Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Bible

2011-04-06T15:54:49Z

Ptorquemada:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
{{protect|MountainDew}}

[[Talk:Bible/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Bible/Archive 2|Archive 2]]

==What the serpent said==
In Genesis 3:1, the serpent questions what God said concerning the tree of life. "Com'on, Eve...did God really say you can't eat from that tree?" One can transliterate this verse any way they want, but the meaning remains the same: Satan did not attack God personally, but he attacked His word, questioning what He said, and trying to make Eve question it too, which she ultimately did.

Unfortunately, the situation today regarding the Bible is pretty much the same, and it caused some heated debates here. This article is about the description and history of the Bible, nothing more. Textual criticism belongs in a separate article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==''La'' or ''Ta''==
Look, Karajou. Let's be reasonable about this. The fact is that ''la'' is not a definite article in Greek. Not in Ancient Greek, not in Koine Greek and not in Modern Greek. If you do a Google search of [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22definite+article%22+Greek "definite article" Greek], you'll get dozens of pages that all show the exact same declension. Or go and look it up in a dictionary or grammar. ''Biblia'' is neuter plural, thus the correct article is ''ta'' - ton biblion, ta biblia.

This is not a question of doctrine or scripture or exegesis or anything. It is a simple question of what the definite article is in Greek. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 16:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with you as to the definite article in Greek, and I do agree with you on being reasonable. If the term ''ta biblia'' was used in the 2nd century AD to describe the books of the Bible as a whole, I most certainly will change the article to reflect that. I am going to hit the books tomorrow at MTSU, and I will go through many works by experts in ancient languages (the term has to be 2nd century Greek, not 20th century Greek); the results of which and where they came from will be posted. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:28, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::That sounds like a lot of work for one entirely uncontroversial detail. Just look it up in in '''A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature''' by Friedrich Blass ''et.al.'', or '''A Grammar of New Testament Greek''' by James Hope Moulton ''et.al.'' [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 11:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, since you researched it, I'm going to post the info immediately. All I need now is the page numbers of the books where they are located (as per MLA), plus publisher and date published for the reference section. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Very well, if you insist. They're in my office, and it's after hours here. I'll get them for you sometime tomorrow or the day after that. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 12:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Still waiting on the page numbers. I found the publishers, and I used the American published version of the Blass work as the source. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:24, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Here we go:

<blockquote>Moulton, James Hope. '''A Grammar of New Testament Greek'''. Wilbert Francis Howard, ed. Vol 2. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920. P. 117.</blockquote>

<blockquote>Blass, Friedrich and A. Debrunner. '''Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch.''' Friedrich Rehkopf, ed. 14th edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976. §249-276.</blockquote>

<blockquote>Bauer, Walter. '''Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Scriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Litteratur'''. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, eds. 6th edition. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1988. Heading βιβλίον, columns 281-82.</blockquote>

:Moulton has an excellent table of the inflections of the definite article. If more information is needed, Blass contains more than anyone would ever want to know about articles in Κοινὴ. And in case there is still doubt, Bauer shows quite clearly that the correct article for βιβλίον is το, hence τα βιβλία. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 15:06, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Much appreciated; in fact, the German titles have been included as well in the reference section. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I come in late on the discussion, probably after the fact, but the Greek plural for "the Scriptures" is probably much effected by the underlying current Hebrew. Though "the writings" (which is what the Scriptures means), is used for the 3rd compilation of the three part title, The Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings, it is also used for all three together."HaKetuvim". This word is in the plural form, and is most naturaly translated, "the writings" or "the Scriptures", which would make its appearance, at a later stage, in the Greek "ta biblia". "ton Biblia" (ta biblia in plural) properly means "the book" reflecting a stage that the writing (graphe) was no longer on scrolls (megilah). The word, and the way behind it, was taken from the city of Biblos (the ancient Geval) on the coast of what is now Lebanon where the book form came to be as opposed to the previous scroll form. There was another Hebrew word then in use for the whole Old Testament as well as "ketuvim". This is the word "Mikr'a", which properly means "reading". The frequent use of the word Scriptures in the New Testament probably reflects the Hebrew underlying HaKetuvim, which itself denoted some sort of closed canon of what was considered Holy Writings. The Old Testament that we know

Just a comment on the Greek words now no longer in contention "La" or "Ta", I don't really know what fed into the idea of "La" (which is not Greek}, but "La" does mean something ''in Hebrew'' and does possibly bear on the original discussion. "La"( which is the normal contraction of Le (to) and Ha (the), in front of Scriptures means "to the Scriptures" or "pertaining to the Scriptures"[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 08:22, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

==Article Name==
This name of this article should be The Holy Bible. [[User:Epicon|Epicon]] 02:46, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== New American Standard Bible ==

Who created the NASB? The Catholic Church[http://www.bible-researcher.com/nab.html] or the Lockman foundation?[[User_talk:Ymmotrojam#New_American_Standard_Version|Discussion on this matter]]. [[User:Hannibal ad portas|Hannibal ad portas]] 13:34, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
:[http://www.scionofzion.com/nasvx.htm This] also makes for interesting perusal [[User:Fox|Fox]] 13:40, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, I didn't realise there were 2 New American Bibles (''Standard'' and Catholic). [[User:Hannibal ad portas|Hannibal ad portas]] 21:56, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

==Request SysOp==
Would it be possible, and agreable, to add another translation/version to the list currently held on the page? The version I would like to propose adding is the [[Complete Jewish Bible]], which is the version used by the majority of [[Messianic Judaism|Messianic Jews]]. Some brief blurbs can be seen [http://www.onlinebible.org/html/eng/bible-info/complete-jewish-bible.html here] and [http://www.messianicjewish.net/jntp/complete-jewish-bible.html here]. [[User:Fox|Fox]] 10:32, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== Concordia Self Study Bible ==

Please add [[Concordia Self Study Bible]] to version. [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 23:50, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Changes Needed ==
The article appears to be locked, so here's some changes that need to be made:
* Intro paragraph: Assumes every Bible adheres to the Palestinian canon; some do not. Some sects have three parts to their Bible: The OT, the Apocrypha, and the NT. Some have an OT, an NT, and an Appendix. Some have a larger OT than others.
* The Old Testament: Again, assumes Palestinian canon. The Tanakh is not the same thing as the Old Testament; it coincides with the OT of some sects, but it is a subset of the OT of other sets.
* Tyndale: Says that Tyndale's translation led "finally to the KJV." Since there have been many revisions/new translations using the KJV as a base, one might say that the Tyndale stream has not yet reached its end. Where it will finally lead, no one knows. Recent Bibles claiming a Tyndale genealogy include the NRSV and the ESV.
* KJV: The "Textus Receptus" was not a translation (except for a few portions of Rev backtranslated from Latin), and it is arguable whether a Textus Receptus even existed at that time.
* KJV: The possessive form of it should be its.
* KJV: Shakespeare did not use the KJV throughout most of his life, and it is doubtful that he used it very much near the end. He would've used the Geneva or Bishop's Bibles.
* KJV: Milton probably used the Geneva, not the KJV.
* KJV: Ref number 5 is a broken link. Suggest removing it until a source for the quote can be found.
--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 09:59, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:Regarding your first two points, I think as it stands the current article is specifically about the [[Christian Bible]]. We Jews, of course also use the term ''the Bible'' to refer to our own scriptures (needless to say, exclusive of the NT).

:It's a matter of terminology. Christians say ''the Bible'' meaning OT + NT. Jews say ''the Bible'' and mean a different, but mostly overlapping set of "books". The Judeo-Christian heritage is based heavily on the first five books of the Bible. Christian study materials for young children (see [[Sunday School]]) draw heavily on Old Testament stories: Creation, Garden of Eden, Noah and the flood, Moses in the bulrushes & leading the people of God to freedom, etc. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:10, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:Ignoring the role of the Reformation in redefining the canon is rather misleading; a niave reader would assume that the Vulgate was correctly defined by the opening paragraph as having those books and no others. [[User:Canuck|Canuck]] 22:10, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

== Best-selling book? ==

This comment, in the first paragraph of the article, really trivializes the Bible. The Bible is not a consumer good, OK? Please remove that comment. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 09:49, 17 November 2007 (EST)
:No. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:20, 17 November 2007 (EST)

== Please remove categories ==

Please remove categories ''religion'' and ''Book of Worship'', as they are supercategories of ''bible''. Also, if you could change the format to <nowiki>[[Category:Bible|*]]</nowiki> so that bible appears at the top of the list of that category. Thanks. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 12:54, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Suggestions ==
As per TerryH's ideas regarding film adaptations (See my talk page for that.), I feel we should list the film adaptations of the Bible. Also, another English Bible, and the one I use: [www.skepticsannotatedbible.com The Skeptic's Annotated Bible]. Surely, it can't hurt to list that as well, can it? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:07, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:I think we should stick to listing versions with credibility. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:50, 1 March 2008 (EST)
::With what respect is due, Philip J. Rayment, I believe that the King James Version of the Holy Bible is, in fact, a version with credibility. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:01, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::: Oh come on! You know full well I was talking about the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, not the AV itself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:10, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Original version of this made no sense. In any case, Philip, do you have an issue with annotations? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:58, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::::: With ''those'' annotations, yes. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:42, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::::::What is your issue? Are they factually incorrect, or do you simply disagree with the opinion presented? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:50, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::::::: More like logically fallacious. Here's an analysis of a few from Genesis 1[http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/1.html]:
:::::::* "''(1:1-2:3) The Genesis 1 account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science.''": This is really a case saying "My view is right, your's is different, so yours is wrong". That's the fallacy of begging the question. The same applies to the next two points for the same verses, so I'll skip them.
:::::::* "''(1:3-5, 14-19) ... God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day''": So? Is this trying to claim that God cannot make light by any other means? Given that even us humans can, this is a ludicrous claim.
:::::::* "''And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?''": Quite easily. To mark the days you need a rotating Earth and a source of light. The account already mentions that there was a source of light, so what's the problem?
:::::::* "''God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters.''": The Bible says nothing about a "solid firmament". This is an invention, probably due to a misunderstanding of what the Hebrew for "firmament" means. It has nothing to do with "firmness".
:::::::* "''(1:11-13) ... Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes ''": So? There's two answers to this. First, there was already ''light'', and that's what the plants need, not the sun specifically. Second, they had to survive 24 hours without the sun! Wow! How long do the Skeptics think a plant can survive without light?
::::::: That's enough to give you an idea. I skipped a few, mainly because the explanations would have been a bit longer. But essentially, they've said ''nothing'' accurate in those first few. The annotations have no credibility.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:01, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::::::::I might take you seriously if you cited a single fallacy among those, Philip. But, in the interest of fairness, I'll go through and criticise your answers.
:::::::: 1: Yes. It goes against the way things are shown to have happened. How is that fallicious?
:::::::: 2: For one, humans can't, our glorious creations can. For two, yes, that's exactly what it is claiming.
:::::::: 3: No, it says that there was light, not a source of light-- Unless of course you count Yahweh.
:::::::: 4: Then pray tell, what does firmament mean?
:::::::: 5: Not very long. You see, Philip, plants use sunlight in combination with the chloroform in their leaves or needles to create a type of sugar which they use for food. Without this, they'll die rather quickly.
:::::::: Now then, can you please cite something that is actually a logical fallacy, complete with a mention of what logical fallacy it is? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:54, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::::::::: 1. The Bible says it happened one way. Evolutionists say it happened another way. You have two competing accounts, and you are judging the veracity of one account (the biblical one) by comparing it to the other account (the evolutionary one). That is, as I said, the fallacy of begging the question.
::::::::: 2. Humans ''can''. Yes, they have to use tools or "their creations" to do so, but they can. And even if we couldn't, it doesn't follow that God couldn't.
::::::::: 3. If there is light, there must be a source of light, even if that is God Himself.
::::::::: 4. You don't know? How about doing a bit of proper research, instead of just reading Skeptic rubbish?
::::::::: 5. How long is "not very long"? Less than 24 hours?
::::::::: I did name a logical fallacy, in the first one. Most of the rest would fall under Red Herrings, or Excluded Middles.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: 1. One is science, supported by years upon years of research, and the other is religion, supported by a book written by bronze agers.
:::::::::: 2. Of course, right. Deus ex machina. Arguing against the powers of your deity is futile.
:::::::::: 3. Indeed, unless of course we are to interpret the verse as your God creating the concept of light.
:::::::::: 4. Tsk, tsk. It is not my job to define your terms.
:::::::::: 5. Yes, Phil. Less than 24 hours.
:::::::::: ... How do any of them fall under excluded middles? :/ Red herring, maybe, but so much of the Bible is.
:::::::::: Finally, RE: Skeptic "rubbish." Yeah, darn dissenters have never done anything good. Earth's flat, just so you know. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:09, 6 March 2008 (EST)
(unindent)1. When two people disagree, the only way to get agreement is to argue from common ground. Arguing that the other's view is wrong because it doesn't fit with your own view is the fallacy of begging the question. I have pointed out above that the first point listed is a case of begging the question, because it is arguing that the Bible is wrong because it doesn't fit with the evolutionary view. Yet your answer, that one (evolution) is science supported by much research, and the other (creation) is based a book written by primitive people, is not an argument from common ground, but from ''claims'' of evolutionists. That is, the claims that evolution is science and is supported by much research ''are not facts, but evolutionary arguments''! The same applies to your claim about the Bible. So your attempted rebuttal of my claim that the argument is fallacious because it begs the question also ''begs the question''!

2. Your reply is to try and mock because you have no argument. As you have no argument, you've effectively conceded that the Skeptic argument is invalid.

3. Even if it ''could'' be interpreted that way, it doesn't rule out that it ''can'' be read another way, so the argument fails. Proposing another possible way of understanding something does not mean that the first way is wrong, yet the skeptic argument ''requires'' the first way to be wrong.

4. If you are going to make the claim (which you are implicitly doing by endorsing the Skeptic claim), then yes, it is ''your'' job to justify the claim. We are not talking about ''my terms'', but about the correct meaning of a Hebrew word. You (implicitly) claim it to be one thing, so the onus is on you to substantiate that claim, not on me to refute it.

5. I will remind you that I gave ''two'' answers to this one. That is, two ''independent'' answers. So answering one still leaves the other to be answered before the claim is substantiated. But as for your attempt to refute ''one'' of the answers, [http://www.teachersdomain.org/resources/tdc02/sci/life/stru/methusweb/index.html this site] indicates that "most plants [can't] live for more than ''a few days'' without at least some light" (my emphasis).

I wouldn't try and use the flat Earth argument if I were you. It doesn't show evolutionists in a particularly flattering light, given that they effectively ''invented'' the story to discredit creationists! (Read the [[Flat Earth]] article for more.)

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:1. So let me get this straight. One cannot possibly argue that the genesis account is wrong because it has no basis in science?
:2. The powers of a deity are unfalsifiable, therefore it is useless to argue against them.
:3. Oh. So it is your view that god literally created light-- Everywhere, of course, not in a specific location?
:4. Philly, philly. The crud I go through for you. "the vault of heaven; sky" is the definition I got for firmament. Which makes your original response entirely nonsensical.
:5. Most plants also would've had stored energy beforehand. A plant that had never been exposed to sunlight would not.
:Final: Let me get this straight. Evolutionists went back in time, prodded a bronze ager, and said "Psst... Did you know the Earth is flat?" [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:29, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:: 1. (Your question has an ambiguity, but I ''think'' I know which way you mean it.) No, that's not what I said, but yes, your statement is correct, because you are trying to use ''science'' outside its domain, i.e. determining unobservable, untestable past events.
:: 2. In a sense, that's true. That is, Skeptics keep complaining that the creation account is unfalsifiable, yet here we have the Skeptics trying to falsify it! But it's not totally true, because in this case there are arguments that could, ''in principle'', be made, such as arguing that the text does not allow for the explanation I gave. However, the text ''doesn't'' disallow the explanation, and you have no grounds for excluding it. You can't defend an argument by complaining that you have no way of defending it!
:: 3. Huh? It is biblical teaching (and therefore my view) that God created light. It is deducible from biblical teaching (and therefore my view) that the light came from a ''particular direction'' (which is not the same thins as "in a specific location").
:: 4. Okay, seeing as you've actually gone to the trouble of looking it up, I'll apologise for being misleading. Perhaps the idea of it being solid wasn't "invented" as such, as I think the idea of it being solid did arise inadvertently due to a misunderstanding or something like that. However, I was still correct in claiming that it doesn't mean "solid". Your definition "the vault of heaven" would most likely be a euphemism for "sky", the second part of your definition. In other words, it's still not something solid. Furthermore, anybody who's done a modicum of research on the subject should know that, and it's been pointed out before, so it doesn't excuse the Skeptics for using this at all. The best translation of the word is probably "expanse" ({{Bible ref|Genesis|1:2}}. See [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1650 here] for a detailed study of the issue.
:: 5. First, how do you know that God didn't create them with stored energy? That is presuming something that supports your case rather than seeing if there really is a problem. Second, it still ignores that I gave two independent answers, and you are only attempting to address one of them.
:: Did you read [[Flat Earth]]? Your answer indicates that you didn't, but then it wouldn't be the first time you've distorted something beyond recognition.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:32, 7 March 2008 (EST)

== Correction and authorship ==

I believe it is the council of Jamnia not Jemnia.

