Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:PhilG

2010-03-10T18:33:20Z

PhilG: /* An unpersonal observation on a Second Chance */ new section

{{welcome}} [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 11:57, 26 January 2010 (EST)

== 90/10 ==

FYI, you're headed into [[90/10 rule]] territory. Frankly, I would be blocking you right now if I were a sysop. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 12:10, 19 February 2010 (EST)

:I should have thanked you for the welcome to this site. And thanks again for the (first sentence of your) warning. I don't see that I'm ''heading into [[90/10 rule]] territory'', though... [[User:PhilG|PhilG]] 09:50, 2 March 2010 (EST)

== An unpersonal observation on a ''Second Chance'' ==

I would have edited earlier but I run into an ''autoblock''. When my block was lifted , the reason stated was that it is a ''second chance''. I'm a little bit confused: I don't think that I missed my first chance. I was called ''prevaricator'' in the block comment - but no alleged ''straying from the truth'' had to be reverted! And I had to read in a mail that I have ''descended into accusing an administrator, ASchlafly, of closedmindedness and lying'', accusations which themselves seem to be without merit.
[[User:PhilG|PhilG]] 13:09, 10 March 2010 (EST)

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2010-03-10T18:15:59Z

PhilG: /* How are these words conservative? */ working with ''findlaw''

[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]

==How are these words conservative?==
exactly how is a word liberal or conservative? as far as i know, words are abstract concepts incapable of political ideaology. Would someone please explain the rational behind this to me

:A word that expresses a conservative concept is conservative. If we had a list of mathematical words, would you raise the same objection?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 27 February 2010 (EST)

With all due respect Andy, I have to disagree. I'm a moderate liberal, but I'm also an Eagle Scout and am currently in the process of writing a book the portrays the elite in a pretty negative way. Both my parents are bleeding heart liberals, but they worked for everything they have and are pretty much the defenition of the American dream.
Also, as a suggestion, you may want to clarify that some of the words are used BY conservatives to describe liberals. A person reading through the list may get the impression that some of the things listed are conservative traits--[[User:DerikJ|DerikJ]] 10:18, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:But... sorry, I may be a bit slow and English is not my mother tongue, but I don't get it. I understand how word expressing conservative values ("free market", "missile defense") are in the list; also, words used by everyone but coined by influent conservatives are in the list. But how are words like "myopic", "biased", "demagogue" or "incoherent" conservative words? They are generic words. Sure, they are used by conservatives to describe liberals, or liberal policies, but they are also used by liberals to describe conservatives, or conservative policies. I mean, if tomorrow John McCain says that Obama is an awful president, "awful" does not magically become a conservative word overnight. What I am saying is that only words used EXCLUSIVELY, or MOSTLY by conservatives to criticize liberals should be in the list; "anti-Christian" and "leftist" are fine examples. But words that can, and are, used both ways, like "myopic" or "incoherent" should be ignored in my opinion. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 10:41, 27 February 2010 (EST)

::You've agreed that some words belong on the list, but quibbled about ... less than 1 or 2% of them. No one would expect unanimous agreement about the listing of every single example. But as to the examples you've disputed, if I did a search on Supreme Court opinions and found that conservative Justices used those words more often than liberal Justices do, then you would you concede that they belong on the list?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:13, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:::Well, it depends on the manner in which the search is conducted and the sample examined, and it also depends on the results. Also, do Supreme Court Justices fairly reflect the trend of the whole population? ... anyway, if you proved that, say, 85-90% of conservatives use "biased", and only 10-15% of liberals do it, then I'd concede that they are conservative words. If 52% of conservatives use "biased" compared to 48% of liberals, I wouldn't.
:::I may be wrong, as I don't live in the US and I don't know how life is there, but in my mind, "myopic", "biased", "demagogue" or "incoherent" are generic words which can be used by either side to criticize the other. By the same standards, you could include "good" (definition: a word commonly used to describe conservative values and policies) and "bad" (a word commonly used by conservatives to describe liberal values and policies), but it wouldn't mean that they are "conservative words".
:::By the way, I only contested about 1% of the list because I only made an example and I did not go through it methodically. I would like more information about the following words, if any can provide it, accompanied by an explaination as to why they are considered "conservative words". Please note that I'm not yet contesting any of them, but merely requesting more information for now.

::: biased
::: conservation of charge (I only know it as a term describing a non-controversial scientific phenomenon. If it has a political nuance I ignore, let me know)
::: constant
::: correlate (by the way, "correlation" is listed by etymological dictionaries to date from 1561 AD)
::: counterexample
::: crackpot
::: cross-examination
::: decrypt
::: demagogue
::: despotism
::: double standard
::: editorialize
::: efficiency
::: hallmark
::: human rights
::: incoherent
::: individualism (just a quick note. I happen to know this because a part of my university thesis was about it. Individualism now is generally a positive word, but it was, if I remember correctly, first used by either Saint-Simonian or Fourierites - early socialists - and it had a negative connotation. I seem to remember that the word was born in France and then spread to the UK to the Owenites.)
::: myopic
::: optimism
::: ostensibly
::: productive
::: provocateur (if I remember correctly, it was a word used by work unions in the early 20th century to describe police or Pinkerton agents who infiltrated the labor force and committed something illegal, to give the police a pretext to intervene.)
::: self-defense
::: vandalism
::: veracity
::: volunteer
::: worldview

::: As regards the "Orwellian" words (newspeak, Big Brother, etc.) keep in mind that they are, yes, used to criticize Stalinism, but also that they were invented by Orwell, who was a democratic socialist.

:::Also, please note (this is unrelated to the rest of my post) that "wannabe" is usually spelt with only one "e", and "one-size-fits-all" is missing from the left column. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 14:10, 27 February 2010 (EST)

::::Maquissar, you seem to agree that if conservatives use a word significantly more often than liberals do, then it's a conservative word. And you seem to agree that such words exist. Your only objection, then, seems to be specific words included in the list. You've identified 27 out of over 200.

::::Let's look at some of your examples. "Volunteer", you suggest, may not be a conservative word. But which political side supports volunteering as a solution to problems? Conservatives. Which state has "volunteer" in its state slogan? A conservative one (Tennessee). Which political side opposed communism, the antithesis of volunteering? Conservatives.

::::Slightly above that you suggest that "self-defense" may not be a conservative word. But which side promotes real self-defense in being able to own guns? Conservatives. Which side pushes gun control to deprive people of self-defense? Liberals.

::::I doubt anyone objective would deny that "volunteer" and "self-defense" are conservative words. Ditto for others on your list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:38, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:::::It seems like your argument for "volunteer" and "self-defense" is that correlation implies causation, and conservatism therefore causes those behaviours. I'm sure you're probably right that conservatives engage in them more than liberals, but that doesn't make them "conservative actions." I know lots of conservatives that don't volunteer their time anywhere, and I know many liberals (myself included) that do. The act itself isn't political. We do it because we care about others, just as you do. It's silly to imply that liberals don't care for those less fortunate, and in the same breath mock liberal politicians for overspending to try and help those same individuals. It's a poor attempt to shift the argument from what it really is (a debate about the practical solutions to real problems) to a slander of a straw man enemy. If you're going to embrace the positive traits that correlate with conservatism, you're forced to accept the negative ones as well, such as closed-mindedness, fear of loss and death, and avoidance of complexity (references upon request).[[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 14:23, 8 March 2010 (EST)

::::::"Insufficient", conservatives support charity and volunteering as solutions to problems; liberals support the opposite: tax and spend. As to "self-defense", conservatives support self-defense rather than gun control; liberals support gun control rather than self-defense. Whatever you may claim as anecdotal evidence, conservatives are more charitable than liberals. Take a look at Canada as it has become more liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:43, 8 March 2010 (EST)

:::::''But as to the examples you've disputed, if I did a search on Supreme Court opinions and found that conservative Justices used those words more often than liberal Justices do, then you would you concede that they belong on the list?''
:::::Just curious: Has this test be done for any of the words? [[User:PhilG|PhilG]] 11:23, 2 March 2010 (EST)

:::::: Yes, and some results are noted in the table. Of course, some of the words are self-evidently conservative (e.g., "conservative" or "self-defense"), and other words are unlikely to ever appear in a Supreme Court opinion (e.g., "action-at-a-distance").--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:50, 2 March 2010 (EST)

:::::::Thank you! I found the examples - and did a quick check myself, using [http://www.findlaw.com/CaseCode/supreme.html findlaw]. It's quite cumbersome to check a word and - in a second step - find out who of the judges used it. It would be nice to have the opinions in txt-format, sorted by political affiliation: then, one could even search for new words! [[User:PhilG|PhilG]] 13:15, 10 March 2010 (EST)

== Dramacast? ==

Under your words not yet recognized, you include the word "dramacast" to decribe what happens when "mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline."

I've never come across the word "dramacast," and a google search brings up no hits. However, doesn't "infotainment" mean the same thing? Has that made it into the dictionary yet? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:25, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

: Good point. The "dramacast" addition was not by me, and you can insert a better substitute such as "infotainment" or perhaps "docudrama". Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:47, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

::Just did. Infotainment seems closer to the concept than "docudrama," which always seems to indicate something longer. It might be good as its own separate entry. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:32, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

== Closed Shop ==
You might like to include Closed shop. -[[User:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

: Superb suggestion. Will add now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:55, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

From the 19th century, I suggest 'scrooge' - a miser who, despite wealth, does not give to charity or allow wealth to circulate and benefit the wider economy. Clearly this orginates from ''A Christmas Carol'', which was written in that century.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:45, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Superb suggestion. Please add with a precise date, if you have one. I'm also working on a few possibilities for 1700s and 1800s to perfect the geometric fit, but yours is better than mine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:15, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

::It looks like the novella was published in 1843 [http://www.stormfax.com/dickens.htm] but I don't have a citation for the first general use of 'scrooge' to describe any miser. I know the book was an immediate success when it was published, so it can't have been long after. Perhaps you have a bigger dictionary than I do?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 19:42, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== Question ==

Just out of curiosity, what exactly makes a word conservative or liberal? For example, liberals often practice double standard far more than conservatives, so wouldn't that make it a liberal word? Same with hysteria, since most media hype is in liberal news sources like MSNBC and CNN. [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 18:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia, home of Patriots. Take hysteria, studies will prove people without God are less grounded, more frequent to have off-the-wall behavior patterns, gradually regressing in communication with others. My conclusion is a sane person (grounded in the Lord, conservative by default) would have created the diagnosis, hence crafted the word hysteria. That is just one example, my 2 cents anyway, comprehend?

:If you do Merriam-Webster dictionary search, you are likely to find the dates and further research the origin, its like word salad.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:23, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
::So it's less words that apply to conservatives and more words coined by the conservatives themselves? [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 19:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Conservative terms are crafted, coined (growth rate) faster than liberal words. This shows that generations have been conservative while liberal crafted words have spurts of growth. Example, 1960 ideas such as freedom of mind drug talk, explore feminism, tune-in drop-out of society became associated with that generation in disproportane numbers. We may be now in such a new phase of liberalism; tax, big government, empathy legislation, gay rights, environmentalism- which will give way to the next sustained period of conservatism.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:30, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

Please can't anyone answer the first question and clarify how and exactly who decides whether words and terms are labelled as either conservative or liberal? Is it based on general opinion or is there some sort of general consensus? Are there any neutral terms? I think it would be interesting to open a dialogue on the subject.

Also, many words have Greek and Latin roots. Does this factor in to weather they are identified as Conservative or Liberal? (unsigned)

:"Whether", not "weather". I agree a dialog (American spelling) would be interesting on this. When a word captures a conservative insight, then it's a conservative word.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:43, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

Could I suggest Astroturfing as a conservative word? It was coined around 1998 as a response to false grassroot movements by Microsoft, but can refer to political movements as well. I consider it conservative because it is a good word for pinpointing deceit. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astroturfing] [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 21:22, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Haven't heard of that term in politics, so I'm not sure it qualifies yet. The word has to catch on a bit to earn its way in this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:41, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== No capitalism? ==

I was rather shocked to notice that capitalism (circa 1850) isn't included as a new conservative word. Was this intentional? I would also suggest constructionist (circa 1835) as another conservative word of value.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:58, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

== A few more suggestions (one from 1700's) ==

According to Random House, "republican" has its origin around 1685...close, but not quite in the time period you're looking for. "Evangelism" is 1620-1630, and "missionary" is 1635-1645.

Aha! What about "states' rights," circa 1790? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:11, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

: "Republican" is a good suggestion, but the term is associated more with the Republican Party than with conservatism. There are arguments that conservatism is populist in nature. "Isms" are usually derogatory; missionary requires more discussion.

:"States rights" adds nothing conservative to "federalism", a 1789 term that we already include. Liberals invokes "states rights" often also.

:I'll add all four terms as difficult to classify, pending further discussion. Thanks but we're still looking for a a 1700s term to perfect the geometric fit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

::Seeking data (a "1700s term") to support a linguistic theory (the "geometric fit" or "Law") to the exclusion of relevant data is irresponsible. The fundamental problem with this whole effort is that it has no clearly-designed methodology. Even the terms "liberal words" and "conservative words" are not sufficiently clear at an operational level. There is no sampling method. People just think of words and add them. They usually supply very weak or entirely inappropriate reasons for including a word. There is no stated rationale supporting the "Merriam-Webster" dictionary (which one of their line of dictionaries? online?) over the Oxford English Dictionary, which is far superior in its coverage of etymology and word introduction. There are no serious criteria about how to categorize words in one category or another. No attention to "sense" as it relates to the same word ("designer" can refer to God or to Versace) is visible in the portions of this discussion I have read. Part of the problem, too, is perspective. Liberals and conservatives may both "rightly" claim a term or it could be pointed out that a term is value-neutral. Definitions change over time as well, which complicates all of this even further. To scientifically compare these two categories of words would take an enormous amount of work and involve an actual methodology. I think it could be a very interesting study, if done well. Otherwise it is useless and would have the potential of making the proponents of the results look like they are creating self-serving propaganda. Perhaps I have missed a formal statement of the methodology, but what I have seen here implies a total lack of methodological rigor. At best, and this is perhaps the reason for this effort, the discussion is laying the groundwork for a formal study; but, I haven't seen any evidence supporting this. In the meantime, it is dishonest to draw conclusions about these words and ridiculous to use these conclusions to support a "Law." I would urge the "movers" of this discussion to write a disclaimer to the effect that all of this is preliminary work and that conclusions can't yet be drawn until a formal methodology has been applied. Otherwise it is an embarrassment to Conservapedia and those of us who care to contribute. Poor methodology is neither conservative nor liberal -- it is just a waste of everybody's time and reputation. --[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 10:55, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::The only "embarrassment" is yours, CPlantin. Your rant above is close-minded. There's no denying that new conservative words/insights are created/discovered. There's no denying that such words can be counted. It's clear you don't like the results, but the problem is with your attitude. I urge you to open your mind and set it free. You'll be amazed by how much better your life becomes as a result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: My critique is not closed minded -- it's just based on standard research methods. I do not deny that new conservative words are created/discovered and there are surely ways to count them, just as there are ways to count liberal ones. This project may even be under-counting conservative terms because the methodology is so flawed. Unfortunately there will be no way of knowing until a thorough study is actually carried out, here or elsewhere. I don't like or dislike any "results" at this point because they are based on faulty methods and can't be considered results. I am secure with my knowledge of linguistic and social-scientific research methodologies, based on decades of experience, and do not believe that having high standards amounts to having a problematic "attitude." My words may have seemed like a "rant" but I said it all because if anyone here at Conservapedia ever intends to do anything with any results, the methodology has to be sound for any of it to be taken seriously. Now is the time to establish the methodology -- before the project moves ahead any more. It is a fascinating topic, but deserves serious treatment -- and certainly needs much more time than I have for it. If contributors to this study want help with methodology, perhaps a call for a trained researcher would be advisable. Otherwise, the study as it seems to be developing will harm the reputation of Conservapedia. Lastly, I find your condescension to be insulting. Sound research does indeed open one's mind and does indeed set one's mind free. Sound research is part of having an open mind. Sloppy research designed to promote pre-conceived results is 1) not at all associated with having an open mind, 2) scholarly suicide, and 3) even worse, dishonest. --[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 19:20, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::No one ever built a monument to a critic. Rather than provide any corrections or methods of your own, you've baselessly attacked the project without citing any actual problematic examples. Why should anyone waste time reading your criticisms, then again responding to them? [[User:LarsJ|LarsJ]] 20:52, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::I agree with CPlantin's criticisms of the project, and I will set in to offer some methods of my own. First, a clear definition of a "conservative term" and a "liberal term" should be agreed on ahead of time. There's not even a ghost of a skeleton of a criterion for what qualifies as one or the other. The definition used will depend on what exactly the project is trying to show. Right now there are a mixture of terms used by liberals and conservatives for liberals and conservatives in both lists. Without a clear definition of what is to be counted, it's difficult to count. It's not clear, for instance, why "Segway" or "goth" are new words created by liberals to attack us. They're a brand of motor scooter and the name of a teen subculture.
::::::Secondly, there needs to be a way to go through terms used at different times by different people. Having random contributors put in ideas as they think of them doesn't produce anything remotely like a representative sample. I honestly have no idea how to do this, especially with no resources, which is perhaps why studies of this nature are not typically undertaken.
::::::I want to reiterate that I'm saying this because I want CP to be good and I want it to be trustworthy, and the methodology used here is wrong and worthless on every conceivable level. They hypothesis may be correct for some value of "conservative terms", but the work being done here does nothing at all to support it. I work in the social sciences. The methodology here isn't merely a little shaky; it is, to be straightforward (a conservative term), junk science (another conservative term), and I hesitate to even elevate it to that status. In particular, picking out a curve ahead of time and then looking for data to fit it strikes my actual-research-doing self as positively ghastly, brutally deceitful, the opposite of what CP should stand for. [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 17:44, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Your "know nothing" approach is a common style of reasoning of [[liberals]]. This is not a single, specific, meritorious (a new conservative word?) in your long-winded rant. You don't like this project probably because it is so effective. You don't deny that new conservative words are being created at a rate of many per century, yet you object to counting them. That's liberal style of reasoning: a bundle of self-contradictions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:51, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

::::::::I respectfully object to being referred to as a liberal; I am very much not one. I also object to my suggestion to lift the project to the level of something resembling true research as a long-winded rant. I don't object to the project because "it is so effective." I object to the project (in its current formulation) because it is so humiliatingly ineffective. I do not object to counting new conservative words as they appeared over time and formulating conclusions based on them; I object to compiling a list of words for which there are no well-defined criteria for inclusion more or less at random and pretending like it means anything. I know that the people contributing to this project are smart and are working hard on it, but it's effort sadly wasted with such sad methodology. I want CP to stand for truth and for sound reasoning, but as things are being conducted right now, were several high-level admins not involved I would assume the whole thing was a hoax. Respectfully, [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 19:09, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

== A few more possibilities from the 1700's ==

economics (1785)
division of labor (1770)
patriotism (1720)--I know "isms" are often pejorative, but surely this one isn't (regardless of how some people might try to malign it?)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:00, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

:patriotism has been on the list. Division of labor is good. Economics can be liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

== Further suggestions ==

Two suggestions from Gulliver's Travels, which was published in 1726 and immediately became popular:
* Lilliputian - small-minded or trivial, used to satirise people who are preoccupied with petty squabbles.
* Yahoo - a person who embodies all the worst human characteristics because of a lack of moral or civilising influences.

--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:08, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions! I think Lilliputian is the better of the two. "Yahoo" does not seem to have retained its original meaning, perhaps due to yahoo.com's use of the term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:11, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: I agree that Lilliputian is more relevant today. It strikes me as an excellent way to describe many people's obsessions with gossip, people's personal lives, celebrities, entertainment etc while they ignore far more important concerns. It's actually amazing how much of what Swift wrote is even more relevant today than it was when he wrote it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:51, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

::: According to M-W, ''yahoo'' as a noun dates to Swift's book in 1726; ''yahoo'' as an interjection (synonym for "yippee") dates to 1870. But I disagree with both as conservative terms: ''Gulliver'' is extremely rooted in the attitudes of the [[Enlightenment]] and the glorification of Reason above all else - hardly conservative IMO. (Yes, I know that the Enlightenment produced some conservative ideas also.) [[User:Carillonneur|Carillonneur]] 12:34, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:Carillonner has a point. Swift is regarded as one of the greatest satirists of all time - I am personally a fan of him. You shouldn't adopt his words unless you have read the book from which they come, and understand exactly what they intend to mean. The entire country of Lilliput was a criticism of the trivialities that dominated british and european politics - much of which is lost on a modern reader, unfamiliar with the subject. That the people were tiny was but incidential to the real significence of them, the way in which they would turn the tiniest event or question into a source of great conflict or debate while entirely ignoring far more serious issues, culminating in a war fought over which way up an egg should be placed in an eggcup before breaking it open. If you're looking for a section good for criticising liberals with, I suggest the third country visited by Gulliver: Laputa. The floating island satirises scientific and artistic accomplishment performed for it's own sake without thought to practical benefits, and a community of academics who posess vast knowledge of subjects entirely useless to anyone else. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 12:45, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the insights above. Looks like we'll hold off on both terms, then. That means we're still looking for one more word from the 1700s to perfect the geometric increase in generation of insightful conservative terms for the list. Suggestions are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:21, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Suricou is right about the original context of the satire, but I would contend that 'Lilliputian' applies equally well to any small-minded, petty obsession of the kind that Conservatives strive to rise above, so I'd still consider it a conservative term.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:04, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== More 1700's possibilities ==

Businessman (~1710)

Checks and balances (~1780)

Separation of powers (1748)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:55, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: The latter two are good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:02, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Self-respect (1765)

: Don't think "self-respect" is conservative. It may be liberal. "Self-worship" is a big defect with the liberal approach.

: Looks like "separation of powers" is the term to perfect the fit to the geometric increase, unless someone objects.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:38, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== Liberal word from 1830 ==

'''Reactionary''' - liberal smear-word for conservative ideas.--[[User:Woloct|Woloct]] 21:05, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

==A different take on the Geometric Growth issue==

It might be geometric growth, it might be geometric decay too. If say every year one new conservative word is coined, but every hundred years half of the existing conservative words fall out of use, then the words from the 1600's would be half as prevalent as conservative words than the words from the 1700's. Also, why is transistor a conservative word? It doesn;t seem like it is any more politically important than automobile, or cucumber, or steak. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 23:28, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

: But there is no "decay" in the conservative examples provided. Your point would apply to the liberal terms, which do quickly fall out of use. The conservative insights grow in usage and value.

: The transistor is "more politically important" than a steak. The transistor played a central role in national defense systems, such as the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], a program proposed by conservatives and which helped bring the downfall of communism in the [[USSR]]. Moreover, the transistor epitomizes Yankee ingenuity, which is a conservative value.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:04, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::If my proposal were correct would you expect the decayed examples to be in the list? I would think that would throw off the numbers and we wouldn't see the exponential growth in the numbers. As someone working in the cattle industry I would contest the notion that steak isn't politically important. It is a food source for conservatives by conservatives. It seems like the SDI is built on a whole lot of other technological innovations as well that aren't on the list. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 12:34, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::There is exponential growth of conservative words that continue to be useful. The liberal words do fizzle quickly, but the conservative words do not. If you have counterexamples, let's see them. If you say the counterexamples have vanished and cannot be found, then your proposal is [[non-falsifiable]] and thus unscientific.

:::"Transistor" is on the list for several reasons, as I explained here and in the entry. If you can find other examples used for SDI that are comparable, then let's discuss them too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::My point was that it might be decay too, of course we cannot test it unless we find a comparable list from 100 years ago. However, it seems contradictory when you say that we can't test, but our words are increasing and their words are decaying. It seems like both sets would be simultaneously growing and decaying. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 15:38, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Conservative words don't disappear as you suggest. You have access to older works on the internet. I've provided 150 new conservative words that have lasted. Can you identify even 1 that has disappeared?

:::::It doesn't seem to me "like both sets [conservative and liberal] would be simultaneously growing and decaying" the same way. In fact, I'd be shocked if these very different categories behaved identically. One is almost certainly growing and lasting more than the other, and the evidence is that the conservative words are winning this struggle. Difficult for liberals to accept, I'm sure, but the facts don't care if they are accepted or not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:15, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Let me jump in here just to ask, Andy, do you have a dictionary-type definition of "conservative word"? It is impossible to test for geometric growth (or whatever we call it!) if we don't know how to identify a [[conservative]] word. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:20, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::I propose as a working definition that a "conservative word" is one that succinctly expresses a conservative insight that is or was denied, downplayed or otherwise not recognized before its articulation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Good. I think some of the words in the primary list might be better in the downgraded list though. They seem to define "conservative insight" too broadly. For example, "insightful." How exactly is that "conservative"?

:::::::Also, in deciding a conservative word should we consider who coined it? Example, Lenin coined "fellow traveler", but nowadays it can be used in a conservative sense, though it was coined by a communist. What do you think there? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 16:56, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: Good points, but I think these particular terms are defensible. "Insightful" is a word about getting at the truth, something that conservatives actively seek while many liberals prefer [[deceit]] or self-worship instead.

:::::::: As to "fellow traveler," this is one of a few terms coined by one side but which become more useful and popular to the other side. Other examples include "Big Bang" and "politically correct." So while it is enlightening to know who and why a term was coined, there are limits to relying entirely on that source for its usage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:04, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question 2 words ==

I doubt that "intercontinental" and "silver spoon" are conservative words. "Silver spoon" is [[materialistic]] and seems more useful for class warfare. Intercontinental seems straightforward with little more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:Well then we should remove them. Some people have just added words without discussing it, and list is rather long anyway. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:11, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

::I think those two could be profitably removed (with the count decreased accordingly). But on a wiki it's usually fine to make edits without prior discussion. It's just as easy to discuss afterward and correct as it is to discuss beforehand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Should they be fully removed or put in "downgraded" terms? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:22, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Your call. Honestly, I don't see an argument that either one is conservative, so it's fine with me if they are simply removed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:50, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-locality? ==

The description is as follows "1920s action at a distance at the atomic level; even though proven, it is still opposed by those who belief<nowiki>[sic]</nowiki> in relativity and still not recognized by Merriam-Webster" If its not recognized why is it not in the non-recognized list? We also have both productive and productivity, and sustainable and sustainability are split between the liberal and conservative lists. I think we should trim the fat, but didn't want to act before speaking because of how many admin reverts there are in the history. unfortunately I do not have any words to replace tem with, sorry. --[[User:CJHallock|CJHallock]] 12:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

: I corrected the typo and trimmed "sustainable", but "non-locality" is widely used and accepted, except by those who instead insist on relativity (which perhaps includes you?). The description in this entry is informative and I hope you take it with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==liberal words==
Now I've looked at the list of liberal words and I beleive that these are not liberal:

Hypothesis.

Creationism (Used by everyone. The [[creation science]] movement began as "scientific ''creationism''.)

Racism (Liberals misuse this term to criticize people who do not support, say, Obama. But that is a misuse, we should not let their misuse define the word itself.) [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:Good points about "hypothesis" and "racism", but I think "creationism" was originally and still is used by liberals. As an "-ism" it has a pejorative connotation, and many liberals rely on that connotation in trying to smear others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::Sort of like how creationists like to call evolution "evolutionism" I guess. More importantly, should we remove hypothesis and racism? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 14:10, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Removal sounds good. Please proceed as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:25, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Are you implying that all -isms are pejorative? If so, I think you're way off-base. They simply denote a ideology or belief structure. There are a lot of good conservative -isms out there: capitalism, objectivism (as in Ayn Rand), mercantilism (per-capitalist conservative ideology), heroism, and even baptism (belief structure that holds that anointing with water cleanses sins and lies on the path to salvation).

: Your "baptism" example is striking, but I don't think its etymology is from adding "ism" to a concept. Rather, it is from a middle English word (baptisme). Your other "isms" may not have been complementary when first developed, but I'd like to learn more about that. Do you know?

: In modern times, most "isms" are pejorative in origin. Some can be flipped over time to favorable usage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:30, 15 January 2010 (EST)

As for baptism, the best evidence I can find of this is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, “The word Baptism is derived from the Greek word, bapto, or baptizo, to wash or to immerse. It signifies, therefore, that washing is of the essential idea of the sacrament.” Perhaps supports my idea but admittedly not at all conclusive. As for some of these other isms, I was not able to find the particular circumstances regarding whether or not they were developed with a positive or negative connotation, but it really shouldn’t matter how the word was used a hundred years ago, but how the conservative movement today uses these words to promote its ideas. If “some can be flipped over time to favorable usage,” then these words should certainly be included on this list. Words are reclaimed all the time. Case in point, the term “Jesus freak” was at one time a pejorative, but many young Christians embraced the term. Furthermore, Mr. Schafly, I’d be very curious to see any evidence that most “isms” are pejorative. It seems a little arbitrary to give such a blanket statement for all isms without some hard evidence, especially when the word conservatism is used throughout the intro paragraphs of the article.

== John Bunyan ==

I notice we're looking for a term from the seventeenth century. Perhaps a word from Pilgrim's Progress (1678) might be suitable? I suggest "worldly-wiseman", or "slough of despond", which has been used subsequently to describe any instance of the malaise that results from a lack of faith.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:43, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:We should include something from that immensely influential book, but I don't think the specific terms you identify are unique or popular enough.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:26, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== A sense of "loyal"? ==

Another possibility for 17th century: "loyal" with the meaning "1. True to obligations of duty, love, etc.; faithful to plighted troth", which dates to Othello in 1604 (OED). The earlier meanings are from the 16th century and deal with loyalty to a nation or sovereign, but it seems to me that this represents a quite distinct conservative insight. Perhaps add both uses?

:Fascinating suggestion! But the earlier uses go back to 1531 and are not that different. The OED may be acting partial to Shakespeare in giving credit.

:Also note that 1604 is before the writing of the [[King James Bible]], further disqualifying this suggestion. I think we could go with something like 1610, because by then the [[King James Bible]] was virtually complete albeit not yet published, but 1604 is really too early for this list.

:Do have any more suggestions? I learned from this one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:17, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:: Maybe "theism" (1678 -- curiously invented after "atheism" which is already a liberal word here!) or "pander" (1616) to describe liberal behavior? I'm just looking through a list of 17th century words for these; I'll keep looking to fill in the hole if you don't think they qualify! Learning lots of strange words along the way... --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 17:37, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::: Fascinating! I think "pander" comes closest to qualifying, but hopefully we can do better still.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:38, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: OK, one more try and I'll get back to actual editing! How about "liberate", 1623? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:54, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Designer? ==

Apparently, the word "designer" originated between 1640 and 1650. While it may not have been an important conservative word at the time, I would argue that it has become one since in pointing out the evidence that the universe is designed. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:27, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

(Incidentally, I'm learning some really surprising things while looking for words! Apparently, the word "Biblical" didn't come into use until 1780-1790! I was amazed to discover that!) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:41, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Slipshod ==

Hi there, new to the site so I'd like to start out small... how about adding slipshod? It was coined in 1580 and means "shabby, careless, slovenly". A perfect word to describe those who don't help themselves! --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 20:46, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
truth

:Your suggestion sounds good to me too (also new around here!), but I think the list is supposed to start in 1612 now, the year after the publication of the KJV. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:57, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::Ah, I seem to have missed that sentence. I see no reason to limit conservative insight to after 1612, but I won't argue the point --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 21:13, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Final word for 1600s ==

My interest was peaked when I read that this list was only one word away from being in a perfect geometric series. So i went to an online etymology dictionary and picked a few that may fit the bill:

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sumptuary Sumptuary] (c. 1600): The dictionary.com version of this definition seems biased in some aspect, so, in general, it means "to rule one's life based on religious or moral judgements."

* Independent (1611): I was kind of surprised when I found out this wasn't on the list...perhaps there's a reason for that? (Yes, I did see the year, but perhaps since 1611 was the year the KJV was published, maybe...)

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patronymic Patronymic] (1612): I've always seen it as a conservative value for a woman to take on the name of her husband. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

* Accurate (1612): Maybe if we wanted to be a little facetious...or are we serious?

[http://www.etymonline.com/ Here's the dictionary I've been using.] Just type in a year and it'll give many results. Hope this helps...Pick a good one!-[[User:Zerlock|Zerlock]] 21:24, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions. "Patronymic" is new to me, but I have to agree with your analysis! But all your examples seem slightly shy of the high standard in the entry. I hope we can do better for the final word. Hey, when was "last word" first used?! That's not conservative ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question about Methodology ==

This article makes the assertion that by analyzing "liberal" terms versus "conservative" terms, one can conclude that conservatism is on the rise. Let me emphasize that I do not dispute this notion. I do feel, however, that as it is written now the assertion has not been rigorously proven. I have the following concerns:

1. What is the definition of a "Conservative Word"? What is the definition of a "Liberal Word"? It is important to explicitly define those two terms if we are going to claim that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words". For example, is a "Conservative Word" a word that was coined by a conservative, or is it one that has been used to describe conservative ideology, or is it one used to disparage conservatives by non-conservatives? Is a word conservative if it was originally meant to be conservative or if it was not originally intended to have an ideology but later acquired one?

2. There are certain words like "insightful" that do not seem to be related to any ideology. Why are such words classified as "conservative"? Likewise, what does cryptography have to do with conservatism? One more example: the "Big Bang" is simply the currently accepted scientific theory about how the universe began. How can a scientific theory have an ideology?

3. How can we be sure that we have counted every word in each category? Is it possible that we spent more time searching for words in one of the two categories, and as a result that category has more words than the other?

4. It is claimed that conservative words are of higher quality than liberal ones. What metric is used to assess the "quality" of a word?

I am not sure if the above questions are answerable. If they are, however, then we come to the most important point:

5. After clarifying the first three points, let's say we determine that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words" (or the other way around). Is it possible to conclude that an ideology is on the rise simply by looking at the rate of change of words associated with that ideology.

One more concern:

6. I feel that we are studying this problem deductively when we should be studying it inductively. Specifically, we are trying to prove that conservative words fit into a geometric ratio - we are starting with a conclusion some people wish to find, and then we are searching for evidence to fit it. I am skeptical of this - it would probably be better to collect all the data first and THEN analyze the data for conclusions, a more empirical method that will serve this essay better.

I hope that these four questions provoke a discourse. Over the next day or so, I will attempt to give my own answer to what is a "Conservative Word" and what is a "Liberal Word." Please do not construe this message as an attempt to attack this essay; rather, I wish to help make it more rigorous, something for which we should all strive! I am not saying that I dispute the notion that conservatism is on the rise - I merely doubt that this is an effective way of proving that fact.

