Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Soccer

2012-09-01T16:50:31Z

PatMc:

Soccer is the term used in [[North America]] to refer to what is more commonly known as "football". The name derived in [[England]] as slang for "Association Football" (a similar construction can be seen in referring to [[rugby]] as "rugger"), it is the most popular sport in the world although it has failed to gain popularity in the [[United States]] and [[Canada]].

----
*most popular sport in the world
*not as popular in US & Canada as which other sports?
*derivation of name: ''soc'' in "Association"?
::Done and referenced. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

*called "football" everywhere but North America?
:: Futebal, fussball, le foot, futbol, de voetbal, calcio. Is that enough evidence? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Evidence of what? That it's called "football" everywhere? Because I think that's pretty conclusive. All of those mean "football", except for "calcio", which means "kicking." In Chinese, it is "foot+ball", zuqiu, 足球. Basically, football is football, and soccer is an ugly name that doesn't express what the game is. And "football" is by far the most common name - about 400,000,000 Europeans use terms that are identical in meaning or even sound, 1,300,000,000 Chinese use a term that means "football", and the inventors of the sport use the term "football". If the site as a whole prefers the use of "soccer", then fine, but it's not an accurate article in a sense. [[User:Blackjuice|Blackjuice]] 10:59, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Fun fact: "calcio" also means calcium! [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 17:42, 22 December 2009 (EST)

It's called soccer in Australia, though the name football is gaining popularity (they are trying to compare Australian soccer to World Football). It is still commonly refered to as soccer by the public at large. [[User:Hannibal ad portas|Hannibal ad portas]] 21:42, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't it be categorised under Sports? I saw that categorisation was just removed. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 16:01, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:Hello, soccer is a sub-category of sports. Generally speaking, we try to move materials to sub-categories when they exist. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:04, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

==Name==
Why is this sport being called soccer, when in pretty much all of the world it is called football? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:38, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Because this is an American website. It ''is'' noted in the article that it's called "football" outside the U.S. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:49, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Ah, I didn't realise that. So everything here is written from the point of view of the United States? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:42, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::Do you see the Conservapedia logo on the upper left? That should sufficiently answer your question. Of course, this is little different from Wikipedia, which typically uses American spelling, terms and phrases. (When they try to be world-minded over there, it just ends up being silly or confusing. The WP article about soccer is titled "Association football." People are going to look at that rarely used phrase and think, "What the heck is that?") [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:44, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Etymology ==

The suggestion that the game is called "football" not because the ball is kicked with the foot but because it is played "on foot" rather than on horseback is a myth. It is a myth which has gained popularity in reason years, especially on the internet, but citing a website which puts this theory forward does not stop it being a myth. See for example [http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19960509 this] etymology website which states that the reason it was named football was because of kicking the ball.

The argument in the previously cited [http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/collection/fa-cup/biography/history-of-football source] is that football developed in the middle ages as "a game played by ordinary people, as distinct from the team games of the nobility which were played on horseback". This would make some sense, ''if'' there were any examples of team ball games played on horseback during this period. There were not. The only notable equine ball game is polo, which was played in the middle east since ancient times, but not in the English speaking world until the 19th century, several centuries after the first use of the word "football". Medieval and early modern equine sports in Europe were largely variants on jousting or combat, which did not involve balls. There were numerous ball games, all played on foot, such as tennis, croquet, bowls and stoolball (the origin of cricket). Since football was the only game which involved kicking the ball, this is the most probable reason for the origin of the name.

However, since there is disagreement on this issue, and this is likely to continue, it is probably better to keep any mention of the origin of the word "football" out of the article. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 14:49, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

==Changes==

I rewrote a large portion of the article to remove the redundant facts. In a short article, the information about soccer and football being the same game was repeated three times. As was the rule about not using hands. I hope this helps. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 15:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

: Sorry, but there are several more cases with the ball in play. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:01, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::Can you please give me any example of when a player is allowed to use his hands while the ball is in play? And also, if you want to remove or rework that phrase, fine. But why do you revert the entire change to add back in the redundant passages? [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 12:52, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::: Those "redundant passages" make more clear the problem of hands. With the clock runing any player can touch the ball with hands in several cases like: corners, penalties, side throws (saque de banda), goal kick, etc. (Sorry, I am not familiar with the correct name in English.) It has to be clair that non intentional touch is also permitted. That Does not appear in your edits. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:01, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::The clock running and the ball in play are two different things altogether. During a corner, or a throw or any of the other examples you've noted, the ball is not in play. If you and I were on opposite teams, and I got a throw in, you can't make a play on the ball until it leaves my hands. That's what I mean by in play. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 14:15, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: I see your point and agree with it. Now you have to say the same thing in the article; It was you who start talking about "ball in play"; before it was more general; please make clear both cases. OK? Also: ''It has to be clear that non intentional touch is also permitted.'' --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 16:06, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Agreed, I'll start on that as soon as I have the time. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 16:49, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Joaquín and Nate, you seen to be working the most on this article. Can I make a suggestion? We should have a section with Rules (this would be a good place for the Soccer Pitch image) and then another section with world popularity, the [[World Cup]], [[FIFA]] and great players. Unfortunately I don't think I know enough about the sport to make significant contributions. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 00:16, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

: Welcome to the soccer team. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 00:23, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

== Great Players ==

I've tried to make this more representative. Any other suggestions? (Alberto di Stefano? Bobby Charlton? Gordon Banks? Bobby Moore? Michel Platini?) And what about the pre-war era? I imagine most of the names there would come from English or Scottish club football. [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 19:48, 18 January 2009 (EST)

== Socialist sport? ==

It seems to me that calling soccer a socialist sport is a bit subjective. I disagree with everything socialist, but I enjoy watching soccer more than I do football. --[[User:Dfrischknecht|Dfrischknecht]] 16:54, 5 July 2010 (EDT)

:Are you the mountain bike guy? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:21, 5 July 2010 (EDT)

:Anyway, as to Soccer.....The only thing more predictable than Barack Obama blaming George W. Bush and BP is that when you flip over to World Cup coverage, the score will be 0-0. I don't care who is playing or where you are in the game...er, match. It will be 0-0. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:23, 5 July 2010 (EDT)

::I'd rather see the socialism section shortened, with a longer version moved to [[Essay:Soccer and socialism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:45, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

This socialism thing really gotta go. It's logically incoherent, and here's why:
The No Hand rule doesn't mean taxes, come on... It just puts in an extra challenge. All sports are challenges, not using your hand is the key challenge in soccer.
The Off-Side rule prohibits a player from just standing around near the opposing side's goal, rather than actually working. Besides there's an offside rule in Ice Hockey as well.
"The game forbids frequent stops, which can be compared to "carbon footprint" efforts to fight supposed global warming." This one is just stupid. The efforts to avoid frequent stops is just to enhance the intensity.
"Soccer is very bureaucratic, and teams are very much tied to their countries." Yes, when the national associations play, they are tied to their nations, but most of the soccer games played are between clubs, not nations, and these clubs are just as commercial as any other professional sports club. There's no more bureaucracy in FIFA than in the MLB.
"The US is often treated unfairly by other nations in the game, one reason being soccer's lack of popularity in the US - socialism always claimed to favor the absolute will of the majority rather than personal and economic freedom of the individual." This is false. The reason for the repeated failures of the US teams at the World Cup is caused by too little competition in the North American region, with only 2 strong teams, US and Mexico.
"The World Cup trophy resembles socialist Hollywood's Emmy Award." I honestly thought the World Cup trophy looked more like the NLF trophy.
"In youth leagues, everyone gets a trophy for their efforts regardless of achievement, and there is no scoring in the game." That is a socialist attitude used exclusively in the US, and it is NOT part of the rules given by FIFA.
"Even the World Cup encourages "achievement" by holding a third-place game for the two losers in the semifinals." Much like the Wild Card Race in MLB.
"Union strikes, even during the playing season, are a major issue with soccer." Yes, and that never happened in any American sports such as Baseball, hockey or NFL... Oh wait...
"Riots caused by "hooligans" - fans of a team which lost a game - often include violent crimes, such as infringement on private property rights." Soccer riots are rare these days, and they just use soccer as a polariser, they could have used any other sport too.

:The connection between soccer and socialism is ridiculous. The section simply detracts from the article. Just because you don't happen to like something doesn't make it socialist. [[User:BenDylan|BenDylan]] 01:20, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

American sports are the most socialist of all! Hear me out, please. First of all, the worst teams get first pick at the best players in the draft. If this isn't Socialist, I don't know what is. And this is exclusively used by all four major sports in the United States. In Soccer, it's a free market, with teams able to bid as high as they want for the best players with little regulation or intervention by their respective leagues. Of course, this creates a lack of parity such that leagues tend to be dominated by a small subset of teams (see: Barca/Madrid, ManU/Chelsea/Arsenal, etc.). Of course, I think the American system is better, as it gives all teams a better chance to compete. (Note: THIS DOES NOT MAKE ME A SOCIALIST.) In a way, sports exhibit possibly the ONLY proper application of "socialist" policies, and it only works because of the small scale of sporting leagues. Jeez, there are so many more examples it's ridiculous. Like this: The NBA, NHL, and NFL all have salary caps, which are designed to ensure super rich teams can't dominate year after year. The NBA has a "soft" cap, which means they can have payrolls above the salary cap, but for every dollar the Lakers spend above the salary cap, they have to pay a "luxury tax" which then gets distributed to teams with lower payrolls. For Heaven's sake, it's a "tax" that goes to less wealthy teams! It's LITERALLY designed to "spread the wealth." So, in summary, while socialism is certainly not something that can work on a national scale, it has and does work in American sports. So for the sake of not insulting the intelligence of sports fans who happen to read this site, I suggest removing this section entirely. Thanks. [[User:Ballncheney|Ballncheney]] 5:16, July 06, 2011 (PDT)

::Here's what you should know. Liberalism is a waste of words. Review the chart [http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2011/06/basketball-play.html] and get back to me BC.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:43, 6 July 2011 (EDT)

:::You're right about liberalism, but I don't think I understand your point. Besides not refuting or arguing any of my points, I think you're just implying I'm a lib because I know about basketball. You're wrong. Basketball fans tend to be libs because many of them are black (who vote overwhelmingly for dems). I'm neither black nor liberal, so your whole point is moot. Either way, MLB also has a luxury tax (they call it a "competitive balance tax") and a revenue sharing program that works very similarly to the NBA. [[User:Ballncheney|Ballncheney]] 12:21, July 07, 2011 (PDT)

::::I understand your point- American sports are the most socialist. We are not going to remove the reference to soccer because of your argument. Also, when blacks only make up 14% of the population, the popularity of basketball reaches far beyond skin color. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:28, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I don't mind if you don't remove it. I'm just content with you acknowledging I'm right. But you seem to have a very limited knowledge of statistics, so I won't try to beat it into you. If you want to think that only 14% of basketball fans are black simply because 14% of the population is, I won't stop you. Do you think 14% of all sports' fans are black? Nascar? Tennis? I seriously hope you don't think that. I will say one last time that if anyone with the most basic knowledge of sports read this article, they would laugh hysterically like I did. [[User:Ballncheney|Ballncheney]] 12:46, July 07, 2011 (PDT)

::::::Yes, you lost me there ''sport''. Sorry I don't understand your rant. What do you expect, I'm a little slow. Great job on reducing your reply to a few sentences. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:11, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

== Where the socialism thing came from and why it's there. ==

Let me explain where the socialism section came from. I had seen on the main page that day, there was a front page news entry from a blog (possibly two or three blogs) comparing soccer to socialism. I don't remember if the blogs were being serious or satirical, but it was on the front page of Conservapedia. I then happened to stumble on the Soccer article and noticed it had been changed to "a popular Socialist football sport" with no explanation given. As the front page gets replaced with new news, I took the Socialism into its own section, sourcing the original blogs, to avoid the Soccer article not making sense and sounding silly. As this has become quite a topic for debate, I just thought I should mention what the section is about, and where it came from, before we make any decisions. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 00:22, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

== Reasons for being socialist ==

Alright, I'm new here, so please be understanding. I'm not sure how some of the reasons listed even begin to make sense. The number of words necessary to play soccer? What about baseball or NASCAR? Do players or drivers need an extensive vocabulary in either of these sports? I think that, and the fact that trophies going to everyone seems to happen in all youth sports in general make it a bit contrived. If no one objects I will remove them. [[User:GiveMeLiberty|GiveMeLiberty]] 13:24, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

==Violence==

*Riots caused by "hooligans" - fans of a team which lost a game - often include violent crimes, such as infringement on private property rights.

Don't know what that has to do with socialism, but it should be put back (somewhere) in the article. Maybe "Latins" are more hot-blooded? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:42, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

Football Hooliganism here in England was largely down to far right neo-nazi groups. Thankfully it has now all but been eradicated but the philosophy remains. Many former thugs have turned up as leaders and agitators of the English Defence League. A far right protest group, a groups that invited "pastor" Terry Jones to speak at one of there rallies. Thankfully that nasty slimeball of a man was banned from entering the UK.
Football hooliganism is NOT SOCIALIST.

Talk:British National Party

2012-08-30T16:50:08Z

PatMc:

I removed falsehoods from this article. Conservapedia shouldn't allow falsehoods. [[User:HoraceM|HoraceM]] 18:12, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:Not falsehoods according to the [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/BNP_uk_manifesto.pdf BNP's own published manifesto] [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm talking about reality. In reality, the party no longer supports forced repatriation of coloured peoples. I personally find that to be a stain on our parties conscience, but it is no longer the case. [[User:HoraceM|HoraceM]] 18:45, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Please Fox, lets not taint us with the anti-semitic brush. We are not anti-semitic. Look up Patricia Richardson. [[User:HoraceM|HoraceM]] 18:56, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:I know all about the Epping Forest councillor, thanks. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:58, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

The BNP has one representative on the GLA, which is arguably a regional-level rather than local authority. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:10, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
:The London Assembly, of which that person is an elected member, is a body which oversees the Mayor's budget and can make recommendations to him about his local policy. I'd hardly say it was anything like a regional - or even a local, in the accepted sense - politician, despite what the neo-nazis would have us think. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 06:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

== Repatriation?? ==

The BNP does not support repatriation of non-Whites, it merely states that under a BNP government non-Europeans will be regarded as permanent guests, but still fully protected by the law.

[[User:Alfred123|Alfred]]

It's quite wrong to categorise the BNP as neo-Nazi. It's ironic that a hard conservative website like this clearly sympathises with anti-BNP campaigners, who are generally left-wing, comprising members of the SWP etc.