Also, a reference to what Paul says of scripture 2tim3:16-17 "all scripture is given by god..." and Peter 2Peter1:20-21 "holy men of god spoke as they were moved by the holy ghost" would amplify what the NT says itself about authorship. --[[User:Dale77|Dale77]] 14:33, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:I've fixed the spelling. Your suggestion sounds good. Could you propose some actual wording and say where you think it should go, then I (or someone else) can simply pop it in? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:38, 1 March 2008 (EST)

{{QuoteBox|2.1.4 Inspiration Although the old testament is written by many human authors, new testament authors claim that these men were writing under the inspiration of God. The apostle Paul states in 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness". Similarly the apostle Peter states in 2 Peter 1:20-21 "knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."}}
{{unsigned|Dale77}}
:Done. I didn't know what Bible version you were quoting from, and the links default to the NIV, so I changed the quotes to that version. Thanks for the great suggestion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:53, 2 March 2008 (EST)

== Violence ==
I'm thinking about adding Some Verses about violence in the bible like the Qu'ran page has.Does anyone disagree? {{unsigned|Gobber}}

:And why would you do that when this article does not cover themes? If you feel violence is a part of a story that should be addressed, then do so in the individual books or stories. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:29, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

== Authorship of Job ==

The article says that Moses wrote Job. I can't say that I've every heard that, and even if I have, I can't say that it's something that is universally agreed. What's the evidence for Mosaic authorship? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:03, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
:I am not aware of any direct link. I'm assuming the theory would be based on the idea that both are about equally old, although the Bible itself makes no statement or inference in this area. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:49, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
==Looking for some advise, not sure where to ask==
I am trying to learn more about the early Church(es), and the process of Canonization of the bible, but the only sources I'm finding seem to be very "academic" in that "the bible was written by man" way, rather than the presumption that the bible is indeed holy. What I'm looking for is a good history on how and why the various books of the bible were included in the canon, (Nicene Council), but from a true Christian point of view. Can anyone recommend any books or authors who deal with this area?--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 16:07, 3 November 2008 (EST)
: See [http://www.tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.html here] for the Old Testament and [http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html here] for the New Testament. That second one also recommends [http://www.christian-thinktank.com/canonout.html this]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:17, 3 November 2008 (EST)

== Sources ==

Would some one be able to provide links to the bible's sources? -Brargrar 7:49 11 February, 2009.
: ?
:* The Bible was written before there were hyperlinked documents.
:* Much if not all of the Bible was written by eyewitnesses, not by people using pre-existing documents.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:48, 10 February 2009 (EST)
::I not think that is completely true. Off the top my head, 2 Mc 2:23 clearly states that book itself is an abridgement of a lost five-volume work. The author of Jude in verses 14 and 15 cite a prophecy that is in the apocryphal ''Book of Enoch'' (The same Enoch from Gn 5:21-24).

::There are other references if you can call them that; throughout Bible authors either quote or refer to reader to lost books like ''Book of Jasher'' in Jos 10:13 and 2 Sm 1:18; ''Book of Wars of the Lord'' in Nm 21:14. The ''Book of Jubilees'' is quoted in Rom 2:29, 9:24, 4:13. ''Sirach/Ecclesiasticus'' is quoted Jas 1:19, Lk 1:52, and Mk 4:5, 16-17. There are countless others and study bibles will do a better job than me pointing out references.--[[User:Kencaesi|Kencaesi]] 17:46, 12 February 2009 (EST)

::: I did say "''much'' if not all", but yes, you've proved that it's not all. However, I'll point out that ''referring'' to another book is not the same as being based on it, and I think a number of such references are merely that—pointing out that more information can be found in other books. But some will remain as being sources. Nevertheless, ''much'' of the Bible would still be eyewitness accounts. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:55, 12 February 2009 (EST)

== error in article ==

The article states that the Bible has been translated into "nearly every language on Earth" The complete Bible has only been translated into about 400 languages and the New Testament into about 700. There are still thousands of languages that the Bible has not been translated into. This article should also be expanded to include the work involved in translating the Bible. I have a large number of foreign language translations of the Bible and would like to help out on this page. --[[User:TedM|TedM]] 22:59, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

: Those 400-700 languages cover ... 99% of the world's population? Also, I think your numbers are on the low side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:04, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: The numbers are a bit low, at least the NT one, it seems. [http://www.biblesociety.org/index.php?id=22 This site] lists complete translations being in 438 languages, and "Testaments" translations in 1,168 languages (apparently ''in addition to'' the 438). And yes, they would likely cover the vast majority of the world's population, but the claim that it has been translated into "nearly every language on Earth" is still an overstatement, as worded.
:: TedM, I've unlocked the page; it has been locked long enough.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:38, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

== Biblical Views ==

I would say I am proud not to have any preconceptions about religion, or the lack of it. With this spirit in mind, and a large amount of different educational viewpoints, I decided to read the bible. The overall message of the new testament is a good one (not so much with the old testament), that we should be kind and respect one another. But while this message is one we should all follow, certain things need to be stated. The bible isnt logical, as I've seen many people say. It has many contradictions, things which dont make coherent sence, and stories that can have many different interpritations. Can something about this please be said in the article, in the interest of fairness for all (i.e. the message of the bible). And please dont block me, flame me, or post stupid replys, and bear in mind I have read it, and i can cite opposing statements etc. Oh, and Mr Schlafly, I wouldnt object to a logical conversion attempt, if you agree to civil terms.

PS: I apologise for any bad spelling or grammer, I try my best but dyslexia isnt nice

--[[User:Unlikelyconvert|Unlikelyconvert]] 12:47, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Dear Unlikelyconvert, I would say that it is very difficult to say that one doesn't have any preconception about religion. I can't say that for myself. That is why I often pray for God to undeceive me of anything needing it. I remain a believer in Jesus Christ. There is a great deal in the Bible that seems to be self-contradictory, incoherent, etc. The more I go on in study and in life (I am now 71 years old), the more I see that these flaws are only apparent, with very deep and satisfying solutions. I am sure that if you really quest in the right place and the right way, you will be drawn by God to faith in Jesus Christ.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 05:34, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

==Fixed again==
While I did not delete the recent edits of RJJ and Bert, it needed a slight re-arrangement away from a poor format that pulled some of it off-topic. This article is essentially in three parts: 1) a description of the Bible itself (Old and New Testaments and Apocrypha; 2) the authority of the Bible is religious and daily life; 3) a history of the Bible ''as a document'' only. Anything else, such as specific textual cricisms of different versions, should be addressed in stand-alone articles. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:07, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

== Controversies ==

I have no objection to including the Evangelical version of Bible history, but it should be clearly labeled as such. The earlier part of the article clearly indicates there re multiple viewpoints--and the Evangelical/Fundamentalist one is not held by most Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc. I don't see any possible "synthetic" section that would a) assert Moses wrote key books and b) also assert that Moses did NOT write those books. So let's simply keep the theological assumptions clear; Mark Noll has written a lot about them. (My own background includes a lot of Bible study at Notre Dame and Yale, from two quite different perspectives.) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:23, 24 May 2009 (EDT)
:If it's clearly stated that "so-and-so wrote this", then I have no problem with it, but the main details should be covered in separate articles. From my standpoint, this article and its structure should be about the three points addressed above, as well as respecting God's work as well. The pic I included of the Torah at the Western Wall should be included as well (or a similar one), as it does illustrate the reverence Jews have for it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:34, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

== I fixed the number of books in the OT ==
I changed
:Most Christians, Protestant and Catholic, agree on the books of the New Testament, but the Protestant Bible includes '''66''' books of the Old Testament
to read
:Most Christians, Protestant and Catholic, agree on the '''27''' books of the New Testament, but the Protestant Bible includes '''39''' books of the Old Testament ((by Rickswartzentrover)

:Good correction. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:25, 20 November 2009 (EST)

== Liberal Criticism of the Bible ==

Would it be ok to add the following section to the main page?

Liberals, atheists, and secularists frequently attack the Bible and Christians by selectively taking certain passages out of context. Such attacks are excellent examples of [[liberal deceit]] and fall apart in the face of honest, thoughtful investigation.

Particular favorites of liberals include passages they claim are sexist, such as "Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord." (Ephesians 5:22) or "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet." (1 Timothy 2:12). In reality, those passages reflect deliberate misunderstandings and mistranslations, often by liberals themselves. In the first example, for instance, the phrase "subordinate" would be more accurately translated from the Hebrew "לְהַכפִּיף" as "respectful and loving." Of course, even that might be a problem for liberal feminists.

Another group of passages liberals love to quote is those in which God appears to be violent or wrathful. For example, in Genesis 7:23 God causes a great flood which wipes the earth clean of sinners and evil by drowning the corrupt men who have perverted his vision for humanity. However, while liberals who believe in moral relativism may not understand, God was ensuring the future of humanity by destroying a 'false start' who betrayed his vision by engaging in all kinds of perversion and iniquity.

More importantly, since liberals do not accept that Jesus Christ came to redeem mankind for our sins, they do not understand that the perfection of the Old Testament is found in the New Testament and that the real Truth is His word. What this proves is that God is both stern and merciful; He punishes sinners for their crimes against Him, but also offers them a path to redemption through Christ.

== Weird typos & other issues in "Authority->Roman Catholic" ==

I was glancing at the article at noticed how that section contained odd misspellings ("bishop ov Rome", "Majesterium" instead of "Magisterium", "second comming", "regualtion" should be "regulation"), and there is an attempt to describe papal infallibility in an incorrect manner. Councils (such as Vatican I from which the papal infallibility dogma came) are considered infallible, but only two infallible decisions by a Pope have occurred to this date. It needs to be clarified that the infallible status of infallibility came from the First Vatican Council, not the Pope. Also, the Charismatic Movement is non-denominational. There seems to be a criticism woven into technical language on Scripture interpretation.

I see a lot of other sections with also-unusual typos ("Septuaginta" instead of "Septuagint").

This article is locked - here is my suggested replacement:

'''---BELOW THIS LINE---'''

The Roman Catholic Church, like the Orthodox Churches, has a strong sense of the authority given to the Bishops by Christ to teach, interpret, defend the Faith and therefore to exercise the responsibility to interpret Scripture to the faithful.

Since Vatican II, there has been an increased effort to bring knowledge of Scripture to the laity, resulting in an increase of Scripture reading and study programs throughout the Church. This has been abetted by the non-denominational Charismatic Movement, which has had the effect of promoting individual appropriation of the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit, and with that, the devotional and intellectual use of Holy Scriptures.

However, the role of "Magisterium", that is the teaching authority of the Church, strongly sets limits to individual interpretation. The Roman Catholic Church understands that while the Magisterium is given to all the bishops, the definitive exercise is limited to one bishop - the bishop of Rome, the Pope. Further, it is believed that the Pope, when declaring dogma (teaching) ex-Cathedra (from the chair) speaks infallibly (on matters of faith and morals). This has happened twice since the dogma was defined in the First Vatican Council (Vatican I). In addition, Catholics believe that doctrine from Councils are also infallible.

Rather than hold to a literal interpretation of Scripture, Catholicism looks for "the meaning" and "the message" contained within, promoting the concept of "apostolic succession" - that the bishops are successors of the Apostles, with the successor of Peter, the Pope, as their leader. Interpretation of Scripture and Catholic Tradition by authorities result in such Catholic teachings as the prohibition of abortion."

'''---ABOVE THIS LINE---'''

-[[User:Danq|danq]] 23:25, 14 April 2010 (EDT)

Your revision looks pretty good to me![[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 23:40, 14 April 2010 (EDT)

== The Bible and Islam ==

There's a section here called "Authority of Bible in religious communities". I think it is worthwhile to note somewhere on the Bible page that Islam considers many Biblical characters to be prophets: Abraham and Jesus, for example, but also people such as Adam, Noah, and Mary (mother of Jesus). This is useful information for people considering how to talk about Scripture with Muslims.

== Bible Versions ==
Since the existence of a special version of the bible for the Jehovah's Witnesses is mentioned, would it be worth mentioning the "Inspired Version" by Joseph Smith? It's not really a "translation" so much as an edit of the King James Version, but is usually regarded by the various Latter Day Saints sects as the "best" version of the Bible (being the most in harmony with Smith's other teachings, for reasons one hopes are obvious). The Other Wiki has a reasonably neutral POV article on it. [[User:Ptorquemada|Ptorquemada]] 11:54, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2011-04-06T15:23:59Z

Ptorquemada: Brothers in Arms was included twice, at 14 and 98. removed the latter.

There are many brilliant—and popular—conservative songs.