If you disagree with any of my points, I am very open to hearing your opinion. My goal is to objectively study the growth rate of ideological words; any advice you can contribute would be immensely appreciated. [[User:Khamilton|Khamilton]] 21:28, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:'''REPLY:'''

:Q1. What is the definition of a "Conservative Word"? What is the definition of a "Liberal Word"? It is important to explicitly define those two terms if we are going to claim that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words". For example, is a "Conservative Word" a word that was coined by a conservative, or is it one that has been used to describe conservative ideology, or is it one used to disparage conservatives by non-conservatives? Is a word conservative if it was originally meant to be conservative or if it was not originally intended to have an ideology but later acquired one?

::ANSWER: The meaning is obvious enough. A conservative word is one that captures and conveys a conservative insight. There is no definitional problem here. There are over 150 examples and the vast majority can hardly be disputed.

:Q2. There are certain words like "insightful" that do not seem to be related to any ideology. Why are such words classified as "conservative"? Likewise, what does cryptography have to do with conservatism? One more example: the "Big Bang" is simply the currently accepted scientific theory about how the universe began. How can a scientific theory have an ideology?

::ANSWER: Science obviously can be ideological. Witness "global warming" and "evolution". As to your other examples, I'll try to explain them better in the comments if desired. I agree that a few are debatable, but the vast majority are not.

:Q3. How can we be sure that we have counted every word in each category? Is it possible that we spent more time searching for words in one of the two categories, and as a result that category has more words than the other?

::ANSWER: If the occurrence were flat or declining, it would be virtually impossible to generate a geometric progression. This geometric progression occurred without expecting it to happen.

:Q4. It is claimed that conservative words are of higher quality than liberal ones. What metric is used to assess the "quality" of a word?

::ANSWER: The same as the quality of a car or laptop or tennis racket: its durability, its effectiveness, and its helpfulness for success.

:Q5. After clarifying the first three points, let's say we determine that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words" (or the other way around). Is it possible to conclude that an ideology is on the rise simply by looking at the rate of change of words associated with that ideology.

::ANSWER: I can't think of a better indicator. Can you?

:Q6. I feel that we are studying this problem deductively when we should be studying it inductively. Specifically, we are trying to prove that conservative words fit into a geometric ratio - we are starting with a conclusion some people wish to find, and then we are searching for evidence to fit it. I am skeptical of this - it would probably be better to collect all the data first and THEN analyze the data for conclusions, a more empirical method that will serve this essay better.

::ANSWER: We did begin without trying to fit the data to any curve. Now the only fit is to perfection. That may distort the level of perfection, but the underlying geometric progression is unmistakable.

::Thanks for your questions. Godspeed and I hope you really do have an open mind about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
:::Q6 seems really important to me, yes you are trying to fit to perfection but there may be something other than perfect geometirc growth going on and you may never be able to find it if you don't let the data flow where it may and then analyze it. While geometric growth is undeniably happening here there may be more to see that we will never find out unless we disconnect ourselves from the data. --14:26, 12 January 2010 (EST)

::::Thomas, please note your name, preferably with the signature button, so we can see who said what. In response to your comment, this project did not start out seeking or expecting a geometric rate of growth, and it welcomes quality additions that may cause it to depart from the geometric rate. Indeed, lately the 20th century words have increased at a rate faster than the geometric rate.

::::As to "Trojan horse", your edit deleted a good explanation of what that is, and inserted a typo (missing space). If you deny that the term means a form of [[liberal deceit]], then please make a stronger case than you have. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:48, 12 January 2010 (EST)

I moved the following from your talk page

:::::You strike me as a widely read individual, so surely you must have read the Odyssey. Benedict Arnold is a case of deceit from within, but not at all a trojan horse. If you look at the Odyssey itself Odysseus represents a conservative of the times, very cautious and shrewd, a faithful and cunning man, was his trojan horse a liberal deceit? The whole idea behind a trojan horse is using a gift to get past the defenses of your enemies. I think my version was more correct and more precise, in short more true. I think that if you think about it for a while you will find your self agreeing. --[[User:ThomasRidgefield|ThomasRidgefield]] 14:59, 12 January 2010 (EST)

::::::I have an open mind about this, and welcome your insights. In fact, all the regular contributors here have an open mind about these issues. But as the [[deceit]] entry amply demonstrates, there is a high correlation between deceit and liberal tactics, and a very low correlation between deceit and conservative approaches. Your edit obscured the correlation to liberal tactics, and removed the explanation that a Trojan horse is a tactic of subversion from within. As to whether Odysseus was a conservative, I can't say I know his position on pro-life and less government!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:18, 12 January 2010 (EST)

== More 1600's possibilities ==

Nucleus: 1695. Leads to the term "nuclear family," certainly an important conservative concept.

Parental: 1615-1625: Liberals still marginalize the important role of parental guidance and influence.

Jurisprudence: 1620-1630: While liberals may seek to use the law to their advantage, I would argue that the study of the science of law (and its proper place) is an inherently conservative concept.

Constitutional: 1675-1685: It certainly would have been difficult to have a Constitutional Convention without the word "constitutional!"

"Responsible" comes in just a few years before the cutoff--1600. Pity.

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:30, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

: Good suggestions. "Parental" and "constitutional" seem best. Let's pick one and achieve the goal. Then we can move on to the next layer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:: I'd vote for "constitutional", since "parenting" is already on the list and has basically the same import. On the other hand, "constitution" is much older, so does this really represent a new conservative insight in the 17th century? I'd think we want each of these words to represent a fresh insight if the argument for conservapedia's law is to hold. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:06, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

::: Excellent points. Let's keep the high quality here and continue looking. Note that the term "jurisprudence" does not connote conservative now, so it won't work either.

::: How about "Hobson's Choice", or "substantiate"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:17, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Either sounds reasonable, though you'd have to explain to me why Hobson's choice is conservative. Alternatively, we could stop looking -- one less in the 17th century means that the growth is even faster than claimed! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:22, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::I think that defeats the purpose Andy's aiming for. He's never claimed that there are exactly double the number of conservative terms each century; just that it's a general trend. The efforts to have a perfect geometric curve here are to clearly illustrate that trend. Remember that this is a resource for students, and thus, clear and precise illustrations of the concepts presented are always desirable. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, Andy.) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:13, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

== Strict Constructionism ==

I see you added textualism and that originalism is already on the list. Years ago when I first heard about conservative interpretations of the constitution the phrase du jour was "strict constructionism," which I think is now out of vogue in favor or originalism and textualism, but is definitely a new conservative principle in the grand scheme of things. [[User:Lmenkes|Lmenkes]] 16:50, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

:You're right. However, I see that "strict constructionism" is in this entry under "Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary." It's been used over 200 years, and the dictionary still doesn't recognize it! Thanks for mentioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:42, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

== Transnationalism ? ==

1. going beyond national boundaries or interests: a transnational economy.
2. comprising persons, sponsors, etc., of different nationalities: a transnational company.
–noun
3. a company, organization, etc., representing two or more nationalities.
Origin:
1920–25; trans- + national

Related forms:
trans⋅na⋅tion⋅al⋅ism, noun
trans⋅na⋅tion⋅al⋅ly, adverb

Transnational jurisprudence assumes America’s political and economic interdependence with other nations operating within the international legal system, as opposed to the conservative, traditionalist(pre-Obama) approach of always rejecting the subjugation of American law to International law. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:07, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

: That would be a great start to the next layer, TK!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:11, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-English Terms? ==

Just to get it out of the way, this is only an idea I'm floating, and I definitely do not think it's a good idea to add non-English words all willy-nilly. However, I do feel that it's worth noting that for a portion of the period covered by this essay, English was not the standard language of academic discourse, as it is in modern times. Part of the reason that it may be more difficult to fill out the earlier part of curve is that in the time period it covers, Latin, then French, were common as the languages of choice. Important conservative ideas, like the five ''solas'', were expressed in Latin, and don't all have English equivalents with the same "hot word" status. This could partially explain why it's sometimes harder to find examples from the older periods. We already have "laissez-faire", but I think this is a good place to look for terms for conservative concepts, provided care is taken to make sure that the terms used are really of the same stature as those that exist. (And don't duplicate existing concepts.) Ideas that grew out of the Reformation, for example, are likely to have Latin names, and ideas born with the great political philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries might have more resonant names in French. Again, this is just an idea of a new space to mine conservative words from; conservative thought has a long history, and some of it isn't in English. :) -- [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 23:55, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

I understand that Conservapedia has a US-centric interest base, but might I suggest 'Eurosceptic' as a conservative term? As far as I am aware, it was coined in the early 1970s when Britain debated joining the EEC. It has since been used to describe a right-wing rejection of the European Union and its socialist 'super-state' mentality. Conservatives in the USA have rightly questioned the growing power of the EU, thereby displaying 'Euroscepticism' themselves. [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 23:17, 5 July 2009 (CDT)

: Superb suggestion, except that "Euroskeptic" and "Euroskepticism" appear to be derogatory ''liberal'' terms. The real conservative term on this issue appears to be "Eurorealist", but I'm not sure when that was coined. Your thoughts?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:55, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

:: When the term first arose, it was applied to the many members of the Labour ''and'' Conservative parties who were highly suspicious of British involvement in Europe. In fact, in the early 1970s there were more liberal opponents to integration than there were conservative opponents. (Ironic, given Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's fanatical devotion to the EU!) While the word is now used in a derogatory sense by liberals, it has been claimed by many conservatives as a badge of pride. 'Eurorealist' is an excellent alternative, but I personally prefer 'Eurosceptic' because it has been adopted by conservatives in many other European nations and integrated into their languages. (The Germans, for instance, use the word 'europaskepsis'.) Not sure where all of this leaves us, but I appreciate the feedback! -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 08:24, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

::: Thanks for your superb insights. Let's go with "Eurosceptic" because it is more common, and I'll mention "Eurorealist" in the comment area. I'll include this now. I've learned immensely from your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:07, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

What about "self-evident" (Locke, 1690), which was already used in the same sense as in the Declaration of Independence? Alternatively, "self-evidence", which is earlier, but still in the 1600s. It seems fair to say that while self-evident truths underlie all of conservative ideology, the very existence of these truths is rejected by the liberal doctrine of relativism.
--[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 12:16, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

Might I also suggest 'proactive/pro-active', signifying an individual who looks to himself for the improvement of his lot rather than to free handouts from society/government. I believe this originated in the field of psychology (therefore 20th century), but I am unsure of the exact date. Also, I was discussing this essay with a friend of mine who serves in the British Royal Air Force and he suggested 'hard-target search', a military term that describes any attempt to intercept and neutralize a heavily armored enemy, be it mobile infantry or stationary fortress structure. He has served since the early 1990s and remembers the term being introduced soon after the Gulf War. Thoughts? -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 12:40, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

:"Proactive" is an excellent suggestion. Fantastic. My dictionary says it dates from 1933. Please add it! I'm less sure about "self-evident". I doubt that is a conservative insight, and am open to discussion about it (which could prove to be fascinating in itself). Thanks for the history of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

::I understand "self-evident" (as in "self-evident truths") to be in opposition to liberal notions of relativism, which I don't think admit the possibility of self-evident truth: liberals believe that all truth must be understood in politically correct "cultural context". If not this, is there some other word that could be an antonym of "relativism" and merit inclusion on the list? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:33, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

:::I tried to add 'proactive', but I don't appear to be authorized to make an edit to the page. Have I misunderstood? (Forgive my ignorance; I am very new to this website.) -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 13:49, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

==Blame America crowd==

How about [[Blame America crowd]]? We probably need an article, and there is no shortage of available material. Google gets 549,000 search results [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=blame+america+crowd&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=]. We could just do a redirect for "hate America crowd" although Google gets 900,000+ results for that. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hate+america+crowd&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=] There's even an Amazon.com title [http://www.amazon.com/Albums-Communists-Hate-America-Crowd/lm/17MFFXQYC45LO#height=204] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:11, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

: Excellent suggestion! Sounds like its date of origin is in this decade. Can you pinpoint a date of origin?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:34, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
::I propose using Micheal Barone [http://www.creators.com/opinion/michael-barone/the-blame-america-first-crowd.html] article here; he quotes [[Jeane Kirkpatrick]] saying "They always blame America first" describing the "San Francisco Democrats" in 1984 (San Fransisco was site of the DNC nominating convention). Barone is authoritive, we can use him as a source to get the ball rolling. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:22, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

==Overall growth of language==
I just did a search on the OED online to see the total number of new words per century. I may have counted wrong, but it appears that the total size of the English language is increasing exponentially also, but faster: about 1-2.6-6.8-17.6. This means that the percentage of conservative words as a proportion of all words is actually decreasing, which would be a problem for [[Conservapedia's Law]]. But I suspect that the proportion of words with any political connotations is falling as well, so it's still possible that conservative words are outstripping liberal ones. I can't think of any way to check this without making an equally thorough list of liberal words. Thoughts?

:Mark, liberal terms are already addressed in the article, although no doubt that section could be improved. I expect you are right in thinking that the vast majority of words generated are neither conservative nor liberal - for example new discoveries in science such as protons and neutrons are inherently apolitical.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:12, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::In furtherance of CPalmer's valid point, most new words are scientific in nature, such as new naming conventions. Our inquiry here concerns ''insightful'' new words that are substantive and valuable in their own right.

::The point here, and with [[Conservapedia's Law]], is about quality as well as quantity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::I see that new liberal terms are addressed, but that list hasn't gotten anywhere near the attention that conservative list has (particularly in the older centuries), and as a result the rate of growth of liberal terms (if not insights) appears in the list to be faster than the rate of conservative ones. I don't think the majority of new words in the OED are scientific (I could be wrong), but this is worth investigating carefully. Do a search for new words for any decade on OED and it appears the scientific ones are a minority.

:::What about adding a quality rating 1-10 to each word on the list of conservative words? It seems like it would be possible to establish reasonable guidelines for doing this (based on, say, frequency of use in important speeches by non-political figures, with some subjective component as well) and it would let us quantify the rate of increase of conservative insight versus that of liberal insight, without relying on a mere word count, which may be deceptive, since all of language increases geometrically. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 11:17, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::Mark, this seems tangential to the basic point. If someone observes that the world records for track events are improving at a rate of ''x'', I don't think it is significant that laziness is increasing at a similar rate. The point is that something of quality is increasing at a certain rate, not that things lacking in significant value are.

::::I do think the bulk of the increase in English words are of a scientific (or technical) nature. Perhaps we could nail that down first if you'd like to pursue this tangent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:25, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::Some of the new words will be borrowings from other languages - similar to the scientific ones except that these are 'cultural discoveries'. Sushi or nachos would be relatively recent examples - again, these aren't political terms.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:49, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::Excellent point again, CPalmer. Again, these vast new English words do not typically represent new insights. The conservative words do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:53, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::::OK, I think you're right that my original statements were not a good argument. Thank you for convincing me. I think the point I'm after is that a geometric growth rate of conservative insights is not surprising at all, since just about everything of this sort grows geometrically. I'd argue, for example, that new ideas in scientific fields grow exponentially, as indicated by an exponential growth of scientific vocabury, and I expect similar results elsewhere. So it seems a leap of faith to claim that geometric growth portends a more conservative future. The argument would be more convincing if more work went into the liberal list as well: I expect that even liberal "insights" (such as they are) grow at a geometric rate. We need to show that it is a _slower_ geometric rate than the conservative ones in order to predict things about the future, and in the current list, the liberal terms are growing at a faster geometric rate than conservative ones, if only because the emphasis has been on the 20th century.

:::::::As a curiosity, here are the new words added to the OED in the latest round of revisions:
anyhoo, barotrauma, batsh**, bell end, Bok globule, c'est la vie,
clonable, clonality, cloner, clonidine, dot-org, down-talk,
facilitatory, First Nation, globalist, globalizing, globaloney,
globetrotting, globigerinid, globularetin, Hiberno-Latin, Indianaite,
Indian plum, Indian rhubarb, Kelvin–Helmholtz, probationally, router,
skinder, snowboard cross, soundclash, thought-controlled,
thought-through, three-way, toasted cheese, twitterpated, unmixed
blessing, warm-down, waterboarding, wire-frame, wire speed, wire
transfer, wire wrap, wire-wrapped

:::::::A few science words and only one foreign word, but I agree that there are few insights among them, so my original argument was flawed. But I think the liberal list needs more attention if the argument for CP's law is to be valid. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 13:32, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: That's fascinating, and illustrates two large categories we had missed: simple variations on existing words (perhaps half of the total) and food-related terms (several). CPalmer's point about foreign-related words proves true also (I see at least 4).

:::::::: It's tough to find quality liberal words, but I welcome any additions to make have to the existing list in the entry here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:08, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: 43 new words total: 21 are variations on existing words, 5-6 are foreign-related, 4 are technical/scientific, 3 are activity or food-related, and about 9 require further classification that may fall into the four prior categories. Zero are insightful or convey new meaning in an intellectual sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

== Sortable ==

I made the tables sortable. I hope the author doesn't mind. I just wanted to make it easier to view the terms in chronological order. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 22:45, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
:I like that. What other tweaks you got?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:52, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
::Not much. The <code>sortable</code> class comes standard with most MediaWiki installations. I know HTML and how to build templates, but Conservapedia isn't really my thing. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 23:08, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
:AWESOME improvement!!!! Thank you!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:53, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
::You're welcome. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 23:08, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

== Rename ==

As this article is no longer an essay, nor simply a list of the "best," I suggest it should be renamed to something like "Conservative vocabulary", "Conservative words," or perhaps "Modern conservative words" (400 years worth isn't really new, but it is modern english) [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:27, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

:Sorry I didn't see this earlier, but I think the terms are a listing of the best. If you can think of any better ones, then let's get them into the list immediately!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 24 November 2009 (EST)
::As I've been lately inspired by Orwell, I'd recommend ''groupthink,'' the propensity for a group to liberals to join a consensus without actually evaluating it. I'm not surprised that doublespeak is already on the list. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:19, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::That's a real good one. I'll add it immediately. Thanks for your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:43, 25 November 2009 (EST)

== Captain of Industry? ==

An 1800s word to complete the geometric fit, perhaps? "A business leader whose means of amassing a personal fortune contributes positively to the country in some way. This may have been through increased productivity, expansion of markets, providing more jobs, or acts of philanthropy." [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:09, 24 November 2009 (EST)

:Fascinating. I hadn't heard the term before. But it also seems archaic, almost like a caricature. It's not in my large M-W Collegiate Dictionary, and the term didn't catch on. So perhaps we can await a better one? Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:22, 24 November 2009 (EST)
::I'm quite surprised you've never heard the term, though it is very much a 19th century/early 20th century term for the Rockefeller/Carnegie type, but has a positive connotation rather than negative, like robber-baron. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:06, 25 November 2009 (EST)

== Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm ==

The following is a link to a dictionary containing 155 right-wing words engineered using a linguistic deep structure algorithm:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=9162

This sublink contains a massive engineered lexicon on abortion:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=7843

An additional link including a memeplex of engineered health care terminology is included here, which will soon be included in the MemeShock 4.0 CorrectSpeak dictionary:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=10281

I have been able to include some of these words thus far in the page, but many more remain. If anyone would like to go through and add additional ones from any of these three links that would be appreciated.

Additionally it would be useful to rework this language into the text of the other pages as much as possible. The language is designed to modify ones thinking to the desired point of view, and the more of it out there the more it will spread to the general populace via those who read it here.

The project is a sort of right-wing social engineering experiment and I'm not sure how such a concept will go over with many conservatives. However if it works it should be able to modify people's thinking to a more conservative point of view, which I think will be in all of our interests.

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:Interesting idea. I'm interested in linguistics and a bit curious about your title... what does this have to do with "deep structure" in the linguistic sense? I've only encountered deep structure from a purely syntactic standpoint, and I'm curious how it figures elsewhere. Are you actually using an algorithm to create these words, and if so, what does it have to do with said deep structure? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 14:49, 30 November 2009 (EST)

:This idea doesn't go over well. Honestly, I thought something was odd about the 21st century words you added Johanan, but we are reluctant to censor here.

:Programs don't generate insights. People do. And I say that as a former full-time programmer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:56, 30 November 2009 (EST)

::"This idea doesn't go over well. Honestly, I thought something was odd about the 21st century words you added Johanan, but we are reluctant to censor here."

::Well I friend requested you on facebook. I could give you the grand tour of MemeShock if you want. Hopefully I can iron out any issues you might have.

::"Programs don't generate insights. People do."

::Well yes that is true. Perhaps "engineering language" was a little misleading. It might be better to think of it as engineering language clusters. Basically what we do is exploit an inherent circularity in language so as to create frameworks of language for particular issues to lock out the possibility to hold the opposing view. The content within those structures isn't engineered with an algorithm or anything though. The language combines though to bring the person thinking in terms of it towards a particular predetermined conclusion.

::Ideally if we could viral the language enough such that people would start talking and thinking in terms of it, it would become impossible to think like a liberal or a leftist -the language needed to do so would simply be pushed out of the public mindset. I hope that explanation is helpful. --[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:::You admit that "engineering language" is misleading, but I'm still trying to comprehend the rest of your title. Could you clarify for me: a) what part of this uses an algorithm b) what any of this has to do with "deep structure" (which I will understand in the Chomskyian sense until told otherwise)? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 00:39, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::::Let's me clear that Johanan Raatz is speaking for his own approach, which we reject here. We support open minds and free speech as the best way to advance knowledge and truth. None of this entry uses an algorithm or "deep structure."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:42, 1 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Yes, of course! Sorry for the confusion -- my query is directed at Jfraatz. I'm hoping he will clarify his grandiose title "Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm", which until he corrects me I am assuming is a more or less meaningless string of words, as there's no indication of where there's an algorithm, and this seems rather far afield of what I know as "deep structure". --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 12:38, 1 December 2009 (EST)
::::::Deep structure is a Chomskyian linguistic concept, as I think you already know. Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm, appears to be a syntactically correct but otherwise meaningless phrase. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:59, 1 December 2009 (EST)

== MemeShock Algorithm ==

*Linking words in a Loop-Back Structure

For Douglas, Andy and Jim:

You misinterpreted what I meant by engineering words with a deep-structure algorithm. What we do is engineer SETS of words and then find ways to link them back to each other in an (indirectly) circular way.

See the language is inherently circular in itself. If you look up a word that word is defined by more words and so on ad infinitum, however at some point with a finite language size the definitions must loop back on themselves. That's where the deep-structure comes in. We've got the "loop back" structure in a box so that we can use it to engineer sets of interweaving terms.

More here:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/edit.php?gid=12621914298#/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=4607

*On Memeshock and Dishonesty

Now a word on my approach. It's not dishonest so much as it is social engineering. We have an adjunct group of MemeShock which does deal with disinformation and such, but MemeShock does language engineering only.

Think of it like this. Many left-wingers do not accept logical argumentation so to counter this we are just engineering the language such that it is idiot-proof. That way that can't reach their irrational conclusions because the means are no longer there. We aren't lying to them with this or anything like that though. It's just a fancied up way to do what we do a lot -frame arguments.

From the looks of it is sort of what this page was about in the first place -was it not? Developing new conservative words to frame the argument?

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]
:No, it certainly was not. This page does not ''generate'' words. It catalogs and analyzes the conservative terminology which has developed through the natural development of English language and culture. What you're describing is distinctly Orwellian, deceitful, and frankly, absurd. Conservapedia is not a place to post crackpot theories and social engineering plans. It is a serious resource for ''actual'' topics. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:15, 2 December 2009 (EST)

::"This page does not ''generate'' words. It catalogs and analyzes the conservative terminology which has developed through the natural development of English language and culture."

::Well I will only post ones which I can link back to articles then.

::"What you're describing is distinctly Orwellian,"

::Well yes.

::"deceitful,

::No we do have a special adjunct group for that, but MemeShock engages in language engineering only.

::"and frankly, absurd."

::Well read the link over. It's not really that fancy, and the logic is straightforward. If words define other words then the language must loop back on itself right? If it loops back on itself it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to figure out how it loops back on itself. (it's just a page long -fairly simple concept)

::"Conservapedia is not a place to post crackpot theories and social engineering plans."

::Crackpot theories no, but now where do you think all of the other words you posted here came into being? Someone somewhere thought of them to better frame the argument. That's all I'm doing here -just more comprehensively. And I'm not posting my social engineering plans here either -that's what my facebook group is for.[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:::Firstly, Douglas is correct: I'm not sure where you got the impression that this page is about developing new words to frame the argument.
:::Secondly, what you describe has absolutely nothing to do with the standard linguistic notion of "deep structure". I'd suggest you choose a new phrase to describe whatever it is you mean. Throwing around "linguistic deep structure" makes it sound like you want the actual meaning -- what precisely do you intend by the term?
:::I read through the link you sent. I admit that it left me a completely baffled: you dwell on some trivial points of logic and make numerous errors throughout. In any case I'm not sure how you want to apply it to determine which concepts require additions to your lexicon ("memeplex"). The first ten or so paragraphs of section 2 seem to boil down to the fact that every statement can be made using only ">" and "~". Duh? Then you start talking about "components" and while I'm not sure precisely what you mean I assume that you want to regard a conjunction or disjunction of two concepts as simply a new concept, perhaps with its own word. Eventually you want to put every statement into some canonical form in terms of these concepts formed as conjunctions and disjunctions. It's quite possible that you can do this, but I honestly have no idea what you're talking about by this point. In any case, what this has to do with memes I don't know.
:::So tell me if I've guessed the gist right: you have a concept A which you want to integrate into a memeplex. To do so, you characterize it by its properties, with a statement of the form "(A>B)v~C" (where, for now, B and C are other properties). OK, maybe we first define it as part of some more complex statement, and then reduce to this form using the preceding "arguments" -- I don't know why you would bother reducing to this canonical form, but whatever. With this done, maybe the memeplex doesn't already have terms for B and C; in this case, add them recursively, by statements of the same form. Keep going in this way until all your terms are defined using only other terms. This has to terminate eventually. Hopefully it terminates while the number of terms added is less than the limit on the size of a memeplex which you mention. How'd I do? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 00:55, 2 December 2009 (EST)

::::Jim's points are excellent, and I look forward to Johanan's response to them. In the meantime, Jim is exactly right: this entry is not about developing new words to frame an argument. Rather, this entry is a recognition and listing of insightful new words. People (with God's help) are the source of insights; computer programs can't do this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:56, 2 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Jim, you got the idea generally correct. Basically you the algorithm is like the framework for a box. You need it in that structure so that people can't think outside of it. Then you find the right walls to put onto the framework. That part (Andy this concerns your critique) is not generated by computer or anything it's just developed the same way people usually develop words.

:::::Now the algorithm is rather simple -actually it's the simplest possible form to have for a non-tautologous language system, but it can be scaled up by recursing the algorithm in on itself. There's a larger algorithm which I won't reveal which does this and creates a 3x3 language "matrix."

:::::I apologize about adding the new words, when that wasn't the aim of the page. I was wondering however if you could revert fegeism -as I had that linked. (I know it was my own article) I was also wondering if I could post other words from articles I had written.

:::::As for your comment on deep-structure -from wikipedia (it's ok on some stuff):

:::::"In linguistics, and especially the study of syntax, the deep structure of a linguistic expression is a theoretical construct that seeks to unify several related structures. For example, the sentences "Pat loves Chris" and "Chris is loved by Pat" mean roughly the same thing and use similar words. Some linguists, in particular Noam Chomsky, have tried to account for this similarity by positing that these two sentences are distinct surface forms that derive from a common deep structure."

:::::The idea here was instead of studying the relationship between words in sets of sentences to do the same for an entire dictionary of definitions. When you do that languages inherently circularity comes out and the overarching "loops" have the structure A>Bv~C. From the links between these words you can derive all manner of sentences, but if you manipulate the links you can parameterize which sentences can be derived and which can not be -something that could become a politically useful tool. [[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

== Some of these words... ==

Just wondering how some of these words, like Phonics and Trivia, are considered Conservative words, or how they can even be grouped as a Conservative or Liberal word.--[[User:ZackQ|ZackQ]] 16:21, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:I am also wondering about how Conservapedia's Law is supposed to work. Most of these words are not obviously Conservative or Liberal, and what group they are placed in is based entirely on opinion. How can you make a law based on opinions?--[[User:ZackQ|ZackQ]] 21:00, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::You might not know that some of these words are conservative because your teachers have hidden their origins from you. Read the essay, and you may be surprised at what you learn. Conservapedia is full of things you might not have heard before - take a look around! There's all kinds of things to learn here! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:14, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Zack, only a tiny percentage of the classifications can be seriously disputed. "Phonics" has long been championed by conservatives, who want a literate population, and opposed by liberals, who want illiterates to vote for them. I know, that observation probably surprises you and you'd never heard that before. But there are over 30 million illiterates produced by the liberal public school system, and they pull the lever for liberal-favored candidates on Election Day. Illiterates also are unable to read the Bible, and it's a no-brainer why liberals want that result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:Andy, it's pretty clear that you have a very warped view of public schools and liberals. If anybody can go through 12 years of public schooling and can not read by the end, that is not the schools fault. You seem to be implying that schools are purposefully raising illiterate people so they vote for liberals and can't read the Bible. If this is actually what you are saying, I doubt that you know anything about public school. As for phonics, it is simply A way for teaching how to read. I wouldn't know if its the best way or not, but schools not teaching it does not mean they promote illiteracy, because that is very far from the truth.--[[User:ZackQ|ZackQ]] 15:48, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:: Zack, you're clueless. If you spent twelve years playing school football and yet had not even developed basic football skills, then the coaches and the training system deserve some blame for that. Yes, there is and should be accountability. And, yes, of course, there is a political benefit to developing over 30 million illiterates, which is what the public schools do. To pretend that has absolutely no political effect is absurd.

::You conclude with [[deliberate ignorance]] about the benefits of phonics in teaching how to read. What's next, you "wouldn't know" if jogging is a good way to prepare for a marathon???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:44, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:::Actually, I think some people really don't realize what a benefit phonics is, because they don't really know about it. Try ''Why Johnny Can't Read'', by Rudolf Flesch (I might have misspelled the name...), or I'm sure there are a number of websites on it. The strongest evidence for phonics' efficacy is simply that, despite 12 years of non-phonics-based public schooling, millions of people can't read. What they do is basically have you memorize each word in the language - and I can understand why people would hate and not understand reading after that! However, in other countries (which do teach phonics) and in America when we still did, nearly everyone could read. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 17:51, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:When I said I wouldn't know, I meant that I have never learned phonics, so naturally I would have no idea if it was the best way to teach reading. Sorry if I came across as ignorant, and I never meant that phonics was a bad way to teach reading. As a junior in public schools, I don't even see how somebody could not be able to read by now, and as far as I know my school does not have any illiterates (with the possible exception of people who have English as a second language, but there's an ESL department for that). Basing it on the education I got, It really wouldn't be the schools fault if somebody was illiterate after so many years of being in school. I am 100% sure that schools are not purposefully making people illiterate so they cant read the bible and vote for liberals, and if you say that they are it just shows that you are, for lack of a better word, stupid.--[[User:ZackQ|ZackQ]] 18:09, 14 December 2009 (EST)

== Muscle cars as models of efficiency? ==

Are we talking about fuel efficiency (MPG), or 0-60/top speed efficiency? I can see a case for the later, but certainly not the former. [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 14:18, 9 January 2010 (EST)

:The latter, though it's fuel efficiency was probably also better than many of the large cars that dominate the road today.

:"Muscle cars" is an provocative addition, and I'll another comment to it to explain why I think it's justified. But further comments are welcome on this!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:53, 9 January 2010 (EST)

== Dime Store ==

This term can have both positive and negative connotations. People criticize the quality of items sold in these stores (now referred to as Dollar Stores), and saying that something is of "dime store quality" is definitely a knock at it. However, the dime stores themselves have been a powerful engine of commerce and entrepreneurship in the USA. F.W. Woolworth introduced many innovations in his 5 & 10 stores, and he was so successful a businessman that when he built the Woolworth Building in lower Manhattan he was able to pay for its construction in cash. Even though his company was killed off by competition in the 80's and 90's, the entreprenurial spirit lives on in the thousands of independently-owned dollar stores across the country. 
People don't go to dime/dollar stores to buy quality goods - they typically buy consumable things that aren't expected to last long, like party goods, decorations and school supplies. The success of these stores shows that they are meeting a public need, so while it's fair to use "dime store quality" to criticize the quality of something, the concept of "dime stores" themselves is something conservatives should be proud of. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 12:06, 16 January 2010 (EST)

:Your analysis is superb. You persuaded me! I'm not sure that your analysis favors a move in category for "dime-store", but feel free to do so as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 16 January 2010 (EST)

::I was leaning towards removing it from the list altogether, which I've done for now. There are may terms which belong on these lists, but some like this one are better left off if it takes too much qualification to use them properly. To restate the point above succinctly, saying that something is "dime store quality" is a common criticism of quality, but if you only paid a buck for it then you have nothing to complain about. Consumers don't go to dime/dollar stores looking for quality - they are part of an important economic market where they are willing to part with a dollar for an item that's worth a dollar, and as long as that's what they get then the free market's working as it should. The place of these stores in today's economy would probably make an interesting discussion in the next edition of your Economics course. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 11:59, 17 January 2010 (EST)

:::Very well put. I agree, and thanks for your insights, which we've all learned from.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 17 January 2010 (EST)

== More possible terms for inclusion ==

*Reaganomics (1980)
*Pay-as-you-go (1830)
*Industrial Revolution (1840)

:Those are all terrific suggestions. I wonder about their political categories. I'd say Reaganomics is liberal, although its meaning may have flipped to a positive connotation as the economy came roaring back to success.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:28, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::Well...hmm. That's a tricky one. It was supposedly coined by Paul Harvey, who certainly wasn't a movement conservative, but was respected by many conservatives. I honestly think it would be conservative at this point, simply because in hindsight it worked. I suppose the test we should use would be this: would liberals pull this word out as an attempt to attack conservative policies, or would they avoid using it, knowing that others would view it favorably? I think it's the latter, really--I don't hear too many liberals today saying "Republican policies will result in Reaganomics all over again!" They know that a lot of people would say "That sounds good to me!" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:53, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:::I'm surprised that Paul Harvey coined the term "Reaganomics", which seems inherently pejorative. The term implies that it is somehow not real economics, but some kind of half-baked version of it. Liberals used the term with a vengeance ... until the economy went on its spectacular boom.

