the race on June 7th. On August 23, Joe Biden was announced as Obama's vice-presidential nominee. Obama became the official Democratic nominee on August 27 at the Democratic National Convention, when Hillary Clinton's motion to end the roll call vote of the states and select Obama by acclamation was passed.}}
This more accurately describes what happened and updates the section with last week's events. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 17:02, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
===Another===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=506483&oldid=505653 This link] should be commented out until [[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate| this abysmal essay]] is fixed. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 17:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==Pearl Harbor issue==

The entire section regarding his comments about Pearl Harbor has got to go. There is no reason to imply that someone leaving an 's' off the word 'bomb' (''bomb'''s''''' did fall on Pearl Harbor, that much is true, right?) means they ignore or disdain American history. I'm guessing the McCain article makes no immediate mention of his confusion over the borders of Iran, or his lack of knowledge about the situation in Iraq, illustrated by the fact that he mixed up the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. Do either of those things make sense? NO! I'm sure John McCain knows what he's talking about, and I'm sure he's not confused about the issues at hand. Obviously, which course of action he chooses to follow is eternally and rightly up for debate, and if we want to highlight that debate about Obama, then that's fine. But it's ridiculous - nay, ridicule-worthy - to say that Obama leaving out an 's' means he thinks Pearl Harbor was nuked. That's so stupid it turns neurons into Pop Rocks. [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 19:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

No, it should stay, the man's an idiot, clearly. Also - I added the "any educated person would know" bit, which Jareddr just removed. But I'd point out that many of the younger generation ''don't'' know that it wasn't one bomb. I've even spoken to young folk who confuse Pearl Harbor with Hiroshima, and think that the nuclear bomb was dropped on Pearl Harbor! It's remarkable how uneducated some of today's public-school educated youth are. Also, people from foreign countries may not know the context of Obama's gaffe. Perhaps that point might be allowed back in - Jareddr, if you want to re-word it yourself maybe? I think it's kind of important, the stupidity of his point might be missed otherwise. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:55, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:Then state something to the effect of, "In actuality, multiple bombs were dropped on Pearl Harbor during the Japanese mission." You didn't say anything about being foreign-educated, only "any educated person..." If you want to place it in context using my above phrasing, go ahead. But the entire section has already been set up to switch verbal miscues for "idiocy" so no need to pile on, as they say.

:Besides, you don't see anything on McCain's pages about him "not knowing" the difference between Sunni and Shiite, referencing Czechoslovakia (a now defunct country), or calling Putin the President of Germany.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:58, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:OK, I'l do that then Jareddr, thanks for the suggestion. As to the McCain entry, I don't think we need to highlight those issues, they're a distraction. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 15:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::True, we don't want to confuse the readers about the candidate storylines. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:11, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::The entry should be removed, since McCain failed to state how many homes he owns is no where to be seen on the McCain article. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 15:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Don't be ridiculous, Samuel. Many everyday Americans have trouble remembering how many homes they own. Sometimes they own a home, but it's in someone else's name, or it's just a vacation lodge, or it's a few homes on one piece of property. Ask people on the street how many homes they own, and I guarantee very few will answer! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:46, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: McCain isn't running to be a real estate agent for the country.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:52, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::True, but he spoke about real estate business, and it's undeniably a large factor in the economy, which is a current problem. Compare that to Obama and 60 years ago? Oh Please. Thanks for the sarcasm Jared. :P [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 16:39, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Obama isn't running to be a history teacher for the country either, though. One could argue that if you're going to enforce a populist message, and cast yourself as an "everyman" and your opponent as "elite", you should be able to answer how many homes you have on command. We're not looking for net value, just a (presumably) single-digit number. I'm not aware of any "everyman" that forgets that number, but I'm sure some "elite" may forget. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Obama can try that next, Samuel: "Who cares about what happened at Pearl Harbor? That was 60 years ago!!!" Good luck to him and his supporters with that absurd approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:12, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::What's more absurd is putting words in my mouth (as well as Obama's, apparently?), as if I were trying to say that I didn't care about Pearl Harbor. I said no such thing. I was comparing something that happened over 60 years ago to present time in relevance to gaffe, nothing more and nothing less, in comparison to Obama's article and McCain's. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 19:29, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Obama's gaffe was about an essential element of American history that defines our country; McCain's was not. We do expect presidents to know important aspects of American history. We really do. We don't care if they can tell you how wealthy they are, or how many houses they own.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::And yet McCain's belief in an Iraq/Pakistan border - and his belief that a country named "Czechoslovakia" still exists - shows how out of touch he may be with the issues that matter NOW.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 19:42, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:I won't compare the semantics of how you measure the impact and importance of a slip-up, but it ''is'' rather telling that the Obama article prominently features such a slip-up while the McCain article apparently doesn't. This doesn't compute. Both of them have had weird moments ("President Putin of Germany", anybody?), and in fact, everybody has slip-ups. Bushisms, anybody? So why do we have to pick on Obama's mistakes alone?
:An encyclopedia needs consistent standards. Entries about similar topics should be comparable. They should be similar in style. They should follow the same intuitive standards.
:Overall, the McCain article looks like a very good example of how such an entry should look like (kudos to those who made it that way), and the Obama article is a prime example of something that would look great on some obvious right-wing propaganda site, but ''not'' in an encyclopedia. The part before the TOC should be condensed and moved to another part of the article. The intro section (the part before the TOC) is supposed to be an ''intro''. It should briefly sum up who he is and what he does, period. Then come biography sections, then his political stuff, then the Presidential campaign. And THERE you should feature the notable events or slip-ups. I'm most definitely no Obama supporter, but when comparing the McCain and Obama articles, you don't have to do a deep analysis to figure out that this site is way more political activism than encyclopedia, and I think that should change. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:22, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

== Citation Needed ==

The first sentence in the second paragraph about Barack Obama reads this:
Obama almost always reads from prepared text on a teleprompter and rarely allows tough questions.

It then gives the citation down at the bottom, which reads this:
After one debate against Hillary Clinton in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her.

I don't think that's a real citation. Does a link not need to be provided? Just like anybody can type anything on the main page, anybody can type anything as the citation too. I would suggest either finding legitimate proof to this claim, or just take it down.

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

The whole tone of this article on Barack Obama is appalling. It is poorly written, inaccurate, misleading, insulting and thoroughly vile. I would be ashamed to publish such contemptible stuff.

: That's your first -- and only -- contribution here. Hope you can do better than that!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:17, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

I see someone is watching the Obama talk page like a hawk. I stand by my previous remarks and hope to be adding many more in the near future.

: Good for you. And my hope is that you'll have better contributions to this site than what you've done so far.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:25, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

:: I have to say that to a foreigner, this article reads like one-sided drivel. Some of it is so blatantly ridiculous that it gives a negative impression of the people writing it, not Obama. Surely you should be attacking him over his policies rather than a non-existent issue over where he was born or some completely pathetic nonsense about him taking holidays at the same time as other kids in his school. (Amazing but true: Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist children in Britain take holidays at Christmas and Easter; they don't volunteer for extra classes on those days.) This article reads as though you've given up all hope of defeating him on political grounds and are just falling back on rather silly personal remarks. Surely you can do better than that! (Kindly read that as constructive criticism.) [[User:Googly|Googly]] 19:45, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== I'm noticing a very disturbing pattern... ==

# (cur) (last) 15:45, 8 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (59,707 bytes) (Reverted edits by Lodovico (Talk); changed back to last version by Ampersand) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 15:42, 8 September 2008 Lodovico (Talk | contribs) m (59,972 bytes) (Corrected information of misinterpretation) (undo)

Alright, so notice that Lodovico makes an edit, and adds sufficient reasoning for his edit in the apt column. Notice then that Andrew changes it, and doesn't even look to the talk page to provide ANY reasoning.

# (cur) (last) 23:55, 6 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (58,039 bytes) (Reverted edits by Chippeterson (Talk); changed back to last version by AliceBG) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 23:52, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,095 bytes) (→Senate career) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:19, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,052 bytes) (I don't like Obama anymore then ayone else on Conservapedia, but come on. The two pictures should be reversed) (undo)

Here again we have a very reasonable edit, that it reverted without adequate explanation.

# (cur) (last) 14:36, 25 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (57,388 bytes) (Reverted edits by Impm (Talk); changed back to last version by Aschlafly) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:35, 25 August 2008 Impm (Talk | contribs) (57,106 bytes) (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html He was born in Hawaii unequivocally.) (undo)

Impm makes what appears to be a reasonable edit, and Andrew changes it again.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Citation_Needed <--- Here is another example; everyone is discussing the pertinent issue, including Andrew, but then drops out of the picture and: (cur) (last) 10:09, 27 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) (57,862 bytes) (restored material deleted by liberal censorship) (undo)

I'm just wondering, but why is it we have to discuss changes we want to make whenever an edit conflict arises, but Andrew doesn't? This makes it essentially impossible to edit any article that Andrew has become party to because you can never know which of your edits will be acceptable or not.

Then there is this: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Affirmative_Action_President

Despite the lack as a citation for the statement that caused that particular talk-page topic to manifest, and the lack-of-response from Andrew, any time this statement is changed Andrew swoops in and reverts it.

Am I alone in seeing this? Do I see a ghost ruffling the leafs or is it simply just the wind?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 19:51, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
:I've noticed it too, but I didn't think asking him about it would change anything. Especially on the "affirmative action president" thing. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:15, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::This is inane. It's been more at least a day now and we haven't even gotten a one sentence response yet; just more reverted edits without adequate explanation. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:28, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

::Welcome to conservapedia. Often if you attempt to question the work of ASchlafly, he will simply ignore you. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 18:33, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

::Jirby, be concise in your comments. This site isn't a liberal blog where people talk, talk, talk without saying anything. Reversions do not have a place for summarizing the reason in the wiki software. Also, people who only criticize conservatives without criticizing the liberal vandals lack credibility.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:::So the best you can do... is complain that my words are too big and my sentences are too long? And here I was trying my best not to mischaracterize you. Shame on me! It is also clearly evident that revisions do not have a comment box, but how does that keep you from posting your reasons for consistently reverting factual edits here? It doesn't. My concern also isn't with liberal/conservative/anarchist vandals because they're freaking obvious and will be dealt with without my input (unless in the case of the uppity negro comment from before) they have fallen under the radar of authority and it behooves me to say something. Now stop trying to shift this in a way as if it is MY fault for trying to make you accountable as per your own rules. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:49, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: Jirby, your above rant illustrates my point. I'm moving on and request that you be substantive and concise in the future.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:53, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

==Large repetitions!==
The "Published Criticism" section repeats, aside from a couple of sentances, almost word for word the introduction. This needs changing as it looks silly to have repetitions so I am going to leave this comment to see if there is any response and wait 48 hours and then go to work on fixing it. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 21:17, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

: Fine, but don't remove information from the introduction. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::I'll only remove the double-ups from the lower section. Thanks for the quick response! [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 21:20, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== Marxist/redistrubution of wealth line ==

Was just trying to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=512956&oldid=512942 fix my spelling error], not trying to revert Andy. --[[User:GunsandaBible|GunsandaBible]].

=="My Muslim Faith" quote==
I've seen the video of this quote and it is taken totally out of context. What Obama is saying is that JOhn McCain has not accused him of being a secret muslim. Does anyone really believe that this is Obama mistakenly revealing that he is a muslim? Anyone who has seen the video can't seriously believe that this is the case. This quote should be removed before people start taking it seriously. [[User:Billgates3|Billgates3]]

:Can someone explain why you think it would be such a big deal if Barack Obama were actually Muslim? (Leaving aside for the moment the lack of any evidence that he ever has been a Muslim.) I thought you guys in the USA believed in separation of religion and the state, so why does it matter what religion, if any, the President happens to follow? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 20:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

== Muslim & Catholic holidays ==

Why on earth are CP people bothered about the fact that Obama had holidays for Muslim festivals when he went to school in a Muslim country? Muslim (and Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish and Zoroastrian) children take days off school for Christian holidays in the UK without society collapsing. Honestly, some of the stuff on this page is just weird. Why on earth don't you guys concentrate on his policies (or lack of any) instead of getting so worked up about personal matters which are complete non-issues? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 19:27, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:It is a matter of honesty which Obama will not address. America has never elected somebody with such a secret history as Barack hides from. Criticize CP all you want, I don't expect you to last here that long. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:12, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::Err... why not, exactly? What's the problem with suggesting that politically-active people in the USA should concentrate on politics, not on minor details (or utterly trivial ones, in this case) of a candidate's personal life? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 12:54, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-09-14T23:27:14Z

KennyMac: /* Muslim & Catholic holidays */ new section

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]

== No longer presumptive ==

He's the real-deal nominee at this point. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]] 13:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:He's presumptive in the sense that Obama is far too inexperienced to be President. [[User:Redstatepride|Redstatepride]] 18:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

== Education In Jakarta, Indonesia ==

All students in Indonesia, regardless of religion get off for Islamic holy days including Nabi Isa which we know as Christmas. It's disengenuous to make a claim that because he went to a public school and got an Islamic holy day off that there's some nefarious connection. Muslims that attend Catholic school have to attend Mass whether they like it or not.--[[User:EmpressG1973|EmpressG1973]] 17:01, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

I think the point is that Barack Hussein Obama was observing an islamic holy day when he is claiming to be Christian. It just does'nt add up to alot of people and should make Christians think twice about him. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Actually it was his '''school''' that was observing the holiday. When a child attends a school, they can't just choose which days they want to take off. Your argument is ridiculous.-- [[User:rkstiner|rkstiner]]

How is my point incorrect? You can nit-pick it all you want but Obama attended a muslim school and observed muslim holidays. Thats all there is to it. Take your liberal name-calling elsewhere. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

:So a Jew who attends a public school in this country doesn't go to school on Christmas, so he is therefore observing a Christian holiday? Making him, I suppose, a Christian? Doesn't make sense. [[User:MichaelR|MichaelR]] 16:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

::You shouldn't have to defend it at all. Barack Hussein Obama is very likely a muslim there is strong evidence to suggest it. Since when is being a muslim such a bad thing? It's not, unless your running for President and try to lie about it. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

== Reversion Explained ==

We don't post a politician's self-serving claptrap. Obama catered to anti-patriotic donors to win the nomination. There's no real dispute about that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:Remember, Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy, and children read this website. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::What's your point? That children don't need to know he flip flopped on wearing a flag pin? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 15:39, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::The point is that children especially should be told the truth. Include the flip-flopping by all means, but also include his explanation for why he did flip-flop. This has more validity then stating "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." Adequate to whom? By what criteria is the inadequacy judged? If he had explained it by saying "it's none of your business", or did not offer an explanation, then certainly that would qualify as "without adequate explanation." Remember: Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:56, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I agree that citing his explanation and then explaining why conservatives find it inadequate would be an improvement. I would make said improvement, but I am currently hard "at work". [[User:TJason|TJason]] 16:09, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action President ==

I reverted the removal of "affirmative action president" for now. Corey, can you explain why this is racist? If affirmative action isn't racist, why is describing someone as an "affirmative action president" racist? Is your problem with the description that it is racist? Or that it is untrue? I think these are two separate issues. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 10:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:This speaks to what I think is an enormous problem with affirmative action (no, I'm not a complete supporter), claiming that a minority only got a job because they are a minority. I think that claiming that Barack Obama's political success comes only from his being black is racist demagoguery, or at least rhetoric designed to incite racial tensions. I have no doubt that there are some people who support Obama only because of the color of his skin, just the same as there are those who oppose him only for the same reason. Also, I will not say that there isn't a desire by many people to see somebody other than white male in the White House. But this is not the ''only'' reason most of Obama's supporters have for supporting him, as the term "affirmative action president" suggests. He has political experience and he is a deft politician, which figures greatly in a political campaign. I would implore anybody who considers Obama to have no accomplishments to compare his life to that of our sitting president before 2000. Some time in office, a string of business failures, and questionable service in the Texas Air National Guard. Fortunately for G.W. Bush, his father is Bush 41. Bush supporters discuss his successes as his own doing. Claiming that Obama's are not his own because he is black sounds rather racist to me. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::George W. Bush was governor of Texas; some people consider that to be a political accomplishment. I think you will have to go pretty far back to find a candidate for President whose entire political career was two years as a Senator. In 1988 Dan Quayle was blasted for his lack of experience for a Vice Presidential candidate, and he had already served many more years in the Congress than Barack Obama has. Like it or not Obama was fasttracked and bypassed the usual protocols because of the color of his skin. Whether or not this is appropriate is left to each individual to decide. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::A governorship is certainly a political accomplishment, one which George W. Bush would probably have been unable to attain were it not for his father's name. There is hardly any information on the George W. Bush entry on this site pertaining to his life before his presidency, the details of which would likely lead many people to conclude that were George H.W. Bush not so well-connected his son would not be president. In contrast, the opening paragraph of Obama's entry uses his race to attack him politically. I find this hard to rationalize. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::There is not usually an understood litmus test for governor. Some people are longterm politicians, others are not. For instance Arnold held only minor political appointments before he became governor of California. But the Presidency has generally required proving yourself in some capacity. Bush was a well respected governor who received high marks. Carter, Clinton, and Reagan had all been governors. Someone running for President who has not successfully governed a state and has only been in Congress for 2 years is very out of the ordinary. Again, note what Quayle was put through and he was only a Vice Presidential candidate. That being said, I am not necessarily supporting the article in the form it has taken. I have not read it in quite some time, but if it is a leadoff then that would seem to be inappropriate. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:47, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Obama's experience is fair game, and I agree that he has not had as much time in political office as the average candidate. I think that using race as an issue detracts from this fair and logical line of debate. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::I don't think that the term "affirmative action president" suggests that affirmative action is the '''only''' reason Obama is where he is. I think the term is supposed to denote that his being black is a '''major''' force behind his success. Also, I think the term brings to light that, historically, this is a first. No previous nominee has been the beneficiary of affirmative action in the way Obama has. At any rate, ''I'' won't revert the edit if you remove it again, since you've made your case and I am not willing to fight to keep it in. I suspect others might, though. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Where has he explicitly benefited from affirmative action programs? This is a "heads, I win, tails, you lose" situation. If he doesn't get into Harvard Law or win an election, it's because of lack of merit. If he succeeds, it's because the standards were lowered due to his race. This is an extremely dubious political argument. Attack him on his policies, voting record, character, or fitness to lead: fire as they bear! That's our process, and it's a good process. But these race arguments are petty, desperate, and drag our political discourse down to a despicable level. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I am pretty sure that Harvard Law Review has an affirmative action policy, but I will have to check. Regardless, I think the term also covers "implicit" affirmative action that has benefited Obama (e.g. a white candidate with his experience would not be taken seriously). [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:10, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::"Implicit" affirmative action seems to be in the realm of vagueness and speculation. I refer you to Conservapedia Commandment 1: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:25, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Like I said, I'm not really willing to fight over this. We are at least in agreement that this is a distraction from the real issue: his actual positions. I reverted the edit because I thought what was said in the edit comment should have been spelled out in the talk page. It has been. Therefore, if you want to remove the reference again, I won't revert it again.[[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I have no intention of perpetuating a pointless revert war, either, and I agree that discussion of the real issues suffer because of such statements. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== "Alleged" birth revert ==

Even the National Review doesn't dispute the [http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk= authenticity of Obama's birth certificate.] Why is Obama's birth information being censored by this website? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:30, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::There is no censorship here. Removing any mention that there is doubt about the authenticity of his birth certificate is censorship, imho. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:34, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::However, the way rumor is so prominently injected into the article within the first five words is clear weasel-wording. A separate section regarding the issue would be more appropriate than saying that he was "allegedly" born somewhere, and I wouldn't oppose such a section. Seeing as how you usually hear the word "allegedly" on the news while watching a video of a perp walk, it is unnecessarily loaded language. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:42, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And accusing senior CP members of "weasel-wording" isn't loaded? You should watch your step. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:46, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:: We know many [[liberal]]s love [[deceit]], and the birth certificate posted by [[Obama]]'s campaign has obvious defects. Even its number is blotted out for unexplained reasons. There are still unanswered questions about his place and date of birth, and what is on his real certificate, which his campaign has not released. We provide the information about this and let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:12, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Then maybe the thing to do would be to dedicate a separate section to present the issue. It would be much clearer and provide more information than the status quo. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 14:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::I have reverted another removal of the word "alleged" since there are still unanswered questions about his birth certificate. Is the consensus that this should be made into a new section? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 17:18, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would agree with a section. This entire article could do with a better layout and more sectioning. Our John McCain article is better in this regard - perhaps we could use this as a blueprint? [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 17:38, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) We seem to be in agreement. I'll make a section tomorrow, under the "Published Criticism" section. I would like to add that I love it when people of different viewpoints can meet in the middle. Good night. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:44, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:I like the changes you have made. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::(edit conflict) Thank you. As discussed, I added a section regarding the birth certificate controversy and removed "alleged" from the intro paragraph. I tried to make it as evenly written as I could. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:40, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::Also, what is up with the tag at the beginning of the article? I don't know what this is used for, but it doesn't appear to be doing anything except make "span" the first word in the article. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:44, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

:::1. You're right- I scanned the diff and thought he removed the Daily Kos ref. 2. I don't know. I never noticed it before. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:46, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

== We have a problem ==

Okay... to start things off I am deathly afraid of this man getting elected and think he would ruin our wonderful nation. I do think that the media is helping him and realize that he is basically "the chosen one." My conservative principles help me make all of those opinions. Heres the thing. This place exists because someone thought that wikipedia was biased and unfair... but honestly... some of this stuff borders on propaganda! For Pete's sake our job as conservatives is too tell the truth and expose things about him. This page is going too far. I'm embarrassed to know that my fellow conservatives wrote this! This page can still be dedicated to exposing the truth about "the chosen one." But we'll be SO much more effective if we do it properly and fairly. If you want to contact me its easier to do so at my wikipedia talk page of the same name. Thank you and lets try to do better please. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 15:32, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: A true conservative would be appalled at Wikipedia and not contribute to their cause-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:39, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

== Hussein Obama's Birth Certificate Number ==

I copied this from the [[Talk:Main_Page#Obama_Born_In_U.S.A.|Main Page Talk section]] to here because you all might find it of interest. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

----
:[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Look at this photo], is this Barack Obama's birth certificate? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 23:44, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

::It's interesting that they finally give the, so-called authentic, birth certificate number in this supposedly unfaked photo. It is '''151 1961 - 010641'''. The reason I bring this up, and I think the REAL reason this was masked, is because numerological analysis shows something very disturbing. If you add up the three sets of digits thus:<blockquote>151 + 1961 + 010641 = 12753</blockquote>and then add the individual digits of the result thus:<blockquote>1 + 2 + 7 + 5 + 3 = 18</blockquote>the final result, 18, is the product of three sixes (3 x 6 = 18). Three sixes, or [[666]], sort of speaks for itself. I just thought this was interesting. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:22, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
----

I think it's rather obvious that AdmiralNelson doesn't take this site seriously. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 20:51, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Does anyone? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:05, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm giving it a chance. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 21:14, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:::So am I. I new here and was hoping to find stuff that would challenge my beliefs, so far not much luck. [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:21, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I quote myself? '''I just thought this was interesting.''' For "seriousness" [[Special:Contributions/AdmiralNelson|I stand by my record]]. Feel free to check it out. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:29, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

==Lawsuit==
The guy filing the lawsuit doesn't dispute the fact that he he was born in Honolulu. He is disputing that Obama is a US citizen after he lived in Indonesia. So why does it say allegedly born still? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 19:08, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

: I think he does dispute it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Dilution ==

Don't dilute the entry by referring to the silly text messaging stunt in the first paragraph.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I put it down in the Presidential Campaign section instead then? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:49, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Requested change ==
Original text:
{{Cquote|On June 3rd, Barack Obama had received enough pledged delegates and the endorsement of superdelegates to be called the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party by the Democratic National Committee. The nomination became official when Hillary Clinton conceded on June 7th.}}
Requested new text:
{{Cquote|Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 3rd after receiving a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. His only remaining primary opponent, [[Hillary Clinton]], conceded the race on June 7th. On August 23, Joe Biden was announced as Obama's vice-presidential nominee. Obama became the official Democratic nominee on August 27 at the Democratic National Convention, when Hillary Clinton's motion to end the roll call vote of the states and select Obama by acclamation was passed.}}
This more accurately describes what happened and updates the section with last week's events. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 17:02, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
===Another===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=506483&oldid=505653 This link] should be commented out until [[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate| this abysmal essay]] is fixed. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 17:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==Pearl Harbor issue==

The entire section regarding his comments about Pearl Harbor has got to go. There is no reason to imply that someone leaving an 's' off the word 'bomb' (''bomb'''s''''' did fall on Pearl Harbor, that much is true, right?) means they ignore or disdain American history. I'm guessing the McCain article makes no immediate mention of his confusion over the borders of Iran, or his lack of knowledge about the situation in Iraq, illustrated by the fact that he mixed up the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. Do either of those things make sense? NO! I'm sure John McCain knows what he's talking about, and I'm sure he's not confused about the issues at hand. Obviously, which course of action he chooses to follow is eternally and rightly up for debate, and if we want to highlight that debate about Obama, then that's fine. But it's ridiculous - nay, ridicule-worthy - to say that Obama leaving out an 's' means he thinks Pearl Harbor was nuked. That's so stupid it turns neurons into Pop Rocks. [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 19:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

No, it should stay, the man's an idiot, clearly. Also - I added the "any educated person would know" bit, which Jareddr just removed. But I'd point out that many of the younger generation ''don't'' know that it wasn't one bomb. I've even spoken to young folk who confuse Pearl Harbor with Hiroshima, and think that the nuclear bomb was dropped on Pearl Harbor! It's remarkable how uneducated some of today's public-school educated youth are. Also, people from foreign countries may not know the context of Obama's gaffe. Perhaps that point might be allowed back in - Jareddr, if you want to re-word it yourself maybe? I think it's kind of important, the stupidity of his point might be missed otherwise. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:55, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:Then state something to the effect of, "In actuality, multiple bombs were dropped on Pearl Harbor during the Japanese mission." You didn't say anything about being foreign-educated, only "any educated person..." If you want to place it in context using my above phrasing, go ahead. But the entire section has already been set up to switch verbal miscues for "idiocy" so no need to pile on, as they say.

:Besides, you don't see anything on McCain's pages about him "not knowing" the difference between Sunni and Shiite, referencing Czechoslovakia (a now defunct country), or calling Putin the President of Germany.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:58, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:OK, I'l do that then Jareddr, thanks for the suggestion. As to the McCain entry, I don't think we need to highlight those issues, they're a distraction. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 15:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::True, we don't want to confuse the readers about the candidate storylines. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:11, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::The entry should be removed, since McCain failed to state how many homes he owns is no where to be seen on the McCain article. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 15:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Don't be ridiculous, Samuel. Many everyday Americans have trouble remembering how many homes they own. Sometimes they own a home, but it's in someone else's name, or it's just a vacation lodge, or it's a few homes on one piece of property. Ask people on the street how many homes they own, and I guarantee very few will answer! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:46, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: McCain isn't running to be a real estate agent for the country.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:52, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::True, but he spoke about real estate business, and it's undeniably a large factor in the economy, which is a current problem. Compare that to Obama and 60 years ago? Oh Please. Thanks for the sarcasm Jared. :P [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 16:39, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Obama isn't running to be a history teacher for the country either, though. One could argue that if you're going to enforce a populist message, and cast yourself as an "everyman" and your opponent as "elite", you should be able to answer how many homes you have on command. We're not looking for net value, just a (presumably) single-digit number. I'm not aware of any "everyman" that forgets that number, but I'm sure some "elite" may forget. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Obama can try that next, Samuel: "Who cares about what happened at Pearl Harbor? That was 60 years ago!!!" Good luck to him and his supporters with that absurd approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:12, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::What's more absurd is putting words in my mouth (as well as Obama's, apparently?), as if I were trying to say that I didn't care about Pearl Harbor. I said no such thing. I was comparing something that happened over 60 years ago to present time in relevance to gaffe, nothing more and nothing less, in comparison to Obama's article and McCain's. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 19:29, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Obama's gaffe was about an essential element of American history that defines our country; McCain's was not. We do expect presidents to know important aspects of American history. We really do. We don't care if they can tell you how wealthy they are, or how many houses they own.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::And yet McCain's belief in an Iraq/Pakistan border - and his belief that a country named "Czechoslovakia" still exists - shows how out of touch he may be with the issues that matter NOW.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 19:42, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:I won't compare the semantics of how you measure the impact and importance of a slip-up, but it ''is'' rather telling that the Obama article prominently features such a slip-up while the McCain article apparently doesn't. This doesn't compute. Both of them have had weird moments ("President Putin of Germany", anybody?), and in fact, everybody has slip-ups. Bushisms, anybody? So why do we have to pick on Obama's mistakes alone?
:An encyclopedia needs consistent standards. Entries about similar topics should be comparable. They should be similar in style. They should follow the same intuitive standards.
:Overall, the McCain article looks like a very good example of how such an entry should look like (kudos to those who made it that way), and the Obama article is a prime example of something that would look great on some obvious right-wing propaganda site, but ''not'' in an encyclopedia. The part before the TOC should be condensed and moved to another part of the article. The intro section (the part before the TOC) is supposed to be an ''intro''. It should briefly sum up who he is and what he does, period. Then come biography sections, then his political stuff, then the Presidential campaign. And THERE you should feature the notable events or slip-ups. I'm most definitely no Obama supporter, but when comparing the McCain and Obama articles, you don't have to do a deep analysis to figure out that this site is way more political activism than encyclopedia, and I think that should change. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:22, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

== Citation Needed ==

The first sentence in the second paragraph about Barack Obama reads this:
Obama almost always reads from prepared text on a teleprompter and rarely allows tough questions.

It then gives the citation down at the bottom, which reads this:
After one debate against Hillary Clinton in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her.

I don't think that's a real citation. Does a link not need to be provided? Just like anybody can type anything on the main page, anybody can type anything as the citation too. I would suggest either finding legitimate proof to this claim, or just take it down.

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

The whole tone of this article on Barack Obama is appalling. It is poorly written, inaccurate, misleading, insulting and thoroughly vile. I would be ashamed to publish such contemptible stuff.

: That's your first -- and only -- contribution here. Hope you can do better than that!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:17, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

I see someone is watching the Obama talk page like a hawk. I stand by my previous remarks and hope to be adding many more in the near future.

: Good for you. And my hope is that you'll have better contributions to this site than what you've done so far.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:25, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

:: I have to say that to a foreigner, this article reads like one-sided drivel. Some of it is so blatantly ridiculous that it gives a negative impression of the people writing it, not Obama. Surely you should be attacking him over his policies rather than a non-existent issue over where he was born or some completely pathetic nonsense about him taking holidays at the same time as other kids in his school. (Amazing but true: Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist children in Britain take holidays at Christmas and Easter; they don't volunteer for extra classes on those days.) This article reads as though you've given up all hope of defeating him on political grounds and are just falling back on rather silly personal remarks. Surely you can do better than that! (Kindly read that as constructive criticism.) [[User:Googly|Googly]] 19:45, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== I'm noticing a very disturbing pattern... ==

# (cur) (last) 15:45, 8 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (59,707 bytes) (Reverted edits by Lodovico (Talk); changed back to last version by Ampersand) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 15:42, 8 September 2008 Lodovico (Talk | contribs) m (59,972 bytes) (Corrected information of misinterpretation) (undo)

Alright, so notice that Lodovico makes an edit, and adds sufficient reasoning for his edit in the apt column. Notice then that Andrew changes it, and doesn't even look to the talk page to provide ANY reasoning.

# (cur) (last) 23:55, 6 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (58,039 bytes) (Reverted edits by Chippeterson (Talk); changed back to last version by AliceBG) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 23:52, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,095 bytes) (→Senate career) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:19, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,052 bytes) (I don't like Obama anymore then ayone else on Conservapedia, but come on. The two pictures should be reversed) (undo)

Here again we have a very reasonable edit, that it reverted without adequate explanation.

# (cur) (last) 14:36, 25 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (57,388 bytes) (Reverted edits by Impm (Talk); changed back to last version by Aschlafly) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:35, 25 August 2008 Impm (Talk | contribs) (57,106 bytes) (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html He was born in Hawaii unequivocally.) (undo)

Impm makes what appears to be a reasonable edit, and Andrew changes it again.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Citation_Needed <--- Here is another example; everyone is discussing the pertinent issue, including Andrew, but then drops out of the picture and: (cur) (last) 10:09, 27 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) (57,862 bytes) (restored material deleted by liberal censorship) (undo)

I'm just wondering, but why is it we have to discuss changes we want to make whenever an edit conflict arises, but Andrew doesn't? This makes it essentially impossible to edit any article that Andrew has become party to because you can never know which of your edits will be acceptable or not.

Then there is this: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Affirmative_Action_President

Despite the lack as a citation for the statement that caused that particular talk-page topic to manifest, and the lack-of-response from Andrew, any time this statement is changed Andrew swoops in and reverts it.

Am I alone in seeing this? Do I see a ghost ruffling the leafs or is it simply just the wind?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 19:51, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
:I've noticed it too, but I didn't think asking him about it would change anything. Especially on the "affirmative action president" thing. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:15, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::This is inane. It's been more at least a day now and we haven't even gotten a one sentence response yet; just more reverted edits without adequate explanation. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:28, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

::Welcome to conservapedia. Often if you attempt to question the work of ASchlafly, he will simply ignore you. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 18:33, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

::Jirby, be concise in your comments. This site isn't a liberal blog where people talk, talk, talk without saying anything. Reversions do not have a place for summarizing the reason in the wiki software. Also, people who only criticize conservatives without criticizing the liberal vandals lack credibility.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:::So the best you can do... is complain that my words are too big and my sentences are too long? And here I was trying my best not to mischaracterize you. Shame on me! It is also clearly evident that revisions do not have a comment box, but how does that keep you from posting your reasons for consistently reverting factual edits here? It doesn't. My concern also isn't with liberal/conservative/anarchist vandals because they're freaking obvious and will be dealt with without my input (unless in the case of the uppity negro comment from before) they have fallen under the radar of authority and it behooves me to say something. Now stop trying to shift this in a way as if it is MY fault for trying to make you accountable as per your own rules. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:49, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: Jirby, your above rant illustrates my point. I'm moving on and request that you be substantive and concise in the future.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:53, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

==Large repetitions!==
The "Published Criticism" section repeats, aside from a couple of sentances, almost word for word the introduction. This needs changing as it looks silly to have repetitions so I am going to leave this comment to see if there is any response and wait 48 hours and then go to work on fixing it. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 21:17, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

: Fine, but don't remove information from the introduction. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::I'll only remove the double-ups from the lower section. Thanks for the quick response! [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 21:20, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== Marxist/redistrubution of wealth line ==

Was just trying to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=512956&oldid=512942 fix my spelling error], not trying to revert Andy. --[[User:GunsandaBible|GunsandaBible]].

=="My Muslim Faith" quote==
I've seen the video of this quote and it is taken totally out of context. What Obama is saying is that JOhn McCain has not accused him of being a secret muslim. Does anyone really believe that this is Obama mistakenly revealing that he is a muslim? Anyone who has seen the video can't seriously believe that this is the case. This quote should be removed before people start taking it seriously. [[User:Billgates3|Billgates3]]

:Can someone explain why you think it would be such a big deal if Barack Obama were actually Muslim? (Leaving aside for the moment the lack of any evidence that he ever has been a Muslim.) I thought you guys in the USA believed in separation of religion and the state, so why does it matter what religion, if any, the President happens to follow? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 20:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

== Muslim & Catholic holidays ==

Why on earth are CP people bothered about the fact that Obama had holidays for Muslim festivals when he went to school in a Muslim country? Muslim (and Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish and Zoroastrian) children take days off school for Christian holidays in the UK without society collapsing. Honestly, some of the stuff on this page is just weird. Why on earth don't you guys concentrate on his policies (or lack of any) instead of getting so worked up about personal matters which are complete non-issues? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 19:27, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Barack Hussein Obama

2008-09-14T23:23:11Z

KennyMac: Undo revision 516139 by Jpatt (Talk)OK, see talk page

''"Obama" redirects here. For other uses see [[Obama (disambiguation)]].''

'''Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.''' (allegedly born in Honolulu,<ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961) is the 2008 nominee of the [[Democratic Party]] for [[President of the United States of America|president]].<ref>[http://www.democrats.org Democratic Party website]</ref> Obama has served as a freshman [[Democratic]] [[Senator]] from [[Illinois]] since 2004. On August 23 he chose [[Senator Joseph Biden]] as his running mate. In 2007, Obama was rated the most [[liberal]] Senator by the National Journal, who had rated [[Senator John Kerry]] the most liberal senator during his presidential run as well.<ref>http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/</ref> If elected, Obama would be the first [[Affirmative Action President]].
[[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Obama on the campaign trail, stands with folded hands while [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] honor the flag while placing their hands over their heart during the [[National Anthem]].]]

In defeating [[Hillary Clinton]] for the Democratic nomination, Obama demonstrated charismatic oratory, strong grass-roots organization, record-setting fund raising, and a strong appeal to African Americans, younger voters, and upscale voters. However he was weak among Catholics, women, downscale voters, rural voters and in Appalachia. As the primary season ended half the Clinton voters said they might not vote for Obama in November, pointing to a major weakness. Nevertheless Obama became a world-wide celebrity, packing large stadiums with adoring fans chanting his mantra, "Yes We Can!". His campaign against [[John McCain]], however, has largely consisted of attacking President George W. Bush, insisting that McCain and Bush overlap by 90%. However by rejecting Clinton as his running mate and selecting the undramatic [[Joe Biden]], Obama created an opening for the GOP. McCain rushed in by naming [[Sarah Palin]], thereby closing the enthusiasm gap, and rallying the conservative base. The Democrats who attacked Palin for inexperience were spotlighting Obama's main weakness against McCain, hurting their own candidate. Obama led McCain in the polls by 6-8 point early in the summer, then saw his lead fade to 2 points. After the two national conventions, McCain shot ahead, leading Democrats to fear that their candidate is not a fighter and will retrace the failures of Democratic losers in 2000 and 2004.<ref> The latest poll results are summarized at [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html Real Clear Politics]</ref>

==Early life and education==
Barack Hussein Obama II was born in [[Honolulu]], [[Hawaii]] to Barack Sr. and Ann Dunham in 1961. In 1967, he moved with his mother and new stepfather to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]]. He attended a [[Catholic]] elementary school for two years, followed by an Indonesian public school for two years. Media scrutiny in the light of Obama's campaign for President revealed that the Indonesia public school was not a madrassa, teaching Islam. However, clearly Obama would have taken days off of school in observance of Islamic holidays, just as he would have taken days off from his previous school in observance of Catholic holidays. After Indonesia, he returned to the United States with his mother where he attended the Punahou School, the leading private preparatory school in [[Hawaii]], until he graduated in 1979.

For college, Obama initially attended Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before transferring to [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]] and graduating without honors with a Bachelor of Arts degree, majoring in political science. Obama refuses to describe his academic performance at Columbia despite commenting about New York during this period and despite disclosures of the academic record for all other major-party presidential candidates since at least 2000.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obamas-years-at-columbia-are-a-mystery/85015/</ref>

After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He became a member of the [[liberal]] ''Harvard Law Review'' in 1989, which used racial [[quotas]] for membership. He was then elected by popular vote as its first African American president in 1990, a story that was immediately promoted in the [[New York Times]].<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DC1631F935A35751C0A966958260&scp=3&sq=Obama%201990&st=cse</ref> He graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1991 and chose not to pursue a federal clerkship, which is the typical post-graduate position for top law students.

He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law", which is not a professor-level position, at the [[University of Chicago]] Law School as of 2004<ref>http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml</ref> and is no longer active at the school.<ref>http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama</ref>

==Legal career==
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as the director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today. During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education. ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.

==Senate career==
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years. Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He won a seat in the [[U.S. Senate]] after [[liberals]] obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by the out-of-state candidate [[Alan Keyes]].

A March 16th, 2005 AP article puts Senator Obama on record to ban oil drilling in the Alaska frontier known as ANWR <ref>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0316-13.htm</ref>

His 2007 voting record in the U.S. [[Senate]] makes him as its most [[liberal]] member. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[Ted Kennedy]], [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].<ref>[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> He has grown steadily more liberal since arriving at the Senate: the same analysis assessed him as 10th most liberal in 2006<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> and 16th most liberal in 2005.<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref>

In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. Its title was supplied by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a minister who has stated that "racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run .... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/14/obama_condemns_pastors_remarks.html</ref> The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref>

Senator Obama is the chairman of an important subcommittee that has oversight of our efforts in Afghanistan. He has not held a single hearing on Afghanistan even though American forces are risking their lives in a theatre of war. Since joining Foreign Relations, Obama has missed three meetings on a "new strategy" in [[Afghanistan]], a country he only visited in 2008.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-absent-at-afghanistan-hearings-2008-03-01.html</ref> Barack Obama clinched his party's nomination for President after 16 straight months of campaigning.

In June 2008, Obama voted with the Democratic party to kill the sunset provision of the [[Bush]] tax cuts. By letting these tax cuts expire, single mothers with two kids will pay an additional $1,800 annually. Married couples with incomes of $50,000 will pay an additional $2,180 annually. Elderly couples will pay an additional $2,000 anually and a family of four will pay 191% more per year in taxes. Barack Obama often claims to be for taxing the rich their fair share. By voting to eliminate the Bush tax cuts, Obama is taxing most middle class and blue collar families.

Obama and the Democratic-led Congress has voted for the upgraded GI Bill despite the opposition from the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon, the generals in combat zones and the GOP Presidential nominee. It was crafted to increase veteran benefits. Yet, the strain on our military is great.<ref>[http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php] http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php , McCain To Obama: Don't Demagogue The GI Bill, May 22, 2008</ref> The bill would cost $2.8 to $4 billion per month. Some argue that this bill depletes the US's volunteer military personel by enticing them to leave service rather than be re-deployed.

As senator, Obama has requested nearly $936 million in earmarks, <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122108935141721343.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Obama Can't Win Against Palin] Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2008</ref> for which the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste has given him a rating of 10% in 2007 (18% lifetime).<ref>[http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/DocServer/2007_Senate_Ratings_Final.pdf?docID=3242 2007 Senate Scorecard]</ref> A score of 100% represents voting against all pork, and 0% represinting voting ''for'' all pork. Democrats averaged 5% in 2007, whereas Republicans averaged 60%. <ref>[http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11590 CCAGW Releases ''2007 Congressional Ratings'']</ref>

=== Bills co-sponsored ===
Obama's principal legislation was S. 2433, which was an attempt to force the U.S. to increase its foreign aid by hundreds of billions of dollars under the guise of reducing global poverty, which was subsequently blocked by [[conservatives]].<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080225a.html</ref>

Obama did support and co-sponsor a bill championed by [[Tom Coburn]] and known as the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006, which was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on Sept. 9, 2006. This law created a website that will list the federal government's grants and contracts.<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060926.html</ref>

Between Jan 13, 2007 and March 13, 2008, Sen. Obama has sponsored 120 mostly [[liberal]] resolutions and bills in the Senate.<ref>http://thomas.loc.gov/</ref> His supporters cite the following less liberal examples, but this list is not representative:{{fact}}

*S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

*S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.

*S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.

*S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.

=== Accomplishments while serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ===

In February 2008, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Obama's proposal on a new strategy to reduce poverty throughout the world.

Obama worked with Sen. Lugar writing legislation aimed at improving conventional and nuclear non-proliferation efforts. This legislation was signed by [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] in January 2008.

In June 2007 the Senate passed his resolution condemning violence by the [[Zimbabwe]] government. It also passed legislation co-sponsored by Obama that financed a Special Court for Sierra Leone to prosecute former [[Liberia | Liberian]] President [[Charles Taylor]]. <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/ </ref>

Barack Obama continued to collect money for a 2010 Senate re-election campaign as late as June 2008, and has filed reports recently indicating that money is still pouring into this fund. This is especially notable because it is an efficient way of sidetracking donations from his Presidential race. The website<obamasenate2010.gov> is now defunct.

==Presidential campaign==
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]
Senator Obama began his candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois. His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future. It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his "House Divided" speech.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html "Obama declares he's running for president"] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com </ref>

Obama's campaign has been financed largely by [[leftist]] donors opposed to the war and to the [[American]] military in general. Obama has encouraged this by refusing to wear the customary flag on his lapel during appearances (asserting that he would prefer his patriotism to be represented through his actions rather than an arbitrary symbol) and by other less-than-patriotic gestures and symbols, such as declining to put his hand over his heart during a patriotic recitation. In an appearance on May 16 where he addressed President Bush's statements that some politicians would prefer appeasing terrorists through negotiations, Senator Obama once again wore the flag pin as he did following 9-11.

By early April 2007, his campaign generated over $25 million from over 100,000 contributors. $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''</ref> After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.</ref><ref>Chicago Sun-Times,
[http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet,
April 29, 2007,</ref>

Obama claimed to have visited 57 states while campaigning for president of the United States, which of course has only 50 states. From his remarks, he states that he has "one more to go" and stated he couldn't visit Hawaii and Alaska, indicating he meant to say, "forty-seven states".

During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,
{{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.</ref>}}

In reality, the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.

By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing. After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a lightweight even by liberals, in much the same vein as [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted. First, Obama said he would have face-to-face meetings with two of Florida's most feared enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]]. Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions. Then Obama claimed that he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation. Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era. The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the office of the presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies. However, Obama won the Iowa Democratic caucuses, pushing [[Hillary Clinton]] into third place, and went on to become the unofficial Democratic nominee.

At a campaign event in Elkhart, Indiana, a seven-year-old girl asked Barack Obama why he wants to be President. He replies,
'''"America is …, uh, is no longer, uh … what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, I don’t want that future for my children."''' <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/08/09/mostly-mia-obamas-downer-america-delivered-7-year-old Media Mostly MIA on Obama's 'America No Longer What It Once Was' Downer Delivered to 7 Year-Old] Newsbusters.org, August 9, 2008</ref>

Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 3rd after receiving a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. His only remaining primary opponent, [[Hillary Clinton]], conceded the race on June 7th. On August 23, Joe Biden was announced as Obama's vice-presidential nominee. Obama became the official Democratic nominee on August 27 at the Democratic National Convention, when Hillary Clinton's motion to end the roll call vote of the states and select Obama by acclamation was passed.

On June 5th, Obama spoke at Briston, Virginia- Healthcare Town Hall forum regarding Political Action Committees and his campaign. "Well, we’re here today because we know that if we’re going to make real progress, this time must be different. Throughout my career, in Illinois and the United States senate, I’ve worked to reduce the power of the special interests by leading the fight for ethics reform. I’ve sent a strong signal in this campaign by refusing the contributions of registered federal lobbyists and PACs. And today, I’m announcing that going forward, the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard and won’t take another dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. They do not fund my campaign. They will not fund our party. And they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I’m President of the United States."

On June 6th, an [[AP]] article <ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_MONEY?SITE=KING&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Transcript: 'Democratic Party returns lobbyist, PAC money ,' June 6, 2008]</ref> presents the rules for lobbyist donations to the DNC and for the Presidential nominee. Obama does accept money from lobbyists who do not do business with the federal government and he also accepts money from spouses and family members of lobbyists. And the DNC ban is also not retroactive, which means the DNC will keep lobbyist and PAC contributions it received earlier in the election cycle. Retroactive period being the date Barack Obama started his campaign, February 10, 2007. The DNC possibly the day after the November 2006 Congressional elections until June 5th, 2008. In addition, Barack Obama's ban does not apply to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee nor to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Unlike [[John McCain]], Barack Obama has not disclosed the lobbyists working in his campaign.

Senator Obama visited U.S. troops in Iraq in 2006<ref>[http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=3794382 Obama visits troops in Iraq]</ref> and in Afghanistan and Kuwait in 2008<ref>[http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=3794382 Obama visits troops and officals in Afghanistan and Kuwait]</ref>

===Obama weaknesses===

Obama almost always reads from prepared text on a [[teleprompter]] and rarely allows tough questions.<ref>After one debate against [[Hillary Clinton]] in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her.</ref><ref name="teleprompter">http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp</ref> Indeed, when unable to read from prepared text he often fails miserably at articulating his positions and is caught tripping over his own feet, as displayed in the Saddleback Forum. He has made several gaffes revealing that he is a [[Muslim]] unaware of basic [[American History Lectures|American history]]:

:Obama declared, "John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith"<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zQK_EhDhZQ</ref>

:Obama displayed ignorance about the attack on [[Pearl Harbor]] when he said, "Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, '''from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor''', to the threat of nuclear annihilation. Americans have adapted to the threats posed by an ever-changing world."<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/07/obama_ignorance_watch_1.asp</ref>

:Obama claimed to have visited 57 states while campaigning for president of the United States, which of course has only 50 states.<ref> [http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2008/col20080528.asp Barack Potatoe Obama?]</ref> He could never explain where the false number of 57 came from, but it has been observed that there are 57 [[Islamic]] states and Obama was educated at an [[Islamic]] grade school while he lived in an [[Islamic]] country.<ref>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/05/12/obamas-freudian-slip-there-are-57-islamic-states/</ref>

Obama's middle name, "Hussein", means "a descendant of the Prophet [[Muhammad]]."<ref>See, e.g., [http://islam.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=islam&cdn=religion&tm=4&f=10&tt=2&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.sudairy.com/arabic/masc.html]</ref> After he became politically ambitious, he declared himself to be a [[Christian]], yet he never replaced his [[Muslim]] names ("Barack" and "Hussein"; "Obama" is an African surname of the [[Luo tribe]]) with a Christian one as most do when they undergo a religious conversion,<ref>For example, when Saul became a Christian, he changed his name to "Paul"; when the famous boxer Cassius Clay converted to [[Islam]], he took the Arabic name of [[Muhammad Ali]]. "It is common for those converting to a new religion to change their name on conversion"[http://www.ukdp.co.uk/pages/religiousconversion.php] or adopt a Christian name at [[baptism]].[http://www.answers.com/topic/christian-name]</ref> casting doubt on his politically self-serving claim.<ref>In his book, Obama oddly claims to have been baptized without giving his age or date, and later gave a date that postdates his political ambition (1992).</ref> The odds against a Muslim converting to Christianity are greater than 100 to 1, as far fewer than 1% of the over 1 billion Muslims convert to Christianity each year.<ref>http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm</ref>

Obama downplays his [[Islamic]] background by claiming that his [[Kenya|Kenyan]] [[Muslim]] father was a "confirmed [[atheist]]" before Obama was born, but in fact less than 1% of Kenyans are atheists, agnostics or non-religious.<ref>http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_14.html</ref> There is apparently no evidence of any Christian activities or local church participation by Obama while he was in Massachusetts from 1988 to 1991. Finally, Obama abruptly left his church in Chicago in 2008 when it became politically controversial, without first finding another church to join.

