Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Disputed Biblical Translations

2009-01-09T04:44:04Z

Lynus: /* Significance of "The Past" */

==Different Translations in General==

Sorry to bump this to the top, but I believe this is a central issue. In showing different translations of the Bible, I'm afraid we may giving a false impression of what that means. Most translations use the same early Greek manuscipts. The only difference is in intentional style. For instance the NIV attempts to translate idioms into their perceived meaning of the day whereas the NASB goes with a straight literal translation. It's not that the two, or any other versions of the Bible that translate from the Greek, are at odds. They are different styles.

Paraphrased Bibles are different as their goal is not a literal translation but a simplistic one that speaks to the audience of today. They are not meant for specific accuracy, but for people to be able to read the Bible more easily and still understand the meaning. I had a Living Bible in the 1970s, which is paraphrased. I remember one of the sayings of Jesus to the Pharisees was 'Talk is cheap'. I can tell you that was not literally in the original Greek, but was put in that form for the audience reading it to better relate. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:22, 11 December 2008 (EST)

==Conflicts w/ Jesus emphasis on Hell==

Right now this claim is very unsubstantiated. I think the readers of this article will get more out of it if we tell them ''how'' the passage about the adulterous woman conflicts w/ Jesus emphasis on hell-- not merely say that it does. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:43, 7 December 2008 (EST)

: Good point. Will try to improve it now per your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:39, 7 December 2008 (EST)
:Many Christians don't believe in Hell or believe that Hell is a place where we are purified but all will eventually be saved. See [http://gospelthemes.com/hell.htm Jesus' Teaching on Hell, Samuel G. Dawson] [[User:BernardH|BernardH]] 13:28, 9 December 2008 (EST)
::''or believe that Hell is a place where we are purified but all will eventually be saved.'' That is not believing in Hell; that is believing in [[Purgatory]]. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:31, 10 December 2008 (EST)

''"Many Christians believe etc."''
What kind of argument is that? Truth is independent of belief. What "many christians believe" has no impact on the reality of Hell.

Still, no one has yet attempted to explain how the passae conflicts with Jesus' emphasis on Hell.
We've sufficiently demonstrated that the passage is '''used''' (or misused) to arue against hell, but the page still doesn't explain how or why it is actually in conflict with the reality of Hell (or Jesus' emphasis thereon). --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:10, 10 December 2008 (EST)

: Jesus emphasized Hell more than Heaven in the authentic passages, with Jesus as judge. In this phony passage, however, Jesus refuses to judge and the woman never asks for forgiveness. Based on the authentic passages, she's headed for Hell. Based on the phony passage, she's not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:43, 10 December 2008 (EST)

::As for emphasis on Hell or Heaven, this passage mentions neither. The passage emphasizes A) The general sinfulness of man John 8:7, The fact that there is no condemnation through Jesus Christ, (John 8:11, {see Romans 8:1}) as long as there is repentance "Go. From now on Sin no more." As for the woman not asking for forgiveness, another example of Jesus forgiving without being asked can be found in Luke 5:17-26. Biblically speaking, she is no more headed to Hell than you or I, or ''any other person born'' except for Jesus. (Romans 3:22-23) Everyone deserves Hell. Jesus offers forgiveness as a free gift to anyone who will repent. (Romans 6:23) To sum everything up, the passage does not have a bearing on the existence of Heaven or Hell, and does not contradict other passages. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 01:55, 11 December 2008 (EST)

:::Well put Tim, and well researched. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:27, 11 December 2008 (EST)

::::Thanks. I believe that the best source for interpreting the Bible, is the Bible itself. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:22, 11 December 2008 (EST)

::::: OK, so why does the entry now promote a version of the Bible that "amplifies" it with liberal ideology? I'm referring, of course, to the discredited "Amplified Bible," which violates John's prohibition against adding anything to the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:31, 11 December 2008 (EST)
::::::Actually, I think that the Amplified version simply tries to give more of the meaning of the Greek words, because it is impossible to pack all of the meaning of a Greek word into an english word. Could you give an example of where it is "amplified with liberal ideology"? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:48, 11 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: See [http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/downloads/PDF/q7.pdf].--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 00:34, 12 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::: That doesn't answer Tim's question of an example of 'where it is "amplified with liberal ideology" '. I've found nowhere else on the Internet where that translator (if indeed he was, although he was involved with the translation) rejected the Amplified Bible; he did reject the NASV, but no other source says that he rejected the Amplified. Further, the argument about adding to the Bible in that reference is nonsense; Tim had it right about simply giving more of the meaning of the Greek words. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:46, 12 December 2008 (EST)

::::: Also, I checked out your reference to Luke 5:17-26, and Jesus forgave sins of those who had faith. There is no indication of faith by the adulteress. Luke 5:17-26 is nothing like the adulteress story.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:34, 11 December 2008 (EST)
::::::I was simply pointing out another example of Jesus forgiving someone who did not ask. That was a minor point. Could you respond to my main points?--[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:46, 11 December 2008 (EST)

== Human Ghosts? ==

"''It is ironic that the NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV and many other modern versions have tossed out the term Holy Ghost, yet they have introduced the totally false idea of human ghosts''"

I have never heard anyone claim that the bible supports the idea of human ghosts. On the contrary, it is against the idea. Could you please point out the basis for the claim that these versions have introduced the idea of human ghosts. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 14:28, 7 December 2008 (EST)

: You're right that the Bible does not support the idea of human ghosts. But I've given examples now of how modern translations (erroneously) do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:22, 7 December 2008 (EST)
:: The examples do not show that modern translations support the idea of human ghosts. All the examples support is that modern translators believe that ''the people the Bible was talking about'' believed in human ghosts. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 8 December 2008 (EST)
:: The "commentator" mentioned in this section is a KJV-only person, who provides a poor argument overall. The quote of him is wrong (as mentioned above the examples do not show what is claimed) and should be removed. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 8 December 2008 (EST)
: I would imagine that when people say that the bible supports the idea of human ghosts they are referring to 1 Samuel 28, in which Saul has a witch summon the deceased Samuel for counsel. I have always been personally surprised by the depiction of this story in the bible and I wonder if its translation has changed from the older manuscripts. --[[User:Laches|Laches]] 13:21, 9 December 2008 (EST)
:: That's a curious case! The connections between human ghosts and the Holy Ghost are patently absurd, however. I think it has to do with the German (perhaps Old-English?) rootword Geist, which means both Ghost and Spirit. Translation is often a problem. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 13:22, 9 December 2008 (EST)

== Adulteress story ==

I've removed some bits for the following reasons:
* I don't ever recall seeing anybody use the passage to argue against capital punishment.
* I don't ever recall seeing anybody use the passage to argue against hell. The reference supposedly supporting this claim was actually using the passage to argue against ''condemnation'' of any sort, as part of a larger argument against the existence of hell, but this passage itself wasn't being used to argue against hell itself.
* I can't see how the passage conflicts with other teaching about hell.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:35, 8 December 2008 (EST)
:Quite the contrary, it's used ''extensively'' by liberal denominations who try to push the "no condemnation" "everyone is saved" view. I've personally had numerous conversations with "liberal Christians" who brought up the passage to deny Hell itself. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:30, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:: Right. There's no denying how this passage is used to deny the existence of [[Hell]] (which, by the way, should be capitalized), oppose capital punishment, and even bully anyone who condemns sin in an effective way. There is already one reference to an example and more could be easily found.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:46, 9 December 2008 (EST)
:::I'm going to half-agree with Andy here: I have heard people (ministers included) reference this story as an argument against capital punishment, and/or to downplay the notion of harsh punishments from God. However, I must take issue with the idea that the story's "authenticity is rejected by modern biblical scholars". While some reject it entirely, and most dispute its placement, my understanding is that it is considered to be an actual Jesus story, and the implication that all scholars reject it out of hand is preposterous. At the ''very'' least, there should be a "some" inserted between "by" and "modern".--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:10, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:::: Given that there's now further testimony of the passage being used to oppose hell and capital punishment, I'll accept that. However, not all the objections have been addressed.
:::: Further, Andy's edit comment and reply here are offensive, illogical, and unsubstantiated. As I have repeatedly pointed out before, it is NOT censorship to remove inaccurate information (which is what I believed this to be). Further, it is NOT a valid argument to simply declare yourself correct ("There's no denying...").
:::: Finally, there was no explanation for the reversion of a wording change that was made at the same time.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 9 December 2008 (EST)

::::: Philip, your edits again distort the entry without justification. For example, you say that the passage is "misused" to deny the existence of Hell (which you notably spell with a small "h"). There is evidence that the passage is fake, but no justification for saying it is "misused". The passage, if taken at face value, does support an argument denying the existence of Hell.
::::::The passage taken at face value does ''not'' deny the existence of Hell. It is an example of Christ's forgiveness, which he offers to everyone, regardless of the severity of their sin. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:01, 9 December 2008 (EST)
::::: Another change is you insist on putting a website in the text rather than in a footnote, perhaps to try to downplay the (undeniable) point being made. Websites belong in the footnotes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:37, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: Your "reversion explained" does not explain the wholesale reversion of my edits including formatting changes nor much of my rewording, such as the sentence introducing the different translation comments.
:::::: The passage does not directly nor indirectly mention hell, so does ''not'' deny the existence of hell, at face value or otherwise.
:::::: The "misused" word was yours. I didn't add that.
:::::: I did not spell Hell with a lower-case "h". The only use of that in the section is in a quote that you inserted.
:::::: I did not "insist" on putting a web-site in the text. I did put it in the text, but only because it's normal practice when quoting someone to say ''in the text'' who is being quoted. As there was not an author's name to attribute it to, I attributed it to the web-site.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:07, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::::::: ''offensive, illogical, and unsubstantiated'' You are skating on very thin ice with abusive comments like that. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:33, 10 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::: You have a problem with the truth? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:01, 10 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::: You are both out of order. When comments get above six colons, the indent should be reset to the edge of the page.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:04, 10 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Did you just make that up, Mr. nine-colons? :-) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:41, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: I thought it was a rule, but maybe I'm wrong. The amount of time I spend on here, I wouldn't be surprised if I'd dreamt it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:26, 10 December 2008 (EST)

I didn't know the six colon rule, CP, but I do now! As for Philip: I don't have any problem with the truth; what I do have a problem with is your increasingly aggressive and intemperate attitude towards Andy, who, as the Founder and Leader of Conservapedia is entitled to courtesty and respect, not insult. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:15, 10 December 2008 (EST)
: If I'm increasingly aggressive and intemperate toward Andy, then I'm merely following the example set by our Founder and Leader. Is there any better way to show courtesy and respect other than to try and be like him? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:41, 10 December 2008 (EST)

:: Philip, your angry and insulting comments are increasingly inappropriate. We're going to keep a high level of discourse here consistent with our purpose. Also, website references belong in footnotes, not the text.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:43, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::: If we are going to keep a high level of discourse here, why do you insult me by ignoring my questions and comments, by calling my attempts to make the article more accurate "censorship", and calling me "liberal"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:10, 10 December 2008 (EST)

:::: Philip, we're building an encyclopedia here. I'm not going to waste more time in talk, talk, talk. Your edits have far too high a percentage of talk and edits that are reverted. Deleting information is censorship, and I don't think I ever called you a liberal. Supporting gun control is a liberal position; claiming that "beauty is on the eye of the beholder" is an atheistic view; and spelling Hell with a small "h" does suggest a denial of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:21, 10 December 2008 (EST)
:::::: You did call me a liberal, and refused to apologise for it. Deleting false information is not censorship.
:::::: I previously pointed out that I did not spell "Hell" with a lower case "h", although I now realise that although that's true in the article, I did spell it that way in at least one comment on this page. However, I would also point out that the Bible translators also spell it with a lower-case "h"![http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/index.php?search=hell&searchtype=all&version1=9&spanbegin=1&spanend=73&startnumber=26].
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:12, 11 December 2008 (EST)

:::::I don't know if using the Adulteress Story to deny Hell is a very common thing. The provided source links to a forum post, where the Adulteress Story seems like a very minor point in the guy's argument. Anyone who is trying to use that verse to deny Hell is really just grasping at straws. Could we find a better source for this? I searched briefly but found no other instance of using the Adulteress Story to deny Hell. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Mr. Schlafly! Look at this petition!]] 10:00, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::::::Since Mr. Aschlafly has refused to participate in discussion any further ("I'm not going to waste more time in talk, talk, talk.") and has shown no further evidence to his side other than offering ad hominum and other fallacious statements like "undeniable", why not just go with Mr. Philip Rayment's edits? It boggles the mind as to how one can push their side of the discussion without giving any sort of reason. Seems pretty simple which side to pick... [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 11:00, 10 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::Regardless of whether you agree with other users or not, we do ''not'' tolerate personal insults on this encyclopedia, Jalast Jeweler. Please keep it civil and objective. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:11, 10 December 2008 (EST)

I believe we do ourselves a disservice when we make a reference to anyone using this passage to say there is no Hell. Jesus himself says there is a Hell, more than once. Because it is not mentioned here -- at all, does not suddenly remove Jesus' direct references. It would be like my talking with Andy and his mentioning that he has two children. I would then talk with him again and he mentions he has two children. I talk with him a third time and we discuss the Republican Party. Could anyone seriously state Andy doesn't have any children because he didn't mention it when we talked again? Anyone making such a ridiculous statement should be pitied, not quoted, and the same is true with this article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:32, 11 December 2008 (EST)

==a new kettle o' fish==
I'm starting a new subsection here to explain the changes I just made to the article, and also to bypass the fussiness above, and perhaps have an actual discussion on the merits, as it were.
*I changed "authenticity has been rejected by modern biblical scholars" to "authenticity and placement have been disputed by many modern biblical scholars" because a bit of research on the issue showed me that a few scholars think the story is totally bogus, many think it the story is accurate but misplaced, and a fair number think the story is accurate and correctly placed. Therefore, to say or imply that all agree that the story is bogus is just plain wrong.
*I indicated somewhere above that I have indeed heard (as Andy wrote) various folks use this passage as an argument against capital punishment, and a few use it to argue against Hell in general. However, the most recent assertion that some use it to "argue against opposition to sinful behavior...(including) permissiveness to alternative lifestyles, desecration and belittlement of Christianity and Christians by the unfaithful" is just ludicrous--I've never heard anyone ever argue anything like that, ever. If that's going to be in the article, you're going to need some serious cites. Therefore, I changed it back to something like Andy first wrote (which still includes his supporting cite).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 21:25, 10 December 2008 (EST)

:: Your second point is fine, but your first point is simply not accurate. The overwhelming consensus is that the passage is not authentic, and all modern versions of the Bible confirm this as well as all or nearly all biblical scholars across the political spectrum. Our description will reflect that, and I'm changing it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:34, 10 December 2008 (EST)
:::To avoid any contention this may cause, could either of you provide citings? That way we could be sure and add them to the article, rather than just asserting either way. --[[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 21:46, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::::Andy, can I ask how you're defining "authentic"? I know that the Catholic Church views this passage as canonical. And Liam, I'll try to find and post some of what I've been reading, but I'll do that tomorrow, as it is past my bedtime....--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:02, 10 December 2008 (EST)

::::Liam, numerous citations are in this entry and in the Essay in the footnote demonstrating the passage is not authentic, and by "authentic" I mean the obvious: it was not part of the Gospel as written by John and was inserted 100 years or more after that Gospel was completed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:23, 10 December 2008 (EST)

== Disappearing Hell ==

Andy, the word in the Greek is Hades. [http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=11&v=23&t=KJV#conc/23] [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:12, 11 December 2008 (EST)

: Wow, that's a great source you have there! The KJB translates "Hades" as Hell. That's what I thought it meant. Do you feel otherwise?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:17, 11 December 2008 (EST)

:: It is a good source. ;-) I just wish they'd also give translations for the Old Testament Septuagint.

:: The modern translations are just being literal when they translate is as Hades. I believe it's fair to translate it as Hell. Gehenna is usually translated as Hell more often because it has the direct reference to a burning fire. Gehenna would be referenced to appeal to the Jewish perspective and Hades for the Greek. Both cultures were prominent in Palestine at that time. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:17, 12 December 2008 (EST)

==HELP!==
I'm trying to put this link in from Biblelogos and the spam filter keeps stopping me! --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 20:02, 12 December 2008 (EST)

==Question==
What is the distinction between God and the Spirit of God? And why is it Liberal to use the term God rather than Spirit of God?--[[User:TuckerM|TuckerM]] 20:59, 15 December 2008 (EST)

: The distinction is between "wind" and "Spirit of God".--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 15:14, 19 December 2008 (EST)

== Ending of Mark's Gospel ==

Would it be a good idea to add the ending of Mark's Gospel? Some versions (eg the New English Bible I used for [[Essay:Jesus' emphasis on Heaven and Hell]] have a much longer concluding paragraph than eg the KJV.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 14:33, 19 December 2008 (EST)

: Yes, let's look at that. A new section would be welcome on this!--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 15:13, 19 December 2008 (EST)

==Significance of "The Past"==

I'm not sure what the significance is of there not being references to the past in the Gospels of the New Testament. Hopefully, an answer here can be added to the main page as part of the corresponding section there. I searched the KJV and found numerous references to the past in the Old Testament, which I doubt anyone considers secular. There are also references in Mark 10 to Jesus discussing the past in terms of time of Moses, and the nature of marriage since creation: "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female". What I'm failing to understand, then, is what the lack of references to "the past" in the New Testament is supposed to represent. If this can be clarified it will help improve the article. Thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:07, 5 January 2009 (EST)

: The lack of reference is striking. I'm reluctant to expressly draw conclusions but it casts doubt on whether one's personal past exists in any meaningful way. The atheistic reliance on a personal past seems incorrect in light of this information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:13, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::Okay, that sheds some light, but it would help if you could point me to an essay or article that expands on what you mean by "the atheistic reliance on a personal past". Is that another way of saying that atheists rely too much on on their individual education and experience? If so, it doesn't make much sense because each of us, including conservatives like yourself, developed our worldview through a lifetime of learning and experience. The difference would be in ''where'' each of us draws our education from over time - school, family, ongoing readying and self-study, Church, etc., and the different experiences of our lives. If I'm missing your point please correct me. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:26, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::: I would like to mention that the KJV and NKJV both have "[http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/index.php?search=past&searchtype=phrase&version1=9&version4=50&spanbegin=1&spanend=73&startnumber=26 past]" in at least one Gospel. Note also that whoever wrote this passage used the wrong translations. They only used the ASV from Biblelogos but he attributes them to NASB, RSV, and lastly the HCSB.--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 15:42, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:::: The translations are correct and there is no mistake about the KJV and NKJV. Both use the term "past" in a trivial way and for a different meaning from its common substantive usage today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:24, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:::::You misunderstand what I said. All I stated was that the Biblelogos passages are all from the ASV. Hover over the boxes and you will see right next to the chapter and verse, ASV. I believe those were your edits, Andy. You simply need to recode them because they '''are''' from the wrong versions.

:::::I don't get where you are saying that the usages are different from modern ones. "and the time is now past", "And when the sabbath was past", "Now when the Sabbath was past". You could certainly argue, and I would agree that they do not represent the past as in someone's history but modern usages
:::::[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/past][http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/past]
:::::do take into account these particular meanings of "before the present". So to say that they use a "trivial" version is grossly incorrect in that you would be hard pressed to find a person who wouldn't come up with "before the present" in reference to the past.--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 22:52, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: Lynus, you're referring to the use of Biblelogos in some browsers. I don't see it in my browser; the entry here does not reference it once; and no one is saying that the NASB (is that what you mean by "ASV"?) is all wrong.

:::::: Your point about the "past" is equally confused. "One's past" does not merely refer to time before the present. We're being substantive here and you're relying on a trivial usage that you found.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 8 January 2009 (EST)

::::I went and loaded this page in Chrome, Firefox, and Internet Explorer and all 3 showed popup boxes when the mouse hovered over Luke 1:3 and right next to that text, still within the box are the letters ASV which stands for American Standard Version which you can see for yourself if you click "more" at the bottom of the box which takes you to Biblelogos. On the righthand side is the bible version that is being used which is the ASV but in the page boxes it says they refer to different versions.

::::My point in the past is actually coming from your prior comments concerning the usage of "past". You came up with a possible hypothesis that states, "I'm reluctant to expressly draw conclusions but it casts doubt on whether one's personal past exists in any meaningful way. The atheistic reliance on a personal past seems incorrect in light of this information." This implies that you mean "past" as in someones history which is what I referred to. The passages I brought up referred to "before the present" and these meanings are still in use today and I would argue are the primary meaning of the term today. Therefore they are not trivial and you are incorrect to say that the Bible uses versions of "past" that are no longer used today. I gave you dictionary links from websites you personally have cited and both show the "before the present" meaning of "past"--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 23:44, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Disputed Biblical Translations

2009-01-09T03:52:12Z

Lynus: /* Significance of "The Past" */

Affirmative Action

2009-01-08T21:55:55Z

Lynus: Fixed typo

'''Affirmative action''' means giving someone a preference or advantage based on the color of his skin, or gender, to reverse the effects of [[discrimination]] and often for political motivation. [[Quotas]] are an extreme form of '''affirmative action'''.

The original concept of affirmative action, when introduced by the [[President Johnson|Johnson]] administration, was that it is desirable to not merely act on non-discrimination passively (i.e., saying "this job is open to any applicant", but then making no efforts to find minority applicants), but should also be done ''affirmatively'', by taking definite actions to find applicants from minorities.

This would be, in its way, admirable. However, in current use, affirmative action goes beyond this, often mandating the use of quotas for setting aside jobs or a portion of college entrance positions for each minority (including also some so-called minorities that are actually majorities).

* The worst feature of such programs is that they are presented to the public as if they were "equal opportunity" programs when they are patently aimed at "equal outcomes" regardless of the merits and abilities of job applicants. [http://www.endeavourforum.org.au/frauds1.htm]

In effect, this means selecting applicants by the color of their skin, precisely what the original concept of non-discrimination forbids. This is sometimes called "reverse discrimination," although this term is rather contradictory - discrimination remains discrimination.

''[[Regents v. Bakke]]'' effectively outlawed [[quotas]] but allowed affirmative action as long as there are considerations other than race. This is sometimes called reverse discrimination.

[[Dinesh D'Souza]] wrote:
{{cquote|Many whites have become increasingly scornful of black demands, and vehemently reject racial preferences. Most blacks, by contrast, support affirmative action as indispensable to fighting the enduring effects of white racism.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/endofrac.htm The End of Racism: The White Man's Burden by Dinesh D'Souza]</ref>}}

[[John H. McWhorter]] wrote:
{{cquote|For most black Americans, the rapid increase of the black middle class, of [[interracial relationship]]s and [[interracial marriage|marriages]], and of blacks in prestigious positions has no bearing on the real state of [[black America]]. Further, they believe, whites’ inability to grasp the unmistakable reality of [[oppression]] is itself proof of [[racism]], while blacks who question that reality are self-deluded. [http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_1_whats_holding_blacks.html]}}

On August 28, 2007 the United States Commission on Civil Rights released a report that determined that affirmative action can be harmful to minority law school students due to the fact that students admitted through affirmative action programs are more likely to be unprepared and are thus being set up for failure.<ref>[http://www.usccr.gov/press/2007/AALS82807.pdf U.S. Civil Rights Commission Warns That Affirmative Action Might Harm Minority Law Students]</ref>

Most recently, the Justice Department was found{{weasel}} to be engaging in affirmative-action-style hiring practices for [[conservatives]]. Instead of taking the best candidates for various jobs and internships, Republican appointees in the Department had been found to have commandeered the hiring process and were denying jobs to most qualified people who were or were thought to be liberal and giving jobs to conservatives who were less qualified.

Considering the [[Liberal indoctrination]] and [[Professor values]] rampant in colleges one could easily make the case that [[Andrew Schlafly]] got his position on the [[Harvard Law Review]] through Affirmative Action.

==See Also==
* [[Affirmative Action President]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Affirmative Action]]

Out-of-place artifact

2009-01-08T21:29:23Z

Lynus: Added AIG and ICR links

An '''out-of-place artifact''' (OOPA, OOPa, or OOPart) is any object displaying evidence of a technology that, according to [[uniformitarianism|uniformitarian]] or related paradigms, ought not exist in the particular [[geologic column|geologic stratum]] in which it rests. OOParts are one of the most troubling controversies for [[archaeology]] today.

== History of OOParts ==
The report in 1572 of a six-inch nail found in Peru and presented to the [[Viceroy]] of Peru as a gift<ref name=ta>"[http://www.bibleufo.com/embed.htm Embedded Anomalies: Evidence of Civilization Before the Accepted Creation Timeline]." ''[http://www.bibleufo.com/index.htm The Bible-UFO Connection],'' accessed March 31, 2008</ref> might be the oldest OOPart report on record. More than eighty OOParts have been alleged since then.

The significance of a six-inch nail is simply this: the [[Inca]]s, who inhabited Peru before [[Francisco Pizarro]] conquered it, did not nail their monuments together. The Incas did use metal, but did not make nails out of it. That is why the nail would be anachronistic to Inca culture.

== Types of OOParts ==
The OOParts fall into three main categories:
# Evidence of modern or even more-advanced technology from either an ancient culture (e.g. the Saqqara Bird in [[Egypt]]) or a location in a geologic stratum regarded as far too deep to be contemporary with man.
# Fossilized human remains. The alleged lack of such remains is one of the most common reasons cited to discount the Flood account.<ref name=Hodges>Hodges, Bodie. "The Flood: Whom Do You Trust?" Lecture delivered at the [[Creation Museum|Creation Museum and Family Discovery Center]], Petersburg, [[Kentucky]], [[USA]], March 28, 2008.</ref>
# Evidence of [[dinosaur]]-[[human]] cohabitation on [[earth]]. This varies from ancient artwork depicting creatures supposedly not discovered until centuries later, to side-by-side human and dinosaur tracks.

=== Modern technology in ancient times ===
These artifacts are found among other artifacts of an ancient culture. The difference between these and the other artifacts among which they are found is that they represent a technology that the civilization under study was not supposed to have. They include:

# The Baghdad Battery, an apparently spent dry cell in a six-inch yellow clay pot, found in the Baghdad Museum in 1938.<ref name=top10>Jochmans, Joseph R., PhD. "[http://www.rense.com/general3/top10.htm Top 10 Out-Of-Place Artifacts]." ''Atlantis Rising'', Issue 5 (Sep-Oct 1996). Now hosted by Jeff Rense. Accessed March 31, 2008.</ref><ref name=AncientX>"[http://www.ancientx.com/nm/anmviewer.asp?a=75&z=1 The 10 Most Puzzling Ancient Artifacts]." <http://www.ancientx.com/> Accessed May 22, 2008.</ref>
# The Dendera Tubes. More specifically, these are images on an Egyptian bas-relief of tube-like structures in the hands of Egyptian priests or acolytes. At least one electrical engineer has stated that the objects depicted in that bas-relief are Crookes tubes, which were the forerunners of the cathode-ray tubes still in common use in [[television]] receivers.<ref name=top10/>
# The Ashoka Pillar in Delhi, India. This wrought-iron shaft supposedly dates to an Indian king who died in 413 AD. The metal, which ought to have crumbled into rust long ago, remains in excellent condition.<ref name=top10/>
# The Antikythera Computer, a geared structure recovered in 1900 from the wreck of a merchant vessel that, to judge from the other cargo it carried, apparently sank sometime between 85 BC and 50 BC. This object was a highly sophisticated and easy-to-use [[orrery]] that predicted the annual motions of the [[sun]] and [[moon]] in the earth's sky.<ref name=top10/><ref name=AncientX/>
# The Saqqara Bird, a seven-[[inch]] object, first thought to be a [[bird]] figurine, but then recognized as a model [[airplane]]. This was found in 1898 in the tomb of Pa-Di-Imen and dates to 200 BC.<ref name=top10/><ref name=s8int>"[http://www.s8int.com/ OOParts and Ancient High Technology: Evidence of Noah's Flood]?" Accessed March 31, 2008.</ref><ref name=AncientX/>
# An Inca pendant, dated from 500 to 800 AD, that turns out to be a model of a high-speed aircraft, possibly a jet. More remarkably, the object's apparent rudder fin bears an engraved [[Hebrew]] or [[Aramaic]] letter beth.<ref name=top10/><ref name=s8int/>
# The Crystal Skull of Lubaantum ([[Belize]]), a 7-inch-long skull cut from a single piece of clear quartz found among Mayan ruins in 1927. The artisan who fashioned it evidently cut the quartz ''against the axis of crystallization'', a feat no modern jeweler could possibly accomplish without shattering the quartz into fine dust. Moreover, even if the artisan could have accomplished the against-the-grain cut, he cannot have used any metal tools, because his work bears no scratch marks. Analysts have concluded that the production of this artifact would have required 300 man-hours using any conceivable modern method—again, ''if'' anyone could have cut the quartz against the grain without shattering it. (One must also wonder what sort of culture would see something as morbid as a skull as an article of jewelry, much less exert such technological effort to produce such an object.)<ref name=top10/>
# The Cabrera Stones. These are 20,000 stones that appear to be illustrations from a medical textbook. The surgical techniques depicted in these illustrations rival or even far surpass any surgical techniques in use today, and even include encephalic transplantation.<ref name=top10/><ref name=AncientX/>
# The Dropa Stones. Chi Pu Tei found these in a cavern in the Baian-Kara-Ula mountains in China. These are nine-inch disks, each with a hole in the center and an intricate spiral groove that is actually densely etched with hieroglyphs. These objects, dated about 10,000 years old, speak of the crash-landing of multiple spacecraft all piloted and crewed by a people calling themselves the Dropa. Human remains were also found in that same cavern.<ref name=AncientX/>

=== Modern technology in deep time ===
These are artifacts buried in geological strata where no artifact of any human civilization, ancient or modern, ought to exist, or at the very least are in strata that are supposed to be older than the oldest written records.