==Liberals?!==
A majority of people in the UK are opposed to the BNP. That includes both conservatives and liberals. [[User:Danielspence]]

The BNP are a bunch of football hooligans that can't get away with preaching their bile at Upton Park or The Den anymore.
Lets get this straight, The BNP are racist,facist,thugs.
However, a point in their favour, they are at least honest, unlike the Insidious English Defence league, who pretend they are nice guys protecting the streets from extremism, a point blown out of the water when they invited "pastor" Terry Jones to speak at a rally

Talk:British National Party

2012-08-30T16:49:01Z

PatMc:

I removed falsehoods from this article. Conservapedia shouldn't allow falsehoods. [[User:HoraceM|HoraceM]] 18:12, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:Not falsehoods according to the [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/BNP_uk_manifesto.pdf BNP's own published manifesto] [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm talking about reality. In reality, the party no longer supports forced repatriation of coloured peoples. I personally find that to be a stain on our parties conscience, but it is no longer the case. [[User:HoraceM|HoraceM]] 18:45, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Please Fox, lets not taint us with the anti-semitic brush. We are not anti-semitic. Look up Patricia Richardson. [[User:HoraceM|HoraceM]] 18:56, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:I know all about the Epping Forest councillor, thanks. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:58, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

The BNP has one representative on the GLA, which is arguably a regional-level rather than local authority. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:10, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
:The London Assembly, of which that person is an elected member, is a body which oversees the Mayor's budget and can make recommendations to him about his local policy. I'd hardly say it was anything like a regional - or even a local, in the accepted sense - politician, despite what the neo-nazis would have us think. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 06:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

== Repatriation?? ==

The BNP does not support repatriation of non-Whites, it merely states that under a BNP government non-Europeans will be regarded as permanent guests, but still fully protected by the law.

[[User:Alfred123|Alfred]]

It's quite wrong to categorise the BNP as neo-Nazi. It's ironic that a hard conservative website like this clearly sympathises with anti-BNP campaigners, who are generally left-wing, comprising members of the SWP etc.

==Liberals?!==
A majority of people in the UK are opposed to the BNP. That includes both conservatives and liberals. [[User:Danielspence]]

The BNP are a bunch of football hooligans they can't get away with preaching their bile and Upton Park or The Den anymore.
Lets get this straight, The BNP are racist,facist,thugs.
However, a point in their favour, they are at least honest, unlike the Insidious English Defence league, who pretend they are nice guys protecting the streets from extremism, a point blown out of the water when they invited "pastor" Terry Jones to speak at a rally

Talk:England

2012-08-30T02:35:05Z

PatMc:

== "center(ed)" around ==
I don't suppose there can be a ban on the phrase "center(ed)" around. Not only is it ungrammatical, it is geometrically impossible. ((Surely the thing it is around would be the center! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:09, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

== Religion ==
23-OCT-2007 - It has to be said your section on Religion leaves a lot to be desired. For a start Religion plays very little part of the daily life of the English; and It has to be noted most of the English are not practising anything and are in fact rather hostile to organised religions, though not the individuals who practise. To state anything otherwise is a plain untruth no matter what you would like to believe. {{unsigned|AJCG}}

:You are free to improve the article, although I'm not sure that I totally agree with your assessment of the situation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:27, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

==History ==
I hope I'm not nitpicking, but Henry VII is one of our best-known kings. The Wars of the Roses are a key part of the history curriculum in state schools, I believe - and every child knows how to remember the colours of the rainbow: Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain. I won't change this myself, but would welcome others' viewpoint.[[User:Sophierabbitte|Sophierabbitte]] 12:36, 10 January 2011 (EST)

Some of the people in my class forgot who was prime minister in WW2, and when WW2 even ended. One of them was doing history as a qualification. I rest my case.
== Socialism? ==

Why is this in the intro? Give examples! We have a conservative government for Pete's sake who don't give a hoot about the poor!

== Small edit ==

I changed the part where it said that the monarchy remained permanently "french". Even if the joining between Stephen of Blois and Empress Matilda is seen as "French", the glorious rebellion changes the monarchy entirely to being English. [[User:StevenH|StevenH]] 18:14, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

'''ANGLOPHOBIA?'''[[[[Link title]]--[[User:PatMc|PatMc]] 22:35, 29 August 2012 (EDT)]]

The more I read the more I feel this is the case.
We are more religious than you think, It is just we don't go shouting our mouths of about it.
And entries that criticise our sport, our spelling, our Church and believe it or not, our CONSERVATISM, which, because it does not have a strong religious element is somehow liberal, and I am offended to be called a liberal.

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars

2012-08-29T18:59:49Z

PatMc:

Mr Schlafly: this is such a great insight. I'm really impressed by some of the powerful conservative thinking on CP. Do you think most sports players are conservative because being successful at sport means being competitive? i.e trying to do your best instead of being a liberal wuss and complaining about other people doing well. Is it OK to add conservatives in UK sports like rugby, cricket and football? [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 17:26, 26 November 2011 (EST)

:Competitive sports is a [[meritocracy]], which is a [[conservative]] value. Liberals prefer to "spread the wealth," which in sports would mean leveling the wins and losses.

:Please do add legitimate examples from around the world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 26 November 2011 (EST)

::I agree this is a fascinating page; enough so that I joined to help edit! Many athletes praise God in postgame interviews, etc., across all sports. I wonder if there's a way to work that into this page? [[User:LeRoyB|LeRoyB]] 17:18, 28 November 2011 (EST)

== Football ==

Hi Andy, For Gavin Peacock, you changed "football" to "soccer" but you've left the sport beside some other people's names (Tim Tebow and Kurt Warner - sorry, I've never heard of them) as plain "football". Does that mean American football? (like rugby league with padding). Shouldn't we change "football" for those guys to "American football" so as not to confuse people outside the USA? Otherwise, this is a great page - and I don't see any nit-picky socialists whining about any of their guys being top sports(wo)men! [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 18:07, 28 November 2011 (EST)
: I disagree. It is pretty obvious that football is American football. What the Europeans call football is really called "Association football" or "soccer" for short. [[User:JamieM|JamieM]] 20:36, 28 November 2011 (EST)
:: It's not obvious to people outside the USA. And I think you'll find that football was invented in England. (Except I expect archaeologists will find it came from France, like cricket...)[[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 16:36, 29 November 2011 (EST)

:::I am for getting rid of the non-American stars. At a minimum, a separate section. Plus, we do need to some conservative women on this page. Who follows women's sports in the Olympics, WNBA, NCAA Basketball, Fast Pitch Softball?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:25, 29 November 2011 (EST)
::::I would expect that the American flag on the Conservapedia logo should give plenty of evidence that this is an American site. Anyone used to visiting sites outside their home country should be aware that "football" means different things in different countries (there's Australian, Canadian, and Gaelic - association football is by no means the only "football" outside the U.S.) and that in the USA it means American football. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 16:50, 11 March 2012 (EDT)

== Track and Field ==

Would Al Oerter qualify? He was the greatest discus thrower ever, one of only two athletes to win their event at four conservative Olympics. He was critical of the "drug culture" that had overtaken sports when he finally retired (at an age much older than when most athletes retire). He criticized steroid use.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:21, 30 November 2011 (EST)

== Sunday Sport ==

Can anyone clarify the actual significance of playing sport on a Sunday? Many people are included here for refusing to play on Sunday, and yet Lewis Hamilton is listed, when his sport take place exclusively on Sundays. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:26, 30 November 2011 (EST)
: Perhaps God has guided Ewen Murray to honour Him by observing the Sabbath, but Lewis Hamilton to glorify Him with outstanding achievements on the Sabbath. Questioning how the Lord has revealed himself to different people is awfully dangerous territory. Be humble enough to understand that He is working in different ways in different people with perfect wisdom. [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 19:30, 30 November 2011 (EST)
:: You may well be right [[User:HollyS|HollyS]], but the problem is this page is not about sports stars who have been moved to act in particular ways by God; it's about conservative sports stars. It's hardly conservative to say that any behaviour is laudable as long as it's guided by God. Conservationism (thought I hate to oversimplify) is about sticking to some very strict ideas of what is right and what is wrong.--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:38, 2 December 2011 (EST)

== Maradona ==

I don't think Maradona should be on this list. First of all, the "Hand of God" Goal was actually a cheated goal. Maradona touched the ball with his hand and later called it the Hand of God... 
His personal life, according to the other Wiki, seems not so conservative as well. Maradona is divorced, cheated on his ex-wife, was addicted to cocaine and is nowadays very much befriended with Fidel Castro (according to TOW, he has a tattoo of Castro and Che Guevara) and highly critical of George W. Bush and the United States in general.--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 08:20, 12 December 2011 (EST)
:We don't use the other wiki as a source of information, but I agree that Maradona is not conservative at all. Here is a video of Maradona talking at a Hugo Chavez speech. It is in Spanish, what Maradona says is: "Argentina is a worthy country. Lets throw Bush out!" [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzYNxAb36cI] --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 12:33, 12 December 2011 (EST)
:: Thanks for the info cooncerning the use of TOW. I crosschecked it with the German version, but was otherwise just too busy to find reliable data. I knew though beforehand, from reliable sources, that the "Hand of God" Goal had nothing to do with God, but was at best Maradona joking or at worst being blasphemous. À Dieu--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 13:05, 12 December 2011 (EST)

== Moe Berg ==

Was Moe Berg really a conservative? I could not find any information on his political views. Being a spy ''during'', not ''before'' WWII, seems insufficient to make him a conservative. I thought he might have been conservative because he turned down the Medal of Freedom which would have been awarded by Harry Truman ( a Democrat), but I couldn't find anything on his reasons to do that either. Additionaly, from what I've read he was not really a great, but rather mediocre sports star, although an extremely interesting one. In conclusion: I don't think he belongs on this list. Any differing opinions?--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 12:28, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:Interesting comments. Does anyone else have information about this?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:38, 22 December 2011 (EST)

::I added him initially. One of our characteristics of a [[Conservative]] is the belief "A strong national defense." Keep in mind he was spying on Japan because there was a strong feeling that we might go to war with them; there were certainly tensions already, and being caught spying in such a context would have had serious consequences for Mr. Berg. Needless to say, no liberal would put his neck on the line like that! I'll go ahead and add him in a few days unless there are objections.[[User:LeRoyB|LeRoyB]] 14:58, 4 January 2012 (EST)

::: Well from what I've read, his spying on Japan consisted of him making a few videos from the roof of a hospital. I'm not quite sure if such an action would have lead to serious consequences. Seems more like normal tourist behaviour. I'm also not quite sure if he did the filming with the intention of spying, or if the OSS aproached him later asking for the film. But be that as it may. Another reason why I'm not too convinced about the national defense angle is that I've read that Mr. Berg mainly wanted to work for the CIA after the War, so he could travel on their expense, which was one of the reasons, why the CIA did not rehire him. As you can see from my comment above, I could not find any other signs that Mr. Berg was a conservative. He seems to have been rather apolitical. But if you want to readd him, be my guest. He was certainly a very interesting individual, that deserves to be admired.--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 15:12, 4 January 2012 (EST)

:::: All good points. In doing more research myself he does seem like more of an oddball than a hero, so I'll look around for some more inspiring entries. Thanks![[User:LeRoyB|LeRoyB]] 13:20, 6 January 2012 (EST)

== Possible Addition? ==

The Conservapedia article on Jeremy Lin talks about his strong Christian faith, and contains a quote of Lin talking about his faith. It looks like it would meet the criteria for "conservative" [[User:Sy20|Sy20]] 11:55, 24 March 2012 (EDT)

:Jeremy is a great person but I'm not sure he has achieved enough yet to make it on this esteemed list. Can you find quotes about his politics?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:24, 24 March 2012 (EDT)

== Ted Williams ==

Can we find a better example of media bias against Ted Williams? As I recall, the same year Ted hit .400, Joltin' Joe DiMaggio had a 56-game hit streak, and only one of them could win MVP. (Or they could tie in the voting, I guess, but you can't vote for Co-MVPs). Maybe I'm just biased since I'm a Yankees fan, but I think DiMaggio deserved it more that year. Either way, it's questionable. Can anyone think of anything? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 23:00, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

:DiMaggio's 56-game hit streak was spectacular, and one of the few baseball records that may never be broken. But a baseball season is 162 games (or 154 games then), and Ted Williams hit .400 over the entire season, not merely part of it.

:An analysis of the media voting shows it was bias that deprived Williams of the MVP that year. I think one sportswriter left Williams off his ballot entirely, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:19, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:: Fair enough Andy. I will add information on that sportswriter to the article to make it more clear. And like I said, it's questionable whether Williams or Dimmagio was more impressive. Williams could go 0-for-4 one day and get back on track by going 3-for-4 the next day. Jolting Joe didn't have that luxury. But this isn't a baseball debate, so let's end it. That information about Williams being left off the ballot does indeed show bias. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:46, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Your point is well-taken. I do think DiMaggio's 56-game hit streak is one of the greatest records in all of sports. After his streak was broken, he then had another hitting game streak after that, in the same season. Your edit to the content page is perfect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:44, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

== Rick Monday ==

I can find no proof of him being a conservative, per se, but he did once save an American Flag from a burning in 1976 during a Chicago Cubs - Los Angeles Dodgers game. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 18:25, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

:That rescue of the American flag -- which was widely publicized -- does suggest that Rick Monday is probably conservative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 10 June 2012 (EDT)
::Well, it is something I would do as well, although I'm not as conservative as most here. I'll add him to the list nonetheless. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 19:45, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

== Sir John Major ==

I am for deleting this entry. The person in question must be recognized for their sporting achievements. For example, I wanted to add Lou Holtz, but he is known for his coaching and not his days playing for Kent State. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:54, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

== If the speaker is obscure and irrelevent... ==

Then why include the quote? The quote isn't important unless the speaker is. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 12:53, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

== Moving quote about Tebow ==

Moving part of the quote about Tebow removes context. The analysist was talking about Tebow not being a team player, and him trying to draw attention to himself rather than the coach and starting quarterback. Without the context, the remaining quote could be interpreted by a reader as to apply to Tebow due to his religious beliefs - which ''it did not''. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:24, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:I clarified Tebow's entry based on my comment above. The way it was before implied the statement from the ESPN reporter referred to Tebow's religion. It wasn't, and without clarification, the quote is cherry-picking. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:38, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

==New Addition==
I'm not that good at wiki-code, so if someone better could put marathoner Ryan Hall up on the list, I believe he'd be a welcome addition. I first read about him [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/sports/olympics/faith-is-central-to-marathoner-ryan-halls-approach.html?_r=1 here], where when asked to list his coach on a form at a routine drug test, he answered "God" --[[User:Guitarsniper|Guitarsniper]] 22:54, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
:I added him. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:58, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

David Icke is a madman who thinks lizard men run the world.
Eric liddle was a deeply christian man, but he was a socialist who would turn in his grave to be called conservative.

Talk:South Park

2012-08-29T00:10:25Z

PatMc:

==Why make this?==

If it is so bad, then why talk about it? I mean i used to watch some of the movies with my cousins, but that was just to get a laugh. Is this worth updateing? Will N.

That is not a very good argument for deletion. We have an article on the holocaust, and last time I checked that was bad. Don't get me wrong; we should definitely delete this article. It's just that our only reason cannot be that it is ''bad''. [[User:David R|David R]]

I do not understand the concern. The article discussed the program accuaratly

== keep ==

This is a very respectfully stated and tasteful article about an extremely distasteful subject. If we leave out articles about the enemies of morality and religion, what use are we? That would be like leaving out an article on Satan because he is the Prince of Evil.

