Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Bible Retranslation Project

2008-12-25T19:41:11Z

MargeryCampbell:

The '''Bible Retranslation Project''' recognizes that a modern language changes and devolves quickly. There are several reasons for this, including an attempt by non-believers to dilute powerful religious concepts, the corrosive effect of cultural changes on language, and the impact of politics on the meaning of terminology. Terms that were clear and meaningful to one generation are often unclear and less meaningful to the next.

The rate of devolution of language may be increasing as communications increase. If a word inevitably alters its meaning after an approximate number of uses, then the time period for the change in meaning will shorten due to improved technology, just as the length of a [[sound bite]] likewise shortens. In the [[internet]] era, combating the effect of language degradation on the understanding of the [[Bible]] becomes more important.

As a first step to the Bible Retranslation Project, it is useful to identify modern terms having changing, unclear or altered meaning, which appear in important passages in translations of the Bible into the corresponding modern language:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Original Term
!English Translation
!Usage
!Lack of Clarity
!Real meaning
!Suggested Improvement
|-
|Greek λόγος transliteration:"logos"
|"word"
|"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1 ([[NIV]])
|"Word" now means a short expression of a single concept, which can include a vulgarity or a falsehood
|underlying logic or profound statement of the truth
|replace "word" with "truth"
|-
|
|"grace"
|"From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another." John 1:16 ([[NIV]])
|"grace" has become a female name and a sports term to refer primarily to smoothness in style
|spiritual and majestic gift-giving
|
|-
|
|"government"
|"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. ... Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end." Isaiah 9:6-7 ([[NIV]])
|"government" now means officials paid by mandatory taxes and accountable to a democratic vote
|
|
|-
|}

[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Bible Versions]]

User talk:Hsmom

2008-10-11T15:37:03Z

MargeryCampbell: /* About my Plagiarism Edits */

==frisbee==

Please provide this site with an entry for [[frisbee]]. Thank you for your attention in this matter. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 17:57, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Aw, '''I''' wanted ''frisbee''. :-( --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|Rob Pommer]] 17:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'll get right on that. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:03, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Handy Hints==

Here are a few examples of handy techniques. To make more sense of them, click on "edit" to see the code that produced these examples.

How to <s>strike out</s> text: Put <nowiki> <s> </nowiki> in front of the text, then <nowiki> </s> </nowiki>at the end of the text.
*Example: <nowiki>How to <s>strike out</s> text.</nowiki>
*Result: How to <s>strike out</s> text.

How to add references/citations: Put <nowiki><ref> Title of Reference [URL of reference] </ref></nowiki> The title can be put after the URL also, but it looks nicer in the reference section when it is put before the URL. The title will not be seen with the text, it will only appear in the references section if there is one.
*Example: <nowiki><ref>Conservapedia Main Page [http://www.conservapedia.com]</ref></nowiki>
*Result: (See the References section below.)<ref>Conservapedia Main Page [http://www.conservapedia.com]</ref>

How to add a reference section at the end of an article:
Put <nowiki>== References ==</nowiki> to create the heading. Then on the next line put <nowiki><references/>. </nowiki> Every page that includes citations should have a references section at the bottom.
*Example:
<nowiki>== References ==</nowiki>

<nowiki><references/></nowiki>
*Result: See below, at the bottom of the page.

*Result: (See the References section below.)<ref>Conservapedia Main Page [http://www.conservapedia.com]</ref>

How to add a request for a citation:
*Add <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> after the section that needs a citation.

==References==
<references/>

==Fan mail==
I like your approach and your comments. I was neither homeschooled nor have I homeschooled my kids, but I was drawn to this site because I was intrigued by the idea of its being a resource where high-school-age kids could learn by writing articles, and by the idea of a resource aimed at that age group. The site has, um, multiple facets and that doesn't seem to be its most conspicuous facet, but I think it's still there, and I try to write with that audience at least partly in mind. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:54, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yeah, you're cool :) (what he said, plus more) [[User:Human|Human]] 22:55, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
==[[Billy Sunday]]==
Tooting my own horn... [[Billy Sunday]] was on the requested articles list, so I wrote it, and I found the topic quite interesting and think the article came out well. Since you'd said you enjoyed [[Mother's Day]], I thought I'd mention this one, too. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:00, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

== Theory of evolution ==

If you want to help with the references, please write it and paste it in my talk page. I will improve the article with your name in the summary.

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:31, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

== Engineer ==

Please see: [[Engineer]] --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:24, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

== Feminism ==

[[Feminism]] has been unlocked. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:46, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

==Invitation to join Wikiproject:News==
Hsmom, since you have suggested grammar fixes to news items in the past, you are invited to [[Wikiproject:News#Members|sign up]] as a member of [[Wikiproject:News]]. [[Wikiproject:News/Guidelines|Review]] the Guidelines. 
Your grammar suggestions have been very helpful. I think they would be more helpful if you made grammar fixes to the articles BEFORE they're posted to the Main page. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 17:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==May I just say...==

...that I find all of your edits on Talk:Main Page to be absolutely lovely and helpful. They are probably the most informed, level-headed and intelligent suggestions and viewpoints I've seen on here for a while. Many of the tenets you seem to promote in your posts have gotten me blocked here many times, however, but keep up the good work:) [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 13:13, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== Scabies article & Plagiarism ==

I could be wrong, but wouldn't the CDC info. on health issues be considered public domain? There's no copyright information on the website as far as I can see, so it should be fine to copy the information word-for-word as long as it is noted that is how the information was obtained and a link provided to the CDC page. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:31, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh, yep. Here we go: [[Public domain]]: "Two examples of material in the public domain are United States government works (technically the copyright is held collectively by the American public)..." The CDC would fall under that. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:33, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

This covers other edits you have made (e.g. Tourette syndrome article). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:36, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

:It was not at all clear in the article that the entire thing had been copied word-for-word from the CDC site. If you are quoting long sections of text, you need to show that with quotation marks or other formatting to make it clear which parts are quoted and which parts are original. While the CDC site was named as a source, it was not indicated that the CDC page had been lifted word-for-word. In addition, a good article will draw upon several sources. Also, just because a site doesn't have a copyright notation does not mean it is in the public domain (although I agree that government works are probably public domain). Bottom line - would you accept this kind of work from a student? I wouldn't. It's dishonest. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:39, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, I agree, but I think there is a better fix than simply removing the information completely. Seems like overkill. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:42, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
::I'll see what I can do with them. I need a project anyway. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:44, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, the better fix would be to either quote the entire thing with proper attribution (which is still not ideal, IMHO), or re-write each of the articles. If you have time, go for it. I'm somewhat concerned, however, that there may be more medical articles that have been plagiarized. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:48, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Take a look at the scabies article now. As long as the medical articles are categorized, it should be easy to check them all. Other than that, I don't know if there's a way to check which pages link to websites like the CDC. But like I said, I needed a project, so I'll do this. Cheers and God bless! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:00, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::Hmmm. Taking the info from another site and rephrasing it sentence-by-sentence doesn't really improve things. It certainly wouldn't fly in a decent high school class. If the article includes only information from one other site, I think it's better to just go ahead and quote it, making it clear that it is quoted (by using quotation marks, etc.) and properly citing the source. Then it's clear that you are not trying to pass someone else's work off as your own. Ideally a minimum of information will be quoted, with the reader being encouraged to read the rest of the original information at the original source. You might enjoy this lovely article about plagarism.<ref>[http://www.pahomeschoolers.com/newsletter/issue78b.htm]</ref> --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 01:02, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::Do you think it'd be a good idea to create a template to flag articles suspected of (or known to be) plagiarism? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:12, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Yes, after thinking about it a bit, I think that such a template would indeed be helpful. Of course, ideally the article would be fixed, but people don't always have the time to completely re-write an article when they notice it has been plagiarized, so using the template would be a quick option. I assume that would then generate a list of articles with suspected plagiarism? That would be useful too. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:40, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

== Mex ==

Thanks. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:32, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

==Citations==
This was placed in the reason line when you inserted the "fact" template in [[Elephant]]: ''Could we at least get a credible citation for this? 'Cause it's word-for-word from another site. Which would be plagiarism. Which is deceitful and morally wrong.'' I agree with you that plagarism is morally wrong, but I've also noticed you placed a lot of similar lines in articles that you've identified as plagarism without even telling us where they came from at all. If it is plagarism, show us the source so it can be removed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:33, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

:In most of the cases I've found (and I'm beginning to suspect there are a horrifying number of plagiarized articles here), I've re-written the article to include the source, to provide proper attribution, and to minimize the amount of material lifted from any one source. In this particular case however, I Googled the sentence from the article and found an abundance of sites which included the sentence word-for-word. The first several sites I reviewed were not credible sources and thus were not appropriate to cite. I did not have time to review all of the potential sources and determine whether there was a credible one or not. I hope that whoever put this sentence in the article in the first place did indeed get it from a credible site - hopefully they have this article on their watchlist and will provide the source. If not, someone else will have to either find a source or remove the sentence. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:50, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
::If you see something that is plagarised, and it's clear that it is, immediately remove it. Go to the talk page, explain what you did and provide the source where it came from. The point I made above is that anyone just cannot say that such-and-such is plagarized without stating the source; all that would be is "my word against your's". If the article is public domain and has no attribution tag at the bottom or a statement such as "text incorporated from...", cite that on the talk page as well. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:11, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
:::<edit conflict>Thanks - I'll try to promptly remove any plagiarism I find, and I'll be careful about noting the source in my edit comments. Frankly, I often don't have time to discuss each one in detail on the talk page - I've added the notes below that should cover most situations, and I'll try to make the edit comments clear. One question - what is to be done about images that have no information about their source? I've come across several articles with pictures taken from another site without attribution, but I'm not sure how to address this. Shouldn't all images include the source and some kind of statement as to their copyright status?--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:18, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::::There are a few things here that you're possibly unaware of for the moment. The first thing is that all intellectual property created by indivuduals working directly for the U.S. government is public-domain; we can use them here as per this page: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Guidelines#Copying_from_other_sources]. But they have to be attributed as to where it came from, and the tag below has to be used on the page with the main source placed within it. Another reason this public domain stuff is here (such as the several bird articles your deleted) is to provide a guide for the editor to make improvements and/or additions that are just not in the original.

::::Pictures must be treated the same way; all should have a licence tag on it; all must identify exactly who created it, the year it was created; who or what entity owns it, and whether or not it's public domain. Because we have so many images on the site it would not be possible to go through and check every one. What you could do is to go to the image talk page, find out who uploaded it, and remind that person that the copyright or other is in question and corrections need to be made. See [[Fair use]] for further details, and you can also go to [[user:Karajou/tag template]] for more examples.

{| style="width: 100%; background:transparent; border: 2px solid #000099;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"
!colspan=2 style="width: 100%; text-align: center; background-color: #000088; color: white; "|'''Copyright Details'''
|-
!style="background-color: #000088; color:white;"|License:
|style=" background-color: none;"| This work is in the [[Public Domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code
|-
!style=" background-color: #000088; color:white;"|Source:
|style="background-color: none;border-top: 2px solid black"| File available from the {{{1|[[United States Federal Government]] []}}}.
|}

Here's some examples that I did with regard to some of your questions regarding proper attribution:
*Photos that are public domain and/or U.S. Government: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Bighornsheep.JPG][http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Passenger_Pigeon_062.jpg][http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:ExtPassgreatauk2-jja.jpg][http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:0617302.jpg][http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:0821601.jpg]
*Articles from the ''Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships'', U.S. State Dept, Naval Historical Center: [http://www.conservapedia.com/USS_Grunion_%28SS-216%29][http://www.conservapedia.com/Gambia][http://www.conservapedia.com/Iowa-class_battleship][http://www.conservapedia.com/USS_Missouri_%28BB-63%29]

===Response===
If at all possible, can we have an expectation of you improving the articles after you remove the plagarism? You left this line in one: "According to the US Geological Survey, Double-crested Cormorants are seabirds." A line like that belongs in ''Dick and Jane'', not here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:14, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
:Well, I didn't want to leave absolutely nothing on the page. I understand that it's annoying when what appeared to be a very nice article is removed. However, once discovered, we cannot let plagiarism remain. I honestly don't have the time (or the background) to research a large number of seabirds and write articles about them. I understand that the stub that I've left is not ideal. However, it is accurate and includes a reference, in-text attribution, and quotation marks around the quoted material, which is more than can be said for what was there before. I didn't plagiarize the article in the first place, and I'm afraid I can't take responsibility to undertake a total re--write. Hopefully another editor will have the time and knowledge to do so. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:27, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::It's just a minor pet-peeve; I've hated ''Dick and Jane'' since the second grade! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:36, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

==About my Plagiarism Edits==
Plagiarism is the act of passing someone else's work off as your own. It is deceitful and thus morally wrong.
I have been finding many pages which include plagiarism. In some cases, I will not have the time and/or the expertise to re-write the article, nor will I have the time to provide a detailed explanation on the article's talk page. Nonetheless, plagiarism should be removed promptly. Since I won't have the space to provide details about plagiarism in my edit summaries, I am providing further information here.
In general, I will deal with plagiarism I find by:
* Removing the plagiarized material.
* Including the apparent source of the material in my edit summary.
* Including "see my talk page" in the edit summary (if there is room).
I consider the following situations to be plagiarism:
* Material that has apparently been copied word-for-word from another site, without attribution of any kind.
* Material that has apparently been copied word-for-word from another site, without quotation marks indicating which material is a direct quote. (Often, this includes articles which consist entirely of several paragraphs of information taken from a single source.)
* Articles consisting solely of large amounts of text copied from a single source.
* Material that has been paraphrased from another site without attribution.
Note that:
* When you copy information word-for-word from another source, you need to ''both'' indicate which text is quoted (by using quotation marks or setting it off from the rest of the text in blockquote form) ''and'' provide a citation using reference tags. Ideally, you would also provide in-text attribution (e.g. "according to so-and-so").
* A citation, quotation marks, and ideally in-text attribution need to be provided ''even if the document from which you are quoting is in the public domain''. If you quote from a public-domain source, such as a US government agency's web site, you need to show where the quote came from. The reader needs to know where the information originally came from.
* If you paraphrase information from another source, ''you still need to provide a citation''. Obscuring the source of the information by paraphrasing is not an appropriate way to get around the need for citations.
* Large sections of text should not be copied, even if a citation is provided and quotation marks are used. For example, it is not appropriate to create a Conservapedia article about a particular bird or animal by copying an entire article about the creature from another web site, even if you cite the web site as a source.
An online encyclopedia written as a wiki is not particularly useful if references are not cited. Students who use any wiki encyclopedia should not rely on it as a primary source for their work; at best it provides a starting point for further research. Because of this, it is especially important to cite sources. Students need to be able to follow up on what they read here, and to verify the information by reading the credible sources we provide. It is important for them to understand where the information came from - who did the study or wrote the opinion or what-have-you - so that they can bring into their understanding of the information any inherent bias or point of view the original authors may have. In addition, citing sources helps to minimize errors and helps readers to quickly identify information that may have changed or been updated since the article was written. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 11:30, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
===Already noted===
I refer you to this exchange by a troll and the founder of this website: 
<nowiki>== Copied material? ==</nowiki>

''With the sourcing of [[arthritis]], [[arthralgia]], etc... I am curious as to if this conflicts with the first Conservapedia commandment:''
''# Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia or elsewhere unless it was your original work.''

''While this appears to be in the public domain, what value does it have here besides pumping up the page count? These pages are often orphans - nothing linking to them, and no links from them. If this is just a start for more complete articles, do you think that the ongoing contest should be adjusted to make an improvement of existing articles worth more than creating another article that is similar in quality? The value of a wiki is in the interconnectivity of the articles - you go from one to another to another and browse and read rather than hitting on and ending there to do a new search. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:48, 2 July 2007 (EDT)''

'':We paid for work on government websites. It's ours already. It's not just public domain, but it is also bought and paid for by the public. '''So it's fine to copy unbiased material from such sites.''' Of course the entries can and should then be improved. But it helps having a start, and having a succinct explanation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:16, 2 July 2007 (EDT)'' Emphasis added END QUOTE This was found [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/archive17#Copied_material.3F here]. I'm posting this to save you trouble both by trying to find plagiarism of '''.gov''' websites and to avoid getting "in dutch" with the Owner. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]]

Talk:Essay: The Special Interests Candidate

2008-09-20T20:15:15Z

MargeryCampbell: /* Grammar Lesson */

Talk:Essay: The Special Interests Candidate

2008-09-20T19:45:59Z

MargeryCampbell: /* Grammar Lesson */ Time to make dinner

Talk:Essay: The Special Interests Candidate

2008-09-20T18:09:50Z

MargeryCampbell: /* Grammar Lesson */ Grammar

Talk:Essay: The Special Interests Candidate

2008-09-20T18:06:36Z

MargeryCampbell: /* Grammar Lesson */ Please delink this from the Obama article at least

Talk:Essay: The Special Interests Candidate

2008-09-20T15:57:32Z

MargeryCampbell: /* Grammar Lesson */ If you're going to ignore it why should it be there?

Star Trek franchise

2008-09-10T16:54:44Z

MargeryCampbell: 8pm "Late night"? Not in Texas!

[[Image:startrektoscast.jpg|thumb|right|The crew of the Enterprise from the original 1960s show.]]

'''Star Trek''' is an [[American]] [[television|TV]] series created by [[Gene Roddenberry]], which premiered on [[NBC]] September 8th, 1966 and ended June 3rd, 1969. The show featured a crew of space explorers traveling around the galaxy in a ''Constitution''-class starship called the ''USS Enterprise NCC-1701'', set in the 23rd century. It never caught on with viewers and was cancelled due to low ratings, but soon established a strong following in syndication that saw the show become much more popular than it had ever been in its original run. The original TV show became a franchise. Many different spin-offs of the original program have now been made, the last of which was a prequel with the original 'Enterprise' space ship.

== Extraterrestrial life ==
The drama of the shows typically arises from the crew's contact with various forms of [[extraterrestrial life]], mostly, but not always, [[humanoid]] (e.g. the "Crystalline Entity"). In various ways, the [[premise]] of the [[ancient astronaut theory]] is used to assert the seeding of [[life]] throughout the [[galaxy]] as brought up in ''The Next Generation'', although not to the overt extent of a later, unrelated, TV series, [[Stargate SG-1]].

== Religion in Star Trek ==
As a [[humanist]], Gene Roddenberry infused Star Trek with humanism's dream of a world (or galaxy in this case) where humanity (and many other intelligent beings) were constantly improving the life quality of all beings both through improving technology and improving societal conditions.
People worked together for the common good, rather than for money, and without any class or other distinctions.
This is a small part of what is expected in the Christian view of [[heaven]], except that humanism believes that mankind can achieve this through its own efforts, rather than with the help of God.

Roddenberry rarely had the shows overtly reject religion, although some episodes would make reference to it as a part of culture. For instance in an episode with a man who could not die, it was noted that in one his personas in earth history he had been [[Lazarus]] (who [[Jesus]] rose from the dead). In another episode a world where the Roman Empire never fell was now chasing down followers of "the son" (who the crew mistook to be "sun") and their message of peace and love instead of violence and oppression.

Later series, under the control of other producers particularly after Roddenberry died, also brought religious concepts into the show, but seldom with the same direct references to Christianity, but rather to more generic religious thought.

=== The Next Generation ===

An episode of ''Star Trek: The Next Generation'' has one major example of anti-religion bias. The third-season episode entitled "Who Watches the Watchers," implies that an alien culture discarding religious beliefs is a positive development.
In the episode "Tapestry", Captain Picard dies and goes to the "afterlife" where he meets his erstwhile adversary "Q" who implies that he is God. Picard refuses to believe this, and makes a comment that "The Universe is not so badly run." This suggests that Picard was aware of the concept of God, but does not indicate that he believed in God. That phrase might be pointed more toward the character of Q controlling the universe than God's existence. However the majority of episodes remain silent on religion. In another episode where the ship is trapped and aliens will perform experiments that will kill half the crew, Picard admits to 'Ryker' (actually an alien in disguise) that he does believe in God, because the universe is just too orderly to have happened on its own.<ref>http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Where_Silence_Has_Lease</ref>

=== Bajoran religion ===

''Star Trek: Deep Space 9'' included religion more than any other series. An overarching theme of the series was the relation of the main character, Captain Benjamin Sisko, to the Bajoran religion in his role as the emissary to the Bajoran prophets. The prophets were beings who lived in a stable wormhole (a unique phenomenon in the Star Trek universe referred to by the Bajorans as the Celestial Temple) that perceived all of time as a single event with no concept of past, present, or future. Despite their immense dissimilarity to other races in the galaxy, the Prophets took unusual interest in Bajor, sending 'orbs' which were used as tools of prophecy by the Bajoran clergy, and in Sisko who it is revealed exists solely to fulfill a predetermined historical path in an Armageddon-like showdown as the avatar of the prophets against the 'Pah Wraiths' (aliens like the Prophets who were expelled from the Celestial Temple).

=== Other religions ===

''Star Trek: Deep Space 9'' also had the Dominion, in which the Founders (shape-shifting aliens sometimes called changelings) are treated as living gods by the races under their control.

The Klingon religion in various series suggests that the first Klingons realized they had no need for their gods, and killed them, although they still hold to an afterlife where the honorable dead join with the deified Kahless and the dishonorable dead are forced to spend eternity on the Barge of the Dead with the Demon like figure Fecklarr.

The Ferengi (mainly in ''Star Trek: Deep Space 9'') had a religion of sorts based on the concept of The Great River (as shown in "Faith, Treachery and The Great River"), which was similar to "[[The invisible hand]]" a phrase coined by [[Adam Smith]]. Ferengi also hold that if they achieve enough profit during their lives, they will meet the Blessed Exchequer who will grant them access to the Divine Treasury, whereas an unsuccessful Ferengi may find himself left in the Vault of Eternal Destitution.

== The Prime Directive ==
Starfleet had The Prime Directive which said that they should not interfere with the natural progression of a species. The directive sometimes clashed with morality or common sense and on many occasions was ignored by Starfleet officers. There was also a Temporal Prime Directive which said that when going into the past (by various means) they should not try to alter the course of history. When someone from Starfleet (or elsewhere) violated the directive officers were justified in working to stop them as long as they did not violate the directive themselves.

== The series and films ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Series Name
| Star Trek: The Original Series (TOS)
| Star Trek: The Animated Series (TAS)
| Star Trek: The Next Generation (TNG)
| Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (DS9)
| Star Trek: Voyager (VOY)
| Star Trek: Enterprise (ENT)
|-
! Original Air Dates
| 1966-1969
| 1973-1974
| 1987-1994
| 1993-1999
| 1995-2001
| 2001-2005
|-
! Number Of Episodes
| 80
| 22
| 178
| 176
| 172
| 98
|}

{| class="wikitable"
!Movie Name
|Star Trek: The Motion Picture
|Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
|Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
|Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
|Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
|Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
|Star Trek: Generations
|Star Trek: First Contact
|Star Trek: Insurrection
|Star Trek: Nemesis
|Star Trek
|-
! Year of Release
| 1979
| 1982
| 1984
| 1986
| 1989
| 1991
| 1994
| 1996
| 1998
| 2002
| 2008
|-
! MPAA Rating
| PG
| PG
| PG
| PG
| PG
| PG
| PG
| PG-13
| PG
| PG-13
| N/A
|}

== The Original Series ==
The main characters from the original series were:
*[[Captain Kirk]]
*[[Spock]]
*[[Dr. McCoy]]
*[[Scotty]]
*[[Sulu]]
*[[Uhuru]]
*[[Chekov]]

== External Links ==

* [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060028/ IMDB website (Original Series)]
==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Television Shows]]
[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Science fiction]]
[[Category:Star Trek]]

User talk:Learn together

2008-09-10T16:44:22Z

MargeryCampbell: /* Could you please explain this edit? */ HTH

{{Welcome|sig=[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]}}

[[User talk:Learn together/1|Archive]]

==Contest==
How about joining us on team one (to be named) in the contest?--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 19:49, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

:It would be an honor to be on a team where you are captain. Count me in. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:58, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Great! We're going to need you--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 10:48, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::The contest begins today( Sep. 28) at noon, please check out our [[Conservapedia:Team Airborne|team page]]. Thanks, --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 08:51, 28 September 2007 (EDT)
== Rocker1973 ==

Can you block this user? He is doing some sort of vandalism that messes up pages badly. Look at http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Larry_Craig&diff=299153&oldid=289755 . http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=National_Rifle_Association&diff=299171&oldid=299152 shows how it works. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 16:50, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
:Thank you for noticing this and for your prompt revisions. He has been removed. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:58, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

*Beat me by 30 seconds! But I did block the IP range of all his proxies. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:59, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::I just help sweep the streets my friend; you're the one who comes through and paves it. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:01, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

*Better get a warranty if I do any paving! :p --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:28, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

==Contest Points==
Great job raking up points yesterday!! <s>I'm trying to get a accurate tally of yesterdays points for Team Airborne and I'm wondering when you were planning on recording a tally of your points for yesterday. If you want me to help record them for you, i would be happy to help (I'm recording Ed Poor's points right now since he dislikes the recording precess).</s> Keep up the good work!--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 17:01, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

:I've created a page ([[User:Learn together/Contest2]]) to record your points, and have recorded yesterdays on it. Please feel free to update and change as needed.Thanks!--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 17:43, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

== Urgent Matter... ==

Please contact me if you are around.... --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 04:32, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== Sanford Ransdell Article ==

I wrote the Sanford Ransdell article. I was told that I could bring material that I wrote over to Conservapedia. If that's not the case then I apologize. [[User:Dwain|Dwain]] 09:39, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

:LearnTogether, yes Dwain is the originator of numerous WP articles, and we'd be happy to have his original, uncensored versions here. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:06, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

::::No problem gentlemen. I help to guard the site based on the information on hand. If there's more than I am aware of and you have the situation covered then that's fine. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:32, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== [[Alchohol]] ==

It is a very nice article, but it's spelled incorrectly. It's ok, it has to happen to everyone sometime, right? ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:27, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks for catching it. I followed the link from the Abby Hoffman article and created it, but didn't catch that it was spelled wrong. I've corrected it in the Hoffman article as well. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:44, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

==Counting Contest Points==
If you could total your [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Learn_together/Contest2 contest points] for today that would be great (doesn't have to be exact to the .9999)- I have my SAT's on Saturday so I'm kind of running short on time and want to get some editing in tonight. Great job racking up points!! Thanks--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 20:03, 2 October 2007 (EDT) ([http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:Team_Airborne#Point_System here's] a link to the points guide)

:Sure Tash, and thanks for doing this for me as the contest has gone alone. Good luck on your SAT's. I'll need to leave shortly myself, so I won't be able to tabulate it until tomorrow. Hopefully that won't hurt anything. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:09, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

==Points==
What's with all the red links in your edits for day seven? They don't show having been deleted. :{ --[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 14:23, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

:I'm still editing the page Bethany. Hopefully they'll be fixed up soon. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:25, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

The contest is over since 12:00 noon. You shouldn't be counting the ones after that. BTW great contest. Really exciting.--[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 14:28, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, it was lots of fun. Hope you guys all enjoyed it. ;-) But don't worry Bethany, I'm not counting new ones, I'm just organizing the ones I did. ;-) I dump my day's work, then I move them line by line to where they should be. Sometimes its quicker for me to just retype them, so case errors can pop it. All the red should be gone now for day 7. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:39, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

I also notice that [[Justice Joseph Story]] is after 12:00.--[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 14:35, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

:My last edit was after 12:00, but I had earlier ones the same day. I'm only counting the early ones. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:39, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

::Great job man! You pushed us over the victory line...--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 14:58, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Hey, you got your first victory! ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:51, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

==Bush National Guard==

So was Dan Quayle. The difference is, Quayle actually reported for duty and caught hell, while Bush missed most of his training and didn't catch nearly the flak. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:20, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

:Part of the Dan Quayle article shows the double standard used against him that was not applied to others, especially those who came directly afterwards. Quayle was filleted for serving in the guard instead of fighting in Vietnam -- then along comes Bill Clinton. After 8 years of Clinton who didn't fight in Vietnam or serve in the National Guard, the bar was set pretty low. Bush at least spending some time in the guard was a step up. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:31, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

*Maestro, you are merely repeating, nazi like, the '''BIG LIE'''. Bush, according to all documentation not presented by Dan Rather, missed nothing much, and was fully flight qualified. It is open to speculation only as to how "officially" sanctioned his doing his flight quals elsewhere was, but I can tell you from personal experience, it was quite normal to do so. And that fact has also been reported nationally, but ignored amongst the hype. Please try to remember the original allegations were not that he wasn't fully trained or qualified, but that his connections allowed him to take that training in other places. Later it was minipulated, spun into his actually not receiving the necessary training. That has been completely, and factually disproved. That is why Rather was <s>fired</s> allowed early retirement. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:24, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== My friend ==

Where are you? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:15, 5 November 2007 (EST)

:I am here my friend; I have just been very busy. Hope you are doing well and God's blessing to you. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:04, 8 November 2007 (EST)

==Contest==
Hello Learn Together - given that in the last contest you were one of the top two contributors - you have been made a captain in the [[Contest3|newest contest]]. The tentative starting date is Friday the 9th, and it runs for 7 days. Pick as many people as you want for your team - however, only the top 7 contributors will actually count (and it's best if you keep your team number to bellow 10 to ensure equality). If you are unable or unwilling to be the captain - please get back to me as soon as possible so we can inform the next candidate. Thanks so much - and good luck!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:40, 7 November 2007 (EST)

:Thank you Iduan, I am flattered you have chosen me as captain for the next team contest. Unfortunately, I am very busy at this time and I feel I would not be able to do the position justice for Conservapedia or those who would join my team. In fact it was only dumb luck that I happened to sign on today and look. Really, Tash put in the most effort in the last contest even with his SAT test coming up at that time, including helping to tabulate our scores. May I recommend, especially after his strong showing in the last contest as captain to bring our team to a razor thin victory margin, that you see if Tash would be willing to take up the gauntlet.

:Again, thank you [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:10, 8 November 2007 (EST)
:: Nice to have you IN. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 16:55, 9 November 2007 (EST)

:::I can't let TK down. ;-) I'll do the best I can for you guys. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:58, 9 November 2007 (EST)

::::Ready? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:26, 11 November 2007 (EST)

:::::Where is the list of your points? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:15, 13 November 2007 (EST)

::::::I haven't tabulated it yet my friend. Don't worry, they won't be going anywhere. ;-)

Congratulations, great work. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 20:58, 18 November 2007 (EST)

==Contest2==
Hey Learn together! I'm so glad you could participate in the contest - even if you couldn't be a captain (and I'm even more glad that you're on my team!) So one of the first questions for our team is what our team name should be. If you have any ideas just get word out to TK, thanks (and remember: we're using a Machiavellian policy towards this contest: We must win - no matter what. lol, good luck!)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]]00:02, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Team Name: <big>'''Supply Siders'''</big> --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:55, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:Team page: [[Conservapedia:Team Supply Siders]] --[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:02, 12 November 2007 (EST)

==Nice assist==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=A_Beautiful_Mind&curid=51139&diff=332837&oldid=332785&rcid=359995] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:17, 12 November 2007 (EST)

:Thanks Ed, I just couldn't resist ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:17, 12 November 2007 (EST)

==Dewey==

Why is Dewey blocked? [[User:Lukecorlando|Luke]]

:He's highlighting all "goat" entries. That's a tonuge-in-cheek move that a site whose goal is to vandalize CP takes pride in. The last edit to Vitamin C had goat highlighted in about 10 different places. Think of it as a calling card to say "gotcha". Look through his edit history before being blocked and you'll see what I'm talking about. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:28, 12 November 2007 (EST)

== [[Panzerschreck]] ==

Check out the first two paragraphs of this article: direct WP copy/paste. I was going to recommend it for deletion, but since you edited it (and since the rest seems OK) I didn't want to screw you out of a couple contest points. Now instead you have an opportunity to gain some points :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:53, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:Thank you. The information appears to be a factual straight forward description, at least in the first paragraph. It all seems to be pertinent. Even if it matches WP, I don't view it the same as copying large quantities. I changed the second paragraph, where more individual style could be seen. BTW, if you really find an article that's unsalvageable, don't hesitate to have it deleted. The contest is to make CP better, so losing a couple of points to delete something that doesn't belong is no skin off my back. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:24, 13 November 2007 (EST)

::Actually I was on the fence about deleting, but I didn't want to step on any toes. Competition's fierce! :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:44, 13 November 2007 (EST)

== Thanks for cleaning up my edits ==

I think I've got it now, I appreciate the help.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 18:14, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:Yes, you've really got down the categories, the default sort, and the name form with the edits you're doing. Good job! Some of us will bold the name as well. With the entries that you have, I'm doing some form cleanup too. That's strictly up to the individual. Here is an example [[Philip_Pendleton_Barbour]]. Please note what I do is not a requirement or even expected. I just personally think it looks better that way. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:14, 13 November 2007 (EST)

== Jellyfish ==

Thanks for the recategorizations. However, I think that jellyfish should probably be recategorized, because the second sentence of the article says that they aren't actually fish. I'm not sure what the best category is, because I haven't looked at how the animal articles are really organized, but I thought I'd see if you had any suggestions. Thanks! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:14, 14 November 2007 (EST)

:Unfortunately, not really. Perhaps a category for "Sea Creatures" might be appropriate. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:17, 14 November 2007 (EST)

*Invertebrates?

:I was hoping for something that would get all the water creatures in one place to make it easy for our viewers. I'm sure we'll think up something. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:34, 14 November 2007 (EST)

==Points==
Could you possibly record your points since November 12, 12:00 in the afternoon? If you could that would be great! --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 11:24, 14 November 2007 (EST)

???--[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 11:31, 14 November 2007 (EST)

:I'll see what I can do. It takes me a bit longer than you guys since in the past I've displayed each individual article under the scoring categories. I'm really not looking forward to that. ;-0 [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:37, 14 November 2007 (EST)

::OK! Sorry if I was annoying...I just want to know what I'm up against! ;P --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 11:40, 14 November 2007 (EST)

==KGB==
Very good question, and not without several problems. We actually ran into this in WP also, and they have not satisfactorily resolved it, either.

For our purposes here, the basic division is between Case Officer and an agent. Speaking broadly, the Case Officer is the intelligence professional who is usually a citizen of the same nation that the Intelligence organization is subordinate to. An "Agent," in most cases would be a witting contact of the Case Officer. A "Source" can be unwitting, that is to say, intelligence information can be gleened from an unwitting, unsuspecting source, and then passed through an agent to the case officer. Also, a Source can be witting, too. That is to say, perhaps it is just a one-time passing of information, or perhaps under extraordinary ciricmstances a relationship can be formed between a Case Officer or Agent with a witting Source, whose information can be deemed bona fide & trustworthy, but the Source is just unwilling or incapable of forming an Agent-Principal relationship because of risk of exposure, etc.

I hope that doesn't clear it up, huh? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:46, 14 November 2007 (EST)

:Actually it does Rob, thank you. It let's me know that there is a differentiation and I should stay away. ;-) I wasn't sure if they were the same thing and you had just started using a different category later. I'm glad you're the one trying to classify them and not me. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:50, 14 November 2007 (EST)

::For the most part, here in CP, the bios in KGB are Soviet citizens who were KGB Case Officers, & the "agents and sources" are mostly US citizens, with a few Brits, Germans, and maybe one or two Japanese right now. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:11, 14 November 2007 (EST)

*So my answer, on your talk page, Rob, was incorrect? Or can the individuals in KGB, top category be moved off to individuals? Or do we need a new category created? --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 22:14, 14 November 2007 (EST)

== block and delete needed ==

Just look at the recent changes. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 16:09, 16 November 2007 (EST)
:That should earn you a few points! [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 16:10, 16 November 2007 (EST)
::Thanks to your heads up approach Bohdan, we stopped him ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:12, 16 November 2007 (EST)

== removal of copy righted material ==

I have removed a few additions you made as they were cut and pasted of material under copyright.
hope you don't mind.--[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 14:21, 18 November 2007 (EST)

:Your removal is unwarranted. The source is cited and not directly copied. I am flattered though that I am being sought out by you guys. Why should TK and Andy get all of the fun? ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:53, 18 November 2007 (EST)

== Re-directs..... ==

Please ask before re-directing articles! We prefer to move them, Bill, rather than create double-redirects that need others to fix them later. Thanks. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:51, 20 November 2007 (EST)

==His Dark Materials==
Hi, I'm a new Conservapedia editor, and I noticed that you recently edited [[His Dark Materials]]. As you can see on my user page, [[User:JK899|JK899]], working on this article is my primary goal on this site. I am extending an offer to you to help me achieve the goals regarding the books on my user page. If you are interested, tell me on my discussion page. [[User:JK899|JK899]] 19:03, 4 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks for the reply. I agree with you on what will be the site's reaction to the books , and I know the article will probably receive heavy vandalism after I work on it. I want to state the facts of the book that are impossible to refute, like the plot and the definite constrasts with the stated beliefs of the major religions. I personally don't see the books as being anti-Christian (mostly against using blind faith instead of knowledge), but I won't say that anywhere and will definitely include links to arguments of people who say it is anti-Christian.

Concerning editing other articles, I'll make minor edits of course, but no real major changes until after I get Dark Materials finished. This is on account of me having just read the books and the facts being fresh in my mind.

I'll post the plot section today, and hopefully you'll see it and inform me of what changes I should make. Thanks for being so civil. Usually the only theists I encounter online are raving, opionionated jerks. Guess I've been looking in the wrong places. [[User:JK899|JK899]] 16:45, 5 December 2007 (EST)

Hi Learntogether, I understand you recently undid my edits to [[The Golden Compass]]. I'm not really sure why though, since my changes simply improved the flow of the passage and added additional information (such as the comparisons to Paradise Lost and its alternate title in NZ and the UK). Please feel free to discuss it with me further on the talk page. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 19:16, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Learntogether, I'm acting in good faith here and yet you're persisting in reverting my edits without comment. Please consider Philip's objective assessment and, in the words of Will Wheaton, "don't be a d***". :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:40, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Sometimes there are instances where compromise as you wish it is not possible. We are both aware of Pullman's position and we come at it from opposite perspectives in life -- fair enough. But knowing why he wrote the books he did and what he was trying to get across, this site will not allow any watering down or political correctness to cover that up. Other information such as the different name in other continents is fine, but don't try to rewrite the story. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:52, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:: To be honest, I'm not sure you are fully aware of Pullman's position :D While he did say he was "undermining Christianity", he's added that there's more to it than that. If you've ever read his "Republic of Heaven" speech, he talks about how he is anti-religion because of the hierarchies and power politics it creates.
<blockquote>"We're used to the kingdom of heaven; but you can tell from the general thrust of the book that I'm of the devil's party, like Milton. And I think it's time we thought about a republic of heaven instead of the kingdom of heaven. The king is dead. That's to say I believe that the king is dead. I'm an atheist. But we need heaven nonetheless, we need all the things that heaven meant, we need joy, we need a sense of meaning and purpose in our lives, we need a connection with the universe, we need all the things that the kingdom of heaven used to promise us but failed to deliver. And, furthermore, we need it in this world where we do exist-- not elsewhere, because there ain't no elsewhere."</blockquote>
I felt that maybe the nuances of Pullman's position (which is one shared by other atheists, myself included) might be of interest to other Conservapedia readers. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Team ==

Hi there

I am just planing to make a team to update, at the Main Page, the "Article of the month". Could be you, Crocoite and me. I am sure Andy will approve it. Agree? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:39, 8 December 2007 (EST)

:It would be an honor to be teamed up with two such fine contributors my friend. Thank you for your confidence. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:45, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:: The reply from Mr. Schlafly was this:

''Sounds like a fantastic idea, Joaquin! I'm all for it.''

First thing we have to do is to make a list of featured articles, then select the best ones. We can start now.

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 13:15, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Please use:

[[Featured articles]]

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:11, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Happy new year! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:31, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:Any proposal to start? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:40, 14 December 2007 (EST)

:: Good one! Thank you. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:53, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Coin collecting==

(slaps own forehad) Darn! I shoulda thoughta [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Category:Coins&rcid=378923 that category] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:55, 10 December 2007 (EST)

== Response appreciated ==

This is DarkMessiah, it seems i have been banned (for an idealogical reason :P). If you would like to continue our discussion, as i would, you can email or instant message me on changeblade@hotmail.co.uk Please contact an administrator and have them delete this account. [[User:PleaseDeleteTempUser|PleaseDeleteTempUser]] 17:09, 16 December 2007 (EST)

==Genocide==

I think we've come to a relatively good consensus that the Srebrenica massacre should indeed be considered genocide. Do you think we can unblock the article and make the appropriate edits. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:56, 16 December 2007 (EST)

== Thanks... ==

...for your kind words, but it's not a matter of not feeling appreciated. My cycles of quitting/coming back closely mirror Andy's cycles of posting his douche-baggery about liberalism, public schools, murder, etc... and then going relatively quiet. There's no serious dissent by upper management, so the site as a whole must be seen to support his beliefs. I've finally had to draw the line and say "I will not be associated with this." And now, I must return CP to my firewall's blacklist. :p Thanks again, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:32, 18 December 2007 (EST)

== Thanks for the heads up ==

I wasn't aware that we didn't do articles for specific dates. It won't happen again. It is a pleasure to contribute to this site.

:No harm done. We look forward to seeing your further contributions. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:16, 20 December 2007 (EST)

== Thanks... ==

...for fixing my talk page. People seem to have something against me lately. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:44, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:It is the highest form of flattery when you are attacked my friend. It is a sign that you are recognized as a valued editor to Conservapedia. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:15, 20 December 2007 (EST)

==Puellanivis==

I agree that initially his aggression towards new editors was unhelpful, but after having it pointed out he was genuinely contrite; more likely a misunderstanding than actual malice. Though his comment about Andy ''was'' out of line, I don't think he really meant any disrespect towards him; rather, he was trying to make a point about the 90/10 rule. In any case, despite some poor editing and minor infractions, I don't believe he was a troll intent on doing any damage, and a block of infinite time is rather long, no? I think a few days (maybe a week?) and a stern warning will be enough; besides, his edits will be more closely watched afterwards so there's little possibility for trolling. And besides, it'd be ironic for Conservapedia to accidently drive away new editors for doing the same!

Anyway, you have the power here - I just thought I'd throw in my two cents, perhaps save a new editor from his initial mistakes. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:52, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:Don't worry; I don't keep permanent blocks if there is contrition. It will change with time and private email correspondence. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:13, 20 December 2007 (EST)

== Battle of Aegospotami/Delium? ==

Seeing as how [[Battle of Aegospotami]] was started by you, could you maybe check if you really meant to say "The Battle of Delium in 405 B.C." in the opening sentence? I'm no expert in Greece place names or wars, so I don't know if this is intentional or not. If it is, could you maybe make a small addition to the article, explaining why it's known as different things? Thanks :) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 20:18, 22 December 2007 (EST)

:That was a mistake. Thank you for noticing. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:24, 22 December 2007 (EST)

::Hey, no problem and thanks for clarifying/fixing. Was just cruising around with the Random Page feature and stumbled over it :) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 20:26, 22 December 2007 (EST)

:::You're already helping. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:27, 22 December 2007 (EST)

== Philosophy categories ==

Yes, I just saw the naming convention guidelines. I will amend the Philosophy category names accordingly. [[User:JFPerry|JFPerry]] 11:39, 23 December 2007 (EST)

== Thanks ==

Hey, thanks for reworking [[Christian Domestic Discipline]]! It's a tricky subject, and I'm glad for the additional input you provided. It's much better now. :) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 07:33, 27 December 2007 (EST)
==Contest==
Learn together - if you are interested, as you achieved the second highest number of points in the last contest, you may choose to be a captain for team 2 in the upcoming [[Conservapedia:Contest4|contest]]. Please respond as quickly as possible as to whether you are interested, as the draft will occur Saturday, and if you are not interested we obviously need time to find a replacement. Thanks so much and congratulations!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:10, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:Thank you for the considering me for team captain for the next contest, but it seems to me that as the top scorer for the Timberwolves that the honor of team captain should fall to Andy first. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:22, 11 January 2008 (EST)

== New articles? ==

(I apologize for not replying sooner to your comment on my talk page - I had been blocked for a full month for one silly edit after a series of good ones.)

*''You have been creating multiple new articles that already exist, including the last five articles you entered into Conservapedia.''