# The Bullet-Punctured Skull of Zambia, a human cranium, supposedly of the paleolithic era, that bears evidence that the person involved was shot to death with a rifle. Local geological evidence indicates (by uniformitarian standards) that the skull is 38,000 years old.<ref name=top10/>
# The Wonderstone Spheroids, now numbering 200 or more, found in a silver mine in South Africa. They are of a nickel-steel alloy that cannot have occurred outside a laboratory or a steel mill. Nor could they be meteoric; the composition does not match that of any meteorite thus far found. A museum curator has observed one of these spheroids rotating within its setting, apparently under its own power. Yet the miners who excavated these spheroids found them in a stratum that, according to [[uniformitarianism]], ought to be 3 billion years old.<ref name=top10/><ref name=AncientX/>
# A brass bell with an iron clapper, found in a lump of coal. Uniformitarians commonly insist that all the coal in the world formed 280 to 300 million years ago.<ref name=disc>"[http://www.discoverynews.us/OOPART.html Ooparts (Out of Place Artifacts)]." ''Discovery News''. Accessed March 31, 2008.</ref>
# The Coso Artifact, a porcelain-and-metal object in a hexagonal casing with a spring at one end. Witnesses have said that this object resembles a modern spark plug. This was found in rock that, according to uniformitarian models, should have taken 500,000 years to form.<ref name=AncientX/>
# An iron pot found within a lump of coal in Thomas, Oklahoma. The same consideration applies to this object as applies to the bell mentioned above.<ref name=disc/><ref name=AncientX/>
# The London Hammer, a hammer found in limestone in the Cretaceous stratum, supposedly 140 million years old.<ref name=disc/>
# An obvious notch, made with an ax, in a lump of petrified wood in the [[Petrified Forest]] of [[Arizona]], [[USA]].<ref name=disc/>

=== Human fossils ===
Fossilized human remains, especially any such remains found buried in [[deep time]], are among the most striking evidences against the uniformitarian model.
# A fossilized human finger found in the Cretaceous Walnut Formation of the Commanche Peak limestone deposit.<ref name=disc/><ref name=cem1>Lines, David. "[http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28 The Fossilized Human Finger]." [[Creation Evidence Museum]] online, 1995. Accessed March 31, 2008.</ref> The ''in situ'' provenance of the finger is lacking. But if this object proves genuine, then it might represent long-sought remains of a casualty of the [[Great Flood]].
# Skulls and other bones found within coal.<ref name=s8int/><ref name=conrad>Conrad, Ed. "[http://www.edconrad.com/oldascoal/index.html Man as Old as Coal]." Accessed March 31, 2008.</ref>
# Malachite Man, consisting of the remains of ten individuals in a supposed 140-million-year-old stratum. Some of the bones have been partially petrified with malachite, a peculiar greenish mineral. Petrified human bones would be even more likely to represent Flood casualties.<ref name=malachite>Patton, Don. "[http://www.bible.ca/tracks/malachite-man.htm Official World Site Malachite Man]." ''[http://www.bible.ca/bible.htm The Interactive Bible].'' Accessed March 31, 2008.</ref>
# A human handprint in limestone.<ref name=AncientX/>
# A human footprint in shale.<ref name=AncientX/>

=== Dinosaur-human cohabitation ===
These are artifacts, artworks, or physical signs that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth together.
# Stone depictions of [[stegosaurus]] in Khmer temple art.<ref name=disc/><ref name=Patton>Patton, Don, and Swift, Dennis. "[http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia.htm Dinosaurs in ancient Cambodian temple]." ''[http://www.bible.ca/bible.htm The Interactive Bible].'' Accessed March 31, 2008.</ref>
# Clay figurines of obvious dinosaurs found at Acambaro, Mexico.<ref name=disc/><ref name=disc2>"[http://www.discoverynews.us/dino_figurines.html Discovered: Thousands of Dinosaur Figurines from Mexico]." Accessed March 31, 2008.</ref>
# The Paluxy River tracks near Glen Rose, [[Texas]], [[USA]]. Tracks of ''Tyrannosaurus rex'' and other dinosaurs are found side-by-side with human footprints. Some of these human footprints are [[giant]] sized.<ref name=ta/><ref name=morris1>Morris, Henry M., 1974. ''Scientific Creationism,'' Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 122.</ref> On the other hand both [[Answers in Genesis]] and the [[Institute for Creation Research]] state that the evidence for this is far from conclusive.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=255</ref># Human shoe prints found associated with trilobites.<ref name=trilobite>Brown, Walt. "[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences34.html In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood]." Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creationism, 1995, p. 25. Accessed March 31, 2008.</ref>

== In popular culture ==
[[Hollywood]] has lately noticed the OOParts debate. Producer [[George Lucas]] and director [[Steven Spielberg]] have now made a new [[motion picture|film]] based on a hypothetical explanation of the crystal skulls of Belize.<ref name=IndianaJones>''[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0367882/ Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull].'' Produced by [[George Lucas]]. Directed by [[Steven Spielberg]]. With [[Harrison Ford]], [[Cate Blanchett]], [[Karen Allen]], [[John Hurt]], et al. Paramount Pictures Corporation, Lucasfilm Limited, and Amblin Entertainment, 2008. Released May 22, 2008.</ref>

== Discussion ==
For a complete discussion on the possible significance of OOParts, see [[Essay: Out-of-place Artifacts, ET's, and the Great Flood]].

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

[[Category:Archaeology]]
[[Category:Geology]]
[[Category:Paleontology]]

Goth (subculture)

2009-01-08T20:46:32Z

Lynus:

'''Goth''' in modern usage is a term often given to a style of music, a type of dress, and/or a subculture; all of which were originally derived from bands such as Siouxsie & The Banshees, Bahaus, and the Cure. Goth fashion typically consists of a conspicuous affection for black clothing, black/red hair dye, painted nails and eyeliner on both genders, pale skin or powder makeup, and striking application of cosmetics.

Most of those are young women, many of whom dress bizzarely. Very often they have black hair, black leather clothes with references to 18th century clothing, black boots and make up making them like look demons. Goth women normally make up their face very white, attempting to look like vampires. While for many this is only a style, some do it because they worship vampires/other demons and death. Satanic clothing is also rebellion against Christianity.

== Criticism from the Christian point of view ==

It is often labeled as [[Satan]]ic or anti-[[Christian]] in nature, although a large Christian Goth community exists, and Goths are not necessarily anti-Christian.

Though some goths are Christian, some of them are atheists, [[Anti-Christianity|anti-Christians]] and even [[Satanist]]s. Often these non-Christian goths walk beside normal youngsters.

Goth culture has its roots in music. It comes from gothic/death/punk rock and from gothic metal, which are very doomish styles of music, without hope and fun. This kind of music makes it listener melancholic. Also, many goths like to play [[role-playing games]] and especially [[LARP]]s. They play vampires and so on in these games. When they come to home, they can not stop 'playing' demons, because since they started the game, they are under [[possession]]. At least some subsets of Goth culture can be clearly seen as a [[cult]]s such as the EMO (see external link).

==External links==
*[http://christiangoth.com/ Christian Goth .com]
*[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-400953/EMO-cult-warning-parents.html "EMO cult warning for parents"]

[[Category:Culture]]

Talk:Disputed Biblical Translations

2009-01-08T20:42:14Z

Lynus: /* Significance of "The Past" */

Molecule

2009-01-06T15:36:12Z

Lynus: Added citations and correct scientific name.

A '''molecule''' is a group of two or more [[atom]]s which form one unit
linked together by [[covalent bond]]s.
Molecules can have as as many as several thousand atoms, as in a [[polymer]] (see also [[DNA]]).
A molecule typically does not have electrical [[charge]] (see also [[polyatomic ion]]).

Most molecules are composed of two or more elements, but they can also be composed of multiple atoms from the same element. Single element, bimolecular molecules which are more commonly known as homonuclear diatomic molecules <ref>http://xbeams.chem.yale.edu/~batista/vvv/node33.html</ref><ref>http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/gloss/homodiatomic.html</ref> include many elementary [[gas]]es, such as [[oxygen]] (O2), [[hydrogen]] (H2) and [[fluorine]] (F2). Single element compounds also include man-made compounds such as [[buckminsterfullerene]]s, which are "balls" of 60 carbon atoms, as well as natural compounds like [[graphite]], [[diamond]]s, and many [[metal]]s.

Molecules are typically specified by indicating what atoms they are made of and how many of each they possess. Common [[table salt]], a compound of [[sodium]] and [[chlorine]], is NaCl. If there is more than one of an atom, its count is given by a subscript. Water has two [[hydrogen]] atoms and one [[oxygen]] atom, so it is H2O.

Often part of the molecule is listed separately in order to show some of its properties. There are more complex, but still text based, ways of "describing" the molecule's entire structure. We also use three dimensional "ball and stick" or "space filling" diagrams to show the complete physical arrangement of the atoms in the molecule.

==See Also==
*[[Chemical formula]]

[[category:physics]]

[[Category:Chemistry]]

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Goth (subculture)

2009-01-06T03:50:35Z

Lynus: /* Unsourced */

I don't think it's quite accurate to associate Goths with anti-religious sentiment, especially as I know people who are associated with Christian Goth ministries that get people to go to church who never would otherwise. I will concede that it's a stereotype, but it's not essential to the identity of being a Goth. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:37, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== manson ==

marylin manson is in no way goth i am insulted the proper thing to say would be band like sioux and banshes and bahuas the firrt goth band so im going to change it. manson is metal.

== Christiangoth.com ==

I think a link to christiangoth.com would be good.

==Unsourced==

This article is completely unsourced and almost reads like an opinion piece. While the beginning I can live with for now being unsourced; the Christian section was making broad psychological and behavioral attributions towards Goths that need to be sourced in a proper encyclopedia. [[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 12:03, 3 January 2009 (EST)
:If you want to add sourced material, that's probably okay. But this material appears to have been written by a Conservative Christian and as such it must be respected. [[Liberal]] wishful-thinking is not a reasonable justification for removing material. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 22:03, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::If it doesn't cite any sources, it doesn't matter who wrote it. Unless you're in to [[status worship]], that is. No support is given for the claims of "most" this, "most" that throughout the article. The burden of finding evidence is on those who support its conclusion. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 22:06, 5 January 2009 (EST)
:::What conclusion? This passage is a description. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 22:08, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::::The last sentence was merely a generalization. Why did you ignore the whole rest of my comment? --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 22:18, 5 January 2009 (EST)
:::::We run into problems when the article makes statements like most goths are young women, worship vampires, demons, death, their music makes them sad, they like playing RPGs and LARPs and can't stop playing, they are possessed.--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 22:50, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Goth (subculture)

2009-01-06T03:50:26Z

Lynus: /* Unsourced */

Talk:Atheistic Style

2009-01-06T03:45:48Z

Lynus: /* Where's the problem? */

== Where's the problem? ==
You certainly have a point, people do need to start making citations for what they write. But what is the problem with marking the entry being without citations, it is 100% true. I thought we didn't censor due to ideological reasons here. Therefore I am reverting it. Andy if you can give me a good reason for why marking an article as "uncited" when it has '''zero''' citations is wrong then I will leave it alone.

: "Lynus", you have to make a contribution before you starting complaining. Got it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:03, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::Wait, so I can't mark an article as "unsourced" even though it is unsourced? Why even have the tag enabled? You even agree that it is unsourced so why can I not tag it with something truthful?--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 20:08, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::: I have looked for citations. And have not been able to find any that support the claim that it is common for atheists to ascribe to #s 3,4,5,6,8,most of 9, and 11. I have also found that the others are worded poorly (9,10,7,8,and 3) A number of the posts (9) in particular is wrong on multiple levels. If you like I can re-work the entire article into a more encyclopedic entry, however I figured that I should ask first here and point out the flaws present in the article before changing things unilaterally since people seem to go missing if they do that around here. late addition::: Wait, so when you add the united template to the page its OK, when i do it its vandalism? Despite the fact that the page actually has 0 citation? Thats a bit of a turn around, What happened to CP commandments?--[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 22:18, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:::No that wasn't against you. For some reason the page displayed a giant Hitler picture and yours was the last edit since Andys and thats why I reverted it. Apparently is was a template issue.--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 22:45, 5 January 2009 (EST)

==Childish==
Isn't this a bit childish? [[User:JosiahB|JosiahB]] 11:14, 30 November 2007 (EST)

In what ways? --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 11:16, 30 November 2007 (EST)
:It's just a personal essay, based on solely personal opinion, and not really wholly true at that. I've proposed for deletion. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:25, 3 January 2008 (EST)

::I agree, that this is wholly based on assumptions. How do you support an article deletion? [[User:VonShroom|VonShroom]] 17:33, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:::As this page was created by the site owner I wouldn't even consider suggesting that the article should be deleted. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 18:06, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Josiah and "TheEvilSpartan", let's improve the entry. Think positively, not negatively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: If you wish to nominate the page for deletion you need to insert the delete template at the top of the page. See [[Templates|here]] for template information. However, I should warn you that as this article was written by Andy Schlafly it does not need to contain any citations. That is one of the unwritten rules of Conservapedia. Further, the delete notice will likely be removed by one of the sysop/acolytes, probably Crocoite (see, for example, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hollywood_values&diff=385539&oldid=385523 here]). And it is quite likely that you will be blocked (see, for example [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Crocoite&page=User%3AGDewey here]). --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 18:14, 3 March 2008 (EST)

:: That's false about me. This is a work-in-progress and much of it is indisputable. The demands that it be deleted are obviously ideological, and we do not allow liberal censorship here. That should be obvious. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:30, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::: Really? Let's see shall we? --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 18:34, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Has anyone here ever talked to a real atheist? Sit down and have a chat with me and you'll soon see that there is a reason there is no citations on this page. Heck, I'll even null out a few of your points; Newton definitely was motivated by religion (I do believe that he was out to use the gift of intelligence), some of the most influential scientists have been religious. Me personally, I think that not believing something/someone created everything makes everything more beautiful (personally I love micro-biology, those little critters are so fascinating), as they just came together that way (in reference to a depressed world-view). Of course, I think there are problems out there now, but I know that we as people can fix them. As for arbitrary concepts such as love, I'm not sure how they came about (please do not tell me God) but they are great emotions and provide different degrees of functional guidance (morals and such). Pleas do not think I am being a smartaleck or sarcastic, as my personal beliefs are some of the few things I never joke around about.--[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 23:19, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Smarter ==

I'd like to think that we ''are'' smarter then 100 years ago, but I'm bot an atheist.

On another note: This article is among a series that make Conservapedia a laughing stock, if we really want to be taken seriously, we should refrain from this. In what other Encyclopedia would you find something like this? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:37, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: DLerner, if you fear mockery, then you won't make much progress finding and spreading the truth. A little more concern about the truth and less concern about who among the less informed are laughing would be beneficial to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: : I don't fear mockery, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia! Now, if their is research showing that atheists are prone to such styles then go right ahead, but for some reason I have a feeling this is someones personal feeling towards atheists - though he/she has every right to have such feelings, I really can't see a basis for publishing them in an encyclopedia. (As an essay this would be wonderful, but as an article?) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:57, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::It's not that we fear mockery, it's that this article invites - no, deserves - mockery. There are no references to back up what is said - it's just the author's thoughts. Some of it is just wrong based on personal experience (Conservapedia allows contributions based on personal experience, doesn't it?). Conservapedia would be better off without it. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:51, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
::Incidentally I ''love'' the bit about how atheists have "a perception (often wrong) of what most people think". That describes the author of this article. Are we sure this isn't a parody introduced by someone trying to make us look bad?) [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:55, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

'''

== My Fundamentalist Alterations ==

'''

Yeesh, I edited this page about 4 months ago in an attempt to make the content so laughably fallacious, uninformed, assertive and double-standard laden that it shouldnt have lasted the day. Its both amusing and depressing to see it here some 16+ weeks later...

"overreliance and a dependance on often OUTDATED TEXTS."

Hmm

"a refusal to recognize how democracy relies on Christianity, and how no atheistic culture has ever managed to sustain a lasting democracy"

Aside from, erm, oh yeah, most of the countries in Europe...

"a generally pessimistic, worthless and depressing view of life"

Lol, well Im not surprised this one managed to stay up...

"an unshakeable faith...in life in outer space"

Hahahaha,

Oh very dear...

Think critically people, good day to you...

Talk:Disputed Biblical Translations

2009-01-06T03:36:06Z

Lynus: /* Significance of "The Past" */

Atheistic Style

2009-01-06T03:20:02Z

Lynus: Reverted due to vandalism.

There is a style common to many [[atheists]], including:

# a refusal to recognize how [[democracy]] relies on [[Christianity]], and how no [[atheistic]] culture has ever managed to sustain a lasting [[democracy]]
# a refusal to credit the role played by [[faith]] in great contributions of many people, such as [[Isaac Newton]]
# a general disbelief of unseen and unquantifiable concepts, such as [[love]], intrinsic beauty and fidelity
# a belief that [[atheist]]s are somehow smarter than those having [[faith]], downplaying contributions by [[Christians]]
# a belief that humans are smarter today than 100, 1,000 or 6,000 years ago
# a view that most of science is known and understood, in contrast to [[Isaac Newton]]'s view that little is understood
# a focus on [[materialism]], and a devotion to [[relativism]] in many forms
# a generally pessimistic, worthless and depressing view of life
# among scientists, an unshakeable faith in never-detected [[graviton]]s, [[black holes]], [[dark matter]], [[super strings]] and life in outer space
# belief in the [[Nobel Prize]], universities, newspapers and magazines as oracles of truths
# overreliance on [[hearsay]], a perception (often wrong) of what most people think, and a dependance on often outdated texts.
# an insistence on censoring prayer from the classroom

==See also==

*[[Liberal style]]
{{Nb Atheism}}

Talk:Atheistic Style

2009-01-06T01:08:54Z

Lynus: /* Where's the problem? */

== Where's the problem? ==
You certainly have a point, people do need to start making citations for what they write. But what is the problem with marking the entry being without citations, it is 100% true. I thought we didn't censor due to ideological reasons here. Therefore I am reverting it. Andy if you can give me a good reason for why marking an article as "uncited" when it has '''zero''' citations is wrong then I will leave it alone.

: "Lynus", you have to make a contribution before you starting complaining. Got it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:03, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::Wait, so I can't mark an article as "unsourced" even though it is unsourced? Why even have the tag enabled? You even agree that it is unsourced so why can I not tag it with something truthful?--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 20:08, 5 January 2009 (EST)

==Childish==
Isn't this a bit childish? [[User:JosiahB|JosiahB]] 11:14, 30 November 2007 (EST)

In what ways? --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 11:16, 30 November 2007 (EST)
:It's just a personal essay, based on solely personal opinion, and not really wholly true at that. I've proposed for deletion. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:25, 3 January 2008 (EST)

::I agree, that this is wholly based on assumptions. How do you support an article deletion? [[User:VonShroom|VonShroom]] 17:33, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:::As this page was created by the site owner I wouldn't even consider suggesting that the article should be deleted. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 18:06, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Josiah and "TheEvilSpartan", let's improve the entry. Think positively, not negatively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: If you wish to nominate the page for deletion you need to insert the delete template at the top of the page. See [[Templates|here]] for template information. However, I should warn you that as this article was written by Andy Schlafly it does not need to contain any citations. That is one of the unwritten rules of Conservapedia. Further, the delete notice will likely be removed by one of the sysop/acolytes, probably Crocoite (see, for example, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hollywood_values&diff=385539&oldid=385523 here]). And it is quite likely that you will be blocked (see, for example [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Crocoite&page=User%3AGDewey here]). --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 18:14, 3 March 2008 (EST)

:: That's false about me. This is a work-in-progress and much of it is indisputable. The demands that it be deleted are obviously ideological, and we do not allow liberal censorship here. That should be obvious. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:30, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::: Really? Let's see shall we? --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 18:34, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Has anyone here ever talked to a real atheist? Sit down and have a chat with me and you'll soon see that there is a reason there is no citations on this page. Heck, I'll even null out a few of your points; Newton definitely was motivated by religion (I do believe that he was out to use the gift of intelligence), some of the most influential scientists have been religious. Me personally, I think that not believing something/someone created everything makes everything more beautiful (personally I love micro-biology, those little critters are so fascinating), as they just came together that way (in reference to a depressed world-view). Of course, I think there are problems out there now, but I know that we as people can fix them. As for arbitrary concepts such as love, I'm not sure how they came about (please do not tell me God) but they are great emotions and provide different degrees of functional guidance (morals and such). Pleas do not think I am being a smartaleck or sarcastic, as my personal beliefs are some of the few things I never joke around about.--[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 23:19, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Smarter ==

I'd like to think that we ''are'' smarter then 100 years ago, but I'm bot an atheist.

On another note: This article is among a series that make Conservapedia a laughing stock, if we really want to be taken seriously, we should refrain from this. In what other Encyclopedia would you find something like this? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:37, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: DLerner, if you fear mockery, then you won't make much progress finding and spreading the truth. A little more concern about the truth and less concern about who among the less informed are laughing would be beneficial to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: : I don't fear mockery, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia! Now, if their is research showing that atheists are prone to such styles then go right ahead, but for some reason I have a feeling this is someones personal feeling towards atheists - though he/she has every right to have such feelings, I really can't see a basis for publishing them in an encyclopedia. (As an essay this would be wonderful, but as an article?) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:57, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::It's not that we fear mockery, it's that this article invites - no, deserves - mockery. There are no references to back up what is said - it's just the author's thoughts. Some of it is just wrong based on personal experience (Conservapedia allows contributions based on personal experience, doesn't it?). Conservapedia would be better off without it. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:51, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
::Incidentally I ''love'' the bit about how atheists have "a perception (often wrong) of what most people think". That describes the author of this article. Are we sure this isn't a parody introduced by someone trying to make us look bad?) [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:55, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

'''

== My Fundamentalist Alterations ==

'''

Yeesh, I edited this page about 4 months ago in an attempt to make the content so laughably fallacious, uninformed, assertive and double-standard laden that it shouldnt have lasted the day. Its both amusing and depressing to see it here some 16+ weeks later...

"overreliance and a dependance on often OUTDATED TEXTS."

Hmm

"a refusal to recognize how democracy relies on Christianity, and how no atheistic culture has ever managed to sustain a lasting democracy"

Aside from, erm, oh yeah, most of the countries in Europe...

"a generally pessimistic, worthless and depressing view of life"

Lol, well Im not surprised this one managed to stay up...

"an unshakeable faith...in life in outer space"

Hahahaha,

Oh very dear...

Think critically people, good day to you...

Talk:Atheistic Style

2009-01-06T01:02:24Z

Lynus: /* Where's the problem? */

== Where's the problem? ==
You certainly have a point, people do need to start making citations for what they write. But what is the problem with marking the entry being without citations, it is 100% true. I thought we didn't censor due to ideological reasons here. Therefore I am reverting it. Andy if you can give me a good reason for why marking an article as "uncited" when it has '''zero''' citations is wrong then I will leave it alone.

==Childish==
Isn't this a bit childish? [[User:JosiahB|JosiahB]] 11:14, 30 November 2007 (EST)

In what ways? --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 11:16, 30 November 2007 (EST)
:It's just a personal essay, based on solely personal opinion, and not really wholly true at that. I've proposed for deletion. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:25, 3 January 2008 (EST)

::I agree, that this is wholly based on assumptions. How do you support an article deletion? [[User:VonShroom|VonShroom]] 17:33, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:::As this page was created by the site owner I wouldn't even consider suggesting that the article should be deleted. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 18:06, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Josiah and "TheEvilSpartan", let's improve the entry. Think positively, not negatively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: If you wish to nominate the page for deletion you need to insert the delete template at the top of the page. See [[Templates|here]] for template information. However, I should warn you that as this article was written by Andy Schlafly it does not need to contain any citations. That is one of the unwritten rules of Conservapedia. Further, the delete notice will likely be removed by one of the sysop/acolytes, probably Crocoite (see, for example, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hollywood_values&diff=385539&oldid=385523 here]). And it is quite likely that you will be blocked (see, for example [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Crocoite&page=User%3AGDewey here]). --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 18:14, 3 March 2008 (EST)

:: That's false about me. This is a work-in-progress and much of it is indisputable. The demands that it be deleted are obviously ideological, and we do not allow liberal censorship here. That should be obvious. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:30, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::: Really? Let's see shall we? --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 18:34, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Has anyone here ever talked to a real atheist? Sit down and have a chat with me and you'll soon see that there is a reason there is no citations on this page. Heck, I'll even null out a few of your points; Newton definitely was motivated by religion (I do believe that he was out to use the gift of intelligence), some of the most influential scientists have been religious. Me personally, I think that not believing something/someone created everything makes everything more beautiful (personally I love micro-biology, those little critters are so fascinating), as they just came together that way (in reference to a depressed world-view). Of course, I think there are problems out there now, but I know that we as people can fix them. As for arbitrary concepts such as love, I'm not sure how they came about (please do not tell me God) but they are great emotions and provide different degrees of functional guidance (morals and such). Pleas do not think I am being a smartaleck or sarcastic, as my personal beliefs are some of the few things I never joke around about.--[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 23:19, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Smarter ==

I'd like to think that we ''are'' smarter then 100 years ago, but I'm bot an atheist.

On another note: This article is among a series that make Conservapedia a laughing stock, if we really want to be taken seriously, we should refrain from this. In what other Encyclopedia would you find something like this? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:37, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: DLerner, if you fear mockery, then you won't make much progress finding and spreading the truth. A little more concern about the truth and less concern about who among the less informed are laughing would be beneficial to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: : I don't fear mockery, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia! Now, if their is research showing that atheists are prone to such styles then go right ahead, but for some reason I have a feeling this is someones personal feeling towards atheists - though he/she has every right to have such feelings, I really can't see a basis for publishing them in an encyclopedia. (As an essay this would be wonderful, but as an article?) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:57, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::It's not that we fear mockery, it's that this article invites - no, deserves - mockery. There are no references to back up what is said - it's just the author's thoughts. Some of it is just wrong based on personal experience (Conservapedia allows contributions based on personal experience, doesn't it?). Conservapedia would be better off without it. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:51, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
::Incidentally I ''love'' the bit about how atheists have "a perception (often wrong) of what most people think". That describes the author of this article. Are we sure this isn't a parody introduced by someone trying to make us look bad?) [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:55, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

'''

== My Fundamentalist Alterations ==

'''

Yeesh, I edited this page about 4 months ago in an attempt to make the content so laughably fallacious, uninformed, assertive and double-standard laden that it shouldnt have lasted the day. Its both amusing and depressing to see it here some 16+ weeks later...

"overreliance and a dependance on often OUTDATED TEXTS."

Hmm

"a refusal to recognize how democracy relies on Christianity, and how no atheistic culture has ever managed to sustain a lasting democracy"

Aside from, erm, oh yeah, most of the countries in Europe...

"a generally pessimistic, worthless and depressing view of life"

Lol, well Im not surprised this one managed to stay up...

"an unshakeable faith...in life in outer space"

Hahahaha,

Oh very dear...

Think critically people, good day to you...

Atheistic Style

2009-01-06T00:56:38Z

Lynus: The article is unsourced, the tag is 100% true, please read talk page.

{{uncited}}
There is a style common to many [[atheists]], including:

# a refusal to recognize how [[democracy]] relies on [[Christianity]], and how no [[atheistic]] culture has ever managed to sustain a lasting [[democracy]]
# a refusal to credit the role played by [[faith]] in great contributions of many people, such as [[Isaac Newton]]
# a general disbelief of unseen and unquantifiable concepts, such as [[love]], intrinsic beauty and fidelity
# a belief that [[atheist]]s are somehow smarter than those having [[faith]], downplaying contributions by [[Christians]]
# a belief that humans are smarter today than 100, 1,000 or 6,000 years ago
# a view that most of science is known and understood, in contrast to [[Isaac Newton]]'s view that little is understood
# a focus on [[materialism]], and a devotion to [[relativism]] in many forms
# a generally pessimistic, worthless and depressing view of life
# among scientists, an unshakeable faith in never-detected [[graviton]]s, [[black holes]], [[dark matter]], [[super strings]] and life in outer space
# belief in the [[Nobel Prize]], universities, newspapers and magazines as oracles of truths
# overreliance on [[hearsay]], a perception (often wrong) of what most people think, and a dependance on often outdated texts.
# an insistence on censoring prayer from the classroom

==See also==

*[[Liberal style]]
{{Nb Atheism}}

Talk:Atheistic Style

2009-01-06T00:55:06Z

Lynus: /* Where's the problem? */

== Where's the problem? ==
You certainly have a point, people do need to start making citations for what they write. But what is the problem with marking the entry being without citations, it is 100% true. I thought we didn't censor due to ideological reasons here. Therefore I am reverting it. Andy if you can give me a good reason for why marking an article as "uncited" when it has '''zero''' citations then I will leave it alone.

==Childish==
Isn't this a bit childish? [[User:JosiahB|JosiahB]] 11:14, 30 November 2007 (EST)

In what ways? --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 11:16, 30 November 2007 (EST)
:It's just a personal essay, based on solely personal opinion, and not really wholly true at that. I've proposed for deletion. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:25, 3 January 2008 (EST)

::I agree, that this is wholly based on assumptions. How do you support an article deletion? [[User:VonShroom|VonShroom]] 17:33, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:::As this page was created by the site owner I wouldn't even consider suggesting that the article should be deleted. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 18:06, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Josiah and "TheEvilSpartan", let's improve the entry. Think positively, not negatively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: If you wish to nominate the page for deletion you need to insert the delete template at the top of the page. See [[Templates|here]] for template information. However, I should warn you that as this article was written by Andy Schlafly it does not need to contain any citations. That is one of the unwritten rules of Conservapedia. Further, the delete notice will likely be removed by one of the sysop/acolytes, probably Crocoite (see, for example, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hollywood_values&diff=385539&oldid=385523 here]). And it is quite likely that you will be blocked (see, for example [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Crocoite&page=User%3AGDewey here]). --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 18:14, 3 March 2008 (EST)

:: That's false about me. This is a work-in-progress and much of it is indisputable. The demands that it be deleted are obviously ideological, and we do not allow liberal censorship here. That should be obvious. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:30, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::: Really? Let's see shall we? --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 18:34, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Has anyone here ever talked to a real atheist? Sit down and have a chat with me and you'll soon see that there is a reason there is no citations on this page. Heck, I'll even null out a few of your points; Newton definitely was motivated by religion (I do believe that he was out to use the gift of intelligence), some of the most influential scientists have been religious. Me personally, I think that not believing something/someone created everything makes everything more beautiful (personally I love micro-biology, those little critters are so fascinating), as they just came together that way (in reference to a depressed world-view). Of course, I think there are problems out there now, but I know that we as people can fix them. As for arbitrary concepts such as love, I'm not sure how they came about (please do not tell me God) but they are great emotions and provide different degrees of functional guidance (morals and such). Pleas do not think I am being a smartaleck or sarcastic, as my personal beliefs are some of the few things I never joke around about.--[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 23:19, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Smarter ==

I'd like to think that we ''are'' smarter then 100 years ago, but I'm bot an atheist.

