Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Moon

2007-06-28T11:56:51Z

Pepsi-Cola: Barycenters exist regardless of the mass of either object, so this clause is unnecessary.

[[image:Moon2.jpg|right|thumb|350px|The Moon, age 21 days]]
The '''Moon''' is a natural satellite orbiting the Earth at an average distance of about 238,000 miles (380,000 km). The Earth and the Moon both move around a ''barycenter'', their common [[centroid|center of mass]].<ref>The Earth and the Moon orbit each other around a gravitational midpoint called the ''barycenter.'' This point is, however, actually inside the Earth, about 3/4 of its radius from its center. It is not the Earth, but the barycenter of the Earth-Moon system, that orbits the Sun in a near-perfect ellipse. Relative to this ellipse, Earth is 3,000 miles closer to the Sun at full moon and 3,000 miles further from the Sun at new moon.</ref>

When speaking of things having to do with the moon, the adjective ''lunar'' is used. The Greek-derived prefixed root ''selen-'' followed by the morpheme ''-o-'' is used as well; for example, the science of mapping the moon is called ''[[selenography]]'' (morphemes: ''selen-o-graph-y'').

The gravitational force of the Moon causes the ocean [[tides]]; these tidal forces have other effects as well. These tidal forces have the effect of creating resistance which slows down the rotation of both objects. In the case of the Earth, the result is that the Earth's rotation slows on the order of one millisecond per century. In the case of the Moon, over time the Moon has entirely lost its rotation relative to the Earth. The Moon's rotation is now locked in to its period of revolution, and the same side of the Moon always faces the Earth.

The phrase "''dark'' side of the Moon" is inaccurate because the Moon does rotate relative to the Sun, with the same period as its period of revolution, once every 29 days. Our view of the Moon from the Earth always shows the same side of the Moon, with the same markings and features. When the Moon is full, the entire side that faces us is experiencing lunar "day" and is lit by the Sun. Two weeks later, when the Moon is new, the side that faces us is experiencing solar "night" and is unlit (and virtually invisible).

Due to libration, a slight "wobble" in the lunar motion, we actually see a little bit more than half of the Moon's surface; sometimes it is turned a bit one way and sometimes the other. However, nobody had any idea of what the far side of the Moon looked like until 1959, when a Soviet satellite photographed it and relayed pictures back.

[[image:oldmooninnew.jpg|200px|right|thumb|The "old Moon in the new Moon's arms"]]
In the old Scottish ballad ''Sir Patrick Spens''<ref>Child, Francis James (1860), ''The English and Scottish Popular Ballads,'' [http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/child/ch058.htm No. 58]; the ballad is thought to refer to an actual event of the year A.D. 1290.</ref>, a sailor cautions:

  "I saw the new moon late yestreen 
    With the old moon in her arm; 
  And if we go to sea, master, 
    I fear we'll come to harm." 

The effect known as "the old Moon in the new Moon's arms" can often be seen when the Moon is a narrow crescent. Within the intensely bright crescent, a dim and mysterious view of the entire circular moon is seen. The effect is also known as ''earthshine'' because it is light from the Sun reflected off the Earth to the Moon and back that lights up the darker portion of the Moon. The bright crescent is lit by the Sun and is in full daylight. The rest of the Moon is not lit by the Sun; but an astronaut standing in this area would see a "full Earth" dominating the nighttime sky, lighting it up by its earthshine. The brightness of Earthshine, and hence the visibility of the old Moon in the new Moon's arms, varies. When the Earth is covered with clouds, or when there is a lot of snowpack on the side of the Earth facing the Moon, the Earth is a white and bright and the Earthshine is intense. When the Earth looks like a "big, blue marble," it is less intense.

"The Old Moon in the New Moon's Arms" is the title of a poem by [[Ella Wheeler Wilcox]], in which she interprets the effect as the New Moon wishing that her lost love, the Old Moon, be in her arms one last time; Venus grants the wish, and:

  Swift thro' the vapors and the golden mist— 
    The Full Moon's shadowy shape shone on the night, 
  The New Moon reached out clasping arms and kissed 
    Her phantom lover in the whole world's sight. 

The months of the Muslim calendar are determined by observations of the [[hilal]], the moment at which the thin crescent moon first becomes visible. This marks the start of a month. Traditionally, and today in Pakistan and Jordan, hilal is determined by actual observation and can be affected by weather and other factors. When following the traditional method, it is not actually possible to be certain of when future months will begin. In most Muslim countries, actual observation has been replaced by astronomical rules.

==Unusual characteristics of the Moon==
Unlike most planets in the solar system, Earth has only one moon, and it has several striking characteristics:

{|
|-valign="top"
|1.
|During recent history the Moon has had roughly same size as the [[Sun]] when viewed from Earth. This creates a situation which permits phenomenal solar eclipses to occur. The odds of this symmetry occurring by chance are very small. The symmetry will not last forever.
|-valign="top"
|2.
|The Moon presents the same side to Earth at all times. That means that the rotation of the Earth offsets the separate effects of the revolution of the Moon. Physicists explain this phenomenon by [[tidal locking]]; tidal forces on Earth caused a bulge on the Moon, thereby creating a drag on the rotation of the Moon until its same face always presents to the Earth. It was once believed that the planet [[Mercury]] had a similar locked rotation due to gravitational forces from the sun, such that the same side of Mercury always faces the sun. In fact, Mercury's tidal locking is incomplete; it does not always present the same face to the sun.

Current tidal forces exerted by the Earth on the Moon cannot account fully for its bulge or egg shape, though accounting for greater tidal forces in the past may explain this discrepancy.<ref>http://physics.fortlewis.edu/Astronomy/astronomy%20today/CHAISSON/AT308/HTML/AT30803.HTM</ref>
|-valign="top"
|3.
|There were several [[Moon Theories|theories]] about the origin of the Moon. Most of the older theories had been discarded in the face of observations (for example based on lunar samples).<ref>Planetary Science Institute: [http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html The Origin of the Moon]</ref> The currently accepted theory is that the Moon originated from a collision early in Earth's history which created an orbiting ring of debris from the iron-poor surface of the planet which eventually coalesced into the moon.<ref>http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=2198</ref> This theory explains many things that spoke against the older theories, but others have pointed out that the theory currently doesn't explain all observations of the Moon. Additionally, tests have been suggested, but the results neither supported or disproved the theory.<ref>J. H. Jones: [http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/origin98/pdf/4045.pdf Tests of the Giant Impact Hypothesis]</ref>
|-valign="top"
|4.
|The Moon currently recedes from the Earth at a rate of 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) per year<ref>NASA [http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html]</ref>. The Moon could never have been closer than about 11,000 miles or it would have been broken up by tidal forces. If the rate of recession stayed constant at 3.8 cm per year, it would take 9.6 billion years for the lunar distance to migrate from 11,000 miles to the present distance of about 240,000 miles. However, the tidal torque between Earth and the Moon would not be constant if the [[continental drift|continents drift]], and it also depends on the distance between the Earth and Moon and other factors, so a simple linear extrapolation is not valid.{{fact}}
|}

== See also ==
*[[Origin of the Moon]]

== Notes and References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Homophobia

2007-06-28T11:22:09Z

Pepsi-Cola:

'''Homophobia''' is, literally, "fear of homosexuality." Though the term can be used for a variety of purposes, its most common usage is to criticize people opposed to [[homosexuality]].

Homophobia is a [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] term originally intended to portray principled opposition to the [[homosexual agenda]] as an abnormal mental condition. It was introduced into scientific literature shortly before the American Psychiatric Association declassified its diagnosis of [[homosexuality]] as a [[mental illness]] in 1973. A 2002 research study by the [[University of Arkansas]] Department of Psychology, however, claimed that among non-homosexual homophobes no phobia exists.<ref>[http://www.cwfa.org/articles/674/CFI/cfreport/index.htmNew Study Says There’s No Phobia in ‘Homophobia’], Martha Kleder, CWA, 6/28/2002.</ref> Most homophobes are homosexual who suffer from "internalized homophobia". The is no agreement within the psychiatric and therapeutic professions on what the term actually means.

According to the National Association for Research & Therapy on Homosexuality (NARTH), gay-rights advocate Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D. wrote that the term "homophobia" was useful in pushing forward the gay agenda in our culture.<ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/creates.html Gay Psychologist Creates New Terms for Use in the Social Debate]. "In his paper on homophobia, stigma, and sexual prejudice, Dr. Herek suggests that although the term "homophobia" was useful in pushing forward the gay agenda in our culture, the term may be too limited in its scope today."</ref>
It is primarily used by [[gay activist]]s to portray opposition to the [[homosexual agenda]] as irrational <ref>Charles W. Socarides, M.D., [http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/socarides.html How America Went Gay], ''America'', (November 18, 1995). </ref>
based on fear or hatred, and to smear Christians and others. It is intended to sound like a form of [[mental illness]], but unlike actual phobias, it is not a term for any recognized psychological condition. NARTH says,
:"The term "homophobia" is often used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behavior on either moral, psychological or medical grounds. Technically, however, the terms actually denotes a person who has a phobia—or irrational fear—of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled "homophobia." <ref>[http://www.narth.com/menus/positionstatements.html NARTH Position Statements]</ref>

When used in this [[pejorative]] sense, the term is offensive and derogatory (see [[Mockery]]).

===Etymology===
The word comes from combining the Greek prefix ''homo-'', meaning "same", and suffix ''-phobia'', meaning "fear of". In early usage by homosexual activists, the term described heterosexual fears that others might think they were homosexual <ref>http://www.narth.com/docs/creates.html</ref> The neologism was promoted by George Weinberg, a gay activist and psychologist, who attempted to define it in clinical literature shortly before the downgrading of homosexuality as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973. Weinberg claimed it was "the dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals -- and in the case of homosexuals themselves, selfloathing."<ref>Plummer, David, ''One of the Boys: Masculinity, Homophobia, and Modern Manhood'', [http://books.google.com/books?id=xHGz4f_2_7IC&pg=PA3&ots=U8ktZZgnAk&dq=George+Weinberg+homophobia&ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=d7hjCcZ1uuBlgdLyRjUJwEn51uA#PPA3,M1 pp. 3-4]: "'Homophobia was introduced into the clinical literature by George Weinberg in 1972, in ''Society and the Healthy Homosexual.'' </ref> The term then entered common usage beginning with pornographic publications. <ref>Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D., published ''Beyond 'Homophobia': Thinking About Sexual Prejudice and Stigma in the Twenty-First Century,'' in the April, 2004, issue of Sexuality Research & Social Policy. </ref>

The terms meaning has not been accepted or agreed upon within the psychological therapeutic community. William O'Donohue and Christine E. Caselles <ref>William O'Donohue and Christine E. Caselles, [http://www.springerlink.com/content/n0264m864t146585/ Homophobia: Conceptual, definitional, and value issues], Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, Volume 15, Number 3, Springer Netherlands, September, 1993. ISSN 0882-2689</ref> have concluded based upon research within the therapeutic community a clear understanding of the term has not been adequately evaluated and it is not clear whether the term can be accurately characterized. They have concluded, "the construct of homophobia, as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality."

==="Internalized homophobia"===
The therapeutic community is largely divided between proponents of [[gay gene]] theory who believe a person is born gay and will always be gay, and proponents of [[Reparative therapy]] who believe with sympathy and understanding a homosexual can be relieved of afflictions if he so desires. Gay gene advocates seek to criminalize so-called "homophobia", despite many homophobes themselves being gay, whereas Restoration therapy advocates point out the cruelty of brainwashing a young person into believing -- based upon theoretical evidence -- there is no hope of ever leading a heterosexual lifestyle.

Dr. Joseph Nicolosi reports homosexuality is a symptom of an underlying problem of [[gender identity]]. Nicolosi says,
:In the classic triadic family we have a sensitive boy who did not get the close, affirming relationship with his father that would have confirmed him in his gender identity, and a mother who is likely to be over-close and standing in the way between father and son. The father was not supportive enough in affirming, recognizing and reinforcing the boy's maleness. <ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/griefwork.html Clinical Issues: Grief Work], Interview: Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.</ref>

Nicolosi adds many gay men admit that no matter how liberated they are, they always struggle, on some deeper level, with a sense of inferiority or self-loathing. Some therapists refer to this as internalized homophobia. Nicolosi attributes this feeling to an internal process, unrelated to social stigma, which precedes same-sex attractions.<ref>Ibid</ref>

=== Homophobia as an "Irrational Fear" ===
The suffix "phobia" <ref>Psychologists do not recognize it as a phobia in any generally recognized publication like the DSM IV.</ref> suggests an irrational fear, but it is most often used as a attack term by [[gay rights]] groups to suggest that opposition to [[homosexuality]] is irrational and hateful.<ref>Eg, this site [http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_phob.htm] first defines homophobia as a dread or fear, but says that it includes those who write their Congressmen to oppose same-sex marriage.</ref> Dr. Sander J. Breiner of NARTH has stated, "it would be very valuable for society in general, and therapists in particular, to have a clear picture of homophobia separated from all the other topics that have been lumped under that rubric." <ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/coll-breiner.html HOMOPHOBIA: A Scientific Non-Political Definition], Dr. Sander J. Breiner, National Association for Research and Therapy on Homosexuality, 2003.</ref> Of the myriads of references to the term in popular and other sociologic publications Breiner observes, "There is no personal, internal, institutional, or cultural homophobia. The terms do not exist in the recognized scientific literature...There is only one homophobia, which has been properly defined," in the the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) <ref>[http://anxiety.psy.ohio-state.edu/phobia-d.htm Specific Phobia DSM-IV Criteria]</ref> developed by the American Psychiatric Association. Breiner, an advocate of [[Reparative therapy]], acknowledges "There is no doubt that homophobia exists" as an irrational fear among both homosexuals and heterosexuals. 2 Timothy 1:7 says, "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. <ref>[http://bible.cc/2_timothy/1-7.htm 2 Timothy 1:7]</ref>

=== Anti-homosexual violence ===

In 1990, Congress passed the Hate Crime Statistics Act, which required the Attorney General to collect data about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin. In 1994, lawmakers amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act to include bias against persons with disabilities. <ref>Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005: About Hate Crime[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/abouthc.htm]</ref>

In 2005, law enforcement agencies reported 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias. <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2005 Table 4. </ref> While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation, race, religion, sexual orientation and disability, the FBI does not report the sexual orientation of known offenders. Thus a conclusion that all offenders are heterosexual is faulty, and the methodology does not measure gay-on-gay violence. In all of 2004, there was 1 anti-homosexual murder in the United States, and the FBI has reported none since. <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. </ref>

==See also==
*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Opposition to homosexuality]]
*[[Gay agenda]]
*[[Gender identity disorder]]

== References ==
<references />

==External links==
*[http://www.adl.org/poisoning_web/homophobia.asp Homophobia Online: The Westboro Baptist Church], Anti-Defamation League (2001). Retrieved 05/23/07.