Erm, those had been ''redirects''. They were on the Wanted Articles list, and I knew they existed. So I made a redirect to them. Unless you meant something different, I'm not sure I see the problem... --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:47, 12 January 2008 (EST)
==Contest==
Hey, so the draft will not actually finish until Sunday, but the contest will still start tonight at 12a.m., so all that means is some of you will be getting points without knowing what team you're on. Remember to keep track of your points well, at a page like [[User:Learn together/Contest4]].--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 21:08, 12 January 2008 (EST)
:Silly o'clock and I'm making silly errors to match. So I'm going to stretch my legs, sup some coffee and look at the stars for a while :) Will try to add a few more points before I log though. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:42, 19 January 2008 (EST)

==Double Redirect==

You made a redirect to redirect. Please review [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:DoubleRedirects this list] before claiming points for this. (Can I claim a point for fixing this? ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:21, 16 January 2008 (EST)

:I think you get a point Ed. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:29, 16 January 2008 (EST)
==Your Article==
Hey, I just wanted to let you know I made a fairly big contribution to [[Drunk]] - and given that you started the article so recently, I felt like I should tell you in case there was anything you didn't like about what I did. Great job on creating it, and as far as my contrib goes feel free to revert or delete whatever you feel appropriate--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:51, 16 January 2008 (EST)
:Are you kidding? You should get a gold star. That's great! Keep up the good work! ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:00, 16 January 2008 (EST)

== Thank you ==

For addressing [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Barikada this]. Didn't see that you had done so before I posted a message about it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:39, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:You get the credit. It was your bringing up the issue with specific examples that led me to agree a temporary block was warranted. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:50, 18 January 2008 (EST)

::Oh. I see what happened there. The date/time stamp is different on A's talk page for some reason. I thought my post came after you had blocked Barikada already. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:11, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== MSM Redirect ==

I corrected the Mainstream Media redirect, but the MSM page is locked so it still contains a Double Redirect, I believe. Can this be fixed? Gracias! --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 13:46, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:MSM doesn't appear to be locked. If you do find double redirects that you can't fix, I would advise going to [[User talk:Philip J. Rayment]] and put a note on his talk page. He's actively involved in this area. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:54, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==Email==
You have some :) [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:20, 18 January 2008 (EST)
==Points==
Hey Learn Together - I hate to bring up a question of points - but I saw just now in an edit summary, and then your contest page, that you were giving yourself four points for "extensive" minor edits - but no such rule is dictated in the current contest (my guess is that you might be using a point system from a previous contest), I'm not going to make an official challenge because I assumed this is a minor mistake--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:01, 19 January 2008 (EST)
:Uh, learn together? I just noticed you were still doing it - again, if you look at the rules there's nothing that says minor edits can be worth 4 points--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 21:25, 19 January 2008 (EST)

::I use the same standard I have been using for edits that are really not "minor". In the contests sometimes we are tempted to cut corners, and I attempt to keep myself from doing that by giving points for extensive alterations that aren't specifically extra sentences, but are certainly as meaningful for the state of the article as a whole. As you can see, I am an open book when it comes to tabulating my edits and the point values associated, and I would hope that anyone looking at my contributions would see that my scoring versus the alterations done are appropriate and not taking advantage in any way. If at the end it there is a wish to question the scoring used, then we can discuss it further at that time. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:13, 19 January 2008 (EST)

::BTW, good job with your own work and editing. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:16, 19 January 2008 (EST)
:::Ok, I understand your reasoning, although at the same time this is a new rule set, and after the failure of last time we shouldn't really leave anything open to interpretation. Until we invent a "regular edit" (which, btw, I completely agree with you that we should!), I think we should just play it safe and use 2 points for every minor edit, as even beyond the fact that this is a new rule set, everyone else isn't aware that you can do a four point thing - and if you're the only one doing it that kind of gives you an unfair advantage.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:32, 19 January 2008 (EST)
::::There's always a certain amount of individual discretion for scoring. The question becomes is someone trying to game the system or are their edits genuine? I believe the quality of the edits that I scored as 4 points speak for themselves, and, after a quick sampling at least, I don't see anything similar in the minor edit section of the other participants. I do notice many entries by others scored as quality edits that don't match the definition stated for the contest, but that's a judgement call of the individual too. I chose, in most cases, to simply put them as 4 points under the minor edit category. There will always be some differences in interpretation - for instance you give yourself points for bolding alone and many of us will not count that as a minor edit unless other edits accompany it, but as long as we are all trying to be honest and fair it shouldn't matter. I believe difficulties should only be brought up if there is a pattern of scoring that obviously does not match the value of the edits themselves, and I do not believe that pertains to me. Thanks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:31, 20 January 2008 (EST)

== ID book ==

[[Intelligent Design (book)]] is the proper name, not [[Intelligent Design (Book)]], as the Manual of Style now says that titles should not be in title case. So the redirect should go the other way. Understand? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:34, 20 January 2008 (EST)

:It sound good, thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:07, 20 January 2008 (EST)

== Contest 4 ==

Congratulations! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 12:10, 20 January 2008 (EST)
:Great Job LT!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 12:15, 20 January 2008 (EST)
:::On behalf of Eagle Team, well done| A splendid effort. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 12:24, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Congratulations from [[Conservapedia:Team Freedom|Freedom]]. Very well done, again!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:25, 20 January 2008 (EST)
:Well done, impressive! Thanks for all your graft, B. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:27, 21 January 2008 (EST)

Thank you both. You were both great contributors to the contest! ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:36, 21 January 2008 (EST)

:::What is your secret to win every contest?

:::--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:59, 22 January 2008 (EST)

::::Well, having you on my team for most of them helps ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:36, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Ban for username needed ==

[[Special:Contributions/PastafarianBeliver|PastafarianBeliver]]. "Pastafarianism" is a flippant non-belief which has the sole purpose of mocking people who back Intelligent Design. (And judging from his comments so far, it doesn't look like he's here to provide anything worthwhile. Just complaints.) [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:24, 21 January 2008 (EST)

:Thank you for pointing it out, but I have a tendency to be cautious in banning him at this point. Nevertheless, his edits will be watched. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:34, 21 January 2008 (EST)

::BethanyS banned him already. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:38, 21 January 2008 (EST)

== Barikada ==

It's starting to look like [[User:Barikada]] didn't learn anything from his recent block - e.g. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Left_Behind:_Eternal_Forces&curid=53111&diff=379019&oldid=379013 this edit]. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:44, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:My last block was for misinterpreting clear instructions, I believe... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:46, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::Barkikada, the key is not to see how close you can get to the ledge without falling over. We all have a general understanding of what it means to edit to improve content. Please keep your edits in that direction and the question of blocking you won't come up again. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:49, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::Not to sound arrogant, but... I'm ''pretty'' sure most of them are. Normally I'd insert a rant about me falsely believing I'm being persecuted, but you're right. I should focus my edits on less controversial subjects. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:51, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Vote ==

Click on the link to vote in my poll. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Election08|Vote for President]] 23:05, 23 January 2008 (EST)
==Contest 5==
Hey Learn Together, as you were a participant in the last contest I'm just giving you the heads up that the [[Conservapedia:Contest5|draft of the point system for contest 5]] has been written, and we're using the talk page as a forum for any notes/complaints that any users may have.

Learn together - I also want to give you the heads up that, assuming your schedule is free (the date for the contest isn't set yet) and assuming you're willing, you'll be the team 1 captain for this contest. Thanks,--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:21, 2 February 2008 (EST)
:Hey Learn together are you still around? If you aren't, and depending on how things go with the contest, we might have to go ask another user to be the captain, but of course if you come back after we've done this you can certainly still join the contest, and I'll wait as long as possible for a response.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:47, 13 February 2008 (EST)

::I recommend emailing me directly if there is a time when I'm not on the site much. I can be available. I've written Andy on his talk page. Thanks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:22, 15 February 2008 (EST)

== Hi ==

Nice to see you in action again. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:23, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:And it is always good to hear from you my friend ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:24, 15 February 2008 (EST)

== Trial Contest ==

Hey {{BASEPAGENAME}}, we've decided to do a quick Contest 5 starting at what will probably be midnight tonight - so sign up as soon as possible! [[Conservapedia:Contest5#Those Interested In Participating Please Put Your Name Here]].--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 21:04, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== [[Gospel of Thomas]] ==

Please review [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gospel_of_Thomas&diff=391209&oldid=376583 this] edit. I don't know enough to tell if it is vandalism. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 20:45, 19 February 2008 (EST)

:It's not vandalism, but it's not entirely true either. It's got a nice "spin" on it. I'll look at it later and make alterations. Thanks for pointing it out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:23, 20 February 2008 (EST)

== Heads of government ==

Head of state and head of government are two different things. The CIA ''World Factbook'' defines chief (head) of state as "the titular leader of the country who represents the state at official and ceremonial functions but may not be involved with the day-to-day activities of the government", while head of government is defined as "the top administrative leader who is designated to manage the day-to-day activities of the government". [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html] In the US these two positions are occupied by the same person, the president. However, in most parliamentary systems the functions of head of state and head of government are separate (e.g., in the UK the monarch is head of state, while the prime minister is head of government).

Thank you for the pointer on subcategories, however.

{{unsigned|Dadsnagem2}}

== Greetings ==

From no where in the middle of a journey, --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 20:07, 1 March 2008 (EST)

==Easton's Bible Dictionary==
Should I not use Easton's Bible Dictionary to create Bible articles?--[[User:Kuli|Kuli]] 16:03, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:It's not necessary if there are Bible verses that say the same thing. It can be useful for backing up viewpoints on theological views, but for biographies where the information is contained in the Bible, then it is best to just use the Bible as your reference. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:06, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

What does the information in the block say, I think that was a block on accident--[[User:Kuli|Kuli]] 16:11, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

The block said I was replacing articles with 404 error server not found yet look at the edits of User:Weqq, I did no such thing--[[User:Kuli|Kuli]] 16:16, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Luke ==

Thank you so much for you help! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 20:16, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:I am always pleased to help where I can my friend. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:52, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

Thank you Learn Together for your unsolicited support. It really means a lot. Keep up the good work. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:09, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, and thanks for not being mean on the Philip Pullman page.

== Deer ==

Why did you revert my edit to [[deer]]? I thought that the deaths caused by deer was interesting and I gave a source to back it up. What was the problem? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:29, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:It was an opinion piece you used as a reference. And adding deer to the category "Dangerous Animals" was overkill, especially since the category previously had zero entries. If you wish to include the general gist of the article alerting to deaths on the road due to traffic fatalities then do so, although the specific figures and numbers should have a reputable source before being included. Oh, and of course, this discussion should take place on the deer talk page, not my home page. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:31, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
::Overkill HA! No pun intended, I'm sure. (Sorry to interject humor into this serious discussion but I couldn't let a golden pun like that pass). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:55, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Would this source be better [http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5330a1.htm]? It's a government site, and according to it, 200 Americans (at least, I assume that they're Americans) die in accidents involving animals (predominantly deer.) Another animal listed under [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Dangerous_animals] (dangerous animals category), the great white shark, kills a mere 50-70 people ''world-wide'' [http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/education/questions/Attack.html#year], even when combined with all other sharks. Could I redo the entry with the new source and statistics?
:::P.S. Sorry I put this on the wrong page, I wasn't sure where to put it so I guessed. I assume you don't want me to move it now. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:20, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
:This is a serious site, and, come on. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:28, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

==Sons of Jacob==

Before you change all the categories, are you planning to '''list''' Jacob's 14 sons in the [[Jacob]] article at any point in time? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:00, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:It would be a good idea, except Jacob had 12 sons. ;-) We had a number of imbedded catgories made that would make it difficult for users to simply see who are Biblical Persons. They had to go through the geneaology all the way from Temar, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,... You get the picture. I'm putting them back in Biblical Persons where they were. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:05, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:I expanded the article on Jacob (which was rather lacking). I see there's already a link to the Twelve Sons of Jacob in the Jacob article so I didn't specifically put the names of the sons in the Jacob article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:21, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Learn Togther,
Good to make your acquaintance! I have tried to interest others to do something on Larry McDonald but so far noo takers. A lot of people are now going to our website being refered from the article in wikipedia on Larry but I would like one in Conservapedia. It seems more pressing as this is the 25th year since the shootdown. Can you do the article?[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:13, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Satan ==

Satan has been unprotected. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:30, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Congratulations! ==

Congratulations, you've been promoted to Sysop! Well deserved indeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:58, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

:Congratulations and welcome aboard! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:01, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

::Congrats, man! --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 16:54, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

Congratulations! --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 17:50, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

Congrats, brother. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 17:58, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

:Good job LT! You deserve this promotion, and I'm glad you got it. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:35, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

WOW! Thank you very much Andy and all of my friends. I guess when I least expect it is when it happens. ;-) I will try to live up to the honor that you have given me and try to fill the shoes of those who have come before me who I will hopefully be able to emulate. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:20, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

: Excellent promotion, congratulations! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:26, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

::Congratulations! Quite honestly, I didn't think there was any other candidate. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 09:51, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Congrats!! :P [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 10:40, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Please ban Breebree, (vandalism to mobile phones) [[User:Dalek|Dalek]] 15:43, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

HenryS banned him [[User:Dalek|Dalek]] 15:58, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Whoo-hoo! Sorry I missed it. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:08, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

== TomMoore ==

*14:43, 13 April 2008 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) blocked "TomMoore (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (personal remarks)

Don't wait for him to reply. I'm not quite sure what the "personal remark" was, but from what I gather, I'm in no position to ask, so...

On the topic: You're applying an interesting standard there, am I to suppose that it's also to be applied to articles? --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 06:35, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

== Virgin Mary gallery ==

Any contribution? [[Virgin Mary gallery]]

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 11:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

== Why was Todd Haynes deleted from Brown University alumni?==

I added Todd Haynes, the director of Far From Heaven and I'm Not There, to the list of Brown alumni and you deleted it. Why? Haynes has been nominated for an Oscar and -- in Far from Heaven -- directed one of the most highly praised films of the past decade. How on earth can he be described as "not notable"? George Harrison's SON is included, for Pete's sake. I will reinstate Todd with citations as there is no possible reason for him to be excluded. KeithJoseph 21:30, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

== query ==

Fellow admin, please review this block. The user's name is "oh stupid TK" backwards. The users first contribution was entering a dispute with User:TK. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AUniversity_of_California%2C_Los_Angeles&diff=425607&oldid=425435]. What do you think? Sock puppet? Unblock? Thanks, [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:01, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:It was a good call my friend. We block infinite for names like that. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:53, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::I know. I never planned on unblocking. I was surprised the user wasn't banned right away. I only asked because I receiced an email from "Diputsho" asking to be unblocked. Thanks for helping though. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:03, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== City/town/county names as article titles ==

In case you don't check the [[Conservapedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#City.2Ftown.2Fcounty_names_as_article_titles.3F|manual of style talk page]] very often, I just wanted to draw your attention to a suggestion I had. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 21:04, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==[[September 11, 2001 attacks]]==

You may want to review your reversion, it seems that FiscalConservative's edit was made in good faith and improved the article. He appears to have used the motivations stated by bin Laden (the mastermind of the attacks), whereas the motivation section in the present article seems to be a parody: "Luckily, the president declared a counter war called the "War on Terrorism" before any holy war started" [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 02:01, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

:I don't want to speak toward the removed portions, as I could see how they could be controversial, but what is there right now definitely looks like parody to me. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:05, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

::Am I right in guessing the controversial sections relate to the Sikhs being mistaken for Muslims? If so then this would appear to be acceptable content, as from my understanding there were a number of attacks against innocent Muslims following the attacks, and this should be added if there is to be complete coverage of the aftermath. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 02:08, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

:By putting his edits at the top right under the primary paragraph, he detracts from discussing what actually occurred. He also included a link to an article that states that a Sikh killed several days later 'may' have been the victim of hate crime -- and this is inserted before the section discussing the casualties that occurred from the 9/11. And you call that an improvement? The incredible thing with America is that we are so strong in our desire for freedom for all that even a heinous crime like 9/11 gets barely a ripple in any type of reprisal attacks against those believed to be of similar ethnicities. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:09, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

::No one said that in "our desire for freedom for all" we believe reprisal attacks are more important than the actual casualties, I said that they need to be covered in order to provide a complete recount of the aftermath. How about moving the section and expanding it rather than removing it? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 02:12, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

==Vietnam War Reversion==

Erm, I don't exactly understand what your apprehensions to my edits with the Vietnam article were, especially given the information in question is improperly placed to begin with. Vietnam's economy showcases significant market elements, and to insinuate that Vietnam is a communist country (without any other reference or acknowledgement of it's free-market development post-war) detracts considerably from the article as is given the disregard among the general public to differentiate between a communist government and it’s economic policies, which in Vietnam’s case are clearly not concurrent. [[User:Willink|Willink]] 3:30, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
==I say Psychiatry, You say Psychology, Let's call the whole thing off==
Psychology as the main category for mental health problems etc is incorrect. In fact, "mental health" should be the main category, with psychology and psychiatry as sub-categories (perhaps even with psychotherapy as an additional sub-category). Schizophrenia is a psychiatric diagnosis, not a psychological model; therefore it is appropriately placed within the Psychiatry category. Psychologists are *not* always involved with patients who are diagnosed with schizophrenia, whereas psychiatrists *are*. The other types of psychological endeavour (industrial, educational, etc) should be in the Psychology category (and, correctly, are). The Psychiatric Disorders category should be a sub-category of Psychiatry itself. [[User:HumbleServant|HumbleServant]] 06:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:You can go ahead and rework them IF you can change all of them appropriately. We don't want to have a category with some entries in one place and some entries in another. Please be aware though that when there is a subcategory, such as Psychiatric Disorders under Psychiatry, that articles in the subcategory are not also placed in the main category. The general idea behind subcategories is to decrease the number of articles in the main category. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:16, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::Thank you, Learn together. I shall work out an appropriate schema for this before changing anything further. May God bless you and be with you. [[User:HumbleServant|HumbleServant]] 17:20, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Sprawl ==

See Orange talk. Ta.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:51, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

== Can you upload The Scream by Edvard Munch? ==

I got the link![http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/munch/munch.scream.jpg] Can you upload for the [[The Scream]] page? {{unsigned|TagoPagdaluhong}}
:Nevermind, I found it--[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 20:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

== your edits to [[Orthodox Church]] ==

Hi, I noticed your edits to this article. You may not be aware, but one of your edits removed some sources, as well as the reference list at the end. Cheers! [[User:Dchall1|Dchall1]] 15:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:Can I ask why the article is locked? I don't see that edit warring is going on, nor do I see any efforts by you to discuss your changes. [[User:Dchall1|Dchall1]] 12:14, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
::Posted a note [[Talk:Orthodox_Church|here]], and I'd appreciated your comment. Cheers! [[User:Dchall1|Dchall1]] 23:28, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Golden Compass article block ==

Is there any way I can edit the article? Or should I post my proposed changes here for you to make? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:34, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

:Put them in the article talk section please for reviews. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:21, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Engrish==
Thanks for filling me in. I'm sorry I put up that article on Engrish. I didn't know it was a slur, despite it being offensive However, now I know better to not write articles like that again!
[[User:RKLuffy88|RKLuffy88]]

== Featured articles ==

Please see [[Conservapedia talk:Featured articles]]. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:46, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

==Thurgood Marshall==

This is not meant to sound combative, but why did you go through and change every mention of African American or African to Black? '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 12:50, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:The term African American did not exist during the time of discussion. Black would have been recognized then and is still considered to be acceptable today. I did leave the last African American as it discussed Clarence Thomas and by then the term had entered society. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:56, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

::I understand your reasoning, but that seems a little strange... are we going to only mention people based on the term society used for them? In that case, we could end up with some rather strong racial slurs posted in articles. Even though we would detect and revert, it seems like opening the door to extra work on our part. '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 15:05, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:::That's not what he's saying. What is your point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:09, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Nice block ==

Nice block of "Mmmm" last night!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:50, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks Andy ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 09:19, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

==NASA Pictures==
The NASA article needs more pictures, can you upload some? Thanks--[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 15:31, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

==Crusades==
You appear to have removed my section about the pogroms against the Jews during the First Crusade in your reorg of [[Crusades]]. Was that a mistake or did you intend to do so? I was going to just assume the former, since it was well-sourced, but I thought it might do to check anyway.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 02:06, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
:It was intentional as it was misplaced. The First Crusade was a success. The reference was to the totality of the Crusades and why they failed. If your source leaves out the pain of Francis of Assisi when he visited the Crusader army based on what he saw or the need of the Pope to excommunicate the Crusaders during a later Crusade, and believes it was only due to not keeping Church holidays, then it won't stay. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:16, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
::...you could have added those things, if you wanted, without removing other accurate information, don't you think? Or moved it if you thought it was misplaced? Isn't that the usual thing done with sourced actual information? Are you denying the pogrom that occurred in the Rhine valley, which is what I was asking about?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 02:24, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
:::It depends what you think is accurate. The information was entered based upon the 'failure' of the First Crusade and the reasons for it - while in reality that was the one Crusade that succeeded far beyond what would be expected. It's not my place to try to salvage information under those conditions. If you wish to see what information should be put back into the article in some form, one of the things you should ask yourself is does it belong and why? The previous avenue has been closed. I would hope your desire is to enrich the article with whatever information you find that is naturally a part of the subject and that however that unfolds, it unfolds. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:28, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
::::I read that several times, but I guess I am just not smart enough. What I get is that you didn't think it was your job, essentially. That's weird, since generally on wikis people try to retain the good contributions of other people.
::::My desire is, naturally, to add information about the Crusades. In this case, I was adding information about the hideous atrocities enacted against Jews during the First Crusade. I don't know if you consider that "naturally a part of the subject," but I hope so.
::::Help me out: can I put that back in, or not?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 15:12, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::It is not my place to try to find somewhere for it to fit. The placement and reason for that placement originally given, was incorrect. If you feel it is has natural placement in another part of the article and matches the article scope and flow then put in those elements that you feel meet that criteria and I will examine it. But please realize the following historical information will be included:
:::::1) The mobs that attacked the Jews had nothing to do with the Crusading armies that eventually fought in the Holy Lands
:::::2) The Church authorities consistently tried to order them to desist, to no avail
:::::3) The Christian townspeople tried to hide the Jews from the approaching mobs
:::::4) When the mobs reached a fortified Christian nation, they were denied access as they were viewed as a bunch of unsavory criminals
:::::5) They then attacked the borders of the Christian nation
:::::6) At the moment it appeared victory was in their grasp as they were breaking through, they oddly got confused and fled, dispersing for good
:::::7) Their sudden defeat and fleeing was viewed as divine justice upon them from God
:::::[[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:40, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Uh... okay, cool. You put whatever you want in there, that's fine with me. It's a wiki. I was just going to add the blurb about the pogrom in the Rhine valley, and since I think somewhere in there was assent, I will do so again.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 15:44, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
==Email==
I sent you an email -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 01:43, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Email me back after you follow the instructions -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 01:44, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

==Apology for my Edit on [[Al Franken]]==

I sincerely apologise for any harm I caused by suggesting that you hadn't read ''Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them''. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:48, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

== Where does one find the sysop group? ==

I don't know where to find it.
But common sense would dictate that the one who puts a disputed fact into an article is the one who needs to back it up. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 02:59, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:While I certainly respect that you have been given Sysop authority longer than I have, the general concensus among Sysops from when I asked the question before I was given the honor has been that flags are given for questioning only when there is a belief of error. Part of the belief is that we want all editors to actively contribute which means coming alongside and helping to build instead of pointing out to others where they need to do work. It's also best to send a private email to a fellow Sysop as a courtesy before questioning him in public. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:11, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
I
::Fair enough. On second thought, I think the tags are not needed. However, with the citations, I disagree. If you make a claim in court, the burden of proof is on you. It is the same way here, (or should be) regardless of how it has been applied up till now. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 03:15, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I've sent you an email to discuss this further if you wish. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:32, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== Apology ==

It was wrong of me to reverse your block without contacting you first. I would like to apologize for that. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 15:06, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:Thank you Tim, and no problem. I am writing you back right now. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:45, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

== Barack Obama Edit ==

You removed a section that I had added to the Presidential Campaign paragraph: "In analyzing the plans of both candidates, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that Senator Obama's plan offered larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers. Alternately, McCain's plan, the center found, would result in tax cuts that "primarily benefit those with very high incomes." <ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25133125/ Economists across political spectrum question McCain's portrayal of Obama </ref>" It was clearly referenced, plays a part in the presidential campaign, adds information to the entry, and it was from a nonpartisan center.

Can you explain your removal of it from the encyclopedic entry of Barack Obama? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:11, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:The article isn't about a comparative analysis of what each candidate has adopted as their platform. Sticking that in there was out of place. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:14, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::Then can I add it to the 2008 presidential elections entry, since that is more about comparative analysis? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:57, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::If that article is constructed in that form, then it may be an appropriate entry, but you will need to clean it up first. As it is right now, it says very little. What are the plans of the two candidates? You completely leave that out and instead address only the conclusion of a group to that which you have not even explained. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:35, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

Thank you. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:43, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

==Fixed==
Thanks for replying to me email, it has been fixed now. Not sure what was going on but I was missing the 'edit' button. It appeared back again though.
Thanks though mate!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:14, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:You sent your message rather late, so it is possible editing privilages were shut down for the night. Any time you have a difficulty, we'll do our best to look into it and help where we can. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:09, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

==Christian category==

I was wondering why you removed the Christians category from Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Al Sharpton. You may certainly (and understandably) view them as not practicing what they preach, but the Clintons are professed Christians, and Sharpton is an ordained minister. And about the schtick about Sharpton never having had a job...since when is being a minister not a job? Thank you. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 09:18, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:Considering I removed over 40 people, why did you only choose those three? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:56, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::Because they were the ones I added. I hadn't noticed the others. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 12:27, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I was "equal opportunity". We're not looking for people who have church membership, but for those who in word and deed live the Christian message and seek to share that knowledge with others, often times even in the face of hardship. I hope this helps. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:07, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Your call, but is that our place to judge? [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 14:01, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::In this case yes. The Bible talks about what it means to be a Christian. I don't particularly care for the category, but since it exists, it is important to uphold that value. This does not mean that people left off of the list are certainly not Christians, only that it does not match the bar that has been set. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:24, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::If you feel that you are righteous enough to proclaim who is a true Christian and who does not meet the standards, then go for it. I personally believe only Jesus has that authority. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 00:53, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::As do I. Peace to you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:19, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

== McCain Edit? ==

Is the information that McCain hadn't received a divorce when he obtained his marriage certificate not factual? Do you think that it's not important that a presidential nominee was still married when he got a new marriage certificate? Or that he told a different story in his book than public records indicate? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:03, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

:You are talking about clerking errors and delays. After taking the steps to procede with a divorce, a final date when it legally takes place is indicated. That the clerks in that Arizona jurisdiction did not file it until later is not John McCain's concern. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:34, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::Reasonable explanation. But how about the fact that in his book he states that he had separated from his former wife before beginning to date his current wife, when according to the court petition he filed, he "cohabited" with his former wife until 1/7/80---nine months AFTER he started dating his current wife? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:41, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

:::I think you may be misunderstanding part of the goal of our site. Over a year ago a new user added information to the Hillary Clinton article that although they resided in the same state and were married, Bill and Hillary Clinton lived apart. That was easily verifiable and not open to interpretation. It was reverted by a Sysop because the site is not about gossip; it's about pertinent information about those aspects that make the person famous and noteworthy. So direct scandals such as Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky are worthy of mention, but their current living situation serves no purpose. That new user was me, and I have tried to adhere to the standards set ever since - and still try to adhere to those standards now that I am a Sysop. John McCain has admitted to failures in his first marriage and failures at that time in his life. It's simply not a place that we go.

:::BTW you may also find that legal documents often have different meanings than common usage. Most of the time he didn't "cohabitate" with his wife at all because he was a senator in Washington, although he would still be considered to be cohabitating because that was his legal residence. Insinuation is not always the same as reality, and in this case it could be difficult to separate the two. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:00, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::::I appreciate your taking the time to respond. As much as I hate to do it, I'd have to refer you to the entry on Barack Obama as a comparative piece of the two nominees. Obama's entry is filled with insinuations and speculations. I believe one of the most egregious is the insinuation/question of when he said 57 states (instead of 47 states) he was referring to the 57 Islamic states. Obviously that type of conjecture is far beyond the pale, and yet many of the sysops here have sidestepped the debate on that entry rather than stand up for a clearer and less gossip-filled encyclopedia.

::::If you are going to uphold the John McCain article to the standards you have tried to adhere to since starting here, I would hope that you would do the same for the Barack Obama entry I have now brought to your attention. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:13, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::I can not bring about change in the Barak Obama article. I too am under authority and my edits were not accepted. But I do wish to make sure that the goal is not to see how much mud can be thrown and so, where I can, I try to uphold the standards that I have been told we adhere to. So please try to make the articles that you edit as professional as possible. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:29, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::<nowiki>*Thumbs up*</nowiki> --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:36, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::Hi! I appreciated your edit of John McCain and personally feel that it needs much more work. I take special offense to individuals who smear and place ridiculous facts on this website, and feel that Conservapedia is more moral than that. Please add further information as you discover if the article is ever going to appear on the Main Page, it must be informative an article as possible. --[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 18:58, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

==New McCain Edit==

I must admit I tend to agree with you about the removal of the passages you did. However you should be aware there was a debate on this in the past few days and a consensus was reached to remove some, and leave some. I wonder if perhaps you should refer to that consensus first.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 12:26, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

:Thank you. I'll comment on the talk page now. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:39, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

==Obama==

Just browsing through the Obama talk page it seems that there is no longer any issue about his place of birth. How would one go about getting that changed as it looks ridiculous to have it say "allegedly born". --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 18:39, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

:If the page is locked, then you'll have to leave a request on the talk page or find a sysop who will make the change for you. I've chosen not to get involved in that article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:03, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

== Re: Zogby Poll ==

LT, I took out the Zogby poll because for the past few weeks we have been doing the five most recent polls. When a newer poll comes in, we drop the oldest. Hence I dropped the Zogby poll which finished on 8/1 by replacing it with a poll completed on 8/4. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:57, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
:I've been doing it more by date range, and, quite frankly, more people would be interested in what Zogby reports than in organizations not usually known for polling or at least not very recognizable.

:I've been reporting results without "leaners". Do you wish to report leaners? It's ok if you think that's a better indication of polling numbers. I would just like us to be consistent. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:12, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

::You're right on leaners. On Real Clear Politics, they report the Rasmussen # with leaners, and I always forget to click the link for the actual results. That was just a slip of the brain. As far as the Zogby poll, I've been trying to stick with the 5 most recent polls, otherwise we could end up just adding and adding and having a table with 18 polls in it. I wanted to use the most recent ending date polls because that reflects the most recent trends in the campaign. If you want to keep the Zogby poll in there to make it 6, so be it, but it'll probably get knocked out in a day or two since the most recent polls now go through the 4th and 5th. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:15, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

== Swaggart ==

I added the quote as a controversy because it was big enough for him to issue an apology for it afterwards. He was speaking about gay marriage and had stated he never saw a man he would want to marry, and then went on to the aforementioned remarks. It was well-known enough to make it to the newspapers and, again, forced him to apologize. Seems like it was a controversial statement at the time he made it. The original section was termed "Quotes" but I didn't want it to appear as quote-mining so I changed it to controversy.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:17, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

:I would see it as more of a controversy if he held to that view. Similar to talk show hosts, ministers such as Swaggart preach for several hours every week of every year. Things are going to come up that offend some people. I have found, on a whole, that ministers apologize more readily than most other people; that they do so should not be held against them. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:30, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Block of RuralHall ==

Hi, was wondering why you blocked this user? Contributions seem sourced and there's no warnings/discussion on their talk page suggesting they are breaking any commandments or anything. [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 16:49, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

:When a user makes a change to an article to refer to the "cult of Christianity", he's basically asking for his walking papers. Other places may find that to be cute; we don't. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:34, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
::I can't see that in his contributions, do you have a diff? [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 15:19, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Wrong person. RuralHall was removed for ignoring discussion on talk page of what information was inappropriate and why and adding what he wished to anyway. When he was reverted, he added it again. Since he had no positive contributions to the site, he was removed for good. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:29, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Moving of an article ==

Hello there,
I'd like to request your help; the [[David Milliband]] article (British foreign secretary) is misspelt and should be at [[David Miliband]] (as noted within the article and the source therein), however I don't seem to have the rights to move an article. I'm not sure if it's because of the age of my account or whether this operation is restricted to sysops, so I thought it wiser to approach someone who obviously has the community's respect. Thanks for the time. [[User:ChrisSmith|ChrisSmith]] 18:55, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

I would also like to request a few moves. I'm sorry if this the wrong place to ask. These images should be moved to the appropriate "Category:Middle-earth", as they are all scattered over the place: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Hobbit_cover.JPG], [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Mhjfjfr7.jpg], [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Silmarillion.jpg], [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Middle-earth.jpg], [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Sundering_of_the_Elves.png]. And these articles should be under proper names and spellings: [[Fatty Bolger|Fredegar Bolger]], [[Elf (Middle Earth)|Elf (Middle-earth)]], [[Dwarves (Middle-earth)|Dwarf (Middle-earth)]], [[Théoden (Middle Earth)|Théoden]]. It would be nice if you could do this, if it isn't a bother. ~ [[User:Tolkiendil|Tolkiendil]] 17:52, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Image uploads ==

Hello again, thanks for moving the article to the correct title per my request, I now have another query. I created the article [[European Parliament]], and have found some images on wikimedia commons which would illustrate the article quite well. I'm not really sure about the image policy on Conservapedia, and the upload tool is restricted to sysops anyway, so I was wondering if you could help out. The image is located [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:European_Parliament_from_Cathedral.jpg here], and licensed under the GFDL, I'm not sure if that's compatible with this site or not. There are more images [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament here]. Thanks for taking the time. [[User:ChrisSmith|ChrisSmith]] 21:56, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:As I am not sure what is common usage myself, I usually defer to other Sysops when it comes to the proper implementation of pictures. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:04, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
::Ok, no probs, cheers! [[User:ChrisSmith|ChrisSmith]] 13:39, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

== Category ==
Hi I reverted Saints listed Catholicism. I had a question regarding categories and thought you may be able to help. Under Saints, the structure is alphabetized but the names do not always match, e.g. Siant John of God, technically should be under (J) , by current sort it is under (S) and if I am correct- sort is established by last name or last word. Is there a better way to organize? Template structure flaw? -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:31, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks for taking care of this. The DefaultSort function allows sorting in whatever form is desired. Look at Saint Andrew near the bottom as an example. For Saints sorting should generally be done by first name, as many are known and referenced that way. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:03, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

== Could you please explain this edit? ==

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Star_Trek&curid=13058&diff=513749&oldid=513747

<blockquote>
In another episode where the ship is trapped and aliens will perform experiments that will kill half the crew, Picard admits to 'Ryker' (actually an alien in disguise) that he does believe in God, because the universe is just too orderly to have happened on its own.
</blockquote>

Which episode? What aliens? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:49, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:Unfortunately that's all I remember. It was a 'cloud' type area of space that they entered and then couldn't get out of. The alien materialized in the air on their ship and looked non-human. It had no legs or anything touching the ground. He said his species wished to study all forms of death and dying and then he killed one of the crew on the bridge. He said that to finish his experiments would take a little more than half of Picard's crew. It was a phony Ryker and Troi who were talking to him in his quarters when he made his statement. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:13, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::See [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Where_Silence_Has_Lease this page] which I've added to the Star Trek page. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 12:44, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Star Trek franchise

2008-09-10T16:42:38Z

MargeryCampbell:

[[Image:startrektoscast.jpg|thumb|right|The crew of the Enterprise from the original 1960s show.]]

'''Star Trek''' is an [[American]] [[television|TV]] series created by [[Gene Roddenberry]], which premiered on [[NBC]] September 8th, 1966 and ended June 3rd, 1969. The show featured a crew of space explorers traveling around the galaxy in a ''Constitution''-class starship called the ''USS Enterprise NCC-1701'', set in the 23rd century. It never caught on with late night viewers and was cancelled due to low ratings, but soon established a strong following in syndication that saw the show become much more popular than it had ever been in its original run. The original TV show became a franchise. Many different spin-offs of the original program have now been made, the last of which was a prequel with the original 'Enterprise' space ship.

== Extraterrestrial life ==
The drama of the shows typically arises from the crew's contact with various forms of [[extraterrestrial life]], mostly, but not always, [[humanoid]] (e.g. the "Crystalline Entity"). In various ways, the [[premise]] of the [[ancient astronaut theory]] is used to assert the seeding of [[life]] throughout the [[galaxy]] as brought up in ''The Next Generation'', although not to the overt extent of a later, unrelated, TV series, [[Stargate SG-1]].

== Religion in Star Trek ==
As a [[humanist]], Gene Roddenberry infused Star Trek with humanism's dream of a world (or galaxy in this case) where humanity (and many other intelligent beings) were constantly improving the life quality of all beings both through improving technology and improving societal conditions.
People worked together for the common good, rather than for money, and without any class or other distinctions.
This is a small part of what is expected in the Christian view of [[heaven]], except that humanism believes that mankind can achieve this through its own efforts, rather than with the help of God.

Roddenberry rarely had the shows overtly reject religion, although some episodes would make reference to it as a part of culture. For instance in an episode with a man who could not die, it was noted that in one his personas in earth history he had been [[Lazarus]] (who [[Jesus]] rose from the dead). In another episode a world where the Roman Empire never fell was now chasing down followers of "the son" (who the crew mistook to be "sun") and their message of peace and love instead of violence and oppression.

Later series, under the control of other producers particularly after Roddenberry died, also brought religious concepts into the show, but seldom with the same direct references to Christianity, but rather to more generic religious thought.

=== The Next Generation ===

An episode of ''Star Trek: The Next Generation'' has one major example of anti-religion bias. The third-season episode entitled "Who Watches the Watchers," implies that an alien culture discarding religious beliefs is a positive development.
In the episode "Tapestry", Captain Picard dies and goes to the "afterlife" where he meets his erstwhile adversary "Q" who implies that he is God. Picard refuses to believe this, and makes a comment that "The Universe is not so badly run." This suggests that Picard was aware of the concept of God, but does not indicate that he believed in God. That phrase might be pointed more toward the character of Q controlling the universe than God's existence. However the majority of episodes remain silent on religion. In another episode where the ship is trapped and aliens will perform experiments that will kill half the crew, Picard admits to 'Ryker' (actually an alien in disguise) that he does believe in God, because the universe is just too orderly to have happened on its own.<ref>http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Where_Silence_Has_Lease</ref>

=== Bajoran religion ===

''Star Trek: Deep Space 9'' included religion more than any other series. An overarching theme of the series was the relation of the main character, Captain Benjamin Sisko, to the Bajoran religion in his role as the emissary to the Bajoran prophets. The prophets were beings who lived in a stable wormhole (a unique phenomenon in the Star Trek universe referred to by the Bajorans as the Celestial Temple) that perceived all of time as a single event with no concept of past, present, or future. Despite their immense dissimilarity to other races in the galaxy, the Prophets took unusual interest in Bajor, sending 'orbs' which were used as tools of prophecy by the Bajoran clergy, and in Sisko who it is revealed exists solely to fulfill a predetermined historical path in an Armageddon-like showdown as the avatar of the prophets against the 'Pah Wraiths' (aliens like the Prophets who were expelled from the Celestial Temple).

=== Other religions ===

''Star Trek: Deep Space 9'' also had the Dominion, in which the Founders (shape-shifting aliens sometimes called changelings) are treated as living gods by the races under their control.

The Klingon religion in various series suggests that the first Klingons realized they had no need for their gods, and killed them, although they still hold to an afterlife where the honorable dead join with the deified Kahless and the dishonorable dead are forced to spend eternity on the Barge of the Dead with the Demon like figure Fecklarr.

The Ferengi (mainly in ''Star Trek: Deep Space 9'') had a religion of sorts based on the concept of The Great River (as shown in "Faith, Treachery and The Great River"), which was similar to "[[The invisible hand]]" a phrase coined by [[Adam Smith]]. Ferengi also hold that if they achieve enough profit during their lives, they will meet the Blessed Exchequer who will grant them access to the Divine Treasury, whereas an unsuccessful Ferengi may find himself left in the Vault of Eternal Destitution.

== The Prime Directive ==
Starfleet had The Prime Directive which said that they should not interfere with the natural progression of a species. The directive sometimes clashed with morality or common sense and on many occasions was ignored by Starfleet officers. There was also a Temporal Prime Directive which said that when going into the past (by various means) they should not try to alter the course of history. When someone from Starfleet (or elsewhere) violated the directive officers were justified in working to stop them as long as they did not violate the directive themselves.

== The series and films ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Series Name
| Star Trek: The Original Series (TOS)
| Star Trek: The Animated Series (TAS)
| Star Trek: The Next Generation (TNG)
| Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (DS9)
| Star Trek: Voyager (VOY)
| Star Trek: Enterprise (ENT)
|-
! Original Air Dates
| 1966-1969
| 1973-1974
| 1987-1994
| 1993-1999
| 1995-2001
| 2001-2005
|-
! Number Of Episodes
| 80
| 22
| 178
| 176
| 172
| 98
|}

{| class="wikitable"
!Movie Name
|Star Trek: The Motion Picture
|Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
|Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
|Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
|Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
|Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
|Star Trek: Generations
|Star Trek: First Contact
|Star Trek: Insurrection
|Star Trek: Nemesis
|Star Trek
|-
! Year of Release
| 1979
| 1982
| 1984
| 1986
| 1989
| 1991
| 1994
| 1996
| 1998
| 2002
| 2008
|-
! MPAA Rating
| PG
| PG
| PG
| PG
| PG
| PG
| PG
| PG-13
| PG
| PG-13
| N/A
|}

== The Original Series ==
The main characters from the original series were:
*[[Captain Kirk]]
*[[Spock]]
*[[Dr. McCoy]]
*[[Scotty]]
*[[Sulu]]
*[[Uhuru]]
*[[Chekov]]

== External Links ==

* [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060028/ IMDB website (Original Series)]
==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Television Shows]]
[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Science fiction]]
[[Category:Star Trek]]

Star Trek franchise

2008-09-10T16:41:37Z

MargeryCampbell: /* External Links */ reflist

[[Image:startrektoscast.jpg|thumb|right|The crew of the Enterprise from the original 1960s show.]]

'''Star Trek''' is an [[American]] [[television|TV]] series created by [[Gene Roddenberry]], which premiered on [[NBC]] September 8th, 1966 and ended June 3rd, 1969. The show featured a crew of space explorers traveling around the galaxy in a ''Constitution''-class starship called the ''USS Enterprise NCC-1701'', set in the 23rd century. It never caught on with late night viewers and was cancelled due to low ratings, but soon established a strong following in syndication that saw the show become much more popular than it had ever been in its original run. The original TV show became a franchise. Many different spin-offs of the original program have now been made, the last of which was a prequel with the original 'Enterprise' space ship.

== Extraterrestrial life ==
The drama of the shows typically arises from the crew's contact with various forms of [[extraterrestrial life]], mostly, but not always, [[humanoid]] (e.g. the "Crystalline Entity"). In various ways, the [[premise]] of the [[ancient astronaut theory]] is used to assert the seeding of [[life]] throughout the [[galaxy]] as brought up in ''The Next Generation'', although not to the overt extent of a later, unrelated, TV series, [[Stargate SG-1]].

== Religion in Star Trek ==
As a [[humanist]], Gene Roddenberry infused Star Trek with humanism's dream of a world (or galaxy in this case) where humanity (and many other intelligent beings) were constantly improving the life quality of all beings both through improving technology and improving societal conditions.
People worked together for the common good, rather than for money, and without any class or other distinctions.
This is a small part of what is expected in the Christian view of [[heaven]], except that humanism believes that mankind can achieve this through its own efforts, rather than with the help of God.

Roddenberry rarely had the shows overtly reject religion, although some episodes would make reference to it as a part of culture. For instance in an episode with a man who could not die, it was noted that in one his personas in earth history he had been [[Lazarus]] (who [[Jesus]] rose from the dead). In another episode a world where the Roman Empire never fell was now chasing down followers of "the son" (who the crew mistook to be "sun") and their message of peace and love instead of violence and oppression.

Later series, under the control of other producers particularly after Roddenberry died, also brought religious concepts into the show, but seldom with the same direct references to Christianity, but rather to more generic religious thought.

=== The Next Generation ===

An episode of ''Star Trek: The Next Generation'' has one major example of anti-religion bias. The third-season episode entitled "Who Watches the Watchers," implies that an alien culture discarding religious beliefs is a positive development.
In the episode "Tapestry", Captain Picard dies and goes to the "afterlife" where he meets his erstwhile adversary "Q" who implies that he is God. Picard refuses to believe this, and makes a comment that "The Universe is not so badly run." This suggests that Picard was aware of the concept of God, but does not indicate that he believed in God. That phrase might be pointed more toward the character of Q controlling the universe than God's existence. However the majority of episodes remain silent on religion. In another episode where the ship is trapped and aliens will perform experiments that will kill half the crew, Picard admits to 'Ryker' (actually an alien in disguise) that he does believe in God, because the universe is just too orderly to have happened on its own.<ref>http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Where_Silence_Has_Lease</ref>

=== Bajoran religion ===

''Star Trek: Deep Space 9'' included religion more than any other series. An overarching theme of the series was the relation of the main character, Captain Benjamin Sisko, to the Bajoran religion in his role as the emissary to the Bajoran prophets. The prophets were beings who lived in a stable wormhole (a unique phenomenon in the Star Trek universe referred to by the Bajorans as the Celestial Temple) that perceived all of time as a single event with no concept of past, present, or future. Despite their immense dissimilarity to other races in the galaxy, the Prophets took unusual interest in Bajor, sending 'orbs' which were used as tools of prophecy by the Bajoran clergy, and in Sisko who it is revealed exists solely to fulfill a predetermined historical path in an Armageddon-like showdown as the avatar of the prophets against the 'Pah Wraiths' (aliens like the Prophets who were expelled from the Celestial Temple).

=== Other religions ===

''Star Trek: Deep Space 9'' also had the Dominion, in which the Founders (shape-shifting aliens sometimes called changelings) are treated as living gods by the races under their control.