On another note: This article is among a series that make Conservapedia a laughing stock, if we really want to be taken seriously, we should refrain from this. In what other Encyclopedia would you find something like this? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:37, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: DLerner, if you fear mockery, then you won't make much progress finding and spreading the truth. A little more concern about the truth and less concern about who among the less informed are laughing would be beneficial to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: : I don't fear mockery, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia! Now, if their is research showing that atheists are prone to such styles then go right ahead, but for some reason I have a feeling this is someones personal feeling towards atheists - though he/she has every right to have such feelings, I really can't see a basis for publishing them in an encyclopedia. (As an essay this would be wonderful, but as an article?) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:57, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::It's not that we fear mockery, it's that this article invites - no, deserves - mockery. There are no references to back up what is said - it's just the author's thoughts. Some of it is just wrong based on personal experience (Conservapedia allows contributions based on personal experience, doesn't it?). Conservapedia would be better off without it. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:51, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
::Incidentally I ''love'' the bit about how atheists have "a perception (often wrong) of what most people think". That describes the author of this article. Are we sure this isn't a parody introduced by someone trying to make us look bad?) [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:55, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

'''

== My Fundamentalist Alterations ==

'''

Yeesh, I edited this page about 4 months ago in an attempt to make the content so laughably fallacious, uninformed, assertive and double-standard laden that it shouldnt have lasted the day. Its both amusing and depressing to see it here some 16+ weeks later...

"overreliance and a dependance on often OUTDATED TEXTS."

Hmm

"a refusal to recognize how democracy relies on Christianity, and how no atheistic culture has ever managed to sustain a lasting democracy"

Aside from, erm, oh yeah, most of the countries in Europe...

"a generally pessimistic, worthless and depressing view of life"

Lol, well Im not surprised this one managed to stay up...

"an unshakeable faith...in life in outer space"

Hahahaha,

Oh very dear...

Think critically people, good day to you...

Talk:Atheistic Style

2009-01-06T00:54:24Z

Lynus:

== Where's the problem? ==
You certainly have a point, people do need to start making citations for what they write. But what is the problem with marking the entry being without citations, it is 100% true. I thought we didn't censor due to ideological reasons here. Therefore I am reverting it. Andy if you can give me a good reason for why marking an article as "uncited" when it has '''zero''' citations then I will leave it alone.

Isn't this a bit childish? [[User:JosiahB|JosiahB]] 11:14, 30 November 2007 (EST)

In what ways? --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 11:16, 30 November 2007 (EST)
:It's just a personal essay, based on solely personal opinion, and not really wholly true at that. I've proposed for deletion. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:25, 3 January 2008 (EST)

::I agree, that this is wholly based on assumptions. How do you support an article deletion? [[User:VonShroom|VonShroom]] 17:33, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:::As this page was created by the site owner I wouldn't even consider suggesting that the article should be deleted. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 18:06, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Josiah and "TheEvilSpartan", let's improve the entry. Think positively, not negatively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: If you wish to nominate the page for deletion you need to insert the delete template at the top of the page. See [[Templates|here]] for template information. However, I should warn you that as this article was written by Andy Schlafly it does not need to contain any citations. That is one of the unwritten rules of Conservapedia. Further, the delete notice will likely be removed by one of the sysop/acolytes, probably Crocoite (see, for example, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hollywood_values&diff=385539&oldid=385523 here]). And it is quite likely that you will be blocked (see, for example [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Crocoite&page=User%3AGDewey here]). --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 18:14, 3 March 2008 (EST)

:: That's false about me. This is a work-in-progress and much of it is indisputable. The demands that it be deleted are obviously ideological, and we do not allow liberal censorship here. That should be obvious. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:30, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::: Really? Let's see shall we? --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 18:34, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Has anyone here ever talked to a real atheist? Sit down and have a chat with me and you'll soon see that there is a reason there is no citations on this page. Heck, I'll even null out a few of your points; Newton definitely was motivated by religion (I do believe that he was out to use the gift of intelligence), some of the most influential scientists have been religious. Me personally, I think that not believing something/someone created everything makes everything more beautiful (personally I love micro-biology, those little critters are so fascinating), as they just came together that way (in reference to a depressed world-view). Of course, I think there are problems out there now, but I know that we as people can fix them. As for arbitrary concepts such as love, I'm not sure how they came about (please do not tell me God) but they are great emotions and provide different degrees of functional guidance (morals and such). Pleas do not think I am being a smartaleck or sarcastic, as my personal beliefs are some of the few things I never joke around about.--[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 23:19, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Smarter ==

I'd like to think that we ''are'' smarter then 100 years ago, but I'm bot an atheist.

On another note: This article is among a series that make Conservapedia a laughing stock, if we really want to be taken seriously, we should refrain from this. In what other Encyclopedia would you find something like this? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:37, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: DLerner, if you fear mockery, then you won't make much progress finding and spreading the truth. A little more concern about the truth and less concern about who among the less informed are laughing would be beneficial to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: : I don't fear mockery, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia! Now, if their is research showing that atheists are prone to such styles then go right ahead, but for some reason I have a feeling this is someones personal feeling towards atheists - though he/she has every right to have such feelings, I really can't see a basis for publishing them in an encyclopedia. (As an essay this would be wonderful, but as an article?) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:57, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::It's not that we fear mockery, it's that this article invites - no, deserves - mockery. There are no references to back up what is said - it's just the author's thoughts. Some of it is just wrong based on personal experience (Conservapedia allows contributions based on personal experience, doesn't it?). Conservapedia would be better off without it. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:51, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
::Incidentally I ''love'' the bit about how atheists have "a perception (often wrong) of what most people think". That describes the author of this article. Are we sure this isn't a parody introduced by someone trying to make us look bad?) [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:55, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

'''

== My Fundamentalist Alterations ==

'''

Yeesh, I edited this page about 4 months ago in an attempt to make the content so laughably fallacious, uninformed, assertive and double-standard laden that it shouldnt have lasted the day. Its both amusing and depressing to see it here some 16+ weeks later...

"overreliance and a dependance on often OUTDATED TEXTS."

Hmm

"a refusal to recognize how democracy relies on Christianity, and how no atheistic culture has ever managed to sustain a lasting democracy"

Aside from, erm, oh yeah, most of the countries in Europe...

"a generally pessimistic, worthless and depressing view of life"

Lol, well Im not surprised this one managed to stay up...

"an unshakeable faith...in life in outer space"

Hahahaha,

Oh very dear...

Think critically people, good day to you...

Atheistic Style

2009-01-06T00:43:16Z

Lynus:

Shibboleth

2009-01-06T00:05:22Z

Lynus:

A [[shibboleth]] is a custom, behavior, or particular use of language which is believed to identify the user as a member or non-member of a particular group. Historical examples of shibboleths include the pronunciation of particular sounds, the willingness or unwillingness to eat certain foods, or the possession of particular arcane knowledge. Contemporary shibboleths include the use of '[[leetspeak]]' or professional jargon.

The term shibboleth comes from the Hebrew for 'the grain-bearing portion of a plant'. The use of the word 'shibboleth' as a test is related in the Old Testament book of Judges, Chapter 12, v1-15. The language of the Ephraimites lacked a 'sh' sound; therefore Ephraimites would mispronounce 'shibboleth':

:::12, 4 Then Jephthah gathered together all the men of Gilead, and fought with Ephraim: and the men of Gilead smote Ephraim, because they said, Ye Gileadites are fugitives of Ephraim among the Ephraimites, and among the Manassites.

:::5 And the Gileadites took the passages of Jordan before the Ephraimites: and it was so, that when those Ephraimites which were escaped said, Let me go over; that the men of Gilead said unto him, art thou an Ephraimite? If he say Nay;

:::6 Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand.

== Modern Example of Pronunciation Illustrating Background ==

A modern example of a particular pronunciation demonstrating one's background is how presidential candidate [[Barack Obama]] pronounces "Pakistan" in the way used by Muslims from that area of the world (as "Pokiston"), rather than using the common American pronunciation. That casts doubt on whether Obama really broke from his Muslim upbringing as he claims, leading some (namely this sites editors) to question his veracity.
[[Category:Anthropology]]

Talk:Essay:Quantifying Mental Strength

2009-01-05T15:52:57Z

Lynus:

==Second citation==

The public school link is exclusively for American public schools but the citation was for Canadian psychiatrists. It only gave a percentage of those psychiatrists that prescribed "Atypical" antipsychotics (one particular kind of psychiatric drug) not the number of prescriptions for children compared to the total number of kids in Canada (which is immaterial since we are talking about American schools). It makes no link between public schools at all and these psychiatrists (which admittedly there probably is) but this does not state a number therefore this cannot be used as justification for the blurb.--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 16:19, 3 January 2009 (EST)

: Lynus, we don't take kindly to [[censorship]] here. Don't delete information. If you think something is deficient, then improve it by finding ''more'' information, not less. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:22, 3 January 2009 (EST)

::How is this censorship when I am simply deleting a reference to an article that does not address the point it is making? I will certainly be glad to withhold on outright deletion and instead use the talk page but is taking a citation out of an article talking about crime statistics in America by citing Crime statistics in Singapore censorship? I really do not understand this Andy.--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 16:27, 3 January 2009 (EST)

::: Lynus, Canada is similar to the U.S. on this point. But more importantly, you're wasting my time. This is a project for open-minded people to contribute knowledge or insights. You've done neither in what I've seen of your edits. Build the encyclopedia, or please leave. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:56, 3 January 2009 (EST)

==Suggestions==
First, I think that this article is not quantifying as much as doing a qualitative analysis. I think it is important for the readers to know the difference between the two and for the article to not misstate something. I have not changed it so we can discuss it.

Second, the references to Christianity are fine but they don't do much. It seems that that is strictly for Christians and therefore in order to make a broader essay we should include tips that include everybody. If these tips help in the conversion of someone then we would need to address issues that pertain to the unsaved. I will try to include some soon.

The public school blurb is just that, a blurb. Certainly a case can be made for the overmedication of children but to say that the "main" way that schools address these issues are drugs needs a citation. But even if it is the case that it is the "main" way, which I don't believe, shouldn't we include the other ways schools address these issues, more studying, encouragement, reward and punishment etc. The sentence is way to broad to encompass every teacher and school in the public system.--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 14:41, 3 January 2009 (EST)

==Thrives==
Do you think "excels" might be a better word than "thrives" in the opening line? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:20, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
:How about "is obsessed with"? [[User:Human|Human]] 19:23, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
::Maybe "delights?" --[[User:ToJones|ToJones]] 19:25, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Physical fitness is a good thing. Mental fitness would be even better. I don't see how the alternatives would be improvements.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Right now it reads as if our society thrives off the quantifying of physical fitness, not off the actual physical fitness. I understand your point, but it is hidden within the second half of your second sentence. Perhaps a better way of saying it would be "Our society thrives on our physical fitness and mental fitness. To help us improve our physical fitness, we quantify our physical strength [then the list of how we do it]. It is long overdue to create a similar system for mental fitness: ----[[User:ToJones|ToJones]] 19:42, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: OK, good point. Will add now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:21, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

== Rename second half? ==

:The second half is approaches to improving mental strength? Maybe change section heading to reflect this? The way the article is now that section should be approaches to quantifying mental strength. Just change heading to "Approaches to Improving Mental Strength" ? ----[[User:ToJones|ToJones]] 20:04, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Good suggestion. Will do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:21, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

== Dog attacks ==

I'm not sure about the inclusion of "dog attacks" in the irrational fears bullet point. Assumedly if a dog is attacking you, you should at least be concerned, especially if the dog is big, snarling, and has big teeth. That's a pretty rational concern. Do you mean fear of dogs in general? I know a girl who had some incident with a dog when she was young and now is deathly afraid of any dogs, even chihuahuas! -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 23:57, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

:I would argue that not wanting a large dog to chase you or not wanting to get shot are both very rational fears. I think you're trying to link gun control policies with lacking "mental strength," and I don't think it's a good comparison. There's a big difference between being afraid of being shot (if you were in a combat zone, wouldn't you be?) and believing that less guns in society as a whole would reduce crime. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 10:45, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

:: This obviously refers to an irrational or exaggerated fear of dog attacks, or guns. There may be legitimate fears of flying in airplanes, but the "fear of flying" obviously refers to an irrational or exaggerated fear.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:33, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

:::That's fair- I have friends who are afraid of my little housecat, for example. Maybe a phrase could be included to discuss that the fear becomes debilitating in what would normally be a non-threatening situation. I think it would be good to leave out guns, however, because part of being taught how to responsibly use a gun is inculcating a certain fear and respect for the damage they can do. My father certainly drilled this into me as a child, and I think that it is irrational to have no fear of guns at all. While I can think of many situations where an irrational fear of something can alter normal behavior- refusing to stay on the thirteenth floor of a hotel, for example, I can't think of such scenarios with guns. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 13:04, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Irrational fear is worth getting rid of even when it is not "debilitating". People who have an exaggerated fear of dog attacks would much prefer not to have that fear, and improving mental strength is a way they can get over their fear.

:::: Guns are analogous to dog attacks, and the same logic applies to irrational fear of guns. Some people are too fearful of guns even to use them in self-defense, and they pay too high a price for that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:09, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

==If==
I've always found Kipling's poem 'If' inspirational, and a great source of mental strength, with the (admittedly very major) caveat that the strength given by God and by faith is not mentioned. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:17, 18 December 2008 (EST)

: Do you have a cite to it?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:18, 18 December 2008 (EST)

::http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_if.htm [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:20, 18 December 2008 (EST)

==Liberal Tips==

I know this is an essay, and as such should remain however the authors wish it to. However, the tips given by the APA are not actually particularly liberal (although there is no denying that the organization is). While it may not be useful to those in great distress, focusing on improving familial relationships, and increasing involvement in civic and religious groups is good advice that would benefit most liberals, who certainly could benefit from improved mental strength.

The vast majority of the recommendations, perhaps restated for clarity, could be given by a well-meaning conservative and be valuable. But on their face, these recommendations are far more conservative than the organization is. [[User:Sulli|Sulli]] 22:39, 3 January 2009 (EST)

: No, I don't think so. Most of the recommendations are quite [[liberal]] and harmful, such as urging someone in crisis to become ''more'' self-centered.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:40, 3 January 2009 (EST)

::True, which also seems directly contradictory to the ones I mentioned from the article. Perhaps incorporating those into the essay separately would be a good solution? Certainly familial involvement is helpful. [[User:Sulli|Sulli]] 00:02, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:: Who wants to bet that if I had attributed this to Focus on the Family Andy would have had no problem with it? Andy with all due respect, this type of rant is why people think that this site is a joke. It would be OK if you could actually back it up or had substantive arguments but if it smells and looks like a rant...--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 23:03, 3 January 2009 (EST)

::: The rant is yours, not mine. My criticisms are well supported. Don't insult Focus on the Family by implying they would propose such an absurd and hurtful set of recommendations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Problem is is that you only view 3 of them as potentially harmful, namely the 2 you say are new agey and the one which you think is calling for self-centeredness. But you said that I shouldn't insult FotF by saying that they would advocate stuff like this. Well lets see what they actually have to say. Focus is italicized, APA is in bold.

''Instead of mourning our current state of affairs, we can be part of a new order. We can become agents of the new rather than apologists for what is passing away.''

'''Try looking beyond the present to how future circumstances may be a little better. Note any subtle ways in which you might already feel somewhat better as you deal with difficult situations.'''

''It is always more painful and risky to do something than to talk about it. But breaking the cycles of futility means we have an obligation to engage the problem.''

'''Take decisive actions. Act on adverse situations as much as you can. Take decisive actions, rather than detaching completely from problems and stresses and wishing they would just go away.'''

''In order to rid ourselves of real guilt, most of us will need to clean up after past sins, mistakes and transgressions. This usually includes a real apology and, in order to create one, we need self-awareness, humility and courage.''

'''Look for opportunities for self-discovery. People often learn something about themselves and may find that they have grown in some respect as a result of their struggle with loss.'''

''Isolating himself, on the other hand, is not healthy. Isolation may be symptomatic of depression, drug or alcohol use, anxiety or illegal behavior.''

'''Make connections. Good relationships with close family members, friends, or others are important. Accepting help and support from those who care about you and will listen to you strengthens resilience.'''

''Do the difficult tasks in phases. Often a "first draft" will get you 80 percent of the way along. Time for "topping off" the finished product can be better foreseen, and meeting the deadline seems less of a task.''

'''Move toward your goals. Develop some realistic goals. Do something regularly -- even if it seems like a small accomplishment -- that enables you to move toward your goals.
'''

I could go on but you get my point.

References:
[http://www.focusonthefamily.com/lifechallenges/emotional_health/depression/no_teen_is_an_island.aspx http://www.focusonthefamily.com/lifechallenges/emotional_health/depression/no_teen_is_an_island.aspx]
[http://www.focusonthefamily.com/lifechallenges/emotional_health/stress.aspx http://www.focusonthefamily.com/lifechallenges/emotional_health/stress.aspx]
[http://www.focusonthefamily.com/lifechallenges/emotional_health/changing_an_angry_spirit/winning_the_war_against_anger.aspx http://www.focusonthefamily.com/lifechallenges/emotional_health/changing_an_angry_spirit/winning_the_war_against_anger.aspx]
--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 10:52, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Essay:Quantifying Mental Strength

2009-01-04T04:03:20Z

Lynus: /* Liberal Tips */

==Second citation==

The public school link is exclusively for American public schools but the citation was for Canadian psychiatrists. It only gave a percentage of those psychiatrists that prescribed "Atypical" antipsychotics (one particular kind of psychiatric drug) not the number of prescriptions for children compared to the total number of kids in Canada (which is immaterial since we are talking about American schools). It makes no link between public schools at all and these psychiatrists (which admittedly there probably is) but this does not state a number therefore this cannot be used as justification for the blurb.--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 16:19, 3 January 2009 (EST)

: Lynus, we don't take kindly to [[censorship]] here. Don't delete information. If you think something is deficient, then improve it by finding ''more'' information, not less. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:22, 3 January 2009 (EST)

::How is this censorship when I am simply deleting a reference to an article that does not address the point it is making? I will certainly be glad to withhold on outright deletion and instead use the talk page but is taking a citation out of an article talking about crime statistics in America by citing Crime statistics in Singapore censorship? I really do not understand this Andy.--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 16:27, 3 January 2009 (EST)

::: Lynus, Canada is similar to the U.S. on this point. But more importantly, you're wasting my time. This is a project for open-minded people to contribute knowledge or insights. You've done neither in what I've seen of your edits. Build the encyclopedia, or please leave. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:56, 3 January 2009 (EST)

==Suggestions==
First, I think that this article is not quantifying as much as doing a qualitative analysis. I think it is important for the readers to know the difference between the two and for the article to not misstate something. I have not changed it so we can discuss it.

Second, the references to Christianity are fine but they don't do much. It seems that that is strictly for Christians and therefore in order to make a broader essay we should include tips that include everybody. If these tips help in the conversion of someone then we would need to address issues that pertain to the unsaved. I will try to include some soon.

The public school blurb is just that, a blurb. Certainly a case can be made for the overmedication of children but to say that the "main" way that schools address these issues are drugs needs a citation. But even if it is the case that it is the "main" way, which I don't believe, shouldn't we include the other ways schools address these issues, more studying, encouragement, reward and punishment etc. The sentence is way to broad to encompass every teacher and school in the public system.--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 14:41, 3 January 2009 (EST)

==Thrives==
Do you think "excels" might be a better word than "thrives" in the opening line? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:20, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
:How about "is obsessed with"? [[User:Human|Human]] 19:23, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
::Maybe "delights?" --[[User:ToJones|ToJones]] 19:25, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Physical fitness is a good thing. Mental fitness would be even better. I don't see how the alternatives would be improvements.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Right now it reads as if our society thrives off the quantifying of physical fitness, not off the actual physical fitness. I understand your point, but it is hidden within the second half of your second sentence. Perhaps a better way of saying it would be "Our society thrives on our physical fitness and mental fitness. To help us improve our physical fitness, we quantify our physical strength [then the list of how we do it]. It is long overdue to create a similar system for mental fitness: ----[[User:ToJones|ToJones]] 19:42, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: OK, good point. Will add now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:21, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

== Rename second half? ==

:The second half is approaches to improving mental strength? Maybe change section heading to reflect this? The way the article is now that section should be approaches to quantifying mental strength. Just change heading to "Approaches to Improving Mental Strength" ? ----[[User:ToJones|ToJones]] 20:04, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Good suggestion. Will do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:21, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

== Dog attacks ==

I'm not sure about the inclusion of "dog attacks" in the irrational fears bullet point. Assumedly if a dog is attacking you, you should at least be concerned, especially if the dog is big, snarling, and has big teeth. That's a pretty rational concern. Do you mean fear of dogs in general? I know a girl who had some incident with a dog when she was young and now is deathly afraid of any dogs, even chihuahuas! -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 23:57, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

:I would argue that not wanting a large dog to chase you or not wanting to get shot are both very rational fears. I think you're trying to link gun control policies with lacking "mental strength," and I don't think it's a good comparison. There's a big difference between being afraid of being shot (if you were in a combat zone, wouldn't you be?) and believing that less guns in society as a whole would reduce crime. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 10:45, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

:: This obviously refers to an irrational or exaggerated fear of dog attacks, or guns. There may be legitimate fears of flying in airplanes, but the "fear of flying" obviously refers to an irrational or exaggerated fear.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:33, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

:::That's fair- I have friends who are afraid of my little housecat, for example. Maybe a phrase could be included to discuss that the fear becomes debilitating in what would normally be a non-threatening situation. I think it would be good to leave out guns, however, because part of being taught how to responsibly use a gun is inculcating a certain fear and respect for the damage they can do. My father certainly drilled this into me as a child, and I think that it is irrational to have no fear of guns at all. While I can think of many situations where an irrational fear of something can alter normal behavior- refusing to stay on the thirteenth floor of a hotel, for example, I can't think of such scenarios with guns. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 13:04, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Irrational fear is worth getting rid of even when it is not "debilitating". People who have an exaggerated fear of dog attacks would much prefer not to have that fear, and improving mental strength is a way they can get over their fear.

:::: Guns are analogous to dog attacks, and the same logic applies to irrational fear of guns. Some people are too fearful of guns even to use them in self-defense, and they pay too high a price for that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:09, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

==If==
I've always found Kipling's poem 'If' inspirational, and a great source of mental strength, with the (admittedly very major) caveat that the strength given by God and by faith is not mentioned. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:17, 18 December 2008 (EST)

: Do you have a cite to it?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:18, 18 December 2008 (EST)

::http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_if.htm [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:20, 18 December 2008 (EST)

==Liberal Tips==

I know this is an essay, and as such should remain however the authors wish it to. However, the tips given by the APA are not actually particularly liberal (although there is no denying that the organization is). While it may not be useful to those in great distress, focusing on improving familial relationships, and increasing involvement in civic and religious groups is good advice that would benefit most liberals, who certainly could benefit from improved mental strength.

The vast majority of the recommendations, perhaps restated for clarity, could be given by a well-meaning conservative and be valuable. But on their face, these recommendations are far more conservative than the organization is. [[User:Sulli|Sulli]] 22:39, 3 January 2009 (EST)

: No, I don't think so. Most of the recommendations are quite [[liberal]] and harmful, such as urging someone in crisis to become ''more'' self-centered.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:40, 3 January 2009 (EST)

:: Who wants to bet that if I had attributed this to Focus on the Family Andy would have had no problem with it? Andy with all due respect, this type of rant is why people think that this site is a joke. It would be OK if you could actually back it up or had substantive arguments but if it smells and looks like a rant...--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 23:03, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Essay:Quantifying Mental Strength

2009-01-04T03:58:09Z

Lynus:

Our society thrives on our physical fitness and mental fitness. To help us improve our physical fitness, we quantify our physical strength, noting how fast one can run, how long one can jog, how far one can throw a ball, and how much weight one can lift. The approach of aerobics to physical fitness generally depends on quantifying the aerobic aspect of the exercise. We quantify physical fitness, and then use the quantified targets in order to improve.

Mental strength is far more important than physical strength. It is long overdue to quantify -- and improve -- mental strength:

#Do you frequently have problems with anxiety? Can you reduce the occurrences or intensity?
#Do ignorant or illogical remarks by others bother you, even when the illogical is pressed upon you by the media, Hollywood or peer pressure?
#Are you vulnerable to teasing, or can you "mock the mockery"?
#Can you view yourself objectively, admit when you are wrong, and change towards what is advantageous?
#Can you speak in front of a large hostile audience?
#Do you have unexplained difficulties handling social situations?
#Do you dwell more on your past than on your future, or dwell on other things that are unchangeable?
#If someone insults you, for how long (in minutes or hours) will that bother you?
#Is your mind strong enough to deny desires of your body, such as addictions or unhealthy food consumption?
#Is your mind able to overcome irrational fears, such as fears of rejection, public speaking, public humiliation, failure, flying, dog attacks, guns, heights, close quarters, big crowds, seeing doctors, and others?

One can score himself, and use the score and the tips below to improve.

== Approaches to Improving Mental Strength ==

In [[public school]], a primary approach to mental weakness is to prescribe medication,<ref>http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20050617.htm</ref><ref>[http://publications.cpa-apc.org/media.php?mid=405 Article about trends in prescribing by child psychiatrists in Canada]</ref> and that is the approach taken by many adults also. But there are other approaches available.

Christianity, for example, offers a combination of logic, faith, complete love for God (which excludes distraction), and willingness for complete self-sacrifice. Thomas Aquinas added mockery to the available tools that can be used. The personal sacrifice by Jesus Christ for others is a powerful inspiration, as was Abraham's offer to sacrifice his beloved son.

The commandment against worshiping the equivalent of a false god works well in dealing with anything that distracts from faith and love for God.

=== American Psychological Association's [[liberal]] tips for improving mental resilience. ===

The American Psychological Association espouses [[liberal]] viewpoints, downplays or denies the truth of [[Christianity]], and promotes the [[homosexual agenda]]. Its recommendations for improving mental resilience are comical at best and harmful at worst (it should not be giving medical advice, and this entry does not give medical advice by criticizing its recommendations):<ref>http://www.apahelpcenter.org/featuredtopics/feature.php?id=6&ch=4</ref>

''It seems to be giving psychological advice which is the stated purpose of the American '''Psychological''' Association. Isn't Dobson a psychologist?''

:"Make connections. Good relationships with close family members, friends, or others are important. ..."

Many people in trouble, unfortunately, lack those "good relationships" and are not likely to get any soon.

''Hence why it says "Make".''

:"Avoid seeing crises as insurmountable problems. You can't change the fact that highly stressful events happen, but you can change how you interpret and respond to these events. ..."

Fine, but denies how [[faith]] in [[God]] can overcome any crisis.

''The APA isn't a religious organization. You can't possibly believe that just because something doesn't mention God then it can't be useful. Plus the APA does mention faith based groups which you conveniently omitted.''

:"Accept that change is a part of living. ..."

Sounds like a silly [[Obama]] campaign slogan!

''Worthless attempt at humor that brings nothing constructive.''

:"Move toward your goals. Develop some realistic goals. Do something regularly -- even if it seems like a small accomplishment -- that enables you to move toward your goals."

Well, fine, but when the goal is to be accepted by your [[liberal]] friends, it often leads to problems.

''So is Conservapedia just simply an outlet for you to rant whenever you feel like it? BTW to just take on every point simply to make a point, especially considering the fact that most people disagree that moving towards your goals and making realistic ones is a bad thing just makes you seem like you are treating this as your own personal playground and not the "trustworthy encyclopedia" it is supposed to be.''

:"Take decisive actions. Act on adverse situations as much as you can. Take decisive actions, rather than detaching completely from problems and stresses and wishing they would just go away."

That recommendation is very bizarre, particularly if the "decisive action" is hurtful. [[Abortion]] is a decisive action that many regret and are harmed by the rest of their lives. But the American Psychological Association probably supports [[abortion]], so perhaps that is why that recommendation is there.

''Andy you know full well that the APA isn't advocating being rash. The abortion thing is a red herring, find me where in the article it is advocating abortion. But you even use the words "probably" to describe their supposed support of it so now you are attributing political positions to an organization when you don't know their views. Not that any of this matters considering that you are bringing up inane reasons not to agree with this.''

:"Look for opportunities for self-discovery. People often learn something about themselves and may find that they have grown in some respect as a result of their struggle with loss. ... Nurture a positive view of yourself. Developing confidence in your ability to solve problems and trusting your instincts helps build resilience."

New Age nonsense. Often the more self-centered one becomes, the more problems he has. Well, self-centered approaches can be expected from a group that promotes [[same-sex marriage]].

''This is not being self-centered this is about finding good things about yourself; hardly the terrible suggestion you make it out to be. I doubt you are self-loathing.''

:"Keep things in perspective. Even when facing very painful events, try to consider the stressful situation in a broader context and keep a long-term perspective. Avoid blowing the event out of proportion."

Notice how this recommendation denies [[self-defense]]. The [[Devil]] exists and the sooner one realizes it and utilizes mental and emotional self-defense, the better off one is. Trouble is, the American Psychological Association probably supports [[gun control]], opposes [[self-defense]], and denies real good and evil, so it cannot use the truth.

''LOL what? That whole response reeks of not even reading it which is weird considering that it seems you read the other ones. How did you even manage to link this to gun control? I would argue that this tip is indeed "self-defense" considering it is essentially saying that you need to protect yourself from yourself sometimes.''

:"Maintain a hopeful outlook. An optimistic outlook enables you to expect that good things will happen in your life. Try visualizing what you want, rather than worrying about what you fear."