Asked to explain why working-class [[Democrats]] do not support him while campaigning for the [[Pennsylvania]] primary, Obama replied "it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7344532.stm</ref> In response to outrage when his remarks were unexpectedly publicized, Obama replied, I "didn't say it as well as I should have."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7344532.stm</ref>

To counter the view by many that Obama is an elitist, he began running campaign ads claiming that he "worked his way through college and Harvard Law." This claim was an exaggeration as Obama only held summer jobs while in college and law school<ref>http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_work_claim.html</ref>, and he would have likely benefited from special scholarships not available to most students.

Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago; in fact, he held the position of "Senior Lecturer."<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> <ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> For most of his time there he was regarded by the university as a professor.<ref>Obama was on the faculty at the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004.[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

In his 1995 memoir, ''Dreams of my Father'', Obama admitted doing illegal drugs, including cocaine and marijuana, which he referred to as "blow" and "pot" respectively, in his high school years and into his college years, before claiming to choose a different path in life.<ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/</ref>

Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after [[9/11]], but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation.<ref>http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/when_did_obama_stop_wearing_a.html</ref> Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors.<ref>In 2007, at critical moments in his campaign for the nomination, Obama had difficulties securing the support of anti-war activists. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/politics/main2645861.shtml]</ref> Recently, he has begun wearing one again for reasons that are likely political pandering.

In his memoirs, Obama claimed a ''[[Life]]'' magazine article about a man who had become ill after trying to lighten his skin color by chemical means had a major impact on him. In fact, ''Life'' never published any such article.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601583.html</ref><ref>"Then there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians." [http://newsbusters.org/node/11641]</ref>

Obama falsely claimed that he "had an uncle who was one of the — who was part of the first American troops to go into [[Auschwitz]] and liberate the [[concentration camp]]s. And the story in our family was that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn't leave the house for six months."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359061,00.html</ref> In fact, the Soviet army liberated Auschwitz. Embarrassed, the Obama campaign later admitted that Obama was wrong, and claimed he should have said that Obama's great-uncle helped liberate a subcamp of Buchenwald.<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/27/obamas_uncle_and_the_liberatio.html#more
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton later claimed that Obama's great-uncle "served in the 89th Infantry Division that Liberated Ohrdruf, a Subcamp of Buchenwald, the First Camp Liberated by Americans, on April 4, 1945." Given that Obama misrepresented what happened, one can also wonder about his story that his relative went into the attic and did not leave his house for six months afterwards.</ref>

Obama said that "[t]here was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, [[Alabama]], because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born." In fact, Obama was born in 1961 and the Selma march took place in 1965.<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/21/barack-obama-gaffe-machine/</ref>

Obama states that he has consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111</ref>

Obama's campaign "is proud to be actively participating in over 60 local and state wide [[homosexual]] Pride events over the summer."<ref>http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/jcitron/gG5VLs</ref>

===Campaign financing===
Obama is the first presidential candidate to reject public financing. He broke his promise to accept it in the hope that his powerful fund-raising machine would generate far more money than the $84.1 million McCain is getting in public funding. Indeed, on August 14th, the Obama campaign announced it had received donations from 2 million individuals, setting new records. Obama raised $272 million for the primaries and expects to raise $300 million for the general election. However the Republican National Committee has been raising much more than the Democratic National Committee and each candidate had about $100 million in cash on September 1. Each expects to spend about $300 million by November. However, Obama is obliged to devote much of his time to fund raising among supporters rather than campaigning among undecided voters.<ref> see [http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/09/was-obama-right-to-opt-out-of-public-financing.aspx Andrew Romano, "Was Obama Right to Opt Out of Public Financing?," ''Newsweek'' (Sept. 9, 2008) online]</ref>
===Secrecy===

The Democratic party feels it necessary to keep all questions about Obama at a safe distance. It is an unprecedented move to keep secrets about a Presidential candidate. The following questions remain sealed from the public. <ref>[http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/08/who-sent-obama-why-has-he-refused-to.html Who sent Obama? Why has he refused to release these basic documents?] ObamaWTF.blogspot.com</ref>

# Certified Copy of original Birth certificate(see certificate controversy below)
# Columbia College records
# Columbia Thesis paper
# Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups
# [[Harvard]] College records
# Illinois State Senate records
# [[Illinois]] State Senate schedule
# [[Law]] practice client list and billing records/summary
# Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mothers
# Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)
# Occidental College records
# Parent's [[Marriage]] Certificate
# Record of baptism
# Selective Service Registration
# Trips schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007
# Scholarly articles
# Access to his Grandmother
# List of all campaign workers that are lobbyists

== Positions and Qualifications ==
Obama is [[pro-abortion]]. Obama said "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act".<ref>[http://christiannewswire.com/news/560716251.html]</ref> That bill "would invalidate virtually all state and federal limitations on abortion, and would make partial-birth abortion legal again." <ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html, Pro-Life Voters Must Work Overtime to Stop Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 4, 2008</ref>
The leading abortion providers and PAC supporters have wholeheartedly endorsed Barack Obama. The National Abortion Rights Action League [[NARAL]] has given Barack a 100% rating for his efforts in Congress 2005, 2006 and 2007 <ref>http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/obama.html</ref>. EMILY's List, a political action committee that funds female candidates who support abortion rights backs Barack Obama<ref> [http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/06/emilys_list_bac.html],EMILY's List backs Obama, June 6,2008</ref> The nation's largest abortion business, Planned Parenthood has begun the process necessary to endorse pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama. <ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html, Planned Parenthood Begins Process to Endorse Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 10,2008</ref>The board of directors of the pro-abortion group's political operation met on Friday June 6, 2008 and unanimously voted to recommend an endorsement for Obama. Obama has steadfastly advocated support for partial birth abortion as an Illinois legislator. Baracks wife, Michelle Obama, wrote a fundraising letter<ref>[http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php], http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php, February 17,2004</ref> in support of partial birth abortion and against the proposed ban. Barack voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act to give a child who survived an abortion procedure life support healthcare. Obama wanted the life terminated even if he or she survived outside the mother's womb.<ref>[http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm], http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm, Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act</ref> With Obama no longer in the state Senate, the Born Alive legislation passed in 2005.

In the context of sex, he quipped about his daughters, <ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/30/sunday-meditation-obama-and-the-punishment-of-unborn-life/</ref>{{QuoteBox|"if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."}} Obama makes it clear if his daughters had an unplanned pregnancy, he would support terminating the life of his grandchild and it is undeniable that Michelle Obama agrees with that decision.
[[Image:Features ayers1.jpg|175px|thumb|right|[[Weather Underground]] co-founder Bill Ayers<ref>http://foia.fbi.gov/weather/weath1a.pdf</ref> stomps on the American flag in this 2001 pose for Chicago Magazine.]]

Obama, having been asked about his associations with [[William Ayers]], an unrepentant [[terrorist]],<ref>[http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/]</ref> he explained that the views of his associates are not necessarily his own. Ayers and his wife, [[Bernardine Dohrn]], hosted a fundraiser for Obama in their home in 1995 at the start of Obama's politcal career. Obama compares his friendship with Ayers whose actions led to the loss of a life to his friendship with pro-life doctor and representative Tom Coburn<ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html]http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html, LifeNews.com, April 25,2008</ref>
Obama explained that his friendship with Ayers, shouldn't be construed as implying he endorsed the terrorist-like tactics Ayers used to drive home his political point. Barack Obama brought up the pro-life colleague to make the dubious comparison that he's friends with other people who take "extreme" positions or would use terrorist tactics.
"The fact is, is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions"

Obama has no military or executive experience and little foreign policy experience.<ref>"Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America. ... Mr. Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman."[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece]</ref> Yet he is the favorite of the leftist attack site "MoveOn.org" for the [[Democratic]] nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]],<ref>MoveOn.org reportedly favored Obama by 70-30% over Clinton. [http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/moveonorg_obama.html]</ref> campaigning to the left of [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>For example, Obama promised not to use nuclear weapons against terrorists, a promise Hillary Clinton refused to make. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html]</ref>

He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]]. Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe, for whom Obama worked as a research assistant, wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." <ref>http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html</ref> Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses<ref>Obama did not start his second year of law school until September 1989, the earliest he could have taken constitutional law, yet this article must have been written, submitted and accepted prior to that time to be published in the November 1989 issue of the Law Review.</ref> on the [[Constitution]].<ref>The liberal Professor Tribe saw the best law students for several decades, yet insisted that Obama was the "best student I ever had" and the "most exciting research assistant." [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]</ref>

Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in a transparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. In example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent Jack Ryan, a millionaire school teacher, was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records that both he and his ex-wife wanted to remain sealed. A newspaper that favored Obama took the unusual step of suing to force the confidential divorce information to become public, and a California judge opened the records at a pivotal time in the campaign.<ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/2898641/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbc5.com/news/3289561/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html</ref>

Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a [[teleprompter]]. "Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ... The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion."<ref name="teleprompter" /> The [[New York Times]] noted that "Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/fashion/20speechwriter.html?_r=2&ex=1358485200&en=bb179297e5f61acb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref> When Obama ridiculed [[Hillary Clinton]] for being like [[Annie Oakley]], it is apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.<ref>"Some Obama adviser probably earned his or her dollars for that cut," the USA Today wrote. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2008-04-17-2008-04-17-raasch_N.htm]</ref>

Obama often makes reference to his "two decades of experience" in public service work. During most of that time he claims experience, he was either going to school, working for a law firm, writing a book and community organizing.

== Political views ==
Obama's political views have been subjected to controversy even before he put himself forward as a presidential candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist".]]<ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006</ref> In May 2007, Obama (and Sen. Hillary Clinton) voted against funding the Iraq War for the first time.<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref>

Obama's views on [[gun control]] is focused on an opinion article in the [[Wall Street Journal]]:<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref>

:As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he "never saw or approved the questionnaire," and that an aide filled it out incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama's handwriting.

After [[D.C. v. Heller]], Obama claimed to support Second Amendment rights.

Obama has said, "Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning," and "it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life."<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

He believes children should be taught sex education in kindergarten, although in what he refers to as "an age-appropriate manner".<ref>"Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten." [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 </ref>

Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration march in Chicago.<ref>http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches</ref>

::''We are hungry for change!'' S.C. January 26, 2008.

Barack Obama in his short stint as Senator of Illinois, has made clear his opposition to the [[U.S. Military]] in policy and in rhetoric. Obama has spent much energy to argue that the Iraq War should have never been waged and that we should not be there at all, in any way. In 2002, as an unknown Chicago representative to the state of Illinois, he declared his opposition to "dumb wars". At the time, America was united in the stance against terrorism and the prospects of a rogue enemy with WMD worried the United States. Obama, has said that he does not know whether he would have voted for or against the Iraq War. Since elected to Congress, he voted against the Emergency War Supplemental. Obama did not oppose his party debating the bill long past the timeframe requested. This action directly affects troop deployment in combat zones. Obama has repeatedly called for the return of troops in Iraq. Barack Obama has a no confidence vote for the 'Surge' before the measure was put forth by General Petraeus to Congress. Obama would not denounce MoveOn.org's slander NY Times advertising against the General.

Senator Obama often refers to the office that he seeks, without the proper respect of those that came before him. When talking of the President, he frequently refuses to call him [[George W. Bush|President George Bush]] or even Mr. George Bush. Obama has also disrespectfully called him 'George Bush'. Oddly, when Bill Clinton spoke with Obama on September 11th, 2008 predicting he would win handidly, Obama responded, "There you go, you can take it from the president of the United States."<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/11/campaign.wrap/index.html</ref> It appears Obama will use the term for a former President, but will not do the same for the actual President. Examples of Obama's treatment of our current President:
* "I am happy to have a debate with John McCain and George Bush about foreign policy," Obama said <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/16/obama.bush.mccain/], CNN Obama blasts Bush McCain, May 16, 2008</ref>
* "For all his talk about independence, the centerpiece of John McCain's economic plan amounts to a full-throated endorsement of George Bush's policies," <ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/10/obama_takes_the_offensive_vs_mccain/] Boston Globe Obama takes offensive vs. McCain, June 10, 2008</ref>
* "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists." <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7403386.stm], BBC Obama attacks Bush over Iran , May 15, 2008</ref>
* Obama called the U.S. economy a disaster thanks to "John McCain's president, George W. Bush" <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_mccain/2008/08/18/122924.html No More Hugs: Obama Tears Into McCain] AP, August 18, 2008</ref> Side note, George W. Bush is also Barack Obama's President.

== Foreign policy experience ==

In [[Russia]] and the former Soviet republics, he met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. He also met with Russian military officials and visited several nuclear and biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, [[Ukraine]], and [[Azerbaijan]] with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN). On the same tour, he visited London, UK, and met with [[Tony Blair]], sitting UK Prime Minister.<ref>http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/</ref>

Obama visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Chad; he discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, and visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur. He also addressed Africa's growing [[AIDS]] epidemic. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/</ref>

During a ten-day-long tour of the Middle East, he talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, and Israel. <ref> http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/</ref>

==Religious affiliations==

Obama and his wife (reared a Baptist) have been active members since 1988 at the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.tucc.org/about.htm</ref> in Chicago. The church embraces black liberation theology and its emphasis on empowering oppressed groups against establishment forces. This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays, women and blacks as ministers.<ref>[http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html], http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> According to his sister, Obama was baptized at this church the same year.<ref>[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2 http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]</ref> Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is taken from one of Pastor Wright's sermons.
In April 2008, Obama disavowed Pastor Wright's views. In May 2008, Obama left his church. His response blames the media and not the rhetoric on display <ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, may 31, 2008</ref>{{QuoteBox|“It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace..."}} Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statements "G-d damn America" and describing the September 11th attacks, he said "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[ http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic."

[[Image:Barack Obama Jeremiah Wright.jpg|thumb|Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright.]]

[[Daniel Pipes]] claims that Obama was raised a [[Muslim]] because he attended classes on the Koran while attending a Muslim school.<ref>[http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5286 Was Barack Obama a Muslim</ref> Obama did attend a school administrated by Muslims but [[CNN]] reports that it was a non-religious public school attended by students of many faiths, not a [[madrassa]].<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/</ref>

{{QuoteBox|In Indonesia, I'd spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies. In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I'd pretend to close my eyes, then peek around the room. Nothing happened. No angels descended. Just a parched old nun and 30 brown children, muttering words. Sometimes the nun would catch me, and her stern look would force my lids back shut. But that didn't change how I felt inside."}}<ref>Dreams from My Father, by Barack Obama, p.142 Aug 1, 1996 </ref>

Obama has described his upbringing as occurring in a non-religious environment.

{{QuoteBox|In sum, my mother viewed religion through the eyes of the anthropologist that she would become; it was a phenomenon to be treated with a suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well. Moreover, as a child I rarely came in contact with those who might offer a substantially different view of faith. My father was almost entirely absent from my childhood, having been divorced from my mother when I was 2 years old; in any event, although my father had been raised a Muslim, by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist, thinking religion to be so much superstition.

And yet for all her professed secularism, my mother was in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I've ever known. She had an unswerving instinct for kindness, charity, and love, and spent much of her life acting on that instinct, sometimes to her detriment. Without the help of religious texts or outside authorities, she worked mightily to instill in me the values that many Americans learn in Sunday school: honesty, empathy, discipline, delayed gratification, and hard work. She raged at poverty and injustice.}}<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546579-4,00.html My Spiritual Journey] Time Magazine, October 2006</ref>

== Books ==

* ''Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.''
* ''The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.''
* ''Barack Obama in His Own Words.'' (B. Obama and Lisa Rogak)

==Published criticism==
On April 11, 2007, staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]],<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref> who made a racially insensitive remark<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.</ref> on the air during the April 4 broadcast. Obama did not comment on Imus's remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10 by saying, "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." 

The ''Globe'' reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus's remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as "miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''</ref>

In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007.</ref> and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged.<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre of the [[NRA]] accuses Barack Obama of "mouthing pro-Second amendment words and pandering to gun owners" on the campaign trail.<ref>[http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml], http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml, NRA chief stresses common ground with McCain, Associated Press, May 14, 2008</ref>

[[McCain]] Aide Says Obama Has Sept. 10 Mind-Set "an extremely dangerous and extremely naive approach toward terrorism" <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/politics/mccain_obama/2008/06/17/105265.html], AP McCain Aide Says Obama Has Sept. 10 Mind-Set, June 17, 2008</ref>

===Birth Certificate Controversy===
There has been some controversy over the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate and his Constitutional eligibility to hold the office of President.<ref>[http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTgxZmIwNTg0OWVhMWJkODNmZjI4ZjY4Mjg2OWRmNzI= http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTgxZmIwNTg0OWVhMWJkODNmZjI4ZjY4Mjg2OWRmNzI=]</ref> After initially refusing to produce a birth certificate in response to such rumors, the Obama campaign eventually endorsed a document posted on the Daily Kos as
authentic.<ref>[http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/12/11012/6168/320/534616 Obama's Birth Certificate]</ref> The response is split regarding the birth certificate. Some commentators, such as those at the National Review, are satisfied with the document.<ref>[http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk= http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk=]</ref> However, an analyst at the Israel Insider website, has concluded based on a photographic analysis of the document that the birth certificate has been altered and is likely not Obama's true birth certificate.<ref>[http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm]</ref>

On August 21st, 2008, Factcheck.org published an article regarding the controversy.<ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html Born in the U.S.A.]</ref> The site stated, "FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship." In addition, the site posted high-resolution photographs of the birth certificate, which clearly showed the raised seal, stamp of Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka, and certificate number. The birth date corresponds to a birth announcement published in the ''Honolulu Advertiser '' on Sunday, August 13, 1961. <ref>http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/obama-was-born-in-hawaii-wrong-can-of-worms/</ref>

A Philadelphia attorney, Phillip Berg, has filed a lawsuit against the DNC and Barack Obama. Berg maintains that Sen. Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen or that, if he ever was, he lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia. Berg also cites what he calls "dual loyalties" due to his citizenship and ties with Kenya and Indonesia. Even if Sen. Obama can prove his U.S. citizenship, Berg stated, citing the senator's use of a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii verified as a forgery by three independent document forensic experts, the issue of "multi-citizenship with responsibilities owed to and allegiance to other countries" remains on the table. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama] Newsbusters.org, August 22, 2008</ref>

==See also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate]]

==Further reading==
*[[Peter Hitchens|Hitchens, Peter]] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''] [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 4 February 2008.

==Sources==

*[http://obama.senate.gov/about/ Official Senate Website]
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE Documentary on Barack Hussein Obama]
*[http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490 Voting Record of Barack Hussein Obama]

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

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack}}

{{2008 presidential candidates}}

[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Muslims]]

Talk:Essay: Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution

2008-09-14T23:19:04Z

KennyMac: /* No, it is certainly NOT a great article... */Depends on what you mean by Christianity

Talk:Essay: Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution

2008-09-14T23:11:06Z

KennyMac: /* Flawed Logic */ Accepting the challenge

==Article or Essay?==

This is a great essay. However, it's not an encyclopedia article. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 11:25, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
:What on Earth are you talking about? This is a great conservative encyclopedia article. Secular humanist suppression of the truth doesn't hold water here on CP. [[User:PerMoberg|PerMoberg]] 19:10, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== This is a great article ==

Keep up the good work. [[User:DaiseyCutter|DaiseyCutter]] 17:00, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== No, it is certainly NOT a great article... ==
Saying that the "theory" of evolution is why people like Hitler and Stalin exist or have existed is absolute trash and intellectually faulty.[[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 20:53, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
: Agreed - it's a very poor article indeed. If you believe the theory of evolution is wrong because it influenced Hitler, then you MUST believe that Christianity is wrong because it influenced Pope Innocent III (and various other, extremely unpleasant, so-called religious leaders).
:By the way, Stalin didn't believe in Darwinian evolution. That was precisely the problem with Trofim [[Lysenko]], who persuaded Stalin that Soviet plant breeding should be based on the pre-Darwinian idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics - with disastrous results.[[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 18:59, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
::::KennyMac, thank you for your strawman. The article never states that macroevolution never happened because it influenced Hitler and Stalin. The article merely states that it influenced Hitler and Stalin in a negative way. Secondly, Christianity may have influenced Pope Innocent III, but the question is how did it influence him? Is there anything in Christ's teaching that influenced that Pope in a negative way? If so, and I don't believe it is so, you have certainly failed to mention it. Of course, perhaps if the Pope in question was not influenced by Christianity he would have been a far worse individual in terms of his actions. I say that as a Protestant who is not exactly enamored with many of the acts of the Pope in question. Certainly Stalin and Hitler were individuals who were at the bottom of the barrel in terms of their deeds.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:57, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

== Flawed Logic ==
Following the arguments made within this article, all articles focusing on Christianity should be lined with pictures and references to those who have appropriated the tenets of Christianity for evil and despicable ends. There shouldn't be a shortage. [[User:Reeperbahn|Reeperbahn]] 20:06, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
:re: alleged no shortage: I see you did not name one. The irony is delicious. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:49, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
::Happy to start the list: Pope Innocent III (see above). Vile by present standards and despised by many people in his own day (early 13th century). He extended the control of the Catholic church over previously non-Catholic or pagan parts of Europe but the people who became Catholicised (or Christianised) didn't exactly have much choice in the matter. Not to mention his leadership role in the destruction of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade, the centre of the Christian world at the time, a fact which was very inconvenient for a pope who aspired to rule the Christian world from Rome.
::Others please continue. The list could be very long indeed. Many people involved in the First Crusade (who merrily destroyed several Greek towns before massacring the Muslim, Jewish AND Christian inhabitants of Jerusalem), almost anyone involved in the Fourth Crusade (see above), the Teutonic Knights (forced conversion of Prussia), the Spanish Inquisition (you should know this one), several Byzantine emperors (for whom narrow-minded religious bigotry was a perfectly good reason for massacring thousands of their subjects)... [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 19:11, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

American History Lecture One

2008-09-14T22:52:28Z

KennyMac: /* Pre-Columbian Period */ Further clarification of 'America'

Welcome to "American history," also known as "United States history." This is likely to become your favorite course. It has something for everyone: heroes, villains, criminal trials, comical mistakes, competitions, politics, literature, geniuses, treasure, inventions, war, and peace. You name it, American history has it. We are going to have some fun in this course.

We will start without a textbook, to encourage students to take initiative in learning history and to avoid duplication in reading. All you need to read are the lectures, starting with this one. Later we may add a textbook if we find a good one.

The Pilgrims came to America with a group not much bigger than our class, traveling in a boat called the "Mayflower" that was not much larger than our classroom. Just before arriving on shore, the Pilgrims agreed to a written agreement or "compact" to bind them after they arrived. The very first words of their "[[Mayflower Compact]]" were "In the name of God Amen."<ref>The Mayflower Compact is viewable here: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amerdoc/mayflower.htm</ref>

Just as our Nation's founders started with a prayer, so do we. Prayer clears out the noise in our minds. We are looking for knowledge and inspiration here, and that comes from God. In most countries parents do not have the freedom even to have a class like this. The main reason we have freedoms is because America was established on principles of liberty, and religious devotion in America remains among the strongest in the world today, as it was nearly 400 years ago.

We live at a critical time in our nation's history, and this class may be as important to the future of America as the Mayflower voyage was. Let's begin.

== What Students Find Challenging About History ==

Students find the following aspects of American history challenging:

* interpreting political cartoons
* keeping facts in perspective and understanding how they relate to each other
* keeping the different periods of American history separate, yet connected; seeing the trends
* understanding the importance of economic issues in shaping history
* improving speed in reading and retaining historical information, such as answering history questions quickly
* dealing with [[liberal]] bias in textbooks and the selection and presentation of questions on College Board exams:
** denial of [[Christian]] and [[conservative]] achievement
** overemphasis on [[liberal]]s and their beliefs, and denial of their failures
** obsession with materialism and inborn characteristics like race and gender

Common mistakes by students in history courses include:

* failure to recognize that American politics is always a battle between two sides
* memorizing dates without understanding the sequence of events (exams rarely ask about dates, but do ask about sequence)
* getting bogged down in detail and failing to see the big picture
* misunderstanding questions
* forgetting that people in the past were similar in nature to people today; they were motivated by religion, money, power, etc., and laziness has always been a problem

== The Key to Mastering History ==

The key to mastering history is to find what you like and understand, and then use it as your foundation to learn everything else. In other words, first find and learn what you like, and then learn everything else by connecting it to what you know. Use the same technique that we all use for directions: pick a landmark or a place that you know how to get to, and then figure out how to go from there to where you need to go.

For example, if you are most interested in religion, then learn about the 13 colonies based on their different attitudes towards religion. If you are most interested in one colony, then learn about it and how it relates to other colonies. If you like military history, then use that as your starting point. Perhaps you enjoy mysteries; in that case, use our list of [[Essay:Greatest Mysteries of American History|Greatest Mysteries of American History]] to motivate you.

Perhaps you like politics the most. In that case, you'll want to memorize the presidents and leaders of Congress, and relate historical events to their times in office. Or perhaps you enjoy legal issues, and reading about what the courts do. If so, then you'll want to focus your attention on the major rulings of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] throughout American history, and relate other historical events to those decisions.

On the SAT II U.S. History exam, the breakdown by subject matter is as follows:
 Political History - 32-36%
 Economic History - 18-20%
 Social History - 18-22%
 Cultural and Intellectual History - 10-12%
 Foreign Policy - 13-17%

The biggest part of the exam by far is politics, mostly concerning what happened in the federal government in [[Washington, D.C.]]

== Periods in American History ==

American history can be broken into about 20 time periods:

* settlement by Native Americans
* discovery, exploration, and settlement by Europeans
* colonial
* birth of the nation
* growth of the nation
* [[Andrew Jackson|Jackson]]ian Democracy
* pre-Civil War
* [[Civil War]]
* [[Reconstruction]]
* Gilded Age
* [[Imperialism]]
* [[World War I]]
* [[Roaring Twenties]], followed by the [[Great Depression]]
* [[World War II]]
* [[Cold War]]
** [[Korean War]]
** [[Vietnam War]]
* Reagan [[conservatism]]
* Post-Reagan Prosperity and the dot-com boom
* [[9/11]] and [[terrorism]]

On the SAT II in U.S History, the breakdown of questions by time period is this:

:Pre-Columbian history to 1789 - 20%
:1790 to 1898 - 40%
:1899 to the present - 40%

Hence nearly half of the SAT II exam focuses on the last century, and only about 18 questions (out of 90-95) are devoted to all of pre-exploration, exploration, settlements, the colonies, the documents that founded the nation, the American Revolution, and the election of George Washington. So do not find yourself spending too much time on one aspect of history.

== Why America? ==

Your common sense and imagination can help you master American history. Pause for a moment and imagine what would likely happen to a nice chunk of fertile land, possibly containing riches like gold, located between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Would some Europeans want to go there? Of course. Which ones would want to go there, and why?

One reason is to convert the natives to Christianity, just as homeschool families today often go on missionary trips to distant lands. Another reason is to search for gold and other riches. A third reason is to obtain freedom. Another reason is for the same reason people climb a mountain: because it is there! Some want to escape where they are. Others want to set up a new community, perhaps a new religious environment. Others hope to meet new people and make new friends, and engage in the trade of goods with the people. Another motivation is to learn from the new people, or have adventures and then write about them.

What is likely to happen if a bunch of Europeans go to this land? There will be conflict: conflicts with the natives, conflicts with other European countries, and conflicts with the mother country that sent the settlers. But there will also be new opportunities for improvements, for new products, for new businesses, for new religions and for new systems of government.

Who is going to pay for exploration and settlement? Kings. Investors. Do-gooders. Churches. Mostly nobody.

Who is going to do the hard labor needed to set up a new community, such as chopping down trees, working the farms, and constructing the buildings? There was almost no money to pay anyone for the work. Families might do some, but many of the families consisted of young children. Pretty soon slavery developed as a form of labor, particularly in less religious settlements. Another form of labor less objectionable than slavery was the use of [[indentured servants]]. They were workers who promised to work for free for seven (7) years in exchange for free transportation to the New World, free food and housing while there, and complete freedom (and maybe some land) after the end of the seven (7) years.

In learning history, it helps to look for unifying themes to organize events in your mind. One theme that helps explain American history well is the overall expansion of Christianity for 2000 years. Why did [[Christopher Columbus]] and other explorers risk their lives to come to the New World? To spread Christianity. Why did families then risk their lives to settle here? To establish religious communities free of persecution. Two hundred years later, why did Massachusetts prohibit slavery and why did abolitionists President [[John Quincy Adams]] devote their lives to ending slavery? Their religious values told them slavery was wrong.

There are other possible themes also. How about the desire to make more money? How about the urge for self-government, to be in charge of oneself free from a monarchy? How about the advance of technology and its affect on how we live? There are many possible themes to American history and we will have fun debates about them.

== Organizing History ==

From 1789 until today, we have had an American President. He is not more important than others. If I had to name the ten most important Americans in history, I would include only one president in the list (the first one, [[George Washington]]). But memorizing the list of 43 presidents can help you organize all the other facts. When someone asks me what was happening in 1962, I think of who was president and then remember the issues of that time. The presidents become like drawers in a cabinet where you might put your clothes. In the "cabinet" of presidents, each drawer is filled with issues and events that happened during each presidency.

But before 1789 there was no president. How are we going to organize that? One way is to focus on the three most important colonies, [[Virginia]] (1607), [[Massachusetts]] (1620) and [[Pennsylvania]] (1681), and relate the other 11 colonies and events to them. Another way is to look at the battles that occurred before the [[American Revolution]], such as the [[French and Indian War]] in 1754-1760.

By the end of this course, you will be able to hear an event and describe what was going on at that time. You will be able to tell me what happened before the event, and what happened afterward.

Don't try to memorize hundreds of dates. Instead, when you see a date, think what happened before and after it. There are only about ten dates that you need to know. For example, no one will ask you when Georgia was founded as a colony. But you may be asked whether it was the first or last colony founded. (It was the last colony established.) Another example: [[Quebec]] was founded in 1608. Don't remember the 1608 date, but remember that Quebec was founded one year after [[Jamestown]] was established (1607 – one of the few dates you should memorize!)

== Pre-Columbian Period ==
The first settlers in America were Native Americans, or American Indians. Their origin is not known. Some claim they migrated from Asia, but that makes little sense because American Indians are very different in many ways from Chinese and Asian Indians. Even their blood types are typically different.

Some old mounds reflecting Indian settlements in the territory which is now the United States of America have been discovered, such as the Adena burial mounds and Mississippian platform towns.<ref>Melissa L. Meyer, Dean R. Snow, Charles L. Cohen, Russell Thornton, Donald A. Grinde Jr., Leah Dilworth "Indian History and Culture" The Oxford Companion to United States History. Paul S. Boyer, ed. Oxford University Press 2001. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Tampa. 4 August 2008 <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t119.e0758-s0002></ref> The [[Cahokia Mounds]] in Southern Illinois (just east of [[St. Louis]]) reflect an Indian community dating back as early as A.D. 1000 or 1100.<ref>http://www.cahokiamounds.com/mystery_01.html</ref> That community practiced human sacrifice, as did the [[Aztecs]] and [[Mayans]] in [[Mesoamerica]] (Mexico and Central America) and the [[Incas]] in [[South America]] prior to the arrival of the Spanish conquerors.

The Indians in what is now the USA were [[nomads]] who traveled across wide areas. In contrast to the indigenous peoples of Central and South America, they did not read and write, and they lacked a monetary system. They were organized by tribes and some had very simple forms of government. There was the [[Iroquois Confederacy]] that united some Indians, but typically there was a lack of unity that led to their easy defeat by Europeans. The Indians did introduce [[tobacco]] and [[corn]] to Europeans, and they became widely popular back in Europe. Europeans also brought new things to the Indians, such as horses and guns.

Archaeological and historical evidence obtained in the 20th century showed that the Vinland colony, established around A.D. 1000 by the Viking [[Leif Ericson]], was on the island now known as [[Newfoundland]], in the far east of Canada. There is limited physical evidence of the colony and it is not known what eventually happened to it. It did not last long and there is no sign of any Viking colony in what is now the United States.<ref>"People have been looking hard for hundreds of years and there is no archaeological evidence in this part [New England]— it's certainly possible, the Vikings were incredible boat handlers — '''but there is no evidence'''," observed one university history professor.[http://farshores.org/a04viki.htm]</ref>.

'''Exam note''': there are no more than a few questions about the Pre-Columbian (prior to Christopher Columbus) period on any American history exam.

== Exploration (Columbian Period) ==

Starting in the Middle Ages, Christian Europe began to use its knowledge, wealth and [[faith]] to extend beyond its horizons. Christian Europeans fought the Holy [[Crusades]] from 1095 to 1291 to protect pilgrims to [[Jerusalem]] against Muslim attacks. Some Europeans were motivated to spread the [[Gospel]]. Others were motivated by a desire to increase their wealth, such as by finding gold.

People in [[Ancient Greece]] knew that the world was round, and that it should be possible to reach the Orient by traveling West '''''around''''' the world. Ironically, it was the very knowledge of the Earth's circumference that deterred a westward passage - the distance to the Orient in that direction was beyond the open-water range of ships in that period. Steamships did not exist yet; these ships relied on sailing, using wind to reach their destination, and wind patterns did not always cooperate.

Thus, centuries passed before one man inspired by the Christian [[faith]] was determined to change the world of his time. By the young age of 10 the Italian [[Christopher Columbus]] was working at sea, already on his way to becoming a master navigator and mariner. He learned the patterns of the Atlantic trade winds, and their ability to carry sailing vessels across vast distances both eastward and westward before one's provisions would run out. With the charts he developed, he was certain he could reach Asia on a westbound route more efficiently than others could.

It took enormous courage, determination and financial support to sail West into the complete unknown. It also took more than a desire to get rich, because there were easier ways to make money. That additional desire was a passion to spread Christianity to new civilizations. In 1482, [[Christopher Columbus]] sought financing to sail West in order to find an easier way to reach the Far East, by sailing westward rather than going eastward from Europe to reach India and Japan. Columbus tried Portugal for raising money, but it already had its own successful explorers. Portugal declined to support him, but Columbus persisted for ten more years.

In 1492 Spain drove out the last of the Muslims and re-established itself as a Christian nation, and King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain granted Columbus's request for funding his voyage in that same year. Spain continues to honor Columbus Day just as the United States does.

Columbus was not only a devout Christian, but an enterprising capitalist. The contract he signed with the Spanish Monarchy, known as the Capitulations of Santa Fe, named him Admiral of the Atlantic Ocean, Viceroy and Governor of all the new lands discovered, and gave him one-tenth of the profit from all of the discovered lands (Spain later refused to honor the agreement, and Columbus never became wealthy). Having secured his funding, Columbus assembled his ships and crew and set out in August of 1492 to reach the Orient.

Columbus set sail in three ships. On Christmas eve, December 24, 1492, one of Columbus's ships, the [[Santa Maria]], reached the island of [[Haiti]]. Columbus named the settlement "La Navidad," meaning "The Nativity," and dropped off 40 men with a promise to return to them the next year. Columbus then wrote for the King and Queen of Spain in his Journal: "In all the world there can be no better or gentler people. Your Highnesses should feel great joy, because presently they will be Christians, and instructed in the good manners of your realms."

But Columbus had grossly underestimated the size of the world, and when he reached San Salvador, Haiti (Hispaniola) and Cuba he thought he had reached the Far East. So he called the natives "Indians". He left some men there but they were eventually killed by the natives. Columbus reported back that new people had been found to evangelize with Christianity.

Soon Spain and Portugal divided the Americas with the [[Line of Demarcation]], drawn by the Pope. The [[Treaty of Tordesillas]] moved the line in 1493. It was a North-South line that gave Spain North America and the western part of South America, but Portugal received Brazil. That's why Brazilians speak Portuguese to this day.

The incredible genius of Columbus -- or Providence -- was demonstrated a year later on his second voyage across the Atlantic. Amid the vast ocean, Columbus was able to return to exactly the same location that he had reached on his first voyage on the island of [[Hispaniola]]. That is like finding a needle in a haystack the size of a football stadium. But Columbus's colony had not survived in his absence.

Columbus sailed on a total of three subsequent voyages, but never achieved his goal and died a failure. His ultimate dream of liberating Jerusalem, as the Crusades attempted, was not realized. But what he did achieve was to open the New World to spreading Christianity and creating new wealth.

Columbus's efforts resulting in Spain acquiring [[Haiti]], [[Puerto Rico]], [[Jamaica]] and [[Cuba]] by 1515. Spain then settled Florida (St. Augustine), and later Santa Fe (now in New Mexico). Spanish [[Hernando Cortes]] conquered the Aztecs in central Mexico (1521), and [[Francisco Pizarro]] conquered the Incas of Peru (1531). They seized much gold in the process.

Fifteen years after Columbus's maiden voyage, map-makers (cartographers) coined the named "America" for the New World in honor of another Italian explorer, Amerigo Vespucci. Between 1499 and 1502 he explored the east coast of South America, and was the first to recognize that the new land was a separate continent rather than part of Asia.

But while Spanish soldiers came to America, Spanish women did not. So there were not many distinct, permanent Spanish settlements. Also, the Spanish were entirely subservient to their King back in Europe. Separate governments did not develop.

Other European powers were exploring North America also. The French explored the St. Lawrence and settled Quebec, where French is still spoken to this day. The French also explored the Mississippi, and settled the towns of Saint Louis (named after a French king) and New Orleans.

The Dutch explored and settled the Hudson River, calling the region New Netherlands and buying and naming Manhattan New Amsterdam.

The Swedish settled in Delaware; Germans settled later in Pennsylvania.

Explorer [[John Cabot]] discovered the North American coastline for England in 1497. But no settlements were attempted by the English for about another 100 years, because North America didn't have what the explorers were looking for. America lacked valuable natural resources. There was no gold, which is what Europeans wanted. In 1576, the British explorer [[Martin Frobisher]] even hauled 200 tons of material back to England, hoping it was gold. It wasn’t.

There wasn't anything else of much value to Europe. New England was too rocky near the coast to develop farms. The mid-Atlantic region or Chesapeake area, where Maryland and Virginia are today, was infested with malaria. Winters were cold, and summers were hot.

There was no livestock – no horses and no cattle, until the Spanish imported them. Florida was a swamp, and did not even have orange trees until the Spanish explorer [[Ponce de Leon]] planted them in 1515.

North America was a joke to many in England. Its Parliament passed a law in 1597 authorizing the deportations of convicted criminals to America and other colonies. In 1605, a satirical book entitled “Eastward Ho!” was published that mocked attempts to settle in Virginia.

Think about it. Would your family uproot and move, at great risk to your lives, to a place that had no civilization or anything of value? Do we see families moving to the middle of the desert in Arizona, or to cheap land in the middle of Wyoming? Only very rarely.

[[England]]'s first settlement of [[North America]] was in 1585, on [[Roanoke Island]] in [[Virginia]]. More than 100 families settled there, but within a few years they had all disappeared. It remains a mystery to this day what happened. They could have died from disease or starvation. They could have been killed by Indians. No one knows the real reason for the disappearance of this settlement, and it's called the "[[Lost Colony]]."

About the same time, however, England had a huge success in Europe. Spain had ruled the high seas for most of the 1500s, until England destroyed the Spanish Armada in 1588. That left England with the potential to gain control of the oceans and world trade over the seas. England could then protect its newly developing colonies against other European powers.

== Successful Settlements ==

Some Englishmen invested money in what was called a "[[joint stock company]]," which was similar to a modern-day corporation, for the purpose of finding gold or other treasures. One of those joint stock companies was the "[[Virginia Company]]," which established the first permanent settlement for England in Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607. It was a disaster and the investors never received a profit. The men who settled in Jamestown were "English gentlemen" unaccustomed to working with their hands, and who expected to get rich with little effort. They lacked a common purpose and wasted their time searching for treasure, or simply doing nothing at all. Unwilling to work to grow their own food, they almost starved to death.

'''1607''' is one of the few dates you should memorize. This was after the Spanish had settled in Florida, but before the French had settled in Quebec. So remember the sequence in settling America: Spanish, English, and then French.

Initially, from 1607-1608, the Jamestown settlement lived under socialism, whereby the group shared its food with everyone no matter how much or little each person worked. This economic system was a complete failure that led to "starving time" as no one had any incentive to do any work to provide the necessities of life. In September 1608, [[John Smith]] was elected president of the governing council. He ruled for a year and installed a conservative economic system: "don't work, don't eat!" Under this new system that replaced communism with free enterprise, after a few years food production began to increase significantly and by 1614 there was plenty to eat.

Jamestown settlers had come to America to find fortune, but there was not any gold or silver. Indians had discovered tobacco and shared it with Europeans who were beginning to become addicted on it. Many Europeans recognized that tobacco was bad for them, and some wanted to prohibit it. In 1613, Englishman [[John Rolfe]], who married the Indian [[Pocahontas]] in Virginia, began growing tobacco to export to Europe. The King banned the growing of tobacco in England, so Rolfe had no competition. Cash began pouring in for the tobacco, and this so-called "cash crop" became highly profitable for the Jamestown settlers. Tobacco continued to be very profitable throughout a large part of American history, particularly in the South.

Although it profited from the sale of tobacco, the Jamestown settlement had many difficulties. It had made peace with Indian [[Chief Powhatan]], whose daughter Pocahontas married settler [[John Rolfe]]. But after Powhatan died, his brother led a sudden attack on the settlers in 1622, massacring 357 out of just 1200.

But Indian strife was only one of many problems. Labor was in short supply for working the fields. Settlers began importing indentured servants, who received free travel to the colonies in exchange for a promise to work for seven years. Virginia also turned to a cheaper approach to labor: importing slaves from West Africa beginning in 1619 to work the crops. The importation of slaves to the New World was not new in 1619; many European countries had been importing a total of 40,000 slaves to the New World prior to the 1600's based on the Portuguese plantation system for working the land.

In 1624 King James (of the "King James Bible" fame) took back ownership and control of the Virginia colony and established it as a royal charter. The Virginia colony was mess, a problem colony that enslaved workers and grew tobacco. More trouble was in its future. In 1676, Nathanial Bacon was a Virginia settler who decided to take the law into his own hands. He first massacred Indians in western Virginia, then took his small army of rebels to Jamestown, where he burned it down because the governor had refused to allow him to kill the Indians. Bacon himself soon died from a disease. This is known as [[Bacon's Rebellion]] and it resulted in less use of indentured servants and greater reliance on slaves, who could not rebel as easily. Once he was sure Bacon was really dead, the governor returned and hung two dozen of his supporters.

The Virginia colony, despite all its troubles, later produced four of our first five presidents. Why? It was big and and rather prosperous.

Let's turn to the Massachusetts settlements next. Massachusetts had a much harsher climate than Virginia, particularly in the wintertime. Its settlers were motivated by religion, not money. They were unhappy with the oppressions of the Church of England, feeling it was too much like the Catholic Church. Two different groups of these people set out for North America. The first group, the Separatists or Pilgrims, wanted to separate completely from the Church of England and establish a religiously pure community. The second group consisted of more mainstream Puritans who wanted to purify the church from within, without leaving it. Both groups were types of Puritans, and both groups landed by chance within 100 miles of each other in Massachusetts.

The first group, the Pilgrims, set sail from Plymouth, England and intended to land near the mouth of the Hudson River (now New York City), which was the northern part of the Virginia Company's territory. But their ship, the "Mayflower", was blown off course and they landed up on Cape Cod in Massachusetts in 1620. Outside of any official government, they decided on the boat to establish the first civil government in North America by signing the Mayflower Compact. They landed in December, and half of the people died due to disease in their first New England winter. But the following spring a friendly Indian introduced them to corn, or maize, the marvelous food discovered by Indians.

The Pilgrims had a plentiful harvest that fall, and celebrated their first Thanksgiving with the Indians. In 1623, their new Governor [[William Bradford]] gave every member a plot of land and allowed the free market to develop. By 1624, the community was doing so well that it was actually making more food than it could consume and began exporting its corn. [[William Bradford]] and [[Edward Winslow]] kept diaries during the settling of Plymouth, which are recorded in a small, but fascinating book called ''Mourt's Relation''.

Corn is a tremendous contribution by Indians to the world, and it sustains entire countries to this day. Most of us eat lots of corn; corn is also used to make ethanol fuel, and the rising prices for fuel have caused corn prices to increase, which in turn has caused other food and meat to rise in price because animals depend on corn for food. But corn did not exist in Europe during the Middle Ages. Cheap and easy to grow, corn has become one of the most popular foods worldwide, rivaling rice and soybeans. We can thank the Indians.

Encouraged by the success of the Pilgrims, a new group called the [[Massachusetts Bay Company]] obtained a royal charter and sent a larger group of Puritans to settle in New England, this time with the purpose of purifying the [[Church of England]] with a more perfect community than in England itself. It was well-financed and led by the very capable [[John Winthrop]], who had been trained at Oxford. They landed in Salem, Massachusetts in 1629 and immediately moved to Boston Harbor. They never looked back, thriving almost immediately despite the harsh winter climate. Within five years the [[Great Migration]] of religiously motivated settlers followed them from England. Their numbers and power grew. By the 1640s, the community was participating in robust trade by sea with England, the West Indies, and on occasion West Africa.

== The Colonies ==

What is a "colony"? A "colony" is defined as "a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties with the parent state." (Merriam-Webster dictionary)

From 1607 to 1639, a total of six colonies were established in what is now the United States: Virginia, Massachusetts, New Netherlands (renamed New York), Maryland, Rhode Island and Connecticut. There were four basic types of colonies:

*'''Joint-Stock Colony''': investors fund a colony through a joint-stock company; examples were Virginia and Massachusetts Bay
*'''Charter Colony''': founded on land granted by the king to a company or person who governed by it; examples were Connecticut and Rhode Island, which obtained charters many years after being settled
*'''Proprietary Colony''': owned and controlled by 1 or more persons; examples were Maryland, Pennsylvania (William Penn), Delaware and New York
*'''Royal Colony''': a colony founded or taken back under rule of king, who appoints the governor to rule it; many colonies eventually became royal colonies as the King took back control, as happened in Virginia

The growing colonies in Massachusetts and Virginia could not have been more different from each other, and it is remarkable they eventually joined the same country. Massachusetts was highly religious and motivated by faith. Virginia was marginally religious and motivated by money. Massachusetts, more religious, had vocal opponents of slavery and neighboring Vermont was the first state to prohibit slavery in its Constitution, in 1777. In contrast, Virginia welcomed slavery. Massachusetts grew the Indian crop of corn. Virginia grew the Indian crop of tobacco. Massachusetts settlers made greater efforts to get along with Indians and treat them fairly. Massachusetts attracted new settlers based on religion. Virginia attracted new European settlers based on the "headright system," by which land (usually 50 acres) was given to those who paid for the passage to the colony of an immigrant, who usually agreed to work as an "indentured servant" for free for fixed number of years on the land.

The stark contrast between Massachusetts and Virginia would ultimately lead, nearly 250 years later, to the Civil War.

While the Virginia institution of slavery was spreading to the colonies of [[Maryland]], [[Carolina]] and, later, [[Georgia]], [[Massachusetts]] was spreading a different sort of institution: religious intensity. [[Roger Williams]] was an extraordinary individual of such great faith that he found even the Puritans to be lacking in their treatment of Indians. Williams also disagreed with how the Puritans combined government and religion, and how the Puritans had executed several Christians based on differences with the Puritan faith. Williams was fabulous with languages and learned to communicate with many different Indian tribes, and even lived with them at times in spite of the danger. He left the Puritans in Massachusetts and started the colony of Rhode Island, which to this day has prided itself on its independence. Rhode Island was the only state to refuse to support a colonial tax on imports after the Revolution, and the only colony to refuse to ratify the Constitution until long after [[George Washington]] was President. Rhode Island, under Roger Williams' direction, separated state government from religion. It had no mandatory church attendance, and no funding of churches with tax revenues was allowed in Rhode Island.

But while Roger Williams was highly moral, others in Rhode Island made it the biggest importer of slaves in all the colonies. So censoring religion led to harm. In contrast, in the larger Massachusetts, taxes funded religious institutions for nearly 200 years, until at least the 1830s. It successfully prohibited slavery.