The Klingon religion in various series suggests that the first Klingons realized they had no need for their gods, and killed them, although they still hold to an afterlife where the honorable dead join with the deified Kahless and the dishonorable dead are forced to spend eternity on the Barge of the Dead with the Demon like figure Fecklarr.

The Ferengi (mainly in ''Star Trek: Deep Space 9'') had a religion of sorts based on the concept of The Great River (as shown in "Faith, Treachery and The Great River"), which was similar to "[[The invisible hand]]" a phrase coined by [[Adam Smith]]. Ferengi also hold that if they achieve enough profit during their lives, they will meet the Blessed Exchequer who will grant them access to the Divine Treasury, whereas an unsuccessful Ferengi may find himself left in the Vault of Eternal Destitution.

== The Prime Directive ==
Starfleet had The Prime Directive which said that they should not interfere with the natural progression of a species. The directive sometimes clashed with morality or common sense and on many occasions was ignored by Starfleet officers. There was also a Temporal Prime Directive which said that when going into the past (by various means) they should not try to alter the course of history. When someone from Starfleet (or elsewhere) violated the directive officers were justified in working to stop them as long as they did not violate the directive themselves.

== The series and films ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Series Name
| Star Trek: The Original Series (TOS)
| Star Trek: The Animated Series (TAS)
| Star Trek: The Next Generation (TNG)
| Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (DS9)
| Star Trek: Voyager (VOY)
| Star Trek: Enterprise (ENT)
|-
! Original Air Dates
| 1966-1969
| 1973-1974
| 1987-1994
| 1993-1999
| 1995-2001
| 2001-2005
|-
! Number Of Episodes
| 80
| 22
| 178
| 176
| 172
| 98
|}

{| class="wikitable"
!Movie Name
|Star Trek: The Motion Picture
|Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
|Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
|Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
|Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
|Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
|Star Trek: Generations
|Star Trek: First Contact
|Star Trek: Insurrection
|Star Trek: Nemesis
|Star Trek
|-
! Year of Release
| 1979
| 1982
| 1984
| 1986
| 1989
| 1991
| 1994
| 1996
| 1998
| 2002
| 2008
|-
! MPAA Rating
| PG
| PG
| PG
| PG
| PG
| PG
| PG
| PG-13
| PG
| PG-13
| N/A
|}

== The Original Series ==
The main characters from the original series were:
*[[Captain Kirk]]
*[[Spock]]
*[[Dr. McCoy]]
*[[Scotty]]
*[[Sulu]]
*[[Uhuru]]
*[[Chekov]]

{{reflist}}
== External Links ==

* [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060028/ IMDB website (Original Series)]

[[Category:Television Shows]]
[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Science fiction]]
[[Category:Star Trek]]

Star Trek franchise

2008-09-10T16:39:05Z

MargeryCampbell: /* The Next Generation */ added ref

[[Image:startrektoscast.jpg|thumb|right|The crew of the Enterprise from the original 1960s show.]]

'''Star Trek''' is an [[American]] [[television|TV]] series created by [[Gene Roddenberry]], which premiered on [[NBC]] September 8th, 1966 and ended June 3rd, 1969. The show featured a crew of space explorers traveling around the galaxy in a ''Constitution''-class starship called the ''USS Enterprise NCC-1701'', set in the 23rd century. It never caught on with late night viewers and was cancelled due to low ratings, but soon established a strong following in syndication that saw the show become much more popular than it had ever been in its original run. The original TV show became a franchise. Many different spin-offs of the original program have now been made, the last of which was a prequel with the original 'Enterprise' space ship.

== Extraterrestrial life ==
The drama of the shows typically arises from the crew's contact with various forms of [[extraterrestrial life]], mostly, but not always, [[humanoid]] (e.g. the "Crystalline Entity"). In various ways, the [[premise]] of the [[ancient astronaut theory]] is used to assert the seeding of [[life]] throughout the [[galaxy]] as brought up in ''The Next Generation'', although not to the overt extent of a later, unrelated, TV series, [[Stargate SG-1]].

== Religion in Star Trek ==
As a [[humanist]], Gene Roddenberry infused Star Trek with humanism's dream of a world (or galaxy in this case) where humanity (and many other intelligent beings) were constantly improving the life quality of all beings both through improving technology and improving societal conditions.
People worked together for the common good, rather than for money, and without any class or other distinctions.
This is a small part of what is expected in the Christian view of [[heaven]], except that humanism believes that mankind can achieve this through its own efforts, rather than with the help of God.

Roddenberry rarely had the shows overtly reject religion, although some episodes would make reference to it as a part of culture. For instance in an episode with a man who could not die, it was noted that in one his personas in earth history he had been [[Lazarus]] (who [[Jesus]] rose from the dead). In another episode a world where the Roman Empire never fell was now chasing down followers of "the son" (who the crew mistook to be "sun") and their message of peace and love instead of violence and oppression.

Later series, under the control of other producers particularly after Roddenberry died, also brought religious concepts into the show, but seldom with the same direct references to Christianity, but rather to more generic religious thought.

=== The Next Generation ===

An episode of ''Star Trek: The Next Generation'' has one major example of anti-religion bias. The third-season episode entitled "Who Watches the Watchers," implies that an alien culture discarding religious beliefs is a positive development.
In the episode "Tapestry", Captain Picard dies and goes to the "afterlife" where he meets his erstwhile adversary "Q" who implies that he is God. Picard refuses to believe this, and makes a comment that "The Universe is not so badly run." This suggests that Picard was aware of the concept of God, but does not indicate that he believed in God. That phrase might be pointed more toward the character of Q controlling the universe than God's existence. However the majority of episodes remain silent on religion. In another episode where the ship is trapped and aliens will perform experiments that will kill half the crew, Picard admits to 'Ryker' (actually an alien in disguise) that he does believe in God, because the universe is just too orderly to have happened on its own.<ref>http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Where_Silence_Has_Lease</ref>

=== Bajoran religion ===

''Star Trek: Deep Space 9'' included religion more than any other series. An overarching theme of the series was the relation of the main character, Captain Benjamin Sisko, to the Bajoran religion in his role as the emissary to the Bajoran prophets. The prophets were beings who lived in a stable wormhole (a unique phenomenon in the Star Trek universe referred to by the Bajorans as the Celestial Temple) that perceived all of time as a single event with no concept of past, present, or future. Despite their immense dissimilarity to other races in the galaxy, the Prophets took unusual interest in Bajor, sending 'orbs' which were used as tools of prophecy by the Bajoran clergy, and in Sisko who it is revealed exists solely to fulfill a predetermined historical path in an Armageddon-like showdown as the avatar of the prophets against the 'Pah Wraiths' (aliens like the Prophets who were expelled from the Celestial Temple).

=== Other religions ===

''Star Trek: Deep Space 9'' also had the Dominion, in which the Founders (shape-shifting aliens sometimes called changelings) are treated as living gods by the races under their control.

The Klingon religion in various series suggests that the first Klingons realized they had no need for their gods, and killed them, although they still hold to an afterlife where the honorable dead join with the deified Kahless and the dishonorable dead are forced to spend eternity on the Barge of the Dead with the Demon like figure Fecklarr.

The Ferengi (mainly in ''Star Trek: Deep Space 9'') had a religion of sorts based on the concept of The Great River (as shown in "Faith, Treachery and The Great River"), which was similar to "[[The invisible hand]]" a phrase coined by [[Adam Smith]]. Ferengi also hold that if they achieve enough profit during their lives, they will meet the Blessed Exchequer who will grant them access to the Divine Treasury, whereas an unsuccessful Ferengi may find himself left in the Vault of Eternal Destitution.

== The Prime Directive ==
Starfleet had The Prime Directive which said that they should not interfere with the natural progression of a species. The directive sometimes clashed with morality or common sense and on many occasions was ignored by Starfleet officers. There was also a Temporal Prime Directive which said that when going into the past (by various means) they should not try to alter the course of history. When someone from Starfleet (or elsewhere) violated the directive officers were justified in working to stop them as long as they did not violate the directive themselves.

== The series and films ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Series Name
| Star Trek: The Original Series (TOS)
| Star Trek: The Animated Series (TAS)
| Star Trek: The Next Generation (TNG)
| Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (DS9)
| Star Trek: Voyager (VOY)
| Star Trek: Enterprise (ENT)
|-
! Original Air Dates
| 1966-1969
| 1973-1974
| 1987-1994
| 1993-1999
| 1995-2001
| 2001-2005
|-
! Number Of Episodes
| 80
| 22
| 178
| 176
| 172
| 98
|}

{| class="wikitable"
!Movie Name
|Star Trek: The Motion Picture
|Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
|Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
|Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
|Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
|Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
|Star Trek: Generations
|Star Trek: First Contact
|Star Trek: Insurrection
|Star Trek: Nemesis
|Star Trek
|-
! Year of Release
| 1979
| 1982
| 1984
| 1986
| 1989
| 1991
| 1994
| 1996
| 1998
| 2002
| 2008
|-
! MPAA Rating
| PG
| PG
| PG
| PG
| PG
| PG
| PG
| PG-13
| PG
| PG-13
| N/A
|}

== The Original Series ==
The main characters from the original series were:
*[[Captain Kirk]]
*[[Spock]]
*[[Dr. McCoy]]
*[[Scotty]]
*[[Sulu]]
*[[Uhuru]]
*[[Chekov]]

== External Links ==

* [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060028/ IMDB website (Original Series)]

[[Category:Television Shows]]
[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Science fiction]]
[[Category:Star Trek]]

Talk:Essay:Liberal Denials about History

2008-09-09T20:15:24Z

MargeryCampbell: /* A bulleted list... */ apology from Chris Campbell

== Public school education in its current form is less than 100 years old. ==

So is penicillin. That doesn't make it a bad thing. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 18:15, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

: Then why don't liberals admit it about public schools, and question its long-term value (harm)?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:Can you provide any sources that show that the majority of liberals deny that the current public education system is less than 100 years old? As a liberal, and being in a fairly liberal community, I have never even heard that this was an issue. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:03, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

== This essay sparks interest, but... ==

...then we're left with no source or explanation, so the overall impression is a startled shrug. Which ''is'' a pity, so I offer my view in the hope that you could expand it.

For example, the Rhode Island point immediately triggers the question what makes you assume that this single cause (separation of church and state) among the undoubtedly many had the consequence (slave importer). Our entry about Rhode Island currently states that "Rhode Island was the first state to outlaw slavery", so what's to stop somebody from claiming that the separation of church and state caused this, too? Without any explanation or source, both conclusions are equally valid (and shaky).

The point about public school education in its current form being just 100 years old is fairly weak because my reaction was "...it seems to work pretty well, so what's the point?" You seem to assume that every conservative will go "Oh no! Public schools in their current form are horrible!", but... nope, sorry. :/ I'm not saying public schools are Heaven on Earth, but to me, this item looks out of place on a list about Liberal History Denials. It would help if you at least explained the alternative: What changed 100 years ago?

And if I'm not ''completely'' mistaken, liberals don't deny that chivalry was a big thing here (conversely, I never noticed conservatives pointing out that chivalry was customary throughout history) - it just happened to be a big thing in several other countries, too, so I don't see the need to go out of my way to point it out. It's sort of a given. But maybe I'm missing your point. Please enlighten me, I'm always open for new ideas!

Lastly, the "American Indians vs. Asians" thing... really needs a source. Who says they're "too different", for example? And on what basis? This sounds like a fairly complex evolution issue, so it ''really'' needs some background.

I'm fairly new here, and this essay strikes me as a collection of "inside jokes" (not in the "funny" sense, but in the "This will make little sense unless you also read my other fifty essays about these things" sense). So I would appreciate some expansion of these points. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 19:47, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

: As to your first point, there's no denying a correlation between the separation of church and state and slavery, though [[liberals]] will refuse to admit it. I've updated our Rhode Island entry to reflect that this tiny state controlled 60-90% of the African slave trade after the Revolution.

: Your other points are not any more open-minded. Public schools in their current form is less than 100 years old. It's a fact. The fact has significance. Admit it and teach it. If you think critical analysis of the results of this less-than-100-year experience is inappropriate, then welcome to the liberal mindset.

: Chivalry is not taught as part of history. It should be. Your view is unclear.

: American Indians are different from Asians in almost every significant way. Blood type. Interests. Every other measure you can think of. Deny it and join the liberal denial about history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

I have a few questions about these. I'll address them one by one for simplicity.
# Can one say for sure they are too different for one to have descended from the other? YEC theory postulates that everyone is descended from two people. Obviously major changes in such groups have occurred over the years, and very different groups must have common ancestry.
#Rhode Island was the biggest importer of slaves? That's news to me. Overall, I think you'll find Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas imported more slaves than Rhode Island ever did. I know you don't care for Wikipedia, but, for lack of a more convenient source, if you look at their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_America Slavery in America] article, you'll see he highest slave population for any year in RI was less than a thousand, while in Virginia it at one point reached nearly half a million.
#Chivalry, in its most literal sense, dealt with etiquette among the gentry and nobility. America does not have a nobility, has never had knighthood, and has not had such a code. In its less formal sense: etiquette rules in general, manners, politeness (especially towards women), I don't think anyone denies its presence.
#As for the age of the public school system, I'm not sure if its denied; I just wonder the significance. If you're saying it's not adequately tried and true, well, I have to wonder, what is the alternative? Homeschooling is not an option for most people. Even when one parent can stay home with the child for 18 years, how competent will any one person be at teaching multiple subjects at an advanced level? I consider myself a pretty smart guy, but I couldn't teach most classes at a high school level. If I ever had a special needs child I wouldn't know where to begin. It seems to me there are 4 choices: public school, private school, home school, or no school. The last should not be an option, the middle two aren't available to everyone, so that just leaves public school. While its far from perfect, I think efforts should go towards improvement rather than dismissal.
Well, that's my thought. I hope you'll take the time to reply. Thanks. [[User:Sanders|Sanders]] 20:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::(Edit Conflict with Sanders, so some points might overlap)
::Andy, I believe you missed ''all'' of my points and simply replied by repeating your claims. But maybe it's my fault for not being clear enough. Paraphrasing Sun Tzu: "If words of question are not clear and distinct, if requests are not thoroughly understood, then the initial poster is to blame." So here we go again, more to the point (I hope):
::#"There's no denying it" is a very bad reply to a request for sourcing and explanation. If it's so obvious and undeniable, then you can surely produce at least a single source that explains (instead of just asserting) it. Or, since you arrived at that conclusion, you can surely explain it yourself. You're a teacher - would you tell your student that "there's no denying it" if they asked you "Could you explain how Rhode Island's position as #1 slave importer was a result of the church/state separation?"? I hope not.
::#I didn't doubt that "public school education in its current form is less than 100 years old". My questions were how things had been 100 years ago and what the point of this claim is. You don't even say what the results are, but you imply that I disfavor critical analysis of such results. In fact, that's why I repeatedly called for expansion of your points. I know you value conciseness, but in its current form, this essay only teases and hints, but fails to deliver. Which is why I made my initial comment in the first place (along with notes saying just that).
::#Chivalry... I really don't get why you want to stress it in a single country when it was widely spread. Unless your point is that it should be pointed out also for the other countries. I could agree with that. But either way, this strikes me as pointless. Also, your claim that it's not taught is weak: My History teacher pointed out that it was followed in the US and other countries as a basic concept, along with a brief primer about its roots. But from what I remember, it's more of a social issue and less of a distinct historic one in terms of impact (and even less of a distinct US History one), so I currently don't see the need for such emphasis. But I repeat: I'm willing to listen if you explain it. I'm open for new things. But simply repeating your short claims without any sort of source or background won't help.
::#A great response. I ask for background, a source and an expansion, and you basically reply with "Almost everything is different! If you deny this, then you're a Liberal History Denier!" Though I admit that the "Their interests are different!" bit cracked me up. I always like a teacher with humor. I can see it now. "Asians like Mahjong. American Indians didn't. Hah-ha!" :P Seriously, though, you're making a veeeeery strong claim here that deeply dips into evolutionary biology and ethnology, so in the interest of all your readers, I ask for a source.
::I hope this sums up my issues in a more clear way. I'm happy you replied, but I would be even happier if you actually replied to my questions/requests. :) --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:57, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::: DirkB, at the risk of belaboring the obvious, let me try again:
::: Point 1: religion teaches that slavery is wrong. Separating church and state means separating "slavery is wrong" from "state". The result is legalized slavery. Got it now? That's why Rhode Island imported up to 90% of the slaves. Don't continue to pretend you don't get the connection. Of course liberals are going to deny the connection exists, and perhaps so will you.
::: Point 2: there's no question here requiring a response. This is a fact that should be taught and discussed. But liberals won't.
::: Point 3: if you think your history teacher taught you about chivalry in colonial America, then please repeat that for our benefit here. I doubt you heard much about it.
::: Point 4: I said the blood types (and virtually everything else) is different between American Indians and Asians. You respond with silliness. You have free will to deny the truth. I'm interested in the truth and that's where you'll find me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:37, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

(undent) Aschlafly, I assume that the Asian/Native American theory is taught because it is the consensus generally agreed upon by the experts. If it is so obviously wrong, what do you suggest should be taught in its place? [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 11:07, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

:I am curious about what is meant by "blood types". After all, all humans share the same blood types or groups (if it refers to A, B, O, AB). Or is it a reference to DNA? --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Hajimemashite!'']] 12:40, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

On the Rhode Is. slavery question, I think this may be Andy's reference:

''Rhode Island, of course, was among the most active Northern colonies in importing slaves. Between 1709 and 1807, Rhode Island merchants sponsored at least 934 slaving voyages to the coast of Africa and carried an estimated 106,544 slaves to the New World. From 1732-64, Rhode Islanders sent annually 18 ships, bearing 1,800 hogsheads of rum, to Africa to trade for slaves, earning £40,000 annually. Newport, the colony's leading slave port, took an estimated 59,070 slaves to America before the Revolution. Bristol and Providence also prospered from it. In the years after the Revolution, Rhode Island merchants controlled between 60 and 90 percent of the American trade in African slaves.
http://www.slavenorth.com/rhodeisland.htm'' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:09, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

==A bulleted list...==
A bullet list doesn't quite make it as an essay. While I'd like to think the author will be making additions and fleshing out his arguments, other [[Essay:5 Questions to Ask an Anti-Conservative|"essays"]] [[Essay:10 Ways Liberals Create Atheists|similarly]] are nothing more than [[Essay:Most Influential Persons|baldfaced assertions]] with little or no [[Essay:Electoral College|actual]] [[Essay:Conservatism Essential to Religion|substance]] or [[Essay:Greatest Mysteries of American History|well thought-out]] [[Essay:Hillary's Strategy to Win|arguments]]. Most seem nothing more than mere lists of things to be against, to link to internal articles (or worse other "essays"). <s>Good luck defending your lists Aschlafly, for without an inkling as to what thoughts may be behind your spate of "essays", readers will likely come to the conclusion that the author of such drivel cannot be a vital, energetic thinker but an intellectually lazy and shallow person who cannot put across a cogent argument and satisfies his impotent rage with lists of "bad thoughts".</s> [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 15:40, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
===NOTE===
The above was written by me, Christopher Campbell using my mother's account here. She only found out that I was using her account shen she tried to edit later on and found that she could not due to being blocked. At first she thought someone on the internet "hacked" her account and while it was tempting to let her believe this I finally fessed up to making the edit. 
My Mother will not let me have any internet accounts of my own that she hasn't personally set up and monitor. Nor will she let me have an account here at Conservapedia, (which is why I was forced to use her account). She said that the above proves that I am not ready to edit responsibly, showing (as it does) little regard for the feelings of Mr Schlafly and his efforts to make Conservapedia the best it can be.

'''I therefore publicly apologize to you Mr Schlafly for the great wrong I have done, "speaking" rashly and denigrating your encyclopedia without care as to you, your administrators and the other fine editors who are attempting to make Conservapedia a resource we all can be proud of.'''

Christopher Campbell 16:15, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
(EDT)

Talk:Essay:Liberal Denials about History

2008-09-06T19:40:40Z

MargeryCampbell: Lightweight

== Public school education in its current form is less than 100 years old. ==

So is penicillin. That doesn't make it a bad thing. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 18:15, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

: Then why don't liberals admit it about public schools, and question its long-term value (harm)?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:Can you provide any sources that show that the majority of liberals deny that the current public education system is less than 100 years old? As a liberal, and being in a fairly liberal community, I have never even heard that this was an issue. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:03, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

== This essay sparks interest, but... ==

...then we're left with no source or explanation, so the overall impression is a startled shrug. Which ''is'' a pity, so I offer my view in the hope that you could expand it.

For example, the Rhode Island point immediately triggers the question what makes you assume that this single cause (separation of church and state) among the undoubtedly many had the consequence (slave importer). Our entry about Rhode Island currently states that "Rhode Island was the first state to outlaw slavery", so what's to stop somebody from claiming that the separation of church and state caused this, too? Without any explanation or source, both conclusions are equally valid (and shaky).

The point about public school education in its current form being just 100 years old is fairly weak because my reaction was "...it seems to work pretty well, so what's the point?" You seem to assume that every conservative will go "Oh no! Public schools in their current form are horrible!", but... nope, sorry. :/ I'm not saying public schools are Heaven on Earth, but to me, this item looks out of place on a list about Liberal History Denials. It would help if you at least explained the alternative: What changed 100 years ago?

And if I'm not ''completely'' mistaken, liberals don't deny that chivalry was a big thing here (conversely, I never noticed conservatives pointing out that chivalry was customary throughout history) - it just happened to be a big thing in several other countries, too, so I don't see the need to go out of my way to point it out. It's sort of a given. But maybe I'm missing your point. Please enlighten me, I'm always open for new ideas!

Lastly, the "American Indians vs. Asians" thing... really needs a source. Who says they're "too different", for example? And on what basis? This sounds like a fairly complex evolution issue, so it ''really'' needs some background.

I'm fairly new here, and this essay strikes me as a collection of "inside jokes" (not in the "funny" sense, but in the "This will make little sense unless you also read my other fifty essays about these things" sense). So I would appreciate some expansion of these points. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 19:47, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

: As to your first point, there's no denying a correlation between the separation of church and state and slavery, though [[liberals]] will refuse to admit it. I've updated our Rhode Island entry to reflect that this tiny state controlled 60-90% of the African slave trade after the Revolution.

: Your other points are not any more open-minded. Public schools in their current form is less than 100 years old. It's a fact. The fact has significance. Admit it and teach it. If you think critical analysis of the results of this less-than-100-year experience is inappropriate, then welcome to the liberal mindset.

: Chivalry is not taught as part of history. It should be. Your view is unclear.

: American Indians are different from Asians in almost every significant way. Blood type. Interests. Every other measure you can think of. Deny it and join the liberal denial about history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

I have a few questions about these. I'll address them one by one for simplicity.
# Can one say for sure they are too different for one to have descended from the other? YEC theory postulates that everyone is descended from two people. Obviously major changes in such groups have occurred over the years, and very different groups must have common ancestry.
#Rhode Island was the biggest importer of slaves? That's news to me. Overall, I think you'll find Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas imported more slaves than Rhode Island ever did. I know you don't care for Wikipedia, but, for lack of a more convenient source, if you look at their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_America Slavery in America] article, you'll see he highest slave population for any year in RI was less than a thousand, while in Virginia it at one point reached nearly half a million.
#Chivalry, in its most literal sense, dealt with etiquette among the gentry and nobility. America does not have a nobility, has never had knighthood, and has not had such a code. In its less formal sense: etiquette rules in general, manners, politeness (especially towards women), I don't think anyone denies its presence.
#As for the age of the public school system, I'm not sure if its denied; I just wonder the significance. If you're saying it's not adequately tried and true, well, I have to wonder, what is the alternative? Homeschooling is not an option for most people. Even when one parent can stay home with the child for 18 years, how competent will any one person be at teaching multiple subjects at an advanced level? I consider myself a pretty smart guy, but I couldn't teach most classes at a high school level. If I ever had a special needs child I wouldn't know where to begin. It seems to me there are 4 choices: public school, private school, home school, or no school. The last should not be an option, the middle two aren't available to everyone, so that just leaves public school. While its far from perfect, I think efforts should go towards improvement rather than dismissal.
Well, that's my thought. I hope you'll take the time to reply. Thanks. [[User:Sanders|Sanders]] 20:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::(Edit Conflict with Sanders, so some points might overlap)
::Andy, I believe you missed ''all'' of my points and simply replied by repeating your claims. But maybe it's my fault for not being clear enough. Paraphrasing Sun Tzu: "If words of question are not clear and distinct, if requests are not thoroughly understood, then the initial poster is to blame." So here we go again, more to the point (I hope):
::#"There's no denying it" is a very bad reply to a request for sourcing and explanation. If it's so obvious and undeniable, then you can surely produce at least a single source that explains (instead of just asserting) it. Or, since you arrived at that conclusion, you can surely explain it yourself. You're a teacher - would you tell your student that "there's no denying it" if they asked you "Could you explain how Rhode Island's position as #1 slave importer was a result of the church/state separation?"? I hope not.
::#I didn't doubt that "public school education in its current form is less than 100 years old". My questions were how things had been 100 years ago and what the point of this claim is. You don't even say what the results are, but you imply that I disfavor critical analysis of such results. In fact, that's why I repeatedly called for expansion of your points. I know you value conciseness, but in its current form, this essay only teases and hints, but fails to deliver. Which is why I made my initial comment in the first place (along with notes saying just that).
::#Chivalry... I really don't get why you want to stress it in a single country when it was widely spread. Unless your point is that it should be pointed out also for the other countries. I could agree with that. But either way, this strikes me as pointless. Also, your claim that it's not taught is weak: My History teacher pointed out that it was followed in the US and other countries as a basic concept, along with a brief primer about its roots. But from what I remember, it's more of a social issue and less of a distinct historic one in terms of impact (and even less of a distinct US History one), so I currently don't see the need for such emphasis. But I repeat: I'm willing to listen if you explain it. I'm open for new things. But simply repeating your short claims without any sort of source or background won't help.
::#A great response. I ask for background, a source and an expansion, and you basically reply with "Almost everything is different! If you deny this, then you're a Liberal History Denier!" Though I admit that the "Their interests are different!" bit cracked me up. I always like a teacher with humor. I can see it now. "Asians like Mahjong. American Indians didn't. Hah-ha!" :P Seriously, though, you're making a veeeeery strong claim here that deeply dips into evolutionary biology and ethnology, so in the interest of all your readers, I ask for a source.
::I hope this sums up my issues in a more clear way. I'm happy you replied, but I would be even happier if you actually replied to my questions/requests. :) --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:57, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::: DirkB, at the risk of belaboring the obvious, let me try again:
::: Point 1: religion teaches that slavery is wrong. Separating church and state means separating "slavery is wrong" from "state". The result is legalized slavery. Got it now? That's why Rhode Island imported up to 90% of the slaves. Don't continue to pretend you don't get the connection. Of course liberals are going to deny the connection exists, and perhaps so will you.
::: Point 2: there's no question here requiring a response. This is a fact that should be taught and discussed. But liberals won't.
::: Point 3: if you think your history teacher taught you about chivalry in colonial America, then please repeat that for our benefit here. I doubt you heard much about it.
::: Point 4: I said the blood types (and virtually everything else) is different between American Indians and Asians. You respond with silliness. You have free will to deny the truth. I'm interested in the truth and that's where you'll find me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:37, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

(undent) Aschlafly, I assume that the Asian/Native American theory is taught because it is the consensus generally agreed upon by the experts. If it is so obviously wrong, what do you suggest should be taught in its place? [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 11:07, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

:I am curious about what is meant by "blood types". After all, all humans share the same blood types or groups (if it refers to A, B, O, AB). Or is it a reference to DNA? --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Hajimemashite!'']] 12:40, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

On the Rhode Is. slavery question, I think this may be Andy's reference:

''Rhode Island, of course, was among the most active Northern colonies in importing slaves. Between 1709 and 1807, Rhode Island merchants sponsored at least 934 slaving voyages to the coast of Africa and carried an estimated 106,544 slaves to the New World. From 1732-64, Rhode Islanders sent annually 18 ships, bearing 1,800 hogsheads of rum, to Africa to trade for slaves, earning £40,000 annually. Newport, the colony's leading slave port, took an estimated 59,070 slaves to America before the Revolution. Bristol and Providence also prospered from it. In the years after the Revolution, Rhode Island merchants controlled between 60 and 90 percent of the American trade in African slaves.
http://www.slavenorth.com/rhodeisland.htm'' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:09, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

==A bulleted list...==
A bullet list doesn't quite make it as an essay. While I'd like to think the author will be making additions and fleshing out his arguments, other [[Essay:5 Questions to Ask an Anti-Conservative|"essays"]] [[Essay:10 Ways Liberals Create Atheists|similarly]] are nothing more than [[Essay:Most Influential Persons|baldfaced assertions]] with little or no [[Essay:Electoral College|actual]] [[Essay:Conservatism Essential to Religion|substance]] or [[Essay:Greatest Mysteries of American History|well thought-out]] [[Essay:Hillary's Strategy to Win|arguments]]. Most seem nothing more than mere lists of things to be against, to link to internal articles (or worse other "essays"). Good luck defending your lists Aschlafly, for without an inkling as to what thoughts may be behind your spate of "essays", readers will likely come to the conclusion that the author of such drivel cannot be a vital, energetic thinker but an intellectually lazy and shallow person who cannot put across a cogent argument and satisfies his impotent rage with lists of "bad thoughts". [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 15:40, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Down's syndrome

2008-09-06T18:35:36Z

MargeryCampbell: Redirecting to Down syndrome

#REDIRECT [[Down syndrome]]

Talk:United States Presidential Election, 2008

2008-09-05T18:28:07Z

MargeryCampbell: /* New Edits */

I think that if Rudy Giuliani ran, then New York would be in play.

::He'll carry New York if he burns through a lot of money, but he'll lose the South to Mitt Romney no matter what he does (being a thrice-married gun grabber and all). McCain is sinking like a rock. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 14:52, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Overhaul ==

That looked like a very decent analysis by [[user:aschlafly|aschlafly]] but it wasn't sourced, wasn't verifiable, and was highly opinonated. I replaced it with the considerably more vanilla page with the dates of the election, the primary season, and the names of the declared major party candidates. If someone wanted to add the third party and independent candidates and any other facts regarding the 08 election, that would be great. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 08:17, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:I may be wrong, but I think that most of the third party candidates aren't determined until the year of the election. If you know any further information about them, though, by all means add them. You make a very good point about their inclusion in this page. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::Third party candidate is kind of a misnomer. Prominent third party candidates a la Perot and Nader will decided some time late this year or early next year to declare as they don't have to worry about primaries. Also, of course, any disgruntled Democrats or Republicans might wait until after the primaries. However, there are many parties that have candidates, just no real recognition. Prohibition Party, Greens, Libertarians, Reforms... then there's lesser known independents like David Koch and a few others. I just don't want to put in the work and then be told that it's trivial and that we're trying to remain concise. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:17, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What I meant was that, at least in 2004, the Constitution, Libertarian, and Green Parties hadn't nominated by this point. Once we know them, by all means they should be included. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::::And what I meant was that there are several declared candidates at this point, for those parties, and that if someone wanted to do the work, they should be listed. I don't want to do the work because it will probably just get deleted. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:24, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: I'd back you up in any edit wars/disputes. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

There is at this point a lot of no-longer-relevant information (e.g., Hillary Clinton electability polls). The whole article could use a top-to-bottom revision. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 10:35, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== Unsourced information ==

Andy, I didn't delete improperly. Just because it was your information doesn't mean it was improper. The battle ground states section is an ''exceptionally simplistic'' analysis of how elections are waged. There are no sources referencing your analysis. There are places for original research and places for fact. This is the latter. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:24, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Move==
I think this article and its talk page should be moved to [[2008 United States Presidential Election]]. Presidents get elected in other countries, too! :) [[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 15:58, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

: I oppose this suggestion at this time, because it would make the title almost twice as long without avoiding any real confusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:03, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::However, changing it to [[United States presidential election, 2008]] would help maintain consistency throughout the site (see [[:Category:United_States_presidential_elections]]). [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 16:15, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

*Well if that is a problem, I can always do away with that category name. What would you suggest in its stead? Or would you prefer me to choose it? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:10, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Greg, how many other countries' election articles have you written? When we have too many for ''election'' to refer to America, we'll consider your suggestion again. This is basically an American encyclopedia, not an international one like Wikipedia. We'll disambiguate, when and if the title becomes ambiguous. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:54, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Greg has been permablocked in any event. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:57, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

=="First Election without incumbants since 1928?"==
I thought that in 1952 there were no incumbants. Neither Republican, [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]], nor [[Democrat]], [[Adlai Stevenson]], was an incumbant. If this is true then it's really the first election since 1956. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 17:40, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh, now I see. [[Alben Barkley]] ran, but didn't get the [[Democratic]] nomination. Thanks for clearing that up on the page. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 14:37, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

== Updated electability polls? ==

With Huckabee now a major candidate, and some of the previous front runners no longer in pole position, maybe we should get some updated polls. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:03, 23 December 2007 (EST)
:Isn't this like aiming at a moving target? I think that the polls are now moving so fast that it would take almost constant revisions. Is this practical? [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 20:02, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== Uh-Oh! Suspended campaign ==
What do we do now that [[Mitt Romney]] has "suspended" his campaign? Do we take him off the list? Do we put him under withdrawn candidates or create a new section? -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 19:50, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==What's wrong with the photo?==
Why is the photo of all the Republican Presidential candidates together in the section on the Republican primary taken down? The person who took it down just said that it's not needed. Why? [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] April 25, 2008 10:54PM

:Please use the resources of the site to ask the person who did it. By the way, it might be helpful to be not quite so shrill when you do that. [[User:Peter Ellis|Peter Ellis]] 07:34, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

== Rename and Redirect ==

Can a sysop please move the content of this article to [http://www.conservapedia.com/United_States_presidential_election%2C_2008 here] and then create a redirect on this page to keep article titles consistent? Thanks! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 13:12, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

==Battleground States Map==

I don't have upload rights, but can someone who does find an updated Battleground States map to replace the current one, which has Bush/Kerry references instead of McCain/Obama? Thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 08:39, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

== Polling ==

I've simplified the polling numbers to the two largest polling firms. The previous information from Real Politics was misleading as it did not weight poll results based upon sample size. In other words if one poll of 3,000 people found the spread to be 3 points and another poll of 1,000 people found the spread to be 9 points, rather than merging them to be 4,000 people and a spread of 4.5 points, they simply treat them as equal and make it 6 points -- poor math and unworthy of our site. The "poll or polls" didn't have any numbers recorded at all, and therefore is not included. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:01, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

:To put your mind to rest then, I'd be happy to add a table using RCP's results that show the most recent polls, as well as results, MoE, and polling size. Of course, your numbers for Rasmussen didn't explain that you included "Leaners", whereas most polls when publishing their main results will include those separately. So perhaps you'd like to change the number to not reflect the leaners? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:04, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

::A table sounds fine sorted by sample size, the greatest number on top. Rasmussen also reports without leaners, so use that figure for consistency. It will need frequent update, so I hope you are volunteering for that as well. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:12, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Table has been added, but put in order by date, not sample size, as that's the format that is generally used (so that the latest polls appear on top). --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:33, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

::::You should probably add a meaning for RV and LV below for clarity. Also, feel free to add Rasmussen's data without including leaners if that is the way most polls are conducted. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:01, 18 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::Good suggestion--those abbreviations have been clarified. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 13:08, 18 July 2008 (EDT)

== More Polling ==

Jareddr, I see you are altering state polling data where you have found more recent polls than Rasmussen's. This is fine, but let's also make sure any source that we use is reputable and known for fairness - and accuracy. Apparently Rasmussen does their polling with only 500 people (state level). I believe this should be our low number, I.E. -- we shouldn't include any polling that samples less than this number. Normally I would want to see a higher count, but Rasmussen also has other checks and balances that help to ensure their data, and I was quite impressed that when other polling units were having wild fluctuations - that Rasmussen was showing consistentcy.

I also noticed that some of the sources that you are using have updated polling numbers on other states that you didn't use - numbers that were more favorable to McCain. This could have been coincidence, but please try to be consistent in updating all states where such an update is appropriate. With the trend again heading to Obama, you should be relatively pleased to do so. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:59, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh, and please use the last date of the polling - not the date it was reported. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:14, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

== Form of Article ==

As much as possible gentlemen let's try to keep the article focused on the issues and what is occurring in the election. Negatives about either candidate personally should go to other articles as should indepth party platforms that would seem to support one side over the other based on volume of writing if nothing else.

We have one of the best written articles on this issue on the internet. If you go to Wikipedia just try to find a chart showing polling of all 50 states. We should be proud of our achievement, which took many edits from different people, and let us work together to continue to strive to keep it that way.

Thanks.

[[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:19, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

==Taking down polls==
I noticed that a lot of the polling for the Presidential election was taken down. I would like to put it back up. This article should be made on a historical content over how the race changes. It's not enough just to have the latest 2-3 polls. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 18 August 2008

:I took them down because the numbers had changed and there seems to be a strong agreement among current polling. The 3 polls removed actually started their polling on July 31st, making their information almost 3 weeks old. While we haven't set a rigid timeline for when a poll's relevance 'expires', in a Presidential race that would seem to be pushing the limit.

:What would be a good addition, if anyone has that knowledge, is to set up a tracking graph where we could show trends by week. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:16, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Every day Gallup comes up with a tracking graph. You can view it here. http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080818DailyUpdateGraph1_ghbnvcs.gif Maybe you could post that? [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 18 August 2008

Something I also want to point out is that the current "relevance" should have nothing to do with it. Look at it this way, if someone in the year 2010 wants to do research on the 2008 Presidential race, they might want to know what the polls said in July. This shouldn't be like a blog with only the latest information. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 18 August 2008

== Edwards and Jackson v. Republicans ==

LT, I think the information should be considered separately on who is NOT attending the convention. Edwards and Jackson are not attending, I suppose, due to pressure from the DNC. The Republicans are not attending the convention by their own choosing so as to minimize the links drawn between the GOP and the individual politicians in a tough political environment. So, first off, I don't think it's necessarily a "If you don't do it for them, then you shouldn't for the others" type of situation. Frankly, this site is FAR from an equal treatment of one party and the other. But, if necessary, I think BOTH should be included, as opposed to neither. Obviously the GOP side has already been written, and you've modified it to, IMO, water it down slightly, but in any case, it seems to have been agreed upon. I think the Dem side should be added, perhaps here in the talk page first, modified appropriately, and then inserted into the article as well. I'd rather have more information than less. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:57, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:What I am looking for as far as noteworthiness is out of the ordinary occurrences. Based upon what would be expected, how is this convention going to be different than that expectation? Jackson has spoken at every convention for more than 2 decades. At the same time, I don't think we should dwell on it, unless you wish to write separate spin-off articles. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:25, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::Having 8 or 9 Republican Senators, out of 49, not attend the convention I would '''definitely''' consider noteworthy. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:41, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

==Anyway we could stop taking down polling data==
This article should be made on a historical content, so we should show what the polls said during the entire Presidential campaign. I would appreciate it if we stopped taking down polling data. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 21 August 2008

:It becomes more "gangly" when there is a ton of polling data in the section. After the election, if you want to go back and provide all the polls throughout the season, then you're more than welcome to do so. But I believe LT and I both agree that it is more streamlined to present just the recent polls. Again, if you want to add a separate section, or a chart, or wait until the end of the season, by all means. But as it is, it seems like 2 editors are for trimming the data, and 1 against. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:22, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

OK Jareddr, you win. But I still plan to continue putting up all the latest polls. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 21 August 2008

:Fantastic! Just remember to keep them in date order, and I'll take down the older ones. As a helpful guide, we've been keeping Rasmussen and Gallup on top because they're updated daily, and therefore you don't have to rewrite them, etc.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:28, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

==This would be great for the party convention sections==
I've just found photo's for the stages of the Democrat and Republican conventions.

Democrat: http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2008-08/dncc-floor3.jpg

Republican: http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2008-08/rncc-podium.jpg

I think one of the administrators should post these for the section, it would be a nice addition. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 22 August 2008

== Democratic/Republican Strategy ==

I believe this section is best as a general strategy leading into the start of the one on one battle, and not an update of what each side is or could be doing with any daily event. As such it should generally be complete. For broader campaign issues of what is happening (not theory) and how they affect the polling, I would suggest the Obama vs. McCain section. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:05, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:I disagree. The strategy of the one on one battle is clearly handled in the Obama v. McCain section. The Dem v. GOP strategy shouldn't just be party v. party strategy, but rather inclusive of what strategy each side will use given the candidates on each ticket. The Democratic strategy is going to be vastly different with Palin as a V.P. as opposed to, say, Mitt Romney, just as the GOP strategy would change if it was Clinton or Kaine instead of Biden. To discuss the strategy of each party, it's necessary to highlight how they are going to "attack" the other side. That's part of strategy! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:10, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

::New strategies are created and played out daily both from the Democratic and Republican side and they pay people well to come up with them. We could also discuss each ad variant, where it is being played, and what group it is attempting to reach. We can even discuss which people are chosen to place comments for the press to report and why. That is all a part of the strategy. But we will have watered down a strong article in a sea of descriptions of partisan spin instead of describing what is happening and what impact it has. I think we need to keep it on the higher level of what is happening in the election at this point - at least for this article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:38, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== New Edits ==

Barack's Obama windfall is not part of the Republican strategy. We also report on what occurs. Democratic women say they won't vote for Palin, but what is happening in the recent polling in the race between Obama/McCain? Was there a bounce? That's what we're looking for. If it turns out unaffiliated women went for the ticket instead of Democratic, I'm sure the Republican campaign would be just as happy. Obviously we both know that most Democratic women turned to Obama after Hillary's speech - it could take awhile to unglue them, if it would be successful at all.

I have started a fundraising section that notes Obama's fundraising edge and his recent influx of additional capital after the Palin speech. It is noteworthy in a fundraising section, but really has no other place in the article. BTW is it really a one day record? There were some times during the face off with Hillary where the two camps raised incredible amounts of money. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:It's a record. The previous record was in mid-August, when he raised $7.8m in a day. But this is the first time a campaign has raised over $10m in 24 hours. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:17, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::Hello, I hope everyone is having a blessed day!
::I noticed the mention of the hurricane was truncated a bit (which is fine) but the way it now reads one could mistakenly believe that the Twin Cities were visited by a freakish hurricane. Now, we all ''know'' that this isn't the case but in four years when a child is researching "what happened in 2008" it may well jump out at them.
::Either leave out all mention of the hurricane or re-add some of the old edit(s) to make a more complete picture.
::My vote would go to axing the weather story, (remember the lousy weather of the 2004 RNC? Neither do '''I'''). [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 14:26, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:United States Presidential Election, 2008

2008-09-05T18:27:24Z

MargeryCampbell: /* New Edits */ wEAther

I think that if Rudy Giuliani ran, then New York would be in play.