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Blog

2007-06-28T11:12:24Z

Pepsi-Cola:

'''Blog''' is short for a [[web log]]. Originally they were for people to write about their daily lives, although they have become a common way for entrepreneurs to make money online through [[Google]] [[AdSense]].

[[category:blogs]]

Deoxyribonucleic acid

2007-06-28T11:08:29Z

Pepsi-Cola:

'''Deoxyribonucleic acid''' (DNA) is an [[organic compound|organic]] [[chemical compound]] made up of [[molecule]]s shaped like a [[double helix]], a continuously twisted ladder.

DNA carries the [[gene|genet]]ic coding for the [[protein]]s that form the bodies of living [[organism]]s. All organisms contain DNA, and the DNA of a sexually reproducing organism is a mix of its parents' DNA.

==History==
In the late 19th century [[Friedrich Miescher]], a Swiss [[biochemist]], discovered several different proteins and an unusual [[acid]] in the [[nucleus]] of cells. The acid was named deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. In 1944 two American [[biologist]]s, [[Alfred Hershey]] and [[Martha Chase]] used experiments with [[bacteria]] and [[bacteriophages]] to show that DNA passed [[gene]]s from one generation to the next.

At that time, it was unclear how this simple molecule could hold all the complex information controlling the development of humans, animals and plants. Scientists knew it was made of four chemical bases called [[adenine]] (A), [[thymine]] (T), [[guanine]] (G) and [[cytosine]] (C), plus [[phosphoric acid]] and a [[sugar]]. They also knew that there was always the same amount of A as T and of G as C in cells, but they did not know the rules that controlled the arrangement.

British scientists [[Rosalind Franklin]] and [[Maurice Wilkins]] passed [[X-ray|X-rays]] through DNA to study the patterns made when the crystals diffracted them. From studying photographs of patterns, Rosalind Franklin concluded that DNA must be be a [[helix]]. [[James Watson]] and [[Francis Crick]], working in [[Cambridge]], used this information to help them solve the puzzle of DNA structure. They built a model showing that if A always paired with T and G paired with C, DNA must be like a ladder made of two strands twisted together in a double helix. The sugar and phosphoric acid were the sides of the ladder, and the rungs were the paired bases.

Watson and Crick suggested that DNA could unzip itself into two separate strands, and each strand could act as a pattern to grow a new strand. Crick showed later that each pair of genes worked in a group of three making the code for amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. These groups are called [[codon|codons]]. They make about fifty thousand different types of [[protein]], which make all the different types of cell in the body. Indian biochemist [[Har Gobind Khorana]] made all the possible codons and worked out which codons controlled which [[amino acid]].

If the DNA in one cell was stretched out, it would be about three feet long. Although DNA has a very simple structure, it can carry an enormous amount of information. Scientists do not yet understand all the DNA they see, but in 1991 a project called the [[Human Genome Project]] began to use computers to map the three billion base pairs which make up the 46 human [[chromosome|chromosomes]].

==Modern understanding==

Small parts of DNA called genes serve as the instructions for the body to carry out its functions and give rise to traits such as eye color, hair color, etc. Genes are packaged into [[chromosomes]]. Each individual human being has 23 pairs of chromosomes, where one set is inherited from his/her mother and the other set is inherited from his/her father.

[[Prokaryotic DNA]] is circular (a closed loop), while [[Eukaryotic DNA]] is linear (with ends) with the exception of [[Mitochondrial DNA]], which is circular too. DNA in [[prokaryote]]s usually consists only of one closed loop chromosome.<ref>Campbell, Neil A, et. al. ''Biology''. 6th ed. San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings, 2002. 299, 530-31.</ref>

DNA changes account for differences between individuals. However, they can also cause medical problems.

DNA is [[transcription|transcribed]] into [[RNA]], which is in turn being [[translation|translated]] into [[Amino Acids]] that that are used to form [[protein]]s which are the building blocks of all living creatures. [[RNA]] can also be reverse-transcribed back into DNA, which is the called [[Complimentary DNA]] or [[cDNA]].

==DNA fingerprinting==

DNA can help police track down criminals if an attacker leaves something like hair or blood at a crime scene. Everybody’s DNA is unique unless they are identical twins, and the genetic ‘fingerprint’ of this material can be enough to confirm if a suspect is guilty. Genetic fingerprinting can also show if somebody is closely related to somebody else. Archaeologists used samples from living relatives to identify whether bodies found buried in a forest in [[Russia]] were the remains of the [[Tsar]] and his family, killed during the 1919 [[Russian revolution]].

As well as showing how different we all are, DNA shows how much we are all the same. Only one small part of one chromosome distinguishes a boy from a girl. Genes give us different colored eyes, hair and skin, but 99.5% of any human's DNA is in the same order as everybody else’s, and 98.6% is the same as a chimpanzee’s.

Every living thing on earth has DNA that uses the same basic chemicals as human DNA, but because their chemicals are in a different order, the DNA of a worm or a tree encodes for different proteins, and those proteins make different cells. Evolutionists believe that all these cells developed from the first single-cell creatures formed three thousand million years ago, evolving gradually into new species to adapt to their environment. Creationists believe that God created all species the way they are now.

Whatever their individual beliefs, only human beings have learned to analyze and use their DNA, and only humans can learn to use that knowledge wisely.

==External links==
*[http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/trun/artwork/Animations/cloningexp/cloningexp.html Animated guide to DNA cloning]

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Genetics]]

Deoxyribonucleic acid

2007-06-28T11:07:40Z

Pepsi-Cola:

'''Deoxyribonucleic acid''' (DNA) is an [[organic compound|organic]] [[chemical compound]] made up of [[molecule]]s shaped like a [[double helix]], a continuously twisted ladder.

DNA carries the [[gene|genet]]ic coding for the [[protein]]s that form the bodies of living [[organism]]s. All organisms contain DNA, and the DNA of a sexually reproducing organism offspring is a mix of its parents' DNA.

==History==
In the late 19th century [[Friedrich Miescher]], a Swiss [[biochemist]], discovered several different proteins and an unusual [[acid]] in the [[nucleus]] of cells. The acid was named deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. In 1944 two American [[biologist]]s, [[Alfred Hershey]] and [[Martha Chase]] used experiments with [[bacteria]] and [[bacteriophages]] to show that DNA passed [[gene]]s from one generation to the next.

At that time, it was unclear how this simple molecule could hold all the complex information controlling the development of humans, animals and plants. Scientists knew it was made of four chemical bases called [[adenine]] (A), [[thymine]] (T), [[guanine]] (G) and [[cytosine]] (C), plus [[phosphoric acid]] and a [[sugar]]. They also knew that there was always the same amount of A as T and of G as C in cells, but they did not know the rules that controlled the arrangement.

British scientists [[Rosalind Franklin]] and [[Maurice Wilkins]] passed [[X-ray|X-rays]] through DNA to study the patterns made when the crystals diffracted them. From studying photographs of patterns, Rosalind Franklin concluded that DNA must be be a [[helix]]. [[James Watson]] and [[Francis Crick]], working in [[Cambridge]], used this information to help them solve the puzzle of DNA structure. They built a model showing that if A always paired with T and G paired with C, DNA must be like a ladder made of two strands twisted together in a double helix. The sugar and phosphoric acid were the sides of the ladder, and the rungs were the paired bases.

Watson and Crick suggested that DNA could unzip itself into two separate strands, and each strand could act as a pattern to grow a new strand. Crick showed later that each pair of genes worked in a group of three making the code for amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. These groups are called [[codon|codons]]. They make about fifty thousand different types of [[protein]], which make all the different types of cell in the body. Indian biochemist [[Har Gobind Khorana]] made all the possible codons and worked out which codons controlled which [[amino acid]].

If the DNA in one cell was stretched out, it would be about three feet long. Although DNA has a very simple structure, it can carry an enormous amount of information. Scientists do not yet understand all the DNA they see, but in 1991 a project called the [[Human Genome Project]] began to use computers to map the three billion base pairs which make up the 46 human [[chromosome|chromosomes]].

==Modern understanding==

Small parts of DNA called genes serve as the instructions for the body to carry out its functions and give rise to traits such as eye color, hair color, etc. Genes are packaged into [[chromosomes]]. Each individual human being has 23 pairs of chromosomes, where one set is inherited from his/her mother and the other set is inherited from his/her father.

[[Prokaryotic DNA]] is circular (a closed loop), while [[Eukaryotic DNA]] is linear (with ends) with the exception of [[Mitochondrial DNA]], which is circular too. DNA in [[prokaryote]]s usually consists only of one closed loop chromosome.<ref>Campbell, Neil A, et. al. ''Biology''. 6th ed. San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings, 2002. 299, 530-31.</ref>

DNA changes account for differences between individuals. However, they can also cause medical problems.

DNA is [[transcription|transcribed]] into [[RNA]], which is in turn being [[translation|translated]] into [[Amino Acids]] that that are used to form [[protein]]s which are the building blocks of all living creatures. [[RNA]] can also be reverse-transcribed back into DNA, which is the called [[Complimentary DNA]] or [[cDNA]].

==DNA fingerprinting==

DNA can help police track down criminals if an attacker leaves something like hair or blood at a crime scene. Everybody’s DNA is unique unless they are identical twins, and the genetic ‘fingerprint’ of this material can be enough to confirm if a suspect is guilty. Genetic fingerprinting can also show if somebody is closely related to somebody else. Archaeologists used samples from living relatives to identify whether bodies found buried in a forest in [[Russia]] were the remains of the [[Tsar]] and his family, killed during the 1919 [[Russian revolution]].

As well as showing how different we all are, DNA shows how much we are all the same. Only one small part of one chromosome distinguishes a boy from a girl. Genes give us different colored eyes, hair and skin, but 99.5% of any human's DNA is in the same order as everybody else’s, and 98.6% is the same as a chimpanzee’s.

Every living thing on earth has DNA that uses the same basic chemicals as human DNA, but because their chemicals are in a different order, the DNA of a worm or a tree encodes for different proteins, and those proteins make different cells. Evolutionists believe that all these cells developed from the first single-cell creatures formed three thousand million years ago, evolving gradually into new species to adapt to their environment. Creationists believe that God created all species the way they are now.

Whatever their individual beliefs, only human beings have learned to analyze and use their DNA, and only humans can learn to use that knowledge wisely.

==External links==
*[http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/trun/artwork/Animations/cloningexp/cloningexp.html Animated guide to DNA cloning]

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Genetics]]

Environmentalist

2007-06-27T06:12:37Z

Pepsi-Cola:

'''Environmentalists''' are people who profess concern about protecting the environment and believe that legal limitations should be put on human use of the Earth's natural environment and resources. However, many environmental organizations and movements have been used for political purposes with other objectives than direct concern for the environment or environmentalism. <ref>[http://www.attacreport.com/ar_terror/tframe.php?region=namerica&group=gp ATTAC Terror Report]</ref>

==Save the trees==

American Pop Star [[Sheryl Crow]], while touring the [[United States]] to raise consciousness about [[global warming]] and forest conservation made international headlines by calling for regulation of how much toilet paper an individual may use. <ref>''Washington Post'', [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/21/AR2007042101385_pf.html Saving the Earth: The Biodiesel Bus Blog], April 22, 2007. </ref>
<ref>BBC News, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6583067.stm ''Crow calls for limit on loo paper''], 23 April 2007. </ref> Crow told ABC's ''Good Morning America'',
{{Cquote|I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting.}}
''Good Morning America'' in May 2007 interviewed Colin Beaven, <ref>[http://noimpactman.typepad.com/ ''A little on political action, a little on TP''], NO Impact Man, 11 may 2007.</ref> a liberal New Yorker and environmentalist so concerned about exploitation of the environment that he has sworn off the use toilet paper. Beaven has extended his [[crusade]] against despoiling the planet by refusing to buy anything in packaging, will not use any form of transportation including elevators, and insists that all his food be grown within 250 miles, which is a great way to reduce green house gas emmissions involved in the transportation of food. Interviewer [[Diane Sawyer]] responded, "It really makes sense to me." <ref>''Good Morning America,'' Family Goes Extreme Green for a Year, May. 10, 2007.</ref>

In June 2007 residents of Lake Tohoe California were furious at environmentalists and the grip they hold on government regulators who refused to allow the clearing of dead trees. 1,300 homes sustained damage, and the newly homeless victims blamed the special interest environmentalists for thier woes.

The amount of fuel in the Tahoe Basin reached critical levels after years of discord among environmentalists and government agencies over how to thin forests and reduce the fire threat. And it has led to predictions of a devastating wildfire because the basin is one of the areas with the most fire starts in the Sierra Nevada. <ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-clearance26jun26,0,2914697.story?coll=la-home-center Crowd aims fury at regional panel], Land use agency is criticized for failing to allow adequate clearing of combustible materials. By Eric Bailey and J. Michael Kennedy, ''Los Angelas Times'', June 26, 2007.</ref>

==Animal rights and vegetarians==

Citing a heretofore unknown connection between the enivironment, [[animal rights]], and [[vegetarianism]] movements, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) requested of [[Democratic]] Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives [[Nancy Pelosi]] and Senate Majority Leader [[Harry Reid]] special treatment in administrtation of tax laws used to support ecological sustainability. PETA President Ingrid Newkirk alleges, "[V]egetarians are responsible for far fewer [[greenhouse-gas]] emissions and other kinds of environmental degradation than meat-eaters," and that vegetarians should receive a tax break "just as people who purchase a hybrid vehicle enjoy a tax break."