Another devout Christian who disagreed with the Puritans, [[Anne Hutchinson]], was tried by them in 1636 for emphasizing "grace" rather than "works", and she was forced to flee. She escaped the Puritans but was later killed by Indians. Religious persecution continued in Massachusetts in the mid-1600s: the Baptists were banished in 1651, and the Quakers were expelled or -- when they remained or returned -- they were hung.

The Congregational Church was started by Pilgrims in Plymouth (1620) as Independents. Like the Puritans themselves, the Congregationalists declined over time due dispersal of the population on farms, the growth of rationalism, and perhaps the biggest reason of all, prosperity and the arrogance it often engenders.

Cracks in the Puritan way became clear in the Halfway Covenant of 1657. This was an agreement (a covenant) achieved at an assembly of Puritans from Massachusetts and Connecticut to allow halfway church membership and baptism for sinners. Second and third-generation Puritans seemed more interested in money than having the "born again" religious conversion necessary to become a full member of the Puritan Church and required in order to be allowed to baptize their children in the Church. The Reverend Solomon Stoddard, whose grandson would be [[Jonathan Edwards]] (whom we will discuss in the next class), proposed partial or "halfway" membership in the Church of children and grandchildren of Church members. All the children and grandchildren need do was accept the Covenant and agree to the beliefs and rules of the Church, in order to participate in the sacraments of the Church. But they would not be allowed to vote on any Church issues until they had a spiritual conversion. This approach was adopted, but continued to be resisted by people on both sides of the issue: some who thought it was too lenient, and others who found it too strict.

'''Debate: were the Puritans right to be strict and to expel people of other religions?'''

One prominent textbook claims, under "Rhode Island," that "This belief [by Roger Williams] in the separation of church and state became a cornerstone of the American Constitution in 1787." That is completely false. Roger Williams was long dead by 1787, and there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. Rhode Island did not even send any representatives to draft the Constitution and it had no role in the drafting of the Bill of Rights. In fact, Rhode Island did not ratify the Constitution until after George Washington was elected president, and even then it took much arm-twisting to compel Rhode Island to ratify the Constitution. But some people want to keep religion out of government, and they refuse to admit that the First Amendment only prohibits the establishment of a national church by the government. Also, Rhode Island was the '''only''' colony that supported a "separation" of church and state. Other colonies actually funded religion in various ways.

In between Massachusetts and Virginia there was a third approach: that taken by Pennsylvania. William Penn was another extraordinary Englishman. He converted to become a Quaker in England and began practicing that religion in violation of English law. He was arrested and prosecuted, but the jury refused to convict him. The king owed his father money, and gave the son what is today Pennsylvania. It was nothing but woods at the time. But William Penn founded his colony based on one principle: religious freedom for all. He advertised in Europe and attracted peoples of many nationalities in addition to the English.

Penn was very kind to the Indians and soon had the most popular colony in America. Philadelphia, which means "brotherly love" in Greek, became America's greatest city, surpassing Boston in population in the 1700s. Only Pennsylvania and Maryland survived long-term under private ownership. Most of the other colonies were eventually taken over by the King of England, often due to troubles that arose in the colony.

Pennsylvania was founded over 50 years '''after''' Virginia and Massachusetts. Georgia was founded over 50 years after Pennsylvania, which means over 100 years after Virginia and Massachusetts. Philanthropist [[James Oglethorpe]] founded Savannah in Georgia in 1733 for poor debtors in jails of England, and to serve as a "buffer" colony to separate protect English South Carolina against possible encroachment by Spanish Florida. Oglethorpe was very religious and very strict. Too strict, in fact, for the King of England, who then took over the colony in 1751. The colony was not nearly as strong and developed as the other colonies, so the other colonies did not take it very seriously.

== Economic System ==

Ultimately, and this is the most difficult for students to understand, it is money ([[economics]]) that shapes much of history. If the colonies were profitable for their mother countries in Europe, then the mother countries would continue to support and defend the colonies. But if the colonies were a money-loser, as in costing more to defend then they make, then they are going to be abandoned or at least no longer protected by the European mother country.

Many of the colonies did make this work, and work well. An [[economic]] system called [[mercantilism]] began to develop in the 1600s and 1700s, which would lay the foundation for capitalism in the 1800s.<ref>http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/mercantilism.html</ref>

The basic concept of mercantilism is to limit imports from foreign countries (not including colonies), and maximize exports to everyone (including other colonies), in order to maximize the "trade surplus" (the amount by which receipts exceeds expenses). Colonies played an important role in this system by supplying raw materials at low cost to the mother country (e.g., England or France), which could then use the materials to produce low-cost finished products that could be sold to the world.<ref>http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Mercantilism.html</ref> By selling more than the country buys, it could accumulate a surplus in money (gold) and become wealthier. In other words, mercantilism was an economic system in which the colonies existed to give raw materials to mother country (England), and buy her finished products, so that England could export more than it imported and thereby increase its gold reserves from a surplus in the balance of trade.

But there's no free lunch, and these European nations were all-too-happy to use slavery to do the back-breaking work of gathering the raw materials, such as crops and minerals. A slave trade developed to bring blacks from Africa to the New World in order to work the plantations for the settlers from [[England]] and other European powers.

The [[Spanish]] had a different system: they used a modified form of [[feudalism]], known as the encomienda system, in order to force the Indians to do the hard work. The "encomienda" was a grant by the King or Queen of Spain of power over Indians within a geographic region, a grant that was given to an "encomendero", who was the Spaniard in that region who would put the Indians to work.<ref>http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/scott-m.html</ref> The Indians themselves became known as the economiendas.

The Spanish system looked better in theory, because the encomendero was supposed to educate the encomiendas, convert them to Christianity (Catholicism), and not exercise any political power over them (as in telling them how to live). In practice, however, there were no "checks and balances" preventing exploitation and abuse of power in working the Indians.

Finally, College Board exams may ask about the "triangular trade" that supposedly dominated from 1640-1720. Later historians have used the image of triangle to show trade routes from West Africa to the New World America (the West Indies or the colonies), from there to Europe (England or continental Europe), and from there the boats presumably traveled back to West Africa to begin again. The harshest part of this route was the taking of slaves, bound in chains from West Africa to the New World. After the slaves disembarked, the New World would load goods onto the ships (such as raw molasses if the West Indies, or tobacco if Virginia) for transport to Europe. But what doesn't make sense about this theory is the following: what would Europe send on the ships back to Africa? Nothing comes to mind (other than a few goods to purchase the slaves), and not a single instance of an actual triangle route has ever been found. Perhaps finished product, like rum from the molasses, would be loaded onto the ships, but its intended destination would be the colonies, not Africa. So in reality the only triangle could only be traversed by the boats, not by actual trade.

'''Debate: Did "triangular trade" really exist?'''

== Topics for Discussion ==

*What, if anything, was the significance of [[Bacon's Rebellion]]?
*What challenges would the [[Puritans]] face in maintaining their strongly religious culture in the 1600s and 1700s?
*Question about bias: why would some want to take credit away from Columbus, and how might they do it?

== A Word About College Board Exams ==

Finally, a word about College Board exams. This course will give you the foundation -- if you like -- for taking three different College Board exams (usually a student takes only one of the three): the [[CLEP]], the [[AP]], and the [[SAT II]].

The CLEP is a multiple-choice exam that is recognized by most (but not all) colleges as a way to earn college credit. It costs about $70 and is administered on computers at local colleges, usually once a month. It is the least biased of the three exams, and not much advanced planning is needed to sign up for it.

The AP, or Advanced Placement exam, is given only once a year in May at local high schools, and is more expensive. It includes both multiple-choice and essay questions, and is used by more colleges to give credit for courses. In 2009, the AP exam for U.S. History is scheduled for Friday, May 9. The student must sign up for it long in advance, and make arrangements with a public high school.

The SAT II in American History is an inexpensive multiple-choice exam that takes only an hour and is given at high schools on Saturdays once a month, October through June, with registration available online at www.collegeboard.com . No college credit is given for it, but it is used for college applications to recognize achievement. The SAT II is the cheapest and most biased of the three exams, and is known for emphasizing liberal culture. Also, what counts as "economic history" is not what you might expect. There are almost no questions about the [[conservative]] gold standard, for example, even though that issue has been important throughout history (and was even an issue in [[Ron Paul]]'s campaign for presidency in 2008). Instead, questions about economic history on the SAT II are likely to be about unions, the treatment of workers, alleged corruption of big business, discrimination, and gender issues.

Notice what is missing on the College Board exams: military history. Unfortunately, many educators in the [[United States]] dislike the military, and that bias shows up on the exams. No questions are there about battles or key military strategies and decisions. The only time the military shows up on these exams is when they have a political impact.

Each of these College Board exams can be taken as often as one likes, though it is difficult to take the AP exam more than once because it is offered only once a year, and it is expensive to retake the CLEP exam. The SAT II, which is cheaper, is the easiest to take more than once and colleges look only at the highest score.

There is absolutely no requirement to take any of these College Board exams as part of this course, and references to the exams are used more as a way of helping you see the "big picture," as in how much time should be spent on a particular period or historical topic. Our class has only two required, multiple-choice exams: a midterm and a final. This course will help students improve their test-taking skills on multiple-choice exams. We will have weekly homework assignments consisting of short-answer questions.

== References ==
<references/>

== See also ==
* [[American History Homework One]]
[[Category:United States History]]

American History Lecture One

2008-09-14T22:50:16Z

KennyMac: /* Pre-Columbian Period */ Deleted Viking debate (see Talk page)

Welcome to "American history," also known as "United States history." This is likely to become your favorite course. It has something for everyone: heroes, villains, criminal trials, comical mistakes, competitions, politics, literature, geniuses, treasure, inventions, war, and peace. You name it, American history has it. We are going to have some fun in this course.

We will start without a textbook, to encourage students to take initiative in learning history and to avoid duplication in reading. All you need to read are the lectures, starting with this one. Later we may add a textbook if we find a good one.

The Pilgrims came to America with a group not much bigger than our class, traveling in a boat called the "Mayflower" that was not much larger than our classroom. Just before arriving on shore, the Pilgrims agreed to a written agreement or "compact" to bind them after they arrived. The very first words of their "[[Mayflower Compact]]" were "In the name of God Amen."<ref>The Mayflower Compact is viewable here: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amerdoc/mayflower.htm</ref>

Just as our Nation's founders started with a prayer, so do we. Prayer clears out the noise in our minds. We are looking for knowledge and inspiration here, and that comes from God. In most countries parents do not have the freedom even to have a class like this. The main reason we have freedoms is because America was established on principles of liberty, and religious devotion in America remains among the strongest in the world today, as it was nearly 400 years ago.

We live at a critical time in our nation's history, and this class may be as important to the future of America as the Mayflower voyage was. Let's begin.

== What Students Find Challenging About History ==

Students find the following aspects of American history challenging:

* interpreting political cartoons
* keeping facts in perspective and understanding how they relate to each other
* keeping the different periods of American history separate, yet connected; seeing the trends
* understanding the importance of economic issues in shaping history
* improving speed in reading and retaining historical information, such as answering history questions quickly
* dealing with [[liberal]] bias in textbooks and the selection and presentation of questions on College Board exams:
** denial of [[Christian]] and [[conservative]] achievement
** overemphasis on [[liberal]]s and their beliefs, and denial of their failures
** obsession with materialism and inborn characteristics like race and gender

Common mistakes by students in history courses include:

* failure to recognize that American politics is always a battle between two sides
* memorizing dates without understanding the sequence of events (exams rarely ask about dates, but do ask about sequence)
* getting bogged down in detail and failing to see the big picture
* misunderstanding questions
* forgetting that people in the past were similar in nature to people today; they were motivated by religion, money, power, etc., and laziness has always been a problem

== The Key to Mastering History ==

The key to mastering history is to find what you like and understand, and then use it as your foundation to learn everything else. In other words, first find and learn what you like, and then learn everything else by connecting it to what you know. Use the same technique that we all use for directions: pick a landmark or a place that you know how to get to, and then figure out how to go from there to where you need to go.

For example, if you are most interested in religion, then learn about the 13 colonies based on their different attitudes towards religion. If you are most interested in one colony, then learn about it and how it relates to other colonies. If you like military history, then use that as your starting point. Perhaps you enjoy mysteries; in that case, use our list of [[Essay:Greatest Mysteries of American History|Greatest Mysteries of American History]] to motivate you.

Perhaps you like politics the most. In that case, you'll want to memorize the presidents and leaders of Congress, and relate historical events to their times in office. Or perhaps you enjoy legal issues, and reading about what the courts do. If so, then you'll want to focus your attention on the major rulings of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] throughout American history, and relate other historical events to those decisions.

On the SAT II U.S. History exam, the breakdown by subject matter is as follows:
 Political History - 32-36%
 Economic History - 18-20%
 Social History - 18-22%
 Cultural and Intellectual History - 10-12%
 Foreign Policy - 13-17%

The biggest part of the exam by far is politics, mostly concerning what happened in the federal government in [[Washington, D.C.]]

== Periods in American History ==

American history can be broken into about 20 time periods:

* settlement by Native Americans
* discovery, exploration, and settlement by Europeans
* colonial
* birth of the nation
* growth of the nation
* [[Andrew Jackson|Jackson]]ian Democracy
* pre-Civil War
* [[Civil War]]
* [[Reconstruction]]
* Gilded Age
* [[Imperialism]]
* [[World War I]]
* [[Roaring Twenties]], followed by the [[Great Depression]]
* [[World War II]]
* [[Cold War]]
** [[Korean War]]
** [[Vietnam War]]
* Reagan [[conservatism]]
* Post-Reagan Prosperity and the dot-com boom
* [[9/11]] and [[terrorism]]

On the SAT II in U.S History, the breakdown of questions by time period is this:

:Pre-Columbian history to 1789 - 20%
:1790 to 1898 - 40%
:1899 to the present - 40%

Hence nearly half of the SAT II exam focuses on the last century, and only about 18 questions (out of 90-95) are devoted to all of pre-exploration, exploration, settlements, the colonies, the documents that founded the nation, the American Revolution, and the election of George Washington. So do not find yourself spending too much time on one aspect of history.

== Why America? ==

Your common sense and imagination can help you master American history. Pause for a moment and imagine what would likely happen to a nice chunk of fertile land, possibly containing riches like gold, located between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Would some Europeans want to go there? Of course. Which ones would want to go there, and why?

One reason is to convert the natives to Christianity, just as homeschool families today often go on missionary trips to distant lands. Another reason is to search for gold and other riches. A third reason is to obtain freedom. Another reason is for the same reason people climb a mountain: because it is there! Some want to escape where they are. Others want to set up a new community, perhaps a new religious environment. Others hope to meet new people and make new friends, and engage in the trade of goods with the people. Another motivation is to learn from the new people, or have adventures and then write about them.

What is likely to happen if a bunch of Europeans go to this land? There will be conflict: conflicts with the natives, conflicts with other European countries, and conflicts with the mother country that sent the settlers. But there will also be new opportunities for improvements, for new products, for new businesses, for new religions and for new systems of government.

Who is going to pay for exploration and settlement? Kings. Investors. Do-gooders. Churches. Mostly nobody.

Who is going to do the hard labor needed to set up a new community, such as chopping down trees, working the farms, and constructing the buildings? There was almost no money to pay anyone for the work. Families might do some, but many of the families consisted of young children. Pretty soon slavery developed as a form of labor, particularly in less religious settlements. Another form of labor less objectionable than slavery was the use of [[indentured servants]]. They were workers who promised to work for free for seven (7) years in exchange for free transportation to the New World, free food and housing while there, and complete freedom (and maybe some land) after the end of the seven (7) years.

In learning history, it helps to look for unifying themes to organize events in your mind. One theme that helps explain American history well is the overall expansion of Christianity for 2000 years. Why did [[Christopher Columbus]] and other explorers risk their lives to come to the New World? To spread Christianity. Why did families then risk their lives to settle here? To establish religious communities free of persecution. Two hundred years later, why did Massachusetts prohibit slavery and why did abolitionists President [[John Quincy Adams]] devote their lives to ending slavery? Their religious values told them slavery was wrong.

There are other possible themes also. How about the desire to make more money? How about the urge for self-government, to be in charge of oneself free from a monarchy? How about the advance of technology and its affect on how we live? There are many possible themes to American history and we will have fun debates about them.

== Organizing History ==

From 1789 until today, we have had an American President. He is not more important than others. If I had to name the ten most important Americans in history, I would include only one president in the list (the first one, [[George Washington]]). But memorizing the list of 43 presidents can help you organize all the other facts. When someone asks me what was happening in 1962, I think of who was president and then remember the issues of that time. The presidents become like drawers in a cabinet where you might put your clothes. In the "cabinet" of presidents, each drawer is filled with issues and events that happened during each presidency.

But before 1789 there was no president. How are we going to organize that? One way is to focus on the three most important colonies, [[Virginia]] (1607), [[Massachusetts]] (1620) and [[Pennsylvania]] (1681), and relate the other 11 colonies and events to them. Another way is to look at the battles that occurred before the [[American Revolution]], such as the [[French and Indian War]] in 1754-1760.

By the end of this course, you will be able to hear an event and describe what was going on at that time. You will be able to tell me what happened before the event, and what happened afterward.

Don't try to memorize hundreds of dates. Instead, when you see a date, think what happened before and after it. There are only about ten dates that you need to know. For example, no one will ask you when Georgia was founded as a colony. But you may be asked whether it was the first or last colony founded. (It was the last colony established.) Another example: [[Quebec]] was founded in 1608. Don't remember the 1608 date, but remember that Quebec was founded one year after [[Jamestown]] was established (1607 – one of the few dates you should memorize!)

== Pre-Columbian Period ==
The first settlers in America were Native Americans, or American Indians. Their origin is not known. Some claim they migrated from Asia, but that makes little sense because American Indians are very different in many ways from Chinese and Asian Indians. Even their blood types are typically different.

Some old mounds reflecting Indian settlements in the territory which is now the United States of America have been discovered, such as the Adena burial mounds and Mississippian platform towns.<ref>Melissa L. Meyer, Dean R. Snow, Charles L. Cohen, Russell Thornton, Donald A. Grinde Jr., Leah Dilworth "Indian History and Culture" The Oxford Companion to United States History. Paul S. Boyer, ed. Oxford University Press 2001. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Tampa. 4 August 2008 <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t119.e0758-s0002></ref> The [[Cahokia Mounds]] in Southern Illinois (just east of [[St. Louis]]) reflect an Indian community dating back as early as A.D. 1000 or 1100.<ref>http://www.cahokiamounds.com/mystery_01.html</ref> That community practiced human sacrifice, as did the [[Aztecs]] and [[Mayans]] in [[Mesoamerica]] (Mexico and Central America) and the [[Incas]] in [[South America]] prior to the arrival of the Spanish conquerors.

The American Indians were [[nomads]] who traveled across wide areas. They did not read and write, and they lacked a monetary system. They were organized by tribes and some had very simple forms of government. There was the [[Iroquois Confederacy]] that united some Indians, but typically there was a lack of unity that led to their easy defeat by Europeans. The Indians did introduce [[tobacco]] and [[corn]] to Europeans, and they became widely popular back in Europe. Europeans also brought new things to the Indians, such as horses and guns.

Archaeological and historical evidence obtained in the 20th century showed that the Vinland colony, established around A.D. 1000 by the Viking [[Leif Ericson]], was on the island now known as [[Newfoundland]], in the far east of Canada. There is limited physical evidence of the colony and it is not known what eventually happened to it. It did not last long and there is no sign of any Viking colony in what is now the United States.<ref>"People have been looking hard for hundreds of years and there is no archaeological evidence in this part [New England]— it's certainly possible, the Vikings were incredible boat handlers — '''but there is no evidence'''," observed one university history professor.[http://farshores.org/a04viki.htm]</ref>.

'''Exam note''': there are no more than a few questions about the Pre-Columbian (prior to Christopher Columbus) period on any American history exam.

== Exploration (Columbian Period) ==

Starting in the Middle Ages, Christian Europe began to use its knowledge, wealth and [[faith]] to extend beyond its horizons. Christian Europeans fought the Holy [[Crusades]] from 1095 to 1291 to protect pilgrims to [[Jerusalem]] against Muslim attacks. Some Europeans were motivated to spread the [[Gospel]]. Others were motivated by a desire to increase their wealth, such as by finding gold.

People in [[Ancient Greece]] knew that the world was round, and that it should be possible to reach the Orient by traveling West '''''around''''' the world. Ironically, it was the very knowledge of the Earth's circumference that deterred a westward passage - the distance to the Orient in that direction was beyond the open-water range of ships in that period. Steamships did not exist yet; these ships relied on sailing, using wind to reach their destination, and wind patterns did not always cooperate.

Thus, centuries passed before one man inspired by the Christian [[faith]] was determined to change the world of his time. By the young age of 10 the Italian [[Christopher Columbus]] was working at sea, already on his way to becoming a master navigator and mariner. He learned the patterns of the Atlantic trade winds, and their ability to carry sailing vessels across vast distances both eastward and westward before one's provisions would run out. With the charts he developed, he was certain he could reach Asia on a westbound route more efficiently than others could.

It took enormous courage, determination and financial support to sail West into the complete unknown. It also took more than a desire to get rich, because there were easier ways to make money. That additional desire was a passion to spread Christianity to new civilizations. In 1482, [[Christopher Columbus]] sought financing to sail West in order to find an easier way to reach the Far East, by sailing westward rather than going eastward from Europe to reach India and Japan. Columbus tried Portugal for raising money, but it already had its own successful explorers. Portugal declined to support him, but Columbus persisted for ten more years.

In 1492 Spain drove out the last of the Muslims and re-established itself as a Christian nation, and King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain granted Columbus's request for funding his voyage in that same year. Spain continues to honor Columbus Day just as the United States does.

Columbus was not only a devout Christian, but an enterprising capitalist. The contract he signed with the Spanish Monarchy, known as the Capitulations of Santa Fe, named him Admiral of the Atlantic Ocean, Viceroy and Governor of all the new lands discovered, and gave him one-tenth of the profit from all of the discovered lands (Spain later refused to honor the agreement, and Columbus never became wealthy). Having secured his funding, Columbus assembled his ships and crew and set out in August of 1492 to reach the Orient.

Columbus set sail in three ships. On Christmas eve, December 24, 1492, one of Columbus's ships, the [[Santa Maria]], reached the island of [[Haiti]]. Columbus named the settlement "La Navidad," meaning "The Nativity," and dropped off 40 men with a promise to return to them the next year. Columbus then wrote for the King and Queen of Spain in his Journal: "In all the world there can be no better or gentler people. Your Highnesses should feel great joy, because presently they will be Christians, and instructed in the good manners of your realms."

But Columbus had grossly underestimated the size of the world, and when he reached San Salvador, Haiti (Hispaniola) and Cuba he thought he had reached the Far East. So he called the natives "Indians". He left some men there but they were eventually killed by the natives. Columbus reported back that new people had been found to evangelize with Christianity.

Soon Spain and Portugal divided the Americas with the [[Line of Demarcation]], drawn by the Pope. The [[Treaty of Tordesillas]] moved the line in 1493. It was a North-South line that gave Spain North America and the western part of South America, but Portugal received Brazil. That's why Brazilians speak Portuguese to this day.

The incredible genius of Columbus -- or Providence -- was demonstrated a year later on his second voyage across the Atlantic. Amid the vast ocean, Columbus was able to return to exactly the same location that he had reached on his first voyage on the island of [[Hispaniola]]. That is like finding a needle in a haystack the size of a football stadium. But Columbus's colony had not survived in his absence.

Columbus sailed on a total of three subsequent voyages, but never achieved his goal and died a failure. His ultimate dream of liberating Jerusalem, as the Crusades attempted, was not realized. But what he did achieve was to open the New World to spreading Christianity and creating new wealth.

Columbus's efforts resulting in Spain acquiring [[Haiti]], [[Puerto Rico]], [[Jamaica]] and [[Cuba]] by 1515. Spain then settled Florida (St. Augustine), and later Santa Fe (now in New Mexico). Spanish [[Hernando Cortes]] conquered the Aztecs in central Mexico (1521), and [[Francisco Pizarro]] conquered the Incas of Peru (1531). They seized much gold in the process.

Fifteen years after Columbus's maiden voyage, map-makers (cartographers) coined the named "America" for the New World in honor of another Italian explorer, Amerigo Vespucci. Between 1499 and 1502 he explored the east coast of South America, and was the first to recognize that the new land was a separate continent rather than part of Asia.

But while Spanish soldiers came to America, Spanish women did not. So there were not many distinct, permanent Spanish settlements. Also, the Spanish were entirely subservient to their King back in Europe. Separate governments did not develop.

Other European powers were exploring North America also. The French explored the St. Lawrence and settled Quebec, where French is still spoken to this day. The French also explored the Mississippi, and settled the towns of Saint Louis (named after a French king) and New Orleans.

The Dutch explored and settled the Hudson River, calling the region New Netherlands and buying and naming Manhattan New Amsterdam.

The Swedish settled in Delaware; Germans settled later in Pennsylvania.

Explorer [[John Cabot]] discovered the North American coastline for England in 1497. But no settlements were attempted by the English for about another 100 years, because North America didn't have what the explorers were looking for. America lacked valuable natural resources. There was no gold, which is what Europeans wanted. In 1576, the British explorer [[Martin Frobisher]] even hauled 200 tons of material back to England, hoping it was gold. It wasn’t.

There wasn't anything else of much value to Europe. New England was too rocky near the coast to develop farms. The mid-Atlantic region or Chesapeake area, where Maryland and Virginia are today, was infested with malaria. Winters were cold, and summers were hot.

There was no livestock – no horses and no cattle, until the Spanish imported them. Florida was a swamp, and did not even have orange trees until the Spanish explorer [[Ponce de Leon]] planted them in 1515.

North America was a joke to many in England. Its Parliament passed a law in 1597 authorizing the deportations of convicted criminals to America and other colonies. In 1605, a satirical book entitled “Eastward Ho!” was published that mocked attempts to settle in Virginia.

Think about it. Would your family uproot and move, at great risk to your lives, to a place that had no civilization or anything of value? Do we see families moving to the middle of the desert in Arizona, or to cheap land in the middle of Wyoming? Only very rarely.

[[England]]'s first settlement of [[North America]] was in 1585, on [[Roanoke Island]] in [[Virginia]]. More than 100 families settled there, but within a few years they had all disappeared. It remains a mystery to this day what happened. They could have died from disease or starvation. They could have been killed by Indians. No one knows the real reason for the disappearance of this settlement, and it's called the "[[Lost Colony]]."

About the same time, however, England had a huge success in Europe. Spain had ruled the high seas for most of the 1500s, until England destroyed the Spanish Armada in 1588. That left England with the potential to gain control of the oceans and world trade over the seas. England could then protect its newly developing colonies against other European powers.

== Successful Settlements ==

Some Englishmen invested money in what was called a "[[joint stock company]]," which was similar to a modern-day corporation, for the purpose of finding gold or other treasures. One of those joint stock companies was the "[[Virginia Company]]," which established the first permanent settlement for England in Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607. It was a disaster and the investors never received a profit. The men who settled in Jamestown were "English gentlemen" unaccustomed to working with their hands, and who expected to get rich with little effort. They lacked a common purpose and wasted their time searching for treasure, or simply doing nothing at all. Unwilling to work to grow their own food, they almost starved to death.

'''1607''' is one of the few dates you should memorize. This was after the Spanish had settled in Florida, but before the French had settled in Quebec. So remember the sequence in settling America: Spanish, English, and then French.

Initially, from 1607-1608, the Jamestown settlement lived under socialism, whereby the group shared its food with everyone no matter how much or little each person worked. This economic system was a complete failure that led to "starving time" as no one had any incentive to do any work to provide the necessities of life. In September 1608, [[John Smith]] was elected president of the governing council. He ruled for a year and installed a conservative economic system: "don't work, don't eat!" Under this new system that replaced communism with free enterprise, after a few years food production began to increase significantly and by 1614 there was plenty to eat.

Jamestown settlers had come to America to find fortune, but there was not any gold or silver. Indians had discovered tobacco and shared it with Europeans who were beginning to become addicted on it. Many Europeans recognized that tobacco was bad for them, and some wanted to prohibit it. In 1613, Englishman [[John Rolfe]], who married the Indian [[Pocahontas]] in Virginia, began growing tobacco to export to Europe. The King banned the growing of tobacco in England, so Rolfe had no competition. Cash began pouring in for the tobacco, and this so-called "cash crop" became highly profitable for the Jamestown settlers. Tobacco continued to be very profitable throughout a large part of American history, particularly in the South.

Although it profited from the sale of tobacco, the Jamestown settlement had many difficulties. It had made peace with Indian [[Chief Powhatan]], whose daughter Pocahontas married settler [[John Rolfe]]. But after Powhatan died, his brother led a sudden attack on the settlers in 1622, massacring 357 out of just 1200.

But Indian strife was only one of many problems. Labor was in short supply for working the fields. Settlers began importing indentured servants, who received free travel to the colonies in exchange for a promise to work for seven years. Virginia also turned to a cheaper approach to labor: importing slaves from West Africa beginning in 1619 to work the crops. The importation of slaves to the New World was not new in 1619; many European countries had been importing a total of 40,000 slaves to the New World prior to the 1600's based on the Portuguese plantation system for working the land.

In 1624 King James (of the "King James Bible" fame) took back ownership and control of the Virginia colony and established it as a royal charter. The Virginia colony was mess, a problem colony that enslaved workers and grew tobacco. More trouble was in its future. In 1676, Nathanial Bacon was a Virginia settler who decided to take the law into his own hands. He first massacred Indians in western Virginia, then took his small army of rebels to Jamestown, where he burned it down because the governor had refused to allow him to kill the Indians. Bacon himself soon died from a disease. This is known as [[Bacon's Rebellion]] and it resulted in less use of indentured servants and greater reliance on slaves, who could not rebel as easily. Once he was sure Bacon was really dead, the governor returned and hung two dozen of his supporters.

The Virginia colony, despite all its troubles, later produced four of our first five presidents. Why? It was big and and rather prosperous.

Let's turn to the Massachusetts settlements next. Massachusetts had a much harsher climate than Virginia, particularly in the wintertime. Its settlers were motivated by religion, not money. They were unhappy with the oppressions of the Church of England, feeling it was too much like the Catholic Church. Two different groups of these people set out for North America. The first group, the Separatists or Pilgrims, wanted to separate completely from the Church of England and establish a religiously pure community. The second group consisted of more mainstream Puritans who wanted to purify the church from within, without leaving it. Both groups were types of Puritans, and both groups landed by chance within 100 miles of each other in Massachusetts.

The first group, the Pilgrims, set sail from Plymouth, England and intended to land near the mouth of the Hudson River (now New York City), which was the northern part of the Virginia Company's territory. But their ship, the "Mayflower", was blown off course and they landed up on Cape Cod in Massachusetts in 1620. Outside of any official government, they decided on the boat to establish the first civil government in North America by signing the Mayflower Compact. They landed in December, and half of the people died due to disease in their first New England winter. But the following spring a friendly Indian introduced them to corn, or maize, the marvelous food discovered by Indians.

The Pilgrims had a plentiful harvest that fall, and celebrated their first Thanksgiving with the Indians. In 1623, their new Governor [[William Bradford]] gave every member a plot of land and allowed the free market to develop. By 1624, the community was doing so well that it was actually making more food than it could consume and began exporting its corn. [[William Bradford]] and [[Edward Winslow]] kept diaries during the settling of Plymouth, which are recorded in a small, but fascinating book called ''Mourt's Relation''.

Corn is a tremendous contribution by Indians to the world, and it sustains entire countries to this day. Most of us eat lots of corn; corn is also used to make ethanol fuel, and the rising prices for fuel have caused corn prices to increase, which in turn has caused other food and meat to rise in price because animals depend on corn for food. But corn did not exist in Europe during the Middle Ages. Cheap and easy to grow, corn has become one of the most popular foods worldwide, rivaling rice and soybeans. We can thank the Indians.

Encouraged by the success of the Pilgrims, a new group called the [[Massachusetts Bay Company]] obtained a royal charter and sent a larger group of Puritans to settle in New England, this time with the purpose of purifying the [[Church of England]] with a more perfect community than in England itself. It was well-financed and led by the very capable [[John Winthrop]], who had been trained at Oxford. They landed in Salem, Massachusetts in 1629 and immediately moved to Boston Harbor. They never looked back, thriving almost immediately despite the harsh winter climate. Within five years the [[Great Migration]] of religiously motivated settlers followed them from England. Their numbers and power grew. By the 1640s, the community was participating in robust trade by sea with England, the West Indies, and on occasion West Africa.

== The Colonies ==

What is a "colony"? A "colony" is defined as "a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties with the parent state." (Merriam-Webster dictionary)

From 1607 to 1639, a total of six colonies were established in what is now the United States: Virginia, Massachusetts, New Netherlands (renamed New York), Maryland, Rhode Island and Connecticut. There were four basic types of colonies:

*'''Joint-Stock Colony''': investors fund a colony through a joint-stock company; examples were Virginia and Massachusetts Bay
*'''Charter Colony''': founded on land granted by the king to a company or person who governed by it; examples were Connecticut and Rhode Island, which obtained charters many years after being settled
*'''Proprietary Colony''': owned and controlled by 1 or more persons; examples were Maryland, Pennsylvania (William Penn), Delaware and New York
*'''Royal Colony''': a colony founded or taken back under rule of king, who appoints the governor to rule it; many colonies eventually became royal colonies as the King took back control, as happened in Virginia

The growing colonies in Massachusetts and Virginia could not have been more different from each other, and it is remarkable they eventually joined the same country. Massachusetts was highly religious and motivated by faith. Virginia was marginally religious and motivated by money. Massachusetts, more religious, had vocal opponents of slavery and neighboring Vermont was the first state to prohibit slavery in its Constitution, in 1777. In contrast, Virginia welcomed slavery. Massachusetts grew the Indian crop of corn. Virginia grew the Indian crop of tobacco. Massachusetts settlers made greater efforts to get along with Indians and treat them fairly. Massachusetts attracted new settlers based on religion. Virginia attracted new European settlers based on the "headright system," by which land (usually 50 acres) was given to those who paid for the passage to the colony of an immigrant, who usually agreed to work as an "indentured servant" for free for fixed number of years on the land.

The stark contrast between Massachusetts and Virginia would ultimately lead, nearly 250 years later, to the Civil War.

While the Virginia institution of slavery was spreading to the colonies of [[Maryland]], [[Carolina]] and, later, [[Georgia]], [[Massachusetts]] was spreading a different sort of institution: religious intensity. [[Roger Williams]] was an extraordinary individual of such great faith that he found even the Puritans to be lacking in their treatment of Indians. Williams also disagreed with how the Puritans combined government and religion, and how the Puritans had executed several Christians based on differences with the Puritan faith. Williams was fabulous with languages and learned to communicate with many different Indian tribes, and even lived with them at times in spite of the danger. He left the Puritans in Massachusetts and started the colony of Rhode Island, which to this day has prided itself on its independence. Rhode Island was the only state to refuse to support a colonial tax on imports after the Revolution, and the only colony to refuse to ratify the Constitution until long after [[George Washington]] was President. Rhode Island, under Roger Williams' direction, separated state government from religion. It had no mandatory church attendance, and no funding of churches with tax revenues was allowed in Rhode Island.

But while Roger Williams was highly moral, others in Rhode Island made it the biggest importer of slaves in all the colonies. So censoring religion led to harm. In contrast, in the larger Massachusetts, taxes funded religious institutions for nearly 200 years, until at least the 1830s. It successfully prohibited slavery.

Another devout Christian who disagreed with the Puritans, [[Anne Hutchinson]], was tried by them in 1636 for emphasizing "grace" rather than "works", and she was forced to flee. She escaped the Puritans but was later killed by Indians. Religious persecution continued in Massachusetts in the mid-1600s: the Baptists were banished in 1651, and the Quakers were expelled or -- when they remained or returned -- they were hung.

The Congregational Church was started by Pilgrims in Plymouth (1620) as Independents. Like the Puritans themselves, the Congregationalists declined over time due dispersal of the population on farms, the growth of rationalism, and perhaps the biggest reason of all, prosperity and the arrogance it often engenders.

Cracks in the Puritan way became clear in the Halfway Covenant of 1657. This was an agreement (a covenant) achieved at an assembly of Puritans from Massachusetts and Connecticut to allow halfway church membership and baptism for sinners. Second and third-generation Puritans seemed more interested in money than having the "born again" religious conversion necessary to become a full member of the Puritan Church and required in order to be allowed to baptize their children in the Church. The Reverend Solomon Stoddard, whose grandson would be [[Jonathan Edwards]] (whom we will discuss in the next class), proposed partial or "halfway" membership in the Church of children and grandchildren of Church members. All the children and grandchildren need do was accept the Covenant and agree to the beliefs and rules of the Church, in order to participate in the sacraments of the Church. But they would not be allowed to vote on any Church issues until they had a spiritual conversion. This approach was adopted, but continued to be resisted by people on both sides of the issue: some who thought it was too lenient, and others who found it too strict.

'''Debate: were the Puritans right to be strict and to expel people of other religions?'''

One prominent textbook claims, under "Rhode Island," that "This belief [by Roger Williams] in the separation of church and state became a cornerstone of the American Constitution in 1787." That is completely false. Roger Williams was long dead by 1787, and there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. Rhode Island did not even send any representatives to draft the Constitution and it had no role in the drafting of the Bill of Rights. In fact, Rhode Island did not ratify the Constitution until after George Washington was elected president, and even then it took much arm-twisting to compel Rhode Island to ratify the Constitution. But some people want to keep religion out of government, and they refuse to admit that the First Amendment only prohibits the establishment of a national church by the government. Also, Rhode Island was the '''only''' colony that supported a "separation" of church and state. Other colonies actually funded religion in various ways.

In between Massachusetts and Virginia there was a third approach: that taken by Pennsylvania. William Penn was another extraordinary Englishman. He converted to become a Quaker in England and began practicing that religion in violation of English law. He was arrested and prosecuted, but the jury refused to convict him. The king owed his father money, and gave the son what is today Pennsylvania. It was nothing but woods at the time. But William Penn founded his colony based on one principle: religious freedom for all. He advertised in Europe and attracted peoples of many nationalities in addition to the English.

Penn was very kind to the Indians and soon had the most popular colony in America. Philadelphia, which means "brotherly love" in Greek, became America's greatest city, surpassing Boston in population in the 1700s. Only Pennsylvania and Maryland survived long-term under private ownership. Most of the other colonies were eventually taken over by the King of England, often due to troubles that arose in the colony.

Pennsylvania was founded over 50 years '''after''' Virginia and Massachusetts. Georgia was founded over 50 years after Pennsylvania, which means over 100 years after Virginia and Massachusetts. Philanthropist [[James Oglethorpe]] founded Savannah in Georgia in 1733 for poor debtors in jails of England, and to serve as a "buffer" colony to separate protect English South Carolina against possible encroachment by Spanish Florida. Oglethorpe was very religious and very strict. Too strict, in fact, for the King of England, who then took over the colony in 1751. The colony was not nearly as strong and developed as the other colonies, so the other colonies did not take it very seriously.

== Economic System ==

Ultimately, and this is the most difficult for students to understand, it is money ([[economics]]) that shapes much of history. If the colonies were profitable for their mother countries in Europe, then the mother countries would continue to support and defend the colonies. But if the colonies were a money-loser, as in costing more to defend then they make, then they are going to be abandoned or at least no longer protected by the European mother country.

Many of the colonies did make this work, and work well. An [[economic]] system called [[mercantilism]] began to develop in the 1600s and 1700s, which would lay the foundation for capitalism in the 1800s.<ref>http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/mercantilism.html</ref>

The basic concept of mercantilism is to limit imports from foreign countries (not including colonies), and maximize exports to everyone (including other colonies), in order to maximize the "trade surplus" (the amount by which receipts exceeds expenses). Colonies played an important role in this system by supplying raw materials at low cost to the mother country (e.g., England or France), which could then use the materials to produce low-cost finished products that could be sold to the world.<ref>http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Mercantilism.html</ref> By selling more than the country buys, it could accumulate a surplus in money (gold) and become wealthier. In other words, mercantilism was an economic system in which the colonies existed to give raw materials to mother country (England), and buy her finished products, so that England could export more than it imported and thereby increase its gold reserves from a surplus in the balance of trade.

But there's no free lunch, and these European nations were all-too-happy to use slavery to do the back-breaking work of gathering the raw materials, such as crops and minerals. A slave trade developed to bring blacks from Africa to the New World in order to work the plantations for the settlers from [[England]] and other European powers.

The [[Spanish]] had a different system: they used a modified form of [[feudalism]], known as the encomienda system, in order to force the Indians to do the hard work. The "encomienda" was a grant by the King or Queen of Spain of power over Indians within a geographic region, a grant that was given to an "encomendero", who was the Spaniard in that region who would put the Indians to work.<ref>http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/scott-m.html</ref> The Indians themselves became known as the economiendas.

The Spanish system looked better in theory, because the encomendero was supposed to educate the encomiendas, convert them to Christianity (Catholicism), and not exercise any political power over them (as in telling them how to live). In practice, however, there were no "checks and balances" preventing exploitation and abuse of power in working the Indians.

Finally, College Board exams may ask about the "triangular trade" that supposedly dominated from 1640-1720. Later historians have used the image of triangle to show trade routes from West Africa to the New World America (the West Indies or the colonies), from there to Europe (England or continental Europe), and from there the boats presumably traveled back to West Africa to begin again. The harshest part of this route was the taking of slaves, bound in chains from West Africa to the New World. After the slaves disembarked, the New World would load goods onto the ships (such as raw molasses if the West Indies, or tobacco if Virginia) for transport to Europe. But what doesn't make sense about this theory is the following: what would Europe send on the ships back to Africa? Nothing comes to mind (other than a few goods to purchase the slaves), and not a single instance of an actual triangle route has ever been found. Perhaps finished product, like rum from the molasses, would be loaded onto the ships, but its intended destination would be the colonies, not Africa. So in reality the only triangle could only be traversed by the boats, not by actual trade.

'''Debate: Did "triangular trade" really exist?'''

== Topics for Discussion ==

*What, if anything, was the significance of [[Bacon's Rebellion]]?
*What challenges would the [[Puritans]] face in maintaining their strongly religious culture in the 1600s and 1700s?
*Question about bias: why would some want to take credit away from Columbus, and how might they do it?

== A Word About College Board Exams ==

Finally, a word about College Board exams. This course will give you the foundation -- if you like -- for taking three different College Board exams (usually a student takes only one of the three): the [[CLEP]], the [[AP]], and the [[SAT II]].

The CLEP is a multiple-choice exam that is recognized by most (but not all) colleges as a way to earn college credit. It costs about $70 and is administered on computers at local colleges, usually once a month. It is the least biased of the three exams, and not much advanced planning is needed to sign up for it.

The AP, or Advanced Placement exam, is given only once a year in May at local high schools, and is more expensive. It includes both multiple-choice and essay questions, and is used by more colleges to give credit for courses. In 2009, the AP exam for U.S. History is scheduled for Friday, May 9. The student must sign up for it long in advance, and make arrangements with a public high school.

The SAT II in American History is an inexpensive multiple-choice exam that takes only an hour and is given at high schools on Saturdays once a month, October through June, with registration available online at www.collegeboard.com . No college credit is given for it, but it is used for college applications to recognize achievement. The SAT II is the cheapest and most biased of the three exams, and is known for emphasizing liberal culture. Also, what counts as "economic history" is not what you might expect. There are almost no questions about the [[conservative]] gold standard, for example, even though that issue has been important throughout history (and was even an issue in [[Ron Paul]]'s campaign for presidency in 2008). Instead, questions about economic history on the SAT II are likely to be about unions, the treatment of workers, alleged corruption of big business, discrimination, and gender issues.

Notice what is missing on the College Board exams: military history. Unfortunately, many educators in the [[United States]] dislike the military, and that bias shows up on the exams. No questions are there about battles or key military strategies and decisions. The only time the military shows up on these exams is when they have a political impact.

Each of these College Board exams can be taken as often as one likes, though it is difficult to take the AP exam more than once because it is offered only once a year, and it is expensive to retake the CLEP exam. The SAT II, which is cheaper, is the easiest to take more than once and colleges look only at the highest score.

There is absolutely no requirement to take any of these College Board exams as part of this course, and references to the exams are used more as a way of helping you see the "big picture," as in how much time should be spent on a particular period or historical topic. Our class has only two required, multiple-choice exams: a midterm and a final. This course will help students improve their test-taking skills on multiple-choice exams. We will have weekly homework assignments consisting of short-answer questions.

== References ==
<references/>

== See also ==
* [[American History Homework One]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Talk:American History Lecture One

2008-09-14T22:49:28Z

KennyMac: /* What about vikings? */ Non-debate

This lecture was improved, and now the changes have been removed. Why?

I made some changes to the American History lecture. My changes were deleted. Why?

They're used for Christian homeschooling and I don't think that the changes made are consistent with their paradigm. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 19:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Several edits removed credit from Christianity from the lecture. For example, edits removed this:

:The very first words of the [[Mayflower Compact]] were “In ye name of God Amen.” Just as our Nation’s founders started with a prayer, so do we. Prayer clears out the noise in our minds. We are looking for knowledge and inspiration here, and that comes from God. In most countries parents do not have the freedom even to have a class like this. The main reason we have freedoms is because Americans are more devoted to religion than in other countries.

Such edits are improper. I can't confirm the commenter above did those edits, but someone did (I don't know who the commenter above is, since he didn't sign his comment).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Starving Time? ==

Since the "Starving Time" is by most historians considered to have lasted from about 1609-1610-11, how could John Smith, who left Virginia in 1609, have become a leader of the colony afterwards? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: There was an earlier "starving time," but the lecture has changed on this point anyway. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

It has not been changed on this point. It still reads:

"From 1607-1611, the Jamestown settlement lived under socialism, whereby the group shared its food with everyone no matter how much or little he worked. This economic system was a complete failure as no one had any incentive to do any work. John Smith arrived from England and he installed a conservative economic system: “don’t work, don’t eat!” Magically, by 1614 there was suddenly plenty to eat."

Now, first of all, pretty much EVERY source I've examined uses the "Starving Time" to refer to the hard times of 1609-10 or 11. What earlier "starving time" do you have in mind, and what source refers to it as "The Starving Time?" Second, since Smith left for good in 1609, exactly how did he manage to change the Virginia settlement from a socialits to a free market economic system AFTER 1611 so that "magically, by 1614 there was suddenly enough to eat."
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Virginia had a "Straving time" almost the entire first decade of settlement. In 1613, George Percy led an attack on some natives, and despite the fact the colonists were starving, burned their cornfields (See Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom)

The above does not address my point, which is how Captain John Smith could have overseen conversion to a "free market" Jamestown economy in or after 1611 when in fact he left in 1609?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Correct. Smith did help the colony survive its early years, but he did not make Jamestown an economic success. That did not occur until nearly a decade after he departed, with the development of tobacco as a cash crop.

Which is unfortunately NOT what it says here in this Lecture. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:11, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I know. I editied this lecture before (and I did return to correct many of the errors), but the powers that be at Conservapedia have "locked" the lecture, somehow thinking that improvement=vandalism.

--Columbus' Landfall?--

Columbus did not land on Christmas eve. His ships sighted land on October 11th, 1492, and landed the next day. (see Columbus, Journal of First Voyage, at http://www.americanjourneys.org/, pages 108-110)[user:dw1237200)

== Slavery in Massachusetts ==

"Massachusetts did not allow slavery."

That is absolutely untrue. The Puritans in Massachussetts kept slaves and dealt in slaves until the late 18th century. Tituba, one of the first people accused in the 1692 Salem Witch trials, was a slave. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:30, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: Support, please? By the way, I note how you slipped in "dealt in slaves." No one denied that there was a slave trade.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:58, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, I was trying to be fair. While Massachusetts dealt in slaves, mostly in Indian slaves and slaves from the West Indies, they were soon overtaken in that trade by Rhode Island. I do find myself musing, however, about the presumed moral superiority of a colony that you claim "did not allow slavery" (In fact, it did for well over a century) not being averse to making a few bucks off it.

::On to the cites:

::From THE PILGRIM READER,George Willison, Doubleday and Company 1953

::"For years later, in 1641, the Bay formally recognized the institution of slavery in its CODE OF FUNDAMENTALS OR BODY OF LIBERTIES, anticipating Virginia by many years in legally instituting the "peculiar institution" being the first of the English colonies to do so.

::There were Indian and Negro slaves in the Plymouth colony as early as 1646, when the authorities threatened to sell Indians or exchange them for Negroes as punishment for offenses..In 1706, Cotton Mather noted in his diary, "Received a singular blessing in the gift of a likely slave, which was a smile of heaven on this family."...slaves continued to be sold in the Boston market as late as 1788, when the traffic was forbidden."

::In short, Massachussets not only allowed slavery -- they were the first colony to institute it. Your later claim about the "Virginia institution of slavery" "spreading to the colonies of Maryland, Carolina" etc., as if Virginia had been responsible for introducing that "peculiar institution" is misleading.