:::I'll take a look to see if conservatives use it now. You're right: I don't think liberals delight in the term anymore!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:57, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::::While the late Paul Harvey used the phrase positively, it was originally coined by Democratic Liberals to ridicule Reagan's policies. That Reagan was the only President with a degree in Economics was outside their understanding! I agree with Ben, it is now a positive term, re-made not through "spin" as liberals do, but through the proof of good results, which conservatives value. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:11, 26 January 2010 (EST)

==Capitalism: Conservative concept, but a Conservative word?==
I'd like to make what may seem a perverse argument: that 'capitalism' is a liberal rather than a Conservative term and that its inclusion in this list should perhaps be reconsidered. The concept represented by the word capitalism is indeed at the core of conservatism: as Mr Schlafly has written, an example of the 'hidden hand', and, in its reliance upon individuual initiative rather than state- or party-controlled planning, a great example, perhaps the summation, of that insightful concept 'the best of the public'. My problem is with the word, which seeks to reduce the economic expression of divinely-inspired human freedom into a mere '-ism', a sectarian political concept, one among many, to be disputed and reviled by lesser ideals. Liberals and socialists are swift to blame 'capitalism' for economic and social problems which are almost inevitably of their own making. 'Capitalism' is a handy way for Liberals to create a false bogy with which to hoodwink people: it can be presented as a malign conspiracy by their enemies to undermine the false promises of socialism; it is an '-ism', something that humanity could do away with and exist just as happily, if not more so. Away with such Liberal tommy-rot! What they call 'capitalism' is freedom, no more and no less; and if one substitutes 'freedom' for 'capitalism' in the Liberal outpourings the falseness of their arguments becomes manifest. The 'capitalist system' - what thinking people call liberty - is the default condition of society: trade and enterprise flourish, and have flourished, in all societies where the smothering hand of socialism is unknown. Freedom - prefixed perhaps by 'economic' if necessary for lucidity, should be the term used. Let ''freedom'' be the antithesis of socialism, and consign 'capitalism' to the dustbin of leftist terminology. [[User:Guyw|Guyw]] 10:58, 15 February 2010 (EST)
:what? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 12:52, 15 February 2010 (EST)

Calendar

2010-03-08T17:14:20Z

PhilG: wikilink

: ''This article is about what the word "calendar" traditionally means. For other uses, see [[Calendar (disambiguation)]].''

A '''calendar''' is any system that uses observations of cyclic motions of celestial bodies and/or the [[climate]] seasons on [[Earth]] to schedule or record the activities of human beings, or one that uses mathematics to approximate such observations.<ref name=Walker>Walker, John. "[http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/ Fourmilab Calendar Converter]." Fourmilab Switzerland. Accessed April 9, 2008.</ref><ref name=France>"[http://www.imcce.fr/page.php?nav=fr/ephemerides/astronomie/Promenade/pages2/277.html Chronologie, eres, et calendriers]" (Chronology, Eras, and Calendars). [http://www.imcce.fr/imcce_en.html Institut de mécanique célèste et de calcul des éphémerides] (Institute of Celestial Mechanics and Ephemeral Calculation), Paris, [[France]]. Accessed April 9, 2008.</ref>
*Since their invention, calendars have been used to reckon time in advance, and to fix the occurrence of events like harvests or religious festivals.<ref> [http://www.infoplease.com/spot/gregorian1.html Information Please]</ref>

== History ==
Calendars have been in use throughout recorded history. The [[Bible]] tells us <ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=7}}</ref> that the use of a calendar goes back to [[Antediluvian civilization|antediluvian]] times. Ancient [[Egypt]] had a calendar, as did virtually every [[superpower]] in the ancient world.

Rome's calendar came to dominate the ancient world at the points of the swords and spears of Rome's legendary legions. [[Julius Caesar]]'s reforms of that calendar made it one of the most useful of the ancient calendars; [[Pope Gregory IX]] would reform the calendar further more than a millennium and a half later. [[Muhammad]], the great general and "[[prophet]]" of the Arab world, invented a calendar of his own and spread that throughout the Middle East at the points of the scimitars of his own armies. China has always had a calendar of its own and has never totally abandoned it.

In the eighteenth century AD, the [[France|French]] mathematician [[Joseph-Louis Lagrange]], as head of the French Revolutionary weights-and-measures committee, devised an observed solar calendar with months named for growing, harvesting, and climate seasons, not for Roman numbers (September, October, November, December) or dead Roman emperors (July, August) or gods (January, February, March, June, etc.). But he also abandoned the seven-day week of the Julian and Gregorian calendars in favor of a ten-day week (called a ''décade'' in French). Perhaps this feature more than any other made the calendar impractical. (The Biblical model is clearly a week of six days of labor and one day of rest; see {{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1}}.) In any event Emperor Napoleon I switched back to the Gregorian calendar in 1806, probably to retain the favor of the Popes of Rome as he continued his attempts to conquer the world. A short-lived political movement called the Paris Commune would revive the [[French Republican Calendar]] toward the end of the nineteenth century but would then abandon it two years later.

In summary, calendars have tended to come into being as much for ideological reasons, or the vanity of any particular ruler, as for practical reasons. Likewise, they tend to fall out of popular use as much on account of military conquest as on account of the relative fidelity of any given calendar to the seasons or astronomical cycles it is supposed to chart.

Thus the [[Gregorian Calendar]] owes its dominant acceptance worldwide as much to the spread of [[Christianity]] as to its actual utility. Nor is that dominance complete; the [[China|Chinese]], for example, maintain a [[Chinese Calendar|calendar]] of their own, as do most [[Islamic calendar|Muslim]] nation-states. At the opposite extreme is the [[French Republican Calendar]], a calendar born in ideology and later abandoned after a later ruler found the calendar not merely impractical but also politically imprudent to retain.

The prophet [[Daniel (prophet)|Daniel]] predicted <ref>{{Bible ref|book=Daniel|chap=7|verses=25}}</ref> that a totalitarian world leader would make one final change of the calendar before [[God]] would return and, among other things, decree His own calendar as part of His direct Millennial rule. (See {{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=19-20}}.)

== Types of calendars ==
=== Observed versus calculated ===
A calendar can be either ''observed'' or ''calculated''. An observed calendar relies on regular adjustment by some designated [[human]] authority that receives reports of astronomical and/or seasonal observations. The briefly-used [[French Republican Calendar]] was an observed calendar, in that the officials in charge of weights and measures declared leap years when necessary to begin the calendar, without fail, on the autumnal [[equinox]] as observed in Paris. The ancient Hebrews, in Biblical days, also used an observed calendar prior to their Captivity.<ref name=newton>[[Isaac Newton|Newton, Sir Isaac]]. ''[http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15784/15784-h/15784-h.htm The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended].'' Reproduced by Project Gutenberg. Accessed April 3, 2008.</ref>

A calculated calendar adjusts itself strictly according to a mathematical formula. The [[Julian Calendar]], [[Gregorian Calendar]], and modern [[Hebrew Calendar]] are calculated calendars.

Calendars throughout history have had their bases in [[astronomy]], [[agriculture]], [[meteorology]], or a combination of two or three of these.

=== Astronomical calendars ===
Astronomical calendars (not to be confused with [[astronomical dating]]) use the [[orbital period]]s of the [[earth]] and the [[moon]], the apparent motions of the [[sun]], and sometimes the periods and motions of the [[star]]s and other celestial bodies (including [[Jupiter]] with its synodic year of slightly more than 399 days). The [[Egypt]]ian calendar allegedly used an astronomical body called ''Sothis'', though its precise identification remains an unsettled controversy. The [[Bible]] tells us that [[God]] specifically created the sun, moon, and stars to help [[human]]kind reckon the seasons and years.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=16-18}}</ref>

''Lunar calendars'' synchronize the [[month]]s with the synodic period of the [[moon]]. A purely lunar calendar would be about 354 days long, because the average ''synodic month'' (that is, the period of the [[moon]]'s appearance in the sky of earth) is less than 30 days. Typical lunar calendars have twelve months in a year, alternating between 30 and 29 days.

Failure to adjust such a calendar causes it to cycle without regard to the seasons. The [[Islamic Calendar]] is the one remaining true lunar calendar in widespread use; its failure to have a seasonal corrective is a matter of speculation. The ancient Roman calendar was subject to seasonal adjustment, but the repeated failures of various chiefs of the Roman state religion to attend to this adjustment finally led [[Julius Caesar]] to change Rome's calendar from lunar to solar.

''Solar calendars'' synchronize strictly to the apparent motions of the [[sun]]. Phases of the moon tend to occur almost at random within any given month, but solar calendars tend to track faithfully with agricultural seasons over many years. The [[Julian Calendar]] and its successor the [[Gregorian Calendar]] are the two solar calendars in most widespread use today.

''Luni-solar calendars'' begin and end their months by the phases of the moon, but adjust themselves to track the sun as well. The modern [[Hebrew Calendar]] is the best-known luni-solar calendar in use today. The [[Biblical Calendar]] was supposed, by [[Sir Isaac Newton]], to be a luni-solar calendar<ref name=newton/>. But in fact it was probably a ''luni-seasonal'' calendar that relied on the ripening of a particular crop to signal the first month of [[spring]].<ref name=Jones>[[Floyd Nolen Jones|Jones, Floyd N.]] ''[[The Chronology of the Old Testament]]'', 16th ed. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1993-2007 (ISBN 9780890514160), pp. 106-109</ref>

=== Agricultural calendars ===
''Agricultural'' or ''seasonal calendars'' are far less common than the astronomical. These calendars track various growing or harvesting seasons. Such a calendar might vary from year to year on account of the mildness or harshness of [[winter]] or, less commonly, [[summer]]. But a seasonal calendar would always stay more-or-less true to solar or stellar apparent motions on average.

Though no pure seasonal calendar is in common use today, the [[Biblical calendar]] was probably a luni-seasonal calendar until the Babylonian captivity, when the Hebrews came under the influence of the Babylonians, arguably the foremost astronomers of their day.

The [[French Republican Calendar]] pretends to be an agricultural-meteorological seasonal calendar, with its months named for the seasons of growing, harvesting, or climate. But it is ''not'' a true seasonal calendar, because it makes no allowances for adjustment from agricultural or meteorological ''observations''.

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

== See Also ==
* [[Gregorian Calendar]]
* [[Julian Calendar]]
* [[Hebrew Calendar]]
* [[Biblical Calendar]]
* [[Islamic Calendar]]
* [[Chinese Calendar]]
* [[French Republican Calendar]]
* [[Epoch]]

[[Category:Dating Systems]]

Physics

2010-03-08T17:13:35Z

PhilG: wikilink

'''Physics''' is the branch of [[physical science]] that traditionally deals with [[matter]], [[energy]], [[force]], and [[motion]]. These concepts can be applied to virtually any area of the physical sciences; therefore, physics is often considered to be the most fundamental branch of science. Indeed, according to [[reductionism|reductionist]] thought, all other branches of science are specialized subdivisions of physics.

Physics can be broadly divided into two major categories: [[classical physics]] and [[modern physics]]. Physicists generally take one of two approaches to their research: they either practice [[experimental physics]] or [[theoretical physics]].

== Classical and Modern Physics ==
[[Classical physics]] generally encompasses all areas of physics that were well-understood by the end of the 19th century (i.e., before the events that led to the advent of the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics). It is applicable to problems on an "everyday" scale; that is, situations in which energies are large enough to permit one to neglect quantum effects, but small enough to neglect relativistic effects. Areas of study within classical physics include

*[[Mechanics]], the study of forces acting on bodies and the motion of them.
*[[Thermodynamics]], the study of energy, heat, work, entropy and its transformations.
*[[Electricity and magnetism]], the study of the electric and magnetic phenomena.

Most kinds of [[wave]] behavior are also considered to lie within the classical domain. Therefore, the studies of [[sound]] (which may be considered a subset of mechanics) and the wavelike nature of [[light]] (a subset of electricity and magnetism) are classical pursuits.

[[Modern physics]] generally includes areas of study within physics that surfaced after 1900, the year in which [[Max Planck]] proposed a "quantum hypothesis" to explain the properties of light emitted by [[black body|hot, dark objects]]. The two major aspects of modern physics are

*[[Relativity]], a new physical theory that stated that space and time are not absolute concepts
*[[Quantum mechanics]], a probabilistic description of the discrete behavior of matter and energy at tiny length and energy scales

One trouble with this distinction is that electromagnetism of the 1860s is a relativistic theory. In modern terminology, magnetism is a relativistic effect of electricity.

==History==

=== Physics in Antiquity ===
Ancient [[Greek]] scholars, such as [[Democritus]] and [[Aristotle]], thought of the material [[universe]] as being composed four different [[elements]]--[[earth]], [[air]], [[fire]], and [[water]]. Motion and interactions between objects were explained by the concept of a "natural state" for each element. Bodies tended to move towards their natural state, and remained motionless when they attained it. For example, a rock fell to the ground after being tossed in the air because it was composed mostly of earth; as such, it moved toward its natural state at the center of the Earth as much as it was able. Democritus proposed that matter was made of indivisible atoms. The Greeks also made advances in [[astronomy]]; Aristotle showed that the Earth was round; [[Ptolemy]] developed a [[Geocentric theory|geocentric]] (Earth-centered) model of the solar system; and Aristarchus developed a [[heliocentric]] (Sun-centered) model.

=== Medieval Advances ===

Little progress in physics was made in Europe during the middle ages. However, the scientific tradition of the ancient greeks continued in islamic regions during this age. Advancement in physics occurred in the fields of optics, magnetism, mechanics and astrophysics. In general, muslim physicists in this period placed a greater emphasis on experimentation than the ancient greeks, who placed more enphasis in reason. Ibn Al-Haytam is considered the most important physicist of this period. Islamic influence on science dropped when the scientific revolution started in Europe.

===Scientific Revolution===
[[Image:Nicolaus Copernicus.jpg|thumb|[[Nicolaus Copernicus]].]]
As [[scientific method|scientific methodology]] became further developed, the Aristotelian view came under scrutiny. Europe became the the leading centre of scientific research by the 16th century. Force and motion had become topics of interest among scientists of the day. [[Galileo Galilei]] performed a series of experiments involving rolling balls down inclined planes, and [[Johannes Kepler]] found [[Kepler's laws|mathematical relations]] governing the motion of the [[planet]]. [[Isaac Newton]] was able to explain the results of Galileo and Kepler through the use of three succinct [[Newton's laws of motion|laws of motion]] and an expression that accounted for [[gravity|gravitational]] force. Newton also made important contributions to the field of [[optics]] and suggested that light consisted of tiny corpuscles (particles).

===Further Development of Classical Physics===
Newtonian mechanics was expanded by several other scientists, notably [[Pierre-Simon Laplace]] and [[Joseph-Louis Lagrange]]. As Newton's laws became the dominant tool in physical science, they began to be applied to phenomena other than gravitational interactions. During the first half of the 19th century, several laws governing electricity and magnetism were discovered. In the mid-1860s, [[James Clerk Maxwell]] unified these individual laws into a single set of [[Maxwell's Equations|equations]]. Maxwell was able to derive a [[wave equation]] from his new set of equations, and found that the speed of the waves predicted by the equation was close to the measured [[speed of light]]. [[Thomas Young]] had [[double-slit experiment|demonstrated]] in 1801 that light had wavelike properties, but Maxwell's result provided the new insight that light waves were oscillating [[electric field|electric]] and [[magnetic field]]s.

Thermodynamics also came of age during roughly the same era. Advances by [[James Joule]], [[Sadi Carnot]], and [[Lord Kelvin]], among many others, led to a better understanding of heat and entropy, and the formulation of the laws of thermodynamics. Later, attempts to relate the behavior of particles on the atomic and molecular level to the properties of large aggregates of such particles led to the development of [[statistical mechanics]].

===The Modern Era===
By the close of the 19th century, the study of physics was widely thought to be essentially complete, with the exception of only a few "loose ends"--minor unsolved problems to be dealt with.{{cite-fact}} As a solution to the so-called [[ultraviolet catastrophe]] problem, which involved light emission from [[black body|hot, dark objects]], Max Planck proposed in 1900 that the sources of light could be represented by small individual oscillators. Planck referred to the individual oscillators as ''quanta''. In 1905, [[Albert Einstein]] published a heuristic explanation for the [[photoelectric effect]] problem: light could be thought of as being composed of very small, discrete packets (quanta), as opposed to the classical representation of light as a collection of waves. By the end of the 1930s, [[quantum mechanics]] -- the name given to the new theory that applied to matter and energy on atomic scales -- was well-established. Other physicists began applying the theory to more specific aspects of physics, resulting in quantum mechanical descriptions of electricity and magnetism, the [[weak force|weak]] and [[strong force|strong]] atomic forces, [[condensed matter]] physics, and many other areas.

Also in the early 1900s, [[Poincare]] published his discovery of what became known as the [[special relativity|special theory of relativity]], which gave new insights on the relation between [[space]] and [[time]]. Others later extended the concept to non-inertial [[reference frames]], which resulted in the [[general relativity|general theory of relativity]], an improved description of [[gravity|gravitational]] interactions.

=== Contemporary Physics ===
Like all other modern sciences, areas of interest in contemporary physics encompass an enormous variety of general and specialized subjects. Today's professional physicists can generally be categorized into two types: theoretical physicists, who are trained extensively in [[mathematics]] and work to develop or enhance physical theories; and experimental physicists, who obtain and analyze data in laboratory or laboratory-like settings. Theorists and experimentalists often collaborate in attempts to reconcile theoretical predictions with experimental results. Both types of physicists conduct research on a plethora of unsolved problems.

Some of the active areas of research on fundamental universal laws are listed below.

*The [[Standard Model]] of particle physics has been extremely successful insofar as it has been tested; particle physicists are working to test it at higher energy levels.
*Evidence suggests that the matter in the universe that humans can currently detect directly is only a fraction of the matter that actually exists. Attempts to discover the nature of the as-yet-undetectable [[dark matter]] are underway.
*The universe is known to be expanding at an accelerated rate. Such acceleration requires energy, but the form and source of this [[dark energy]] is not well-understood.
*General relativity predicts the existence of gravitational waves, but none have been conclusively detected. Due to the weakness of the gravitational interaction, extremely sensitive detectors are required. The [[LIGO]] project is an example of current efforts to detect such waves.

More applied areas of contemporany physical research include:

* Condensed matter physics, which is the study of the macroscopic properties of matter, and is fundamental for the development of new materials.
* Medical physics.
* Geophysics: The study of Earth processes from a physical point of view.

==External Links==

*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com/models_universe.shtml Early Models of the Universe]

[[Category: Science]]
[[Category: Physics]]

Henri Poincaré

2010-03-08T17:13:00Z

PhilG: sp

[[Image:Pogy.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Henri Poincaré''' (1854-1912) was a French "mathematician, geometer, philosopher, and man of letters, who was a kind of poet of the infinite, a kind of bard of science."<ref>This quote is from his funeral. See http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Poincare.html</ref> Today he is best known for being one of the first to propose the special theory of relativity. Due to a childhood illness (diphtheria), he was originally taught at home by mother.<ref>http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Poincare.html</ref>

When Poincaré later enrolled in school he was a brilliant student, excelling in nearly every subject in the Lycée (now renamed after him) and winning first prizes in a competition among the top students from all the Lycées across France. He did not learn by rote memorization, however, but by linking ideas in a visual manner, an approach attributed to his poor eyesight that prevented him from seeing what was on the blackboard. He received a doctoral degree in mathematics based on a thesis in differential mathematics that some of his reviewers criticized. He then taught in a university, where he also had critics of his disorganized style, but in 1886 gained an appointment to a prestigious chair of mathematical physics and probability at the Sorbonne. He taught there until his death at age 58.

Poincaré invented algebraic topology, and for 40 years afterwards virtually all work in this field were based on six papers written by him in the late 1890s. He proposed the [[Poincare conjecture]] in 1904 and it remained unproven until just recently.<ref>http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PoincareConjecture.html</ref>

Poincaré had a major contribution to number theory in 1901 in connection with the Diophantine problem of finding the points with rational coordinates on a curve f(x, y) = 0, such that the coefficients of f are rational numbers.

Poincaré was an originator of the special theory of relativity,<ref>Henri Poincaré: La science et l'hypothèse, E. Flamarion, Paris, 1902; [http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~lward/Poincare/Poincare_1905_07.html English translation]</ref> using ideas of [[Hendrik Lorentz]] and prior to [[Albert Einstein]]. Poincaré gave a lecture on his special theory of relativity at the 1904 World's Fair in St. Louis, a year before Einstein published his paper on the same theory. Poincaré published additional papers on his theory in 1905, prior to the publication of Einstein's paper.

Poincaré contributed to the understanding of the difficult three-body problem in celestial physics. He demonstrated that series expansions previously used in studying the 3-body problem were convergent, but not generally uniformly. This added skepticism to the stability proofs of [[Joseph-Louis Lagrange|Lagrange]] and Laplace.

----

'''Sources:''' <references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Poincaré, Henri}}
[[Category:Mathematicians]]
[[Category:People who were Educated at Home]]

Henri Poincaré

2010-03-08T17:12:39Z

PhilG: wikilink

[[Image:Pogy.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Henri Poincaré''' (1854-1912) was a French "mathematician, geometer, philosopher, and man of letters, who was a kind of poet of the infinite, a kind of bard of science."<ref>This quote is from his funeral. See http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Poincare.html</ref> Today he is best known for being one of the first to propose the special theory of relativity. Due to a childhood illness (diphtheria), he was originally taught at home by mother.<ref>http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Poincare.html</ref>

When Poincaré later enrolled in school he was a brilliant student, excelling in nearly every subject in the Lycée (now renamed after him) and winning first prizes in a competition among the top students from all the Lycées across France. He did not learn by rote memorization, however, but by linking ideas in a visual manner, an approach attributed to his poor eyesight that prevented him from seeing what was on the blackboard. He received a doctoral degree in mathematics based on a thesis in differential mathematics that some of his reviewers criticized. He then taught in a university, where he also had critics of his disorganized style, but in 1886 gained an appointment to a prestigious chair of mathematical physics and probability at the Sorbonne. He taught there until his death at age 58.

Poincaré invented algebraic topology, and for 40 years afterwards virtually all work in this field were based on six papers written by him in the late 1890s. He proposed the [[Poincare conjecture]] in 1904 and it remained unproven until just recently.<ref>http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PoincareConjecture.html</ref>

Poincaré had a major contribution to number theory in 1901 in connection with the Diophantine problem of finding the points with rational coordinates on a curve f(x, y) = 0, such that the coefficients of f are rational numbers.

Poincaré was an originator of the special theory of relativity,<ref>Henri Poincaré: La science et l'hypothèse, E. Flamarion, Paris, 1902; [http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~lward/Poincare/Poincare_1905_07.html English translation]</ref> using ideas of [[Hendrik Lorentz]] and prior to [[Albert Einstein]]. Poincaré gave a lecture on his special theory of relativity at the 1904 World's Fair in St. Louis, a year before Einstein published his paper on the same theory. Poincaré published additional papers on his theory in 1905, prior to the publication of Einstein's paper.

Poincaré contributed to the understanding of the difficult three-body problem in celestial physics. He demonstrated that series expansions previously used in studying the 3-body problem were convergent, but not generally uniformly. This added skepticism to the stability proofs of[[Joseph-Louis Lagrange|Lagrange]] and Laplace.

----

'''Sources:''' <references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Poincaré, Henri}}
[[Category:Mathematicians]]
[[Category:People who were Educated at Home]]

Metric system

2010-03-08T17:11:40Z

PhilG: wikilink

The [[metric system]] is a system of measurement developed during the [[French Revolution's]] anti-religious [[The Cult of Reason|Cult of Reason]]<ref>However, according to researcher Pat Norton, the system was described a century earlier by Englishman John Wilkins. [http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/15/1978802.htm Australian Broadcasting Corporation], 15 July 2007 (retrieved 15 July 2007.)</ref> and based on permanent natural standards rather than on royal decrees. [[Joseph-Louis Lagrange]] headed the Revolutionary weights-and-measures committee that developed it and set its initial definitions.

Traditional systems of measurement all used standard lengths of parts of the human body, or standard distances that a human might walk. The metric system, by contrast, initially used the [[Earth]] itself as the ultimate standard.

In 1878 the [[United States]] signed the treaty called the ''Convention du Mètre.'' Since then, ''both'' the metric system and the [[United States customary units]] (miles, inches, pounds, etc.) have had legal status in the US. US Customary units are in fact defined by reference to metric units; that is, legally, an inch is ''defined'' to be exactly 25.4 millimeters.

In international scientific usage, the ''Convention du Mètre'' is superseded by the conventions of the [[International System of Units]]. However, many of the conventions of the metric system survive, including definitions of units that are not, strictly speaking, SI.

== Definitions ==
All measurement systems must start with one basic unit. For the metric system, this unit is the ''meter''. Every other named unit of the metric system had a definition that depended upon it.

=== Prefixes ===
All base units of the metric system have ''prefixes'' that multiply, or divide, the unit by various factors of ten (or alternatively, a thousand). They are:<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Chemistry''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref><ref>[http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/common.html Common metric prefixes]</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! The prefix:
! Abbreviated:
! Multiplies the unit by:
|-
| atto-
| a
| 10-18
|-
| femto-
| f
| 10-15
|-
| pico-
| p
| 10-12
|-
| nano-
| n
| 10-9
|-
| micro- ([[Greek]] ''small'')
| μ
| 10-6
|-
| milli- ([[Latin]] ''one thousand'')
| m
| 10-3
|-
| centi- (Latin ''one hundred'')
| c
| 10-2
|-
| deci- (Latin ''ten'')
| d
| 10-1
|-
| deka- (Greek ''ten'')
| da
| 101
|-
| hecto- (Greek ''one hundred'')
| H
| 102
|-
| kilo- (Greek ''one thousand'')
| k
| 103
|-
| mega- (Greek ''large'')
| M
| 106
|-
| giga- (Latin ''gigantic'')
| G
| 109
|-
| tera- (Greek ''wonder'')
| T
| 1012
|}

Other, related systems (see below) use the same prefixes to multiply their units.

=== Length ===
The base unit of length, and originally the unit from which all other definitions flowed, is the [[meter]]. The original definition was "one ten-millionth the distance from the equator to the north pole." Lagrange's surveyors computed this distance (probably using a variation on Eratosthenes' tropical-shadow experiment) and inscribed it on a metal bar that they kept at the weights-and-measures headquarters building in Sèvres, [[France]].

But this artifact, being made of metal, tended to expand and contract. Centuries later, when the scientific community realized what had happened, the task of re-standardizing all meter sticks to the equator-to-pole-times-10-7 definition was judged too onerous. Therefore the meter was redefined. At first it was defined as 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of the orange-red line in the excitation spectrum of [[krypton]]-86. Today it is defined as 1⁄299,792,458th of a light-second.

The meter in all its multiples replaces all other units of measurement, long and short. Long distance is measured in the meter multiplied by a thousand--the kilometer. Short distances are measured in centimeters--or millimeters, or micrometers, or however small one needs to measure them.

=== Volume ===
The base unit of volume is derived from the meter: it's the ''cubic meter'' [m3]. Traditionally, the ''liter''<ref>http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter4/table6.html</ref> is used. 1 liter is defined as 10-3 m3 = 1 dm3. '''Capacity''', traditionally measured in liters, refers to the volume occupied by a liquid. Today, one liter is defined as the volume of one kilogram of water at four degrees [[Celsius]].

=== Mass ===
The base unit of mass is the ''gram''. Originally a gram was the mass of one cubic centimeter (see above), then called a ''milliliter'', of [[water]]. The Lagrange committee fashioned an artifact exactly one thousand times as heavy as this--the volume, in short, of one liter of water--and stored this permanently at Sèvres.

[[Joseph Lagrange|Lagrange]]'s committee also proposed a unit of mass called the ''grave'', to be equal to one thousand grams. But the [[French Revolution|Revolutionary]] government rejected this name as sounding too much like the [[German]] word ''graf'', translated as ''comte'' or [[count]] in French. Therefore, the artifact at Sèvres would be called a kilogram instead--and that artifact has that name to this day.

Mass never changes. But in addition to the prototype meter changing its length over time, scientists later realized that water has different densities at different [[temperature|temperatures]].

Today, the standard [[kilogram]] is kept at the International Bureau of Standards headquarters in Sèvres. It remains today the only generally accepted unit of measurement based on an artifact.

== Relation to other systems of measurement ==
The [[International System of Units]] borrows some definitions and concepts from the metric system--most notably the meter and the kilogram--and adds other definitions of other quantities, most notably [[time]], [[force]], [[amount of substance]], plane [[angle]], solid angle, and [[luminous intensity]]. The liter ''is not'' the unit of volume in that system, however, but liter is accepted for use with the SI.

In addition to the International System (or in French, ''Système International'', or SI for short), scientists have invented other systems of measurement that include units of time, force, [[energy]], and electric charge. The most popular are the meter-kilogram-second and centimeter-gram-second systems.

Various governing authorities have established conversion ratios to assist people in converting between the metric system and other, more traditional units of measurement. The definitions of US Customary units in the United States is an example of this. The metric system is more efficient and easier to learn.

== References ==
<references/>

== See Also ==
* [http://creationwiki.org/Metric_system Metric system] by [[CreationWiki]]
* [http://www.essex1.com/people/speer/metric.html Metric system] by Essex1.com
* [http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/ The United States Metric Association]

[[Category:Units of Measurement]]

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2010-03-02T16:23:15Z

PhilG: /* How are these words conservative? */ has any word be tested?

[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]

==How are these words conservative?==
exactly how is a word liberal or conservative? as far as i know, words are abstract concepts incapable of political ideaology. Would someone please explain the rational behind this to me

:A word that expresses a conservative concept is conservative. If we had a list of mathematical words, would you raise the same objection?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 27 February 2010 (EST)

With all due respect Andy, I have to disagree. I'm a moderate liberal, but I'm also an Eagle Scout and am currently in the process of writing a book the portrays the elite in a pretty negative way. Both my parents are bleeding heart liberals, but they worked for everything they have and are pretty much the defenition of the American dream.
Also, as a suggestion, you may want to clarify that some of the words are used BY conservatives to describe liberals. A person reading through the list may get the impression that some of the things listed are conservative traits--[[User:DerikJ|DerikJ]] 10:18, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:But... sorry, I may be a bit slow and English is not my mother tongue, but I don't get it. I understand how word expressing conservative values ("free market", "missile defense") are in the list; also, words used by everyone but coined by influent conservatives are in the list. But how are words like "myopic", "biased", "demagogue" or "incoherent" conservative words? They are generic words. Sure, they are used by conservatives to describe liberals, or liberal policies, but they are also used by liberals to describe conservatives, or conservative policies. I mean, if tomorrow John McCain says that Obama is an awful president, "awful" does not magically become a conservative word overnight. What I am saying is that only words used EXCLUSIVELY, or MOSTLY by conservatives to criticize liberals should be in the list; "anti-Christian" and "leftist" are fine examples. But words that can, and are, used both ways, like "myopic" or "incoherent" should be ignored in my opinion. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 10:41, 27 February 2010 (EST)

::You've agreed that some words belong on the list, but quibbled about ... less than 1 or 2% of them. No one would expect unanimous agreement about the listing of every single example. But as to the examples you've disputed, if I did a search on Supreme Court opinions and found that conservative Justices used those words more often than liberal Justices do, then you would you concede that they belong on the list?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:13, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:::Well, it depends on the manner in which the search is conducted and the sample examined, and it also depends on the results. Also, do Supreme Court Justices fairly reflect the trend of the whole population? ... anyway, if you proved that, say, 85-90% of conservatives use "biased", and only 10-15% of liberals do it, then I'd concede that they are conservative words. If 52% of conservatives use "biased" compared to 48% of liberals, I wouldn't.
:::I may be wrong, as I don't live in the US and I don't know how life is there, but in my mind, "myopic", "biased", "demagogue" or "incoherent" are generic words which can be used by either side to criticize the other. By the same standards, you could include "good" (definition: a word commonly used to describe conservative values and policies) and "bad" (a word commonly used by conservatives to describe liberal values and policies), but it wouldn't mean that they are "conservative words".
:::By the way, I only contested about 1% of the list because I only made an example and I did not go through it methodically. I would like more information about the following words, if any can provide it, accompanied by an explaination as to why they are considered "conservative words". Please note that I'm not yet contesting any of them, but merely requesting more information for now.

::: biased
::: conservation of charge (I only know it as a term describing a non-controversial scientific phenomenon. If it has a political nuance I ignore, let me know)
::: constant
::: correlate (by the way, "correlation" is listed by etymological dictionaries to date from 1561 AD)
::: counterexample
::: crackpot
::: cross-examination
::: decrypt
::: demagogue
::: despotism
::: double standard
::: editorialize
::: efficiency
::: hallmark
::: human rights
::: incoherent
::: individualism (just a quick note. I happen to know this because a part of my university thesis was about it. Individualism now is generally a positive word, but it was, if I remember correctly, first used by either Saint-Simonian or Fourierites - early socialists - and it had a negative connotation. I seem to remember that the word was born in France and then spread to the UK to the Owenites.)
::: myopic
::: optimism
::: ostensibly
::: productive
::: provocateur (if I remember correctly, it was a word used by work unions in the early 20th century to describe police or Pinkerton agents who infiltrated the labor force and committed something illegal, to give the police a pretext to intervene.)
::: self-defense
::: vandalism
::: veracity
::: volunteer
::: worldview

::: As regards the "Orwellian" words (newspeak, Big Brother, etc.) keep in mind that they are, yes, used to criticize Stalinism, but also that they were invented by Orwell, who was a democratic socialist.

:::Also, please note (this is unrelated to the rest of my post) that "wannabe" is usually spelt with only one "e", and "one-size-fits-all" is missing from the left column. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 14:10, 27 February 2010 (EST)

::::Maquissar, you seem to agree that if conservatives use a word significantly more often than liberals do, then it's a conservative word. And you seem to agree that such words exist. Your only objection, then, seems to be specific words included in the list. You've identified 27 out of over 200.

::::Let's look at some of your examples. "Volunteer", you suggest, may not be a conservative word. But which political side supports volunteering as a solution to problems? Conservatives. Which state has "volunteer" in its state slogan? A conservative one (Tennessee). Which political side opposed communism, the antithesis of volunteering? Conservatives.

::::Slightly above that you suggest that "self-defense" may not be a conservative word. But which side promotes real self-defense in being able to own guns? Conservatives. Which side pushes gun control to deprive people of self-defense? Liberals.

::::I doubt anyone objective would deny that "volunteer" and "self-defense" are conservative words. Ditto for others on your list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:38, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:::::''But as to the examples you've disputed, if I did a search on Supreme Court opinions and found that conservative Justices used those words more often than liberal Justices do, then you would you concede that they belong on the list?''
:::::Just curious: Has this test be done for any of the words? [[User:PhilG|PhilG]] 11:23, 2 March 2010 (EST)

== Dramacast? ==

Under your words not yet recognized, you include the word "dramacast" to decribe what happens when "mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline."