Asked how would the government certify the special interest tax break would go to vegetarians only, PETA spokesman Matt Prescott said, "I imagine that a system could be adopted whereby taxpayers could show receipts for food purchases and/or sign an affidavit attesting … that they are vegetarian." <ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/peta-seeks-tax-breaks-for-vegetarians-2007-05-31.html PETA seeks tax breaks for vegetarians], By Ilan Wurman, ''The Hill'', May 31, 2007.</ref>

==Global warming==
According to a report issued by Pets Across America, an animal shelter for homeless pets, global warming is responsible for an increase in the cat population. The longer breeding season said to be caused by climate change is believed to have shortened the "lulls" in feline breeding cycles, and an overpopulation of unwanted cats has resulted. Several shelters are reported to have experienced an increase of more than 30 percent from 2005 to 2006 in the influx of abandoned cats. The Report concludes with an admonition to spay and neuter your pet, responsible pet ownership, and an invitation to visit your nearest Pets Across America shelter. <ref>[http://petsacrossamerica.org/cat_overpopulation.pdf Global Warming Key Factor in Increase of Cat Population], Pets Accross America Press Release, June 6, 2007.</ref>

==Worship of Gaia==
[[Michael Crichton]] argues that the environmentalist movement has taken on a new age religious philosophy, and that this belief system is considered to be the religion of choice for urban [[Atheism|atheists]] and is one of the most powerful religions in the Western World:
{{Cquote|The religion of environmentalism is a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional [[Judeo-Christian]] beliefs and myths. There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative religious beliefs. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith. Facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them. <ref>Michael Crichton, [http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html Environmentalism as Religion]," Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, CA, September 15, 2003. </ref>}}

[[Image:Goregaia.jpg|200px|right|thumb|Former Vice President Al Gore]]
Former U.S. Vice President [[Al Gore]] sees a "spiritual crisis" in [[global warming]]. <ref>[http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA050607.01B.gore.35aecd4.html Gore sees 'spiritual crisis' in warming], Anton Caputo, ''San Antonio Express News'', 05/05/2007. </ref> British biologist James Lovelock <ref>*James Lovelock, [http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,,1738945,00.html ''Revenge of Gaia''], Publisher: Allen Lane, 02/02/2006. ISBN13: 9780713999143 </ref> first publicly explained the Gaia theory - that the earth as a whole is a living, conscious organism. <ref>[http://www.tcrnews2.com/gennewage.html Eco-spirituality, eco-feminism, global spirituality, ecological theology, creation spirituality, the new cosmology] </ref> Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-Idaho) has described this phenomenon as "environmental religion" and says that it has "profound constitutional implications" because of the First Amendment prohibition on government establishment of religion. <ref>Cliff Kincaid, [http://www.usasurvival.org/cultofgaia.html ''Al Gore, the United Nations, and the Cult of Gaia''], (1999). </ref>

[[Reid Bryson|Dr. Reid Bryson]], founding chairman of the department of meteorology at the [[University of Wisconsin-Madison]] and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the [[Gaylord Nelson]] Institute for Environmental Studies and is known as the father of scientific climatology says of global warming:
{{Cquote|It's almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts. <ref>[http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/197613 Local scientist calls global warming theory hooey], Samara Kalk Derby, ''The Capital Times'', 6/18/2007. </ref>}}

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:politics]]

Talk:International Space Station

2007-06-27T05:46:11Z

Pepsi-Cola: New page: Please move this content to the page that has capitalized initials in the title (International Space Station). Remember it's the name of a particular space station. Capitalize accordin...

Please move this content to the page that has capitalized initials in the title ([[International Space Station]]). Remember it's the name of a particular space station. Capitalize accordingly. --[[User:Pepsi-Cola|Pepsi-Cola]] 01:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Astronomy

2007-06-27T03:13:05Z

Pepsi-Cola: Simplified Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definition and distinction between astronomy and astrophysics

==Theory of Evolution==

How does this relate to astronomy? Astronomy was a science hundreds of years before Darwin. "evolution of the universe" Is being used way out of context to place it in the same reference as Theory of Evolution. Conservative, why the need for YEC views? Do we have to start adding OEC views as well as the views from all the different sects of Christianity?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 22:24, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::There is a need for conservative views at '''Conserv'''apedia. YEC is very conservative. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:25, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

::So what about OEC? Or other Christian sects? YEC is conservative to YECs but not to everyone.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 22:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:You did not answer the question about TOE. I do not understand the grounds of your statement other than trying to find another platform to try to slander the theory.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 22:28, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I wrote: "For example, it is common for astronomers to refer to the "evolution of the universe".[1]" I proved the previous statement. Case closed.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:33, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Case close? Your cite has nothing to do with the relationship between TOE and the evolution of the universe statement.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 22:37, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Tim, if you would stop using inflammatory terms like ''slander'' perhaps your points would be easier to follow.
*Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community.
The theory of evolution is not a person. Even if someone is called the "father of evolution", that does not give the idea personhood. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:17, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Ed the definition of Slander –noun 1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: You can slander an idea. That is besides the point the issue is that conservative goes out of his way to slander TOE in any scientific article he can. This is just getting ridiculous. The article is about astronomy for goodness sakes, where would TOE fit in? The cite that he used showed no relationship but he had the time, and nerve, to create a false impression. This is the issue, personaly I see this as vandalism (Unrelated content being place just for one's POV).--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:28, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==excluding earth?==

I'm deleting "excluding earth". Astronomers work with the earth, too, as a body in space. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:32, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:OK, it's back in. Why? Without factoring in the earth's motion and gravity, it would have been much harder to know where to look for Neptune, Uranus, and Pluto. But at least the article itself has become real again. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:46, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Nice quote mining, by the way. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:35, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Now that is just sad==

You know Conservative if I were to do the same thing you just did to astronomy, but using an evolutionary POV it would be vandlism. Colin was in the right changing your edits since they were unjustified for this page.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 22:51, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:EDIT WAR!!! Ended by sysop protection with no discussion. Why can't all of Colin's text be used, followed by the YEC stuff? [[User:Human|Human]] 22:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Opinion stated as fact ==

We don't state liberal opinion as fact here. ColinR inserted, "The fact that radiotelescopes can detect the light of stars billions of light years away proves that the universe is billions of years old, as the light must have left those stars that long ago to reach us now travelling at the speed of light."

No credible, unbiased scientist would claim that "proves" billions of years old, and no citation was given for it. That's a liberal opinion and should be stated as such, if stated at all. There are many reasons why that falls short of a "proof".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

It's a liberal opinion that velocity = distance divided by time? News to me, Aschlafly. To figure out the time light has traveled, simple take the distance divided by the speed of light. ColinR is correct. --[[User:Mackronking2|Mackronking2]] 23:40, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

The line about 'proving' the universe to be billions of years old can be left out without omitting the section on recent research, which is well supported by evidence. To remove this while only leaving in the Young Earth Creationist stuff and then locking the article to prevent editing is risible. Here is the excised material, from which I have removed the disputed last sentence. Please unlock the article so that this can be reinserted. It does your project no favors at all to ignore scientific research in favor of YEC theories. At least you can present both and let the reader decide.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:12, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Recent research==

Astronomers have searched for ways to find out accurately how old a [[star]] is. A new technique called gyrochronology, which works this out based on the star’s rate of rotation, has just been announced and will be published in the Astrophysical Journal. <ref> http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=5479</ref> Knowing the age of the host star of a [[planetary system]] helps astronomers understand how planetary systems change over time.

The research shows that the rotation period of a star changes steadily and predictably in line with its age and color. Thus, by measuring two of these attributes you can determine the third. The star’s color is a visible sign of its [[mass]] or surface temperature. The age of the [[[Sun]] is believed by astronomers to be 4.6 billion years <ref> http://cosmos.phy.tufts.edu/~zirbel/ast21/handouts/Energy-of-Sun-better.PDF </ref> and can be used to calibrate the gyrochronology of most other stars.

There are other methods of working out a star’s age, but they have much larger uncertainties than gyrochronology. Unlike some other methods, gyrochronology also works well for stars not found in star clusters (‘field’ stars). It is used to calculate the age of stars that burn their hydrogen fuel at a predictable and steady rate; it does not work so well for younger stars, although the researchers hope to do future work to extend the method to these.

The forthcoming [[NASA]] Kepler Mission will yield more information about the rotation period of other stars, as this is information gleaned while searching for the transit of new planets orbiting across their disks. Once researchers have more precise ages for stars, other problems of chronometry can be solved and a better study made of the way astronomical phenomena change through time, using the stars themselves as clocks. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:12, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:"believed by astronomers"; what does this mean? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:51, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I have no problem revising the version I was using, I'll agree it needs a lot of work. But this entry is on '''astronomy''' not evolution, not YEC, not OEC, etc. Astronomy has little, if not nothing, to do with evolution. Cosmology, yes. Astronomy, no. Moreover, Conservative's overused misquotes are simply that. Overused misquotes. They have nothing to do with the actual field of astronomy, that is the study of space. The revision I used didn't repeat the same junk that Conservative posts on any article that doesn't fit his ideology. NOWHERE in this site has YEC been officially endorsed. Even so, Conservative is bent on advancing that view anywhere he can. The current revision discusses geology and the Big Bang '''theory''', with Big Bang being the only thing that actually is somewhat relevant to an entry on astronomy, though it has no place other than a brief mention. The fact still remains that astronomers regard the universe to be 14.6 (approx.) years old and base all their research on this "assumption." Given this, it is a discredit to ignore their hard work because it doesn't fit in with your "facts." [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 23:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::Ok, so it is a fact they beleive it, the question is, what facts do they beleive? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:55, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::According to Merriam-Webster's online dictionary astronomy is "the study of objects and matter outside the earth's atmosphere and of their physical and chemical properties." [1] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:46, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Facts==
I'm confused here, and as an hostotian, not without good reason. It is a scientific fact there are 8 planets. One year ago it was a scientific fact there were 9 planets. Now, in historical reporting which "fact" do I use? And one reason I got into history is because I don't follow the fads of the moment, which the 8 planet fact theory currently dominates. How do I know science, or what it calls facts, won't change again tomorrow? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:10, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:It's like the word "alive". It has a colloquial meaning, and science has worked with and suffered the consequences. The planets used to be the "wanderers" - the "stars" that moved about the firmament. There used to be 5 known to man (Hg, V, M, J, S) As we got to know our system better, we readily found U & N, and the tiny P. Then we found tens of thousands more and the distinctions blurred. Especially with the identification of a couple of rocks that, were Pluto to be a plant, they would be to. So the a definition was created that pretty much limits the word "planet" to the first eight. By the way, "history" is constantly undergoing revision and deeper understanding, too. [[User:Human|Human]] 00:24, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::So facts today may not be facts tomorrow. I thought facts existed in nature, independent and observable; I didn't know facts were established by concensus, only to be revised later. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:52, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::You're confusing actual facts with terminology and jargon. It is a fact that Pluto exists. It is no longer considered a planet under the current definition, but the definition was never a "fact." [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:57, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== Forgive me ==

Please forgive my ignorance, but I have studied a little astonomy and a lot of theology and I'm not sure why the astronomy page has only a short paragraph on astronomy, then a bunch of stuff that is important to state, but is really kind of fringe among even devout Christians. Explain? Or am I overstepping my bounds? The above comment, for example, is sort of irrelevant. Just because some discoveries have been made and definitions changed doesn't change physics.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 23:10, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:So the bottom line is facts, according to accepted "science", are voted upon, they are not something that exist in nature? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:48, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't know where to jump in here, but I've seen two objectionable liberal edits:

* claiming that something "proves" the universe is billion of years old, which is a liberal opinion that did not even have a citation. No objective, credible scientist would claim "proof" of that view.