::He'll carry New York if he burns through a lot of money, but he'll lose the South to Mitt Romney no matter what he does (being a thrice-married gun grabber and all). McCain is sinking like a rock. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 14:52, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Overhaul ==

That looked like a very decent analysis by [[user:aschlafly|aschlafly]] but it wasn't sourced, wasn't verifiable, and was highly opinonated. I replaced it with the considerably more vanilla page with the dates of the election, the primary season, and the names of the declared major party candidates. If someone wanted to add the third party and independent candidates and any other facts regarding the 08 election, that would be great. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 08:17, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:I may be wrong, but I think that most of the third party candidates aren't determined until the year of the election. If you know any further information about them, though, by all means add them. You make a very good point about their inclusion in this page. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::Third party candidate is kind of a misnomer. Prominent third party candidates a la Perot and Nader will decided some time late this year or early next year to declare as they don't have to worry about primaries. Also, of course, any disgruntled Democrats or Republicans might wait until after the primaries. However, there are many parties that have candidates, just no real recognition. Prohibition Party, Greens, Libertarians, Reforms... then there's lesser known independents like David Koch and a few others. I just don't want to put in the work and then be told that it's trivial and that we're trying to remain concise. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:17, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What I meant was that, at least in 2004, the Constitution, Libertarian, and Green Parties hadn't nominated by this point. Once we know them, by all means they should be included. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::::And what I meant was that there are several declared candidates at this point, for those parties, and that if someone wanted to do the work, they should be listed. I don't want to do the work because it will probably just get deleted. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:24, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: I'd back you up in any edit wars/disputes. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

There is at this point a lot of no-longer-relevant information (e.g., Hillary Clinton electability polls). The whole article could use a top-to-bottom revision. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 10:35, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== Unsourced information ==

Andy, I didn't delete improperly. Just because it was your information doesn't mean it was improper. The battle ground states section is an ''exceptionally simplistic'' analysis of how elections are waged. There are no sources referencing your analysis. There are places for original research and places for fact. This is the latter. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:24, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Move==
I think this article and its talk page should be moved to [[2008 United States Presidential Election]]. Presidents get elected in other countries, too! :) [[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 15:58, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

: I oppose this suggestion at this time, because it would make the title almost twice as long without avoiding any real confusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:03, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::However, changing it to [[United States presidential election, 2008]] would help maintain consistency throughout the site (see [[:Category:United_States_presidential_elections]]). [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 16:15, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

*Well if that is a problem, I can always do away with that category name. What would you suggest in its stead? Or would you prefer me to choose it? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:10, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Greg, how many other countries' election articles have you written? When we have too many for ''election'' to refer to America, we'll consider your suggestion again. This is basically an American encyclopedia, not an international one like Wikipedia. We'll disambiguate, when and if the title becomes ambiguous. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:54, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Greg has been permablocked in any event. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:57, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

=="First Election without incumbants since 1928?"==
I thought that in 1952 there were no incumbants. Neither Republican, [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]], nor [[Democrat]], [[Adlai Stevenson]], was an incumbant. If this is true then it's really the first election since 1956. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 17:40, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh, now I see. [[Alben Barkley]] ran, but didn't get the [[Democratic]] nomination. Thanks for clearing that up on the page. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 14:37, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

== Updated electability polls? ==

With Huckabee now a major candidate, and some of the previous front runners no longer in pole position, maybe we should get some updated polls. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:03, 23 December 2007 (EST)
:Isn't this like aiming at a moving target? I think that the polls are now moving so fast that it would take almost constant revisions. Is this practical? [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 20:02, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== Uh-Oh! Suspended campaign ==
What do we do now that [[Mitt Romney]] has "suspended" his campaign? Do we take him off the list? Do we put him under withdrawn candidates or create a new section? -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 19:50, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==What's wrong with the photo?==
Why is the photo of all the Republican Presidential candidates together in the section on the Republican primary taken down? The person who took it down just said that it's not needed. Why? [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] April 25, 2008 10:54PM

:Please use the resources of the site to ask the person who did it. By the way, it might be helpful to be not quite so shrill when you do that. [[User:Peter Ellis|Peter Ellis]] 07:34, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

== Rename and Redirect ==

Can a sysop please move the content of this article to [http://www.conservapedia.com/United_States_presidential_election%2C_2008 here] and then create a redirect on this page to keep article titles consistent? Thanks! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 13:12, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

==Battleground States Map==

I don't have upload rights, but can someone who does find an updated Battleground States map to replace the current one, which has Bush/Kerry references instead of McCain/Obama? Thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 08:39, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

== Polling ==

I've simplified the polling numbers to the two largest polling firms. The previous information from Real Politics was misleading as it did not weight poll results based upon sample size. In other words if one poll of 3,000 people found the spread to be 3 points and another poll of 1,000 people found the spread to be 9 points, rather than merging them to be 4,000 people and a spread of 4.5 points, they simply treat them as equal and make it 6 points -- poor math and unworthy of our site. The "poll or polls" didn't have any numbers recorded at all, and therefore is not included. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:01, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

:To put your mind to rest then, I'd be happy to add a table using RCP's results that show the most recent polls, as well as results, MoE, and polling size. Of course, your numbers for Rasmussen didn't explain that you included "Leaners", whereas most polls when publishing their main results will include those separately. So perhaps you'd like to change the number to not reflect the leaners? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:04, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

::A table sounds fine sorted by sample size, the greatest number on top. Rasmussen also reports without leaners, so use that figure for consistency. It will need frequent update, so I hope you are volunteering for that as well. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:12, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Table has been added, but put in order by date, not sample size, as that's the format that is generally used (so that the latest polls appear on top). --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:33, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

::::You should probably add a meaning for RV and LV below for clarity. Also, feel free to add Rasmussen's data without including leaners if that is the way most polls are conducted. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:01, 18 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::Good suggestion--those abbreviations have been clarified. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 13:08, 18 July 2008 (EDT)

== More Polling ==

Jareddr, I see you are altering state polling data where you have found more recent polls than Rasmussen's. This is fine, but let's also make sure any source that we use is reputable and known for fairness - and accuracy. Apparently Rasmussen does their polling with only 500 people (state level). I believe this should be our low number, I.E. -- we shouldn't include any polling that samples less than this number. Normally I would want to see a higher count, but Rasmussen also has other checks and balances that help to ensure their data, and I was quite impressed that when other polling units were having wild fluctuations - that Rasmussen was showing consistentcy.

I also noticed that some of the sources that you are using have updated polling numbers on other states that you didn't use - numbers that were more favorable to McCain. This could have been coincidence, but please try to be consistent in updating all states where such an update is appropriate. With the trend again heading to Obama, you should be relatively pleased to do so. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:59, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh, and please use the last date of the polling - not the date it was reported. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:14, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

== Form of Article ==

As much as possible gentlemen let's try to keep the article focused on the issues and what is occurring in the election. Negatives about either candidate personally should go to other articles as should indepth party platforms that would seem to support one side over the other based on volume of writing if nothing else.

We have one of the best written articles on this issue on the internet. If you go to Wikipedia just try to find a chart showing polling of all 50 states. We should be proud of our achievement, which took many edits from different people, and let us work together to continue to strive to keep it that way.

Thanks.

[[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:19, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

==Taking down polls==
I noticed that a lot of the polling for the Presidential election was taken down. I would like to put it back up. This article should be made on a historical content over how the race changes. It's not enough just to have the latest 2-3 polls. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 18 August 2008

:I took them down because the numbers had changed and there seems to be a strong agreement among current polling. The 3 polls removed actually started their polling on July 31st, making their information almost 3 weeks old. While we haven't set a rigid timeline for when a poll's relevance 'expires', in a Presidential race that would seem to be pushing the limit.

:What would be a good addition, if anyone has that knowledge, is to set up a tracking graph where we could show trends by week. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:16, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Every day Gallup comes up with a tracking graph. You can view it here. http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080818DailyUpdateGraph1_ghbnvcs.gif Maybe you could post that? [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 18 August 2008

Something I also want to point out is that the current "relevance" should have nothing to do with it. Look at it this way, if someone in the year 2010 wants to do research on the 2008 Presidential race, they might want to know what the polls said in July. This shouldn't be like a blog with only the latest information. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 18 August 2008

== Edwards and Jackson v. Republicans ==

LT, I think the information should be considered separately on who is NOT attending the convention. Edwards and Jackson are not attending, I suppose, due to pressure from the DNC. The Republicans are not attending the convention by their own choosing so as to minimize the links drawn between the GOP and the individual politicians in a tough political environment. So, first off, I don't think it's necessarily a "If you don't do it for them, then you shouldn't for the others" type of situation. Frankly, this site is FAR from an equal treatment of one party and the other. But, if necessary, I think BOTH should be included, as opposed to neither. Obviously the GOP side has already been written, and you've modified it to, IMO, water it down slightly, but in any case, it seems to have been agreed upon. I think the Dem side should be added, perhaps here in the talk page first, modified appropriately, and then inserted into the article as well. I'd rather have more information than less. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:57, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:What I am looking for as far as noteworthiness is out of the ordinary occurrences. Based upon what would be expected, how is this convention going to be different than that expectation? Jackson has spoken at every convention for more than 2 decades. At the same time, I don't think we should dwell on it, unless you wish to write separate spin-off articles. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:25, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::Having 8 or 9 Republican Senators, out of 49, not attend the convention I would '''definitely''' consider noteworthy. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:41, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

==Anyway we could stop taking down polling data==
This article should be made on a historical content, so we should show what the polls said during the entire Presidential campaign. I would appreciate it if we stopped taking down polling data. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 21 August 2008

:It becomes more "gangly" when there is a ton of polling data in the section. After the election, if you want to go back and provide all the polls throughout the season, then you're more than welcome to do so. But I believe LT and I both agree that it is more streamlined to present just the recent polls. Again, if you want to add a separate section, or a chart, or wait until the end of the season, by all means. But as it is, it seems like 2 editors are for trimming the data, and 1 against. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:22, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

OK Jareddr, you win. But I still plan to continue putting up all the latest polls. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 21 August 2008

:Fantastic! Just remember to keep them in date order, and I'll take down the older ones. As a helpful guide, we've been keeping Rasmussen and Gallup on top because they're updated daily, and therefore you don't have to rewrite them, etc.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:28, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

==This would be great for the party convention sections==
I've just found photo's for the stages of the Democrat and Republican conventions.

Democrat: http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2008-08/dncc-floor3.jpg

Republican: http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2008-08/rncc-podium.jpg

I think one of the administrators should post these for the section, it would be a nice addition. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 22 August 2008

== Democratic/Republican Strategy ==

I believe this section is best as a general strategy leading into the start of the one on one battle, and not an update of what each side is or could be doing with any daily event. As such it should generally be complete. For broader campaign issues of what is happening (not theory) and how they affect the polling, I would suggest the Obama vs. McCain section. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:05, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:I disagree. The strategy of the one on one battle is clearly handled in the Obama v. McCain section. The Dem v. GOP strategy shouldn't just be party v. party strategy, but rather inclusive of what strategy each side will use given the candidates on each ticket. The Democratic strategy is going to be vastly different with Palin as a V.P. as opposed to, say, Mitt Romney, just as the GOP strategy would change if it was Clinton or Kaine instead of Biden. To discuss the strategy of each party, it's necessary to highlight how they are going to "attack" the other side. That's part of strategy! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:10, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

::New strategies are created and played out daily both from the Democratic and Republican side and they pay people well to come up with them. We could also discuss each ad variant, where it is being played, and what group it is attempting to reach. We can even discuss which people are chosen to place comments for the press to report and why. That is all a part of the strategy. But we will have watered down a strong article in a sea of descriptions of partisan spin instead of describing what is happening and what impact it has. I think we need to keep it on the higher level of what is happening in the election at this point - at least for this article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:38, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== New Edits ==

Barack's Obama windfall is not part of the Republican strategy. We also report on what occurs. Democratic women say they won't vote for Palin, but what is happening in the recent polling in the race between Obama/McCain? Was there a bounce? That's what we're looking for. If it turns out unaffiliated women went for the ticket instead of Democratic, I'm sure the Republican campaign would be just as happy. Obviously we both know that most Democratic women turned to Obama after Hillary's speech - it could take awhile to unglue them, if it would be successful at all.

I have started a fundraising section that notes Obama's fundraising edge and his recent influx of additional capital after the Palin speech. It is noteworthy in a fundraising section, but really has no other place in the article. BTW is it really a one day record? There were some times during the face off with Hillary where the two camps raised incredible amounts of money. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:It's a record. The previous record was in mid-August, when he raised $7.8m in a day. But this is the first time a campaign has raised over $10m in 24 hours. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:17, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::Hello, I hope everyone is having a blessed day!
::I noticed the mention of the hurricane was truncated a bit (which is fine) but the way it now reads one could mistakenly believe that the Twin Cities were visited by a freakish hurricane. Now, we all ''know'' that this isn't the case but in four years when a child is researching "what happened in 2008" it may well jump out at them.
::Either leave out all mention of the hurricane or re-add some of the old edit(s) to make a more complete picture.
::My vote would go to axing the weather story, (remember the lousy weather of the 2004 RNC? Neither do '''I'''. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 14:26, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:United States Presidential Election, 2008

2008-09-05T18:26:32Z

MargeryCampbell: /* New Edits */ Stormy Weather

I think that if Rudy Giuliani ran, then New York would be in play.

::He'll carry New York if he burns through a lot of money, but he'll lose the South to Mitt Romney no matter what he does (being a thrice-married gun grabber and all). McCain is sinking like a rock. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 14:52, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Overhaul ==

That looked like a very decent analysis by [[user:aschlafly|aschlafly]] but it wasn't sourced, wasn't verifiable, and was highly opinonated. I replaced it with the considerably more vanilla page with the dates of the election, the primary season, and the names of the declared major party candidates. If someone wanted to add the third party and independent candidates and any other facts regarding the 08 election, that would be great. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 08:17, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:I may be wrong, but I think that most of the third party candidates aren't determined until the year of the election. If you know any further information about them, though, by all means add them. You make a very good point about their inclusion in this page. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::Third party candidate is kind of a misnomer. Prominent third party candidates a la Perot and Nader will decided some time late this year or early next year to declare as they don't have to worry about primaries. Also, of course, any disgruntled Democrats or Republicans might wait until after the primaries. However, there are many parties that have candidates, just no real recognition. Prohibition Party, Greens, Libertarians, Reforms... then there's lesser known independents like David Koch and a few others. I just don't want to put in the work and then be told that it's trivial and that we're trying to remain concise. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:17, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What I meant was that, at least in 2004, the Constitution, Libertarian, and Green Parties hadn't nominated by this point. Once we know them, by all means they should be included. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::::And what I meant was that there are several declared candidates at this point, for those parties, and that if someone wanted to do the work, they should be listed. I don't want to do the work because it will probably just get deleted. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:24, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: I'd back you up in any edit wars/disputes. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

There is at this point a lot of no-longer-relevant information (e.g., Hillary Clinton electability polls). The whole article could use a top-to-bottom revision. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 10:35, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== Unsourced information ==

Andy, I didn't delete improperly. Just because it was your information doesn't mean it was improper. The battle ground states section is an ''exceptionally simplistic'' analysis of how elections are waged. There are no sources referencing your analysis. There are places for original research and places for fact. This is the latter. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:24, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Move==
I think this article and its talk page should be moved to [[2008 United States Presidential Election]]. Presidents get elected in other countries, too! :) [[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 15:58, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

: I oppose this suggestion at this time, because it would make the title almost twice as long without avoiding any real confusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:03, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::However, changing it to [[United States presidential election, 2008]] would help maintain consistency throughout the site (see [[:Category:United_States_presidential_elections]]). [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 16:15, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

*Well if that is a problem, I can always do away with that category name. What would you suggest in its stead? Or would you prefer me to choose it? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:10, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Greg, how many other countries' election articles have you written? When we have too many for ''election'' to refer to America, we'll consider your suggestion again. This is basically an American encyclopedia, not an international one like Wikipedia. We'll disambiguate, when and if the title becomes ambiguous. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:54, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Greg has been permablocked in any event. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:57, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

=="First Election without incumbants since 1928?"==
I thought that in 1952 there were no incumbants. Neither Republican, [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]], nor [[Democrat]], [[Adlai Stevenson]], was an incumbant. If this is true then it's really the first election since 1956. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 17:40, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh, now I see. [[Alben Barkley]] ran, but didn't get the [[Democratic]] nomination. Thanks for clearing that up on the page. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 14:37, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

== Updated electability polls? ==

With Huckabee now a major candidate, and some of the previous front runners no longer in pole position, maybe we should get some updated polls. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:03, 23 December 2007 (EST)
:Isn't this like aiming at a moving target? I think that the polls are now moving so fast that it would take almost constant revisions. Is this practical? [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 20:02, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== Uh-Oh! Suspended campaign ==
What do we do now that [[Mitt Romney]] has "suspended" his campaign? Do we take him off the list? Do we put him under withdrawn candidates or create a new section? -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 19:50, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==What's wrong with the photo?==
Why is the photo of all the Republican Presidential candidates together in the section on the Republican primary taken down? The person who took it down just said that it's not needed. Why? [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] April 25, 2008 10:54PM

:Please use the resources of the site to ask the person who did it. By the way, it might be helpful to be not quite so shrill when you do that. [[User:Peter Ellis|Peter Ellis]] 07:34, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

== Rename and Redirect ==

Can a sysop please move the content of this article to [http://www.conservapedia.com/United_States_presidential_election%2C_2008 here] and then create a redirect on this page to keep article titles consistent? Thanks! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 13:12, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

==Battleground States Map==

I don't have upload rights, but can someone who does find an updated Battleground States map to replace the current one, which has Bush/Kerry references instead of McCain/Obama? Thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 08:39, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

== Polling ==

I've simplified the polling numbers to the two largest polling firms. The previous information from Real Politics was misleading as it did not weight poll results based upon sample size. In other words if one poll of 3,000 people found the spread to be 3 points and another poll of 1,000 people found the spread to be 9 points, rather than merging them to be 4,000 people and a spread of 4.5 points, they simply treat them as equal and make it 6 points -- poor math and unworthy of our site. The "poll or polls" didn't have any numbers recorded at all, and therefore is not included. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:01, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

:To put your mind to rest then, I'd be happy to add a table using RCP's results that show the most recent polls, as well as results, MoE, and polling size. Of course, your numbers for Rasmussen didn't explain that you included "Leaners", whereas most polls when publishing their main results will include those separately. So perhaps you'd like to change the number to not reflect the leaners? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:04, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

::A table sounds fine sorted by sample size, the greatest number on top. Rasmussen also reports without leaners, so use that figure for consistency. It will need frequent update, so I hope you are volunteering for that as well. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:12, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Table has been added, but put in order by date, not sample size, as that's the format that is generally used (so that the latest polls appear on top). --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:33, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

::::You should probably add a meaning for RV and LV below for clarity. Also, feel free to add Rasmussen's data without including leaners if that is the way most polls are conducted. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:01, 18 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::Good suggestion--those abbreviations have been clarified. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 13:08, 18 July 2008 (EDT)

== More Polling ==

Jareddr, I see you are altering state polling data where you have found more recent polls than Rasmussen's. This is fine, but let's also make sure any source that we use is reputable and known for fairness - and accuracy. Apparently Rasmussen does their polling with only 500 people (state level). I believe this should be our low number, I.E. -- we shouldn't include any polling that samples less than this number. Normally I would want to see a higher count, but Rasmussen also has other checks and balances that help to ensure their data, and I was quite impressed that when other polling units were having wild fluctuations - that Rasmussen was showing consistentcy.

I also noticed that some of the sources that you are using have updated polling numbers on other states that you didn't use - numbers that were more favorable to McCain. This could have been coincidence, but please try to be consistent in updating all states where such an update is appropriate. With the trend again heading to Obama, you should be relatively pleased to do so. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:59, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh, and please use the last date of the polling - not the date it was reported. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:14, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

== Form of Article ==

As much as possible gentlemen let's try to keep the article focused on the issues and what is occurring in the election. Negatives about either candidate personally should go to other articles as should indepth party platforms that would seem to support one side over the other based on volume of writing if nothing else.

We have one of the best written articles on this issue on the internet. If you go to Wikipedia just try to find a chart showing polling of all 50 states. We should be proud of our achievement, which took many edits from different people, and let us work together to continue to strive to keep it that way.

Thanks.

[[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:19, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

==Taking down polls==
I noticed that a lot of the polling for the Presidential election was taken down. I would like to put it back up. This article should be made on a historical content over how the race changes. It's not enough just to have the latest 2-3 polls. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 18 August 2008

:I took them down because the numbers had changed and there seems to be a strong agreement among current polling. The 3 polls removed actually started their polling on July 31st, making their information almost 3 weeks old. While we haven't set a rigid timeline for when a poll's relevance 'expires', in a Presidential race that would seem to be pushing the limit.

:What would be a good addition, if anyone has that knowledge, is to set up a tracking graph where we could show trends by week. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:16, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Every day Gallup comes up with a tracking graph. You can view it here. http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080818DailyUpdateGraph1_ghbnvcs.gif Maybe you could post that? [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 18 August 2008

Something I also want to point out is that the current "relevance" should have nothing to do with it. Look at it this way, if someone in the year 2010 wants to do research on the 2008 Presidential race, they might want to know what the polls said in July. This shouldn't be like a blog with only the latest information. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 18 August 2008

== Edwards and Jackson v. Republicans ==

LT, I think the information should be considered separately on who is NOT attending the convention. Edwards and Jackson are not attending, I suppose, due to pressure from the DNC. The Republicans are not attending the convention by their own choosing so as to minimize the links drawn between the GOP and the individual politicians in a tough political environment. So, first off, I don't think it's necessarily a "If you don't do it for them, then you shouldn't for the others" type of situation. Frankly, this site is FAR from an equal treatment of one party and the other. But, if necessary, I think BOTH should be included, as opposed to neither. Obviously the GOP side has already been written, and you've modified it to, IMO, water it down slightly, but in any case, it seems to have been agreed upon. I think the Dem side should be added, perhaps here in the talk page first, modified appropriately, and then inserted into the article as well. I'd rather have more information than less. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:57, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:What I am looking for as far as noteworthiness is out of the ordinary occurrences. Based upon what would be expected, how is this convention going to be different than that expectation? Jackson has spoken at every convention for more than 2 decades. At the same time, I don't think we should dwell on it, unless you wish to write separate spin-off articles. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:25, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::Having 8 or 9 Republican Senators, out of 49, not attend the convention I would '''definitely''' consider noteworthy. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:41, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

==Anyway we could stop taking down polling data==
This article should be made on a historical content, so we should show what the polls said during the entire Presidential campaign. I would appreciate it if we stopped taking down polling data. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 21 August 2008

:It becomes more "gangly" when there is a ton of polling data in the section. After the election, if you want to go back and provide all the polls throughout the season, then you're more than welcome to do so. But I believe LT and I both agree that it is more streamlined to present just the recent polls. Again, if you want to add a separate section, or a chart, or wait until the end of the season, by all means. But as it is, it seems like 2 editors are for trimming the data, and 1 against. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:22, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

OK Jareddr, you win. But I still plan to continue putting up all the latest polls. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 21 August 2008

:Fantastic! Just remember to keep them in date order, and I'll take down the older ones. As a helpful guide, we've been keeping Rasmussen and Gallup on top because they're updated daily, and therefore you don't have to rewrite them, etc.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:28, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

==This would be great for the party convention sections==
I've just found photo's for the stages of the Democrat and Republican conventions.

Democrat: http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2008-08/dncc-floor3.jpg

Republican: http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2008-08/rncc-podium.jpg

I think one of the administrators should post these for the section, it would be a nice addition. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 22 August 2008

== Democratic/Republican Strategy ==

I believe this section is best as a general strategy leading into the start of the one on one battle, and not an update of what each side is or could be doing with any daily event. As such it should generally be complete. For broader campaign issues of what is happening (not theory) and how they affect the polling, I would suggest the Obama vs. McCain section. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:05, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:I disagree. The strategy of the one on one battle is clearly handled in the Obama v. McCain section. The Dem v. GOP strategy shouldn't just be party v. party strategy, but rather inclusive of what strategy each side will use given the candidates on each ticket. The Democratic strategy is going to be vastly different with Palin as a V.P. as opposed to, say, Mitt Romney, just as the GOP strategy would change if it was Clinton or Kaine instead of Biden. To discuss the strategy of each party, it's necessary to highlight how they are going to "attack" the other side. That's part of strategy! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:10, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

::New strategies are created and played out daily both from the Democratic and Republican side and they pay people well to come up with them. We could also discuss each ad variant, where it is being played, and what group it is attempting to reach. We can even discuss which people are chosen to place comments for the press to report and why. That is all a part of the strategy. But we will have watered down a strong article in a sea of descriptions of partisan spin instead of describing what is happening and what impact it has. I think we need to keep it on the higher level of what is happening in the election at this point - at least for this article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:38, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== New Edits ==

Barack's Obama windfall is not part of the Republican strategy. We also report on what occurs. Democratic women say they won't vote for Palin, but what is happening in the recent polling in the race between Obama/McCain? Was there a bounce? That's what we're looking for. If it turns out unaffiliated women went for the ticket instead of Democratic, I'm sure the Republican campaign would be just as happy. Obviously we both know that most Democratic women turned to Obama after Hillary's speech - it could take awhile to unglue them, if it would be successful at all.

I have started a fundraising section that notes Obama's fundraising edge and his recent influx of additional capital after the Palin speech. It is noteworthy in a fundraising section, but really has no other place in the article. BTW is it really a one day record? There were some times during the face off with Hillary where the two camps raised incredible amounts of money. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:It's a record. The previous record was in mid-August, when he raised $7.8m in a day. But this is the first time a campaign has raised over $10m in 24 hours. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:17, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::Hello, I hope everyone is having a blessed day!
::I noticed the mention of the hurricane was truncated a bit (which is fine) but the way it now reads one could mistakenly believe that the Twin Cities were visited by a freakish hurricane. Now, we all ''know'' that this isn't the case but in four years when a child is researching "what happened in 2008" it may well jump out at them.
::Either leave out all mention of the hurricane or re-add some of the old edit(s) to make a more complete picture.
::My vote would go to axing the whether story, (remember the lousy whther of the 2004 RNC? Neither do '''I'''. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 14:26, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Divine Comedy

2008-09-05T16:54:06Z

MargeryCampbell: /* Redirect */ Redirecting defunct talk page to article talk page in lieu of deletion

#REDIRECT [[Talk:The Divine Comedy]]

Divine Comedy

2008-09-05T16:51:48Z

MargeryCampbell: Delete stub and redirect

#REDIRECT [[The Divine Comedy]]

Talk:Divine Comedy

2008-09-05T16:50:13Z

MargeryCampbell: Yes, it makes sense.

== Redirect ==
This page should be deleted and made to redirect to [[The Divine Comedy]], which is a much fuller entry.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:17, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:I agree and will make it so. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 12:50, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

User talk:AlanE

2008-09-03T14:26:53Z

MargeryCampbell: /* Portuguese names */

{{welcome}}

In case you weren't aware, typing four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) after a comment automatically produces your signature. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you...I'm new in town, so to speak.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:44, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

: AlanE, thanks for your contributions. I just gave you blocking powers so that you can block the accounts of vandals yourself, as soon as you see them. Thanks much and Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:16, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. Appreciated. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:14, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

== Categories ==
Alan, I think your comments on the monarch categories are good, and would encourage you to fix the categories as you see fit. It seems to me, since this is such a new project, that a lot of things got categorized willy-nilly style (which is understandable), and anything we can do to set things straight, I think it is better sooner than later. I think you'll notice a lot of redundant categorization on some articles too that need cleaned up. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 19:48, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

*Personally, I would check with a Sysop before doing what Colest is suggesting, especially removal of categories. Okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:49, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

==Email==

Unless there's a bug in the software, then, "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users."

Although we do not require an email address, refusing to supply one is one of several factors which can add up to grounds for banning your account. If you really support the goals of this project, why not take a couple of minutes to create a free yahoo or account and put it in your preferences? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:42, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

*Ed, check your preferences page. It was changed by Webmaster many months ago. ;-) --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:52, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
**Yes, I see that now, Terry: "E-mail (required): Enables others to contact you through your user or user_talk page without needing to reveal your identity."

OK. I will go back and change the email address in my Preferences. Hang on. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:15, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
I have changed it to the address stated at the bottom of my user page and hit the "Mail confirmation code" even though I never got one. I did get the following though: A confirmation code has already been e-mailed to you; if you recently created your account, you may wish to wait a few minutes for it to arrive before trying to request a new code.

This wiki requires that you validate your e-mail address before using e-mail features. Activate the button below to send a confirmation mail to your address. The mail will include a link containing a code; load the link in your browser to confirm that your e-mail address is valid.

The above is what I have always received...right from day one. Maybe my geriatric brain is missing something. Ban me if you wish, but it must be obvious by now I am not refusing to supply it. It is sitting there in my User Page. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:30, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

:Don't be silly. It's not grounds for banning: Terry says I was wrong. But have you tried this link? http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Emailuser/AlanE --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 00:36, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, Ed; but it tells me I need a valid email address!! Perhaps I should go away and come back as someone else... throw off AlanE and don the cloak of, um, how about Guddle. The IP address will be the same, but if I start from scratch, you (CP) will hopefully send me a confirmation code which I can send on its way (rejoicing or not) and I will be legitimate, so to speak. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:50, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

:You can get a free email address from Yahoo. Send me an email from your new account when you're set up. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 00:54, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

No, Alan...get at me on AIM if you have it, mine is on my user page. You need to fill in the box on your preferences here, AND check the box below, to the right! :p --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:37, 7 August 2007 (EDT)--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:37, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

==Re Buglar's "debate"==

Bugler; I would qualify for banishment. I am a non-believer in your brand of faith. I also consider myself to be pretty middle of the road in social and political matters, being conservative in some issues and left of centre in others, but certainly do not consider myself Conservative. (In other words I am normal.) I am neither American nor British. I follow the tenets of Christ's teaching and the Commandments without any of the trappings nor the passionate narrowness of orthodoxy of belief that says "we are always right and everyone else is always wrong". I do not attend a church. Too many good and wonderful people have died because that. I am known as a "man of goodwill". I know there are many others like me in Cp. I joined for the sake of the homeschoolers and others who I thought, in my vanity it now seems, might benefit from the breadth of my knowledge and my desire to share it.

Except for a long break enforced by ill-health, I have been editing since early May last year. I work at giving articles in my chosen fields, of a substance that I would have found useful in my teens when I was starting my love affair with history and classical music half a century ago. I believe passionately in historical veracity - and as much as anyone I have repaired the fun and games of historical parodists and mistakes as I have found them. (I fixed two blatant pieces of misinformation yesterday…both well over a year old.)
Go through my edits and you will see what I mean. I am actually trying to create a viable encyclopedia.

I know I am blowing my own trumpet, Bugler (um), but there is a reason - there are a lot of us here that are doing this sort of graft, many of whom would qualify for banishment under your “proposal”. More and more, Conservapedia is becoming a blog, and less “The Trustworthy Encyclopedia” – your proposal would finish that process.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:14, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

== Notice ==

We need to close night editing early tonight. Hope to see you early tomorrow morning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:29, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

== Portuguese names ==

Ok, I will review some of the Portuguese names. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 20:47, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
==Trade winds==
You're welcome...BTW, be sure to make comments on people's TALK page, the user page is for personal use. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 10:26, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Trade winds

2008-09-02T22:26:41Z

MargeryCampbell: line breaks in poem

'''Trade Winds''' refer to those constant and regular winds that blow in belts on either side of the [[Equator]] to about 30 degrees North and South over the three oceans that exist at those [[latitude]]s. They are caused by air moving in to replace the hot, rising air in the permanent low pressure band at the Equator – frequently called the doldrums. They move in south-easterly (Northern Hemisphere) and north-easterly (Southern Hemisphere) directions instead of due south or north because of earth’s rotation.

Above and below them are belts called the “Variables” before bands of prevailing westerlies (called the “Roaring Forties” in the Southern Hemisphere) occur between about 40 and 60 degrees.

Their existence of all these “belts” has had a profound effect on the history of trade, and European exploration through history:
* The [[Spanish]] and other [[Europeans]] used the Trades to reach the [[America]]s then returned with the help of the Variables and the North-west setting [[Gulf Stream]].
* The Portuguese, and later the [[Dutch]] and [[British]] used the Trades in the [[Indian Ocean]] in their return from [[India]] and the [[East Indies]] and much later with the tea clippers from [[China]].
*[[Pedro Cabral]] came across [[Brazil]] whilst reaching across the [[Atlantic]]SE Trades whilst on his way to India.
* The [[Triangular Trade]] used the Trades for the “middle passage” then sailed north and out of them for the return to Europe.
* All seafaring nations used the Trades from the Americas west across the Pacific, then used the westerlies to return.
*The Dutch used the westerly “Roaring Forties” on their voyages from the [[Cape of Good Hope]] – their occasional miscalculation when to turning north for [[Batavia]] (modern [[Djakarta]] was instrumental in the discovery of[[Western Australia]], then [[New Holland]].
* The British and [[French]] used the African route sailing to [[Australasia]], then returned via [[Cape Horn]], making use of the westerlies on both trips.

There have been exceptions. Trade across the north Indian Ocean between India and north-east Africa” and the [[Red Sea]] made use of the African and Indian Monsoons which occurred at different times of the year. Also, currents have been used: as well as the Gulf Stream, the currents running up the west coasts of Africa and [[South America]] were a boon to mariners in the age of sail.

The trade winds have always been a moderator of the tropical heat; a blessing to the islands and coasts in their path. [[John Masefield]]’s poem :Trade Winds”, later put to music by Frederick Keel, evokes this beautifully -

"''In the harbour, in the island, in the Spanish seas, 
''Are the tiny white houses and the orange trees, 
''And day-long, night-long, the cool and pleasant breeze 
''Of the steady Trade Winds blowing''. 

''There is the red wine, the nutty Spanish ale, 
''The shuffle of the dancers, and the old salt's tale, 
''The squeaking fiddle, and the soughing in the sail 
''Of the steady Trade Winds blowing''. 

''And o'nights there's the fire-flies and the yellow moon, 
''And in the ghostly palm trees the sleepy tune 
''Of the quiet voice calling me, the long low croon 
''Of the steady Trade Winds blowing''." 

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Weather]]
[[Category: Age of Exploration]]

Talk:Senator from Arizona

2008-09-02T03:34:47Z

MargeryCampbell: Lest we forget

While this makes sense in that McCain has been running for POTUS for a while it neglects the ''other'' (current) Arizona Senator [[Jon Kyl]]. [[Barry Goldwater|Goldwater]], too, was from Arizona. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 23:34, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Sarah Palin

2008-09-01T18:54:04Z

MargeryCampbell: /* Eldest Daughter Pregnant */

== Sexist ==

Don't consider me sexist but... she at least looks a woman. Not like that Hillary who'd grow moustaches if she could. --[[User:AdamE|AdamE]] 11:24, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:Maybe not sexist but decidedly un-gallant and not a little silly. Hilary Clinton looks every inch a woman. If she looks less attractive than Sarah Palin that might just have something to do with the age difference: on the same basis I'd be much more worried if Obama was after my wife than if McCain were! C'mon, if attractivness was relevant you'd be lining up to vote Obama in. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 11:30, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

::Un-gallant and cynical. --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 15:41, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

They say Lincoln could never be president now, he was too ugly. When did this turn into a beauty contest? [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 14:28, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

== Her other son, Trig. ==

Should such a private and personal happening as that of her second son be brought to the general public? On one hand, it is only her and her family's matter, but on the other hand it shows that her acts are as honorable as her words. At least I was dubious on her at first, but reading more and more on her I am convinced that she is the Vice President America and the world need. I'm sure even liberals aknowledge her courage and that she did the right thing with Trig. But I leave it to those more knowledgeable to include such familiar matters or not in the article. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 15:17, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
: For what it's worth I think it should be mentioned, not because it's an invasion of her family's privacy, but because it says something important and positive about her character. She had stated publicly that she and her husband knew of the condition during the pregnancy, and chose not to abort it because of their values. That's a defining statement about her living the values she talks about, and one of the reasons I respect her as a person. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:34, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Please feel free to include that information. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:47, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:Done --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:22, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

::Much of that information is in public release and has been reported in interviews in People and Vogue. I added a couple of comments she made, plus information about her son in the military.

::--[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 21:50, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:::The one of the rare times I will make a display of my personal opinions on here. I find this woman to be hypocritical and in fact somewhat repulsive as a mother. I am all for women's rights, adn all for women having a career, but she has a SIX MONTH OLD SON, and is about to go on a campaign trail. The only possible way she can manage a campaign trail is if someone else raises her son. And a special needs son as well. I am heart sick that this woman would put her career before her child. Men are expected to do this, but women are the core of our children's lives. We are central to who they become. Especially for the first 5 years of their life. Work before you have a kid, expand your career after your child is back in school. But the 5 most important years of a child's development are before he or she starts socializing, and this woman is willing to be an American vice president which will keep her on the road over 200 days a year, if you go by averages of other VPs, and often in countries where it's not only "discouraged" to take a child, but out right dangerous. Vietnam and Korea - if you are there to represent the US. Venezuela. Cuba. Georgia. China. not places to be taking a child. I am disheartened, as I said. This is not a good role model for how to be a women in teh US finding a career - when the career comes before your own family. AGain, rarely will you see me make a statement like this, cause I'm not normally into challenges. but this woman makes me so sad for her child, and as a mother, as a woman who believes that a Christian woman (and any woman, frankly) should put her infants first... it is just sad. Would it have killed her to wait 5 years before being in such demanding political positions?--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] Michelle13:58, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Wow, that's heartfelt and does give one pause. I have to confess I didn't put the numbers (dates) together. Thanks for making me think a little more about this.
::::--[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 15:37, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
::::: Thanks. I get argumentative on topics about things like linguistics, and what languages are related to what languages (what I'm pursuing for my graduate degree). But i rarely butt into political comments. maybe I should. maybe not. but I set aside my studies for my kids, and it was THE RIGHT THING TO DO for me. I really feel that there is an important reason that the Bible (and many other religions, by the way) advocate that a woman make her life at home *until* such a time as her kids are grown. I woudn't even go that far, but I did say that I woudln't go back to teaching till my two were in school, cause then I don't have to be there "9-5". but when they are so little? I truly feel, and maybe this isn't proven by science, maybe it is, that a woman is more emotionally connected to her kids (and vica versa) than the father, and should be there for them at their development. hugs. Michelle. --[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 15:45, 30 August 2008 (EDT) (PS, if other than this, you ever want to see me be realllllyyy stubborn, just ask me about the T-D vocalization in Navajo after the move into New Mexico. hehe. (edit conflict)

== Oh, boy... ==

Cue the whitewashing. I'm gonna guess the polar bear section will be deleted or completely rewritten within 24 hours. As it stands, it certainly seems like a good example of "[[liberal bias]]". [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:26, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:I suggest to close this article from editing for a few days or at least hours. It's clear that it will become a favorite target for vandals. I'm sure if changes have to be made, Administrators will be able to make them well. I'm not suggesting a long term block, mind you, just to let things calm down. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 15:29, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
::I think Silvio has nmade a good point. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:30, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:::The polar bear status is unclear. International numbers have been increasing, but largely due to numbers now being reported in Siberia and other former states of the Soviet Union. I don't know if different species are involved or that the aggregate is germane. It will be interesting to find out.

:::kind regards, --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 21:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Neither polar bears nor polar ice are decreasing at such a rate as to prove the "[[global warming thesis]]". Average air temperature fluctuates due to natural causes. There's been a lot of hot air since 1989 aimed at enforcing some socialist ideas of forced redistribution of wealth, but no such system has ever worked out well. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:53, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action Vice-President ==
What is the Affirmative Action Vice-President part about? That is ridiculous. She would be the first woman VP but that has nothing to do with affirmative action. [[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 16:48, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:It's criticising (in an oblique way) the accusations that Obama would be the first "Affirmitive Action President". I suspect that whoever called Palin that is hoping that you will find it ridiculous and decide that the Obama accusation is similarly ridiculous. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:59, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
Help me out here... Obama, if elected, will of course be the first Affirmative Active President. The rationale being: he's being elevated to a level higher that he would have been, primarily because of his race. Yet isn't Palin, a former mayor of a town of 7000, now a governor for all 18 months, also being elevated to a level higher than she would have been, because of her gender? You cannot suggest that she is the best person, male or female, for the job, can you?
Is the objection that affirmative action only apples to race? (Because it certainly applies to gender as well.)
Is the objection that Palin is in fact the most competent person, male or female, for the position of vice president?
(If not, on what basis can you say that Palin is not an affirmative-action candidate?)
--[[User:Mycosaur|Mycosaur]] 19:44, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

: There are several problems with your simplistic analogy. The qualifications for a Vice President are different from that of a President; Palin has stronger executive experience than Obama; Palin was selected to run against Obama; and we never claimed that Hillary Clinton would be the first affirmative action president.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:50, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:I think part of the idea is how readily the path was cleared for each person. For Obama, based on that thinking, his position was pretty much given to him along the way whereas for Palin, she had to fight the establishment to accomplish what she did. Now as far as her selection for Vice President, well, that could be a different matter. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:54, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

::I don't agree with "affirmative action whatever" for either of them. If Obama is the next President or Palin the next Vice-President they will be there because millions voted that way. "Affirmative action" is best kept for appointments: respecting whoever is in charge after the election respects the US electorate. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 09:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

==Second Picture==
I think we should take it down. It's just like the first one and is totally unnecessary. If there is a second picture then it should be her with [[John McCain]]. I'm going to take it down. Maybe an administrator could replace it with this. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 29 August 2008 http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2008-08/palin.jpg

: Sorry, link says '''access denied'''. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:41, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

O.K., how about this one. http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/08/29/PH2008082902687.jpg [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 30 August 2008

:That's better! --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 11:15, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:That's a good one.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 14:47, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

It seems to be popular. Anyway an administrator could come in and upload it? [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 30 August 2008

: We have to see the original source of the photo first... not only that link. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:00, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

== Foreign Policy ==

The section has one compound sentence, and one of the words ("commender") is/was misspelled. Also, saying that the governor of Alaska is the commander of chief of the Alaska National Guard is somewhat patronizing to people who know things about state National Guards. It seems as though it's simply trying to inflate her foreign policy experience, which she doesn't have much of. --[[User:DrtyLb8|DrtyLb8]] 23:35, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
:Why shouldn't it say she is the commander of the Alaska National Guard? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:39, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

HenryS, your an administrator, I was hoping that you could upload this picture. I would really appreciate it, thanks. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 31 August 2008 http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/08/29/PH2008082902687.jpg

== Eldest Daughter Pregnant ==
Palin's response "We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby." Proud to be a Grandmother. Unlike Obama's response of his children "if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:04, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
===Gossip?===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=508671&oldid=508669 It can hardly] be "gossip" if the facts of the matter are plainly seen in the official [http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/ab547fc8-d96d-4f87-aa8a-2e52be2b66fc.htm statement.] What '''is''' gossip is that fairy tale that was reported on the daily kos over the weekend. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 14:54, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

User talk:Jimmy

2008-08-30T16:30:43Z

MargeryCampbell: /* Admin warning */ grammar

Take a better look to the the article [[Gettysburg Address]]. There are the words.

"That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 12:30, 19 November 2007 (EST)

What are you trying to say? The words 'under God' were added after I pointed out the discrepancy between the article and the Breaking News item. Check the history, http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gettysburg_Address&diff=339689&oldid=289268 --Jimmy 19:29, 19 November 2007 (EST)

: We have to thank you for your comment. Now the article is better... But in your first comment you did not mention the words "under God". Next time may be you could be more specific. Is that asking to much? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 23:51, 19 November 2007 (EST)

The main subject of the news item was the phrase "under God". I didn't think repeating the wording of the phrase was all that critical in getting my point across. It seems at least one person, Schlafly, was able to understand what I was talking about. My request to you is to put a little more research into your responses before asking people to "take a better look." Thanks --Jimmy 00:21, 20 November 2007 (EST)

:We were in the middle of a Contest, but even we were in normal times it is too much work for a Sysop to read every word of every comment. Your comment '''was NOT''' clear enough. Also, I find your reply lack of kindness. Could it change? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:43, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Well now, this is going from bad to worse. Your attitude is making me wonder why I even pointed out the error of the Gettysburg article in the first place. I would appreciate it if you would just let this matter drop, because face it, you made a mistake.

The comment I made was short and to the point. The founder of this website understood what I was talking about and thanked me for my efforts. If you have a problem with spending two seconds to read the 20+ words I wrote, then maybe you should reevaluate your way of conducting your role as an editor.

As for my alleged lack of kindness, you are the one that said I should “take a better look” even though you failed to take ten seconds to point, click, and read the history of the Gettysburg article. Doesn’t that sound hypocritical? It is the carelessness on your part that has resulted in this meaningless exchange. Is this what I am to expect from the majority of sysops on this website? I hope not. --Jimmy 19:59, 20 November 2007 (EST)

::Your help in this matter has been fine and noticed. It has been grateful for by Andy and by me. There is no doubt about it. We encourage you to keep helping CP. What I can not accept is to see it as a mistake.

::You started writing:

:::''The article on the Gettysburg Address is concise and to the point, yet it does not contain '''the phrase''' attributed to it by the 'Breaking News' section.''

::And the phrase was: ''"That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."''

::That phrase '''was''' in the article with the difference that 2 words were not there: '''"under God".'''

::I feel that CP needs a lot of new articles and improve many of old ones. I feel that we do not have enough time for guessing what users want to say. Is that a mistake?

::About "kindness", personally, I am in a city where this is important. But, don't worry, I can survive as far as now. Let see the future!

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:12, 21 November 2007 (EST)

:::The news item in question was entirely about how Lincoln inserted the phrase “under God” in his address. It was obvious to me what I was talking about and it appeared to be obvious to Schlafly what I was talking about. Yet to you for some reason, it was not. Maybe if you had read my entire comment without skipping over part of it you would have understood what I was talking about.

:::It’s ironic how you attach a lot of importance to kindness while at the same time starting your introduction to me with a snarky comment about my post.--Jimmy 20:51, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::: Fine. Schlafly could knew what to do because it was him who wrote the news. But a normal human may not as happens to me. That is why I ask you again to be more specific.

::::: I am sure you can go to the beginning of the page and read how I started: WELCOME, WAS HE FIRST WORD... GO [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimmy&oldid=339685]--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 23:41, 21 November 2007 (EST)

This was the Breaking news in question: ''On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln inserted "under God" into an already-prepared [[Gettysburg Address]] and declared, "That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-that this nation, '''under God''', shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."'' --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:52, 22 November 2007 (EST)

==Your editing==
Yes that's right, the editors must provide documentation to back up what they write. The editors must also not be divisive. Since this encyclopedia is in the beginning stages, the editors must work together to build it up properly. Do you follow now? I looked at the majority of your edits which are mostly to the talk pages and you are walking a fine line between being devisive and being outright contemptuous, and it isn't just the talk page on public schools; its others as well, begining with your first edits regarding the Gettysburg Address back in November. Now if you want to make those valid contributions as you said, then you need to learn to work with the rest of us; if there's a lack of source material, then you need to swallow your pride and either respectfully ask the person involved or find it yourself. If you don't want to do any of the above, you know where the door is. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:55, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:Thank-you for finally admitting what is right. Following the rules and making suggestions for improvement is not being divisive or whining. Don't you get it? I'm the guy that's playing by the rules, making valid contributions, providing references, asking for references from unsupported assertions, etc. I'm doing all this to IMPROVE Conservapedia! What are you doing other than giving me grief for NOT violating any rules and insisting others follow them?

:My very first contribution to this website was to point out an error on the main page and the website founder thanked me for doing so. Yet all that has happened with that bit of helpful information was to be basically treated like crap by Joaquín Martínez.