Article needs lots of expansion. It seems to focus on one reviewer's opinion of the South Park movie, to the detriment of the television series, or spin-off phenomena like "South Park Republicans." There's very little about SP's spat with Scientology, or the Muhammad censorship -- both of which were very public and attracted attention at conservative sites like FreeRepublic.com. And at one point there is a bolded exclamation that seems to address the author, which is just strange and kind of post-modern.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 21:10, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

== Atheists? ==

The article claims that atheists have been condemned along with pedophiles and terrorists. Can anyone give me evidence of this? While atheists are mocked, it is not more than any of the other groups the show goes after. They are definitely not in the same boat as pedophiles or terrorists.--[[User:Clintville|Clintville]], 06 August 2009

* The two-part episode "Go God Go"/"Go God Go XII" argues against claims that atheism will lead to world peace, and (immaturely) ridicules Richard Dawkins. (Creationists are also ridiculed in that same episode.) -[[User:Danq|danq]] 08:09, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

Although this is a very funny program and I don't have any issues (as such) with the content, I really did have a problem about how it was marketed, especially merchandising. I remember in the late 90s kids as young as 2 wearing "kenny coats" or repeating some obscenity Cartman uttered. This was never a childrens TV show and should never have been advertised as such.

Talk:Jamaica

2012-08-28T22:35:43Z

PatMc:

Ha! Sorry, saw a very obvious mistake here. Slavery in Jamaica was abolished in 1834, not 1934.

--[[User:PatMc|PatMc]] 18:35, 28 August 2012 (EDT)Jamaica's sprinting heritage

Can I add a section about sprinting in Jamaica as it is important to Jamaican culture as reggae music?--[[User:PatMc|PatMc]] 18:35, 28 August 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Jesse Kelly

2012-08-28T22:26:59Z

PatMc: Created page with "'''Kelly' USMC rank?''' The photo describes him as a sergeant but the article describes him as a corporal. Which is correct?--~~~~"

'''Kelly' USMC rank?'''
The photo describes him as a sergeant but the article describes him as a corporal.
Which is correct?--[[User:PatMc|PatMc]] 18:26, 28 August 2012 (EDT)

Overrated Sports Stars

2012-08-28T20:00:51Z

PatMc:

The [[lamestream media]] like to promote athletes based not on skill, but for [[liberal]] reasons. Here's a growing list of the most overrated sports stars (notice how none are on the list of [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]]):

#[[Andre Agassi]] — his rival [[Pete Sampras]] was far better, but Sampras is [[conservative]]. Agassi is a big donor to [[Democrat]] politicians.

#[[Kobe Bryant]] — not as valuable to the game as [[Jeremy Lin]]; hasn't won a title without super-coaching by Phil Jackson, who observes that Kobe is not on the high level of [[Michael Jordan]]; Kobe makes only 46% of his shots, and scores lots of points because he hogs the ball.
#[[LeBron James]] — 2012's NBA Finals MVP is far from the best player in the [[NBA]], he is way overrated by the liberal ESPN compared to Christian Kevin Durant
#[[Magic Johnson]] — lucky enough to play on [[Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]]'s Lakers to win some titles, but was crushed by [[Michael Jordan]] and the Bulls; no problem, Magic was a critic of President [[George H.W. Bush]], which thrilled liberals.
#*People look at him, and say, 'Hey, it's OK to get HIV because I'm living with it.' That is the wrong message. [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57319698/20-years-since-magic-johnsons-hiv-stunner/]
#[[Peyton Manning]] — a [[quarterback]] who won only one [[NFL]] championship, despite being voted by the media and others to be NFL MVP 4 times, AFC Player of the Year 6 times, and Pro Bowler 11 times. The [[liberal media]] treated him like the Second Coming of [[Christ]] in order to oust [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]] from his leadership position in the [[swing state]] of [[Colorado]] prior to the [[Presidential Election 2012]].
#[[Steve Nash]] — an [http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2009/3/25/809516/steve-nash-on-media-bias-t outspoken liberal who supported Obama], Nash was chosen ''twice'' by the [[lamestream media]] as the [[NBA]] MVP despite never leading his team to even an NBA Finals.
#[[Mark Sanchez]] — the [[New York Jets]] [[quarterback]] is being touted as the team's best QB over [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]] despite falling apart at the end of the 2011–12 season. Now that Tebow's on-board, [[liberals]] are championing the former [[USC]] star as the superior player despite his recently poor play.
#[[Tiger Woods]] — hasn't won a major golf tournament in four years, and yet he's still the only one liberals want to talk about while reporting on tournaments.
#[[Danica Patrick]] - Has won a single race in the Indy Car series, but has yet to win a race in either the NASCAR Sprint Cup or Nationwide series, finishing no higher than fourth, although ESPN promotes her first and foremost when showing highlights of the NASCAR races in which she participates.

#[[Wayne Rooney]] - Burst onto the scene as a 16 year old and called "The English Pele". 10 years on and he has still failed to fulfill his potential, especially at international level, and still behaves like a childish immature 16 year old.

(please revise or add to list)

[[Category:sports]]

Overrated Sports Stars

2012-08-28T20:00:07Z

PatMc:

The [[lamestream media]] like to promote athletes based not on skill, but for [[liberal]] reasons. Here's a growing list of the most overrated sports stars (notice how none are on the list of [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]]):

#[[Andre Agassi]] — his rival [[Pete Sampras]] was far better, but Sampras is [[conservative]]. Agassi is a big donor to [[Democrat]] politicians.

#[[Kobe Bryant]] — not as valuable to the game as [[Jeremy Lin]]; hasn't won a title without super-coaching by Phil Jackson, who observes that Kobe is not on the high level of [[Michael Jordan]]; Kobe makes only 46% of his shots, and scores lots of points because he hogs the ball.
#[[LeBron James]] — 2012's NBA Finals MVP is far from the best player in the [[NBA]], he is way overrated by the liberal ESPN compared to Christian Kevin Durant
#[[Magic Johnson]] — lucky enough to play on [[Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]]'s Lakers to win some titles, but was crushed by [[Michael Jordan]] and the Bulls; no problem, Magic was a critic of President [[George H.W. Bush]], which thrilled liberals.
#*People look at him, and say, 'Hey, it's OK to get HIV because I'm living with it.' That is the wrong message. [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57319698/20-years-since-magic-johnsons-hiv-stunner/]
#[[Peyton Manning]] — a [[quarterback]] who won only one [[NFL]] championship, despite being voted by the media and others to be NFL MVP 4 times, AFC Player of the Year 6 times, and Pro Bowler 11 times. The [[liberal media]] treated him like the Second Coming of [[Christ]] in order to oust [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]] from his leadership position in the [[swing state]] of [[Colorado]] prior to the [[Presidential Election 2012]].
#[[Steve Nash]] — an [http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2009/3/25/809516/steve-nash-on-media-bias-t outspoken liberal who supported Obama], Nash was chosen ''twice'' by the [[lamestream media]] as the [[NBA]] MVP despite never leading his team to even an NBA Finals.
#[[Mark Sanchez]] — the [[New York Jets]] [[quarterback]] is being touted as the team's best QB over [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]] despite falling apart at the end of the 2011–12 season. Now that Tebow's on-board, [[liberals]] are championing the former [[USC]] star as the superior player despite his recently poor play.
#[[Tiger Woods]] — hasn't won a major golf tournament in four years, and yet he's still the only one liberals want to talk about while reporting on tournaments.
#[[Danica Patrick]] - Has won a single race in the Indy Car series, but has yet to win a race in either the NASCAR Sprint Cup or Nationwide series, finishing no higher than fourth, although ESPN promotes her first and foremost when showing highlights of the NASCAR races in which she participates.

#[[Wayne Rooney]] - Burst onto the scene as a 16 year old and called "The English Pele". 10 years on and he has still failed to fulfill his potential, especially at international level, and still behaves like a childish immature 16 year old

(please revise or add to list)

[[Category:sports]]

Talk:Anders Behring Breivik

2012-08-24T16:56:59Z

PatMc:

I removed the accusations that the whole thing was a setup for false flag type reasons because the guy admitted to the crime, there is no evidence to doubt this admission, and I understand that Savage has retracted his earlier statements. Lets deal with facts not unhelpful speculations. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:59, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:I agree, the version before this one was bizarre and fringe. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 08:54, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

== To Daniel ==

I'm trying to clean up the grammar and punctuation on this article, and I can't make out just what you're trying to say in this sentence:

*While the manifesto contains a legal disclaimer, (p. 766-68) yet Breivik details how Islam invaded Europe in the past and was defeated, and expresses plans to combat, by an "armed indigenous rights movements/resistance movement" (p. 668), the latest Islamic invasion/attack in which they employ "demographic warfare." (p. 816)

What does the legal disclaimer have to do with the rest of the sentence? Were you trying to say something about the disclaimer and got distracted? Please clarify this section.

Thanks! --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 22:48, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

:Good catch. I need to briefly explain that the legal disclaimer he gave was that

*"A Declaration of pre-emptive War.. "describes a hypothetical response to a perceived threat (so called cultural Marxist/multiculturalist atrocities and the threat of Islamisation)...how a "fictional" resistance group is emerging and how it would operate from the so called "Phase 1 through Phase 3" in order to prevent these perceived threats and atrocities from futher manifesting and to prevent an alleged future Muslim takeover..."

*"The author or distributor does not condone or agree with any of the descriptions or methods used in this book and the related chapters....all incriminatory information in this work is written "in character" and must not be confused with an actual plan, or strategy to attempt to harm any individuals.."

*"This legal disclaimer was created to remove any doubt whatsoever that the author or anyone chosing to distribute the book "2083" has any hostile motives or intentions. If any legal authority have reservations against this new and innovative form of writing style, they may address or contact the author, any publisher or distributor and share their concerns which will be taken under consideration."

:The man was a crafty cold-blooded criminal. I will add explanatory info now.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 09:39, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

== Split article ==

I would like to propose this article be split into two different ones. The article on Breivik should probably include his biography, the attacks, the aftermath, world reaction and a brief description of his manifesto. The reaction and analysis section should probably be under a separate article, as it deals more with the rationale and beliefs behind his actions. Any thoughts? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 02:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:It could be restructured Sharon. I set it up as it was due to my lack of compiled referenced info on biography, the attacks, and my or emphasis on his ideology and responses/analysis. But i do not think anything should be deleted from those, as it is important and likely to be missing from other reports. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 09:23, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Anders Behring Breivik. Declared sane and sentenced to <big>TWENTY ONE YEARS</big> in prison, with possibility of parole after <big>TEN YEARS</big>.
Breivik may be sane but Norway is obviously totally insane.
SO,that is 99 days per murder if he serves full term, with parole that goes down to 47 days per murder.
Surely even the most cuddly soft on crime types must agree this sentence is insane.

Oh, I would like to update this page but really do not know what I am doing. I made some minor edits on other pages, I apologise if I have made a mess of them.--[[User:PatMc|PatMc]] 12:56, 24 August 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Anders Behring Breivik

2012-08-24T16:52:45Z

PatMc:

Talk:Todd Akin

2012-08-24T14:29:18Z

PatMc:

Nothing in Akin's comment suggests he wanted to distinguish between "legitimate" rape and false accusations of rape.

:The context of the remark, as well as common sense, demonstrate that meaning. No other meaning is plausible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:15, 22 August 2012 (EDT)

:I suspect that a large part of what has worked so many people up is his idea that the female body has ways of shutting down a pregnancy due to rape. --[[User:Bogart12|Bogart 12]] 15:22, 22 August 2012

Why were my comments deleted?--[[User:PatMc|PatMc]] 10:29, 24 August 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Black hole

2012-08-22T20:51:36Z

PatMc: /* Concerning escape velocity of black holes */

==Extremely high density==

Technically, it's undefined, no? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:52, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

did you know the 'Black Holes FAQ', which there is a link to, was written in 1995? -stevenM

== Existence confirmed? ==

Perhaps I was hasty. I will reconsider. Any other sources I might find enlightening, perhaps from a YEC perspective? [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 15:16, 7 January 2009 (EST)

[[Talk:Atheistic Style#Black Holes]] covers it quite well. I don't know of any evidence from a '''reliable''' source that shows the existence of Black holes. This "can't be directly observed" thing reminds me a bit too much of evolution. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 12:16, 9 January 2009 (EST)
:Even wikipedia's article notes that all of the different pieces of evidence of a black hole are problematic and can be explained by other sources. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::This is why the article starts by stating "A black hole is a '''theoretical''' mass with an escape velocity greater than the speed of light. They cannot be observed directly, but several have been identified via indirect observation" I also don't see how NASA or UCLA Berkely are unreliable sources for astronomy. As for "can't be directly observed",there are numerous articles on CP related to Intelligent Design that don't rely on direct observations of a designer to discuss the apparent presence of design in nature.

::The beauty of science that it's always open to review and reassessment as new discoveries come to light. In time man's understanding of Black Holes may be different from this article, but we owe the readers the best current explanations available. I'm not suggesting censorship - all credible alternate theories should be listed, but stating that there have been no observations of one is false - by definition they are not directly observable, so proving they exist relies on indirect observation and physics. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:38, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:::There is no place called "UCLA Berkely".
:::ID is bolstered by the direct observation available from Genesis.
:::The best explanation is not always the explanation espoused by Californians.
:::We know how our universe began. If NASA & discovery.com deny it, they lose credibility, and their other statements come under greater scrutiny. If you met someone today who insisted that the sky is red and that Sears closes at 10, you would be wise to check the store hours yourself. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 13:58, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::::Okay, my mistake regarding Berkely notwithstanding, my last reversion is based on two simple things. The word "is" should not be replaced by "would be" - it ''is'' a characteristic of black holes within the theory that describes them. Second, the use of [[Big Science]] as a term on CP was started by an admitted parodist, and equating NASA with it, frankly comes across as parody as well. Instead of diluting references to good science, spend more time supporting alternate explanations constructively. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:07, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:::::"Would be" is appropriate for hypothetical things. We say "Dole would have been a better President than Clinton," not "Dole was a better President than Clinton," even "within a theory that describes" Dole as being elected.
:::::"Big Science" was used in ''[[Expelled]]''. You don't think that was parody, do you?
:::::"Berkely" isn't a place, either.
:::::It seems like I'm the only one trying to make constructive edits towards a compromise. I guess this is not surprising, given the content on [[User:DinsdaleP]]. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 14:26, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::::::BHarlan, I believe that you do not understand a small but important bit of information, most astronomical discoveries are collaborative efforts usually initiated by small independent astronomers. When you say big science you could classify biosciences like that, but astronomy is totally different.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 14:19, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::::::The so-called "evidence" for Black holes does not fit a pattern like the one you describe. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 14:26, 9 January 2009 (EST)

(unindent)