* deleting actual quotes by scientists, apparently under the view explained in [[quote mining]] that it is improper to quote someone for a statement critical of his own beliefs. Those quotes are factual and informative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:First, I never asserted the universe is billions of years old, I simply reverted to a version that said this. If you want to change it, please, feel free to. Second, if they are actual quotes by scientists, it should be no problem to cite the original article. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, ColinR's argument does prove that the Universe is billions of years old. The equation is time = distance divided by velocity. Plug in the distance to a distant galaxy, divide by the speed of light, and you get an answer that is billions of years. Billions of years is greater than 6000 years. There's no opinion here at all. --[[User:Mackronking2|Mackronking2]] 00:17, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Interesting premise, the problem is ColinR does not even make the arguement you claim. He says,
:*'' The fact still remains that astronomers regard the universe to be 14.6 (approx.) years old and base all their research on this "assumption."''
:All ColinR claims is '''''it is a fact''''' that scientists beleive something or other, and it is hazy and imprecise what they beleive.
:I beleive it is a fact I will hit the power ball for $180 million someday. Does the fact I beleive it make it real? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::Is your fact supported by many years of research and the combined efforts of thousands of other astrophysicists? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:34, 4 May 2007 (EDT)\

:::Ok, why don't you rephrase this statement,
:::*'' The fact still remains that astronomers regard the universe to be 14.6 (approx.) years old and base all their research on this "assumption."''
:::and '''show us what the factual conclusions are''', other than the fact that "many years of research and the combined efforts of thousands of other astrophysicists" beleive something or other. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:41, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Do you really want me to explain how our current understanding of astronomy was derived? I can, but I'll admit, I can't do it justice, unlike several astro professors I've had who could. If you're asking me to outline every "fact," then you're asking the impossible and refusing to accept the basic nature of science. New information leads to changes. Case in point, discovery of other trans-Neptunian objects, leading to the reclassification of Pluto. So, please, clarify what you want, Rob. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:57, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::I think you may be seeing this is really a discussion about logic. I only asked for conclusions. They can't give factual conclusions, and they will tell you so. All they can say is "most people (in the field) beleive...". And it would ''in fact'' be bad science to represent what they beleive as facts, because ''they'' don't, and they ''can't''. Even a scientist who, in his heart and soul, beleives in proposition X, would ''still'' have to add the disclaimer, "this is my judgement on the matter". That ''still'' does not qualify it as an idependent and observable phenomenea of nature. And the legions of researchers and astrophysicists can only produce a concensus of what the community beleives, they cannot establish the facts of this particular matter. And their concensus is always subject to revision. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:12, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::: How about the cosmic microwave background? There is a theory as to what the observed data should be, and the curve it predicted, and the observations by COBE and other satellites?[http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/s5.htm] --01:23, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::: No, they wouldn't say "this is my judgement." They'd say, "all the evidence gathered points to this conclusion, and the conclusion reached accurately predicts other things." [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:36, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Would it be possible to link to and cite the papers instead so that any individuals who want to read the rest of the article can follow the link? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 00:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Another aspect to consider - there are theories about planetary formation, star formation, and galaxy formation. While it is reasonable to say that we do not know with certainty about these things, once can at least present information about them. If one is to present educational information, presenting information is much more useful than presenting someone saying "don't know." One could link to and explain http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1955PASP...67..154H for star formation for example. This would be much more useful to a student or teacher who wants to actually learn about or teach about star formation. With what is here, one would be tempted to go to another site that has the information instead. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 00:38, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: Quotes of scientists that are critical of theories should be included. They should not be concealed here, or merely linked to. As long as the quotes were said, and particularly if they go against the interest of the speaker, they should be here.

: Claims about the age of the universe rely on assumptions and are often not even scientific, as there is no way to falsify such speculation. See [[Karl Popper]]. I don't have a problem with a section at the end that reviews speculation by some scientists, as long as it is not overstated and does not attempt to convert a liberal opinion into a statement of proven fact.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:41, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::No. They aren't speculation and they are falsifiable. If you'd like, I'll be glad to show you how all evidence gathered points to a 14.6 billion year old universe and even explain how they're falsifiable. As far as I see it, rejecting the current accepted cosmological views because you view them as speculation would necessitate rejecting almost every current scientific view since they're based on "speculation." After all, who's seen an electron? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:58, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::We are dealing with an issue of method. What do we mean by "scientific fact"? Are "scientific facts" phenomenoa independently observable in naure, the "fact" there are nine planets for example, or are "facts" determined by a concensus evalution, the "fact" there are eight planets? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:41, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::: First, define planet. Then we can talk about the question of how many have been discovered orbiting the sun. The definition of a planet is much more difficult than nailing down the distance light travels in a year. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:48, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::We are dealing with an issue of method. A planet we shall define as '''fact A'''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::: I don't quite understand what you are referring to. We can talk about definitions of planets, and we can talk about how many planets are discovered. The number of planets around a star is not a 'fact' as such. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:38, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::For purposes of this discussion, a planet is defined as fact A, it is observable in nature and undisputed. How do we determine what constitutes fact A? Is it done be obesrving nature, or is done by a consensus of professionals? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:55, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: The definition of a planet isn't a fact, it is a definition. Thus the question of if Ceres (previously classified as an asteroid because it was part of the asteroid belt) is a planet, or if Charon is a planet (the center of rotation in the Pluto-Charon system isn't inside of Pluto - potentially an issue with the Earth-Moon system in a few million years too), or if bodies larger than Pluto beyond Pluto's orbit are to be classified as planets too. If you want to talk about planets, you need to define that word. The definition of the word is by a consensus of professionals. It is the same way one divides up the types of stars - O B A F G K M and all the various subtypes. These are not ''facts'' written in nature, but rather human classifications of objects in an attempt to understand them better. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:02, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::ok so we're getting closer to the method. For example, what ColinR and others wish to insert is '''the fact''' that '''most beleive''' "'''X'''", (X being undefined as either theory or fact). But the the fact is, the fact they wish to insert is, the fact that most beleive undefined "'''X'''". This is the factual basis of their "facts", the fact that most people beleive it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:10, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
(outdent)
: Lets take another approach to this. The Andromeda galaxy is about 2.5 million light years away. This is not a definition, but the conclusion of theories and observations. Cepheid variable stars have a property that their absolute magnitude is a function of the variable period. This is backed up by theory and observation and is still being refined. Now, knowing the apparent magnitude and the period one can compute how far something is away (just as you can guess how far a 100 watt light bulb is away by how dim it is). There are other approaches that have lead to further refinements (eclipsing binary stars that let astronomers get the mass of the star which in turn is leads to how bright it should be which again, can give you the distance). This distance is not something that "most astronomers believe that the Andromeda galaxy is about 2.5 million light years away" but rather it is an observable fact that continues to be refined to more precise values. The [[starlight problem]] is one that YEC have to deal with when talking about astronomy, but it does not alter the distance to the Andromeda galaxy. Nor does it alter that the most distant objects observable in the universe are about 14.7 billion light years away.
: One approach to saying "the universe is about 14.7 billion years old" is "Currently, the most distant observable objects in the universe are 14.7 billion light years away. The implications from this for those who believe in an old universe is that the universe itself is 14.7 billion years old. For Young Earth Creationists, this is addressed by the [[starlight problem]] which suggests that while the objects are 14.7 billion light years away, with creation light on its way to Earth was also created." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:27, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:*''The implications from this for those who believe in an old universe is that the universe itself is 14.7 billion years old. ''
::I don't think we can say this; last I heard, "those who believe in an old universe" don't believe in an old universe. Latest theory says there is more than one universe, perhaps an infinte number of universes. Of course this is a contradiction, because the term "uni" limits it to only one. See, these brilliant geniuses painted themselves into a box with this endless speculation which isn't anything more than trying to say there is no God. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:39, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::: My apologies, but ''what?!'' None of this has any implication on the existence of God. Nor does trying to argue from a word coined in ancient Latin suggest that there is only one (this time confusing definitions and theories). Science itself is about speculation, making hypothesis, and then trying to prove or disprove those. I believe that it is perfectly fair to say that the the implications for those who believe in an old universe. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:46, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Mtur, forget it. RobS is bent on using psuedo-logic and twisting people's words. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:59, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:: The issue with the quotes as they are included in this article is that they are just the single line quotes. I would be curious to see the full text of the quote in http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/295/5555/605 rather than just the "... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong." The citations as they are and the links they go to is just a page of quotes. Nothing of the article in there itself. I also question the use of the quote "“We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186. -- That is 20 years ago. There has been much progress since then. If one is to provide a quote, it should be linked to the full text of the article.
:: And so, I bought a copy of the article...
<blockquote>Astrophysicist Scott Tremaine of Princeton University sees these results and Lineweaver and Grether's extrapolation as reasonable quantifications of trends hinted at by the discoveries so far, and he looks forward to coming discoveries. As some monitoring records approach the requisite 12 years, Doppler detection of extrasolar Jupiters may not be far off. And searches are in the works for terrestrial-sized planets by looking for planets passing in front of their stars. But Tremaine remains cautious about what these searches will turn up. Speaking as a theorist, he notes that "most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong."</blockquote>
:: This in turn is refering to an earlier passage in the text:
<blockquote>Extrapolating from trends in mass and orbital distance within this more representative subset, the Australian physicists find that "Jupiters are probably very typical" of the as-yet-unobserved exoplanets, says Lineweaver. They predict that 22 new Jupiter-like exoplanets--as big as Jupiter or larger, orbiting from just beyond the distance of Mars to a bit beyond the distance of Jupiter--will be found orbiting around the 1000 or so stars that have been monitored for more than 3 years. The prospect of familiar-looking planetary systems is more encouraging than earlier extrapolations had suggested, says Lineweaver, because by focusing only on well-studied stars they reduced observational bias and they also included the latest discoveries. (Extrapolation to the abundance of exoplanets as small and distant as Saturn is not yet advisable, the pair says.)</blockquote>
:: That theories are still being made and disproven and more evidence is coming in every year means that this area remains a rich area for research. If you are going to cite something, cite a paper not a page of out of context quotes.
:: Going to Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep and another $10 to Sciencemag.org... this article is talking about how deep field telescopes of galaxies formed about 10 billion years ago matured quicker than some theories suggested. Why waves of star birth swept through some early galaxies and not others. And so, the critique of the model:
<blockquote>As findings from these surveys cascade into the literature, they are shaking up notions about the evolution of star birth in the young cosmos. Observers have found that some galaxies matured quickly after the big bang and then flamed out, forming giant blobs of stars that may have barely changed in at least 10 billion years. Another population of galaxies kept evolving, churning out new stars for eons and gradually settling into mature but mildly fertile galaxies such as our Milky Way.</blockquote>
<blockquote>Current theories of galaxy formation can't explain why concussive waves of star birth swept through some early galaxies but not others--and why some of those fierce stellar fires got snuffed after a few billion years. Startled by their own data, a few observers have implied that modelers of the cosmos need new ideas to describe our universe's combustive childhood (Science, 23 January, p. 460).</blockquote>
<blockquote>Theorists aren't yet ready to revise equations on their cluttered whiteboards, but they agree that the surveys illuminate serious flaws. "We're starting from a shaky foundation," says cosmologist Carlos Frenk of the University of Durham, U.K. "We don't understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form." Fellow theorist Simon White of the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Garching, Germany, concurs: "The simple recipes in published models do not reproduce the star formation we see. Theorists are now having to grow up."</blockquote>
:: These are paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of an article that goes on for a few pages. The article is about the observational data of the sky surveys, how previous ones have been lacking in one way or another (too wide and shallow or narrow and deep) and how the observations of several space telescopes at different wavelengths and the improvement of adaptive optics for ground based telescopes are improving the picture of the early universe that will in turn give large amounts of data for theorists to check against. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 02:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:: If you want to quote Carlos Frenk about cosmology, go to an article about cosmology[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?db_key=AST&sim_query=YES&aut_xct=NO&aut_logic=OR&obj_logic=OR&author=Frenk%2Cc.&object=&start_mon=&start_year=&end_mon=&end_year=&ttl_logic=OR&title=&txt_logic=OR&text=&nr_to_return=100&start_nr=1&start_entry_day=&start_entry_mon=&start_entry_year=&min_score=&jou_pick=NO&ref_stems=&data_and=ALL&group_and=ALL&sort=SCORE&aut_syn=YES&ttl_syn=YES&txt_syn=YES&aut_wt=1.0&obj_wt=1.0&ttl_wt=0.3&txt_wt=3.0&aut_wgt=YES&obj_wgt=YES&ttl_wgt=YES&txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1] - not from an article about sky surveys that is being used to disprove existing theories and models. In paticular, he's being critical of himself[http://star-www.dur.ac.uk/~csf/homepage/ResearchInterests.html] - his research is "large-scale structure, galaxy formation and supercomputer simulations of the formation of cosmic structures." I am fairly sure that he is working on some new theories and models of star formation that will produce more accurate models (the article above is 3 years old, last month he published "Modelling shock heating in cluster mergers - I. Moving beyond the spherical accretion model" which is exactly what he is talking about the shaky foundation, and back in November 2005 he published "The first generation of star-forming haloes", a bit earlier he published "Simulations of the formation, evolution and clustering of galaxies and quasars"). I do not believe it is fair to categorize him as 'critical of the materialistic science.' but rather he is working to extend it. Scott Tremaine was not critical of the work that he was commenting on and though it to be encouraging. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 02:39, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not a scientist, but I was my dad and I shared a hobby of astronomy when I was a kid. It is some of my best memories. I went to college, I studied science, although I majored in business. I am a practicing Christian. This whole argument is really weird. There is actually no debate among scientists about the fact of the universe being billions of years old. Why can't God have created this incredible universe back then? Why would anyone of faith try to make up arguments? If you ''believe'' it to be wrong, then it is a matter of faith, but don't try to make science match your faith. I can't ''prove'' God exists, but so what? I know He is there, and I don't need a scientist to tell me he is or isn't. [[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 09:18, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::There's not so much an argument about the age of the stars as about the implications this has for [[Young Earth creationism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:43, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Very good point, however if we are going to give a major edit space for the YEC POV should we not do this for all?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:58, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I want to address an earlier comment:

::All ColinR claims is it is a fact that scientists believe something or other, and it is hazy and imprecise what they believe. I believe it is a fact I will hit the power ball for $180 million someday. Does the fact I believe it make it real?

This statement is confusing facts about nature with facts about stated opinions.
*There are such things as facts about stated opinions.
*For example, it is a fact that someone stated "I believe it I will hit the power ball for $180 million someday." It is not a fact that he will hit the power ball. It is not necessarily a fact that he really does believe this. But it '''is''' a fact that he '''stated''' that he '''believes''' this.
*How important a fact about a stated opinion is depends on '''whose''' statement it is.
*A fact about a stated opinion is meaningless to me unless I have a personal judgement about the individual making that statement.
*My judgement may be different than someone elses.
*A fact about a stated opinion is interesting to many readers if there are many readers who have personal judgements about the individual making the statement. It is interesting to few readers if there are few readers to have such judgements.
*Facts about stated opinions are worth putting into an encyclopedia if there are many readers who have such judgements.
*'''My''' own stated opinions are only interesting to the few people who know whether or not they respect my opinions. They do ''not'' belong in an encyclopedia article even when attributed to me. They belong in an article ''even less'' when no source is given but are simply stated ''ex cathedra:"
:::"Conservapedia editor "dpbsmith" believes the Mac OS is better than Windows." Honest, but boring. Nobody cares.
:::"The Mac OS is better than Windows." Highly dishonest. It's just my opinion and I'm not even saying so.
:::"The Mac OS is generally regarded as better than Windows." Even worse, because it's ''concealing'' the fact that it's just my opinion.
:::"The late science-fiction author Douglas Adams was a Macintosh fan." Now we're getting ''somewhere,'' because there ''are'' people who care about his opinion. ''And'' by identifying him as a science-fiction author, everyone can judge whether they care to pay attention to such a person's opinions about computer operating systems.