I've never come across the word "dramacast," and a google search brings up no hits. However, doesn't "infotainment" mean the same thing? Has that made it into the dictionary yet? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:25, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

: Good point. The "dramacast" addition was not by me, and you can insert a better substitute such as "infotainment" or perhaps "docudrama". Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:47, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

::Just did. Infotainment seems closer to the concept than "docudrama," which always seems to indicate something longer. It might be good as its own separate entry. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:32, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

== Closed Shop ==
You might like to include Closed shop. -[[User:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

: Superb suggestion. Will add now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:55, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

From the 19th century, I suggest 'scrooge' - a miser who, despite wealth, does not give to charity or allow wealth to circulate and benefit the wider economy. Clearly this orginates from ''A Christmas Carol'', which was written in that century.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:45, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Superb suggestion. Please add with a precise date, if you have one. I'm also working on a few possibilities for 1700s and 1800s to perfect the geometric fit, but yours is better than mine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:15, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

::It looks like the novella was published in 1843 [http://www.stormfax.com/dickens.htm] but I don't have a citation for the first general use of 'scrooge' to describe any miser. I know the book was an immediate success when it was published, so it can't have been long after. Perhaps you have a bigger dictionary than I do?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 19:42, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== Question ==

Just out of curiosity, what exactly makes a word conservative or liberal? For example, liberals often practice double standard far more than conservatives, so wouldn't that make it a liberal word? Same with hysteria, since most media hype is in liberal news sources like MSNBC and CNN. [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 18:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia, home of Patriots. Take hysteria, studies will prove people without God are less grounded, more frequent to have off-the-wall behavior patterns, gradually regressing in communication with others. My conclusion is a sane person (grounded in the Lord, conservative by default) would have created the diagnosis, hence crafted the word hysteria. That is just one example, my 2 cents anyway, comprehend?

:If you do Merriam-Webster dictionary search, you are likely to find the dates and further research the origin, its like word salad.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:23, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
::So it's less words that apply to conservatives and more words coined by the conservatives themselves? [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 19:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Conservative terms are crafted, coined (growth rate) faster than liberal words. This shows that generations have been conservative while liberal crafted words have spurts of growth. Example, 1960 ideas such as freedom of mind drug talk, explore feminism, tune-in drop-out of society became associated with that generation in disproportane numbers. We may be now in such a new phase of liberalism; tax, big government, empathy legislation, gay rights, environmentalism- which will give way to the next sustained period of conservatism.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:30, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

Please can't anyone answer the first question and clarify how and exactly who decides whether words and terms are labelled as either conservative or liberal? Is it based on general opinion or is there some sort of general consensus? Are there any neutral terms? I think it would be interesting to open a dialogue on the subject.

Also, many words have Greek and Latin roots. Does this factor in to weather they are identified as Conservative or Liberal? (unsigned)

:"Whether", not "weather". I agree a dialog (American spelling) would be interesting on this. When a word captures a conservative insight, then it's a conservative word.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:43, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

Could I suggest Astroturfing as a conservative word? It was coined around 1998 as a response to false grassroot movements by Microsoft, but can refer to political movements as well. I consider it conservative because it is a good word for pinpointing deceit. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astroturfing] [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 21:22, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Haven't heard of that term in politics, so I'm not sure it qualifies yet. The word has to catch on a bit to earn its way in this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:41, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== No capitalism? ==

I was rather shocked to notice that capitalism (circa 1850) isn't included as a new conservative word. Was this intentional? I would also suggest constructionist (circa 1835) as another conservative word of value.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:58, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

== A few more suggestions (one from 1700's) ==

According to Random House, "republican" has its origin around 1685...close, but not quite in the time period you're looking for. "Evangelism" is 1620-1630, and "missionary" is 1635-1645.

Aha! What about "states' rights," circa 1790? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:11, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

: "Republican" is a good suggestion, but the term is associated more with the Republican Party than with conservatism. There are arguments that conservatism is populist in nature. "Isms" are usually derogatory; missionary requires more discussion.

:"States rights" adds nothing conservative to "federalism", a 1789 term that we already include. Liberals invokes "states rights" often also.

:I'll add all four terms as difficult to classify, pending further discussion. Thanks but we're still looking for a a 1700s term to perfect the geometric fit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

::Seeking data (a "1700s term") to support a linguistic theory (the "geometric fit" or "Law") to the exclusion of relevant data is irresponsible. The fundamental problem with this whole effort is that it has no clearly-designed methodology. Even the terms "liberal words" and "conservative words" are not sufficiently clear at an operational level. There is no sampling method. People just think of words and add them. They usually supply very weak or entirely inappropriate reasons for including a word. There is no stated rationale supporting the "Merriam-Webster" dictionary (which one of their line of dictionaries? online?) over the Oxford English Dictionary, which is far superior in its coverage of etymology and word introduction. There are no serious criteria about how to categorize words in one category or another. No attention to "sense" as it relates to the same word ("designer" can refer to God or to Versace) is visible in the portions of this discussion I have read. Part of the problem, too, is perspective. Liberals and conservatives may both "rightly" claim a term or it could be pointed out that a term is value-neutral. Definitions change over time as well, which complicates all of this even further. To scientifically compare these two categories of words would take an enormous amount of work and involve an actual methodology. I think it could be a very interesting study, if done well. Otherwise it is useless and would have the potential of making the proponents of the results look like they are creating self-serving propaganda. Perhaps I have missed a formal statement of the methodology, but what I have seen here implies a total lack of methodological rigor. At best, and this is perhaps the reason for this effort, the discussion is laying the groundwork for a formal study; but, I haven't seen any evidence supporting this. In the meantime, it is dishonest to draw conclusions about these words and ridiculous to use these conclusions to support a "Law." I would urge the "movers" of this discussion to write a disclaimer to the effect that all of this is preliminary work and that conclusions can't yet be drawn until a formal methodology has been applied. Otherwise it is an embarrassment to Conservapedia and those of us who care to contribute. Poor methodology is neither conservative nor liberal -- it is just a waste of everybody's time and reputation. --[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 10:55, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::The only "embarrassment" is yours, CPlantin. Your rant above is close-minded. There's no denying that new conservative words/insights are created/discovered. There's no denying that such words can be counted. It's clear you don't like the results, but the problem is with your attitude. I urge you to open your mind and set it free. You'll be amazed by how much better your life becomes as a result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: My critique is not closed minded -- it's just based on standard research methods. I do not deny that new conservative words are created/discovered and there are surely ways to count them, just as there are ways to count liberal ones. This project may even be under-counting conservative terms because the methodology is so flawed. Unfortunately there will be no way of knowing until a thorough study is actually carried out, here or elsewhere. I don't like or dislike any "results" at this point because they are based on faulty methods and can't be considered results. I am secure with my knowledge of linguistic and social-scientific research methodologies, based on decades of experience, and do not believe that having high standards amounts to having a problematic "attitude." My words may have seemed like a "rant" but I said it all because if anyone here at Conservapedia ever intends to do anything with any results, the methodology has to be sound for any of it to be taken seriously. Now is the time to establish the methodology -- before the project moves ahead any more. It is a fascinating topic, but deserves serious treatment -- and certainly needs much more time than I have for it. If contributors to this study want help with methodology, perhaps a call for a trained researcher would be advisable. Otherwise, the study as it seems to be developing will harm the reputation of Conservapedia. Lastly, I find your condescension to be insulting. Sound research does indeed open one's mind and does indeed set one's mind free. Sound research is part of having an open mind. Sloppy research designed to promote pre-conceived results is 1) not at all associated with having an open mind, 2) scholarly suicide, and 3) even worse, dishonest. --[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 19:20, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::No one ever built a monument to a critic. Rather than provide any corrections or methods of your own, you've baselessly attacked the project without citing any actual problematic examples. Why should anyone waste time reading your criticisms, then again responding to them? [[User:LarsJ|LarsJ]] 20:52, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::I agree with CPlantin's criticisms of the project, and I will set in to offer some methods of my own. First, a clear definition of a "conservative term" and a "liberal term" should be agreed on ahead of time. There's not even a ghost of a skeleton of a criterion for what qualifies as one or the other. The definition used will depend on what exactly the project is trying to show. Right now there are a mixture of terms used by liberals and conservatives for liberals and conservatives in both lists. Without a clear definition of what is to be counted, it's difficult to count. It's not clear, for instance, why "Segway" or "goth" are new words created by liberals to attack us. They're a brand of motor scooter and the name of a teen subculture.
::::::Secondly, there needs to be a way to go through terms used at different times by different people. Having random contributors put in ideas as they think of them doesn't produce anything remotely like a representative sample. I honestly have no idea how to do this, especially with no resources, which is perhaps why studies of this nature are not typically undertaken.
::::::I want to reiterate that I'm saying this because I want CP to be good and I want it to be trustworthy, and the methodology used here is wrong and worthless on every conceivable level. They hypothesis may be correct for some value of "conservative terms", but the work being done here does nothing at all to support it. I work in the social sciences. The methodology here isn't merely a little shaky; it is, to be straightforward (a conservative term), junk science (another conservative term), and I hesitate to even elevate it to that status. In particular, picking out a curve ahead of time and then looking for data to fit it strikes my actual-research-doing self as positively ghastly, brutally deceitful, the opposite of what CP should stand for. [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 17:44, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Your "know nothing" approach is a common style of reasoning of [[liberals]]. This is not a single, specific, meritorious (a new conservative word?) in your long-winded rant. You don't like this project probably because it is so effective. You don't deny that new conservative words are being created at a rate of many per century, yet you object to counting them. That's liberal style of reasoning: a bundle of self-contradictions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:51, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

::::::::I respectfully object to being referred to as a liberal; I am very much not one. I also object to my suggestion to lift the project to the level of something resembling true research as a long-winded rant. I don't object to the project because "it is so effective." I object to the project (in its current formulation) because it is so humiliatingly ineffective. I do not object to counting new conservative words as they appeared over time and formulating conclusions based on them; I object to compiling a list of words for which there are no well-defined criteria for inclusion more or less at random and pretending like it means anything. I know that the people contributing to this project are smart and are working hard on it, but it's effort sadly wasted with such sad methodology. I want CP to stand for truth and for sound reasoning, but as things are being conducted right now, were several high-level admins not involved I would assume the whole thing was a hoax. Respectfully, [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 19:09, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

== A few more possibilities from the 1700's ==

economics (1785)
division of labor (1770)
patriotism (1720)--I know "isms" are often pejorative, but surely this one isn't (regardless of how some people might try to malign it?)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:00, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

:patriotism has been on the list. Division of labor is good. Economics can be liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

== Further suggestions ==

Two suggestions from Gulliver's Travels, which was published in 1726 and immediately became popular:
* Lilliputian - small-minded or trivial, used to satirise people who are preoccupied with petty squabbles.
* Yahoo - a person who embodies all the worst human characteristics because of a lack of moral or civilising influences.

--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:08, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions! I think Lilliputian is the better of the two. "Yahoo" does not seem to have retained its original meaning, perhaps due to yahoo.com's use of the term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:11, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: I agree that Lilliputian is more relevant today. It strikes me as an excellent way to describe many people's obsessions with gossip, people's personal lives, celebrities, entertainment etc while they ignore far more important concerns. It's actually amazing how much of what Swift wrote is even more relevant today than it was when he wrote it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:51, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

::: According to M-W, ''yahoo'' as a noun dates to Swift's book in 1726; ''yahoo'' as an interjection (synonym for "yippee") dates to 1870. But I disagree with both as conservative terms: ''Gulliver'' is extremely rooted in the attitudes of the [[Enlightenment]] and the glorification of Reason above all else - hardly conservative IMO. (Yes, I know that the Enlightenment produced some conservative ideas also.) [[User:Carillonneur|Carillonneur]] 12:34, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:Carillonner has a point. Swift is regarded as one of the greatest satirists of all time - I am personally a fan of him. You shouldn't adopt his words unless you have read the book from which they come, and understand exactly what they intend to mean. The entire country of Lilliput was a criticism of the trivialities that dominated british and european politics - much of which is lost on a modern reader, unfamiliar with the subject. That the people were tiny was but incidential to the real significence of them, the way in which they would turn the tiniest event or question into a source of great conflict or debate while entirely ignoring far more serious issues, culminating in a war fought over which way up an egg should be placed in an eggcup before breaking it open. If you're looking for a section good for criticising liberals with, I suggest the third country visited by Gulliver: Laputa. The floating island satirises scientific and artistic accomplishment performed for it's own sake without thought to practical benefits, and a community of academics who posess vast knowledge of subjects entirely useless to anyone else. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 12:45, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the insights above. Looks like we'll hold off on both terms, then. That means we're still looking for one more word from the 1700s to perfect the geometric increase in generation of insightful conservative terms for the list. Suggestions are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:21, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Suricou is right about the original context of the satire, but I would contend that 'Lilliputian' applies equally well to any small-minded, petty obsession of the kind that Conservatives strive to rise above, so I'd still consider it a conservative term.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:04, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== More 1700's possibilities ==

Businessman (~1710)

Checks and balances (~1780)

Separation of powers (1748)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:55, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: The latter two are good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:02, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Self-respect (1765)

: Don't think "self-respect" is conservative. It may be liberal. "Self-worship" is a big defect with the liberal approach.

: Looks like "separation of powers" is the term to perfect the fit to the geometric increase, unless someone objects.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:38, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== Liberal word from 1830 ==

'''Reactionary''' - liberal smear-word for conservative ideas.--[[User:Woloct|Woloct]] 21:05, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

==A different take on the Geometric Growth issue==

It might be geometric growth, it might be geometric decay too. If say every year one new conservative word is coined, but every hundred years half of the existing conservative words fall out of use, then the words from the 1600's would be half as prevalent as conservative words than the words from the 1700's. Also, why is transistor a conservative word? It doesn;t seem like it is any more politically important than automobile, or cucumber, or steak. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 23:28, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

: But there is no "decay" in the conservative examples provided. Your point would apply to the liberal terms, which do quickly fall out of use. The conservative insights grow in usage and value.

: The transistor is "more politically important" than a steak. The transistor played a central role in national defense systems, such as the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], a program proposed by conservatives and which helped bring the downfall of communism in the [[USSR]]. Moreover, the transistor epitomizes Yankee ingenuity, which is a conservative value.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:04, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::If my proposal were correct would you expect the decayed examples to be in the list? I would think that would throw off the numbers and we wouldn't see the exponential growth in the numbers. As someone working in the cattle industry I would contest the notion that steak isn't politically important. It is a food source for conservatives by conservatives. It seems like the SDI is built on a whole lot of other technological innovations as well that aren't on the list. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 12:34, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::There is exponential growth of conservative words that continue to be useful. The liberal words do fizzle quickly, but the conservative words do not. If you have counterexamples, let's see them. If you say the counterexamples have vanished and cannot be found, then your proposal is [[non-falsifiable]] and thus unscientific.

:::"Transistor" is on the list for several reasons, as I explained here and in the entry. If you can find other examples used for SDI that are comparable, then let's discuss them too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::My point was that it might be decay too, of course we cannot test it unless we find a comparable list from 100 years ago. However, it seems contradictory when you say that we can't test, but our words are increasing and their words are decaying. It seems like both sets would be simultaneously growing and decaying. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 15:38, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Conservative words don't disappear as you suggest. You have access to older works on the internet. I've provided 150 new conservative words that have lasted. Can you identify even 1 that has disappeared?

:::::It doesn't seem to me "like both sets [conservative and liberal] would be simultaneously growing and decaying" the same way. In fact, I'd be shocked if these very different categories behaved identically. One is almost certainly growing and lasting more than the other, and the evidence is that the conservative words are winning this struggle. Difficult for liberals to accept, I'm sure, but the facts don't care if they are accepted or not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:15, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Let me jump in here just to ask, Andy, do you have a dictionary-type definition of "conservative word"? It is impossible to test for geometric growth (or whatever we call it!) if we don't know how to identify a [[conservative]] word. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:20, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::I propose as a working definition that a "conservative word" is one that succinctly expresses a conservative insight that is or was denied, downplayed or otherwise not recognized before its articulation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Good. I think some of the words in the primary list might be better in the downgraded list though. They seem to define "conservative insight" too broadly. For example, "insightful." How exactly is that "conservative"?

:::::::Also, in deciding a conservative word should we consider who coined it? Example, Lenin coined "fellow traveler", but nowadays it can be used in a conservative sense, though it was coined by a communist. What do you think there? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 16:56, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: Good points, but I think these particular terms are defensible. "Insightful" is a word about getting at the truth, something that conservatives actively seek while many liberals prefer [[deceit]] or self-worship instead.

:::::::: As to "fellow traveler," this is one of a few terms coined by one side but which become more useful and popular to the other side. Other examples include "Big Bang" and "politically correct." So while it is enlightening to know who and why a term was coined, there are limits to relying entirely on that source for its usage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:04, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question 2 words ==

I doubt that "intercontinental" and "silver spoon" are conservative words. "Silver spoon" is [[materialistic]] and seems more useful for class warfare. Intercontinental seems straightforward with little more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:Well then we should remove them. Some people have just added words without discussing it, and list is rather long anyway. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:11, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

::I think those two could be profitably removed (with the count decreased accordingly). But on a wiki it's usually fine to make edits without prior discussion. It's just as easy to discuss afterward and correct as it is to discuss beforehand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Should they be fully removed or put in "downgraded" terms? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:22, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Your call. Honestly, I don't see an argument that either one is conservative, so it's fine with me if they are simply removed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:50, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-locality? ==

The description is as follows "1920s action at a distance at the atomic level; even though proven, it is still opposed by those who belief<nowiki>[sic]</nowiki> in relativity and still not recognized by Merriam-Webster" If its not recognized why is it not in the non-recognized list? We also have both productive and productivity, and sustainable and sustainability are split between the liberal and conservative lists. I think we should trim the fat, but didn't want to act before speaking because of how many admin reverts there are in the history. unfortunately I do not have any words to replace tem with, sorry. --[[User:CJHallock|CJHallock]] 12:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

: I corrected the typo and trimmed "sustainable", but "non-locality" is widely used and accepted, except by those who instead insist on relativity (which perhaps includes you?). The description in this entry is informative and I hope you take it with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==liberal words==
Now I've looked at the list of liberal words and I beleive that these are not liberal:

Hypothesis.

Creationism (Used by everyone. The [[creation science]] movement began as "scientific ''creationism''.)

Racism (Liberals misuse this term to criticize people who do not support, say, Obama. But that is a misuse, we should not let their misuse define the word itself.) [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:Good points about "hypothesis" and "racism", but I think "creationism" was originally and still is used by liberals. As an "-ism" it has a pejorative connotation, and many liberals rely on that connotation in trying to smear others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::Sort of like how creationists like to call evolution "evolutionism" I guess. More importantly, should we remove hypothesis and racism? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 14:10, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Removal sounds good. Please proceed as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:25, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Are you implying that all -isms are pejorative? If so, I think you're way off-base. They simply denote a ideology or belief structure. There are a lot of good conservative -isms out there: capitalism, objectivism (as in Ayn Rand), mercantilism (per-capitalist conservative ideology), heroism, and even baptism (belief structure that holds that anointing with water cleanses sins and lies on the path to salvation).

: Your "baptism" example is striking, but I don't think its etymology is from adding "ism" to a concept. Rather, it is from a middle English word (baptisme). Your other "isms" may not have been complementary when first developed, but I'd like to learn more about that. Do you know?

: In modern times, most "isms" are pejorative in origin. Some can be flipped over time to favorable usage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:30, 15 January 2010 (EST)

As for baptism, the best evidence I can find of this is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, “The word Baptism is derived from the Greek word, bapto, or baptizo, to wash or to immerse. It signifies, therefore, that washing is of the essential idea of the sacrament.” Perhaps supports my idea but admittedly not at all conclusive. As for some of these other isms, I was not able to find the particular circumstances regarding whether or not they were developed with a positive or negative connotation, but it really shouldn’t matter how the word was used a hundred years ago, but how the conservative movement today uses these words to promote its ideas. If “some can be flipped over time to favorable usage,” then these words should certainly be included on this list. Words are reclaimed all the time. Case in point, the term “Jesus freak” was at one time a pejorative, but many young Christians embraced the term. Furthermore, Mr. Schafly, I’d be very curious to see any evidence that most “isms” are pejorative. It seems a little arbitrary to give such a blanket statement for all isms without some hard evidence, especially when the word conservatism is used throughout the intro paragraphs of the article.

== John Bunyan ==

I notice we're looking for a term from the seventeenth century. Perhaps a word from Pilgrim's Progress (1678) might be suitable? I suggest "worldly-wiseman", or "slough of despond", which has been used subsequently to describe any instance of the malaise that results from a lack of faith.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:43, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:We should include something from that immensely influential book, but I don't think the specific terms you identify are unique or popular enough.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:26, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== A sense of "loyal"? ==

Another possibility for 17th century: "loyal" with the meaning "1. True to obligations of duty, love, etc.; faithful to plighted troth", which dates to Othello in 1604 (OED). The earlier meanings are from the 16th century and deal with loyalty to a nation or sovereign, but it seems to me that this represents a quite distinct conservative insight. Perhaps add both uses?

:Fascinating suggestion! But the earlier uses go back to 1531 and are not that different. The OED may be acting partial to Shakespeare in giving credit.

:Also note that 1604 is before the writing of the [[King James Bible]], further disqualifying this suggestion. I think we could go with something like 1610, because by then the [[King James Bible]] was virtually complete albeit not yet published, but 1604 is really too early for this list.

:Do have any more suggestions? I learned from this one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:17, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:: Maybe "theism" (1678 -- curiously invented after "atheism" which is already a liberal word here!) or "pander" (1616) to describe liberal behavior? I'm just looking through a list of 17th century words for these; I'll keep looking to fill in the hole if you don't think they qualify! Learning lots of strange words along the way... --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 17:37, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::: Fascinating! I think "pander" comes closest to qualifying, but hopefully we can do better still.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:38, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: OK, one more try and I'll get back to actual editing! How about "liberate", 1623? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:54, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Designer? ==

Apparently, the word "designer" originated between 1640 and 1650. While it may not have been an important conservative word at the time, I would argue that it has become one since in pointing out the evidence that the universe is designed. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:27, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

(Incidentally, I'm learning some really surprising things while looking for words! Apparently, the word "Biblical" didn't come into use until 1780-1790! I was amazed to discover that!) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:41, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Slipshod ==

Hi there, new to the site so I'd like to start out small... how about adding slipshod? It was coined in 1580 and means "shabby, careless, slovenly". A perfect word to describe those who don't help themselves! --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 20:46, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
truth

:Your suggestion sounds good to me too (also new around here!), but I think the list is supposed to start in 1612 now, the year after the publication of the KJV. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:57, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::Ah, I seem to have missed that sentence. I see no reason to limit conservative insight to after 1612, but I won't argue the point --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 21:13, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Final word for 1600s ==

My interest was peaked when I read that this list was only one word away from being in a perfect geometric series. So i went to an online etymology dictionary and picked a few that may fit the bill:

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sumptuary Sumptuary] (c. 1600): The dictionary.com version of this definition seems biased in some aspect, so, in general, it means "to rule one's life based on religious or moral judgements."

* Independent (1611): I was kind of surprised when I found out this wasn't on the list...perhaps there's a reason for that? (Yes, I did see the year, but perhaps since 1611 was the year the KJV was published, maybe...)

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patronymic Patronymic] (1612): I've always seen it as a conservative value for a woman to take on the name of her husband. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

* Accurate (1612): Maybe if we wanted to be a little facetious...or are we serious?

[http://www.etymonline.com/ Here's the dictionary I've been using.] Just type in a year and it'll give many results. Hope this helps...Pick a good one!-[[User:Zerlock|Zerlock]] 21:24, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions. "Patronymic" is new to me, but I have to agree with your analysis! But all your examples seem slightly shy of the high standard in the entry. I hope we can do better for the final word. Hey, when was "last word" first used?! That's not conservative ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question about Methodology ==

This article makes the assertion that by analyzing "liberal" terms versus "conservative" terms, one can conclude that conservatism is on the rise. Let me emphasize that I do not dispute this notion. I do feel, however, that as it is written now the assertion has not been rigorously proven. I have the following concerns:

1. What is the definition of a "Conservative Word"? What is the definition of a "Liberal Word"? It is important to explicitly define those two terms if we are going to claim that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words". For example, is a "Conservative Word" a word that was coined by a conservative, or is it one that has been used to describe conservative ideology, or is it one used to disparage conservatives by non-conservatives? Is a word conservative if it was originally meant to be conservative or if it was not originally intended to have an ideology but later acquired one?

2. There are certain words like "insightful" that do not seem to be related to any ideology. Why are such words classified as "conservative"? Likewise, what does cryptography have to do with conservatism? One more example: the "Big Bang" is simply the currently accepted scientific theory about how the universe began. How can a scientific theory have an ideology?

3. How can we be sure that we have counted every word in each category? Is it possible that we spent more time searching for words in one of the two categories, and as a result that category has more words than the other?

4. It is claimed that conservative words are of higher quality than liberal ones. What metric is used to assess the "quality" of a word?

I am not sure if the above questions are answerable. If they are, however, then we come to the most important point:

5. After clarifying the first three points, let's say we determine that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words" (or the other way around). Is it possible to conclude that an ideology is on the rise simply by looking at the rate of change of words associated with that ideology.

One more concern:

6. I feel that we are studying this problem deductively when we should be studying it inductively. Specifically, we are trying to prove that conservative words fit into a geometric ratio - we are starting with a conclusion some people wish to find, and then we are searching for evidence to fit it. I am skeptical of this - it would probably be better to collect all the data first and THEN analyze the data for conclusions, a more empirical method that will serve this essay better.

I hope that these four questions provoke a discourse. Over the next day or so, I will attempt to give my own answer to what is a "Conservative Word" and what is a "Liberal Word." Please do not construe this message as an attempt to attack this essay; rather, I wish to help make it more rigorous, something for which we should all strive! I am not saying that I dispute the notion that conservatism is on the rise - I merely doubt that this is an effective way of proving that fact.

If you disagree with any of my points, I am very open to hearing your opinion. My goal is to objectively study the growth rate of ideological words; any advice you can contribute would be immensely appreciated. [[User:Khamilton|Khamilton]] 21:28, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:'''REPLY:'''

:Q1. What is the definition of a "Conservative Word"? What is the definition of a "Liberal Word"? It is important to explicitly define those two terms if we are going to claim that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words". For example, is a "Conservative Word" a word that was coined by a conservative, or is it one that has been used to describe conservative ideology, or is it one used to disparage conservatives by non-conservatives? Is a word conservative if it was originally meant to be conservative or if it was not originally intended to have an ideology but later acquired one?

::ANSWER: The meaning is obvious enough. A conservative word is one that captures and conveys a conservative insight. There is no definitional problem here. There are over 150 examples and the vast majority can hardly be disputed.

:Q2. There are certain words like "insightful" that do not seem to be related to any ideology. Why are such words classified as "conservative"? Likewise, what does cryptography have to do with conservatism? One more example: the "Big Bang" is simply the currently accepted scientific theory about how the universe began. How can a scientific theory have an ideology?

::ANSWER: Science obviously can be ideological. Witness "global warming" and "evolution". As to your other examples, I'll try to explain them better in the comments if desired. I agree that a few are debatable, but the vast majority are not.

:Q3. How can we be sure that we have counted every word in each category? Is it possible that we spent more time searching for words in one of the two categories, and as a result that category has more words than the other?

::ANSWER: If the occurrence were flat or declining, it would be virtually impossible to generate a geometric progression. This geometric progression occurred without expecting it to happen.

:Q4. It is claimed that conservative words are of higher quality than liberal ones. What metric is used to assess the "quality" of a word?

::ANSWER: The same as the quality of a car or laptop or tennis racket: its durability, its effectiveness, and its helpfulness for success.

:Q5. After clarifying the first three points, let's say we determine that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words" (or the other way around). Is it possible to conclude that an ideology is on the rise simply by looking at the rate of change of words associated with that ideology.

::ANSWER: I can't think of a better indicator. Can you?

:Q6. I feel that we are studying this problem deductively when we should be studying it inductively. Specifically, we are trying to prove that conservative words fit into a geometric ratio - we are starting with a conclusion some people wish to find, and then we are searching for evidence to fit it. I am skeptical of this - it would probably be better to collect all the data first and THEN analyze the data for conclusions, a more empirical method that will serve this essay better.

::ANSWER: We did begin without trying to fit the data to any curve. Now the only fit is to perfection. That may distort the level of perfection, but the underlying geometric progression is unmistakable.

::Thanks for your questions. Godspeed and I hope you really do have an open mind about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
:::Q6 seems really important to me, yes you are trying to fit to perfection but there may be something other than perfect geometirc growth going on and you may never be able to find it if you don't let the data flow where it may and then analyze it. While geometric growth is undeniably happening here there may be more to see that we will never find out unless we disconnect ourselves from the data. --14:26, 12 January 2010 (EST)

::::Thomas, please note your name, preferably with the signature button, so we can see who said what. In response to your comment, this project did not start out seeking or expecting a geometric rate of growth, and it welcomes quality additions that may cause it to depart from the geometric rate. Indeed, lately the 20th century words have increased at a rate faster than the geometric rate.

::::As to "Trojan horse", your edit deleted a good explanation of what that is, and inserted a typo (missing space). If you deny that the term means a form of [[liberal deceit]], then please make a stronger case than you have. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:48, 12 January 2010 (EST)

I moved the following from your talk page

:::::You strike me as a widely read individual, so surely you must have read the Odyssey. Benedict Arnold is a case of deceit from within, but not at all a trojan horse. If you look at the Odyssey itself Odysseus represents a conservative of the times, very cautious and shrewd, a faithful and cunning man, was his trojan horse a liberal deceit? The whole idea behind a trojan horse is using a gift to get past the defenses of your enemies. I think my version was more correct and more precise, in short more true. I think that if you think about it for a while you will find your self agreeing. --[[User:ThomasRidgefield|ThomasRidgefield]] 14:59, 12 January 2010 (EST)

::::::I have an open mind about this, and welcome your insights. In fact, all the regular contributors here have an open mind about these issues. But as the [[deceit]] entry amply demonstrates, there is a high correlation between deceit and liberal tactics, and a very low correlation between deceit and conservative approaches. Your edit obscured the correlation to liberal tactics, and removed the explanation that a Trojan horse is a tactic of subversion from within. As to whether Odysseus was a conservative, I can't say I know his position on pro-life and less government!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:18, 12 January 2010 (EST)

== More 1600's possibilities ==

Nucleus: 1695. Leads to the term "nuclear family," certainly an important conservative concept.

Parental: 1615-1625: Liberals still marginalize the important role of parental guidance and influence.

Jurisprudence: 1620-1630: While liberals may seek to use the law to their advantage, I would argue that the study of the science of law (and its proper place) is an inherently conservative concept.

Constitutional: 1675-1685: It certainly would have been difficult to have a Constitutional Convention without the word "constitutional!"

"Responsible" comes in just a few years before the cutoff--1600. Pity.

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:30, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

: Good suggestions. "Parental" and "constitutional" seem best. Let's pick one and achieve the goal. Then we can move on to the next layer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:: I'd vote for "constitutional", since "parenting" is already on the list and has basically the same import. On the other hand, "constitution" is much older, so does this really represent a new conservative insight in the 17th century? I'd think we want each of these words to represent a fresh insight if the argument for conservapedia's law is to hold. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:06, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

::: Excellent points. Let's keep the high quality here and continue looking. Note that the term "jurisprudence" does not connote conservative now, so it won't work either.