I'm not making any other changes to the revision just posted by Aschlafly. To BHarlan, I make no apologies for my User Page content. If the CP leadership wishes to block me over my [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/DinsdaleP contributions] they have the right to do so at any time, but I feel that my efforts here are constructive even when I disagree with others. Feel free to have the last word on this, I'm moving on to other topics. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:45, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Black holes have been spotted by a number of well-respected astronomical institutes for decades, with those discoveries tested and confirmed repeatedly. Your edits are unsupported by either fact or citation Andy, so under the rules youelf created I have no choice but to revert your edits, whereas the edits saying that black holes have been spotted are fully cited with references from reputable sources including NASA, an organisation fully backed by all US Governments, including conservative governments, since its inception.-[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 15:47, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:Your sarcastic edit comments are not welcome here. You might want to check "youelf", else you might end up wrecking youelf.
:Also, you always have a choice! Do you deny this choice? That is a typical sentiment of materialists. If you do not believe in your soul, you will receive a nasty surprise pretty soon, and it won't just be the non-existence of black holes!
:Also, that is not how "whereas" is used in standard English.
:Also, NASA has taken a sad left turn as of late. This is one of the reasons the U.S.A.F. has its own space program. Do you see?
:Also, may God bless you. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:10, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::My my, I miss a 's' in a typo and you decide to launch an ad hominem attack… Very 'christian' of you, or then again; not.
::''"Also, that is not how "whereas" is used in standard English".'' That might not be how you use it with your standard of English, but as anyone who has been taught the correct way to use the English language knows, it's perfectly correct. Oh, and a little, free, friendly lesson regarding the use of written English : You never start consecutive paragraphs with the same word unless it is absolutely necessary, which, in your above post it wasn't. If you are having trouble with your synonyms I heartily recommend using a thesaurus.
::The military space research programmes exist solely to explore the possible military applications of space. All civilian space programmes, including government projects run through the relevant Space Agencies (NASA, ESA, etc.). This is common knowledge amongst those who know anything about this subject.
::Stating that black holes don't exist is akin to believing the moon landing was faked. The existence of black holes and the fact that they have been spotted is undisputed by anyone who has the knowledge and experience to know what they are looking at. I have had the privilege of seeing two of these black holes myself. They are out there and have been spotted, and that is a direct, firsthand witness statement.
::May you be touched by his noodly appendage, or if that isn't your cup of tea, may you be blessed by the goat Heidrún. RAmen.-[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 17:06, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::* It's "an 's'", not "a 's'".
:::* If you missed just one 's', then that part of the sentence would read "under the rules youself created", which is ''still'' wrong.
:::* If you missed an 'r' and an 's', then that part of the sentence would read "under the rules yourself created", which is '''still''' wrong.
:::* An [[ad hominem]] attack means to reply to the logic in your arguments by attacking your character. I did no such thing. I didn't attack your character in any way. I asked if you were a materialist, then pointed out that materialists are Hell-bound. If you have a problem with your final resting place, I suggest you reconsider your path in life. I do not suggest that the Hell-bound are never able to make logical arguments.
:::* "Christian" is capitalized. Did you leave it uncapitalized on purpose? If so, I suggest you blaspheme somewhere else.
:::* That is not how semicolons are used in standard English.
:::* You need a comma after "but" for the aside.
:::* You do not need commas around "friendly", just like you don't need commas around "red" in "big red inflatable ball"
:::* I will not discuss the friendly lesson here, except to note that stylistic choices are different than maintaining correctness. Comma placement and word choice are different beasts.
:::* The sentence starting "All civilian" has no main verb, so I can't respond to it.
:::* Hyperbole about the moon landing is simply rhetoric. If there is no argument, there can be no response.
:::* Wikipedia may accept your anonymous evidence, but we are more careful here.
:::* Black holes can't be seen. What I suppose you mean is that you infer their existence. Your inference is not particularly convincing.
:::* Please take your graven goat pasta idols elsewhere. Here we show some simple respect for God.
:::* I am done with this pointless, blasphemous discussion. It is not encyclopedic. I suggest you contribute to this encyclopedia. It is a good way to improve your writing skills. I have been contributing partially for that reason. Maybe you could join me in adding articles and value, rather than taking the name of my Lord in vain?
:::* If you decide not to, you may have the last word here, as I will no longer reply to this silliness. I hope you will decide to contribute instead. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:33, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::: *Sigh* ''"a wit, an arrow, across the head it passed, an apple not pierced today"'', an 'r' and an 's', my apologies, how can such typos be left to pass, expecially when they are nothing to do with the argument at hand, well done for picking up such niggling detail, and yet avoiding the point of the argument. Admittedly I missed the n in an, but again, a typo, they happen. ''"Wikipedia may accept your anonymous evidence, but we are more careful here"'', how does evidence from NASA count as anonymous evidence?…at all?…in any way?…whatsoever? As for an ad hominen attack, your argument provided no evidence against the existence of black holes, merely an attack on myself, the purest definition of ad hominen (a course in Latin will help you there). Christian or christian, depends on how you want to write it and on your own beliefs. Me, not my belief, and as I don't believe I cannot blaspheme, after all, how can you blaspheme against something that does not exist to be blasphemed? Use of semicolons in standard English? Again, I refer you to the fact the your standard of English might not be sufficient to use them in such regard. I recommend increasing your quality of English by beginning with Chaucer and reading your way up. At some point you will realise that the use of English in any form is an art, not a science, and that language is to be used in such a way as to provoke delight, wonder and thought with its writing, and beyond the obvious rules of form, there are no hard and fast rules, merely that of metre, pace and illumination. ''"The sentence starting "All civilian" has no main verb, so I can't respond to it"'', '''run''', it's a verb, hard to miss, I'll admit to missing a comma (the sentence should read ''"All civilian space programmes, including government projects, run through the relevant Space Agencies (NASA, ESA, etc.)"'', but missing the word '''run''' *shakes head in disbelief*: if you insist on a purer form for that sentence, how about "All civilian space programmes, including government projects, are run through the relevant Space Agencies (NASA, ESA, etc.)", but all things being equal, both sentences say the same thing. Moon landing = the sum of evidence gathered concerning the existence of black holes, and that they have been spotted, is greater than the evidence that the moon landing occurred in 1969, hence the corollary. ''"Please take your graven goat pasta idols elsewhere. Here we show some simple respect for God"'', I found it offensive that you forced your beliefs on me, now you have found it offensive when I have forced my beliefs on you, with luck you will have learnt a lesson there, don't force your beliefs and prayers on me and I will return the favour by not blessing you with a little sarcastic FSM (oh, and a little FYI, the word graven means carved and I'm sure that the old FSM hasn't been carved yet and, in addition, I doubt that there are any extant carvings of Thor's goats, although I'm willing to admit that I might be wrong in that regard.)--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 22:13, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I have researched an extensive amount about black holes, and am about to add more information to the article that I hope will prove to be interesting and useful (I will, of course, cite my sources). I am also adding a couple of updates, as some of the information in the article is dated. As a topic about which scientists are still learning, that happens a lot. I hope the updates will improve the quality of the article and its use for educational purposes. [[User:BlueMoon|BlueMoon]] 15:26, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

== Impossible? ==

"A black hole is a theoretical prediction of the theory of relativity. It is impossible to prove that a black hole does not exist, and thus it fails the falsifiability requirement of science."

Actually this is not true. first off, the simplest explination of a black hole is an object so dense its escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. This density is known as the schrawtzshield radius (the spelling may be a bit off)This means there is mathematical proof. If this was not the case there would be no black holes Also, if black holes didnt exist we would never see objects being pulled into nothingness, or massive event horizons, which we do in fact see. --[[User:BenO|BenO]] 18:05, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:Have you really seen these events that you describe? Don't believe everything that liberals tell you, as we've just seen with [[climategate]].

:Your point about "mathematical proof" doesn't provide physical proof of anything.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:40, 12 December 2009 (EST)

this formula
rs=2gm/c^2
where:
rs is the Schwarzschild radius;
G is the gravitational constant;
m is the mass of the gravitating object;
c is the speed of light in vacuum.

gives clear mathimatical proof of the idea for black holes. if this were not the case and the mathematics did not back it up, the concept of a black hole would be fallsified. There for it is scientific because it is fallsifiable--[[User:BenO|BenO]] 19:03, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:Ben, maybe you could insert this equation in the article when we're talking about the Schwarzchild solution to Einstein's equations? I think your explanation of the math could significantly help the article there.
:Yes, the math proves that black holes are possible, if you accept general relativity (which I do, but Andy doesn't; let's please not talk about that here...). Whether they actually do exist is another question: I think they do; Andy thinks they don't; neither of us has actual proof of one. (Even a recent SciAm article said the observations could be explained otherwise.) I think you're talking about their being mathematically possible, Andy's talking about how we don't have proof one actually exists, and we actually agree on much more than we seem to. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 19:10, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Actually in science we cannot prove with 100% certainty that ''anything'' does not exist, you cannot prove a negative. This opening sentence needs to be rewritten first for that reason, also for the fact that black holes have been indirectly observed via Accretion disks, gas jets, gravity lensing, radiation emissions, and other orbits of other stellar bodies. Also there is no other valid explanation in science for the aforementioned effects of a black hole that we observe. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 17:00, 1 July 2009 (EST)

:No, that's the point- to be scientific, something has to be able to be proven wrong. That is a major part of the scientific method. For example, God is not a scientific concept, because you cannot disprove God. But to be science, one of the criterion is that the idea be able to be disproven.

:Falsifiability is not the ''only'' criterion for whether something is scientific, so perhaps black holes are not ''unscientific.'' But that opening is pretty much accurate. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:50, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:: Black holes are falsifiable as a theory, because the observations generally accepted as caused by black holes ''could'' be causes something else, however there is no alternative theory ''at present'' to explain the phenomenon. However you cannot prove that a black hole ''could never'' exist just as you cannot prove atoms, or anything, could never exist. God is not a scientific theory not because it is impossible to absolutely disprove God (impossible to prove that God could never possibly exist) but because the supernatural cannot be shown to exist through science, which deals only with the natural universe, if you could present a theory God existed in science, that god would no longer be supernatural by definition.

:: Honestly I don't understand the objection to black holes, there is no conservative reason for it. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 19:04, 1 July 2009 (EST)

:::The existence of black holes is ''not'' falsifiable. Surely you agree with that. Black holes cannot be observed either. Addison explained the flaw well above, but you seem intent on sticking with your beliefs. Believe what you like, but black holes do not satisfy any sensible definition of science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:37, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:::: The possible existence of anything is not falsifiable, black holes, quarks, gods, even godzilla, only theories are falsifiable, such as the theory that explain what black holes are and how they work. The present theories of black holes are falsifiable, but so far no one has successfully debunked them, or offer an alternate scientific theory for the phenomenon attributed to the effects and properties of black holes. We cannot observe an isolated quark directly, but we accept that theory.

:::: However I cannot change one's mind, that is fine, I made my objections known, I am not going to step on people's toes by attempting to change the page, I just believe it is scientifically incorrect in it's proclamation and could stand to be improved for a better article. I have said what I believe needed to be said and will end my part here, anyone feel free to respond with the last word or contact me privately. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 21:07, 1 July 2009 (EST)

:::::Thank you for your interest. Note that atoms have actually been observed (in refutation of what you said above, "you cannot prove atoms, or anything, could never exist". I don't think the article will be changed though. Black holes are sort of on the fence between observable, testable physics, and "theoretical" physics, e.g. string theory. There are a million sources where you can get the standard overview of black holes. Why not have a different view here? Wikipedia does not even ''mention'' the issue of falsifiability, so we are doing a service to the scientific method by at least bringing it up- even if you think the article's conclusion is wrong. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:23, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:::::In addition to Addison's comments, note that some theories ''are'' [[falsifiable]] (such as Newton's theory of gravity), while other theories are ''not'' falsifiable, such as the theory that black holes must exist or [[string theory]]. And when a theory is not falsifiable, it is not science. If BMcP proposes an alternative definition of science, then let's hear it, but I doubt he'll do better than [[Karl Popper]] in making [[falsifiability]] part of the definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:45, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Guys, this is becoming quite the argument; however, it is unnecessary because the idea that black holes exist ''is'' falsifiable. If NASA sends probes out to nearby black holes (which would take a long time, but it's possible), and they all turn out to be ancient Spartans in spaceships or whatever, then scientists will conclude that black holes don't exist and start working on how Spartans came to be in space and why they have accretion disks, etc. So black holes are falsifiable, and this argument is a source of unnecessary tension. [[User:BlueMoon|BlueMoon]] 12:55, 8 July 2009 (EDT)

I don't get this non-falsifiable argument. If we see light from a star, then it is not a black hole. Any claim that it is a black hole is then falsified. Black hole theory says that a star becomes a black hole whenever its mass goes inside its Schwarzschild radius, it becomes a black hole. So if we ever find a star that emits light and has its mass inside its Schwarzschild radius, then the theory is falsified. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:32, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
:The problem with that argument is that we live light years away, so what we could be seeing at one moment could be just the beginning before the light is swallowed into the black hole. --[[User:ChrisZ|ChrisZ]] 11:01, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

:: No, we can observe the radius, mass, and light all at the same time. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:07, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

::: Should we change the article then, seeing how there's no rebuttal to [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]'s post regarding the falsifiability of the black hole theory? [[User:ATang|ATang]] 11:03, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

:::: RSchlafly is absolutely right, as far as anything a graduate student could say might "validate" the statements of an actual PhD. But an additional argument: it wouldn't even be necessary to use astronomical observations to invalidate the theory of black holes. A large enough super collider - perhaps the LHC, perhaps a more powerful device - could discover a quark degeneracy pressure, or some other currently-unknown mechanism, which might offer a potentially infinite resistance to collapse, or, pressure so great at certain densities that an impossibly large amount of matter would be necessary to form a black hole.
:::: I'm not going to remove this material yet, since I see Andy put it there, but I hope Mr. Schlafly will read this page and reconsider. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:46, 8 August 2009 (EDT)