Finally, I'd add that what is most important is that all widely-held opinions ''be mentioned.'' Relatively little harm is done to (say) creationism if a teacher spends ten minutes telling a class what creationism is, who believes it and why... even if he or she goes on with ten hours or days of evolution. The harm is when a class never hears ''anything'' about creationism, or, worse yet, when a creationist in the classroom is left thinking "Nobody believes this but me." And, of course, this works the other way around as well. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:01, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

P. S. '''I''' before '''E,''' 
except after '''C,''' 
or when sounded like '''A''' 
(as in ''neighbor'' and ''weigh'') 
And ''seize/inveigle/either,'' 
''Weird/leisure/neither.'' 

(You don't have to be an Einstein to be aware of other exceptions, but that jingle does cover most of the usual cases...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:04, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you for that well deserved criticism. What this seems to say is scientific facts are determined by the ''credibility'' of the concensus. Is that correct? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:22, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Well what do ''you'' think an acceptable definition of "Facts" is? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 18:21, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== On protection and revert of my edits ==

I believe I have previously pointed that the quotes are not in support of the stated position that was given with the above references in this page. Furthermore, the quotes themselves link to a page of quotes and not to the articles which is of no educational value. Could someone please remove the quotes or provide less misleading context for the quotes. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:29, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::I don't believe you did or can demonstrate your contention. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:07, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::: Could you please address these as an item by item failure instead of the general case? I am also having difficulty finding the full text to “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186 which is a 24 year old publication. If you could provide the full text so that it would be possible to look at the rest of it and see if what is being mentioned has been updated? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Conservative, so you lock the page once again and revert to the stuff about evolution which has no place in this article other than to push your POV. Seems like vandalism to me...--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:11, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:This is article about _astronomy_, not about Young earth creationism. Please, do not copy other theories here, link only to them and unlock this. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:39, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

To further elaborate and make it easier to track... --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:28, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
=== Scott Tremaine ===
The quote "...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong." is warning about being too enthusiastic about the predictions made earlier in the article about planet formation. The paragraph that this starts out with is "Astrophysicist Scott Tremaine of Princeton University sees these results and Lineweaver and Grether's extrapolation as reasonable quantifications of trends hinted at by the discoveries so far, and he looks forward to coming discoveries."

=== Carlos Frenk ===
"We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form." is about the models that are being used to simulate the formation of a galaxy which are having difficulty with recent sky surveys of galaxies with a redshift of about 2.3. Carlos Frenk is an astrophysicist who's work is supercomputer modeling of star formation and has published papers such as "Modeling shock heating in cluster mergers - I. Moving beyond the spherical accretion model", "The first generation of star-forming halos", "Simulations of the formation, evolution and clustering of galaxies and quasars". In this quote he is being critical of himself and saying that he needs more data (which the article is about - better sky surveys) to work from.

=== Michael Rowan-Robinson ===
The quote "We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe." is from 1983, years before the Hubble Telescope was launched and supercomputers were very limited. Astronomy has progressed significantly since then. This quote is out of date. The referenced article has yet to be found to show the complete text of the material and the context of it.

=== Commentary ===
:::I guess we will agree to disagree. Mr. Tremaine made a candid admission and given the track record of previous models one should certain be cautious about accepting Mr. Tremaine's materialistic explanation. I believe the star quote is very explicit and irrefutable. I guess we will also disagree about the third quote. I am skeptical that old universe astronomy has really progressed as seen by the 2002 and 2004 quotes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::I thought the Hubble was another example of scientists scamming the public purse for more money; we spent $30 billion to launch it, and when it got there it didn't work, so we had to spend a couple billion more to fix it (guess who got paid twice for not doing their job right the first time). You are right, tho. Facts in 1983 probably aren't facts anymore today, so we should be cautious about what we allege to be scientific facts today. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:51, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Can you please provide a citation for the 'couple billion more to fix it'? I can't seem to find any numbers mentioned for SM1. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:55, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::: In case you are still hunting, I found it for you http://www.chron.com/content/interactive/space/missions/sts-103/hubble/archive/910702.html - it was about $20 million. Thats a bit less than a couple billion more. Additionaly, you have the $30 billion wrong http://hubble.nasa.gov/overview/faq.php it cost $1.5 billion to build and put into orbit, and $230-250 million to keep running for a year (collecting data and analyzing it) --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: You are willing to accept the "past theories have been wrong" but not "sees these results and Lineweaver and Grether's extrapolation as reasonable quantifications of trends hinted at by the discoveries so far, and he looks forward to coming discoveries?" You cannot pick and choose quotes. Take it all, with context or none at all. Carlos Frenk's research is about star formation, he is trying to further it. The quote in the context of the article is about the need for more and better sky surveys - not saying that the theories are wrong. Could you provide the full context of the third quote so that one can look at what is stated in the paper and what is stated in current research? The 2002 and 2004 quotes are about different things than the 1983 quote. In 1983, there wasn't any hope of looking at extra solar planets. Now they are being found at a reasonable rate. In 1983, one didn't have the power to model star formation - we do today. In 1983, scientists were not able to do Xray astronomy or see objects at the distance that the Hubble can today. Gamma ray flashes were still in their infancy http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/swift/bursts/short_burst_oct5.html (you couldn't see the companion galaxy). Go to the astronomy department of the local university and ask a professor there what has been discovered since 1983. Alternatively, look at a astronomy text book from the early 80's and compare it with one today. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:53, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: I've been asked to come over here and say something. The quotes are informative but I do think the entry could benefit from some direct discussion of astronomy, like solar system or Milky Way-type stuff. Maybe it could be developed here first and then inserted into the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:55, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I am glad you think the quotes are informative in the YEC section. I agree with you that the article has to be developed. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:04, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

That is great Andy, tell conservative to stop locking the article when ever someone edits something that is against his personal beliefs.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 07:15, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:I double-checked the quote contexts discovered by Mtur. Finding them accurate, I noted the quotes' context so they don't mislead.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==What is this trying to accomplish?==

Because velocity = distance/time, a young earth creationists wishing to postulate a universe of approximately 6000 years old faces a number of problems if one uses an ''a priori methodological naturalism'' approach to the issue:

If I am reading this right you are trying to discredit the first paragraph of "Problems for Young Earth Creationism" by saying that the approach of using v=d/t is not based on prior study or examination of science (derived by natural processes instead of supernatural processes)? I have to admit you are subtle in your assertions.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 18:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Exactly where is the astronomy in this article? All I see is a big chunk of YEC stuff. How about some..oh I don't know...information about astronomy? I think I should point out once again '''NOT ALL CHRISTIANS BELIEVE IN YOUNG EARTH CREATIONSISM''' so why are you guys ramming it down everybody's throat?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 21:08, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Simplified Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definition and distinction between astronomy and astrophysics ==

Here's the problem to begin with: Astronomy is more about the topological order of celestial objects rather than the physical properties and processes of those objects, which are more related to astrophysics. The problem's that the definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary is just schematic, for economic reasons, and maybe it's even imprecise. Remember that dictionaries are just supposed to give rough definitions of terms, but they don't give more precise explanations. Even though astronomy and astrophysics overlap, there is a clear distinction between the approaches of those two to the same objects of study. See, the second element of the compound "astronomy" is derived from "nomos", which means "order" or "rule", so astronomy is more about the topological order of objects on the celestial sphere or in three- or four-dimensional space, but astrophysics approaches the whole thing from another perspective, the physical perspective. So if you ask, for example, where the Sun is located, that's more about astronomy, but if you ask about its properties, like color, temperature, diameter or age, that's more about astrophysics. So you have to remember that the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definition is way too simplistic for the purposes of this page. --[[User:Pepsi-Cola|Pepsi-Cola]] 23:13, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal quotient

2007-06-27T02:44:51Z

Pepsi-Cola: Is the denominator the total number of individuals in a population or the number of non-liberals?

What a fabulous Encyclopedia entry, with entries like this I don't see [http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?site0=conservapedia.com&site1=&site2=&site3=&site4=&y=r&z=1&h=300&w=540&range=1m&size=Medium&url=conservapedia.com why no one is using this site?]

Fantastic!!
This means we now have a wonderful new method of assessing Conservative Bias, and for the first time it is measurable. To calculate the Conservative Quotient (CQ), all one has to do is to know the Liberal Quotient (LQ), then apply the formula: CQ = 1 - LQ.

A rating above zero presumably means that there is Conservative Bias?

Shurely Shome mishtake?

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== 80%? ==
A source for that might do nicely. [[User:DrLib|DrLib]] 14:08, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

: There is a poll under journalism students suggesting that 80% have liberal opinions. I will look it up when I have time. I saw another research suggesting that journalists are socially liberal, but economically more conservative. Few oppose NAFTA, for example. So its a well-off kind of liberalism. [[User:Order]] 7 April 00:45 (AEST)

==Liberal quotient of Conservapedia==

Not counting the vandals, I'm genuinely curious what our liberal quotient is. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 14:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Most of the liberals here have been pretty disenfranchised, a few still prawl around the talk pages but they are not really "part of the group" so I don't think its very high. There is what, about 40 active users, maybe a dozen or so are liberals, but I think they have been pretty effectively shut down by bans, warnings, and condescending and insulting sysops. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 14:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::(Inserted comment) I'm opposed to most [[condescension]] and nearly all [[insult]]s. Please help me develop guidelines for a standard of [[Conservapedia:Civility]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:49, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Sneaky and deceptive as they are by nature, I suspect many liberals are unlikely to freely admit to being liberals, therefore making an accurate measurement of the liberal quotient here difficult to obtain. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 16:22, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Technically, and I don't expect some people on here to understand this, I think you would have to say everyone on here is moderately liberal. We allow for the addition of material that might question our beliefs, could contribute to free and open debate. Those are classicly liberal ideas. Don't like that--go to Saudi Arabia where they aren't so liberal. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:26, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I think that liberals 'decorate' our project rather nicely when they aren't making sly digs. As far as I'm concerned, they are welcome to stay and particapate '''as equals'''. I think some of the syosops are liberals, not that I want to [[out]] anyone.

:::But if they are here to disrupt and play tricks, like the Seattle WTO protesters who provoked the police into "excessive force" just so that they could accuse 'the establishment' of 'not listening to them' then they aren't helping anyone. Serious thinkers see right throught that kind of malarkey.

:::Any liberals who want to preserve their franchise would do well to couch their suggestions in polite terms. Any idea can be brought up, if done in (1) the right way (2) in the right venue (3) at the right time. (My talk page is always open. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:30, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Liberal Quotient will always be a subjective factor, of course. If one assigned an LQ based purely on party association, and started digging into American history a little bit, one would find Democrats who went around lynching blacks, and Republicans who went around trust busting. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 11:15, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: 'But if they are here to disrupt and play tricks, like the Seattle WTO protesters who provoked the police into "excessive force" just so that they could accuse 'the establishment' of 'not listening to them' then they aren't helping anyone. Serious thinkers see right throught that kind of malarkey. ' But the police still used excessive force. That is a legal fact. You keep bringing up this accusation, Ed Poor; scared?

Oh, and I've made [http://www.conservapedia.com/The_liberal_quotient_of_Conservapedia%3B_what_is_it%3F_Does_it_matter%3F this]. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

== Fox News ==

Quoting from article: ''Television news anchors on the major networks had a 100 percent liberal quotient until Fox emerged''

Does this mean that Fox News is a Bad Thing as it upset the finely balanced (and therefore unbiased) 50:50 distribution of liberal and conservative anchors?

==Formula==

I'd rather define it so that 100 percent is all Liberal, 50 percent is half and half, and 0 percent is no Liberals. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:21, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think Order's changes helped the article:

::The liberal quotient is defined simply as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group. Thus the liberal quotient is zero when there are no liberals in the group. <s>It is infinity if there are no [[conservative]]s.</s> A quotient of 100% corresponds a group that has as many liberals as conservatives, while a quotient below 100% means that there are fewer liberals than conservatives. The same number of conservatives and liberals will always result in the same liberal quotient, regardless of the size of other groups, such as moderates or independents. [I marked up the part I didn't like with <s>strikeout</s> formatting. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::: You may not like it, but that's how it's defined in the article. If the quotient is ''ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group'', then the liberal quotient is infinity if there are no conservatives. And liberal quotient of 1 amongst news anchors means that there were equal numbers of liberals and conservatives [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 13:49, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Why didn't my changes help. I just tried to clarify the definition. [[User:Order]] 7 April, 1:00 (AEST)

:You changed the definition. I think 100% Liberal is all liberals, no conservatives; and 0% liberal is no liberals and all conservatives. Using [[infinity]] would make the quotient too cumbersome to use. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree w/ Ed. But I also think that we should present 0% as ideal. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 11:04, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::I disagree with the fact that I changed the definition. But for the moment we can keep it like it is. [[User:Order]] 7 April, 1:10 (AEST)

:::I put this in two places, oops. Here is the "correct and useful" formula: Liberal Quotient = L/(L+C), that is, the number of identified Liberals divided by the sum of identified Liberals and Conservatives. Likewise, the CQ = C/(L+C). This results in a number from zero to one in either case, which can be expressed, as in the original definition, as a percentage.

::::I just edited the article to reflect this. I hope no one minds. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Mathematics ==

There are, obviously, so many flaws in this whole idea that it is hard to know where to begin. First with definitions of Lib and Cons. I suspect than many of us are not simply one or the other.
Also, if LQ=L/C then the LQ of, for instance, the Democratic Party is LQ=1000/0=undefinable.