::: How about "Hobson's Choice", or "substantiate"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:17, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Either sounds reasonable, though you'd have to explain to me why Hobson's choice is conservative. Alternatively, we could stop looking -- one less in the 17th century means that the growth is even faster than claimed! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:22, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::I think that defeats the purpose Andy's aiming for. He's never claimed that there are exactly double the number of conservative terms each century; just that it's a general trend. The efforts to have a perfect geometric curve here are to clearly illustrate that trend. Remember that this is a resource for students, and thus, clear and precise illustrations of the concepts presented are always desirable. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, Andy.) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:13, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

== Strict Constructionism ==

I see you added textualism and that originalism is already on the list. Years ago when I first heard about conservative interpretations of the constitution the phrase du jour was "strict constructionism," which I think is now out of vogue in favor or originalism and textualism, but is definitely a new conservative principle in the grand scheme of things. [[User:Lmenkes|Lmenkes]] 16:50, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

:You're right. However, I see that "strict constructionism" is in this entry under "Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary." It's been used over 200 years, and the dictionary still doesn't recognize it! Thanks for mentioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:42, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

== Transnationalism ? ==

1. going beyond national boundaries or interests: a transnational economy.
2. comprising persons, sponsors, etc., of different nationalities: a transnational company.
–noun
3. a company, organization, etc., representing two or more nationalities.
Origin:
1920–25; trans- + national

Related forms:
trans⋅na⋅tion⋅al⋅ism, noun
trans⋅na⋅tion⋅al⋅ly, adverb

Transnational jurisprudence assumes America’s political and economic interdependence with other nations operating within the international legal system, as opposed to the conservative, traditionalist(pre-Obama) approach of always rejecting the subjugation of American law to International law. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:07, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

: That would be a great start to the next layer, TK!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:11, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-English Terms? ==

Just to get it out of the way, this is only an idea I'm floating, and I definitely do not think it's a good idea to add non-English words all willy-nilly. However, I do feel that it's worth noting that for a portion of the period covered by this essay, English was not the standard language of academic discourse, as it is in modern times. Part of the reason that it may be more difficult to fill out the earlier part of curve is that in the time period it covers, Latin, then French, were common as the languages of choice. Important conservative ideas, like the five ''solas'', were expressed in Latin, and don't all have English equivalents with the same "hot word" status. This could partially explain why it's sometimes harder to find examples from the older periods. We already have "laissez-faire", but I think this is a good place to look for terms for conservative concepts, provided care is taken to make sure that the terms used are really of the same stature as those that exist. (And don't duplicate existing concepts.) Ideas that grew out of the Reformation, for example, are likely to have Latin names, and ideas born with the great political philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries might have more resonant names in French. Again, this is just an idea of a new space to mine conservative words from; conservative thought has a long history, and some of it isn't in English. :) -- [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 23:55, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

I understand that Conservapedia has a US-centric interest base, but might I suggest 'Eurosceptic' as a conservative term? As far as I am aware, it was coined in the early 1970s when Britain debated joining the EEC. It has since been used to describe a right-wing rejection of the European Union and its socialist 'super-state' mentality. Conservatives in the USA have rightly questioned the growing power of the EU, thereby displaying 'Euroscepticism' themselves. [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 23:17, 5 July 2009 (CDT)

: Superb suggestion, except that "Euroskeptic" and "Euroskepticism" appear to be derogatory ''liberal'' terms. The real conservative term on this issue appears to be "Eurorealist", but I'm not sure when that was coined. Your thoughts?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:55, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

:: When the term first arose, it was applied to the many members of the Labour ''and'' Conservative parties who were highly suspicious of British involvement in Europe. In fact, in the early 1970s there were more liberal opponents to integration than there were conservative opponents. (Ironic, given Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's fanatical devotion to the EU!) While the word is now used in a derogatory sense by liberals, it has been claimed by many conservatives as a badge of pride. 'Eurorealist' is an excellent alternative, but I personally prefer 'Eurosceptic' because it has been adopted by conservatives in many other European nations and integrated into their languages. (The Germans, for instance, use the word 'europaskepsis'.) Not sure where all of this leaves us, but I appreciate the feedback! -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 08:24, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

::: Thanks for your superb insights. Let's go with "Eurosceptic" because it is more common, and I'll mention "Eurorealist" in the comment area. I'll include this now. I've learned immensely from your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:07, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

What about "self-evident" (Locke, 1690), which was already used in the same sense as in the Declaration of Independence? Alternatively, "self-evidence", which is earlier, but still in the 1600s. It seems fair to say that while self-evident truths underlie all of conservative ideology, the very existence of these truths is rejected by the liberal doctrine of relativism.
--[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 12:16, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

Might I also suggest 'proactive/pro-active', signifying an individual who looks to himself for the improvement of his lot rather than to free handouts from society/government. I believe this originated in the field of psychology (therefore 20th century), but I am unsure of the exact date. Also, I was discussing this essay with a friend of mine who serves in the British Royal Air Force and he suggested 'hard-target search', a military term that describes any attempt to intercept and neutralize a heavily armored enemy, be it mobile infantry or stationary fortress structure. He has served since the early 1990s and remembers the term being introduced soon after the Gulf War. Thoughts? -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 12:40, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

:"Proactive" is an excellent suggestion. Fantastic. My dictionary says it dates from 1933. Please add it! I'm less sure about "self-evident". I doubt that is a conservative insight, and am open to discussion about it (which could prove to be fascinating in itself). Thanks for the history of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

::I understand "self-evident" (as in "self-evident truths") to be in opposition to liberal notions of relativism, which I don't think admit the possibility of self-evident truth: liberals believe that all truth must be understood in politically correct "cultural context". If not this, is there some other word that could be an antonym of "relativism" and merit inclusion on the list? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:33, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

:::I tried to add 'proactive', but I don't appear to be authorized to make an edit to the page. Have I misunderstood? (Forgive my ignorance; I am very new to this website.) -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 13:49, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

==Blame America crowd==

How about [[Blame America crowd]]? We probably need an article, and there is no shortage of available material. Google gets 549,000 search results [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=blame+america+crowd&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=]. We could just do a redirect for "hate America crowd" although Google gets 900,000+ results for that. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hate+america+crowd&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=] There's even an Amazon.com title [http://www.amazon.com/Albums-Communists-Hate-America-Crowd/lm/17MFFXQYC45LO#height=204] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:11, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

: Excellent suggestion! Sounds like its date of origin is in this decade. Can you pinpoint a date of origin?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:34, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
::I propose using Micheal Barone [http://www.creators.com/opinion/michael-barone/the-blame-america-first-crowd.html] article here; he quotes [[Jeane Kirkpatrick]] saying "They always blame America first" describing the "San Francisco Democrats" in 1984 (San Fransisco was site of the DNC nominating convention). Barone is authoritive, we can use him as a source to get the ball rolling. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:22, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

==Overall growth of language==
I just did a search on the OED online to see the total number of new words per century. I may have counted wrong, but it appears that the total size of the English language is increasing exponentially also, but faster: about 1-2.6-6.8-17.6. This means that the percentage of conservative words as a proportion of all words is actually decreasing, which would be a problem for [[Conservapedia's Law]]. But I suspect that the proportion of words with any political connotations is falling as well, so it's still possible that conservative words are outstripping liberal ones. I can't think of any way to check this without making an equally thorough list of liberal words. Thoughts?

:Mark, liberal terms are already addressed in the article, although no doubt that section could be improved. I expect you are right in thinking that the vast majority of words generated are neither conservative nor liberal - for example new discoveries in science such as protons and neutrons are inherently apolitical.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:12, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::In furtherance of CPalmer's valid point, most new words are scientific in nature, such as new naming conventions. Our inquiry here concerns ''insightful'' new words that are substantive and valuable in their own right.

::The point here, and with [[Conservapedia's Law]], is about quality as well as quantity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::I see that new liberal terms are addressed, but that list hasn't gotten anywhere near the attention that conservative list has (particularly in the older centuries), and as a result the rate of growth of liberal terms (if not insights) appears in the list to be faster than the rate of conservative ones. I don't think the majority of new words in the OED are scientific (I could be wrong), but this is worth investigating carefully. Do a search for new words for any decade on OED and it appears the scientific ones are a minority.

:::What about adding a quality rating 1-10 to each word on the list of conservative words? It seems like it would be possible to establish reasonable guidelines for doing this (based on, say, frequency of use in important speeches by non-political figures, with some subjective component as well) and it would let us quantify the rate of increase of conservative insight versus that of liberal insight, without relying on a mere word count, which may be deceptive, since all of language increases geometrically. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 11:17, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::Mark, this seems tangential to the basic point. If someone observes that the world records for track events are improving at a rate of ''x'', I don't think it is significant that laziness is increasing at a similar rate. The point is that something of quality is increasing at a certain rate, not that things lacking in significant value are.

::::I do think the bulk of the increase in English words are of a scientific (or technical) nature. Perhaps we could nail that down first if you'd like to pursue this tangent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:25, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::Some of the new words will be borrowings from other languages - similar to the scientific ones except that these are 'cultural discoveries'. Sushi or nachos would be relatively recent examples - again, these aren't political terms.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:49, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::Excellent point again, CPalmer. Again, these vast new English words do not typically represent new insights. The conservative words do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:53, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::::OK, I think you're right that my original statements were not a good argument. Thank you for convincing me. I think the point I'm after is that a geometric growth rate of conservative insights is not surprising at all, since just about everything of this sort grows geometrically. I'd argue, for example, that new ideas in scientific fields grow exponentially, as indicated by an exponential growth of scientific vocabury, and I expect similar results elsewhere. So it seems a leap of faith to claim that geometric growth portends a more conservative future. The argument would be more convincing if more work went into the liberal list as well: I expect that even liberal "insights" (such as they are) grow at a geometric rate. We need to show that it is a _slower_ geometric rate than the conservative ones in order to predict things about the future, and in the current list, the liberal terms are growing at a faster geometric rate than conservative ones, if only because the emphasis has been on the 20th century.

:::::::As a curiosity, here are the new words added to the OED in the latest round of revisions:
anyhoo, barotrauma, batsh**, bell end, Bok globule, c'est la vie,
clonable, clonality, cloner, clonidine, dot-org, down-talk,
facilitatory, First Nation, globalist, globalizing, globaloney,
globetrotting, globigerinid, globularetin, Hiberno-Latin, Indianaite,
Indian plum, Indian rhubarb, Kelvin–Helmholtz, probationally, router,
skinder, snowboard cross, soundclash, thought-controlled,
thought-through, three-way, toasted cheese, twitterpated, unmixed
blessing, warm-down, waterboarding, wire-frame, wire speed, wire
transfer, wire wrap, wire-wrapped

:::::::A few science words and only one foreign word, but I agree that there are few insights among them, so my original argument was flawed. But I think the liberal list needs more attention if the argument for CP's law is to be valid. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 13:32, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: That's fascinating, and illustrates two large categories we had missed: simple variations on existing words (perhaps half of the total) and food-related terms (several). CPalmer's point about foreign-related words proves true also (I see at least 4).

:::::::: It's tough to find quality liberal words, but I welcome any additions to make have to the existing list in the entry here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:08, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: 43 new words total: 21 are variations on existing words, 5-6 are foreign-related, 4 are technical/scientific, 3 are activity or food-related, and about 9 require further classification that may fall into the four prior categories. Zero are insightful or convey new meaning in an intellectual sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

== Sortable ==

I made the tables sortable. I hope the author doesn't mind. I just wanted to make it easier to view the terms in chronological order. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 22:45, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
:I like that. What other tweaks you got?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:52, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
::Not much. The <code>sortable</code> class comes standard with most MediaWiki installations. I know HTML and how to build templates, but Conservapedia isn't really my thing. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 23:08, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
:AWESOME improvement!!!! Thank you!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:53, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
::You're welcome. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 23:08, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

== Rename ==

As this article is no longer an essay, nor simply a list of the "best," I suggest it should be renamed to something like "Conservative vocabulary", "Conservative words," or perhaps "Modern conservative words" (400 years worth isn't really new, but it is modern english) [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:27, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

:Sorry I didn't see this earlier, but I think the terms are a listing of the best. If you can think of any better ones, then let's get them into the list immediately!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 24 November 2009 (EST)
::As I've been lately inspired by Orwell, I'd recommend ''groupthink,'' the propensity for a group to liberals to join a consensus without actually evaluating it. I'm not surprised that doublespeak is already on the list. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:19, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::That's a real good one. I'll add it immediately. Thanks for your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:43, 25 November 2009 (EST)

== Captain of Industry? ==

An 1800s word to complete the geometric fit, perhaps? "A business leader whose means of amassing a personal fortune contributes positively to the country in some way. This may have been through increased productivity, expansion of markets, providing more jobs, or acts of philanthropy." [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:09, 24 November 2009 (EST)

:Fascinating. I hadn't heard the term before. But it also seems archaic, almost like a caricature. It's not in my large M-W Collegiate Dictionary, and the term didn't catch on. So perhaps we can await a better one? Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:22, 24 November 2009 (EST)
::I'm quite surprised you've never heard the term, though it is very much a 19th century/early 20th century term for the Rockefeller/Carnegie type, but has a positive connotation rather than negative, like robber-baron. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:06, 25 November 2009 (EST)

== Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm ==

The following is a link to a dictionary containing 155 right-wing words engineered using a linguistic deep structure algorithm:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=9162

This sublink contains a massive engineered lexicon on abortion:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=7843

An additional link including a memeplex of engineered health care terminology is included here, which will soon be included in the MemeShock 4.0 CorrectSpeak dictionary:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=10281

I have been able to include some of these words thus far in the page, but many more remain. If anyone would like to go through and add additional ones from any of these three links that would be appreciated.

Additionally it would be useful to rework this language into the text of the other pages as much as possible. The language is designed to modify ones thinking to the desired point of view, and the more of it out there the more it will spread to the general populace via those who read it here.

The project is a sort of right-wing social engineering experiment and I'm not sure how such a concept will go over with many conservatives. However if it works it should be able to modify people's thinking to a more conservative point of view, which I think will be in all of our interests.

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:Interesting idea. I'm interested in linguistics and a bit curious about your title... what does this have to do with "deep structure" in the linguistic sense? I've only encountered deep structure from a purely syntactic standpoint, and I'm curious how it figures elsewhere. Are you actually using an algorithm to create these words, and if so, what does it have to do with said deep structure? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 14:49, 30 November 2009 (EST)

:This idea doesn't go over well. Honestly, I thought something was odd about the 21st century words you added Johanan, but we are reluctant to censor here.

:Programs don't generate insights. People do. And I say that as a former full-time programmer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:56, 30 November 2009 (EST)

::"This idea doesn't go over well. Honestly, I thought something was odd about the 21st century words you added Johanan, but we are reluctant to censor here."

::Well I friend requested you on facebook. I could give you the grand tour of MemeShock if you want. Hopefully I can iron out any issues you might have.

::"Programs don't generate insights. People do."

::Well yes that is true. Perhaps "engineering language" was a little misleading. It might be better to think of it as engineering language clusters. Basically what we do is exploit an inherent circularity in language so as to create frameworks of language for particular issues to lock out the possibility to hold the opposing view. The content within those structures isn't engineered with an algorithm or anything though. The language combines though to bring the person thinking in terms of it towards a particular predetermined conclusion.

::Ideally if we could viral the language enough such that people would start talking and thinking in terms of it, it would become impossible to think like a liberal or a leftist -the language needed to do so would simply be pushed out of the public mindset. I hope that explanation is helpful. --[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:::You admit that "engineering language" is misleading, but I'm still trying to comprehend the rest of your title. Could you clarify for me: a) what part of this uses an algorithm b) what any of this has to do with "deep structure" (which I will understand in the Chomskyian sense until told otherwise)? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 00:39, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::::Let's me clear that Johanan Raatz is speaking for his own approach, which we reject here. We support open minds and free speech as the best way to advance knowledge and truth. None of this entry uses an algorithm or "deep structure."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:42, 1 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Yes, of course! Sorry for the confusion -- my query is directed at Jfraatz. I'm hoping he will clarify his grandiose title "Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm", which until he corrects me I am assuming is a more or less meaningless string of words, as there's no indication of where there's an algorithm, and this seems rather far afield of what I know as "deep structure". --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 12:38, 1 December 2009 (EST)
::::::Deep structure is a Chomskyian linguistic concept, as I think you already know. Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm, appears to be a syntactically correct but otherwise meaningless phrase. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:59, 1 December 2009 (EST)

== MemeShock Algorithm ==

*Linking words in a Loop-Back Structure

For Douglas, Andy and Jim:

You misinterpreted what I meant by engineering words with a deep-structure algorithm. What we do is engineer SETS of words and then find ways to link them back to each other in an (indirectly) circular way.

See the language is inherently circular in itself. If you look up a word that word is defined by more words and so on ad infinitum, however at some point with a finite language size the definitions must loop back on themselves. That's where the deep-structure comes in. We've got the "loop back" structure in a box so that we can use it to engineer sets of interweaving terms.

More here:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/edit.php?gid=12621914298#/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=4607

*On Memeshock and Dishonesty

Now a word on my approach. It's not dishonest so much as it is social engineering. We have an adjunct group of MemeShock which does deal with disinformation and such, but MemeShock does language engineering only.

Think of it like this. Many left-wingers do not accept logical argumentation so to counter this we are just engineering the language such that it is idiot-proof. That way that can't reach their irrational conclusions because the means are no longer there. We aren't lying to them with this or anything like that though. It's just a fancied up way to do what we do a lot -frame arguments.

From the looks of it is sort of what this page was about in the first place -was it not? Developing new conservative words to frame the argument?

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]
:No, it certainly was not. This page does not ''generate'' words. It catalogs and analyzes the conservative terminology which has developed through the natural development of English language and culture. What you're describing is distinctly Orwellian, deceitful, and frankly, absurd. Conservapedia is not a place to post crackpot theories and social engineering plans. It is a serious resource for ''actual'' topics. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:15, 2 December 2009 (EST)

::"This page does not ''generate'' words. It catalogs and analyzes the conservative terminology which has developed through the natural development of English language and culture."

::Well I will only post ones which I can link back to articles then.

::"What you're describing is distinctly Orwellian,"

::Well yes.

::"deceitful,

::No we do have a special adjunct group for that, but MemeShock engages in language engineering only.

::"and frankly, absurd."

::Well read the link over. It's not really that fancy, and the logic is straightforward. If words define other words then the language must loop back on itself right? If it loops back on itself it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to figure out how it loops back on itself. (it's just a page long -fairly simple concept)

::"Conservapedia is not a place to post crackpot theories and social engineering plans."

::Crackpot theories no, but now where do you think all of the other words you posted here came into being? Someone somewhere thought of them to better frame the argument. That's all I'm doing here -just more comprehensively. And I'm not posting my social engineering plans here either -that's what my facebook group is for.[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:::Firstly, Douglas is correct: I'm not sure where you got the impression that this page is about developing new words to frame the argument.
:::Secondly, what you describe has absolutely nothing to do with the standard linguistic notion of "deep structure". I'd suggest you choose a new phrase to describe whatever it is you mean. Throwing around "linguistic deep structure" makes it sound like you want the actual meaning -- what precisely do you intend by the term?
:::I read through the link you sent. I admit that it left me a completely baffled: you dwell on some trivial points of logic and make numerous errors throughout. In any case I'm not sure how you want to apply it to determine which concepts require additions to your lexicon ("memeplex"). The first ten or so paragraphs of section 2 seem to boil down to the fact that every statement can be made using only ">" and "~". Duh? Then you start talking about "components" and while I'm not sure precisely what you mean I assume that you want to regard a conjunction or disjunction of two concepts as simply a new concept, perhaps with its own word. Eventually you want to put every statement into some canonical form in terms of these concepts formed as conjunctions and disjunctions. It's quite possible that you can do this, but I honestly have no idea what you're talking about by this point. In any case, what this has to do with memes I don't know.
:::So tell me if I've guessed the gist right: you have a concept A which you want to integrate into a memeplex. To do so, you characterize it by its properties, with a statement of the form "(A>B)v~C" (where, for now, B and C are other properties). OK, maybe we first define it as part of some more complex statement, and then reduce to this form using the preceding "arguments" -- I don't know why you would bother reducing to this canonical form, but whatever. With this done, maybe the memeplex doesn't already have terms for B and C; in this case, add them recursively, by statements of the same form. Keep going in this way until all your terms are defined using only other terms. This has to terminate eventually. Hopefully it terminates while the number of terms added is less than the limit on the size of a memeplex which you mention. How'd I do? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 00:55, 2 December 2009 (EST)

::::Jim's points are excellent, and I look forward to Johanan's response to them. In the meantime, Jim is exactly right: this entry is not about developing new words to frame an argument. Rather, this entry is a recognition and listing of insightful new words. People (with God's help) are the source of insights; computer programs can't do this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:56, 2 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Jim, you got the idea generally correct. Basically you the algorithm is like the framework for a box. You need it in that structure so that people can't think outside of it. Then you find the right walls to put onto the framework. That part (Andy this concerns your critique) is not generated by computer or anything it's just developed the same way people usually develop words.

:::::Now the algorithm is rather simple -actually it's the simplest possible form to have for a non-tautologous language system, but it can be scaled up by recursing the algorithm in on itself. There's a larger algorithm which I won't reveal which does this and creates a 3x3 language "matrix."

:::::I apologize about adding the new words, when that wasn't the aim of the page. I was wondering however if you could revert fegeism -as I had that linked. (I know it was my own article) I was also wondering if I could post other words from articles I had written.

:::::As for your comment on deep-structure -from wikipedia (it's ok on some stuff):

:::::"In linguistics, and especially the study of syntax, the deep structure of a linguistic expression is a theoretical construct that seeks to unify several related structures. For example, the sentences "Pat loves Chris" and "Chris is loved by Pat" mean roughly the same thing and use similar words. Some linguists, in particular Noam Chomsky, have tried to account for this similarity by positing that these two sentences are distinct surface forms that derive from a common deep structure."

:::::The idea here was instead of studying the relationship between words in sets of sentences to do the same for an entire dictionary of definitions. When you do that languages inherently circularity comes out and the overarching "loops" have the structure A>Bv~C. From the links between these words you can derive all manner of sentences, but if you manipulate the links you can parameterize which sentences can be derived and which can not be -something that could become a politically useful tool. [[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

== Some of these words... ==

Just wondering how some of these words, like Phonics and Trivia, are considered Conservative words, or how they can even be grouped as a Conservative or Liberal word.--[[User:ZackQ|ZackQ]] 16:21, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:I am also wondering about how Conservapedia's Law is supposed to work. Most of these words are not obviously Conservative or Liberal, and what group they are placed in is based entirely on opinion. How can you make a law based on opinions?--[[User:ZackQ|ZackQ]] 21:00, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::You might not know that some of these words are conservative because your teachers have hidden their origins from you. Read the essay, and you may be surprised at what you learn. Conservapedia is full of things you might not have heard before - take a look around! There's all kinds of things to learn here! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:14, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Zack, only a tiny percentage of the classifications can be seriously disputed. "Phonics" has long been championed by conservatives, who want a literate population, and opposed by liberals, who want illiterates to vote for them. I know, that observation probably surprises you and you'd never heard that before. But there are over 30 million illiterates produced by the liberal public school system, and they pull the lever for liberal-favored candidates on Election Day. Illiterates also are unable to read the Bible, and it's a no-brainer why liberals want that result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:Andy, it's pretty clear that you have a very warped view of public schools and liberals. If anybody can go through 12 years of public schooling and can not read by the end, that is not the schools fault. You seem to be implying that schools are purposefully raising illiterate people so they vote for liberals and can't read the Bible. If this is actually what you are saying, I doubt that you know anything about public school. As for phonics, it is simply A way for teaching how to read. I wouldn't know if its the best way or not, but schools not teaching it does not mean they promote illiteracy, because that is very far from the truth.--[[User:ZackQ|ZackQ]] 15:48, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:: Zack, you're clueless. If you spent twelve years playing school football and yet had not even developed basic football skills, then the coaches and the training system deserve some blame for that. Yes, there is and should be accountability. And, yes, of course, there is a political benefit to developing over 30 million illiterates, which is what the public schools do. To pretend that has absolutely no political effect is absurd.

::You conclude with [[deliberate ignorance]] about the benefits of phonics in teaching how to read. What's next, you "wouldn't know" if jogging is a good way to prepare for a marathon???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:44, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:::Actually, I think some people really don't realize what a benefit phonics is, because they don't really know about it. Try ''Why Johnny Can't Read'', by Rudolf Flesch (I might have misspelled the name...), or I'm sure there are a number of websites on it. The strongest evidence for phonics' efficacy is simply that, despite 12 years of non-phonics-based public schooling, millions of people can't read. What they do is basically have you memorize each word in the language - and I can understand why people would hate and not understand reading after that! However, in other countries (which do teach phonics) and in America when we still did, nearly everyone could read. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 17:51, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:When I said I wouldn't know, I meant that I have never learned phonics, so naturally I would have no idea if it was the best way to teach reading. Sorry if I came across as ignorant, and I never meant that phonics was a bad way to teach reading. As a junior in public schools, I don't even see how somebody could not be able to read by now, and as far as I know my school does not have any illiterates (with the possible exception of people who have English as a second language, but there's an ESL department for that). Basing it on the education I got, It really wouldn't be the schools fault if somebody was illiterate after so many years of being in school. I am 100% sure that schools are not purposefully making people illiterate so they cant read the bible and vote for liberals, and if you say that they are it just shows that you are, for lack of a better word, stupid.--[[User:ZackQ|ZackQ]] 18:09, 14 December 2009 (EST)

== Muscle cars as models of efficiency? ==

Are we talking about fuel efficiency (MPG), or 0-60/top speed efficiency? I can see a case for the later, but certainly not the former. [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 14:18, 9 January 2010 (EST)

:The latter, though it's fuel efficiency was probably also better than many of the large cars that dominate the road today.

:"Muscle cars" is an provocative addition, and I'll another comment to it to explain why I think it's justified. But further comments are welcome on this!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:53, 9 January 2010 (EST)

== Dime Store ==

This term can have both positive and negative connotations. People criticize the quality of items sold in these stores (now referred to as Dollar Stores), and saying that something is of "dime store quality" is definitely a knock at it. However, the dime stores themselves have been a powerful engine of commerce and entrepreneurship in the USA. F.W. Woolworth introduced many innovations in his 5 & 10 stores, and he was so successful a businessman that when he built the Woolworth Building in lower Manhattan he was able to pay for its construction in cash. Even though his company was killed off by competition in the 80's and 90's, the entreprenurial spirit lives on in the thousands of independently-owned dollar stores across the country. 
People don't go to dime/dollar stores to buy quality goods - they typically buy consumable things that aren't expected to last long, like party goods, decorations and school supplies. The success of these stores shows that they are meeting a public need, so while it's fair to use "dime store quality" to criticize the quality of something, the concept of "dime stores" themselves is something conservatives should be proud of. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 12:06, 16 January 2010 (EST)

:Your analysis is superb. You persuaded me! I'm not sure that your analysis favors a move in category for "dime-store", but feel free to do so as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 16 January 2010 (EST)

::I was leaning towards removing it from the list altogether, which I've done for now. There are may terms which belong on these lists, but some like this one are better left off if it takes too much qualification to use them properly. To restate the point above succinctly, saying that something is "dime store quality" is a common criticism of quality, but if you only paid a buck for it then you have nothing to complain about. Consumers don't go to dime/dollar stores looking for quality - they are part of an important economic market where they are willing to part with a dollar for an item that's worth a dollar, and as long as that's what they get then the free market's working as it should. The place of these stores in today's economy would probably make an interesting discussion in the next edition of your Economics course. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 11:59, 17 January 2010 (EST)

:::Very well put. I agree, and thanks for your insights, which we've all learned from.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 17 January 2010 (EST)

== More possible terms for inclusion ==

*Reaganomics (1980)
*Pay-as-you-go (1830)
*Industrial Revolution (1840)

:Those are all terrific suggestions. I wonder about their political categories. I'd say Reaganomics is liberal, although its meaning may have flipped to a positive connotation as the economy came roaring back to success.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:28, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::Well...hmm. That's a tricky one. It was supposedly coined by Paul Harvey, who certainly wasn't a movement conservative, but was respected by many conservatives. I honestly think it would be conservative at this point, simply because in hindsight it worked. I suppose the test we should use would be this: would liberals pull this word out as an attempt to attack conservative policies, or would they avoid using it, knowing that others would view it favorably? I think it's the latter, really--I don't hear too many liberals today saying "Republican policies will result in Reaganomics all over again!" They know that a lot of people would say "That sounds good to me!" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:53, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:::I'm surprised that Paul Harvey coined the term "Reaganomics", which seems inherently pejorative. The term implies that it is somehow not real economics, but some kind of half-baked version of it. Liberals used the term with a vengeance ... until the economy went on its spectacular boom.

:::I'll take a look to see if conservatives use it now. You're right: I don't think liberals delight in the term anymore!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:57, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::::While the late Paul Harvey used the phrase positively, it was originally coined by Democratic Liberals to ridicule Reagan's policies. That Reagan was the only President with a degree in Economics was outside their understanding! I agree with Ben, it is now a positive term, re-made not through "spin" as liberals do, but through the proof of good results, which conservatives value. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:11, 26 January 2010 (EST)

==Capitalism: Conservative concept, but a Conservative word?==
I'd like to make what may seem a perverse argument: that 'capitalism' is a liberal rather than a Conservative term and that its inclusion in this list should perhaps be reconsidered. The concept represented by the word capitalism is indeed at the core of conservatism: as Mr Schlafly has written, an example of the 'hidden hand', and, in its reliance upon individuual initiative rather than state- or party-controlled planning, a great example, perhaps the summation, of that insightful concept 'the best of the public'. My problem is with the word, which seeks to reduce the economic expression of divinely-inspired human freedom into a mere '-ism', a sectarian political concept, one among many, to be disputed and reviled by lesser ideals. Liberals and socialists are swift to blame 'capitalism' for economic and social problems which are almost inevitably of their own making. 'Capitalism' is a handy way for Liberals to create a false bogy with which to hoodwink people: it can be presented as a malign conspiracy by their enemies to undermine the false promises of socialism; it is an '-ism', something that humanity could do away with and exist just as happily, if not more so. Away with such Liberal tommy-rot! What they call 'capitalism' is freedom, no more and no less; and if one substitutes 'freedom' for 'capitalism' in the Liberal outpourings the falseness of their arguments becomes manifest. The 'capitalist system' - what thinking people call liberty - is the default condition of society: trade and enterprise flourish, and have flourished, in all societies where the smothering hand of socialism is unknown. Freedom - prefixed perhaps by 'economic' if necessary for lucidity, should be the term used. Let ''freedom'' be the antithesis of socialism, and consign 'capitalism' to the dustbin of leftist terminology. [[User:Guyw|Guyw]] 10:58, 15 February 2010 (EST)
:what? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 12:52, 15 February 2010 (EST)

Urgell

2010-03-02T16:17:33Z

PhilG: Created page with ''''Urgell''' is one of the seventy dioceses and arch-dioceses of Spain. The seat of the bishop is in the city La Seu d'Urgell. The bishop of Urgell is co-prince of [[Ando...'

'''Urgell''' is one of the seventy dioceses and arch-dioceses of [[Spain]]. The seat of the bishop is in the city [[La Seu d'Urgell]]. The bishop of Urgell is co-prince of [[Andorra]] - together with the presidet of [[France]].

Andorra

2010-03-02T16:02:42Z

PhilG: Seu d'Urgell is only the town, not the whole diocese of Urgell

{{Country
|name =''Principat d'Andorra''
|map =Andorra.jpg
|map2 =Andorra location.PNG
|flag =Flag of Andorra.jpg
|arms =Arms of Andorra.png
|capital =Andorra la Vella
|capital-raw =
|government =Co-principality, parliamentary democracy
|government-raw =
|language =Catalan
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =Nicolas Sarkozy (France; co-prince) Bishop Joan Enric Vives i Sicilia (Spain; co-prince)
|governor general=
|governor general-raw=
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Jaume Bartumeu
|pm-raw =
|chairman =
|general secretary=
|governor =
|governor-raw =
|premier =
|premier-raw =
|area =180 sq. mi.
|pop =84,500
|pop-basis =2007
|gdp =$3.66 billion
|gdp-year =2007
|gdp-pc =$38,800
|currency =Euro
|idd =
|tld =
}}
The '''Principality of Andorra''' is a small, mountainous, [[Europe]]an country (population 70,000) in the [[Pyrenees]], between [[France]] and [[Spain]]. Historically jointly governed by representatives of both countries, since 1993 it has been an independent democracy.

==Geography==
*Area: 468 sq. km. (180 sq. mi.); about half the size of New York City.
*Cities: Capital-Andorra la Vella.
*Terrain: Mountainous.
*Climate: Temperate, cool, dry.

==People==
Andorrans live in seven valleys that form Andorra's political districts. Andorrans are a minority in their own country; they make up only approximately 36% of the population or about 28,000 native Andorrans. Spanish, French, and Portuguese residents make up the other 64% of the population.

The national language is Catalan, a Romance language related to the Provençal groups. French and Spanish are also spoken.

Education law requires school attendance for children up to age 16. A system of French, Spanish, and Andorran public schools provides education up to the secondary level. Schools are built and maintained by Andorran authorities, who pay also for Andorran teachers. French and Spanish schools pay for their own teachers. About 35% of Andorran children attend the French primary schools, 35% attend Spanish, and 29 % attend Andorran schools. Andorran schools follow the Spanish curriculum, and their diplomas are recognized by the Spanish education system. In July 1997, the University of Andorra was established. The number of students makes it impossible for the University of Andorra to develop a full academic program, and it serves principally as a center for virtual studies, connected to Spanish and French universities. The only two graduate schools in Andorra are the Nursing School and the School of Computer Science.
*Population (2007): 84,500.
*Annual growth rate: 2.4%
*Ethnic groups: Catalan, Spanish, French, Portuguese.
*Religion: Roman Catholic.
*Languages: Catalan (official), Spanish, French.
*Education: Years compulsory--to age 16. Attendance--100%. Literacy--100%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate--3/1,000. Life expectancy--76 yrs. male, 81 yrs. female.

==Government==
Until recently, Andorra's political system had no clear division of powers into executive, legislative, and judicial branches. A constitution was ratified and approved in 1993. The constitution establishes Andorra as a sovereign parliamentary democracy that retains as its heads of state two co-princes.

The fundamental impetus for this political transformation was a recommendation by the Council of Europe in 1990 that, if Andorra wished to attain full integration into the European Union (EU), it should adopt a modern constitution, which guarantees the rights of those living and working there. A Tripartite Commission--made up of representatives of the co-princes, the General Council, and the Executive Council--was formed in 1990 and finalized the draft constitution in April 1991.

Under the 1993 constitution, the co-princes continue as heads of state, but the head of government retains executive power. The two co-princes serve co-equally with limited powers that do not include veto over government acts. They are represented in Andorra by a delegate. As co-princes of Andorra, the President of France and the Bishop of Urgell maintain supreme authority in approval of all international treaties with France and Spain, as well as all those, which deal with internal security, defense, Andorran territory, diplomatic representation, and judicial or penal cooperation. Although the institution of the co-princes is viewed by some as an anachronism, the majority sees them as both a link with Andorra's traditions and a way to balance the power of Andorra's two much larger neighbors.

Andorra's main legislative body is the 28-member General Council (Parliament). The sindic (president), the subsindic, and the members of the Council are elected in the general elections held every four years. The Council meets throughout the year on certain dates set by tradition or as required. The most recent general elections took place on April 24, 2005.

At least one representative from each parish must be present for the General Council to meet. Historically, within the General Council, four deputies from each of the seven individual parishes provided representation. This system allowed the smaller parishes, which have as few as 562 voters, the same number of representatives as larger parishes, which have up to 4,014 voters. To correct this imbalance, a provision in the 1993 constitution introduced a modification of the structure and format for electing the members of the Council; under this format, half of the representatives are chosen by the traditional system, while the other half are selected from nationwide lists.

A sindic and a subsindic are chosen by the General Council to implement its decisions. They serve four-year terms and may be reappointed once. They receive an annual salary. Sindics have virtually no discretionary powers, and all policy decisions must be approved by the Council as a whole. Every four years, after the general elections, the General Council elects the head of government, who, in turn, chooses the other members of the Executive Council. The current council has eleven ministers.

The judicial system is independent. Courts apply the customary laws of Andorra, supplemented with Roman law and customary Catalan law. Civil cases are first heard by the batlles court -a group of four judges, two chosen by each co-prince. Appeals are heard in the Court of Appeals. The highest body is the five-member Superior Council of Justice.

Andorra has no defense forces and only a small internal police force. All able-bodied men who own firearms must serve, without remuneration, in the small army, which is unique in that all of its men are treated as officers. The army has not fought for more than 700 years, and its main responsibility is to present the Andorran flag at official ceremonies.

===Principle Government Officials===
*Co-Prince: Nicolas Sarkozy, President of France
*Co-Prince: Joan Enric Vives i Sicilia, Bishop of Urgell, Spain
*Head of Government: Jaume Bartumeu
*Sindic General: Josep Dalleres
*Foreign Minister: Xavier Espot
*Permanent Representative to the United Nations: Carles Font

===Political Conditions===
Andorra held national elections on April 24, 2005. The ruling Andorran Liberal Party (PLA) won the elections but lost the absolute majority it had attained in the 2001 elections. After 10 years in power, Cap de Govern and PLA leader Marc Forné stepped down as Cap de Govern. His replacement is Former Foreign Minister Albert Pintat, who comes from the same party. The center-right PLA went from 15 to 14 seats in the 28-seat Parliament, while the center-left Social Democratic Party (PS) doubled its representation from 6 to 12 seats. The remaining 2 seats are held by CDA-Segle-21, a union of two center-right parties which are likely to join in a coalition with PLA. Since the ratification of the constitution in 1993, four coalition governments have been formed. The Pintat government's principal goals are to address housing scarcity, modernize the country's taxation system, and press forward with reforms required to remove Andorra from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) list of tax haven countries.