::::: There are some untestable statements that are commonly made about black holes. One might even argue that statements about the interior of a black hole are unfalsifiable, because we cannot see the inside. But black hole theory does have a lot of observable consequences, so I think that the article is misleading. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:12, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::: How might one falsify the basic assertion about black holes: that black holes exist such that light cannot escape? Every time one observes light escaping, he simply concludes that it is not a black hole.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:31, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Mr. Schlafly, you're absolutely right that the general claim, "There are mysterious regions of space from which light cannot escape" is an unverifiable claim. Black holes don't refer to this statement - they refer to the specific statement, "It is possible to concentrate a certain amount of mass, so that the gravity of that mass prevents light from escaping." This could be falsified by experiments in particle accelerators (possibly the LHC, I'm not familiar enough with it to know) which could demonstrate that such concentration of matter is impossible - that degeneracy pressures, currently unknown, prevent such it. This would falsify the claim that black holes exist. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 11:52, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: I have an open mind about this, but fail to see how an inability to generate a black hole using a generator would falsify the existence of black holes in outer space. Most likely those who believe in black holes would simply say that higher and higher energies or densities are needed to generate it in particle accelerators.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:16, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: You're right that failure to create a microscopic black hole in a lab wouldn't falsify the idea that they can form. What I'm claiming is that research which aims, not to create microscopic black holes, but to gain more insight into the forces that govern the behavior of sub atomic particles, might unearth evidence that would refute black holes.
::::::::: Here's how: right now, the theory on black hole formation states that as matter accumulates, first electron degeneracy pressure is overcome (that is, the structure of the matter in question would be not atoms side by side, but atomic nuclei side by side with no electrons in between), then the nuclear degeneracy pressure is overcome, that is, one would not longer have nuclei side by side, but neutrons and protons side by side (a neutron star), and then finally, this neutron degeneracy pressure is overcome and the matter becomes so dense it is contained by its own Schwarzchild radius and becomes a black hole.
::::::::: It is entirely plausible that a particle accelerator of sufficient power could concentrate matter to overcome the neutron degeneracy pressure only to discover a quark degeneracy pressure, or some other force. It is also possible that this new force would require SO MUCH matter to be overcome, as to be unphysical (for example, it might take more matter than is currently believed to exist to overcome the pressure). If this pressure was to prevent matter from being denser than the Schwarzschild limit, then the claim that black holes exist would be forever disproven and falsified. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 12:43, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: Additional note: As RSchlafly points out, there are many claims about black holes which ARE unfalsifiable, currently - as he points out, claims about the interior of the event horizon are not falsifiable. Similarly, predictions regarding their presence in certain locations are not falsifiable by any means we yet possess. The same criticism could be leveled at my above description of an experiment in nuclear-density matter. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 12:56, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::: We cannot determine what is happening in the "interior" (inside the event horizon) but that doesn't make a black hole itself not falsifiable. We are not sure what the interior of a neutron star is at all, but I think everyone here agrees they do exist. Also just because you cannot visually see something (such as a black hole, where light cannot escape from inside the event horizon) doesn't mean it isn't there or falsifiable. Most astronomical study of space is not in the visual spectrum, and there are many ways to determine the existence of a black hole. I also must point out, there has been no alternative hypotheses to explain the gravitational effects we presently attribute to black holes. Also, as pointed out before, if we are able to find an object of sufficient mass within the Schwarzschild radius, which normally would continue to collapse into a gravitational singularity (Black Hole) ''but has not'', that would disprove the theory of Black holes right there, or in other words falsify them. For example, if we found an object the same mass of our Sun, and was smaller then its Schwarzschild radius of around 3 km (the Schwarzschild radius for an object of that mass) and it '''did not''' collapse into a black hole, then the theory of Black Holes ''would be proven false''. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 08:14, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::: I hate to disagree with BMcP, because we share the same goal here (getting the non-falsifiability statement removed from the article), but there was a lot of bad science in that response and we should have an argument based in facts and truth.

::::::::::: '''I also must point out, there has been no alternative hypotheses to explain the gravitational effects we presently attribute to black holes.'''
:::::::::::: That's not entirely true. In my previous posts, I mentioned that discovering a sufficiently powerful quark degeneracy pressure could disprove the existence of "black holes." Objects which are prevent from gravitational collapse by quark degeneracy pressure, "quark stars," could explain a good deal of phenomenon currently attributed to black holes could be very adequately explained by such phenomenon - extraordinary x-ray sources, quasars, all these rely on on the affects of a large amount of mass concentrated in a small space, not necessarily a Schwarschild radius. Which brings me to
::::::::::: '''if we are able to find an object of sufficient mass within the Schwarzschild radius, which normally would continue to collapse into a gravitational singularity (Black Hole) ''but has not'', that would disprove the theory of Black holes right there, or in other words falsify them."
:::::::::::: Any object which is completely contained in a Schwarzschild radius is automatically a black hole, regardless of whether or not it has collapsed into a singularity or not. Furthermore, since the gravitation field exterior to the schwarzschild radius would be the same regardless of where the mass inside was a singularity or not, so there would be no way to tell.
::::::::::: I still think the best argument for falsifiability is the experiment I presented earlier into quark degeneracy pressure. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 12:18, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::::: I was not aware of a hypothesis that offers a possibility of quark degeneracy pressure that would be powerful enough to resist the effects of gravity even if the mass would normally be large enough to collapse into a black hole. I agree if such pressure existed it would disprove our current theories of black hole formation.
:::::::::::: You are right, it doesn't have to be a singularity, although that is what current theories suggest happens, that gravity continues to collapse the matter inside the event horizon to the point of a singularity.[http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/BlackHoleAnat.html] However that does not have to be true for the mass to collapse within the Schwarzschild radius to be a black hole, just that their is sufficient gravity to force particles within the horizon to be deformed in their path so they cannot leave. It is just theorized at the center of a black hole is the singularity[http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/singularity.html]. That being said, it expected that a theory of quantum gravity will feature black holes without singularities.[http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bh_hawk.html] [http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980420b.html]. It isn't important either way, what is important is the question, are black holes falsifiable? I think you and others have already offered examples of yes. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 13:23, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

== [[Falsifiability]] ==
(no text was inserted here, but the edit summary was "the falsifiability is undeniable and should not be censored, Physicists should be taught about falsifiability as part of their curriculum")

:Based on KSorenson's remarks and what I know about the curricula at schools I've attended, physicists are indeed taught about it. It seems a stretch to say that the falsifiability is "undeniable" when in fact every editor except you has denied it. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 23:15, 12 November 2009 (EST)

::Sorry, somehow my text above was misplaced. Thanks for substituting in what I meant!

::Those who have denied that black holes lack [[falsifiability]] really seem to be denying that falsifiability should be a limit on physics.

::KSorenson cited a laundry list of philosophy-type requirements of physics majors, but conspicuously absent was emphasis on falsifiability.

::Like most college majors, physics students repeat what they're taught. If they received good grades, then it becomes even harder for them to question it. But keep in mind that the people doing the teaching are the most liberal group in the world, and they almost never encourage the student to open his mind and think critically for himself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:23, 12 November 2009 (EST)

:::Please read again, Aschlafly. I specifically cited Karl Popper as part of the curriculum in undergraduate courses on the philosophy of science. In case it's slipped your mind, Popper basically invented falsifiability as the criterion for distinguishing science from non-science.

:::Incidentally, Popper cited Einstein's theories as exemplars of rigorously falsifiable science when he constructed his criterion. He wrote about it in contrast to the quote-unquote "scientific" theories of Marx. By a happy coincidence, the very same theories of Einstein's that Popper found so admirable are the ones we're talking about here. So can you ''please,'' and I'm asking for the third time now, clarify just exactly what your gripe is?--[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 00:36, 13 November 2009 (EST)

:::::Hello; I'm the user who edited this article after KSorenson. If I may jump in to this heated discussion going on at at least [[User_Talk:KSorenson|two places]] : I think what Andy's saying is that black holes themselves can never be proven to not exist, because (by definition) no one can see them or visit them and return. I think what KSorenson's saying is that [[general relativity]] states black holes are possible, and that general relativity can be falsified (e.g. by sending probes to probe the earth's gravitational field).

:::::Of course, just because general relativity hasn't been ''disproven'' doesn't mean that it's been proven. There could be a better theory which accounts for all the gravity-probe data and states that black holes don't exist. We don't know yet; that's the wonder of science: God's always put more out there for us to discover! So, we don't know that black holes do exist - that claim isn't falsifiable; we'd need to survey every square millimeter of space and say "there isn't a black hole ''here''!". But, the theory that states they ''can'' exist is falsifiable. I tried to reflect this dichotomy in my edits to this article. -- [[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 00:46, 13 November 2009 (EST)

::::::You make excellent points, particularly in your last paragraph above. The introductory paragraph to [[black hole]] would benefit from this, and please feel free to edit it again (I apologize if others deleted your work). Note, however, that it is not very practical to devise a test that could falsify General Relativity, and falsifying General Relativity would not falsify the claim that [[black holes]] exist. Black holes are far too popular in science magazines and liberal publications like the New York Times to "go away" that easily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:52, 13 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::On Popper and relativity, Christoph von Mettenheim (http://elm.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/tcr/volume-01/number-03/node3.html) writes: "Most of you will know of Popper's admiration for Einstein, and how he was inspired by the theory of relativity (and by its high refutability in contrast to the irrefutability of psychoanalysis) more than by anything else to develop the criterion of falsifiability as a demarcation between science and metaphysics (Popper 1976, pp. 37-38)." As KSorenson has already noted, relativity was the theory that inspired the notion of falsifiability in the first place. The claim that "it is not very practical to devise a test that could falsify General Relativity" is absurd on the face of it. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 10:02, 13 November 2009 (EST)

::::::::Popper's personal views are irrelevant; no one here says that Popper was a genius who was always right. It's [[falsifiability]] that is at issue, and the resistance to that simple, logical concept is astounding. People can teach Popper all they like, but it's clear that physics majors are not learning fully about falsifiability. String theory wouldn't exist in physics departments if they were.

::::::::If tests existed that might falsify General Relativity, then in the nearly 100 years since its proposal we would have seen many of them. Instead, as the latest discussion (and the famous 1919 solar eclipse) illustrate, margins of error in the experiments are typically greater than the deviations predicted by the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:13, 13 November 2009 (EST)

: (unindent)
: Andy raises an interesting point. In theory, it's easy to test general relativity - take KSorenson's gravity probe, for example. This wouldn't absolutely prove it; there might always be a better theory out there. But nothing can ''ever'' be absolutely proven in science - the point is that this test could disprove it. So, in theory, it's falsifiable. "[falsifiable|A proposition or theory is falsifiable if it is hypothetically possible for a test or observation to prove it false]." Of course, a hypothetical future theory might still include black holes (there's an infinite number of possible theories), but the possibility of black holes according to general relativity (how's that for a mouthful?) is falsifiable, because general relativity is falsifiable. Or, to try to say it more simply: the possibility of the particular sort of black hole predicted by general relativity (with exactly these properties, et cetera) is falsifiable. I hope I made my verbiage understandable enough for you all to agree or disagree?

:But as you point out, the solar eclipse experiment didn't test general relativity in practice: the margins of error were too big. (I don't know if that's still true with modern experiments; could someone who knows more about that fill me in?) So, while it's theoretically falsifiable, it's possible that general relativity hasn't actually been tested yet... -- [[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:36, 13 November 2009 (EST)

::[http://www.ias.ac.in/pramana/v63/p731/fulltext.pdf Here] is a nice review of a variety of experimental tests of general relativity, along with discussion of other experiments that may be undertaken in the future. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 10:43, 13 November 2009 (EST)

:::That all sounds basically right to me, EvanW. (Can I call you EvanW?) But from where I sit, it's even simpler.

:::*General relativity has been and is being tested, and so far the tests have confirmed the theory. That might change any minute, but it's still true so far.

:::*General relativity says that black holes are possible, and that if they exist they'll have certain properties.

:::*We've seen objects in the sky that have those properties, and that aren't predicted by any other existing theory. We're studying those objects as hard as we can given the limits of distance, to see if they really do walk and quack like ducks. Until we see something un-ducky, we say "Yeah, those look like ducks to us."

:::This really isn't complicated as far as I can tell, and I'm really baffled as to why we're still yaking about it amongst ourselves.

:::Aschlafly, if you want to expand the living daylights out of the "Controversy" section, I'll be right there by your side, cheering you on and helping in any way I can. As long as your contributions aren't misleading or incorrect. I don't want to speak for anyone else, but my gut tells me that EvanW and MarkGall would make the same promise. So why are we still bickering? Can't we improve the article instead? I know having to respond here is taking away from the time I set aside today to add to the [[general theory of relativity]] article. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 10:54, 13 November 2009 (EST)

:::: Mark cited Clifford Will's government-funded 2004 article on proof for General Relativity, but that paper is very "thin" and in a mere 15-minute review several weaknesses are apparent. But thanks for the citation, Mark.

:::: This is a site where logic prevails. If you want to say that black holes are consistent with General Relativity (though rejected by Einstein), and General Relativity might be falsifiable (though tests will sufficient accuracy are difficult and expensive), that's fine. But black holes themselves, like life in outer space, are not falsifiable. It's basic logic, and that doesn't change whether all accept the logic or not.

:::: There's a broader point here. Why the big push for black holes by liberals, and big protests against any objection to them? If it turned out empirically that promoting black holes tends to cause people to read the Bible less, would you still push this so much? Certainly there is no practical justification to pushing black holes; no one will ever be helped by them in any way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:03, 13 November 2009 (EST)

::::: I haven't had time to read the Clifford Will paper yet, and I don't think I've got the expertise to judge it well. But, I think we've come to an agreement here:
:::::# Black holes themselves can't be falsified (except by surveying every cubic millimeter of space)
:::::# General relativity says they are possible.
:::::# General relativity is falsifiable (theoretically), but it's hard to falsify.
:::::# Therefore, the possibility of black-holes-as-specified-by-general-relativity is falsifiable.
::::: As for why the media's pushing black holes - hey, they're interesting to read about! Myself, by Occam's razor, I don't think any more explanation is needed. As for why KSorenson and I are pushing them - I can't speak for KSorenson, but I'm trying to defend falsifiability and the concept of a scientific theory, just like (I think) you are: general relativity is a legitimate scientific theory, because it can theoretically be falsified. -- [[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 12:15, 13 November 2009 (EST)

:::::: Evan, I appreciate your comments and have learned from them. My question was directed at KSorenson and Mark, not to you. But using your answer, it doesn't explain the insistence by liberals on downplaying or even censoring criticism of black holes. And one key question is unanswered: if promoting black holes caused people to read the Bible less, would you want to promote them? They certainly won't ever help anyone, while the Bible might.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:22, 13 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::Aschlafly, you seem to be more interested in arguing (now apparently about politics and religion of all things) than you are in improving the article. This is fine. If you want to contribute to the article in any way at all, I'll be here to help however I can. I would ask you to please think carefully before adding a misleading assertion like "Einstein rejected black holes" (which doesn't tell the whole truth) or "black hole theory is unfalsifiable," because doing so would just hurt the article, misinform anyone who reads it and waste the time of any editor who feels like trying to fix it.

:::::::Meanwhile, I'm going to finish filling out the [[general theory of relativity]] article. If you find some aspect of ''that'' one that you want to argue about in the same way you've argued about this article … well, don't bother. I've grown weary of the endless, pointless, going-nowhere talk, and I'm going to focus on making constructive contributions until I get bored of it, or I run out of useful things to add. You're obviously free to take those contributions and use them as you will, or throw them in the trash. It really doesn't matter to me one way or the other.