Here is our growing list:
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L--cqAI3IUI Wouldn't It Be Nice]'', by the [[Beach Boys]]. Pro-marriage.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw5RkzbHb-w You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)]''. Abstinence for rock fans. The versions by [[The Supremes]] and Phil Collins were popular.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6yLQRF-cEU Have You Forgotten?]'', by Darryl Worley. Patriotic response to [[September 11, 2001 attacks]].<ref>http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=15568</ref>
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5aMMRes2u4 Still the One]'', by Orleans (1976). A tribute to fidelity in relationships.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHsDa9_HSlA Sweet Home Alabama]'' by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereotyped attacks by [[liberal]], Canadian rocker Neil Young.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew Stand By Your Man]'', by [[Tammy Wynette]]. Don't expect [[feminists]] to like that one! Or [[Hillary Clinton]]!
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCqZ-9-lDEo Lee Greenwood's rendition] of [[Battle Hymn of the Republic]]. "As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free."
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dFl9OHE-8g The Man Comes Around]'', by [[Johnny Cash]].
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-1_d6bbM1I My Love]'', by [[Petula Clark]]. Christian love in secular form.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16u0wwCfoJ4 I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)]'', originally by the Bobby Fuller Four. Its title says it all. The version by [[The Clash]] has a good tempo.
#"You Light Up My Life" by Debbie Boone. One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].
#"Pomp and Circumstance" ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOcvcBxrfN4 ''Land of Hope & Glory'']) By Freedom gain, by Truth maintain...
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ0oCmDXrVk&mode=related&search= Jerusalem]''. Don't let the sword sleep in the hand.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wahd2piIr4Q Brothers In Arms]'', by [[Dire Straits]]. We're fools to make war on our brothers in arms.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeWZhuzFMM8 The Ascent of Stan]'', by [[Ben Folds]]. Tells the story of a former "textbook hippie man" who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.
#"Starting All Over Again" by [[Petula Clark]]. Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.
#"Thank You My Lord" by [[Petula Clark]]. The title says it all.
#"Brick" by Ben Folds Five. Shows the regret involved in abortion.
#"Alive" by P.O.D. About being thankful for the gift of life.
#"Gotta Serve Somebody" by [[Bob Dylan]]. "It may be the devil or it may be the Lord."<ref>http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html</ref>
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydBPm2KRaU Jesus Take The Wheel]'', by [[Carrie Underwood]]. A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPBwXKgDTdE Mine]'' by Taylor Swift. Talks about how her parents divorced, and how she doesn't want that to happen with the guy she meets, dates, and marries.
#"Red Barchetta" by [[Rush]]. Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.
#"Father of Mine" by Everclear. A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM The Taxman]'', by [[The Beatles]]. George Harrison said, "Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes." <ref>http://home.att.net/~chuckayoub/Taxman_Lyrics.html</ref>
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4eonyfRet8&feature=related Back in the U.S.A.]'', by [[Chuck Berry]]. A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZVPv9B-ZlM Government Cheese]'', by The Rainmakers. Humorous spoof of welfare.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErPywgiMb4k Angry Young Man]'' by [[Billy Joel]]. The doctrinaire leftist radical with "his fist in the air and his head in the sand" comes in for biting criticism.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzU2iJ9qfXg Gimme Back My Bullets]'', by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. The name says it all.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPPlGFh6OpQ Spirit In The Sky]'', by Norman Greenbaum.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38oeBgvbMYA Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun]'', by Grand Funk Railroad. A father gives his son some sage advice.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=096LhjGNNCk Something For Nothing]'', by Rush. "You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free."
#"Neighborhood Bully" by [[Bob Dylan]]. Israel's right to exist and defend itself.
#"Get It Right the First Time" by Louisiana's Le Roux. Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own. Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.
#"Only The Young" by Journey. "The shadows of a golden age, a generation waits for dawn, the brave carry on, the bold and the strong". An anthem for the Reagan Generation.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o Yours Is No Disgrace]'', by [[Yes]]. Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.
#"Fair Exchange" and "Sparks of the Tempest" by [[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]. Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 80s material, which has Christian lyrics.
#"In America" by the [[Charlie Daniels]] Band. Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
#"Storm the Embassy" by the Stray Cats. Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis.
#"We Must Take America Back" by Steve Vaus. Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.
#"Renegade" by [[Steppenwolf]]. [[John Kay]]'s childhood escape from Communist [[East Germany]].
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqXAW2snGMI Capitalism]'', by Oingo Boingo. There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.
#"Unborn Child" by Seals and Crofts. This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.
#"Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)" by Steve Taylor. Takes aim at LA and NY hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and "the left-wing band with their head in the sand".
#"Last Kiss" by Wayne Cochran and the C.C. Riders, covered by other artists. "Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when I leave this world"<ref>http://www.songmeanings.net/lyric.php?lid=14</ref>
#"Love Me, I'm a Liberal" by Phil Ochs. Revealing Liberal hypocrisy for what it is.
#"America USA" by [http://giveagiftofsong.com/products.htm] Joey Sudyka. Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6XZDb045xU Red White and Blue]'', by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]].
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBohsCG8emk Simple Man]'', by [[Charlie Daniels]]. A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.
#"That Smell" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A very strong anti-drug use song by America's most well-known Southern rock band.
#Virtually anything by Toby Keith, but especially "Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)".
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pldyz9VS2yY Under God]'', by [[Pat Boone]].
#"Christmas Shoes" by NewSons. A Christmas song by a Christian band.
#"God Bless the USA" by Lee Greenwood.<ref>http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/proudtobeamerican.html</ref>
#"God Bless America" Words and music by Irving Berlin.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed]'' by Yes. "...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you..."
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g Supper'sReady] [[Genesis (band)|Genesis]]''. ''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, "This is the supper of the mighty one", Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoaH0I9UwLI Your Love Is Extravagant]'' Casting Crowns
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnnhYE1DhC4 What If His People Prayed]'' Casting Crowns
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EBiei21-C8 King Without a Crown]'' by Matisyahu. A Hasidic Jew raps about God as the source of happiness and salvation from the things of this world: "If you're drowning in the waters and you can't stay afloat ask Hashem for mercy and He'll throw you a rope."
#"Take Me Home, Country Roads" by John Denver (and others). Celebrates Southern country landscape and traditions.
#"Sin City" by the Flying Burrito Brothers. Attacks modern decadence and predicts divine punishment for sin.
#"I Saw the Light" by Hank Williams (and numerous cover versions). Redemption from sin through faith.
#"No Son of Mine" by Genesis.
#"Don't Stop" (Thinking About Tomorrow) by Fleetwood Mac.<ref>Used by Bill Clinton as his campaign theme song in 1992, but liberals often try to appeal to conservative themes for elections.</ref>
#"Lightning Crashes" by Live. The joy and significance of childbirth.
#"Takin' Care of Business" by Bachman-Turner Overdrive. The work ethic and promoting self-employment.
#"Cat's In The Cradle" by Harry Chapin. The importance of traditional families and responsible fatherhood.
#''[http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=6547 The Devil Went Down To Georgia]'', by [[Charlie Daniels]]. A deeper message here, as Daniels explains.
#"Big Money" by Rush - Pro-[[capitalism]]
#"Real American" by Rick Derringer - patriotic anthem, known as [[Hulk Hogan]]'s pre-match song
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1lSMXE3W8w&feature=related Amazing Grace]'', a Christian hymn written by English poet and clergyman [[John Newton]] (1725–1807), published in 1779.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP5EfwBWgg0&feature=related Go Down Moses]'', performed by: [[Louis Armstrong]]; written by: Sy (Arr) Oliver.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5zEP4kvfnc Walking Contradiction]'' by [[Green Day]]. Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]], here [[Green Day]] mocks the often self-contradictory and inconsistent [[liberal]] ideologies, hence the term "walking contradiction".
#"God and Guns" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A powerful new song that elaborates on the song title.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQtnPOfId0Y Be My Escape]'' by [[Relient K]]. Actually a popular song among non-conservatives too.
#''Staying Alive'', by the Bee Gees. Pro-people and pro-staying alive, and this: "We can try to understand; The [[New York Times]]' effect on man."
#''Sympathy for the Devil'' by the Rolling Stones. Reminds humanity that nobody is perfect and evil is present in the world and needs to be fought.
#''All In'' by Lifehouse.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVsZap7WBm8</ref> Describes a relationship with God as being full of commitment and without reservations.
#"[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y5GDvN9_OE The Ballad of the Green Berets]", by Sergeant Barry Sadler. Pro-American and pro-military.
#''Iraq No Phobia'' by Pro-Pain. It is a pro-American, pro-military heavy metal song about the first [[Gulf War]] ''"Mohammed's no match for the great Uncle Sam."''
#''Bus Stop'', by The Hollies. Pro-romance and pro-marriage: "Someday my name and hers are going to be the same."
#''Stranger in Blue Suede Shoes'' by Kevin Ayers. Defends the right of businessmen to choose their customers: "we don't serve strangers in blue suede shoes".
# "Union Sundown" by Bob Dylan. The title says it all.
# "People Get Ready" by Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions. An all-time classic song about the glory of the [[Lord]].
#"Get A Job" by The Silhouettes. Self-explanatory; a rebuke to lazy [[liberals]] who want to sit around and wait for government handouts.
# "Don't Tread on Me" by Metallica. Pretty self-explanitory meaning.
# "Hypnotize" by System of a Down. SOAD is a rather left-ish band although this song is about liberals believing anything they see or hear in the media.
# "Gematria (The Killing Name)" by Slipknot. This song is about what the liberals of America, that can get REALLY annoying sometimes.
# "Welcome to the Family" by Avenged Sevenfold. A song about death row, although not anti-death penalty.
# ''Turn, Turn, Turn'' by The Byrds is an almost word-for-word direct quotation from the [[Bible]], specifically [[Ecclesiastes]], with the addition of the periodic refrain "Turn, Turn, Turn".

Please add your best conservative picks.

== References ==

<references/>

Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2011-04-06T15:22:35Z

Ptorquemada: added hyperlink, clarified that the refrain isn't actually in the Bible

There are many brilliant—and popular—conservative songs.

Here is our growing list:
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L--cqAI3IUI Wouldn't It Be Nice]'', by the [[Beach Boys]]. Pro-marriage.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw5RkzbHb-w You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)]''. Abstinence for rock fans. The versions by [[The Supremes]] and Phil Collins were popular.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6yLQRF-cEU Have You Forgotten?]'', by Darryl Worley. Patriotic response to [[September 11, 2001 attacks]].<ref>http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=15568</ref>
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5aMMRes2u4 Still the One]'', by Orleans (1976). A tribute to fidelity in relationships.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHsDa9_HSlA Sweet Home Alabama]'' by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereotyped attacks by [[liberal]], Canadian rocker Neil Young.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew Stand By Your Man]'', by [[Tammy Wynette]]. Don't expect [[feminists]] to like that one! Or [[Hillary Clinton]]!
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCqZ-9-lDEo Lee Greenwood's rendition] of [[Battle Hymn of the Republic]]. "As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free."
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dFl9OHE-8g The Man Comes Around]'', by [[Johnny Cash]].
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-1_d6bbM1I My Love]'', by [[Petula Clark]]. Christian love in secular form.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16u0wwCfoJ4 I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)]'', originally by the Bobby Fuller Four. Its title says it all. The version by [[The Clash]] has a good tempo.
#"You Light Up My Life" by Debbie Boone. One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].
#"Pomp and Circumstance" ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOcvcBxrfN4 ''Land of Hope & Glory'']) By Freedom gain, by Truth maintain...
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ0oCmDXrVk&mode=related&search= Jerusalem]''. Don't let the sword sleep in the hand.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wahd2piIr4Q Brothers In Arms]'', by [[Dire Straits]]. We're fools to make war on our brothers in arms.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeWZhuzFMM8 The Ascent of Stan]'', by [[Ben Folds]]. Tells the story of a former "textbook hippie man" who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.
#"Starting All Over Again" by [[Petula Clark]]. Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.
#"Thank You My Lord" by [[Petula Clark]]. The title says it all.
#"Brick" by Ben Folds Five. Shows the regret involved in abortion.
#"Alive" by P.O.D. About being thankful for the gift of life.
#"Gotta Serve Somebody" by [[Bob Dylan]]. "It may be the devil or it may be the Lord."<ref>http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html</ref>
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydBPm2KRaU Jesus Take The Wheel]'', by [[Carrie Underwood]]. A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPBwXKgDTdE Mine]'' by Taylor Swift. Talks about how her parents divorced, and how she doesn't want that to happen with the guy she meets, dates, and marries.
#"Red Barchetta" by [[Rush]]. Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.
#"Father of Mine" by Everclear. A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM The Taxman]'', by [[The Beatles]]. George Harrison said, "Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes." <ref>http://home.att.net/~chuckayoub/Taxman_Lyrics.html</ref>
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4eonyfRet8&feature=related Back in the U.S.A.]'', by [[Chuck Berry]]. A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZVPv9B-ZlM Government Cheese]'', by The Rainmakers. Humorous spoof of welfare.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErPywgiMb4k Angry Young Man]'' by [[Billy Joel]]. The doctrinaire leftist radical with "his fist in the air and his head in the sand" comes in for biting criticism.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzU2iJ9qfXg Gimme Back My Bullets]'', by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. The name says it all.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPPlGFh6OpQ Spirit In The Sky]'', by Norman Greenbaum.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38oeBgvbMYA Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun]'', by Grand Funk Railroad. A father gives his son some sage advice.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=096LhjGNNCk Something For Nothing]'', by Rush. "You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free."
#"Neighborhood Bully" by [[Bob Dylan]]. Israel's right to exist and defend itself.
#"Get It Right the First Time" by Louisiana's Le Roux. Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own. Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.
#"Only The Young" by Journey. "The shadows of a golden age, a generation waits for dawn, the brave carry on, the bold and the strong". An anthem for the Reagan Generation.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o Yours Is No Disgrace]'', by [[Yes]]. Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.
#"Fair Exchange" and "Sparks of the Tempest" by [[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]. Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 80s material, which has Christian lyrics.
#"In America" by the [[Charlie Daniels]] Band. Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
#"Storm the Embassy" by the Stray Cats. Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis.
#"We Must Take America Back" by Steve Vaus. Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.
#"Renegade" by [[Steppenwolf]]. [[John Kay]]'s childhood escape from Communist [[East Germany]].
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqXAW2snGMI Capitalism]'', by Oingo Boingo. There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.
#"Unborn Child" by Seals and Crofts. This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.
#"Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)" by Steve Taylor. Takes aim at LA and NY hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and "the left-wing band with their head in the sand".
#"Last Kiss" by Wayne Cochran and the C.C. Riders, covered by other artists. "Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when I leave this world"<ref>http://www.songmeanings.net/lyric.php?lid=14</ref>
#"Love Me, I'm a Liberal" by Phil Ochs. Revealing Liberal hypocrisy for what it is.
#"America USA" by [http://giveagiftofsong.com/products.htm] Joey Sudyka. Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6XZDb045xU Red White and Blue]'', by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]].
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBohsCG8emk Simple Man]'', by [[Charlie Daniels]]. A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.
#"That Smell" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A very strong anti-drug use song by America's most well-known Southern rock band.
#Virtually anything by Toby Keith, but especially "Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)".
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pldyz9VS2yY Under God]'', by [[Pat Boone]].
#"Christmas Shoes" by NewSons. A Christmas song by a Christian band.
#"God Bless the USA" by Lee Greenwood.<ref>http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/proudtobeamerican.html</ref>
#"God Bless America" Words and music by Irving Berlin.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed]'' by Yes. "...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you..."
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g Supper'sReady] [[Genesis (band)|Genesis]]''. ''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, "This is the supper of the mighty one", Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoaH0I9UwLI Your Love Is Extravagant]'' Casting Crowns
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnnhYE1DhC4 What If His People Prayed]'' Casting Crowns
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EBiei21-C8 King Without a Crown]'' by Matisyahu. A Hasidic Jew raps about God as the source of happiness and salvation from the things of this world: "If you're drowning in the waters and you can't stay afloat ask Hashem for mercy and He'll throw you a rope."
#"Take Me Home, Country Roads" by John Denver (and others). Celebrates Southern country landscape and traditions.
#"Sin City" by the Flying Burrito Brothers. Attacks modern decadence and predicts divine punishment for sin.
#"I Saw the Light" by Hank Williams (and numerous cover versions). Redemption from sin through faith.
#"No Son of Mine" by Genesis.
#"Don't Stop" (Thinking About Tomorrow) by Fleetwood Mac.<ref>Used by Bill Clinton as his campaign theme song in 1992, but liberals often try to appeal to conservative themes for elections.</ref>
#"Lightning Crashes" by Live. The joy and significance of childbirth.
#"Takin' Care of Business" by Bachman-Turner Overdrive. The work ethic and promoting self-employment.
#"Cat's In The Cradle" by Harry Chapin. The importance of traditional families and responsible fatherhood.
#''[http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=6547 The Devil Went Down To Georgia]'', by [[Charlie Daniels]]. A deeper message here, as Daniels explains.
#"Big Money" by Rush - Pro-[[capitalism]]
#"Real American" by Rick Derringer - patriotic anthem, known as [[Hulk Hogan]]'s pre-match song
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1lSMXE3W8w&feature=related Amazing Grace]'', a Christian hymn written by English poet and clergyman [[John Newton]] (1725–1807), published in 1779.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP5EfwBWgg0&feature=related Go Down Moses]'', performed by: [[Louis Armstrong]]; written by: Sy (Arr) Oliver.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5zEP4kvfnc Walking Contradiction]'' by [[Green Day]]. Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]], here [[Green Day]] mocks the often self-contradictory and inconsistent [[liberal]] ideologies, hence the term "walking contradiction".
#"God and Guns" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A powerful new song that elaborates on the song title.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQtnPOfId0Y Be My Escape]'' by [[Relient K]]. Actually a popular song among non-conservatives too.
#''Staying Alive'', by the Bee Gees. Pro-people and pro-staying alive, and this: "We can try to understand; The [[New York Times]]' effect on man."
#''Sympathy for the Devil'' by the Rolling Stones. Reminds humanity that nobody is perfect and evil is present in the world and needs to be fought.
#''All In'' by Lifehouse.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVsZap7WBm8</ref> Describes a relationship with God as being full of commitment and without reservations.
#"[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y5GDvN9_OE The Ballad of the Green Berets]", by Sergeant Barry Sadler. Pro-American and pro-military.
#''Iraq No Phobia'' by Pro-Pain. It is a pro-American, pro-military heavy metal song about the first [[Gulf War]] ''"Mohammed's no match for the great Uncle Sam."''
#''Bus Stop'', by The Hollies. Pro-romance and pro-marriage: "Someday my name and hers are going to be the same."
#''Stranger in Blue Suede Shoes'' by Kevin Ayers. Defends the right of businessmen to choose their customers: "we don't serve strangers in blue suede shoes".
# "Union Sundown" by Bob Dylan. The title says it all.
# "People Get Ready" by Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions. An all-time classic song about the glory of the [[Lord]].
#"Get A Job" by The Silhouettes. Self-explanatory; a rebuke to lazy [[liberals]] who want to sit around and wait for government handouts.
# "Don't Tread on Me" by Metallica. Pretty self-explanitory meaning.
# "Hypnotize" by System of a Down. SOAD is a rather left-ish band although this song is about liberals believing anything they see or hear in the media.
# "Gematria (The Killing Name)" by Slipknot. This song is about what the liberals of America, that can get REALLY annoying sometimes.
# "Welcome to the Family" by Avenged Sevenfold. A song about death row, although not anti-death penalty.
# "Brothers in Arms" by Dire Straits. The importance of having support and the necessity (but potential danger) of war.
# ''Turn, Turn, Turn'' by The Byrds is an almost word-for-word direct quotation from the [[Bible]], specifically [[Ecclesiastes]], with the addition of the periodic refrain "Turn, Turn, Turn".