Well, fine, but if that could be done then the recommendations would not be needed in the first place. The problem is how to do this.

''I love how you think a hopeful outlook is almost an end all be all of mental health. In case you missed it it says "maintain" because certainly people fall back into despair.''

:"Take care of yourself. Pay attention to your own needs and feelings. Engage in activities that you enjoy and find relaxing. Exercise regularly. Taking care of yourself helps to keep your mind and body primed to deal with situations that require resilience."

Exercise helps, but particularly exercise of the mind that rejects [[liberal deceit]] on a daily or hourly basis.

''Wait, so the APA can't give this type of advice because they are not MD's and yet it is OK for you to? J.D., B.S. I don't see M.D. behind your name. Your response is also not a response against the advice either. So are we going to throw all of them out even the ones you so far haven't tried, and I do mean try, to counter.''

:"Additional ways of strengthening resilience may be helpful. For example, some people write about their deepest thoughts and feelings related to trauma or other stressful events in their life. Meditation and spiritual practices help some people build connections and restore hope."

There's that New Age nonsense again. Try standing on your head for a while, perhaps???

''Yeah, because getting your feelings out makes absolutely no difference is emotional health, oh wait it does. Meditation is also not new agey if you use it simply to calm yourself. I don't see how focusing on one thing in your mind is occultic.''

:"The key is to identify ways that are likely to work well for you as part of your own personal strategy for fostering resilience."

What should "work well" is to realize that the American Psychological Association is part of the problem, not the solution. It is even further from the truth than your television set, which is filled with [[deceit]]. Turn off the TV, stop reading the newspaper, and pick up a [[Bible]].

''Wow, that was a great rant there Andy, kudos for showing your extreme paranoia and your fanatical devotion to only what you think is correct. Not only are most of your criticisms baseless strawmen but they reek of someone who is being argumentative because I doubt you actually disagree with the majority of these things because they are very sensible and straightforward with no ulterior motives in the text. The ulterior motives are all in your mind considering the prevalence of "probably" in your post and the absolute lack of anything pertaining to guns, abortion, or atheism.''

== References ==

<references/>

<references/>

[[Category:Essays]]

List of canals

2009-01-04T01:59:32Z

Lynus: Added the Erie Canal with internal link.

'''Canals''' are artificial waterways dug for purposes of navigation and/or land drainage.

=== Famous Canals ===

* The Grand Canal, [[China]]
* The Grand Union Canal ([[London-Braunstone]], Northants)
* The [[Leeds]] and [[Liverpool]] Canal
* The Bridgwater Canal (first modern canal in the world)
* The Foss Dyke ([[Roman]] canal in [[Lincolnshire]])
* The [[Panama Canal]]
* The [[Suez Canal]]
* The [[Erie Canal]]
[[category:transportation]]

Gaza

2009-01-04T01:47:22Z

Lynus: Fixed typo from 2008 to 2009 along with minor change to subtitle.

The '''Gaza Strip''' is a small strip of land 360 square kilometers, and has a population of 1.4 million people, making it one of the most densely populated places in the world. It was under [[Egyptian]] control from 1948 until 1967 when [[Israel]] conquered it in the [[Six Day War]]. Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip in August 2005, effectively returning sovereignty to the [[Palestinian Authority]]. In June 2007, the radical militant terrorist group [[Hamas]] forcefully took control of the Gaza strip from the PA.

== Hostilities in late 2008-present ==

Terrorists are still attacking Israel from the Gaza strip with missiles, in response to this Israel is bombarding with a disproportionate amount of bombs. On January 3, 2009 Israel has started a ground campaign in Gaza. It was preceded by an artillery barrage to soften the border so Israeli troops could cross safer. Israel still insists that this campaign is against Hamas targets and that it has no plans to reoccupy the land. Hamas, rather than stop firing rockets into Gaza has begun sabre rattling and stated that they will kidnap and kill invading Israeli soldiers and cause mental illness from the horrors they will bring them. They have also stated that they will begin suicide attacks again.[http://www.onenewsnow.com/Headlines/Default.aspx?id=372854]

==References==
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Headlines/Default.aspx?id=372854
<references/>

[[category:geography]]

Talk:Nazi Party

2009-01-04T01:41:41Z

Lynus: /* Atheism */

==Atheism==

How can the Nazi's be largely atheist/pagan if 50% claimed a form of nature worship/paganism and 40% Hitler (whatever that means) and the rest (100-50-40=10) be atheist? Plus, can we get a better reference because I have done several google searches for this survey and can't find it using keywords from the citation.--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 19:25, 3 January 2009 (EST)

*Well, you are an editor, Lynus, add all the citations you want to support the material. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:50, 3 January 2009 (EST)

:: Hey TK, need some advice. If I find a reference that doesn't describe what it purports to describe what should I do? I got accused of censorship by Andy for deleting a reference that doesn't address the actual topic he says it does. What exactly is "censorship" to the Admins here? In this page's case would I be justified in taking out the atheism part but leaving in pagan due to the obvious fact that according to the blurbs own words only 10% were atheist? Thx --[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 20:01, 3 January 2009 (EST)

::*'''!''' Well, some might think you are new, and of course needing to prove credibility, Linus. Personally I would search for sources that back the material already written, before looking for sources that dispute it. As one builds a record of reliable edits, and ''"substantive contributions"'' to this project, branching out to catching mis-applied citations, or adding further ones to improve articles will be tolerated more than a new editor's changes would be. That help? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:30, 3 January 2009 (EST)

:: Yes TK that did help, thank you for the polite response.--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 20:41, 3 January 2009 (EST)

== NAZI ==

NAZI NAME- IMPORTANT
Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei is in fact National Socialist's broad German Labor Party, and not as it is said in the article.
Accurate information is a must on a credible pedia.

== Homosexuality of the Nazis ==

Which top Nazis were openly gay? That's the first time I've ever heard people claiming this, save for the Hitler-was-gay claims that always come up. But then again, so do Lincoln-was-gay claims. The point is is that none of this is verifiable despite one book claiming it is. I say remove it.

:Wow. Let's use Wikipedia as a source for this one; note [[Adolf Hitler]]'s [[tolerance]] for [[gay]]s:
::''Having been outed in 1925, however, [Ernst] Röhm made little attempt to hide his sexuality. Despite Hitler's pretense of shock upon discovering his deputy's sexual orientation, he had in fact long known that Röhm was homosexual....During Röhm's tenure at the head of the SA, it has been suggested that a number of homosexual men (notably Karl Ernst, a former bouncer at a gay nightclub, and Edmund Heines) were appointed to and promoted within the SA as a result of high-level liaisons with powerful SA figures.''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_R%C3%B6hm#R.C3.B6hm.27s_sexual_orientation]
:Amazing. Wikipedia almost got it half right on this one. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:28, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's one top Nazi that was openly gay, but the article claims "though many top Nazis were openly gay..." This statement implies a plurality of homosexuals and not just the leader of the SA, who was killed when the SA was purged. So does one equal many? Yes, in the citation above there are two more men who were in the SA reported to be homosexuals, but they were not "top Nazis." This distinction implies people like Hess, Himmler, Goebbles, Hitler, etc., people who commanded Germany. The introduction to ''The Pink Triangle'' addresses homosexuality in the top echelons, of which there was little. Also, just because Hitler tolerated one homosexual does not mean he tolerated them all. His tolerance for Röhm could have just been convenient, until say, he killed him.

::::There was Edmund Heines as well, and Karl Ernst. But even adding these two wouldn't substantiate the claim of "many top Nazis." The fact is that most of the leadership that leaned that way was in the SA and was eliminated in the Night of the Long Knives.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 22:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::And a further aside; we have already pointed out how in electing Hitler, a Catholic, Germany showed itself more socially progressive than the United States by several decades. Likewise we shall demonstrate the Nazi's were more socially enlighten regarding the issue of gays in the military.
:::::Coming soon: Affirmative Action and the Wehrmacht. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::That post doesn't address the issue at hand. The article states that they were not tolerant for gays, but were gay themselves. I still reject the "top leadership" claim (other than Rohm). The fact that there were gays in the ranks (which there would be in any population if we assume gays live in any population) does not mean that "top Nazis" were practitioners of homosexual behavior.
::::::PS Where in the book is the youth groups claim cited, or could you provide the quote?

::::::Se also, ''The Damned'', starring Dirk Bogard [http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/cinema/features/damned.shtml], has a lengthy scene of a typical Nazi gay orgy with the Stormtroopers walking around wearing women's underwear, etc.

Given that the whole homosexual-nazi's theme has been started by Scott Lively, I doubt it is at all credible. Lively is a hardly a respectable historian - he is, in fact, an anti-homosexual campaigner and nothing more than this. I see someone has gone to the trouble of preparing a page on him that makes it very clear - with quotes, even - that he cannot be considered a reliable source because he is a fanatical conspiricy-theorist who appears to believe that homosexuals are planning to take over the world (While at the same time denying that homosexuality even exists). Citing fake histories invented by political power-gamers desperate to rewrite the past to make it appear the nazi's were homosexual is very detrimental to the credability of this site. I thus suggest that all reference to Scott Lively's pet theory are removed. Once his nonsense is dismissed, we have credible-looking support for a ''single'' homosexual high-up in the Nazi party (Rohm). Just the one. Who kept it in the closet. Hardly the openly party-supported gay-orgies that some people are claiming, or Scott's ungrounded belief in a mostly-homosexual leadership. There are two potentials too, but no proof - working as a bouncer at a gay nightclub does not make someone gay - BornAgainBrit

:Oh, I deleted a coupe of comments to calm things down - but only comments that are fairly old, unsourced (Or use Scott as a source) and make highly unlikely claims.

== Right Wing ==

The Nazis were neither atheists nor socialists and the question of whether or not they or their earlier incarnations qualify as "right wing" was resolved decades ago. I'm sorry, but I see no reason to accept Robs' idiosyncratic definitions as if they were accepted fact. They are most definitely not. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:Right. So as to whether a Socialist is a Socialist all depends on what the meaning of is is "is is" is. I understand fully. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:15, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

"We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: the common interest before self-interest." - Paragraph 24, Programme for the German Workers' Party (Pre-nazi). This is what happens when people blindly assume anyone who ''claims'' to be Christian is worth supporting. Hitler spoke publicly of his Christian faith constantly - that makes him a good politician, but not a real christian.

:''It [the party] combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: '''the common interest before self-interest.'''" ''
::'''the common interest before self-interest''', I would say this statement (a) lays to rest the idea the NSDAP is "conservative", and/or right-wing defined as a belief in rugged individualism; (b) pretty much clarifies the Social and Communal roots of Nazism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 09:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::No, whether a Socialist is a Socialist depends on whether or not the person or political party advocates collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of producton. The Nazis advocated some measure of government control in that realm, but not to the point where they qualified as "socialist," any more than 19th Century Prussia -- which advocated a similar kind of control -- qualified as "socialist."

:::Your claim that the Nazi party doesn't qualify as "right wing" is nothing more than blatant historical revisionism, an attempt to alter the definition of the term decades after the fact. The Nazis by and large considered themselves right wing, were referred to as right wing by contemporary opponents and sympathizers and by neutral observers (like travel guides to Germany at the time,) have been acknowledged as right wing by historians covering that era. What exactly do you expect to accomplish by altering common usage in this manner?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Meaning no disrespect, but it appears you too often speak first before looking at some of the issues. And while I can appreciate your once popular political prejudices, in retrospect we see denying facts and carrying on myths really serves no purpose anymore.

:Now, as to whether or not Socialists are indeed Socialists, lets begin with examing the "means of production", i.e. Volkswagen. [http://mondediplo.com/1998/01/11volkswag] So, we will be afforded the opportunity to examine the history of this Socialist enterprise to whatever extent they've made thier Archives available to the public.

:And finally the left/right spectrum theory is just that--only a theory. For weeks now I've been waiting to hear a definition from advocates of this theory what a "leftist" is. All I've seen so far is something like this:

*''a leftist is a liberal'' --->click here ''a liberal is a leftist'' --->click here ''leftists oppose oppression, hence Communists are leftists''

:that's the left side of this nonsense. Then we hear about how Socialists like Hitler actually were devout Christians like Rev. Falwell, who wants to exterminate gays, too.

:My appoligies, but this garbage is going absolutly nowhere. And if your serious in persuing this dead end thinking, my advice is to define "leftist", cause none, absolutley none of your so-called "leftist allies" have been able to do so up til now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::Garbage is definitely the operative term for this blatant revisionism of claiming that the Nazis were not "right wing" and were in fact "socialist." Using your definition of the term "socialist", Prussia and indeed much of 19th century Europe were "socialist." That is not how these countries were defined nor how they saw themselves, nor how they are defined today.

::A "leftist" is defined in the dictionary as "Those professing views usu. characterized by desire to reform or overthrow the establishe order esp. in poltics and usus. advocating chage in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man. A "right winger" is defined as "individuals sometimes professing opposition to change in the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices." The Nazis attitudes towards women, minorities, the disabled, the arts, homosexuality, foriegn policy and a range of other areas put them squarely on the right side of the political spectrum. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:05, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::ok, let's take that dictionary definition, "advocating chage in the name of the greater ... well-being of the common man", and "opposition to change in the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices". So which one of us is left and which one of us is right? I want change to stop these nonsensical definitions of left & right, you are resisting it and bring in more of this nonsense that does absolutly nothing to answer the question. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:12, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Which of us is "left" and which of us is "right" depends on how traditional our attitudes are towards issues like women, labor, minorities, etc. The Nazis, while they wished to overthrow the current order of the Weimar Republic, wanted to do so in order to turn the clock back to the era before women were active in public life, before Jews had been emancipated, before the advent of the avant garde in art and film, etc. It was essentially a revulsion against much of the modern world and a wildly romanticized view of the past.

::::If the fact that terms like "right" and "left" can be imprecise and part of a "spectrum" renders them "nonsensical," then much of language is "nonsensical." Terms like "religion," "politics," "freedom," "morality," even "red," "blue," "wet," "dry," "hot," or "cold" are "nonsensical." You want to give up using those terms too? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:26, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::''"The Nazis, while they wished to overthrow the current order of the Weimar Republic...''
:::::hmmm...let's see....which country, the US or Germany, displayed it's social progressivity by electing a Catholic to it's highest office? Was it the US & JFK, or Wiemar Republic and Hitler? Then, which country introduced affirmative action into the military after the Treaty of Versailles which allowed poor common scum, like Rommel, to rise to the position of General based upon merit rather than Social class? Which country displayed its social progressivity by allowing gays in the military first, the US or Nazi Germany? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:11, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: First of all, the Weimar Republic is not synonymous with Hitler. Quite the contrary, it was the liberalism of the Weimar Republic that that Hitler and the Nazis opposed, so trying to cram the term "affirmative action" into the context of the Weimar republic just bolsters my argument that the Nazis who reviled it were traditionalists and ergo "Right Wing." And the Nazis did not openly allow gays in the military, though I have no doubt that there were powerful gay men there who barely bothered to hide their homosexuality -- as has been true in many homophobic societies from time immemorial. The illusion of impunity many powerful gay Nazis felt coupled with official Nazi stance against homosexuality were frequently exploited by Himmler. One of his methods of controlling the people around him was by threatening to publicize an individuals homosexuality and thus exposing that individual to public disgrace and legal penalties.

::::::It was under Weimar, by the way, that German women gained the right to vote and began to appear more frequently in public life, that the avant garde arts flourished, that the last shreds of the legal restrictions on German Jews were dropped -- all of these were trends that the Nazis hated, and worked to elminate once they came into power. You don't do your case any good, Rob, by using Weimar policies to argue for the Nazis NOT being Right Wing. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:23, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::There is a large divergence between American historians and Germans in discussing Wiemar Germany. Germans regard what is called "Wiemar Germany", or "the Wiemar period" as extending from 1919 to 1939. Americans assume Wiemar Germany ended in 1933 with the rise of Hitler & Nazism. This is what I call "the Hollywood view" while popular and prevelent, nonetheless over fictionalized.

:::::::Talking about women gaining sufferage in Wiemar Germany almost brings tears to my eyes; I'm almost convinced to become a so-called "leftist", one who "advocates change in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man". But then all my fellow leftists today say Iraqi women can rot in hell as far as thier concerned. So what would you beleive if you were in my shoes? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::RobS, if I were in your shoes I would certainly take an English class. [[User:Thjazi|Thjazi]] 15:31, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::Just call me another victim of the Public Schools; we honestly have considered a class action suit for the lifelong damge they did to us innocent children. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:57, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Rob, if you can successfully show that public school teachers are responsible for your idiotic claim that the Weimar republic didn't end until 1939 you MIGHT have a case. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:06, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Kindly provide a cite for this presumed "divergence." I have yet to see or hear ANY historian, American or German, claim that the Weimar Republic lasted until 1939, and I have spent many years not only reading about this subject, but listening to first-hand accounts from Germans who lived through that era. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Here's one, Speer, Albert (1970). ''Inside the Third Reich''. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-684-82949-5. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:58, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::And exactly where does Speer claim that the Weimar Republic ended in 1939? What chapter? What section? How does the passage read? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 10:53, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

The entry here on Conservapedia for the Weimar Republic has it ending in 1933. Are you planning to "correct" this article? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:34, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is what Speer has to say about the Weimar Republic:

"...Hitler did not want to alter the proportion of sixty thousand voters for each deputy THAT HAD BEEN SET BY THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC (emphasis addded. Note past tense.) He never explained his reasons; but he was as firm on this matter as he was about nominal retention of the traditional electoral system with its fixed dates for elections, rule of franchise, ballot boxes, and secret ballot. On this matter he evidently wanted to preserve a tradition which had brought him to power, eventhough his introduction of the one-party system had made the whole thing pointless."

"The liberalism of the Weimar Republic seemed to us by comparison lax, dubious, and in no way desirable."

Please explain how this backs up your claim that Germans believe the Weimar Republic lasted until 1939. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:43, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:The first reference makes EXACTLY the point; the second reference needs a timeframe, because if it occurs during a discussion of wartime German attitudes, it likewise makes the same point. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:13, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It most certainly does NOT make your point. Speer refers to the Weimar Republic in the past tense, and the fact that this meaningless remnant of the Weimar system remained no more means the Weimar Republic itself remained than the fact that there were still some buildings put up during Weimar means the Weimar Republic itself remained. And are you going to put your money where your mouth is, change the Conservapedia Article on the Weimar Republic, "correct" it so that it no longer says it lasted only until 1933? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:17, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::OK, so when Speer says "Hitler did not want to alter", I guess actually means "did want to alter", much the same way a Socialist is not a Socialist.

::::Once again my friend you assign motives to me when all I did was point out disparties between American schools of historiagraphy and German. Here's another one you can look into,
:::::''"I was reading a wiki article the other day that made reference to "the Nazi seizure of power"; this article obviously was brought over from the German wiki, cause American sources always make light of the fact Hitler was democratically elected."''[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/064824.html]
::::And actually I counted some 200 articles in the English Wiki were this subversive poison made its way into the English language. Amazing, Wikipedia actually created the beast its intent upon destroying. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::When Speer says "Hitler did not want to alter" he is specifically referring to the number of voters assigned to each deputy and "nominal retention of the traditional electoral system," trappings that Speer himself observes were "pointless" because of Hitler's imposition of a single-party system. And I'm sorry, but the quotes observing that Hitler was democratically elected do nothing to bolster your bizarre claim that the Weimar Republic did not end until 1939.

:::::If you are that positive that the Weimar Republic did not end in 1933, please explain why the Conservapedia article on the subject states quite clearly: "The Weimar Republic is the republic which governed Germany from 1919 to 1933." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:07, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::PF, it's not worth responding to cause you continue to ascribe to me a claim I have specifically stated did not originate with me. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:20, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

LOL! In other words, you are willing to posit this inanity about the Weimar Republic continuing to 1939 here on a talk page in an attempt to bolster a baseless point, but you aren't willing to "correct" an article so that it reads "The Weimar Republic is the Republic which governed Germany from 1919 to 1939." You know as well as I do that such an article posted here would become the subject of widespread and deserved ridicule.

Face it. The Nazis were a reaction AGAINST the LIBERALISM of the Weimar Republic. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:24, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:''Gleichsaltung'' wasn't completed on the day after Hitler took office. And the undoing of Versailles, re-occupation of the Rhineland, Treaty of Munich, Anschluss, etc didn't occur til the 1935-39 period. Then of course we got the whole Molotov-Ribbentrop deal to look into, i.e. '''how the Soviet Union & Nazi's were indeed allies on 1 September 1939'''. So there actually is some basis for the traditional European view that the "Wiemar period" extended from 1919 to 1939. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry Rob, but Conservapedia itself -- along with pretty much every written history of Germany -- puts the end of the Weimar Republic in 1933, and your attempt at twisting a quote from Speer doesn't change that. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:42, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Speer ain't the only one that says it, and Speer doesn't just make a quote here and there; it's is an attitude throughout both his books. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:55, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Then who DOES claim that the Weimar Republic lasted until 1939? Quotes please. (As someone who has read his books, I know that Speer makes no such claim.) AND WHY HAVEN'T YOU "CORRECTED" THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC ARTICLE HERE SO THAT IT GIVES THE END OF THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC AS 1939 INSTEAD OF 1933? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:00, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::OK, that is a very good question. Now let's divide the response in two. There is domestic German politics, then there is upsetting the International order established at Versailles. Let's limit our discussion of the "Wiemar period" to the internetional borders established at Versailles. When Hitler re-occupied the Rhineland, though illegal, was internationally sanctioned. Then the Treaty of Munich, likewise took on legitimacy in the spirit of Versailles. The Anschluss, no international prohibitions were raised over this issue, not even in defense of the Austrian people, as best I recollect. Finally in 1939, we have joint Soviet-German military operations to dismember Poland. This is were the Peace of Versailles, or "Wiemar period", is regarded by many Europeans as finally, and officially coming to an end, after the governments of France and Great Britain finally ceased selling other people down the river to appease Nazi (and Soviet) aggression. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:09, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

None of this answers my question. Why haven't you "corrected" the Weimar Republic article here so that it gives the end of the Weimar Republic as 1939 instead of 1933? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:12, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:Let's work on the [[Molotov-Ribbentrop pact]] first. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:16, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::That has absolutely nothing to do with this question, or with the fact that pretty much every historian puts the end of the Weimar Republic at 1933. You know this. Otherwise you would have posted some supporting cites from historians by now. Again. Why haven't you "corrected" the Weimar Republic article here so that it gives the end of the Weimar Republic as 1939 instead of 1933? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:18, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well duh, let me restate for probably the third time now: the first international boundary to change was not unitl 1938, and was agreed to by the powers enforcing the Versailles treaty. Sept 1 1939, as best as I can determine, is when then Wiemar period, established at Versailles, came to end, and some members of the international community took steps to counter upsetting the established international order.

:::You know, for all the effort you put into arguing how Iraqi women were better off under fascism for 30 years, maybe you should reconsider if Chilean women may have been better off under Pinochet--at least to maintain internal logical consistancy of these positions you seem to instinctively commit yourself to before examining facts. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:27, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So what's preventing you from "correcting" the Conservapedia entry on the Weimar Republic so that it puts the end of the Weimar Republic at 1939 instead of 1933? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:31, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

== Edits ==

I've done my best to clean up the sporadic nature of articles on "Nazi", "National Socialist German Workers' Party" and "Nazis" etc., combining some content and bolstering it with some additional work to prevent it from becoming a written vendetta against the Nazis (i.e. additional content is based on the principle that they did some terrible things, but what else did they do?). [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 22:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:RobS - any reasons for reverting my edits? Not great practice to revert without justification. Calling your revert a "minor edit" is probably inappropriate, as well. [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 00:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:'''I'll transplant part of the discussion from Rob's talk page to this discussion page.'''
::I think I counted one too many "conservatives" in there when there may actually be a question if any belong at all, and you didn't engage in talk or cite any source. This,
:''While not always recognised for it in popular accounts due to the weight of their other actions, the Nazis were responsible for removing the scourge of rational conservatism in the lead-up to World War II ''
::I read six times and concluded the author of it himself probably doesn't understand what it means. Then we have this, a disclaimer,
:''The Nazis are generally seen as fascists''
::Just who or what are you trying to debate here? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps scourge was the wrong word, but I think it's clear that if you hadn't lopped off the end of the first sentence that I wrote, you would have seen what I was pointing to the "scourge" as being:
::::''- disbanding the German branch of the left-wing communist movement spreading throughout Europe.''
:::It's clear that you've misinterpreted my edit. Either way, instead of reverting the whole thing back to the messy and uncategorised page that existed before, you should have removed only the offending sentences and asked for clarification on this discussion page. Your revert showed little consideration for what my edits were - I made an extensive edit that went far beyond what you cited in your justification, cleaning up the haphazard allocation of content that previously existed on several pages on Conservapedia, categorising it and adding new content: not all of which you appeared to object to. [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 05:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::It's been summarized already. If you think this article will become a forum to postulate the Left/Right Poltical Specrtrum Theory of Max Weber as being a doctrinal substantiation that the NSDAP of Germany, and the Republican party of the United States, becuase both are characterized as "right-wing" and "conservative", that there are commonalities of views, beliefs, and objectives, I think you may be sorely mistaken in that premise. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::You still haven't justified the reverting of the entire page - as I already mentioned, I pooled together much of the content from '''other''' articles on Conservapedia that had sporadic amounts of information about the Nazis and their beliefs, none of which had been objected to. By reverting this page, you've removed more than just a couple of lines: you've removed content that, for the most part, previously existed uncontested on other pages.

:::::And where did you get the idea that I was delving into the postulation of Weber's spectrum theories? Do you have an objection to the statement that the Nazis are seen as fascists? Do you have an objection to the statement that the Communists were left-wing? The problem is that you've taken facts and claimed that they are incorrect, when in reality, the only problem was in the wording. If Conservapedia is happy enough to have rubbish pages that are reverted at will because administrators can't be bothered picking only the contentious lines and deleting it, then so be it. Your encyclopaedia is a shambles and is not one that can be "trusted", and if you rigidly turn back the clock on any even slightly contentious comments, then even a conservative like me is willing to turn back to Wikipedia. [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 01:27, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::You still haven't answered any of the reservations about the material. You still haven't explained a totally nonsensical sentence. Max Weber's Theory is just that, a theory. A theory is by definition, not fact.
::::::So, find me the place where I mention Max Weber. And '''you''' equally haven't explained why Conservapedia endorses the lazy removal of non-contentious content for no reason. Sure, the two sentences that you cited may have been poorly written or worded, but it doesn't justify removing the entire page, and removing content that had previously been on other pages that had never been contested. In any case, no article about a movement as controversial as the National Socialists is even close to some sort of completion without an analysis of what they believed.[[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 22:08, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==A few mistakes==

The acronym would be NSDAP, Nazi is just part of the first word of the party, "Nazionalsozialistiche".

Also, the swastika shouldn't be called "the Nazis' symbol", it's not ''their'' symbol. The swastika was used by Hindus, Buddhists, Greeks, Romans, and tons more people for thousands of years.

:You're on the right track, but the first word in the party name is really "Nationalsozialistische". The word "Nazi" just comes from how it is pronounced. As such, "acronym" in this case really is wrong. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:35, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yeah, I realised that I had spelt it wrong after reading the article and then editing it again. -[[User:Thjazi|Thjazi]] 14:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Marxism and trade unions==

*Through much of its history, the socialist movement has ardently pursued the trade unions. Yet, despite much courting and wooing, this romance has been largely unsuccessful. [http://www.wsws.org/exhibits/unions/unions.htm]

A "Free Trade Union" is a Trade Union separate from an official or a government controlled Trade Union. The Word "free" is moderating the term "Trade Union," not merely the word "trade." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Hitler was NOT A MARXIST OR A COMMUNIST. Say what you want but some of the first prisoners sent to Dachau were communists. Hitler despised communists and marxists more than McCarthy. The only reason to compare Nazism and Hitler to a communist and or marxist is because it would be like calling Hitler a Jew

Yeah, Hitler hated the Communists and longed to crush Russia. Historian Albert Tonbee reported how Hitler, while giving a speech, would scream and gibber when discussing Russia. Of course, none of Hitler's anti-communist leanings are mentioned in the article. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:43, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

== "verifiability" ==

PF, even Wikipedia doesn't have "Verifiability" anymore) (Robs)

Since I don't use Wikipedia and cite William Shirer, what is this referring to?

Apparently the only way you can justify your silly objections to calling the Nazis "right wing" is by falsely claiming that the Weimar Republic ended in 1939 -- something you're unwilling to do publicly in an actual article. What is your stand on the Ninth Commandment? Do you feel it can be dispensed with if following it would require you to concede a point? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 20:16, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:See under WP old WP:Verifiability clause, the rule was "verifiable, not truth", which meant give equal weight to the lie so long as it could be proven somebody said it somewhere sometime, nevermind the oxymoron since the latin root of "veri" means "truth". But in typical and classic Wikipedia fashion the rule was always undertood to mean "truth, not truth". And it was an open invitation to the intellectually dishonest to fill up whatever crap they please within all entries.

:But let's put the pure subject matter aside momentarilly; no one doubts the common jargon gets used, as there are thousands of popular misunderstandings and mispercpetions on countless subjects. But the first thing you must deal with here is literally a philosophical question: a theory is by definition not a fact. Now, is there anyway whatsoever that you can prove terms like "leftist" or "right-wing" are anything other than theoretical? And even the theories you produce I will document to be contradictory with themselves.