:Why don't we talk about the majority of my edits, which don't violate the rules by the way.
:- First edit: talk page sugestion, thanked by founder
:- Next four edits: responding to syop that misinterpreted what I wrote and refused to admit his mistake.
:- Next eight edits: contributed to two articles on schools. One edit was on the talk page for clarification
:- Next three edits: quotes with references to the Atheism Quotes article and one talk comment on why my contributions were reverted without explanation.
:- Evolution talk page: trying to improve the content but my contributions are limited because the article is edited and locked by one person.

:See where this is going? I am working with others by making contributions. You are giving me a hard time when I insist that articles have a certain measure of quality and insist that people provide references. I'm working hard enough to provide my own references to the material I write without trying to find references to someone else's assertions that I think are incorrect. I'm treating people with respect, but if their opinions or assertions are lacking supporting documentation I will let them know, just as I have been doing. --Jimmy 17:29, 1 January 2008 (EST)

==Your block==
You were warned by an admin above about your editing. Today you removed Aschlafly's edits to the ACLU article while adding your own. This is NOT allowed. You do NOT decide if someone is violating Conservapedia guidelines.
When you return, if you argue with me or another admin or continue editing in a confrontational style, you will receive a permanent block. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 15:03, 14 February 2008 (EST)

==No problem, Jimmy==

I calls em like I sees em. You were blocked unfairly. I'm only glad that someone listened. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:23, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== Thanks and sorry! ==

Your support after my block was much appreciated! I do apologize for getting you blocked, though. :( --[[User:DHayes|DHayes]] 22:22, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
: Not a problem. No need to apologize for my block, it wasn't your fault. I have the feeling I'll be blocked again shortly. Wish me luck. --Jimmy 00:46, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

== Humour ==

I like the humour on your user page. So true my friend, so true
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:23, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks. At times, laughter is the best medicine.--[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 00:26, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Where laughter fails, whisky will prevail!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Copying from Wikipedia ==

All you did was change or omit a few words. You used many of the same phrasings and almost exactly the same sentence-by-sentence layout.

Your first paragraph:
<blockquote>
Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case # 04cv2688, was a challenge brought in the United States federal court against a public school that required teachers to present intelligent design as an alternative to evolution as an explanation of the origins of life. The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism and the school's policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the Lemon Test.
</blockquote>

From Wikipedia:
<blockquote>
Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688, was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of "Intelligent Design" as an alternative to evolution as an "explanation of the origin of life." The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
</blockquote>

Your second paragraph:
<blockquote>
The plaintiffs, eleven parents of students at the Dover Area School District, sued the school board over a statement in support of Intelligent design that was to be read aloud during science classes when evolution was taught. The parents were represented by American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Pepper Hamilton LLP. The defendants retained the services of the Thomas Moore Law Center.
</blockquote>

Wikipedia:
<blockquote>
Eleven parents of students in Dover, Pennsylvania, near York, sued the Dover Area School District over a statement that the school board required be read aloud in ninth-grade science classes when evolution was taught. The plaintiffs were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) and Pepper Hamilton LLP. The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) acted as consultants for the plaintiffs. The defendants were represented by the Thomas More Law Center
</blockquote>

Perhaps it's just a coincidence. Most likely it's [un]intelligent design.

As far as other edits you've made, yes, I have had a problem with some of them when they are obviously meant to undermine the purpose of Conservapedia. I replaced your quotes about atheism to fit the intended purpose of the article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:07, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

== If you don't like it, leave ==

You're welcome to leave CP if you don't like it. Just a suggestion. You probably will find your edits under heavier scrutiny by myself and others from now on anyway and I doubt you'll enjoy that.

In any case, don't post to my talk page anymore. You and your rhetoric are not welcome there. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:45, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

==Comments deleted from Jinxmchue's talk page posted here for posterity==

Your reasoning for removing my edit is quite inane in my honest opinion. The only thing I remotely 'copied' from Wikipedia was the format of the article. It is plainly obvious you did not look at all of the references. If you did, then you would have discovered that every word I wrote was paraphrased from the references or written by myself. Replacing my article with the misleading, opinionated, and unreferenced factoids is doing this encyclopedia a disfavor.
Judges Jones never admitted being an activist judge. The reference in the original article was a glaring example of the authors misrepresenting Jones' actions and words. I even provided a reference saying that he denied being an activist judge. My edit even left in the solitary reference from the original article so I could reference the criticism Jones received.

The original article contained five items of fact and opinion and only one, the opinion, was backed up with a reference. Your revision resulted in a violation of the first commandment about everything in articles being 'true and verifiable'. So much for you making Conservapedia a 'reliable resource'.

I made a request for change over two months ago and nobody said a word. I made a change to an article and listed the required references then you come along and base your revision on something that was obviously not thought out. I'd like to think a responsible editor would ask questions instead of making wholesale deletions without any discussion. Since you claim to be the 'rightful leader of Conservapedia', maybe I shouldn't direct my opinions to another administrator and instead just try and reason out this disagreement between the two of us. --Jimmy 20:21, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

As an editor, you are not very impressive. I followed the Conservapedia Manual of Style almost to the letter. The fact that Wikipedia and Conservapedia have similar formats apparently did not cross your mind. My article contained information the WP article did not and vice versa. It also included references that mentioned every fact outlined in the first paragraph, something the WP article did not. Just because an article looks like it may have been copied from WP doesn't mean it has been.

Conservapedia's detractors call this 'trustworthy encyclopedia' Idiotopedia, and you are giving them plenty of ammunition. Your revision resulted in an article that is completely untrue and unverifiable; and in my honest opinion, a very stupid article at that. One of my main goals is to correct these dumb articles so Americans don't look bad. It looks like I am failing. If you insist on making the job of Conservapedia's critics that much easier, go right ahead, you are accomplishing plenty. --Jimmy 19:59, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

You seem to have a problem with my editing. Instead of removing my Atheism quotes and replacing them with your own, why don't you just add yours? Your opinion of 'better' leaves a bit to be desired I'm afraid. --Jimmy 20:26, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

==Kitzmiller edit==
I will take a look at it later tonight in the interest of fairness, though I have not been following the article controversy. I'm not promising anything, but I feel that it is only fair that your edit at least be reviewed rather than simply rejected on the basis of who you are. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:56, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 17:11, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
::I do think that the edits were close enough to Wikipedia's that a reversion was justified, but I find it unfair that Conservapedia claims to treat editors better than Wikipedia but will not provide reasons for reversions upon requests. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:15, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Fair enough, and thanks for your consideration. What is to be done about the article now? The current article is basically a piece of junk that makes Conservapedia look bad. Would it be too much to ask that my edit be restored with changes? Almost anything would be better than what is there now. As far as unfair treatment is concerned, I am quite used to it by now; at least you are a sysop that will discuss the matter. I tried to engage DeanS about the article and Jinxmchue's comments towards me and his only response was to delete my request from his talk page. EdPoor didn't respond to my inquiry about my block over the article either. Thanks again. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 10:25, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

== NASA ==

Which images do you want? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
:Anythng suitable for the article, not very fussy. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 19:39, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

==Tyrants behind keyboards?==
::The user that you chose to interfere in someone else's business was blocked because he chose to engage in an edit war with an admin involving personal attack. If he brought evidence which supported his claim and engaged in dialogue respectfully, the block would not have happened. And if certain users think they can throw their weight around here; if certain users think they can engage in edit conflicts on a whim; if certain users think they can demand to place whatever they want on this site, they have another thing coming to them. You were removed for three days for interfering in what was never your business as well as the above. If anyone is trying to play tyrant, it is you. You came to Conservapedia with an agenda to interfere with the conservatism on this site; you came here to push your own liberalism. It's stopping now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:57, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== RE ==

If you take a look at [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] you will no doubt notice that a {{fact}} template makes something have much less force and seem untrue. If you wish to find a source, find a source and make this a better place. Don't make it seem untrue. The Clinton comment is incorrect as Clinton was not president when the data was given. --[[User:TrueValues|TrueValues]] 20:36, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:I am well aware of the Wikipedia bias article. I am also well aware of the commandments of this encyclopedia that state every claim must be referenced. I am also well aware of the guidelines that state citation tags can be used for unreferenced claims. The question is why are you making such a fuss over matters that can be readily remedied by providing a reference --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 20:55, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

::Ed Poor blocked me for a week because I refused to knuckle under and believe a lie that was posted at the ''Liberal Creep'' page. The following item was deleted from the talk page in question and is posted here for posterity. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 22:24, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

::Mr. Schlafly: You stated Wikipedia was in error because they didn't mention Newton's fundamentalism, yet they used the exact same words and reference that the Conservapedia article used. Though he is better known for his love of science, the Bible was Sir Isaac Newton's greatest passion. He devoted more time to the study of Scripture than to science, and he said, '''"I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily." John H. Tiner. Isaac Newton: Inventor, Scientist and Teacher, Mott Media, ISBN 0-91513406-3.''' Care to explain this discrepancy? If Wikipedia is concealing Newton's motivation, then why is this line attributed to him? "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." It is contained in the ''"Isaac Newton's religious views"'' article.

::Ed: My error? Where? All I did was make a perfectly reasonable request for citations and look at all the flack I am getting. Mr. Schlafly makes an error yet you have nothing to say to him. I am contributing to this encyclopedia by researching and writing, look at my contributions page. Please stop making unfounded accusations. If the people contributing to this article would actually provide valid references, I would be able to spend a lot more time making quality contributions to the NASA article instead of trying to get people to provide the references they should have researched to begin with.--Jimmy 21:52, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

==Admin warning==

*Your attitude is making me wonder

See [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:16, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
:Um, I think he hasn't edited since February... (About the time he was eternally blocked...) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 11:20, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

::Then who wrote [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Heterosexuality&diff=prev&oldid=494880 this]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:22, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I've been in Australia too long, I got the eight and the two mixed up.... [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 11:26, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

* Revision as of 12:37, 2 August 2008 (edit) (undo)

What eight? It says '''August''', man. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:31, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:Pardon me, but if one were to go up to "my preferences", select the "Date and Time" tab, the options allow for a "numerals ONLY" date format. I'm guessing this is what DLerner has set for his browser. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 12:00, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
::Correct. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:15, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

User talk:Jimmy

2008-08-30T16:00:01Z

MargeryCampbell: /* Admin warning */ HTH

Take a better look to the the article [[Gettysburg Address]]. There are the words.

"That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 12:30, 19 November 2007 (EST)

What are you trying to say? The words 'under God' were added after I pointed out the discrepancy between the article and the Breaking News item. Check the history, http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gettysburg_Address&diff=339689&oldid=289268 --Jimmy 19:29, 19 November 2007 (EST)

: We have to thank you for your comment. Now the article is better... But in your first comment you did not mention the words "under God". Next time may be you could be more specific. Is that asking to much? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 23:51, 19 November 2007 (EST)

The main subject of the news item was the phrase "under God". I didn't think repeating the wording of the phrase was all that critical in getting my point across. It seems at least one person, Schlafly, was able to understand what I was talking about. My request to you is to put a little more research into your responses before asking people to "take a better look." Thanks --Jimmy 00:21, 20 November 2007 (EST)

:We were in the middle of a Contest, but even we were in normal times it is too much work for a Sysop to read every word of every comment. Your comment '''was NOT''' clear enough. Also, I find your reply lack of kindness. Could it change? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:43, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Well now, this is going from bad to worse. Your attitude is making me wonder why I even pointed out the error of the Gettysburg article in the first place. I would appreciate it if you would just let this matter drop, because face it, you made a mistake.

The comment I made was short and to the point. The founder of this website understood what I was talking about and thanked me for my efforts. If you have a problem with spending two seconds to read the 20+ words I wrote, then maybe you should reevaluate your way of conducting your role as an editor.

As for my alleged lack of kindness, you are the one that said I should “take a better look” even though you failed to take ten seconds to point, click, and read the history of the Gettysburg article. Doesn’t that sound hypocritical? It is the carelessness on your part that has resulted in this meaningless exchange. Is this what I am to expect from the majority of sysops on this website? I hope not. --Jimmy 19:59, 20 November 2007 (EST)

::Your help in this matter has been fine and noticed. It has been grateful for by Andy and by me. There is no doubt about it. We encourage you to keep helping CP. What I can not accept is to see it as a mistake.

::You started writing:

:::''The article on the Gettysburg Address is concise and to the point, yet it does not contain '''the phrase''' attributed to it by the 'Breaking News' section.''

::And the phrase was: ''"That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."''

::That phrase '''was''' in the article with the difference that 2 words were not there: '''"under God".'''

::I feel that CP needs a lot of new articles and improve many of old ones. I feel that we do not have enough time for guessing what users want to say. Is that a mistake?

::About "kindness", personally, I am in a city where this is important. But, don't worry, I can survive as far as now. Let see the future!

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:12, 21 November 2007 (EST)

:::The news item in question was entirely about how Lincoln inserted the phrase “under God” in his address. It was obvious to me what I was talking about and it appeared to be obvious to Schlafly what I was talking about. Yet to you for some reason, it was not. Maybe if you had read my entire comment without skipping over part of it you would have understood what I was talking about.

:::It’s ironic how you attach a lot of importance to kindness while at the same time starting your introduction to me with a snarky comment about my post.--Jimmy 20:51, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::: Fine. Schlafly could knew what to do because it was him who wrote the news. But a normal human may not as happens to me. That is why I ask you again to be more specific.

::::: I am sure you can go to the beginning of the page and read how I started: WELCOME, WAS HE FIRST WORD... GO [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimmy&oldid=339685]--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 23:41, 21 November 2007 (EST)

This was the Breaking news in question: ''On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln inserted "under God" into an already-prepared [[Gettysburg Address]] and declared, "That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-that this nation, '''under God''', shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."'' --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:52, 22 November 2007 (EST)

==Your editing==
Yes that's right, the editors must provide documentation to back up what they write. The editors must also not be divisive. Since this encyclopedia is in the beginning stages, the editors must work together to build it up properly. Do you follow now? I looked at the majority of your edits which are mostly to the talk pages and you are walking a fine line between being devisive and being outright contemptuous, and it isn't just the talk page on public schools; its others as well, begining with your first edits regarding the Gettysburg Address back in November. Now if you want to make those valid contributions as you said, then you need to learn to work with the rest of us; if there's a lack of source material, then you need to swallow your pride and either respectfully ask the person involved or find it yourself. If you don't want to do any of the above, you know where the door is. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:55, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:Thank-you for finally admitting what is right. Following the rules and making suggestions for improvement is not being divisive or whining. Don't you get it? I'm the guy that's playing by the rules, making valid contributions, providing references, asking for references from unsupported assertions, etc. I'm doing all this to IMPROVE Conservapedia! What are you doing other than giving me grief for NOT violating any rules and insisting others follow them?

:My very first contribution to this website was to point out an error on the main page and the website founder thanked me for doing so. Yet all that has happened with that bit of helpful information was to be basically treated like crap by Joaquín Martínez.

:Why don't we talk about the majority of my edits, which don't violate the rules by the way.
:- First edit: talk page sugestion, thanked by founder
:- Next four edits: responding to syop that misinterpreted what I wrote and refused to admit his mistake.
:- Next eight edits: contributed to two articles on schools. One edit was on the talk page for clarification
:- Next three edits: quotes with references to the Atheism Quotes article and one talk comment on why my contributions were reverted without explanation.
:- Evolution talk page: trying to improve the content but my contributions are limited because the article is edited and locked by one person.

:See where this is going? I am working with others by making contributions. You are giving me a hard time when I insist that articles have a certain measure of quality and insist that people provide references. I'm working hard enough to provide my own references to the material I write without trying to find references to someone else's assertions that I think are incorrect. I'm treating people with respect, but if their opinions or assertions are lacking supporting documentation I will let them know, just as I have been doing. --Jimmy 17:29, 1 January 2008 (EST)

==Your block==
You were warned by an admin above about your editing. Today you removed Aschlafly's edits to the ACLU article while adding your own. This is NOT allowed. You do NOT decide if someone is violating Conservapedia guidelines.
When you return, if you argue with me or another admin or continue editing in a confrontational style, you will receive a permanent block. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 15:03, 14 February 2008 (EST)

==No problem, Jimmy==

I calls em like I sees em. You were blocked unfairly. I'm only glad that someone listened. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:23, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== Thanks and sorry! ==

Your support after my block was much appreciated! I do apologize for getting you blocked, though. :( --[[User:DHayes|DHayes]] 22:22, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
: Not a problem. No need to apologize for my block, it wasn't your fault. I have the feeling I'll be blocked again shortly. Wish me luck. --Jimmy 00:46, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

== Humour ==

I like the humour on your user page. So true my friend, so true
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:23, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks. At times, laughter is the best medicine.--[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 00:26, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Where laughter fails, whisky will prevail!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Copying from Wikipedia ==

All you did was change or omit a few words. You used many of the same phrasings and almost exactly the same sentence-by-sentence layout.

Your first paragraph:
<blockquote>
Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case # 04cv2688, was a challenge brought in the United States federal court against a public school that required teachers to present intelligent design as an alternative to evolution as an explanation of the origins of life. The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism and the school's policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the Lemon Test.
</blockquote>

From Wikipedia:
<blockquote>
Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688, was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of "Intelligent Design" as an alternative to evolution as an "explanation of the origin of life." The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
</blockquote>

Your second paragraph:
<blockquote>
The plaintiffs, eleven parents of students at the Dover Area School District, sued the school board over a statement in support of Intelligent design that was to be read aloud during science classes when evolution was taught. The parents were represented by American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Pepper Hamilton LLP. The defendants retained the services of the Thomas Moore Law Center.
</blockquote>

Wikipedia:
<blockquote>
Eleven parents of students in Dover, Pennsylvania, near York, sued the Dover Area School District over a statement that the school board required be read aloud in ninth-grade science classes when evolution was taught. The plaintiffs were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) and Pepper Hamilton LLP. The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) acted as consultants for the plaintiffs. The defendants were represented by the Thomas More Law Center
</blockquote>

Perhaps it's just a coincidence. Most likely it's [un]intelligent design.

As far as other edits you've made, yes, I have had a problem with some of them when they are obviously meant to undermine the purpose of Conservapedia. I replaced your quotes about atheism to fit the intended purpose of the article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:07, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

== If you don't like it, leave ==

You're welcome to leave CP if you don't like it. Just a suggestion. You probably will find your edits under heavier scrutiny by myself and others from now on anyway and I doubt you'll enjoy that.

In any case, don't post to my talk page anymore. You and your rhetoric are not welcome there. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:45, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

==Comments deleted from Jinxmchue's talk page posted here for posterity==

Your reasoning for removing my edit is quite inane in my honest opinion. The only thing I remotely 'copied' from Wikipedia was the format of the article. It is plainly obvious you did not look at all of the references. If you did, then you would have discovered that every word I wrote was paraphrased from the references or written by myself. Replacing my article with the misleading, opinionated, and unreferenced factoids is doing this encyclopedia a disfavor.
Judges Jones never admitted being an activist judge. The reference in the original article was a glaring example of the authors misrepresenting Jones' actions and words. I even provided a reference saying that he denied being an activist judge. My edit even left in the solitary reference from the original article so I could reference the criticism Jones received.

The original article contained five items of fact and opinion and only one, the opinion, was backed up with a reference. Your revision resulted in a violation of the first commandment about everything in articles being 'true and verifiable'. So much for you making Conservapedia a 'reliable resource'.

I made a request for change over two months ago and nobody said a word. I made a change to an article and listed the required references then you come along and base your revision on something that was obviously not thought out. I'd like to think a responsible editor would ask questions instead of making wholesale deletions without any discussion. Since you claim to be the 'rightful leader of Conservapedia', maybe I shouldn't direct my opinions to another administrator and instead just try and reason out this disagreement between the two of us. --Jimmy 20:21, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

As an editor, you are not very impressive. I followed the Conservapedia Manual of Style almost to the letter. The fact that Wikipedia and Conservapedia have similar formats apparently did not cross your mind. My article contained information the WP article did not and vice versa. It also included references that mentioned every fact outlined in the first paragraph, something the WP article did not. Just because an article looks like it may have been copied from WP doesn't mean it has been.

Conservapedia's detractors call this 'trustworthy encyclopedia' Idiotopedia, and you are giving them plenty of ammunition. Your revision resulted in an article that is completely untrue and unverifiable; and in my honest opinion, a very stupid article at that. One of my main goals is to correct these dumb articles so Americans don't look bad. It looks like I am failing. If you insist on making the job of Conservapedia's critics that much easier, go right ahead, you are accomplishing plenty. --Jimmy 19:59, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

You seem to have a problem with my editing. Instead of removing my Atheism quotes and replacing them with your own, why don't you just add yours? Your opinion of 'better' leaves a bit to be desired I'm afraid. --Jimmy 20:26, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

==Kitzmiller edit==
I will take a look at it later tonight in the interest of fairness, though I have not been following the article controversy. I'm not promising anything, but I feel that it is only fair that your edit at least be reviewed rather than simply rejected on the basis of who you are. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:56, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 17:11, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
::I do think that the edits were close enough to Wikipedia's that a reversion was justified, but I find it unfair that Conservapedia claims to treat editors better than Wikipedia but will not provide reasons for reversions upon requests. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:15, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Fair enough, and thanks for your consideration. What is to be done about the article now? The current article is basically a piece of junk that makes Conservapedia look bad. Would it be too much to ask that my edit be restored with changes? Almost anything would be better than what is there now. As far as unfair treatment is concerned, I am quite used to it by now; at least you are a sysop that will discuss the matter. I tried to engage DeanS about the article and Jinxmchue's comments towards me and his only response was to delete my request from his talk page. EdPoor didn't respond to my inquiry about my block over the article either. Thanks again. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 10:25, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

== NASA ==

Which images do you want? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
:Anythng suitable for the article, not very fussy. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 19:39, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

==Tyrants behind keyboards?==
::The user that you chose to interfere in someone else's business was blocked because he chose to engage in an edit war with an admin involving personal attack. If he brought evidence which supported his claim and engaged in dialogue respectfully, the block would not have happened. And if certain users think they can throw their weight around here; if certain users think they can engage in edit conflicts on a whim; if certain users think they can demand to place whatever they want on this site, they have another thing coming to them. You were removed for three days for interfering in what was never your business as well as the above. If anyone is trying to play tyrant, it is you. You came to Conservapedia with an agenda to interfere with the conservatism on this site; you came here to push your own liberalism. It's stopping now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:57, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== RE ==

If you take a look at [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] you will no doubt notice that a {{fact}} template makes something have much less force and seem untrue. If you wish to find a source, find a source and make this a better place. Don't make it seem untrue. The Clinton comment is incorrect as Clinton was not president when the data was given. --[[User:TrueValues|TrueValues]] 20:36, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:I am well aware of the Wikipedia bias article. I am also well aware of the commandments of this encyclopedia that state every claim must be referenced. I am also well aware of the guidelines that state citation tags can be used for unreferenced claims. The question is why are you making such a fuss over matters that can be readily remedied by providing a reference --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 20:55, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

::Ed Poor blocked me for a week because I refused to knuckle under and believe a lie that was posted at the ''Liberal Creep'' page. The following item was deleted from the talk page in question and is posted here for posterity. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 22:24, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

::Mr. Schlafly: You stated Wikipedia was in error because they didn't mention Newton's fundamentalism, yet they used the exact same words and reference that the Conservapedia article used. Though he is better known for his love of science, the Bible was Sir Isaac Newton's greatest passion. He devoted more time to the study of Scripture than to science, and he said, '''"I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily." John H. Tiner. Isaac Newton: Inventor, Scientist and Teacher, Mott Media, ISBN 0-91513406-3.''' Care to explain this discrepancy? If Wikipedia is concealing Newton's motivation, then why is this line attributed to him? "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." It is contained in the ''"Isaac Newton's religious views"'' article.

::Ed: My error? Where? All I did was make a perfectly reasonable request for citations and look at all the flack I am getting. Mr. Schlafly makes an error yet you have nothing to say to him. I am contributing to this encyclopedia by researching and writing, look at my contributions page. Please stop making unfounded accusations. If the people contributing to this article would actually provide valid references, I would be able to spend a lot more time making quality contributions to the NASA article instead of trying to get people to provide the references they should have researched to begin with.--Jimmy 21:52, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

==Admin warning==

*Your attitude is making me wonder

See [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:16, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
:Um, I think he hasn't edited since February... (About the time he was eternally blocked...) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 11:20, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

::Then who wrote [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Heterosexuality&diff=prev&oldid=494880 this]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:22, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I've been in Australia too long, I got the eight and the two mixed up.... [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 11:26, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

* Revision as of 12:37, 2 August 2008 (edit) (undo)

What eight? It says '''August''', man. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:31, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:Pardon me, but if one were to go up to "my preferences", select the "Date and Time" tab the options allow for a "numerals ONLY" date format. I'm guessing this is what DLerner has set for his browser. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 12:00, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Pro-drilling

2008-08-29T23:44:34Z

MargeryCampbell: every little bit...

Shouldn't the saying be "all ''the'' above"? [[User:Human|Human]] 17:05, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:That seems to be the smallest of this article's problems. Anyone want to rewrite it in something more closely resembling English? [[User:Human|Human]] 17:08, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
::It seems to be "all ''of the'' above", actually. And while I think your last remark went a bit far, this article '''does''' need some rewriting. Aside from some grammar, there is also unnecessary opinion-pushing in the middle, and the article seems to be a collection of random ideas. I'll see if I can dig out some sources (this isn't really my special field) later today or tomorrow. But if others want to fix this sooner, be my guest. Do we have some sort of "Needs work plz" template? --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 17:16, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Human, trying being more humane instead of publicly complaining. Why don't you make the needed corrections, contribute more new articles and move on. Your attitude is proving valid with #15 and #20 of [[Essay:Liberal_Behavior_on_Conservapedia]]. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:27, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I didn't make any changes for one main reason. Since the article needs more than simple spelling or grammar fixes, it would need to be rearranged and rewritten. I suspect that if I did what I think would make this article better my changes would be reverted, since I would probably dilute the perspective it is written from. I didn't fix the "all ... above" thing because I thought it might have been a direct quote from somewhere. I usually do make corrections when I see them needed, in fact I did some work on one of Mr. Schlafly's History Lectures. I don't think pointing out that something that I would never bother to work needs serious work is "complaining", and I have started ''many'' articles on CP in my year and a half here. But, sorry if I offended... [[User:Human|Human]] 18:32, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::I have cleaned up the grammar but the "facts" I'll leave to the more intrepid editors. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 19:44, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Pro-drilling

2008-08-29T23:39:20Z

MargeryCampbell: Grammar, synatx

'''Pro-drilling''' is a term to describe Americans who feel that the USA should be leading the world in energy production. Due to our vast wealth and resources, Pro-drilling advocates want an "all of the above" solution to the energy crisis.

The "all of the above" solution entails drilling for oil ''first''. This strategy is to be part of a larger national energy policy that includes oil, shale, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric as well as new nuclear power-plant construction. A major [[campaign]] in the Pro-drilling movement is the '''"Drill Here!, Drill Now!"''' effort. People in the millions have signed up with [[American Solutions]] to support drilling initiatives.

Pro-drilling is a response to extremely the high gasoline prices that have been inflicted upon the American consumer since the [[summer]] of 2005. The effort has become necessary due to Democratic [[Congressional]] leaders refusal to listen to their constituents. Instead, [[Democrats|Democratic politicians]] are allied with extreme environmentalist organizations, for which they speak. Plus, Speaker [[Nancy Pelosi]] has narcissistic dreams such as the comment "She is trying to save our planet." The [[environmentalist]]s' motives are clearly questionable. Plus, there is proof that other [[humans]] are suffering [[malnutrition]] worldwide. They are unable to afford the cost of food due to gasoline's higher price.

Recently, Pro-drilling supporters were mocked by Speaker Pelosi as the "two-cents-in-10-years-crowd." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,412549,00.html Debunking Democrats on Drilling] Fox News, August 28, 2008</ref> This attitude proves she has no intention of drilling off the continental shelf or in the [[Arctic National Wildlife Refuge]].

==Also See==
*[[Oil]]
*[[Global warming]]
*[[Energy_Independence]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.americansolutions.com/ American Solutions for Winning the Future website]
*[http://www.grassfire.org/108/petition.asp Grassfire.org Emergency Petition To Congress]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Energy]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-08-29T21:11:01Z

MargeryCampbell: /* Requested change */

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

== No longer presumptive ==

He's the real-deal nominee at this point. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]] 13:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

== Education In Jakarta, Indonesia ==

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

== Reversion Explained ==

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

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

== Affirmative Action President ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== "Alleged" birth revert ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== We have a problem ==

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

== Hussein Obama's Birth Certificate Number ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Dilution ==

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

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

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

Talk:Essay: The Special Interests Candidate

2008-08-29T20:12:22Z

MargeryCampbell: Good first draft!

You got a few typos in there, buddy. Want them fixed? [[User:Human|Human]] 20:39, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Yes, Jpatt, would you like some free copyediting? Assuming you aren't doing "the work", of course. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 21:58, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

==Grammar Lesson==

<center>'''[This is a grammatical critique of [[Essay:_The_Special Interests Candidate|this essay]]. As such, I will not be commenting as to content, rather how that content is presented. I also realize that the author may well be of tender years and I will not be as scathing were I addressing this to an older person.]''' [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 16:12, 29 August 2008 (EDT)</center>

Barack Obama has an interesting persona that is least observed.
:'''I'm going to guess that as a "work-in-progress" this "sentence" will be made clear in the future. '''

The man is thoroughly discussed; his soul is not. What do we know about Barack Obama's soul? '

:'''One would suspect that the author would begin to talk about Obama's soul right about here.'''

When we think of 'special interests', immediately, politicians comes to mind.

:'''Nope, a whole new tangent. '''

Whereby, secret deals and and political earmark favorites, mixed with wealthy connections and The Peoples tax money. Greed is a fallen trait, a deadly sin, corruption and evil deeds. However, this article is about a different kind of 'Special Interest.' It's about the people whom support Barack Obama.

:'''One can see the thoughts here but it seems that they haven't been formally introduced to each other.

There is an old saying, insight into a man can be found in his friends, "You are the friends you keep." Then, just who are Barack's friends? As you may already know, the Democrats have crowned him the embodiment of iconic liberalism, Emperor stature that reviles in the achievements of John Kennedy (Catholic), and Martin Luther King, a Baptist Republican. If you tear down the often used Democratic 'smoke and mirrors', you'll see that where Obama started out, it is the answer to all the questions raised about him. Every soul is different and I examine thee from afar.

:'''I think you mean "rivals".'''
:'''When you ask a rhetorical question it is customary to answer it for the readers of your essay.'''

Chicago is renowned for it's architecture, arts, it's [a] sprawling Midwest Gotham <s>city</s> of millions. The city that made famous the infamous '''[Pick one or the other]''' Al Capone, has been power broker ever since.

:'''Again, snippets of thoughts strung together cannot ''per se'' usually rendered into a concise cogent argument without some flourishes of connective prose.'''

The vast size of the '''[city's]''' government has given rise to <s>literally</s> hundreds of scandals over the years. <s>It</s> '''[Cook county's government]''' has never known to be entirely corruption free in the modern era. The often accused Chicago politic'''[al]''' system <s>is</s> has been run by multi-millionaire Democratic politicians <s>and has been</s> for more than 50 years. The result, people without the city's best interests '''[in heart]''' stay in office to make the decisions.

Barack Obama entered this power structure in 1996. <s>The Illinois state governor, convicted.</s> '''[NOTE:in ''1996?!'']''' Constant accusations against Chicago mayor Daley.'''[Note: Accused of...?]''' Justice system overburdened, crime at public curfew status, public enforcement in disarray. '''[This is not a sentence, but rather (incomplete) clauses strung together...please "slow down" your writing to allow your reader to follow your thought process.]''' Obama definitely had to work hard to squeeze himself into elite positions with'''[in]''' this political system. There is no doubt that he is tainted by the corruption in this city. Remember'''[,]''' his friends are of like-minded acquaintance: big power makers, deep pockets.

:'''[Try to avoid the "wall of words" that can throw off readers, (especially those reading on the internet), by adding breaks where appropriate.] '''

Tony Rezko is a prime example of Chicago politics. Obama had a relationship with Rezko for years. '''[I've rearranged the next two sentences to clarify the accusation therein.]''' Obama's own house was purchased, at $300,000 below market value, thanks to Rezko [and] all made possible by a corrupt government at Chicago taxpayers' expense.

Another associat'''[e]''', Bill Ayers, an Obama supporter, fundraiser and anti-American liberal. Naturally, the only place you'll find someone with a resume that includes 'domestic terrorism', as a professor in a liberal school in...Chicago. He also created the 'Chicago Annenberg Challenge' that partly controlled $50 million for community development. Barack Obama was the non-profit group[']s first Chairman. Barack has tried to distance himself from Ayers by saying "somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense."

What is your soul Barack? Is it more than possible, it is probable and it does make sense, clear sense, just not in Obama's favor.

:'''These last two sentences don't parse well. What is it you are trying to say with them? Remember I'm ''not'' talking about the content but the comprehension "What is your soul?" is not a readily answerable question since the context isn't clearly defined. The second sentence hints that the author knows the answer but it is too vague for the reader to guess at the conclusion.'''

Most everyone knows about Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor. Does everyone know '''[what]''' the religious environment '''[is]''' in Chicago? What is going on in Chicago? The religious environment in Chicago is corrupt. Money has lifted the undeserving people into positions of leadership. Money is the root evil. Trinity United was built on government funds, yet it used for dividing Chicago citizens by race. <s>, the very people it was supposed to help.</s> In the name of God, but for money, these churches (if you can call them that) grew to bring in millions upon millions of dollars.

:'''Not everyone knows what "Trinity United" is and you should inform those readers who are ignorant of it. Again, take your time and spell out what you're trying to get across. The last sentence is almost incomprehensible'''

:'''Below I've reconstructed the first two sentences into one that flows a bit better.'''

''Chicago has a vibrant Islamic community of over 400,000 with large congregations and millions of dollars in wealth.'' Over 50 Mosques, many are owned by questionable individuals that are in contact with powerful people. As an example, Bridgeview Mosque was built out of $1.6 million in donations from the Saudi Arabia government, the religious ministry of the United Arab Emirates and from Kuwaiti donors. As of 2008, it is estimated that 10,000 people worship there each week, a million dollar operation. Shaikh Jamal Said was sent from a University in Saudi Arabia to be the Mosques spiritual leader. '''He came to Chicago to teach Arabic to African-American Muslims.''' He ended up coming to America to teach Chicago's African-Americans to hate, hate the oppressor, hate the races, hate America. All this in the same city, sound familiar? The Religious elite in Chicago form their own relationships. It may be [that] Louis Farrakhan, the Muslim, speaks on behalf of the Baptist Rev. Wright. Or it may be it Catholic Father Plagar speaks on behalf of Baptist Rev. Wright. Or it may be connections of the Muslim Jamal Said to Rev. Wright. The ultimate connection is Chicago to Obama and a twenty-year indoctrination into a corrupt religious atmosphere.

His '''[Who? Mr. Obama's?]''' view of life in general is a product of his surroundings. Life as an African-American in Chicago is a much different experience than growing up in Mobile, Alabama.

:'''[Again, this has nothing to do with content, but the writer seems to assure the reader that he ''knows'' life "as an African-American in Chicago AND Mobile Alabama". If the author is not African-American nor has lived in BOTH Chicago AND Mobile then I would suggest this be cut.]'''

The most precious of gifts, a child, is to be snatched away in a sterile abortion clinic. His big city abortion views are preposterous. His supporters, abortion mills, lavish praise for their Prince. The benefits of an Obama-Planned Parenthood partnership are none. The death of innocents would move forward at warp speeds with this person's soul at the controls. His church of twenty years doesn't condone the massacre and he buys into this Democratic pillar 100%. Sadly, those very people are responsible for placing 70% of the abortion facilities in Chicago's low-income African American communities. Barack Obama is complicit for his support and continual expansion of abortion services.

:'''[Mr. Obama is pro-abortion and the writer is pro-life. Okay. Just tone down the rhetorical devices a pinch and this should be fine.]'''

Much can be said of Obama supporters. They are enthusiastic, they like what they hear. They are 20-somethings, they are old-timer Democrats.
:'''[Careful: you've just implied Mr. Obama's supporters include both young and old(er) people, which one ''may'' infer that he has a broad range of support and is "popular".]'''
'''[Obama's]''' Presidential rallies draw 7,000, or maybe 20,000 people in attendance.'''[Pick one number.]''' But who really are the Obama supporters?<s> Iran, while not endorsing him, agrees with Obama's views. Hamas terror organization, on record endorsing Obama.</s>
:'''[''Non sequitur''. The rest can go into a bulleted format (which is not how I'd personally use such a list but seems to be within the [[Conservapedia:Manual of Style|MOS]] used here).]'''

*Militant Black Panthers, on record for Barack Obama.
*Rev. Wright, on record supporting Obama.
*William Ayers, anti-American hater, on record supporting Obama.
*Louis Farrakhan endorses Obama.
*Indicted Chicago developer Tony Rezko, on record for Barack Obama,
*Sheik Jamal Said and the Islamic Society of North America support an Obama Presidency
*Planned Parenthood
*Emily's List
*NARAL- endorses the Democrat. 
This special interests list goes on and on. Not good company Obama associates with.

What can we learn of Barack Hussein Obama's soul? It '''<s>has</s>''' has been corrupted to the core.

Talk:Essay:Liberal Intellectualism

2008-08-28T21:48:24Z

MargeryCampbell: /* Grammar lesson */ EC changed my edit

== Foucault ==
Could you please expand the section on Foucault? At the moment there is nothing there and I think it is unfair on the person themselves if someone gives them a label without explaining why. Also it is out of my own personal interest that I found out why you critise Foucault.--[[User:Lamb12|Lamb12]] 21:59, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Question ==

''Examples of not-quite-the-best intellectual promoters of liberal arguments''

Who would you say are the best intellectual promoters of liberal arguments? And who would you say are real, rather than pseudo, intellectuals?

[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 06:32, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

: I'll clarify. What that means is "not-quite-intellectual". Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:44, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon's right-hand man, is a liberal? By what standard? [[User:Jonquil|Jonquil]]

:Excerpt:
::"When Rockefeller lost the Republican nomination to Nixon, Kissinger told Dean Brown, an American diplomat, that he would have to abstain. "I could never vote for Nixon, of course, and that clown Humphrey would never make a President." Publicly he called Nixon "the most dangerous" of the candidates." [http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Kissinger/Advisor_Sideshow.html] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:37, 21 November 2007 (EST)

:::Anyone that didn't want to vote for Nixon is a liberal? Really? Don't you want to spend a bit more time thinking about this one? --[[User:Favre4Pope|Favre4Pope]] 18:39, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::You may be missing the point; [[Nelson Rockefeller]] is considered a liberal Republican; indeed "Rockefeller Republican" is still the common term used to refer to liberal Republicans. Henry Kissinger was a Rockefeller Republican, and was one of Nelson Rockefeller's closest advisers. When Nixon beat Rocky for the '68 GOP nomination, Kissinger was a survivor of Rocky's organization who made to the White House. Kissinger voted against Nixon in the primaries.

::::So the idea that Nixon & Kissinger are Siamese twins is just, once again, pure liberal crap. Nothing surprising in that, really. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:20, 21 November 2007 (EST)

:::::You should quit playing dumb and deal with the conversation directly, rather than pussy-footing around irrelevant gibberish. --[[User:Favre4Pope|Favre4Pope]] 20:38, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::::The question was answered point blank, duh.
::::::BTW, is there a hint of anti-[[Catholicism]] in your user name? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:56, 21 November 2007 (EST)

:::: The more [[Richard Nixon]] relied on [[Henry Kissinger]], the less [[conservative]] Nixon became. [[Conservatives]] always knew that Kissinger was not conservative, and for that reason [[Ronald Reagan]] resisted the intense [[liberal]] pressure to include Kissinger as an adviser.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 22 November 2007 (EST)

== Achievements ==
I know that this is an essay, and it reflects your personal opinion, which you are of course entitled to. I'm confused about why you say that the people on your list are "short on intellectual achievements." You list, in order,
*A U.S. Senator/Presidential candidate
*A U.S. Senator/Vice President/Presidential candidate/lecturer
*A Governor/President of the United States
*An Oxford faculty member/influential scientist
*A Harvard faculty member/influential scientist/author
*A Harvard Law faculty member/influential expert on constitutional law
*A U.S. Secretary of Defense/President of World Bank
*A Nobel laureate/U.S. Secretary of State/major player in US foreign policy for a decade
*A successful theoretical physicist who led the effort to develop the most important weapon in world history
*A popular comedian and talk show host (not sure who seriously considers Jon Stewart an intellectual per se, but he does provide social commentary, so I'll give you a point for this one)
*An M.I.T. faculty member/successful philosopher, author
*A successful economist who was given the title of Baron for his work
Most people would probably call that a pretty impressive list of achievements for "wannabes or pseudo-intellectuals."
While I understand that you don't agree with a lot of those men, it doesn't mean that they haven't accomplished anything. Arguments against their ideologies would be more effective if they were made without trying to blow off their achievements as insignificant.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 23:26, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

::This essay tells us more about the author than it does about the subject. Is [[ad hominem]]ism not a Liberal [[Template:Attack page|activity]]?

:::''Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.''

:::''And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these words, the multitudes were astonished at his teaching:''
:::''for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.''
:::(Matthew 7)

::Godspeed [[User:JSmith|JSmith]] 08:27, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: The above [[liberal]] protesteth too much to the insight of this essay.

: Bayes illustrates the [[liberal]] love of bureaucracy and meaningless "achievements". He does not list a true intellectual accomplishment. Nothing in his list advanced knowledge or provided any meaningful benefit to others. Instead, as in the [[Wizard of Oz]], Bayes attaches great significance to honors awarded by other [[liberals]]. Try to find a true intellectual achievement by any of the listed [[liberals]]. Can't be done, so they strive for acclaim by fellow [[liberals]] instead.

: JSmith, you win the prize for playing the hypocrite card, which is so overused by [[liberals]]. You even cite the [[Bible]]. Are you a real devotee to the [[Bible]]???

: Thanks, you gave me good fodder to add to the [[liberal style]] entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:21, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Shakespearian references aside, let me try to understand your reasoning. You say that receiving Nobel Prizes, becoming widely recognized in an academic field, or becoming President of the United States does not represent an intellectual achievement. You then say that nothing on the list above advanced knowledge or provided meaningful benefit. That position is simply absurd. By your standards, Reagan, Teller, and the Founding Fathers aren't intellectuals either. Then, when I point out your untenable position, you attack me for my so-called "love of bureaucracy" and compare my opinions to the Wizard of Oz story.

Your response says more than you wanted it to. This essay really is a demonstration of the ''ad hominem'' fallacy; you selectively choose people you disagree with, then claim that they're not "real" intellectuals, and so, of course, they must be wrong. It's only a rephrasing of "These people are stupid, so they're wrong." You then choose to mock me and JSmith on this page, again showing your tendency to use personal attacks.

What is an example of what you would consider a "true" intellectual achievement? Do all "true" intellectuals also happen to be conservatives? Can any liberal hope to be a "true" intellectual?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 11:22, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: Bayes, you continue to protesteth too much. What constitutes a true intellectual achievement is obvious: an insight, a remarkable writing or speech, an idea, an invention, a proof, a concept, an advance in knowledge, etc. Reagan's [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], for example, or his "tear down this wall" speech. [[Teller]]'s H-Bomb. The Founding Father's [[U.S. Constitution]]. The [[liberal]] obsession with meaningless bureaucratic honors, often awarded by fellow [[liberals]], is baffling, a silly as the awards given in the [[Wizard of Oz]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:25, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Ok, so those are examples of what you consider to be intellectual achievements. I agree. Now, why do you consider Teller's role in hydrogen bomb development an achievement, but Oppenheimer's role in fission bomb development is not? I see you've added to the essay, and you claim that Oppenheimer isn't an intellectual because he didn't win a Nobel Prize in physics. Tell me, how many Nobel Prizes did Teller, one of your examples of intellectuals, win? I'll also point out that Kissinger DID win a Nobel Prize, and yet he appears on this list. You seem to want it both ways--you are trying to claim Oppenheimer is not an intellectual because he doesn't have a Nobel Prize, but then you say that any prize that was actually awarded is meaningless because it was awarded by "liberals."

Your remarks about others on the list are just as dubious in their relevance. Reagan was an actor before he entered politics; does that diminish his later intellectual accomplishments? I don't think so. Similarly, the disparaging "you got bad grades in college, so you can't accomplish anything worthwhile" comments next to some of the names are not appropriate.