Please add your best conservative picks.

== References ==

<references/>

Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2011-04-06T15:19:02Z

Ptorquemada:

There are many brilliant—and popular—conservative songs.

Here is our growing list:
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L--cqAI3IUI Wouldn't It Be Nice]'', by the [[Beach Boys]]. Pro-marriage.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw5RkzbHb-w You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)]''. Abstinence for rock fans. The versions by [[The Supremes]] and Phil Collins were popular.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6yLQRF-cEU Have You Forgotten?]'', by Darryl Worley. Patriotic response to [[September 11, 2001 attacks]].<ref>http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=15568</ref>
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5aMMRes2u4 Still the One]'', by Orleans (1976). A tribute to fidelity in relationships.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHsDa9_HSlA Sweet Home Alabama]'' by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereotyped attacks by [[liberal]], Canadian rocker Neil Young.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew Stand By Your Man]'', by [[Tammy Wynette]]. Don't expect [[feminists]] to like that one! Or [[Hillary Clinton]]!
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCqZ-9-lDEo Lee Greenwood's rendition] of [[Battle Hymn of the Republic]]. "As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free."
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dFl9OHE-8g The Man Comes Around]'', by [[Johnny Cash]].
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-1_d6bbM1I My Love]'', by [[Petula Clark]]. Christian love in secular form.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16u0wwCfoJ4 I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)]'', originally by the Bobby Fuller Four. Its title says it all. The version by [[The Clash]] has a good tempo.
#"You Light Up My Life" by Debbie Boone. One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].
#"Pomp and Circumstance" ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOcvcBxrfN4 ''Land of Hope & Glory'']) By Freedom gain, by Truth maintain...
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ0oCmDXrVk&mode=related&search= Jerusalem]''. Don't let the sword sleep in the hand.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wahd2piIr4Q Brothers In Arms]'', by [[Dire Straits]]. We're fools to make war on our brothers in arms.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeWZhuzFMM8 The Ascent of Stan]'', by [[Ben Folds]]. Tells the story of a former "textbook hippie man" who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.
#"Starting All Over Again" by [[Petula Clark]]. Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.
#"Thank You My Lord" by [[Petula Clark]]. The title says it all.
#"Brick" by Ben Folds Five. Shows the regret involved in abortion.
#"Alive" by P.O.D. About being thankful for the gift of life.
#"Gotta Serve Somebody" by [[Bob Dylan]]. "It may be the devil or it may be the Lord."<ref>http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html</ref>
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydBPm2KRaU Jesus Take The Wheel]'', by [[Carrie Underwood]]. A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPBwXKgDTdE Mine]'' by Taylor Swift. Talks about how her parents divorced, and how she doesn't want that to happen with the guy she meets, dates, and marries.
#"Red Barchetta" by [[Rush]]. Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.
#"Father of Mine" by Everclear. A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM The Taxman]'', by [[The Beatles]]. George Harrison said, "Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes." <ref>http://home.att.net/~chuckayoub/Taxman_Lyrics.html</ref>
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4eonyfRet8&feature=related Back in the U.S.A.]'', by [[Chuck Berry]]. A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZVPv9B-ZlM Government Cheese]'', by The Rainmakers. Humorous spoof of welfare.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErPywgiMb4k Angry Young Man]'' by [[Billy Joel]]. The doctrinaire leftist radical with "his fist in the air and his head in the sand" comes in for biting criticism.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzU2iJ9qfXg Gimme Back My Bullets]'', by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. The name says it all.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPPlGFh6OpQ Spirit In The Sky]'', by Norman Greenbaum.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38oeBgvbMYA Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun]'', by Grand Funk Railroad. A father gives his son some sage advice.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=096LhjGNNCk Something For Nothing]'', by Rush. "You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free."
#"Neighborhood Bully" by [[Bob Dylan]]. Israel's right to exist and defend itself.
#"Get It Right the First Time" by Louisiana's Le Roux. Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own. Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.
#"Only The Young" by Journey. "The shadows of a golden age, a generation waits for dawn, the brave carry on, the bold and the strong". An anthem for the Reagan Generation.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o Yours Is No Disgrace]'', by [[Yes]]. Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.
#"Fair Exchange" and "Sparks of the Tempest" by [[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]. Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 80s material, which has Christian lyrics.
#"In America" by the [[Charlie Daniels]] Band. Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
#"Storm the Embassy" by the Stray Cats. Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis.
#"We Must Take America Back" by Steve Vaus. Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.
#"Renegade" by [[Steppenwolf]]. [[John Kay]]'s childhood escape from Communist [[East Germany]].
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqXAW2snGMI Capitalism]'', by Oingo Boingo. There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.
#"Unborn Child" by Seals and Crofts. This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.
#"Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)" by Steve Taylor. Takes aim at LA and NY hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and "the left-wing band with their head in the sand".
#"Last Kiss" by Wayne Cochran and the C.C. Riders, covered by other artists. "Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when I leave this world"<ref>http://www.songmeanings.net/lyric.php?lid=14</ref>
#"Love Me, I'm a Liberal" by Phil Ochs. Revealing Liberal hypocrisy for what it is.
#"America USA" by [http://giveagiftofsong.com/products.htm] Joey Sudyka. Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6XZDb045xU Red White and Blue]'', by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]].
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBohsCG8emk Simple Man]'', by [[Charlie Daniels]]. A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.
#"That Smell" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A very strong anti-drug use song by America's most well-known Southern rock band.
#Virtually anything by Toby Keith, but especially "Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)".
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pldyz9VS2yY Under God]'', by [[Pat Boone]].
#"Christmas Shoes" by NewSons. A Christmas song by a Christian band.
#"God Bless the USA" by Lee Greenwood.<ref>http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/proudtobeamerican.html</ref>
#"God Bless America" Words and music by Irving Berlin.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed]'' by Yes. "...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you..."
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g Supper'sReady] [[Genesis (band)|Genesis]]''. ''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, "This is the supper of the mighty one", Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoaH0I9UwLI Your Love Is Extravagant]'' Casting Crowns
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnnhYE1DhC4 What If His People Prayed]'' Casting Crowns
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EBiei21-C8 King Without a Crown]'' by Matisyahu. A Hasidic Jew raps about God as the source of happiness and salvation from the things of this world: "If you're drowning in the waters and you can't stay afloat ask Hashem for mercy and He'll throw you a rope."
#"Take Me Home, Country Roads" by John Denver (and others). Celebrates Southern country landscape and traditions.
#"Sin City" by the Flying Burrito Brothers. Attacks modern decadence and predicts divine punishment for sin.
#"I Saw the Light" by Hank Williams (and numerous cover versions). Redemption from sin through faith.
#"No Son of Mine" by Genesis.
#"Don't Stop" (Thinking About Tomorrow) by Fleetwood Mac.<ref>Used by Bill Clinton as his campaign theme song in 1992, but liberals often try to appeal to conservative themes for elections.</ref>
#"Lightning Crashes" by Live. The joy and significance of childbirth.
#"Takin' Care of Business" by Bachman-Turner Overdrive. The work ethic and promoting self-employment.
#"Cat's In The Cradle" by Harry Chapin. The importance of traditional families and responsible fatherhood.
#''[http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=6547 The Devil Went Down To Georgia]'', by [[Charlie Daniels]]. A deeper message here, as Daniels explains.
#"Big Money" by Rush - Pro-[[capitalism]]
#"Real American" by Rick Derringer - patriotic anthem, known as [[Hulk Hogan]]'s pre-match song
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1lSMXE3W8w&feature=related Amazing Grace]'', a Christian hymn written by English poet and clergyman [[John Newton]] (1725–1807), published in 1779.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP5EfwBWgg0&feature=related Go Down Moses]'', performed by: [[Louis Armstrong]]; written by: Sy (Arr) Oliver.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5zEP4kvfnc Walking Contradiction]'' by [[Green Day]]. Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]], here [[Green Day]] mocks the often self-contradictory and inconsistent [[liberal]] ideologies, hence the term "walking contradiction".
#"God and Guns" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A powerful new song that elaborates on the song title.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQtnPOfId0Y Be My Escape]'' by [[Relient K]]. Actually a popular song among non-conservatives too.
#''Staying Alive'', by the Bee Gees. Pro-people and pro-staying alive, and this: "We can try to understand; The [[New York Times]]' effect on man."
#''Sympathy for the Devil'' by the Rolling Stones. Reminds humanity that nobody is perfect and evil is present in the world and needs to be fought.
#''All In'' by Lifehouse.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVsZap7WBm8</ref> Describes a relationship with God as being full of commitment and without reservations.
#"[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y5GDvN9_OE The Ballad of the Green Berets]", by Sergeant Barry Sadler. Pro-American and pro-military.
#''Iraq No Phobia'' by Pro-Pain. It is a pro-American, pro-military heavy metal song about the first [[Gulf War]] ''"Mohammed's no match for the great Uncle Sam."''
#''Bus Stop'', by The Hollies. Pro-romance and pro-marriage: "Someday my name and hers are going to be the same."
#''Stranger in Blue Suede Shoes'' by Kevin Ayers. Defends the right of businessmen to choose their customers: "we don't serve strangers in blue suede shoes".
# "Union Sundown" by Bob Dylan. The title says it all.
# "People Get Ready" by Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions. An all-time classic song about the glory of the [[Lord]].
#"Get A Job" by The Silhouettes. Self-explanatory; a rebuke to lazy [[liberals]] who want to sit around and wait for government handouts.
# "Don't Tread on Me" by Metallica. Pretty self-explanitory meaning.
# "Hypnotize" by System of a Down. SOAD is a rather left-ish band although this song is about liberals believing anything they see or hear in the media.
# "Gematria (The Killing Name)" by Slipknot. This song is about what the liberals of America, that can get REALLY annoying sometimes.
# "Welcome to the Family" by Avenged Sevenfold. A song about death row, although not anti-death penalty.
# "Brothers in Arms" by Dire Straits. The importance of having support and the necessity (but potential danger) of war.
# ''Turn, Turn, Turn'' by The Byrds is an almost word-for-word direct quotation from the [[Bible]], specifically Ecclesiastes.

Please add your best conservative picks.

== References ==

<references/>

Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2011-04-06T15:18:24Z

Ptorquemada:

There are many brilliant—and popular—conservative songs.

Here is our growing list:
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L--cqAI3IUI Wouldn't It Be Nice]'', by the [[Beach Boys]]. Pro-marriage.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw5RkzbHb-w You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)]''. Abstinence for rock fans. The versions by [[The Supremes]] and Phil Collins were popular.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6yLQRF-cEU Have You Forgotten?]'', by Darryl Worley. Patriotic response to [[September 11, 2001 attacks]].<ref>http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=15568</ref>
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5aMMRes2u4 Still the One]'', by Orleans (1976). A tribute to fidelity in relationships.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHsDa9_HSlA Sweet Home Alabama]'' by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereotyped attacks by [[liberal]], Canadian rocker Neil Young.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew Stand By Your Man]'', by [[Tammy Wynette]]. Don't expect [[feminists]] to like that one! Or [[Hillary Clinton]]!
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCqZ-9-lDEo Lee Greenwood's rendition] of [[Battle Hymn of the Republic]]. "As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free."
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dFl9OHE-8g The Man Comes Around]'', by [[Johnny Cash]].
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-1_d6bbM1I My Love]'', by [[Petula Clark]]. Christian love in secular form.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16u0wwCfoJ4 I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)]'', originally by the Bobby Fuller Four. Its title says it all. The version by [[The Clash]] has a good tempo.
#"You Light Up My Life" by Debbie Boone. One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].
#"Pomp and Circumstance" ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOcvcBxrfN4 ''Land of Hope & Glory'']) By Freedom gain, by Truth maintain...
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ0oCmDXrVk&mode=related&search= Jerusalem]''. Don't let the sword sleep in the hand.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wahd2piIr4Q Brothers In Arms]'', by [[Dire Straits]]. We're fools to make war on our brothers in arms.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeWZhuzFMM8 The Ascent of Stan]'', by [[Ben Folds]]. Tells the story of a former "textbook hippie man" who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.
#"Starting All Over Again" by [[Petula Clark]]. Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.
#"Thank You My Lord" by [[Petula Clark]]. The title says it all.
#"Brick" by Ben Folds Five. Shows the regret involved in abortion.
#"Alive" by P.O.D. About being thankful for the gift of life.
#"Gotta Serve Somebody" by [[Bob Dylan]]. "It may be the devil or it may be the Lord."<ref>http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html</ref>
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydBPm2KRaU Jesus Take The Wheel]'', by [[Carrie Underwood]]. A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPBwXKgDTdE Mine]'' by Taylor Swift. Talks about how her parents divorced, and how she doesn't want that to happen with the guy she meets, dates, and marries.
#"Red Barchetta" by [[Rush]]. Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.
#"Father of Mine" by Everclear. A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM The Taxman]'', by [[The Beatles]]. George Harrison said, "Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes." <ref>http://home.att.net/~chuckayoub/Taxman_Lyrics.html</ref>
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4eonyfRet8&feature=related Back in the U.S.A.]'', by [[Chuck Berry]]. A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZVPv9B-ZlM Government Cheese]'', by The Rainmakers. Humorous spoof of welfare.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErPywgiMb4k Angry Young Man]'' by [[Billy Joel]]. The doctrinaire leftist radical with "his fist in the air and his head in the sand" comes in for biting criticism.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzU2iJ9qfXg Gimme Back My Bullets]'', by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. The name says it all.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPPlGFh6OpQ Spirit In The Sky]'', by Norman Greenbaum.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38oeBgvbMYA Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun]'', by Grand Funk Railroad. A father gives his son some sage advice.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=096LhjGNNCk Something For Nothing]'', by Rush. "You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free."
#"Neighborhood Bully" by [[Bob Dylan]]. Israel's right to exist and defend itself.
#"Get It Right the First Time" by Louisiana's Le Roux. Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own. Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.
#"Only The Young" by Journey. "The shadows of a golden age, a generation waits for dawn, the brave carry on, the bold and the strong". An anthem for the Reagan Generation.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o Yours Is No Disgrace]'', by [[Yes]]. Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.
#"Fair Exchange" and "Sparks of the Tempest" by [[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]. Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 80s material, which has Christian lyrics.
#"In America" by the [[Charlie Daniels]] Band. Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
#"Storm the Embassy" by the Stray Cats. Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis.
#"We Must Take America Back" by Steve Vaus. Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.
#"Renegade" by [[Steppenwolf]]. [[John Kay]]'s childhood escape from Communist [[East Germany]].
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqXAW2snGMI Capitalism]'', by Oingo Boingo. There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.
#"Unborn Child" by Seals and Crofts. This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.
#"Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)" by Steve Taylor. Takes aim at LA and NY hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and "the left-wing band with their head in the sand".
#"Last Kiss" by Wayne Cochran and the C.C. Riders, covered by other artists. "Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when I leave this world"<ref>http://www.songmeanings.net/lyric.php?lid=14</ref>
#"Love Me, I'm a Liberal" by Phil Ochs. Revealing Liberal hypocrisy for what it is.
#"America USA" by [http://giveagiftofsong.com/products.htm] Joey Sudyka. Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6XZDb045xU Red White and Blue]'', by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]].
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBohsCG8emk Simple Man]'', by [[Charlie Daniels]]. A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.
#"That Smell" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A very strong anti-drug use song by America's most well-known Southern rock band.
#Virtually anything by Toby Keith, but especially "Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)".
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pldyz9VS2yY Under God]'', by [[Pat Boone]].
#"Christmas Shoes" by NewSons. A Christmas song by a Christian band.
#"God Bless the USA" by Lee Greenwood.<ref>http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/proudtobeamerican.html</ref>
#"God Bless America" Words and music by Irving Berlin.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed]'' by Yes. "...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you..."
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g Supper'sReady] [[Genesis (band)|Genesis]]''. ''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, "This is the supper of the mighty one", Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoaH0I9UwLI Your Love Is Extravagant]'' Casting Crowns
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnnhYE1DhC4 What If His People Prayed]'' Casting Crowns
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EBiei21-C8 King Without a Crown]'' by Matisyahu. A Hasidic Jew raps about God as the source of happiness and salvation from the things of this world: "If you're drowning in the waters and you can't stay afloat ask Hashem for mercy and He'll throw you a rope."
#"Take Me Home, Country Roads" by John Denver (and others). Celebrates Southern country landscape and traditions.
#"Sin City" by the Flying Burrito Brothers. Attacks modern decadence and predicts divine punishment for sin.
#"I Saw the Light" by Hank Williams (and numerous cover versions). Redemption from sin through faith.
#"No Son of Mine" by Genesis.
#"Don't Stop" (Thinking About Tomorrow) by Fleetwood Mac.<ref>Used by Bill Clinton as his campaign theme song in 1992, but liberals often try to appeal to conservative themes for elections.</ref>
#"Lightning Crashes" by Live. The joy and significance of childbirth.
#"Takin' Care of Business" by Bachman-Turner Overdrive. The work ethic and promoting self-employment.
#"Cat's In The Cradle" by Harry Chapin. The importance of traditional families and responsible fatherhood.
#''[http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=6547 The Devil Went Down To Georgia]'', by [[Charlie Daniels]]. A deeper message here, as Daniels explains.
#"Big Money" by Rush - Pro-[[capitalism]]
#"Real American" by Rick Derringer - patriotic anthem, known as [[Hulk Hogan]]'s pre-match song
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1lSMXE3W8w&feature=related Amazing Grace]'', a Christian hymn written by English poet and clergyman [[John Newton]] (1725–1807), published in 1779.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP5EfwBWgg0&feature=related Go Down Moses]'', performed by: [[Louis Armstrong]]; written by: Sy (Arr) Oliver.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5zEP4kvfnc Walking Contradiction]'' by [[Green Day]]. Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]], here [[Green Day]] mocks the often self-contradictory and inconsistent [[liberal]] ideologies, hence the term "walking contradiction".
#"God and Guns" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A powerful new song that elaborates on the song title.
#''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQtnPOfId0Y Be My Escape]'' by [[Relient K]]. Actually a popular song among non-conservatives too.
#''Staying Alive'', by the Bee Gees. Pro-people and pro-staying alive, and this: "We can try to understand; The [[New York Times]]' effect on man."
#''Sympathy for the Devil'' by the Rolling Stones. Reminds humanity that nobody is perfect and evil is present in the world and needs to be fought.
#''All In'' by Lifehouse.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVsZap7WBm8</ref> Describes a relationship with God as being full of commitment and without reservations.
#"[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y5GDvN9_OE The Ballad of the Green Berets]", by Sergeant Barry Sadler. Pro-American and pro-military.
#''Iraq No Phobia'' by Pro-Pain. It is a pro-American, pro-military heavy metal song about the first [[Gulf War]] ''"Mohammed's no match for the great Uncle Sam."''
#''Bus Stop'', by The Hollies. Pro-romance and pro-marriage: "Someday my name and hers are going to be the same."
#''Stranger in Blue Suede Shoes'' by Kevin Ayers. Defends the right of businessmen to choose their customers: "we don't serve strangers in blue suede shoes".
# "Union Sundown" by Bob Dylan. The title says it all.
# "People Get Ready" by Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions. An all-time classic song about the glory of the [[Lord]].
#"Get A Job" by The Silhouettes. Self-explanatory; a rebuke to lazy [[liberals]] who want to sit around and wait for government handouts.
# "Don't Tread on Me" by Metallica. Pretty self-explanitory meaning.
# "Hypnotize" by System of a Down. SOAD is a rather left-ish band although this song is about liberals believing anything they see or hear in the media.
# "Gematria (The Killing Name)" by Slipknot. This song is about what the liberals of America, that can get REALLY annoying sometimes.
# "Welcome to the Family" by Avenged Sevenfold. A song about death row, although not anti-death penalty.
# "Brothers in Arms" by Dire Straits. The importance of having support and the necessity (but potential danger) of war.
# "Turn, Turn, Turn" by The Byrds is an almost word-for-word direct quotation from the [[Bible]], specifically Ecclesiastes.