My 2 cents, just dont make me divide them by zero.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:13, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:One thing to begin with would be to use the definition in the article itself, rather than the alternative that it tries to replace. [[User:Order]] 9 April, 21:25 (AEST)

::What do you mean? The definition in the article is liberals/conservatives, which gives an undefinable answer when there are no conservatives. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 08:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
: Oh, dividing by zero is a minor problem. It has a few other problems, such as that 997 moderates, 2 liberals, and 1 conservative have the same liberal quotient, as 1 moderate, 666 liberals and 333 conservatives. To avoid dividing by zero, we can agree that the value is then infinity.
: What bothers me most is it that of all the Liberal quotients mentioned in the article none of them was computed according to the definition. And this is the article defining the liberal quotient. And if you look an this talk page, you see that few people do actually understand the definition. Most think its the fraction of liberals or something similar. [[User:Order]] 9 April, 22:45 (AEST)
::I have to agree with [[User:Order]]'s assessment. I mean, are people just making these up? That doesn't sound very useful, and it certainly undermines Conservapedia's usefulness as a source! [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 13:44, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Why can't we have people self-identify? I know Richard tried this at one point and got into some hot water (which I won't expand on)but the underlying principle was valid--if this wiki is supposed to contain only conservative content how can we not ask people to tell us the truth about where their allegiance lies? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Self-identifying won't work, especially not on this site. Andy and his crew are so conservative that almost everyone is a liberal to them (if you don't believe me, look at Andy's posts and how everyone who disagrees with him is labeled a liberal). In most circles I'd be considered a conservative, but here I'm nothing but a dirty liberal hippie (and that's a good thing as I'd rather not be grouped with some of the wingnuts here). [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Here is the "correct and useful" formula: Liberal Quotient = L/(L+C), that is, the number of identified Liberals divided by the sum of identified Liberals and Conservatives. Likewise, the CQ = C/(L+C). This results in a number from zero to one in either case, which can be expressed, as in the original definition, as a percentage. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:05, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::You changed the definition. It is now no longer consistent with the long discussion on bias in Wikipadia [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#Six_times.3F_Not_even_close.][http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#Liberal_Wikipedians_as_compared_to_conservative_Wikipedians][http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#We_need_to_decide_what_this_list_is][http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive3#Ratio_.28again.29][http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive5#...and_about_the_math...][[User:Order]] 10 April, 11:52 (AEST)
:::Why do you ask people to self-identify in this context? The problem is that Aschalfy first defines the liberal quotient as Liberals/Conservatives and then doesn't use it when he computes e.g. the LQ of news anchors. This is not a matter of liberal or conservative, it is a matter of math. [[User:Order]] 10 April, 8:25 (AEST)

== A new term coined by Conservapedia? ==

A new term coined by Conservapedia? I find that hard to believe and suspect it was infact [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] who coined the term.
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:59, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:The term definitely existed before. Simple google search proves that. However, I assume that the term has its own, special meaning on this site. Not sure, but it's possible. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy got a lot of comments on the way he arrived at his measure of [[Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive3#Ratio_.28again.29|Liberal bias of Wikipedia]]; one main point was that using liberal/conservatives to measure bias is confusing. Research uses typically other measures. So, Andy decided to declare his alternative way to compute bias an 'innovation'. [[User:Order]] 10 April, 8:35 (AEST)

:Is it actually possible to classify individuals as being ''absolutely'' Conservative or Liberal? With the exception of a few especially pure characters (and I salute your dedication, guys) most people are hopelessly flawed and (at best) somewhat intermediate. So to calculate the LQ of a group accurately, a method is first needed of assessing the '''Liberality''' of all individuals included in the party. Otherwise a further level of inaccuracy is necessarily introduced into the calculation.

:(As an example, although George W Bush is considered Conservative by most people, any good Conservative can see right through him to his pernicious Liberal tendencies - to call him a true Conservative is clearly erroneous, when in fact he is probably only 70-75% Conservative (Just a wild guess here on my part...).)

:If the LQ is to be a useful measure, it needs to be calculated with rigor; a roomful of right-leaning people clearly shouldn't have the same LQ as a roomful of ''true'' Conservatives, which seems to be the situation at present. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 21:06, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Why does formula not matter?==

[[user:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] just deleted the section on calculating the LQ and said "(formula is not the point)" in his comment. I don't see why not, especially when numbers are quoted in the last paragraph. Please justify this removal. To call something a "quotient" by definition means that some numbers are being divided. If there is a good reason to leave it out, fine. If not, I will replace it, and, if I can find good examples, add a few references. [[User:human]] 21:15, 9 April 2007 (sig added aroound 02:15, 10 Apr.)

:If you can come up with a formula as precise as [[IQ]], fine. Otherwise, please let's all stop teasing Andy about this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Andy came up with a definition. And Human too. They were both very precise. Or do you claim otherwise? You cannot ''hide'' the defintion, just because few understand it, and few use it correctly. [[User:Order]] 10 April, 12:22 (AEST)

This article gets better and better. Now it states that the definition is not clear (which is fair enough) yet still has figures for the liberal quotient of journalists and news anchors. I guess that at least makes it clear that these numbers were more or less plucked out of thin air. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 16:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Responding to [[User:Ed Poor]] above, I have a couple of questions.

::First, and simplest, is what does any of this have to do with "teasing Andy"? I'm really lost on that one.

::Second, do you know how IQ numbers are determined? You give a large group of developmentally "equal" people (like a given grade in school, or age) a standardized test, that is set up so all of them will get some of it right, but none of them can get it all correct. Then you take the raw scores and create a transfer function to map them to a Gaussian distribution curve (bell curve). The peak of the curve is marked as "100", and the score scale is created by picking a numerical increment to be equal to each standard deviation (sigma). This is typically 15-16 points = one sigma, making it so five sigmas each way yields IQs of 20-25 and 175-180 - very rare figures indeed, since five sigmas corresponds to less than 0.0001% of the population (I forget the exact number, it's actually even smaller).

::I do think that the formula presented (which "explains" the numbers in the last paragraph exactly) is simpler. Using it, for example, on the number of self identified liberals and conservatives on wikipedia (212 vs 75 today), the LQ = 212/(212+75) = 212/287 = 73.9% or 0.739. The CQ is 75/287 = 26.1% or 0.261. The network news example starts off pre-Fox at 3 liberal and no conservatives, LQ = 3/(3+0) = 1 or 100%. You can apply this formula to any group where you have a number for each preference (i.e., registered Republicans and Democrats out of all registered voters).

::I really don't care whether or not this article makes "sense", but since it is so easy to have it make sense, why not do it? The original text just wasn't thought all the way through, as numerous mathematically astute editors have mentioned above, in an attempt to make this a better article. [[User:Human|Human]] 13:06, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Black protestants==

I'm glad to see that sterotyping is allowed here (see [[Federal Reserve]]) [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 10:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:That black protestants are overwhelimingly "liberal" is actually true as this PEW report shows.[http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=174] [[User:Order|Order]] 11 April, 9:50 (AEST)

== Dumbest file imaginable. ==

Until there is a metric for determining the "liberal quotient" (which is not hard to come up with), it is really embarrassing (to conscientious contributors to this site, ''and'' its "owner") and stupid to offer numbers that supposedly represent the LQ of certain groups. Check my previous comments, and deleted edit of 4/9/07 AD ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_quotient&diff=96551&oldid=95997]) to see what I mean. I mean, come on. I have no problem with the ''concept'', as a bit of a geek I kind of think it's cool. But as that same geek, I think the formula should be presented. Along with more examples. [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]], I ask you, you made an accident of language in your first formulation, feathers to chickens*, we all make mistakes, it was obvious what you meant. I (and other contributors) just wanted to get it right. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:04, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:<nowiki>*</nowiki>Every disarming epithet I thought of to use here (heck, darn, drat, doggone) I realized were "nice" ways of using profanity, so I made up my own. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:04, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== LQ = zero ==

I know some people's palms sweat when they imagine the concept. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:05, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Innumeracy ==

As I have said, it doesn't matter to me one way or another what this article (or ''anything'' on this blog) says, '''but''', I would I would expect those publicly associated with it to strive for relatively sensible versions of their, um, version of reality. (There are precisely <s>57</s> ''six'' times as many liberals on Wp as in America!)

: No one said "precisely."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

1. The metric of "six times" depends on an incredibly small number of self-identified Wpdians.

: Not that small. Several hundred at least. Probably a higher percentage than most polls of the American public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Sampling error isn't significantly affected by the percentage of the population included in the sample -- a representative sample of 1000 is as reliable in the USA as it is in Monaco. The problem in this case is that it's difficult to justify the assumption that those who self identify as liberal or conservative are representative of the community of Wikipedia editors. It may well be true that there are six times as many liberal Wikipedians than conservative, but it's not statistically reasonable to conclude that from a self-selected sample such as this.--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 04:52, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:: The last time I looked at Wikipedia, the same size was 274 (for conservatives + liberals). This is not a large sample. The total percent sample size is about half that for a Harris poll (that it admits that it has errors that gives that it cannot give a good confidence[http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=548]), however the sample for wikipedia is self selected meaning that you cannot use it to make statistically responsible statements.[http://www.aapor.org/pdfs/2006/samp_err_stmt.pdf] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:30, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

2. In the absence of its inverse, the conservative quotient, defining the Lq is silly knee-jerk reactionism.
: It's baffling, and a bit amusing, how liberals just won't admit they are liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:: It is baffling that [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] won't admit that he did bad math. He prefers to call people liberals instead, proving that he ran out of proper arguments. --[[User:Order]] 10 May.
3. Judging by what Ashfly calls "liberal" on this site, the US is about 60% or so liberal and 30% or so conservative. Leaving 10% "sheep".
: This is false and doesn't make any sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

4. An appropriate acale for a measure like this would create a middle point of "1" or "0", with a clear reflection about that point in each direction. So it should run form infinity to minus infinity, or 10 to -10, or 1 to -1. or, gee, 0 to 1.

: No, the sensible "middle point" is unity, or 1. Do you have your same objection to the scientific (Kelvin) scale for temperature?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

5. This is a really dumb article
: You didn't help your cause with that conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Discuss amongst yourselves. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:43, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
: Ah, the [[Parthian Shot]]. Fine, I hope you honor it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::I presume that means I relinquished the right to quibble with your responses. I'll honor that. if there is anything, however, that you want further comment on, feel free to ask me here or on my user talk page. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:35, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

==X/X+Y==

Andy, I appreciate that you are discussing the formulation in the article. I think it adds a real measure of accountability and honesty. I have one quick comment though - X+Y is ''not'' the whole population, it is only the "self identified" portion, so it does ''not'' dilute the results with moderates. Multiplied by 100, it makes a percentage. Remembering older edits, the major networks would be at 1 (100%), (3/3+0), then came Fox - making it 75% (3/3+1).

It is a perfectly useful metric, and does not bias anything one way or another. Anything over 50% is "suspect" of liberal bias, and anything under is imbued with conservative trustworthiness (see, I didn't even get mean and say "trusworthiness" - remember who was first to point out the typo to get the logo fixed!).

Please, I ask you, run some numbers from various groups to see how it works (the formula). I think you will see that it works very nicely, and is also very clear and understandable.

Oh, and one last thing, us math geeks would tend to use L and C as the variables, for simple clarity (LQ=(L/L+C)). Using lambda and gamma would hurt our keyboards, but believe me, if it was easy, we'd use the Greek! [[User:Human|Human]] 02:35, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Who's "Liberal", anyway? ==

Are Libertarians the equivalent of the square-root of negative one in this formula? How about LaRouchites? Log Cabin Republicans? Natural Law Party activists? Tories? Bull Moosers? Anti-Masonic Revivalists? Pat Buchanan?

In a world of rainbow colors, it can be hard to decide with are "black" and which are "white". <SARCASM>Strangely, it's been my experience that no more than about 5% of Democrats actually have Mark-of-the-Beast tattoos and smell like brimstone, and only about 2% of Republicans actually have wings and a halo.</SARCASM> --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 03:36, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Gulik2 is absolutely right. See Perry (1970) 'Forms of Intellectual Development in the College Year: A scheme'. Perry says that intellectual development occurs as follows:
# 'Dualism' - a simple interpretation of the world as black/white, us/them , good/bad etc.
# 'Multiplicity'; -= an acceptance that there are different points of view and they cannot be simply labelled good/bad etc.
# 'Relativism' - requires that the different points of view are contextualiised, and that knowledge/behaviour in one context may be perfectly acceptable and correct, may not be appropriate in another.

for a source see: http://www.csub.edu/TLC/options/resources/handouts/scholarship_teaching/perrystheory.html

What occurs to me is all that if Perry is correct, with the obsession with Liberals/Conservative points of view, many contributors on this site do not seem to have developed intellectually much further than their freshman year. Hm. Think I'll write an article about this...--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 03:55, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

See [[Perry Theory]] for the article --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 19:55, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Where did "12" come from?? ==

Ed, where did your "12" come from?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:It would be informative if somebody with access to the appropriate data could calculate the LQ for Conservapedia, for purposes of comparison? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 12:16, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== An X for a Y, for an L, for a C ==

This article has a few problems.

#X is defined as number of liberals, and Y is defined as number of conservatives. X/(X+Y) is '''the same''' as L/(L+C). The article argues that they are different, proving that the author doesn't know how to work with variables. And it proves that the author doesn't read his own definitions.
#The criticism that a measure is between 0 and 1, shows that the critic doesn't know that such a measure is equivalent to a measure that ranges between 0 and infinity. Take for example the negative logarithm of the first measure. It just show that the author has not the faintest idea about functions over an infinite domain.
#The remark that an increase from 90% to 99% is ''just'' a 10% increase, shows that the author doesn't know how to interpreter percentages. People who do work with percentages know that the difference between 90% and 99% is an order of magnitude.
#The comparison with other metrics is flawed, because the author didn't compare it with any metric that is actually used in literature. Earlier versions of this article pointed to alternative definitions of liberal bias. None of them is mentioned.
#Finally, this article repeats the old misinformation that the ratio liberal in the wikipedia is 3:1, while it is 1:2 in the American public. It doesn't mention the sources, nor that, if you look at the sources, this comparison is based on nothing but quick sand. It just shows that the author has no idea about statistics.