:::::::And finally, as to whether "this is a site where logic prevails," I've always been an actions-speak-louder-than-words sort of girl. The article is here; I have made my contribution to it. Whether logic (or for that matter, intellectual honesty) prevails is something I look forward to finding out. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 12:29, 13 November 2009 (EST)

::::::::KSorenson, I've responded to your concerns and answered your questions and Evan has proposed a logical, clear solution. You find no fault with it, but ignore it. I asked you a simple question, "if promoting black holes cause people to read the Bible less, would you want to promote them?" Not only do you refuse to answer, you rant on and on. Please, please open your mind, for your sake.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:39, 13 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::::Let me say this one last time: I'm not arguing with you. This off-topic nonsense on talk pages has been a waste of everyone's time, and I'm choosing not to participate in it any more. Please continue if you like, but understand that that's my final word on the subject. I hope we can see eye to eye on this, and treat each other respectfully from here on out. Let me know if I can be of any assistance if you guys want to further improve the article. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 13:01, 13 November 2009 (EST)

== More on falsability ==

The point about [[wormholes]] and lack of [[falsifiability]] should remain in the introduction. We don't fall for Wikipedia-style [[placement bias]] here, as in having to read through thousands of words and page screen pages before realizing that [[Bertrand Russell]] was a communist sympathizer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 30 November 2009 (EST)

:Agreed, and I tried to explain in the introduction how black holes "can never be conclusively proved or disproved," because of how no light escapes them. If you think it can be phrased better, please change the conclusion. But, I don't think we need to mention in the intro to this '''black hole''' article how '''[[wormholes]]''' are also unfalsifiable. It should be in the intro to the [[wormhole]] article, but I don't think it needs to be here. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 21:12, 30 November 2009 (EST)

::Black holes and wormholes were predicted by relativity in a similar way, and both are not falsifiable and thus arguably not science. The term "[[falsifiable]]" has a real meaning and your replacement isn't quite the same. The point is that if black holes are false and non-existent, then there is no way to show that. Ditto for wormholes, and in that information should be in the introduction, not buried thousands of words later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:36, 30 November 2009 (EST)

:::I don't really understand wormholes myself. It seems to me that they're a different subject and that mentioning them actually detracts from our points about black holes; however, I'll defer to you on keeping them there. And thanks for your point about the meaning in the specific word "[[falsifiable]]". My main point is that we should explain why "you can't prove there isn't a black hole somewhere in the universe" is different from "you can't prove there isn't Jack Smith somewhere in the world": because "black holes cannot be observed from outside, since not even light escapes." So, I tried to restore the chain of reasoning; I tacked wormholes on the end because I can't see a better place to put them. If you disagree with how I phrased the non-falsifiability sentence, I'd appreciate if you could try to fix that rather than revert the whole paragraph. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 23:30, 30 November 2009 (EST)

:::: Well skipping the question of why light is needed to prove something's existence, I find this sentence most disturbing: "What actually exists inside the event horizon of a black hole is a question physics '''is''' unable to answer. " Over the original "What actually exists inside the event horizon of a black hole is a question physics '''has thus far been''' unable to answer." The original sentence is much more accurate. You cannot say with absolute certainty that physics will never be able to answer what is beyond the event horizon, because there is always the possibility that question will be answered someday. Really that should be reverted. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 09:49, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::::: I only changed the intro, which does not contain your phrase, but there are structural (intended?) theoretical barriers to testing claims about what is inside a black hole. It's speculation ''ad nauseum''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:00, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::::::Andy, would you mind explaining why it's "excuses" to explain why black holes are non-falsifiable? If you have a better explanation, I'd appreciate if you could add it. Right now, the article just states it without proof, leaving any readers wondering. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:02, 1 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::Black holes are non-falsifiable for reasons beyond the inability of light to escape. In many ways this is the science magazines' replacement for the UFO craze of the 50s through 80s, which culminated in the record-breaking movie "E.T." The alleged existence of "E.T." is also non-falsifiable, and hence not science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:28, 1 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::To be fair EvanW, some of us do accept the idea they are falsifiable (and certainly detectable) and an actual scientific theory. Just a personal FYI. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 10:37, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::Point. Are you talking about the old debate with KSorenson here, where I pointed out, "So, we don't know that black holes do exist - that claim isn't falsifiable; we'd need to survey every <s>square</s>'''cubic''' millimeter of space and say 'there isn't a black hole here!'"? It seems that's a somewhat academic point: you could just as well say, "The existence of Jack Smith isn't falsifiable; you'd need to survey every square millimeter of the earth and say 'he isn't here'". If you want to say their existence isn't falsifiable because of that, be my guest but please explain the reason in the article. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:49, 1 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::No, in the idea that we claim black hole's exist because we have positive evidence for their existence, in other words, we can detect their presence in the universe. They can be falsified through showing with evidence that what we believer are black holes are actually something else, or find a stellar phenomenon that should according to present theories be a black hole, but isn't. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 13:19, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::The theory that extraterrestials might exist is a special case of scientific theory, with the burden of proof being on the proponents. They must produce one, or concede that they are just hoping. There's a longstanding battle between materialists and religious people about a number of scientific issues, and the [[burden of proof]] is often inconsistent. Is [[evolution]] falsifiable? What sort of evidence would make its proponents give up? (Note: if there is no way they would ever concede being wrong, then they are not engaged in [[science]] but in [[propaganda]]. This is a very serious point.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::: Well, first off, saying something might exist is really a scientific hypothesis versus an actual theory of science. Extraterrestrial life might exist based on what we know of the universe, that doesn't mean they do (or do not). One may believe they do (I believe they do) but that is simple speculation. Can a black hole be falsified? Sure, find a stellar object that according to the theories of physics that should be a black hole but isn't (such as reflecting light, or thermodynamically not a perfect black body). The claim black holes exist is through their interaction interaction with other matter, of course show that those interactions are caused by another stellar phenomenon and again you has falsified the theory. Of course black hole's may not be exactly what we believe they are either. They may not contain a true singularity of infinite mass, gravity and yet no dimensions. They simply may be degenerate matter with a measurable mass that happens to have enough gravitational force at the event horizon to pull any light back onto itself, yet not infinite. That would also force the current theories to be reevaluated. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 12:13, 1 December 2009 (EST)

===(still more)===

The mathematics back it up. If they didn't the theory would be proven false, thus, the concept of a black hole is indeed falsifiable. However, i realize that is not the general opinion here, but i feel it was neccesary to state this--[[User:BenO|BenO]] 21:48, 12 December 2009 (EST)

: Under your approach EVERYTHING would be falsifiable. It would render the criterion of [[falsifiability]] a nullity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:03, 12 December 2009 (EST)

I'm trying to understand what you mean by falsifiability. Is the existence of normal, everyday objects falsifiable? Take a pencil for example. Even if there were no such thing as pencils on earth, wouldn't it still be impossible to prove whether such a thing exists elsewhere in the universe? --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 22:11, 12 December 2009 (EST)

: I see your point, but I think the confusion is in how the hypothesis is stated. If there were no known pencils on earth, and yet someone insisted pencils exist somewhere in the universe, then the appropriate answer would be "your claim is not scientific because, among other reasons, it is not falsifiable."y

: The concept of [[falsifiability]] is very effective in dealing with atheistic and liberal claims that are designed to distract people from the Bible and God. For decades atheists and liberals insisted that there is intelligent life in outer space. That suggestion pulls people away from the Bible, which of course includes no such possibility. But the claim should be immediately rejected as non-scientific because it is not falsifiable. That saves countless hours of distraction and billions of dollars in fruitless projects.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:35, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::I think I'm finally seeing your point, Andy. I'm reminded of a quote from Lewis (paraphrased; I think it's from ''Miracles''): If we're trying to reason out whether the cat's sleeping in the cupboard, reason itself will tell us to go there and look rather than sit in our chair and reason. Similarly, I think you're saying that if we're trying to scientifically discover whether black holes are sitting somewhere in outer space, we should instead go look (yes, I know that's prohibitively expensive as well as dangerous...). Is this what you're saying: that science is useless for telling whether any type of thing actually exists; it simply describes how it behaves once the five senses have proved that it does exist? --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 23:15, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::I'll think about your interesting suggestion. Offhand, I say that science does have a role in predicting whether something exists. But the problem is that atheists and liberals misuse and distort science to pull students away from the Bible and God, and that needs to be exposed and stopped.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:47, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:: However there is no theory of extraterrestrial life that states life exists elsewhere in the universe. We all know there is no evidence of extraterrestrial life, but the possibility of extraterrestrial life, at best that is a hypothesis. That is what people spend money on (essentially all private money) to search for, because it is possible. What cannot be said is there certainly is ''none''. Scientists may personally believe there is, and I believe there is, but we know that this is ''speculation'', not fact.

:: Black holes on the other-hand have been identified. We know there locations as we know the locations of other stellar phenomenon. They have properties and attributes. They can be falsified if it is shown that what we accept as black holes are shown to be other phenomenon. Or the theory can be falsified if black hole are shown to have distinctly different qualities then what was theorized. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 16:25, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:: A few points. Firstly, the sentence "it is impossible to prove that no black hole exists anywhere" only makes sense 1) if you know for certain that no black holes exist or 2) it is impossible to search everywhere and you don't happen to find one in the limited places you look. Secondly, I am having trouble with the very strict definition of falsifiability. It does not seem to allow for the existence of human beings as a scientific theory i.e. I can not think of a way to show that humans do not exist. Thankfully in this part of the discussion page falsifiability is allowed a slightly more reasonable definition. On the subject of black holes, no black holes have ever been seen. They have been inferred. The inference stems from observing the gravitational affect on nearby matter such as stars. One example is of stars in the center of the Milky Way but there are others. Using simple Newtonian gravity (and Kepler's Laws), the mass of the object they are orbiting can be calculated as can the size of the volume it occupies. The implied density of matter fits with the concept of a black hole. So they "look" like black holes gravitationally. Of course, they still might not be. People need to put the effort into finding ways to falsify General Relativity and suggest alternative explanations that fit the data. Many scientific groups are trying to falsify General Relativity by measuring extreme gravitational environments such as massive binary objects. --[[User:Stuart|Stu]] 10:24 (EDT)
:::My opinion on this is twofold: if the theory states that a black hole is formed from the mass of a collapsed star, than of course there's going to be real science and real scientists involved in properly investigating this sort of thing. There are in the universe collapsed stars, quaisars, pulsars, and a very-possible black hole of this description involving the star Cygnus-X1. If, however, the theory involves something akin to "wormholes" and other things one sees in the average ''Star Trek'' episode, then that's where the pseudoscience pops in. Until it is definately-confirmed that black holes exist in fact, then the article should explain them as a theory. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:45, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

== Concerning escape velocity of black holes ==

The first paragraph discusses how that within a certain radius of a black hole (event horizon), the necessary escape velocity result in nothing being able to escape. This is actually a common misunderstanding, resulting from using classical equations to describe relativistic mechanics. The reason light and matter cannot escape from past the event horizon of a black hole is because of the time dilation. After crossing the event horizon, this dilation results in all possible paths light could take going farther into the black hole. Once within this radius, moving farther towards the black hole is as inevitable as moving forward in time.

Looking for someone to help me improve the page!

'''Article contradicts the article on supernovas'''

Quote: For a core of greater mass, the core will continue to collapse into a '''black hole''', as neutron degeneracy will not be able to hold back the force of gravity.

Which to me reads as a fact.
Also would the mystery of black hole fit in with God's
laws which said too much knowledge is bad?

Talk:Black hole

2012-08-22T20:48:13Z

PatMc: /* Concerning escape velocity of black holes */

Overrated Sports Stars

2012-08-21T15:38:56Z

PatMc:

The [[lamestream media]] like to promote athletes based not on skill, but for [[liberal]] reasons. Here's a growing list of the most overrated sports stars (notice how none are on the list of [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]]):

#[[Andre Agassi]] — his rival [[Pete Sampras]] was far better, but Sampras is [[conservative]]. Agassi is a big donor to [[Democrat]] politicians.

#[[Kobe Bryant]] — not as valuable to the game as [[Jeremy Lin]]; hasn't won a title without super-coaching by Phil Jackson, who observes that Kobe is not on the high level of [[Michael Jordan]]; Kobe makes only 46% of his shots, and scores lots of points because he hogs the ball.
#[[LeBron James]] — 2012's NBA Finals MVP is far from the best player in the [[NBA]], he is way overrated by the liberal ESPN compared to Christian Kevin Durant
#[[Magic Johnson]] — lucky enough to play on [[Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]]'s Lakers to win some titles, but was crushed by [[Michael Jordan]] and the Bulls; no problem, Magic was a critic of President [[George H.W. Bush]], which thrilled liberals.
#*People look at him, and say, 'Hey, it's OK to get HIV because I'm living with it.' That is the wrong message. [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57319698/20-years-since-magic-johnsons-hiv-stunner/]
#[[Peyton Manning]] — a [[quarterback]] who won only one [[NFL]] championship, despite being voted by the media and others to be NFL MVP 4 times, AFC Player of the Year 6 times, and Pro Bowler 11 times. The [[liberal media]] treated him like the Second Coming of [[Christ]] in order to oust [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]] from his leadership position in the [[swing state]] of [[Colorado]] prior to the [[Presidential Election 2012]].
#[[Steve Nash]] — an [http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2009/3/25/809516/steve-nash-on-media-bias-t outspoken liberal who supported Obama], Nash was chosen ''twice'' by the [[lamestream media]] as the [[NBA]] MVP despite never leading his team to even an NBA Finals.
#[[Mark Sanchez]] — the [[New York Jets]] [[quarterback]] is being touted as the team's best QB over [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]] despite falling apart at the end of the 2011–12 season. Now that Tebow's on-board, [[liberals]] are championing the former [[USC]] star as the superior player despite his recently poor play.
#[[Tiger Woods]] — hasn't won a major golf tournament in four years, and yet he's still the only one liberals want to talk about while reporting on tournaments.

(please revise or add to list)

[[Category:sports]]

Talk:Overrated Sports Stars

2012-08-21T15:38:07Z

PatMc:

== Some issues with this list ==

I see some issues with this list; as an avid follower of basketball and football, I will attempt to rebut some of the claims made in this article.

*Kobe Bryant (who the article says has not won a championship except under the coaching of Phil Jackson) has played 11 of his 16 seasons under Jackson. He was not the leader of the Lakers his first 3 seasons (that would be Shaq) and was only 17 when he was drafted, so let's write those off. Since then, he played one season (in which he was injured) under Rudy Tomjanovich, and one under Mike Brown. Hardly a large sample size. Say whatever you'd like about him, but he won two championships as the leader of the Lakers without Shaq, lifting an average supporting cast. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Bryant couldn't win after Jackson left. Enough said. Jackson has a phenomenal record of winning championships no matter whom he's coaching.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Jackson's been gone for ONE season. One. That is nowhere near a reliable sample size. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::For what it's worth, Michael Jordan never won a title without Phil Jackson either. I hardly think that takes away from his accomplishments. --[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:53, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Magic Johnson is one of the greatest, most versatile players in NBA history, and turned in the greatest Finals performance ever (Game 6 in 1980, when he had 42 points and 15 rebounds in plaee of the injured Kareem at center...as a ROOKIE). Basketball is a team sport and it is rarely fair to attribute most or all of a team's success to one player (although in rare cases that may be done, like Kobe post-Shaq); calling those teams Kareem's is patently false. They belonged to Kareem, Magic, James Worthy, Michael Cooper, Kurt Rambis, and every other player. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::What was Magic's shooting percentage??? Look, Magic with good teammates had trouble beating Bird with nobodys as teammates for the NCAA championship, and Michael Jordan nearly swept Magic when they finally met in an NBA finals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Magic primarily played point guard, a position that places much more emphasis on passing. The fact that he averaged 18-20 points a game is a testament to his offensive ability. And of course Jordan is better, he's the best player of all time. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::The only weakness in Magic's game was three point shooting, and that was a new thing in the 80s, so most people couldn't shoot threes. Jordan couldn't until the 90s. I think the fact that Larry grew up dirt poor in the middle of nowhere helped him, cause you're just gonna move further back to have something to entertain yourself with. But other than that, Magic was probably the most versatile player of all time, I mean he played center for crying out loud! Bird could probably play any position offensively, but probably wasn't fast enough to play guard very well defensively. Jordan wasn't tall enough to be a big man. As for teams, the 85-86 Celtics was probably the best group of players ever assembled. 5 Hall of Famers plus another All-Star. And the entire 80s was based on loaded teams (Celtics, Lakers, Sixers, and Pistons), so that argument doesn't work. A lot things about this list are wrong, but Magic is the most glaringly obvious. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 14:09, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:::::Would anyone want a "versatile" football or player??? In the big leagues, praising someone for his versatility is a back-handed compliment, something to say when the player is not the best at anything else.