There has been a redefinition of the qualifications for Andorran citizenship, a major issue in a country where only about 36% are legal citizens. In 1995, a law to broaden citizenship was passed but citizenship remains hard to acquire, with only Andorran nationals being able to transmit citizenship automatically to their children. Lawful residents in Andorra may obtain citizenship after 25 years of residence. Children of residents may opt for Andorran citizenship after 18 if they have resided virtually all of their lives in Andorra. Mere birth on Andorran soil does not confer citizenship. Dual nationality is not permitted. Non-citizens are allowed to own only a 33% share of a company. Only after they have resided in the country for 20 years, will they be entitled to own 100% of a company. A proposed law to reduce the necessary years from 20 to 10 is pending approval in Parliament.

By creating a modern legal framework for the country, the 1993 constitution has allowed Andorra to begin a shift from an economy based largely on tax-free shopping to one based on tourism and international banking and finance. Despite promising new changes, it is likely that Andorra will, at least for the short term, continue to confront a number of difficult issues arising from the large influx of foreign residents and the need to develop modern social and political institutions. In addition to questions of Andorran nationality and immigration policy, other priority issues will include dealing with housing scarcities and speculation in real estate, developing the tourist industry, defining its relationship with the European Union, and reforming the investment law to allow up to 100% foreign ownership in activities and sectors considered strategic.

===Foreign Relations===
Since the establishment of sovereignty with the ratification of the constitution in 1993, Andorra has moved to become an active member of the international community. In July 1993, Andorra established its first diplomatic mission in the world, to the United Nations. In early 1995, the United States and Andorra established formal diplomatic relations. Andorra has also expanded relations with other nations.

Andorra is a full member of the United Nations (UN), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), United Nations Conference for Commerce and Development (UNCCD), International Center of Studies for Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Heritage (ICCROM), Telecommunications International Union (UIT), International Red Cross, Universal Copyright Convention, European Council, EUTELSAT, World Tourism Organization, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Customs Cooperation Council (CCC), Interpol, and International Monetary Fund among others. Since 1991, Andorra has had a special agreement with the European Union.

==Economy==
Andorra's national income in 2005 was approximately $2.77 billion, with tourism as its principal component. Attractive for shoppers from France and Spain because of low taxes, the country also has developed active summer and winter tourist resorts. With some 270 hotels and 400 restaurants, as well as many shops, the tourist trade employs a growing portion of the domestic labor force.

There is a fairly active trade in consumer goods, including imported manufactured items, which, because they are taxed at lower rates, are less expensive in Andorra than in neighboring countries. Andorra's tax-free status has also had a significant effect on its relationship with the European Union. Its negotiations with the Union began in 1987. An agreement that went into effect in July 1991 sets duty-free quotas and places limits on certain items--mainly milk products, tobacco, and alcoholic beverages. Andorra is permitted to maintain price differences from other EU countries, and visitors enjoy limited duty-free allowances. In June 2004 Andorra signed a series of accords with the EU in the fields of economic, social, and cultural cooperation. Tax legislation was also approved that taxes interest from monetary products and fixed-interest investments belonging to non-residents while maintaining bank secrecy.

The results of Andorra's elections thus far indicate that many support the government's reform initiatives and believe Andorra must, to some degree, integrate into the European Union in order to continue to enjoy its prosperity. Although less than 2% of the land is arable, agriculture was the mainstay of the Andorran economy until the upsurge in tourism. Sheep rising has been the principal agricultural activity, but tobacco growing is lucrative. Most of Andorra's food is imported.

In addition to handicrafts, manufacturing includes cigars, cigarettes, and furniture for domestic and export markets. A hydroelectric plant at Les Escaldes, with a capacity of 26.5 megawatts, provides 40% of Andorra's electricity; Spain provides the rest.
*GDP (2007): $3.66 billion.
*Natural resources: Hydroelectric power, mineral water, timber, iron ore, lead.
*Agriculture: Products--tobacco, sheep.
*Industry: Types--tourism, (mainstay of the economy), tobacco products, furniture.
*Trade: Major activities are commerce and banking; no official figures are available. Duty-free status.
*Official currency: Euro.

==History==
Andorra is the last independent survivor of the March states, a number of buffer states created by Charlemagne to keep the Muslim Moors from advancing into Christian France. Tradition holds that Charlemagne granted a charter to the Andorran people in return for their fighting the Moors. In the 800s, Charlemagne's grandson, Charles the Bald, made Count of Urgell overlord of Andorra. A descendant of the count later gave the lands to the diocese of Urgell, headed by Bishop of Urgell.

In the 11th century, fearing military action by neighboring lords, the bishop placed himself under the protection of the Lord of Caboet, a Spanish nobleman. Later, the Count of Foix, a French noble, became heir to Lord Caboet through marriage, and a dispute arose between the French Count and the Spanish bishop over Andorra.

In 1278, the conflict was resolved by the signing of a pareage, which provided that Andorra's sovereignty be shared between the Count of Foix and the Bishop of Urgell of Spain. The pareage, a feudal institution recognizing the principle of equality of rights shared by two rulers, gave the small state its territory and political form.

Over the years, the title was passed between French and Spanish rule until, in the reign of the French King Henry IV, an edict in 1607 established the head of the French state and the Bishop of Urgell as co-princes of Andorra.

Given its relative isolation, Andorra has existed outside the mainstream of European history, with few ties to countries other than France and Spain. In recent times, however, its thriving tourist industry along with developments in transportation and communications have removed the country from its isolation.

{| style="width: 100%; background:transparent; border: 2px solid #000099;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"
!colspan=2 style="width: 100%; text-align: center; background-color: #000088; color: white; "|'''Copyright Details'''
|-
!style="background-color: #000088; color:white;"|License:
|style=" background-color: none;"| This work is in the [[Public Domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code
|-
!style=" background-color: #000088; color:white;"|Source:
|style="background-color: none;border-top: 2px solid black"| File available from the {{{1|[[United States Federal Government]] [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3164.htm]}}}.
|}

[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:Micronations]]
[[Category:Landlocked Countries]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]

Andorra

2010-03-02T15:59:58Z

PhilG: /* Principle Government Officials */ he's not only the bishop of the town...

{{Country
|name =''Principat d'Andorra''
|map =Andorra.jpg
|map2 =Andorra location.PNG
|flag =Flag of Andorra.jpg
|arms =Arms of Andorra.png
|capital =Andorra la Vella
|capital-raw =
|government =Co-principality, parliamentary democracy
|government-raw =
|language =Catalan
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =Nicolas Sarkozy (France; co-prince) Bishop Joan Enric Vives i Sicilia (Spain; co-prince)
|governor general=
|governor general-raw=
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Jaume Bartumeu
|pm-raw =
|chairman =
|general secretary=
|governor =
|governor-raw =
|premier =
|premier-raw =
|area =180 sq. mi.
|pop =84,500
|pop-basis =2007
|gdp =$3.66 billion
|gdp-year =2007
|gdp-pc =$38,800
|currency =Euro
|idd =
|tld =
}}
The '''Principality of Andorra''' is a small, mountainous, [[Europe]]an country (population 70,000) in the [[Pyrenees]], between [[France]] and [[Spain]]. Historically jointly governed by representatives of both countries, since 1993 it has been an independent democracy.

==Geography==
*Area: 468 sq. km. (180 sq. mi.); about half the size of New York City.
*Cities: Capital-Andorra la Vella.
*Terrain: Mountainous.
*Climate: Temperate, cool, dry.

==People==
Andorrans live in seven valleys that form Andorra's political districts. Andorrans are a minority in their own country; they make up only approximately 36% of the population or about 28,000 native Andorrans. Spanish, French, and Portuguese residents make up the other 64% of the population.

The national language is Catalan, a Romance language related to the Provençal groups. French and Spanish are also spoken.

Education law requires school attendance for children up to age 16. A system of French, Spanish, and Andorran public schools provides education up to the secondary level. Schools are built and maintained by Andorran authorities, who pay also for Andorran teachers. French and Spanish schools pay for their own teachers. About 35% of Andorran children attend the French primary schools, 35% attend Spanish, and 29 % attend Andorran schools. Andorran schools follow the Spanish curriculum, and their diplomas are recognized by the Spanish education system. In July 1997, the University of Andorra was established. The number of students makes it impossible for the University of Andorra to develop a full academic program, and it serves principally as a center for virtual studies, connected to Spanish and French universities. The only two graduate schools in Andorra are the Nursing School and the School of Computer Science.
*Population (2007): 84,500.
*Annual growth rate: 2.4%
*Ethnic groups: Catalan, Spanish, French, Portuguese.
*Religion: Roman Catholic.
*Languages: Catalan (official), Spanish, French.
*Education: Years compulsory--to age 16. Attendance--100%. Literacy--100%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate--3/1,000. Life expectancy--76 yrs. male, 81 yrs. female.

==Government==
Until recently, Andorra's political system had no clear division of powers into executive, legislative, and judicial branches. A constitution was ratified and approved in 1993. The constitution establishes Andorra as a sovereign parliamentary democracy that retains as its heads of state two co-princes.

The fundamental impetus for this political transformation was a recommendation by the Council of Europe in 1990 that, if Andorra wished to attain full integration into the European Union (EU), it should adopt a modern constitution, which guarantees the rights of those living and working there. A Tripartite Commission--made up of representatives of the co-princes, the General Council, and the Executive Council--was formed in 1990 and finalized the draft constitution in April 1991.

Under the 1993 constitution, the co-princes continue as heads of state, but the head of government retains executive power. The two co-princes serve co-equally with limited powers that do not include veto over government acts. They are represented in Andorra by a delegate. As co-princes of Andorra, the President of France and the Bishop of Seu d'Urgell maintain supreme authority in approval of all international treaties with France and Spain, as well as all those, which deal with internal security, defense, Andorran territory, diplomatic representation, and judicial or penal cooperation. Although the institution of the co-princes is viewed by some as an anachronism, the majority sees them as both a link with Andorra's traditions and a way to balance the power of Andorra's two much larger neighbors.

Andorra's main legislative body is the 28-member General Council (Parliament). The sindic (president), the subsindic, and the members of the Council are elected in the general elections held every four years. The Council meets throughout the year on certain dates set by tradition or as required. The most recent general elections took place on April 24, 2005.

At least one representative from each parish must be present for the General Council to meet. Historically, within the General Council, four deputies from each of the seven individual parishes provided representation. This system allowed the smaller parishes, which have as few as 562 voters, the same number of representatives as larger parishes, which have up to 4,014 voters. To correct this imbalance, a provision in the 1993 constitution introduced a modification of the structure and format for electing the members of the Council; under this format, half of the representatives are chosen by the traditional system, while the other half are selected from nationwide lists.

A sindic and a subsindic are chosen by the General Council to implement its decisions. They serve four-year terms and may be reappointed once. They receive an annual salary. Sindics have virtually no discretionary powers, and all policy decisions must be approved by the Council as a whole. Every four years, after the general elections, the General Council elects the head of government, who, in turn, chooses the other members of the Executive Council. The current council has eleven ministers.

The judicial system is independent. Courts apply the customary laws of Andorra, supplemented with Roman law and customary Catalan law. Civil cases are first heard by the batlles court -a group of four judges, two chosen by each co-prince. Appeals are heard in the Court of Appeals. The highest body is the five-member Superior Council of Justice.

Andorra has no defense forces and only a small internal police force. All able-bodied men who own firearms must serve, without remuneration, in the small army, which is unique in that all of its men are treated as officers. The army has not fought for more than 700 years, and its main responsibility is to present the Andorran flag at official ceremonies.

===Principle Government Officials===
*Co-Prince: Nicolas Sarkozy, President of France
*Co-Prince: Joan Enric Vives i Sicilia, Bishop of Urgell, Spain
*Head of Government: Jaume Bartumeu
*Sindic General: Josep Dalleres
*Foreign Minister: Xavier Espot
*Permanent Representative to the United Nations: Carles Font

===Political Conditions===
Andorra held national elections on April 24, 2005. The ruling Andorran Liberal Party (PLA) won the elections but lost the absolute majority it had attained in the 2001 elections. After 10 years in power, Cap de Govern and PLA leader Marc Forné stepped down as Cap de Govern. His replacement is Former Foreign Minister Albert Pintat, who comes from the same party. The center-right PLA went from 15 to 14 seats in the 28-seat Parliament, while the center-left Social Democratic Party (PS) doubled its representation from 6 to 12 seats. The remaining 2 seats are held by CDA-Segle-21, a union of two center-right parties which are likely to join in a coalition with PLA. Since the ratification of the constitution in 1993, four coalition governments have been formed. The Pintat government's principal goals are to address housing scarcity, modernize the country's taxation system, and press forward with reforms required to remove Andorra from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) list of tax haven countries.

There has been a redefinition of the qualifications for Andorran citizenship, a major issue in a country where only about 36% are legal citizens. In 1995, a law to broaden citizenship was passed but citizenship remains hard to acquire, with only Andorran nationals being able to transmit citizenship automatically to their children. Lawful residents in Andorra may obtain citizenship after 25 years of residence. Children of residents may opt for Andorran citizenship after 18 if they have resided virtually all of their lives in Andorra. Mere birth on Andorran soil does not confer citizenship. Dual nationality is not permitted. Non-citizens are allowed to own only a 33% share of a company. Only after they have resided in the country for 20 years, will they be entitled to own 100% of a company. A proposed law to reduce the necessary years from 20 to 10 is pending approval in Parliament.

By creating a modern legal framework for the country, the 1993 constitution has allowed Andorra to begin a shift from an economy based largely on tax-free shopping to one based on tourism and international banking and finance. Despite promising new changes, it is likely that Andorra will, at least for the short term, continue to confront a number of difficult issues arising from the large influx of foreign residents and the need to develop modern social and political institutions. In addition to questions of Andorran nationality and immigration policy, other priority issues will include dealing with housing scarcities and speculation in real estate, developing the tourist industry, defining its relationship with the European Union, and reforming the investment law to allow up to 100% foreign ownership in activities and sectors considered strategic.

===Foreign Relations===
Since the establishment of sovereignty with the ratification of the constitution in 1993, Andorra has moved to become an active member of the international community. In July 1993, Andorra established its first diplomatic mission in the world, to the United Nations. In early 1995, the United States and Andorra established formal diplomatic relations. Andorra has also expanded relations with other nations.

Andorra is a full member of the United Nations (UN), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), United Nations Conference for Commerce and Development (UNCCD), International Center of Studies for Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Heritage (ICCROM), Telecommunications International Union (UIT), International Red Cross, Universal Copyright Convention, European Council, EUTELSAT, World Tourism Organization, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Customs Cooperation Council (CCC), Interpol, and International Monetary Fund among others. Since 1991, Andorra has had a special agreement with the European Union.

==Economy==
Andorra's national income in 2005 was approximately $2.77 billion, with tourism as its principal component. Attractive for shoppers from France and Spain because of low taxes, the country also has developed active summer and winter tourist resorts. With some 270 hotels and 400 restaurants, as well as many shops, the tourist trade employs a growing portion of the domestic labor force.

There is a fairly active trade in consumer goods, including imported manufactured items, which, because they are taxed at lower rates, are less expensive in Andorra than in neighboring countries. Andorra's tax-free status has also had a significant effect on its relationship with the European Union. Its negotiations with the Union began in 1987. An agreement that went into effect in July 1991 sets duty-free quotas and places limits on certain items--mainly milk products, tobacco, and alcoholic beverages. Andorra is permitted to maintain price differences from other EU countries, and visitors enjoy limited duty-free allowances. In June 2004 Andorra signed a series of accords with the EU in the fields of economic, social, and cultural cooperation. Tax legislation was also approved that taxes interest from monetary products and fixed-interest investments belonging to non-residents while maintaining bank secrecy.

The results of Andorra's elections thus far indicate that many support the government's reform initiatives and believe Andorra must, to some degree, integrate into the European Union in order to continue to enjoy its prosperity. Although less than 2% of the land is arable, agriculture was the mainstay of the Andorran economy until the upsurge in tourism. Sheep rising has been the principal agricultural activity, but tobacco growing is lucrative. Most of Andorra's food is imported.

In addition to handicrafts, manufacturing includes cigars, cigarettes, and furniture for domestic and export markets. A hydroelectric plant at Les Escaldes, with a capacity of 26.5 megawatts, provides 40% of Andorra's electricity; Spain provides the rest.
*GDP (2007): $3.66 billion.
*Natural resources: Hydroelectric power, mineral water, timber, iron ore, lead.
*Agriculture: Products--tobacco, sheep.
*Industry: Types--tourism, (mainstay of the economy), tobacco products, furniture.
*Trade: Major activities are commerce and banking; no official figures are available. Duty-free status.
*Official currency: Euro.

==History==
Andorra is the last independent survivor of the March states, a number of buffer states created by Charlemagne to keep the Muslim Moors from advancing into Christian France. Tradition holds that Charlemagne granted a charter to the Andorran people in return for their fighting the Moors. In the 800s, Charlemagne's grandson, Charles the Bald, made Count of Urgell overlord of Andorra. A descendant of the count later gave the lands to the diocese of Urgell, headed by Bishop of Seu d'Urgell.

In the 11th century, fearing military action by neighboring lords, the bishop placed himself under the protection of the Lord of Caboet, a Spanish nobleman. Later, the Count of Foix, a French noble, became heir to Lord Caboet through marriage, and a dispute arose between the French Count and the Spanish bishop over Andorra.

In 1278, the conflict was resolved by the signing of a pareage, which provided that Andorra's sovereignty be shared between the Count of Foix and the Bishop of Seu d'Urgell of Spain. The pareage, a feudal institution recognizing the principle of equality of rights shared by two rulers, gave the small state its territory and political form.

Over the years, the title was passed between French and Spanish rule until, in the reign of the French King Henry IV, an edict in 1607 established the head of the French state and the Bishop of Urgell as co-princes of Andorra.

Given its relative isolation, Andorra has existed outside the mainstream of European history, with few ties to countries other than France and Spain. In recent times, however, its thriving tourist industry along with developments in transportation and communications have removed the country from its isolation.

{| style="width: 100%; background:transparent; border: 2px solid #000099;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"
!colspan=2 style="width: 100%; text-align: center; background-color: #000088; color: white; "|'''Copyright Details'''
|-
!style="background-color: #000088; color:white;"|License:
|style=" background-color: none;"| This work is in the [[Public Domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code
|-
!style=" background-color: #000088; color:white;"|Source:
|style="background-color: none;border-top: 2px solid black"| File available from the {{{1|[[United States Federal Government]] [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3164.htm]}}}.
|}

[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:Micronations]]
[[Category:Landlocked Countries]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]

User talk:PhilG

2010-03-02T14:50:45Z

PhilG: @DMorris

Hans Bethe

2010-03-02T14:48:02Z

PhilG: Hans Bethe, Willis Lamb, QED

[[Image:Bethe.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Hans Bethe''' (1906-2005) was a German-born theoretical physicist who immigrated to the United States when [[Adolf Hitler]] rose to power.

He investigated the source of solar energy, which led him to make discoveries about the process of fusion. He joined the [[Manhattan Project]], where he served as the chief of the theoretical division. His expertise was in the theory of atomic nuclei having helped develop a theory of the [[deuteron]] in 1934. He also derived theory relating to nuclear reactions such that he could predict many reaction cross sections.

After World War II ended, Bethe worked with [[Edward Teller]] to help develop the [[hydrogen bomb]]. But he also helped negotiate the 1963 partial test ban treaty with the Soviet Union, and advised several Democratic presidents. Late in life Bethe advocated against the development of defensive nuclear systems.

When Hans Bethe died, the whole October issue of [[Physics Today]] - the membership journal of the [[American Institute of Physics]] - was dedicated to articles on his life and his achievements. Here, for instance, [[Freeman Dyson]] wrote:
::''The confirmation of QED as the most precisely tested of all the laws of nature is one of the great triumphs of 20th-century science. We owe this triumph chiefly to the vision of two men, [[Willis Lamb]] and Hans Bethe''.

[[Category:Physicists|Bethe, Hans]]

Talk:Young mass murderers

2010-02-19T16:17:29Z

PhilG: /* Serial killer vs. mass murder */

=="Mass Murder"==
This is a very strong term, and here, it seems to be used disturbingly broadly, so what's the exact definition? Does suicide count into the "mass"? Is somebody who kills himself and one other person a mass murderer? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 15:21, 7 December 2007 (EST)
:Well, apparently, "mass murder" now also means "wounding and intending to kill many people" since Andy reverted my edit. I won't bother to make additional edits to this. Already got a warning block for this (among other things, like the high crime of cleaning up Conservative's mess), so whatever. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:55, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, the title is awkward, but we know what it means. I'm open to suggestions and can "move" the article to a new title if a better one can be found. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:00, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:::"but we know what it means" - Ed, I'm glad that you (or Andy) weren't around when Britannica or other encyclopedias were looking for editors. Since this article is in the mainspace and thus a part of an ''encyclopedia'' (and since there is no article text giving this table any context), the headline has to be correct and not some wishy-washy "Yeah, I know it's wrong, but it sounds great!" placeholder.
:::I would vote for a move to Andy's userspace since the entire point of this <s>article</s> table is to give Andy a more convenient way of mocking liberals ("Liberal response: Poem comparing it to environmental harm" - Gosh, other people call that "victims trying to deal with a tragedy", but hey, whatever works to make a cheap point!) and casting tragedies into a light that makes me doubt that the table is supposed to be more than satire ("Belief: wore black entirely", "Belief: targeted Christmas shoppers" - I feel like I'm reading The Onion.).
:::To be honest, I don't see much encyclopedic value in this table. Especially not in its current form with the columns and "beliefs" mentioned above. If we cut out the "Liberal response" column, clean up the last column, find all sorts of sources, and write an entire article around the table, then we could move it to "List of school shootings" or something (which in turn might be a candidate for a category instead of a dedicated article).
:::But that is somewhat like trying to rebuild a car when you just start with one damaged wheel: Sure, you could repair the wheel and then build a car around it, but why not just build a car in a more logical order (starting with a motor or chassis)?
:::Maybe move the table to some workbench outside the mainspace and see if people are dedicated enough to tinker with it. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:35, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Jenkins, I didn't read through all of your long-winded comments above. But as I said on your talk page, a Wiki is for ''adding'' and/or ''improving'' information, not deleting it. If you can improve, then do so, but don't delete information and serve the role of a censor. Go to [[Wikipedia]] to do that, where censors delete [[conservative]] information daily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:Andy, why do you even reply when you didn't read my post? Words fail me. Not even going to bother replying to your completely messed-up idea of improving the wiki ("You must not remove information added by me, no matter how little it has to do with the title"). Oh, and thanks for blocking me for cleaning up the mess caused by one of your High Quality Editors and accusing me of censorship. That sure motivates me! --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)

== "wore black entirely," ==

ROUND UP THE NUNS!!!! I THINK SISTER MARY ELLEN IS PACKING HEAT!!!!!!

What about ninjas? They wear all black, and we know they're bad. Black = evil.

Does this make pirates the agents of the almighty? They ARE the Ninja's sworn enemy, after all...

and Italian widows.

equating black with evil makes nuns and ministers evil ? thats not correct. Does lead one to wonder why black was selected especially as Nuns are the brides of christ , maybe white is a real challange laundry wise. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:50, 21 November 2008 (EST)

==Young mass murderers==

What is the criteria? Under 30? Under 25? And does a shooting in December qualify the murderer as anti-Christian? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:17, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Hey, does one poem someone wrote on a blog really count as a response for all liberals? Or just one person? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:59, 8 December 2007 (EST)

: That was the official Virginia Tech poem. It's probably somewhere on the Virginia Tech now, as it was after the tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)

: What is the cutoff for "young"? It's the same definition as for anything else. Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::So then the VA Tech guy ''doesn't'' count then? He was 23. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 18:44, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::: Dude, where's your logic? Of course the [[Virginia Tech killer]] satisfies the definition of "young". Please read it again, and apply logic this time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::::By your "logic", [http://www.bsu.edu/news/article/0,1370,-1019-9169,00.html Constance Clark] would have been a "young mass murderer" if she had gone on a killing spree during her last university year (at age '''50'''). It somehow appears as if you're deliberately setting the goalposts to include all students while still pretending to only focus on young ones.
::::Do I regard a 23 old man as "young"? Not really. He's old enough to drink, drive and vote (just not in that order, please...), so calling him "young" is misleading. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:54, 8 December 2007 (EST)

==A Growing Problem?==

Andy, you said on the Main Talk Page that, "''...this problem is growing: there were 4 mass murders...in 2007. How many will there be in 2008?''" I'm afraid that's not accurate--there's been a fairly steady number of such incidents for at least a decade. Googling "school shootings" will bring up various timelines going back years with much fodder for this article. --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:23, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:It's certainly been growing since the mid 90s, though. There was a wave of school shootings in 1997-1999, and copycat incidents have happened since. I just wrote a paper for my college class using statistics from 1995, and the writers then were arguing that school violence was relatively rare. And it certainly wasn't as much of a threat in the 1970s. It's growing, even though there may be variance year to year. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:24, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, absolutely. I wonder, too, how much of the sense of a "growing" problem is a function of the greater availability of news via the Internet, which started hitting its stride in the mid-90s. A lot of the "lesser" pre-Net incidents might be buried out of public attention in local papers.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:57, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::: No, I think it is a growing problem. I've heard the claims that it was constant or even declining from the 1970s (Vietnam Era) through Columbine (1999), but I think that's outdated now. 4+ big incidents in one year (2007), totaling 50 dead and many injured, plus numerous arrests including some yesterday for foiled attempts, is more than any time in 30 years, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:12, 9 December 2007 (EST)

== Colorado killer ==

The Colorado killer does not meet the previous definition of young: "Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21." Besides, he was a Christian-hater too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:16, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:A "very, very religious" Christian who hates Christians? That's a new one on me. The young man was clearly troubled, but I don't think you've shown that he hated Christians specifically, so much as he bore a grudge against the Missionary program from which he was ejected. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:43, 10 December 2007 (EST)

::The point was that he was homeschooled. When a Public Schooler goes on a mass killing spree its '''solely''' because he went to a public school. When a homeschooler goes on a killing spree its '''most certainly not''' because of his flawless education and values. [[User:MarcusCicero|MarcusCicero]] 21:50, 10 December 2007 (EST) P.S- Just above, you also say the V Tech killer meets the definition of young. At least attempt to find logical consistency.
==VT==
Saying that the VT poem merely compared the tragedy to environmental harm is disingenuous as it is a gross understatement - more should be added to that. Regardless however, the poem had no political motivations - it was logic - unless someone here thinks that elephants DESERVE to be massacred for ivory. "Damn those darn elephants -they cheat in a poker games"--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:03, 10 December 2007 (EST)
==Asa Coon==
Why is Asa Coon on here? Since when is suicide mass murder?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 09:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

: Attempted murder ... 4 times, followed by killing himself, which is also a type of murder.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:06, 16 February 2008 (EST)
::Oh ok - sorry I missed the number of injured - my mistake.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:01, 16 February 2008 (EST)
I'm not a communist or anything but I really don't understand how you can class a suicide as mass murder. Surely if this is the case the list would be somewhat longer than eight entries. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 13:32, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Ummm...Mr. Schlafly? ==

Aschlafly reverted my edit about the latest one concerning public schools, and....may I ask why? It seemed a logical followup to what was said. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:01, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

== Reverts ==

Why were Jeff Weise and Kip Kinkell removed? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 12:55, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== Marc Lépine ==

Why does Aschlafly keep trying to remove Marc Lepine?--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 10:54, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

: As I stated clearly, Marc had been in the workforce and was not a "young mass murderer." Also, the description for his views is misleading because it lacks hsi religious background. See, e.g., [http://www.volokh.com/posts/1142399687.shtml Volokh Blog].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:17, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::He was also still in school and is younger than another entry on this list. His views were that he hated feminism. How is this misleading? If you don't believe me, read his suicide note.--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 11:38, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

<blockquote>
Forgive the mistakes, I had 15 minutes to write this. See also Annex. Would you note that if I commit suicide today 89-12-06 it is not for economic reasons (for I have waited until I exhausted all my financial means, even refusing jobs) but for political reasons. Because I have decided to send the feminists, who have always ruined my life, to their Maker. For seven years life has brought me no joy and being totally blasé, I have decided to put an end to those viragos. 

I tried in my youth to enter the Forces as an officer cadet, which would have allowed me possibly to get into the arsenal and precede Lortie in a raid. They refused me because antisocial (sic). I therefore had to wait until this day to execute my plans. In between, I continued my studies in a haphazard way for they never really interested me, knowing in advance my fate. Which did not prevent me from obtaining very good marks despite my theory of not handing in work and the lack of studying before exams. 

Even if the Mad Killer epithet will be attributed to me by the media, I consider myself a rational erudite that only the arrival of the Grim Reaper has forced to take extreme acts. For why persevere to exist if it is only to please the government. Being rather backward-looking by nature (except for science), the feminists have always enraged me. They want to keep the advantages of women (e.g. cheaper insurance, extended maternity leave preceded by a preventative leave, etc.) while seizing for themselves those of men. 

Thus it is an obvious truth that if the Olympic Games removed the Men-Women distinction, there would be Women only in the graceful events. So the feminists are not fighting to remove that barrier. They are so opportunistic they neglect to profit from the knowledge accumulated by men through the ages. They always try to misrepresent them every time they can. Thus, the other day, I heard they were honoring the Canadian men and women who fought at the frontline during the world wars. How can you explain then that women were not authorized to go to the frontline??? Will we hear of Caesar's female legions and female galley slaves who of course took up 50% of the ranks of history, though they never existed. A real Casus Belli. 

Sorry for this too brief letter. 

Marc Lépine</blockquote>

::A list of names follows, with this note attached:--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 11:38, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
<blockquote>Nearly died today. The lack of time (because I started too late) has allowed these radical feminists to survive.
Alea Jacta Est.</blockquote>

==Rename?==
It seems to me this article needs to be renamed, without the "mass" in the title. Someone who murders one person (Kimveer Gill) or just himself (Asa Coon) can't really be said to be a "mass murderer" by any sense of the definition. Maybe "Attempted mass murderers" or just "murderers", or some other adjective, for accuracy's sake. [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 12:05, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
: perhaps just remove the few who didnt kill more than 1 ?

== Teach Marksmanship ! ==

My initial response to this article is probably going to seem bizarre but the death count and number wounded leads me to a professional condemnation of their marksmanship. If the intention was to kill rather than just create confusion then more injured than dead is inexcusable [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:46, 21 November 2008 (EST)

I find that comment incredibly distasteful (not that i lost any friends in these attacks) but never the less, spare a thought for the parents and friends of the victims - would they like to hear that comment? (just my opinion - nothing personal) ---- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 22:58, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Tim Kretschmer was "indicative of anti-Christianity"? ==
In the article it is said that Tim Kretschmer was "indicative of anti-Christianity". I haven't found any evidence for that proposition. I also asked for a reference but my edit was reverted. I guess that he was kind of atheist, but some reference would be appreciated. I have been actively looking for it but I haven't found. So to someone who doesn't have such a presupposition, it can be quite hard to believe without a reference. So if someone has a reference, please add it. --[[User:Erkkimon|Erkkimon]] 18:21, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

:"I haven't found any evidence for that proposition" may mean you haven't yet opened your mind to it. Atheists censor disclosure of the harm they cause, but that doesn't prevent the use of logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:22, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

::You're trying to say that I haven't opened my mind to a proposition that atheists are behind these mass murders? I'm not sure if I understood right. But if I did understand right, I want to tell you that I'm quite sure that Kretschmer is also an atheist, because I have analyzed the school mass murders in Finland quite deeply. [http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fapologetiikkawiki.org%2FKoulumassamurhat&sl=fi&tl=en This article] is mainly written by me and it should prove that I have opened my mind to the idea of mass murdering atheists. But you have to understand that we can't just guess. It doesn't prove anything. So I'll ask again. Is there any proof, that is not just a claim, that Tim Kretschmer was an atheist or naturalist or anti-semitist or anti-christian? --[[User:Erkkimon|Erkkimon]] 20:48, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Wearing all black as a teenager is suggestive of anti-Christian beliefs. Other examples in this entry illustrate that. I welcome more evidence, but am not going to play dumb amid [[liberal denial]] by others.

::: Your entry that you link above takes a small step towards the truth, yet ignores how deadly anti-Christian animus is, and how many self-described atheists suffer from it. It's not a mental illness, but a belief system that results from being misled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:42, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested addition ==

[http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/18390116/detail.html] Derik A. Bonestroo, age 24.

"Boulder Undersheriff Tom Shoemaker said, "The suspect ... fired a shot into the ceiling and yelled something about religion to the employees.”

"He (the suspect) barged in and wanted to know who was a Christian and who wasn't a Christian," said Sheriff Joe Pelle." [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 14:14, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

: That's not even close to the level of the examples here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::He killed himself, a Catholic man, and a cat. That puts him above Asa Coon's kill count, and, depending on how you count the cat, above or equal to Kimveer Gill's kill count. [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 14:59, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::: We don't count cats as humans, and you're ignoring the huge disparity in numbers wounded. Also, a working 24-year-old who is no longer a student is not considered "young".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:01, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: I didn't suggest you counted cats as humans. Asa Coon wounded four, Bonestroo wounded a deputy and killed a Catholic man. That's not that far out of scale. You've got one example of similar age on the page, and one that is three years older. Why are you so opposed to this entry? [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 15:07, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: Andy, just let him add that entry. He is factually correct, and your points contradict the rest of the article.