::From NARRATIVES OF THE WITCHCRAFT CASES (1648-1706), edited by George Lincoln Burr, Charles Scribner Sons, 1914 Note:

::Notes: "The Rev. Samuel Parris (1653-1720)..had lived for a time in Barbadoes whence he had brought back with him THE TWO SLAVES, John and Tituba...Sara Good, who with Sarah Osburn and Parris's SLAVE-WOMAN TITUBA..."(Emphasis added)

::"...where an Indian Man attended us, he shewed several Scars, that seemed as if they had been long there, and shewed them as done by Witchcraft, and acquainted us that his Wife WHO ALSO WAS A SLAVE (emphasis added) was imprisoned for Witchcraft..."--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:00, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::: OK, you're right, there were some slaves there. But the basic point is correct: Massachusetts disfavored slavery (neighboring Vermont was the first to ban it), while Virginia welcomed it. I've made the appropriate change. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Dealing in slaves, owning slaves, and being the first English colony to institutionalize it does not indicate a strong "disfavor" of the practice during the Puritan era.

::::How in the world could you do research on the subject of slavery in the US and be unaware that it was introduced to the English Colonies in Massachusetts? How could you study the Puritans and be unaware that they kept slaves? Did you never hear of the Salem Witch Trials and Tituba? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:26, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::: PF Fox, Massachusetts was the source of the abolitionist movement. While you have shown there were a few slaves there, and I have corrected the lecture, the anti-slavery sentiment was stronger in Massachusetts than any other colony.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:43, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Actually, it was Quakers -- a group the Puritans loathed and abused -- who founded the first abolitionist organization in the US, and that was in Philadelphia. Boston was certainly later a focal point for the abolitionist movement, but it's not accurate to call Massachusetts the "source," and I'd very much like to see some backup for the claim that "the anti-slavery sentiment was stronger in Massachusetts than any other colony." Credit for that should probably go to Pennsylvannia. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:54, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Not directly apropos, but when the Quaker preacher Elias Hicks (from Long Island, New York) was dying, mostly paralyzed, in 1830, "'a quilted cotton coverlet was inadvertently placed upon his bed. As the weather was severely cold, his children... used their constant endeavors to keep this coverlet upon him. But they perceived by his actions that this coverlet annoyed him, because with his hand, which was not paralyzed, he continually attempted to removed it, as something exceedingly offensive. It was at least suggested by a friend present, that the reason why he removed it, was on account of its being the product of slavery.' When... a wool blanket was substituted, Elias Hicks, feeling the wool with his fingers, nodded his pleasure." Bliss Forbush: ''Elias Hicks, Quaker Liberal,'' 1956, Columbia University Press, p. 288. The Quakers abandoned slavery among themselves by a very long, slow, relatively quiet process of personal conversion. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:43, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Thanks Dpbsmith, and PF Fox, for your information. I don't have an axe to grind here. But everything I've read suggests that the source and power of the abolitionist movement was Massachusetts. [[John Quincy Adams]]. [[Charles Sumner]]. Even [[Oliver Wendell Holmes]] in his youth. It think abolutionist newspapers were printed there also. I don't any of that coming out of Philadelphia, but I'm happy to consider more evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:07, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::And what you've read has not mentioned the role of Quakers in the abolition movement? The Pennsylvannia Abolition Society? (http://www.hsp.org/default.aspx?id=792) --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:12, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Roger Williams? ==

How does Roger Williams being dead when the constitution was written nullify his influence? Are you saying once someone is dead, their writings and philosophies can have NO influence on anyone? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:28, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

By the way, here's a cite to explain how it is Williams' concept of separation of church and state influenced our constitution -- long after Williams was dead.

"In 1787 twelve states accepted the constitution; one did not. The one hold-out was the smallest and weakest of them all, Rhode Island; and the issue was religious liberty.

The Rhode Island delegation pled, "That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, and not by force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored, or established by law in preference to others."

For three years the national union remained incomplete and without a constitution. Then Thomas Jefferson spoke to the delegates in support of Rhode Island: "By the Constitution you have made, you have protected the government from the people, but what have you done to protect the people from the government?"

http://www.biblebay.org/article.php?id=71. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:44, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for your comments, but Rhode Island refused to ratify the Constitution for economic reasons, not religious ones. Rhode Island had control of imports and wanted to continue to tax them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:49, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::That does not alter the fact that Rhode Island's approach to religious liberty -- an approach owed primarily to Roger Williams -- was adopted by Jefferson in the drafting of the constitution. Again, is it your contention that once someone has died, they can exert NO influence? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:52, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

==Fun?==
Is that a guarantee? Also, how much does the class cost? If you cannot disclose here, just email me. [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 12:32, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

: Sure, it will be fun. Learning is much more effective when it is enjoyable.

: The in-person class is a total cost of $250 per student, including all the expenses, materials, books, copying, everything. That is cheaper than the taxpayer-funded community college, and I may not even make a minimum wage on the class. Also, in contrast with public schools, I provide a discount for each sibling to give the large families a break. Participation here, of course, is free.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:40, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

::Uhh, *hopes someone will hire him soon so he can pay for this class*. [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 13:39, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Also, for the assignment, how many grammatical edits would I have to do to equivocate to those 10 edits? [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 18:28, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

: I've unlocked the content page. What do you think is fair - perhaps 3 grammatical improvements equal one substantive edit?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:36, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
::Sure! Hmm... and what if someone adds to an article for this assignment, but his grammar isn't perfect. If I fix the grammar, does that count? [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 11:38, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

==What's going on here?==
Is this meant to be an actual lecture, or some sort of trailer for the real lectures? Currently it reads like a failed high school essay. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 14:48, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Leif Ericson==

Leif Ericson reaching Vinland is a "liberal myth"? It seems more like a proven historical fact to me. There's even a national historic site at L'anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland where his settlement was. There has been extensive archaeological research there, and no credible historian denies it.
[[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 12:13, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Like CogitoErgoSum, I'm frankly staggered at this assertion. Why is it such a big deal to the author of these lectures that the first Europeans to invade America should be Christian? What next? The Romans were already Christians when they invaded Britain??? Really, this is the kind of flat-earthery that makes outsiders love to laugh at Conservapedia. [[User:Googly|Googly]] 18:53, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Given that the history professor quoted was talking only about the likelihood of Viking settlements or presence in the area of New England, and the article accepts the authenticity of the find of the short-lived Viking settlement at L'anse aux Meadows, shouldn't the reference be changed from the farshores website to, "Mr. Schlafly said so."?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 15:34, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

I think Mr Schafly should be very wary about reverting contributions which make this lecture state (correctly) that the Vikings colonised Newfoundland, for which there's a great deal of historical and archaeological evidence. He has used a quote from a professor who has not published primary research in Viking studies (according to his CV on the UNH website: <ref>http://www.unh.edu/history/media/History_faculty_cvs/bolstercv1107.pdf</ref>), stating that there's no evidence that Vikings settled in New England, to support his - Mr Schafly's - personal opinion that Vikings didn't settle in ''Newfoundland''. I don't see how anyone with aspirations to objectivity can contribute to CP if the conclusions from decades of research are to be cast aside simply because Mr Schafly doesn't like them and is prepared to cherry-pick, distort and misuse scholarly articles to support his personal views.

I'm now going to correct the Newfoundland references in this and related articles again and if Mr Schafly or his friends revert them or block my edit access to CP again on account of them, I think that would be pretty much definite proof that this isn't a website for conservative opinion in general but one which has no respect for scholarship and simply exists to promote Mr Schafly's personal opinions, however far they depart from reality. In which case, why would anyone trust anything else Mr Schafly says? Why, for example, should evolutionary biologists pay any attention at all to him if he himself is prepared to misuse scholarly conclusions so blatantly?

I'm still utterly baffled why it matters so much to Mr Schafly that the Vikings didn't colonise North America. Why is this a 'liberal point of view'? Any clues????? [[User:Googly|Googly]] 16:49, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
==Native Americans==

It seems like there needs to be some more material devoted to the presence of the native Americans at the beginning of this narrative, because in the current draft it's almost an afterthought. Where did they come from? When and How did they get to the Americas, and have enough time to build cultures that spanned both continents? Where did the natives go as the colonies expand into areas long-settled by the native Americans - were they assimilated, displaced, or both? These are significant points that should be included, since a course on American History can't ignore the original Americans. The Europeans profoundly changed North American history, but they were explorers, immigrants and conquerors of settled lands, not the discoverers of barren ones. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:10, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

: Good point that the lecture should have more about the Indians, but the discussion has to be factual. I'm realizing that liberal distortions exploit speculation concerning unproven origins, but I only teach demonstrable facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:22, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

==Columbus' Landing Site==

It's incorrect to state that Columbius landed on Haiti, which is a national entity that did not exist at the time. It would be better to state that he landed on the island of Hispaniola, in the section that is now the republic of Haiti. Also, the way the section about Columbus' first voyage reads, it skips over the initial landing in San Salvador and goes right to La Natividad - why? -[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:28, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

== Triangular Trade ==

The third part of the trade, which was usually from England down to Africa, often carried cloth, guns, ammunition, and other trinkets (as well as some metals). The items were used to purchase slaves from traders, as well as from African kings and merchants. Hence the necessity for that third leg to bring payment from England down to Africa for the slaves. Info on the triangular trade can be found [http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/abolition/slavetrade.asp here]. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:01, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

: There were small costs to purchase the slaves, but big ships weren't needed to carry trinkets. Also, there's no evidence that ships actually went as described. It's a myth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:: So you assume that trade ships went straight from England to America and back, and from America to Africa and back? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:23, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Yeah couldn't imagine why slave owners in Africa would would want finished European goods, also I'm sure the West Coastal kings wouldn't want the kind of furniture you found in European estate homes. [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 19:29, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Actually, the England/African part was the ''first'' leg. It was an Englishman ([[John Hawkins]]) who borrowed the idea from the Portuguese. And whichever leg it is, if the 'triangular" or "circuit" trade is a myth, I have been reading the wrong textbooks and encyclopedias for the last 50 years. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:38, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:You clearly have. You can read all about it [[triangular trade|here]] without any citations. [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:02, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm also very puzzled by Aschafly's statement. My very clear impression is that guns and textiles from Europe (especially England) were important in the Triangular Trade. I don't understand why Aschafly objects to this quite well-known fact (I think it's a fact) - what has that to do with being conservative, one way or the other? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 20:27, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

== What about vikings? ==

Reading over this lecture, I couldn't find any information on them. They were a successful settlement in the Americas, landing in Greenland and Icelans, which is recognized as part of North America. [[User:JohnI|JohnI]] 22:45, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Aschafly wrote, "Debate: Did the Vikings settle in North America before Columbus?" I suggest deleting this. There's not much to debate: (a) The answer to the question as stated is 'yes'. Full stop. (b) If you ask, "Did the Vikings settle in what is now the USA?", the complete lack of any physical or literary evidence precludes a sensible, evidence-based discussion. [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 18:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

American History Lecture One

2008-09-14T22:47:15Z

KennyMac: /* Pre-Columbian Period */ Tidying up the Vikings

Welcome to "American history," also known as "United States history." This is likely to become your favorite course. It has something for everyone: heroes, villains, criminal trials, comical mistakes, competitions, politics, literature, geniuses, treasure, inventions, war, and peace. You name it, American history has it. We are going to have some fun in this course.

We will start without a textbook, to encourage students to take initiative in learning history and to avoid duplication in reading. All you need to read are the lectures, starting with this one. Later we may add a textbook if we find a good one.

The Pilgrims came to America with a group not much bigger than our class, traveling in a boat called the "Mayflower" that was not much larger than our classroom. Just before arriving on shore, the Pilgrims agreed to a written agreement or "compact" to bind them after they arrived. The very first words of their "[[Mayflower Compact]]" were "In the name of God Amen."<ref>The Mayflower Compact is viewable here: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amerdoc/mayflower.htm</ref>

Just as our Nation's founders started with a prayer, so do we. Prayer clears out the noise in our minds. We are looking for knowledge and inspiration here, and that comes from God. In most countries parents do not have the freedom even to have a class like this. The main reason we have freedoms is because America was established on principles of liberty, and religious devotion in America remains among the strongest in the world today, as it was nearly 400 years ago.

We live at a critical time in our nation's history, and this class may be as important to the future of America as the Mayflower voyage was. Let's begin.

== What Students Find Challenging About History ==

Students find the following aspects of American history challenging:

* interpreting political cartoons
* keeping facts in perspective and understanding how they relate to each other
* keeping the different periods of American history separate, yet connected; seeing the trends
* understanding the importance of economic issues in shaping history
* improving speed in reading and retaining historical information, such as answering history questions quickly
* dealing with [[liberal]] bias in textbooks and the selection and presentation of questions on College Board exams:
** denial of [[Christian]] and [[conservative]] achievement
** overemphasis on [[liberal]]s and their beliefs, and denial of their failures
** obsession with materialism and inborn characteristics like race and gender

Common mistakes by students in history courses include:

* failure to recognize that American politics is always a battle between two sides
* memorizing dates without understanding the sequence of events (exams rarely ask about dates, but do ask about sequence)
* getting bogged down in detail and failing to see the big picture
* misunderstanding questions
* forgetting that people in the past were similar in nature to people today; they were motivated by religion, money, power, etc., and laziness has always been a problem

== The Key to Mastering History ==

The key to mastering history is to find what you like and understand, and then use it as your foundation to learn everything else. In other words, first find and learn what you like, and then learn everything else by connecting it to what you know. Use the same technique that we all use for directions: pick a landmark or a place that you know how to get to, and then figure out how to go from there to where you need to go.

For example, if you are most interested in religion, then learn about the 13 colonies based on their different attitudes towards religion. If you are most interested in one colony, then learn about it and how it relates to other colonies. If you like military history, then use that as your starting point. Perhaps you enjoy mysteries; in that case, use our list of [[Essay:Greatest Mysteries of American History|Greatest Mysteries of American History]] to motivate you.

Perhaps you like politics the most. In that case, you'll want to memorize the presidents and leaders of Congress, and relate historical events to their times in office. Or perhaps you enjoy legal issues, and reading about what the courts do. If so, then you'll want to focus your attention on the major rulings of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] throughout American history, and relate other historical events to those decisions.

On the SAT II U.S. History exam, the breakdown by subject matter is as follows:
 Political History - 32-36%
 Economic History - 18-20%
 Social History - 18-22%
 Cultural and Intellectual History - 10-12%
 Foreign Policy - 13-17%

The biggest part of the exam by far is politics, mostly concerning what happened in the federal government in [[Washington, D.C.]]

== Periods in American History ==

American history can be broken into about 20 time periods:

* settlement by Native Americans
* discovery, exploration, and settlement by Europeans
* colonial
* birth of the nation
* growth of the nation
* [[Andrew Jackson|Jackson]]ian Democracy
* pre-Civil War
* [[Civil War]]
* [[Reconstruction]]
* Gilded Age
* [[Imperialism]]
* [[World War I]]
* [[Roaring Twenties]], followed by the [[Great Depression]]
* [[World War II]]
* [[Cold War]]
** [[Korean War]]
** [[Vietnam War]]
* Reagan [[conservatism]]
* Post-Reagan Prosperity and the dot-com boom
* [[9/11]] and [[terrorism]]

On the SAT II in U.S History, the breakdown of questions by time period is this:

:Pre-Columbian history to 1789 - 20%
:1790 to 1898 - 40%
:1899 to the present - 40%

Hence nearly half of the SAT II exam focuses on the last century, and only about 18 questions (out of 90-95) are devoted to all of pre-exploration, exploration, settlements, the colonies, the documents that founded the nation, the American Revolution, and the election of George Washington. So do not find yourself spending too much time on one aspect of history.

== Why America? ==

Your common sense and imagination can help you master American history. Pause for a moment and imagine what would likely happen to a nice chunk of fertile land, possibly containing riches like gold, located between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Would some Europeans want to go there? Of course. Which ones would want to go there, and why?

One reason is to convert the natives to Christianity, just as homeschool families today often go on missionary trips to distant lands. Another reason is to search for gold and other riches. A third reason is to obtain freedom. Another reason is for the same reason people climb a mountain: because it is there! Some want to escape where they are. Others want to set up a new community, perhaps a new religious environment. Others hope to meet new people and make new friends, and engage in the trade of goods with the people. Another motivation is to learn from the new people, or have adventures and then write about them.

What is likely to happen if a bunch of Europeans go to this land? There will be conflict: conflicts with the natives, conflicts with other European countries, and conflicts with the mother country that sent the settlers. But there will also be new opportunities for improvements, for new products, for new businesses, for new religions and for new systems of government.

Who is going to pay for exploration and settlement? Kings. Investors. Do-gooders. Churches. Mostly nobody.

Who is going to do the hard labor needed to set up a new community, such as chopping down trees, working the farms, and constructing the buildings? There was almost no money to pay anyone for the work. Families might do some, but many of the families consisted of young children. Pretty soon slavery developed as a form of labor, particularly in less religious settlements. Another form of labor less objectionable than slavery was the use of [[indentured servants]]. They were workers who promised to work for free for seven (7) years in exchange for free transportation to the New World, free food and housing while there, and complete freedom (and maybe some land) after the end of the seven (7) years.

In learning history, it helps to look for unifying themes to organize events in your mind. One theme that helps explain American history well is the overall expansion of Christianity for 2000 years. Why did [[Christopher Columbus]] and other explorers risk their lives to come to the New World? To spread Christianity. Why did families then risk their lives to settle here? To establish religious communities free of persecution. Two hundred years later, why did Massachusetts prohibit slavery and why did abolitionists President [[John Quincy Adams]] devote their lives to ending slavery? Their religious values told them slavery was wrong.

There are other possible themes also. How about the desire to make more money? How about the urge for self-government, to be in charge of oneself free from a monarchy? How about the advance of technology and its affect on how we live? There are many possible themes to American history and we will have fun debates about them.

== Organizing History ==

From 1789 until today, we have had an American President. He is not more important than others. If I had to name the ten most important Americans in history, I would include only one president in the list (the first one, [[George Washington]]). But memorizing the list of 43 presidents can help you organize all the other facts. When someone asks me what was happening in 1962, I think of who was president and then remember the issues of that time. The presidents become like drawers in a cabinet where you might put your clothes. In the "cabinet" of presidents, each drawer is filled with issues and events that happened during each presidency.

But before 1789 there was no president. How are we going to organize that? One way is to focus on the three most important colonies, [[Virginia]] (1607), [[Massachusetts]] (1620) and [[Pennsylvania]] (1681), and relate the other 11 colonies and events to them. Another way is to look at the battles that occurred before the [[American Revolution]], such as the [[French and Indian War]] in 1754-1760.

By the end of this course, you will be able to hear an event and describe what was going on at that time. You will be able to tell me what happened before the event, and what happened afterward.

Don't try to memorize hundreds of dates. Instead, when you see a date, think what happened before and after it. There are only about ten dates that you need to know. For example, no one will ask you when Georgia was founded as a colony. But you may be asked whether it was the first or last colony founded. (It was the last colony established.) Another example: [[Quebec]] was founded in 1608. Don't remember the 1608 date, but remember that Quebec was founded one year after [[Jamestown]] was established (1607 – one of the few dates you should memorize!)

== Pre-Columbian Period ==
The first settlers in America were Native Americans, or American Indians. Their origin is not known. Some claim they migrated from Asia, but that makes little sense because American Indians are very different in many ways from Chinese and Asian Indians. Even their blood types are typically different.

Some old mounds reflecting Indian settlements in the territory which is now the United States of America have been discovered, such as the Adena burial mounds and Mississippian platform towns.<ref>Melissa L. Meyer, Dean R. Snow, Charles L. Cohen, Russell Thornton, Donald A. Grinde Jr., Leah Dilworth "Indian History and Culture" The Oxford Companion to United States History. Paul S. Boyer, ed. Oxford University Press 2001. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Tampa. 4 August 2008 <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t119.e0758-s0002></ref> The [[Cahokia Mounds]] in Southern Illinois (just east of [[St. Louis]]) reflect an Indian community dating back as early as A.D. 1000 or 1100.<ref>http://www.cahokiamounds.com/mystery_01.html</ref> That community practiced human sacrifice, as did the [[Aztecs]] and [[Mayans]] in [[Mesoamerica]] (Mexico and Central America) and the [[Incas]] in [[South America]] prior to the arrival of the Spanish conquerors.

The American Indians were [[nomads]] who traveled across wide areas. They did not read and write, and they lacked a monetary system. They were organized by tribes and some had very simple forms of government. There was the [[Iroquois Confederacy]] that united some Indians, but typically there was a lack of unity that led to their easy defeat by Europeans. The Indians did introduce [[tobacco]] and [[corn]] to Europeans, and they became widely popular back in Europe. Europeans also brought new things to the Indians, such as horses and guns.

Archaeological and historical evidence obtained in the 20th century showed that the Vinland colony, established around A.D. 1000 by the Viking [[Leif Ericson]], was on the island now known as [[Newfoundland]], in the far east of Canada. There is limited physical evidence of the colony and it is not known what eventually happened to it. It did not last long and there is no sign of any Viking colony in what is now the United States.<ref>"People have been looking hard for hundreds of years and there is no archaeological evidence in this part [New England]— it's certainly possible, the Vikings were incredible boat handlers — '''but there is no evidence'''," observed one university history professor.[http://farshores.org/a04viki.htm]</ref>.

'''Debate: Did the Vikings settle in North America before Columbus?'''

'''Exam note''': there are no more than a few questions about the Pre-Columbian (prior to Christopher Columbus) period on any American history exam.

== Exploration (Columbian Period) ==

Starting in the Middle Ages, Christian Europe began to use its knowledge, wealth and [[faith]] to extend beyond its horizons. Christian Europeans fought the Holy [[Crusades]] from 1095 to 1291 to protect pilgrims to [[Jerusalem]] against Muslim attacks. Some Europeans were motivated to spread the [[Gospel]]. Others were motivated by a desire to increase their wealth, such as by finding gold.

People in [[Ancient Greece]] knew that the world was round, and that it should be possible to reach the Orient by traveling West '''''around''''' the world. Ironically, it was the very knowledge of the Earth's circumference that deterred a westward passage - the distance to the Orient in that direction was beyond the open-water range of ships in that period. Steamships did not exist yet; these ships relied on sailing, using wind to reach their destination, and wind patterns did not always cooperate.

Thus, centuries passed before one man inspired by the Christian [[faith]] was determined to change the world of his time. By the young age of 10 the Italian [[Christopher Columbus]] was working at sea, already on his way to becoming a master navigator and mariner. He learned the patterns of the Atlantic trade winds, and their ability to carry sailing vessels across vast distances both eastward and westward before one's provisions would run out. With the charts he developed, he was certain he could reach Asia on a westbound route more efficiently than others could.

It took enormous courage, determination and financial support to sail West into the complete unknown. It also took more than a desire to get rich, because there were easier ways to make money. That additional desire was a passion to spread Christianity to new civilizations. In 1482, [[Christopher Columbus]] sought financing to sail West in order to find an easier way to reach the Far East, by sailing westward rather than going eastward from Europe to reach India and Japan. Columbus tried Portugal for raising money, but it already had its own successful explorers. Portugal declined to support him, but Columbus persisted for ten more years.

In 1492 Spain drove out the last of the Muslims and re-established itself as a Christian nation, and King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain granted Columbus's request for funding his voyage in that same year. Spain continues to honor Columbus Day just as the United States does.

Columbus was not only a devout Christian, but an enterprising capitalist. The contract he signed with the Spanish Monarchy, known as the Capitulations of Santa Fe, named him Admiral of the Atlantic Ocean, Viceroy and Governor of all the new lands discovered, and gave him one-tenth of the profit from all of the discovered lands (Spain later refused to honor the agreement, and Columbus never became wealthy). Having secured his funding, Columbus assembled his ships and crew and set out in August of 1492 to reach the Orient.

Columbus set sail in three ships. On Christmas eve, December 24, 1492, one of Columbus's ships, the [[Santa Maria]], reached the island of [[Haiti]]. Columbus named the settlement "La Navidad," meaning "The Nativity," and dropped off 40 men with a promise to return to them the next year. Columbus then wrote for the King and Queen of Spain in his Journal: "In all the world there can be no better or gentler people. Your Highnesses should feel great joy, because presently they will be Christians, and instructed in the good manners of your realms."

But Columbus had grossly underestimated the size of the world, and when he reached San Salvador, Haiti (Hispaniola) and Cuba he thought he had reached the Far East. So he called the natives "Indians". He left some men there but they were eventually killed by the natives. Columbus reported back that new people had been found to evangelize with Christianity.

Soon Spain and Portugal divided the Americas with the [[Line of Demarcation]], drawn by the Pope. The [[Treaty of Tordesillas]] moved the line in 1493. It was a North-South line that gave Spain North America and the western part of South America, but Portugal received Brazil. That's why Brazilians speak Portuguese to this day.

The incredible genius of Columbus -- or Providence -- was demonstrated a year later on his second voyage across the Atlantic. Amid the vast ocean, Columbus was able to return to exactly the same location that he had reached on his first voyage on the island of [[Hispaniola]]. That is like finding a needle in a haystack the size of a football stadium. But Columbus's colony had not survived in his absence.

Columbus sailed on a total of three subsequent voyages, but never achieved his goal and died a failure. His ultimate dream of liberating Jerusalem, as the Crusades attempted, was not realized. But what he did achieve was to open the New World to spreading Christianity and creating new wealth.

Columbus's efforts resulting in Spain acquiring [[Haiti]], [[Puerto Rico]], [[Jamaica]] and [[Cuba]] by 1515. Spain then settled Florida (St. Augustine), and later Santa Fe (now in New Mexico). Spanish [[Hernando Cortes]] conquered the Aztecs in central Mexico (1521), and [[Francisco Pizarro]] conquered the Incas of Peru (1531). They seized much gold in the process.

Fifteen years after Columbus's maiden voyage, map-makers (cartographers) coined the named "America" for the New World in honor of another Italian explorer, Amerigo Vespucci. Between 1499 and 1502 he explored the east coast of South America, and was the first to recognize that the new land was a separate continent rather than part of Asia.

But while Spanish soldiers came to America, Spanish women did not. So there were not many distinct, permanent Spanish settlements. Also, the Spanish were entirely subservient to their King back in Europe. Separate governments did not develop.

Other European powers were exploring North America also. The French explored the St. Lawrence and settled Quebec, where French is still spoken to this day. The French also explored the Mississippi, and settled the towns of Saint Louis (named after a French king) and New Orleans.

The Dutch explored and settled the Hudson River, calling the region New Netherlands and buying and naming Manhattan New Amsterdam.

The Swedish settled in Delaware; Germans settled later in Pennsylvania.

Explorer [[John Cabot]] discovered the North American coastline for England in 1497. But no settlements were attempted by the English for about another 100 years, because North America didn't have what the explorers were looking for. America lacked valuable natural resources. There was no gold, which is what Europeans wanted. In 1576, the British explorer [[Martin Frobisher]] even hauled 200 tons of material back to England, hoping it was gold. It wasn’t.

There wasn't anything else of much value to Europe. New England was too rocky near the coast to develop farms. The mid-Atlantic region or Chesapeake area, where Maryland and Virginia are today, was infested with malaria. Winters were cold, and summers were hot.

There was no livestock – no horses and no cattle, until the Spanish imported them. Florida was a swamp, and did not even have orange trees until the Spanish explorer [[Ponce de Leon]] planted them in 1515.

North America was a joke to many in England. Its Parliament passed a law in 1597 authorizing the deportations of convicted criminals to America and other colonies. In 1605, a satirical book entitled “Eastward Ho!” was published that mocked attempts to settle in Virginia.

Think about it. Would your family uproot and move, at great risk to your lives, to a place that had no civilization or anything of value? Do we see families moving to the middle of the desert in Arizona, or to cheap land in the middle of Wyoming? Only very rarely.

[[England]]'s first settlement of [[North America]] was in 1585, on [[Roanoke Island]] in [[Virginia]]. More than 100 families settled there, but within a few years they had all disappeared. It remains a mystery to this day what happened. They could have died from disease or starvation. They could have been killed by Indians. No one knows the real reason for the disappearance of this settlement, and it's called the "[[Lost Colony]]."

About the same time, however, England had a huge success in Europe. Spain had ruled the high seas for most of the 1500s, until England destroyed the Spanish Armada in 1588. That left England with the potential to gain control of the oceans and world trade over the seas. England could then protect its newly developing colonies against other European powers.

== Successful Settlements ==

Some Englishmen invested money in what was called a "[[joint stock company]]," which was similar to a modern-day corporation, for the purpose of finding gold or other treasures. One of those joint stock companies was the "[[Virginia Company]]," which established the first permanent settlement for England in Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607. It was a disaster and the investors never received a profit. The men who settled in Jamestown were "English gentlemen" unaccustomed to working with their hands, and who expected to get rich with little effort. They lacked a common purpose and wasted their time searching for treasure, or simply doing nothing at all. Unwilling to work to grow their own food, they almost starved to death.

'''1607''' is one of the few dates you should memorize. This was after the Spanish had settled in Florida, but before the French had settled in Quebec. So remember the sequence in settling America: Spanish, English, and then French.

Initially, from 1607-1608, the Jamestown settlement lived under socialism, whereby the group shared its food with everyone no matter how much or little each person worked. This economic system was a complete failure that led to "starving time" as no one had any incentive to do any work to provide the necessities of life. In September 1608, [[John Smith]] was elected president of the governing council. He ruled for a year and installed a conservative economic system: "don't work, don't eat!" Under this new system that replaced communism with free enterprise, after a few years food production began to increase significantly and by 1614 there was plenty to eat.

Jamestown settlers had come to America to find fortune, but there was not any gold or silver. Indians had discovered tobacco and shared it with Europeans who were beginning to become addicted on it. Many Europeans recognized that tobacco was bad for them, and some wanted to prohibit it. In 1613, Englishman [[John Rolfe]], who married the Indian [[Pocahontas]] in Virginia, began growing tobacco to export to Europe. The King banned the growing of tobacco in England, so Rolfe had no competition. Cash began pouring in for the tobacco, and this so-called "cash crop" became highly profitable for the Jamestown settlers. Tobacco continued to be very profitable throughout a large part of American history, particularly in the South.

Although it profited from the sale of tobacco, the Jamestown settlement had many difficulties. It had made peace with Indian [[Chief Powhatan]], whose daughter Pocahontas married settler [[John Rolfe]]. But after Powhatan died, his brother led a sudden attack on the settlers in 1622, massacring 357 out of just 1200.

But Indian strife was only one of many problems. Labor was in short supply for working the fields. Settlers began importing indentured servants, who received free travel to the colonies in exchange for a promise to work for seven years. Virginia also turned to a cheaper approach to labor: importing slaves from West Africa beginning in 1619 to work the crops. The importation of slaves to the New World was not new in 1619; many European countries had been importing a total of 40,000 slaves to the New World prior to the 1600's based on the Portuguese plantation system for working the land.

In 1624 King James (of the "King James Bible" fame) took back ownership and control of the Virginia colony and established it as a royal charter. The Virginia colony was mess, a problem colony that enslaved workers and grew tobacco. More trouble was in its future. In 1676, Nathanial Bacon was a Virginia settler who decided to take the law into his own hands. He first massacred Indians in western Virginia, then took his small army of rebels to Jamestown, where he burned it down because the governor had refused to allow him to kill the Indians. Bacon himself soon died from a disease. This is known as [[Bacon's Rebellion]] and it resulted in less use of indentured servants and greater reliance on slaves, who could not rebel as easily. Once he was sure Bacon was really dead, the governor returned and hung two dozen of his supporters.

The Virginia colony, despite all its troubles, later produced four of our first five presidents. Why? It was big and and rather prosperous.

Let's turn to the Massachusetts settlements next. Massachusetts had a much harsher climate than Virginia, particularly in the wintertime. Its settlers were motivated by religion, not money. They were unhappy with the oppressions of the Church of England, feeling it was too much like the Catholic Church. Two different groups of these people set out for North America. The first group, the Separatists or Pilgrims, wanted to separate completely from the Church of England and establish a religiously pure community. The second group consisted of more mainstream Puritans who wanted to purify the church from within, without leaving it. Both groups were types of Puritans, and both groups landed by chance within 100 miles of each other in Massachusetts.

The first group, the Pilgrims, set sail from Plymouth, England and intended to land near the mouth of the Hudson River (now New York City), which was the northern part of the Virginia Company's territory. But their ship, the "Mayflower", was blown off course and they landed up on Cape Cod in Massachusetts in 1620. Outside of any official government, they decided on the boat to establish the first civil government in North America by signing the Mayflower Compact. They landed in December, and half of the people died due to disease in their first New England winter. But the following spring a friendly Indian introduced them to corn, or maize, the marvelous food discovered by Indians.

The Pilgrims had a plentiful harvest that fall, and celebrated their first Thanksgiving with the Indians. In 1623, their new Governor [[William Bradford]] gave every member a plot of land and allowed the free market to develop. By 1624, the community was doing so well that it was actually making more food than it could consume and began exporting its corn. [[William Bradford]] and [[Edward Winslow]] kept diaries during the settling of Plymouth, which are recorded in a small, but fascinating book called ''Mourt's Relation''.

Corn is a tremendous contribution by Indians to the world, and it sustains entire countries to this day. Most of us eat lots of corn; corn is also used to make ethanol fuel, and the rising prices for fuel have caused corn prices to increase, which in turn has caused other food and meat to rise in price because animals depend on corn for food. But corn did not exist in Europe during the Middle Ages. Cheap and easy to grow, corn has become one of the most popular foods worldwide, rivaling rice and soybeans. We can thank the Indians.

Encouraged by the success of the Pilgrims, a new group called the [[Massachusetts Bay Company]] obtained a royal charter and sent a larger group of Puritans to settle in New England, this time with the purpose of purifying the [[Church of England]] with a more perfect community than in England itself. It was well-financed and led by the very capable [[John Winthrop]], who had been trained at Oxford. They landed in Salem, Massachusetts in 1629 and immediately moved to Boston Harbor. They never looked back, thriving almost immediately despite the harsh winter climate. Within five years the [[Great Migration]] of religiously motivated settlers followed them from England. Their numbers and power grew. By the 1640s, the community was participating in robust trade by sea with England, the West Indies, and on occasion West Africa.

== The Colonies ==

What is a "colony"? A "colony" is defined as "a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties with the parent state." (Merriam-Webster dictionary)

From 1607 to 1639, a total of six colonies were established in what is now the United States: Virginia, Massachusetts, New Netherlands (renamed New York), Maryland, Rhode Island and Connecticut. There were four basic types of colonies:

*'''Joint-Stock Colony''': investors fund a colony through a joint-stock company; examples were Virginia and Massachusetts Bay
*'''Charter Colony''': founded on land granted by the king to a company or person who governed by it; examples were Connecticut and Rhode Island, which obtained charters many years after being settled
*'''Proprietary Colony''': owned and controlled by 1 or more persons; examples were Maryland, Pennsylvania (William Penn), Delaware and New York
*'''Royal Colony''': a colony founded or taken back under rule of king, who appoints the governor to rule it; many colonies eventually became royal colonies as the King took back control, as happened in Virginia

The growing colonies in Massachusetts and Virginia could not have been more different from each other, and it is remarkable they eventually joined the same country. Massachusetts was highly religious and motivated by faith. Virginia was marginally religious and motivated by money. Massachusetts, more religious, had vocal opponents of slavery and neighboring Vermont was the first state to prohibit slavery in its Constitution, in 1777. In contrast, Virginia welcomed slavery. Massachusetts grew the Indian crop of corn. Virginia grew the Indian crop of tobacco. Massachusetts settlers made greater efforts to get along with Indians and treat them fairly. Massachusetts attracted new settlers based on religion. Virginia attracted new European settlers based on the "headright system," by which land (usually 50 acres) was given to those who paid for the passage to the colony of an immigrant, who usually agreed to work as an "indentured servant" for free for fixed number of years on the land.

The stark contrast between Massachusetts and Virginia would ultimately lead, nearly 250 years later, to the Civil War.

While the Virginia institution of slavery was spreading to the colonies of [[Maryland]], [[Carolina]] and, later, [[Georgia]], [[Massachusetts]] was spreading a different sort of institution: religious intensity. [[Roger Williams]] was an extraordinary individual of such great faith that he found even the Puritans to be lacking in their treatment of Indians. Williams also disagreed with how the Puritans combined government and religion, and how the Puritans had executed several Christians based on differences with the Puritan faith. Williams was fabulous with languages and learned to communicate with many different Indian tribes, and even lived with them at times in spite of the danger. He left the Puritans in Massachusetts and started the colony of Rhode Island, which to this day has prided itself on its independence. Rhode Island was the only state to refuse to support a colonial tax on imports after the Revolution, and the only colony to refuse to ratify the Constitution until long after [[George Washington]] was President. Rhode Island, under Roger Williams' direction, separated state government from religion. It had no mandatory church attendance, and no funding of churches with tax revenues was allowed in Rhode Island.

But while Roger Williams was highly moral, others in Rhode Island made it the biggest importer of slaves in all the colonies. So censoring religion led to harm. In contrast, in the larger Massachusetts, taxes funded religious institutions for nearly 200 years, until at least the 1830s. It successfully prohibited slavery.

Another devout Christian who disagreed with the Puritans, [[Anne Hutchinson]], was tried by them in 1636 for emphasizing "grace" rather than "works", and she was forced to flee. She escaped the Puritans but was later killed by Indians. Religious persecution continued in Massachusetts in the mid-1600s: the Baptists were banished in 1651, and the Quakers were expelled or -- when they remained or returned -- they were hung.

The Congregational Church was started by Pilgrims in Plymouth (1620) as Independents. Like the Puritans themselves, the Congregationalists declined over time due dispersal of the population on farms, the growth of rationalism, and perhaps the biggest reason of all, prosperity and the arrogance it often engenders.

Cracks in the Puritan way became clear in the Halfway Covenant of 1657. This was an agreement (a covenant) achieved at an assembly of Puritans from Massachusetts and Connecticut to allow halfway church membership and baptism for sinners. Second and third-generation Puritans seemed more interested in money than having the "born again" religious conversion necessary to become a full member of the Puritan Church and required in order to be allowed to baptize their children in the Church. The Reverend Solomon Stoddard, whose grandson would be [[Jonathan Edwards]] (whom we will discuss in the next class), proposed partial or "halfway" membership in the Church of children and grandchildren of Church members. All the children and grandchildren need do was accept the Covenant and agree to the beliefs and rules of the Church, in order to participate in the sacraments of the Church. But they would not be allowed to vote on any Church issues until they had a spiritual conversion. This approach was adopted, but continued to be resisted by people on both sides of the issue: some who thought it was too lenient, and others who found it too strict.

'''Debate: were the Puritans right to be strict and to expel people of other religions?'''

One prominent textbook claims, under "Rhode Island," that "This belief [by Roger Williams] in the separation of church and state became a cornerstone of the American Constitution in 1787." That is completely false. Roger Williams was long dead by 1787, and there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. Rhode Island did not even send any representatives to draft the Constitution and it had no role in the drafting of the Bill of Rights. In fact, Rhode Island did not ratify the Constitution until after George Washington was elected president, and even then it took much arm-twisting to compel Rhode Island to ratify the Constitution. But some people want to keep religion out of government, and they refuse to admit that the First Amendment only prohibits the establishment of a national church by the government. Also, Rhode Island was the '''only''' colony that supported a "separation" of church and state. Other colonies actually funded religion in various ways.

In between Massachusetts and Virginia there was a third approach: that taken by Pennsylvania. William Penn was another extraordinary Englishman. He converted to become a Quaker in England and began practicing that religion in violation of English law. He was arrested and prosecuted, but the jury refused to convict him. The king owed his father money, and gave the son what is today Pennsylvania. It was nothing but woods at the time. But William Penn founded his colony based on one principle: religious freedom for all. He advertised in Europe and attracted peoples of many nationalities in addition to the English.

Penn was very kind to the Indians and soon had the most popular colony in America. Philadelphia, which means "brotherly love" in Greek, became America's greatest city, surpassing Boston in population in the 1700s. Only Pennsylvania and Maryland survived long-term under private ownership. Most of the other colonies were eventually taken over by the King of England, often due to troubles that arose in the colony.

Pennsylvania was founded over 50 years '''after''' Virginia and Massachusetts. Georgia was founded over 50 years after Pennsylvania, which means over 100 years after Virginia and Massachusetts. Philanthropist [[James Oglethorpe]] founded Savannah in Georgia in 1733 for poor debtors in jails of England, and to serve as a "buffer" colony to separate protect English South Carolina against possible encroachment by Spanish Florida. Oglethorpe was very religious and very strict. Too strict, in fact, for the King of England, who then took over the colony in 1751. The colony was not nearly as strong and developed as the other colonies, so the other colonies did not take it very seriously.

== Economic System ==

Ultimately, and this is the most difficult for students to understand, it is money ([[economics]]) that shapes much of history. If the colonies were profitable for their mother countries in Europe, then the mother countries would continue to support and defend the colonies. But if the colonies were a money-loser, as in costing more to defend then they make, then they are going to be abandoned or at least no longer protected by the European mother country.

Many of the colonies did make this work, and work well. An [[economic]] system called [[mercantilism]] began to develop in the 1600s and 1700s, which would lay the foundation for capitalism in the 1800s.<ref>http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/mercantilism.html</ref>

The basic concept of mercantilism is to limit imports from foreign countries (not including colonies), and maximize exports to everyone (including other colonies), in order to maximize the "trade surplus" (the amount by which receipts exceeds expenses). Colonies played an important role in this system by supplying raw materials at low cost to the mother country (e.g., England or France), which could then use the materials to produce low-cost finished products that could be sold to the world.<ref>http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Mercantilism.html</ref> By selling more than the country buys, it could accumulate a surplus in money (gold) and become wealthier. In other words, mercantilism was an economic system in which the colonies existed to give raw materials to mother country (England), and buy her finished products, so that England could export more than it imported and thereby increase its gold reserves from a surplus in the balance of trade.

But there's no free lunch, and these European nations were all-too-happy to use slavery to do the back-breaking work of gathering the raw materials, such as crops and minerals. A slave trade developed to bring blacks from Africa to the New World in order to work the plantations for the settlers from [[England]] and other European powers.

The [[Spanish]] had a different system: they used a modified form of [[feudalism]], known as the encomienda system, in order to force the Indians to do the hard work. The "encomienda" was a grant by the King or Queen of Spain of power over Indians within a geographic region, a grant that was given to an "encomendero", who was the Spaniard in that region who would put the Indians to work.<ref>http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/scott-m.html</ref> The Indians themselves became known as the economiendas.

The Spanish system looked better in theory, because the encomendero was supposed to educate the encomiendas, convert them to Christianity (Catholicism), and not exercise any political power over them (as in telling them how to live). In practice, however, there were no "checks and balances" preventing exploitation and abuse of power in working the Indians.

Finally, College Board exams may ask about the "triangular trade" that supposedly dominated from 1640-1720. Later historians have used the image of triangle to show trade routes from West Africa to the New World America (the West Indies or the colonies), from there to Europe (England or continental Europe), and from there the boats presumably traveled back to West Africa to begin again. The harshest part of this route was the taking of slaves, bound in chains from West Africa to the New World. After the slaves disembarked, the New World would load goods onto the ships (such as raw molasses if the West Indies, or tobacco if Virginia) for transport to Europe. But what doesn't make sense about this theory is the following: what would Europe send on the ships back to Africa? Nothing comes to mind (other than a few goods to purchase the slaves), and not a single instance of an actual triangle route has ever been found. Perhaps finished product, like rum from the molasses, would be loaded onto the ships, but its intended destination would be the colonies, not Africa. So in reality the only triangle could only be traversed by the boats, not by actual trade.

'''Debate: Did "triangular trade" really exist?'''

== Topics for Discussion ==

*What, if anything, was the significance of [[Bacon's Rebellion]]?
*What challenges would the [[Puritans]] face in maintaining their strongly religious culture in the 1600s and 1700s?
*Question about bias: why would some want to take credit away from Columbus, and how might they do it?

== A Word About College Board Exams ==

Finally, a word about College Board exams. This course will give you the foundation -- if you like -- for taking three different College Board exams (usually a student takes only one of the three): the [[CLEP]], the [[AP]], and the [[SAT II]].

The CLEP is a multiple-choice exam that is recognized by most (but not all) colleges as a way to earn college credit. It costs about $70 and is administered on computers at local colleges, usually once a month. It is the least biased of the three exams, and not much advanced planning is needed to sign up for it.

The AP, or Advanced Placement exam, is given only once a year in May at local high schools, and is more expensive. It includes both multiple-choice and essay questions, and is used by more colleges to give credit for courses. In 2009, the AP exam for U.S. History is scheduled for Friday, May 9. The student must sign up for it long in advance, and make arrangements with a public high school.

The SAT II in American History is an inexpensive multiple-choice exam that takes only an hour and is given at high schools on Saturdays once a month, October through June, with registration available online at www.collegeboard.com . No college credit is given for it, but it is used for college applications to recognize achievement. The SAT II is the cheapest and most biased of the three exams, and is known for emphasizing liberal culture. Also, what counts as "economic history" is not what you might expect. There are almost no questions about the [[conservative]] gold standard, for example, even though that issue has been important throughout history (and was even an issue in [[Ron Paul]]'s campaign for presidency in 2008). Instead, questions about economic history on the SAT II are likely to be about unions, the treatment of workers, alleged corruption of big business, discrimination, and gender issues.

Notice what is missing on the College Board exams: military history. Unfortunately, many educators in the [[United States]] dislike the military, and that bias shows up on the exams. No questions are there about battles or key military strategies and decisions. The only time the military shows up on these exams is when they have a political impact.

Each of these College Board exams can be taken as often as one likes, though it is difficult to take the AP exam more than once because it is offered only once a year, and it is expensive to retake the CLEP exam. The SAT II, which is cheaper, is the easiest to take more than once and colleges look only at the highest score.

There is absolutely no requirement to take any of these College Board exams as part of this course, and references to the exams are used more as a way of helping you see the "big picture," as in how much time should be spent on a particular period or historical topic. Our class has only two required, multiple-choice exams: a midterm and a final. This course will help students improve their test-taking skills on multiple-choice exams. We will have weekly homework assignments consisting of short-answer questions.

== References ==
<references/>

== See also ==
* [[American History Homework One]]
[[Category:United States History]]

American History Lecture One

2008-09-14T22:42:45Z

KennyMac: /* Pre-Columbian Period */ "America"

Welcome to "American history," also known as "United States history." This is likely to become your favorite course. It has something for everyone: heroes, villains, criminal trials, comical mistakes, competitions, politics, literature, geniuses, treasure, inventions, war, and peace. You name it, American history has it. We are going to have some fun in this course.

We will start without a textbook, to encourage students to take initiative in learning history and to avoid duplication in reading. All you need to read are the lectures, starting with this one. Later we may add a textbook if we find a good one.

The Pilgrims came to America with a group not much bigger than our class, traveling in a boat called the "Mayflower" that was not much larger than our classroom. Just before arriving on shore, the Pilgrims agreed to a written agreement or "compact" to bind them after they arrived. The very first words of their "[[Mayflower Compact]]" were "In the name of God Amen."<ref>The Mayflower Compact is viewable here: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amerdoc/mayflower.htm</ref>

Just as our Nation's founders started with a prayer, so do we. Prayer clears out the noise in our minds. We are looking for knowledge and inspiration here, and that comes from God. In most countries parents do not have the freedom even to have a class like this. The main reason we have freedoms is because America was established on principles of liberty, and religious devotion in America remains among the strongest in the world today, as it was nearly 400 years ago.

We live at a critical time in our nation's history, and this class may be as important to the future of America as the Mayflower voyage was. Let's begin.

== What Students Find Challenging About History ==

Students find the following aspects of American history challenging:

* interpreting political cartoons
* keeping facts in perspective and understanding how they relate to each other
* keeping the different periods of American history separate, yet connected; seeing the trends
* understanding the importance of economic issues in shaping history
* improving speed in reading and retaining historical information, such as answering history questions quickly
* dealing with [[liberal]] bias in textbooks and the selection and presentation of questions on College Board exams:
** denial of [[Christian]] and [[conservative]] achievement
** overemphasis on [[liberal]]s and their beliefs, and denial of their failures
** obsession with materialism and inborn characteristics like race and gender

Common mistakes by students in history courses include:

* failure to recognize that American politics is always a battle between two sides
* memorizing dates without understanding the sequence of events (exams rarely ask about dates, but do ask about sequence)
* getting bogged down in detail and failing to see the big picture
* misunderstanding questions
* forgetting that people in the past were similar in nature to people today; they were motivated by religion, money, power, etc., and laziness has always been a problem

== The Key to Mastering History ==

The key to mastering history is to find what you like and understand, and then use it as your foundation to learn everything else. In other words, first find and learn what you like, and then learn everything else by connecting it to what you know. Use the same technique that we all use for directions: pick a landmark or a place that you know how to get to, and then figure out how to go from there to where you need to go.

For example, if you are most interested in religion, then learn about the 13 colonies based on their different attitudes towards religion. If you are most interested in one colony, then learn about it and how it relates to other colonies. If you like military history, then use that as your starting point. Perhaps you enjoy mysteries; in that case, use our list of [[Essay:Greatest Mysteries of American History|Greatest Mysteries of American History]] to motivate you.

Perhaps you like politics the most. In that case, you'll want to memorize the presidents and leaders of Congress, and relate historical events to their times in office. Or perhaps you enjoy legal issues, and reading about what the courts do. If so, then you'll want to focus your attention on the major rulings of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] throughout American history, and relate other historical events to those decisions.

On the SAT II U.S. History exam, the breakdown by subject matter is as follows:
 Political History - 32-36%
 Economic History - 18-20%
 Social History - 18-22%
 Cultural and Intellectual History - 10-12%
 Foreign Policy - 13-17%

The biggest part of the exam by far is politics, mostly concerning what happened in the federal government in [[Washington, D.C.]]