Please add your best conservative picks.

== References ==

<references/>

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2011-04-05T16:09:31Z

Ptorquemada: /* Birth Controversy */ new section

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

==Rense==
Jeff Rense may not be a such a good source. The Anti-Defamation League accuses him of promoting anti-Semitic views and 9/11 Conspiracy theories. OTOH, what is wrong with a Pravda article written in the post Soviet-censorship era when democratic Russia hungars to exercise a free press, open discussion and discernment of facts? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:39, 23 January 2010 (EST)

:See my talk page, Rob. I never noticed who added the Pravda cite, so if you say so, it is of course fine with me, and please add it back if you haven't already! I now suspect it was yet another vandal site troll stirring the pot, so feel free to deal with him as well. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:02, 24 January 2010 (EST)

== Terror Attacks ==
I have an issue with a claim made in the second paragraph. ''Since abandoning the "War on Terror" in Obama's first year, the United States has suffered more terrorist attacks with deadly intent on American soil than in the previous eight years combined.'' Since Obama replaced the 'Global War on Terror' with 'Overseas Contingency Operation', there have been only four domestic terrorist attacks, a far cry from the 19 that took place under Bush's tenure. This sentence should be reworded or removed in its entirety; it only makes the article look embarrassing. --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 15:46, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:More [[liberal]] poppycock, Michael? Even the New York Times counts more, excluding 9/11, under Obama. Perhaps you should consider sources other than the Kos? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::A short time ago you gave me grief for making assumptions, yet here you are doing the same. I didn't get any information from Kos, it all came from legitimate news sources. Do you really believe that more terror attacks occurred on US soil from March 2009 to January 2010 than in the eight years of the Bush administration? I would really like to see all your references for making such a bold claim. And why would you want to exclude the WTC/Pentagon attacks?
::Some people have been making some really stupid claims lately about domestic terror. Dana Perino and Rudy Guiliani both claimed there was not a terror attack on the US when Bush was in office. The fact that these people could make such stupidly partisan claims is incredible. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kpfhGxJbLc] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tYoMoJHNDs] The claim made in this article reeks of the same idiocy of Perino and Guiliani, why not delete the sentence or at least make it factual? --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 20:23, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:::The facts are undeniable that America was totally unprepared to protect itself from terrorist homeland attacks as Bush entered office, due to the total lack of focus of the Clinton Administration and Congress on the issue. Bush can in no way be blamed for the 9/11 attacks with any real credibility.

:::As I have stated many times before, as Mr. Schlafly has stated many times before, as several other Admins have as well, coming here to argue-without-end against our conservative point of view in all articles you come across, is silly. If you and others cannot bring yourselves to accept alternative points of view, so be it. If you want a place to argue against conservatism in general, make your own site or try the Kos or HuffPo; but CP isn't a debate forum, it is a conservative encyclopedia ''project''. Article talk pages are for suggesting ways to improve articles from a conservative point of view, not a liberal one. Is that a clear enough statement? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::::TK: The change you made is completely unacceptable from a moral and ethical standpoint because instead of correcting an error, you are now highlighting a lie. Three terror attacks occurred during Pres. Bush's last year in office. I sent you links to all three events but you are willing to over look such trivial matters as the truth. It's funny that a liberal who has been blocked twice for pointing out errors and outright falsehoods is vilified as a trouble-maker while the conservatives that knowingly mislead and lie are in charge of an alleged 'trustworthy encyclopedia'.
::::I'm trying to make these changes because I don't want Americans to look stupid, even the conservative ones. It's an uphill battle.

::::Gunman killed two people in a church. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-29-church-shooting_N.htm]
::::Suicide bomber attacked a Georgia law firm. [http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ga_law_firm_explodes_causing_multiple_injuries/]
::::Two police officers were killed by a bomb placed in a bank. [http://www.odmp.org/officer/19697-captain-thomas-paul-tennant]
::::--[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 01:25, 29 January 2010 (EST)

MichaelJB you cannot tell the difference between Muslim terrorists and someone with an ax to grind? Godspeed! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 06:36, 29 January 2010 (EST)v
:So Michael's point is that progressive liberal leftwing commie socialist (or whatever the flavor of the week) Prof. [[Amy Bishop]] conducted a domestic overseas contingency operation attack. It's beginning to make sense. How would we classify the guy who crashed the plane into the IRS building in Houston, a tax protester who railed against corporations. Dang, this is a tuff one.... [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 08:13, 12 March 2010 (EST)

== Middle name in article title? ==

----

::::<big>'''Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded.</big>'''

----

It strikes to me odd that the title of the article is Barach Hussein Obama. While there is nothing wrong with that by itself, looking at the [[President_of_the_United_States_of_America#Presidents_list|list of all the U.S. presidents]], it seems that all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense to rename the article to either Barack Obama or Barack H. Obama to follow suit? [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:19, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:There is a big difference between Walker or Jefferson and Hussein. My two cents. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:22, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::What about [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 18:26, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:::This topic had been discussed before. He decided to be inaugurated with his middle name after not using it during the campaign. He is not ashamed of it and we are not ashamed to include it.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::Ah, I see. Looking at some lists though ([http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/] and [http://www.apples4theteacher.com/holidays/presidents-day/past-presidents-of-usa.html]), it seems that many presidents were also inaugurated in a similar fashion. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:33, 26 February 2010 (EST)

::: I think that, as all encyclopedias and scholarly works try to do, we should try to decide on a particular set of rules and always follow it. In this case, these are the options:
:::1) Always cite the full name in the title, so "Barack Hussein Obama", "George Herbert Walker Bush" and "Ronald Wilson Reagan";
:::2) Always use initials for middle names, so "Barack H. Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald W. Reagan";
:::3) Use the names in the way they most commonly used, using middle name initials only where they are necessary to distinguish one particular individual from another, therefore "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald Reagan".

::: We are talking about titles of articles; the full name should always be cited in the body of the article. Personally, I would vote for solution n.3. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:34, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::I like the idea. Either 2 or 3 seem best in my opinion; full names seem a bit to long for article titles. The name that the president was inaugurated with isn't bad either, but it would seem less formal, as some have middle names and others don't. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:38, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::: I thought about that solution, but then I thought that we should better set very general rules; by this I mean that we should decide how to title page names referring to INDIVIDUALS, not to US PRESIDENTS. Deciding that "the name that the president was inaugurated with" is a rule that, naturally, can only be applied to presidents. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:41, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::: Another good rule would be to use the name that is mostly used to refer to that individual; this has the disadvantage of not being objective, but it is also the most effective. So "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" (to distinguish him from his son), "Ronald Reagan", "Eminem" instead of "Marshall Mathers", "O.J. Simpson" instead of "Orenthal J. Simpson"... --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:56, 26 February 2010 (EST)

There isn't any vote here, nor was one asked for. Since Obama tries to soft-pedal his Muslim roots and associations, our editorial policy is to call attention to that ''fact''. In addition you should note the [[Ronald Wilson Reagan|Reagan]] article, where well before anyone had an inkling Obama would run for President, Conservapedia used his full name, ''Ronald Wilson Reagan'' which Reagan himself preferred for formal use. So I submit President Obama isn't being singled out, contrary to the insistence of silly-minded liberals. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:06, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:But why call attention to that ''fact'' in the title of the article? The ''fact'' is never going to be denied. The introduction sentence would still say "Barack Hussein Obama". Italicize his middle name in the introduction or change the font color to bring out the ''fact'' if you wish. What I am trying to point at is, why should his middle name be used in the article title? Reagan may have preferred it for formal use, but does Mr. Obama say that same? He is commonly known as Barack Obama; I haven't seen it used in any other way (except Obama, of course). If he is commonly known as that, it would make sense to title the article like that, as should every article on people. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 21:05, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::Richard Milhous Nixon was commonly refered to as [[Milhous]] by his detracters. Indeed, googling milhouse brings up hundreds of thousands of hits on Nixon that dwarf most all other uses of the name. Now, googling [[Hussein]] presents a host of other problems. The [[Heshamite Dynasty]] of [[Hussein bin Ali]] had been the Islamic Keeper of the Holy places for 700 years until Western British Imperialist interests unseated them and installed the Saudi ruling clan thier place (visualize Islamists dethroning the Pope and installing thier own choice as successor). How does it look when Hussein bin Ali's namesake bows to tne Saudi puppet? Why not focus on how Obama ''is'' bringing real change to the whole planet, rather than argue about how things have traditionally been done? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 27 February 2010 (EST)
Drop it. Further discussion is last-wordism. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:14, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:On the question of "''all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense ...to follow suit? ''"
:You will recall Barack Hussein Obama is the transformational president of change. Wouldn't it make sense to begin change right here, with his name? (assuming that is his name). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:54, 26 February 2010 (EST)

<nowiki>:</nowiki>D 
--<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)

Pretty slick conservative trap there TK. despite the fact that you neglected to answer some massive holes in the arguments above, you declare the debate "ended" (even though its not) then decry anything else as last wordism to stifle any further debate. well done--[[User:DerikJ|DerikJ]] 11:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:What holes? We're implementing change. Let's find common ground and compromise. We've done just that. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:35, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::I like your comment on change, Rob, it made me laugh :) Anyway, I don't see how an argument that Obama's slogan being "change" is any reason to title his article to what he is less commonly known as/less traditional. It's pushing it, in a sense. Besides, being a conservative, I would think that you wouldn't want to follow Obama's way of thinking ;) [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 13:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:::Conservatives are for change, both economic and social. They want to change tax law and abortion rulings, for example. Above all, change public education. Being anti-change is just a vulgar stereotype held by closeminded and intolerant people. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:09, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::::I can agree with that. But ''why'' "change" how Obama's article is titled when others are titled either without their middle name or with their middle name if they are commonly known and identified by the name, in some cases. Simply changing something doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing, there has to be reason, and the reason has to be, well, reasonable. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 14:44, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:::::Call it the price of progress. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:17, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::::::In that case, would changing the titles of all the other peoples' articles to include their middle names sound all right to you? It would be progress, after all. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)
I have always wondered why the Obamabots get so upset with the name Obama's parents chose. Pretty silly. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:I actually like the name, it has a nice ring to it. It's more of just keeping a solid style of titling pages, a format if you want to call it that. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::Which brings us to the question of Barry Soetero. If Obama went by this name, then he may have lied to the Illinois Supreme Court when asked to provide former names, according to this Attorney’s Registration Record. [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2061988/posts] I'm not the sure what the resolution of this issue ever was, and we don't have a word about it in this article. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:49, 27 February 2010 (EST)

I know I am new here but there really needs to be a consensus amongst all Presidential and Vice President articles, actually this should probably extend to all US politicians. I know there is a specified conservative bias, however the lack organization and consensus has nothing to do with liberal or conservative bias, it has to do with disorganization and lazyiness by the admins.

If you want to leave the middle, that is fine, however, there would need to be a quick modification of all or the majority of the US Politian article so as not to look so disorganized.[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:01, 10 March 2010 (EST)

:You hit the nail on the head. You are new here. Don't come in criticizing and such off the bat. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:12, 10 March 2010 (EST)

My criticization is to help the article(s) to be better as a whole. None of the above discussion explains the reasoning for leaving it as is. Just people saying he used it in his inauguration so we use it here, however, almost every pres does this so why not have it that way for everyone????[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:15, 10 March 2010 (EST)

Not really discussion just more of a question. I just recently found this site and was looking through the religious articles and for the most part they seemed pretty good. However, when I come to the political articles, some of them seem a little crazy. I know it is to call more attention to the things that are being overlooked by the media. But I have ask about the middle name thing.