:Bottomline, this is a loosing issue. You cannot make a cat into a fish. They simply are two different things, and the spectrum theory is little more than that, a theory to simplify the prejudices of adults to third graders. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:47, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::I think it should make some reference to the fact that the Nazi party was right-wing, because, well, they were (to the point of extremity). But they were definitely extreme-right, and that can't really be argued, unless you want to pull out some never-before-seen documents... --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:56, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Many books in English have made that claim for many years; and we have yet to seriously broach the subject of National Socialism. The real problem here is nobody can define "left-wing" or "right-wing", at least no editor in Conservapedia has made a serious effort to do so yet. That needs to be done first. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:58, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I'm working off [http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2], which shows him on the right side. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:01, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::Big problem: It is only a theory. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:02, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I doubt that pretty much every historian, every contemporary observer, every diarist, writer, memorist, and journalist writing about the Nazi era was or is guilty of a "misperception" in calling the Nazis right wing. Not only do English books say, this, but German books say it, French books say it, Italian books say it, books in every language that discusses the Nazis say it, and if Conservapedia has a problem with defining the Nazis as "Right Wing" it's not one shared by most educated and knowledgable people. Who do you think you're kidding? And have you given up on your quixotic effort to convince everyone that the Weimar Republic went on until 1939? Did the other sysops not like the idea of you "correcting" the Weimar Republic entry to reflect that claim of yours? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 23:09, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Be my guest, please, please, then, and define the term. We are all waiting with baited breath. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:13, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::As you know, I already defined both "left wing" and "right wing" on this very page. On April 6th I posted the following:

::"A 'leftist' is defined in the dictionary as 'Those professing views usu. characterized by desire to reform or overthrow the established order esp. in politics. Advocating change in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man. A 'right winger' is defined as 'individuals sometimes professing opposition to change in the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices.' The Nazis attitudes towards women, minorities, the disabled, the arts, homosexuality, foriegn policy and a range of other areas put them squarely on the right side of the political spectrum."

::After that that you tried to invoke one of the more liberal policies of the Weimar Republic in order to claim that the Nazis were somehow "left wing." Faced with the fact (apparently new to you) that the Nazis were ANTAGONISTIC to the liberal Weimar Republic, you offered the truly ridiculous argument that the Weimar Republic lasted until 1939, and compounded the absurdity by misrpresenting a quote from Albert Speer's book. When THAT didn't work, you galloped off on a tangent about Saddam Hussein, without every explaining why, if the Weimar Republic ended in 1939, the Conservapedia article on it has it ending in 1933.

::Again, who do you think you're kidding? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 23:29, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::OK, so "leftists" are for the betterment of humanity, whereas "rightists" oppose the betterment of humanity. Pardon me, I have no personal axe to grind; I may be asked however in the capacity of a [[fiduciary]] to dispute this definition. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:32, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The definition in its entirety reads "Advocating change IN THE NAME OF the greater freedom and well-being of the common man." The dictionary is question is saying that that is usually the reason given by leftists for promoting certain policies, just as a respect for tradition is the reason invoked by many right wingers for opposing certain policies. Is it your contention that dictionary writers are all a bunch of leftists out to write biased definitions? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 23:43, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Whoopie doo! So "leftists", in thier view, got a monopoly on the betterment of humanity. I'm sure other so-called "leftists" agree with this trite reasoning. But this inbred family affair won't work. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:52, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Is it your contention that dictionaries --Merriam Webster, the OED, etc -- are part of a dastardly conspiracy of leftists?

Yes, most leftists consider what they are doing to be for the greater freedom and well being of the common man, just as most right-wingers consider their respect for tradition more important and more likely to make a better world. So what? You demanded I repeat these definitions. I did. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 00:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 23:54, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Yep, and we all seen this old movie a thousand times, how the cake of custom conflicts with progress and the betterment of civilization. Say, you got some loaded dice? I love playing with loaded dice and getting all my money taken. I'm a real fool when it comes to that. Please, cheat me as you see fit. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::I gather from this that you've run out of arguments and are reduced to just typing rants. Sorry, but it's not the fault of liberals, or leftists, or Wikipedia, or Hitler's architect, or Saddam Hussein, or dictionaries or "loaded dice" that you are doomed to lose any argument based on such booming absurdities as "The Nazis weren't right wing," or "The Weimar Republic didn't end until 1939." It's the fault of reality and common usage. Until you acknowledge these things, no honest or educated person is going to even pretend to take your arguments seriously. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 02:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::OK, I'll say it one more time: the Political Spectrum Theory of Max Weber has no more weight than the Theory of Evolution of Charles Darwin. Now, if you can prove where either theory has any factual basis, please do so. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::You can say it as often as you want, Rob. That doesn't make it a valid argument. Comparing English common usage with Darwin's theory, as though assigning the term "right wing" to the Nazis were a theory that created as great a controvery and as much debate as evolution is nonsense. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:30, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

==Blaming the West==

Controversial cut:

:Most historians agree that the defeat of Germany in the First World War and anger over the [[Treaty of Versailles]], specifically those provisions that restored territory to [[France]], [[Belguim]], [[Denmark]], and [[Poland]], disarmed Germany, and required that it pay reparations for the First World War helped lay the groundwork for the rise of Nazism.

:::Excuse me, but this happens to be true. Whether you agree with it or not, most historians tie the defeat of Germany in WWI and anger over those provisions of the Versailles Treaty to the rise of the Nazi party. How does this qualify as "blaming the West" (especially since Germany is a Western European country?) --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:13, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::::PF Fox sums it up pretty good in these lines of text. I'll endorse reinclusion. Incidentally, welcome back. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:22, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Western European Countries are countries such as England and France, germany is of central europe.
Simply because it is as much on western europe as it is on eastern. Britts and frenchies are to be blamed by germany's humiliation. West is too broad, west european determines the greedy guys that took the spoils of war from germany.

==unlock request==
I'd like to categorize it under European History, thanks. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 17:14, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

== Name misconception ==

I suggest the following being somehow worked into the article:

A common misconception is that the word "Nazi" comes from '''''Na'''tionalso'''zi'''alistische''. This would be an [[acronym]] for the [[German|German language]] compound word, formed from the words ''national'' and ''sozialistische''. However, abbreviating ''sozialistische'' as ''zi'' would be illogical. The true source of the term "Nazi" is the pronunciation of ''nationalsozialistische'', which in German is '''nah-tse'''-oh-NAL-zo-shi-al-ist-uh-shuh.

[[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 21:25, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== new name needed ==

The article would be much more useful to users if it was named "Nazi Party" or "NSDAP". Almost no book uses the full name in English, and the Germans almost always use NSDAP. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:01, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

== leadership ==

==National Socialist German Workers Party==

Just to let you know, I'm not interested in getting into an edit war here, but the listing of the Allies led by the US, Russia and Britain is inaccurate. The term Allies (for WWII) applies to all the countries that opposed the Axis powers, and that list included 21 countries or blocs before the US joined in 1941. Obviously the effort of the Allies had to be co-ordinated in the years between 1939-41 so the question of who led the Allies during WWII is, at best, not something that can be easily dispensed with a single sentence. Furthermore, saying that Russia was an member of the Allies is inaccurate, it was the USSR which was a member of the Allies, of which Russia was a part (an equivalent example would be if the sentence had read that .....by the Allies, led by Texas, Russia and Britain).

As a compromise I suggest: ......and was finally destroyed in [[World War II]] by the Allies, the major powers of which were the United States who led the Allied forces in Europe from 1941, the USSR (more commonly known as the Soviet Union) and Britain. [[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 22:03, 3/Nov/08 (GMT)
::the US joined the fighting in 1941 but had already been financing the war for both Britain and USSR, and was providing much of the munitions. Leadership also consists in setting strategy and policy which the US did--maybe 95% in the case of the war against Japan, 75% against Italy and say 40% in the case of Europe. As for the Soviets, they were Hitler's allies until June of 1941-- so their role cuts both ways and diminishes any claim that they led the effort. Ieuan is right that USSR/Soviet is a better term than Russia. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:44, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Have to point out a couple of things. For a start the US wasn't financing the war for the UK and USSR but instead extended a series of lease-loans. The difference is subtle but very important (see below). It isn't until after WWII finished that the US extended direct financial assistance, which in Britain's case was a loan for $4.34 billion in 1945, and was finally repaid by Britain on Friday 29th December 2006, with repayments having started back in 1950. The final payment made on the loan was £43 million.

As for the timeline, FDR was desperate to help in the European conflict but also understood that he had to keep the US out of the European conflict during 1939 and 1940, because when Britain declared war on Germany he was still struggling to deal with the Depression and its effects. The simple fact was that until the Depression had been dealt with (or at least the scaffolding that would deal with it was in embedded, which happened in late 1940) and the economy stabilised the US simply couldn't have afforded to go to war (the uncertainty and volatility generated by going to war in Europe again would have ripped apart the still incomplete reforms that FDR had in place in 1939). Additionally the policy of isolationism that the US had been following was still much in vogue with the public and Congress, so a direct intervention in the European conflict during '39 and '40 wouldn't have been possible politically. Furthermore, extending direct financial aid to the UK and USSR, quite apart from the fact that it probably couldn't have been afforded, would also have meant that the Axis powers would have declared war on the US (as the US would have been offering direct support to the Allies), and predation on US shipping in the Atlantic would have been much heavier, and started earlier in the conflict.

The extending of the lease-loans (which was designed to be military equipment, rather than money), didn't occur until March 1941, and of course the US officially joined the Allies nine months later. Essentially, apart from offering moral support the US had very little to do with the European conflict prior to the final months of 1940. On 2nd September 1940, Roosevelt did defy the Neutrality Acts by passing the Destroyers for Bases Agreement. That Agreement sold 50 American destroyers to Britain, the price being military base rights in Newfoundland and the British Caribbean islands, and is seen as being the point at which the US started to offer somewhat more substantial support to the Allies in the European war effort.

As for military leadership and advice from the US, no, I'm afraid not, at least not prior to 1941. Although FDR was in contact with Churchill while Churchill was Vice-Lord of the Admiralty, and later Prime Minister, such correspondance, where it touched upon the war, was in finding inventive ways for FDR to defy the common, economical,political and legislative hurdles that barred the US from extending aid to Britain. The ability to extend military leadership and control to the UK was both legally impossible and militarily impossible for FDR. The Neutrality Acts provided the legal impossibilities (FDR was only able to defy the Neutrality Acts by taking what would have been the donation of 50 Destroyers to the UK and turning it into 'sale'), and of course, if the US had provided military leadership prior to them officially declaring war on Germany, then this would have been deemed an Act of War by the Axis powers and would have esssentially boxed them into the position of having to declare war against the US, which, interestingly, is something that the European based Axis powers wanted to avoid.[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 01:49 4/Nov/08
::to clarify a few points. Lend lease in general was NOT paid back (except for some items that were delivered after the war, and for some ships). Second the US banks made heavy loans to Britain in 1939-40, which financed heavy exports of raw materials like steel used for munitions. As for the leadership, well the Brits were leading the war against Germany in 1939-41 all right, but they were "leading" because they were alone in the war--and they were mostly losing. I suggest the defeat of Germany --which is the point here--came in 1942-45 under US leadership. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:57, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Oh, yes, lend-lease was never meant to be paid back. Sorry, I should have clarified the sentence "Essentially, apart from offering moral support the US had very little to do with the European conflict prior to the final months of 1940.". The US in this context was meant to be the US Government, but I didn't make that clear. The loans made during the war by US banks were, of course, a private business matter, as opposed to US Gov Policy, at least officially. Of course it is extremely likely that FDR twisted a few arms to make sure that the loans were made, but from the point of view of history that, I'm afraid to say, hasn't been recorded as intervention made by the US Government in the European conflict (and now that it doesn't matter politically and if it can be shown that FDR 'persuaded' the banks to make the loans, then it should be recorded in the histories that the US intervened earlier in the European conflict).

Leadership '39-'41. We're back to that tricky one. As I've said, there were 21 countries and blocs of countries that formed the Allies during that period and while Britain certainly led the Commenwealth (or at least soon to be Commonwealth) and Empire countries from '39-'41, they didn't lead the other countries that were part of the Allies at the time. To say that Britian led the Allies or war effort during that time is as inaccurate as pointing to any single one country during that time and say that they led the war effort.

Mostly losing. Mmm, no, or at least, not in context. If Britain had fallen to Germany then yes, you could certainly say that they lost (and, of course, that would have meant that the US wouldn't have been able to intervene in the European conflict, the fall of Britain would have seen the fall of Western Europe and that, in turn, would have led to the fall of Africa and parts of the Middle East to the Nazis at the same time (because large swathes of both those areas were owned by the Western European powers). This would have meant that there was no point of entry into the European conflict that the US could use, apart from entry from the Soviet Union, but trying to fight in Europe using the Soviet Union as an entry point in 1941 would have been all but impossible from a logistical point of view, simply because it would have been immpossible to ship the heavy equipment needed by the US army to that entry point), but the concept of lose or victory '''during''' a war is almost always defined in terms of the strategy being pursued at the time. Britain's strategy at the time was to hunker down and hold on. It wasn't a brilliant strategy (because it cost a lot of civilian lives), it wasn't going to be a winning strategy in the long term provided that the circumstances of the war didn't change (it never is), but it was a strategy born of necessity (Britain didn't have the numbers, firepower or position to push back Germany and the only other option, apart from hanging on grimly, was to surrender to the Nazis). Instead, the idea behind the strategy was that war is an ever shifting morass of possibilities, changes and mistakes. In this case the mistake (and subsequent change in the overall picture of the war) made was that the German war machine believed that Britain was about to fall and so opened a second front against the USSR. This relieved the pressure on Britain, which allowed it to hang on until the second big change in the circumstances of the war, which was the US joining the European conflict a few months later. It is best to say that Britain pursued an exceedingly risky strategy that worked.

As to why this I feel this way about, what is after all, just a single sentence in the Nazi article is that I have always believed that encyclopedias, no matter what type they are, should always be as factually accurate as possible, even on the smallest of details. Just saying that the US led the Allies in WWII is accurate to a point but could be more accurate (by pointing out that the US led the Allied effort from '41-'45) but then you run into two pitfalls which are i) it doesn't say who led pre-end'41 and ii) the US led Allies co-ordinated and worked with the USSR-led Allies but didn't lead the USSR-led Allies. From there you run into the problem that SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force) had a US Supreme Commander, a British Deputy Supreme Commander, 1 British and 2 US Ground Force Commanders, and of course the Air and Sea Force Commanders were both British. You start to fill in all those blanks, and all of a sudden what should be a single sentence turns into a nightmare of complexity, fact-checking and citations. That's why I like the compromise sentence, and I am very pleased that it is still there. Thank you.

At some point I would like to do an article on the political situatiions and decisions made during WWII, although it has to be said, don't look for it soon, entire shelves in libraries are dedicated to that single subject, so planning, typing and checking will take quite sometime. Still, I think it will be worth it. I have noticed that subjects like the Blitz (not necessarily here, but in general), give the facts but rarely a context. A simple example of that is the SHAEF decision to start bombing German towns once German forces had started to be forced back. Yes, the bombing did help reduce the German War Machine by hitting munitions factories and such like, but the fact is that there was no planned targeting, obviously no pin-point targeting because such a thing didn't exist, and very much a feeling of justified revenge for the Blitz from the British. What happened. 500,000 German civilians were killed in the bombing. That's a large figure. Now think of it as being one hundred and sixty seven government sanctioned 911's. Suddenly its a '''very''' big number, and that's what I mean by context. In fact, the bombing of German towns and the Blitz had a huge part to play in the Geneva Conventions ban on deliberatly targeting civilians. Yet you go into a pub and ask a young 20-something what they know of the Dresden bombings and see just how little they know.[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 00:58 7/Nov/08 GMT
::well the Brits themselves had little to do with the war before spring 1940 as well (it was called a phoney war). And the Soviets were on the Nazi side! Starting summer 1940 the US economy was mobilized into the war effort and the US drafted millions of men. As for leadership, the defeat of the Nazis did not happen in 1939, 40 or 41--in fact they were winning until the US entered the war and turned it around. Sorry about the Germans in the cities--they should have moved to the villages, as they were ordered to do by the USAAF and the RAF. They stayed in cities because they were building tanks and guns there. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:31, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Oh yes, the USSR was on the Nazi's side, but what is truly alarming is that they didn't need to be. A fortnight before WWII started Stalin made an offer to Britain and France to send close to a million troops to the German border to stop Hitler. Unfortunately Britain and France, not trusting Stalin, decided not to agree to an alliance and effectively left USSR out in the cold. In response the Soviets signed a non-aggression pact with Germany.

As for leadership, one of those tricky things again. Leaders exist in both failure and success, one of the points to having leaders is that the political classes have somebody to point to and say "Oh, you". Did the US lead the western allies in success. Yes and no. The US joined the war, the tide turned, but part of that was the disaster at Stalingrad, a success that was wholly the Soviet Union's and sapped a massive number of German troops away from the Western fronts. So in that sense the leadership is jointly US and USSR (althouth you will understand that isn't a point that was solidly taught on either side of the Iron Curtain during the Cold War). Yet the Supreme Commander of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force was a US General, Eisenhower. In that sense the leadership was US. However, his deputy was British and immediately under them were 2 US Force Commanders and 3 British Force Commanders, so in that sense the leadership was a joint-command. It is prehaps best, from a factual view, to seperate success from leadership. Therefore it can clearly be said that Allies success in WWII had a great deal to do with the US committing forces to the Western front in Europe and the USSR forcing the surrender of German Troops at Stalingrad. In terms of leadership, well as I said, complicated, not something that is determined by success, and in all cases has a habit of shifting significantly with the passage of time.

"Sorry about the Germans in the cities--they should have moved to the villages, as they were ordered to do by the USAAF and the RAF". Sorry, I read that and I laughed so hard I cried. I can just see it now. ''"Excuse me Mr. Nazi Security Officer who is, has and is part of group that systematically removes families and people from homes, sends them to death camps, kills people in the street, shoots people for the most trivial of offences, including not being patriotic enough, and when not involved in killing also happens to be involved in some of the most brutal, despicable and unacceptable torture and medical experiments the world has ever seen which has not just been practiced on adults but also children as young as babies, our enemies have told us that they are going to bomb us so you don't mind if I don't come into work for say, oh the next three or four years."''. There are few people who are truly defiant and willing to ignore the orders of the man who has a gun pointed to their head. There are even fewer who are willing to be that defiant when the man with the gun has it pointed at the head of their children. And that assumes that any significant part of the civilian population even heard the warnings. I doubt the Nazi Government passed the message on and anybody caught listening to the radio frequencies used by the British or other allies was automatically assumed to be a spy, taken away and questioned with a red-hot poker until they either a) broke and admitted they were a spy to stop the torture regardless of whether they were a spy or not or b) broke and admitted they were a spy to stop the torture regardless of whether they were a spy or not. A few years of that kind of government policy is going to make sure very few people on Germany would be that keen to listen to anything that the Allies said.[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 02:25 7/Nov/08 GMT
::The allied bombers dropped billions of leaflets to tell people to get out. Both the German and Japanese (and British) governments tried to get civilians to leave the cities. People did not want to go. In a total war the homefront factories and railroads are decisive weapons (all the posters on both sides said war worker = soldier) so the postmodern theme that creates an artificial distinction between civilians and soldiers is based on the sensibilities of the 1960s (when H Bombs were a very different threat) rather than the 1940s. The NSDAP did a rather good job caring was bombing victims. On another point: the article title is unsatisfactory--it's a term rarely used and will not help students studying for tests. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:05, 6 November 2008 (EST)

On First Looking Into Chapman's Homer

2009-01-04T01:30:14Z

Lynus: Enlarged the text to make it easier to read.

'''"On First Looking Into Chapman's Homer"''' is a poem written by [[John Keats]], first published in 1816. It is in the form of an [[Italian Sonnet]]. In the poem, Keats makes the mistake of claiming that it was [[Cortez]] who discovered the [[Pacific]], when it was really [[Vasco Núñez de Balboa]].

<big>On First Looking Into Chapman's Homer
Much have I travell'd in the realms of gold,
And many goodly states and kingdoms seen;
Round many western islands have I been
Which bards in fealty to Apollo hold.
Oft of one wide expanse had I been told
That deep-brow'd Homer ruled as his demesne;
Yet never did I breathe its pure serene
Till I heard Chapman speak out loud and bold.
Then felt I like some watcher of the skies
When a new planet swims into his ken;
Or like stout Cortez, when with eagle eyes
He star'd at the Pacific - and all his men
Look'd at each other with a wild surmise -
Silent, upon a peak in Darien.
-- John Keats</big>

[[Category:Poetry]]

Swastika

2009-01-04T01:27:32Z

Lynus: Added citations

[[Image:Swastika-HindiBook.jpg|thumb|right|100px|An example of a swastika on a Hindi book.]]

There are two main symbolic meanings of the swastika:

*Symbol of life in [[eastern religion]]. 
*Symbol commonly associated with [[Nazism]].

As an ancient religious symbol, the swastika has powerful symbolic meanings in the [[Buddhism|Buddhist]], [[Jain]], and [[Hindu]] religions.

The Nazi swastika is "right facing", while most religious instances of the swastika are "left facing". However, either direction can be used for both meanings.<ref>[http://www.symbols.com/encyclopedia/15/151.html http://www.symbols.com/encyclopedia/15/151.html]</ref>
<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4183467.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4183467.stm]
</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[category:nazis]]
[[category:hinduism]]

Gaza

2009-01-04T01:06:46Z

Lynus: Created banner and combined previous blurb with mine.

The '''Gaza Strip''' is a small strip of land 360 square kilometers, and has a population of 1.4 million people, making it one of the most densely populated places in the world. It was under [[Egyptian]] control from 1948 until 1967 when [[Israel]] conquered it in the [[Six Day War]]. Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip in August 2005, effectively returning sovereignty to the [[Palestinian Authority]]. In June 2007, the radical militant terrorist group [[Hamas]] forcefully took control of the Gaza strip from the PA.

== Hostilities in late 2008-early 2009 ==

Terrorists are still attacking Israel from the Gaza strip with missiles, in response to this Israel is bombarding with a disproportionate amount of bombs. On January 3, 2008 Israel has started a ground campaign in Gaza. It was preceded by an artillery barrage to soften the border so Israeli troops could cross safer. Israel still insists that this campaign is against Hamas targets and that it has no plans to reoccupy the land. Hamas, rather than stop firing rockets into Gaza has begun sabre rattling and stated that they will kidnap and kill invading Israeli soldiers and cause mental illness from the horrors they will bring them. They have also stated that they will begin suicide attacks again.[http://www.onenewsnow.com/Headlines/Default.aspx?id=372854]

==References==
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Headlines/Default.aspx?id=372854
<references/>

[[category:geography]]

Talk:Nazi Party

2009-01-04T01:01:35Z

Lynus: /* Atheism */

==Atheism==

How can the Nazi's be largely atheist/pagan if 50% claimed a form of nature worship/paganism and 40% Hitler (whatever that means) and the rest (100-50-40=10) be atheist? Plus, can we get a better reference because I have done several google searches for this survey and can't find it using keywords from the citation.--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 19:25, 3 January 2009 (EST)

*Well, you are an editor, Lynus, add all the citations you want to support the material. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:50, 3 January 2009 (EST)

:: Hey TK, need some advice. If I find a reference that doesn't describe what it purports to describe what should I do? I got accused of censorship by Andy for deleting a reference that doesn't address the actual topic he says it does. What exactly is "censorship" to the Admins here? In this page's case would I be justified in taking out the atheism part but leaving in pagan due to the obvious fact that according to the blurbs own words only 10% were atheist? Thx --[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 20:01, 3 January 2009 (EST)

== NAZI ==

NAZI NAME- IMPORTANT
Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei is in fact National Socialist's broad German Labor Party, and not as it is said in the article.
Accurate information is a must on a credible pedia.

== Homosexuality of the Nazis ==

Which top Nazis were openly gay? That's the first time I've ever heard people claiming this, save for the Hitler-was-gay claims that always come up. But then again, so do Lincoln-was-gay claims. The point is is that none of this is verifiable despite one book claiming it is. I say remove it.

:Wow. Let's use Wikipedia as a source for this one; note [[Adolf Hitler]]'s [[tolerance]] for [[gay]]s:
::''Having been outed in 1925, however, [Ernst] Röhm made little attempt to hide his sexuality. Despite Hitler's pretense of shock upon discovering his deputy's sexual orientation, he had in fact long known that Röhm was homosexual....During Röhm's tenure at the head of the SA, it has been suggested that a number of homosexual men (notably Karl Ernst, a former bouncer at a gay nightclub, and Edmund Heines) were appointed to and promoted within the SA as a result of high-level liaisons with powerful SA figures.''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_R%C3%B6hm#R.C3.B6hm.27s_sexual_orientation]
:Amazing. Wikipedia almost got it half right on this one. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:28, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's one top Nazi that was openly gay, but the article claims "though many top Nazis were openly gay..." This statement implies a plurality of homosexuals and not just the leader of the SA, who was killed when the SA was purged. So does one equal many? Yes, in the citation above there are two more men who were in the SA reported to be homosexuals, but they were not "top Nazis." This distinction implies people like Hess, Himmler, Goebbles, Hitler, etc., people who commanded Germany. The introduction to ''The Pink Triangle'' addresses homosexuality in the top echelons, of which there was little. Also, just because Hitler tolerated one homosexual does not mean he tolerated them all. His tolerance for Röhm could have just been convenient, until say, he killed him.

::::There was Edmund Heines as well, and Karl Ernst. But even adding these two wouldn't substantiate the claim of "many top Nazis." The fact is that most of the leadership that leaned that way was in the SA and was eliminated in the Night of the Long Knives.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 22:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::And a further aside; we have already pointed out how in electing Hitler, a Catholic, Germany showed itself more socially progressive than the United States by several decades. Likewise we shall demonstrate the Nazi's were more socially enlighten regarding the issue of gays in the military.
:::::Coming soon: Affirmative Action and the Wehrmacht. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::That post doesn't address the issue at hand. The article states that they were not tolerant for gays, but were gay themselves. I still reject the "top leadership" claim (other than Rohm). The fact that there were gays in the ranks (which there would be in any population if we assume gays live in any population) does not mean that "top Nazis" were practitioners of homosexual behavior.
::::::PS Where in the book is the youth groups claim cited, or could you provide the quote?

::::::Se also, ''The Damned'', starring Dirk Bogard [http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/cinema/features/damned.shtml], has a lengthy scene of a typical Nazi gay orgy with the Stormtroopers walking around wearing women's underwear, etc.

Given that the whole homosexual-nazi's theme has been started by Scott Lively, I doubt it is at all credible. Lively is a hardly a respectable historian - he is, in fact, an anti-homosexual campaigner and nothing more than this. I see someone has gone to the trouble of preparing a page on him that makes it very clear - with quotes, even - that he cannot be considered a reliable source because he is a fanatical conspiricy-theorist who appears to believe that homosexuals are planning to take over the world (While at the same time denying that homosexuality even exists). Citing fake histories invented by political power-gamers desperate to rewrite the past to make it appear the nazi's were homosexual is very detrimental to the credability of this site. I thus suggest that all reference to Scott Lively's pet theory are removed. Once his nonsense is dismissed, we have credible-looking support for a ''single'' homosexual high-up in the Nazi party (Rohm). Just the one. Who kept it in the closet. Hardly the openly party-supported gay-orgies that some people are claiming, or Scott's ungrounded belief in a mostly-homosexual leadership. There are two potentials too, but no proof - working as a bouncer at a gay nightclub does not make someone gay - BornAgainBrit

:Oh, I deleted a coupe of comments to calm things down - but only comments that are fairly old, unsourced (Or use Scott as a source) and make highly unlikely claims.

== Right Wing ==

The Nazis were neither atheists nor socialists and the question of whether or not they or their earlier incarnations qualify as "right wing" was resolved decades ago. I'm sorry, but I see no reason to accept Robs' idiosyncratic definitions as if they were accepted fact. They are most definitely not. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:Right. So as to whether a Socialist is a Socialist all depends on what the meaning of is is "is is" is. I understand fully. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:15, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

"We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: the common interest before self-interest." - Paragraph 24, Programme for the German Workers' Party (Pre-nazi). This is what happens when people blindly assume anyone who ''claims'' to be Christian is worth supporting. Hitler spoke publicly of his Christian faith constantly - that makes him a good politician, but not a real christian.

:''It [the party] combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: '''the common interest before self-interest.'''" ''
::'''the common interest before self-interest''', I would say this statement (a) lays to rest the idea the NSDAP is "conservative", and/or right-wing defined as a belief in rugged individualism; (b) pretty much clarifies the Social and Communal roots of Nazism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 09:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::No, whether a Socialist is a Socialist depends on whether or not the person or political party advocates collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of producton. The Nazis advocated some measure of government control in that realm, but not to the point where they qualified as "socialist," any more than 19th Century Prussia -- which advocated a similar kind of control -- qualified as "socialist."

:::Your claim that the Nazi party doesn't qualify as "right wing" is nothing more than blatant historical revisionism, an attempt to alter the definition of the term decades after the fact. The Nazis by and large considered themselves right wing, were referred to as right wing by contemporary opponents and sympathizers and by neutral observers (like travel guides to Germany at the time,) have been acknowledged as right wing by historians covering that era. What exactly do you expect to accomplish by altering common usage in this manner?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Meaning no disrespect, but it appears you too often speak first before looking at some of the issues. And while I can appreciate your once popular political prejudices, in retrospect we see denying facts and carrying on myths really serves no purpose anymore.

:Now, as to whether or not Socialists are indeed Socialists, lets begin with examing the "means of production", i.e. Volkswagen. [http://mondediplo.com/1998/01/11volkswag] So, we will be afforded the opportunity to examine the history of this Socialist enterprise to whatever extent they've made thier Archives available to the public.

:And finally the left/right spectrum theory is just that--only a theory. For weeks now I've been waiting to hear a definition from advocates of this theory what a "leftist" is. All I've seen so far is something like this:

*''a leftist is a liberal'' --->click here ''a liberal is a leftist'' --->click here ''leftists oppose oppression, hence Communists are leftists''

:that's the left side of this nonsense. Then we hear about how Socialists like Hitler actually were devout Christians like Rev. Falwell, who wants to exterminate gays, too.

:My appoligies, but this garbage is going absolutly nowhere. And if your serious in persuing this dead end thinking, my advice is to define "leftist", cause none, absolutley none of your so-called "leftist allies" have been able to do so up til now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::Garbage is definitely the operative term for this blatant revisionism of claiming that the Nazis were not "right wing" and were in fact "socialist." Using your definition of the term "socialist", Prussia and indeed much of 19th century Europe were "socialist." That is not how these countries were defined nor how they saw themselves, nor how they are defined today.