:::::: The suggested addition is not even close to the level of the current examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 07:54, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

== Possibly Unnecessary Column? ==

Do we need a column with the liberal response? While I am all for outing the liberals for their ignorance and hypocrisy, it seems a bit extraneous alongside this particular article. I must say, though, this article is extremely well done! I especially like the "beliefs" column. Where else can I find that? Not anywhere in the mainstream media! It's good to see that we care about the truth. [[User:Krazor|Krazor]] 13:33, 4 December 2009 (EST)

:Thanks for pointing out the uniqueness of this entry. But the extra column about "liberal response" is also informative, is it not? It's an eye-opener as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 4 December 2009 (EST)

:: I must say, it truly is. Thank you for taking the time to respond, Mr. Schlafly! May God give you peace! [[User:Krazor|Krazor]] 20:46, 6 December 2009 (EST)

==Asa Coon and Kimveer Gill ==
Most criminologists refer to mass murder as "the killing of four or more people in a single event" despite the fact that mass murder was their goal, they do not, in fact meet that criteria. I would suggest making a a seperate page on school shootings. Anyway, in the meanwhile, I am going to remove them from this list as they don't meet the criteria.--[[User:WilliamMc|WilliamMc]] 10:22, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:Don't do that, but do contribute your thoughts to our [[mass murder]] article. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:23, 18 December 2009 (EST)

==Page move==
I suggest moving the page to "Mass murderers". Nothing about the age of the murderer has anything to do with their motivations. What matters is the environment that led to these terrible acts. By making "young" a requirement, we're either going to be misleading (like potentially inferring that Amy Bishops was a young woman) or incomplete (by omitting mass murderers like Amy Bishops because she wasn't young). Let's keep Conservapedia both accurate and complete and move the page. Thanks, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 09:44, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:Perhaps it would be best to merge with [[Mass murder]]? [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 09:47, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::No, the age is relevant, and it was their beliefs that DID matter very much. And where did they get those beliefs at their young age? You'll see that many in school and on the internet propagate such disastrous belief systems. For every one who goes on a murderous rampage, there are hundreds or thousands who suffer mentally and emotionally to lesser extents ... due to their belief system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:::Please, Mr. Schlafly, reconsider my request. Mistakenly implying that Bishop was young is misleading. Intentionally doing so is deceitful. You have stated that the criteria for young is nowhere near Bishop's 54 years of age. I know you will open your mind and make the right choice to improve the accuracy of Conservapedia. How about "publicly schooled mass murderers"? Thank you, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 10:21, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::::Amy Bishop began killing at what, age 19? If you like, you can add a footnote explaining that her rampage continued until age 54.

::::More generally, your objection is nit-picky to the point of the absurd. Diluting the entire entry is not the way to handle one caveat. Please open your mind for the important information conveyed by the entry: what kids are taught, and what they believe, ''does'' matter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:07, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:::::A wise man once said, "I don't want to perpetuate this debate, but I don't want a lack of response to be misinterpreted". Bishop was not 19 when she killed her brother. Bishop has not been convicted of murder for the killing of her brother and you know that you don't know if it was in fact murder. You have seemingly ignored yet endorsed my point that what people are taught is what matters, which is why the article would undoubtedly be more accurate if it were "publicly schooled mass murderers". Can you deny this? You can name call it nitpicking, I call it what it is: factual accuracy. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 11:19, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::Jeff, are you debating this matter, in a liberal vs. conservative way, or are you trying to improve the article? If it's the latter, please stick to the point and avoid personal remarks such as, "Intentionally doing so is deceitful." First, last, and only warning. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:03, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:::Good point, Ed. Jeff, how old was Bishop when she killed her brother? You say that "Bishop was not 19 when she killed her brother." Then you seem to deny that she killed him at all, which would be false. Moreover, your suggested title of "public schooled mass murderers" would not be as precise for all the entries as "young mass murderers." Simply put, your suggestion introduces more inaccuracies then it would allegedly repair.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:20, 16 February 2010 (EST)
::::Mr. Schlafly, you are mistaken. I did not deny that Bishop killed her brother. Please focus on these three simple questions: Do you deny that you are in no position to rule the killing of Seth Bishop a murder? Do you deny that Bishop is not a young woman? Do you deny that public schooling was more important than age in these murders? Thanks, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 12:58, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:::::Jeff, please first answer my simple question (and correct your misstatements, if necessary). Was Bishop 19 when she killed her brother, or what age was she? You expressly claimed she was not 19.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:16, 16 February 2010 (EST)
::::::I am glad to answer your question. According to [http://newinfo.uah.edu/news/newspages/campusnews.php?id=172 bio] she was born 4/24/65. The killing occurred on 12/6/86 according to various sources. That would make her over 21. I await your answers to my questions. Thanks, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 13:36, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:::::::I wonder why you emphasized that Bishop was not 19 when she killed her brother, if she was merely slightly older. In response to your questions, "Do you deny that you are in no position to rule the killing of Seth Bishop a murder?" I would not, and did not, attempt to "rule" on anything. But Bishop's killing of her brother (and her conduct immediately afterward) is highly suggestive of murder. Do you deny that? Second question, "Do you deny that Bishop is not a young woman?" Bishop first killed when she was a young woman, and then while still in her 20s was a suspect in the attempted murder of a professor who was critical of her. No, she's not particularly young now. Third question, "Do you deny that public schooling was more important than age in these murders?" Public schooling is a big part of the problem. But this entry focuses on a particular type of murder, and the common thread is more than the fact that most or all went to public school.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:15, 16 February 2010 (EST)
::::::::This entry focuses on a particular type of murder, and the common thread is more than the fact that most or all were young. I wish we could agree on that and follow my original suggestion of moving the article to "mass murderers". [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 15:21, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:::::::::No, because we don't include the many people who become mass murderers at an older age, such as Charles Manson.

:::::::::You protest too much. Your real objection seems to be with the numerous examples, but the facts speak for themselves and we're here to tell the facts. Wikipedia is better for those who want to conceal or deny facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:07, 16 February 2010 (EST)
::::::::::I have verified that every person on this list went to public school. Your claim that the change to "publicly schooled mass murderers" would cause more problems than it solved was a falsehood, as there is not even an exception, unlike the nebulous criterion of youth. Ironically, Manson also went to public school and committed mass murder in his thirties (unlike Bishop who was in her fifties). I'm here to set facts straight and you cannot deny that Amy Bishop did not commit mass murder as a young woman without loosing all credibility. I sense your patience is wearing thin, so i shall try to improve other articles. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 16:22, 16 February 2010 (EST)

Jeff, if you feel there is evidence that young mass murderers in the US have been influenced by public schools, why not add that to the article? We can decide later on a page move, which is just an administrative function. Editorial integrity comes first, don't you think? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:41, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:I completely agree, Ed. Unfortunately, after making changes after Andy and I agreed that we could not rule Seth Bishop's killing a murder and that the article was about a particular type of murder (not killing), the article was locked. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 16:47, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::Try taking a more cooperative or humble tone, and you'll find other writers more comfortable with your suggestions. Also, your claim, "Bishop was not 19 when she killed her brother," is contradicted by the 2nd of the two articles I just now googled up.
::*Before Bishop, who was 19 at the time, could be booked the police chief back then called officers and told them to release her to her mother ... [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/13/amy-bishop-killed-brother_n_461512.html]
::Who was it who said that we are entitled to our opinions, but not to our own set of facts? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:52, 17 February 2010 (EST)

== Serial killer vs. mass murder ==

The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines ''serial killing'' as the ''the unlawful homicide of at least two people, carried out in a series over a period of time. Although this definition was established in the United States, it has been largely accepted in Europe and elsewhere, but the crime is not formally recognized in any legal code, including that of the United States. '''Serial murder is distinguished from mass murder, in which several victims are murdered at the same time and place.''' ''

On Conservapedia, we read that [[Mass murder]] is ''the killing of large numbers of people. '' (The examples given in the article are all of genocide, perhaps an example of a terrorist attack should be added).

A [[serial killer]] is - according to Conservapedia ''a murderer who is responsible for multiple killings carried out on separate occasions. ''

On this very talk page, Aschlafly defines ''young'': ''What is the cutoff for "young"? It's the same definition as for anything else. Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21.--Aschlafly 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST) ''

The facts:
* When Amy Bishop killed her brother, she was no older than 21.
* When she killed he colleagues, she was 45 - and so, she wasn't young any longer (unless you claim that she is ''still in school'')

Two questions:
[[Jeffrey Dahmer]] was 18 when he killed his first victim. Does this make him a ''young mass murderer''?
Amy Bishop may have been a murderer age 19. But she became a ''mass murderer'' age 45. [[Adolf Hitler]] was 43 when he came to power in Germany. Is he a '' '''young mass murderer''' '', too?

That said, I think that A. Bishop is a mass murderer '''and''' a serial killer. She just isn't a ''young'' mass murderer. Generally, it doesn't make sense to speak about a ''young serial killer'' - at least not if his murders happened over an extended period of time.

[[User:PhilG|PhilG]] 13:08, 18 February 2010 (EST)

:Couple things. First, in my opinion, this article should have a title reflective of the fact that these individuals had a personal ideology which was against God or against American values in some degree. It should contain just those people regardless of age.
:Second, you have to put mass murderers in a proper context no matter who they are. Amy Bishop was not a "serial killer"; prior to the UAH incident she is on record of killing one person, and it has been dismissed as an accident; we have to list it as an accident until proven otherwise. John List killed off his entire family in 1971; he was pro-God and a devout Lutheran. This keeps him out of this article but it still makes him every bit a mass murderer as the others. The same with Charles Whitman, who killed 14 at the University of Texas in Austin; a brain tumor was found to have played a role in his case.
:Third, we have to know the differences between a mass murderer, a serial killer, and a spree killer. A mass murderer kills multiple people at one location and at one time (James Huberty, Richard Speck, Columbine killers, etc). A serial killer kills total strangers at differing locations, at different times, with a "cooling-off" period between murders, and usually with a personal gratification (John Gacy, Ted Bundy, Richard Ramirez). A spree killer kills people at random in a disorganized manner during a short period of time (Andrew Cunanan, Beltway sniper, Virgina Tech killer). [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:28, 18 February 2010 (EST)

::But at the moment, the article is titled ''young mass murderers''. For me, it seems to be more of an essay, as it has a clear intention, namely to show
:::'''young mass murderers are liberals.'''
::Due to the somewhat arcane selection of examples as to be seen on this talk page, it only makes the point
:::'''liberal mass murderers are liberals.'''
::There are a couple of ways to solve this:
::#keep the title and include all young mass murderers. In this case, at least the name of Amy Bishop has to be dropped
::#change the title according to Karajou's proposal to something like ''liberal mass murderers''.In this case, the question will arise whether there should be an article on ''unliberal mass murderers''.
::#follow JeffT's wishes and move the article to ''public schooled mass murderers''. As there are comparatively few home schoolers, this seems not to be a such a good option - it's like writing an article on ''Chinese murderers in Bejing''
::#name the article ''mass murderers'', make a short introduction that it isn't about [[genocide]] and [[terrorist attacks]] - and include ''all'' examples, even those mentioned by Karajou. Perhaps the entries could be color-coded according to their belief system?
::[[User:PhilG|PhilG]] 11:17, 19 February 2010 (EST)

Young mass murderers

2010-02-19T16:03:00Z

PhilG: added column for age

Recent increases in tragic mass-murders perpetrated by young individuals have prompted questions about their rationale for doing so. Below is collected evidence that their motives have been overwhelmingly [[atheism|atheistic]] or driven by hatred of God.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Year
!Name(s)
!Education
!Age
!Killed
!Wounded
!Beliefs
![[Liberal]] response
|-
|2010
|[[Amy Bishop]]
|[[professor values|professor]], and daughter of a professor
|44
|3, plus brother in 1986
|3, was also a suspect in attempted murder in 1993
|"was a far-left political extremist"<ref>http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100215oddball_protrait_emerges_suspects_family_pals_offer_clues/srvc=home&position=0</ref>
|liberals liked her: she "was admired by her peers and loved by her students" and "was a super intelligent person."<ref>http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100214everybody_described_her_as_gentle/</ref>
|-
|2009
|Tim Kretschmer
|[[Germany]] [[public school]]
|17
|15 + himself<ref>Reports were that the police did not mortally wound him. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1161139/Are-dead-Police-gun-ex-student-17-targeted-women-German-school-massacre.html</ref>
|several others
|wore all black, indicative of anti-Christianity
|denial of significance of all-black clothing by a teenager; Europe calls for more [[gun control]]; [[liberal]] media promotes falsehood: "We'll never know why they kill."[http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/12/greene.shootings/]
|-
|2008
|Stephen Kazmierczak
|[[Northern Illinois University]]
|27
|5 + himself
|16
|Fan of [[Nietzsche]]'s "The Antichrist," obsessed with self-injury, was a "cutter" in [[public high school]], wore all black to carry out his massacre, and was still a [[public school]] student at age 27
|Feigned shock at the fact that the gunman didn't "fit" the typical mold of a killer, when in fact the gunman wore all black and was taught at a [[public school]].
|-
|2007
|Robert Hawkins
|Papillion-La Vista public high school
|19
|8 + himself
|5
|Targeted [[Christmas]] shoppers; wore black; "I can't take this meaningless existence anymore"<ref>[http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.omaha08dec08,0,6053469.story Baltimore Sun]</ref> Told a therapist that "he is not sure if there is a [[God]] or life after death and that when he dies, he'll probably go to hell." Told social workers he was [[Satan|satanic]] and acknowledged that he often acted before thinking of the consequences. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318506,00.html Mall Gunman Admitted He was Satanic, Attempted Suicide], [[Associated Press]], [[Fox News Channel]], December 27, 2007</ref>
|Avoided suggesting [[gun control]] lest [[Democrats]] lose [[West Virginia]] and [[Wisconsin]] in [[2008 presidential election]]
|-
|2007
|Pekka-Eric Auvinen
|Jokela High School public high school (Finland)
|18
|8 + himself
|About 12
|[[Atheist]], "I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit."
|[[Finland]] already had [[gun control]]
|-
|2007
|[[Seung-Hui Cho]]
|Westfield public high school (VA), then Virgina Tech public university
|23
|32 + himself
|25
|"Ismail Ax" suggested [[Muslim]] beliefs, felt "[[Jesus]] was crucifying me."
|Poem comparing it to environmental harm<ref>Virginia Tech, ''Transcript of Nikki Giovanni's Convocation address'', Delivered April 17, 2007[http://www.vt.edu/remember/archive/giovanni_transcript.html] ''We are Virginia Tech./We are sad today, and we will be sad for quite a while. We are not moving on, we are embracing our mourning./We are Virginia Tech./We are strong enough to stand tall tearlessly, we are brave enough to bend to cry, and we are sad enough to know that we must laugh again./We are Virginia Tech./We do not understand this tragedy. We know we did nothing to deserve it, but neither does a child in Africa dying of AIDS, neither do the invisible children walking the night away to avoid being captured by the rogue army, neither does the baby elephant watching his community being devastated for ivory, neither does the Mexican child looking for fresh water, neither does the Appalachian infant killed in the middle of the night in his crib in the home his father built with his own hands being run over by a boulder because the land was destabilized. No one deserves a tragedy./We are Virginia Tech./The Hokie Nation embraces our own and reaches out with open heart and hands to those who offer their hearts and minds. We are strong, and brave, and innocent, and unafraid. We are better than we think and not quite what we want to be. We are alive to the imaginations and the possibilities. We will continue to invent the future through our blood and tears and through all our sadness./We are the Hokies./We will prevail./We will prevail./We will prevail./We are Virginia Tech.''</ref><ref>[http://americaabroad.tpmcafe.com/blog/oldengoldendecoy/2007/apr/17/nikki_giovanni_we_are_virginia_tech]</ref>
|-
|2007
|Asa H. Coon
|SuccessTech public school Academy (Cleveland)
|14
|Himself
|4
|Said he didn't believe in [[God]] and didn't respect [[God]], killed after classmate disagreed; wore black<ref>[http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1192092117230670.xml&coll=2]</ref>
|Under-publicized because of his anti-[[God]] statements
|-
|2006
|[[Kimveer Gill]]
|Rosemere High School (Quebec)
|25
|1 + himself
|20
|"I hate [[God]]" and "I hate religious zealots"
|[[Canada]] already had [[gun control]]
|-
|2002
|Robert Steinhäuser
|Erfurt public school (Germany)
|19
|16 + himself
|
|Wore black entirely, literally from head to toe; stopped only when a teacher pulled off his black mask
|[[German]] [[gun control]] already strict, demands for limitations on computer games
|-
|1999
|Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold
|[[Columbine public high school]] (CO)
|18 and 17
|13 + themselves
|23
|[[Atheistic]], singled out a victim who believed in [[God]].
|Demand [[gun control]], causing [[Al Gore]] to lose [[West Virginia]], [[Tennessee]] and [[Arkansas]] in 2000 presidential election
|-
|1998
|Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden
|Westside Middle School
|25 and 23
|5
|10
|Mitchell Johnson, the older of the two, was obsessed with rap lyrics like "coming to school and killing all the kids."<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/06/16/entertainment/main11983.shtml</ref>
|Liberals blame the guns rather than the killer's obsession with rap music. Johnson is released at age 21 but is later arrested for new crimes.
|-
|1997
|Michael Carneal
|Heath public high school (KY)
|26
|3
|5
|Murdered girls as they prayed in a [[prayer]] group
|Under-publicized due to anti-[[Christian]] nature
|-
|1989
|Marc Lépine, at the École Polytechnique de Montréal
|Collège d'enseignement général et professionnel, (''College of General and Vocational Education'')
|25
|14 + himself
|14<ref>Montreal Coroners Report of the École Polytechnique de Montréal massacre [http://www.diarmani.com/Montreal_Coroners_Report.pdf]</ref>
|His religious views were unpublicized but he was raised in a home with an immigrant Muslim father who was allegedly highly critical of the [[feminist]] view of women's role in society; Marc's mother was an ex-nun; and his sister had allegedly committed suicide<ref>http://www.volokh.com/posts/1142399687.shtml</ref>
His suicide note reflected anger towards feminists: ''"For I have decided to send Ad Patres the feminists who have ruined my life...the feminists always have a talent for enraging me...They want to retain the advantages of being women...while trying to grab those of the men...They are so opportunistic that they neglect to profit from the knowledge accumulated by men throughout the ages. They always try to misrepresent them every time they can."''<ref>CityNews Rewind: The Montreal Massacre, December 6, 2006 [http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_5897.aspx]</ref>
|Ignore the personal background of the killer and instead use the massacre to push for stricter [[gun control]] and more laws concerning violence against women, and establish in [[Canada]] a National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.
|-
|}

== References ==
{{reflist}}
[[category:crime]]

Talk:Young mass murderers

2010-02-18T18:10:09Z

PhilG: /* Serial killer vs. mass murder */ upps

Talk:Young mass murderers

2010-02-18T18:08:48Z

PhilG: /* Serial killer vs. mass murder */ sp

=="Mass Murder"==
This is a very strong term, and here, it seems to be used disturbingly broadly, so what's the exact definition? Does suicide count into the "mass"? Is somebody who kills himself and one other person a mass murderer? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 15:21, 7 December 2007 (EST)
:Well, apparently, "mass murder" now also means "wounding and intending to kill many people" since Andy reverted my edit. I won't bother to make additional edits to this. Already got a warning block for this (among other things, like the high crime of cleaning up Conservative's mess), so whatever. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:55, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, the title is awkward, but we know what it means. I'm open to suggestions and can "move" the article to a new title if a better one can be found. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:00, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:::"but we know what it means" - Ed, I'm glad that you (or Andy) weren't around when Britannica or other encyclopedias were looking for editors. Since this article is in the mainspace and thus a part of an ''encyclopedia'' (and since there is no article text giving this table any context), the headline has to be correct and not some wishy-washy "Yeah, I know it's wrong, but it sounds great!" placeholder.
:::I would vote for a move to Andy's userspace since the entire point of this <s>article</s> table is to give Andy a more convenient way of mocking liberals ("Liberal response: Poem comparing it to environmental harm" - Gosh, other people call that "victims trying to deal with a tragedy", but hey, whatever works to make a cheap point!) and casting tragedies into a light that makes me doubt that the table is supposed to be more than satire ("Belief: wore black entirely", "Belief: targeted Christmas shoppers" - I feel like I'm reading The Onion.).
:::To be honest, I don't see much encyclopedic value in this table. Especially not in its current form with the columns and "beliefs" mentioned above. If we cut out the "Liberal response" column, clean up the last column, find all sorts of sources, and write an entire article around the table, then we could move it to "List of school shootings" or something (which in turn might be a candidate for a category instead of a dedicated article).
:::But that is somewhat like trying to rebuild a car when you just start with one damaged wheel: Sure, you could repair the wheel and then build a car around it, but why not just build a car in a more logical order (starting with a motor or chassis)?
:::Maybe move the table to some workbench outside the mainspace and see if people are dedicated enough to tinker with it. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:35, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Jenkins, I didn't read through all of your long-winded comments above. But as I said on your talk page, a Wiki is for ''adding'' and/or ''improving'' information, not deleting it. If you can improve, then do so, but don't delete information and serve the role of a censor. Go to [[Wikipedia]] to do that, where censors delete [[conservative]] information daily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:Andy, why do you even reply when you didn't read my post? Words fail me. Not even going to bother replying to your completely messed-up idea of improving the wiki ("You must not remove information added by me, no matter how little it has to do with the title"). Oh, and thanks for blocking me for cleaning up the mess caused by one of your High Quality Editors and accusing me of censorship. That sure motivates me! --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)

== "wore black entirely," ==

ROUND UP THE NUNS!!!! I THINK SISTER MARY ELLEN IS PACKING HEAT!!!!!!

What about ninjas? They wear all black, and we know they're bad. Black = evil.

Does this make pirates the agents of the almighty? They ARE the Ninja's sworn enemy, after all...

and Italian widows.

equating black with evil makes nuns and ministers evil ? thats not correct. Does lead one to wonder why black was selected especially as Nuns are the brides of christ , maybe white is a real challange laundry wise. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:50, 21 November 2008 (EST)

==Young mass murderers==

What is the criteria? Under 30? Under 25? And does a shooting in December qualify the murderer as anti-Christian? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:17, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Hey, does one poem someone wrote on a blog really count as a response for all liberals? Or just one person? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:59, 8 December 2007 (EST)

: That was the official Virginia Tech poem. It's probably somewhere on the Virginia Tech now, as it was after the tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)

: What is the cutoff for "young"? It's the same definition as for anything else. Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::So then the VA Tech guy ''doesn't'' count then? He was 23. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 18:44, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::: Dude, where's your logic? Of course the [[Virginia Tech killer]] satisfies the definition of "young". Please read it again, and apply logic this time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::::By your "logic", [http://www.bsu.edu/news/article/0,1370,-1019-9169,00.html Constance Clark] would have been a "young mass murderer" if she had gone on a killing spree during her last university year (at age '''50'''). It somehow appears as if you're deliberately setting the goalposts to include all students while still pretending to only focus on young ones.
::::Do I regard a 23 old man as "young"? Not really. He's old enough to drink, drive and vote (just not in that order, please...), so calling him "young" is misleading. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:54, 8 December 2007 (EST)

==A Growing Problem?==

Andy, you said on the Main Talk Page that, "''...this problem is growing: there were 4 mass murders...in 2007. How many will there be in 2008?''" I'm afraid that's not accurate--there's been a fairly steady number of such incidents for at least a decade. Googling "school shootings" will bring up various timelines going back years with much fodder for this article. --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:23, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:It's certainly been growing since the mid 90s, though. There was a wave of school shootings in 1997-1999, and copycat incidents have happened since. I just wrote a paper for my college class using statistics from 1995, and the writers then were arguing that school violence was relatively rare. And it certainly wasn't as much of a threat in the 1970s. It's growing, even though there may be variance year to year. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:24, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, absolutely. I wonder, too, how much of the sense of a "growing" problem is a function of the greater availability of news via the Internet, which started hitting its stride in the mid-90s. A lot of the "lesser" pre-Net incidents might be buried out of public attention in local papers.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:57, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::: No, I think it is a growing problem. I've heard the claims that it was constant or even declining from the 1970s (Vietnam Era) through Columbine (1999), but I think that's outdated now. 4+ big incidents in one year (2007), totaling 50 dead and many injured, plus numerous arrests including some yesterday for foiled attempts, is more than any time in 30 years, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:12, 9 December 2007 (EST)

== Colorado killer ==

The Colorado killer does not meet the previous definition of young: "Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21." Besides, he was a Christian-hater too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:16, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:A "very, very religious" Christian who hates Christians? That's a new one on me. The young man was clearly troubled, but I don't think you've shown that he hated Christians specifically, so much as he bore a grudge against the Missionary program from which he was ejected. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:43, 10 December 2007 (EST)

::The point was that he was homeschooled. When a Public Schooler goes on a mass killing spree its '''solely''' because he went to a public school. When a homeschooler goes on a killing spree its '''most certainly not''' because of his flawless education and values. [[User:MarcusCicero|MarcusCicero]] 21:50, 10 December 2007 (EST) P.S- Just above, you also say the V Tech killer meets the definition of young. At least attempt to find logical consistency.
==VT==
Saying that the VT poem merely compared the tragedy to environmental harm is disingenuous as it is a gross understatement - more should be added to that. Regardless however, the poem had no political motivations - it was logic - unless someone here thinks that elephants DESERVE to be massacred for ivory. "Damn those darn elephants -they cheat in a poker games"--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:03, 10 December 2007 (EST)
==Asa Coon==
Why is Asa Coon on here? Since when is suicide mass murder?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 09:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

: Attempted murder ... 4 times, followed by killing himself, which is also a type of murder.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:06, 16 February 2008 (EST)
::Oh ok - sorry I missed the number of injured - my mistake.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:01, 16 February 2008 (EST)
I'm not a communist or anything but I really don't understand how you can class a suicide as mass murder. Surely if this is the case the list would be somewhat longer than eight entries. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 13:32, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Ummm...Mr. Schlafly? ==

Aschlafly reverted my edit about the latest one concerning public schools, and....may I ask why? It seemed a logical followup to what was said. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:01, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

== Reverts ==

Why were Jeff Weise and Kip Kinkell removed? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 12:55, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== Marc Lépine ==

Why does Aschlafly keep trying to remove Marc Lepine?--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 10:54, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

: As I stated clearly, Marc had been in the workforce and was not a "young mass murderer." Also, the description for his views is misleading because it lacks hsi religious background. See, e.g., [http://www.volokh.com/posts/1142399687.shtml Volokh Blog].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:17, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::He was also still in school and is younger than another entry on this list. His views were that he hated feminism. How is this misleading? If you don't believe me, read his suicide note.--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 11:38, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

<blockquote>
Forgive the mistakes, I had 15 minutes to write this. See also Annex. Would you note that if I commit suicide today 89-12-06 it is not for economic reasons (for I have waited until I exhausted all my financial means, even refusing jobs) but for political reasons. Because I have decided to send the feminists, who have always ruined my life, to their Maker. For seven years life has brought me no joy and being totally blasé, I have decided to put an end to those viragos. 

I tried in my youth to enter the Forces as an officer cadet, which would have allowed me possibly to get into the arsenal and precede Lortie in a raid. They refused me because antisocial (sic). I therefore had to wait until this day to execute my plans. In between, I continued my studies in a haphazard way for they never really interested me, knowing in advance my fate. Which did not prevent me from obtaining very good marks despite my theory of not handing in work and the lack of studying before exams. 

Even if the Mad Killer epithet will be attributed to me by the media, I consider myself a rational erudite that only the arrival of the Grim Reaper has forced to take extreme acts. For why persevere to exist if it is only to please the government. Being rather backward-looking by nature (except for science), the feminists have always enraged me. They want to keep the advantages of women (e.g. cheaper insurance, extended maternity leave preceded by a preventative leave, etc.) while seizing for themselves those of men. 

Thus it is an obvious truth that if the Olympic Games removed the Men-Women distinction, there would be Women only in the graceful events. So the feminists are not fighting to remove that barrier. They are so opportunistic they neglect to profit from the knowledge accumulated by men through the ages. They always try to misrepresent them every time they can. Thus, the other day, I heard they were honoring the Canadian men and women who fought at the frontline during the world wars. How can you explain then that women were not authorized to go to the frontline??? Will we hear of Caesar's female legions and female galley slaves who of course took up 50% of the ranks of history, though they never existed. A real Casus Belli. 

Sorry for this too brief letter. 

Marc Lépine</blockquote>

::A list of names follows, with this note attached:--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 11:38, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
<blockquote>Nearly died today. The lack of time (because I started too late) has allowed these radical feminists to survive.
Alea Jacta Est.</blockquote>

==Rename?==
It seems to me this article needs to be renamed, without the "mass" in the title. Someone who murders one person (Kimveer Gill) or just himself (Asa Coon) can't really be said to be a "mass murderer" by any sense of the definition. Maybe "Attempted mass murderers" or just "murderers", or some other adjective, for accuracy's sake. [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 12:05, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
: perhaps just remove the few who didnt kill more than 1 ?

== Teach Marksmanship ! ==

My initial response to this article is probably going to seem bizarre but the death count and number wounded leads me to a professional condemnation of their marksmanship. If the intention was to kill rather than just create confusion then more injured than dead is inexcusable [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:46, 21 November 2008 (EST)

I find that comment incredibly distasteful (not that i lost any friends in these attacks) but never the less, spare a thought for the parents and friends of the victims - would they like to hear that comment? (just my opinion - nothing personal) ---- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 22:58, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Tim Kretschmer was "indicative of anti-Christianity"? ==
In the article it is said that Tim Kretschmer was "indicative of anti-Christianity". I haven't found any evidence for that proposition. I also asked for a reference but my edit was reverted. I guess that he was kind of atheist, but some reference would be appreciated. I have been actively looking for it but I haven't found. So to someone who doesn't have such a presupposition, it can be quite hard to believe without a reference. So if someone has a reference, please add it. --[[User:Erkkimon|Erkkimon]] 18:21, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

:"I haven't found any evidence for that proposition" may mean you haven't yet opened your mind to it. Atheists censor disclosure of the harm they cause, but that doesn't prevent the use of logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:22, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

::You're trying to say that I haven't opened my mind to a proposition that atheists are behind these mass murders? I'm not sure if I understood right. But if I did understand right, I want to tell you that I'm quite sure that Kretschmer is also an atheist, because I have analyzed the school mass murders in Finland quite deeply. [http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fapologetiikkawiki.org%2FKoulumassamurhat&sl=fi&tl=en This article] is mainly written by me and it should prove that I have opened my mind to the idea of mass murdering atheists. But you have to understand that we can't just guess. It doesn't prove anything. So I'll ask again. Is there any proof, that is not just a claim, that Tim Kretschmer was an atheist or naturalist or anti-semitist or anti-christian? --[[User:Erkkimon|Erkkimon]] 20:48, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Wearing all black as a teenager is suggestive of anti-Christian beliefs. Other examples in this entry illustrate that. I welcome more evidence, but am not going to play dumb amid [[liberal denial]] by others.

::: Your entry that you link above takes a small step towards the truth, yet ignores how deadly anti-Christian animus is, and how many self-described atheists suffer from it. It's not a mental illness, but a belief system that results from being misled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:42, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested addition ==

[http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/18390116/detail.html] Derik A. Bonestroo, age 24.

"Boulder Undersheriff Tom Shoemaker said, "The suspect ... fired a shot into the ceiling and yelled something about religion to the employees.”

"He (the suspect) barged in and wanted to know who was a Christian and who wasn't a Christian," said Sheriff Joe Pelle." [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 14:14, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

: That's not even close to the level of the examples here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::He killed himself, a Catholic man, and a cat. That puts him above Asa Coon's kill count, and, depending on how you count the cat, above or equal to Kimveer Gill's kill count. [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 14:59, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::: We don't count cats as humans, and you're ignoring the huge disparity in numbers wounded. Also, a working 24-year-old who is no longer a student is not considered "young".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:01, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: I didn't suggest you counted cats as humans. Asa Coon wounded four, Bonestroo wounded a deputy and killed a Catholic man. That's not that far out of scale. You've got one example of similar age on the page, and one that is three years older. Why are you so opposed to this entry? [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 15:07, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: Andy, just let him add that entry. He is factually correct, and your points contradict the rest of the article.

:::::: The suggested addition is not even close to the level of the current examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 07:54, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

== Possibly Unnecessary Column? ==

Do we need a column with the liberal response? While I am all for outing the liberals for their ignorance and hypocrisy, it seems a bit extraneous alongside this particular article. I must say, though, this article is extremely well done! I especially like the "beliefs" column. Where else can I find that? Not anywhere in the mainstream media! It's good to see that we care about the truth. [[User:Krazor|Krazor]] 13:33, 4 December 2009 (EST)

:Thanks for pointing out the uniqueness of this entry. But the extra column about "liberal response" is also informative, is it not? It's an eye-opener as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 4 December 2009 (EST)

:: I must say, it truly is. Thank you for taking the time to respond, Mr. Schlafly! May God give you peace! [[User:Krazor|Krazor]] 20:46, 6 December 2009 (EST)

==Asa Coon and Kimveer Gill ==
Most criminologists refer to mass murder as "the killing of four or more people in a single event" despite the fact that mass murder was their goal, they do not, in fact meet that criteria. I would suggest making a a seperate page on school shootings. Anyway, in the meanwhile, I am going to remove them from this list as they don't meet the criteria.--[[User:WilliamMc|WilliamMc]] 10:22, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:Don't do that, but do contribute your thoughts to our [[mass murder]] article. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:23, 18 December 2009 (EST)

==Page move==
I suggest moving the page to "Mass murderers". Nothing about the age of the murderer has anything to do with their motivations. What matters is the environment that led to these terrible acts. By making "young" a requirement, we're either going to be misleading (like potentially inferring that Amy Bishops was a young woman) or incomplete (by omitting mass murderers like Amy Bishops because she wasn't young). Let's keep Conservapedia both accurate and complete and move the page. Thanks, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 09:44, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:Perhaps it would be best to merge with [[Mass murder]]? [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 09:47, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::No, the age is relevant, and it was their beliefs that DID matter very much. And where did they get those beliefs at their young age? You'll see that many in school and on the internet propagate such disastrous belief systems. For every one who goes on a murderous rampage, there are hundreds or thousands who suffer mentally and emotionally to lesser extents ... due to their belief system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:::Please, Mr. Schlafly, reconsider my request. Mistakenly implying that Bishop was young is misleading. Intentionally doing so is deceitful. You have stated that the criteria for young is nowhere near Bishop's 54 years of age. I know you will open your mind and make the right choice to improve the accuracy of Conservapedia. How about "publicly schooled mass murderers"? Thank you, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 10:21, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::::Amy Bishop began killing at what, age 19? If you like, you can add a footnote explaining that her rampage continued until age 54.