I'd still like to hear your answer to this question: Can anyone whom you label as "liberal" be a "true" intellectual?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:25, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:''Add-on:'' I also don't see how being a privileged youth disqualifies one from being an intellectual. The majority of the scientific establishment was at one time composed of the nobility, since they were the people with the time and money for such pursuits. The merit of any body of knowledge is not dependent on the personal circumstances of its discoverer.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:55, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:: If you think the [[liberal]]s on the list achieved something intellectually, then just tell us what that was. Winning a gold star from a fellow liberal doesn't cut it. Instead, this group is notable for being intellectual wannabees, such as claiming credit for the internet or plagiarizing or self-promotion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:17, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Have you read the account on Snopes about what was actually said with respect to Al Gore and the Internet?[http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp] --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:21, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't have to. I remember reading the transcript, and I think I even saw the interview at the time. Gore tried to take credit for the internet. I didn't say that Gore claimed to have invented the internet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

So you reserve license to publicly degrade others, and then give me the task of doing your research for you? You are the author of this essay, in which you essentially call your political opponents stupid and overrated. The burden of proof is on YOU to defend your claims and refute the achievements of these respected people, since YOU are making those statements. So far, your justifications have been along the lines of "his parents had money" and "he got bad grades in college." Did you know Clinton was a Rhodes scholar?

In any case, I've already provided an example: Oppenheimer led the effort to develop the atomic bomb. You credit Teller for H-bomb work, but not Oppenheimer for A-bomb work. How do you justify that position?

I would still like to know: Can someone be both "liberal" and an "intellectual"?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 17:39, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: Bayes, you continue to cite [[liberal]] awards, like "Rhodes scholar." You don't seem to grasp the point here, or you don't want to. I'm talking about true intellectual achievement, not resume building stuff.

:: Someone should do an article on [[Heather Wilson]], which includes her past achievements. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:41, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: [[Teller]] did real [[physics]]. [[Oppenheimer]] was the manager at [[Los Alamos]] who made sure people got their mail and had a room to stay in. Please attempt to understand the difference.

: Your question about whether someone can be [[liberal]] and a true intellectual is beyond the scope of this essay. It's a rare combination at best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for your response to that question. I do think it's relevant to this essay, since the inclusion of conservatives on this "pseudo-intellectuals" list, as well as liberals on any "intellectuals" list, would provide evidence that this is not just an ''ad hominem'' attack.

I pointed out the Rhodes scholarship because you portray Clinton as a failure in his studies. Whatever political aspects of the Rhodes scholarship application you believe are present, I think you can agree that they are not awarded to people who are dolts. It seems that your definition of a "liberal award" is any award won by someone you disagree with.

With regard to Oppenheimer/Teller, I suggest you become better acquainted with physics and the history of the Manhattan Project before you trash Oppenheimer as merely a "manager". The [[Born-Oppenheimer approximation]], the [[Oppenheimer-Phillips process]], and the [[Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit]] are ideas within quantum physics and astrophysics that are named for him. For the Manhattan Project, he did important calculations relating to fast neutrons. So, despite your claims to the contrary, he was in fact very successful at "real" physics, in your terms. You would do well to refrain from denigrating Oppenheimer in terms of his science; it's just not going to work.

I reiterate my claim that you are inconsistent in lauding Teller while smearing Oppenheimer. It is becoming more apparent that you are putting folks on this list simply because you disagree with their politics and not because they actually have intellectual failures.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:44, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:Dear Mr. Schlafly. Thank you for the prize. I hope my [[Bible]] citation was correct. It would be a shame if I quoted something, for example [[Shakespeare]], and got it horribly wrong. I'm glad you found my contribution useful. It is a pleasure to have been of help. Oh by the way, would you be so kind as to list the intellectual achievements of your own which enable you to sit on such a high pedestal pontificating about the achievements or lack thereof by intellectual wannabees and pseudo-intellectuals. Godspeed [[User:JSmith|JSmith]] 09:44, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Well done, JSmith, you exhibited two examples of [[liberal style]], now ranked #7 on Google searches, in just one sentence:

::* #7) over-reliance on accusations of hypocrisy
::* #25) using non sequiturs in argument

:: Surely you don't think that it's unfair to question whether someone promoted as an intellectual really is one. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Mr Smith is unfortunately no longer able to continue this discussion. TK [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3AIpblocklist&action=search&limit=&ip=JSmith blocked] him. Assumedly for holding this discussion. Would you like to comment sir? [[User:BLocke|BLocke]] 10:00, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

"Richard Dawkins lasted only 2 years teaching at University of California, Berkeley, a mere lecturer at Oxford until a wealthy ally donated a professorship for him"

Oh, a mere lecturer at Oxford? And Bush's resume is so much more impressive than that. - Barry Sherman

: Bush does not use his credentials to claim any intellectual superiority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:05, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

And? That article is obviously an attempt to make liberals look intellectually inferior. - Barry Sherman

==Motivation==

An interesting essay Mr.Schlafly. I'm curious to know your postion on the corollary of your listed arguments, i.e., do you believe that:

*Cutting taxes increases Government revenue
*Increased gun ownership assures a safer society
*Women should give birth to every baby conceived
*Wars should be fought until a combatant is completely destroyed, without pause for negotiation
*The best thing for humanity would be to increase the worldwide supply of armaments ad infinitum
*Discrimination cannot be quantified
*Women are inferior to men
*Homosexuals deserve no freedoms
*The Government should make no attempt to reduce poverty

[[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 13:45, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: After your first two, your "corollaries" are actually severe distortions of the points in the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:51, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Ok, let me try another 'corollarization', if you'll pardon the concoction! Please bear with me, I am not interested in twisting your words, merely clarifying your position.

*Cutting taxes increases Government revenue
*Increased gun ownership assures a safer society
*Abortion harms health
*Ceasefires are pointless
*Arms limitation treaties are pointless
*Discrimination cannot be quantified by viewing outcomes
*Genders are not equal
*African Americans are more deserving of civil rights than homosexuals
*The Government should make no further attempt to reduce poverty

Is this better? [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 14:14, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: Your "corollarization" is still twisted, of course, particularly on points 2 ("assures"), 4-5 ("are pointless"), 6 ("cannot be quantified"), and 9 ("no further attempt"). But you're right with point 1, 3 and 7-8, and increased gun ownership does decrease crime, including violent crime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:21, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

OK, here's another try - and thanks for your pointers.

*Cutting taxes increases Government revenue
*Increased gun ownership helps towards a safer society
*Abortion harms health
*In war, ceasefires have no useful effect
*Arms limitation treaties have no useful effect
*Discrimination cannot be fully quantified by viewing outcomes only
*Genders are not equal
*African Americans are more deserving of civil rights than homosexuals
*The Government is not fully capable of reducing poverty

I'm having a hard time writing corollaries of the ceasefire, arms treaty, and poverty topics, so please forgive me as I clumsily try and get closer to your position. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 14:31, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, a user by the name of 'TK' has alerted me to your 90/10 rule. However, I pointed out that I obviously cannot contribute to your essay, since it is completely yours. Should I stop discussing your essay? I should point out that what I was hoping to do was clarify the corollaries to your points so that I could write an essay entitled Conservative Intellectualism, which would then state clearly defined positions held by conservative intellectuals. I can't write that article until we agree on the definitions, obviously. Should I listen to TK and stop, or do you wish me to continue on my path? It is your essay, and, I believe, your site, so I will abide by whatever you say. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 15:26, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

*Do not try to insert [[deceit]] here, OldFaithful. I alerted as well as welcomed you. Most of us manage to do both kinds of posts, and I am sure after a while, you will be better able to multi-task as well! Carry on. --[[User:TK|şŷ�?ô�?-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣ�?ёаќǃ]] 15:41, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh I'm not trying to use deceit, I can assure you. I'm only interested in clarifying - to the agreement of Mr.Schlafly - the position this essay takes. Defining the corollary of an argument is usually a very good way to define the argument itself, I find. Thanks for your understanding, TK. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 15:44, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: OldFaithful, the point of the 90/10 [[rule]] is to ensure some productive activity in addition to discussion. As you can see, there are many other entries here (over 16,000) that we can all improve while we continue this discussion. Thanks much and we do welcome you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:07, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, I have started a discussion on the page [[Talk:Essay:Conservative Intellectualism]] about replacing the liberally written content there with material that is more suitable to this forum. I have pasted in our corollaries from today - the ones you were happy with - and would love if you could particpate in the building of that article too. Yours, [[User:AncientSage|AncientSage]] 21:35, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

== Response ==

In reply to your list above:

* Cutting taxes increases Government revenue

Right, assuming current levels of taxation. See [[Laffer Curve]].

* Increased gun ownership helps towards a safer society

Right. No one seriously disputes this. See [[John Lott]].

* Abortion harms health

Right. No one seriously disputes this, just as no one credibly denies that childbirth is good for health.

* In war, ceasefires have no useful effect

True when faced with a determined enemy, like the [[communist]] North Vietnamese.

* Arms limitation treaties have no useful effect

True when faced with a [[deceit]]ful enemy, like the [[communist]] [[Soviet Union]].

* Discrimination cannot be fully quantified by viewing outcomes only

Obviously true.

* Genders are not equal

Obviously true.

: While it is obvious that the genders are not the same, what are the implications of this statement? Should the [[19th amendment]] be undone? Is unequal pay for the same work fair? What other implications that I'm not familiar with are there? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:55, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:*It was obvious to me that Andy was talking about the physiological differences, not social. --[[User:TK|şŷ�?ô�?-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣ�?ёаќǃ]] 16:59, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:: If that is the case, then that needs to be said. All of the other points in this list are about social issues, government policies and the like. To say that the genders are not equal in this context seems to be to be very much about the social differences of the genders. This is especially true when reading up on some of the conservative speakers and their positions on gender equality. Phyllis Schlafly statements about the equal rights ammendment[http://thinkexist.com/quotes/phyllis_schlafly/], and Ann Coulter has written on reconsidering the 19th ammendment[http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38a7cb4c3104.htm]. What is meant by "Genders are not equal - obviously true" needs to be spelled out so there cannot be any misinterpretation of the message that is intended. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:08, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

I do think that the physiological differences between men and women - which are clearly undeniable - do have an impact on issues of pay. I don't believe, for example, that it is fair to pay women soldiers the same as the men soldiers, as they cannot carry as much weight or make themselves as useful to the unit due to their reduced physicality. Mind you, I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that women shouldn't be anywhere in the miltary other than desk jobs at home in the US - but that's another issue. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 17:14, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

* African Americans are more deserving of civil rights than homosexuals

Right, and many African Americans are rightly offended by [[liberal]] attempts to analogize the two.

* The Government is not fully capable of reducing poverty

Obviously true. Even [[Jesus]] observed that there will unfortunately always be poverty.

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:35, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

A fantastic response Mr.Schlafly, I'm very grateful indeed. A few questions come to mind from your responses, and they're all about trying to write 'rules' or points of policy that do not require conditions. Conditionals ("when facing a determined enemy") cloud meaning, and if they're required, it shows lack of strength in the statement. I'm trying to find the simplest, generalised statements that work.

*Perhaps we should say "Every woman should give birth to children", since it's good for health?
*Since almost every enemy likely thinks of themselves as 'determined', what is a good general policy statement on ceasefires that does not include that conditional statement? If ceasefires are useless against determined enemy, do they have some use against less determined enemies? Maybe ceasefires shouldn't be a rule, if we cannot be clear about them without conditional statements?
*And since any combatant will be deceitful in war, how can we clarify the statement on arms treaties? "Arms treaties are never a good idea"?
*"Homosexuals do not deserve civil rights". Is that a reasonable extrapolation of your point?
*Is it a reasonable extrapolation of the last point to say that "Poverty is uneradicable". Even though that might be wrong, I'm trying to get these statements to be snappy soundbites like that. It really helps to convey the message to younger people.

Looking forward to your thoughts, I remain, [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 17:05, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: OldFaithful, your restatements of the points are distortions. We don't do that here. Not a single one of your restatements conveys the clear, straightforward, and undeniable truth in the original statements. Instead, your restatements either marginalize the point so that it loses meaning (e.g., by omitting [[abortion]]), or makes assumptions that are untrue (e.g., every enemy is "determined" and "deceitful", or that homosexuals "do not deserve civil rights" which of course they already enjoy like everyone else).

: The 90/10 [[rule]] against endless talk is enforced. Please abide by it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:42, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh I certainly intend to, I will revert to the last set of definitions you were happy with and will write the article. Please excuse my new name as I was blocked by TK by accident. [[User:NewFaithful|NewFaithful]] 20:18, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm very confused. I keep getting banned fomr this site. All I have been doing is trying to write a good, conservative article as an essay on Conservative Intellectualism. But now I see that my comments are being removed - I don't know why - from this Talk page, and also now from the aricle I was attmpeting to argue FOR!. I think I am being confused for others perhaps? Contributing to this site is anything but easy. [[User:Worshipper|Worshipper]] 23:57, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

===real intellectuals===
i think it would be helpful for this discussion if we had another essay about real intellecuals. liberal, conservative, or moderate. there are a few examples given on this page, but i think more might answer questions about who is included and who isn't. the founding fathers are a good example. i would be against people being included just for being well known conservatives. i admire much about george w bush, for example, but i wouldn't call him an "intellectual". he didn't run as one, and we didn't elect him for that. [[User:AuH2O|AuH2O]]

*And yet his college record, and ''two degrees'', from one of the paramount educational institutions in the world, would indicate at least a higher level of intelligence. And a higher GPA than John Kerry. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:12, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

i'm not sure "smarter than kerry" makes him an intellectual. also, jon stewart should probably be removed. he's an entertainer. i don't think he or anyone else really makes much of a claim that he's an intellectual. [[User:AuH2O|AuH2O]]

== Clinton ==
''may have virtually flunked out of the pre-med program at Georgetown, never released his grades, no original work or ideas''

'May have'? Did he or didn't he? Just 'may have' is gossip. And where did Clinton ever claim (or have it claimed for him) to be an intellectual? Indeed, how many US presidents, Rep or Dem, fit into that category? [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 07:27, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

==I couldn't resist==

I'm sorry, but why on earth is that considered to be a genuine work on this wiki? The whole thing is nuts. Loopdy loopder. Just because someone declares themselves a Liberal doesn't mean they claim to be an intellectual. Its flattering you would think so much of us, but thats just nuts. No, the problem here is that people assume so much. And Gandhi? Give me a break.

What about the great Liberal intellectuals - Galileo, Einstein, Mandela, Lincoln, The Dalai Lama? What are they, accidents? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 18:52, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

A work which cannot be defended on its merits is a work that shouldn't be defended at all. This should be deleted and the creator should apologise for marking the world with this insanity. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 06:57, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps some rest? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 07:06, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== "intellectual wannabees or pseudo-intellectuals" ==

Okay, what on Earth are Noam Chomsky (guy who came up with the Chomsky Hierarchy, which is quite influential in theoretical Computer Sciences) and John Maynard Keynes (quoting CP: "His ideas were highly influential leading to him generally being credited as being one of the founding fathers of modern theoretical macroeconomics.") doing on a list of pseudo-intellectuals?

These are people who vastly influenced their field of study with their intellectual contributions. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 08:19, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
:I don't think there's any question regarding Keynes liberal intellectual credentials; libs have even co-opted him posthumously in the gay rights movement. Chomsky is more less the undisputed chief grand pubba guru of modern liberal intellectualism. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:16, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::Your answer doesn't quite seem to fit to my question. How does their political view lessen their contributions? I'm not arguing that they're conservative, liberal or whatever, but why are they "pseudo-intellectual"? Here is something Andy said on this very page:
{{cquote|What constitutes a true intellectual achievement is obvious: an insight, a remarkable writing or speech, an idea, an invention, a proof, a concept, an advance in knowledge, etc.}}
::Being credited with the title "founding father of modern macroeconomics" and having had a remarkable impact on theoretical Computer Sciences count as such intellectual achievements in my eyes. Are you saying they're not? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 14:23, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

This whole section is pretty dumb and should be deleted. I don't think whoever authored it understands what a psuedo-intellectual is. Harvard professors and world class mathematicians are not psuedo-intellectuals, they are the very definition of intellectuals. ----[[user:grah|grah]] 09:45 27 February 2008 (EST)

==Liberal intellectualism and the Cold War==
Here's a good description of liberal intellectualism that caused the [[Cold War]]:

:"There is a thing we might call the cult of intellectualism, which includes a good many people who are not intellectuals. It embraces a number of top-lofty souls who imagine they swim in some more luminous ether than the harsh air near the ground of reality. In many it is little more than a pose. There were others who saw in [[Russia]] a mixture of good and bad elements and who imagined that, by some alchemy, the bad might one day be eliminated and the good assume the mastery. At the bottom of this notion was the conviction that society had gotten out of hand, that the modern society contains so many hostile elements that there is no way to order and peace and finally to the good life for all, save under the assumption of control by the "experts" to produce a [[planned society]]. These people had managed to dress up and perfume this notion in such a way that they could support it without even being called [[socialist]]s. They saw in Russia a historic and dramatic experiment to produce the good life through a planned society. It was a first trial, full of missteps and pitfalls. They have been willing to excuse the mistakes and even the cruelties of the experimenters in Moscow, hoping that out of it might come something that the world could use.

:"They indignantly deny the imputation of [[communism]]. They do not even like to be called socialists. The term "planned society" appeals to them, expresses their philosophy without the ugly proletarian stain of the socialist or Communist labels. The remodeling of society is a job not for the ranting soapboxers of Union Square, but for the engineers, the scientists, the philosophers and the experts generally. It is in reality socialism in cap and gown or even in a high hat and frock coat. The truth is that in certain quarters it had simply become out of style to believe in the thing called capitalism. It is not the style to believe in communism. But it is a mark of the large mind not to be narrowly intolerant of communism, and among these gentry it had come to be a little vulgar to defend capitalism. When we add to this the fact that the organized Communists and near-Communists in America had something like a million votes to deliver in critical polling places in a few industrial states, we can begin to perceive how a mixture of lofty philosophy and low politics could produce their strange tolerance for [[Stalin]] and his gang.<ref>''While You Slept : Our Tragedy in Asia and Who Made It'', John T. Flynn, New York : The Devin - Adair Company, 1951, [http://www.mises.org/books/whileyouslept.pdf pg. 37 - 38] pdf.</ref> [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:28, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
<references/>

==Kerry==

Kerry was a priviledged youth? What's that got to do with anything? I guess you could say the same about George W. Bush. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:18, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:oh no...a kid just got tasered over this very question....[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:29, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
::Both were ''privileged''. How one approaches life, and one's conclusions about most things, are shaped by that. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:43, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:::Then why even mention it? Do you mention Bill Clinton came from a poor background? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:45, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

== a few comments ==

Are there any references for your revelation that J Robert Oppenheimer "just sorted the mail" or however you put it? I have read a couple of his biographies and that detail, if present, was obscured with all of the details on his research and experiments in developing the atomic bomb. Carl Sagan, quoted from conservapedia's own article on him, was a professor of astronomy at Cornell. His theories, whether you agree with them or not, do have scientific and mathematical backing. Disagreeing with someone's theories does not make that person a "not quite intellectual" as you put it. And finally, Stephen Hawking is widely considered to be the smartest person, if not in the world, then definitely within the scientific community. And although his initial theory was incorrect, by his own admittance, he and others eventually corrected it into what I believe is currently the most accepted theory. Very rarely is a scientific theory correct on the first try, especially on something as difficult to study as a black hole. So I'm not quite sure how/why Hawking qualifies as a "not quite intellectual". --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 18:46, 14 November 2007 (EST)

== Stephen Hawking Not An Intellectual? ==

Stephen Hawking, despite his worldwide-recognized advancements in the fields of theoretical cosmology and quantum gravity, as well as his contributions to other subfields of physics...is NOT an intellectual? I'm baffled by that claim, as I never even contemplated that someone would argue against his being considered an intellectual, if not one of the most brilliant physicists of our time. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 13:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:I also think this is incredibly bizzare. Hawking was wrong about black holes? So?
He was right about Hawking radiation (hence the name)and is considered one of the world leading astrophysicists by liberals and conservatives. And Carl Sagan made great strides in exobiology.
Really strange ideas here Aschlafly.
Darwin a poor student? So was Einstein.
How about -
George W Bush, privilaged youth, poor student, ran several companies into the ground, bailed out by his father, can barely speak coherent english, has some of the worst approval ratings of any president and is disliked the world over.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 16:35, 20 February 2008 (EST)
::I have to agree that Stephen Hawking is a brilliant man, who's taken the human mind farther than many of his peers. I disagree with the parts of his work that assume a billion-billion whatever year old universe, but I pride myself on being able to look past that to the true genius, not to mention the heroism he demonstrates on a daily basis for overcoming his crippling condition. The man is an American treasure and a credit to his nation.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 16:56, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Ahhhhh dude, Stephen Hawking was born in Oxford, England. I'm not sure you could call him an American tresure. Incidently, interesting side note - Hawking was born on the anniversary of Galileo's death 300 years earlier.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 17:07, 20 February 2008 (EST)
:But he teaches at CalTech (our treasure, credit to Britain).-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 18:07, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Fair enough :-)
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 18:09, 20 February 2008 (EST)

::: I'm not sure who stuck that bit in about Hawking. I'd have to check the history. I certainly agree that he's an inspiration on a personal level, and thus would be reluctant to criticism him. But, rising above emotion, when someone claims to be an intellectual, as Hawking's supporters certainly claim about him, it's fair game to probe the accuracy of the claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:04, 20 February 2008 (EST)

checking the accuracy of his claims is difficult when you consider his trade is theoretical physics. You cant say he is not an intellectual when you consider his lifes work and the respect he has worldwide.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 17:07, 20 February 2008 (EST)

: The point the entry is to show how liberal-promoted intellectuals are not what liberals claim they are. I'm fine with taking Hawking out unless and until someone does more research. He's not a leading [[liberal]] as far as I know, so he probably should not be on the list anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:27, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Personally I have done a lot of reading by Hawking and about Hawking and never once is his political leanings been mentioned nor have I heard of him being espoused primarily by liberals or conservatives. I think both sides of the political spectrum would agree with his intellectual capability. I remove it now and if anyone could prove he should be on this list I would be interested to hear their argument for inclusion. Thanks.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 20:46, 23 February 2008 (EST)

When Hawking met the Pope in Rome in the 1990s, he demanded to see where [[Galileo]]s trial took place. Although the Pope was an elderly and physically unwell man, Hawking had no problem putting him through distress to meet his ends. There is no doubt, from anyone who has studied Hawking and his political positions, that he is an avowed [[Liberal]], and as a Liberal 'academic', deserves to be mentioned in the list. There is no such thing as an intelligent Liberal. [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 07:25, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== Huh? ==

Kerry: Fought for his country
Gore: Actually look at the link you provided on the 'net
Bill Clinton: "may have virtually". So he might have almost?
Dawkins: Lecturer at Oxford is still very prestigious
Stephen Jay Gould: Any evidence for that?
Tribe: A professor at Harvard
McNamara: successfully managed the world bank
Oppenheimer: was key in developing the bomb (so what about leaks?)
Jon Stewart: No evidence at all
Chomsky: Actually, he did make significant advances in linguistics, not just "guesses"
Keynes: Policies still used today, influenced Hayek and Friedman as well
Foucault: See Jon stewart
Rachel Carson: Found to have errata by whom?
Bertrand Russell: He won a nobel in literature
Ward Churchill: Managed to become professor nonetheless
Sulzerberger: That says nothing about academic credentials. The same argument could apply to President bush
Darwin: How? Give evidence
Sagan: Again, more evidence. How do we know he was wrong? Maybe his claim made sense.
Clinton: What does that say about the rest of her career?

Since I would like to be banned by this website, I would like to say CENSORED

It is interesting how the Liberal places so much weight on winning a [[Nobel Prize]]. The Liberal obviously doesn't understand that the [[Nobel Prize]] is merely an award given by [[Liberal]]s to other [[Liberal]]s. Notice how the [[Liberal]] engages in the act of [[Deceit]] and the use of [[Profanity]], a favoured [[Liberal Style]] in debates. [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 07:23, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== Gore Link ==

A slight problem- the link posted for Al Gore actually argues that he ''didn't'' claim that he invented the internet. --Dollfuss

: You're right: the link was to liberal claptrap. I've replaced it with Gore's actual quote and a link to the transcript.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:17, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

== Democrat v. Democratic ==

Rather than actually explain this to JPatt, I thought I'd share the lesson with all. If you read Jpatt's recent addition, you may (or may not) have determined it was supposed to be an "example" of "liberal intellectualism" to clarify between Democrat and Democratic. But in trying to explain it, Jpatt gets it all wrong. Democrats (correctly used) prefer not to be referred to as Democrat Senators, Democrat Representative, or the Democrat Party. Democrat is a NOUN, Democratic is an ADJECTIVE. Now, Jpatt is not an American, so we'll allow that perhaps he's not aware of the difference in the American language. To use Democrat as an adjective is considered a pejorative, and quite clearly explained here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_%28phrase%29 Wikipedia: Democrat Party (phrase)]. Now that it's cleared up, I think we can all agree that the difference between a noun and an adjective isn't a "liberal intellectualism" trait, but rather "third-grade English" knowledge. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:30, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

== Mainspace ==

I thing that this article belongs to mainspace. This is not a ideological stance, only for consistency with a series of other articles with a Liberal theme. I am sorry if I said something wrong. I am new here but already read many articles. [[User:LiaraTRP|LiaraTRP]] 15:32, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

==Smear?==
Why was my entry on MLK removed as a smear? Even PC-opedia (wikipedia) admits he plagarized parts of his dissertation. His sexual transgressions are no secret and covered in his biography Let the Trumpet Sound by Stephen Oates (p. 265, 283) and its no secret he took most of his ideas from Gandhi and Thoreau, among others. It's all true. -Mike LaTorres

==Grammar lesson==
'''<nowiki>== Superiority Complex ==</nowiki>''' 
'''The liberal believes they are superior to others.'''
:One should decide beforehand whether to render this in the singular or in the plural, either: "The liberal believes he is superior..." or "Liberals believe they are..."
:That done, the entirety of the next sentence could be incorporated into the preceeding:

'''The liberals believe that they are mentally superior to others, claiming the intellectual high ground and warding away challengers with ridicule and other rhetorical devices that serve nothing more than to mock and deride.'''

:The next part is just silly. Democrat is a '''[[noun]]''', democratic is an '''[[adjective]]'''. Once those facts are accepted then the etymological screed below is seen in a different light. 
'''A good example is the classic Democrats versus Democratics statement. Liberal Intellectualism will say that it is not proper to use the sentence with the word Democrats, it must be proper, so it must be Democratics. However, 'Democrats' will suffice rather well and the reader understands regardless. There are many instances where Democratic politicians use the word Democrats. Howard Dean says "Democrats have a lot of work to do among seniors." The nation's liberal newspapers use the word Democrats. Google's spellcheck prefers Democrats. The website for congress is addressed 'democrats.senate.gov' Excuses for insisting are endless and a part of Liberal Intellectualism thinking.'''

Please endeavor to learn and know the basics of the language you are trying to write in before attempting to incorporate your thoughts into cogent arguments. Thank you. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 16:51, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

== Rhodes Scholarship ==

The Rhodes Scholarship is political, and not given primarily based on academic merit. Hence the reversion was made.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:27, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

::This is from the Rhodes website:
:::"Intellectual distinction is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for election to a Rhodes Scholarship. Selection committees are charged to seek excellence in qualities of mind and in qualities of person which, in combination, offer the promise of effective service to the world in the decades ahead. The Rhodes Scholarships, in short, are investments in individuals rather than in project proposals. Accordingly, applications are sought from talented students without restriction as to their field of academic specialization or career plans although the proposed course of study must be available at Oxford, and the applicant's undergraduate program must provide a sufficient basis for further study in the proposed field. Through the years, Rhodes Scholars have pursued studies in all of the varied fields available at the University of Oxford."
[[User:MichaelAnderson|MichaelAnderson]] 17:35, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Liberal Intellectualism

2008-08-28T21:28:35Z

MargeryCampbell: /* Grammar lesson */ grammar, oh my!

Talk:Essay:Liberal Intellectualism

2008-08-28T21:11:09Z

MargeryCampbell: /* Grammar lesson */spellling and links

== Foucault ==
Could you please expand the section on Foucault? At the moment there is nothing there and I think it is unfair on the person themselves if someone gives them a label without explaining why. Also it is out of my own personal interest that I found out why you critise Foucault.--[[User:Lamb12|Lamb12]] 21:59, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Question ==

''Examples of not-quite-the-best intellectual promoters of liberal arguments''

Who would you say are the best intellectual promoters of liberal arguments? And who would you say are real, rather than pseudo, intellectuals?

[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 06:32, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

: I'll clarify. What that means is "not-quite-intellectual". Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:44, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon's right-hand man, is a liberal? By what standard? [[User:Jonquil|Jonquil]]

:Excerpt:
::"When Rockefeller lost the Republican nomination to Nixon, Kissinger told Dean Brown, an American diplomat, that he would have to abstain. "I could never vote for Nixon, of course, and that clown Humphrey would never make a President." Publicly he called Nixon "the most dangerous" of the candidates." [http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Kissinger/Advisor_Sideshow.html] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:37, 21 November 2007 (EST)

:::Anyone that didn't want to vote for Nixon is a liberal? Really? Don't you want to spend a bit more time thinking about this one? --[[User:Favre4Pope|Favre4Pope]] 18:39, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::You may be missing the point; [[Nelson Rockefeller]] is considered a liberal Republican; indeed "Rockefeller Republican" is still the common term used to refer to liberal Republicans. Henry Kissinger was a Rockefeller Republican, and was one of Nelson Rockefeller's closest advisers. When Nixon beat Rocky for the '68 GOP nomination, Kissinger was a survivor of Rocky's organization who made to the White House. Kissinger voted against Nixon in the primaries.

::::So the idea that Nixon & Kissinger are Siamese twins is just, once again, pure liberal crap. Nothing surprising in that, really. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:20, 21 November 2007 (EST)

:::::You should quit playing dumb and deal with the conversation directly, rather than pussy-footing around irrelevant gibberish. --[[User:Favre4Pope|Favre4Pope]] 20:38, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::::The question was answered point blank, duh.
::::::BTW, is there a hint of anti-[[Catholicism]] in your user name? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:56, 21 November 2007 (EST)

:::: The more [[Richard Nixon]] relied on [[Henry Kissinger]], the less [[conservative]] Nixon became. [[Conservatives]] always knew that Kissinger was not conservative, and for that reason [[Ronald Reagan]] resisted the intense [[liberal]] pressure to include Kissinger as an adviser.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 22 November 2007 (EST)

== Achievements ==
I know that this is an essay, and it reflects your personal opinion, which you are of course entitled to. I'm confused about why you say that the people on your list are "short on intellectual achievements." You list, in order,
*A U.S. Senator/Presidential candidate
*A U.S. Senator/Vice President/Presidential candidate/lecturer
*A Governor/President of the United States
*An Oxford faculty member/influential scientist
*A Harvard faculty member/influential scientist/author
*A Harvard Law faculty member/influential expert on constitutional law
*A U.S. Secretary of Defense/President of World Bank
*A Nobel laureate/U.S. Secretary of State/major player in US foreign policy for a decade
*A successful theoretical physicist who led the effort to develop the most important weapon in world history
*A popular comedian and talk show host (not sure who seriously considers Jon Stewart an intellectual per se, but he does provide social commentary, so I'll give you a point for this one)
*An M.I.T. faculty member/successful philosopher, author
*A successful economist who was given the title of Baron for his work
Most people would probably call that a pretty impressive list of achievements for "wannabes or pseudo-intellectuals."
While I understand that you don't agree with a lot of those men, it doesn't mean that they haven't accomplished anything. Arguments against their ideologies would be more effective if they were made without trying to blow off their achievements as insignificant.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 23:26, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

::This essay tells us more about the author than it does about the subject. Is [[ad hominem]]ism not a Liberal [[Template:Attack page|activity]]?

:::''Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.''

:::''And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these words, the multitudes were astonished at his teaching:''
:::''for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.''
:::(Matthew 7)

::Godspeed [[User:JSmith|JSmith]] 08:27, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: The above [[liberal]] protesteth too much to the insight of this essay.

: Bayes illustrates the [[liberal]] love of bureaucracy and meaningless "achievements". He does not list a true intellectual accomplishment. Nothing in his list advanced knowledge or provided any meaningful benefit to others. Instead, as in the [[Wizard of Oz]], Bayes attaches great significance to honors awarded by other [[liberals]]. Try to find a true intellectual achievement by any of the listed [[liberals]]. Can't be done, so they strive for acclaim by fellow [[liberals]] instead.

: JSmith, you win the prize for playing the hypocrite card, which is so overused by [[liberals]]. You even cite the [[Bible]]. Are you a real devotee to the [[Bible]]???

: Thanks, you gave me good fodder to add to the [[liberal style]] entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:21, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Shakespearian references aside, let me try to understand your reasoning. You say that receiving Nobel Prizes, becoming widely recognized in an academic field, or becoming President of the United States does not represent an intellectual achievement. You then say that nothing on the list above advanced knowledge or provided meaningful benefit. That position is simply absurd. By your standards, Reagan, Teller, and the Founding Fathers aren't intellectuals either. Then, when I point out your untenable position, you attack me for my so-called "love of bureaucracy" and compare my opinions to the Wizard of Oz story.

Your response says more than you wanted it to. This essay really is a demonstration of the ''ad hominem'' fallacy; you selectively choose people you disagree with, then claim that they're not "real" intellectuals, and so, of course, they must be wrong. It's only a rephrasing of "These people are stupid, so they're wrong." You then choose to mock me and JSmith on this page, again showing your tendency to use personal attacks.

What is an example of what you would consider a "true" intellectual achievement? Do all "true" intellectuals also happen to be conservatives? Can any liberal hope to be a "true" intellectual?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 11:22, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: Bayes, you continue to protesteth too much. What constitutes a true intellectual achievement is obvious: an insight, a remarkable writing or speech, an idea, an invention, a proof, a concept, an advance in knowledge, etc. Reagan's [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], for example, or his "tear down this wall" speech. [[Teller]]'s H-Bomb. The Founding Father's [[U.S. Constitution]]. The [[liberal]] obsession with meaningless bureaucratic honors, often awarded by fellow [[liberals]], is baffling, a silly as the awards given in the [[Wizard of Oz]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:25, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Ok, so those are examples of what you consider to be intellectual achievements. I agree. Now, why do you consider Teller's role in hydrogen bomb development an achievement, but Oppenheimer's role in fission bomb development is not? I see you've added to the essay, and you claim that Oppenheimer isn't an intellectual because he didn't win a Nobel Prize in physics. Tell me, how many Nobel Prizes did Teller, one of your examples of intellectuals, win? I'll also point out that Kissinger DID win a Nobel Prize, and yet he appears on this list. You seem to want it both ways--you are trying to claim Oppenheimer is not an intellectual because he doesn't have a Nobel Prize, but then you say that any prize that was actually awarded is meaningless because it was awarded by "liberals."

Your remarks about others on the list are just as dubious in their relevance. Reagan was an actor before he entered politics; does that diminish his later intellectual accomplishments? I don't think so. Similarly, the disparaging "you got bad grades in college, so you can't accomplish anything worthwhile" comments next to some of the names are not appropriate.

I'd still like to hear your answer to this question: Can anyone whom you label as "liberal" be a "true" intellectual?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:25, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:''Add-on:'' I also don't see how being a privileged youth disqualifies one from being an intellectual. The majority of the scientific establishment was at one time composed of the nobility, since they were the people with the time and money for such pursuits. The merit of any body of knowledge is not dependent on the personal circumstances of its discoverer.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:55, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:: If you think the [[liberal]]s on the list achieved something intellectually, then just tell us what that was. Winning a gold star from a fellow liberal doesn't cut it. Instead, this group is notable for being intellectual wannabees, such as claiming credit for the internet or plagiarizing or self-promotion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:17, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Have you read the account on Snopes about what was actually said with respect to Al Gore and the Internet?[http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp] --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:21, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't have to. I remember reading the transcript, and I think I even saw the interview at the time. Gore tried to take credit for the internet. I didn't say that Gore claimed to have invented the internet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

So you reserve license to publicly degrade others, and then give me the task of doing your research for you? You are the author of this essay, in which you essentially call your political opponents stupid and overrated. The burden of proof is on YOU to defend your claims and refute the achievements of these respected people, since YOU are making those statements. So far, your justifications have been along the lines of "his parents had money" and "he got bad grades in college." Did you know Clinton was a Rhodes scholar?

In any case, I've already provided an example: Oppenheimer led the effort to develop the atomic bomb. You credit Teller for H-bomb work, but not Oppenheimer for A-bomb work. How do you justify that position?

I would still like to know: Can someone be both "liberal" and an "intellectual"?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 17:39, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: Bayes, you continue to cite [[liberal]] awards, like "Rhodes scholar." You don't seem to grasp the point here, or you don't want to. I'm talking about true intellectual achievement, not resume building stuff.

:: Someone should do an article on [[Heather Wilson]], which includes her past achievements. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:41, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: [[Teller]] did real [[physics]]. [[Oppenheimer]] was the manager at [[Los Alamos]] who made sure people got their mail and had a room to stay in. Please attempt to understand the difference.

: Your question about whether someone can be [[liberal]] and a true intellectual is beyond the scope of this essay. It's a rare combination at best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for your response to that question. I do think it's relevant to this essay, since the inclusion of conservatives on this "pseudo-intellectuals" list, as well as liberals on any "intellectuals" list, would provide evidence that this is not just an ''ad hominem'' attack.

I pointed out the Rhodes scholarship because you portray Clinton as a failure in his studies. Whatever political aspects of the Rhodes scholarship application you believe are present, I think you can agree that they are not awarded to people who are dolts. It seems that your definition of a "liberal award" is any award won by someone you disagree with.

With regard to Oppenheimer/Teller, I suggest you become better acquainted with physics and the history of the Manhattan Project before you trash Oppenheimer as merely a "manager". The [[Born-Oppenheimer approximation]], the [[Oppenheimer-Phillips process]], and the [[Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit]] are ideas within quantum physics and astrophysics that are named for him. For the Manhattan Project, he did important calculations relating to fast neutrons. So, despite your claims to the contrary, he was in fact very successful at "real" physics, in your terms. You would do well to refrain from denigrating Oppenheimer in terms of his science; it's just not going to work.

I reiterate my claim that you are inconsistent in lauding Teller while smearing Oppenheimer. It is becoming more apparent that you are putting folks on this list simply because you disagree with their politics and not because they actually have intellectual failures.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:44, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:Dear Mr. Schlafly. Thank you for the prize. I hope my [[Bible]] citation was correct. It would be a shame if I quoted something, for example [[Shakespeare]], and got it horribly wrong. I'm glad you found my contribution useful. It is a pleasure to have been of help. Oh by the way, would you be so kind as to list the intellectual achievements of your own which enable you to sit on such a high pedestal pontificating about the achievements or lack thereof by intellectual wannabees and pseudo-intellectuals. Godspeed [[User:JSmith|JSmith]] 09:44, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Well done, JSmith, you exhibited two examples of [[liberal style]], now ranked #7 on Google searches, in just one sentence:

::* #7) over-reliance on accusations of hypocrisy
::* #25) using non sequiturs in argument

:: Surely you don't think that it's unfair to question whether someone promoted as an intellectual really is one. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Mr Smith is unfortunately no longer able to continue this discussion. TK [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3AIpblocklist&action=search&limit=&ip=JSmith blocked] him. Assumedly for holding this discussion. Would you like to comment sir? [[User:BLocke|BLocke]] 10:00, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

"Richard Dawkins lasted only 2 years teaching at University of California, Berkeley, a mere lecturer at Oxford until a wealthy ally donated a professorship for him"

Oh, a mere lecturer at Oxford? And Bush's resume is so much more impressive than that. - Barry Sherman

: Bush does not use his credentials to claim any intellectual superiority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:05, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

And? That article is obviously an attempt to make liberals look intellectually inferior. - Barry Sherman

==Motivation==

An interesting essay Mr.Schlafly. I'm curious to know your postion on the corollary of your listed arguments, i.e., do you believe that:

*Cutting taxes increases Government revenue
*Increased gun ownership assures a safer society
*Women should give birth to every baby conceived
*Wars should be fought until a combatant is completely destroyed, without pause for negotiation
*The best thing for humanity would be to increase the worldwide supply of armaments ad infinitum
*Discrimination cannot be quantified
*Women are inferior to men
*Homosexuals deserve no freedoms
*The Government should make no attempt to reduce poverty

[[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 13:45, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: After your first two, your "corollaries" are actually severe distortions of the points in the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:51, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Ok, let me try another 'corollarization', if you'll pardon the concoction! Please bear with me, I am not interested in twisting your words, merely clarifying your position.

*Cutting taxes increases Government revenue
*Increased gun ownership assures a safer society
*Abortion harms health
*Ceasefires are pointless
*Arms limitation treaties are pointless
*Discrimination cannot be quantified by viewing outcomes
*Genders are not equal
*African Americans are more deserving of civil rights than homosexuals
*The Government should make no further attempt to reduce poverty

Is this better? [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 14:14, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: Your "corollarization" is still twisted, of course, particularly on points 2 ("assures"), 4-5 ("are pointless"), 6 ("cannot be quantified"), and 9 ("no further attempt"). But you're right with point 1, 3 and 7-8, and increased gun ownership does decrease crime, including violent crime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:21, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

OK, here's another try - and thanks for your pointers.

*Cutting taxes increases Government revenue
*Increased gun ownership helps towards a safer society
*Abortion harms health
*In war, ceasefires have no useful effect
*Arms limitation treaties have no useful effect
*Discrimination cannot be fully quantified by viewing outcomes only
*Genders are not equal
*African Americans are more deserving of civil rights than homosexuals
*The Government is not fully capable of reducing poverty

I'm having a hard time writing corollaries of the ceasefire, arms treaty, and poverty topics, so please forgive me as I clumsily try and get closer to your position. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 14:31, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, a user by the name of 'TK' has alerted me to your 90/10 rule. However, I pointed out that I obviously cannot contribute to your essay, since it is completely yours. Should I stop discussing your essay? I should point out that what I was hoping to do was clarify the corollaries to your points so that I could write an essay entitled Conservative Intellectualism, which would then state clearly defined positions held by conservative intellectuals. I can't write that article until we agree on the definitions, obviously. Should I listen to TK and stop, or do you wish me to continue on my path? It is your essay, and, I believe, your site, so I will abide by whatever you say. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 15:26, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

*Do not try to insert [[deceit]] here, OldFaithful. I alerted as well as welcomed you. Most of us manage to do both kinds of posts, and I am sure after a while, you will be better able to multi-task as well! Carry on. --[[User:TK|şŷ�?ô�?-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣ�?ёаќǃ]] 15:41, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh I'm not trying to use deceit, I can assure you. I'm only interested in clarifying - to the agreement of Mr.Schlafly - the position this essay takes. Defining the corollary of an argument is usually a very good way to define the argument itself, I find. Thanks for your understanding, TK. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 15:44, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: OldFaithful, the point of the 90/10 [[rule]] is to ensure some productive activity in addition to discussion. As you can see, there are many other entries here (over 16,000) that we can all improve while we continue this discussion. Thanks much and we do welcome you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:07, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, I have started a discussion on the page [[Talk:Essay:Conservative Intellectualism]] about replacing the liberally written content there with material that is more suitable to this forum. I have pasted in our corollaries from today - the ones you were happy with - and would love if you could particpate in the building of that article too. Yours, [[User:AncientSage|AncientSage]] 21:35, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

== Response ==

In reply to your list above:

* Cutting taxes increases Government revenue

Right, assuming current levels of taxation. See [[Laffer Curve]].

* Increased gun ownership helps towards a safer society

Right. No one seriously disputes this. See [[John Lott]].

* Abortion harms health

Right. No one seriously disputes this, just as no one credibly denies that childbirth is good for health.

* In war, ceasefires have no useful effect

True when faced with a determined enemy, like the [[communist]] North Vietnamese.

* Arms limitation treaties have no useful effect

True when faced with a [[deceit]]ful enemy, like the [[communist]] [[Soviet Union]].

* Discrimination cannot be fully quantified by viewing outcomes only

Obviously true.

* Genders are not equal

Obviously true.

: While it is obvious that the genders are not the same, what are the implications of this statement? Should the [[19th amendment]] be undone? Is unequal pay for the same work fair? What other implications that I'm not familiar with are there? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:55, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:*It was obvious to me that Andy was talking about the physiological differences, not social. --[[User:TK|şŷ�?ô�?-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣ�?ёаќǃ]] 16:59, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:: If that is the case, then that needs to be said. All of the other points in this list are about social issues, government policies and the like. To say that the genders are not equal in this context seems to be to be very much about the social differences of the genders. This is especially true when reading up on some of the conservative speakers and their positions on gender equality. Phyllis Schlafly statements about the equal rights ammendment[http://thinkexist.com/quotes/phyllis_schlafly/], and Ann Coulter has written on reconsidering the 19th ammendment[http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38a7cb4c3104.htm]. What is meant by "Genders are not equal - obviously true" needs to be spelled out so there cannot be any misinterpretation of the message that is intended. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:08, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

I do think that the physiological differences between men and women - which are clearly undeniable - do have an impact on issues of pay. I don't believe, for example, that it is fair to pay women soldiers the same as the men soldiers, as they cannot carry as much weight or make themselves as useful to the unit due to their reduced physicality. Mind you, I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that women shouldn't be anywhere in the miltary other than desk jobs at home in the US - but that's another issue. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 17:14, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

* African Americans are more deserving of civil rights than homosexuals

Right, and many African Americans are rightly offended by [[liberal]] attempts to analogize the two.

* The Government is not fully capable of reducing poverty

Obviously true. Even [[Jesus]] observed that there will unfortunately always be poverty.