I read all of the information above and I still am not sure why it was decided to leave it as is. Can someone clarify this?
Please don't ban me, I noticed that basically everyone with discussion in this thread that isn't an admin now has banned accounts. I personally don't care, I am just confused. [[User:StevenS|StevenS]] 01:12, 12 March 2010 (EST)

: As it says up at the top of this section, "Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded." If you do have one, let's have it. But it sure seems like everyone who signs up to this site and immediately starts complaining has nothing new to say at all. Why don't you spend some time reading here with an open mind first, and complain later? [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:20, 12 March 2010 (EST)

Now, why would a single individual come here under several different user names all in an effort to get the word "Hussein" removed from the title of this article? It makes no sense at all unless that individual has a personal agenda to perform. The article title stays as it is. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:42, 12 March 2010 (EST)

:My only concern is that the title seems to exist in its current state for no purpose other than to further a bias. The arguments that "well he asked for it" seem to suggest that accuracy and fairness are non-valuable in this wiki. I sincerely hope this is not the case and that I may not be banned and able to start a fun future in helping this wiki grow in the impressive way it has so far. [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 07:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

::'''"Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded."'''
I guess you missed the bold title at the top of this section? Also, see [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]] to see how silly your argument is. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:16, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
:I guess it wasn't as bright an idea as I had hoped. Heh... It still comes off as somewhat purposeful, though. Okie, I'll back away! - [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 08:24, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
::Purposeful, as in done with the same horribly malevolent intent as ''my'' adding Reagan's middle name several years ago? You are giving away your intent in advance, good sir, by refusing to admit your already formed assumptions about us are wrong. I hope you prove me wrong, and turn out to be that rare U.K. denizen that turns out to be open-minded and as fair to us as you wish us to be to you. There have been precious few. And please do check out our editors guide and all of that. We differ quite a bit from Wikipedia. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:33, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
:::::I think we should keep the current title of the article. Furthermore, I think we should replace the top picture, which is currently a picture of Obama, with a picture of an oil drenched pelican (and a new caption) as a tribute to Obama's indifference, sloth and incompetence. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:36, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== I moved the material dealing with the present to the top ==

I moved the material dealing with the present to the top as I thought readers would be more interested in how Obama is screwing up the present. For example, I think Americans right now are very concerned about how Obama is screwing up the economy. Of course, he is also doing a poor job in other areas presently as well such as holding terrorists court cases in civilian courts, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:30, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

:That makes sense to me. I do appreciate letting me try the other timeline structure. However, I didn't really take into consideration the fact that because he is a high profile individual it may benefit readers to see more recent info before his earlier biography facts. At least while he's fulfilling his one failed term as president, your structure makes sense to me. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 12:42, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

::As the ==Maoism== section is being being built, we may eventually be able to free up space from the sections on the Ayers/Dohrn relationship by moving some of that material to Ayers own page, and/or creating a new separate page documenting Obama's rise with communist and terrorist assistance. An acceptable title for that page would be needed. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:23, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

==Citation==

"Any orders he gives to the American military are subject to being refused. Orders that Obama gives to America’s Joint Chiefs of Staff of the military can be refused." --http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-01-2009/106972-Barry_Soetoro-0

Do we really want to cite an article that makes this claim? Do any of us really support this opinion, or if we do, do we support the use of opinion articles as sources in addition to factual ones? --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 08:42, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

:Is the opinion piece backed by valid and factual citations from the United States Code, Ben, as opposed to a unsupported rant? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

== pronunciation of "Pakistan" ==

This is really considered evidence of anything? I've heard [[Mark Levin]] use the Spanish-inflected pronunciation of Sonia Sotomayor's name (''so tow my OR'' rather than ''so tow MY er''), but nobody would claim that proves he's Catholic or Hispanic. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 23:55, 9 April 2010 (EDT)
:Pronunciation shows an enormous amount about someone's views and history. Obama doesn't use the American pronunciation, and this is telling, since ''no one else in the public sphere'' pronounces it in the muslim way ''but'' Obama. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:15, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
[[David Petraeus]] does [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtCLp7siY7I]. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:50, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
And [http://www.forvo.com/word/pakistan/ numerous other languages] use a pronunciation closer to the native form. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:57, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

::"Golgaronok" (if that is your name), your quibbles with the entry have already been argued ad nauseum, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama/archive4#.22Pokiston.22.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F here], for instance. If you've only come to argue on talk pages, you're wasting your own time. Try making substantive contributions to the project; excessive talk is disfavored here. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:04, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
I don't see any responses to the points I raised. But it's y'all's funeral. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 01:13, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
:::Kind of interesting that Davis Petraeus was mentioned here. When that general was ordered to command US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, the liberal elites decided that his name should be pronounced "BETRAY US". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:29, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

==Barry Soetoro = birth name?==
This may have already been discussed, so forgive me if this has been settled. I noticed that the article says ''"Barack Hussein Obama II (birth name Barry Soetoro..."'', however the articles cited do not support the idea that "Barry Soetoro" is Obama's birth name, in fact quite the opposite. My understanding, from reading the Newsweek article, is that "Barack" is his birth name, although he went by "Barry" when he was younger. His father's name, as I understand it, is Barack Hussein Obama, and he was named after his father. "Seotoro", if I remember right, was his stepfather's last name, so it is unlikely that it would have been part of Obama's birth name. To be clear, I do realize that he spent his younger years being known as "Barry Soetoro", and I think that should be included in the article, I just don't think it was actually his birth name. 
Please understand that I am not as knowledgeable in this kind of thing as many other contributors here, so I may have gotten it all wrong - that's why I didn't attempt to edit the article. Please correct me if I have gotten it wrong - I won't be offended and I am curious as to the truth of the matter. [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 18:11, 1 May 2010 (EDT)

According to the citation that shows the birth certificate, the birth name is, in fact, Barack Hussein Obama II, NOT Barry Soetoro. Also, because there is an actual document, i.e. physical, demonstrable proof, the word "allegedly" should be removed.

== Remove name repetition? ==

Would anyone mind if I removed some of the repetition of Obama's name in certain portions of the article? For example, in this paragraph:
{{cquote|
[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving]] and [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism|Barack Obama's liberal elitism]] is consistent with Obama being a [[Narcissism|narcissist]] which is a charge that has often been made against Barack Obama. However, it is also true that Barack Obama is an [[evolution|evolutionist]]. Barack Obama told the ''York Daily Record'' that "I believe in [[evolution]]...". Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is also in accordance with someone who has a certain degree of [[Social Darwinism|social darwinistic]] thinking. In addition to [[Liberals and uncharitableness|American liberals giving less to charity]], it is also true that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|American liberals are also more likely to believe in evolution]].
}}

I think I could alter it to make it more readable with "Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is consistent with that of a narcissist, a charge that has often been made against him."

And so forth. In my linguistics class, we talked about semantic satiation, and I believe that paragraphs like these, along with the fact that it never seems to use pronouns, somewhat diminish the readability of the article. If I were to make this change, I would preserve every wikilink, reference, etc, but I believe it would become more readable. In Christ, [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 09:09, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

== Insults? ==

Does the entire beginning of the article have to be so laden with insults? Couldnt it simply say what the article will be about, and THEN express views? As it is it appears very unprofessional. 19:11, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
:We believe in the truth here, and the fact that [[liberals]] like yourself feign offense at the display of it speaks volumes about you. If you insist on closing your mind, at least take ownership of your [[deceit]]! Sign your comments with <nowiki> ~~~~ </nowiki> next time. Godspeed! [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 19:58, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

== "The first president who is biracial" ==

There have been other presidents of more than one race. Bush Jr. is has some German and English ancestry. [[User:NP|NP]]

:George W is German and English, is that two races according to our census? I think the readers will understand what biracial refers to.

::English and German are '''''not''''' races, and neither is Hispanic. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:16, 17 May 2010 (EDT)

== Reorganizing ==

I'm glad to see the edit feature is enabled here once more. I think this page needs a revamp to structure information better. I've reorganized everything into a better structure, let me know what you think. I am trying to put a summary of the presidency at the top, information about his life/career next, and then a political summary. This should really improve the page's appearance, as it appears too disorganized right now. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 15:56, 20 May 2010 (EDT)
:What you're doing is burying important information so fewer users will find it. That's unacceptable. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 15:57, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

== Obama is a Muslim theory and the alleged claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit ==

Here is what the American Thinker reported: "The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim." That was the claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, as reported in the May 2010 issue of Israel Today. According to journalist Avi Lipkin, Gheit appeared on Nile TV's "Round Table Show" in January, on which he said that "he had had a one-on-one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda."[http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/report_obama_said_i_am_a_musli.html] Here is what Hot Air says: http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/06/14/obama-is-a-muslim-take-two/

Personally, I am beginning to think Obama is: not a Muslim, not a Christian, and not an atheist. I think Obama is a narcissist who worships himself. I can also see him telling one person he is a Christian and then later telling someone else he is a Muslim. There are many examples of Obama being insincere such as all the substantive healthcare discussions were going to be on C-Span, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:53, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== 2009 Nobel Peace Prize ==

I find it strange that there is not a single mention of the president being awarded the Nobel peace prize in this article. Considering that other prominent award winners have it at least mentioned in their respective articles. The [[Mother Teresa]] article, for instance, prominently states her award in the introduction to the article, and even political figures like [[Al Gore]] and [[Henry Kissinger]] (both of whom won the peace prize) have their award at least mentioned in the article.
--[[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 16:04, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:I agree with you, Denis. It was there, once-upon-a-time, but apparently it was removed in the constant editing turmoil. CP does mention this in the [[Nobel Prize]] article. I will add it here, as it should be. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:24, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

==Faulty Logic==
I have a suspicion that Andy Schlafly is secretly a Muslim. Will you deny that, Andy? If you do deny it, then I accuse you of being a Muslim under the concept of Taqiyya.
It's like a terrible flow chart that always ends with "You're a Muslim." I realize that you're kind of scraping the barrel with this whole "Obama is a Muslim" thing, but c'mon. [[User:Pete5383|Paul]] 18:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

: Paul, you seem to think all claims or facts are relative. They aren't. Truth is supported by logic and evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:: President Obama clearly has an Islamic background. As an adult, he joined a church and says he's a Christian. I'd say he's as much Muslim as I am Jewish; by Jewish law, my having a Jewish mother makes me Jewish by birth, but I became a Christian by choice as a teenager. Go figure. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:04, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

:::Whether President Obama is Muslim or not is one question; however it is undeniable Obama misspoke or was deceptive while ramping up his ambitions back in 2005 when he told the ''Chicago Sun-Times'', "I am rooted in the Christian tradition." Nowhere on his maternal side, grandma, gramps, or his natural father, or his stepfather, can any Christian rooting be found. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:37, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

==Days in office==
[[Barack Obama]] was inaugurated {{days since|2009|1|20}} days ago and will finish his term in {{#expr: -{{days since|2013|1|20}} }} days. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:00, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

==Apparent sourcing errors==

While looking over this article, I noticed a number of problems - mostly unsourced claims or claims for which the source is no longer available. Since my suggestions will almost certainly be controversial, I will not actually make any further changes to this page.

*The quote "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship" under the heading "Presidency" is unattributed.

*The claim that Obama represented ACORN in ''Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank'' is unsupported. While court documents do list Obama among the Plaintiff's Attorneys, they do not reference ACORN in any way. [http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=10112] This claim seems to have been added by bloggers after the fact. Similarly, the cited reference contains no source for the claim that Obama had anything to do with the CRA, only a completely unsourced allegation that was reprinted almost verbatim here. As far as I can tell, Obama represented ACORN exactly once, on a case involving motor voter laws. [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/17/john-mccain/he-represented-them-in-one-case-/]

*The statement "Obama website Fight The Smears has confirmed that Obama was once a Kenyan citizen until 1982" under the subheading "Birth Certificate Controversy" is unsourced and ambiguous.

*Much of the content under the subheading "Engineers defeat of Centrist Democrats" is dubious. Two of the cites [http://articles.latimes.com/1992-03-18/news/mn-3844_1_gus-savage][http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Carol_Moseley_Braun#Political_career] are about Carol Moseley Braun and don't mention Obama at all. There is no indication in any of the sources that Obama was connected to the Braun campaign, so these cites are meaningless. Additionally, the section attributes an anti-Dixon intent to Obama (referring to Obama as "subverting" Dixon's reelection, defined by Conservapedia's own article as "lending of aid, comfort, and moral support to individuals, groups, or organizations that advocate the overthrow of incumbent governments by force and violence"). What he did was increase voter turnout among the black community, a far cry from what the text implies.

*<s>The statement "President Obama falsely claimed that the senior citizen group AARP endorsed his administration's health care plan when they never made such an endorsement" under the subheading "Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Its Advocacy Methods" is sourced to a YouTube video that no longer exists. Additionally, it appears that AARP has been supporting health care reform since at least August 2009. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/17/eveningnews/main5247916.shtml][http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/aarp-ama-announce-support_n_506060.html]</s>

*Similarly, several cites link to YouTube videos that have been removed. Multiple cites under the subheading "Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Liberal Elitism" link to deleted videos, as does the cite for the statement "Barack Obama's "Disinformation Czar" (whose supposed job was to correct disinformation that others are spreading about the Obama administration's health care plan) was caught spreading misleading information." The cite for the statement "Senior citizens are key Democratic party constituents that could kill Obama's socialistic health care plan" links to a private video.

--[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 15:50, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

:Sorry, Drew, but one glaring misrepresentation really sticks out, and explains why liberals are often accused of playing fast and loose with the truth: While AARP has long advocated health care reform, it specifically repudiated Obama's distortion of the truth, saying they were not endorsing any specific plan, at that time. See how easy it is to distort fact, by omission, and make obviously good-intentioned souls like you doubt the real truth?

:You are obviously an editor here, and I would urge you, before making posts such as this one, to try and find substitute sources that back up what is in the story. At the very least, as is the case with the AARP, at least check the facts before stating something is incorrect. It was a very big story at the time, Obama's misstatement, and not at all hard to find....so easy and well-known in fact that some people might be tempted to accuse you of inserting a deliberate [[Red Herring]]. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:29, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

== Typo ==
The first sentence here has a typo: it presumably is meant to read "...said to have '''been''' born in..." I'd fix it myself, but the page is so informative (and therefore long) that my poor old computer can't load it to edit. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 21:49, 11 November 2010 (EST)
:Thanks, JPatt got it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:29, 11 November 2010 (EST)

== Bryan Fischer: Obama wants to give America back to the Indians ==

Is [http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147501360 this site] some kind of liberal parody? Otherwise, this is so serious that is should be included. American Family Association would seem to me as a pretty trustworthy organization, and this Bryan Fischer is writing for them. Any thoughts? – [[User:Dstone|dstone]] 16:42, 1 January 2011 (EST)

==Fact vs Opinion==
Okay...I thought maybe this article would be a good place to start. I was introduced to Conservapedia recently, and have been waffling about joining and bcoming an editor, but can no longer refrain. So, I'm extraordinarily new...and I fully expect the welcoming and flame-free arms of this community, as I support the overall efforts of what Conservapedia is trying to accomplish. The road to becoming a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" is long, and this site is just starting to make baby steps in that direction. That being said, I will try to keep this short.

FACT: Opinions are not fact. Even expert opinions are not fact. They're just plain old opinions. Despite being in the Commandments, and otherwise stated over and over again, folks seem to have trouble making this distinction.
OPINION: If you are unable to make cited references, or present the conservative viewpoint in a reasoned and intelligent manner, I would heavily suggest that you leave the site to those who can. Your "help" is often unhelpful. Especially in an article as...contentious...as this - and I imagine many others, I'll be looking shortly - the talk page is the place to present your opinions. If you cannot site material, find sources that intelligently argue your viewpoint, or just want a second or third pair of eyes and ears, it would be addressed here. Also, if haven't actually read the article that you are citing...do that first, before posting anything at all...