As a summary, this article proves nicely that in conservapedia conservative bias is more important than facts. Even basic mathematics, which is neither liberal or conservative, is canned to make a poor argument. [[User:Order]] 10 May

I saw that Aschlafly fixed some optinionated part of the article, without actually fixing any of the fundamental flaws. I would suggest to fix the fundamental flaws first. It, for example, still argues that X/(X+Y), where X are Liberals, and Y Conservatives, is different from L/(L+C), where L stands for Liberals, and C for Conservatives. If you want to fix something, fix that first. [[User:Order]] 11 May.

== Update ==

I extended and updated the article on ''liberal quotient''. If you find typos or factual errors, please feel free to fix it. [[User:Order]] May 13.

== How conservative is the US? ==
The article says "According to a Harris Poll from 2005 [1], 40% of all Americans identify as moderates, 35% as conservatives, and 18% as liberals. This gives a liberal quotient of about 1:2. These numbers have been fairly constant during the last decades.", but according to Aschlafly, Jack Abramoff wasn't a conservative<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Deceit&diff=158024&oldid=158009</ref>, despite his ties to Grover Norquist, Ralph Reed, Oliver North; his membership on G. W. Bush's transition team, etc. Rudy Giuliani made a statement held up as a "liberal falsehood of the day"<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Tfa&diff=154374&oldid=153131</ref>, so is presumably not a conservative either. Given this, it certainly doesn't appear to me that merely self-identifying as such is enough to be considered a 'conservative' for this site, and the Harris Poll shouldn't be used to determine how conservative the country is. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 00:42, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:You make a good point, that will go ignored here. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:17, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

this may be picky, but wouldnt' this liberal quotient be more accurately called a liberal conservative ratio? Something about this jangles the statistics part of my brain.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 13:09, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: That's redundant. It would be like requiring everyone to say how hot versus cold it is outside, rather than simply "how hot is it?"--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:15, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Not really: temperature is the correct term.
And while heat is real, cold is just the absent of heat (absence of energy).

While Conservatism and Liberalism are both real political movements: there is no reason why this couldn't be called the conservative quotient, or the liberal/conservative ratio.

Anyone ever considered that wikipedia might be more liberal than the American public, because it has a lot of non-American editors?
And despite the gossip on wikipedia, a large part of its edits are scientific/mathematical in nature, and highly educated people simply tend to be more liberal than average Joe...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]
: This why the liberal quotient is considered so useful. If wikipedia would have for 99.6% articles that are NPOV, for 0.3% with a liberal POV, and 0.1% articles with a conservative POV, its liberal quotient would still be 3:1. It doesn't matter how neutral Wikipedia is, as long as the biased fraction is biased towards liberals. You might argue that if Wikipedia's articles would be for 99.6% NPOV, Conservapedia would have no reason to complain, but Conservapedia thinks differently. And it should indeed be called liberal/conservative quotient, to be precise. [[User:Order]] May 16, 9:50 am (AEST)
:: If that was to be the measure, then conservapedia would have an infinite conservative quotient which means that it is also infinitely more conservative than the American populace because there are no articles that have a liberal bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

== Is the denominator the total number of individuals in a population or the number of non-liberals? ==

I see people don't agree on the definition of this term. When I hear the term for the first time, I imagine the denominator is the total number of individuals, which is the sum of the number of non-liberals and the number of liberals. Otherwise I'd see it as a confusing term. --[[User:Pepsi-Cola|Pepsi-Cola]] 22:44, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Eastern hemisphere

2007-06-27T02:33:42Z

Pepsi-Cola: New page: An eastern hemisphere is any hemisphere in a celestial body that is east of a conventional prime meridian. In the case of the planets of the Solar System, the position of a pla...

An eastern hemisphere is any hemisphere in a [[celestial body]] that is east of a conventional prime [[meridian]]. In the case of the planets of the [[Solar System]], the position of a planet's eastern hemisphere is based on which pole of that planet has been north of the [[ecliptic plane]] during recorded written human history.

For the [[Earth]]'s eastern hemisphere, see ''[[Eastern Hemisphere]]''.

[[Category:Celestial bodies]]
[[Category:Hemispheres]]
[[Category:Planets]]

Eastern Hemisphere

2007-06-27T02:21:45Z

Pepsi-Cola:

Hemisphere of the [[Earth]] east of the [[Greenwich]] meridian and west of the 180` meridian.

The Eastern Hemisphere includes most of Europe, most of Asia, and Africa, most of Oceania, and East Antarctica. It also includes the Indian and parts of the Atlantic, Pacific, Arctic and Antarctic (Southern) oceans.

[[Category:Earth]]
[[Category:Hemispheres]]

Eastern Hemisphere

2007-06-27T02:17:27Z

Pepsi-Cola:

Eastern Hemisphere

2007-06-27T02:17:08Z

Pepsi-Cola:

Hemisphere of the [[Earth]] east of the [[Greenwich]] meridian and west of the 180` meridian.

The Eastern Hemisphere includes most of Europe, most of Asia, and Africa and most of Oceania and East Antarctica.

[[Category:Earth]]
[[Category:Hemispheres]]

Category:Earth

2007-06-27T02:15:37Z

Pepsi-Cola: New page: Category:Planets

[[Category:Planets]]

Eastern Hemisphere

2007-06-27T02:13:56Z

Pepsi-Cola: New page: Hemisphere of the Earth east of the Greenwich meridian and west of the 180` meridian. The Eastern Hemisphere includes most of Europe, most of Asia, and Africa and most of Oceania....

Talk:Breeding

2007-06-27T01:35:03Z

Pepsi-Cola: New page: "Breeding" is also used in ethology to refer to the behavior of animals in the reproductive season. Those are two separate terms though. --~~~~

"Breeding" is also used in ethology to refer to the behavior of animals in the reproductive season. Those are two separate terms though. --[[User:Pepsi-Cola|Pepsi-Cola]] 21:35, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:New England Patriots

2007-06-27T01:01:00Z

Pepsi-Cola: "Foxborough" and/or "Foxboro"?

I've moved the pictures down from beside the team section to the season records area. They fit on my computer but alert me if they are too large for yours. Thanks --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 10:56, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

== "Foxborough" and/or "Foxboro"? ==

What's the official spelling of the toponym of that particular town? Because I see people use both, but the original spelling must have been "Foxborogh", right? It looks like "Foxboro" is more informal. In which situations do they use one spelling instead of the other? --[[User:Pepsi-Cola|Pepsi-Cola]] 21:01, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?

2007-06-27T00:40:03Z

Pepsi-Cola:

I guess this depends on what the "fundus" (= bottom) is for the fundamentalist. Is the bottom the spoken words or the written words? Because I doubt Jesus had access to the Old Testament, did he? But if by "fundus" you mean the spoken words, then the answer would be at least, "Maybe." --[[User:Pepsi-Cola|Pepsi-Cola]] 20:29, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:Why wouldn't He have had access to the Torah and the Tanakh?? [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:36, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
::Well, if that's the case, then I guess he was a fundamentalist. --[[User:Pepsi-Cola|Pepsi-Cola]] 20:40, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?

2007-06-27T00:29:48Z

Pepsi-Cola: New page: I guess this depends on what the "fundus" (= bottom) is for the fundamentalist. Is the bottom the spoken words or the written words? Because I doubt Jesus had access to the Old Testament, ...

Talk:Greenhouse effect

2007-06-25T17:56:19Z

Pepsi-Cola:

I don't think we should use the term "greenhouse effect" for this article. The earth's atmosphere does not work like a greenhouse at all.

Using a misleading term is a mistake. It opens a [[Pandora's box]] of [[deceit]]. We should only use accurate terms, ones which do not conjure up any misleading notions.

We should tell the truth plainly, in a way which inspires trust. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:45, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

I looked at this article because I am a meteorology student (and a Republican yea! red states rule!)

The article has some wrong facts. Saying the gassses emit a different frequency depending on temperature is wrong. The co2 always emits the same frequency but different energy depending on hte temperature. THis has to do with the physics about how the molecules vibrate and give off energy. They vibrate faster when the temperature is hot but the wavelength stays the same. I think there are some more mistakes but I ahve to look them up. I am afraid to edit the article because I am a new person on this cite but the science has to be right so people stop makeing fun of conserapedia. So somebody who has priveledges should fix it. [[User:FredGriggs|FredGriggs]] 23:36, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

: You have the privileges. Don't be shy. Be as aggressive as [[liberals]] are, but without their [[deceit]]. Ha ha ha. Welcome, FredGriggs! Edit the entry as you think it should be.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:22, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, and while you're at it, please help me give the basic physics of the atmosphere. Before we explain any theories about a "problem" (see [[climate crisis]]), we should explain the normal operation of system.

:As I understand it, wide temperature swings on the surface of large astromical bodies are normal - if they don't have an [[atmosphere]]. The [[Moon]] is a case in point.

:But having an atmosphere keeps temperature fairly constant between day and night. Deserts have the widest variation, but areas with vegetation and/or clouds have less of a daily variation.

:Can you supply any information about this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:40, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

==Narrow scope of this page==
On this page, the term "greenhouse effect" isn't used with its wide, inductive meaning, which is that of the effect that works like in a greenhouse. In other words, the term "greenhouse effect" has a much wider meaning than what this page here portrays it to be. The term "greenhouse effect" is not only used in meteorology. The problem is that on this page the term is used the way the environmetalists use it, and that is so narrow and incomplete. Please put some emphasis on the meaning of the term itself, not just the way some enviromentalists with political agendas use it. Precise use of terms is important. --[[User:Pepsi-Cola|Pepsi-Cola]] 13:56, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:The Economist

2007-06-25T05:00:32Z

Pepsi-Cola:

The Economist is Liberal? Have you ever read it? [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 13:53, 22 June 2007 (PDT)

Some administrator please move this page to the page with the correct spelling, which is ''The Economist'', with a capital initial letter e. Thanks. --[[User:Pepsi-Cola|Pepsi-Cola]] 01:00, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Homonyms

2007-06-25T04:29:10Z

Pepsi-Cola:

Homonyms of one another are expressions that are both homophones (expressions that have the same phonematic string; i.e, "sound" the same way) and homographs (expressions that have the same spelling) of one another at the same time. The quality of homonyms is called ''homonymy''.

Common homophones include:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! Common Homophones
!
|-
| They're
| There
| Their
|-
| It's
| Its
|
|-
|Hear
|Here
|
|}

Homonyms

2007-06-25T04:28:14Z

Pepsi-Cola:

Homonyms of one another are expressions that are homophones (expressions that have the same phonematic string; i.e, "sound" the same way) and homographs (expressions that have the same spelling) at the same time. The quality of homonyms is called ''homonymy''.

Common homophones include:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! Common Homophones
!
|-
| They're
| There
| Their
|-
| It's
| Its
|
|-
|Hear
|Here
|
|}

Friedrich Nietzsche

2007-06-25T04:21:18Z

Pepsi-Cola:

[[Image:nietzsche2.jpg|right|250px|thumb]]
'''Friedrich Nietzsche''' (1844-1900) was a [[Germany|German]] [[atheism|atheist]] philosopher whose work set a foundation for the [[existentialism|existentialist]] movement of the 1900s.<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/ Stanford's Biography on Nietzsche]</ref> Nietzsche was critical of religion in general, though especially Christianity, which he described as the "religion of pity."<ref>[http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Friedrich_Nietzsche/ Nietzsche Quotations]</ref> Nietzsche is famous for his anguish declaration that “God is dead” because human have killed him by their actions; Nietzsche thus suggested ways for human to cope with this loose of the idea of "Good" and "Evil." Nietzsche suffered a mental collapse in 1889, and spent the last ten years of his life unable to care for himself. During this time, his sister Elizabeth Förster-Nietzsche took over his affairs, and worked to falsify and re-edit his writings in order to support her virulent anti-Semitism (a view which Nietzsche consistently abhorred, and often mocked, during his lifetime). It was her distorted version of culled and misquoted statements which later provided an intellectual fig leaf for the Nazis and Italian Fascists.

The ''Übermensch'' (overhuman, superhuman) was a literary device used in his magnum opus, "[[Thus Spoke Zarathustra]]". The Overman was to be a new kind of being which would overcome resentment and affirm the Eternal Recurrence of the same.

The statement "God is dead" first appeared in Nietzsche's "[[The Gay Science]]", in Aphorism 108, titled "New Struggles". This very anti-Christian aphorism compares God's death to Buddha's, and implores the reader to take up the task of vanquishing the dead God's shadow. Some argue Nietzsche was not actually anti-Christian, but unfortunately this Aphorism leaves little room to claim it. There is a common misconception that the first appearance of "God is dead" comes later in "[[The Gay Science]]" but the text is clear.

Nietzsche's father Carl Ludwig Nietzsche, was a [[Lutheran]] pastor.

In his first Papal Encyclical, "Deus Caritas Est" (God is Charity/Love) [[Pope Benedict XVI]] quotes from Nietzche's ''Beyond Good and Evil'', taking very seriously Nietzsche's claim that the Church has poisoned ''eros'' (love) with dogma, and responding to it.

==On Morality==
Friedrich Nietzsche argued that [[rational egalitarianism]] denies [[creativity]], and reason cannot create values and morality, attempt to do so would only lead to [[nihilism]]. Therefore morality has been imposed.

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote "Morality is the herd-instinct in the individual.", "With morality, the individual can only ascribe value to himself as a function of the herd", "I submit that egoism belongs to the essence of a noble soul ... and has its basis in the primary law of things", "all morality is partisan; just as any legal system will favor certain behavior against others", "who else should we wish to serve, if not ourselves?" and "Whoever battles monsters should take care not to become a monster too, for if you stare long enough into the Abyss, the Abyss stares back into you."