:::::Magic's weakness was not simply three-point shooting, but scoring field goals at all. He never broke 25 ppg in a season. Michael Jordan was so much better than Magic in the 1991 finals that it wasn't even close.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:25, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::"Magic's weakness was not simply three-point shooting, but scoring field goals at all" -- that's very inaccurate. He scored an extraordinary number of points for a point guard at very high efficiency (52.0%, with a high free throw percentage as well) while dishing out more assists per game than any other player in history. If he were to force more shots, it would take away from his distribution.
:::::Allen Iverson is the only point guard (if you count him as a point guard) in history with more points per game, and he was a much less efficient scorer (42.5% vs 52.0%) and a much weaker passer (6.2 assists vs. 11.2). Since Magic was among the best scorers of all time at his position, it is ridiculous to claim that scoring was a weakness in his game. The fact that he was outplayed, in his second to last season, by Michael Jordan in his prime, does not invalidate his accomplishments. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 08:32, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::But football is a game where positions are extremely specialized. In basketball, the positions do different things, but don't have different rules. Any player is allowed to take the ball at any spot, shoot, pass, rebound, whatever. An interior lineman can't go out for a pass. His job is to block, and only to block. In basketball, versatility is very important. That's what makes Michael and Larry great as well. Bird was a small forward who averaged 6-8 assists and over 10 rebounds, a great scorer and arguably the NBA's first great three point shooter. If all Michael did was score, he wouldn't be the best. But he rebounded, passed, and played great defense as well. Based just on scoring, Kobe is probably Jordan's equal (His career average being lower because he came straight out of high-school and didn't start immediately). But Kobe can't rebound, pass, or defend like Mike, and is a less efficient shooter. And 11.2 assists per game? Not even Stockton did that and Magic was a much better scorer and rebounder. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 10:44, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

::::Magic shot 52% for his career, an absurdly high number for a point guard, and he is almost without dispute, the greatest point guard in NBA history. He won multiple titles by beating Bird's Celtics in the NBA.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:57, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::Magic Johnson was a true great who was completely unrivaled at his position. And the idea that Bird has "nobodys as teammates is absurd." Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, and Dennis Johnson are all Hall of Famers. McHale in particular was one of the most efficient scorers in history, the only player to ever shoot better than 60% from the field and better than 80% from the line in the same season.[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 11:26, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
:The relevant questions are (1) is he rated higher than someone else who's actually better? and (2) is this because of some liberal ideological reason, such as promoting the gay lobby's contention that [[AIDS is not a gay disease]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
::Obviously there is no entirely unquestioned ranking of NBA players, but Magic Johnson is rightly regarded as one of the 2 or 3 greatest point guards ever and one of the top 12-15 players ever. And his ranking has nothing to do with politics, and Johnson is not homosexual. He contracted HIV through unprotected sex with a woman. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 11:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:Kareem was well past his prime during all but the first of the Showtime Lakers titles, and only played that long because he got bad financial advice and wanted to make more money. All in all, the Celtics had far better big men than the Lakers in the 1980s. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 13:55, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
*LeBron James (who by any stretch is NOT "far from the best" in the NBA) is certainly one of the top 5 players in the NBA today. And this "overrating" by the media...LeBron has been the villain of the media narrative for the last 2 years since he joined Miami. Do you even wtach ESPN? And Durant is not underrated in the least; again, the media narrative is that he and the Thunder will be contending for a spot in the Finals for years to come (which they will). Plus, he went to a Catholic school. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::LeBron wasn't my addition but the hype for him seems a bit much. Perhaps his unusual name helps.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)\
:::How does his name impact anything at all? [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Steve Nash and his 2 MVPs...does the phrase "Most Valuable Player" mean anything? It is awarded to the player judged to be most valuable to his team. Not the best player on the best team...the player most important to his team's success. And Nash was certainly the most valuable to the Suns those years considering his supporting cast. Nash is an extremely inventive, creative point guard and the ultimate team player. Plus, he produced a documentary about famed conservative runner Terry Fox. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::MVP is by popular vote by ... the [[lamestream media]]. It's like the Academy Awards and Nobel Prize -- being liberal is worth more than being talented.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::NBA MVPs will always more likely be liberal because the league is so heavily black. For comparison, let's look at the last 20 NFL MVPs (awarded by an AP poll of "liberal media", as you would call them). Republican Favre thrice, Steve Young (a relative of Brigham Young, for crying out loud) twice, Manning 4 times, Christian Aaron Rodgers once, outspoken Christian Kurt Warner twice...that's 60% of the MVPs from 1992-2011. Clearly your argument fails. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Peyton Manning...the MVP stuff from above holds true in the NFL. Yes, he won 1 Super Bowl, but he made another and had to deal with the Steelers and Patriots in the AFC (hardly weak competition). He is one of the smartest football minds to ever play the game, and no serious football analyst would claim he was a downgrade from Tebow. Not one. And he's a Republican.
::The maneuver to replace Tebow with Peyton in a [[swing state]] in an election year is transparent, wouldn't you say?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::...so John Elway, a Republican, apparently isn't concerned with his team primarily and traded his Republican starting QB once he acquired an even better Republican quarterback? Your argument makes no sense. Elway is a Republican but not a national political figure. None of this has anything to do with politics. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::: So anything that occurs in a [[swing state]] during an election year is a political maneuver? Well, it rained today in Florida. Clearly a plot by Obama to gather more votes. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 14:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

::::: I wasn't being entirely serious with my "wouldn't you say?" comment above, but even some jokes can carry a germ of truth. Colorado is very polarized politically and ideologically, as a swing state, and there was pressure to find a substitute who could serve as a plausible reason to trade Tebow away. Florida is not as much of a [[swing state]] as Colorado, and rain is not the result of political pressure!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:13, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::: If you weren't being entirely serious then why did you write the thing about Tebow being traded from a swing state during an election year in the article?! Or is Conservapedia openly a satire site now? (Many people seem to think it is one.) Anyway, the evidence that political pressure having anything to do with Tebow being trade is just as strong as political pressure being responsible for the rain. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 16:40, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::::The entry is obviously about the ''hype'', the ''overrated'' aspect. Peyton Manning was overrated earlier this year in connection with replacing Tebow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:44, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::How exactly was Manning overrated in this case? Please tell me using your knowledge of football, not your political views. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:05, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Mark Sanchez...say what you will, but he's been to 2 AFC Championship games, Tebow none. I will acknowledge his below average play last season (I'm not the biggest fan of him) but it would be suicidal for Rex Ryan to bench him in favor of a new acquisition who completed 46% of his passes last season. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Not my addition, but I bet Tebow is replacing him by mid-season, but the replacement should occur before the first regular season game, if it weren't for liberal politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Please tell me specifically how "liberal politics" is keeping Sanchez as the starter, and use your knowlege of football to tell me why Tebow would be a better starter than Sanchez. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

== Becks ==

I follow US soccer closely and have never seen David Beckham promoted as he is Pele. He is one of the best, probably top 3, free kick takers to have played the sport. This is shown by his stats. I don't see how he is overrated when he actually is a fantastic athlete. He has six Premier League titles, 2 FA Cup titles, 4 FA community shields, 2 MLS supporters shields , an MLS Cup.. the list goes on and on (that doesn't include lengthy list of personal honors he has received.) I am seriously curious as to how he is overrated. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 13:25, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:With respect, I think you are missing the point. This list has nothing to do with sporting achievements. Rather it has to do with whether the athletes involved are deserving of the praise they receive. Beckham, due to his promotion of [[Hollywood Values]] does not deserve the accolades he has acquired. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 09:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
::Athletes should be praised, or criticized, for the job they do on whatever sporting field they participate in - that's their job, and that's how they should be rated. Period. Everything else is just petty gossipmongering. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:18, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
:::With regards to DamianJohn's comments... I believe this list should have everything to do with their sporting achievements. It is called "Overrated Sports Stars". Unless the point is just to list every sports player that votes on the Democrat ticket. If that is the case, the title of the page should be changed. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 11:29, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::::Beckham is a famous celebrity because he has a hot wife. However, his promotion as a football player is different. He is genuinely considered a great player, his teammates always speak very highly of his ability to be a team player (more important than if your team wins) [[User:AlexanderSz|AlexanderSz]] 09:49, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

== Quick question about standards... ==

Are these athletes overrated based on their entire career, or just based on the last years of it, as they age and their skills fade due to injuries and/or age? Truly, the only ''fair'' way to judge someone is based on the entirety of their career, as objectively as possible. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

== Tiger Woods? ==

I know that Tiger Woods is not well liked and that people here enjoy seeing him fail, but his achievements still place him in the upper echelons of golfers for all time

:Yes, he merits a place on the all-time list, but he is no longer one of the very top golfers currently playing. Yet the media still claim that he is one of the favorites, or "can't be written off", going into each big tournament, at the expense of giving coverage to other players who actually have a much better chance.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:23, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::So, is it a terrible thing to root for someone who was once on top of their game, but now is struggling? Isn't that what all of us do in our daily lives - struggle? Should we sneer at others when they go through something difficult, or should we show support? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:32, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::Ok I understand. Based on that outline I've added Michael Schumacher

::::No, we shouldn't sneer. I'm not advocating sneering. But we ought to be realistic about his chances, which are small, and the media often aren't. That's the definition of being overrated.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:01, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::Sorry - this is sneering as far as I'm concerned. Either that, or gloating as a once-great player stumbles. Dissing someone because someone else (the media) likes them is petty and is certainly not Christ-like. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:13, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::: If Tiger's chances are slim, wouldn't he then be the underdog? Didn't this site [[Mystery:Why_Do_Atheists_Dislike_Underdogs%3F|not too long ago]] claim that rooting for the [[underdog|underdog]] was a Christian characteristic? So in that sense, the media is hyping the underdog.. if Tiger's chances of winning are small. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 11:35, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::::::: The [[lamestream media]] do not overhype Woods because he's an underdog. There are lots of underdogs who then win without the media giving them the time of day.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:27, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

== More removals ==

I removed Wayne Gretzky and Sol Campbell, because neither is particularly overrated. Also Bradman, which was obviously a frivolous addition - it criticised him for "not achieving anything for decades", when he retired decades ago and died in 2001.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:I've re-added Sol Campbell as Conservative himself at one point reverted the page to the edit where I added him, so it must be fine. To make the case more robust, I've added a statement about how he has played for the top Soccer clubs.

::He's only played for one top club, which is Arsenal. Spurs weren't so successful back when he played for them, which was essentially why he left.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:40, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

== Wow, you guys don't know sports do you... ==

Ok, let's start from the top

1) Oh, so Agassi isn't as good as the second greatest player to ever step foot on a court, therefore he is over rated? Agassi is compared to Sampras because their rivalry was a classic. No one acts as though Agassi is far superior to Sampra, and you cannot deny his results considering he won 8 slams and was a world number 1 (a title given based on a completely unbiased scoring system of points).

2) Beckham is famous for being clutch with free kicks and penalty shots, as well as being in the right place at the right time. He is perhaps the only justified member of this list.

3) Not sure how you can compare Jeremy Lin to Kobe Bryant. One has had one good season, the other has proven to be a deadly scoring threat with multiple clutch shots under his belt. Winning titles in the NBA relies on more than one player (Jordan didn't win it without Pippen and a good supporting cast), so saying he can't win w/o help is a crap argument. And again saying he is not as good as the best player who ever played hardly makes him over-rated, his FG percentage is only 3 points lower than Jordan's career average.

4) His status as the best player in the league is a topic of debate yes, but his showcase of skills (averaging a triple double in the finals) proves he's hardly over-rated. His ability to lock-down Durant and not suffer the same fate to Durant would also seem to indicate a more balanced game from Mr. James. Also, you followed sports at ALL, you would know that a common complaint about ESPN is that they show both James AND Durant far too much love.

5) AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, you are so silly. This doesn't even bear arguing, just look at his stats and performances. Again, no one wins it alone, and they were battling the legendary Big Three of Boston.

6)...Wow, just, wow. Ok, let's start with a (then) record of 49 TDs. Then lets look at the fact that he's thrown for over 4,000 yards in every season but two...one of which was his rookie. Then let's also look at the fact that he lost a lot of playoff games to the Patriots, a modern dynasty. Do you think Dan Marino sucks because he could never get that championship? He is acknowledged as one of the few (perhaps only) QBs essentially calling their own plays in the NFL today and, oh yeah, he can actually read coverage. Tim Tebow on the other hand, while an exciting athlete, has demonstrated that he doesn't make the best football decisions, trusting his feet more than his arm. That doesn't win. Peyton Manning has HoF numbers and skills, you would have to be an idiot (or have Tom Brady) not to CONSIDER having him as your QB.

7) Sooo, if you're not a champion, than you cannot be the most valuable cog in a team? Steve Nash's picks were based on his ability to facilitate play and move offenses and his stats speak for themselves. Again, if championships are the only barometer with which you measure, then Trent Dilfer is on par with Joe Namath.

8) Sanchez is the starter, Tebow is the back-up. Coaches decisions, end of discussion. The media can have its say, but ultimately the coaches decide who starts. However, as pointed out before, Tebow's football decisions are questionable, that is why he is the back-up.

9) He's two majors from the Golden Bear, and was THE dominant player for a decade. Kind of hard to ignore.

10) At one point he was the number one driver in the world, again, hard to ignore.

All-in-all, your list is entirely based on sports starts being liberal or (in the case of Manning and Sanchez) for taking the job away from Tebow. Your transparetly flawed list doesn't seem to take into account that the ranking of sports stars rarely reflects their political leanings, but rather their performance on the field and, in cases, their rapport with sports media. [[User:FernandoTorez|FernandoTorez]] 19:06, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:You mistyped Torres, "Fernando".--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:37, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
::Way to skip the content slick. I know how Fernando Torres is spelled, but I am not him, nor do I claim to be him. Now, could you please at least try to address why these people are in this article? [[User:FernandoTorez|FernandoTorez]] 18:08, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
:::I know you aren't him, duh, and I realise that you aren't claiming to be him. What you are doing is laughing behind your handkerchief at your own cleverness in choosing a silly pseudonym that most Americans wouldn't pick up on. Well, you have been busted!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 06:43, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

== Kobe Bryant not as valuable as Jeremy Lin ==

Is this a joke?--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 09:06, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

== Reversione explained ==

This entry is about '''''overrated'''''in the distant past, so a consideration of the media hype must be done before adding or deleting.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
* So why was Tommy Morrison removed from the list? He is overrated. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 11:48, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== Tim Tebow and Jeremy Lin ==

Can someone offer a non-ideological, sports-relevant reason that Tim Tebow and Jeremy Lin are not overrated based on press coverage received. If not, I propose the addition of these entries.