== Periods in American History ==

American history can be broken into about 20 time periods:

* settlement by Native Americans
* discovery, exploration, and settlement by Europeans
* colonial
* birth of the nation
* growth of the nation
* [[Andrew Jackson|Jackson]]ian Democracy
* pre-Civil War
* [[Civil War]]
* [[Reconstruction]]
* Gilded Age
* [[Imperialism]]
* [[World War I]]
* [[Roaring Twenties]], followed by the [[Great Depression]]
* [[World War II]]
* [[Cold War]]
** [[Korean War]]
** [[Vietnam War]]
* Reagan [[conservatism]]
* Post-Reagan Prosperity and the dot-com boom
* [[9/11]] and [[terrorism]]

On the SAT II in U.S History, the breakdown of questions by time period is this:

:Pre-Columbian history to 1789 - 20%
:1790 to 1898 - 40%
:1899 to the present - 40%

Hence nearly half of the SAT II exam focuses on the last century, and only about 18 questions (out of 90-95) are devoted to all of pre-exploration, exploration, settlements, the colonies, the documents that founded the nation, the American Revolution, and the election of George Washington. So do not find yourself spending too much time on one aspect of history.

== Why America? ==

Your common sense and imagination can help you master American history. Pause for a moment and imagine what would likely happen to a nice chunk of fertile land, possibly containing riches like gold, located between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Would some Europeans want to go there? Of course. Which ones would want to go there, and why?

One reason is to convert the natives to Christianity, just as homeschool families today often go on missionary trips to distant lands. Another reason is to search for gold and other riches. A third reason is to obtain freedom. Another reason is for the same reason people climb a mountain: because it is there! Some want to escape where they are. Others want to set up a new community, perhaps a new religious environment. Others hope to meet new people and make new friends, and engage in the trade of goods with the people. Another motivation is to learn from the new people, or have adventures and then write about them.

What is likely to happen if a bunch of Europeans go to this land? There will be conflict: conflicts with the natives, conflicts with other European countries, and conflicts with the mother country that sent the settlers. But there will also be new opportunities for improvements, for new products, for new businesses, for new religions and for new systems of government.

Who is going to pay for exploration and settlement? Kings. Investors. Do-gooders. Churches. Mostly nobody.

Who is going to do the hard labor needed to set up a new community, such as chopping down trees, working the farms, and constructing the buildings? There was almost no money to pay anyone for the work. Families might do some, but many of the families consisted of young children. Pretty soon slavery developed as a form of labor, particularly in less religious settlements. Another form of labor less objectionable than slavery was the use of [[indentured servants]]. They were workers who promised to work for free for seven (7) years in exchange for free transportation to the New World, free food and housing while there, and complete freedom (and maybe some land) after the end of the seven (7) years.

In learning history, it helps to look for unifying themes to organize events in your mind. One theme that helps explain American history well is the overall expansion of Christianity for 2000 years. Why did [[Christopher Columbus]] and other explorers risk their lives to come to the New World? To spread Christianity. Why did families then risk their lives to settle here? To establish religious communities free of persecution. Two hundred years later, why did Massachusetts prohibit slavery and why did abolitionists President [[John Quincy Adams]] devote their lives to ending slavery? Their religious values told them slavery was wrong.

There are other possible themes also. How about the desire to make more money? How about the urge for self-government, to be in charge of oneself free from a monarchy? How about the advance of technology and its affect on how we live? There are many possible themes to American history and we will have fun debates about them.

== Organizing History ==

From 1789 until today, we have had an American President. He is not more important than others. If I had to name the ten most important Americans in history, I would include only one president in the list (the first one, [[George Washington]]). But memorizing the list of 43 presidents can help you organize all the other facts. When someone asks me what was happening in 1962, I think of who was president and then remember the issues of that time. The presidents become like drawers in a cabinet where you might put your clothes. In the "cabinet" of presidents, each drawer is filled with issues and events that happened during each presidency.

But before 1789 there was no president. How are we going to organize that? One way is to focus on the three most important colonies, [[Virginia]] (1607), [[Massachusetts]] (1620) and [[Pennsylvania]] (1681), and relate the other 11 colonies and events to them. Another way is to look at the battles that occurred before the [[American Revolution]], such as the [[French and Indian War]] in 1754-1760.

By the end of this course, you will be able to hear an event and describe what was going on at that time. You will be able to tell me what happened before the event, and what happened afterward.

Don't try to memorize hundreds of dates. Instead, when you see a date, think what happened before and after it. There are only about ten dates that you need to know. For example, no one will ask you when Georgia was founded as a colony. But you may be asked whether it was the first or last colony founded. (It was the last colony established.) Another example: [[Quebec]] was founded in 1608. Don't remember the 1608 date, but remember that Quebec was founded one year after [[Jamestown]] was established (1607 – one of the few dates you should memorize!)

== Pre-Columbian Period ==
The first settlers in America were Native Americans, or American Indians. Their origin is not known. Some claim they migrated from Asia, but that makes little sense because American Indians are very different in many ways from Chinese and Asian Indians. Even their blood types are typically different.

Some old mounds reflecting Indian settlements in the territory which is now the United States of America have been discovered, such as the Adena burial mounds and Mississippian platform towns.<ref>Melissa L. Meyer, Dean R. Snow, Charles L. Cohen, Russell Thornton, Donald A. Grinde Jr., Leah Dilworth "Indian History and Culture" The Oxford Companion to United States History. Paul S. Boyer, ed. Oxford University Press 2001. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Tampa. 4 August 2008 <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t119.e0758-s0002></ref> The [[Cahokia Mounds]] in Southern Illinois (just east of [[St. Louis]]) reflect an Indian community dating back as early as A.D. 1000 or 1100.<ref>http://www.cahokiamounds.com/mystery_01.html</ref> That community practiced human sacrifice, as did the [[Aztecs]] and [[Mayans]] in [[Mesoamerica]] (Mexico and Central America) and the [[Incas]] in [[South America]] prior to the arrival of the Spanish conquerors.

The American Indians were [[nomads]] who traveled across wide areas. They did not read and write, and they lacked a monetary system. They were organized by tribes and some had very simple forms of government. There was the [[Iroquois Confederacy]] that united some Indians, but typically there was a lack of unity that led to their easy defeat by Europeans. The Indians did introduce [[tobacco]] and [[corn]] to Europeans, and they became widely popular back in Europe. Europeans also brought new things to the Indians, such as horses and guns.

Textbooks written after 1970 began claiming that around A.D. 1000 the Scandinavian [[Leif Ericson]] established a small colony at [[Vinland]], where the present [[Newfoundland]] is (north of Maine). But there is little evidence that such a colony existed, and no explanation for what happened to it. It did not last long even if it did exist, and there is no sign of any Viking colony in what is now the United States.<ref>"People have been looking hard for hundreds of years and there is no archaeological evidence in this part [New England]— it's certainly possible, the Vikings were incredible boat handlers — '''but there is no evidence'''," observed one university history professor.[http://farshores.org/a04viki.htm]</ref>.

'''Debate: Did the Vikings settle in North America before Columbus?'''

'''Exam note''': there are no more than a few questions about the Pre-Columbian (prior to Christopher Columbus) period on any American history exam.

== Exploration (Columbian Period) ==

Starting in the Middle Ages, Christian Europe began to use its knowledge, wealth and [[faith]] to extend beyond its horizons. Christian Europeans fought the Holy [[Crusades]] from 1095 to 1291 to protect pilgrims to [[Jerusalem]] against Muslim attacks. Some Europeans were motivated to spread the [[Gospel]]. Others were motivated by a desire to increase their wealth, such as by finding gold.

People in [[Ancient Greece]] knew that the world was round, and that it should be possible to reach the Orient by traveling West '''''around''''' the world. Ironically, it was the very knowledge of the Earth's circumference that deterred a westward passage - the distance to the Orient in that direction was beyond the open-water range of ships in that period. Steamships did not exist yet; these ships relied on sailing, using wind to reach their destination, and wind patterns did not always cooperate.

Thus, centuries passed before one man inspired by the Christian [[faith]] was determined to change the world of his time. By the young age of 10 the Italian [[Christopher Columbus]] was working at sea, already on his way to becoming a master navigator and mariner. He learned the patterns of the Atlantic trade winds, and their ability to carry sailing vessels across vast distances both eastward and westward before one's provisions would run out. With the charts he developed, he was certain he could reach Asia on a westbound route more efficiently than others could.

It took enormous courage, determination and financial support to sail West into the complete unknown. It also took more than a desire to get rich, because there were easier ways to make money. That additional desire was a passion to spread Christianity to new civilizations. In 1482, [[Christopher Columbus]] sought financing to sail West in order to find an easier way to reach the Far East, by sailing westward rather than going eastward from Europe to reach India and Japan. Columbus tried Portugal for raising money, but it already had its own successful explorers. Portugal declined to support him, but Columbus persisted for ten more years.

In 1492 Spain drove out the last of the Muslims and re-established itself as a Christian nation, and King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain granted Columbus's request for funding his voyage in that same year. Spain continues to honor Columbus Day just as the United States does.

Columbus was not only a devout Christian, but an enterprising capitalist. The contract he signed with the Spanish Monarchy, known as the Capitulations of Santa Fe, named him Admiral of the Atlantic Ocean, Viceroy and Governor of all the new lands discovered, and gave him one-tenth of the profit from all of the discovered lands (Spain later refused to honor the agreement, and Columbus never became wealthy). Having secured his funding, Columbus assembled his ships and crew and set out in August of 1492 to reach the Orient.

Columbus set sail in three ships. On Christmas eve, December 24, 1492, one of Columbus's ships, the [[Santa Maria]], reached the island of [[Haiti]]. Columbus named the settlement "La Navidad," meaning "The Nativity," and dropped off 40 men with a promise to return to them the next year. Columbus then wrote for the King and Queen of Spain in his Journal: "In all the world there can be no better or gentler people. Your Highnesses should feel great joy, because presently they will be Christians, and instructed in the good manners of your realms."

But Columbus had grossly underestimated the size of the world, and when he reached San Salvador, Haiti (Hispaniola) and Cuba he thought he had reached the Far East. So he called the natives "Indians". He left some men there but they were eventually killed by the natives. Columbus reported back that new people had been found to evangelize with Christianity.

Soon Spain and Portugal divided the Americas with the [[Line of Demarcation]], drawn by the Pope. The [[Treaty of Tordesillas]] moved the line in 1493. It was a North-South line that gave Spain North America and the western part of South America, but Portugal received Brazil. That's why Brazilians speak Portuguese to this day.

The incredible genius of Columbus -- or Providence -- was demonstrated a year later on his second voyage across the Atlantic. Amid the vast ocean, Columbus was able to return to exactly the same location that he had reached on his first voyage on the island of [[Hispaniola]]. That is like finding a needle in a haystack the size of a football stadium. But Columbus's colony had not survived in his absence.

Columbus sailed on a total of three subsequent voyages, but never achieved his goal and died a failure. His ultimate dream of liberating Jerusalem, as the Crusades attempted, was not realized. But what he did achieve was to open the New World to spreading Christianity and creating new wealth.

Columbus's efforts resulting in Spain acquiring [[Haiti]], [[Puerto Rico]], [[Jamaica]] and [[Cuba]] by 1515. Spain then settled Florida (St. Augustine), and later Santa Fe (now in New Mexico). Spanish [[Hernando Cortes]] conquered the Aztecs in central Mexico (1521), and [[Francisco Pizarro]] conquered the Incas of Peru (1531). They seized much gold in the process.

Fifteen years after Columbus's maiden voyage, map-makers (cartographers) coined the named "America" for the New World in honor of another Italian explorer, Amerigo Vespucci. Between 1499 and 1502 he explored the east coast of South America, and was the first to recognize that the new land was a separate continent rather than part of Asia.

But while Spanish soldiers came to America, Spanish women did not. So there were not many distinct, permanent Spanish settlements. Also, the Spanish were entirely subservient to their King back in Europe. Separate governments did not develop.

Other European powers were exploring North America also. The French explored the St. Lawrence and settled Quebec, where French is still spoken to this day. The French also explored the Mississippi, and settled the towns of Saint Louis (named after a French king) and New Orleans.

The Dutch explored and settled the Hudson River, calling the region New Netherlands and buying and naming Manhattan New Amsterdam.

The Swedish settled in Delaware; Germans settled later in Pennsylvania.

Explorer [[John Cabot]] discovered the North American coastline for England in 1497. But no settlements were attempted by the English for about another 100 years, because North America didn't have what the explorers were looking for. America lacked valuable natural resources. There was no gold, which is what Europeans wanted. In 1576, the British explorer [[Martin Frobisher]] even hauled 200 tons of material back to England, hoping it was gold. It wasn’t.

There wasn't anything else of much value to Europe. New England was too rocky near the coast to develop farms. The mid-Atlantic region or Chesapeake area, where Maryland and Virginia are today, was infested with malaria. Winters were cold, and summers were hot.

There was no livestock – no horses and no cattle, until the Spanish imported them. Florida was a swamp, and did not even have orange trees until the Spanish explorer [[Ponce de Leon]] planted them in 1515.

North America was a joke to many in England. Its Parliament passed a law in 1597 authorizing the deportations of convicted criminals to America and other colonies. In 1605, a satirical book entitled “Eastward Ho!” was published that mocked attempts to settle in Virginia.

Think about it. Would your family uproot and move, at great risk to your lives, to a place that had no civilization or anything of value? Do we see families moving to the middle of the desert in Arizona, or to cheap land in the middle of Wyoming? Only very rarely.

[[England]]'s first settlement of [[North America]] was in 1585, on [[Roanoke Island]] in [[Virginia]]. More than 100 families settled there, but within a few years they had all disappeared. It remains a mystery to this day what happened. They could have died from disease or starvation. They could have been killed by Indians. No one knows the real reason for the disappearance of this settlement, and it's called the "[[Lost Colony]]."

About the same time, however, England had a huge success in Europe. Spain had ruled the high seas for most of the 1500s, until England destroyed the Spanish Armada in 1588. That left England with the potential to gain control of the oceans and world trade over the seas. England could then protect its newly developing colonies against other European powers.

== Successful Settlements ==

Some Englishmen invested money in what was called a "[[joint stock company]]," which was similar to a modern-day corporation, for the purpose of finding gold or other treasures. One of those joint stock companies was the "[[Virginia Company]]," which established the first permanent settlement for England in Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607. It was a disaster and the investors never received a profit. The men who settled in Jamestown were "English gentlemen" unaccustomed to working with their hands, and who expected to get rich with little effort. They lacked a common purpose and wasted their time searching for treasure, or simply doing nothing at all. Unwilling to work to grow their own food, they almost starved to death.

'''1607''' is one of the few dates you should memorize. This was after the Spanish had settled in Florida, but before the French had settled in Quebec. So remember the sequence in settling America: Spanish, English, and then French.

Initially, from 1607-1608, the Jamestown settlement lived under socialism, whereby the group shared its food with everyone no matter how much or little each person worked. This economic system was a complete failure that led to "starving time" as no one had any incentive to do any work to provide the necessities of life. In September 1608, [[John Smith]] was elected president of the governing council. He ruled for a year and installed a conservative economic system: "don't work, don't eat!" Under this new system that replaced communism with free enterprise, after a few years food production began to increase significantly and by 1614 there was plenty to eat.

Jamestown settlers had come to America to find fortune, but there was not any gold or silver. Indians had discovered tobacco and shared it with Europeans who were beginning to become addicted on it. Many Europeans recognized that tobacco was bad for them, and some wanted to prohibit it. In 1613, Englishman [[John Rolfe]], who married the Indian [[Pocahontas]] in Virginia, began growing tobacco to export to Europe. The King banned the growing of tobacco in England, so Rolfe had no competition. Cash began pouring in for the tobacco, and this so-called "cash crop" became highly profitable for the Jamestown settlers. Tobacco continued to be very profitable throughout a large part of American history, particularly in the South.

Although it profited from the sale of tobacco, the Jamestown settlement had many difficulties. It had made peace with Indian [[Chief Powhatan]], whose daughter Pocahontas married settler [[John Rolfe]]. But after Powhatan died, his brother led a sudden attack on the settlers in 1622, massacring 357 out of just 1200.

But Indian strife was only one of many problems. Labor was in short supply for working the fields. Settlers began importing indentured servants, who received free travel to the colonies in exchange for a promise to work for seven years. Virginia also turned to a cheaper approach to labor: importing slaves from West Africa beginning in 1619 to work the crops. The importation of slaves to the New World was not new in 1619; many European countries had been importing a total of 40,000 slaves to the New World prior to the 1600's based on the Portuguese plantation system for working the land.

In 1624 King James (of the "King James Bible" fame) took back ownership and control of the Virginia colony and established it as a royal charter. The Virginia colony was mess, a problem colony that enslaved workers and grew tobacco. More trouble was in its future. In 1676, Nathanial Bacon was a Virginia settler who decided to take the law into his own hands. He first massacred Indians in western Virginia, then took his small army of rebels to Jamestown, where he burned it down because the governor had refused to allow him to kill the Indians. Bacon himself soon died from a disease. This is known as [[Bacon's Rebellion]] and it resulted in less use of indentured servants and greater reliance on slaves, who could not rebel as easily. Once he was sure Bacon was really dead, the governor returned and hung two dozen of his supporters.

The Virginia colony, despite all its troubles, later produced four of our first five presidents. Why? It was big and and rather prosperous.

Let's turn to the Massachusetts settlements next. Massachusetts had a much harsher climate than Virginia, particularly in the wintertime. Its settlers were motivated by religion, not money. They were unhappy with the oppressions of the Church of England, feeling it was too much like the Catholic Church. Two different groups of these people set out for North America. The first group, the Separatists or Pilgrims, wanted to separate completely from the Church of England and establish a religiously pure community. The second group consisted of more mainstream Puritans who wanted to purify the church from within, without leaving it. Both groups were types of Puritans, and both groups landed by chance within 100 miles of each other in Massachusetts.

The first group, the Pilgrims, set sail from Plymouth, England and intended to land near the mouth of the Hudson River (now New York City), which was the northern part of the Virginia Company's territory. But their ship, the "Mayflower", was blown off course and they landed up on Cape Cod in Massachusetts in 1620. Outside of any official government, they decided on the boat to establish the first civil government in North America by signing the Mayflower Compact. They landed in December, and half of the people died due to disease in their first New England winter. But the following spring a friendly Indian introduced them to corn, or maize, the marvelous food discovered by Indians.

The Pilgrims had a plentiful harvest that fall, and celebrated their first Thanksgiving with the Indians. In 1623, their new Governor [[William Bradford]] gave every member a plot of land and allowed the free market to develop. By 1624, the community was doing so well that it was actually making more food than it could consume and began exporting its corn. [[William Bradford]] and [[Edward Winslow]] kept diaries during the settling of Plymouth, which are recorded in a small, but fascinating book called ''Mourt's Relation''.

Corn is a tremendous contribution by Indians to the world, and it sustains entire countries to this day. Most of us eat lots of corn; corn is also used to make ethanol fuel, and the rising prices for fuel have caused corn prices to increase, which in turn has caused other food and meat to rise in price because animals depend on corn for food. But corn did not exist in Europe during the Middle Ages. Cheap and easy to grow, corn has become one of the most popular foods worldwide, rivaling rice and soybeans. We can thank the Indians.

Encouraged by the success of the Pilgrims, a new group called the [[Massachusetts Bay Company]] obtained a royal charter and sent a larger group of Puritans to settle in New England, this time with the purpose of purifying the [[Church of England]] with a more perfect community than in England itself. It was well-financed and led by the very capable [[John Winthrop]], who had been trained at Oxford. They landed in Salem, Massachusetts in 1629 and immediately moved to Boston Harbor. They never looked back, thriving almost immediately despite the harsh winter climate. Within five years the [[Great Migration]] of religiously motivated settlers followed them from England. Their numbers and power grew. By the 1640s, the community was participating in robust trade by sea with England, the West Indies, and on occasion West Africa.

== The Colonies ==

What is a "colony"? A "colony" is defined as "a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties with the parent state." (Merriam-Webster dictionary)

From 1607 to 1639, a total of six colonies were established in what is now the United States: Virginia, Massachusetts, New Netherlands (renamed New York), Maryland, Rhode Island and Connecticut. There were four basic types of colonies:

*'''Joint-Stock Colony''': investors fund a colony through a joint-stock company; examples were Virginia and Massachusetts Bay
*'''Charter Colony''': founded on land granted by the king to a company or person who governed by it; examples were Connecticut and Rhode Island, which obtained charters many years after being settled
*'''Proprietary Colony''': owned and controlled by 1 or more persons; examples were Maryland, Pennsylvania (William Penn), Delaware and New York
*'''Royal Colony''': a colony founded or taken back under rule of king, who appoints the governor to rule it; many colonies eventually became royal colonies as the King took back control, as happened in Virginia

The growing colonies in Massachusetts and Virginia could not have been more different from each other, and it is remarkable they eventually joined the same country. Massachusetts was highly religious and motivated by faith. Virginia was marginally religious and motivated by money. Massachusetts, more religious, had vocal opponents of slavery and neighboring Vermont was the first state to prohibit slavery in its Constitution, in 1777. In contrast, Virginia welcomed slavery. Massachusetts grew the Indian crop of corn. Virginia grew the Indian crop of tobacco. Massachusetts settlers made greater efforts to get along with Indians and treat them fairly. Massachusetts attracted new settlers based on religion. Virginia attracted new European settlers based on the "headright system," by which land (usually 50 acres) was given to those who paid for the passage to the colony of an immigrant, who usually agreed to work as an "indentured servant" for free for fixed number of years on the land.

The stark contrast between Massachusetts and Virginia would ultimately lead, nearly 250 years later, to the Civil War.

While the Virginia institution of slavery was spreading to the colonies of [[Maryland]], [[Carolina]] and, later, [[Georgia]], [[Massachusetts]] was spreading a different sort of institution: religious intensity. [[Roger Williams]] was an extraordinary individual of such great faith that he found even the Puritans to be lacking in their treatment of Indians. Williams also disagreed with how the Puritans combined government and religion, and how the Puritans had executed several Christians based on differences with the Puritan faith. Williams was fabulous with languages and learned to communicate with many different Indian tribes, and even lived with them at times in spite of the danger. He left the Puritans in Massachusetts and started the colony of Rhode Island, which to this day has prided itself on its independence. Rhode Island was the only state to refuse to support a colonial tax on imports after the Revolution, and the only colony to refuse to ratify the Constitution until long after [[George Washington]] was President. Rhode Island, under Roger Williams' direction, separated state government from religion. It had no mandatory church attendance, and no funding of churches with tax revenues was allowed in Rhode Island.

But while Roger Williams was highly moral, others in Rhode Island made it the biggest importer of slaves in all the colonies. So censoring religion led to harm. In contrast, in the larger Massachusetts, taxes funded religious institutions for nearly 200 years, until at least the 1830s. It successfully prohibited slavery.

Another devout Christian who disagreed with the Puritans, [[Anne Hutchinson]], was tried by them in 1636 for emphasizing "grace" rather than "works", and she was forced to flee. She escaped the Puritans but was later killed by Indians. Religious persecution continued in Massachusetts in the mid-1600s: the Baptists were banished in 1651, and the Quakers were expelled or -- when they remained or returned -- they were hung.

The Congregational Church was started by Pilgrims in Plymouth (1620) as Independents. Like the Puritans themselves, the Congregationalists declined over time due dispersal of the population on farms, the growth of rationalism, and perhaps the biggest reason of all, prosperity and the arrogance it often engenders.

Cracks in the Puritan way became clear in the Halfway Covenant of 1657. This was an agreement (a covenant) achieved at an assembly of Puritans from Massachusetts and Connecticut to allow halfway church membership and baptism for sinners. Second and third-generation Puritans seemed more interested in money than having the "born again" religious conversion necessary to become a full member of the Puritan Church and required in order to be allowed to baptize their children in the Church. The Reverend Solomon Stoddard, whose grandson would be [[Jonathan Edwards]] (whom we will discuss in the next class), proposed partial or "halfway" membership in the Church of children and grandchildren of Church members. All the children and grandchildren need do was accept the Covenant and agree to the beliefs and rules of the Church, in order to participate in the sacraments of the Church. But they would not be allowed to vote on any Church issues until they had a spiritual conversion. This approach was adopted, but continued to be resisted by people on both sides of the issue: some who thought it was too lenient, and others who found it too strict.

'''Debate: were the Puritans right to be strict and to expel people of other religions?'''

One prominent textbook claims, under "Rhode Island," that "This belief [by Roger Williams] in the separation of church and state became a cornerstone of the American Constitution in 1787." That is completely false. Roger Williams was long dead by 1787, and there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. Rhode Island did not even send any representatives to draft the Constitution and it had no role in the drafting of the Bill of Rights. In fact, Rhode Island did not ratify the Constitution until after George Washington was elected president, and even then it took much arm-twisting to compel Rhode Island to ratify the Constitution. But some people want to keep religion out of government, and they refuse to admit that the First Amendment only prohibits the establishment of a national church by the government. Also, Rhode Island was the '''only''' colony that supported a "separation" of church and state. Other colonies actually funded religion in various ways.

In between Massachusetts and Virginia there was a third approach: that taken by Pennsylvania. William Penn was another extraordinary Englishman. He converted to become a Quaker in England and began practicing that religion in violation of English law. He was arrested and prosecuted, but the jury refused to convict him. The king owed his father money, and gave the son what is today Pennsylvania. It was nothing but woods at the time. But William Penn founded his colony based on one principle: religious freedom for all. He advertised in Europe and attracted peoples of many nationalities in addition to the English.

Penn was very kind to the Indians and soon had the most popular colony in America. Philadelphia, which means "brotherly love" in Greek, became America's greatest city, surpassing Boston in population in the 1700s. Only Pennsylvania and Maryland survived long-term under private ownership. Most of the other colonies were eventually taken over by the King of England, often due to troubles that arose in the colony.

Pennsylvania was founded over 50 years '''after''' Virginia and Massachusetts. Georgia was founded over 50 years after Pennsylvania, which means over 100 years after Virginia and Massachusetts. Philanthropist [[James Oglethorpe]] founded Savannah in Georgia in 1733 for poor debtors in jails of England, and to serve as a "buffer" colony to separate protect English South Carolina against possible encroachment by Spanish Florida. Oglethorpe was very religious and very strict. Too strict, in fact, for the King of England, who then took over the colony in 1751. The colony was not nearly as strong and developed as the other colonies, so the other colonies did not take it very seriously.

== Economic System ==

Ultimately, and this is the most difficult for students to understand, it is money ([[economics]]) that shapes much of history. If the colonies were profitable for their mother countries in Europe, then the mother countries would continue to support and defend the colonies. But if the colonies were a money-loser, as in costing more to defend then they make, then they are going to be abandoned or at least no longer protected by the European mother country.

Many of the colonies did make this work, and work well. An [[economic]] system called [[mercantilism]] began to develop in the 1600s and 1700s, which would lay the foundation for capitalism in the 1800s.<ref>http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/mercantilism.html</ref>

The basic concept of mercantilism is to limit imports from foreign countries (not including colonies), and maximize exports to everyone (including other colonies), in order to maximize the "trade surplus" (the amount by which receipts exceeds expenses). Colonies played an important role in this system by supplying raw materials at low cost to the mother country (e.g., England or France), which could then use the materials to produce low-cost finished products that could be sold to the world.<ref>http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Mercantilism.html</ref> By selling more than the country buys, it could accumulate a surplus in money (gold) and become wealthier. In other words, mercantilism was an economic system in which the colonies existed to give raw materials to mother country (England), and buy her finished products, so that England could export more than it imported and thereby increase its gold reserves from a surplus in the balance of trade.

But there's no free lunch, and these European nations were all-too-happy to use slavery to do the back-breaking work of gathering the raw materials, such as crops and minerals. A slave trade developed to bring blacks from Africa to the New World in order to work the plantations for the settlers from [[England]] and other European powers.

The [[Spanish]] had a different system: they used a modified form of [[feudalism]], known as the encomienda system, in order to force the Indians to do the hard work. The "encomienda" was a grant by the King or Queen of Spain of power over Indians within a geographic region, a grant that was given to an "encomendero", who was the Spaniard in that region who would put the Indians to work.<ref>http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/scott-m.html</ref> The Indians themselves became known as the economiendas.

The Spanish system looked better in theory, because the encomendero was supposed to educate the encomiendas, convert them to Christianity (Catholicism), and not exercise any political power over them (as in telling them how to live). In practice, however, there were no "checks and balances" preventing exploitation and abuse of power in working the Indians.

Finally, College Board exams may ask about the "triangular trade" that supposedly dominated from 1640-1720. Later historians have used the image of triangle to show trade routes from West Africa to the New World America (the West Indies or the colonies), from there to Europe (England or continental Europe), and from there the boats presumably traveled back to West Africa to begin again. The harshest part of this route was the taking of slaves, bound in chains from West Africa to the New World. After the slaves disembarked, the New World would load goods onto the ships (such as raw molasses if the West Indies, or tobacco if Virginia) for transport to Europe. But what doesn't make sense about this theory is the following: what would Europe send on the ships back to Africa? Nothing comes to mind (other than a few goods to purchase the slaves), and not a single instance of an actual triangle route has ever been found. Perhaps finished product, like rum from the molasses, would be loaded onto the ships, but its intended destination would be the colonies, not Africa. So in reality the only triangle could only be traversed by the boats, not by actual trade.

'''Debate: Did "triangular trade" really exist?'''

== Topics for Discussion ==

*What, if anything, was the significance of [[Bacon's Rebellion]]?
*What challenges would the [[Puritans]] face in maintaining their strongly religious culture in the 1600s and 1700s?
*Question about bias: why would some want to take credit away from Columbus, and how might they do it?

== A Word About College Board Exams ==

Finally, a word about College Board exams. This course will give you the foundation -- if you like -- for taking three different College Board exams (usually a student takes only one of the three): the [[CLEP]], the [[AP]], and the [[SAT II]].

The CLEP is a multiple-choice exam that is recognized by most (but not all) colleges as a way to earn college credit. It costs about $70 and is administered on computers at local colleges, usually once a month. It is the least biased of the three exams, and not much advanced planning is needed to sign up for it.

The AP, or Advanced Placement exam, is given only once a year in May at local high schools, and is more expensive. It includes both multiple-choice and essay questions, and is used by more colleges to give credit for courses. In 2009, the AP exam for U.S. History is scheduled for Friday, May 9. The student must sign up for it long in advance, and make arrangements with a public high school.

The SAT II in American History is an inexpensive multiple-choice exam that takes only an hour and is given at high schools on Saturdays once a month, October through June, with registration available online at www.collegeboard.com . No college credit is given for it, but it is used for college applications to recognize achievement. The SAT II is the cheapest and most biased of the three exams, and is known for emphasizing liberal culture. Also, what counts as "economic history" is not what you might expect. There are almost no questions about the [[conservative]] gold standard, for example, even though that issue has been important throughout history (and was even an issue in [[Ron Paul]]'s campaign for presidency in 2008). Instead, questions about economic history on the SAT II are likely to be about unions, the treatment of workers, alleged corruption of big business, discrimination, and gender issues.

Notice what is missing on the College Board exams: military history. Unfortunately, many educators in the [[United States]] dislike the military, and that bias shows up on the exams. No questions are there about battles or key military strategies and decisions. The only time the military shows up on these exams is when they have a political impact.

Each of these College Board exams can be taken as often as one likes, though it is difficult to take the AP exam more than once because it is offered only once a year, and it is expensive to retake the CLEP exam. The SAT II, which is cheaper, is the easiest to take more than once and colleges look only at the highest score.

There is absolutely no requirement to take any of these College Board exams as part of this course, and references to the exams are used more as a way of helping you see the "big picture," as in how much time should be spent on a particular period or historical topic. Our class has only two required, multiple-choice exams: a midterm and a final. This course will help students improve their test-taking skills on multiple-choice exams. We will have weekly homework assignments consisting of short-answer questions.

== References ==
<references/>

== See also ==
* [[American History Homework One]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Talk:Roman Catholicism

2008-09-14T22:01:32Z

KennyMac: /* What a waste of time */

==This is a rough start and others will need to help==
I'm out of my depth here. I really wanted to write something that explains that "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are not synonyms. I think what I've written is sorta-kinda-roughly correct, and I'm not knowingly trying to push any particular point of view. If I've inadvertently stepped on any Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican toes here, my apologies, and please fix whatever I've gotten wrong. (Try to keep it "as simple as possible, but no simpler.") [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Generally, catholic (lowercase) means "universal", whereas Catholic refers to the RCC, by default. If speaking of an Orthodox Catholic church usually it's denoted as to which branch is being discussed. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:39, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, "Catholic" doesn't refer to the Roman Catholic Church. The "Roman Catholic Church" refers to a specific Rite of the Catholic Church. It's the largest rite, by far, but is not the only rite in the Catholic Church. (These rites are also distinct from the Orthodox Churches. They have little to do with the Great Schism.) I'll try to see if I can clean this up a bit. As it now stands, it's more wrong than right. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 22:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::In the last edit, we lost the information about non-Roman and non-Latin rites:
::''Catholics, on the other hand, believe that the Roman Catholic Church, as the single true church founded by Christ, is the universal Catholic Church. Some prefer not to refer to their own church as the "Roman" Catholic Church, on the grounds that such formulations implicitly deny this point of doctrine.''
::I'd argue that it's not the ''Roman'' Catholic Church that is the single true church, but, rather, the ''Catholic'' Church. I understand that in the US (and in the west, in general) the two terms seem interchangeable, but I'd rather not lose the distinction between Roman Catholic and Catholic.[[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 03:01, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Moved here, until sourced:
:Findings of an investigation determined that sexual abuse of children could probably be almost halved if women were allowed to be ordained in the church.
I've never seen any such study, and I'm not sure how it would even be determined. I also changed hebephilia to ephebophilia, which is more commonly used (both words mean an attraction towards adolescents). [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 22:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==Lone sentence==

:Roman Catholics claim to be the apostolic successors of Saint Peter, who was given authority over his flock in the Bible.

Can this be merged? Was at [[Roman Catholics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:35, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:This should be attributed to the Pope, not specifically to Catholics themselves.[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

<s>==Second Vatican Council==
This should be its own subsection as "The Church" prior and post to the Council were almost two different churches?[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
</s>

Oops, wrote too soon, I didn't realize the "Roman Catholic Church" article already existed.[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Controversy?==
I dont know if it is so smart to put that in yet. I mean like put some factual stuff then put in the controversy, because making an article negative is not very appeasing to a reader. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 08:41, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

What do you expect on this site? Conservapedia has a deeply unhealthy obsession with paedophiles and gay sex. Really makes me worried about a lot of the editors. --[[User:Bible Mike|Bible Mike]] 10:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

lol i do not have an obsession witht that. that is nasty. ew why would you ever say that? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 10:29, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

This paragraph is just a bad copy of wikipedia and media, in their obvious attempt to discredit the Roman Catholic church and the worthy work in education of children. Child abuse is a mortally sin, no doubt and deserves severe prosecution, but where are the facts showing that child abuse happens more often by catholic clergymen than by other teachers or male relatives? --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:09, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Requirements==
Currently, the article states:
:To belong to the Catholic Church one must accept as factually true the gospel of our lord Jesus Christ. "The chief teachings of the Catholic church are: God’s objective existence; God’s interest in individual human beings, who can enter into relations with God (through prayer); the Trinity; the divinity of Jesus; the immortality of the soul of each human being, each one being accountable at death for his or her actions in life, with the award of heaven or hell; the resurrection of the dead; the historicity of the Gospels; and the divine commission of the church. In addition the Roman Catholic Church stresses that since the members, living and dead, share in each other’s merits, the Virgin Mary and other saints and the dead in purgatory are never forgotten."

I might argue some of those points. Primarily, to be Catholic is to be baptized (including, possibly, a baptism of faith) and to participate in the sacraments. I'd accept creedal statements along the lines of the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed as possible requirements of faith. Belief in the existence of God, sure. In Jesus, in his death and resurrection, sure. In the resurrection of the body, in the communion of saints in life everlasting, sure. But the historicity of the Gospels? The divine commission of the Church? Sure, these are things that are taught by the Church. But I don't know that they're necessary to being Catholic. (I'm not sure why one would be Catholic if one didn't believe the divine commission of the Church, but still...) And, more importantly, I'd say that to belong to the Catholic Church is to participate in the sacraments--to receive the Eucharist, to be baptized, to be reconciled to God, and so on. The church is at least as much a sacramental church as a creedal church (and, I'd argue, it's more a sacramental church than a creedal church). [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 23:34, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Catholics not as Christians? ==
Do we really need that part? It just doesn't really sound very encyclopedic. According to two websites Catholics aren't Christians, but according to some other websites out there aliens are secretly in control of the government. I feel I have to raise a question concerning that bit. Recomend it is deleted, or the contention be in some way justified.[[User:Jnl001|Jnl001]] 14:49, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:It's a matter of definitions. They are christian in the loosest sense - they worship Christ. But many protestants consider that this definition is too loose, the RCC cannot be considered 'true' christians because they do not follow some of the fundamental teachings contained in the bible (eg, salvation by faith alone) or because they introduce some major elements that are not present in the bible (eg, a succession of popes, infant babtism, a church heirachy). Conversely, the Catholic Church will not recognise any *other* church as Christian formally, except the Orthodox church, because they consider a church is not legitimate unless it can trace ancestry back to Peter. Personally, I think the Catholic church isn't Christian in the most important sense of all: It's members are not Saved, because they are placing their faith in the church organisation and their rituals rather than in the personal salvation of Jesus. For this reason, while I will admit they are Christian, I personally consider them misguided and unintentionally extremally dangerous, and an organisation I am obliged to oppose. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 07:36, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

== Roman Catholicism ==

The Title of this Entry should actually be Latin Rite Catholicism. The Latin Rite ("Roman Catholic") Church does not actually identify itself as "Roman Catholic", it Calls itself the "Latin Rite" of the "Catholic Church"

This said their needs to be a separate entry for "Catholicism".

{{unsigned|Pyranima}}

== Are Roman Catholics Christians? ==

Now, I have been thinking about this for some time. As seen from many sources like Wikipedia, the Roman Catholics are indeed Christian. However, according to many Christian fundamentalist sources, the Roman Catholics are not Christian because they believe in many unbiblical things such as the infant baptism, sacraments, Mary worship, etc.

My question is, should the articles in Conservapedia concerning Christianity have the idea that Christianity is really a "biblical, based-on-the-Bible Christianity", not just a religion whose people are Christians just because they say "We are Christians"?

(To any born-again Christians, you may understand my question)

[[User:MaveYEL]]
: I understand the question. Whether or not someone is a Christian depends on their own relationship with God, not on what church they belong to. Also, probably no Christian has a perfect set of beliefs: probably every Christian believes ''something'' that is contrary to biblical teaching. So "believing many unbiblical things" does not, of itself, mean that someone is not a Christian.
: I would classify the Roman Catholic Church as "Christian", because it holds that Jesus is God, but I would also think that ''many'' people who are members of the church are not Christians, partly because many are members of the church out of tradition rather than conversion, and partly because there is insufficient emphasis on faith-based conversion. But that doesn't mean that there are not (many?) Christians in the Roman Catholic church.
: I feel that some "fundamentalist" Christians are too harsh on Catholics, although that is not to dismiss their valid objections to many Catholic teachings, such as the ones you mention. And I would ask, is the Catholic church any worse than many liberal churches that reject the historicity of the creation account, accept homosexuality, reject miracles, etc. etc.? I do feel that there is a fair bit of inconsistency there.
: Does Conservapedia handle this issue the best way it can? Probably not, but then Conservapedia's not perfect either!
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:22, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

(This is a discussion that may take a long time and much effort. I try not to talk too much on it, although I would like to clarify all doubts in this issue)

Hmm, here is my answer.

First: I do believe that some Catholics may be indeed Christians, that is receiving Jesus as their own personal Savior, as many Protestant fundamentalists say. However, if a Catholic is a Christian, his "Catholic" status is just a label. I see many people in Malaysia that are practically Christians, but have "Islam" status in their citizenship cards because of discrimination to the ex-Muslim converts in the country. The same thing may apply to some Catholics.

However, folks, this kind of case whereby a "Catholic" is a Christian is very unlikely to happen. A person, if saved and a Christian, knows the truth of salvation (except if he is an infant). For practising Catholics, do you really think they are Christians if everytime they think they are born again, it is because they are baptized (sprinkled)? Or, do you think they are Christians if everytime they think they received Jesus as Lord and Savior, it is because they eat the wafer god?

Second: I agree that the Catholics are no different with the liberal "Protestants". There is such a thing as true converts and false converts. (See Ray Comfort video for that one)

Third: If we have to classify Roman Catholicism as a Christian church, I think we have to define what Christianity means. My belief of Christianity is the biblical teaching of Jesus and the Bible. The "Christianity" mentioned everywhere else and the more common one is a collection of my biblical Christianity and the so-called pseudo-Christianity. Even if we have to choose the more common "Christianity" as the definition, I hope the term is defined first. Otherwise, some people including me will be upset with the statement like "Christianity comprises you-know-what".

:This will be a tricky one. What one church considers an indisputable fundamental of the faith, another will consider heresy. There are even some who claim to be Christian, yet deny the miracles described in the Gospels. About the only thing that everyone who calls themself a Christian can agree on is that Jesus was important, somehow. Obviously we need a defintion just to stop the really strange churches from declaring themselves in. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 07:36, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

[[User:MaveYEL]]

I think that this is a prime canidate to be a debate page, and though I`m not clear on how to make a debate page, maybe someone could for me

Just a thought but this article implies that the catholic church is the church that followed on from the ministry of Jesus. This isn't the case. The early Catholic church (it is alleged)known by scholars as the Pauline church (as it subscribed to the teachings of Paul of Tarsus,) engaged in a power struggle with what was at the time the established "Jerusalem Church" led by Jesus' brother James the Just. After the killing of James by a follower of the Pauline tradition (by throwing him off the corner of the temple mount and finishing him off with a fullers mallet)the Jerusalem church fled into the diaspora and the catholic church has done its best to suppress its existance ever since.
Would this be a worthwile edition?
The article is fairly scanty on the catholics role in evangalism accross the globe and its repository of history and knowledge particularly after the collapse of the Roman Empire. I realise that website is conservative in nature and the rift between The episcapalian ministry and The catholic church run's pretty deep in america and conservapedia tends to see people or groups with either a white hat or a black one, but surely Catholocism's influence on art, histiography and western culture in generalneeds to be acknowledged.

[[Trident1222]]

:Conspiracy theories that are not supported in the ancient documents will not get play here. You are taking a historical event, the death of James the brother of Jesus as recorded in history, and then adding on a fanciful addition of a "Pauline" cause. No. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:08, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

==What a waste of time==
I've tried three times to correct egregious mistakes in the Early History of this section and each time they've been reverted by a sysop with no explanation. The moral of this story is, if you write factual content that the people who run Conservapedia (which doesn't at all mean the same thing as people who are politically conservative, as understood anywhere outside the USA) find uncomfortable, the Conservapedia hierarchy will simply make an ex cathedra pronouncement that you're wrong and zap your edits.

I really can't be bothered arguing with them any longer. If their attitude to something as abstruse as the early history of the Catholic Church is that they'll believe what they want to believe, not what modern scholarship has discovered, then you can't believe a single word you read in this so-called encyclopedia about much more important subjects, like global warming or USA Presidential candidates. [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 09:47, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

:You have chosen to alter the article to put your own spin by simply removing enmasse what you did not like and adding what you wished, without discussing in talk, and without sources. When you were told this was not the way we operate and to rework it, you refused and simply put back the same unacceptable material. Even now you have an aggrandized view of yourself by putting this at the top of the talk section and not appending it to the bottom of the page in chronological order like everyone else has done. (I have move it for you). You do not work with others for the bettermen of the article. When you are serious about article improvement then you will be welcomed to return, but until that time, your departure will not be mourned. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:49, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

::All my edits were aimed at improving the factual content on the article. Much of the section of this article dealing with the early period is basically the agreed mythology of the church and has little connection with history. If you're seriously interested in the history of the early church, you should read 'The Formation of Christendom' by Judith Herrin (1987, Fontana). Professor Herrin is one of the leading scholars of church between 400 and 800 AD. But I warn you, this isn't a comfortable read for anyone who wants to believe in a myth of a unified church with Constantine the Great establishing an benign empire based on Christian principles.

::Anyway, Learn together, I've seen here and from many other edits you've made to other articles, that you - like most of the Conservapedia sysops (Philip J Rayment being an honourable exception - there may be others but I haven't seen them) - are perfectly happy to revert factual corrections to articles made by others if they happen to disagree with the cosy world view of American "conservatives", without explanation of any kind. Now, there may be many facts which are uncomfortable for the world-view of American "conservatives" (I repeat that this has very little connection with conservative politics outside the USA) but you and the other conservative sysops have to decide if you want to construct an encyclopedia of knowledge or an encyclopedia of approved prejudices for American "conservatives".

::I'm going to correct this article once more (this time, I'll add the Herrin reference). If you revert my edits, I'll conclude that facts which conflict with American "conservative" prejudices aren't welcome here. Your choice.[[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 17:42, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::What I see is that you are simply reinserting the same information, again without discussion as to individual merit, and basically saying that should be enough and any effort to revert it will look poorly upon me - no. I also have to ask what edits of Philip's in Roman Catholicism or the other articles you have edited led you to your conclusions?

:::I have allowed you to stay because you do have knowledge which I believe could be beneifical, but your approach must improve. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:13, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::::That's an improvement on your first contribution to this discussion. Which, if you recall, was to block me for a fortnight and label my contribution as vandalism, simply because I had corrected some serious errors in the article. [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 18:01, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:American History Lecture One

2008-09-14T00:27:44Z

KennyMac: /* Triangular Trade */

Barack Hussein Obama

2008-09-14T00:15:43Z

KennyMac: /* Early life and education */ Holidays (very puzzled about why CP people think this matters one jot)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-09-14T00:13:31Z

KennyMac: /* "My Muslim Faith" quote */ Why is it a big deal?