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:35, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

A fantastic response Mr.Schlafly, I'm very grateful indeed. A few questions come to mind from your responses, and they're all about trying to write 'rules' or points of policy that do not require conditions. Conditionals ("when facing a determined enemy") cloud meaning, and if they're required, it shows lack of strength in the statement. I'm trying to find the simplest, generalised statements that work.

*Perhaps we should say "Every woman should give birth to children", since it's good for health?
*Since almost every enemy likely thinks of themselves as 'determined', what is a good general policy statement on ceasefires that does not include that conditional statement? If ceasefires are useless against determined enemy, do they have some use against less determined enemies? Maybe ceasefires shouldn't be a rule, if we cannot be clear about them without conditional statements?
*And since any combatant will be deceitful in war, how can we clarify the statement on arms treaties? "Arms treaties are never a good idea"?
*"Homosexuals do not deserve civil rights". Is that a reasonable extrapolation of your point?
*Is it a reasonable extrapolation of the last point to say that "Poverty is uneradicable". Even though that might be wrong, I'm trying to get these statements to be snappy soundbites like that. It really helps to convey the message to younger people.

Looking forward to your thoughts, I remain, [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 17:05, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: OldFaithful, your restatements of the points are distortions. We don't do that here. Not a single one of your restatements conveys the clear, straightforward, and undeniable truth in the original statements. Instead, your restatements either marginalize the point so that it loses meaning (e.g., by omitting [[abortion]]), or makes assumptions that are untrue (e.g., every enemy is "determined" and "deceitful", or that homosexuals "do not deserve civil rights" which of course they already enjoy like everyone else).

: The 90/10 [[rule]] against endless talk is enforced. Please abide by it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:42, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh I certainly intend to, I will revert to the last set of definitions you were happy with and will write the article. Please excuse my new name as I was blocked by TK by accident. [[User:NewFaithful|NewFaithful]] 20:18, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm very confused. I keep getting banned fomr this site. All I have been doing is trying to write a good, conservative article as an essay on Conservative Intellectualism. But now I see that my comments are being removed - I don't know why - from this Talk page, and also now from the aricle I was attmpeting to argue FOR!. I think I am being confused for others perhaps? Contributing to this site is anything but easy. [[User:Worshipper|Worshipper]] 23:57, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

===real intellectuals===
i think it would be helpful for this discussion if we had another essay about real intellecuals. liberal, conservative, or moderate. there are a few examples given on this page, but i think more might answer questions about who is included and who isn't. the founding fathers are a good example. i would be against people being included just for being well known conservatives. i admire much about george w bush, for example, but i wouldn't call him an "intellectual". he didn't run as one, and we didn't elect him for that. [[User:AuH2O|AuH2O]]

*And yet his college record, and ''two degrees'', from one of the paramount educational institutions in the world, would indicate at least a higher level of intelligence. And a higher GPA than John Kerry. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:12, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

i'm not sure "smarter than kerry" makes him an intellectual. also, jon stewart should probably be removed. he's an entertainer. i don't think he or anyone else really makes much of a claim that he's an intellectual. [[User:AuH2O|AuH2O]]

== Clinton ==
''may have virtually flunked out of the pre-med program at Georgetown, never released his grades, no original work or ideas''

'May have'? Did he or didn't he? Just 'may have' is gossip. And where did Clinton ever claim (or have it claimed for him) to be an intellectual? Indeed, how many US presidents, Rep or Dem, fit into that category? [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 07:27, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

==I couldn't resist==

I'm sorry, but why on earth is that considered to be a genuine work on this wiki? The whole thing is nuts. Loopdy loopder. Just because someone declares themselves a Liberal doesn't mean they claim to be an intellectual. Its flattering you would think so much of us, but thats just nuts. No, the problem here is that people assume so much. And Gandhi? Give me a break.

What about the great Liberal intellectuals - Galileo, Einstein, Mandela, Lincoln, The Dalai Lama? What are they, accidents? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 18:52, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

A work which cannot be defended on its merits is a work that shouldn't be defended at all. This should be deleted and the creator should apologise for marking the world with this insanity. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 06:57, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps some rest? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 07:06, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== "intellectual wannabees or pseudo-intellectuals" ==

Okay, what on Earth are Noam Chomsky (guy who came up with the Chomsky Hierarchy, which is quite influential in theoretical Computer Sciences) and John Maynard Keynes (quoting CP: "His ideas were highly influential leading to him generally being credited as being one of the founding fathers of modern theoretical macroeconomics.") doing on a list of pseudo-intellectuals?

These are people who vastly influenced their field of study with their intellectual contributions. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 08:19, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
:I don't think there's any question regarding Keynes liberal intellectual credentials; libs have even co-opted him posthumously in the gay rights movement. Chomsky is more less the undisputed chief grand pubba guru of modern liberal intellectualism. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:16, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::Your answer doesn't quite seem to fit to my question. How does their political view lessen their contributions? I'm not arguing that they're conservative, liberal or whatever, but why are they "pseudo-intellectual"? Here is something Andy said on this very page:
{{cquote|What constitutes a true intellectual achievement is obvious: an insight, a remarkable writing or speech, an idea, an invention, a proof, a concept, an advance in knowledge, etc.}}
::Being credited with the title "founding father of modern macroeconomics" and having had a remarkable impact on theoretical Computer Sciences count as such intellectual achievements in my eyes. Are you saying they're not? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 14:23, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

This whole section is pretty dumb and should be deleted. I don't think whoever authored it understands what a psuedo-intellectual is. Harvard professors and world class mathematicians are not psuedo-intellectuals, they are the very definition of intellectuals. ----[[user:grah|grah]] 09:45 27 February 2008 (EST)

==Liberal intellectualism and the Cold War==
Here's a good description of liberal intellectualism that caused the [[Cold War]]:

:"There is a thing we might call the cult of intellectualism, which includes a good many people who are not intellectuals. It embraces a number of top-lofty souls who imagine they swim in some more luminous ether than the harsh air near the ground of reality. In many it is little more than a pose. There were others who saw in [[Russia]] a mixture of good and bad elements and who imagined that, by some alchemy, the bad might one day be eliminated and the good assume the mastery. At the bottom of this notion was the conviction that society had gotten out of hand, that the modern society contains so many hostile elements that there is no way to order and peace and finally to the good life for all, save under the assumption of control by the "experts" to produce a [[planned society]]. These people had managed to dress up and perfume this notion in such a way that they could support it without even being called [[socialist]]s. They saw in Russia a historic and dramatic experiment to produce the good life through a planned society. It was a first trial, full of missteps and pitfalls. They have been willing to excuse the mistakes and even the cruelties of the experimenters in Moscow, hoping that out of it might come something that the world could use.

:"They indignantly deny the imputation of [[communism]]. They do not even like to be called socialists. The term "planned society" appeals to them, expresses their philosophy without the ugly proletarian stain of the socialist or Communist labels. The remodeling of society is a job not for the ranting soapboxers of Union Square, but for the engineers, the scientists, the philosophers and the experts generally. It is in reality socialism in cap and gown or even in a high hat and frock coat. The truth is that in certain quarters it had simply become out of style to believe in the thing called capitalism. It is not the style to believe in communism. But it is a mark of the large mind not to be narrowly intolerant of communism, and among these gentry it had come to be a little vulgar to defend capitalism. When we add to this the fact that the organized Communists and near-Communists in America had something like a million votes to deliver in critical polling places in a few industrial states, we can begin to perceive how a mixture of lofty philosophy and low politics could produce their strange tolerance for [[Stalin]] and his gang.<ref>''While You Slept : Our Tragedy in Asia and Who Made It'', John T. Flynn, New York : The Devin - Adair Company, 1951, [http://www.mises.org/books/whileyouslept.pdf pg. 37 - 38] pdf.</ref> [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:28, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
<references/>

==Kerry==

Kerry was a priviledged youth? What's that got to do with anything? I guess you could say the same about George W. Bush. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:18, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:oh no...a kid just got tasered over this very question....[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:29, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
::Both were ''privileged''. How one approaches life, and one's conclusions about most things, are shaped by that. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:43, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:::Then why even mention it? Do you mention Bill Clinton came from a poor background? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:45, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

== a few comments ==

Are there any references for your revelation that J Robert Oppenheimer "just sorted the mail" or however you put it? I have read a couple of his biographies and that detail, if present, was obscured with all of the details on his research and experiments in developing the atomic bomb. Carl Sagan, quoted from conservapedia's own article on him, was a professor of astronomy at Cornell. His theories, whether you agree with them or not, do have scientific and mathematical backing. Disagreeing with someone's theories does not make that person a "not quite intellectual" as you put it. And finally, Stephen Hawking is widely considered to be the smartest person, if not in the world, then definitely within the scientific community. And although his initial theory was incorrect, by his own admittance, he and others eventually corrected it into what I believe is currently the most accepted theory. Very rarely is a scientific theory correct on the first try, especially on something as difficult to study as a black hole. So I'm not quite sure how/why Hawking qualifies as a "not quite intellectual". --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 18:46, 14 November 2007 (EST)

== Stephen Hawking Not An Intellectual? ==

Stephen Hawking, despite his worldwide-recognized advancements in the fields of theoretical cosmology and quantum gravity, as well as his contributions to other subfields of physics...is NOT an intellectual? I'm baffled by that claim, as I never even contemplated that someone would argue against his being considered an intellectual, if not one of the most brilliant physicists of our time. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 13:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:I also think this is incredibly bizzare. Hawking was wrong about black holes? So?
He was right about Hawking radiation (hence the name)and is considered one of the world leading astrophysicists by liberals and conservatives. And Carl Sagan made great strides in exobiology.
Really strange ideas here Aschlafly.
Darwin a poor student? So was Einstein.
How about -
George W Bush, privilaged youth, poor student, ran several companies into the ground, bailed out by his father, can barely speak coherent english, has some of the worst approval ratings of any president and is disliked the world over.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 16:35, 20 February 2008 (EST)
::I have to agree that Stephen Hawking is a brilliant man, who's taken the human mind farther than many of his peers. I disagree with the parts of his work that assume a billion-billion whatever year old universe, but I pride myself on being able to look past that to the true genius, not to mention the heroism he demonstrates on a daily basis for overcoming his crippling condition. The man is an American treasure and a credit to his nation.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 16:56, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Ahhhhh dude, Stephen Hawking was born in Oxford, England. I'm not sure you could call him an American tresure. Incidently, interesting side note - Hawking was born on the anniversary of Galileo's death 300 years earlier.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 17:07, 20 February 2008 (EST)
:But he teaches at CalTech (our treasure, credit to Britain).-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 18:07, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Fair enough :-)
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 18:09, 20 February 2008 (EST)

::: I'm not sure who stuck that bit in about Hawking. I'd have to check the history. I certainly agree that he's an inspiration on a personal level, and thus would be reluctant to criticism him. But, rising above emotion, when someone claims to be an intellectual, as Hawking's supporters certainly claim about him, it's fair game to probe the accuracy of the claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:04, 20 February 2008 (EST)

checking the accuracy of his claims is difficult when you consider his trade is theoretical physics. You cant say he is not an intellectual when you consider his lifes work and the respect he has worldwide.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 17:07, 20 February 2008 (EST)

: The point the entry is to show how liberal-promoted intellectuals are not what liberals claim they are. I'm fine with taking Hawking out unless and until someone does more research. He's not a leading [[liberal]] as far as I know, so he probably should not be on the list anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:27, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Personally I have done a lot of reading by Hawking and about Hawking and never once is his political leanings been mentioned nor have I heard of him being espoused primarily by liberals or conservatives. I think both sides of the political spectrum would agree with his intellectual capability. I remove it now and if anyone could prove he should be on this list I would be interested to hear their argument for inclusion. Thanks.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 20:46, 23 February 2008 (EST)

When Hawking met the Pope in Rome in the 1990s, he demanded to see where [[Galileo]]s trial took place. Although the Pope was an elderly and physically unwell man, Hawking had no problem putting him through distress to meet his ends. There is no doubt, from anyone who has studied Hawking and his political positions, that he is an avowed [[Liberal]], and as a Liberal 'academic', deserves to be mentioned in the list. There is no such thing as an intelligent Liberal. [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 07:25, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== Huh? ==

Kerry: Fought for his country
Gore: Actually look at the link you provided on the 'net
Bill Clinton: "may have virtually". So he might have almost?
Dawkins: Lecturer at Oxford is still very prestigious
Stephen Jay Gould: Any evidence for that?
Tribe: A professor at Harvard
McNamara: successfully managed the world bank
Oppenheimer: was key in developing the bomb (so what about leaks?)
Jon Stewart: No evidence at all
Chomsky: Actually, he did make significant advances in linguistics, not just "guesses"
Keynes: Policies still used today, influenced Hayek and Friedman as well
Foucault: See Jon stewart
Rachel Carson: Found to have errata by whom?
Bertrand Russell: He won a nobel in literature
Ward Churchill: Managed to become professor nonetheless
Sulzerberger: That says nothing about academic credentials. The same argument could apply to President bush
Darwin: How? Give evidence
Sagan: Again, more evidence. How do we know he was wrong? Maybe his claim made sense.
Clinton: What does that say about the rest of her career?

Since I would like to be banned by this website, I would like to say CENSORED

It is interesting how the Liberal places so much weight on winning a [[Nobel Prize]]. The Liberal obviously doesn't understand that the [[Nobel Prize]] is merely an award given by [[Liberal]]s to other [[Liberal]]s. Notice how the [[Liberal]] engages in the act of [[Deceit]] and the use of [[Profanity]], a favoured [[Liberal Style]] in debates. [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 07:23, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== Gore Link ==

A slight problem- the link posted for Al Gore actually argues that he ''didn't'' claim that he invented the internet. --Dollfuss

: You're right: the link was to liberal claptrap. I've replaced it with Gore's actual quote and a link to the transcript.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:17, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

== Democrat v. Democratic ==

Rather than actually explain this to JPatt, I thought I'd share the lesson with all. If you read Jpatt's recent addition, you may (or may not) have determined it was supposed to be an "example" of "liberal intellectualism" to clarify between Democrat and Democratic. But in trying to explain it, Jpatt gets it all wrong. Democrats (correctly used) prefer not to be referred to as Democrat Senators, Democrat Representative, or the Democrat Party. Democrat is a NOUN, Democratic is an ADJECTIVE. Now, Jpatt is not an American, so we'll allow that perhaps he's not aware of the difference in the American language. To use Democrat as an adjective is considered a pejorative, and quite clearly explained here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_%28phrase%29 Wikipedia: Democrat Party (phrase)]. Now that it's cleared up, I think we can all agree that the difference between a noun and an adjective isn't a "liberal intellectualism" trait, but rather "third-grade English" knowledge. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:30, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

== Mainspace ==

I thing that this article belongs to mainspace. This is not a ideological stance, only for consistency with a series of other articles with a Liberal theme. I am sorry if I said something wrong. I am new here but already read many articles. [[User:LiaraTRP|LiaraTRP]] 15:32, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

==Smear?==
Why was my entry on MLK removed as a smear? Even PC-opedia (wikipedia) admits he plagarized parts of his dissertation. His sexual transgressions are no secret and covered in his biography Let the Trumpet Sound by Stephen Oates (p. 265, 283) and its no secret he took most of his ideas from Gandhi and Thoreau, among others. It's all true. -Mike LaTorres

==Grammar lesson==
'''<nowiki>== Superiority Complex ==</nowiki>''' 
'''The liberal believes they are superior to others.'''
:One should decide beforehand whether to render this in the singular or in the plural, either: "The liberal believes he is superior..." or "Liberals believe they are..."
:That done, the entirety of the next sentence could be incorporated into the preceeding:

'''The liberals believe that they are mentally superior to others, claiming the intellectual high ground and warding away challengers with ridicule and other rhetorical devices that serve nothing more than to mock and deride.'''

:The next part is just silly. Democrat is a '''[[noun]]''', democratic is an '''[[adjective]]'''. Once that fact is accepted then the etymological screed below is seen in a different light. 
'''A good example is the classic Democrats versus Democratics statement. Liberal Intellectualism will say that it is not proper to use the sentence with the word Democrats, it must be proper, so it must be Democratics. However, 'Democrats' will suffice rather well and the reader understands regardless. There are many instances where Democratic politicians use the word Democrats. Howard Dean says "Democrats have a lot of work to do among seniors." The nation's liberal newspapers use the word Democrats. Google's spellcheck prefers Democrats. The website for congress is addressed 'democrats.senate.gov' Excuses for insisting are endless and a part of Liberal Intellectualism thinking.'''

Please endeavor to learn and know the basics of the language you are trying to write in before attempting to incorporate your thoughts into cogent arguments. Thank you. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 16:51, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Liberal Intellectualism

2008-08-28T20:51:25Z

MargeryCampbell: /* Smear? */ 101

== Foucault ==
Could you please expand the section on Foucault? At the moment there is nothing there and I think it is unfair on the person themselves if someone gives them a label without explaining why. Also it is out of my own personal interest that I found out why you critise Foucault.--[[User:Lamb12|Lamb12]] 21:59, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Question ==

''Examples of not-quite-the-best intellectual promoters of liberal arguments''

Who would you say are the best intellectual promoters of liberal arguments? And who would you say are real, rather than pseudo, intellectuals?

[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 06:32, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

: I'll clarify. What that means is "not-quite-intellectual". Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:44, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon's right-hand man, is a liberal? By what standard? [[User:Jonquil|Jonquil]]

:Excerpt:
::"When Rockefeller lost the Republican nomination to Nixon, Kissinger told Dean Brown, an American diplomat, that he would have to abstain. "I could never vote for Nixon, of course, and that clown Humphrey would never make a President." Publicly he called Nixon "the most dangerous" of the candidates." [http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Kissinger/Advisor_Sideshow.html] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:37, 21 November 2007 (EST)

:::Anyone that didn't want to vote for Nixon is a liberal? Really? Don't you want to spend a bit more time thinking about this one? --[[User:Favre4Pope|Favre4Pope]] 18:39, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::You may be missing the point; [[Nelson Rockefeller]] is considered a liberal Republican; indeed "Rockefeller Republican" is still the common term used to refer to liberal Republicans. Henry Kissinger was a Rockefeller Republican, and was one of Nelson Rockefeller's closest advisers. When Nixon beat Rocky for the '68 GOP nomination, Kissinger was a survivor of Rocky's organization who made to the White House. Kissinger voted against Nixon in the primaries.

::::So the idea that Nixon & Kissinger are Siamese twins is just, once again, pure liberal crap. Nothing surprising in that, really. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:20, 21 November 2007 (EST)

:::::You should quit playing dumb and deal with the conversation directly, rather than pussy-footing around irrelevant gibberish. --[[User:Favre4Pope|Favre4Pope]] 20:38, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::::The question was answered point blank, duh.
::::::BTW, is there a hint of anti-[[Catholicism]] in your user name? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:56, 21 November 2007 (EST)

:::: The more [[Richard Nixon]] relied on [[Henry Kissinger]], the less [[conservative]] Nixon became. [[Conservatives]] always knew that Kissinger was not conservative, and for that reason [[Ronald Reagan]] resisted the intense [[liberal]] pressure to include Kissinger as an adviser.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 22 November 2007 (EST)

== Achievements ==
I know that this is an essay, and it reflects your personal opinion, which you are of course entitled to. I'm confused about why you say that the people on your list are "short on intellectual achievements." You list, in order,
*A U.S. Senator/Presidential candidate
*A U.S. Senator/Vice President/Presidential candidate/lecturer
*A Governor/President of the United States
*An Oxford faculty member/influential scientist
*A Harvard faculty member/influential scientist/author
*A Harvard Law faculty member/influential expert on constitutional law
*A U.S. Secretary of Defense/President of World Bank
*A Nobel laureate/U.S. Secretary of State/major player in US foreign policy for a decade
*A successful theoretical physicist who led the effort to develop the most important weapon in world history
*A popular comedian and talk show host (not sure who seriously considers Jon Stewart an intellectual per se, but he does provide social commentary, so I'll give you a point for this one)
*An M.I.T. faculty member/successful philosopher, author
*A successful economist who was given the title of Baron for his work
Most people would probably call that a pretty impressive list of achievements for "wannabes or pseudo-intellectuals."
While I understand that you don't agree with a lot of those men, it doesn't mean that they haven't accomplished anything. Arguments against their ideologies would be more effective if they were made without trying to blow off their achievements as insignificant.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 23:26, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

::This essay tells us more about the author than it does about the subject. Is [[ad hominem]]ism not a Liberal [[Template:Attack page|activity]]?

:::''Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.''

:::''And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these words, the multitudes were astonished at his teaching:''
:::''for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.''
:::(Matthew 7)

::Godspeed [[User:JSmith|JSmith]] 08:27, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: The above [[liberal]] protesteth too much to the insight of this essay.

: Bayes illustrates the [[liberal]] love of bureaucracy and meaningless "achievements". He does not list a true intellectual accomplishment. Nothing in his list advanced knowledge or provided any meaningful benefit to others. Instead, as in the [[Wizard of Oz]], Bayes attaches great significance to honors awarded by other [[liberals]]. Try to find a true intellectual achievement by any of the listed [[liberals]]. Can't be done, so they strive for acclaim by fellow [[liberals]] instead.

: JSmith, you win the prize for playing the hypocrite card, which is so overused by [[liberals]]. You even cite the [[Bible]]. Are you a real devotee to the [[Bible]]???

: Thanks, you gave me good fodder to add to the [[liberal style]] entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:21, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Shakespearian references aside, let me try to understand your reasoning. You say that receiving Nobel Prizes, becoming widely recognized in an academic field, or becoming President of the United States does not represent an intellectual achievement. You then say that nothing on the list above advanced knowledge or provided meaningful benefit. That position is simply absurd. By your standards, Reagan, Teller, and the Founding Fathers aren't intellectuals either. Then, when I point out your untenable position, you attack me for my so-called "love of bureaucracy" and compare my opinions to the Wizard of Oz story.

Your response says more than you wanted it to. This essay really is a demonstration of the ''ad hominem'' fallacy; you selectively choose people you disagree with, then claim that they're not "real" intellectuals, and so, of course, they must be wrong. It's only a rephrasing of "These people are stupid, so they're wrong." You then choose to mock me and JSmith on this page, again showing your tendency to use personal attacks.

What is an example of what you would consider a "true" intellectual achievement? Do all "true" intellectuals also happen to be conservatives? Can any liberal hope to be a "true" intellectual?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 11:22, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: Bayes, you continue to protesteth too much. What constitutes a true intellectual achievement is obvious: an insight, a remarkable writing or speech, an idea, an invention, a proof, a concept, an advance in knowledge, etc. Reagan's [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], for example, or his "tear down this wall" speech. [[Teller]]'s H-Bomb. The Founding Father's [[U.S. Constitution]]. The [[liberal]] obsession with meaningless bureaucratic honors, often awarded by fellow [[liberals]], is baffling, a silly as the awards given in the [[Wizard of Oz]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:25, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Ok, so those are examples of what you consider to be intellectual achievements. I agree. Now, why do you consider Teller's role in hydrogen bomb development an achievement, but Oppenheimer's role in fission bomb development is not? I see you've added to the essay, and you claim that Oppenheimer isn't an intellectual because he didn't win a Nobel Prize in physics. Tell me, how many Nobel Prizes did Teller, one of your examples of intellectuals, win? I'll also point out that Kissinger DID win a Nobel Prize, and yet he appears on this list. You seem to want it both ways--you are trying to claim Oppenheimer is not an intellectual because he doesn't have a Nobel Prize, but then you say that any prize that was actually awarded is meaningless because it was awarded by "liberals."

Your remarks about others on the list are just as dubious in their relevance. Reagan was an actor before he entered politics; does that diminish his later intellectual accomplishments? I don't think so. Similarly, the disparaging "you got bad grades in college, so you can't accomplish anything worthwhile" comments next to some of the names are not appropriate.

I'd still like to hear your answer to this question: Can anyone whom you label as "liberal" be a "true" intellectual?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:25, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:''Add-on:'' I also don't see how being a privileged youth disqualifies one from being an intellectual. The majority of the scientific establishment was at one time composed of the nobility, since they were the people with the time and money for such pursuits. The merit of any body of knowledge is not dependent on the personal circumstances of its discoverer.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:55, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:: If you think the [[liberal]]s on the list achieved something intellectually, then just tell us what that was. Winning a gold star from a fellow liberal doesn't cut it. Instead, this group is notable for being intellectual wannabees, such as claiming credit for the internet or plagiarizing or self-promotion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:17, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Have you read the account on Snopes about what was actually said with respect to Al Gore and the Internet?[http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp] --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:21, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't have to. I remember reading the transcript, and I think I even saw the interview at the time. Gore tried to take credit for the internet. I didn't say that Gore claimed to have invented the internet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

So you reserve license to publicly degrade others, and then give me the task of doing your research for you? You are the author of this essay, in which you essentially call your political opponents stupid and overrated. The burden of proof is on YOU to defend your claims and refute the achievements of these respected people, since YOU are making those statements. So far, your justifications have been along the lines of "his parents had money" and "he got bad grades in college." Did you know Clinton was a Rhodes scholar?

In any case, I've already provided an example: Oppenheimer led the effort to develop the atomic bomb. You credit Teller for H-bomb work, but not Oppenheimer for A-bomb work. How do you justify that position?

I would still like to know: Can someone be both "liberal" and an "intellectual"?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 17:39, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: Bayes, you continue to cite [[liberal]] awards, like "Rhodes scholar." You don't seem to grasp the point here, or you don't want to. I'm talking about true intellectual achievement, not resume building stuff.

:: Someone should do an article on [[Heather Wilson]], which includes her past achievements. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:41, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: [[Teller]] did real [[physics]]. [[Oppenheimer]] was the manager at [[Los Alamos]] who made sure people got their mail and had a room to stay in. Please attempt to understand the difference.

: Your question about whether someone can be [[liberal]] and a true intellectual is beyond the scope of this essay. It's a rare combination at best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for your response to that question. I do think it's relevant to this essay, since the inclusion of conservatives on this "pseudo-intellectuals" list, as well as liberals on any "intellectuals" list, would provide evidence that this is not just an ''ad hominem'' attack.

I pointed out the Rhodes scholarship because you portray Clinton as a failure in his studies. Whatever political aspects of the Rhodes scholarship application you believe are present, I think you can agree that they are not awarded to people who are dolts. It seems that your definition of a "liberal award" is any award won by someone you disagree with.

With regard to Oppenheimer/Teller, I suggest you become better acquainted with physics and the history of the Manhattan Project before you trash Oppenheimer as merely a "manager". The [[Born-Oppenheimer approximation]], the [[Oppenheimer-Phillips process]], and the [[Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit]] are ideas within quantum physics and astrophysics that are named for him. For the Manhattan Project, he did important calculations relating to fast neutrons. So, despite your claims to the contrary, he was in fact very successful at "real" physics, in your terms. You would do well to refrain from denigrating Oppenheimer in terms of his science; it's just not going to work.

I reiterate my claim that you are inconsistent in lauding Teller while smearing Oppenheimer. It is becoming more apparent that you are putting folks on this list simply because you disagree with their politics and not because they actually have intellectual failures.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:44, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:Dear Mr. Schlafly. Thank you for the prize. I hope my [[Bible]] citation was correct. It would be a shame if I quoted something, for example [[Shakespeare]], and got it horribly wrong. I'm glad you found my contribution useful. It is a pleasure to have been of help. Oh by the way, would you be so kind as to list the intellectual achievements of your own which enable you to sit on such a high pedestal pontificating about the achievements or lack thereof by intellectual wannabees and pseudo-intellectuals. Godspeed [[User:JSmith|JSmith]] 09:44, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Well done, JSmith, you exhibited two examples of [[liberal style]], now ranked #7 on Google searches, in just one sentence:

::* #7) over-reliance on accusations of hypocrisy
::* #25) using non sequiturs in argument

:: Surely you don't think that it's unfair to question whether someone promoted as an intellectual really is one. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Mr Smith is unfortunately no longer able to continue this discussion. TK [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3AIpblocklist&action=search&limit=&ip=JSmith blocked] him. Assumedly for holding this discussion. Would you like to comment sir? [[User:BLocke|BLocke]] 10:00, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

"Richard Dawkins lasted only 2 years teaching at University of California, Berkeley, a mere lecturer at Oxford until a wealthy ally donated a professorship for him"

Oh, a mere lecturer at Oxford? And Bush's resume is so much more impressive than that. - Barry Sherman

: Bush does not use his credentials to claim any intellectual superiority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:05, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

And? That article is obviously an attempt to make liberals look intellectually inferior. - Barry Sherman

==Motivation==

An interesting essay Mr.Schlafly. I'm curious to know your postion on the corollary of your listed arguments, i.e., do you believe that:

*Cutting taxes increases Government revenue
*Increased gun ownership assures a safer society
*Women should give birth to every baby conceived
*Wars should be fought until a combatant is completely destroyed, without pause for negotiation
*The best thing for humanity would be to increase the worldwide supply of armaments ad infinitum
*Discrimination cannot be quantified
*Women are inferior to men
*Homosexuals deserve no freedoms
*The Government should make no attempt to reduce poverty

[[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 13:45, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: After your first two, your "corollaries" are actually severe distortions of the points in the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:51, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Ok, let me try another 'corollarization', if you'll pardon the concoction! Please bear with me, I am not interested in twisting your words, merely clarifying your position.

*Cutting taxes increases Government revenue
*Increased gun ownership assures a safer society
*Abortion harms health
*Ceasefires are pointless
*Arms limitation treaties are pointless
*Discrimination cannot be quantified by viewing outcomes
*Genders are not equal
*African Americans are more deserving of civil rights than homosexuals
*The Government should make no further attempt to reduce poverty

Is this better? [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 14:14, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: Your "corollarization" is still twisted, of course, particularly on points 2 ("assures"), 4-5 ("are pointless"), 6 ("cannot be quantified"), and 9 ("no further attempt"). But you're right with point 1, 3 and 7-8, and increased gun ownership does decrease crime, including violent crime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:21, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

OK, here's another try - and thanks for your pointers.

*Cutting taxes increases Government revenue
*Increased gun ownership helps towards a safer society
*Abortion harms health
*In war, ceasefires have no useful effect
*Arms limitation treaties have no useful effect
*Discrimination cannot be fully quantified by viewing outcomes only
*Genders are not equal
*African Americans are more deserving of civil rights than homosexuals
*The Government is not fully capable of reducing poverty

I'm having a hard time writing corollaries of the ceasefire, arms treaty, and poverty topics, so please forgive me as I clumsily try and get closer to your position. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 14:31, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, a user by the name of 'TK' has alerted me to your 90/10 rule. However, I pointed out that I obviously cannot contribute to your essay, since it is completely yours. Should I stop discussing your essay? I should point out that what I was hoping to do was clarify the corollaries to your points so that I could write an essay entitled Conservative Intellectualism, which would then state clearly defined positions held by conservative intellectuals. I can't write that article until we agree on the definitions, obviously. Should I listen to TK and stop, or do you wish me to continue on my path? It is your essay, and, I believe, your site, so I will abide by whatever you say. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 15:26, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

*Do not try to insert [[deceit]] here, OldFaithful. I alerted as well as welcomed you. Most of us manage to do both kinds of posts, and I am sure after a while, you will be better able to multi-task as well! Carry on. --[[User:TK|şŷ�?ô�?-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣ�?ёаќǃ]] 15:41, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh I'm not trying to use deceit, I can assure you. I'm only interested in clarifying - to the agreement of Mr.Schlafly - the position this essay takes. Defining the corollary of an argument is usually a very good way to define the argument itself, I find. Thanks for your understanding, TK. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 15:44, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: OldFaithful, the point of the 90/10 [[rule]] is to ensure some productive activity in addition to discussion. As you can see, there are many other entries here (over 16,000) that we can all improve while we continue this discussion. Thanks much and we do welcome you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:07, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, I have started a discussion on the page [[Talk:Essay:Conservative Intellectualism]] about replacing the liberally written content there with material that is more suitable to this forum. I have pasted in our corollaries from today - the ones you were happy with - and would love if you could particpate in the building of that article too. Yours, [[User:AncientSage|AncientSage]] 21:35, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

== Response ==

In reply to your list above:

* Cutting taxes increases Government revenue

Right, assuming current levels of taxation. See [[Laffer Curve]].

* Increased gun ownership helps towards a safer society

Right. No one seriously disputes this. See [[John Lott]].

* Abortion harms health

Right. No one seriously disputes this, just as no one credibly denies that childbirth is good for health.

* In war, ceasefires have no useful effect

True when faced with a determined enemy, like the [[communist]] North Vietnamese.

* Arms limitation treaties have no useful effect

True when faced with a [[deceit]]ful enemy, like the [[communist]] [[Soviet Union]].

* Discrimination cannot be fully quantified by viewing outcomes only

Obviously true.

* Genders are not equal

Obviously true.

: While it is obvious that the genders are not the same, what are the implications of this statement? Should the [[19th amendment]] be undone? Is unequal pay for the same work fair? What other implications that I'm not familiar with are there? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:55, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:*It was obvious to me that Andy was talking about the physiological differences, not social. --[[User:TK|şŷ�?ô�?-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣ�?ёаќǃ]] 16:59, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:: If that is the case, then that needs to be said. All of the other points in this list are about social issues, government policies and the like. To say that the genders are not equal in this context seems to be to be very much about the social differences of the genders. This is especially true when reading up on some of the conservative speakers and their positions on gender equality. Phyllis Schlafly statements about the equal rights ammendment[http://thinkexist.com/quotes/phyllis_schlafly/], and Ann Coulter has written on reconsidering the 19th ammendment[http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38a7cb4c3104.htm]. What is meant by "Genders are not equal - obviously true" needs to be spelled out so there cannot be any misinterpretation of the message that is intended. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:08, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

I do think that the physiological differences between men and women - which are clearly undeniable - do have an impact on issues of pay. I don't believe, for example, that it is fair to pay women soldiers the same as the men soldiers, as they cannot carry as much weight or make themselves as useful to the unit due to their reduced physicality. Mind you, I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that women shouldn't be anywhere in the miltary other than desk jobs at home in the US - but that's another issue. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 17:14, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

* African Americans are more deserving of civil rights than homosexuals

Right, and many African Americans are rightly offended by [[liberal]] attempts to analogize the two.

* The Government is not fully capable of reducing poverty

Obviously true. Even [[Jesus]] observed that there will unfortunately always be poverty.

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:35, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

A fantastic response Mr.Schlafly, I'm very grateful indeed. A few questions come to mind from your responses, and they're all about trying to write 'rules' or points of policy that do not require conditions. Conditionals ("when facing a determined enemy") cloud meaning, and if they're required, it shows lack of strength in the statement. I'm trying to find the simplest, generalised statements that work.

*Perhaps we should say "Every woman should give birth to children", since it's good for health?
*Since almost every enemy likely thinks of themselves as 'determined', what is a good general policy statement on ceasefires that does not include that conditional statement? If ceasefires are useless against determined enemy, do they have some use against less determined enemies? Maybe ceasefires shouldn't be a rule, if we cannot be clear about them without conditional statements?
*And since any combatant will be deceitful in war, how can we clarify the statement on arms treaties? "Arms treaties are never a good idea"?
*"Homosexuals do not deserve civil rights". Is that a reasonable extrapolation of your point?
*Is it a reasonable extrapolation of the last point to say that "Poverty is uneradicable". Even though that might be wrong, I'm trying to get these statements to be snappy soundbites like that. It really helps to convey the message to younger people.

Looking forward to your thoughts, I remain, [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 17:05, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: OldFaithful, your restatements of the points are distortions. We don't do that here. Not a single one of your restatements conveys the clear, straightforward, and undeniable truth in the original statements. Instead, your restatements either marginalize the point so that it loses meaning (e.g., by omitting [[abortion]]), or makes assumptions that are untrue (e.g., every enemy is "determined" and "deceitful", or that homosexuals "do not deserve civil rights" which of course they already enjoy like everyone else).

: The 90/10 [[rule]] against endless talk is enforced. Please abide by it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:42, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh I certainly intend to, I will revert to the last set of definitions you were happy with and will write the article. Please excuse my new name as I was blocked by TK by accident. [[User:NewFaithful|NewFaithful]] 20:18, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm very confused. I keep getting banned fomr this site. All I have been doing is trying to write a good, conservative article as an essay on Conservative Intellectualism. But now I see that my comments are being removed - I don't know why - from this Talk page, and also now from the aricle I was attmpeting to argue FOR!. I think I am being confused for others perhaps? Contributing to this site is anything but easy. [[User:Worshipper|Worshipper]] 23:57, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

===real intellectuals===
i think it would be helpful for this discussion if we had another essay about real intellecuals. liberal, conservative, or moderate. there are a few examples given on this page, but i think more might answer questions about who is included and who isn't. the founding fathers are a good example. i would be against people being included just for being well known conservatives. i admire much about george w bush, for example, but i wouldn't call him an "intellectual". he didn't run as one, and we didn't elect him for that. [[User:AuH2O|AuH2O]]

*And yet his college record, and ''two degrees'', from one of the paramount educational institutions in the world, would indicate at least a higher level of intelligence. And a higher GPA than John Kerry. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:12, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

i'm not sure "smarter than kerry" makes him an intellectual. also, jon stewart should probably be removed. he's an entertainer. i don't think he or anyone else really makes much of a claim that he's an intellectual. [[User:AuH2O|AuH2O]]

== Clinton ==
''may have virtually flunked out of the pre-med program at Georgetown, never released his grades, no original work or ideas''

'May have'? Did he or didn't he? Just 'may have' is gossip. And where did Clinton ever claim (or have it claimed for him) to be an intellectual? Indeed, how many US presidents, Rep or Dem, fit into that category? [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 07:27, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

==I couldn't resist==

I'm sorry, but why on earth is that considered to be a genuine work on this wiki? The whole thing is nuts. Loopdy loopder. Just because someone declares themselves a Liberal doesn't mean they claim to be an intellectual. Its flattering you would think so much of us, but thats just nuts. No, the problem here is that people assume so much. And Gandhi? Give me a break.

What about the great Liberal intellectuals - Galileo, Einstein, Mandela, Lincoln, The Dalai Lama? What are they, accidents? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 18:52, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

A work which cannot be defended on its merits is a work that shouldn't be defended at all. This should be deleted and the creator should apologise for marking the world with this insanity. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 06:57, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps some rest? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 07:06, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== "intellectual wannabees or pseudo-intellectuals" ==

Okay, what on Earth are Noam Chomsky (guy who came up with the Chomsky Hierarchy, which is quite influential in theoretical Computer Sciences) and John Maynard Keynes (quoting CP: "His ideas were highly influential leading to him generally being credited as being one of the founding fathers of modern theoretical macroeconomics.") doing on a list of pseudo-intellectuals?

These are people who vastly influenced their field of study with their intellectual contributions. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 08:19, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
:I don't think there's any question regarding Keynes liberal intellectual credentials; libs have even co-opted him posthumously in the gay rights movement. Chomsky is more less the undisputed chief grand pubba guru of modern liberal intellectualism. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:16, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::Your answer doesn't quite seem to fit to my question. How does their political view lessen their contributions? I'm not arguing that they're conservative, liberal or whatever, but why are they "pseudo-intellectual"? Here is something Andy said on this very page:
{{cquote|What constitutes a true intellectual achievement is obvious: an insight, a remarkable writing or speech, an idea, an invention, a proof, a concept, an advance in knowledge, etc.}}
::Being credited with the title "founding father of modern macroeconomics" and having had a remarkable impact on theoretical Computer Sciences count as such intellectual achievements in my eyes. Are you saying they're not? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 14:23, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

This whole section is pretty dumb and should be deleted. I don't think whoever authored it understands what a psuedo-intellectual is. Harvard professors and world class mathematicians are not psuedo-intellectuals, they are the very definition of intellectuals. ----[[user:grah|grah]] 09:45 27 February 2008 (EST)

==Liberal intellectualism and the Cold War==
Here's a good description of liberal intellectualism that caused the [[Cold War]]:

:"There is a thing we might call the cult of intellectualism, which includes a good many people who are not intellectuals. It embraces a number of top-lofty souls who imagine they swim in some more luminous ether than the harsh air near the ground of reality. In many it is little more than a pose. There were others who saw in [[Russia]] a mixture of good and bad elements and who imagined that, by some alchemy, the bad might one day be eliminated and the good assume the mastery. At the bottom of this notion was the conviction that society had gotten out of hand, that the modern society contains so many hostile elements that there is no way to order and peace and finally to the good life for all, save under the assumption of control by the "experts" to produce a [[planned society]]. These people had managed to dress up and perfume this notion in such a way that they could support it without even being called [[socialist]]s. They saw in Russia a historic and dramatic experiment to produce the good life through a planned society. It was a first trial, full of missteps and pitfalls. They have been willing to excuse the mistakes and even the cruelties of the experimenters in Moscow, hoping that out of it might come something that the world could use.

:"They indignantly deny the imputation of [[communism]]. They do not even like to be called socialists. The term "planned society" appeals to them, expresses their philosophy without the ugly proletarian stain of the socialist or Communist labels. The remodeling of society is a job not for the ranting soapboxers of Union Square, but for the engineers, the scientists, the philosophers and the experts generally. It is in reality socialism in cap and gown or even in a high hat and frock coat. The truth is that in certain quarters it had simply become out of style to believe in the thing called capitalism. It is not the style to believe in communism. But it is a mark of the large mind not to be narrowly intolerant of communism, and among these gentry it had come to be a little vulgar to defend capitalism. When we add to this the fact that the organized Communists and near-Communists in America had something like a million votes to deliver in critical polling places in a few industrial states, we can begin to perceive how a mixture of lofty philosophy and low politics could produce their strange tolerance for [[Stalin]] and his gang.<ref>''While You Slept : Our Tragedy in Asia and Who Made It'', John T. Flynn, New York : The Devin - Adair Company, 1951, [http://www.mises.org/books/whileyouslept.pdf pg. 37 - 38] pdf.</ref> [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:28, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
<references/>

==Kerry==

Kerry was a priviledged youth? What's that got to do with anything? I guess you could say the same about George W. Bush. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:18, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:oh no...a kid just got tasered over this very question....[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:29, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
::Both were ''privileged''. How one approaches life, and one's conclusions about most things, are shaped by that. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:43, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:::Then why even mention it? Do you mention Bill Clinton came from a poor background? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:45, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

== a few comments ==

Are there any references for your revelation that J Robert Oppenheimer "just sorted the mail" or however you put it? I have read a couple of his biographies and that detail, if present, was obscured with all of the details on his research and experiments in developing the atomic bomb. Carl Sagan, quoted from conservapedia's own article on him, was a professor of astronomy at Cornell. His theories, whether you agree with them or not, do have scientific and mathematical backing. Disagreeing with someone's theories does not make that person a "not quite intellectual" as you put it. And finally, Stephen Hawking is widely considered to be the smartest person, if not in the world, then definitely within the scientific community. And although his initial theory was incorrect, by his own admittance, he and others eventually corrected it into what I believe is currently the most accepted theory. Very rarely is a scientific theory correct on the first try, especially on something as difficult to study as a black hole. So I'm not quite sure how/why Hawking qualifies as a "not quite intellectual". --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 18:46, 14 November 2007 (EST)

== Stephen Hawking Not An Intellectual? ==

Stephen Hawking, despite his worldwide-recognized advancements in the fields of theoretical cosmology and quantum gravity, as well as his contributions to other subfields of physics...is NOT an intellectual? I'm baffled by that claim, as I never even contemplated that someone would argue against his being considered an intellectual, if not one of the most brilliant physicists of our time. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 13:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:I also think this is incredibly bizzare. Hawking was wrong about black holes? So?
He was right about Hawking radiation (hence the name)and is considered one of the world leading astrophysicists by liberals and conservatives. And Carl Sagan made great strides in exobiology.
Really strange ideas here Aschlafly.
Darwin a poor student? So was Einstein.
How about -
George W Bush, privilaged youth, poor student, ran several companies into the ground, bailed out by his father, can barely speak coherent english, has some of the worst approval ratings of any president and is disliked the world over.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 16:35, 20 February 2008 (EST)
::I have to agree that Stephen Hawking is a brilliant man, who's taken the human mind farther than many of his peers. I disagree with the parts of his work that assume a billion-billion whatever year old universe, but I pride myself on being able to look past that to the true genius, not to mention the heroism he demonstrates on a daily basis for overcoming his crippling condition. The man is an American treasure and a credit to his nation.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 16:56, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Ahhhhh dude, Stephen Hawking was born in Oxford, England. I'm not sure you could call him an American tresure. Incidently, interesting side note - Hawking was born on the anniversary of Galileo's death 300 years earlier.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 17:07, 20 February 2008 (EST)
:But he teaches at CalTech (our treasure, credit to Britain).-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 18:07, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Fair enough :-)
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 18:09, 20 February 2008 (EST)

::: I'm not sure who stuck that bit in about Hawking. I'd have to check the history. I certainly agree that he's an inspiration on a personal level, and thus would be reluctant to criticism him. But, rising above emotion, when someone claims to be an intellectual, as Hawking's supporters certainly claim about him, it's fair game to probe the accuracy of the claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:04, 20 February 2008 (EST)

checking the accuracy of his claims is difficult when you consider his trade is theoretical physics. You cant say he is not an intellectual when you consider his lifes work and the respect he has worldwide.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 17:07, 20 February 2008 (EST)

: The point the entry is to show how liberal-promoted intellectuals are not what liberals claim they are. I'm fine with taking Hawking out unless and until someone does more research. He's not a leading [[liberal]] as far as I know, so he probably should not be on the list anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:27, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Personally I have done a lot of reading by Hawking and about Hawking and never once is his political leanings been mentioned nor have I heard of him being espoused primarily by liberals or conservatives. I think both sides of the political spectrum would agree with his intellectual capability. I remove it now and if anyone could prove he should be on this list I would be interested to hear their argument for inclusion. Thanks.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 20:46, 23 February 2008 (EST)

When Hawking met the Pope in Rome in the 1990s, he demanded to see where [[Galileo]]s trial took place. Although the Pope was an elderly and physically unwell man, Hawking had no problem putting him through distress to meet his ends. There is no doubt, from anyone who has studied Hawking and his political positions, that he is an avowed [[Liberal]], and as a Liberal 'academic', deserves to be mentioned in the list. There is no such thing as an intelligent Liberal. [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 07:25, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== Huh? ==

Kerry: Fought for his country
Gore: Actually look at the link you provided on the 'net
Bill Clinton: "may have virtually". So he might have almost?
Dawkins: Lecturer at Oxford is still very prestigious
Stephen Jay Gould: Any evidence for that?
Tribe: A professor at Harvard
McNamara: successfully managed the world bank
Oppenheimer: was key in developing the bomb (so what about leaks?)
Jon Stewart: No evidence at all
Chomsky: Actually, he did make significant advances in linguistics, not just "guesses"
Keynes: Policies still used today, influenced Hayek and Friedman as well
Foucault: See Jon stewart
Rachel Carson: Found to have errata by whom?
Bertrand Russell: He won a nobel in literature
Ward Churchill: Managed to become professor nonetheless
Sulzerberger: That says nothing about academic credentials. The same argument could apply to President bush
Darwin: How? Give evidence
Sagan: Again, more evidence. How do we know he was wrong? Maybe his claim made sense.
Clinton: What does that say about the rest of her career?