==On Science and Knowledge==
Friedrich Nietzsche wrote "I mistrust all systemizers and avoid them; the will to systematize is a lack of integrity", "there is no pre-established harmony between the furtherance of truth and the well-being of mankind", "the free-spirit is brought into disrepute chiefly by scholars who miss their thoroughness and ant-like industry in his art of regarding things", "there are many things I do not wish to know, wisdom sets a limit on knowledge too", "the fact that science as we practice it today is possible proves that the elementary instinct which protect life have ceased to function", "we have arranged for ourselves a world in which we are able to live with postulation of bodies, lines, surfaces, causes, and effects, motion and rest, form and content: without these articles of faith, nobody could manage to live", "the irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence, rather a condition for it", "[too much knowledge causes us to] choke on our own reason", "creed of nihilism which I see everywhere is the result of too much learning" and "Any truth which threatens life is no truth at all, it is an error".

==On Politics==
Friedrich Nietzsche wrote "As a political subject, it is an illusion to ask myself what I require from the state. In reality, it is a question of what the state requires from me", "culture and the state are antagonistic", "clearly, the individual will is forfeit to the demands of government - a kind of political Darwinism. The herd triumphs again, this time under the banner of the state", "socialism is the fantastic younger brother of an almost decrepit despotism, which it wants to succeeded", "the doctrine of free will is an invention of the ruling classes" and "madness is something rare in individuals; but in groups, parties, ages, it is the rule".

==On Women==
Friedrich Nietzsche wrote "Women are essentially unpeaceful" and "Man is for woman a means; the purpose is always a child. But what is woman for man?"

==On Philosophy==
Friedrich Nietzsche wrote "Philosophy is the dressing-up in rational argument of moral beliefs, intuitions and desires".

==On Religion==
Friedrich Nietzsche wrote "the religious nature follows the path of self-denial" and "they honored something in themselves when they honored the saint ... self mastery and the will to power".

Thus Friedrich Nietzsche viewed [[Moses]], [[Jesus]], [[Buddha]], [[Homer]] etc, not as religious figures, but as creators of an archaic moral framework, which had lost its authority as Europe began to become secular.

==See Also==
[[nihilism]]

==References==
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/ Entry on Nietzsche from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche-moral-political/ Entry on Nietzsche's Moral and Political Philosophy from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
*[https://www.dartmouth.edu/~fnchron/index.html Nietzsche Chronicle]
*[http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/452786.html Nietzsche: The Problem of Autumn]
*[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=816224 "The Case for Nietzschean Moral Psychology"]
*[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html#_ftnref1 ''Deus Caritas Est'', from the Vatican website]
*[http://www.amazon.com/Introducing-Nietzsche-Third-Introducing-Laurence/dp/1840466278/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-5268663-4749443?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179639544&sr=1-1 Introducing Nietzsche, Third Edition by Laurence Gane]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Nietzsche, Friedrich}}
[[category:philosophers]]

Friedrich Nietzsche

2007-06-25T04:17:11Z

Pepsi-Cola:

[[Image:nietzsche2.jpg|right|250px|thumb]]
'''Friedrich Nietzsche''' (1844-1900) was a [[Germany|German]] [[atheism|atheist]] philosopher whose work set a foundation for the [[existentialism|existentialist]] movement of the 1900s.<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/ Stanford's Biography on Nietzsche]</ref> Nietzsche was critical of religion in general, though especially Christianity, which he described as the "religion of pity."<ref>[http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Friedrich_Nietzsche/ Nietzsche Quotations]</ref> Nietzsche is famous for his anguish declaration that “God is dead” because human have killed him by their actions; Nietzsche thus suggested ways for human to cope with this loose of the idea of "Good" and "Evil." Nietzsche suffered a mental collapse in 1889, and spent the last ten years of his life unable to care for himself. During this time, his sister Elizabeth Förster-Nietzsche took over his affairs, and worked to falsify and re-edit his writings in order to support her virulent anti-Semitism (a view which Nietzsche consistently abhorred, and often mocked, during his lifetime). It was her distorted version of culled and mis-quoted statements which later provided an intellectual fig-leaf for the Nazis and Italian Fascists.

The ''Übermensch'' (overhuman, superhuman) was a literary device used in his magnum opus, "[[Thus Spoke Zarathustra]]". The Overman was to be a new kind of being which would overcome resentment and affirm the Eternal Recurrence of the same

The statement "God is dead" first appeared in Nietzsche's "[[The Gay Science]]", in Aphorism 108, titled "New Struggles". This very anti-Christian aphorism compares God's death to Buddha's, and implores the reader to take up the task of vanquishing the dead God's shadow. Some argue Nietzsche was not actually anti-Christian, but unfortunately this Aphorism leaves little room to claim it. There is a common misconception that the first appearance of "God is dead" comes later in "[[The Gay Science]]" but the text is clear.

Nietzsche's father Carl Ludwig Nietzsche, was a [[Lutheran]] pastor.

In his first Papal Encyclical, "Deus Caritas Est" (God is Charity/Love) [[Pope Benedict XVI]] quotes from Nietzche's ''Beyond Good and Evil'', taking very seriously Nietzsche's claim that the Church has poisoned ''eros'' (love) with dogma, and responding to it.

==On Morality==
Friedrich Nietzsche argued that [[rational egalitarianism]] denies [[creativity]], and reason cannot create values and morality, attempt to do so would only lead to [[nihilism]]. Therefore morality has been imposed.

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote "Morality is the herd-instinct in the individual.", "With morality, the individual can only ascribe value to himself as a function of the herd", "I submit that egoism belongs to the essence of a noble soul ... and has its basis in the primary law of things", "all morality is partisan; just as any legal system will favor certain behavior against others", "who else should we wish to serve, if not ourselves?" and "Whoever battles monsters should take care not to become a monster too, for if you stare long enough into the Abyss, the Abyss stares back into you."

==On Science and Knowledge==
Friedrich Nietzsche wrote "I mistrust all systemizers and avoid them; the will to systematize is a lack of integrity", "there is no pre-established harmony between the furtherance of truth and the well-being of mankind", "the free-spirit is brought into disrepute chiefly by scholars who miss their thoroughness and ant-like industry in his art of regarding things", "there are many things I do not wish to know, wisdom sets a limit on knowledge too", "the fact that science as we practice it today is possible proves that the elementary instinct which protect life have ceased to function", "we have arranged for ourselves a world in which we are able to live with postulation of bodies, lines, surfaces, causes, and effects, motion and rest, form and content: without these articles of faith, nobody could manage to live", "the irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence, rather a condition for it", "[too much knowledge causes us to] choke on our own reason", "creed of nihilism which I see everywhere is the result of too much learning" and "Any truth which threatens life is no truth at all, it is an error".

==On Politics==
Friedrich Nietzsche wrote "As a political subject, it is an illusion to ask myself what I require from the state. In reality, it is a question of what the state requires from me", "culture and the state are antagonistic", "clearly, the individual will is forfeit to the demands of government - a kind of political Darwinism. The herd triumphs again, this time under the banner of the state", "socialism is the fantastic younger brother of an almost decrepit despotism, which it wants to succeeded", "the doctrine of free will is an invention of the ruling classes" and "madness is something rare in individuals; but in groups, parties, ages, it is the rule".

==On Women==
Friedrich Nietzsche wrote "Women are essentially unpeaceful" and "Man is for woman a means; the purpose is always a child. But what is woman for man?"

==On Philosophy==
Friedrich Nietzsche wrote "Philosophy is the dressing-up in rational argument of moral beliefs, intuitions and desires".

==On Religion==
Friedrich Nietzsche wrote "the religious nature follows the path of self-denial" and "they honored something in themselves when they honored the saint ... self mastery and the will to power".

Thus Friedrich Nietzsche viewed [[Moses]], [[Jesus]], [[Buddha]], [[Homer]] etc, not as religious figures, but as creators of an archaic moral framework, which had lost its authority as Europe began to become secular.

==See Also==
[[nihilism]]

==References==
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/ Entry on Nietzsche from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche-moral-political/ Entry on Nietzsche's Moral and Political Philosophy from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
*[https://www.dartmouth.edu/~fnchron/index.html Nietzsche Chronicle]
*[http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/452786.html Nietzsche: The Problem of Autumn]
*[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=816224 "The Case for Nietzschean Moral Psychology"]
*[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html#_ftnref1 ''Deus Caritas Est'', from the Vatican website]
*[http://www.amazon.com/Introducing-Nietzsche-Third-Introducing-Laurence/dp/1840466278/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-5268663-4749443?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179639544&sr=1-1 Introducing Nietzsche, Third Edition by Laurence Gane]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Nietzsche, Friedrich}}
[[category:philosophers]]

Vladimir Putin

2007-06-24T16:20:19Z

Pepsi-Cola:

[[Image:Vladtheimpaler.jpg|right|thumb|Vladimir Putin]]
'''Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin''' (''Russian'': Владимир Владимирович Путин) (born October 7, 1952) is the [[president]] of the [[Russian Federation]] since New Year's Eve of 1999, the day [[Boris Yeltsin]] resigned from the presidency. Putin was later elected as president by approximately 52.94% of the Russian electorate on March 26, 2000. He is mainly backed by the '[[United Russia]]' (''Единая Россия'') party, which currently holds a majority in the lower chamber of the Russian parliament, known as the ''Duma''. The Party usually reflects the political views of Putin, which are that of moderate conservatism and nationalism. The next major political party in Russia is the '[[Communist Party]]' (which Putin is antagonistic towards) which still holds influence but the '[[Bolshevik]]' Party (being the old Communist Party) is banned.

Putin was born in [[Leningrad]] on [[October]] 7, 1952. He was educated in law and economics at Leningrad State University before being assigned to work in the [[KGB]]. After five years in [[East Germany]], he took up various political positions before becoming [[prime minister]] in 1999. He has been elected [[president]] for two terms, 2000 and 2004.

Putin is seen generally as an antagonist in the West; his presidency has become increasingly authoritarian and it is uncertain whether he will stand down when his term runs out for the last time in 2008. Putin has been described as a [[dictator]] by many critics. For example, on April 14, 2007, Russian riot police beat a number of protesters and journalists at an anti-Putin rally at Puskin Square in [[Moscow]]. <ref>''The Economist'', April 21, 2007</ref> Despite these political trends, Putin remains popular in Russia<ref>http://www.levada.ru/prezident.html Putin's Approval Ratings</ref>. Since coming to power, Putin has grown Russia's economy and brought inflation down there. <ref>''Time Magazine'', February 26, 2007</ref> The majority of Russians are relatively uninterested in politics outside of issues affecting their personal prosperity. <ref>''The Economist'', April 21, 2007</ref> and journalist [[Anna Politkovskaya]] argued that the Russian people, as a whole, have been willing to tolerate violence in the name of "comfort and peace and quiet". <ref>Politkovskaya, Anna. Putin's Russia. London: Harvill Press, 2004</ref> (Politkovskaya, an outspoken critic of Putin, was assassinated in 2006 <ref>http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article1819666.ece</ref>, and it is widely believed that the Russian government had some involvement in this death.)

He is married to Lyudmila Putina since July 28, 1983 (former airline stewardess). They have two daughters.

Vladimir Putin will visit the United States on July 1-2.

== See also ==

*[[Communism]]
*[[New Economic Policy]]
*[[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics]]

==References==
<references/>

==Links==
[http://www.kremlin.ru/articles/V_Putin.shtml Official Putin Biography]
{{DEFAULTSORT: Putin, Vladimir}}
[[Category:Political people]]

Atomic Number

2007-03-13T08:24:48Z

Pepsi-Cola: Redirecting to Atomic number

#REDIRECT [[atomic number]]

Battle of Hastings

2007-03-13T07:37:38Z

Pepsi-Cola:

[[Image:Battle_of_Hastings.gif|thumb|450px|Map of the Battle of Hastings]]
The Battle of Hastings was fought on October 14, 1066, between [[William the Conqueror]], Duke of Normandy and [[Harold Godwinson]], Earl of Wessex. The issue of succession to the English throne provided the basis for the battle, with King Edward the Confessor dying without heirs. Both William and Harold claimed the English throne, the eventual result being the invasion of England by William to assert his claim. The battle ended with victory for the Normans due largely to the poor discipline of the Anglo-Saxon militia that formed a large part of Harold's army. The Anglo-Saxon army had also been weakened due to fighting with a Norwegian invasion led by Harald Hardrada before encountering the Norman army, as well as the difficult march from the northern England (where the Norwegians attacked) to the south of England (site of the Norman landings). The battle led to the founding of a French speaking dynasty and aristocracy in England. The numbering of English monarchs begins with the Conquest brought about by the Battle of Hastings. The battle is portrayed in the famous "Bayeoux Tapestry."

Battle of Hastings

2007-03-13T07:35:24Z

Pepsi-Cola:

[[Image:Battle_of_Hastings.gif|thumb|450px|Map of the Battle of Hastings]]
The Battle of Hastings was fought in AD 1066 between [[William the Conqueror]], Duke of Normandy and [[Harold Godwinson]], Earl of Wessex. The issue of succession to the English throne provided the basis for the battle, with King Edward the Confessor dying without heirs. Both William and Harold claimed the English throne, the eventual result being the invasion of England by William to assert his claim. The battle ended with victory for the Normans due largely to the poor discipline of the Anglo-Saxon militia that formed a large part of Harold's army. The Anglo-Saxon army had also been weakened due to fighting with a Norwegian invasion led by Harald Hardrada before encountering the Norman army, as well as the difficult march from the northern England (where the Norwegians attacked) to the south of England (site of the Norman landings). The battle led to the founding of a French speaking dynasty and aristocracy in England. The numbering of English monarchs begins with the Conquest brought about by the Battle of Hastings. The battle is portrayed in the famous "Bayeoux Tapestry."

William the Conquerer

2007-03-13T07:33:32Z

Pepsi-Cola: Redirecting to William the Conqueror

#REDIRECT [[William the Conqueror]]