::A "leftist" is defined in the dictionary as "Those professing views usu. characterized by desire to reform or overthrow the establishe order esp. in poltics and usus. advocating chage in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man. A "right winger" is defined as "individuals sometimes professing opposition to change in the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices." The Nazis attitudes towards women, minorities, the disabled, the arts, homosexuality, foriegn policy and a range of other areas put them squarely on the right side of the political spectrum. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:05, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::ok, let's take that dictionary definition, "advocating chage in the name of the greater ... well-being of the common man", and "opposition to change in the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices". So which one of us is left and which one of us is right? I want change to stop these nonsensical definitions of left & right, you are resisting it and bring in more of this nonsense that does absolutly nothing to answer the question. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:12, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Which of us is "left" and which of us is "right" depends on how traditional our attitudes are towards issues like women, labor, minorities, etc. The Nazis, while they wished to overthrow the current order of the Weimar Republic, wanted to do so in order to turn the clock back to the era before women were active in public life, before Jews had been emancipated, before the advent of the avant garde in art and film, etc. It was essentially a revulsion against much of the modern world and a wildly romanticized view of the past.

::::If the fact that terms like "right" and "left" can be imprecise and part of a "spectrum" renders them "nonsensical," then much of language is "nonsensical." Terms like "religion," "politics," "freedom," "morality," even "red," "blue," "wet," "dry," "hot," or "cold" are "nonsensical." You want to give up using those terms too? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:26, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::''"The Nazis, while they wished to overthrow the current order of the Weimar Republic...''
:::::hmmm...let's see....which country, the US or Germany, displayed it's social progressivity by electing a Catholic to it's highest office? Was it the US & JFK, or Wiemar Republic and Hitler? Then, which country introduced affirmative action into the military after the Treaty of Versailles which allowed poor common scum, like Rommel, to rise to the position of General based upon merit rather than Social class? Which country displayed its social progressivity by allowing gays in the military first, the US or Nazi Germany? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:11, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: First of all, the Weimar Republic is not synonymous with Hitler. Quite the contrary, it was the liberalism of the Weimar Republic that that Hitler and the Nazis opposed, so trying to cram the term "affirmative action" into the context of the Weimar republic just bolsters my argument that the Nazis who reviled it were traditionalists and ergo "Right Wing." And the Nazis did not openly allow gays in the military, though I have no doubt that there were powerful gay men there who barely bothered to hide their homosexuality -- as has been true in many homophobic societies from time immemorial. The illusion of impunity many powerful gay Nazis felt coupled with official Nazi stance against homosexuality were frequently exploited by Himmler. One of his methods of controlling the people around him was by threatening to publicize an individuals homosexuality and thus exposing that individual to public disgrace and legal penalties.

::::::It was under Weimar, by the way, that German women gained the right to vote and began to appear more frequently in public life, that the avant garde arts flourished, that the last shreds of the legal restrictions on German Jews were dropped -- all of these were trends that the Nazis hated, and worked to elminate once they came into power. You don't do your case any good, Rob, by using Weimar policies to argue for the Nazis NOT being Right Wing. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:23, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::There is a large divergence between American historians and Germans in discussing Wiemar Germany. Germans regard what is called "Wiemar Germany", or "the Wiemar period" as extending from 1919 to 1939. Americans assume Wiemar Germany ended in 1933 with the rise of Hitler & Nazism. This is what I call "the Hollywood view" while popular and prevelent, nonetheless over fictionalized.

:::::::Talking about women gaining sufferage in Wiemar Germany almost brings tears to my eyes; I'm almost convinced to become a so-called "leftist", one who "advocates change in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man". But then all my fellow leftists today say Iraqi women can rot in hell as far as thier concerned. So what would you beleive if you were in my shoes? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::RobS, if I were in your shoes I would certainly take an English class. [[User:Thjazi|Thjazi]] 15:31, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::Just call me another victim of the Public Schools; we honestly have considered a class action suit for the lifelong damge they did to us innocent children. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:57, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Rob, if you can successfully show that public school teachers are responsible for your idiotic claim that the Weimar republic didn't end until 1939 you MIGHT have a case. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:06, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Kindly provide a cite for this presumed "divergence." I have yet to see or hear ANY historian, American or German, claim that the Weimar Republic lasted until 1939, and I have spent many years not only reading about this subject, but listening to first-hand accounts from Germans who lived through that era. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Here's one, Speer, Albert (1970). ''Inside the Third Reich''. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-684-82949-5. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:58, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::And exactly where does Speer claim that the Weimar Republic ended in 1939? What chapter? What section? How does the passage read? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 10:53, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

The entry here on Conservapedia for the Weimar Republic has it ending in 1933. Are you planning to "correct" this article? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:34, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is what Speer has to say about the Weimar Republic:

"...Hitler did not want to alter the proportion of sixty thousand voters for each deputy THAT HAD BEEN SET BY THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC (emphasis addded. Note past tense.) He never explained his reasons; but he was as firm on this matter as he was about nominal retention of the traditional electoral system with its fixed dates for elections, rule of franchise, ballot boxes, and secret ballot. On this matter he evidently wanted to preserve a tradition which had brought him to power, eventhough his introduction of the one-party system had made the whole thing pointless."

"The liberalism of the Weimar Republic seemed to us by comparison lax, dubious, and in no way desirable."

Please explain how this backs up your claim that Germans believe the Weimar Republic lasted until 1939. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:43, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:The first reference makes EXACTLY the point; the second reference needs a timeframe, because if it occurs during a discussion of wartime German attitudes, it likewise makes the same point. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:13, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It most certainly does NOT make your point. Speer refers to the Weimar Republic in the past tense, and the fact that this meaningless remnant of the Weimar system remained no more means the Weimar Republic itself remained than the fact that there were still some buildings put up during Weimar means the Weimar Republic itself remained. And are you going to put your money where your mouth is, change the Conservapedia Article on the Weimar Republic, "correct" it so that it no longer says it lasted only until 1933? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:17, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::OK, so when Speer says "Hitler did not want to alter", I guess actually means "did want to alter", much the same way a Socialist is not a Socialist.

::::Once again my friend you assign motives to me when all I did was point out disparties between American schools of historiagraphy and German. Here's another one you can look into,
:::::''"I was reading a wiki article the other day that made reference to "the Nazi seizure of power"; this article obviously was brought over from the German wiki, cause American sources always make light of the fact Hitler was democratically elected."''[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/064824.html]
::::And actually I counted some 200 articles in the English Wiki were this subversive poison made its way into the English language. Amazing, Wikipedia actually created the beast its intent upon destroying. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::When Speer says "Hitler did not want to alter" he is specifically referring to the number of voters assigned to each deputy and "nominal retention of the traditional electoral system," trappings that Speer himself observes were "pointless" because of Hitler's imposition of a single-party system. And I'm sorry, but the quotes observing that Hitler was democratically elected do nothing to bolster your bizarre claim that the Weimar Republic did not end until 1939.

:::::If you are that positive that the Weimar Republic did not end in 1933, please explain why the Conservapedia article on the subject states quite clearly: "The Weimar Republic is the republic which governed Germany from 1919 to 1933." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:07, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::PF, it's not worth responding to cause you continue to ascribe to me a claim I have specifically stated did not originate with me. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:20, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

LOL! In other words, you are willing to posit this inanity about the Weimar Republic continuing to 1939 here on a talk page in an attempt to bolster a baseless point, but you aren't willing to "correct" an article so that it reads "The Weimar Republic is the Republic which governed Germany from 1919 to 1939." You know as well as I do that such an article posted here would become the subject of widespread and deserved ridicule.

Face it. The Nazis were a reaction AGAINST the LIBERALISM of the Weimar Republic. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:24, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:''Gleichsaltung'' wasn't completed on the day after Hitler took office. And the undoing of Versailles, re-occupation of the Rhineland, Treaty of Munich, Anschluss, etc didn't occur til the 1935-39 period. Then of course we got the whole Molotov-Ribbentrop deal to look into, i.e. '''how the Soviet Union & Nazi's were indeed allies on 1 September 1939'''. So there actually is some basis for the traditional European view that the "Wiemar period" extended from 1919 to 1939. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry Rob, but Conservapedia itself -- along with pretty much every written history of Germany -- puts the end of the Weimar Republic in 1933, and your attempt at twisting a quote from Speer doesn't change that. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:42, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Speer ain't the only one that says it, and Speer doesn't just make a quote here and there; it's is an attitude throughout both his books. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:55, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Then who DOES claim that the Weimar Republic lasted until 1939? Quotes please. (As someone who has read his books, I know that Speer makes no such claim.) AND WHY HAVEN'T YOU "CORRECTED" THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC ARTICLE HERE SO THAT IT GIVES THE END OF THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC AS 1939 INSTEAD OF 1933? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:00, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::OK, that is a very good question. Now let's divide the response in two. There is domestic German politics, then there is upsetting the International order established at Versailles. Let's limit our discussion of the "Wiemar period" to the internetional borders established at Versailles. When Hitler re-occupied the Rhineland, though illegal, was internationally sanctioned. Then the Treaty of Munich, likewise took on legitimacy in the spirit of Versailles. The Anschluss, no international prohibitions were raised over this issue, not even in defense of the Austrian people, as best I recollect. Finally in 1939, we have joint Soviet-German military operations to dismember Poland. This is were the Peace of Versailles, or "Wiemar period", is regarded by many Europeans as finally, and officially coming to an end, after the governments of France and Great Britain finally ceased selling other people down the river to appease Nazi (and Soviet) aggression. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:09, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

None of this answers my question. Why haven't you "corrected" the Weimar Republic article here so that it gives the end of the Weimar Republic as 1939 instead of 1933? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:12, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:Let's work on the [[Molotov-Ribbentrop pact]] first. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:16, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::That has absolutely nothing to do with this question, or with the fact that pretty much every historian puts the end of the Weimar Republic at 1933. You know this. Otherwise you would have posted some supporting cites from historians by now. Again. Why haven't you "corrected" the Weimar Republic article here so that it gives the end of the Weimar Republic as 1939 instead of 1933? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:18, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well duh, let me restate for probably the third time now: the first international boundary to change was not unitl 1938, and was agreed to by the powers enforcing the Versailles treaty. Sept 1 1939, as best as I can determine, is when then Wiemar period, established at Versailles, came to end, and some members of the international community took steps to counter upsetting the established international order.

:::You know, for all the effort you put into arguing how Iraqi women were better off under fascism for 30 years, maybe you should reconsider if Chilean women may have been better off under Pinochet--at least to maintain internal logical consistancy of these positions you seem to instinctively commit yourself to before examining facts. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:27, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So what's preventing you from "correcting" the Conservapedia entry on the Weimar Republic so that it puts the end of the Weimar Republic at 1939 instead of 1933? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:31, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

== Edits ==

I've done my best to clean up the sporadic nature of articles on "Nazi", "National Socialist German Workers' Party" and "Nazis" etc., combining some content and bolstering it with some additional work to prevent it from becoming a written vendetta against the Nazis (i.e. additional content is based on the principle that they did some terrible things, but what else did they do?). [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 22:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:RobS - any reasons for reverting my edits? Not great practice to revert without justification. Calling your revert a "minor edit" is probably inappropriate, as well. [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 00:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:'''I'll transplant part of the discussion from Rob's talk page to this discussion page.'''
::I think I counted one too many "conservatives" in there when there may actually be a question if any belong at all, and you didn't engage in talk or cite any source. This,
:''While not always recognised for it in popular accounts due to the weight of their other actions, the Nazis were responsible for removing the scourge of rational conservatism in the lead-up to World War II ''
::I read six times and concluded the author of it himself probably doesn't understand what it means. Then we have this, a disclaimer,
:''The Nazis are generally seen as fascists''
::Just who or what are you trying to debate here? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps scourge was the wrong word, but I think it's clear that if you hadn't lopped off the end of the first sentence that I wrote, you would have seen what I was pointing to the "scourge" as being:
::::''- disbanding the German branch of the left-wing communist movement spreading throughout Europe.''
:::It's clear that you've misinterpreted my edit. Either way, instead of reverting the whole thing back to the messy and uncategorised page that existed before, you should have removed only the offending sentences and asked for clarification on this discussion page. Your revert showed little consideration for what my edits were - I made an extensive edit that went far beyond what you cited in your justification, cleaning up the haphazard allocation of content that previously existed on several pages on Conservapedia, categorising it and adding new content: not all of which you appeared to object to. [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 05:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::It's been summarized already. If you think this article will become a forum to postulate the Left/Right Poltical Specrtrum Theory of Max Weber as being a doctrinal substantiation that the NSDAP of Germany, and the Republican party of the United States, becuase both are characterized as "right-wing" and "conservative", that there are commonalities of views, beliefs, and objectives, I think you may be sorely mistaken in that premise. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::You still haven't justified the reverting of the entire page - as I already mentioned, I pooled together much of the content from '''other''' articles on Conservapedia that had sporadic amounts of information about the Nazis and their beliefs, none of which had been objected to. By reverting this page, you've removed more than just a couple of lines: you've removed content that, for the most part, previously existed uncontested on other pages.

:::::And where did you get the idea that I was delving into the postulation of Weber's spectrum theories? Do you have an objection to the statement that the Nazis are seen as fascists? Do you have an objection to the statement that the Communists were left-wing? The problem is that you've taken facts and claimed that they are incorrect, when in reality, the only problem was in the wording. If Conservapedia is happy enough to have rubbish pages that are reverted at will because administrators can't be bothered picking only the contentious lines and deleting it, then so be it. Your encyclopaedia is a shambles and is not one that can be "trusted", and if you rigidly turn back the clock on any even slightly contentious comments, then even a conservative like me is willing to turn back to Wikipedia. [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 01:27, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::You still haven't answered any of the reservations about the material. You still haven't explained a totally nonsensical sentence. Max Weber's Theory is just that, a theory. A theory is by definition, not fact.
::::::So, find me the place where I mention Max Weber. And '''you''' equally haven't explained why Conservapedia endorses the lazy removal of non-contentious content for no reason. Sure, the two sentences that you cited may have been poorly written or worded, but it doesn't justify removing the entire page, and removing content that had previously been on other pages that had never been contested. In any case, no article about a movement as controversial as the National Socialists is even close to some sort of completion without an analysis of what they believed.[[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 22:08, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==A few mistakes==

The acronym would be NSDAP, Nazi is just part of the first word of the party, "Nazionalsozialistiche".

Also, the swastika shouldn't be called "the Nazis' symbol", it's not ''their'' symbol. The swastika was used by Hindus, Buddhists, Greeks, Romans, and tons more people for thousands of years.

:You're on the right track, but the first word in the party name is really "Nationalsozialistische". The word "Nazi" just comes from how it is pronounced. As such, "acronym" in this case really is wrong. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:35, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yeah, I realised that I had spelt it wrong after reading the article and then editing it again. -[[User:Thjazi|Thjazi]] 14:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Marxism and trade unions==

*Through much of its history, the socialist movement has ardently pursued the trade unions. Yet, despite much courting and wooing, this romance has been largely unsuccessful. [http://www.wsws.org/exhibits/unions/unions.htm]

A "Free Trade Union" is a Trade Union separate from an official or a government controlled Trade Union. The Word "free" is moderating the term "Trade Union," not merely the word "trade." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Hitler was NOT A MARXIST OR A COMMUNIST. Say what you want but some of the first prisoners sent to Dachau were communists. Hitler despised communists and marxists more than McCarthy. The only reason to compare Nazism and Hitler to a communist and or marxist is because it would be like calling Hitler a Jew

Yeah, Hitler hated the Communists and longed to crush Russia. Historian Albert Tonbee reported how Hitler, while giving a speech, would scream and gibber when discussing Russia. Of course, none of Hitler's anti-communist leanings are mentioned in the article. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:43, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

== "verifiability" ==

PF, even Wikipedia doesn't have "Verifiability" anymore) (Robs)

Since I don't use Wikipedia and cite William Shirer, what is this referring to?

Apparently the only way you can justify your silly objections to calling the Nazis "right wing" is by falsely claiming that the Weimar Republic ended in 1939 -- something you're unwilling to do publicly in an actual article. What is your stand on the Ninth Commandment? Do you feel it can be dispensed with if following it would require you to concede a point? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 20:16, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:See under WP old WP:Verifiability clause, the rule was "verifiable, not truth", which meant give equal weight to the lie so long as it could be proven somebody said it somewhere sometime, nevermind the oxymoron since the latin root of "veri" means "truth". But in typical and classic Wikipedia fashion the rule was always undertood to mean "truth, not truth". And it was an open invitation to the intellectually dishonest to fill up whatever crap they please within all entries.

:But let's put the pure subject matter aside momentarilly; no one doubts the common jargon gets used, as there are thousands of popular misunderstandings and mispercpetions on countless subjects. But the first thing you must deal with here is literally a philosophical question: a theory is by definition not a fact. Now, is there anyway whatsoever that you can prove terms like "leftist" or "right-wing" are anything other than theoretical? And even the theories you produce I will document to be contradictory with themselves.

:Bottomline, this is a loosing issue. You cannot make a cat into a fish. They simply are two different things, and the spectrum theory is little more than that, a theory to simplify the prejudices of adults to third graders. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:47, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::I think it should make some reference to the fact that the Nazi party was right-wing, because, well, they were (to the point of extremity). But they were definitely extreme-right, and that can't really be argued, unless you want to pull out some never-before-seen documents... --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:56, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Many books in English have made that claim for many years; and we have yet to seriously broach the subject of National Socialism. The real problem here is nobody can define "left-wing" or "right-wing", at least no editor in Conservapedia has made a serious effort to do so yet. That needs to be done first. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:58, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I'm working off [http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2], which shows him on the right side. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:01, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::Big problem: It is only a theory. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:02, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I doubt that pretty much every historian, every contemporary observer, every diarist, writer, memorist, and journalist writing about the Nazi era was or is guilty of a "misperception" in calling the Nazis right wing. Not only do English books say, this, but German books say it, French books say it, Italian books say it, books in every language that discusses the Nazis say it, and if Conservapedia has a problem with defining the Nazis as "Right Wing" it's not one shared by most educated and knowledgable people. Who do you think you're kidding? And have you given up on your quixotic effort to convince everyone that the Weimar Republic went on until 1939? Did the other sysops not like the idea of you "correcting" the Weimar Republic entry to reflect that claim of yours? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 23:09, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Be my guest, please, please, then, and define the term. We are all waiting with baited breath. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:13, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::As you know, I already defined both "left wing" and "right wing" on this very page. On April 6th I posted the following:

::"A 'leftist' is defined in the dictionary as 'Those professing views usu. characterized by desire to reform or overthrow the established order esp. in politics. Advocating change in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man. A 'right winger' is defined as 'individuals sometimes professing opposition to change in the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices.' The Nazis attitudes towards women, minorities, the disabled, the arts, homosexuality, foriegn policy and a range of other areas put them squarely on the right side of the political spectrum."

::After that that you tried to invoke one of the more liberal policies of the Weimar Republic in order to claim that the Nazis were somehow "left wing." Faced with the fact (apparently new to you) that the Nazis were ANTAGONISTIC to the liberal Weimar Republic, you offered the truly ridiculous argument that the Weimar Republic lasted until 1939, and compounded the absurdity by misrpresenting a quote from Albert Speer's book. When THAT didn't work, you galloped off on a tangent about Saddam Hussein, without every explaining why, if the Weimar Republic ended in 1939, the Conservapedia article on it has it ending in 1933.

::Again, who do you think you're kidding? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 23:29, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::OK, so "leftists" are for the betterment of humanity, whereas "rightists" oppose the betterment of humanity. Pardon me, I have no personal axe to grind; I may be asked however in the capacity of a [[fiduciary]] to dispute this definition. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:32, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The definition in its entirety reads "Advocating change IN THE NAME OF the greater freedom and well-being of the common man." The dictionary is question is saying that that is usually the reason given by leftists for promoting certain policies, just as a respect for tradition is the reason invoked by many right wingers for opposing certain policies. Is it your contention that dictionary writers are all a bunch of leftists out to write biased definitions? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 23:43, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Whoopie doo! So "leftists", in thier view, got a monopoly on the betterment of humanity. I'm sure other so-called "leftists" agree with this trite reasoning. But this inbred family affair won't work. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:52, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Is it your contention that dictionaries --Merriam Webster, the OED, etc -- are part of a dastardly conspiracy of leftists?

Yes, most leftists consider what they are doing to be for the greater freedom and well being of the common man, just as most right-wingers consider their respect for tradition more important and more likely to make a better world. So what? You demanded I repeat these definitions. I did. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 00:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 23:54, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Yep, and we all seen this old movie a thousand times, how the cake of custom conflicts with progress and the betterment of civilization. Say, you got some loaded dice? I love playing with loaded dice and getting all my money taken. I'm a real fool when it comes to that. Please, cheat me as you see fit. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::I gather from this that you've run out of arguments and are reduced to just typing rants. Sorry, but it's not the fault of liberals, or leftists, or Wikipedia, or Hitler's architect, or Saddam Hussein, or dictionaries or "loaded dice" that you are doomed to lose any argument based on such booming absurdities as "The Nazis weren't right wing," or "The Weimar Republic didn't end until 1939." It's the fault of reality and common usage. Until you acknowledge these things, no honest or educated person is going to even pretend to take your arguments seriously. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 02:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::OK, I'll say it one more time: the Political Spectrum Theory of Max Weber has no more weight than the Theory of Evolution of Charles Darwin. Now, if you can prove where either theory has any factual basis, please do so. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::You can say it as often as you want, Rob. That doesn't make it a valid argument. Comparing English common usage with Darwin's theory, as though assigning the term "right wing" to the Nazis were a theory that created as great a controvery and as much debate as evolution is nonsense. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:30, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

==Blaming the West==

Controversial cut:

:Most historians agree that the defeat of Germany in the First World War and anger over the [[Treaty of Versailles]], specifically those provisions that restored territory to [[France]], [[Belguim]], [[Denmark]], and [[Poland]], disarmed Germany, and required that it pay reparations for the First World War helped lay the groundwork for the rise of Nazism.

:::Excuse me, but this happens to be true. Whether you agree with it or not, most historians tie the defeat of Germany in WWI and anger over those provisions of the Versailles Treaty to the rise of the Nazi party. How does this qualify as "blaming the West" (especially since Germany is a Western European country?) --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:13, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::::PF Fox sums it up pretty good in these lines of text. I'll endorse reinclusion. Incidentally, welcome back. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:22, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Western European Countries are countries such as England and France, germany is of central europe.
Simply because it is as much on western europe as it is on eastern. Britts and frenchies are to be blamed by germany's humiliation. West is too broad, west european determines the greedy guys that took the spoils of war from germany.

==unlock request==
I'd like to categorize it under European History, thanks. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 17:14, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

== Name misconception ==

I suggest the following being somehow worked into the article:

A common misconception is that the word "Nazi" comes from '''''Na'''tionalso'''zi'''alistische''. This would be an [[acronym]] for the [[German|German language]] compound word, formed from the words ''national'' and ''sozialistische''. However, abbreviating ''sozialistische'' as ''zi'' would be illogical. The true source of the term "Nazi" is the pronunciation of ''nationalsozialistische'', which in German is '''nah-tse'''-oh-NAL-zo-shi-al-ist-uh-shuh.

[[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 21:25, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== new name needed ==

The article would be much more useful to users if it was named "Nazi Party" or "NSDAP". Almost no book uses the full name in English, and the Germans almost always use NSDAP. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:01, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

== leadership ==

==National Socialist German Workers Party==

Just to let you know, I'm not interested in getting into an edit war here, but the listing of the Allies led by the US, Russia and Britain is inaccurate. The term Allies (for WWII) applies to all the countries that opposed the Axis powers, and that list included 21 countries or blocs before the US joined in 1941. Obviously the effort of the Allies had to be co-ordinated in the years between 1939-41 so the question of who led the Allies during WWII is, at best, not something that can be easily dispensed with a single sentence. Furthermore, saying that Russia was an member of the Allies is inaccurate, it was the USSR which was a member of the Allies, of which Russia was a part (an equivalent example would be if the sentence had read that .....by the Allies, led by Texas, Russia and Britain).

As a compromise I suggest: ......and was finally destroyed in [[World War II]] by the Allies, the major powers of which were the United States who led the Allied forces in Europe from 1941, the USSR (more commonly known as the Soviet Union) and Britain. [[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 22:03, 3/Nov/08 (GMT)
::the US joined the fighting in 1941 but had already been financing the war for both Britain and USSR, and was providing much of the munitions. Leadership also consists in setting strategy and policy which the US did--maybe 95% in the case of the war against Japan, 75% against Italy and say 40% in the case of Europe. As for the Soviets, they were Hitler's allies until June of 1941-- so their role cuts both ways and diminishes any claim that they led the effort. Ieuan is right that USSR/Soviet is a better term than Russia. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:44, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Have to point out a couple of things. For a start the US wasn't financing the war for the UK and USSR but instead extended a series of lease-loans. The difference is subtle but very important (see below). It isn't until after WWII finished that the US extended direct financial assistance, which in Britain's case was a loan for $4.34 billion in 1945, and was finally repaid by Britain on Friday 29th December 2006, with repayments having started back in 1950. The final payment made on the loan was £43 million.

As for the timeline, FDR was desperate to help in the European conflict but also understood that he had to keep the US out of the European conflict during 1939 and 1940, because when Britain declared war on Germany he was still struggling to deal with the Depression and its effects. The simple fact was that until the Depression had been dealt with (or at least the scaffolding that would deal with it was in embedded, which happened in late 1940) and the economy stabilised the US simply couldn't have afforded to go to war (the uncertainty and volatility generated by going to war in Europe again would have ripped apart the still incomplete reforms that FDR had in place in 1939). Additionally the policy of isolationism that the US had been following was still much in vogue with the public and Congress, so a direct intervention in the European conflict during '39 and '40 wouldn't have been possible politically. Furthermore, extending direct financial aid to the UK and USSR, quite apart from the fact that it probably couldn't have been afforded, would also have meant that the Axis powers would have declared war on the US (as the US would have been offering direct support to the Allies), and predation on US shipping in the Atlantic would have been much heavier, and started earlier in the conflict.

The extending of the lease-loans (which was designed to be military equipment, rather than money), didn't occur until March 1941, and of course the US officially joined the Allies nine months later. Essentially, apart from offering moral support the US had very little to do with the European conflict prior to the final months of 1940. On 2nd September 1940, Roosevelt did defy the Neutrality Acts by passing the Destroyers for Bases Agreement. That Agreement sold 50 American destroyers to Britain, the price being military base rights in Newfoundland and the British Caribbean islands, and is seen as being the point at which the US started to offer somewhat more substantial support to the Allies in the European war effort.

As for military leadership and advice from the US, no, I'm afraid not, at least not prior to 1941. Although FDR was in contact with Churchill while Churchill was Vice-Lord of the Admiralty, and later Prime Minister, such correspondance, where it touched upon the war, was in finding inventive ways for FDR to defy the common, economical,political and legislative hurdles that barred the US from extending aid to Britain. The ability to extend military leadership and control to the UK was both legally impossible and militarily impossible for FDR. The Neutrality Acts provided the legal impossibilities (FDR was only able to defy the Neutrality Acts by taking what would have been the donation of 50 Destroyers to the UK and turning it into 'sale'), and of course, if the US had provided military leadership prior to them officially declaring war on Germany, then this would have been deemed an Act of War by the Axis powers and would have esssentially boxed them into the position of having to declare war against the US, which, interestingly, is something that the European based Axis powers wanted to avoid.[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 01:49 4/Nov/08
::to clarify a few points. Lend lease in general was NOT paid back (except for some items that were delivered after the war, and for some ships). Second the US banks made heavy loans to Britain in 1939-40, which financed heavy exports of raw materials like steel used for munitions. As for the leadership, well the Brits were leading the war against Germany in 1939-41 all right, but they were "leading" because they were alone in the war--and they were mostly losing. I suggest the defeat of Germany --which is the point here--came in 1942-45 under US leadership. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:57, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Oh, yes, lend-lease was never meant to be paid back. Sorry, I should have clarified the sentence "Essentially, apart from offering moral support the US had very little to do with the European conflict prior to the final months of 1940.". The US in this context was meant to be the US Government, but I didn't make that clear. The loans made during the war by US banks were, of course, a private business matter, as opposed to US Gov Policy, at least officially. Of course it is extremely likely that FDR twisted a few arms to make sure that the loans were made, but from the point of view of history that, I'm afraid to say, hasn't been recorded as intervention made by the US Government in the European conflict (and now that it doesn't matter politically and if it can be shown that FDR 'persuaded' the banks to make the loans, then it should be recorded in the histories that the US intervened earlier in the European conflict).

Leadership '39-'41. We're back to that tricky one. As I've said, there were 21 countries and blocs of countries that formed the Allies during that period and while Britain certainly led the Commenwealth (or at least soon to be Commonwealth) and Empire countries from '39-'41, they didn't lead the other countries that were part of the Allies at the time. To say that Britian led the Allies or war effort during that time is as inaccurate as pointing to any single one country during that time and say that they led the war effort.

Mostly losing. Mmm, no, or at least, not in context. If Britain had fallen to Germany then yes, you could certainly say that they lost (and, of course, that would have meant that the US wouldn't have been able to intervene in the European conflict, the fall of Britain would have seen the fall of Western Europe and that, in turn, would have led to the fall of Africa and parts of the Middle East to the Nazis at the same time (because large swathes of both those areas were owned by the Western European powers). This would have meant that there was no point of entry into the European conflict that the US could use, apart from entry from the Soviet Union, but trying to fight in Europe using the Soviet Union as an entry point in 1941 would have been all but impossible from a logistical point of view, simply because it would have been immpossible to ship the heavy equipment needed by the US army to that entry point), but the concept of lose or victory '''during''' a war is almost always defined in terms of the strategy being pursued at the time. Britain's strategy at the time was to hunker down and hold on. It wasn't a brilliant strategy (because it cost a lot of civilian lives), it wasn't going to be a winning strategy in the long term provided that the circumstances of the war didn't change (it never is), but it was a strategy born of necessity (Britain didn't have the numbers, firepower or position to push back Germany and the only other option, apart from hanging on grimly, was to surrender to the Nazis). Instead, the idea behind the strategy was that war is an ever shifting morass of possibilities, changes and mistakes. In this case the mistake (and subsequent change in the overall picture of the war) made was that the German war machine believed that Britain was about to fall and so opened a second front against the USSR. This relieved the pressure on Britain, which allowed it to hang on until the second big change in the circumstances of the war, which was the US joining the European conflict a few months later. It is best to say that Britain pursued an exceedingly risky strategy that worked.