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]

== No longer presumptive ==

He's the real-deal nominee at this point. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]] 13:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:He's presumptive in the sense that Obama is far too inexperienced to be President. [[User:Redstatepride|Redstatepride]] 18:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

== Education In Jakarta, Indonesia ==

All students in Indonesia, regardless of religion get off for Islamic holy days including Nabi Isa which we know as Christmas. It's disengenuous to make a claim that because he went to a public school and got an Islamic holy day off that there's some nefarious connection. Muslims that attend Catholic school have to attend Mass whether they like it or not.--[[User:EmpressG1973|EmpressG1973]] 17:01, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

I think the point is that Barack Hussein Obama was observing an islamic holy day when he is claiming to be Christian. It just does'nt add up to alot of people and should make Christians think twice about him. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Actually it was his '''school''' that was observing the holiday. When a child attends a school, they can't just choose which days they want to take off. Your argument is ridiculous.-- [[User:rkstiner|rkstiner]]

How is my point incorrect? You can nit-pick it all you want but Obama attended a muslim school and observed muslim holidays. Thats all there is to it. Take your liberal name-calling elsewhere. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

:So a Jew who attends a public school in this country doesn't go to school on Christmas, so he is therefore observing a Christian holiday? Making him, I suppose, a Christian? Doesn't make sense. [[User:MichaelR|MichaelR]] 16:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

::You shouldn't have to defend it at all. Barack Hussein Obama is very likely a muslim there is strong evidence to suggest it. Since when is being a muslim such a bad thing? It's not, unless your running for President and try to lie about it. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

== Reversion Explained ==

We don't post a politician's self-serving claptrap. Obama catered to anti-patriotic donors to win the nomination. There's no real dispute about that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:Remember, Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy, and children read this website. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::What's your point? That children don't need to know he flip flopped on wearing a flag pin? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 15:39, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::The point is that children especially should be told the truth. Include the flip-flopping by all means, but also include his explanation for why he did flip-flop. This has more validity then stating "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." Adequate to whom? By what criteria is the inadequacy judged? If he had explained it by saying "it's none of your business", or did not offer an explanation, then certainly that would qualify as "without adequate explanation." Remember: Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:56, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I agree that citing his explanation and then explaining why conservatives find it inadequate would be an improvement. I would make said improvement, but I am currently hard "at work". [[User:TJason|TJason]] 16:09, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action President ==

I reverted the removal of "affirmative action president" for now. Corey, can you explain why this is racist? If affirmative action isn't racist, why is describing someone as an "affirmative action president" racist? Is your problem with the description that it is racist? Or that it is untrue? I think these are two separate issues. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 10:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:This speaks to what I think is an enormous problem with affirmative action (no, I'm not a complete supporter), claiming that a minority only got a job because they are a minority. I think that claiming that Barack Obama's political success comes only from his being black is racist demagoguery, or at least rhetoric designed to incite racial tensions. I have no doubt that there are some people who support Obama only because of the color of his skin, just the same as there are those who oppose him only for the same reason. Also, I will not say that there isn't a desire by many people to see somebody other than white male in the White House. But this is not the ''only'' reason most of Obama's supporters have for supporting him, as the term "affirmative action president" suggests. He has political experience and he is a deft politician, which figures greatly in a political campaign. I would implore anybody who considers Obama to have no accomplishments to compare his life to that of our sitting president before 2000. Some time in office, a string of business failures, and questionable service in the Texas Air National Guard. Fortunately for G.W. Bush, his father is Bush 41. Bush supporters discuss his successes as his own doing. Claiming that Obama's are not his own because he is black sounds rather racist to me. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::George W. Bush was governor of Texas; some people consider that to be a political accomplishment. I think you will have to go pretty far back to find a candidate for President whose entire political career was two years as a Senator. In 1988 Dan Quayle was blasted for his lack of experience for a Vice Presidential candidate, and he had already served many more years in the Congress than Barack Obama has. Like it or not Obama was fasttracked and bypassed the usual protocols because of the color of his skin. Whether or not this is appropriate is left to each individual to decide. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::A governorship is certainly a political accomplishment, one which George W. Bush would probably have been unable to attain were it not for his father's name. There is hardly any information on the George W. Bush entry on this site pertaining to his life before his presidency, the details of which would likely lead many people to conclude that were George H.W. Bush not so well-connected his son would not be president. In contrast, the opening paragraph of Obama's entry uses his race to attack him politically. I find this hard to rationalize. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::There is not usually an understood litmus test for governor. Some people are longterm politicians, others are not. For instance Arnold held only minor political appointments before he became governor of California. But the Presidency has generally required proving yourself in some capacity. Bush was a well respected governor who received high marks. Carter, Clinton, and Reagan had all been governors. Someone running for President who has not successfully governed a state and has only been in Congress for 2 years is very out of the ordinary. Again, note what Quayle was put through and he was only a Vice Presidential candidate. That being said, I am not necessarily supporting the article in the form it has taken. I have not read it in quite some time, but if it is a leadoff then that would seem to be inappropriate. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:47, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Obama's experience is fair game, and I agree that he has not had as much time in political office as the average candidate. I think that using race as an issue detracts from this fair and logical line of debate. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::I don't think that the term "affirmative action president" suggests that affirmative action is the '''only''' reason Obama is where he is. I think the term is supposed to denote that his being black is a '''major''' force behind his success. Also, I think the term brings to light that, historically, this is a first. No previous nominee has been the beneficiary of affirmative action in the way Obama has. At any rate, ''I'' won't revert the edit if you remove it again, since you've made your case and I am not willing to fight to keep it in. I suspect others might, though. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Where has he explicitly benefited from affirmative action programs? This is a "heads, I win, tails, you lose" situation. If he doesn't get into Harvard Law or win an election, it's because of lack of merit. If he succeeds, it's because the standards were lowered due to his race. This is an extremely dubious political argument. Attack him on his policies, voting record, character, or fitness to lead: fire as they bear! That's our process, and it's a good process. But these race arguments are petty, desperate, and drag our political discourse down to a despicable level. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I am pretty sure that Harvard Law Review has an affirmative action policy, but I will have to check. Regardless, I think the term also covers "implicit" affirmative action that has benefited Obama (e.g. a white candidate with his experience would not be taken seriously). [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:10, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::"Implicit" affirmative action seems to be in the realm of vagueness and speculation. I refer you to Conservapedia Commandment 1: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:25, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Like I said, I'm not really willing to fight over this. We are at least in agreement that this is a distraction from the real issue: his actual positions. I reverted the edit because I thought what was said in the edit comment should have been spelled out in the talk page. It has been. Therefore, if you want to remove the reference again, I won't revert it again.[[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I have no intention of perpetuating a pointless revert war, either, and I agree that discussion of the real issues suffer because of such statements. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== "Alleged" birth revert ==

Even the National Review doesn't dispute the [http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk= authenticity of Obama's birth certificate.] Why is Obama's birth information being censored by this website? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:30, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::There is no censorship here. Removing any mention that there is doubt about the authenticity of his birth certificate is censorship, imho. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:34, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::However, the way rumor is so prominently injected into the article within the first five words is clear weasel-wording. A separate section regarding the issue would be more appropriate than saying that he was "allegedly" born somewhere, and I wouldn't oppose such a section. Seeing as how you usually hear the word "allegedly" on the news while watching a video of a perp walk, it is unnecessarily loaded language. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:42, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And accusing senior CP members of "weasel-wording" isn't loaded? You should watch your step. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:46, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:: We know many [[liberal]]s love [[deceit]], and the birth certificate posted by [[Obama]]'s campaign has obvious defects. Even its number is blotted out for unexplained reasons. There are still unanswered questions about his place and date of birth, and what is on his real certificate, which his campaign has not released. We provide the information about this and let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:12, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Then maybe the thing to do would be to dedicate a separate section to present the issue. It would be much clearer and provide more information than the status quo. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 14:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::I have reverted another removal of the word "alleged" since there are still unanswered questions about his birth certificate. Is the consensus that this should be made into a new section? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 17:18, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would agree with a section. This entire article could do with a better layout and more sectioning. Our John McCain article is better in this regard - perhaps we could use this as a blueprint? [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 17:38, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) We seem to be in agreement. I'll make a section tomorrow, under the "Published Criticism" section. I would like to add that I love it when people of different viewpoints can meet in the middle. Good night. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:44, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:I like the changes you have made. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::(edit conflict) Thank you. As discussed, I added a section regarding the birth certificate controversy and removed "alleged" from the intro paragraph. I tried to make it as evenly written as I could. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:40, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::Also, what is up with the tag at the beginning of the article? I don't know what this is used for, but it doesn't appear to be doing anything except make "span" the first word in the article. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:44, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

:::1. You're right- I scanned the diff and thought he removed the Daily Kos ref. 2. I don't know. I never noticed it before. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:46, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

== We have a problem ==

Okay... to start things off I am deathly afraid of this man getting elected and think he would ruin our wonderful nation. I do think that the media is helping him and realize that he is basically "the chosen one." My conservative principles help me make all of those opinions. Heres the thing. This place exists because someone thought that wikipedia was biased and unfair... but honestly... some of this stuff borders on propaganda! For Pete's sake our job as conservatives is too tell the truth and expose things about him. This page is going too far. I'm embarrassed to know that my fellow conservatives wrote this! This page can still be dedicated to exposing the truth about "the chosen one." But we'll be SO much more effective if we do it properly and fairly. If you want to contact me its easier to do so at my wikipedia talk page of the same name. Thank you and lets try to do better please. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 15:32, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: A true conservative would be appalled at Wikipedia and not contribute to their cause-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:39, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

== Hussein Obama's Birth Certificate Number ==

I copied this from the [[Talk:Main_Page#Obama_Born_In_U.S.A.|Main Page Talk section]] to here because you all might find it of interest. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

----
:[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Look at this photo], is this Barack Obama's birth certificate? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 23:44, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

::It's interesting that they finally give the, so-called authentic, birth certificate number in this supposedly unfaked photo. It is '''151 1961 - 010641'''. The reason I bring this up, and I think the REAL reason this was masked, is because numerological analysis shows something very disturbing. If you add up the three sets of digits thus:<blockquote>151 + 1961 + 010641 = 12753</blockquote>and then add the individual digits of the result thus:<blockquote>1 + 2 + 7 + 5 + 3 = 18</blockquote>the final result, 18, is the product of three sixes (3 x 6 = 18). Three sixes, or [[666]], sort of speaks for itself. I just thought this was interesting. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:22, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
----

I think it's rather obvious that AdmiralNelson doesn't take this site seriously. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 20:51, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Does anyone? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:05, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm giving it a chance. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 21:14, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:::So am I. I new here and was hoping to find stuff that would challenge my beliefs, so far not much luck. [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:21, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I quote myself? '''I just thought this was interesting.''' For "seriousness" [[Special:Contributions/AdmiralNelson|I stand by my record]]. Feel free to check it out. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:29, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

==Lawsuit==
The guy filing the lawsuit doesn't dispute the fact that he he was born in Honolulu. He is disputing that Obama is a US citizen after he lived in Indonesia. So why does it say allegedly born still? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 19:08, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

: I think he does dispute it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Dilution ==

Don't dilute the entry by referring to the silly text messaging stunt in the first paragraph.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I put it down in the Presidential Campaign section instead then? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:49, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Requested change ==
Original text:
{{Cquote|On June 3rd, Barack Obama had received enough pledged delegates and the endorsement of superdelegates to be called the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party by the Democratic National Committee. The nomination became official when Hillary Clinton conceded on June 7th.}}
Requested new text:
{{Cquote|Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 3rd after receiving a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. His only remaining primary opponent, [[Hillary Clinton]], conceded the race on June 7th. On August 23, Joe Biden was announced as Obama's vice-presidential nominee. Obama became the official Democratic nominee on August 27 at the Democratic National Convention, when Hillary Clinton's motion to end the roll call vote of the states and select Obama by acclamation was passed.}}
This more accurately describes what happened and updates the section with last week's events. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 17:02, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
===Another===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=506483&oldid=505653 This link] should be commented out until [[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate| this abysmal essay]] is fixed. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 17:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==Pearl Harbor issue==

The entire section regarding his comments about Pearl Harbor has got to go. There is no reason to imply that someone leaving an 's' off the word 'bomb' (''bomb'''s''''' did fall on Pearl Harbor, that much is true, right?) means they ignore or disdain American history. I'm guessing the McCain article makes no immediate mention of his confusion over the borders of Iran, or his lack of knowledge about the situation in Iraq, illustrated by the fact that he mixed up the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. Do either of those things make sense? NO! I'm sure John McCain knows what he's talking about, and I'm sure he's not confused about the issues at hand. Obviously, which course of action he chooses to follow is eternally and rightly up for debate, and if we want to highlight that debate about Obama, then that's fine. But it's ridiculous - nay, ridicule-worthy - to say that Obama leaving out an 's' means he thinks Pearl Harbor was nuked. That's so stupid it turns neurons into Pop Rocks. [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 19:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

No, it should stay, the man's an idiot, clearly. Also - I added the "any educated person would know" bit, which Jareddr just removed. But I'd point out that many of the younger generation ''don't'' know that it wasn't one bomb. I've even spoken to young folk who confuse Pearl Harbor with Hiroshima, and think that the nuclear bomb was dropped on Pearl Harbor! It's remarkable how uneducated some of today's public-school educated youth are. Also, people from foreign countries may not know the context of Obama's gaffe. Perhaps that point might be allowed back in - Jareddr, if you want to re-word it yourself maybe? I think it's kind of important, the stupidity of his point might be missed otherwise. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:55, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:Then state something to the effect of, "In actuality, multiple bombs were dropped on Pearl Harbor during the Japanese mission." You didn't say anything about being foreign-educated, only "any educated person..." If you want to place it in context using my above phrasing, go ahead. But the entire section has already been set up to switch verbal miscues for "idiocy" so no need to pile on, as they say.

:Besides, you don't see anything on McCain's pages about him "not knowing" the difference between Sunni and Shiite, referencing Czechoslovakia (a now defunct country), or calling Putin the President of Germany.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:58, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:OK, I'l do that then Jareddr, thanks for the suggestion. As to the McCain entry, I don't think we need to highlight those issues, they're a distraction. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 15:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::True, we don't want to confuse the readers about the candidate storylines. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:11, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::The entry should be removed, since McCain failed to state how many homes he owns is no where to be seen on the McCain article. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 15:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Don't be ridiculous, Samuel. Many everyday Americans have trouble remembering how many homes they own. Sometimes they own a home, but it's in someone else's name, or it's just a vacation lodge, or it's a few homes on one piece of property. Ask people on the street how many homes they own, and I guarantee very few will answer! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:46, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: McCain isn't running to be a real estate agent for the country.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:52, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::True, but he spoke about real estate business, and it's undeniably a large factor in the economy, which is a current problem. Compare that to Obama and 60 years ago? Oh Please. Thanks for the sarcasm Jared. :P [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 16:39, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Obama isn't running to be a history teacher for the country either, though. One could argue that if you're going to enforce a populist message, and cast yourself as an "everyman" and your opponent as "elite", you should be able to answer how many homes you have on command. We're not looking for net value, just a (presumably) single-digit number. I'm not aware of any "everyman" that forgets that number, but I'm sure some "elite" may forget. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Obama can try that next, Samuel: "Who cares about what happened at Pearl Harbor? That was 60 years ago!!!" Good luck to him and his supporters with that absurd approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:12, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::What's more absurd is putting words in my mouth (as well as Obama's, apparently?), as if I were trying to say that I didn't care about Pearl Harbor. I said no such thing. I was comparing something that happened over 60 years ago to present time in relevance to gaffe, nothing more and nothing less, in comparison to Obama's article and McCain's. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 19:29, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Obama's gaffe was about an essential element of American history that defines our country; McCain's was not. We do expect presidents to know important aspects of American history. We really do. We don't care if they can tell you how wealthy they are, or how many houses they own.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::And yet McCain's belief in an Iraq/Pakistan border - and his belief that a country named "Czechoslovakia" still exists - shows how out of touch he may be with the issues that matter NOW.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 19:42, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:I won't compare the semantics of how you measure the impact and importance of a slip-up, but it ''is'' rather telling that the Obama article prominently features such a slip-up while the McCain article apparently doesn't. This doesn't compute. Both of them have had weird moments ("President Putin of Germany", anybody?), and in fact, everybody has slip-ups. Bushisms, anybody? So why do we have to pick on Obama's mistakes alone?
:An encyclopedia needs consistent standards. Entries about similar topics should be comparable. They should be similar in style. They should follow the same intuitive standards.
:Overall, the McCain article looks like a very good example of how such an entry should look like (kudos to those who made it that way), and the Obama article is a prime example of something that would look great on some obvious right-wing propaganda site, but ''not'' in an encyclopedia. The part before the TOC should be condensed and moved to another part of the article. The intro section (the part before the TOC) is supposed to be an ''intro''. It should briefly sum up who he is and what he does, period. Then come biography sections, then his political stuff, then the Presidential campaign. And THERE you should feature the notable events or slip-ups. I'm most definitely no Obama supporter, but when comparing the McCain and Obama articles, you don't have to do a deep analysis to figure out that this site is way more political activism than encyclopedia, and I think that should change. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:22, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

== Citation Needed ==

The first sentence in the second paragraph about Barack Obama reads this:
Obama almost always reads from prepared text on a teleprompter and rarely allows tough questions.

It then gives the citation down at the bottom, which reads this:
After one debate against Hillary Clinton in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her.

I don't think that's a real citation. Does a link not need to be provided? Just like anybody can type anything on the main page, anybody can type anything as the citation too. I would suggest either finding legitimate proof to this claim, or just take it down.

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

The whole tone of this article on Barack Obama is appalling. It is poorly written, inaccurate, misleading, insulting and thoroughly vile. I would be ashamed to publish such contemptible stuff.

: That's your first -- and only -- contribution here. Hope you can do better than that!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:17, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

I see someone is watching the Obama talk page like a hawk. I stand by my previous remarks and hope to be adding many more in the near future.

: Good for you. And my hope is that you'll have better contributions to this site than what you've done so far.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:25, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

:: I have to say that to a foreigner, this article reads like one-sided drivel. Some of it is so blatantly ridiculous that it gives a negative impression of the people writing it, not Obama. Surely you should be attacking him over his policies rather than a non-existent issue over where he was born or some completely pathetic nonsense about him taking holidays at the same time as other kids in his school. (Amazing but true: Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist children in Britain take holidays at Christmas and Easter; they don't volunteer for extra classes on those days.) This article reads as though you've given up all hope of defeating him on political grounds and are just falling back on rather silly personal remarks. Surely you can do better than that! (Kindly read that as constructive criticism.) [[User:Googly|Googly]] 19:45, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== I'm noticing a very disturbing pattern... ==

# (cur) (last) 15:45, 8 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (59,707 bytes) (Reverted edits by Lodovico (Talk); changed back to last version by Ampersand) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 15:42, 8 September 2008 Lodovico (Talk | contribs) m (59,972 bytes) (Corrected information of misinterpretation) (undo)

Alright, so notice that Lodovico makes an edit, and adds sufficient reasoning for his edit in the apt column. Notice then that Andrew changes it, and doesn't even look to the talk page to provide ANY reasoning.

# (cur) (last) 23:55, 6 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (58,039 bytes) (Reverted edits by Chippeterson (Talk); changed back to last version by AliceBG) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 23:52, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,095 bytes) (→Senate career) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:19, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,052 bytes) (I don't like Obama anymore then ayone else on Conservapedia, but come on. The two pictures should be reversed) (undo)

Here again we have a very reasonable edit, that it reverted without adequate explanation.

# (cur) (last) 14:36, 25 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (57,388 bytes) (Reverted edits by Impm (Talk); changed back to last version by Aschlafly) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:35, 25 August 2008 Impm (Talk | contribs) (57,106 bytes) (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html He was born in Hawaii unequivocally.) (undo)

Impm makes what appears to be a reasonable edit, and Andrew changes it again.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Citation_Needed <--- Here is another example; everyone is discussing the pertinent issue, including Andrew, but then drops out of the picture and: (cur) (last) 10:09, 27 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) (57,862 bytes) (restored material deleted by liberal censorship) (undo)

I'm just wondering, but why is it we have to discuss changes we want to make whenever an edit conflict arises, but Andrew doesn't? This makes it essentially impossible to edit any article that Andrew has become party to because you can never know which of your edits will be acceptable or not.

Then there is this: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Affirmative_Action_President

Despite the lack as a citation for the statement that caused that particular talk-page topic to manifest, and the lack-of-response from Andrew, any time this statement is changed Andrew swoops in and reverts it.

Am I alone in seeing this? Do I see a ghost ruffling the leafs or is it simply just the wind?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 19:51, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
:I've noticed it too, but I didn't think asking him about it would change anything. Especially on the "affirmative action president" thing. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:15, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::This is inane. It's been more at least a day now and we haven't even gotten a one sentence response yet; just more reverted edits without adequate explanation. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:28, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

::Welcome to conservapedia. Often if you attempt to question the work of ASchlafly, he will simply ignore you. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 18:33, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

::Jirby, be concise in your comments. This site isn't a liberal blog where people talk, talk, talk without saying anything. Reversions do not have a place for summarizing the reason in the wiki software. Also, people who only criticize conservatives without criticizing the liberal vandals lack credibility.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:::So the best you can do... is complain that my words are too big and my sentences are too long? And here I was trying my best not to mischaracterize you. Shame on me! It is also clearly evident that revisions do not have a comment box, but how does that keep you from posting your reasons for consistently reverting factual edits here? It doesn't. My concern also isn't with liberal/conservative/anarchist vandals because they're freaking obvious and will be dealt with without my input (unless in the case of the uppity negro comment from before) they have fallen under the radar of authority and it behooves me to say something. Now stop trying to shift this in a way as if it is MY fault for trying to make you accountable as per your own rules. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:49, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: Jirby, your above rant illustrates my point. I'm moving on and request that you be substantive and concise in the future.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:53, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

==Large repetitions!==
The "Published Criticism" section repeats, aside from a couple of sentances, almost word for word the introduction. This needs changing as it looks silly to have repetitions so I am going to leave this comment to see if there is any response and wait 48 hours and then go to work on fixing it. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 21:17, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

: Fine, but don't remove information from the introduction. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::I'll only remove the double-ups from the lower section. Thanks for the quick response! [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 21:20, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== Marxist/redistrubution of wealth line ==

Was just trying to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=512956&oldid=512942 fix my spelling error], not trying to revert Andy. --[[User:GunsandaBible|GunsandaBible]].

=="My Muslim Faith" quote==
I've seen the video of this quote and it is taken totally out of context. What Obama is saying is that JOhn McCain has not accused him of being a secret muslim. Does anyone really believe that this is Obama mistakenly revealing that he is a muslim? Anyone who has seen the video can't seriously believe that this is the case. This quote should be removed before people start taking it seriously. [[User:Billgates3|Billgates3]]

:Can someone explain why you think it would be such a big deal if Barack Obama were actually Muslim? (Leaving aside for the moment the lack of any evidence that he ever has been a Muslim.) I thought you guys in the USA believed in separation of religion and the state, so why does it matter what religion, if any, the President happens to follow? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 20:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Arianism

2008-09-13T23:55:15Z

KennyMac: Refs

Originating around AD 300, '''Arianism''' was the [[theology|theological]] view that [[Jesus]] was divine, but created and lesser than [[God]] the Father. It was considered to be a heresy.

Arianism was officially condemned as incorrect by the [[Council of Nicaea]] in 325, which gave its seal of authority to the established [[Holy Trinity|trinitarian]] view. The theology of the nature of Christ, including the Arian view, caused repeated religious and political turmoil im the [[Roman Empire]] up to the 5th Ecumenical Council in 553 AD.<ref>J. Herrin (1987) The Formation of Christendom. Fontana Press, London. </ref> In particular, the biggest influence and conflict due to Arianism was from the barbarian tribes surrounding the Empire. They had generally been [[Christianized]], but mostly followed an Arian creed and opposed the Orthodox faith.

The barbarian tribes which invaded [[Rome]], and caused its fall in 476, were often Arians. The [[Visigoths]] and the [[Ostrogoths]], and especially [[Theoderic]], were followers of the Arian heresy. It would take centuries before the [[trinity|trinitarian]] view prevailed in those regions.

<references/>

[[Category:Christianity]]

Arianism

2008-09-13T23:54:19Z

KennyMac: Reference added

Roman Catholic Church

2008-09-13T23:53:29Z

KennyMac: /* History */ Herrin ref

The '''Roman Catholic Church''' is headed by the [[Pope]] (Supreme Pontiff), the Bishop of [[Rome]], currently [[Pope Benedict XVI]]. It is the largest [[Christian]] denomination in the world, with more than 1.3 billion officially Baptized adherents (In the United States more than 64 million.) The [[Roman]] Catholic Church is the oldest institution in the western world. The Roman Catholic faith teaches that the Pope is the successor of [[St. Peter]], the 'rock' ([[Gospel of Matthew|Matt]] 16:18) upon whom Jesus built his church. The term [[Catholic Church]] is, literally, the ''Universal Church'' of [[Jesus Christ]] (from the Greek ''katholikos'', "universal").

''"The chief teachings of the Catholic church are: [[God]]’s objective existence; God’s interest in individual human beings, who can enter into relations with God (through prayer); the Trinity; the divinity of Jesus; the immortality of the [[soul]] of each human being, each one being accountable at death for his or her actions in life, with the award of heaven or hell; the resurrection of the dead; the historicity of the [[Gospels]]; and the divine commission of the church. In addition the Roman Catholic Church stresses that since the members, living and dead, share in each other’s merits, the [[Virgin Mary]] and other saints and the dead in purgatory are never forgotten." '' <ref> [http://www.bartleby.com/65/ro/RomanCat.html The Columbia Encyclopedia]</ref> The presence of Christ is believed to be present in the Eucharist, the bread and wine is Jesus himself. Another essential belief is the veneration of Mary, the mother of Jesus as the Blessed Virgin Mary and veneration of the saints.

The principal sources for the essential beliefs of the Catholic Church are the Sacred Scriptures (the Bible), Sacred Tradition, and Living Magisterium of the Church.

The term Catholic is frequently applied to the Roman Catholic Church. Although many [[Protestantism|Protestant]]s object to Roman Catholics monopolizing the term, because the defined meaning of Catholic is "universal" and comes from the Greek word Katholikos. The Eastern [[Orthodox Church]] also refer to themselves as, "one holy, Catholic, and apostolic church..."<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/catholic</ref> Conversely, many Roman Catholics dislike the adjective "Roman" because it implies, contrary to (Roman) Catholic doctrine, that their church is not ''the'' universal Church of Christ.

[[Image:Cathpop.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Catholics in the world.]]

== History ==
The original Christian community was founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ and led by the Apostles. St. [[Paul|Paul the Apostle]] was, together with [[Saint Peter]], the most notable of Early Christian missionaries. Christians were deeply unpopular and were subjected to persecution, first under [[Nero]] and [[Domitian]], shortly after the foundation of the church, and again, more severely, under the emperors [[Decius]] and [[Diocletian]] in the third century. There were also sporadic persecutions by provincial administrators in response to popular agitation against Christians. Under [[Decius]] in particular, the penalty for being Christian could ultimately be death. After almost 300 years of persecution against the Church, Christianity nevertheless flourished in the major cities of the Empire.

In the early 4th century, the Emperor [[Constantine I]] claimed to have had a religious experience, although there was considerable scepticism about this among his contemporaries because he himself remained a catechumen until being received into the church on his deathbed. Nevertheless, he legalized Christianity, financed much church building in Rome under Pope Sylvester I, founded [[Istanbul|Constantinople]] as an explicitly Christian city and presided over the first Ecumenical Council, at Nicaea in 325. Going to war with the co-Emperor of the east [[Lucinius]], Constantine won and became sole Emperor. The age of persecution was over. In 380, Emperor [[Theodosius I]] accepted Christianity as the official religion of the [[Roman Empire]]. By the time of the fall of the Roman Empire in 476, the surrounding barbarian nations had been Christianized, although mostly they followed [[Arianism]]. Over the next few centuries, they embraced Catholicism.<ref>J. Herrin (1987) The Formation of Christendom. Fontana Press, London. </ref>

During the [[Middle Ages]] the Church underwent a time of missionary activity and expansion. After numerous disputes between eastern and western churches that became more pronounced from the ninth century onwards, the Church underwent the [[Great Schism]] in 1054 that divided it into a Western (Latin) branch, which has been called the Catholic Church and an Eastern branch, which has become known as the [[Orthodox Church]]. Both traced their roots to the time of Jesus, but the Orthodox Church did not acknowledge the Pope as the one leader of the Church. Instead, it believed that the theology, law and rituals of the church should be agreed by the bishops meeting in Ecumenical Council, not dictated by a single individual.<ref>J. Herrin (1987) The Formation of Christendom. Fontana Press, London.</ref> In effect, all patriarchs of national churches were regarded as equals.

The second major schism was the [[Protestant Reformation]] in the 16th century. As a reaction to the increasing popularity of Protestantism the Roman Catholic Church began to undertake some reforms. Firstly from 1869–1870 during the [[First Vatican Council]]. It was during the [[Second Vatican Council]] (1962–1965) that the most comprehensive reforms were undertaken. The Roman Catholic Church stretched relations with other Christian communities and other religions. The Roman Catholic Church also issued directions for a revision of the liturgy.

==Different churches==

The term "The Catholic Church" refers to any one of several Rites, but in the United States is often used synonymously for the largest Rite, the Latin Rite. Other Rites include the Byzantine, Alexandrian, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, and Chaldean Rites. Some Eastern rites have significant differences in liturgy, history, discipline and hierarchy from the Roman Catholic Church, but still recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) and are in communion with Rome. These Eastern Rite churches are Catholic and do not belong to the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]].

Despite important differences in doctrine, the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox Church's Holy Orders (priesthood) as valid; however, the Orthodox generally follow a theory of ordination for place and purpose -- so the notion of being ordained outside the Orthodox Church is meaningless, and no theory of validity is held to.

The Roman Catholic Church historically regarded [[Protestantism|Protestant]] Christianity as heretical, that is, being against Roman doctrine. However, this changed in the 1960's when [[Pope John XXIII]] called the Second Vatican Council, where '''the''' '''doors of the Church were opened wide''', and Protestants referred to as '''"our separated brethren".''' Protestants were neither impressed nor taken in by this apparent openness, noting that much of what had caused the Protestant Reformation had not changed within the Roman Catholic Church.

[[Image:JpII.jpg|right|thumb|John Paul II]]

The [[Anglican Church]] (Episcopalian in the United States) occupies an odd situation, because it encompasses within it factions ("Low Church") that emphasize its Protestant aspects and factions ("High Church") that emphasize its Catholic aspects. Anglo-Catholics regard the Anglican church as part of the Catholic Church, and in the unbroken line of the Apostolic Succession. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern branches take a position that could be described as saying that the Anglican Church is almost but not quite Catholic. There have long been unification overtures, and Anglican priests who wish to adopt Catholic Holy Orders are often provided with an abbreviated path to that goal.

The [[Nicene Creed]], the great historical statement of Christian belief, contains the line "I [or we] believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church". The [[Apostles' Creed]] contains a similar affirmation. However, Protestants and Catholics place different interpretations on the term "universal", or "catholic". Protestants believe that it refers to the general, over-arching spiritual unity of all Christian believers, Jew or gentile, which transcends individual churches and denominations. Catholics, on the other hand, believe that the [[Roman Catholic Church]], as the single true church founded by Christ, is the universal Catholic Church in which there is neither Jew nor gentile. Some prefer not to refer to their own church as the "Roman" Catholic Church, on the grounds that such formulations implicitly deny this point of doctrine.

== Saint Paul's Writings ==

[[Paul|St. Paul]] is the second most prolific contributor to the [[New Testament]]. Thirteen letters are attributed to him and fully known as the "Catholic (or Universal) Epistles of Paul". The letters are written in Greek. The epistles contain the basis of Christian doctrine, interpretation and commentary from earlier scriptures. They are full of expositions of what Christians should believe and how they should live.

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">

''St. Paul reminded the Christians how they should live. They should think about the things in heaven (Colossians 3:2), because they belong with Christ (Colossians 3:3-4). They should not do evil deeds (Colossians 3:5-11). Instead, they should love other people (Colossians 3:12-14). And they should serve God (Colossians 3:15-17). If we invite Jesus into our lives, we will become friends of God (Colossians 1:15-23).'' </blockquote>

St. Paul's influence on Christian thinking has been more significant than any other single New Testament author.

== Fathers ==

[[St. Ambrose]], Bishop of [[Milan]] from 374 to 397, was one of the most illustrious Fathers and [[Doctors of the Church]], and fitly chosen, together with [[St. Augustine]], [[St. John Chrysostom]], and [[St. Athanasius]], to uphold the venerable Chair of the Prince of the Apostles in the tribune of St. Peter's at Rome. <ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01383c.htm St. Ambrose] Catholic Encyclopedia.</ref>
 

==Controversy==
[[Image:Cerro_de_Angeles.jpg|right|thumb|Cerro de los Angeles, Madrid, Spain.]]
There has been much controversy in recent years about Catholic priests in relation to the abuse of children in their care. Cases of inappropiate sexual contact have been discovered in many churches across the world with many of the instances of abuse resulting in little or no repercussion for the priests involved. In some cases, bishops were aware of the abuse but did not effectively deal with it, allowing the abusive priest to continue to remain in contact with minors. Although words like pedophile were often used in the press, in truth 90% of the cases involved priests making overtures towards teenage boys, and not pedophilia. It was a case of breaking vows and homosexuality.<ref>http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=72992710807995&mkt=en-US&lang=en-US&w=98cf251&FORM=CVRE4</ref>.

On July 15 2007 in Los Angeles, the Catholic church paid a $660 million dollar settlement over a priest abuse scandal. More than five hundred lawsuits dating back to the 1930's were filed in Los Angeles from abuse victims of over two hundred priests and lay people. The U.S. Catholic church has paid out more than $2 billion in abuse claims dating back to 1950.<ref>[http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070715/la_archdiocese_070715/20070715?hub=CTVNewsAt11 L.A. Catholic church settlement]</ref>

Incidents of abuse are not unique to the Catholic Church. A recent article from Associated Press (June 19, 2007) reported that three companies which insure the majority of Protestant churches in America indicated that they receive 260 reports annually of young people being sexually abused by clergy, church staff etc.<ref>[http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2007/06/18/80877.htm]</ref> showing that the issue of inappropriate relations is not limited to the Catholic religion. There is a general consensus that this type of abuse is not a problem relegated to any church in particular, but a systemic societal issue.<ref>[http://www.reformation.com/CSA/AbuseNotSimplyAChurchProblem.htm]</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Jesus Christ]]
*[[Vatican City]]
*[[Pope John Paul II]]
*[[Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer]]
*[[Dead Sea Scrolls]]
*[[Catholic views on creationism‎]]

==External links==
[[Image:Virgen.jpg|right|thumb|Virgin Mary and Child]]

*[http://www.Vatican.va The Vatican]
*A digital version of [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ ''The Catholic Encyclopedia''].
*[http://www.cua.edu/ The Catholic University of America] Washington, D. C.
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm St. Paul] Catholic Encyclopedia.
*[http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm Catechism of the Catholic Church] Saint Charles Borromeo Catholic Church web site.
*[http://www.pellegrinocattolico.com/index.html Al Pellegrino Cattolico] Italian web site.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Catholicism]]

Conservapedia:Critical Thinking in Math

2008-09-13T23:50:28Z

KennyMac: Response to Foxtrot

"Critical Thinking in Math" is an experimental course with four independent purposes in mind:

*sharpen the analytical skills of students and improve their math [[College Board]] scores

*awaken an interest in [[mathematics]] by students who did not realize they had extraordinary aptitude for math, the future [[Bernhard Riemann]]s

*encourage adults to keep their minds sharp through mathematics, and fend off mental decline

*help parents who would like to teach math to their [[homeschooled]] children

The experiment is to use only fundamental or elementary techniques to accomplish the above results. No tools beyond about 9th grade math are required, and motivated students younger than 9th grade will not have difficulty with the concepts.

This course seeks the contributions of both teachers and students to make it as effective as possible. It will begin in September. Possible topics include:

*a comparative look at different techniques of proof

*major problems that remain unsolved using elementary techniques

*a look at the history of the development of math

*an analysis of what skills [[College Board]] exams test, and how to improve those skills

Please feel free to add other topics and suggestions, and add your name below as a teacher or student interested in this field:
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:08, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

== Draft Curriculum ==

*different methods of proof: [[constructive proof]], [[elementary proof]], induction, contradiction, existence, [[infinite descent]]
*defining and redefining key concepts: [[integer]]s, [[infinity]], [[prime number]]s, [[proof]]
*controversy about proof by contradiction
*17 different ways to prove that there are an infinite number of [[prime number]]s
*[[transcendental numbers]] - how do we know they exist?
*Goldbach's Conjecture and Fermat's Last Theorem
*Unsolved problems: proving that there are infinitely many [[twin primes]]
*[[Brun's constant]]
*Problems solved only with proof-by-contradiction: always a prime between n and 2n (n>1)
*[[perfect number]]s
*[[additive factoring]]
*[[prime number theorem]]
*Types of math problems presented in [[College Board]] exams, [[math contests|American math contests]] and UK math contests [http://www.wpr3.co.uk/UKMT/jmc.html][http://www.wpr3.co.uk/UKMT/imc.html][http://www.wpr3.co.uk/UKMT/smc.html]
*Interesting problems in number theory and Euclidean geometry
*greatest mathematicians in history, and why
*Axiom of Choice, why it has been controversial, and its use in Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem
*Set theory in general
*Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems are interesting; they are applicable not only in maths and logic, but also move into philosophy.
*Hilbert's program (although of course the above renders null its aims!)
*Formal mathematical logic
Students on the course
*I would like to join this. Is it alright if I live in the UK? Your profile suggests that you live in the US, but I am always eager for maths. [[User:AungSein|AungSein]] 18:13, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:: That's fantastic. Of course you're welcome in the UK. You have great colleges there, and produced some fantastic physicists. Please help build a curriculum (see above). Lord willing, maybe we can make some inroads into some unsolved problems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:29, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
[[category:mathematics]]
::: Well I come from Burma, but the colleges and university there are good. Your point about unsolved problems is good, too - have you heard of the folding@home project? It is a different concept, I know, but perhaps relevant - maybe what one brilliant mathematician might struggle at, us many lesser minds might gain insight into! I would also recommend for point 3 the UKMT papers [http://www.wpr3.co.uk/UKMT/jmc.html][http://www.wpr3.co.uk/UKMT/imc.html][http://www.wpr3.co.uk/UKMT/smc.html] - I do not know about how it is in the USA, but they are typical here. [[User:AungSein|AungSein]] 20:06, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:::: Your additions to the above curriculum are superb! Thanks much, and thanks also for the links to those U.K. tests. I just printed one out am reviewing it. Questions look challenging but doable, which is what we want. Lord knows that students can really improve after practicing on lots of those types of tests. We also have high school contests in the U.S. here: [[Math contests]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:37, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::: AungSein, a second student in this class took the UKMT Junior contest you cited, and she marked 17 correct, 5 wrong, and 3 non-answered. How did you do on that test?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
*I'm interested in this math critical thinking class too. --[[User:Luke314|Luke314]] 16:38, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Fantastic! Welcome and Godspeed. Please click "Watch" on this page so that you can easily see updates as September approaches. This will be a great learning experience. Feel free to make suggestions on the curriculum.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:42, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

*I'm interested also, as a teacher. (Credentials on request, of course.) Is this class going to happen? What I see here doesn't look very well-subscribed. Is there another page somewhere, listing details of the class? Details of the Curriculum? Discussion of same? Teaching the axiom of choice or Gödel's incompleteness theorems really correctly sounds like quite an ambitious undertaking, but I'd like to give it a try. [[User:Robert|Robert]] 20:42, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

:: That's great, Robert! We don't have a lot of students yet but it is still only August. We plan to start mid-September and I welcome your input on the curriculum. I expect the interest in this to grow as it has in the American Government course (now up to 45 participants). Much will be accomplished by this math course for the immense benefit of the participants. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:08, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

*I am also interested in participating in the project as an adult student. [[User:StevenW|StevenW]] 20:46, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

*I'm just wondering. How can things like axiom of choice, Fermat & Wiles, open problems, etc, can be covered. They say that nothing above 9th grade math is required. Will there be two different classes? [[User:Rincewind|Rincewind]] 11:58, 4 November 2007 (EST)

*I'd love to join, I'm just a bit confused on the requirements in terms of homework, editing, et cetera. [[User:GlobeGores|GlobeGores]] 18:07, 19 December 2007 (EST)

I'm interested in joining the course by I'm not sure how it all works. Can someone steer me in the right direction?- [[User:Schaefer|Schaefer]] 21:57, 20 December 2007 (EST)

*I'm really interested in this. Any idea of when it's due to start? [[User:KTDiputsho|KTDiputsho]] 14:53, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
*What is the "controversy about proof by contradiction" that you mention? It's news to me that there's any controversy about one of the standard tools of a mathematician. [[User:Googly|Googly]] 19:47, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You'll learn lots of new things here, if you keep an open mind. When resorting to proof by contradiction, it is impossible to know if the result is due to the falsehood of the proposition or an undetected contradiction in the math itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:25, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Errors in the mathematics can cause an incorrect conclusion in any kind of proof. What's so special about proof by contradiction? -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 20:44, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
:::On an unrelated note, is this class still supposed to happen? It's been over a year since it was announced. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 20:46, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Sorry Aschafly, but your second sentence is just not correct. Are you teaching this Critical Thinking in Maths course yourself? If so, I'd say you've got some pretty muddled ideas which you need to straighten out before you let yourself loose on students. There's nothing at all second-rate about a proof by contradiction. [[User:Googly|Googly]] 20:47, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Proof by contradiction can be unsatisfying because often it leads to unconstructive proofs of important statements. For example, [[Euclid]] used proof by contradiction to show there are infinitely many prime numbers, but that doesn't tell us what they are, or even give an infinite set of them with some formula like <math>2^n -1</math>. Another example: there is a [[transcendental number]] in the [[reals]]. If you prove this as suggested in the transcendental number article by using [[cardinality]], you'd never actually have a transcendental number to work with. It's far more useful to actually show a number like <math>pi</math> or ''e'' is transcendental and not use contradiction to do it. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:43, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: Proofs are proofs, not formulas or examples. [[Euclid]]'s proof by contradiction that there are infinitely many primes is a perfectly good answer to the question "Are there infinitely many primes?" It's a terrible answer to the question "What are they?" or "What's the 10,000,000th prime?" but that's not what Euclid set out to prove. <math>pi</math> and ''e'' are very useful numbers but showing that they are transcendental doesn't tell you much about any other transcendental numbers any more than knowing that 101 is a prime number tells you whether there are an infinite number of primes -- for that you need a proof and a proof by contradiction is 100% adequate. [[User:AdrianDelmar|AdrianDelmar]] 22:49, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Your argument starts with your conclusion, "proofs are proofs." In fact, esteemed [[mathematicians]] have always held some forms of proofs to be superior and preferred to others. [[Paul Erdos]], for example, felt with good reason that an [[elementary proof]] is superior.

::::::::: In light of [[Godel]]'s revelation that math may contain a contradiction, proofs by contradiction are particularly disfavored. One can never know logically whether the proof simply stumbled into an underlying contradiction in the math, rather than proving the proposition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:23, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: Elementary proofs may certainly be superior and more satisfying -- [[Paul_Erdos|Paul Erdős']] elementary proof of the [[Prime Number Theorem]] is a very good example -- but that doesn't make proofs by contradiction insufficient or controversial. If you are referring to [[Gödel's incompleteness theorems]], his revelation was not really that math may contain contradictions but that a formal system cannot be both consistent and complete, meaning essentially that a consistent formal system will contain statements that it cannot prove true or false ''within its own system.'' The proof by contradiction that <math>\sqrt{2}</math>. is an irrational number relies on the consistency of the axioms about numbers in use and doesn't come close to worrying about the completeness of the system. <math>\sqrt{2}</math> would not be irrational only in a system with different axioms.

:::::::::: Googly's original question was simply "What's the controversy?" Is this it? Proof by contradiction, Hilbert's program and Gödel's incompleteness theorems are all already on the draft curriculum. Whether elementary proofs are better or not isn't really a controversy. Is there something else? [[User:AdrianDelmar|AdrianDelmar]] 09:57, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: So you seem to agree that not all types of proofs are absolutely identical in rigor. Or do you? [[Elementary proof]]s are plainly preferred and more rigorous than, say, proofs that rely on the [[Axiom of Choice]]. If it is possible to prove something without relying on the [[Axiom of Choice]], then that approach is preferred. Surely you don't doubt that [[Paul Erdos]] would have confirmed as much.

::::::::::: You haven't rebutted the criticism of proofs by contradiction. As I said, it is impossible to know as a matter of logic whether the contradiction is due to the math or the falsity of the proposition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::: If a proof isn't rigorous then it's not really a proof, and there is nothing not rigorous about proof by contradiction. A proof that uses contradiction might not be rigorous, but any kind of proof can fail to be rigorous. The axiom of choice is irrelevant.

:::::::::::: Take a look at this [http://www.homeschoolmath.net/teaching/proof_square_root_2_irrational.php proof by contradiction] that <math>\sqrt{2}</math> is irrational. Where is the unseen underlying contradiction? That something times two is an even number? That the product of two even numbers (and therefore the square of an even number) is an even number? That a fraction consisting of two even terms is not simplified to its lowest terms?

:::::::::::: Are you thinking of [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/IntuitionisticLogic.html Intuitionistic Logic]? [[User:AdrianDelmar|AdrianDelmar]] 18:29, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::: You're not addressing my basic point, which I've repeated twice now, so I probably won't pursue this discussion further at this time. Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:34, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: I wonder if you aren't confusing contradiction and counterexample. Today I was reading ''Poincaré's Prize'' by George Szpiro and came across this passage about Poul Heegard finding a counterexample to Poincaré's proof of the duality theorem (p. 85):

:::::::: <blockquote>Let us recall that according to the theorem, the ''k''-th Betti numbers must be equal to the (''n-k'')-th Betti number. Heegard constructed an example of a three-dimensional manifold -- an intersection of a certain cone with a cylinder -- whose Betti numbers are (1,1,2,1). This contradicts the duality theorem. Finding a counterexample to a theorem can mean either that the counterexample is wrong, or that the theorem's proof is wrong, or that everything is based on a misunderstanding. In this case, it was the third alternative...</blockquote>

:::::::: A counterexample is much more "unconstructive" that a proof by contradiction, in the sense that a counterexample simply shows that the proof as stated isn't right, but doesn't say that it couldn't reformulated as Poincaré and other mathematicians went on to do for the duality theorem. -[[User:AdrianDelmar|AdrianDelmar]] 19:14, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

I can think of at least 6 things you could say about a proof that might affect your perception of its rigor, quality, simplicity, or elegance:
#Does it use contradiction?
#Is it constructive? (only applies to theorems that say "there is a ....")
#Does it use complex numbers?
#Does it use the axiom of choice?
#Does it use mathematical induction?
#Does it involve provability or decidability within some logical framework? That is, does it relate to Gödel's incompleteness theorem?
The topic of this thread is supposed to be item 1, but it has twice gotten sidetracked, once into item 2, and once into item 6. It turns out that one can easily separate item 1 from the others. The field of "elementary" calculus has many theorems that use "pure" contradiction, unpolluted by any of the other factors. As an example, take the theorem
:Limits, when they exist, are unique.
This theorem uses the epsilon/delta formulation of limits. I won't go into the details here (I plan to put it into the limit page). But the outcome of the theorem is that
:If f(x) approaches both W and Z as a limit, with <math>W \ne Z</math>, one can set <math>\epsilon = |W-Z| / 3</math> and get a contradiction.

Does that prove that the limit is unique? Well, it proves that '''it is not possible for the limit not to be unique'''. Put another way, '''you can't find two different numbers, W and Z, both of which are limits'''.

One is free to say that such a proof is less satisfying than a really direct proof. What the proof by contradiction method is saying is that
:If you prove that it is not possible for proposition P to be false, you have proved that P is true.
Where, in this case, P means "limits are unique".

One is free to question or object to the above syllogism. At some point it comes down to the "law of the excluded middle" or intuitionistic logic. There are two things I would say about that:
*While this issue is of some interest at a deep philosophical level, all mathematicians accept proof by contradiction on a practical level, in its application to the many theorems of mathematics.
*One could pursue this question in the Critical Thinking in Math course, but it would probably take the students down a different path from the stated goals of the curriculum, and would not likely be appreciated by the audience. It might be suitable for a completely different course. Sadly, I think there would be little interest in such a course, when there are so many fascinating things in the current curriculum.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:15, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

*You say: "No tools beyond about 9th grade math are required, and motivated students younger than 9th grade will not have difficulty with the concepts." I think 9th-graders will struggle with Goldbach, Wiles, Hilbert... [[User:Googly|Googly]] 21:09, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

*Regarding the lengthy discussion above, can I point out that non-elementary proofs, particularly if they are elegant, are especially valued by mathematicians because they draw together areas of knowledge which were previously thought to be unconnected. Elementary proofs, i.e. proofs which only draw on a small body of related concepts, don't do that - they may be easier to follow but they don't have the excitement of "sparking across the creative gap". [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 19:04, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

::But non-elementary proofs link these subjects in a non-elementary way, which casts some doubt if they are really connected. If they are ''real''-ly connected, then the link should be evident using real numbers and without resorting to complex numbers, or the Axiom of Choice or any of these other "additions" to mathematics that do not reflect the real world. The one good that I can attribute to a non-elementary proof is that it will make mathematicians search for an elementary proof of the same theorem. With some ingenuity they may find one, as Erdos and Selberg did with the Prime Number Theorem. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 23:03, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Complex numbers don't "reflect the real world"???!!! I'm so staggered by this statement, I simply don't know what to write! Electricity, economics, biology... there's not much we can understand ''without'' complex numbers. [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 17:49, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Have you ever plugged in a <math>60\sqrt{-1}</math> watt light bulb? Isn't [[current]] always a real value, same with money, spectroscopy values, bacteria populations, etc. Taking integrals to compute things only needs integration over real values. Protein folding and DNA can be studied using real manifolds, etc. Pretty much the entire subjects can be understood entirely in the setting of real numbers and real geometry. The only time that complex numbers enter into "computations" is because they were artificially introduced there. Just because people teach you to use complex numbers doesn't mean it's necessary (and usually, it isn't). -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 19:04, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::Foxtrot, have you ever solved a wave function ''without'' complex numbers? Waves and oscillations appear everywhere in nature. (By the way, I like your statements about guns and the death penalty on your talk page. Glad to see there's a bit of sense in those directions among CP contributors!) [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 19:50, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Critical Thinking in Math

2008-09-13T21:49:17Z

KennyMac: Complex numbers...!!!

Roman Catholic Church

2008-09-13T21:44:21Z

KennyMac: Undo revision 515032 by Learn together (Talk) + reference to Judith Herrin's work

The '''Roman Catholic Church''' is headed by the [[Pope]] (Supreme Pontiff), the Bishop of [[Rome]], currently [[Pope Benedict XVI]]. It is the largest [[Christian]] denomination in the world, with more than 1.3 billion officially Baptized adherents (In the United States more than 64 million.) The [[Roman]] Catholic Church is the oldest institution in the western world. The Roman Catholic faith teaches that the Pope is the successor of [[St. Peter]], the 'rock' ([[Gospel of Matthew|Matt]] 16:18) upon whom Jesus built his church. The term [[Catholic Church]] is, literally, the ''Universal Church'' of [[Jesus Christ]] (from the Greek ''katholikos'', "universal").

''"The chief teachings of the Catholic church are: [[God]]’s objective existence; God’s interest in individual human beings, who can enter into relations with God (through prayer); the Trinity; the divinity of Jesus; the immortality of the [[soul]] of each human being, each one being accountable at death for his or her actions in life, with the award of heaven or hell; the resurrection of the dead; the historicity of the [[Gospels]]; and the divine commission of the church. In addition the Roman Catholic Church stresses that since the members, living and dead, share in each other’s merits, the [[Virgin Mary]] and other saints and the dead in purgatory are never forgotten." '' <ref> [http://www.bartleby.com/65/ro/RomanCat.html The Columbia Encyclopedia]</ref> The presence of Christ is believed to be present in the Eucharist, the bread and wine is Jesus himself. Another essential belief is the veneration of Mary, the mother of Jesus as the Blessed Virgin Mary and veneration of the saints.

The principal sources for the essential beliefs of the Catholic Church are the Sacred Scriptures (the Bible), Sacred Tradition, and Living Magisterium of the Church.

The term Catholic is frequently applied to the Roman Catholic Church. Although many [[Protestantism|Protestant]]s object to Roman Catholics monopolizing the term, because the defined meaning of Catholic is "universal" and comes from the Greek word Katholikos. The Eastern [[Orthodox Church]] also refer to themselves as, "one holy, Catholic, and apostolic church..."<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/catholic</ref> Conversely, many Roman Catholics dislike the adjective "Roman" because it implies, contrary to (Roman) Catholic doctrine, that their church is not ''the'' universal Church of Christ.