Since I would like to be banned by this website, I would like to say CENSORED

It is interesting how the Liberal places so much weight on winning a [[Nobel Prize]]. The Liberal obviously doesn't understand that the [[Nobel Prize]] is merely an award given by [[Liberal]]s to other [[Liberal]]s. Notice how the [[Liberal]] engages in the act of [[Deceit]] and the use of [[Profanity]], a favoured [[Liberal Style]] in debates. [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 07:23, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== Gore Link ==

A slight problem- the link posted for Al Gore actually argues that he ''didn't'' claim that he invented the internet. --Dollfuss

: You're right: the link was to liberal claptrap. I've replaced it with Gore's actual quote and a link to the transcript.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:17, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

== Democrat v. Democratic ==

Rather than actually explain this to JPatt, I thought I'd share the lesson with all. If you read Jpatt's recent addition, you may (or may not) have determined it was supposed to be an "example" of "liberal intellectualism" to clarify between Democrat and Democratic. But in trying to explain it, Jpatt gets it all wrong. Democrats (correctly used) prefer not to be referred to as Democrat Senators, Democrat Representative, or the Democrat Party. Democrat is a NOUN, Democratic is an ADJECTIVE. Now, Jpatt is not an American, so we'll allow that perhaps he's not aware of the difference in the American language. To use Democrat as an adjective is considered a pejorative, and quite clearly explained here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_%28phrase%29 Wikipedia: Democrat Party (phrase)]. Now that it's cleared up, I think we can all agree that the difference between a noun and an adjective isn't a "liberal intellectualism" trait, but rather "third-grade English" knowledge. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:30, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

== Mainspace ==

I thing that this article belongs to mainspace. This is not a ideological stance, only for consistency with a series of other articles with a Liberal theme. I am sorry if I said something wrong. I am new here but already read many articles. [[User:LiaraTRP|LiaraTRP]] 15:32, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

==Smear?==
Why was my entry on MLK removed as a smear? Even PC-opedia (wikipedia) admits he plagarized parts of his dissertation. His sexual transgressions are no secret and covered in his biography Let the Trumpet Sound by Stephen Oates (p. 265, 283) and its no secret he took most of his ideas from Gandhi and Thoreau, among others. It's all true. -Mike LaTorres

==Grammar lesson==
'''<nowiki>== Superiority Complex ==</nowiki>''' 
'''The liberal believes they are superior to others.'''
:One should decide beforehand whether to render this in the singular or in the plural, either: "The liberal believes he is superior..." or "Liberals believe they are..."
:That done, the entirety of the next sentence could be incorporated into the preeceeding:

'''The liberals believe that they are mentally superior to others, claiming the intellectual high ground and warding away challengers with ridicule and other rhetorical devices that serve nothing more than to mock and deride.'''

:The next part is just silly. Democrat is a '''noun''', democratic is an '''adjective'''. Once that fact is accepted then the etymological screed below is seen in a different light. 
'''A good example is the classic Democrats versus Democratics statement. Liberal Intellectualism will say that it is not proper to use the sentence with the word Democrats, it must be proper, so it must be Democratics. However, 'Democrats' will suffice rather well and the reader understands regardless. There are many instances where Democratic politicians use the word Democrats. Howard Dean says "Democrats have a lot of work to do among seniors." The nation's liberal newspapers use the word Democrats. Google's spellcheck prefers Democrats. The website for congress is addressed 'democrats.senate.gov' Excuses for insisting are endless and a part of Liberal Intellectualism thinking.'''

Please endeavor to learn and know the basics of the language you are trying to write in before attempting to incorporate your thoughts into cogent arguments. Thank you. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 16:51, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mercy

2008-08-27T20:29:30Z

MargeryCampbell:

As sweet and touching as this article is (currently), is this really an encyclopedic article? Am I able to take any adjective and create a Conservapedia article by citing scripture or poetry exclusively? And UNATTRIBUTED poetry at that? I'm sorry, but this was placed here with absolutely NO attribution to William Shakespeare. I'm getting disgusted with the poor quality of contributions here. Conservapedia? How about "Plagiarize-apedia." See [[plagiarism]]. Get with the program people. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 12:02, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

:This is a wiki. Don't just complain about it, FIX it. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 15:04, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
::Good idea. Wondering why you took the time to respond instead of fixing it yourself. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 16:07, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Because you made a general comment "I'm getting disgusted with the poor quality of contributions here." Thus my general statement. If you have a problem with the quality of contributions, fix the articles. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:26, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

:::There. How old are you two, 4? -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 16:09, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
::::Thank you for your civil and polite response. It speaks for itself. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 16:12, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

'''FYI'''. I went ahead and supplied a definition and added the ''stub'' tag. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 16:22, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

:I reinserted the quoted material and souced it within the copy. Maybe it's just the level of vandalism on this site but people have such a difficult time remaining civil at times. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 16:29, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Mercy

2008-08-27T20:25:08Z

MargeryCampbell: format

Noun. The compassionate treatment of someone who is under your power. 
In his ''The Merchant of Venice'' [[William Shakespeare]] uses Portia, (a trial lawyer) to remind Shylock of mercy's qualities:
<blockquote>The quality of mercy... 
is twice bless'd; 
It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes; 
Tis mightiest in the mightiest: becomes 
The throned monarch better than his crown.</blockquote>
{{stub}}

Mercy

2008-08-27T20:24:23Z

MargeryCampbell: grammar

Noun. The compassionate treatment of someone who is under your power.
In his ''The Merchant of Venice'' [[William Shakespeare]] uses Portia, (a trial lawyer) to remind Shylock of mercy's qualities:
<blockquote>The quality of mercy... 
is twice bless'd; 
It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes; 
Tis mightiest in the mightiest: becomes 
The throned monarch better than his crown.</blockquote>
{{stub}}

Mercy

2008-08-27T20:23:54Z

MargeryCampbell:

Noun. The compassionate treatment of someone who is under your power.
In his ''The Merchant of Venice'' [[William Shakespeare]] uses Portia, (a trial lawyer) to reminds Shylock of mercy's qualities:
<blockquote>The quality of mercy... 
is twice bless'd; 
It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes; 
Tis mightiest in the mightiest: becomes 
The throned monarch better than his crown.</blockquote>
{{stub}}

Talk:Debate:What are your predictions for the upcoming Democratic convention?

2008-08-14T16:28:29Z

MargeryCampbell:

Interesting topic, but it's all personal speculation so doesn't belong in the mainspace. Not quite sure where it belongs though, mabye Debate? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 01:02, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

:Either debate or essay section. Also, the question is spelled wrong. Prediction doesn't have an "a" in it. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:24, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
::It should be pointed out that Conservapedia has '''neither''' an "Essay" nor a "Debate" namespace devoted to their respective categories. When a page is created, say, '''"Essay:Liberal half-truths"''' it merely shows up in the mainspace as such. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 12:28, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Haman

2008-07-25T21:58:30Z

MargeryCampbell: Added purim

'''Haman''' was the name of the [[vizier]] (i.e., the prime minister) of the [[Persian]] king Ahasuerus.<ref name="a">{{Easton|Haman}}</ref> He is called an "[[Agagite]]," which seems to denote that he was descended from the royal family of the Amalekites, the bitterest enemies of the [[Jews]], as Agag was one of the titles of the Amalekite kings.<ref name="a"/> He or his parents were brought to Persia as captives taken in war.<ref name="a"/> The [[Esther (Biblical Book) | book of Esther]] records that he convinced Xerxes, the Persian king, to issue a decree calling for the destruction of Jews. The Jews were saved due to the heroism of Esther, a Jewish wife of Xerxes, and Haman was hanged on the gallows which he had erected for [[Mordecai]].<ref name="a"/>

This story is recounted in detail during the Jewish festival of [[Purim]].

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Book of Esther Persons]]

Talk:Debate:Should government restrictions on smoking be tightened or rolled back?

2008-07-22T18:25:37Z

MargeryCampbell: That's "Goldwater" Conservatism

==Comments==
The current legal measures to curtail smokers from using their "drug of choice" in public settings stems from the "second-hand smoke" issue, (which is ''far'' from "[http://www.davehitt.com/facts/ settled science").] That smoking directly effects smokers is not disputed and there is good reason to restrict smoking ''based solely'' on such direct effects: the question then becomes, whether the power of the state should be brought to bear on people who, well aware of the dangers and effects of smoking, ''choose'' to smoke regardless. If the science of second hand smoke is shaky then any laws passed upon such science is equally suspect as the government which passes such laws '''should''' only try to maintain the law(s) if the original intent was to save lives from the effects of second-hand smoke. Should the "science" dissipate like...smoke...then the laws "protect" no-one save the '''power of the state over the individual''', which is anathema to Conservatives. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 14:25, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Flaws in Richard Lenski Study

2008-07-16T16:45:06Z

MargeryCampbell: /* What I have noticed */

Now, is this page a report over other people thinking Lenski's paper is flawed or is this Aschafly reporting about himself and putting it in the headline of the Front Page? And please specify by references which "two other" experiments are referenced, and explaing how you can see that the "historical contingency" is not true. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 23:22, 12 July 2008 (EDT)
And if you think you argue that well, why dont you submit it as a comment òn the paper to PNAS. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 23:24, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

:This article is seriously partisan. I see no outside or third party analysis of the paper in the references, just a bunch of cites to the article or conservapedia itself. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 00:34, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

Folks, you're in the wrong place if you're more interested in who says what rather than determining the truth itself. A true wiki gets at the substantive truth rather than trying to rely on biased gatekeepers and filters of the truth.

The flaws in the statistical analysis in Lenski's paper are clearly set forth and well-referenced. If you're interested in the truth, then look at the paper and see the flaws yourself. If you're not interested in the truth and think you can distract people's attention from it by using other tactics, then you're wasting your time here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:42, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Aschlafly on this, there needs to be some kind of admission or response from Lenski but little has been forthcoming and conservapedia itself has taken it on. Notice how no-one, aside from conservapedia (and I think Creationwiki?) has asked such questions of Lenski? All the magazines etc have taken his study at face value without actually taking the time to critique his claims. Aside from the "peer reviewers" of course.
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 00:47, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: The "peer reviewers" who spent somewhere between 0 and only 14 days looking at the paper, and missed an obvious contradiction between Figure 3 (specifying the "Historical contingency" hypothesis) and Table 1, Third Experiment. The statistical analysis in the paper appears so shoddy to me that I doubt anyone with real statistical knowledge or expertise even reviewed it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:59, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
::I have expertise in research and statistics and I'm just not seeing this shoddiness that you make reference to. You are allowed to have your doubts, but we should get a bunch of people familiar with such fields to examine the paper's statistical analysis. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 01:01, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
::I have the same problem. i hold a Dr.Rer.Nat title and did some statistics (although i am no expert on it) and fail to see the "shoddiness" please help my underdeveloped mind, Mr. Schafly and enlighten me. I it is so obvious it should be a one-liner to formulate it. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 09:54, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Please try harder then. I've expanded the explanations a bit also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: At least now i can recongnize your statements more or less clearly. Yet i think (cite from the paper) ''We also used the Z-transformation method (49) to combine the probabilities from our three experiments, and the result is extremely significant (P < 0.0001) whether or not the experiments are weighted by the number of independent Cit+ mutants observed in each one.'' has to be addressed more specifically than you do in order to discredit the statistics used --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 11:54, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::Just for comparative purposes and a frame of reference, a P value that is less than the significance level of 0.05 is considered significant. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 13:10, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

I wonder, do the PNAS allow questions to raised and asked of the "peer reviewers" themselves? Are we able to find out who/what experience they themselves have? Perhaps that is an avenue that we could look at? I apologise in advance if this has already been asked or answered.
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 01:07, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:Definitly not. Peer reviewers are anonymous and only known to the editor, for good reason. Having peer reviewers non-anonymous would cause reviewers to be very careful to step on nobodys foot to evade revenge. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 09:54, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: No, PNAS probably won't disclose who supposedly did the 14-days-or-less peer review on the [[Lenski]] paper. You're right that such disclosure could shed some light on the final product.

: "Wisdom89", your claim that you "have expertise" and don't see the flaws only makes me conclude that you don't really have the expertise that you claim. Judging by your silly user name, perhaps you've tried that approach before. We're not fooled by it here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:14, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

(removed silly comment by person who has since been blocked for [[90/10 talk]] violation)

==Marginally significant==
In #1, that's not inconsistent. The figure makes it clear that, according to the hypothesis, the mutations should also occur earlier than 31,000, but should become more common at that point. 12/17 mutants occurred after 31,000. The point in #3 is not clear. What do you mean by ''weighting''? In #5, ''Lenski's paper is not clear in explaining how the results of his largest experiment...his paper refers to his largest experiment as "marginally ... significant," which serves to obscure its statistical insignificance.'' Actually, '''marginally significant''' is clear. It means that the p-value is between .05 and .10 (in this case it's .08, table 2). It's a pretty standard phrase to describe an effect that falls into that range. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:41, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: Your defense of Lenski per point #1 is contradicted by the paper's own abstract, and by the comments by the other Lenski defender below. In point #3, proper weighting is needed to combine multiple studies. In point #5, you don't cite any authority for the unscientific claim of being "marginally significant."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
: Your defense of Lenski per point #1 is contradicted by the paper's own abstract, and by the comments by the other Lenski defender below. In point #3, proper weighting is needed to combine multiple studies. In point #5, you don't cite any authority for the unscientific claim of being "marginally significant."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
::Define "proper weighting". Are you referring to how they interpreted the sum of the work or to a specific analysis? You're right, I didn't cite any scientific authority. Here's one: Motulsky, H. (1995). ''Intuitive Biostatistics'', Oxford Univ. Press. Chapter 12. Also, try searching for the phrase in Google Scholar or PubMed, you'll find plenty of uses of it. It's a shorthand way of describing an effect that came close to the arbitrary threshold for statistical significance but did not reach it. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:55, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

::: You seem unwilling to accept that Point #1 identifies a clear mistake between the figure and the abstract in the paper, which requires correction by Lenski or PNAS. Given that unwillingness, I doubt it will productive discussing the other mistakes further with you. You're right that other usage of the dubious concept of "marginally significant" can be found on the internet, but the first link to such usage on my internet search for it returned the non-rigorous "Intuitive Biostatistics" and the second link returned a criticism of the concept similar to the criticism express here. [http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/49/1/93-a.pdf] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:42, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
::::It's not a clear mistake in my mind. There does seem to be some confusion or contradiction in terms of the number of generations, but I haven't seen a clear explanation of why this is or is not a mistake. What seems like a contradiction is the abstract statement that no mutations occurred before 31,500, but it's not clear to me whether I'm misunderstanding that. ''I doubt it will productive discussing the other mistakes further with you. '' Of course you doubt it, because you are unlikely to be willing to concede anything no matter what anyone says. Why do you call the concept dubious? The procedure of determining whether an effect is significant requires the setting of an arbitrary threshold, which is usually .05. That means, in analyses of the sort in the Blount et al. paper, that there's less than a 5% chance that the findings are due to sampling error. When an effect comes close to the threshold it is worth noting, because of the problems inherent in significance testing, which itself is widely criticized in the statistical literature. I am not clear what you mean by weighting, as I mentioned before - in the interpretation or statistically? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:30, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

== Richard Lenski incorrectly included generations of the E. coli already known to contain Cit+ variants in his experiments.[3] Once these generations are removed from the analysis, the data disprove Len ==

The author of the above statement must not have read the paper or the supplement carefully. Lenski took clones from those cultures that '''weren't Cit+'''. Careful reading of the paper or the supplement reveals that Cit+ mutants appeared at 750 generations or later into the replay experiment. The authors write: "New Cit+ variants emerged between 750 and 3,700 generations..."--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 15:03, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: Your explanation is not convincing. Show us how Lenski proved that the samples did not have '''any''' Cit+ variants, if you really think he's claiming that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:51, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

::I count at least four distinct diagnostic methods used in the paper for distinguishing whether clones are Cit+. One in particular they describe as being very sensitive to weakly citrate-using cells. It's not that I 'think' Blount et al. claim they started with Cit- cells. They say that in the 'Supporting information' document.

::Andy, for tonight, I'll leave it as an exercise for you to answer your own question of how one might test a clone to be sure that is was Cit-. Use the paper if you'd like or present another means. Tomorrow evening I'll cite the methods Blount used in the paper.

::Meanwhile, here's another question to ponder: If the colonies used to start the 'replay' cultures were Cit+ at the start, why is it that no Cit+ cells were found in such cultures before 750 generations? These cultures were all started from single clones which must have either had the Cit+ phenotype or not.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:38, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

-
How did Lenski obtain Cit- clones from later populations after Cit+ had become the dominant phenotype? It's pretty standard procedure. First, keep in mind that these populations contained a minority of Cit- cells. Now, a small liquid growth is made from the frozen glycerol stock of cells from a given generation, say 32,000. This is grown to an appropriate OD and then plated on a standard rich media agar plate. Provided that the plated sample isn't too dense, this plating will deposit somewhere between 15-100 individual cells on the agar, with plenty of spacing between them. The plate is then incubated at 37 C for a given time, during which the individual cells replicate to form small, visible colonies. These colonies will consist solely of cells that are genetically identical to the original cell deposited on the agar. This is all well and good, but how do you find which of the colonies are Cit-? Here you use a technique called replica plating. The agar plate is gently inverted onto a sterile swatch of velvet so that some of the cells from each colony are deposited onto the fabric. Next, a citrate-only agar plate is pressed against the velvet, transferring cells from the fabric to the new plate in exactly the same spacial orientation as the first plate. The cells are then allowed to grow on the citrate-only plate. When we then compare the two plates, we look for colonies on the rich plate that did not grown on the citrate-only plate. These colonies will be Cit-, and can be used for the replay experiments. [[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 13:45, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

:Just a correction: The Cit+ cells didn't dominate the cultures at generations 32,000 & 32,500. Cit+ mutants represented 12% and 19% of the population at these times points, respectively. Replica plating is definitely one means of identifying Cit- and Cit+ clones but because the Cit+ cells represented a fraction of the total, it is simple enough to streak the samples to individual colonies (founded by single cells) and test each colony individually. Otherwise, a nice description of replica plating (a technique developed by Joshua Lederberg that allowed him do the research for which he was awarded one of the 1958 Nobel Prizes in Medicine)--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:38, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::Oops, you're right, Argon. Cit+ wasn't dominant at generation 32,000, so replica plating might not be the best option. Still, in the case of almost 20% Cit+, I think replica plating might be labor reducing. I'm a biochemist by training, not a microbiologist, but I'm sure there are other methods that could be used. For example, Christensen's agar appears to provide a sensitive, colorimetric method of identifying even weakly citrate-utilizing colonies, so one might be able to plate cells on a Christensen's agar plate and pick uncolored colonies. Again though, I'm no microbiologist so I don't know the best method. However, there are ways to easily pick Cit- clones from later generations in this case. That said, I think that this specific "flaw" cited in Lenski's paper should be removed from the main article. Clearly, Cit+ were not used in the replays from later generations, so Conservapedia's objection is totally baseless.[[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 19:19, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
:::All appropriate descriptions. For generating estimates of the population distribution (Cit-/Cit+) in a culture, replica plating would certainly be applicable. The main point is that identifying and isolating Cit- clones from the generations used in the experiment is straightforward. I agree that it would be a mistake to keep that objection in the article (actually that thread runs across several points in the article).--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:12, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: Nothing in the paper rules out contamination of those samples by Cit+ variants, and you quote nothing in the paper to rule it out. There was no reason to use and rely on these samples that already have Cit+ variants.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::The whole point of the discussion above was to illustrate that there are methods to isolate cells with a particular genotype from a mixed population. Suppose we used the replica plating method (maybe not the best choice, but it's standard procedure). Care to explain where the Cit+ contaminants could possibly come from? And the naivete inherent in objecting that "nothing in the paper" rules it out is simply astounding. Standard laboratory procedures, like isolating specific clones, typically don't show up in papers. For example, if I to write a paper on my research, it would not include a detailed discussion of the construction of my expression plasmid. I might mention that I cloned my gene into a particular vector, but there wouldn't a discussion of how I did my PCR, restriction digests, or transformations. Things like that are simply extraneous details that are taken for granted by experienced researchers. There is simply no reason for Lenski et al. to include a discussion of their method for isolating specific clones. This is why this whole exercise of Conservapedia criticizing Lenski's paper is folly, because most Conservapedia users simply don't know standard laboratory techniques. It's kind of important to know what scientists today are able to do on a routine basis before wading in to claim that they couldn't have done what they claim.[[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 09:05, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::***** *****
:::::Actually the methods cited in the paper would separate the Cit+ lines from the Cit-. They took single colonies (founded by single cells), and tested them on selective agar (minimal citrate media - MC agar) and an indicator medium, Christensen's citrate agar (Product information from Sigma here: http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/sigma/datasheet/c7595dat.pdf). As Gerlach notes from the Blount paper, Christensen's citrate agar is very sensitive to citrate utilization. Typical ''E. coli'' strains do not produce a color change but other citrate-using enterics like ''S. typhimurium'' and Cit+ ''E. coli'' mutants appear pink/red on the plates.

:::::This conclusion is further validated (as I mention above), by the fact that Cit+ mutants did not appear immediately in the replay experiments (Others have also noted this). For example, in replay set-1, it took 750 generations before the first Cit+ mutants were isolated. Many didn't produce Cit+ cells after 3700 generations. If the starting line was Cit+, *all* the cells in the culture would have show up as Cit+ in the first pass.

:::::Overall, it is abundantly clear that the cell lines used in the replay experiments were not Cit+ at the beginning.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:44, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

== 1. Lenski's "historical contingency" hypothesis, as specifically depicted in Figure 3, is contradicted by the data presented... ==

Again, more issues with comprehension: The authors did not know when the potentiating mutation first arose but they knew it was before generation 31,500. Figure 2 is merely figurative, being an illustration, and not quantitative. Their analyses suggested that the potentiating mutation did arise at about the 20,000 generation point or later. Their conclusion is that Cit+ mutation rate is low even in a potentiated background but apparently distinguishable from a low-incidence single, unpotentiated event.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 15:04, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

== Statistics101 package: ==

What does the author imply by writing: "...Lenski himself does not have any obvious expertise in statistics. In fact, Richard Lenski admits in his paper that he based his statistical conclusions on use of a website called "statistics101"?

From the web site:
''Professionals: Although it was originally developed to aid students, the Statistics101 program is suitable for all levels of statistical sophistication. It is especially useful for Monte Carlo, resampling, and bootstrap applications. It has been used by professionals in many fields. These include anthropology, biology, ecology, evolutionary biology, epidemiology, marine biology, psychology, toxicology, veterinary pathology.''
It would appear that the package from the web site (not the web site itself) was used to perform the Monte Carlo resampling tests. Is there any evidence that the package produces incorrect results?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:41, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

==Formal Response to PNAS==

''I've moved this thread from the open section above since this page is being categorized.'' --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:52, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::I think this article presents very sound arguments. Conservapedia should now take action, offering to publish a rebuttal of Lenski in the PNAS journal.--[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 11:31, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree with JBoley in that if Conservapedia wants to present a formal, professional response to Professor Lenski's paper that questions specifics within his paper, then it should happen. That is the proper execution of the scientific method, and I'm certain that a professional response to PNAS would yield better results than vague "give us all the data " demands. Is a formal response to PNAS from Conservapedia in the works, or is this article the only place these questions/objections were intended to be raised? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:52, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: I don't know if PNAS would embarrass itself by printing a rebuttal, or whether it has the integrity to retract Lenski's paper. Conservapedia's audience is probably bigger than PNAS's, and we're certainly not going to suspend our exposure of the truth here in order to await correction by PNAS.

: PNAS publishes, quite easy to find Rules for "Rebuttals" (they call it "Letter"). It is specifically what you want. [http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/iforc.shtml PNAS:Information for Authors] . I cite: ''Letters are brief online-only comments that contribute to the discussion of a PNAS research article published within the last 3 months. Letters may not include requests to cite the letter writer's work, accusations of misconduct, or personal comments to an author. Letters are limited to 250 words and no more than five references.'' --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 13:25, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

: In addition, Lenski has already demonstrated how he reads this site and he can certainly correct his own paper, and he should do so. Indeed, professionalism might support giving Lenski the time to correct it himself first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:14, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

::I understand what you're saying, but there's nothing improper or unprofessional in submitting a formal request to PNAS to have the points in this article addressed by Professor Lenski and his team. To be frank, you've been adamant in your insistence that PNAS has been less than rigorous in the review of Lenski's paper, so if one of your intentions is to demonstrate this then having PNAS respond to a formally submitted response to the paper in public would serve that purpose. This can be done in addition to publishing these objections on Conservapedia--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:21, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::If not PNAS, then perhaps some other public forum? I know Andy Schlafly has appeared on television, effectively arguing against gardisal and other dangerous vaccines. Perhaps if a TV program were interested you could argue against Lenski? You could be the spokesperson against these false claims of evolution.--[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 12:24, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'm not opposed to the above suggestions, but the future is here, folks. Lenski, PNAS editors and television producers have free will to reject or ignore the truth, and I'm more interested in getting the truth out here than trying to persuade someone in dying media like print or television. Lenski and his defenders can see the truth here, and they can decide for themselves whether to reject or admit it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:30, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::I agree with you about the dying nature of print (I don't think television is dying, merely changing). The problem is that information about the flaws in Lenski's study are not registering outside of sites like Conservapedia. In effect, Conservapedia is an echo chamber. People that come to this site already agree with its point of view. I encourage you to attempt to attract the attention of other forms of media, or Lenski's false claims will simply be accepted as fact by the public and even worse, by educators.--[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 12:36, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::While there's nothing wrong with taking one's message to various forums or outlets, I believe there's a specific value in submitting these objections as a formal response to PNAS. Conservapedia was established as a trustworthy resource for students, and in my mind all of it's actions should be done with the goal of informing and educating. The Lenski debate is over the findings published in a scientific journal after undergoing a peer-review process. The objections to this paper by the CP leadership are not just about its content, but to the process by which it was reviewed and published in the timeframe it was. Talking about these objections is fine, but it's more instructional to the students using Conservapedia, and a better example of the scientific method in action, to respond to a scientific paper published in a journal through the formal process by which such papers are either defended or corrected. In the end, Lenksi's work will either stand up as good science, or any errors will be addressed and the paper's conclusions modified accordingly, which is also good science. Seeing this process in action regarding a such a significant paper is a great learning opportunity, and the Conservapedia leadership would be remiss in not standing by their conviction in these objections and submitting them formally to PNAS. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:38, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

PNAS has a letters section available with the online edition. Many journals have a letters section for rebuttals or clarification. Legitimate corrections are welcome. Andy, have you run your list of 'flaws' past any biologists?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 15:36, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: Funny, Argon, how you don't apply your demand of expertise to Lenski himself. What are Lenski's credentials with respect to statistical analysis? Has he even taken and passed an upper-class statistics course of any substance?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:45, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::I don't follow. Are you suggesting that Lenski doesn't understand the proper application of the statistical methods used in his paper? If so, I haven't seen a description of which alternate methods you'd employ, let alone any output from such an analysis. Here's a thought: Why don't you substantiate your claims by writing up the work and submitting it as a correction letter to PNAS?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:46, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Argon, if you really "don't follow," then try harder. You insist on credentials by others who criticize Lenski, and yet you do not insist on expertise by Lenski in statistics with respect to his "analysis". Perhaps Lenski should first take and try to pass "Statistics 101" before trying to use a website by its name to draw flawed conclusions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:36, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Do you really think that Lenski went to statistics101.net to learn about statistics and how to apply them? That simply is not the case. The Lenski group knew that they needed to do a Monte Carlo resampling analysis on the results of their replay experiments. In this situation, they are faced with two choices: either code an appropriate program themselves, or utilize one that has already been developed and is readily available to researchers. Since statistics101 had such a program available, they chose the latter option. Statistics101.net was simply the source of the program that the Lenski group used to perform the statistical analysis. If you want to argue against that choice, then you need to examine the source code for the statistics101 package and enumerate why it should not have been used.[[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 11:40, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

::::***** *****
::::I don't insist on credentials per se. I *recommend* developing a working understanding of the experiments or a willingness to do the necessary background research to get the details straight before heading off on possibly the wrong direction. It saves a lot of thrashing about. It's perfectly OK to raise questions but before leveling accusations it might be nice to do that privately and discuss that with others who can provide useful feedback. Just my 2 cents.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:48, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

::Mr. Schlafly, does your response above, "I'm more interested in getting the truth out here than trying to persuade someone in dying media like print or television", mean that you will not be submitting a response with these identified flaws directly to PNAS? As I mentioned above, it takes nothing away from the value of posting these statements here on CP to also submit them to PNAS, but the proper way to prompt a journal to review and correct an article is through a direct response, not publication on an unrelated website like CP. It's not proper for anyone but the author(s) of the objections in this article to make that submission, so I'm hoping they step up with the conviction of their beliefs and respond to PNAS directly. Thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:32, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::: By now Lenski has probably seen the flaws identified on the content page here. What's "proper" is for him to correct his own paper in PNAS. The criticism will likely continue as long as he declines to do so. If anyone here would like to educate the PNAS editors about the flaws, then please feel free to do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:36, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::::I'll be glad to submit these items to PNAS on behalf of Conservapedia using the "Letters" forum described by Stitch75 above. Should I cite you the author of this analysis, and is there an email you'd prefer me to include instead of my personal one for any PNAS response? I'll put up a draft of the Letters submission here for your approval before sending anything out. Thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:39, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::It would have a very strange scientific taste should somebody else that Mr. Schlafly be the first author of the letter (however, if you insist on that, i suggest "personal communications" as the right kind of citing the work here.). It is his turn to stand up to his claims in this way (by publishing it into a Forum which he is not the owner of). I personally share the doubts of many here about his argumentation (and his understanding os the experiments), but i am sure only more of his dismissive comments will follow. However i see that he comes up with a clear alternate Hypothesis (contamination), so he is free to show that this is more likely (calculations please) and peform Monte-Carlo simulations on it (for a person complaining that statistics101 is to simple that should be no difficult task). As far as i understood and see the data Lenski and coworkers did the best to exclude this Hypothesis, however i did not run own simulations (And I won't do it, because i think nothing will come out - furthermore Mr. Schlaflys personal style in the communication "you have to try harder" is not the style i am used to be adressed by people whose qualification in a subject is appearlingly nor more than mine). So running the simulation, evaluating his own hypothesis using a valid statistical method is now Mr. Schlaflys job - if he come up with a decent calculation showing this Hypothesis is more likely, the letter would for sure be accepted and Lenksi would have to react. If Mr. Schlafly is not the first author of the letter he could evade the critics after that by saying that he was misunderstood, which means somebody else take the risk of submitting the letter, but in case of success Mr. Schlafly would take the glory. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 20:10, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::I would prefer that Mr. Schlafly submit his objections to PNAS directly as well, but since he has declined to do so the next best response is to submit it "on behalf of Conservapedia", which he has authorized above. I'll post the draft letter tomorrow, and it will credit him as the author unless I'm asked to include other individuals who contributed to the analysis. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:05, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I hope ASchlafly does offer a rebuttal of Lenski's flawed "study." However, if he does not, I am all for DinsdaleP's suggestion. I look forward to reading your draft. If you take all the objections that Conservapedians have raised to Lenski's paper, I do not see how PNAS can possibly object.--[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 11:28, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== Expertise in Statistics ==
I don’t mind admitting that I have none! The article states that Lenski combined the three trials incorrectly and that he doesn’t make the insignificance of the third clear. Now it may well be very clear to others but, unfortunately, the article doesn’t make clear to people like me what was wrong. Can someone expand on this point? Is anyone able to explain to a layman what Lenski should have done and the conclusions he should have reached? It's all getting a little technical for me. --[[User:Billd|Bill Dean]] 12:10, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

: OK, here's point 4 in layman's terms: Lenski's hypotheses of a mutation rate imply that a ten-fold increase in sample size should result in a ten-fold increase in mutations. But it doesn't. In fact, a nearly ten-fold increase in sample size results in only a slight increase in mutations in Lenski's data. These data, as presented by Lenski in his paper, suggest (if properly interpreted) that there is no mutation rate at all. Rather, these data are more consistent with occasional contamination, broadly defined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::Except that the growth pattern of the Cit+ cells in the third replay experiment demonstrated that there were no Cit+ cells in the cultures at the time of plating. Control plates with a mix of Cit- and Cit+ cells were done which showed rapid development of Cit+ colonies, whereas the experimental plates did not show any Cit+ colonies for at least 8 days and up to 28 days. If you believe that the plates became randomly contaminated during the course of the incubation, rather than at the initial plating, the post-plating contamination should have affected all generations equally, but it did not--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 12:46, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

::Blount et al. discussed the unexpectedly low Cit+ conversion rate for the third replay set in the supplementary document. They have some speculations but don't know why it occurred. They are dealing with low probability events. I don't agree that the 'proper' interpretation is contamination. First, they isolated and tested each Cit+ isolate for the markers and sequences we've discussed on earlier Conservapedia pages. Second, the distribution of Cit+ isolates does not appear to be random: They correlate strongly with the later generations. If undetected contamination was random, it's unlikely the Monte Carlo resampling tests would reject the null hypothesis of the 'rare-mutation' hypothesis over the 'potentiated' hypothesis. As Brossa correctly notes, contamination would have affected all generations. Blount et al. write in the paper's supplement: "To facilitate handling and minimize possible confounding variables, we divided this third experiment into 20 blocks of 14 clones each. All of the clones within a block came from different generations, and the single ancestral clone was included in all 20 blocks."--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:01, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
::: Good and detailed analyis and conclusion, Argon. I had no time to read everything in that detail, but i think you present exactly the arguments (contant background would favour rare mutation hypothesis) would be exactly the one i had in mind, so let's see how Mr. Schlafly will bend his own Monte-Carlo simulations to showing several 1000 times no mutation into accordance with any reasonable background explaining a significant number of counts in *some* samples --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 20:20, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: The above comments are non-responsive. The essence of ''both'' of Lenski's hypotheses is that there is a fixed, or stepped, mutation rate. But any such rate would be roughly proportional with sample size. Yet his three experiments prove otherwise, which Lenski fails to address in a satisfactory manner. Indeed, Lenski's presentation of his data disproves the very thing he claims to have shown.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:40, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

::::: Mr. Schlafly, please answer: Which the of the two hypotheses is, according to your calculations the most likely? --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 20:47, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::The first replay experiment was run under different conditions - roughly 3700 generations in continuous subcultures. One can't compare population sizes or rates between the first and last two replay experiments. As I noted, Blount et al. acknowledged the possible anomaly of lower than expected mutants in the third run. Still, the second and third experiments were run under different conditions. The plates in the second replay experiment were seeded with fewer cells per plate than in the third experiment. That change can affect the survival rates of cells on plates over time (e.g. different rates of nutrient exhaustion). Given the extremely low mutation rates involved, there is no simple means of normalizing the numbers of mutants recovered for the second and third experiments. One might expect 'roughly' 10x more mutants in the third experiment but that's truly a 'rough' estimate that would be affected by conditions under which cells are exposed. It's certainly a question that remains and they may be able to clear up with future research. In any case, the pattern of data does not support Andy's claims of contamination or that the hypotheses of the paper is in error.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:27, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Argon, you have free will and it's clear to me that you are going to exercise it to the point of embracing absurdities. This time you claim that "extremely low mutation rates" would not result in mutations that scale with sample size (of course they would), and that density completely alters mutation rate (if that silly claim were true, then Lenski's experiment was flawed from the get-go). Your belief system is remarkable, but it's not logical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:38, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Fair enough, but let's be clear: That's my take on the paper and that of most of the scientists who reviewed the paper, read the paper and commented upon the paper so far. For that matter, Michael Behe didn't call the data flawed, nor did those commentators at Dembski's Uncommon Dissent blog, nor did Dr. Georgia Purdom at Answers in Genesis. In contast, those who think the work is flawed appears to be limited mostly to you, Andy. It is true that 'scaling' was not seen in this case but as we've seen, the conditions were not quite the same and it is known that this can have an impact.

::::::::However, the fact that the conditions were not identical doesn't detract from the fact that the emergence of Cit+ clones *still* correlated with the sampling of the later generations. What this means is that with three separate experiments and under three sets of conditions, the constant-rate-mutation hypothesis doesn't hold. What the differences between the second and third replay experiments demonstrates is that they were run under different conditions that affected the overall rate of conversion, not that the 'potentiated mutation' hypothesis is wrong. Those are actually distinct questions. Andy, the data simply does not support your claims that the cultures were contaminated (we'd expect random distribution), or that the 'scaling' variations ruined the experiment. In my opinion, you seem focused on red herrings to the exclusion of evaluating the data in the overall context of the experiment which demonstrates a correlation of Cit+ clones emerging from samples taken at later generations. Would you care to address that pattern and discuss why your 'contamination hypothesis' doesn't appear to hold up?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 09:29, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::::There is nothing absurd in what Argon said. As he mentioned, the third experiment was performed under different conditions and at a different time than the first or second experiments. The key here is that there are plenty of variables, some unknown, that simply aren't controlled for between the experiments. For example, take the fact that it was performed at a different point in time than the first two. The third experiment, then, is almost certainly being performed with different batches of growth media, liquid and solid. Anyone who has spent any significant time growing cells knows that media can vary significantly in growth characteristics between batches, despite the same recipe being used. The reasons for this can be many. Perhaps the balance or pH meter was off calibration one day, or a different bottle of reagent was used. Take an analytical chemistry course, you'll spend plenty of time talking about this. It is true that, for the most part, this sort of variability has minimal impact. But when you're examining something like an extremely rare mutation, or you're trying to make an extremely accurate measurement, intra-lab variability like this can be significant. For an extremely rare mutation like Cit+, which involved at least two additional mutations in potentiated cells, any change in mutation rate can have a significant effect on your ability to obtain mutants. Mutation rate is sensitive to growth conditions, so cells grown in different conditions are likely to experience a different rate of Cit+ mutation.

:::::::Regardless of the reason for the lower-than-expected number of Cit+ mutants in the third experiment, however, the Cit+ mutants isolated absolutely did not arise from contamination. This is clear if you read the paper. You're still left, then, with the two hypotheses presented, and the results support historical contingency.[[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 09:45, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
Is there anyone here with expertise in statistics who could give an analysis? [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 16:15, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

:Hello Fyezall. I rearranged the position of your question to hopefully keep the conversations clearer. It boils down to this: The researchers found that mutant Cit+ strains arose over the course of time in their long term growth experiment. They wanted to learn something about how that strain acquired this ability. They wondered, 'Was this the result of a single, very low frequency mutation or did some other mutation have to precede it in earlier generations, followed by the final mutation(s) that allowed the cells to grow on citrate?'

:If the Cit+ change required a single mutation with a low but constant probability over time one would expect Cit+ mutations to be distributed across cells taken from any generation of the experiment. On the other hand, if a 'potentiating' mutation had to arise at some point in the cultures before the final Cit+ mutation could function, then one would expect the probability for Cit- cells to mutate to Cit+ cells would increase with samples of cells taken from later cultures.

:Blount ran the experiment and found that Cit+ mutants arose more frequently in cells taken from later generations in the culture. The Monte Carlo resampling tests were used to assess how likely the pattern of results would fit the models. The statistical significance (smaller P-values mean greater significance), was calculated for each experiment and the combination of experiments. The numbers suggest the distribution of mutants was not randomly distributed across the experimental generations, they tended to appear in cells taken from the later generations. This would argue against the single-mutation, constant, low-probability hypothesis. It appears that a pre-adaptive mutation had to have arisen first, followed by the mutation that finally allowed the cells to utilized citrate. Future work in Lenski's lab will focus on trying to identify the various mutations involved. I hope this brief explanation helps.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:25, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

==What I have noticed==
I tell you what strikes me the most about this discussion - Its watching evolutionists do whatever they can to keep their precious beliefs above question or scrutiny. Its as if they know that it will come toppling down so they must resort to side-lining the hard questions.
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 21:43, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
==[[Social Text]]==
This well known hoax ''does'' support Aschlalfy's position that the paper was reviewed by PNAC ''rather quickly'', since (apparently) the paper supported the editors/reviewers point of view. Perhaps this would have beeen better placed on the [[Richard Lenski]] page rather than here since this deals only with the 6/10/08 PNAS paper ''per se'' and not the review process. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 12:45, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Idiom

2008-07-01T22:45:06Z

MargeryCampbell: /* Examples of Idiomatic Expressions */ there's probably a slew of these

An '''idiom''' is an expression or phrase whose meaning cannot be understood based on a literal definition of the words. Instead, it refers to a figurative meaning that is known only through common use. In [[linguistic|linguistics]], idioms are widely assumed to be [[figures of speech]].

==Examples of Idiomatic Expressions==

*'''"Bread and Circuses"''' is a phrase used by [[Rome|Roman]] writers to deplore the decline in heroism in the Romans after the [[Roman Republic]] ceased to exist and the [[Roman Empire]]'s ascendancy. The phrase is: "Two things only the people anxiously desire--bread and circuses." This was because the Roman government kept their population peaceful by providing free food and presenting huge spectacles at the Coloseum. Bread and circuses has come to mean government policies that short term solutions to public unrest.

*'''"That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."''' (Matthew 5:45). This familar quote from Our Lord is understood in most of the world ''exactly '''backwards!''''' In the time and the place, (first century [[Palestine]]), it was the '''rain''' that would have been considered the "blessing", as the desert climate of the area already has plenty of sunshine. More sun than the usual amount was considered a "curse".

*To '''''Bite the bullet''''' is to adjust to unpleasant circumstances: "The extreme drought is forcing everyone to '''bite the bullet''' and use less water." Historically, before [[anesthesia]], surgeons operating on the wounded gave them a bullet to bite to help withstand the pain. Thus, idiomatically, when one '''bites the bullet''' they are preparing themselves to courageously suffer.

*'''Death and taxes''' in the [[United States]], is cultural shorthand for two certainties in life. The phrase is "In this world nothing is certain by death and taxes." The saying comes from [[Benjamin Franklin]].

*'''Handbags at 5 yards''' is an expression to mean a small amount of pushing and shoving that does not amount to much. It is used particularly in relation to sport, especially rugby union.

*'''Kick the bucket''' simply means "to die". Though the origin is obscure [http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/218800.html some] think [[William Shakespeare| the bard]] may have hefted this idiom into immortality. Other "to die" euphemisms include: '''Bought the farm''', '''Deep sixed''' (graves are traditioanlly six feet deep).
[[Category:Idioms]]

Idiom

2008-07-01T22:15:25Z

MargeryCampbell: /* Examples of Idiomatic Expressions */

Talk:Death and Taxes

2008-07-01T22:14:20Z

MargeryCampbell: C&P to idiom

Moving to [[idiom]]. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 18:14, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Carpe diem

2008-07-01T22:13:17Z

MargeryCampbell: Not an idiom?

I'm leaving this here as I believe it to be a [[maxim]] not specifically a idiom. But we can has this out later. (I'll leave the category). [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 18:13, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Idiom

2008-07-01T22:11:06Z

MargeryCampbell: /* Examples of Idiomatic Expressions */

Talk:Bite the bullet

2008-07-01T22:10:06Z

MargeryCampbell: New page: Moving this enmass to idiom. ~~~~

Moving this enmass to [[idiom]]. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 18:10, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Idiom

2008-07-01T22:07:43Z

MargeryCampbell: /* Examples of Idiomatic Expressions */ please take your OWN advise Margy