As to why this I feel this way about, what is after all, just a single sentence in the Nazi article is that I have always believed that encyclopedias, no matter what type they are, should always be as factually accurate as possible, even on the smallest of details. Just saying that the US led the Allies in WWII is accurate to a point but could be more accurate (by pointing out that the US led the Allied effort from '41-'45) but then you run into two pitfalls which are i) it doesn't say who led pre-end'41 and ii) the US led Allies co-ordinated and worked with the USSR-led Allies but didn't lead the USSR-led Allies. From there you run into the problem that SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force) had a US Supreme Commander, a British Deputy Supreme Commander, 1 British and 2 US Ground Force Commanders, and of course the Air and Sea Force Commanders were both British. You start to fill in all those blanks, and all of a sudden what should be a single sentence turns into a nightmare of complexity, fact-checking and citations. That's why I like the compromise sentence, and I am very pleased that it is still there. Thank you.

At some point I would like to do an article on the political situatiions and decisions made during WWII, although it has to be said, don't look for it soon, entire shelves in libraries are dedicated to that single subject, so planning, typing and checking will take quite sometime. Still, I think it will be worth it. I have noticed that subjects like the Blitz (not necessarily here, but in general), give the facts but rarely a context. A simple example of that is the SHAEF decision to start bombing German towns once German forces had started to be forced back. Yes, the bombing did help reduce the German War Machine by hitting munitions factories and such like, but the fact is that there was no planned targeting, obviously no pin-point targeting because such a thing didn't exist, and very much a feeling of justified revenge for the Blitz from the British. What happened. 500,000 German civilians were killed in the bombing. That's a large figure. Now think of it as being one hundred and sixty seven government sanctioned 911's. Suddenly its a '''very''' big number, and that's what I mean by context. In fact, the bombing of German towns and the Blitz had a huge part to play in the Geneva Conventions ban on deliberatly targeting civilians. Yet you go into a pub and ask a young 20-something what they know of the Dresden bombings and see just how little they know.[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 00:58 7/Nov/08 GMT
::well the Brits themselves had little to do with the war before spring 1940 as well (it was called a phoney war). And the Soviets were on the Nazi side! Starting summer 1940 the US economy was mobilized into the war effort and the US drafted millions of men. As for leadership, the defeat of the Nazis did not happen in 1939, 40 or 41--in fact they were winning until the US entered the war and turned it around. Sorry about the Germans in the cities--they should have moved to the villages, as they were ordered to do by the USAAF and the RAF. They stayed in cities because they were building tanks and guns there. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:31, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Oh yes, the USSR was on the Nazi's side, but what is truly alarming is that they didn't need to be. A fortnight before WWII started Stalin made an offer to Britain and France to send close to a million troops to the German border to stop Hitler. Unfortunately Britain and France, not trusting Stalin, decided not to agree to an alliance and effectively left USSR out in the cold. In response the Soviets signed a non-aggression pact with Germany.

As for leadership, one of those tricky things again. Leaders exist in both failure and success, one of the points to having leaders is that the political classes have somebody to point to and say "Oh, you". Did the US lead the western allies in success. Yes and no. The US joined the war, the tide turned, but part of that was the disaster at Stalingrad, a success that was wholly the Soviet Union's and sapped a massive number of German troops away from the Western fronts. So in that sense the leadership is jointly US and USSR (althouth you will understand that isn't a point that was solidly taught on either side of the Iron Curtain during the Cold War). Yet the Supreme Commander of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force was a US General, Eisenhower. In that sense the leadership was US. However, his deputy was British and immediately under them were 2 US Force Commanders and 3 British Force Commanders, so in that sense the leadership was a joint-command. It is prehaps best, from a factual view, to seperate success from leadership. Therefore it can clearly be said that Allies success in WWII had a great deal to do with the US committing forces to the Western front in Europe and the USSR forcing the surrender of German Troops at Stalingrad. In terms of leadership, well as I said, complicated, not something that is determined by success, and in all cases has a habit of shifting significantly with the passage of time.

"Sorry about the Germans in the cities--they should have moved to the villages, as they were ordered to do by the USAAF and the RAF". Sorry, I read that and I laughed so hard I cried. I can just see it now. ''"Excuse me Mr. Nazi Security Officer who is, has and is part of group that systematically removes families and people from homes, sends them to death camps, kills people in the street, shoots people for the most trivial of offences, including not being patriotic enough, and when not involved in killing also happens to be involved in some of the most brutal, despicable and unacceptable torture and medical experiments the world has ever seen which has not just been practiced on adults but also children as young as babies, our enemies have told us that they are going to bomb us so you don't mind if I don't come into work for say, oh the next three or four years."''. There are few people who are truly defiant and willing to ignore the orders of the man who has a gun pointed to their head. There are even fewer who are willing to be that defiant when the man with the gun has it pointed at the head of their children. And that assumes that any significant part of the civilian population even heard the warnings. I doubt the Nazi Government passed the message on and anybody caught listening to the radio frequencies used by the British or other allies was automatically assumed to be a spy, taken away and questioned with a red-hot poker until they either a) broke and admitted they were a spy to stop the torture regardless of whether they were a spy or not or b) broke and admitted they were a spy to stop the torture regardless of whether they were a spy or not. A few years of that kind of government policy is going to make sure very few people on Germany would be that keen to listen to anything that the Allies said.[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 02:25 7/Nov/08 GMT
::The allied bombers dropped billions of leaflets to tell people to get out. Both the German and Japanese (and British) governments tried to get civilians to leave the cities. People did not want to go. In a total war the homefront factories and railroads are decisive weapons (all the posters on both sides said war worker = soldier) so the postmodern theme that creates an artificial distinction between civilians and soldiers is based on the sensibilities of the 1960s (when H Bombs were a very different threat) rather than the 1940s. The NSDAP did a rather good job caring was bombing victims. On another point: the article title is unsatisfactory--it's a term rarely used and will not help students studying for tests. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:05, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Gaza

2009-01-04T00:51:31Z

Lynus: Included information concerning the Gaza ground invasion.

The '''Gaza Strip''' is a small strip of land 360 square kilometers, and has a population of 1.4 million people, making it one of the most densely populated places in the world. It was under [[Egyptian]] control from 1948 until 1967 when [[Israel]] conquered it in the [[Six Day War]]. Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip in August 2005, effectively returning sovereignty to the [[Palestinian Authority]]. In June 2007, the radical militant terrorist group [[Hamas]] forcefully took control of the Gaza strip from the PA.

Terrorists still attack Israel from the Gaza strip with missiles, in response to this Israel is bombarding with a disproportionate amount of bombs. Many countries and organizations do not offer support to the citizens or government of Gaza. On January 3, 2008 Israel has started a ground campaign in Gaza. It was preceded by an artillery barrage to soften the border so Israeli troops could cross safer. Israel still insists that this campaign is against Hamas targets and that it has no plans to reoccupy the land. Hamas, rather than stop firing rockets into Gaza has begun sabre rattling and stated that they will kidnap and kill invading Israeli soldiers and cause mental illness from the horrors they will bring them. They have also stated that they will begin suicide attacks again.[http://www.onenewsnow.com/Headlines/Default.aspx?id=372854]

==References==
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Headlines/Default.aspx?id=372854
<references/>

[[category:geography]]

Talk:Nazi Party

2009-01-04T00:25:55Z

Lynus:

==Atheism==

How can the Nazi's be largely atheist/pagan if 50% claimed a form of nature worship/paganism and 40% Hitler (whatever that means) and the rest (100-50-40=10) be atheist? Plus, can we get a better reference because I have done several google searches for this survey and can't find it using keywords from the citation.--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 19:25, 3 January 2009 (EST)

== NAZI ==

NAZI NAME- IMPORTANT
Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei is in fact National Socialist's broad German Labor Party, and not as it is said in the article.
Accurate information is a must on a credible pedia.

== Homosexuality of the Nazis ==

Which top Nazis were openly gay? That's the first time I've ever heard people claiming this, save for the Hitler-was-gay claims that always come up. But then again, so do Lincoln-was-gay claims. The point is is that none of this is verifiable despite one book claiming it is. I say remove it.

:Wow. Let's use Wikipedia as a source for this one; note [[Adolf Hitler]]'s [[tolerance]] for [[gay]]s:
::''Having been outed in 1925, however, [Ernst] Röhm made little attempt to hide his sexuality. Despite Hitler's pretense of shock upon discovering his deputy's sexual orientation, he had in fact long known that Röhm was homosexual....During Röhm's tenure at the head of the SA, it has been suggested that a number of homosexual men (notably Karl Ernst, a former bouncer at a gay nightclub, and Edmund Heines) were appointed to and promoted within the SA as a result of high-level liaisons with powerful SA figures.''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_R%C3%B6hm#R.C3.B6hm.27s_sexual_orientation]
:Amazing. Wikipedia almost got it half right on this one. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:28, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's one top Nazi that was openly gay, but the article claims "though many top Nazis were openly gay..." This statement implies a plurality of homosexuals and not just the leader of the SA, who was killed when the SA was purged. So does one equal many? Yes, in the citation above there are two more men who were in the SA reported to be homosexuals, but they were not "top Nazis." This distinction implies people like Hess, Himmler, Goebbles, Hitler, etc., people who commanded Germany. The introduction to ''The Pink Triangle'' addresses homosexuality in the top echelons, of which there was little. Also, just because Hitler tolerated one homosexual does not mean he tolerated them all. His tolerance for Röhm could have just been convenient, until say, he killed him.

::::There was Edmund Heines as well, and Karl Ernst. But even adding these two wouldn't substantiate the claim of "many top Nazis." The fact is that most of the leadership that leaned that way was in the SA and was eliminated in the Night of the Long Knives.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 22:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::And a further aside; we have already pointed out how in electing Hitler, a Catholic, Germany showed itself more socially progressive than the United States by several decades. Likewise we shall demonstrate the Nazi's were more socially enlighten regarding the issue of gays in the military.
:::::Coming soon: Affirmative Action and the Wehrmacht. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::That post doesn't address the issue at hand. The article states that they were not tolerant for gays, but were gay themselves. I still reject the "top leadership" claim (other than Rohm). The fact that there were gays in the ranks (which there would be in any population if we assume gays live in any population) does not mean that "top Nazis" were practitioners of homosexual behavior.
::::::PS Where in the book is the youth groups claim cited, or could you provide the quote?

::::::Se also, ''The Damned'', starring Dirk Bogard [http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/cinema/features/damned.shtml], has a lengthy scene of a typical Nazi gay orgy with the Stormtroopers walking around wearing women's underwear, etc.

Given that the whole homosexual-nazi's theme has been started by Scott Lively, I doubt it is at all credible. Lively is a hardly a respectable historian - he is, in fact, an anti-homosexual campaigner and nothing more than this. I see someone has gone to the trouble of preparing a page on him that makes it very clear - with quotes, even - that he cannot be considered a reliable source because he is a fanatical conspiricy-theorist who appears to believe that homosexuals are planning to take over the world (While at the same time denying that homosexuality even exists). Citing fake histories invented by political power-gamers desperate to rewrite the past to make it appear the nazi's were homosexual is very detrimental to the credability of this site. I thus suggest that all reference to Scott Lively's pet theory are removed. Once his nonsense is dismissed, we have credible-looking support for a ''single'' homosexual high-up in the Nazi party (Rohm). Just the one. Who kept it in the closet. Hardly the openly party-supported gay-orgies that some people are claiming, or Scott's ungrounded belief in a mostly-homosexual leadership. There are two potentials too, but no proof - working as a bouncer at a gay nightclub does not make someone gay - BornAgainBrit

:Oh, I deleted a coupe of comments to calm things down - but only comments that are fairly old, unsourced (Or use Scott as a source) and make highly unlikely claims.

== Right Wing ==

The Nazis were neither atheists nor socialists and the question of whether or not they or their earlier incarnations qualify as "right wing" was resolved decades ago. I'm sorry, but I see no reason to accept Robs' idiosyncratic definitions as if they were accepted fact. They are most definitely not. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:Right. So as to whether a Socialist is a Socialist all depends on what the meaning of is is "is is" is. I understand fully. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:15, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

"We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: the common interest before self-interest." - Paragraph 24, Programme for the German Workers' Party (Pre-nazi). This is what happens when people blindly assume anyone who ''claims'' to be Christian is worth supporting. Hitler spoke publicly of his Christian faith constantly - that makes him a good politician, but not a real christian.

:''It [the party] combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: '''the common interest before self-interest.'''" ''
::'''the common interest before self-interest''', I would say this statement (a) lays to rest the idea the NSDAP is "conservative", and/or right-wing defined as a belief in rugged individualism; (b) pretty much clarifies the Social and Communal roots of Nazism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 09:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::No, whether a Socialist is a Socialist depends on whether or not the person or political party advocates collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of producton. The Nazis advocated some measure of government control in that realm, but not to the point where they qualified as "socialist," any more than 19th Century Prussia -- which advocated a similar kind of control -- qualified as "socialist."

:::Your claim that the Nazi party doesn't qualify as "right wing" is nothing more than blatant historical revisionism, an attempt to alter the definition of the term decades after the fact. The Nazis by and large considered themselves right wing, were referred to as right wing by contemporary opponents and sympathizers and by neutral observers (like travel guides to Germany at the time,) have been acknowledged as right wing by historians covering that era. What exactly do you expect to accomplish by altering common usage in this manner?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Meaning no disrespect, but it appears you too often speak first before looking at some of the issues. And while I can appreciate your once popular political prejudices, in retrospect we see denying facts and carrying on myths really serves no purpose anymore.

:Now, as to whether or not Socialists are indeed Socialists, lets begin with examing the "means of production", i.e. Volkswagen. [http://mondediplo.com/1998/01/11volkswag] So, we will be afforded the opportunity to examine the history of this Socialist enterprise to whatever extent they've made thier Archives available to the public.

:And finally the left/right spectrum theory is just that--only a theory. For weeks now I've been waiting to hear a definition from advocates of this theory what a "leftist" is. All I've seen so far is something like this:

*''a leftist is a liberal'' --->click here ''a liberal is a leftist'' --->click here ''leftists oppose oppression, hence Communists are leftists''

:that's the left side of this nonsense. Then we hear about how Socialists like Hitler actually were devout Christians like Rev. Falwell, who wants to exterminate gays, too.

:My appoligies, but this garbage is going absolutly nowhere. And if your serious in persuing this dead end thinking, my advice is to define "leftist", cause none, absolutley none of your so-called "leftist allies" have been able to do so up til now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::Garbage is definitely the operative term for this blatant revisionism of claiming that the Nazis were not "right wing" and were in fact "socialist." Using your definition of the term "socialist", Prussia and indeed much of 19th century Europe were "socialist." That is not how these countries were defined nor how they saw themselves, nor how they are defined today.

::A "leftist" is defined in the dictionary as "Those professing views usu. characterized by desire to reform or overthrow the establishe order esp. in poltics and usus. advocating chage in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man. A "right winger" is defined as "individuals sometimes professing opposition to change in the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices." The Nazis attitudes towards women, minorities, the disabled, the arts, homosexuality, foriegn policy and a range of other areas put them squarely on the right side of the political spectrum. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:05, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::ok, let's take that dictionary definition, "advocating chage in the name of the greater ... well-being of the common man", and "opposition to change in the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices". So which one of us is left and which one of us is right? I want change to stop these nonsensical definitions of left & right, you are resisting it and bring in more of this nonsense that does absolutly nothing to answer the question. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:12, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Which of us is "left" and which of us is "right" depends on how traditional our attitudes are towards issues like women, labor, minorities, etc. The Nazis, while they wished to overthrow the current order of the Weimar Republic, wanted to do so in order to turn the clock back to the era before women were active in public life, before Jews had been emancipated, before the advent of the avant garde in art and film, etc. It was essentially a revulsion against much of the modern world and a wildly romanticized view of the past.

::::If the fact that terms like "right" and "left" can be imprecise and part of a "spectrum" renders them "nonsensical," then much of language is "nonsensical." Terms like "religion," "politics," "freedom," "morality," even "red," "blue," "wet," "dry," "hot," or "cold" are "nonsensical." You want to give up using those terms too? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:26, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::''"The Nazis, while they wished to overthrow the current order of the Weimar Republic...''
:::::hmmm...let's see....which country, the US or Germany, displayed it's social progressivity by electing a Catholic to it's highest office? Was it the US & JFK, or Wiemar Republic and Hitler? Then, which country introduced affirmative action into the military after the Treaty of Versailles which allowed poor common scum, like Rommel, to rise to the position of General based upon merit rather than Social class? Which country displayed its social progressivity by allowing gays in the military first, the US or Nazi Germany? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:11, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: First of all, the Weimar Republic is not synonymous with Hitler. Quite the contrary, it was the liberalism of the Weimar Republic that that Hitler and the Nazis opposed, so trying to cram the term "affirmative action" into the context of the Weimar republic just bolsters my argument that the Nazis who reviled it were traditionalists and ergo "Right Wing." And the Nazis did not openly allow gays in the military, though I have no doubt that there were powerful gay men there who barely bothered to hide their homosexuality -- as has been true in many homophobic societies from time immemorial. The illusion of impunity many powerful gay Nazis felt coupled with official Nazi stance against homosexuality were frequently exploited by Himmler. One of his methods of controlling the people around him was by threatening to publicize an individuals homosexuality and thus exposing that individual to public disgrace and legal penalties.

::::::It was under Weimar, by the way, that German women gained the right to vote and began to appear more frequently in public life, that the avant garde arts flourished, that the last shreds of the legal restrictions on German Jews were dropped -- all of these were trends that the Nazis hated, and worked to elminate once they came into power. You don't do your case any good, Rob, by using Weimar policies to argue for the Nazis NOT being Right Wing. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:23, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::There is a large divergence between American historians and Germans in discussing Wiemar Germany. Germans regard what is called "Wiemar Germany", or "the Wiemar period" as extending from 1919 to 1939. Americans assume Wiemar Germany ended in 1933 with the rise of Hitler & Nazism. This is what I call "the Hollywood view" while popular and prevelent, nonetheless over fictionalized.

:::::::Talking about women gaining sufferage in Wiemar Germany almost brings tears to my eyes; I'm almost convinced to become a so-called "leftist", one who "advocates change in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man". But then all my fellow leftists today say Iraqi women can rot in hell as far as thier concerned. So what would you beleive if you were in my shoes? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::RobS, if I were in your shoes I would certainly take an English class. [[User:Thjazi|Thjazi]] 15:31, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::Just call me another victim of the Public Schools; we honestly have considered a class action suit for the lifelong damge they did to us innocent children. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:57, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Rob, if you can successfully show that public school teachers are responsible for your idiotic claim that the Weimar republic didn't end until 1939 you MIGHT have a case. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:06, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Kindly provide a cite for this presumed "divergence." I have yet to see or hear ANY historian, American or German, claim that the Weimar Republic lasted until 1939, and I have spent many years not only reading about this subject, but listening to first-hand accounts from Germans who lived through that era. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Here's one, Speer, Albert (1970). ''Inside the Third Reich''. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-684-82949-5. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:58, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::And exactly where does Speer claim that the Weimar Republic ended in 1939? What chapter? What section? How does the passage read? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 10:53, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

The entry here on Conservapedia for the Weimar Republic has it ending in 1933. Are you planning to "correct" this article? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:34, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is what Speer has to say about the Weimar Republic:

"...Hitler did not want to alter the proportion of sixty thousand voters for each deputy THAT HAD BEEN SET BY THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC (emphasis addded. Note past tense.) He never explained his reasons; but he was as firm on this matter as he was about nominal retention of the traditional electoral system with its fixed dates for elections, rule of franchise, ballot boxes, and secret ballot. On this matter he evidently wanted to preserve a tradition which had brought him to power, eventhough his introduction of the one-party system had made the whole thing pointless."

"The liberalism of the Weimar Republic seemed to us by comparison lax, dubious, and in no way desirable."

Please explain how this backs up your claim that Germans believe the Weimar Republic lasted until 1939. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:43, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:The first reference makes EXACTLY the point; the second reference needs a timeframe, because if it occurs during a discussion of wartime German attitudes, it likewise makes the same point. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:13, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It most certainly does NOT make your point. Speer refers to the Weimar Republic in the past tense, and the fact that this meaningless remnant of the Weimar system remained no more means the Weimar Republic itself remained than the fact that there were still some buildings put up during Weimar means the Weimar Republic itself remained. And are you going to put your money where your mouth is, change the Conservapedia Article on the Weimar Republic, "correct" it so that it no longer says it lasted only until 1933? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:17, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::OK, so when Speer says "Hitler did not want to alter", I guess actually means "did want to alter", much the same way a Socialist is not a Socialist.

::::Once again my friend you assign motives to me when all I did was point out disparties between American schools of historiagraphy and German. Here's another one you can look into,
:::::''"I was reading a wiki article the other day that made reference to "the Nazi seizure of power"; this article obviously was brought over from the German wiki, cause American sources always make light of the fact Hitler was democratically elected."''[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/064824.html]
::::And actually I counted some 200 articles in the English Wiki were this subversive poison made its way into the English language. Amazing, Wikipedia actually created the beast its intent upon destroying. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::When Speer says "Hitler did not want to alter" he is specifically referring to the number of voters assigned to each deputy and "nominal retention of the traditional electoral system," trappings that Speer himself observes were "pointless" because of Hitler's imposition of a single-party system. And I'm sorry, but the quotes observing that Hitler was democratically elected do nothing to bolster your bizarre claim that the Weimar Republic did not end until 1939.

:::::If you are that positive that the Weimar Republic did not end in 1933, please explain why the Conservapedia article on the subject states quite clearly: "The Weimar Republic is the republic which governed Germany from 1919 to 1933." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:07, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::PF, it's not worth responding to cause you continue to ascribe to me a claim I have specifically stated did not originate with me. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:20, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

LOL! In other words, you are willing to posit this inanity about the Weimar Republic continuing to 1939 here on a talk page in an attempt to bolster a baseless point, but you aren't willing to "correct" an article so that it reads "The Weimar Republic is the Republic which governed Germany from 1919 to 1939." You know as well as I do that such an article posted here would become the subject of widespread and deserved ridicule.

Face it. The Nazis were a reaction AGAINST the LIBERALISM of the Weimar Republic. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:24, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:''Gleichsaltung'' wasn't completed on the day after Hitler took office. And the undoing of Versailles, re-occupation of the Rhineland, Treaty of Munich, Anschluss, etc didn't occur til the 1935-39 period. Then of course we got the whole Molotov-Ribbentrop deal to look into, i.e. '''how the Soviet Union & Nazi's were indeed allies on 1 September 1939'''. So there actually is some basis for the traditional European view that the "Wiemar period" extended from 1919 to 1939. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry Rob, but Conservapedia itself -- along with pretty much every written history of Germany -- puts the end of the Weimar Republic in 1933, and your attempt at twisting a quote from Speer doesn't change that. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:42, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Speer ain't the only one that says it, and Speer doesn't just make a quote here and there; it's is an attitude throughout both his books. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:55, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Then who DOES claim that the Weimar Republic lasted until 1939? Quotes please. (As someone who has read his books, I know that Speer makes no such claim.) AND WHY HAVEN'T YOU "CORRECTED" THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC ARTICLE HERE SO THAT IT GIVES THE END OF THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC AS 1939 INSTEAD OF 1933? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:00, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::OK, that is a very good question. Now let's divide the response in two. There is domestic German politics, then there is upsetting the International order established at Versailles. Let's limit our discussion of the "Wiemar period" to the internetional borders established at Versailles. When Hitler re-occupied the Rhineland, though illegal, was internationally sanctioned. Then the Treaty of Munich, likewise took on legitimacy in the spirit of Versailles. The Anschluss, no international prohibitions were raised over this issue, not even in defense of the Austrian people, as best I recollect. Finally in 1939, we have joint Soviet-German military operations to dismember Poland. This is were the Peace of Versailles, or "Wiemar period", is regarded by many Europeans as finally, and officially coming to an end, after the governments of France and Great Britain finally ceased selling other people down the river to appease Nazi (and Soviet) aggression. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:09, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

None of this answers my question. Why haven't you "corrected" the Weimar Republic article here so that it gives the end of the Weimar Republic as 1939 instead of 1933? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:12, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:Let's work on the [[Molotov-Ribbentrop pact]] first. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:16, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::That has absolutely nothing to do with this question, or with the fact that pretty much every historian puts the end of the Weimar Republic at 1933. You know this. Otherwise you would have posted some supporting cites from historians by now. Again. Why haven't you "corrected" the Weimar Republic article here so that it gives the end of the Weimar Republic as 1939 instead of 1933? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:18, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well duh, let me restate for probably the third time now: the first international boundary to change was not unitl 1938, and was agreed to by the powers enforcing the Versailles treaty. Sept 1 1939, as best as I can determine, is when then Wiemar period, established at Versailles, came to end, and some members of the international community took steps to counter upsetting the established international order.

:::You know, for all the effort you put into arguing how Iraqi women were better off under fascism for 30 years, maybe you should reconsider if Chilean women may have been better off under Pinochet--at least to maintain internal logical consistancy of these positions you seem to instinctively commit yourself to before examining facts. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:27, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So what's preventing you from "correcting" the Conservapedia entry on the Weimar Republic so that it puts the end of the Weimar Republic at 1939 instead of 1933? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:31, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

== Edits ==

I've done my best to clean up the sporadic nature of articles on "Nazi", "National Socialist German Workers' Party" and "Nazis" etc., combining some content and bolstering it with some additional work to prevent it from becoming a written vendetta against the Nazis (i.e. additional content is based on the principle that they did some terrible things, but what else did they do?). [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 22:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:RobS - any reasons for reverting my edits? Not great practice to revert without justification. Calling your revert a "minor edit" is probably inappropriate, as well. [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 00:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:'''I'll transplant part of the discussion from Rob's talk page to this discussion page.'''
::I think I counted one too many "conservatives" in there when there may actually be a question if any belong at all, and you didn't engage in talk or cite any source. This,
:''While not always recognised for it in popular accounts due to the weight of their other actions, the Nazis were responsible for removing the scourge of rational conservatism in the lead-up to World War II ''
::I read six times and concluded the author of it himself probably doesn't understand what it means. Then we have this, a disclaimer,
:''The Nazis are generally seen as fascists''
::Just who or what are you trying to debate here? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps scourge was the wrong word, but I think it's clear that if you hadn't lopped off the end of the first sentence that I wrote, you would have seen what I was pointing to the "scourge" as being:
::::''- disbanding the German branch of the left-wing communist movement spreading throughout Europe.''
:::It's clear that you've misinterpreted my edit. Either way, instead of reverting the whole thing back to the messy and uncategorised page that existed before, you should have removed only the offending sentences and asked for clarification on this discussion page. Your revert showed little consideration for what my edits were - I made an extensive edit that went far beyond what you cited in your justification, cleaning up the haphazard allocation of content that previously existed on several pages on Conservapedia, categorising it and adding new content: not all of which you appeared to object to. [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 05:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::It's been summarized already. If you think this article will become a forum to postulate the Left/Right Poltical Specrtrum Theory of Max Weber as being a doctrinal substantiation that the NSDAP of Germany, and the Republican party of the United States, becuase both are characterized as "right-wing" and "conservative", that there are commonalities of views, beliefs, and objectives, I think you may be sorely mistaken in that premise. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::You still haven't justified the reverting of the entire page - as I already mentioned, I pooled together much of the content from '''other''' articles on Conservapedia that had sporadic amounts of information about the Nazis and their beliefs, none of which had been objected to. By reverting this page, you've removed more than just a couple of lines: you've removed content that, for the most part, previously existed uncontested on other pages.

:::::And where did you get the idea that I was delving into the postulation of Weber's spectrum theories? Do you have an objection to the statement that the Nazis are seen as fascists? Do you have an objection to the statement that the Communists were left-wing? The problem is that you've taken facts and claimed that they are incorrect, when in reality, the only problem was in the wording. If Conservapedia is happy enough to have rubbish pages that are reverted at will because administrators can't be bothered picking only the contentious lines and deleting it, then so be it. Your encyclopaedia is a shambles and is not one that can be "trusted", and if you rigidly turn back the clock on any even slightly contentious comments, then even a conservative like me is willing to turn back to Wikipedia. [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 01:27, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::You still haven't answered any of the reservations about the material. You still haven't explained a totally nonsensical sentence. Max Weber's Theory is just that, a theory. A theory is by definition, not fact.
::::::So, find me the place where I mention Max Weber. And '''you''' equally haven't explained why Conservapedia endorses the lazy removal of non-contentious content for no reason. Sure, the two sentences that you cited may have been poorly written or worded, but it doesn't justify removing the entire page, and removing content that had previously been on other pages that had never been contested. In any case, no article about a movement as controversial as the National Socialists is even close to some sort of completion without an analysis of what they believed.[[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 22:08, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==A few mistakes==

The acronym would be NSDAP, Nazi is just part of the first word of the party, "Nazionalsozialistiche".

Also, the swastika shouldn't be called "the Nazis' symbol", it's not ''their'' symbol. The swastika was used by Hindus, Buddhists, Greeks, Romans, and tons more people for thousands of years.

:You're on the right track, but the first word in the party name is really "Nationalsozialistische". The word "Nazi" just comes from how it is pronounced. As such, "acronym" in this case really is wrong. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:35, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yeah, I realised that I had spelt it wrong after reading the article and then editing it again. -[[User:Thjazi|Thjazi]] 14:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Marxism and trade unions==

*Through much of its history, the socialist movement has ardently pursued the trade unions. Yet, despite much courting and wooing, this romance has been largely unsuccessful. [http://www.wsws.org/exhibits/unions/unions.htm]

A "Free Trade Union" is a Trade Union separate from an official or a government controlled Trade Union. The Word "free" is moderating the term "Trade Union," not merely the word "trade." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Hitler was NOT A MARXIST OR A COMMUNIST. Say what you want but some of the first prisoners sent to Dachau were communists. Hitler despised communists and marxists more than McCarthy. The only reason to compare Nazism and Hitler to a communist and or marxist is because it would be like calling Hitler a Jew

Yeah, Hitler hated the Communists and longed to crush Russia. Historian Albert Tonbee reported how Hitler, while giving a speech, would scream and gibber when discussing Russia. Of course, none of Hitler's anti-communist leanings are mentioned in the article. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:43, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

== "verifiability" ==

PF, even Wikipedia doesn't have "Verifiability" anymore) (Robs)

Since I don't use Wikipedia and cite William Shirer, what is this referring to?