[[Image:Cathpop.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Catholics in the world.]]

== History ==
The original Christian community was founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ and led by the Apostles. St. [[Paul|Paul the Apostle]] was, together with [[Saint Peter]], the most notable of Early Christian missionaries. Christians were deeply unpopular and were subjected to persecution, first under [[Nero]] and [[Domitian]], shortly after the foundation of the church, and again, more severely, under the emperors [[Decius]] and [[Diocletian]] in the third century. There were also sporadic persecutions by provincial administrators in response to popular agitation against Christians. Under [[Decius]] in particular, the penalty for being Christian could ultimately be death. After almost 300 years of persecution against the Church, Christianity nevertheless flourished in the major cities of the Empire.

In the early 4th century, the Emperor [[Constantine I]] claimed to have had a religious experience, although there was considerable scepticism about this among his contemporaries because he himself remained a catechumen until being received into the church on his deathbed. Nevertheless, he legalized Christianity, financed much church building in Rome under Pope Sylvester I, founded [[Istanbul|Constantinople]] as an explicitly Christian city and presided over the first Ecumenical Council, at Nicaea in 325. Going to war with the co-Emperor of the east [[Lucinius]], Constantine won and became sole Emperor. The age of persecution was over. In 380, Emperor [[Theodosius I]] accepted Christianity as the official religion of the [[Roman Empire]]. By the time of the fall of the Roman Empire in 476, the surrounding barbarian nations had been Christianized, although mostly they followed [[Arianism]]. Over the next few centuries, they embraced Catholicism.<ref>J. Herrin (1987) The Formation of Christendom. Fontana Press, London. </ref>

During the [[Middle Ages]] the Church underwent a time of missionary activity and expansion. After numerous disputes between eastern and western churches that became more pronounced from the ninth century onwards, the Church underwent the [[Great Schism]] in 1054 that divided it into a Western (Latin) branch, which has been called the Catholic Church and an Eastern branch, which has become known as the [[Orthodox Church]]. Both traced their roots to the time of Jesus, but the Orthodox Church did not acknowledge the Pope as the one leader of the Church. Instead, it believed that the theology, law and rituals of the church should be agreed by the bishops meeting in Ecumenical Council, not dictated by a single individual. In effect, all patriarchs of national churches were regarded as equals.

The second major schism was the [[Protestant Reformation]] in the 16th century. As a reaction to the increasing popularity of Protestantism the Roman Catholic Church began to undertake some reforms. Firstly from 1869–1870 during the [[First Vatican Council]]. It was during the [[Second Vatican Council]] (1962–1965) that the most comprehensive reforms were undertaken. The Roman Catholic Church stretched relations with other Christian communities and other religions. The Roman Catholic Church also issued directions for a revision of the liturgy.

==Different churches==

The term "The Catholic Church" refers to any one of several Rites, but in the United States is often used synonymously for the largest Rite, the Latin Rite. Other Rites include the Byzantine, Alexandrian, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, and Chaldean Rites. Some Eastern rites have significant differences in liturgy, history, discipline and hierarchy from the Roman Catholic Church, but still recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) and are in communion with Rome. These Eastern Rite churches are Catholic and do not belong to the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]].

Despite important differences in doctrine, the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox Church's Holy Orders (priesthood) as valid; however, the Orthodox generally follow a theory of ordination for place and purpose -- so the notion of being ordained outside the Orthodox Church is meaningless, and no theory of validity is held to.

The Roman Catholic Church historically regarded [[Protestantism|Protestant]] Christianity as heretical, that is, being against Roman doctrine. However, this changed in the 1960's when [[Pope John XXIII]] called the Second Vatican Council, where '''the''' '''doors of the Church were opened wide''', and Protestants referred to as '''"our separated brethren".''' Protestants were neither impressed nor taken in by this apparent openness, noting that much of what had caused the Protestant Reformation had not changed within the Roman Catholic Church.

[[Image:JpII.jpg|right|thumb|John Paul II]]

The [[Anglican Church]] (Episcopalian in the United States) occupies an odd situation, because it encompasses within it factions ("Low Church") that emphasize its Protestant aspects and factions ("High Church") that emphasize its Catholic aspects. Anglo-Catholics regard the Anglican church as part of the Catholic Church, and in the unbroken line of the Apostolic Succession. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern branches take a position that could be described as saying that the Anglican Church is almost but not quite Catholic. There have long been unification overtures, and Anglican priests who wish to adopt Catholic Holy Orders are often provided with an abbreviated path to that goal.

The [[Nicene Creed]], the great historical statement of Christian belief, contains the line "I [or we] believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church". The [[Apostles' Creed]] contains a similar affirmation. However, Protestants and Catholics place different interpretations on the term "universal", or "catholic". Protestants believe that it refers to the general, over-arching spiritual unity of all Christian believers, Jew or gentile, which transcends individual churches and denominations. Catholics, on the other hand, believe that the [[Roman Catholic Church]], as the single true church founded by Christ, is the universal Catholic Church in which there is neither Jew nor gentile. Some prefer not to refer to their own church as the "Roman" Catholic Church, on the grounds that such formulations implicitly deny this point of doctrine.

== Saint Paul's Writings ==

[[Paul|St. Paul]] is the second most prolific contributor to the [[New Testament]]. Thirteen letters are attributed to him and fully known as the "Catholic (or Universal) Epistles of Paul". The letters are written in Greek. The epistles contain the basis of Christian doctrine, interpretation and commentary from earlier scriptures. They are full of expositions of what Christians should believe and how they should live.

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">

''St. Paul reminded the Christians how they should live. They should think about the things in heaven (Colossians 3:2), because they belong with Christ (Colossians 3:3-4). They should not do evil deeds (Colossians 3:5-11). Instead, they should love other people (Colossians 3:12-14). And they should serve God (Colossians 3:15-17). If we invite Jesus into our lives, we will become friends of God (Colossians 1:15-23).'' </blockquote>

St. Paul's influence on Christian thinking has been more significant than any other single New Testament author.

== Fathers ==

[[St. Ambrose]], Bishop of [[Milan]] from 374 to 397, was one of the most illustrious Fathers and [[Doctors of the Church]], and fitly chosen, together with [[St. Augustine]], [[St. John Chrysostom]], and [[St. Athanasius]], to uphold the venerable Chair of the Prince of the Apostles in the tribune of St. Peter's at Rome. <ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01383c.htm St. Ambrose] Catholic Encyclopedia.</ref>
 

==Controversy==
[[Image:Cerro_de_Angeles.jpg|right|thumb|Cerro de los Angeles, Madrid, Spain.]]
There has been much controversy in recent years about Catholic priests in relation to the abuse of children in their care. Cases of inappropiate sexual contact have been discovered in many churches across the world with many of the instances of abuse resulting in little or no repercussion for the priests involved. In some cases, bishops were aware of the abuse but did not effectively deal with it, allowing the abusive priest to continue to remain in contact with minors. Although words like pedophile were often used in the press, in truth 90% of the cases involved priests making overtures towards teenage boys, and not pedophilia. It was a case of breaking vows and homosexuality.<ref>http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=72992710807995&mkt=en-US&lang=en-US&w=98cf251&FORM=CVRE4</ref>.

On July 15 2007 in Los Angeles, the Catholic church paid a $660 million dollar settlement over a priest abuse scandal. More than five hundred lawsuits dating back to the 1930's were filed in Los Angeles from abuse victims of over two hundred priests and lay people. The U.S. Catholic church has paid out more than $2 billion in abuse claims dating back to 1950.<ref>[http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070715/la_archdiocese_070715/20070715?hub=CTVNewsAt11 L.A. Catholic church settlement]</ref>

Incidents of abuse are not unique to the Catholic Church. A recent article from Associated Press (June 19, 2007) reported that three companies which insure the majority of Protestant churches in America indicated that they receive 260 reports annually of young people being sexually abused by clergy, church staff etc.<ref>[http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2007/06/18/80877.htm]</ref> showing that the issue of inappropriate relations is not limited to the Catholic religion. There is a general consensus that this type of abuse is not a problem relegated to any church in particular, but a systemic societal issue.<ref>[http://www.reformation.com/CSA/AbuseNotSimplyAChurchProblem.htm]</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Jesus Christ]]
*[[Vatican City]]
*[[Pope John Paul II]]
*[[Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer]]
*[[Dead Sea Scrolls]]
*[[Catholic views on creationism‎]]

==External links==
[[Image:Virgen.jpg|right|thumb|Virgin Mary and Child]]

*[http://www.Vatican.va The Vatican]
*A digital version of [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ ''The Catholic Encyclopedia''].
*[http://www.cua.edu/ The Catholic University of America] Washington, D. C.
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm St. Paul] Catholic Encyclopedia.
*[http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm Catechism of the Catholic Church] Saint Charles Borromeo Catholic Church web site.
*[http://www.pellegrinocattolico.com/index.html Al Pellegrino Cattolico] Italian web site.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Catholicism]]

Talk:Roman Catholicism

2008-09-13T21:42:32Z

KennyMac: /* What a waste of time */

==This is a rough start and others will need to help==
I'm out of my depth here. I really wanted to write something that explains that "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are not synonyms. I think what I've written is sorta-kinda-roughly correct, and I'm not knowingly trying to push any particular point of view. If I've inadvertently stepped on any Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican toes here, my apologies, and please fix whatever I've gotten wrong. (Try to keep it "as simple as possible, but no simpler.") [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Generally, catholic (lowercase) means "universal", whereas Catholic refers to the RCC, by default. If speaking of an Orthodox Catholic church usually it's denoted as to which branch is being discussed. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:39, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, "Catholic" doesn't refer to the Roman Catholic Church. The "Roman Catholic Church" refers to a specific Rite of the Catholic Church. It's the largest rite, by far, but is not the only rite in the Catholic Church. (These rites are also distinct from the Orthodox Churches. They have little to do with the Great Schism.) I'll try to see if I can clean this up a bit. As it now stands, it's more wrong than right. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 22:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::In the last edit, we lost the information about non-Roman and non-Latin rites:
::''Catholics, on the other hand, believe that the Roman Catholic Church, as the single true church founded by Christ, is the universal Catholic Church. Some prefer not to refer to their own church as the "Roman" Catholic Church, on the grounds that such formulations implicitly deny this point of doctrine.''
::I'd argue that it's not the ''Roman'' Catholic Church that is the single true church, but, rather, the ''Catholic'' Church. I understand that in the US (and in the west, in general) the two terms seem interchangeable, but I'd rather not lose the distinction between Roman Catholic and Catholic.[[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 03:01, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Moved here, until sourced:
:Findings of an investigation determined that sexual abuse of children could probably be almost halved if women were allowed to be ordained in the church.
I've never seen any such study, and I'm not sure how it would even be determined. I also changed hebephilia to ephebophilia, which is more commonly used (both words mean an attraction towards adolescents). [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 22:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==Lone sentence==

:Roman Catholics claim to be the apostolic successors of Saint Peter, who was given authority over his flock in the Bible.

Can this be merged? Was at [[Roman Catholics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:35, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:This should be attributed to the Pope, not specifically to Catholics themselves.[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

<s>==Second Vatican Council==
This should be its own subsection as "The Church" prior and post to the Council were almost two different churches?[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
</s>

Oops, wrote too soon, I didn't realize the "Roman Catholic Church" article already existed.[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Controversy?==
I dont know if it is so smart to put that in yet. I mean like put some factual stuff then put in the controversy, because making an article negative is not very appeasing to a reader. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 08:41, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

What do you expect on this site? Conservapedia has a deeply unhealthy obsession with paedophiles and gay sex. Really makes me worried about a lot of the editors. --[[User:Bible Mike|Bible Mike]] 10:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

lol i do not have an obsession witht that. that is nasty. ew why would you ever say that? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 10:29, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

This paragraph is just a bad copy of wikipedia and media, in their obvious attempt to discredit the Roman Catholic church and the worthy work in education of children. Child abuse is a mortally sin, no doubt and deserves severe prosecution, but where are the facts showing that child abuse happens more often by catholic clergymen than by other teachers or male relatives? --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:09, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Requirements==
Currently, the article states:
:To belong to the Catholic Church one must accept as factually true the gospel of our lord Jesus Christ. "The chief teachings of the Catholic church are: God’s objective existence; God’s interest in individual human beings, who can enter into relations with God (through prayer); the Trinity; the divinity of Jesus; the immortality of the soul of each human being, each one being accountable at death for his or her actions in life, with the award of heaven or hell; the resurrection of the dead; the historicity of the Gospels; and the divine commission of the church. In addition the Roman Catholic Church stresses that since the members, living and dead, share in each other’s merits, the Virgin Mary and other saints and the dead in purgatory are never forgotten."

I might argue some of those points. Primarily, to be Catholic is to be baptized (including, possibly, a baptism of faith) and to participate in the sacraments. I'd accept creedal statements along the lines of the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed as possible requirements of faith. Belief in the existence of God, sure. In Jesus, in his death and resurrection, sure. In the resurrection of the body, in the communion of saints in life everlasting, sure. But the historicity of the Gospels? The divine commission of the Church? Sure, these are things that are taught by the Church. But I don't know that they're necessary to being Catholic. (I'm not sure why one would be Catholic if one didn't believe the divine commission of the Church, but still...) And, more importantly, I'd say that to belong to the Catholic Church is to participate in the sacraments--to receive the Eucharist, to be baptized, to be reconciled to God, and so on. The church is at least as much a sacramental church as a creedal church (and, I'd argue, it's more a sacramental church than a creedal church). [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 23:34, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Catholics not as Christians? ==
Do we really need that part? It just doesn't really sound very encyclopedic. According to two websites Catholics aren't Christians, but according to some other websites out there aliens are secretly in control of the government. I feel I have to raise a question concerning that bit. Recomend it is deleted, or the contention be in some way justified.[[User:Jnl001|Jnl001]] 14:49, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Roman Catholicism ==

The Title of this Entry should actually be Latin Rite Catholicism. The Latin Rite ("Roman Catholic")Church does not actually identify itself as "Roman Catholic", it Calls itself the "Latin Rite" of the "Catholic Church"

This said their needs to be a separate entry for "Catholicism".

{{unsigned|Pyranima}}

== Are Roman Catholics Christians? ==

Now, I have been thinking about this for some time. As seen from many sources like Wikipedia, the Roman Catholics are indeed Christian. However, according to many Christian fundamentalist sources, the Roman Catholics are not Christian because they believe in many unbiblical things such as the infant baptism, sacraments, Mary worship, etc.

My question is, should the articles in Conservapedia concerning Christianity have the idea that Christianity is really a "biblical, based-on-the-Bible Christianity", not just a religion whose people are Christians just because they say "We are Christians"?

(To any born-again Christians, you may understand my question)

[[User:MaveYEL]]
: I understand the question. Whether or not someone is a Christian depends on their own relationship with God, not on what church they belong to. Also, probably no Christian has a perfect set of beliefs: probably every Christian believes ''something'' that is contrary to biblical teaching. So "believing many unbiblical things" does not, of itself, mean that someone is not a Christian.
: I would classify the Roman Catholic Church as "Christian", because it holds that Jesus is God, but I would also think that ''many'' people who are members of the church are not Christians, partly because many are members of the church out of tradition rather than conversion, and partly because there is insufficient emphasis on faith-based conversion. But that doesn't mean that there are not (many?) Christians in the Roman Catholic church.
: I feel that some "fundamentalist" Christians are too harsh on Catholics, although that is not to dismiss their valid objections to many Catholic teachings, such as the ones you mention. And I would ask, is the Catholic church any worse than many liberal churches that reject the historicity of the creation account, accept homosexuality, reject miracles, etc. etc.? I do feel that there is a fair bit of inconsistency there.
: Does Conservapedia handle this issue the best way it can? Probably not, but then Conservapedia's not perfect either!
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:22, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

(This is a discussion that may take a long time and much effort. I try not to talk too much on it, although I would like to clarify all doubts in this issue)

Hmm, here is my answer.

First: I do believe that some Catholics may be indeed Christians, that is receiving Jesus as their own personal Savior, as many Protestant fundamentalists say. However, if a Catholic is a Christian, his "Catholic" status is just a label. I see many people in Malaysia that are practically Christians, but have "Islam" status in their citizenship cards because of discrimination to the ex-Muslim converts in the country. The same thing may apply to some Catholics.

However, folks, this kind of case whereby a "Catholic" is a Christian is very unlikely to happen. A person, if saved and a Christian, knows the truth of salvation (except if he is an infant). For practising Catholics, do you really think they are Christians if everytime they think they are born again, it is because they are baptized (sprinkled)? Or, do you think they are Christians if everytime they think they received Jesus as Lord and Savior, it is because they eat the wafer god?

Second: I agree that the Catholics are no different with the liberal "Protestants". There is such a thing as true converts and false converts. (See Ray Comfort video for that one)

Third: If we have to classify Roman Catholicism as a Christian church, I think we have to define what Christianity means. My belief of Christianity is the biblical teaching of Jesus and the Bible. The "Christianity" mentioned everywhere else and the more common one is a collection of my biblical Christianity and the so-called pseudo-Christianity. Even if we have to choose the more common "Christianity" as the definition, I hope the term is defined first. Otherwise, some people including me will be upset with the statement like "Christianity comprises you-know-what".

[[User:MaveYEL]]

I think that this is a prime canidate to be a debate page, and though I`m not clear on how to make a debate page, maybe someone could for me

Just a thought but this article implies that the catholic church is the church that followed on from the ministry of Jesus. This isn't the case. The early Catholic church (it is alleged)known by scholars as the Pauline church (as it subscribed to the teachings of Paul of Tarsus,) engaged in a power struggle with what was at the time the established "Jerusalem Church" led by Jesus' brother James the Just. After the killing of James by a follower of the Pauline tradition (by throwing him off the corner of the temple mount and finishing him off with a fullers mallet)the Jerusalem church fled into the diaspora and the catholic church has done its best to suppress its existance ever since.
Would this be a worthwile edition?
The article is fairly scanty on the catholics role in evangalism accross the globe and its repository of history and knowledge particularly after the collapse of the Roman Empire. I realise that website is conservative in nature and the rift between The episcapalian ministry and The catholic church run's pretty deep in america and conservapedia tends to see people or groups with either a white hat or a black one, but surely Catholocism's influence on art, histiography and western culture in generalneeds to be acknowledged.

[[Trident1222]]

:Conspiracy theories that are not supported in the ancient documents will not get play here. You are taking a historical event, the death of James the brother of Jesus as recorded in history, and then adding on a fanciful addition of a "Pauline" cause. No. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:08, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

==What a waste of time==
I've tried three times to correct egregious mistakes in the Early History of this section and each time they've been reverted by a sysop with no explanation. The moral of this story is, if you write factual content that the people who run Conservapedia (which doesn't at all mean the same thing as people who are politically conservative, as understood anywhere outside the USA) find uncomfortable, the Conservapedia hierarchy will simply make an ex cathedra pronouncement that you're wrong and zap your edits.

I really can't be bothered arguing with them any longer. If their attitude to something as abstruse as the early history of the Catholic Church is that they'll believe what they want to believe, not what modern scholarship has discovered, then you can't believe a single word you read in this so-called encyclopedia about much more important subjects, like global warming or USA Presidential candidates. [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 09:47, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

:You have chosen to alter the article to put your own spin by simply removing enmasse what you did not like and adding what you wished, without discussing in talk, and without sources. When you were told this was not the way we operate and to rework it, you refused and simply put back the same unacceptable material. Even now you have an aggrandized view of yourself by putting this at the top of the talk section and not appending it to the bottom of the page in chronological order like everyone else has done. (I have move it for you). You do not work with others for the bettermen of the article. When you are serious about article improvement then you will be welcomed to return, but until that time, your departure will not be mourned. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:49, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

::All my edits were aimed at improving the factual content on the article. Much of the section of this article dealing with the early period is basically the agreed mythology of the church and has little connection with history. If you're seriously interested in the history of the early church, you should read 'The Formation of Christendom' by Judith Herrin (1987, Fontana). Professor Herrin is one of the leading scholars of church between 400 and 800 AD. But I warn you, this isn't a comfortable read for anyone who wants to believe in a myth of a unified church with Constantine the Great establishing an benign empire based on Christian principles.

::Anyway, Learn together, I've seen here and from many other edits you've made to other articles, that you - like most of the Conservapedia sysops (Philip J Rayment being an honourable exception - there may be others but I haven't seen them) - are perfectly happy to revert factual corrections to articles made by others if they happen to disagree with the cosy world view of American "conservatives", without explanation of any kind. Now, there may be many facts which are uncomfortable for the world-view of American "conservatives" (I repeat that this has very little connection with conservative politics outside the USA) but you and the other conservative sysops have to decide if you want to construct an encyclopedia of knowledge or an encyclopedia of approved prejudices for American "conservatives".

::I'm going to correct this article once more (this time, I'll add the Herrin reference). If you revert my edits, I'll conclude that facts which conflict with American "conservative" prejudices aren't welcome here. Your choice.[[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 17:42, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

User talk:KennyMac

2008-09-12T13:49:09Z

KennyMac:

{{welcome}}
I'm out of here. See my comments on the [[Talk:Roman Catholicism]] page to understand why. It's simply a waste of time writing anything at all with which Andy and his chums even slightly disagree. [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 09:49, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Roman Catholicism

2008-09-12T13:47:41Z

KennyMac: Waste of time

==What a waste of time==
I've tried three times to correct egregious mistakes in the Early History of this section and each time they've been reverted by a sysop with no explanation. The moral of this story is, if you write factual content that the people who run Conservapedia (which doesn't at all mean the same thing as people who are politically conservative, as understood anywhere outside the USA) find uncomfortable, the Conservapedia hierarchy will simply make an ex cathedra pronouncement that you're wrong and zap your edits.

I really can't be bothered arguing with them any longer. If their attitude to something as abstruse as the early history of the Catholic Church is that they'll believe what they want to believe, not what modern scholarship has discovered, then you can't believe a single word you read in this so-called encyclopedia about much more important subjects, like global warming or USA Presidential candidates. [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 09:47, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

==This is a rough start and others will need to help==
I'm out of my depth here. I really wanted to write something that explains that "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are not synonyms. I think what I've written is sorta-kinda-roughly correct, and I'm not knowingly trying to push any particular point of view. If I've inadvertently stepped on any Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican toes here, my apologies, and please fix whatever I've gotten wrong. (Try to keep it "as simple as possible, but no simpler.") [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Generally, catholic (lowercase) means "universal", whereas Catholic refers to the RCC, by default. If speaking of an Orthodox Catholic church usually it's denoted as to which branch is being discussed. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:39, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, "Catholic" doesn't refer to the Roman Catholic Church. The "Roman Catholic Church" refers to a specific Rite of the Catholic Church. It's the largest rite, by far, but is not the only rite in the Catholic Church. (These rites are also distinct from the Orthodox Churches. They have little to do with the Great Schism.) I'll try to see if I can clean this up a bit. As it now stands, it's more wrong than right. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 22:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::In the last edit, we lost the information about non-Roman and non-Latin rites:
::''Catholics, on the other hand, believe that the Roman Catholic Church, as the single true church founded by Christ, is the universal Catholic Church. Some prefer not to refer to their own church as the "Roman" Catholic Church, on the grounds that such formulations implicitly deny this point of doctrine.''
::I'd argue that it's not the ''Roman'' Catholic Church that is the single true church, but, rather, the ''Catholic'' Church. I understand that in the US (and in the west, in general) the two terms seem interchangeable, but I'd rather not lose the distinction between Roman Catholic and Catholic.[[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 03:01, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Moved here, until sourced:
:Findings of an investigation determined that sexual abuse of children could probably be almost halved if women were allowed to be ordained in the church.
I've never seen any such study, and I'm not sure how it would even be determined. I also changed hebephilia to ephebophilia, which is more commonly used (both words mean an attraction towards adolescents). [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 22:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==Lone sentence==

:Roman Catholics claim to be the apostolic successors of Saint Peter, who was given authority over his flock in the Bible.

Can this be merged? Was at [[Roman Catholics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:35, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:This should be attributed to the Pope, not specifically to Catholics themselves.[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

<s>==Second Vatican Council==
This should be its own subsection as "The Church" prior and post to the Council were almost two different churches?[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
</s>

Oops, wrote too soon, I didn't realize the "Roman Catholic Church" article already existed.[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Controversy?==
I dont know if it is so smart to put that in yet. I mean like put some factual stuff then put in the controversy, because making an article negative is not very appeasing to a reader. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 08:41, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

What do you expect on this site? Conservapedia has a deeply unhealthy obsession with paedophiles and gay sex. Really makes me worried about a lot of the editors. --[[User:Bible Mike|Bible Mike]] 10:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

lol i do not have an obsession witht that. that is nasty. ew why would you ever say that? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 10:29, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

This paragraph is just a bad copy of wikipedia and media, in their obvious attempt to discredit the Roman Catholic church and the worthy work in education of children. Child abuse is a mortally sin, no doubt and deserves severe prosecution, but where are the facts showing that child abuse happens more often by catholic clergymen than by other teachers or male relatives? --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:09, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Requirements==
Currently, the article states:
:To belong to the Catholic Church one must accept as factually true the gospel of our lord Jesus Christ. "The chief teachings of the Catholic church are: God’s objective existence; God’s interest in individual human beings, who can enter into relations with God (through prayer); the Trinity; the divinity of Jesus; the immortality of the soul of each human being, each one being accountable at death for his or her actions in life, with the award of heaven or hell; the resurrection of the dead; the historicity of the Gospels; and the divine commission of the church. In addition the Roman Catholic Church stresses that since the members, living and dead, share in each other’s merits, the Virgin Mary and other saints and the dead in purgatory are never forgotten."

I might argue some of those points. Primarily, to be Catholic is to be baptized (including, possibly, a baptism of faith) and to participate in the sacraments. I'd accept creedal statements along the lines of the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed as possible requirements of faith. Belief in the existence of God, sure. In Jesus, in his death and resurrection, sure. In the resurrection of the body, in the communion of saints in life everlasting, sure. But the historicity of the Gospels? The divine commission of the Church? Sure, these are things that are taught by the Church. But I don't know that they're necessary to being Catholic. (I'm not sure why one would be Catholic if one didn't believe the divine commission of the Church, but still...) And, more importantly, I'd say that to belong to the Catholic Church is to participate in the sacraments--to receive the Eucharist, to be baptized, to be reconciled to God, and so on. The church is at least as much a sacramental church as a creedal church (and, I'd argue, it's more a sacramental church than a creedal church). [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 23:34, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Catholics not as Christians? ==
Do we really need that part? It just doesn't really sound very encyclopedic. According to two websites Catholics aren't Christians, but according to some other websites out there aliens are secretly in control of the government. I feel I have to raise a question concerning that bit. Recomend it is deleted, or the contention be in some way justified.[[User:Jnl001|Jnl001]] 14:49, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Roman Catholicism ==

The Title of this Entry should actually be Latin Rite Catholicism. The Latin Rite ("Roman Catholic")Church does not actually identify itself as "Roman Catholic", it Calls itself the "Latin Rite" of the "Catholic Church"

This said their needs to be a separate entry for "Catholicism".

{{unsigned|Pyranima}}

== Are Roman Catholics Christians? ==

Now, I have been thinking about this for some time. As seen from many sources like Wikipedia, the Roman Catholics are indeed Christian. However, according to many Christian fundamentalist sources, the Roman Catholics are not Christian because they believe in many unbiblical things such as the infant baptism, sacraments, Mary worship, etc.

My question is, should the articles in Conservapedia concerning Christianity have the idea that Christianity is really a "biblical, based-on-the-Bible Christianity", not just a religion whose people are Christians just because they say "We are Christians"?

(To any born-again Christians, you may understand my question)

[[User:MaveYEL]]
: I understand the question. Whether or not someone is a Christian depends on their own relationship with God, not on what church they belong to. Also, probably no Christian has a perfect set of beliefs: probably every Christian believes ''something'' that is contrary to biblical teaching. So "believing many unbiblical things" does not, of itself, mean that someone is not a Christian.
: I would classify the Roman Catholic Church as "Christian", because it holds that Jesus is God, but I would also think that ''many'' people who are members of the church are not Christians, partly because many are members of the church out of tradition rather than conversion, and partly because there is insufficient emphasis on faith-based conversion. But that doesn't mean that there are not (many?) Christians in the Roman Catholic church.
: I feel that some "fundamentalist" Christians are too harsh on Catholics, although that is not to dismiss their valid objections to many Catholic teachings, such as the ones you mention. And I would ask, is the Catholic church any worse than many liberal churches that reject the historicity of the creation account, accept homosexuality, reject miracles, etc. etc.? I do feel that there is a fair bit of inconsistency there.
: Does Conservapedia handle this issue the best way it can? Probably not, but then Conservapedia's not perfect either!
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:22, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

(This is a discussion that may take a long time and much effort. I try not to talk too much on it, although I would like to clarify all doubts in this issue)

Hmm, here is my answer.

First: I do believe that some Catholics may be indeed Christians, that is receiving Jesus as their own personal Savior, as many Protestant fundamentalists say. However, if a Catholic is a Christian, his "Catholic" status is just a label. I see many people in Malaysia that are practically Christians, but have "Islam" status in their citizenship cards because of discrimination to the ex-Muslim converts in the country. The same thing may apply to some Catholics.

However, folks, this kind of case whereby a "Catholic" is a Christian is very unlikely to happen. A person, if saved and a Christian, knows the truth of salvation (except if he is an infant). For practising Catholics, do you really think they are Christians if everytime they think they are born again, it is because they are baptized (sprinkled)? Or, do you think they are Christians if everytime they think they received Jesus as Lord and Savior, it is because they eat the wafer god?

Second: I agree that the Catholics are no different with the liberal "Protestants". There is such a thing as true converts and false converts. (See Ray Comfort video for that one)

Third: If we have to classify Roman Catholicism as a Christian church, I think we have to define what Christianity means. My belief of Christianity is the biblical teaching of Jesus and the Bible. The "Christianity" mentioned everywhere else and the more common one is a collection of my biblical Christianity and the so-called pseudo-Christianity. Even if we have to choose the more common "Christianity" as the definition, I hope the term is defined first. Otherwise, some people including me will be upset with the statement like "Christianity comprises you-know-what".

[[User:MaveYEL]]

I think that this is a prime canidate to be a debate page, and though I`m not clear on how to make a debate page, maybe someone could for me

Just a thought but this article implies that the catholic church is the church that followed on from the ministry of Jesus. This isn't the case. The early Catholic church (it is alleged)known by scholars as the Pauline church (as it subscribed to the teachings of Paul of Tarsus,) engaged in a power struggle with what was at the time the established "Jerusalem Church" led by Jesus' brother James the Just. After the killing of James by a follower of the Pauline tradition (by throwing him off the corner of the temple mount and finishing him off with a fullers mallet)the Jerusalem church fled into the diaspora and the catholic church has done its best to suppress its existance ever since.
Would this be a worthwile edition?
The article is fairly scanty on the catholics role in evangalism accross the globe and its repository of history and knowledge particularly after the collapse of the Roman Empire. I realise that website is conservative in nature and the rift between The episcapalian ministry and The catholic church run's pretty deep in america and conservapedia tends to see people or groups with either a white hat or a black one, but surely Catholocism's influence on art, histiography and western culture in generalneeds to be acknowledged.

[[Trident1222]]

:Conspiracy theories that are not supported in the ancient documents will not get play here. You are taking a historical event, the death of James the brother of Jesus as recorded in history, and then adding on a fanciful addition of a "Pauline" cause. No. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:08, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Dodo

2008-09-11T23:41:14Z

KennyMac: Extinction

[[image:Alice-and-dodo.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Tenniel's illustration of Alice and the dodo]]

The '''dodo,''' (''Didus ineptus'' L., now ''Raphus cucullatus'') was a large bird incapable of flying. They weighed an astounding 50 pounds and lived on the islands of Mauritius off the coast of east Africa.

The dodo became extinct in the late 1600s as a result of human activity. The birds were completely unused to people and were thus extremely easy to hunt by sailors who stopped on Mauritius. To make matters worse, rats which escaped from ships ate dodo eggs, as their nests were on the ground.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3281323.stm]</ref>

The dodo has become emblematic for extinction, as in the expression "as dead as the dodo." Humorist [[Will Cuppy]] wrote, jokingly:
:The Dodo never had a chance. He seems to have been invented for the sole purpose of becoming extinct and that was all he was good for.<ref>Cuppy, Will, ''How to Become Extinct''</ref>

A fictional dodo leads the Caucus-Race in [[Lewis Carroll]]'s book, [[Alice's Adventures in Wonderland]].<ref>Chapter III, "A Caucus-Race and a Long Tale</ref>; one of Tenniel's illustrations shows the Dodo presenting Alice with the prize of a thimble—her own thimble, as the Dodo had previously decided that Alice was responsible for providing the prizes.
==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Birds]]
[[Category:Extinct Animals]]
[[Category:Africa]]

Roman Catholic Church

2008-09-11T23:27:01Z

KennyMac: Undo revision 514824 by Learn together (Talk) Please correct particular facts. Not wholesale deletion of my careful editing.

The '''Roman Catholic Church''' is headed by the [[Pope]] (Supreme Pontiff), the Bishop of [[Rome]], currently [[Pope Benedict XVI]]. It is the largest [[Christian]] denomination in the world, with more than 1.3 billion officially Baptized adherents (In the United States more than 64 million.) The [[Roman]] Catholic Church is the oldest institution in the western world. The Roman Catholic faith teaches that the Pope is the successor of [[St. Peter]], the 'rock' ([[Gospel of Matthew|Matt]] 16:18) upon whom Jesus built his church. The term [[Catholic Church]] is, literally, the ''Universal Church'' of [[Jesus Christ]] (from the Greek ''katholikos'', "universal").

''"The chief teachings of the Catholic church are: [[God]]’s objective existence; God’s interest in individual human beings, who can enter into relations with God (through prayer); the Trinity; the divinity of Jesus; the immortality of the [[soul]] of each human being, each one being accountable at death for his or her actions in life, with the award of heaven or hell; the resurrection of the dead; the historicity of the [[Gospels]]; and the divine commission of the church. In addition the Roman Catholic Church stresses that since the members, living and dead, share in each other’s merits, the [[Virgin Mary]] and other saints and the dead in purgatory are never forgotten." '' <ref> [http://www.bartleby.com/65/ro/RomanCat.html The Columbia Encyclopedia]</ref> The presence of Christ is believed to be present in the Eucharist, the bread and wine is Jesus himself. Another essential belief is the veneration of Mary, the mother of Jesus as the Blessed Virgin Mary and veneration of the saints.

The principal sources for the essential beliefs of the Catholic Church are the Sacred Scriptures (the Bible), Sacred Tradition, and Living Magisterium of the Church.

The term Catholic is frequently applied to the Roman Catholic Church. Although many [[Protestantism|Protestant]]s object to Roman Catholics monopolizing the term, because the defined meaning of Catholic is "universal" and comes from the Greek word Katholikos. The Eastern [[Orthodox Church]] also refer to themselves as, "one holy, Catholic, and apostolic church..."<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/catholic</ref> Conversely, many Roman Catholics dislike the adjective "Roman" because it implies, contrary to (Roman) Catholic doctrine, that their church is not ''the'' universal Church of Christ.

[[Image:Cathpop.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Catholics in the world.]]

== History ==
The original Christian community was founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ and led by the Apostles. St. [[Paul|Paul the Apostle]] was, together with [[Saint Peter]], the most notable of Early Christian missionaries. Christians were deeply unpopular and were subjected to persecution, first under [[Nero]] and [[Domitian]], shortly after the foundation of the church, and again, more severely, under the emperors [[Decius]] and [[Diocletian]] in the third century. There were also sporadic persecutions by provincial administrators in response to popular agitation against Christians. Under [[Decius]] in particular, the penalty for being Christian could ultimately be death. After almost 300 years of persecution against the Church, Christianity nevertheless flourished in the major cities of the Empire.

In the early 4th century, the Emperor [[Constantine I]] claimed to have had a religious experience, although there was considerable scepticism about this among his contemporaries because he himself remained a catechumen until being received into the church on his deathbed. Nevertheless, he legalized Christianity, financed much church building in Rome under Pope Sylvester I, founded [[Istanbul|Constantinople]] as an explicitly Christian city and presided over the first Ecumenical Council, at Nicaea in 325. Going to war with the co-Emperor of the east [[Lucinius]], Constantine won and became sole Emperor. The age of persecution was over. In 380, Emperor [[Theodosius I]] accepted Christianity as the official religion of the [[Roman Empire]]. By the time of the fall of the Roman Empire in 476, the surrounding barbarian nations had been Christianized, although mostly they followed [[Arianism]]. Over the next century or so they embraced Catholicism.

During the [[Middle Ages]] the Church underwent a time of missionary activity and expansion. After numerous disputes between eastern and western churches that became more pronounced from the ninth century onwards, the Church underwent the [[Great Schism]] in 1054 that divided it into a Western (Latin) branch, which has been called the Catholic Church and an Eastern branch, which has become known as the [[Orthodox Church]]. Both traced their roots to the time of Jesus, but the Orthodox Church did not acknowledge the Pope as the one leader of the Church. Instead, it believed that the theology, law and rituals of the church should be agreed by the bishops meeting in Ecumenical Council, not dictated by a single individual. In effect, all patriarchs of national churches were regarded as equals.

The second major schism was the [[Protestant Reformation]] in the 16th century. As a reaction to the increasing popularity of Protestantism the Roman Catholic Church began to undertake some reforms. Firstly from 1869–1870 during the [[First Vatican Council]]. It was during the [[Second Vatican Council]] (1962–1965) that the most comprehensive reforms were undertaken. The Roman Catholic Church stretched relations with other Christian communities and other religions. The Roman Catholic Church also issued directions for a revision of the liturgy.

==Different churches==

The term "The Catholic Church" refers to any one of several Rites, but in the United States is often used synonymously for the largest Rite, the Latin Rite. Other Rites include the Byzantine, Alexandrian, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, and Chaldean Rites. Some Eastern rites have significant differences in liturgy, history, discipline and hierarchy from the Roman Catholic Church, but still recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) and are in communion with Rome. These Eastern Rite churches are Catholic and do not belong to the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]].

Despite important differences in doctrine, the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox Church's Holy Orders (priesthood) as valid; however, the Orthodox generally follow a theory of ordination for place and purpose -- so the notion of being ordained outside the Orthodox Church is meaningless, and no theory of validity is held to.

The Roman Catholic Church historically regarded [[Protestantism|Protestant]] Christianity as heretical, that is, being against Roman doctrine. However, this changed in the 1960's when [[Pope John XXIII]] called the Second Vatican Council, where '''the''' '''doors of the Church were opened wide''', and Protestants referred to as '''"our separated brethren".''' Protestants were neither impressed nor taken in by this apparent openness, noting that much of what had caused the Protestant Reformation had not changed within the Roman Catholic Church.

[[Image:JpII.jpg|right|thumb|John Paul II]]

The [[Anglican Church]] (Episcopalian in the United States) occupies an odd situation, because it encompasses within it factions ("Low Church") that emphasize its Protestant aspects and factions ("High Church") that emphasize its Catholic aspects. Anglo-Catholics regard the Anglican church as part of the Catholic Church, and in the unbroken line of the Apostolic Succession. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern branches take a position that could be described as saying that the Anglican Church is almost but not quite Catholic. There have long been unification overtures, and Anglican priests who wish to adopt Catholic Holy Orders are often provided with an abbreviated path to that goal.

The [[Nicene Creed]], the great historical statement of Christian belief, contains the line "I [or we] believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church". The [[Apostles' Creed]] contains a similar affirmation. However, Protestants and Catholics place different interpretations on the term "universal", or "catholic". Protestants believe that it refers to the general, over-arching spiritual unity of all Christian believers, Jew or gentile, which transcends individual churches and denominations. Catholics, on the other hand, believe that the [[Roman Catholic Church]], as the single true church founded by Christ, is the universal Catholic Church in which there is neither Jew nor gentile. Some prefer not to refer to their own church as the "Roman" Catholic Church, on the grounds that such formulations implicitly deny this point of doctrine.

== Saint Paul's Writings ==

[[Paul|St. Paul]] is the second most prolific contributor to the [[New Testament]]. Thirteen letters are attributed to him and fully known as the "Catholic (or Universal) Epistles of Paul". The letters are written in Greek. The epistles contain the basis of Christian doctrine, interpretation and commentary from earlier scriptures. They are full of expositions of what Christians should believe and how they should live.

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">

''St. Paul reminded the Christians how they should live. They should think about the things in heaven (Colossians 3:2), because they belong with Christ (Colossians 3:3-4). They should not do evil deeds (Colossians 3:5-11). Instead, they should love other people (Colossians 3:12-14). And they should serve God (Colossians 3:15-17). If we invite Jesus into our lives, we will become friends of God (Colossians 1:15-23).'' </blockquote>

St. Paul's influence on Christian thinking has been more significant than any other single New Testament author.

== Fathers ==

[[St. Ambrose]], Bishop of [[Milan]] from 374 to 397, was one of the most illustrious Fathers and [[Doctors of the Church]], and fitly chosen, together with [[St. Augustine]], [[St. John Chrysostom]], and [[St. Athanasius]], to uphold the venerable Chair of the Prince of the Apostles in the tribune of St. Peter's at Rome. <ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01383c.htm St. Ambrose] Catholic Encyclopedia.</ref>
 

==Controversy==
[[Image:Cerro_de_Angeles.jpg|right|thumb|Cerro de los Angeles, Madrid, Spain.]]
There has been much controversy in recent years about Catholic priests in relation to the abuse of children in their care. Cases of inappropiate sexual contact have been discovered in many churches across the world with many of the instances of abuse resulting in little or no repercussion for the priests involved. In some cases, bishops were aware of the abuse but did not effectively deal with it, allowing the abusive priest to continue to remain in contact with minors. Although words like pedophile were often used in the press, in truth 90% of the cases involved priests making overtures towards teenage boys, and not pedophilia. It was a case of breaking vows and homosexuality.<ref>http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=72992710807995&mkt=en-US&lang=en-US&w=98cf251&FORM=CVRE4</ref>.

On July 15 2007 in Los Angeles, the Catholic church paid a $660 million dollar settlement over a priest abuse scandal. More than five hundred lawsuits dating back to the 1930's were filed in Los Angeles from abuse victims of over two hundred priests and lay people. The U.S. Catholic church has paid out more than $2 billion in abuse claims dating back to 1950.<ref>[http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070715/la_archdiocese_070715/20070715?hub=CTVNewsAt11 L.A. Catholic church settlement]</ref>

Incidents of abuse are not unique to the Catholic Church. A recent article from Associated Press (June 19, 2007) reported that three companies which insure the majority of Protestant churches in America indicated that they receive 260 reports annually of young people being sexually abused by clergy, church staff etc.<ref>[http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2007/06/18/80877.htm]</ref> showing that the issue of inappropriate relations is not limited to the Catholic religion. There is a general consensus that this type of abuse is not a problem relegated to any church in particular, but a systemic societal issue.<ref>[http://www.reformation.com/CSA/AbuseNotSimplyAChurchProblem.htm]</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Jesus Christ]]
*[[Vatican City]]
*[[Pope John Paul II]]
*[[Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer]]
*[[Dead Sea Scrolls]]
*[[Catholic views on creationism‎]]

==External links==
[[Image:Virgen.jpg|right|thumb|Virgin Mary and Child]]

*[http://www.Vatican.va The Vatican]
*A digital version of [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ ''The Catholic Encyclopedia''].
*[http://www.cua.edu/ The Catholic University of America] Washington, D. C.
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm St. Paul] Catholic Encyclopedia.
*[http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm Catechism of the Catholic Church] Saint Charles Borromeo Catholic Church web site.
*[http://www.pellegrinocattolico.com/index.html Al Pellegrino Cattolico] Italian web site.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Catholicism]]

Arianism

2008-09-11T23:24:20Z

KennyMac: Arianism wasn't a 'minor' issue in the Roman Empire

Originating around AD 300, '''Arianism''' was the [[theology|theological]] view that [[Jesus]] was divine, but created and lesser than [[God]] the Father. It was considered to be a heresy.

Arianism was officially condemned as incorrect by the [[Council of Nicaea]] in 325, which gave its seal of authority to the established [[Holy Trinity|trinitarian]] view. The theology of the nature of Christ, including the Arian view, caused repeated religious and political turmoil im the [[Roman Empire]] up to the 5th Ecumenical Council in 553 AD. In particular, the biggest influence and conflict due to Arianism was from the barbarian tribes surrounding the Empire. They had generally been [[Christianized]], but mostly followed an Arian creed and opposed the Orthodox faith.

The barbarian tribes which invaded [[Rome]], and caused its fall in 476, were often Arians. The [[Visigoths]] and the [[Ostrogoths]], and especially [[Theoderic]], were followers of the Arian heresy. It would take centuries before the [[trinity|trinitarian]] view prevailed in those regions.

[[Category:Christianity]]

Roman Catholic Church

2008-09-11T23:16:29Z

KennyMac: /* History */

The '''Roman Catholic Church''' is headed by the [[Pope]] (Supreme Pontiff), the Bishop of [[Rome]], currently [[Pope Benedict XVI]]. It is the largest [[Christian]] denomination in the world, with more than 1.3 billion officially Baptized adherents (In the United States more than 64 million.) The [[Roman]] Catholic Church is the oldest institution in the western world. The Roman Catholic faith teaches that the Pope is the successor of [[St. Peter]], the 'rock' ([[Gospel of Matthew|Matt]] 16:18) upon whom Jesus built his church. The term [[Catholic Church]] is, literally, the ''Universal Church'' of [[Jesus Christ]] (from the Greek ''katholikos'', "universal").

''"The chief teachings of the Catholic church are: [[God]]’s objective existence; God’s interest in individual human beings, who can enter into relations with God (through prayer); the Trinity; the divinity of Jesus; the immortality of the [[soul]] of each human being, each one being accountable at death for his or her actions in life, with the award of heaven or hell; the resurrection of the dead; the historicity of the [[Gospels]]; and the divine commission of the church. In addition the Roman Catholic Church stresses that since the members, living and dead, share in each other’s merits, the [[Virgin Mary]] and other saints and the dead in purgatory are never forgotten." '' <ref> [http://www.bartleby.com/65/ro/RomanCat.html The Columbia Encyclopedia]</ref> The presence of Christ is believed to be present in the Eucharist, the bread and wine is Jesus himself. Another essential belief is the veneration of Mary, the mother of Jesus as the Blessed Virgin Mary and veneration of the saints.

The principal sources for the essential beliefs of the Catholic Church are the Sacred Scriptures (the Bible), Sacred Tradition, and Living Magisterium of the Church.

The term Catholic is frequently applied to the Roman Catholic Church. Although many [[Protestantism|Protestant]]s object to Roman Catholics monopolizing the term, because the defined meaning of Catholic is "universal" and comes from the Greek word Katholikos. The Eastern [[Orthodox Church]] also refer to themselves as, "one holy, Catholic, and apostolic church..."<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/catholic</ref> Conversely, many Roman Catholics dislike the adjective "Roman" because it implies, contrary to (Roman) Catholic doctrine, that their church is not ''the'' universal Church of Christ.

[[Image:Cathpop.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Catholics in the world.]]

== History ==
The original Christian community was founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ and led by the Apostles. St. [[Paul|Paul the Apostle]] was, together with [[Saint Peter]], the most notable of Early Christian missionaries. Christians were deeply unpopular and were subjected to persecution, first under [[Nero]] and [[Domitian]], shortly after the foundation of the church, and again, more severely, under the emperors [[Decius]] and [[Diocletian]] in the third century. There were also sporadic persecutions by provincial administrators in response to popular agitation against Christians. Under [[Decius]] in particular, the penalty for being Christian could ultimately be death. After almost 300 years of persecution against the Church, Christianity nevertheless flourished in the major cities of the Empire.

In the early 4th century, the Emperor [[Constantine I]] claimed to have had a religious experience, although there was considerable scepticism about this among his contemporaries because he himself remained a catechumen until being received into the church on his deathbed. Nevertheless, he legalized Christianity, financed much church building in Rome under Pope Sylvester I, founded [[Istanbul|Constantinople]] as an explicitly Christian city and presided over the first Ecumenical Council, at Nicaea in 325. Going to war with the co-Emperor of the east [[Lucinius]], Constantine won and became sole Emperor. The age of persecution was over. In 380, Emperor [[Theodosius I]] accepted Christianity as the official religion of the [[Roman Empire]]. By the time of the fall of the Roman Empire in 476, the surrounding barbarian nations had been Christianized, although mostly they followed [[Arianism]]. Over the next century or so they embraced Catholicism.

During the [[Middle Ages]] the Church underwent a time of missionary activity and expansion. After numerous disputes between eastern and western churches that became more pronounced from the ninth century onwards, the Church underwent the [[Great Schism]] in 1054 that divided it into a Western (Latin) branch, which has been called the Catholic Church and an Eastern branch, which has become known as the [[Orthodox Church]]. Both traced their roots to the time of Jesus, but the Orthodox Church did not acknowledge the Pope as the one leader of the Church. Instead, it believed that the theology, law and rituals of the church should be agreed by the bishops meeting in Ecumenical Council, not dictated by a single individual. In effect, all patriarchs of national churches were regarded as equals.