Tim Tebow — Has a career record of 9-7 with a completion percentage under 50% and more turnovers than TD passes, yet is promoted by the media as a top quarterback in the NFL, even ranked in the NFL's top 100 players countdown despite achieving nothing of significance in the NFL. Media pressure will likely be responsible for Tebow overtaking Mark Sanchez during this NFL season. Some conservatives have even postulated that Tebow's mere presence in a state could impact the 2012 presidential election, drastically overrating his contributions as a sports star.

Jeremy Lin — Having only played in 64 NBA games (25 as a starter) averaging under 10 points a game for his career, and never playing in a single playoff game, the media has hyped Jeremy Lin as one of the games best point guards, despite not having a single significant achievement to his name. Jeremy Lin only shoots 44% from the field. Is the hype around Jeremy Lin due primarily to his ethnicity?
--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 16:02, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

Removed David Beckham form the list.
This gets worse.Sol Campbell??, are you a gooner?? Out of order. People like SOl have helped soften the English fans attitude. If it were not for people like SOl, English fans would still be destroying every foreign city they visited. During 2012 not one English supporter was arrested in Poland and Ukraine, NOT A SINGLE SUPPORTER, the stance of people like Campbell have helped to almost eradicate the "English Disease" , I will remove his reference. And when I am at it i will remove Michael Schumacher, 7 times World Champion, what planet do you live on?

David Beckham

2012-08-21T15:25:55Z

PatMc:

[[Image:Becks.jpg|left]]
'''David Beckham''' (b. England 2 May 1975) is footballer, widely considered to be one of the best players his country has ever produced, who has played [[England|English]] football (soccer). He is the former England captain, and has played for his country 108 times, although he now plays club football in America. Beckham made his name as a player with English club [[Manchester United]] and spent a period at Spanish club [[Real Madrid]]. In January 2007, he left Real and signed a five-year contract with [[Los Angeles Galaxy]]. Currently, he is out on loan to [[Italian]] side [[AC Milan]].

Beckham has also lucrative endorsement deals with companies such as Adidas, Pepsi, Gillette and Motorola. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/ Times Online]
[[Image:Beck.jpg|right]]
The David Beckham LA Galaxy shirt has become the biggest-selling sports jersey in the world, according to Adidas, the sportswear manufacturer with which the midfielder has a £320m lifetime deal. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article2116047.ece Beckham fans]

He has three sons with wife [[Victoria Beckham]]: Brooklyn (b. 4 March 1999), Romeo (b. 1 September 2002) and Cruz (b. 20 February 2005).

His popular nicknames are "Becks" and "Spice boy". He has tattoos in Hebrew (from [[Song of Solomon]]), English, Latin, and Hindi.

== See also ==

*[[Overrated Sports Stars]]
*[[Victoria Beckham]]
*[[Hugo Sanchez]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.infoplease.com/biography/var/davidbeckham.html David Beckham]

[[Category:Football soccer]]

[[Category: Soccer]]

Talk:Overrated Sports Stars

2012-08-21T15:24:29Z

PatMc:

Overrated Sports Stars

2012-08-21T15:23:45Z

PatMc:

The [[lamestream media]] like to promote athletes based not on skill, but for [[liberal]] reasons. Here's a growing list of the most overrated sports stars (notice how none are on the list of [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]]):

#[[Andre Agassi]] — his rival [[Pete Sampras]] was far better, but Sampras is [[conservative]]. Agassi is a big donor to [[Democrat]] politicians.

#[[Kobe Bryant]] — not as valuable to the game as [[Jeremy Lin]]; hasn't won a title without super-coaching by Phil Jackson, who observes that Kobe is not on the high level of [[Michael Jordan]]; Kobe makes only 46% of his shots, and scores lots of points because he hogs the ball.
#[[LeBron James]] — 2012's NBA Finals MVP is far from the best player in the [[NBA]], he is way overrated by the liberal ESPN compared to Christian Kevin Durant
#[[Magic Johnson]] — lucky enough to play on [[Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]]'s Lakers to win some titles, but was crushed by [[Michael Jordan]] and the Bulls; no problem, Magic was a critic of President [[George H.W. Bush]], which thrilled liberals.
#*People look at him, and say, 'Hey, it's OK to get HIV because I'm living with it.' That is the wrong message. [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57319698/20-years-since-magic-johnsons-hiv-stunner/]
#[[Peyton Manning]] — a [[quarterback]] who won only one [[NFL]] championship, despite being voted by the media and others to be NFL MVP 4 times, AFC Player of the Year 6 times, and Pro Bowler 11 times. The [[liberal media]] treated him like the Second Coming of [[Christ]] in order to oust [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]] from his leadership position in the [[swing state]] of [[Colorado]] prior to the [[Presidential Election 2012]].
#[[Steve Nash]] — an [http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2009/3/25/809516/steve-nash-on-media-bias-t outspoken liberal who supported Obama], Nash was chosen ''twice'' by the [[lamestream media]] as the [[NBA]] MVP despite never leading his team to even an NBA Finals.
#[[Mark Sanchez]] — the [[New York Jets]] [[quarterback]] is being touted as the team's best QB over [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]] despite falling apart at the end of the 2011–12 season. Now that Tebow's on-board, [[liberals]] are championing the former [[USC]] star as the superior player despite his recently poor play.
#[[Tiger Woods]] — hasn't won a major golf tournament in four years, and yet he's still the only one liberals want to talk about while reporting on tournaments.
#[[Michael Schumacher]] — has failed to perform after his return to [[Formula One]] racing and has been consistently outperformed by his teammate. His first podium finish since 2006 came only after many drivers in front of him retired from the race. Schumacher still receives generous media attention.
#[[Sol Campbell]] — Is known to be sympathetic towards [[homosexual]] rights campaigners. During his England career they failed to win a single major tournament. While at Arsenal he failed to win the champions League, only ever making the final once and only won the Premier League a measly two times. Despite this, he has had a career which has seen him play for some of the best clubs.

(please revise or add to list)

[[Category:sports]]

Talk:David Beckham

2012-08-21T15:22:31Z

PatMc:

Why do you consider Beckham to be overrated? I see from the posts on Association Football that the posters do not really have much knowledge of the beautiful game.
Over paid, definitely, over exposed in the media for non sporting matters (his "good looks", famous wife), perhaps, but an overrated sportsman, no way.
"Becks" is one of the best players England has ever produced, has perhaps the sweetest right foot and crossing/dead ball ability I have ever seen. For the period from about 1998-2005 he was, after Zidane, the best player on the planet.
As for not making the 2012 GB Olympic squad. For a start he 37 years old, well past his best.Only 3 players over 23 were allowed in the squad, the GB chose Ryan Giggs and Craig Bellamy, both Welshmen (it was after all a GB combined team and not an exclusive England team) and Micah Richards, a much needed full back, only just over aged at 24)
Also Giggs and Bellamy last season played for Manchester United and Liverpool, two of the "big boys" of World ,let alone English Football, where Beckham played for LA Galaxy, and showing the highest respect for the MLS, it is nowhere near the standard of the English Premier League, perhaps similar in equality to the English League One(third tier)
Also(I hate to say this as he is a Nottingham Forest and England legend, my two supported teams), Stuart Pearce is in my opinion, not a particularly good Football Manager/Coach and most think he was wrong to leave out Beckham.

SO, Past his best? Yes, he is 37 after all(a player is considered at his peak at 27-32)
Over exposed?, yep, i will go with that.
But overrated?

Not a chance. not at all

By the way, I am enjoying exploring Conservapedia, I agree with much but also disagree with quite a few articles, but it's knowledge of UK culture is limited. An example of this would be "British Football", the four associations (England, Scotland,Wales, Northern Ireland) are as Separate from each other as they are from the US/German(etc) associations and to suggest otherwise would insult a follower of any of these independent National Teams.

As no-one seems to disagree with me, I will remove the overrated reference to David.
Also removed the reference to spice boy, he was never considered a spice boy. The "Spice Boys" were a group of Liverpool players from the late 1990s. In fact this whole article needs re-writing.
Oh dear, he is not the worlds richest footballer, Lionel Messi for one is worth more than Beckham, as is Cristiano Ronaldo, please get your facts right.

Talk:David Beckham

2012-08-21T15:20:28Z

PatMc:

David Beckham

2012-08-21T15:17:49Z

PatMc:

[[Image:Becks.jpg|left]]
'''David Beckham''' (b. England 2 May 1975) is footballer, widely considered to be one of the best players his country has ever produced, who has played [[England|English]] football (soccer). He is the world’s richest [[football]]er, apparently due to something other than athletic achievement. He is the former England captain, and has played for his country 108 times, although he now plays club football in America. Beckham made his name as a player with English club [[Manchester United]] and spent a period at Spanish club [[Real Madrid]]. In January 2007, he left Real and signed a five-year contract with [[Los Angeles Galaxy]]. Currently, he is out on loan to [[Italian]] side [[AC Milan]].

Beckham has also lucrative endorsement deals with companies such as Adidas, Pepsi, Gillette and Motorola. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/ Times Online]
[[Image:Beck.jpg|right]]
The David Beckham LA Galaxy shirt has become the biggest-selling sports jersey in the world, according to Adidas, the sportswear manufacturer with which the midfielder has a £320m lifetime deal. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article2116047.ece Beckham fans]

He has three sons with wife [[Victoria Beckham]]: Brooklyn (b. 4 March 1999), Romeo (b. 1 September 2002) and Cruz (b. 20 February 2005).

His popular nicknames are "Becks" and "Spice boy". He has tattoos in Hebrew (from [[Song of Solomon]]), English, Latin, and Hindi.

== See also ==

*[[Overrated Sports Stars]]
*[[Victoria Beckham]]
*[[Hugo Sanchez]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.infoplease.com/biography/var/davidbeckham.html David Beckham]

[[Category:Football soccer]]

[[Category: Soccer]]

Talk:David Beckham

2012-08-21T15:15:48Z

PatMc:

Talk:David Beckham

2012-08-21T15:14:53Z

PatMc:

Why do you consider Beckham to be overrated? I see from the posts on Association Football that the posters do not really have much knowledge of the beautiful game.
Over paid, definitely, over exposed in the media for non sporting matters (his "good looks", famous wife), perhaps, but an overrated sportsman, no way.
"Becks" is one of the best players England has ever produced, has perhaps the sweetest right foot and crossing/dead ball ability I have ever seen. For the period from about 1998-2005 he was, after Zidane, the best player on the planet.
As for not making the 2012 GB Olympic squad. For a start he 37 years old, well past his best.Only 3 players over 23 were allowed in the squad, the GB chose Ryan Giggs and Craig Bellamy, both Welshmen (it was after all a GB combined team and not an exclusive England team) and Micah Richards, a much needed full back, only just over aged at 24)
Also Giggs and Bellamy last season played for Manchester United and Liverpool, two of the "big boys" of World ,let alone English Football, where Beckham played for LA Galaxy, and showing the highest respect for the MLS, it is nowhere near the standard of the English Premier League, perhaps similar in equality to the English League One(third tier)
Also(I hate to say this as he is a Nottingham Forest and England legend, my two supported teams), Stuart Pearce is in my opinion, not a particularly good Football Manager/Coach and most think he was wrong to leave out Beckham.

SO, Past his best? Yes, he is 37 after all(a player is considered at his peak at 27-32)
Over exposed?, yep, i will go with that.
But overrated?

Not a chance. not at all

By the way, I am enjoying exploring Conservapedia, I agree with much but also disagree with quite a few articles, but it's knowledge of UK culture is limited. An example of this would be "British Football", the four associations (England, Scotland,Wales, Northern Ireland) are as Separate from each other as they are from the US/German(etc) associations and to suggest otherwise would insult a follower of any of these independent National Teams.

As no-one seems to disagree with me, I will give it a day and then remove the overrated reference to David.

Talk:David Beckham

2012-08-21T04:04:10Z

PatMc:

Talk:David Beckham

2012-08-20T22:35:07Z

PatMc: Created page with "Why do you consider Beckham to be overrated? I see from the posts on Association Football that the posters do not really have much knowledge of the beautiful game. Over paid, def..."

Why do you consider Beckham to be overrated? I see from the posts on Association Football that the posters do not really have much knowledge of the beautiful game. Over paid, definitely, over exposed in the media for non sporting matters (his "good looks", famous wife), perhaps, but an overrated sportsman, no way.
"Becks" is one of the best players England has ever produced, has perhaps the sweetest right foot and crossing/dead ball ability I have ever seen. For the period from about 1998-2005 he was, after Zidane, the best player on the planet.
As for not making the 2012 GB Olympic squad. For a start he 37 years old, well past his best.Only 3 players over 23 were allowed in the squad, the GB chose Ryan Giggs and Craig Bellamy, both Welshmen (it was after all a GB combined team and not an exclusive England team) and Micah Richards, a much needed full back, only just over aged at 24)
Also Giggs and Bellamy last season played for Manchester United and Liverpool, two of the "big boys" of World ,let alone English Football, where Beckham played for LA Galaxy, and showing the highest respect for the MLS, it is nowhere near the standard of the English Premier League, perhaps similar in equality to the English League One(third tier)
Also(I hate to say this as he is a Nottingham Forest and England legend, my two supported teams), Stuart Pearce is in my opinion, not a particularly good Football Manager/Coach and most think he was wrong to leave out Beckham.

SO, Past his best? Yes, he is 37 after all(a player is considered at his peak at 27-32)
Over exposed?, yep, i will go with that.
But overrated?

Not a chance? not at all

By the way, I am enjoying exploring Conservapedia, I agree with much but also disagree with quite a few articles, but it's knowledge of UK culture is limited. An example of this would be "British Football", the four associations (England, Scotland,Wales, Northern Ireland) are as Separate from each other as they are from the US/German(etc) associations and to suggest otherwise would insult a follower of any of these independent National Teams.

Talk:Striker

2012-08-20T19:02:07Z

PatMc: Created page with "I am sorry but this is not quite correct, you state that a forward plays further back. The "Traditional centre forward" in fact plays the most advanced of all players, more often..."

I am sorry but this is not quite correct, you state that a forward plays further back. The "Traditional centre forward" in fact plays the most advanced of all players, more often "on his own" in the modern game.
The term "striker" is a catch all term for forward players, they can be further categorised as Centre Forwards, "Hole" players, wingers, to name but a few.
Also Spain, who are in most peoples opinion the best (national) team in the world right now, which can be supported that they hold both the World Cup and the European Nations Cup, generally known as "The Euros" are playing more and more without a striker at all, using Cesc Fabregas as a "false striker or false number 9" who plays in a deeper midfield position pushing forward when needed.