Apparently the only way you can justify your silly objections to calling the Nazis "right wing" is by falsely claiming that the Weimar Republic ended in 1939 -- something you're unwilling to do publicly in an actual article. What is your stand on the Ninth Commandment? Do you feel it can be dispensed with if following it would require you to concede a point? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 20:16, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:See under WP old WP:Verifiability clause, the rule was "verifiable, not truth", which meant give equal weight to the lie so long as it could be proven somebody said it somewhere sometime, nevermind the oxymoron since the latin root of "veri" means "truth". But in typical and classic Wikipedia fashion the rule was always undertood to mean "truth, not truth". And it was an open invitation to the intellectually dishonest to fill up whatever crap they please within all entries.

:But let's put the pure subject matter aside momentarilly; no one doubts the common jargon gets used, as there are thousands of popular misunderstandings and mispercpetions on countless subjects. But the first thing you must deal with here is literally a philosophical question: a theory is by definition not a fact. Now, is there anyway whatsoever that you can prove terms like "leftist" or "right-wing" are anything other than theoretical? And even the theories you produce I will document to be contradictory with themselves.

:Bottomline, this is a loosing issue. You cannot make a cat into a fish. They simply are two different things, and the spectrum theory is little more than that, a theory to simplify the prejudices of adults to third graders. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:47, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::I think it should make some reference to the fact that the Nazi party was right-wing, because, well, they were (to the point of extremity). But they were definitely extreme-right, and that can't really be argued, unless you want to pull out some never-before-seen documents... --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:56, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Many books in English have made that claim for many years; and we have yet to seriously broach the subject of National Socialism. The real problem here is nobody can define "left-wing" or "right-wing", at least no editor in Conservapedia has made a serious effort to do so yet. That needs to be done first. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:58, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I'm working off [http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2], which shows him on the right side. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:01, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::Big problem: It is only a theory. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:02, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I doubt that pretty much every historian, every contemporary observer, every diarist, writer, memorist, and journalist writing about the Nazi era was or is guilty of a "misperception" in calling the Nazis right wing. Not only do English books say, this, but German books say it, French books say it, Italian books say it, books in every language that discusses the Nazis say it, and if Conservapedia has a problem with defining the Nazis as "Right Wing" it's not one shared by most educated and knowledgable people. Who do you think you're kidding? And have you given up on your quixotic effort to convince everyone that the Weimar Republic went on until 1939? Did the other sysops not like the idea of you "correcting" the Weimar Republic entry to reflect that claim of yours? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 23:09, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Be my guest, please, please, then, and define the term. We are all waiting with baited breath. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:13, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::As you know, I already defined both "left wing" and "right wing" on this very page. On April 6th I posted the following:

::"A 'leftist' is defined in the dictionary as 'Those professing views usu. characterized by desire to reform or overthrow the established order esp. in politics. Advocating change in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man. A 'right winger' is defined as 'individuals sometimes professing opposition to change in the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices.' The Nazis attitudes towards women, minorities, the disabled, the arts, homosexuality, foriegn policy and a range of other areas put them squarely on the right side of the political spectrum."

::After that that you tried to invoke one of the more liberal policies of the Weimar Republic in order to claim that the Nazis were somehow "left wing." Faced with the fact (apparently new to you) that the Nazis were ANTAGONISTIC to the liberal Weimar Republic, you offered the truly ridiculous argument that the Weimar Republic lasted until 1939, and compounded the absurdity by misrpresenting a quote from Albert Speer's book. When THAT didn't work, you galloped off on a tangent about Saddam Hussein, without every explaining why, if the Weimar Republic ended in 1939, the Conservapedia article on it has it ending in 1933.

::Again, who do you think you're kidding? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 23:29, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::OK, so "leftists" are for the betterment of humanity, whereas "rightists" oppose the betterment of humanity. Pardon me, I have no personal axe to grind; I may be asked however in the capacity of a [[fiduciary]] to dispute this definition. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:32, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The definition in its entirety reads "Advocating change IN THE NAME OF the greater freedom and well-being of the common man." The dictionary is question is saying that that is usually the reason given by leftists for promoting certain policies, just as a respect for tradition is the reason invoked by many right wingers for opposing certain policies. Is it your contention that dictionary writers are all a bunch of leftists out to write biased definitions? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 23:43, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Whoopie doo! So "leftists", in thier view, got a monopoly on the betterment of humanity. I'm sure other so-called "leftists" agree with this trite reasoning. But this inbred family affair won't work. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:52, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Is it your contention that dictionaries --Merriam Webster, the OED, etc -- are part of a dastardly conspiracy of leftists?

Yes, most leftists consider what they are doing to be for the greater freedom and well being of the common man, just as most right-wingers consider their respect for tradition more important and more likely to make a better world. So what? You demanded I repeat these definitions. I did. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 00:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 23:54, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Yep, and we all seen this old movie a thousand times, how the cake of custom conflicts with progress and the betterment of civilization. Say, you got some loaded dice? I love playing with loaded dice and getting all my money taken. I'm a real fool when it comes to that. Please, cheat me as you see fit. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::I gather from this that you've run out of arguments and are reduced to just typing rants. Sorry, but it's not the fault of liberals, or leftists, or Wikipedia, or Hitler's architect, or Saddam Hussein, or dictionaries or "loaded dice" that you are doomed to lose any argument based on such booming absurdities as "The Nazis weren't right wing," or "The Weimar Republic didn't end until 1939." It's the fault of reality and common usage. Until you acknowledge these things, no honest or educated person is going to even pretend to take your arguments seriously. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 02:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::OK, I'll say it one more time: the Political Spectrum Theory of Max Weber has no more weight than the Theory of Evolution of Charles Darwin. Now, if you can prove where either theory has any factual basis, please do so. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::You can say it as often as you want, Rob. That doesn't make it a valid argument. Comparing English common usage with Darwin's theory, as though assigning the term "right wing" to the Nazis were a theory that created as great a controvery and as much debate as evolution is nonsense. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:30, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

==Blaming the West==

Controversial cut:

:Most historians agree that the defeat of Germany in the First World War and anger over the [[Treaty of Versailles]], specifically those provisions that restored territory to [[France]], [[Belguim]], [[Denmark]], and [[Poland]], disarmed Germany, and required that it pay reparations for the First World War helped lay the groundwork for the rise of Nazism.

:::Excuse me, but this happens to be true. Whether you agree with it or not, most historians tie the defeat of Germany in WWI and anger over those provisions of the Versailles Treaty to the rise of the Nazi party. How does this qualify as "blaming the West" (especially since Germany is a Western European country?) --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:13, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::::PF Fox sums it up pretty good in these lines of text. I'll endorse reinclusion. Incidentally, welcome back. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:22, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Western European Countries are countries such as England and France, germany is of central europe.
Simply because it is as much on western europe as it is on eastern. Britts and frenchies are to be blamed by germany's humiliation. West is too broad, west european determines the greedy guys that took the spoils of war from germany.

==unlock request==
I'd like to categorize it under European History, thanks. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 17:14, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

== Name misconception ==

I suggest the following being somehow worked into the article:

A common misconception is that the word "Nazi" comes from '''''Na'''tionalso'''zi'''alistische''. This would be an [[acronym]] for the [[German|German language]] compound word, formed from the words ''national'' and ''sozialistische''. However, abbreviating ''sozialistische'' as ''zi'' would be illogical. The true source of the term "Nazi" is the pronunciation of ''nationalsozialistische'', which in German is '''nah-tse'''-oh-NAL-zo-shi-al-ist-uh-shuh.

[[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 21:25, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== new name needed ==

The article would be much more useful to users if it was named "Nazi Party" or "NSDAP". Almost no book uses the full name in English, and the Germans almost always use NSDAP. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:01, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

== leadership ==

==National Socialist German Workers Party==

Just to let you know, I'm not interested in getting into an edit war here, but the listing of the Allies led by the US, Russia and Britain is inaccurate. The term Allies (for WWII) applies to all the countries that opposed the Axis powers, and that list included 21 countries or blocs before the US joined in 1941. Obviously the effort of the Allies had to be co-ordinated in the years between 1939-41 so the question of who led the Allies during WWII is, at best, not something that can be easily dispensed with a single sentence. Furthermore, saying that Russia was an member of the Allies is inaccurate, it was the USSR which was a member of the Allies, of which Russia was a part (an equivalent example would be if the sentence had read that .....by the Allies, led by Texas, Russia and Britain).

As a compromise I suggest: ......and was finally destroyed in [[World War II]] by the Allies, the major powers of which were the United States who led the Allied forces in Europe from 1941, the USSR (more commonly known as the Soviet Union) and Britain. [[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 22:03, 3/Nov/08 (GMT)
::the US joined the fighting in 1941 but had already been financing the war for both Britain and USSR, and was providing much of the munitions. Leadership also consists in setting strategy and policy which the US did--maybe 95% in the case of the war against Japan, 75% against Italy and say 40% in the case of Europe. As for the Soviets, they were Hitler's allies until June of 1941-- so their role cuts both ways and diminishes any claim that they led the effort. Ieuan is right that USSR/Soviet is a better term than Russia. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:44, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Have to point out a couple of things. For a start the US wasn't financing the war for the UK and USSR but instead extended a series of lease-loans. The difference is subtle but very important (see below). It isn't until after WWII finished that the US extended direct financial assistance, which in Britain's case was a loan for $4.34 billion in 1945, and was finally repaid by Britain on Friday 29th December 2006, with repayments having started back in 1950. The final payment made on the loan was £43 million.

As for the timeline, FDR was desperate to help in the European conflict but also understood that he had to keep the US out of the European conflict during 1939 and 1940, because when Britain declared war on Germany he was still struggling to deal with the Depression and its effects. The simple fact was that until the Depression had been dealt with (or at least the scaffolding that would deal with it was in embedded, which happened in late 1940) and the economy stabilised the US simply couldn't have afforded to go to war (the uncertainty and volatility generated by going to war in Europe again would have ripped apart the still incomplete reforms that FDR had in place in 1939). Additionally the policy of isolationism that the US had been following was still much in vogue with the public and Congress, so a direct intervention in the European conflict during '39 and '40 wouldn't have been possible politically. Furthermore, extending direct financial aid to the UK and USSR, quite apart from the fact that it probably couldn't have been afforded, would also have meant that the Axis powers would have declared war on the US (as the US would have been offering direct support to the Allies), and predation on US shipping in the Atlantic would have been much heavier, and started earlier in the conflict.

The extending of the lease-loans (which was designed to be military equipment, rather than money), didn't occur until March 1941, and of course the US officially joined the Allies nine months later. Essentially, apart from offering moral support the US had very little to do with the European conflict prior to the final months of 1940. On 2nd September 1940, Roosevelt did defy the Neutrality Acts by passing the Destroyers for Bases Agreement. That Agreement sold 50 American destroyers to Britain, the price being military base rights in Newfoundland and the British Caribbean islands, and is seen as being the point at which the US started to offer somewhat more substantial support to the Allies in the European war effort.

As for military leadership and advice from the US, no, I'm afraid not, at least not prior to 1941. Although FDR was in contact with Churchill while Churchill was Vice-Lord of the Admiralty, and later Prime Minister, such correspondance, where it touched upon the war, was in finding inventive ways for FDR to defy the common, economical,political and legislative hurdles that barred the US from extending aid to Britain. The ability to extend military leadership and control to the UK was both legally impossible and militarily impossible for FDR. The Neutrality Acts provided the legal impossibilities (FDR was only able to defy the Neutrality Acts by taking what would have been the donation of 50 Destroyers to the UK and turning it into 'sale'), and of course, if the US had provided military leadership prior to them officially declaring war on Germany, then this would have been deemed an Act of War by the Axis powers and would have esssentially boxed them into the position of having to declare war against the US, which, interestingly, is something that the European based Axis powers wanted to avoid.[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 01:49 4/Nov/08
::to clarify a few points. Lend lease in general was NOT paid back (except for some items that were delivered after the war, and for some ships). Second the US banks made heavy loans to Britain in 1939-40, which financed heavy exports of raw materials like steel used for munitions. As for the leadership, well the Brits were leading the war against Germany in 1939-41 all right, but they were "leading" because they were alone in the war--and they were mostly losing. I suggest the defeat of Germany --which is the point here--came in 1942-45 under US leadership. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:57, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Oh, yes, lend-lease was never meant to be paid back. Sorry, I should have clarified the sentence "Essentially, apart from offering moral support the US had very little to do with the European conflict prior to the final months of 1940.". The US in this context was meant to be the US Government, but I didn't make that clear. The loans made during the war by US banks were, of course, a private business matter, as opposed to US Gov Policy, at least officially. Of course it is extremely likely that FDR twisted a few arms to make sure that the loans were made, but from the point of view of history that, I'm afraid to say, hasn't been recorded as intervention made by the US Government in the European conflict (and now that it doesn't matter politically and if it can be shown that FDR 'persuaded' the banks to make the loans, then it should be recorded in the histories that the US intervened earlier in the European conflict).

Leadership '39-'41. We're back to that tricky one. As I've said, there were 21 countries and blocs of countries that formed the Allies during that period and while Britain certainly led the Commenwealth (or at least soon to be Commonwealth) and Empire countries from '39-'41, they didn't lead the other countries that were part of the Allies at the time. To say that Britian led the Allies or war effort during that time is as inaccurate as pointing to any single one country during that time and say that they led the war effort.

Mostly losing. Mmm, no, or at least, not in context. If Britain had fallen to Germany then yes, you could certainly say that they lost (and, of course, that would have meant that the US wouldn't have been able to intervene in the European conflict, the fall of Britain would have seen the fall of Western Europe and that, in turn, would have led to the fall of Africa and parts of the Middle East to the Nazis at the same time (because large swathes of both those areas were owned by the Western European powers). This would have meant that there was no point of entry into the European conflict that the US could use, apart from entry from the Soviet Union, but trying to fight in Europe using the Soviet Union as an entry point in 1941 would have been all but impossible from a logistical point of view, simply because it would have been immpossible to ship the heavy equipment needed by the US army to that entry point), but the concept of lose or victory '''during''' a war is almost always defined in terms of the strategy being pursued at the time. Britain's strategy at the time was to hunker down and hold on. It wasn't a brilliant strategy (because it cost a lot of civilian lives), it wasn't going to be a winning strategy in the long term provided that the circumstances of the war didn't change (it never is), but it was a strategy born of necessity (Britain didn't have the numbers, firepower or position to push back Germany and the only other option, apart from hanging on grimly, was to surrender to the Nazis). Instead, the idea behind the strategy was that war is an ever shifting morass of possibilities, changes and mistakes. In this case the mistake (and subsequent change in the overall picture of the war) made was that the German war machine believed that Britain was about to fall and so opened a second front against the USSR. This relieved the pressure on Britain, which allowed it to hang on until the second big change in the circumstances of the war, which was the US joining the European conflict a few months later. It is best to say that Britain pursued an exceedingly risky strategy that worked.

As to why this I feel this way about, what is after all, just a single sentence in the Nazi article is that I have always believed that encyclopedias, no matter what type they are, should always be as factually accurate as possible, even on the smallest of details. Just saying that the US led the Allies in WWII is accurate to a point but could be more accurate (by pointing out that the US led the Allied effort from '41-'45) but then you run into two pitfalls which are i) it doesn't say who led pre-end'41 and ii) the US led Allies co-ordinated and worked with the USSR-led Allies but didn't lead the USSR-led Allies. From there you run into the problem that SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force) had a US Supreme Commander, a British Deputy Supreme Commander, 1 British and 2 US Ground Force Commanders, and of course the Air and Sea Force Commanders were both British. You start to fill in all those blanks, and all of a sudden what should be a single sentence turns into a nightmare of complexity, fact-checking and citations. That's why I like the compromise sentence, and I am very pleased that it is still there. Thank you.

At some point I would like to do an article on the political situatiions and decisions made during WWII, although it has to be said, don't look for it soon, entire shelves in libraries are dedicated to that single subject, so planning, typing and checking will take quite sometime. Still, I think it will be worth it. I have noticed that subjects like the Blitz (not necessarily here, but in general), give the facts but rarely a context. A simple example of that is the SHAEF decision to start bombing German towns once German forces had started to be forced back. Yes, the bombing did help reduce the German War Machine by hitting munitions factories and such like, but the fact is that there was no planned targeting, obviously no pin-point targeting because such a thing didn't exist, and very much a feeling of justified revenge for the Blitz from the British. What happened. 500,000 German civilians were killed in the bombing. That's a large figure. Now think of it as being one hundred and sixty seven government sanctioned 911's. Suddenly its a '''very''' big number, and that's what I mean by context. In fact, the bombing of German towns and the Blitz had a huge part to play in the Geneva Conventions ban on deliberatly targeting civilians. Yet you go into a pub and ask a young 20-something what they know of the Dresden bombings and see just how little they know.[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 00:58 7/Nov/08 GMT
::well the Brits themselves had little to do with the war before spring 1940 as well (it was called a phoney war). And the Soviets were on the Nazi side! Starting summer 1940 the US economy was mobilized into the war effort and the US drafted millions of men. As for leadership, the defeat of the Nazis did not happen in 1939, 40 or 41--in fact they were winning until the US entered the war and turned it around. Sorry about the Germans in the cities--they should have moved to the villages, as they were ordered to do by the USAAF and the RAF. They stayed in cities because they were building tanks and guns there. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:31, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Oh yes, the USSR was on the Nazi's side, but what is truly alarming is that they didn't need to be. A fortnight before WWII started Stalin made an offer to Britain and France to send close to a million troops to the German border to stop Hitler. Unfortunately Britain and France, not trusting Stalin, decided not to agree to an alliance and effectively left USSR out in the cold. In response the Soviets signed a non-aggression pact with Germany.

As for leadership, one of those tricky things again. Leaders exist in both failure and success, one of the points to having leaders is that the political classes have somebody to point to and say "Oh, you". Did the US lead the western allies in success. Yes and no. The US joined the war, the tide turned, but part of that was the disaster at Stalingrad, a success that was wholly the Soviet Union's and sapped a massive number of German troops away from the Western fronts. So in that sense the leadership is jointly US and USSR (althouth you will understand that isn't a point that was solidly taught on either side of the Iron Curtain during the Cold War). Yet the Supreme Commander of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force was a US General, Eisenhower. In that sense the leadership was US. However, his deputy was British and immediately under them were 2 US Force Commanders and 3 British Force Commanders, so in that sense the leadership was a joint-command. It is prehaps best, from a factual view, to seperate success from leadership. Therefore it can clearly be said that Allies success in WWII had a great deal to do with the US committing forces to the Western front in Europe and the USSR forcing the surrender of German Troops at Stalingrad. In terms of leadership, well as I said, complicated, not something that is determined by success, and in all cases has a habit of shifting significantly with the passage of time.

"Sorry about the Germans in the cities--they should have moved to the villages, as they were ordered to do by the USAAF and the RAF". Sorry, I read that and I laughed so hard I cried. I can just see it now. ''"Excuse me Mr. Nazi Security Officer who is, has and is part of group that systematically removes families and people from homes, sends them to death camps, kills people in the street, shoots people for the most trivial of offences, including not being patriotic enough, and when not involved in killing also happens to be involved in some of the most brutal, despicable and unacceptable torture and medical experiments the world has ever seen which has not just been practiced on adults but also children as young as babies, our enemies have told us that they are going to bomb us so you don't mind if I don't come into work for say, oh the next three or four years."''. There are few people who are truly defiant and willing to ignore the orders of the man who has a gun pointed to their head. There are even fewer who are willing to be that defiant when the man with the gun has it pointed at the head of their children. And that assumes that any significant part of the civilian population even heard the warnings. I doubt the Nazi Government passed the message on and anybody caught listening to the radio frequencies used by the British or other allies was automatically assumed to be a spy, taken away and questioned with a red-hot poker until they either a) broke and admitted they were a spy to stop the torture regardless of whether they were a spy or not or b) broke and admitted they were a spy to stop the torture regardless of whether they were a spy or not. A few years of that kind of government policy is going to make sure very few people on Germany would be that keen to listen to anything that the Allies said.[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 02:25 7/Nov/08 GMT
::The allied bombers dropped billions of leaflets to tell people to get out. Both the German and Japanese (and British) governments tried to get civilians to leave the cities. People did not want to go. In a total war the homefront factories and railroads are decisive weapons (all the posters on both sides said war worker = soldier) so the postmodern theme that creates an artificial distinction between civilians and soldiers is based on the sensibilities of the 1960s (when H Bombs were a very different threat) rather than the 1940s. The NSDAP did a rather good job caring was bombing victims. On another point: the article title is unsatisfactory--it's a term rarely used and will not help students studying for tests. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:05, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Essay:Quantifying Mental Strength

2009-01-03T22:57:57Z

Lynus: Removed redundant (==References==)

Essay:Quantifying Mental Strength

2009-01-03T22:56:03Z

Lynus: APA tips reproduced in their entirety per the APA's disclaimer.

Talk:Essay:Quantifying Mental Strength

2009-01-03T21:27:57Z

Lynus:

Talk:Essay:Quantifying Mental Strength

2009-01-03T21:27:43Z

Lynus: /* Second citation */

Talk:Essay:Quantifying Mental Strength

2009-01-03T21:19:40Z

Lynus:

Essay:Quantifying Mental Strength

2009-01-03T21:13:49Z

Lynus: Second citation was for Canadian physicians (link for public schools is exclusively U.S.) and simply stated the percentages of them that prescribed one type of antipsychotic.

Essay:Quantifying Mental Strength

2009-01-03T20:18:49Z

Lynus: Thx for the cite Andy. Changed to "a primary" to more closely adhere to your citation which does not state "the primary".

Essay:Quantifying Mental Strength

2009-01-03T19:48:26Z

Lynus: Citation needed for public school blurb.

Talk:Essay:Quantifying Mental Strength

2009-01-03T19:41:40Z

Lynus:

==Suggestions==
First, I think that this article is not quantifying as much as doing a qualitative analysis. I think it is important for the readers to know the difference between the two and for the article to not misstate something. I have not changed it so we can discuss it.

Second, the references to Christianity are fine but they don't do much. It seems that that is strictly for Christians and therefore in order to make a broader essay we should include tips that include everybody. If these tips help in the conversion of someone then we would need to address issues that pertain to the unsaved. I will try to include some soon.

The public school blurb is just that, a blurb. Certainly a case can be made for the overmedication of children but to say that the "main" way that schools address these issues are drugs needs a citation. But even if it is the case that it is the "main" way, which I don't believe, shouldn't we include the other ways schools address these issues, more studying, encouragement, reward and punishment etc. The sentence is way to broad to encompass every teacher and school in the public system.--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 14:41, 3 January 2009 (EST)

==Thrives==
Do you think "excels" might be a better word than "thrives" in the opening line? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:20, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
:How about "is obsessed with"? [[User:Human|Human]] 19:23, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
::Maybe "delights?" --[[User:ToJones|ToJones]] 19:25, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Physical fitness is a good thing. Mental fitness would be even better. I don't see how the alternatives would be improvements.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Right now it reads as if our society thrives off the quantifying of physical fitness, not off the actual physical fitness. I understand your point, but it is hidden within the second half of your second sentence. Perhaps a better way of saying it would be "Our society thrives on our physical fitness and mental fitness. To help us improve our physical fitness, we quantify our physical strength [then the list of how we do it]. It is long overdue to create a similar system for mental fitness: ----[[User:ToJones|ToJones]] 19:42, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: OK, good point. Will add now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:21, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

== Rename second half? ==

:The second half is approaches to improving mental strength? Maybe change section heading to reflect this? The way the article is now that section should be approaches to quantifying mental strength. Just change heading to "Approaches to Improving Mental Strength" ? ----[[User:ToJones|ToJones]] 20:04, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Good suggestion. Will do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:21, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

== Dog attacks ==

I'm not sure about the inclusion of "dog attacks" in the irrational fears bullet point. Assumedly if a dog is attacking you, you should at least be concerned, especially if the dog is big, snarling, and has big teeth. That's a pretty rational concern. Do you mean fear of dogs in general? I know a girl who had some incident with a dog when she was young and now is deathly afraid of any dogs, even chihuahuas! -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 23:57, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

:I would argue that not wanting a large dog to chase you or not wanting to get shot are both very rational fears. I think you're trying to link gun control policies with lacking "mental strength," and I don't think it's a good comparison. There's a big difference between being afraid of being shot (if you were in a combat zone, wouldn't you be?) and believing that less guns in society as a whole would reduce crime. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 10:45, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

:: This obviously refers to an irrational or exaggerated fear of dog attacks, or guns. There may be legitimate fears of flying in airplanes, but the "fear of flying" obviously refers to an irrational or exaggerated fear.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:33, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

:::That's fair- I have friends who are afraid of my little housecat, for example. Maybe a phrase could be included to discuss that the fear becomes debilitating in what would normally be a non-threatening situation. I think it would be good to leave out guns, however, because part of being taught how to responsibly use a gun is inculcating a certain fear and respect for the damage they can do. My father certainly drilled this into me as a child, and I think that it is irrational to have no fear of guns at all. While I can think of many situations where an irrational fear of something can alter normal behavior- refusing to stay on the thirteenth floor of a hotel, for example, I can't think of such scenarios with guns. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 13:04, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Irrational fear is worth getting rid of even when it is not "debilitating". People who have an exaggerated fear of dog attacks would much prefer not to have that fear, and improving mental strength is a way they can get over their fear.

:::: Guns are analogous to dog attacks, and the same logic applies to irrational fear of guns. Some people are too fearful of guns even to use them in self-defense, and they pay too high a price for that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:09, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

==If==
I've always found Kipling's poem 'If' inspirational, and a great source of mental strength, with the (admittedly very major) caveat that the strength given by God and by faith is not mentioned. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:17, 18 December 2008 (EST)

: Do you have a cite to it?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:18, 18 December 2008 (EST)

::http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_if.htm [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:20, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Essay:Quantifying Mental Strength

2009-01-03T19:27:56Z

Lynus: Ledger reference is immaterial, fixed some gramatical errors and things that should have been on the talk page.

Talk:Goth (subculture)

2009-01-03T17:03:48Z

Lynus:

Talk:Goth (subculture)

2009-01-03T17:03:01Z

Lynus:

Talk:Goth (subculture)

2009-01-03T17:02:08Z

Lynus:

==Unsourced==

This article is completely unsourced and almost reads like an opinion piece. While the beginning I can live with for now being unsourced; the Christian section was making broad psychological and behavioral attributions towards Goths that need to be sourced in a proper encyclopedia.

I don't think it's quite accurate to associate Goths with anti-religious sentiment, especially as I know people who are associated with Christian Goth ministries that get people to go to church who never would otherwise. I will concede that it's a stereotype, but it's not essential to the identity of being a Goth. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:37, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== manson ==

marylin manson is in no way goth i am insulted the proper thing to say would be band like sioux and banshes and bahuas the firrt goth band so im going to change it. manson is metal.

== Christiangoth.com ==

I think a link to christiangoth.com would be good.

Goth (subculture)

2009-01-03T16:59:29Z

Lynus: The "Christian viewpoint" section is completely unsourced while making psychological claims about Goths.

Atomic bomb

2009-01-03T16:27:26Z

Lynus: General gramatical fixes and rewording for flow.

[[Image:Abomb.jpg|right|200px]]

The '''atomic bomb''' was the name used in the 1940s for the first of what are now called '''nuclear weapons.''' It was originally developed out of fear that the Germans were also working on such a weapon (as in fact they were, although they did not get very far with their project.) This development represented the peak of [[Technological Development|technology]] in World War II.

The secret wartime project that developed the bomb was called by the code name ''the Manhattan project.'' It had nothing to do with Manhattan. Much of the development took place at Los Alamos, New Mexico. The town, laboratories, production and test facilities built there for the Manhattan Project became what is today the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

The United States dropped two atomic bombs named [[Little Boy]] and [[Fat Man]] on the Japanese cities of [[Hiroshima]] and [[Nagasaki]] respectively, bringing the war between the US and Japan to a swift and decisive end. The morality of the use of the bombs is debated because of a fear of atomic technology, and because of the huge loss of civilian life (140,000 at Hiroshima, 70,000 at Nagasaki). U. S. officials have said that the cities as a whole were proper military targets, and that because the bombings ended the war so quickly, fewer Japanese civilians were killed than if the bombs had not been used. The US dropped warning leaflets on the cities urging the Japanese to evacuate, but they did not {{fact}}. Since the US used both of these nuclear weapons in 1945 no other country has used the atomic bomb in war. The bombs and subsequent surrender also prevented the annexation of Japan's northern islands by the Soviet Union <ref>http://www.afsc.org/newengland/pesp/DecisionToUseABomb.htm</ref><ref>http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/web/20050902-atom-bomb-hiroshima-nagasaki-enola.shtml</ref>.
The atomic bombs used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were ''fission'' weapons, which detonate with a massive explosion due to the release of the binding energy within the nucleus of the atom. Specifically, neutrons in a rapid chain reaction split the nuclei of a heavy chemical element, such as plutonium or uranium, to cause the massive release of energy.

After [[World War II]], nuclear weapon research continued with the development of the [[fusion]] or [[thermonuclear weapon]]. Many tests of these weapons were conducted during the [[Cold War]], but most of these tests took place on remote Pacific islands that were US territories or in the upper atmosphere. These weapons massively exceeded the power of the [[fission]] bombs dropped on Japan. Simultaneously, and as a civilian spinoff from the military program, there were developments in the production of efficient [[nuclear energy]] for civilian electrical generation. The threat of the use of nuclear weapons was a major issue in the [[Cold War]]. Today, the thirty-year threat of the use of nuclear weapons to prevent international aggression have been credited by many with helping avoid another world war.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Weapons]]