The second major schism was the [[Protestant Reformation]] in the 16th century. As a reaction to the increasing popularity of Protestantism the Roman Catholic Church began to undertake some reforms. Firstly from 1869–1870 during the [[First Vatican Council]]. It was during the [[Second Vatican Council]] (1962–1965) that the most comprehensive reforms were undertaken. The Roman Catholic Church stretched relations with other Christian communities and other religions. The Roman Catholic Church also issued directions for a revision of the liturgy.

==Different churches==

The term "The Catholic Church" refers to any one of several Rites, but in the United States is often used synonymously for the largest Rite, the Latin Rite. Other Rites include the Byzantine, Alexandrian, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, and Chaldean Rites. Some Eastern rites have significant differences in liturgy, history, discipline and hierarchy from the Roman Catholic Church, but still recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) and are in communion with Rome. These Eastern Rite churches are Catholic and do not belong to the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]].

Despite important differences in doctrine, the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox Church's Holy Orders (priesthood) as valid; however, the Orthodox generally follow a theory of ordination for place and purpose -- so the notion of being ordained outside the Orthodox Church is meaningless, and no theory of validity is held to.

The Roman Catholic Church historically regarded [[Protestantism|Protestant]] Christianity as heretical, that is, being against Roman doctrine. However, this changed in the 1960's when [[Pope John XXIII]] called the Second Vatican Council, where '''the''' '''doors of the Church were opened wide''', and Protestants referred to as '''"our separated brethren".''' Protestants were neither impressed nor taken in by this apparent openness, noting that much of what had caused the Protestant Reformation had not changed within the Roman Catholic Church.

[[Image:JpII.jpg|right|thumb|John Paul II]]

The [[Anglican Church]] (Episcopalian in the United States) occupies an odd situation, because it encompasses within it factions ("Low Church") that emphasize its Protestant aspects and factions ("High Church") that emphasize its Catholic aspects. Anglo-Catholics regard the Anglican church as part of the Catholic Church, and in the unbroken line of the Apostolic Succession. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern branches take a position that could be described as saying that the Anglican Church is almost but not quite Catholic. There have long been unification overtures, and Anglican priests who wish to adopt Catholic Holy Orders are often provided with an abbreviated path to that goal.

The [[Nicene Creed]], the great historical statement of Christian belief, contains the line "I [or we] believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church". The [[Apostles' Creed]] contains a similar affirmation. However, Protestants and Catholics place different interpretations on the term "universal", or "catholic". Protestants believe that it refers to the general, over-arching spiritual unity of all Christian believers, Jew or gentile, which transcends individual churches and denominations. Catholics, on the other hand, believe that the [[Roman Catholic Church]], as the single true church founded by Christ, is the universal Catholic Church in which there is neither Jew nor gentile. Some prefer not to refer to their own church as the "Roman" Catholic Church, on the grounds that such formulations implicitly deny this point of doctrine.

== Saint Paul's Writings ==

[[Paul|St. Paul]] is the second most prolific contributor to the [[New Testament]]. Thirteen letters are attributed to him and fully known as the "Catholic (or Universal) Epistles of Paul". The letters are written in Greek. The epistles contain the basis of Christian doctrine, interpretation and commentary from earlier scriptures. They are full of expositions of what Christians should believe and how they should live.

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">

''St. Paul reminded the Christians how they should live. They should think about the things in heaven (Colossians 3:2), because they belong with Christ (Colossians 3:3-4). They should not do evil deeds (Colossians 3:5-11). Instead, they should love other people (Colossians 3:12-14). And they should serve God (Colossians 3:15-17). If we invite Jesus into our lives, we will become friends of God (Colossians 1:15-23).'' </blockquote>

St. Paul's influence on Christian thinking has been more significant than any other single New Testament author.

== Fathers ==

[[St. Ambrose]], Bishop of [[Milan]] from 374 to 397, was one of the most illustrious Fathers and [[Doctors of the Church]], and fitly chosen, together with [[St. Augustine]], [[St. John Chrysostom]], and [[St. Athanasius]], to uphold the venerable Chair of the Prince of the Apostles in the tribune of St. Peter's at Rome. <ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01383c.htm St. Ambrose] Catholic Encyclopedia.</ref>
 

==Controversy==
[[Image:Cerro_de_Angeles.jpg|right|thumb|Cerro de los Angeles, Madrid, Spain.]]
There has been much controversy in recent years about Catholic priests in relation to the abuse of children in their care. Cases of inappropiate sexual contact have been discovered in many churches across the world with many of the instances of abuse resulting in little or no repercussion for the priests involved. In some cases, bishops were aware of the abuse but did not effectively deal with it, allowing the abusive priest to continue to remain in contact with minors. Although words like pedophile were often used in the press, in truth 90% of the cases involved priests making overtures towards teenage boys, and not pedophilia. It was a case of breaking vows and homosexuality.<ref>http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=72992710807995&mkt=en-US&lang=en-US&w=98cf251&FORM=CVRE4</ref>.

On July 15 2007 in Los Angeles, the Catholic church paid a $660 million dollar settlement over a priest abuse scandal. More than five hundred lawsuits dating back to the 1930's were filed in Los Angeles from abuse victims of over two hundred priests and lay people. The U.S. Catholic church has paid out more than $2 billion in abuse claims dating back to 1950.<ref>[http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070715/la_archdiocese_070715/20070715?hub=CTVNewsAt11 L.A. Catholic church settlement]</ref>

Incidents of abuse are not unique to the Catholic Church. A recent article from Associated Press (June 19, 2007) reported that three companies which insure the majority of Protestant churches in America indicated that they receive 260 reports annually of young people being sexually abused by clergy, church staff etc.<ref>[http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2007/06/18/80877.htm]</ref> showing that the issue of inappropriate relations is not limited to the Catholic religion. There is a general consensus that this type of abuse is not a problem relegated to any church in particular, but a systemic societal issue.<ref>[http://www.reformation.com/CSA/AbuseNotSimplyAChurchProblem.htm]</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Jesus Christ]]
*[[Vatican City]]
*[[Pope John Paul II]]
*[[Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer]]
*[[Dead Sea Scrolls]]
*[[Catholic views on creationism‎]]

==External links==
[[Image:Virgen.jpg|right|thumb|Virgin Mary and Child]]

*[http://www.Vatican.va The Vatican]
*A digital version of [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ ''The Catholic Encyclopedia''].
*[http://www.cua.edu/ The Catholic University of America] Washington, D. C.
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm St. Paul] Catholic Encyclopedia.
*[http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm Catechism of the Catholic Church] Saint Charles Borromeo Catholic Church web site.
*[http://www.pellegrinocattolico.com/index.html Al Pellegrino Cattolico] Italian web site.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Catholicism]]

Conservapedia:Critical Thinking in Math

2008-09-11T23:04:46Z

KennyMac: Non-elementary proofs

Talk:Essay: Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution

2008-09-11T23:00:04Z

KennyMac: Oh dear...

Talk:Essay: Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution

2008-09-11T22:59:40Z

KennyMac: Oh dear...

Roman Catholic Church

2008-08-12T22:44:32Z

KennyMac: /* History */ Early church history

The '''Roman Catholic Church''' is headed by the [[Pope]] (Supreme Pontiff), the Bishop of Rome, currently [[Pope Benedict XVI]]. It is the largest [[Christian]] denomination in the world, with more than 1.3 billion officially Baptized adherents (In the United States more than 64 million.) The [[Roman]] Catholic Church is the oldest institution in the western world. The Roman Catholic faith teaches that the Pope is the successor of [[St. Peter]], the 'rock' (Mat 16:18) upon whom Jesus built his church. The term [[Catholic Church]] is, literally, the ''Universal Church'' of [[Jesus Christ]] (from the Greek ''katholikos'', "universal").

''"The chief teachings of the Catholic church are: [[God]]’s objective existence; God’s interest in individual human beings, who can enter into relations with God (through prayer); the Trinity; the divinity of Jesus; the immortality of the [[soul]] of each human being, each one being accountable at death for his or her actions in life, with the award of heaven or hell; the resurrection of the dead; the historicity of the [[Gospels]]; and the divine commission of the church. In addition the Roman Catholic Church stresses that since the members, living and dead, share in each other’s merits, the [[Virgin Mary]] and other saints and the dead in purgatory are never forgotten." '' <ref> [http://www.bartleby.com/65/ro/RomanCat.html The Columbia Encyclopedia]</ref> The presence of Christ is believed to be present in the Eucharist, the bread and wine is Jesus himself. Another essential belief is the veneration of Mary, the mother of Jesus as the Blessed Virgin Mary and veneration of the saints.

The principal sources for the essential beliefs of the Catholic Church are the Sacred Scriptures (the Bible), Sacred Tradition, and Living Magisterium of the Church.

The term Catholic is frequently applied to the Roman Catholic Church. Although many [[Protestantism|Protestant]]s object to Roman Catholics monopolizing the term, because the defined meaning of Catholic is "universal" and comes from the Greek word Katholikos.The Eastern [[Orthodox Church]] also refer to themselves as, "one holy, Catholic, and apostolic church..."<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/catholic</ref> Conversely, many Roman Catholics dislike the adjective "Roman" because it implies, contrary to (Roman) Catholic doctrine, that their church is not ''the'' universal Church of Christ.

[[Image:Cathpop.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Catholics in the world.]]

== History ==
The original Christian community was founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ and led by the Apostles. St. [[Paul|Paul the Apostle]] was, together with [[Saint Peter]], the most notable of Early Christian missionaries. Christians were subjected intermittently to persecution, first under Nero, shortly after the foundation of the church, and again, more severely, under the emperors Decius and Diocletian in the third century. Christianity was nevertheless adopted as the official cult of the Roman Empire in the early fourth century by [[Constantine I]], although he himself may have remained a catechumen until his deathbed. In 380, Emperor Theodosius I accepted Catholic Christianity (as opposed to Arian Christianity) as the official religion of the [[Roman Empire]]. During the [[Middle Ages]] the Church underwent a time of missionary activity and expansion. After numerous disputes between eastern and western churches from the ninth century onwards, the Church underwent a great schism in 1054 that divided it into a Western (Latin) branch, which has been called the Catholic Church and an Eastern branch, which has become known as the [[Orthodox Church]]. The second major schism was the [[Protestant Reformation]] in the 16th century. As a reaction to the increasing popularity of Protestantism the Roman Catholic Church began to undertake some reforms. Firstly from 1869–1870 during the [[First Vatican Council]]. It was during the [[Second Vatican Council]] (1962–1965) that the most comprehensive reforms were undertaken. The Roman Catholic Church stretched relations with other Christian communities and other religions. The Roman Catholic Church also issued directions for a revision of the liturgy.

==Different churches==

The term "The Catholic Church" refers to any one of several Rites, but in the United States is often used synonymously for the largest Rite, the Latin Rite. Other Rites include the Byzantine, Alexandrian, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, and Chaldean Rites. Some Eastern rites have significant differences in liturgy, history, discipline and hierarchy from the Roman Catholic Church, but still recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) and are in communion with Rome. These Eastern Rite churches are Catholic and do not belong to the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]].

Despite important differences in doctrine, the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox Church's Holy Orders (priesthood) as valid; however, the Orthodox generally follow a theory of ordination for place and purpose -- so the notion of being ordained outside the Orthodox Church is meaningless, and no theory of validity is held to.

The Roman Catholic Church historically regarded [[Protestantism|Protestant]] Christianity as heretical, that is, being against Roman doctrine. However, this changed in the 1960's when Pope John XXIII called the Second Vatican Council, where '''the''' '''doors of the Church were opened wide''', and Protestants referred to as '''"our separated brethren".''' Protestants were neither impressed nor taken in by this apparent openness, noting that much of what had caused the Protestant Reformation had not changed within the Roman Catholic Church.

[[Image:JpII.jpg|right|thumb|John Paul II]]

The [[Anglican Church]] (Episcopalian in the United States) occupies an odd situation, because it encompasses within it factions ("Low Church") that emphasize its Protestant aspects and factions ("High Church") that emphasize its Catholic aspects. Anglo-Catholics regard the Anglican church as part of the Catholic Church, and in the unbroken line of the Apostolic Succession. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern branches take a position that could be described as saying that the Anglican Church is almost but not quite Catholic. There have long been unification overtures, and Anglican priests who wish to adopt Catholic Holy Orders are often provided with an abbreviated path to that goal.

The [[Nicene Creed]], the great historical statement of Christian belief, contains the line "I [or we] believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church". The [[Apostles' Creed]] contains a similar affirmation. However, Protestants and Catholics place different interpretations on the term "universal", or "catholic". Protestants believe that it refers to the general, over-arching spiritual unity of all Christian believers, Jew or gentile, which transcends individual churches and denominations. Catholics, on the other hand, believe that the [[Roman Catholic Church]], as the single true church founded by Christ, is the universal Catholic Church in which there is neither Jew nor gentile. Some prefer not to refer to their own church as the "Roman" Catholic Church, on the grounds that such formulations implicitly deny this point of doctrine.

== Saint Paul's Writings ==

[[Paul|St. Paul]] is the second most prolific contributor to the [[New Testament]]. Thirteen letters are attributed to him and fully known as the "Catholic (or Universal) Epistles of Paul". The letters are written in Greek. The epistles contain the basis of Christian doctrine, interpretation and commentary from earlier scriptures. They are full of expositions of what Christians should believe and how they should live.

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">

''St. Paul reminded the Christians how they should live. They should think about the things in heaven (Colossians 3:2), because they belong with Christ (Colossians 3:3-4). They should not do evil deeds (Colossians 3:5-11). Instead, they should love other people (Colossians 3:12-14). And they should serve God (Colossians 3:15-17). If we invite Jesus into our lives, we will become friends of God (Colossians 1:15-23).'' </blockquote>

St. Paul's influence on Christian thinking has been more significant than any other single New Testament author.

== Fathers ==

[[St. Ambrose]], Bishop of Milan from 374 to 397, was one of the most illustrious Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and fitly chosen, together with [[St. Augustine]], [[St. John Chrysostom]], and [[St. Athanasius]], to uphold the venerable Chair of the Prince of the Apostles in the tribune of St. Peter's at Rome. <ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01383c.htm St. Ambrose] Catholic Encyclopedia.</ref>
 

==Controversy==
[[Image:Cerro_de_Angeles.jpg|right|thumb|Cerro de los Angeles, Madrid, Spain.]]
There has been much controversy in recent years about Catholic priests in relation to the abuse of children in their care. Cases of inappropiate sexual contact have been discovered in many churches across the world with many of the instances of abuse resulting in little or no repercussion for the priests involved. In some cases, bishops were aware of the abuse but did not effectively deal with it, allowing the abusive priest to continue to remain in contact with minors. Although words like pedophile were often used in the press, in truth 90% of the cases involved priests making overtures towards teenage boys, and not pedophilia. It was a case of breaking vows and homosexuality.<ref>http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=72992710807995&mkt=en-US&lang=en-US&w=98cf251&FORM=CVRE4</ref>.

On July 15 2007 in Los Angeles, the Catholic church paid a $660 million dollar settlement over a priest abuse scandal. More than five hundred lawsuits dating back to the 1930's were filed in Los Angeles from abuse victims of over two hundred priests and lay people. The U.S. Catholic church has paid out more than $2 billion in abuse claims dating back to 1950.<ref>[http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070715/la_archdiocese_070715/20070715?hub=CTVNewsAt11 L.A. Catholic church settlement]</ref>

Incidents of abuse are not unique to the Catholic Church. A recent article from Associated Press (June 19, 2007) reported that three companies which insure the majority of Protestant churches in America indicated that they receive 260 reports annually of young people being sexually abused by clergy, church staff etc.<ref>[http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2007/06/18/80877.htm]</ref> showing that the issue of inappropriate relations is not limited to the Catholic religion. There is a general consensus that this type of abuse is not a problem relegated to any church in particular, but a systemic societal issue.<ref>[http://www.reformation.com/CSA/AbuseNotSimplyAChurchProblem.htm]</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Jesus Christ]]
*[[Vatican City]]
*[[Pope John Paul II]]
*[[Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer]]
*[[Dead Sea Scrolls]]
*[[Catholic views on creationism‎]]

==External links==
[[Image:Virgen.jpg|right|thumb|Virgin Mary and Child]]

*[http://www.Vatican.va The Vatican]
*A digital version of [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ ''The Catholic Encyclopedia''].
*[http://www.cua.edu/ The Catholic University of America] Washington, D. C.
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm St. Paul] Catholic Encyclopedia.
*[http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm Catechism of the Catholic Church] Saint Charles Borromeo Catholic Church web site.
*[http://www.pellegrinocattolico.com/index.html Al Pellegrino Cattolico] Italian web site.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Catholicism]]

Talk:Gardasil

2008-08-12T22:24:57Z

KennyMac: References to end of page

[[/draft]]

Favorite soundbite from televised debates 2/4-2/5: "This is about corporate welfare for Merck and making guinea pigs of Texas school girls."

The proposed HPV vaccine mandate uses 11-year-old school girls as guinea pigs for Merck. “HPV” really means “Help Pay for Vioxx,” since Merck is seeking state laws to give it billions of dollars in new revenue. Drug-industry analyst Steve Brozak of W.B.B. Securities projected sales of this vaccine to be billions if states require it. “I could not think of a bigger boost” to Merck, he said.

But this vaccine is a loser. Michigan recently rejected Merck’s attempt for a state mandate there. Indiana rebuffed Merck’s attempt there. Maryland refused to mandate this vaccine. The Texas legislature opposes imposing this vaccine by mandate. Only after Merck hired Texas Governor Rick Perry’s former chief-of-staff, and funded the “Women in Government” group to advance Merck’s agenda, did the Texas Governor bypass the legislature in a move of dubious legality. Follow the money.

This new vaccine hs not been shown to prevent a single case of cancer. Merck, in its own package insert, does not claim that this vaccine lasts more than a few years. The average age of cervical cancer is 48. There is no evidence giving this vaccine to an 11-year-old will protect against a condition 37 years later. Not even Merck makes that claim.

Merck wants the states to require purchase of its vaccine, and kids can feel free to have sex. Only in the fine print do we learn that no long term benefits or risks of this vaccine have even been tested. Merck did not even test if this vaccine causes cancer.

Don’t be fooled by this drug company chicanery. Follow the money and see that this vaccine is great for Merck and bad for the rest of us. It costs $360 for the shots alone, and up to $1000 when administrative fees and follow-up office visits are included, particularly when there is an adverse reaction.

This controversial vaccine was approved only about eight months ago, based on testing of perhaps only a few hundred young girls. Do not make guinea pigs out of all our children. Parents who want to give this to their children can already do so. This vaccine does not prevent any diseases contagious at school and should not be used as a condition of entering school. It should not be forced on our children.

:Well, honestly. The vaccine only serves to protect. A good Christian girl will stick to her morals and won't go out having sex because of this vaccine, and a girl who had already planned on having sex would benefit from this, because it protects them. Do you feel inclined to step on a rusty nail after you get a tetanis booster? --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 18:38, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::please see the discussion in ASchafly's thread between him and me. I have in good faith attempted to contribute valuable, moral information here, but he is questioning my credentials in bad faith. I hope he reads up a little and stops the attacks. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:20, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

: Palmd0001, your recent edit was unsupported and false. See [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/01/16/DI2007011600929.html here].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:23, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::My edits are, of course, completely supported, not false, cited, and written by an expert (me) which is more than I can say for much else here after my little discussion with you [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Question][[http://www.example.com link title]] Any fair and balanced observer will see that you have no interest in the truth. I had really hoped otherwise.
Your potential friend, Peter [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:30, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::Dave, thank you for the NEJM citation. It will probably not last.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:46, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No problem. I am anticipating the inevitable edit followed by "The New England Journal of Medicine is not a valid source" statement.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 21:23, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Condom effectiveness==

: Have kept condom statement and also cited conflicting report.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:39, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::The way it's currently written is nonsensical, as in the NEJM study condoms clearly reduced HPV transmission. Unfortunately the conflicting report you cited isn't a link so I can't compare the 2 sources.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:42, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Murray, Google search the whole cite. The first link you see should be the report.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:44, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Austin, just how much of your "conflicting" report did you read. A lot of the report talks about the effectiveness of condoms. Also, the NEJM report came out two years ''after'' your cited report. So any discussion about testing methodology is moot since it couldn't apply to the NEJM report.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:43, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: From my link "All published epidemiologic studies of HPV have methodologic limitations that make the effect of condoms in the prevention of HPV infection unknown. While a few studies on genital HPV and condom use showed a protective effect, most studies on genital HPV infection and condom use did not show a protective effect." Surely you can't be arguing that one article in a academic journal is a better citation than a report to Congress.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Austin, also from your link:

::"As described above, available clinical and epidemiologic data indicate that genital HPV infection is transmitted by contact with infected skin or mucosa. Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of HPV (125;126). Studies of HPV infection in men demonstrate that most HPV infections (both HPV DNA and HPV-associated lesions) are located on parts of the p*nis that would be covered by a
condom (48;54-57;63;127-129).

::Published studies that have assessed the effectiveness of male condoms to prevent HPV infection or any STD other than HIV are limited by multiple methodologic issues (117;118). In general, these limitations are likely to underestimate condom effectiveness (130-132)."

::Again, Austin, the biggest problem is that the NEJM report is from 2006 and the report to Congress is from 2004. How can you use it to discredit a newer study using improved methodology?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:06, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

The effectiveness of condoms, in general, is a controversial issue. Does anyone know the standards of this project for treating controversial matters?

Pending a clear statement otherwise from management, I would say we ought to describe each side in the controversy '''accurately'''. We should not, for example, claim an advocate is on one side when it's on the other. We should not 'torture the meaning' of a source to make it support one side, either.

All agree? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:58, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought the way I had it before was pretty clear. It stated evidence for condoms, which is VAST, and also pointed out that they are SECOND most effective. THIS IS NOT AN AREA OF SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY. Adding a moralistic statement about them in the PROPER place is fine, but really, this was quite clear as of yesterday. If anyone else wants to present an expert with credentials that equal or surpass mine on the subject, please do.[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 12:05, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:It was entirely clear as of yesterday. I don't know that there are 2 sides to this. Bottom line is that condoms have been shown to reduce transmission, and the current version of the article is flatly false. Nobody is saying that condom use will ''prevent'' transmission altogether, becauce the NEJM study makes clear that isn't the case. But to describe them as "ineffectual" makes no sense.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:*Among 27 estimates from 20 studies, there was no consistent evidence that condom use reduces the risk of becoming HPV DNA-positive. [http://www.stdjournal.com/pt/re/std/abstract.00007435-200211000-00018.htm;jsessionid=GJLPFHnbKqghK8hXPwCFmJ7ZVMTZWj4dJq12GHNfFyz21yvM62jF!721371455!-949856145!8091!-1]

:I'm just a layman but it took me only one google hit to find this link to the Journal of the American Sexually Transmitted Disease Association. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:54, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Ed, I respect your skills and intelligence, but google is not an appropriate search engine for medical studies. You should try PubMed. Also, your combination of evidence is, in essence, a meta-analysis, which cannot be done as simply as you have. The general consensus in the medical literature is that condoms significanlty reduce the risk of all STDs, including HPV (the the NEJM article), but of course, abstinence, meaning NO CONTACT AT ALL, is most effective. I wont revert, but you should reconsider your back-of-the-envelope meta-analysis. Also, the cited meta analysis is old (2002), and the type of study in NEJM was designed to be more accurate. [[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 14:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm well aware that the general view is "that condoms significantly reduce the risk". But that is not the question our young Christian friend has brought up. Moreover, there's a huge public battle about strategies to reduce the incidence of VD and unwanted pregnancy. The claim that "condoms are the best way" is related to questions about their effectiveness. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:21, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Ed, all my edits here and in STDs clearly stated that abstinence is the best and only certain method. Condoms are a very effective second best, and Ive always clearly stated that. In the world of medical literature, 5 years old is OLD for a study, and meta-analyses are considered the second weakest form of study. [[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 14:26, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ed, no one here claimed they are the best way. The cite said that condoms are the SECOND best way to avoid HPV. The first, obviously, being abstinence. I can't believe that this is a controversial statement. It's common sense.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:27, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::As PalMD said, that article is 5 years old. There's plenty of evidence from the last 2 years. Try some of these: [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T80-4HMV7J6-2&_user=4429&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000059602&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4429&md5=24c5f1dc80356bed16618f8390c08c01 - 1] [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16223580&dopt=Citation - 2][http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JID/journal/issues/v194n8/36645/36645.html - 3] [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:28, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't want to debate the issue. I want to work with you to find a way to '''present''' the issue in the article.

Austin has brought up the effectiveness issue. If some medical authority calls the [[male condom]] "second-best", you can come up with a citation for that and place it in the article. Just don't do it in an argumentative way. Try this:

*Abstinence is the most effective way to prevent its transmission. (Blank) recommends use of the [[male condom]], calling it "second best".

Oh, but this entails the argument that "some people won't be abstinent, so we better tell everyone to use condoms". Maybe that's why Schlafly reverted before.

We can't sweep the "best strategy" issue under the rug, and it involves more than just "what recent studies" say. There are moral aspects, too. And also the way you phrase something has an effect on behavior (see [[Pygmalion effect]]). Telling people '''if you are going to have extramarital sex, do (blank)''' is tantamount to egging them on to do it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, Ok, first, we do have the reference that Dave put in. It is simply MEDICAL FACT. It is not currently in dispute in the medical world. As to the moral implications, I would hope that those reading this would have a good moral foundation. If they are planning on remaining abstinent, wonderful. If not, they should know what to do next, or they will spread disease. This is not a pygmalion thing...it is public health. I thought that the way I originally presented it was fairly good. Check it out. If we are to add a section on morals, I think it takes away from the encyclopedic/factual nature of the article. A link to an article about morals should be sufficient.[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 14:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, you're losing me: what is a medical fact?
::#That the most effective method of VD prevention is abstinence?
::#That the "second-best" method is condom use?
::#That UNAIDS is right when the advocate several methods '''other than abstinence''' as "effective"?
::#That PR campaigns which tell people, "if you can't be abstinent before marriage or faithful within marriage, try (blank)" are effective in preventing VD?
::It's a complex problem. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Ed, "if you are going to have extramarital sex, do (blank) is tantamount to egging them on to do it." is not a good assumption. I myself was given a talk by my high school teacher that mentioned that if we do have sex we should use protection but made question whether we were really ready for the consequences of illness and unplanned pregnancy at our age. [[User:Midnus|Midnus]]

==Abstinence==
There is a problem, at the least, with the phrasing regarding abstinence. People abstaining from sex do not have sexual partners. This should be fixed or removed. [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 14:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Before making major revisions..==
Consider discussing here...even if you are the boss.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 16:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Or,on the other hand, make unilateral controversial changes. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 16:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==The HPV vaccine does not protect against other sexually transmitted diseases (e.g., chlamydia, herpes, hepatitis, trichomoniasis, gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV, AIDS, etc.)==

This seems like a slightly bizarre comment. Yes, I suppose it is accurate as far as it goes, but what's the point? Why stop there? Why not also add that it does not protect against the common cold, pneumonia, leukaemia, ingrowing toenails and being run over by a bus? It's a vaccine against HPV, not all STDs. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 17:14, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Because that doesn't assist the ideological bent of said statement.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:33, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

The reason is that they do not want to think that it is a vaccine that prevents all STDs and should use whatever protection they choose to use. It's saying that it does not guarantee "safe sex." [[User:Midnus|Midnus]]

== Article Title ==

This article should be moved to "Gardasil," since most of it refers specifically to that vaccine. Gardasil and HPV Vaccine might be synonymous now, but they won't be when/if Cervarix is approved.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 17:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Reverted Liberal Bias ==

Liberal bias and some uncritical repetitions of vaccine manufacturer claims were reverted. Abstinence protects against this disease at no cost, and there is no reason to believe the self-interested claims by the manufacturer about safety and efficacy of the vaccine, particularly when researchers themselves have expressed criticisms of attempts to make it mandatory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:19, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:Is it reasonable to expect that all teenagers will abstain from sex until marriage? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:22, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore, the researchers criticized making it mandatory, they didn't criticize any of the other claims. At minimum, those claims should be acknowledged. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 01:25, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:The claims about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine aren't being made exclusively by the manufacturer. They're being made by the CDC, New England Journal of Medicine, and the Journal of the American Medical Association. These are peer-reviewed publications, and can't just be hand-waved away as "liberal bias." It seems to me, Andy, that anything you disagree with automatically becomes liberal bias. There is only one link to information directly from the manufacturer in the article, and that is to point to the manufacturer's packaging insert. It is not used to back up any of the claims about efficacy or safety. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 01:54, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::If we are going to change ''In June 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first HPV vaccine based on observance of elevated [[antibody]] levels in a double blind clinical trial involving over 20,000 subjects.'' <ref>CDC - Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) [http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5602a1.htm]</ref> to ''In June 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first HPV vaccine based on observance of elevated [[antibody]] levels in a few thousand patients who had received the vaccine (including perhaps only a few hundred or less young girls).'', then we need a reference for the latter. I don't yet have any opinion one way or another on which statement is more accurate, I just want to be able to read the sources.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:56, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

The term "sexually active" is [[liberal]] bias. Sexual activity within marriage is at ZERO risk of contracting disease; sexual activity outside of marriage is at high risk.

Also, the 20,000 figure is meaningless because the monitoring was so brief.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:50, 4 January 2008 (EST)

SSchultz, you're pushing your limits here. You deleted important info (like the lack of epidemological studies and lack of protection against other STDs) and inserted numbers that lack any significance due to the brief monitoring. Go to Wikipedia with the liberal bias, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:59, 4 January 2008 (EST)

I explicitly stated that the monitoring period wasn't long enough to detect cervical cancer, but what about the fact that the vaccine prevented precancerous lesions? That is important information. I'll leave out the 20,000 number, though. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:04, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Andy, I kept everything in that you asked, and merely added information about the prevention of precancerous lesions. What's the story here? It's as if you want this article to claim that the vaccine is ineffective. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:13, 5 January 2008 (EST)

: We can pick this up more tomorrow. The entry should remain factual without misleading claims. The vaccine's effect may be short-lived, for example, as monitoring seems to have been intentionally brief. Also, it appeared to me that you kept deleting the reference to a lack of epidemiological studies. See you tomorrow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:22, 5 January 2008 (EST)

::Schultz, I love ya but you have to remember that CP is not Wikipedia. We don't tolerate suppression of information merely on the grounds that it "advances a POV". Please work with us - not against us - to present both sides of the [[HPV vaccine controversy]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:07, 5 January 2008 (EST)

==Article quality==

This article is so bad that I'm wondering whether to delete it.

Or maybe we could tuck it away somewhere and work on it for a week until it's ready. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:20, 5 January 2008 (EST)

The MSNBC source contradicts the line that says the pain causes fainting, MSNBC says "it’s not clear whether the pain of the cervical cancer vaccine was the reason for the reaction [fainting]." [[User:Midnus|Midnus]]

==Dubious claims from liberal newsmagazine==

''Time'' says one thing, but they are liberal and they often mix news and editorials together. We need an article on the most prevalent [[venereal diseases]]: broken down perhaps by America vs. rest of the world. I had also heard that [[chlamydia]] was the most common. Who says it's [[HPV]]? Time, or Atlanta CDC? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:11, 5 January 2008 (EST)
:Speaking of that, there is an article [http://www.ama.com.au/web.nsf/doc/WEEN-5NG4JQ here] that notes that "eighty per cent of the 466,000 cases diagnosed globally each year occur in developing countries where it is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women." So HPV is ''much'' less prevalent in the U.S. and [[First World]] countries than the [[liberal hysteria]] of the media would have us believe. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 12:18, 5 January 2008 (EST)

:: Thanks for another excellent observation, ThomasB. By the way, often vaccine manufacturers get big tax write-offs by dumping their stale or defective vaccine products on the Third World. Recently the vaccine caused a tragic epidemic of polio in one African country.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 5 January 2008 (EST)

::: Careful what you write, please, Aschafly. The vaccine that caused the (small, local) epidemic of polio was a polio vaccine one which contained a rare mutation in the attenuated polio virus<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7037462.stm</ref>. Nothing at all to do with HPV or with "dumping" "defective" vaccines. Loose talk about vaccines can cost lives by creating ill-founded hysteria. [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 18:22, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

Talk:Gardasil

2008-08-12T22:22:39Z

KennyMac: /* Dubious claims from liberal newsmagazine */ Mutated polio virus

[[/draft]]

Favorite soundbite from televised debates 2/4-2/5: "This is about corporate welfare for Merck and making guinea pigs of Texas school girls."

The proposed HPV vaccine mandate uses 11-year-old school girls as guinea pigs for Merck. “HPV” really means “Help Pay for Vioxx,” since Merck is seeking state laws to give it billions of dollars in new revenue. Drug-industry analyst Steve Brozak of W.B.B. Securities projected sales of this vaccine to be billions if states require it. “I could not think of a bigger boost” to Merck, he said.

But this vaccine is a loser. Michigan recently rejected Merck’s attempt for a state mandate there. Indiana rebuffed Merck’s attempt there. Maryland refused to mandate this vaccine. The Texas legislature opposes imposing this vaccine by mandate. Only after Merck hired Texas Governor Rick Perry’s former chief-of-staff, and funded the “Women in Government” group to advance Merck’s agenda, did the Texas Governor bypass the legislature in a move of dubious legality. Follow the money.

This new vaccine hs not been shown to prevent a single case of cancer. Merck, in its own package insert, does not claim that this vaccine lasts more than a few years. The average age of cervical cancer is 48. There is no evidence giving this vaccine to an 11-year-old will protect against a condition 37 years later. Not even Merck makes that claim.

Merck wants the states to require purchase of its vaccine, and kids can feel free to have sex. Only in the fine print do we learn that no long term benefits or risks of this vaccine have even been tested. Merck did not even test if this vaccine causes cancer.

Don’t be fooled by this drug company chicanery. Follow the money and see that this vaccine is great for Merck and bad for the rest of us. It costs $360 for the shots alone, and up to $1000 when administrative fees and follow-up office visits are included, particularly when there is an adverse reaction.

This controversial vaccine was approved only about eight months ago, based on testing of perhaps only a few hundred young girls. Do not make guinea pigs out of all our children. Parents who want to give this to their children can already do so. This vaccine does not prevent any diseases contagious at school and should not be used as a condition of entering school. It should not be forced on our children.

:Well, honestly. The vaccine only serves to protect. A good Christian girl will stick to her morals and won't go out having sex because of this vaccine, and a girl who had already planned on having sex would benefit from this, because it protects them. Do you feel inclined to step on a rusty nail after you get a tetanis booster? --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 18:38, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::please see the discussion in ASchafly's thread between him and me. I have in good faith attempted to contribute valuable, moral information here, but he is questioning my credentials in bad faith. I hope he reads up a little and stops the attacks. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:20, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

: Palmd0001, your recent edit was unsupported and false. See [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/01/16/DI2007011600929.html here].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:23, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::My edits are, of course, completely supported, not false, cited, and written by an expert (me) which is more than I can say for much else here after my little discussion with you [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Question][[http://www.example.com link title]] Any fair and balanced observer will see that you have no interest in the truth. I had really hoped otherwise.
Your potential friend, Peter [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:30, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::Dave, thank you for the NEJM citation. It will probably not last.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:46, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No problem. I am anticipating the inevitable edit followed by "The New England Journal of Medicine is not a valid source" statement.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 21:23, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Condom effectiveness==

: Have kept condom statement and also cited conflicting report.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:39, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::The way it's currently written is nonsensical, as in the NEJM study condoms clearly reduced HPV transmission. Unfortunately the conflicting report you cited isn't a link so I can't compare the 2 sources.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:42, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Murray, Google search the whole cite. The first link you see should be the report.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:44, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Austin, just how much of your "conflicting" report did you read. A lot of the report talks about the effectiveness of condoms. Also, the NEJM report came out two years ''after'' your cited report. So any discussion about testing methodology is moot since it couldn't apply to the NEJM report.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:43, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: From my link "All published epidemiologic studies of HPV have methodologic limitations that make the effect of condoms in the prevention of HPV infection unknown. While a few studies on genital HPV and condom use showed a protective effect, most studies on genital HPV infection and condom use did not show a protective effect." Surely you can't be arguing that one article in a academic journal is a better citation than a report to Congress.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Austin, also from your link:

::"As described above, available clinical and epidemiologic data indicate that genital HPV infection is transmitted by contact with infected skin or mucosa. Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of HPV (125;126). Studies of HPV infection in men demonstrate that most HPV infections (both HPV DNA and HPV-associated lesions) are located on parts of the p*nis that would be covered by a
condom (48;54-57;63;127-129).

::Published studies that have assessed the effectiveness of male condoms to prevent HPV infection or any STD other than HIV are limited by multiple methodologic issues (117;118). In general, these limitations are likely to underestimate condom effectiveness (130-132)."

::Again, Austin, the biggest problem is that the NEJM report is from 2006 and the report to Congress is from 2004. How can you use it to discredit a newer study using improved methodology?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:06, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

The effectiveness of condoms, in general, is a controversial issue. Does anyone know the standards of this project for treating controversial matters?

Pending a clear statement otherwise from management, I would say we ought to describe each side in the controversy '''accurately'''. We should not, for example, claim an advocate is on one side when it's on the other. We should not 'torture the meaning' of a source to make it support one side, either.

All agree? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:58, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought the way I had it before was pretty clear. It stated evidence for condoms, which is VAST, and also pointed out that they are SECOND most effective. THIS IS NOT AN AREA OF SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY. Adding a moralistic statement about them in the PROPER place is fine, but really, this was quite clear as of yesterday. If anyone else wants to present an expert with credentials that equal or surpass mine on the subject, please do.[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 12:05, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:It was entirely clear as of yesterday. I don't know that there are 2 sides to this. Bottom line is that condoms have been shown to reduce transmission, and the current version of the article is flatly false. Nobody is saying that condom use will ''prevent'' transmission altogether, becauce the NEJM study makes clear that isn't the case. But to describe them as "ineffectual" makes no sense.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:*Among 27 estimates from 20 studies, there was no consistent evidence that condom use reduces the risk of becoming HPV DNA-positive. [http://www.stdjournal.com/pt/re/std/abstract.00007435-200211000-00018.htm;jsessionid=GJLPFHnbKqghK8hXPwCFmJ7ZVMTZWj4dJq12GHNfFyz21yvM62jF!721371455!-949856145!8091!-1]

:I'm just a layman but it took me only one google hit to find this link to the Journal of the American Sexually Transmitted Disease Association. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:54, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Ed, I respect your skills and intelligence, but google is not an appropriate search engine for medical studies. You should try PubMed. Also, your combination of evidence is, in essence, a meta-analysis, which cannot be done as simply as you have. The general consensus in the medical literature is that condoms significanlty reduce the risk of all STDs, including HPV (the the NEJM article), but of course, abstinence, meaning NO CONTACT AT ALL, is most effective. I wont revert, but you should reconsider your back-of-the-envelope meta-analysis. Also, the cited meta analysis is old (2002), and the type of study in NEJM was designed to be more accurate. [[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 14:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm well aware that the general view is "that condoms significantly reduce the risk". But that is not the question our young Christian friend has brought up. Moreover, there's a huge public battle about strategies to reduce the incidence of VD and unwanted pregnancy. The claim that "condoms are the best way" is related to questions about their effectiveness. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:21, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Ed, all my edits here and in STDs clearly stated that abstinence is the best and only certain method. Condoms are a very effective second best, and Ive always clearly stated that. In the world of medical literature, 5 years old is OLD for a study, and meta-analyses are considered the second weakest form of study. [[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 14:26, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ed, no one here claimed they are the best way. The cite said that condoms are the SECOND best way to avoid HPV. The first, obviously, being abstinence. I can't believe that this is a controversial statement. It's common sense.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:27, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::As PalMD said, that article is 5 years old. There's plenty of evidence from the last 2 years. Try some of these: [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T80-4HMV7J6-2&_user=4429&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000059602&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4429&md5=24c5f1dc80356bed16618f8390c08c01 - 1] [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16223580&dopt=Citation - 2][http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JID/journal/issues/v194n8/36645/36645.html - 3] [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:28, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't want to debate the issue. I want to work with you to find a way to '''present''' the issue in the article.

Austin has brought up the effectiveness issue. If some medical authority calls the [[male condom]] "second-best", you can come up with a citation for that and place it in the article. Just don't do it in an argumentative way. Try this:

*Abstinence is the most effective way to prevent its transmission. (Blank) recommends use of the [[male condom]], calling it "second best".

Oh, but this entails the argument that "some people won't be abstinent, so we better tell everyone to use condoms". Maybe that's why Schlafly reverted before.

We can't sweep the "best strategy" issue under the rug, and it involves more than just "what recent studies" say. There are moral aspects, too. And also the way you phrase something has an effect on behavior (see [[Pygmalion effect]]). Telling people '''if you are going to have extramarital sex, do (blank)''' is tantamount to egging them on to do it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, Ok, first, we do have the reference that Dave put in. It is simply MEDICAL FACT. It is not currently in dispute in the medical world. As to the moral implications, I would hope that those reading this would have a good moral foundation. If they are planning on remaining abstinent, wonderful. If not, they should know what to do next, or they will spread disease. This is not a pygmalion thing...it is public health. I thought that the way I originally presented it was fairly good. Check it out. If we are to add a section on morals, I think it takes away from the encyclopedic/factual nature of the article. A link to an article about morals should be sufficient.[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 14:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, you're losing me: what is a medical fact?
::#That the most effective method of VD prevention is abstinence?
::#That the "second-best" method is condom use?
::#That UNAIDS is right when the advocate several methods '''other than abstinence''' as "effective"?
::#That PR campaigns which tell people, "if you can't be abstinent before marriage or faithful within marriage, try (blank)" are effective in preventing VD?
::It's a complex problem. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Ed, "if you are going to have extramarital sex, do (blank) is tantamount to egging them on to do it." is not a good assumption. I myself was given a talk by my high school teacher that mentioned that if we do have sex we should use protection but made question whether we were really ready for the consequences of illness and unplanned pregnancy at our age. [[User:Midnus|Midnus]]

==Abstinence==
There is a problem, at the least, with the phrasing regarding abstinence. People abstaining from sex do not have sexual partners. This should be fixed or removed. [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 14:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Before making major revisions..==
Consider discussing here...even if you are the boss.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 16:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Or,on the other hand, make unilateral controversial changes. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 16:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==The HPV vaccine does not protect against other sexually transmitted diseases (e.g., chlamydia, herpes, hepatitis, trichomoniasis, gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV, AIDS, etc.)==

This seems like a slightly bizarre comment. Yes, I suppose it is accurate as far as it goes, but what's the point? Why stop there? Why not also add that it does not protect against the common cold, pneumonia, leukaemia, ingrowing toenails and being run over by a bus? It's a vaccine against HPV, not all STDs. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 17:14, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Because that doesn't assist the ideological bent of said statement.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:33, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

The reason is that they do not want to think that it is a vaccine that prevents all STDs and should use whatever protection they choose to use. It's saying that it does not guarantee "safe sex." [[User:Midnus|Midnus]]

== Article Title ==

This article should be moved to "Gardasil," since most of it refers specifically to that vaccine. Gardasil and HPV Vaccine might be synonymous now, but they won't be when/if Cervarix is approved.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 17:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Reverted Liberal Bias ==

Liberal bias and some uncritical repetitions of vaccine manufacturer claims were reverted. Abstinence protects against this disease at no cost, and there is no reason to believe the self-interested claims by the manufacturer about safety and efficacy of the vaccine, particularly when researchers themselves have expressed criticisms of attempts to make it mandatory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:19, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:Is it reasonable to expect that all teenagers will abstain from sex until marriage? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:22, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore, the researchers criticized making it mandatory, they didn't criticize any of the other claims. At minimum, those claims should be acknowledged. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 01:25, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:The claims about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine aren't being made exclusively by the manufacturer. They're being made by the CDC, New England Journal of Medicine, and the Journal of the American Medical Association. These are peer-reviewed publications, and can't just be hand-waved away as "liberal bias." It seems to me, Andy, that anything you disagree with automatically becomes liberal bias. There is only one link to information directly from the manufacturer in the article, and that is to point to the manufacturer's packaging insert. It is not used to back up any of the claims about efficacy or safety. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 01:54, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::If we are going to change ''In June 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first HPV vaccine based on observance of elevated [[antibody]] levels in a double blind clinical trial involving over 20,000 subjects.'' <ref>CDC - Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) [http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5602a1.htm]</ref> to ''In June 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first HPV vaccine based on observance of elevated [[antibody]] levels in a few thousand patients who had received the vaccine (including perhaps only a few hundred or less young girls).'', then we need a reference for the latter. I don't yet have any opinion one way or another on which statement is more accurate, I just want to be able to read the sources.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:56, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

The term "sexually active" is [[liberal]] bias. Sexual activity within marriage is at ZERO risk of contracting disease; sexual activity outside of marriage is at high risk.

Also, the 20,000 figure is meaningless because the monitoring was so brief.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:50, 4 January 2008 (EST)

SSchultz, you're pushing your limits here. You deleted important info (like the lack of epidemological studies and lack of protection against other STDs) and inserted numbers that lack any significance due to the brief monitoring. Go to Wikipedia with the liberal bias, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:59, 4 January 2008 (EST)

I explicitly stated that the monitoring period wasn't long enough to detect cervical cancer, but what about the fact that the vaccine prevented precancerous lesions? That is important information. I'll leave out the 20,000 number, though. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:04, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Andy, I kept everything in that you asked, and merely added information about the prevention of precancerous lesions. What's the story here? It's as if you want this article to claim that the vaccine is ineffective. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:13, 5 January 2008 (EST)

: We can pick this up more tomorrow. The entry should remain factual without misleading claims. The vaccine's effect may be short-lived, for example, as monitoring seems to have been intentionally brief. Also, it appeared to me that you kept deleting the reference to a lack of epidemiological studies. See you tomorrow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:22, 5 January 2008 (EST)

::Schultz, I love ya but you have to remember that CP is not Wikipedia. We don't tolerate suppression of information merely on the grounds that it "advances a POV". Please work with us - not against us - to present both sides of the [[HPV vaccine controversy]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:07, 5 January 2008 (EST)

== References ==

<references/>

==Article quality==

This article is so bad that I'm wondering whether to delete it.

Or maybe we could tuck it away somewhere and work on it for a week until it's ready. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:20, 5 January 2008 (EST)

The MSNBC source contradicts the line that says the pain causes fainting, MSNBC says "it’s not clear whether the pain of the cervical cancer vaccine was the reason for the reaction [fainting]." [[User:Midnus|Midnus]]

==Dubious claims from liberal newsmagazine==

''Time'' says one thing, but they are liberal and they often mix news and editorials together. We need an article on the most prevalent [[venereal diseases]]: broken down perhaps by America vs. rest of the world. I had also heard that [[chlamydia]] was the most common. Who says it's [[HPV]]? Time, or Atlanta CDC? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:11, 5 January 2008 (EST)
:Speaking of that, there is an article [http://www.ama.com.au/web.nsf/doc/WEEN-5NG4JQ here] that notes that "eighty per cent of the 466,000 cases diagnosed globally each year occur in developing countries where it is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women." So HPV is ''much'' less prevalent in the U.S. and [[First World]] countries than the [[liberal hysteria]] of the media would have us believe. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 12:18, 5 January 2008 (EST)

:: Thanks for another excellent observation, ThomasB. By the way, often vaccine manufacturers get big tax write-offs by dumping their stale or defective vaccine products on the Third World. Recently the vaccine caused a tragic epidemic of polio in one African country.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 5 January 2008 (EST)

::: Careful what you write, please, Aschafly. The vaccine that caused the (small, local) epidemic of polio was a polio vaccine one which contained a rare mutation in the attenuated polio virus<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7037462.stm</ref>. Nothing at all to do with HPV or with "dumping" "defective" vaccines. Loose talk about vaccines can cost lives by creating ill-founded hysteria. [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 18:22, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Essay:Greatest Mysteries of American History

2008-08-12T22:10:54Z

KennyMac: Solving a mystery.

Here is a growing list of unsolved mysteries in [[American History Lectures|American History]]:
#Where did the [[American Indians]] come from?
#Did the [[Vikings]] ever settle in [[North America]] and, if so, where and what happened to it?
*Not really a mystery: (a) Yes, briefly. (b) L'Anse-aux-Meadows, Newfoundland. (c) The settlement only lasted a few decades at most. All now well known from the historical record and half a century of archeology. Suggest you strike this from your list.
#What happened to the [[Lost Colony]]?
#Was [[Meriwether Lewis]] murdered?
#Was the so-called [[corrupt bargain]] real and, if so, was there anything wrong with it?
#Did President [[James Buchanan]] arrange the [[Dred Scott]] decision?
#Could the [[South]] have possibly won the [[Civil War]]?
#What caused the [[USS Maine]] to explode?
#What caused the [[Great Depression]]?
#What really caused the repeal of [[Prohibition]]?
#Who was the lone dissent on the [[jury]] in the [[court martial]] of [[Billy Mitchell]]?
#Did [[FDR]] have advance knowledge of the attack on [[Pearl Harbor]]?
#Why did the [[U-2]] spy plane crash-land in the [[Soviet Union]]?
#Did a [[communist]] sympathizer in the [[U.S.]] government leak plans of the [[Bay of Pigs]] invasion to [[Castro]]?
#What role did Justice [[William Brennan]] have in writing ''[[Roe v. Wade]]''?
#Where did President [[Ronald Reagan]] get the idea and impetus for proposing the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]]?

(add to list)
[[Category:Essay]]
[[Category:Mystery]]