There are several on this page, the most innocuous of which: President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico[28]. The moratorium lapsed in 2008. It says it right in the article, paragraph 4. This statement is spruious and vague and will be reworded to say something like: Then-Senator Obama voted to re-authorize oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. This is just a small and harmless example, but, either research the issue before posting, or don't post. If you wish to engage in historical revisionism, or just bottom-barrel opinion mongering, please roll on over to Wikipedia, and leave us be. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 2 January 2011
:I moved this from the top of the page to its current location, to maintain threading. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 13:35, 2 January 2011 (EST)

== Oil Drilling Moratorium, redux ==

I did not realize that this would be as contentious as it was. The statement is simply poorly worded, I assume unintentionally, and appears to place the blame squarely on one person's shoulders. This is just factually innacurate, nothing more, nothing less. We accept credit where credit is due, and take blame where blame is appropriate - and the blame belongs to the vast majority of the 110th Congress, both the liberal reps and ours - and to deny that is some kind of revisionism, which will not be tolerated. I'm certainly more than willing to be corrected on this, but you can either site sources that support your viewpoint, or you cannot - it really is that easy. In that case, the article would read something like, "then-Senator Obama lobbied heavily for the moratorium to lapse, and led a congressional coalition consisting of Senators Blah, Blah and Blah and Congressmen Such-and-such and So-and-so to further that end, etc..." accompanied by supporting references. I am afraid, however, that a "nuh-uh," or, "because I said so," is simply Not Good Enough. We're counteracting liberal bias, here, not populating the internet with more unfounded claptrap. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 19:26, 3 January 2011 (EST)

:If you please, write here your proposal for how this should be written, including the source links. If Obama lobbied heavily for the moritorium to lapse, then the source evidence will say it; if he was a part of a coalition of people, then again the evidence will support that. Since this article is about Obama, it should lean on what he has done while in office. But as far as what the 110th Congress did or didn't do, oh yes, I am in total agreement with you...and so were the vast majority of voters back in November. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:00, 3 January 2011 (EST)

::He didn't, as far as I know, or have ever read. I don't think any articles arguing that he soley was responsible, or even more responsible than any other rep, exist. The text is already up there. Pretty vanilla. Mentions him by name, but also says, "hey, don't forget about all the other chair-jockeys, too!" But the article is about him, so he gets a name drop for focus. The article is about him as whole, so his Presidential and Senatorial terms would be seperate sections of the same article, so as not to confuse. The 110th was the last Bush-era Congress. In November, we voted out the 111th. We are now in the 112th Congress.

::Oh, I also replaced someone's citation from an OpEd piece in the NYTimes with an actual news reference that supported the same point (about the Obama administration's poor response to the Oil Spill). If I didn't know better (and I probably don't), I would suspect that some of the citations here are purposefully planted just to make us look like simpletons. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 21:39, 3 January 2011 (EST)

== Birth Controversy ==

Could someone please explain to me something I've never quite followed: why does it matter where Obama was born? As far as I can tell, no one is claiming his mother was not a US Citizen, which makes him a "natural born" US citizen even if he was born in Kenya, Moscow, or Riyadh. If the issue is "without a birth certificate we can't be certain his mother is really his mother" then I get it, but this side of things seems to be ignored in favor of controversy over the actual location of the birth. If we interpret "natural born citizen" as "born within the US", then that would exclude the children of Armed Forces personnel stationed overseas with their families at the time their children were born from the presidency, which seems like something liberals would love to do. [[User:Ptorquemada|Ptorquemada]] 12:09, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2011-04-04T21:36:25Z

Ptorquemada: /* Takin' Care of Business */

See [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzZkNDU5MmViNzVjNzkzMDE3NzNlN2MyZjRjYTk4YjE= this]. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 10:04, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

: The [[neoconservative]] ''National Review'' list is 95% garbage, not [[conservative]] at all. I only found one tune on the list that should be added ours ("Stand by your man"), and National Review had it at #50.

: The contrast here with ''National Review'' illustrates the need for ''Conservapedia''. But thanks for your link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Oops... it seems that I added a bunch of songs from that list. Several of mine (Brick, Red Barchetta, I Can't Drive 55, Sweet Home Alabama, and Revolution 1) were on there. That's interesting, though... the NR person and I thought alike on this one. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:16, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Sweet Home Alabama? I love that song (and I'm a liberal)! Revolution's great, too.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 18:29, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Sorry? Why was my entry for The Fall's Pseud Mag Ed removed? They have always been the great deflators of liberal complacency. What is going on?

: Post a link to the lyrics of the song here and we'll see. Also, please sign your entries by using the signature button in the row above the edit box. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:16, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Can a song possibly be just a song, rather than a political statement? - BornAgainBrit

: Uh, sure, there are songs that lack any meaning at all. "I wanna hold your hand," for example, is a pleasant jingle from your homeland. I trust we'd agree that it is not the most meaningful song in the world. That tune is fun for reminiscing.

: But surely you don't deny that many songs do have political meaning. [[Liberal]] attempts to deny political bias are familiar to us and no one here is fooled. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:37, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

The deletion of Bob Dylan's song was not properly explained. Observing that people serve either the devil or the Lord is a conservative observation, and of course Bob Dylan was a born-again Christian who expressed his faith in song (but don't expect [[liberals]] to tell you that).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

:I didn't mean to step on any toes, but apathy towards devil worship doesn't seem to me like a very conservative trait. Unfortunately, the verses of the songs don't give us ''any'' meaning whatsoever, so the only meaning we can glean from the song are the four lines of the chorus, three of which are essentially the same :/ [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:06, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

::Paradise by the Dashboard light? I know its a song about having pre-marital sex, but the end is about how it screwed up his life.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 04:45, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

After reading this list, I've gotta ask, just how do you define a 'conservative' song?--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 15:27, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: [[Conservative]] is a term that is well-understood. A "conservative song" reflects some of those values without diluting them with a [[liberal]] message.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

I can't believe Okie from Muskogie isn't on here. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:23, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

I know this is being nitpicky, but I don't like the message of Last Kiss because it seems to suggest a works salvation, that one gets to heaven by doing good rather than accepting Jesus. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:30, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:... and on that note, let's open up a can of [[Mountain Dew]] and get ready to [[Debate:Are we saved by faith or works?]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:16, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

==Last Kiss==
Somebody just put up "Last Kiss;" actually I recall when it was a hit circa 1964 many adults, parents, teachers and ministers where horrified that a song about death was considered appropriate for young people. My my, how things had changed by 1967.... [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:08, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

Just like 'Teen Angel,' 'Leader of the Pack,' 'Dead Man's Curve,' and 'Tell Laura I Love Her.' [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:35, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

==Possible Addition==

Ok, I have a suggestion, but I want some feedback before putting it on the page. I was listening to the radio today, and Another Brick in the Wall by Pink Floyd came on. I was thinking that the song talks about the way that public schools brainwash children and turn them into "bricks" in the wall that is liberal society. In a way, the song is pro-homeschooling, because it's teachers that need to leave the kids alone so that parents can instruct their children correctly. Maybe I'm reaching a bit here, but I wanted to see what you all thought. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:23, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

: I'm open to comments and suggestions about this, but I've never viewed the famous song "another brick in the wall" as conservative. You may be right that the song properly complains about the effect of schooling, but the song doesn't offer any conservative solution that I can see.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:10, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

::"Another Brick In The Wall" is more of a neutral song. Its part of a concept album in which the main character slowly seperates himself from society. Most Pink Floyd songs are about madness, due to their original lead singer going insane. [[User:TobyKeet|TobyKeet]] 05:32, 24 November 2010 (EST)

==Love Me, I'm a Liberal==

:I'm glad the commies were thrown out
:Of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board

Hardly sounds like a Communist critique. Have you read all the lyrics of the song? [http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/ochs/lyrics/liberal.html] It's twitting liberals for their supposed concern for others, which is actually sorely lacking. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:14, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

:That song is pure sarcasm and Ochs assumes the role of a 1960s-era (Cold War era) "liberal" to attack them from the extreme left in a sarcastic way. Read the lyrics again, he is attacking the AFL-CIO for throwing out the commies. He is saying liberals aren't far left ''enough''. It's not a conservative song, it's an extreme leftist one. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 17:22, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

So there's a song on this list about breaking the law 'I can't Drive 55,' and one about obeying the law 'I fought the law.' Which is the conservative value? And the Bobby Fuller Four's version of the latter was the superior version, BTW. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:40, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

== Are these truly conservative? ==

While I understand completely some of these songs being on here, I don't really understand the why Bob Dylan, The Beatles, or Ben Folds (Five) would be on this list. These individual songs may be able to be warped into our mindset, but if one truly looks at these, they become overwhelmingly liberal.

For example: The Beatles - Revolution
While this song does indeed talk about how "Carrying pictures of Chairman Mao" will do no good, it also talks about how war and money can't solve problems. In addition, if a child is to read tis and decide to find out more about The Beatles, they will undoubtedly find some intensely liberal themes. The same idea goes for Bob Dylan. Look at any of his other songs. At the same time, Ben Folds does exactly the same thing.

I cannot argue with the songs and parts on this list, but I wonder if this is a slippery slope?
::It's possible that many of these songs were adopted by conservatives, such as Mike Huckabee playing John Cougar Mellencamp's hits. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:48, 18 February 2008 (EST)

: Many of the songs here have a powerful [[conservative]] message, and demonstrate that the music industry does not have to be [[liberal]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:00, 18 February 2008 (EST)

: P.S. [[Liberals]] do say [[conservative]] things from time to time. We're listing songs here, not artists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 18 February 2008 (EST)

I would just like add that Revolution 1 was written as a reaction against the protesters against the Vietnam War who were getting violent. All Revolution is saying is for the protesters to protest, but not violently, which is still liberal, but a message than other liberal songs. However, for other Beatles songs, they range from being liberal (Why Don't We Do It in the Road?) to be being kind of conservative (Let It Be). Most however, are pretty much neutral. You usually kind Paul McCartney as being more concervative, and Lennon as liberal. [[User:TobyKeet|TobyKeet]] 05:28, 24 November 2010 (EST)

:One problem with the above analysis: Why Don't We Do It In the Road was McCartney's; Lennon was rather famously not involved at all. Personally I've always thought of it as a kind of parody of the free love movement, though apparently that wasn't McCartney's intention. [[User:Ptorquemada|Ptorquemada]] 17:25, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

== In Your Eyes ==

Okay, the song can be considered to be about God, but that alone does not make it conservative. I think Peter Gabriel himself would object to the song's inclusion in this list. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 15:23, 18 February 2008 (EST)

: Peter Gabriel can object all he likes. "In Your Eyes" appeals to conservative values, as in "a thousand churches." Do you think we should object when a liberal says something conservative???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:27, 18 February 2008 (EST)
::Religion is not conservative. Fundamentalism is, but not religion. The presence of religion in a song does not make it conservative, even as adherence to religion does not make a person conservative. Look at me, I'm a Christian, but I'm also a communist. Obviously the two are not mutually exclusive. One's personal merely interpersonally-social morals under religion might be more "conservative", in the loosest sense of the term — not conservative, simply somewhat more so — than they would be otherwise; however, that does not automatically make one politically conservative.--[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 15:50, 18 February 2008 (EST)

::: The single best predictor of how conservative someone votes is how often he attends a place of worship of God. Your argument suggesting that you are a counterexample to that correlation means nothing. See point #2 in [[liberal logic]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 18 February 2008 (EST)

::::That wasn't irrelevant at all. Correlation != causation. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 16:08, 18 February 2008 (EST)
::::Sorry, my edit summary should have been "basic statistical interpretation". --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 16:09, 18 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Why did you cite your counterexample, if it wasn't an example of the logical fallacy #2 in [[liberal logic]]? Do you really think a counterexample disproves causation?

==Land of Confusion==
Does Genesis' ''Land of Confusion'' belong on the list? I remember the music video portraying Ronald Reagan (in puppet form) as inept, and it parodies several conservative leaders, including Margaret Thatcher, et. al. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 13:58, 5 March 2009 (EST)

: It's liberal lyric of "too many people" is enough reason to bounce it from the list. Thanks for catching this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 5 March 2009 (EST)

==Should Fortunate Son really be on this list?==

It's vehemently anti-war. Please correct if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's a very conservative belief. [[User:JRobbe|JRobbe]]

:I just looked the lyrics. Pretty confused stuff. I'd agree it's not conservative. Would you like to toss it from the list? Please feel free to do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:26, 7 January 2010 (EST)

:Done. [[User:JRobbe|JRobbe]]

== Long Black Train by Josh Turner? ==

To me, this song seems like a good candidate for this list. --[[User:Dfrischknecht|Dfrischknecht]] 07:14, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

== The Decision by Ricky Van Shelton ==

I think this is another good candidate for this list. It's a song about a teenage girl who gives in to peer pressure and gets pregnant and the consequences of that action. --[[User:Dfrischknecht|Dfrischknecht]] 09:02, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

== New Agey ==

I removed the new agey phrase of "the cycle of life, death and rebirth," for the "Lightning Crashes," by Live, but feel free to discuss here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:23, 22 September 2010 (EDT)

: That wasn't meant to seem "new agey" in the least, but I do understand what you're saying. The song presents a view of life as being cyclical, as the baby is being born an old woman dies, and "The confusion that was hers belongs now to the baby down the hall." I think the lyrics really speak to the significance of life (not just at childbirth), but as a whole. I don't think the song is necessarily about the old woman being reincarnated as the newborn child, but it definitely seems to speak of the circle of life.[[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 15:56, 22 September 2010 (EDT)

:: Perhaps a rewording would work then? How about replacing "the cycle of life, death and rebirth" with "the joy of childbirth in contrast with the end of life"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 22 September 2010 (EDT)

::: I agree that a rewording would work, thank you for working with me. Perhaps we could just say that the song celebrates the significance of life from birth until death, almost in an as one door closes another opens kind of way? [[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 20:00, 22 September 2010 (EDT)

== Song idea ==

"One Man, One Woman" sung by ABBA. Indirectly a tribute to traditional marriage and monogamy.--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 12:14, 12 January 2011 (EST)

: Sounds good by the title, so how about adding it where you think it would be appropriate in the list? Thanks for your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:17, 12 January 2011 (EST)

== Takin' Care of Business ==

This song by BTO is on the list for supporting "Hard work ethic", but its not. The refrain is jokingly ironic. "I love to work at nothing all day; and I've been taking care of business"

The body of the song describes a more easy going life just making music rather than waking up early, catching trains for work, etc.

I'm not saying it makes the song liberal, and not sure why its even necessary to classify songs along political lines, but it sure as heck ain't about working hard.
I'd suggest if someone wants to keep it here because its a good song, and if people can only enjoy it because it conforms to their political views, than change the reason to "Mike Huckabee performed the song" [comment by AndrewJackson]

:You left out how the song praises the self-employed, which is a very conservative, hard-working group of people.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:55, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

::Fair enough, but the praise you speak of is "If you ever get annoyed [with, based on earlier lyrics, either your traditional job or the unpleasant commute involved], look at me, I'm self-employed; I love to work at nothing all day." That could be taken as either "I made so much money as an entepreneur that I no longer need to work" or "My official job title is 'Bum'." Neither one of them really expresses admiration for "hard work" in its own right, though the former is certainly a more positive role model than the latter. I do ''like'' the song, but I'm not entirely sanguine about considering it "conservative." [[User:Ptorquemada|Ptorquemada]] 17:36, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

== Adonai My Lord ==

I'm going to delete this song from the list, as it is from the atheistic industrial metal genre. The lyrics reflect a sort of militant Christianity that does not reflect well on the religion as a whole. For example, this group has a song called "Christf---"...obviously they are not conservative. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 01:14, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

==No U2?==

Surely -- despite the band's liberal leanings -- one of U2's unashamedly Christian songs should make it in. Gloria seems the obvious choice. The chorus, you may remember, goes: "Gloria, in te domine/ Gloria, exultate/ Gloria, Gloria/ Oh Lord, loosen my lips." --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 12:34, 28 March 2011 (EDT)
:Agreed. Gloria is definitely a good choice. Perhaps "40"; its lyrics are directly lifted from Psalm 40. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 12:43, 28 March 2011 (EDT)
::You're kidding right? [http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/us-election/u2-honoured-to-be-involved-with-obama-celebrations-14145757.html Conservative indeed..] [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:06, 28 March 2011 (EDT)
:::Bono has had a relationship with every President since Clinton; for instance, he worked with Bush on issues relating to Africa and AIDS awareness. The band is very Christian and in no way ashamed of their Christianity. And, rare for rock stars, three of the four members of the band are married family men. They are known for their charitableness and philanthropy, which are of course [[conservative]] traits. Without a doubt, U2 is a conservative, Christian band and they should have representation on this list. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:21, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

::::''Gloria'''s a good choice, please add it if you agree. But U2 became increasingly liberal the more media attention it obtained.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:07, 29 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::Maybe it's possible to be Christian and pro-family, and yet left-leaning politically. Anyway, I vote for "Beautiful Day" ... The heart is a bloom / Shoots up through the stony ground / But there's no room / No space to rent in this town

:::::Reminds me of how inhospitable this fallen world can be to the spirits of believers trying to lead a godly life in the midst of a secular world which often seems to be ruled by the devil (John 12:31). Yet God's love is there, like sunshine! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:53, 29 March 2011 (EDT)

== Brothers in Arms - Dure Straits ==

I would like to suggest Brothers in Arms by Dire Straits. It's about war and having ones "brother's in arms" in support. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:32, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2011-04-04T21:25:33Z

Ptorquemada: /* Are these truly conservative? */

See [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzZkNDU5MmViNzVjNzkzMDE3NzNlN2MyZjRjYTk4YjE= this]. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 10:04, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

: The [[neoconservative]] ''National Review'' list is 95% garbage, not [[conservative]] at all. I only found one tune on the list that should be added ours ("Stand by your man"), and National Review had it at #50.