::::More generally, your objection is nit-picky to the point of the absurd. Diluting the entire entry is not the way to handle one caveat. Please open your mind for the important information conveyed by the entry: what kids are taught, and what they believe, ''does'' matter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:07, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:::::A wise man once said, "I don't want to perpetuate this debate, but I don't want a lack of response to be misinterpreted". Bishop was not 19 when she killed her brother. Bishop has not been convicted of murder for the killing of her brother and you know that you don't know if it was in fact murder. You have seemingly ignored yet endorsed my point that what people are taught is what matters, which is why the article would undoubtedly be more accurate if it were "publicly schooled mass murderers". Can you deny this? You can name call it nitpicking, I call it what it is: factual accuracy. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 11:19, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::Jeff, are you debating this matter, in a liberal vs. conservative way, or are you trying to improve the article? If it's the latter, please stick to the point and avoid personal remarks such as, "Intentionally doing so is deceitful." First, last, and only warning. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:03, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:::Good point, Ed. Jeff, how old was Bishop when she killed her brother? You say that "Bishop was not 19 when she killed her brother." Then you seem to deny that she killed him at all, which would be false. Moreover, your suggested title of "public schooled mass murderers" would not be as precise for all the entries as "young mass murderers." Simply put, your suggestion introduces more inaccuracies then it would allegedly repair.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:20, 16 February 2010 (EST)
::::Mr. Schlafly, you are mistaken. I did not deny that Bishop killed her brother. Please focus on these three simple questions: Do you deny that you are in no position to rule the killing of Seth Bishop a murder? Do you deny that Bishop is not a young woman? Do you deny that public schooling was more important than age in these murders? Thanks, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 12:58, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:::::Jeff, please first answer my simple question (and correct your misstatements, if necessary). Was Bishop 19 when she killed her brother, or what age was she? You expressly claimed she was not 19.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:16, 16 February 2010 (EST)
::::::I am glad to answer your question. According to [http://newinfo.uah.edu/news/newspages/campusnews.php?id=172 bio] she was born 4/24/65. The killing occurred on 12/6/86 according to various sources. That would make her over 21. I await your answers to my questions. Thanks, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 13:36, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:::::::I wonder why you emphasized that Bishop was not 19 when she killed her brother, if she was merely slightly older. In response to your questions, "Do you deny that you are in no position to rule the killing of Seth Bishop a murder?" I would not, and did not, attempt to "rule" on anything. But Bishop's killing of her brother (and her conduct immediately afterward) is highly suggestive of murder. Do you deny that? Second question, "Do you deny that Bishop is not a young woman?" Bishop first killed when she was a young woman, and then while still in her 20s was a suspect in the attempted murder of a professor who was critical of her. No, she's not particularly young now. Third question, "Do you deny that public schooling was more important than age in these murders?" Public schooling is a big part of the problem. But this entry focuses on a particular type of murder, and the common thread is more than the fact that most or all went to public school.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:15, 16 February 2010 (EST)
::::::::This entry focuses on a particular type of murder, and the common thread is more than the fact that most or all were young. I wish we could agree on that and follow my original suggestion of moving the article to "mass murderers". [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 15:21, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:::::::::No, because we don't include the many people who become mass murderers at an older age, such as Charles Manson.

:::::::::You protest too much. Your real objection seems to be with the numerous examples, but the facts speak for themselves and we're here to tell the facts. Wikipedia is better for those who want to conceal or deny facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:07, 16 February 2010 (EST)
::::::::::I have verified that every person on this list went to public school. Your claim that the change to "publicly schooled mass murderers" would cause more problems than it solved was a falsehood, as there is not even an exception, unlike the nebulous criterion of youth. Ironically, Manson also went to public school and committed mass murder in his thirties (unlike Bishop who was in her fifties). I'm here to set facts straight and you cannot deny that Amy Bishop did not commit mass murder as a young woman without loosing all credibility. I sense your patience is wearing thin, so i shall try to improve other articles. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 16:22, 16 February 2010 (EST)

Jeff, if you feel there is evidence that young mass murderers in the US have been influenced by public schools, why not add that to the article? We can decide later on a page move, which is just an administrative function. Editorial integrity comes first, don't you think? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:41, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:I completely agree, Ed. Unfortunately, after making changes after Andy and I agreed that we could not rule Seth Bishop's killing a murder and that the article was about a particular type of murder (not killing), the article was locked. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 16:47, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::Try taking a more cooperative or humble tone, and you'll find other writers more comfortable with your suggestions. Also, your claim, "Bishop was not 19 when she killed her brother," is contradicted by the 2nd of the two articles I just now googled up.
::*Before Bishop, who was 19 at the time, could be booked the police chief back then called officers and told them to release her to her mother ... [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/13/amy-bishop-killed-brother_n_461512.html]
::Who was it who said that we are entitled to our opinions, but not to our own set of facts? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:52, 17 February 2010 (EST)

== Serial killer vs. mass murder ==

The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines ''serial killing'' as the ''the unlawful homicide of at least two people, carried out in a series over a period of time. Although this definition was established in the United States, it has been largely accepted in Europe and elsewhere, but the crime is not formally recognized in any legal code, including that of the United States. '''Serial murder is distinguished from mass murder, in which several victims are murdered at the same time and place.''' ''

On Conservapedia, we read that [[Mass murder]] is ''the killing of large numbers of people. '' (The examples given in the article are all of genocide, perhaps an example of a terrorist attack should be added).

A [[serial killer]] is - according to Conservapedia ''a murderer who is responsible for multiple killings carried out on separate occasions. ''

On this very talk page, Aschlafly defines ''young'': ''What is the cutoff for "young"? It's the same definition as for anything else. Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21.--Aschlafly 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST) ''

The facts:
* When Amy Bishop killed her brother, she no older than 21.
* When she killed he colleagues, she was 45 - and so, she wasn't young any longer (unless you claim that she is ''still in school'')

Two questions:
[[Jeffrey Dahmer]] was 18 when he killed his first victim. Does this make him a ''young mass murderer''?
Amy Bishop may have been a murderer age 19. But she became a ''mass murderer'' age 45. [[Adolf Hitler]] was 43 when he came to power in Germany. Is he a '' '''young mass murderer''' '', too?

That said, I think that A. Bishop is a mass murderer '''and''' a serial killer. She just isn't a ''young'' mass murderer. Generally, it doesn't make sense to speak about a ''young serial killer'' - at least not if his murders happened over an extended period of time.

[[User:PhilG|PhilG]] 13:08, 18 February 2010 (EST)

Talk:Young mass murderers

2010-02-18T18:08:19Z

PhilG: /* Serial killer vs. mass murder */ new section

=="Mass Murder"==
This is a very strong term, and here, it seems to be used disturbingly broadly, so what's the exact definition? Does suicide count into the "mass"? Is somebody who kills himself and one other person a mass murderer? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 15:21, 7 December 2007 (EST)
:Well, apparently, "mass murder" now also means "wounding and intending to kill many people" since Andy reverted my edit. I won't bother to make additional edits to this. Already got a warning block for this (among other things, like the high crime of cleaning up Conservative's mess), so whatever. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:55, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, the title is awkward, but we know what it means. I'm open to suggestions and can "move" the article to a new title if a better one can be found. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:00, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:::"but we know what it means" - Ed, I'm glad that you (or Andy) weren't around when Britannica or other encyclopedias were looking for editors. Since this article is in the mainspace and thus a part of an ''encyclopedia'' (and since there is no article text giving this table any context), the headline has to be correct and not some wishy-washy "Yeah, I know it's wrong, but it sounds great!" placeholder.
:::I would vote for a move to Andy's userspace since the entire point of this <s>article</s> table is to give Andy a more convenient way of mocking liberals ("Liberal response: Poem comparing it to environmental harm" - Gosh, other people call that "victims trying to deal with a tragedy", but hey, whatever works to make a cheap point!) and casting tragedies into a light that makes me doubt that the table is supposed to be more than satire ("Belief: wore black entirely", "Belief: targeted Christmas shoppers" - I feel like I'm reading The Onion.).
:::To be honest, I don't see much encyclopedic value in this table. Especially not in its current form with the columns and "beliefs" mentioned above. If we cut out the "Liberal response" column, clean up the last column, find all sorts of sources, and write an entire article around the table, then we could move it to "List of school shootings" or something (which in turn might be a candidate for a category instead of a dedicated article).
:::But that is somewhat like trying to rebuild a car when you just start with one damaged wheel: Sure, you could repair the wheel and then build a car around it, but why not just build a car in a more logical order (starting with a motor or chassis)?
:::Maybe move the table to some workbench outside the mainspace and see if people are dedicated enough to tinker with it. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:35, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Jenkins, I didn't read through all of your long-winded comments above. But as I said on your talk page, a Wiki is for ''adding'' and/or ''improving'' information, not deleting it. If you can improve, then do so, but don't delete information and serve the role of a censor. Go to [[Wikipedia]] to do that, where censors delete [[conservative]] information daily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:Andy, why do you even reply when you didn't read my post? Words fail me. Not even going to bother replying to your completely messed-up idea of improving the wiki ("You must not remove information added by me, no matter how little it has to do with the title"). Oh, and thanks for blocking me for cleaning up the mess caused by one of your High Quality Editors and accusing me of censorship. That sure motivates me! --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)

== "wore black entirely," ==

ROUND UP THE NUNS!!!! I THINK SISTER MARY ELLEN IS PACKING HEAT!!!!!!

What about ninjas? They wear all black, and we know they're bad. Black = evil.

Does this make pirates the agents of the almighty? They ARE the Ninja's sworn enemy, after all...

and Italian widows.

equating black with evil makes nuns and ministers evil ? thats not correct. Does lead one to wonder why black was selected especially as Nuns are the brides of christ , maybe white is a real challange laundry wise. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:50, 21 November 2008 (EST)

==Young mass murderers==

What is the criteria? Under 30? Under 25? And does a shooting in December qualify the murderer as anti-Christian? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:17, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Hey, does one poem someone wrote on a blog really count as a response for all liberals? Or just one person? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:59, 8 December 2007 (EST)

: That was the official Virginia Tech poem. It's probably somewhere on the Virginia Tech now, as it was after the tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)

: What is the cutoff for "young"? It's the same definition as for anything else. Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::So then the VA Tech guy ''doesn't'' count then? He was 23. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 18:44, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::: Dude, where's your logic? Of course the [[Virginia Tech killer]] satisfies the definition of "young". Please read it again, and apply logic this time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::::By your "logic", [http://www.bsu.edu/news/article/0,1370,-1019-9169,00.html Constance Clark] would have been a "young mass murderer" if she had gone on a killing spree during her last university year (at age '''50'''). It somehow appears as if you're deliberately setting the goalposts to include all students while still pretending to only focus on young ones.
::::Do I regard a 23 old man as "young"? Not really. He's old enough to drink, drive and vote (just not in that order, please...), so calling him "young" is misleading. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:54, 8 December 2007 (EST)

==A Growing Problem?==

Andy, you said on the Main Talk Page that, "''...this problem is growing: there were 4 mass murders...in 2007. How many will there be in 2008?''" I'm afraid that's not accurate--there's been a fairly steady number of such incidents for at least a decade. Googling "school shootings" will bring up various timelines going back years with much fodder for this article. --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:23, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:It's certainly been growing since the mid 90s, though. There was a wave of school shootings in 1997-1999, and copycat incidents have happened since. I just wrote a paper for my college class using statistics from 1995, and the writers then were arguing that school violence was relatively rare. And it certainly wasn't as much of a threat in the 1970s. It's growing, even though there may be variance year to year. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:24, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, absolutely. I wonder, too, how much of the sense of a "growing" problem is a function of the greater availability of news via the Internet, which started hitting its stride in the mid-90s. A lot of the "lesser" pre-Net incidents might be buried out of public attention in local papers.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:57, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::: No, I think it is a growing problem. I've heard the claims that it was constant or even declining from the 1970s (Vietnam Era) through Columbine (1999), but I think that's outdated now. 4+ big incidents in one year (2007), totaling 50 dead and many injured, plus numerous arrests including some yesterday for foiled attempts, is more than any time in 30 years, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:12, 9 December 2007 (EST)

== Colorado killer ==

The Colorado killer does not meet the previous definition of young: "Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21." Besides, he was a Christian-hater too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:16, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:A "very, very religious" Christian who hates Christians? That's a new one on me. The young man was clearly troubled, but I don't think you've shown that he hated Christians specifically, so much as he bore a grudge against the Missionary program from which he was ejected. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:43, 10 December 2007 (EST)

::The point was that he was homeschooled. When a Public Schooler goes on a mass killing spree its '''solely''' because he went to a public school. When a homeschooler goes on a killing spree its '''most certainly not''' because of his flawless education and values. [[User:MarcusCicero|MarcusCicero]] 21:50, 10 December 2007 (EST) P.S- Just above, you also say the V Tech killer meets the definition of young. At least attempt to find logical consistency.
==VT==
Saying that the VT poem merely compared the tragedy to environmental harm is disingenuous as it is a gross understatement - more should be added to that. Regardless however, the poem had no political motivations - it was logic - unless someone here thinks that elephants DESERVE to be massacred for ivory. "Damn those darn elephants -they cheat in a poker games"--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:03, 10 December 2007 (EST)
==Asa Coon==
Why is Asa Coon on here? Since when is suicide mass murder?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 09:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

: Attempted murder ... 4 times, followed by killing himself, which is also a type of murder.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:06, 16 February 2008 (EST)
::Oh ok - sorry I missed the number of injured - my mistake.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:01, 16 February 2008 (EST)
I'm not a communist or anything but I really don't understand how you can class a suicide as mass murder. Surely if this is the case the list would be somewhat longer than eight entries. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 13:32, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Ummm...Mr. Schlafly? ==

Aschlafly reverted my edit about the latest one concerning public schools, and....may I ask why? It seemed a logical followup to what was said. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:01, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

== Reverts ==

Why were Jeff Weise and Kip Kinkell removed? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 12:55, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== Marc Lépine ==

Why does Aschlafly keep trying to remove Marc Lepine?--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 10:54, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

: As I stated clearly, Marc had been in the workforce and was not a "young mass murderer." Also, the description for his views is misleading because it lacks hsi religious background. See, e.g., [http://www.volokh.com/posts/1142399687.shtml Volokh Blog].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:17, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::He was also still in school and is younger than another entry on this list. His views were that he hated feminism. How is this misleading? If you don't believe me, read his suicide note.--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 11:38, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

<blockquote>
Forgive the mistakes, I had 15 minutes to write this. See also Annex. Would you note that if I commit suicide today 89-12-06 it is not for economic reasons (for I have waited until I exhausted all my financial means, even refusing jobs) but for political reasons. Because I have decided to send the feminists, who have always ruined my life, to their Maker. For seven years life has brought me no joy and being totally blasé, I have decided to put an end to those viragos. 

I tried in my youth to enter the Forces as an officer cadet, which would have allowed me possibly to get into the arsenal and precede Lortie in a raid. They refused me because antisocial (sic). I therefore had to wait until this day to execute my plans. In between, I continued my studies in a haphazard way for they never really interested me, knowing in advance my fate. Which did not prevent me from obtaining very good marks despite my theory of not handing in work and the lack of studying before exams. 

Even if the Mad Killer epithet will be attributed to me by the media, I consider myself a rational erudite that only the arrival of the Grim Reaper has forced to take extreme acts. For why persevere to exist if it is only to please the government. Being rather backward-looking by nature (except for science), the feminists have always enraged me. They want to keep the advantages of women (e.g. cheaper insurance, extended maternity leave preceded by a preventative leave, etc.) while seizing for themselves those of men. 

Thus it is an obvious truth that if the Olympic Games removed the Men-Women distinction, there would be Women only in the graceful events. So the feminists are not fighting to remove that barrier. They are so opportunistic they neglect to profit from the knowledge accumulated by men through the ages. They always try to misrepresent them every time they can. Thus, the other day, I heard they were honoring the Canadian men and women who fought at the frontline during the world wars. How can you explain then that women were not authorized to go to the frontline??? Will we hear of Caesar's female legions and female galley slaves who of course took up 50% of the ranks of history, though they never existed. A real Casus Belli. 

Sorry for this too brief letter. 

Marc Lépine</blockquote>

::A list of names follows, with this note attached:--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 11:38, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
<blockquote>Nearly died today. The lack of time (because I started too late) has allowed these radical feminists to survive.
Alea Jacta Est.</blockquote>

==Rename?==
It seems to me this article needs to be renamed, without the "mass" in the title. Someone who murders one person (Kimveer Gill) or just himself (Asa Coon) can't really be said to be a "mass murderer" by any sense of the definition. Maybe "Attempted mass murderers" or just "murderers", or some other adjective, for accuracy's sake. [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 12:05, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
: perhaps just remove the few who didnt kill more than 1 ?

== Teach Marksmanship ! ==

My initial response to this article is probably going to seem bizarre but the death count and number wounded leads me to a professional condemnation of their marksmanship. If the intention was to kill rather than just create confusion then more injured than dead is inexcusable [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:46, 21 November 2008 (EST)

I find that comment incredibly distasteful (not that i lost any friends in these attacks) but never the less, spare a thought for the parents and friends of the victims - would they like to hear that comment? (just my opinion - nothing personal) ---- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 22:58, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Tim Kretschmer was "indicative of anti-Christianity"? ==
In the article it is said that Tim Kretschmer was "indicative of anti-Christianity". I haven't found any evidence for that proposition. I also asked for a reference but my edit was reverted. I guess that he was kind of atheist, but some reference would be appreciated. I have been actively looking for it but I haven't found. So to someone who doesn't have such a presupposition, it can be quite hard to believe without a reference. So if someone has a reference, please add it. --[[User:Erkkimon|Erkkimon]] 18:21, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

:"I haven't found any evidence for that proposition" may mean you haven't yet opened your mind to it. Atheists censor disclosure of the harm they cause, but that doesn't prevent the use of logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:22, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

::You're trying to say that I haven't opened my mind to a proposition that atheists are behind these mass murders? I'm not sure if I understood right. But if I did understand right, I want to tell you that I'm quite sure that Kretschmer is also an atheist, because I have analyzed the school mass murders in Finland quite deeply. [http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fapologetiikkawiki.org%2FKoulumassamurhat&sl=fi&tl=en This article] is mainly written by me and it should prove that I have opened my mind to the idea of mass murdering atheists. But you have to understand that we can't just guess. It doesn't prove anything. So I'll ask again. Is there any proof, that is not just a claim, that Tim Kretschmer was an atheist or naturalist or anti-semitist or anti-christian? --[[User:Erkkimon|Erkkimon]] 20:48, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Wearing all black as a teenager is suggestive of anti-Christian beliefs. Other examples in this entry illustrate that. I welcome more evidence, but am not going to play dumb amid [[liberal denial]] by others.

::: Your entry that you link above takes a small step towards the truth, yet ignores how deadly anti-Christian animus is, and how many self-described atheists suffer from it. It's not a mental illness, but a belief system that results from being misled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:42, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested addition ==

[http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/18390116/detail.html] Derik A. Bonestroo, age 24.

"Boulder Undersheriff Tom Shoemaker said, "The suspect ... fired a shot into the ceiling and yelled something about religion to the employees.”

"He (the suspect) barged in and wanted to know who was a Christian and who wasn't a Christian," said Sheriff Joe Pelle." [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 14:14, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

: That's not even close to the level of the examples here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::He killed himself, a Catholic man, and a cat. That puts him above Asa Coon's kill count, and, depending on how you count the cat, above or equal to Kimveer Gill's kill count. [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 14:59, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::: We don't count cats as humans, and you're ignoring the huge disparity in numbers wounded. Also, a working 24-year-old who is no longer a student is not considered "young".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:01, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: I didn't suggest you counted cats as humans. Asa Coon wounded four, Bonestroo wounded a deputy and killed a Catholic man. That's not that far out of scale. You've got one example of similar age on the page, and one that is three years older. Why are you so opposed to this entry? [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 15:07, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: Andy, just let him add that entry. He is factually correct, and your points contradict the rest of the article.

:::::: The suggested addition is not even close to the level of the current examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 07:54, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

== Possibly Unnecessary Column? ==

Do we need a column with the liberal response? While I am all for outing the liberals for their ignorance and hypocrisy, it seems a bit extraneous alongside this particular article. I must say, though, this article is extremely well done! I especially like the "beliefs" column. Where else can I find that? Not anywhere in the mainstream media! It's good to see that we care about the truth. [[User:Krazor|Krazor]] 13:33, 4 December 2009 (EST)

:Thanks for pointing out the uniqueness of this entry. But the extra column about "liberal response" is also informative, is it not? It's an eye-opener as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 4 December 2009 (EST)

:: I must say, it truly is. Thank you for taking the time to respond, Mr. Schlafly! May God give you peace! [[User:Krazor|Krazor]] 20:46, 6 December 2009 (EST)

==Asa Coon and Kimveer Gill ==
Most criminologists refer to mass murder as "the killing of four or more people in a single event" despite the fact that mass murder was their goal, they do not, in fact meet that criteria. I would suggest making a a seperate page on school shootings. Anyway, in the meanwhile, I am going to remove them from this list as they don't meet the criteria.--[[User:WilliamMc|WilliamMc]] 10:22, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:Don't do that, but do contribute your thoughts to our [[mass murder]] article. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:23, 18 December 2009 (EST)

==Page move==
I suggest moving the page to "Mass murderers". Nothing about the age of the murderer has anything to do with their motivations. What matters is the environment that led to these terrible acts. By making "young" a requirement, we're either going to be misleading (like potentially inferring that Amy Bishops was a young woman) or incomplete (by omitting mass murderers like Amy Bishops because she wasn't young). Let's keep Conservapedia both accurate and complete and move the page. Thanks, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 09:44, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:Perhaps it would be best to merge with [[Mass murder]]? [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 09:47, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::No, the age is relevant, and it was their beliefs that DID matter very much. And where did they get those beliefs at their young age? You'll see that many in school and on the internet propagate such disastrous belief systems. For every one who goes on a murderous rampage, there are hundreds or thousands who suffer mentally and emotionally to lesser extents ... due to their belief system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:::Please, Mr. Schlafly, reconsider my request. Mistakenly implying that Bishop was young is misleading. Intentionally doing so is deceitful. You have stated that the criteria for young is nowhere near Bishop's 54 years of age. I know you will open your mind and make the right choice to improve the accuracy of Conservapedia. How about "publicly schooled mass murderers"? Thank you, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 10:21, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::::Amy Bishop began killing at what, age 19? If you like, you can add a footnote explaining that her rampage continued until age 54.

::::More generally, your objection is nit-picky to the point of the absurd. Diluting the entire entry is not the way to handle one caveat. Please open your mind for the important information conveyed by the entry: what kids are taught, and what they believe, ''does'' matter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:07, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:::::A wise man once said, "I don't want to perpetuate this debate, but I don't want a lack of response to be misinterpreted". Bishop was not 19 when she killed her brother. Bishop has not been convicted of murder for the killing of her brother and you know that you don't know if it was in fact murder. You have seemingly ignored yet endorsed my point that what people are taught is what matters, which is why the article would undoubtedly be more accurate if it were "publicly schooled mass murderers". Can you deny this? You can name call it nitpicking, I call it what it is: factual accuracy. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 11:19, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::Jeff, are you debating this matter, in a liberal vs. conservative way, or are you trying to improve the article? If it's the latter, please stick to the point and avoid personal remarks such as, "Intentionally doing so is deceitful." First, last, and only warning. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:03, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:::Good point, Ed. Jeff, how old was Bishop when she killed her brother? You say that "Bishop was not 19 when she killed her brother." Then you seem to deny that she killed him at all, which would be false. Moreover, your suggested title of "public schooled mass murderers" would not be as precise for all the entries as "young mass murderers." Simply put, your suggestion introduces more inaccuracies then it would allegedly repair.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:20, 16 February 2010 (EST)
::::Mr. Schlafly, you are mistaken. I did not deny that Bishop killed her brother. Please focus on these three simple questions: Do you deny that you are in no position to rule the killing of Seth Bishop a murder? Do you deny that Bishop is not a young woman? Do you deny that public schooling was more important than age in these murders? Thanks, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 12:58, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:::::Jeff, please first answer my simple question (and correct your misstatements, if necessary). Was Bishop 19 when she killed her brother, or what age was she? You expressly claimed she was not 19.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:16, 16 February 2010 (EST)
::::::I am glad to answer your question. According to [http://newinfo.uah.edu/news/newspages/campusnews.php?id=172 bio] she was born 4/24/65. The killing occurred on 12/6/86 according to various sources. That would make her over 21. I await your answers to my questions. Thanks, [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 13:36, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:::::::I wonder why you emphasized that Bishop was not 19 when she killed her brother, if she was merely slightly older. In response to your questions, "Do you deny that you are in no position to rule the killing of Seth Bishop a murder?" I would not, and did not, attempt to "rule" on anything. But Bishop's killing of her brother (and her conduct immediately afterward) is highly suggestive of murder. Do you deny that? Second question, "Do you deny that Bishop is not a young woman?" Bishop first killed when she was a young woman, and then while still in her 20s was a suspect in the attempted murder of a professor who was critical of her. No, she's not particularly young now. Third question, "Do you deny that public schooling was more important than age in these murders?" Public schooling is a big part of the problem. But this entry focuses on a particular type of murder, and the common thread is more than the fact that most or all went to public school.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:15, 16 February 2010 (EST)
::::::::This entry focuses on a particular type of murder, and the common thread is more than the fact that most or all were young. I wish we could agree on that and follow my original suggestion of moving the article to "mass murderers". [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 15:21, 16 February 2010 (EST)

:::::::::No, because we don't include the many people who become mass murderers at an older age, such as Charles Manson.

:::::::::You protest too much. Your real objection seems to be with the numerous examples, but the facts speak for themselves and we're here to tell the facts. Wikipedia is better for those who want to conceal or deny facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:07, 16 February 2010 (EST)
::::::::::I have verified that every person on this list went to public school. Your claim that the change to "publicly schooled mass murderers" would cause more problems than it solved was a falsehood, as there is not even an exception, unlike the nebulous criterion of youth. Ironically, Manson also went to public school and committed mass murder in his thirties (unlike Bishop who was in her fifties). I'm here to set facts straight and you cannot deny that Amy Bishop did not commit mass murder as a young woman without loosing all credibility. I sense your patience is wearing thin, so i shall try to improve other articles. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 16:22, 16 February 2010 (EST)

Jeff, if you feel there is evidence that young mass murderers in the US have been influenced by public schools, why not add that to the article? We can decide later on a page move, which is just an administrative function. Editorial integrity comes first, don't you think? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:41, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:I completely agree, Ed. Unfortunately, after making changes after Andy and I agreed that we could not rule Seth Bishop's killing a murder and that the article was about a particular type of murder (not killing), the article was locked. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 16:47, 16 February 2010 (EST)

::Try taking a more cooperative or humble tone, and you'll find other writers more comfortable with your suggestions. Also, your claim, "Bishop was not 19 when she killed her brother," is contradicted by the 2nd of the two articles I just now googled up.
::*Before Bishop, who was 19 at the time, could be booked the police chief back then called officers and told them to release her to her mother ... [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/13/amy-bishop-killed-brother_n_461512.html]
::Who was it who said that we are entitled to our opinions, but not to our own set of facts? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:52, 17 February 2010 (EST)

== Serial killer vs. mass murder ==

The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines ''serial killing'' as the ''the unlawful homicide of at least two people, carried out in a series over a period of time. Although this definition was established in the United States, it has been largely accepted in Europe and elsewhere, but the crime is not formally recognized in any legal code, including that of the United States. '''Serial murder is distinguished from mass murder, in which several victims are murdered at the same time and place.''' ''

On Conservapedia, we read that [[Mass murder]] is ''the killing of large numbers of people. '' (The examples given in the article are all of genocide, perhaps an example of a terrorist attack should be added).

A [[serial killer]] is - according to Conservapedia ''a murderer who is responsible for multiple killings carried out on separate occasions. ''

On this very talk page, Aschlafly defines ''young'': ''What is the cutoff for "young"? It's the same definition as for anything else. Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21.--Aschlafly 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST) ''

The facts:
* When Amy Bishop killed her brother, she no older than 21.
* When she killed he colleagues, she was 45 - and so, she wasn't young any longer (unless you claim that she is ''still in school'')

Two questions:
[[Jeffrey Dahmer]] was 18 when he killed his first victim. Does this make him a ''young mass murderer''?
Amy Bishop may have been a murder age 19. But she became a ''mass murderer'' age 45. [[Adolf Hitler]] was 43 when he came to power in Germany. Is he a '' '''young mass murderer''' '', too?

That said, I think that A. Bishop is a mass murderer '''and''' a serial killer. She just isn't a ''young'' mass murderer. Generally, it doesn't make sense to speak about a ''young serial killer'' - at least not if his murders happened over an extended period of time.

[[User:PhilG|PhilG]] 13:08, 18 February 2010 (EST)

Troy

2010-02-18T18:06:09Z

PhilG: spelling, corrected link

[[Image:Troy location.png|right|300px]]
''For the city in [[New York]] State see [[Troy (NY)]].''

'''Troy''' (Greek: Τροία) also known as Ilium, was the chief city of the [[Trojans]] in [[Asia Minor]]. It was attacked and laid siege to by the [[Greeks]] in the [[Trojan War]], an historical event described in poetic terms in [[Homer]]'s [[Iliad]]. One date put forth for when this occurred is 1184 B.C.<ref>Encyclopedia of Military History, Dupuy & Dupuy, 1979</ref> The German archaeologist [[Heinrich Schliemann]] identified the most probable site of Troy in the 1870's.

The ancient [[Roman]]s believed that they were descended from the Trojans, through [[Aeneas]], a Trojan prince who fled the city after the Greeks sacked it. This story is told in [[Virgil]]'s [[Aeneid]], the most important Roman epic poem.

==References==

<References/>

{{Nb mythology iliad}}
[[Category:cities]]

Swiss People's Party

2010-02-02T15:00:57Z

PhilG: I forgot romansch - sorry!

The '''Swiss People's Party''' or '''Democratic Union of the Centre''' ([[German]]: ''Schweizerische Volkspartei'' - SVP, [[French]]: ''Union Démocratique du Centre'' - UDC, [[Italian]]: ''Unione Democratica di Centro'' - UDC, [[Romansch]]: ''Partida Populara Svizra'' - PPS) was founded in 1971 by the merger of the Farmers, Artisans, and Citizens’ Party—generally known as the Agrarian Party—with the Democratic Party. It has pursued [[conservative]] social and economic policies, including lower taxes and reduced spending, as well as the protection of Swiss agriculture and industry. The party has also opposed Swiss membership in international bodies such as the [[United Nations]], which Switzerland did not join until 2002.

Over the course of several recent elections, it has continually grown in power and (as of 2008) holds the most parliamentary seats of any party at the federal level. Its policies emphasize free market economics, low taxes, neutrality regarding foreign affairs, a tough stance on crime and a reduction of unwanted immigration. The party has enjoyed repeated success in mobilizing popular majorities for referenda and popular initiatives, often managing to set the political agenda against strong opposition from establishmnet elites.

In 2007 elections for the fourth election in a row the SVP won a significant, and largely unexpected victory. At the same time the liberal Social Democrats (SPS) did quite poorly; the SPS allies on the left, the Greens (GPS), did well.

==Also See==
* [[Switzerland]]
* [http://www.parties-and-elections.de/switzerland.html Parties & Elections in Europe]
* [http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Swiss+People%27s+Party New York Daily News articles]
* [http://www.cvp.ch/de/home/home.html;jsessionid=BC4D12234250BDD8ACA82B569F8D4142 Official Website]

[[category:Conservatives]]
[[category:Switzerland]]

Swiss People's Party

2010-01-26T15:19:12Z

PhilG: Democratic Union of the Centre

The '''Swiss People's Party''' or '''Democratic Union of the Centre''' ([[German]]: ''Schweizerische Volkspartei'' - SVP, [[French]]: ''Union Démocratique du Centre'' - UDC, [[Italian]]: ''Unione Democratica di Centro'' - UDC) was founded in 1971 by the merger of the Farmers, Artisans, and Citizens’ Party—generally known as the Agrarian Party—with the Democratic Party. It has pursued [[conservative]] social and economic policies, including lower taxes and reduced spending, as well as the protection of Swiss agriculture and industry. The party has also opposed Swiss membership in international bodies such as the [[United Nations]], which Switzerland did not join until 2002.

Over the course of several recent elections, it has continually grown in power and (as of 2008) holds the most parliamentary seats of any party at the federal level. Its policies emphasize free market economics, low taxes, neutrality regarding foreign affairs, a tough stance on crime and a reduction of unwanted immigration. The party has enjoyed repeated success in mobilizing popular majorities for referenda and popular initiatives, often managing to set the political agenda against strong opposition from establishmnet elites.

In 2007 elections for the fourth election in a row the SVP won a significant, and largely unexpected victory. At the same time the liberal Social Democrats (SPS) did quite poorly; the SPS allies on the left, the Greens (GPS), did well.

==Also See==
* [[Switzerland]]
* [http://www.parties-and-elections.de/switzerland.html Parties & Elections in Europe]
* [http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Swiss+People%27s+Party New York Daily News articles]
* [http://www.cvp.ch/de/home/home.html;jsessionid=BC4D12234250BDD8ACA82B569F8D4142 Official Website]

[[category:Conservatives]]
[[category:Switzerland]]

Swiss People's Party

2010-01-26T13:16:08Z

PhilG: multilingual country

The Swiss People's Party ([[German]]: ''Schweizerische Volkspartei'' - SVP, [[French]]: ''Union Démocratique du Centre'' - UDC) was founded in 1971 by the merger of the Farmers, Artisans, and Citizens’ Party—generally known as the Agrarian Party—with the Democratic Party. It has pursued [[conservative]] social and economic policies, including lower taxes and reduced spending, as well as the protection of Swiss agriculture and industry. The party has also opposed Swiss membership in international bodies such as the [[United Nations]], which Switzerland did not join until 2002.

Over the course of several recent elections, it has continually grown in power and (as of 2008) holds the most parliamentary seats of any party at the federal level. Its policies emphasize free market economics, low taxes, neutrality regarding foreign affairs, a tough stance on crime and a reduction of unwanted immigration. The party has enjoyed repeated success in mobilizing popular majorities for referenda and popular initiatives, often managing to set the political agenda against strong opposition from establishmnet elites.

In 2007 elections for the fourth election in a row the SVP won a significant, and largely unexpected victory. At the same time the liberal Social Democrats (SPS) did quite poorly; the SPS allies on the left, the Greens (GPS), did well.

==Also See==
* [[Switzerland]]
* [http://www.parties-and-elections.de/switzerland.html Parties & Elections in Europe]
* [http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Swiss+People%27s+Party New York Daily News articles]
* [http://www.cvp.ch/de/home/home.html;jsessionid=BC4D12234250BDD8ACA82B569F8D4142 Official Website]

[[category:Conservatives]]
[[category:Switzerland]]