: The contrast here with ''National Review'' illustrates the need for ''Conservapedia''. But thanks for your link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Oops... it seems that I added a bunch of songs from that list. Several of mine (Brick, Red Barchetta, I Can't Drive 55, Sweet Home Alabama, and Revolution 1) were on there. That's interesting, though... the NR person and I thought alike on this one. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:16, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Sweet Home Alabama? I love that song (and I'm a liberal)! Revolution's great, too.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 18:29, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Sorry? Why was my entry for The Fall's Pseud Mag Ed removed? They have always been the great deflators of liberal complacency. What is going on?

: Post a link to the lyrics of the song here and we'll see. Also, please sign your entries by using the signature button in the row above the edit box. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:16, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Can a song possibly be just a song, rather than a political statement? - BornAgainBrit

: Uh, sure, there are songs that lack any meaning at all. "I wanna hold your hand," for example, is a pleasant jingle from your homeland. I trust we'd agree that it is not the most meaningful song in the world. That tune is fun for reminiscing.

: But surely you don't deny that many songs do have political meaning. [[Liberal]] attempts to deny political bias are familiar to us and no one here is fooled. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:37, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

The deletion of Bob Dylan's song was not properly explained. Observing that people serve either the devil or the Lord is a conservative observation, and of course Bob Dylan was a born-again Christian who expressed his faith in song (but don't expect [[liberals]] to tell you that).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

:I didn't mean to step on any toes, but apathy towards devil worship doesn't seem to me like a very conservative trait. Unfortunately, the verses of the songs don't give us ''any'' meaning whatsoever, so the only meaning we can glean from the song are the four lines of the chorus, three of which are essentially the same :/ [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:06, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

::Paradise by the Dashboard light? I know its a song about having pre-marital sex, but the end is about how it screwed up his life.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 04:45, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

After reading this list, I've gotta ask, just how do you define a 'conservative' song?--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 15:27, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: [[Conservative]] is a term that is well-understood. A "conservative song" reflects some of those values without diluting them with a [[liberal]] message.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

I can't believe Okie from Muskogie isn't on here. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:23, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

I know this is being nitpicky, but I don't like the message of Last Kiss because it seems to suggest a works salvation, that one gets to heaven by doing good rather than accepting Jesus. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:30, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:... and on that note, let's open up a can of [[Mountain Dew]] and get ready to [[Debate:Are we saved by faith or works?]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:16, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

==Last Kiss==
Somebody just put up "Last Kiss;" actually I recall when it was a hit circa 1964 many adults, parents, teachers and ministers where horrified that a song about death was considered appropriate for young people. My my, how things had changed by 1967.... [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:08, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

Just like 'Teen Angel,' 'Leader of the Pack,' 'Dead Man's Curve,' and 'Tell Laura I Love Her.' [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:35, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

==Possible Addition==

Ok, I have a suggestion, but I want some feedback before putting it on the page. I was listening to the radio today, and Another Brick in the Wall by Pink Floyd came on. I was thinking that the song talks about the way that public schools brainwash children and turn them into "bricks" in the wall that is liberal society. In a way, the song is pro-homeschooling, because it's teachers that need to leave the kids alone so that parents can instruct their children correctly. Maybe I'm reaching a bit here, but I wanted to see what you all thought. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:23, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

: I'm open to comments and suggestions about this, but I've never viewed the famous song "another brick in the wall" as conservative. You may be right that the song properly complains about the effect of schooling, but the song doesn't offer any conservative solution that I can see.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:10, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

::"Another Brick In The Wall" is more of a neutral song. Its part of a concept album in which the main character slowly seperates himself from society. Most Pink Floyd songs are about madness, due to their original lead singer going insane. [[User:TobyKeet|TobyKeet]] 05:32, 24 November 2010 (EST)

==Love Me, I'm a Liberal==

:I'm glad the commies were thrown out
:Of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board

Hardly sounds like a Communist critique. Have you read all the lyrics of the song? [http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/ochs/lyrics/liberal.html] It's twitting liberals for their supposed concern for others, which is actually sorely lacking. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:14, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

:That song is pure sarcasm and Ochs assumes the role of a 1960s-era (Cold War era) "liberal" to attack them from the extreme left in a sarcastic way. Read the lyrics again, he is attacking the AFL-CIO for throwing out the commies. He is saying liberals aren't far left ''enough''. It's not a conservative song, it's an extreme leftist one. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 17:22, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

So there's a song on this list about breaking the law 'I can't Drive 55,' and one about obeying the law 'I fought the law.' Which is the conservative value? And the Bobby Fuller Four's version of the latter was the superior version, BTW. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:40, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

== Are these truly conservative? ==

While I understand completely some of these songs being on here, I don't really understand the why Bob Dylan, The Beatles, or Ben Folds (Five) would be on this list. These individual songs may be able to be warped into our mindset, but if one truly looks at these, they become overwhelmingly liberal.

For example: The Beatles - Revolution
While this song does indeed talk about how "Carrying pictures of Chairman Mao" will do no good, it also talks about how war and money can't solve problems. In addition, if a child is to read tis and decide to find out more about The Beatles, they will undoubtedly find some intensely liberal themes. The same idea goes for Bob Dylan. Look at any of his other songs. At the same time, Ben Folds does exactly the same thing.

I cannot argue with the songs and parts on this list, but I wonder if this is a slippery slope?
::It's possible that many of these songs were adopted by conservatives, such as Mike Huckabee playing John Cougar Mellencamp's hits. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:48, 18 February 2008 (EST)

: Many of the songs here have a powerful [[conservative]] message, and demonstrate that the music industry does not have to be [[liberal]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:00, 18 February 2008 (EST)

: P.S. [[Liberals]] do say [[conservative]] things from time to time. We're listing songs here, not artists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 18 February 2008 (EST)

I would just like add that Revolution 1 was written as a reaction against the protesters against the Vietnam War who were getting violent. All Revolution is saying is for the protesters to protest, but not violently, which is still liberal, but a message than other liberal songs. However, for other Beatles songs, they range from being liberal (Why Don't We Do It in the Road?) to be being kind of conservative (Let It Be). Most however, are pretty much neutral. You usually kind Paul McCartney as being more concervative, and Lennon as liberal. [[User:TobyKeet|TobyKeet]] 05:28, 24 November 2010 (EST)

:One problem with the above analysis: Why Don't We Do It In the Road was McCartney's; Lennon was rather famously not involved at all. Personally I've always thought of it as a kind of parody of the free love movement, though apparently that wasn't McCartney's intention. [[User:Ptorquemada|Ptorquemada]] 17:25, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

== In Your Eyes ==

Okay, the song can be considered to be about God, but that alone does not make it conservative. I think Peter Gabriel himself would object to the song's inclusion in this list. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 15:23, 18 February 2008 (EST)

: Peter Gabriel can object all he likes. "In Your Eyes" appeals to conservative values, as in "a thousand churches." Do you think we should object when a liberal says something conservative???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:27, 18 February 2008 (EST)
::Religion is not conservative. Fundamentalism is, but not religion. The presence of religion in a song does not make it conservative, even as adherence to religion does not make a person conservative. Look at me, I'm a Christian, but I'm also a communist. Obviously the two are not mutually exclusive. One's personal merely interpersonally-social morals under religion might be more "conservative", in the loosest sense of the term — not conservative, simply somewhat more so — than they would be otherwise; however, that does not automatically make one politically conservative.--[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 15:50, 18 February 2008 (EST)

::: The single best predictor of how conservative someone votes is how often he attends a place of worship of God. Your argument suggesting that you are a counterexample to that correlation means nothing. See point #2 in [[liberal logic]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 18 February 2008 (EST)

::::That wasn't irrelevant at all. Correlation != causation. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 16:08, 18 February 2008 (EST)
::::Sorry, my edit summary should have been "basic statistical interpretation". --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 16:09, 18 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Why did you cite your counterexample, if it wasn't an example of the logical fallacy #2 in [[liberal logic]]? Do you really think a counterexample disproves causation?

==Land of Confusion==
Does Genesis' ''Land of Confusion'' belong on the list? I remember the music video portraying Ronald Reagan (in puppet form) as inept, and it parodies several conservative leaders, including Margaret Thatcher, et. al. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 13:58, 5 March 2009 (EST)

: It's liberal lyric of "too many people" is enough reason to bounce it from the list. Thanks for catching this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 5 March 2009 (EST)

==Should Fortunate Son really be on this list?==

It's vehemently anti-war. Please correct if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's a very conservative belief. [[User:JRobbe|JRobbe]]

:I just looked the lyrics. Pretty confused stuff. I'd agree it's not conservative. Would you like to toss it from the list? Please feel free to do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:26, 7 January 2010 (EST)

:Done. [[User:JRobbe|JRobbe]]

== Long Black Train by Josh Turner? ==

To me, this song seems like a good candidate for this list. --[[User:Dfrischknecht|Dfrischknecht]] 07:14, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

== The Decision by Ricky Van Shelton ==

I think this is another good candidate for this list. It's a song about a teenage girl who gives in to peer pressure and gets pregnant and the consequences of that action. --[[User:Dfrischknecht|Dfrischknecht]] 09:02, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

== New Agey ==

I removed the new agey phrase of "the cycle of life, death and rebirth," for the "Lightning Crashes," by Live, but feel free to discuss here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:23, 22 September 2010 (EDT)

: That wasn't meant to seem "new agey" in the least, but I do understand what you're saying. The song presents a view of life as being cyclical, as the baby is being born an old woman dies, and "The confusion that was hers belongs now to the baby down the hall." I think the lyrics really speak to the significance of life (not just at childbirth), but as a whole. I don't think the song is necessarily about the old woman being reincarnated as the newborn child, but it definitely seems to speak of the circle of life.[[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 15:56, 22 September 2010 (EDT)

:: Perhaps a rewording would work then? How about replacing "the cycle of life, death and rebirth" with "the joy of childbirth in contrast with the end of life"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 22 September 2010 (EDT)

::: I agree that a rewording would work, thank you for working with me. Perhaps we could just say that the song celebrates the significance of life from birth until death, almost in an as one door closes another opens kind of way? [[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 20:00, 22 September 2010 (EDT)

== Song idea ==

"One Man, One Woman" sung by ABBA. Indirectly a tribute to traditional marriage and monogamy.--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 12:14, 12 January 2011 (EST)

: Sounds good by the title, so how about adding it where you think it would be appropriate in the list? Thanks for your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:17, 12 January 2011 (EST)

== Takin' Care of Business ==

This song by BTO is on the list for supporting "Hard work ethic", but its not. The refrain is jokingly ironic. "I love to work at nothing all day; and I've been taking care of business"

The body of the song describes a more easy going life just making music rather than waking up early, catching trains for work, etc.

I'm not saying it makes the song liberal, and not sure why its even necessary to classify songs along political lines, but it sure as heck ain't about working hard.
I'd suggest if someone wants to keep it here because its a good song, and if people can only enjoy it because it conforms to their political views, than change the reason to "Mike Huckabee performed the song" [comment by AndrewJackson]

:You left out how the song praises the self-employed, which is a very conservative, hard-working group of people.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:55, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

== Adonai My Lord ==

I'm going to delete this song from the list, as it is from the atheistic industrial metal genre. The lyrics reflect a sort of militant Christianity that does not reflect well on the religion as a whole. For example, this group has a song called "Christf---"...obviously they are not conservative. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 01:14, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

==No U2?==

Surely -- despite the band's liberal leanings -- one of U2's unashamedly Christian songs should make it in. Gloria seems the obvious choice. The chorus, you may remember, goes: "Gloria, in te domine/ Gloria, exultate/ Gloria, Gloria/ Oh Lord, loosen my lips." --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 12:34, 28 March 2011 (EDT)
:Agreed. Gloria is definitely a good choice. Perhaps "40"; its lyrics are directly lifted from Psalm 40. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 12:43, 28 March 2011 (EDT)
::You're kidding right? [http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/us-election/u2-honoured-to-be-involved-with-obama-celebrations-14145757.html Conservative indeed..] [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:06, 28 March 2011 (EDT)
:::Bono has had a relationship with every President since Clinton; for instance, he worked with Bush on issues relating to Africa and AIDS awareness. The band is very Christian and in no way ashamed of their Christianity. And, rare for rock stars, three of the four members of the band are married family men. They are known for their charitableness and philanthropy, which are of course [[conservative]] traits. Without a doubt, U2 is a conservative, Christian band and they should have representation on this list. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:21, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

::::''Gloria'''s a good choice, please add it if you agree. But U2 became increasingly liberal the more media attention it obtained.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:07, 29 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::Maybe it's possible to be Christian and pro-family, and yet left-leaning politically. Anyway, I vote for "Beautiful Day" ... The heart is a bloom / Shoots up through the stony ground / But there's no room / No space to rent in this town

:::::Reminds me of how inhospitable this fallen world can be to the spirits of believers trying to lead a godly life in the midst of a secular world which often seems to be ruled by the devil (John 12:31). Yet God's love is there, like sunshine! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:53, 29 March 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2011-04-04T21:00:49Z

Ptorquemada: /* Definition */

'''[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]''' 
'''[[/archive2|Archive 2 ]]'''
----

==Mother Nature==
In the New Liberal Terms section, I put the term Mother Nature in the list. Is it right?--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 18:40, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

I won't argue whether or not Mother nature is a liberal term on the grounds that I think the distinction between conservative and liberal words is dubious at best, however it is most certainly not a new word. The idea of mother nature is as old as the ancient greeks or older. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 18:46, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:That's a clever way to dispose of a vexing question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

Well I don't want to waste your time by arguing the point Mr. Schlafly. If you want to put the term back in feel free. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 19:24, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

How is it dubious? Also, I haven’t heard of any writings or speeches where the term Mother Nature was used hundreds of years ago. Show me at least one speech or writing where the term was used. Liberals use it to discredit Father God’s role in creation. They think that it was nature, not God, who made us. To Liberals, nature is their goddess. Funny how Wikipedia’s article on Mother Nature denies the atheistic, evolutionary and environmental implications of the term.--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 19:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

:Look up "Gaia" or "Terra Mater" - "Mother Nature" or "Mother Earth" has been around thousands of years. [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 22:23, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

::The idea of personifying all of nature as a woman surely predates the liberalism of 20th century and early 21st century America. But the way in which the natural world came into existence, specifically the planet Earth which supports all life known to exist, is unknown to science: speculation is not "science" unless expressed as a theory to which a counterexample could conceivably be found (see [[falsifiability]]).

::Those scientists who deny God's role in [[Creation]] are committing the same intellectual offense they accuse [[intelligent design]] theorists of. It is also not "science" to comment on metaphysical ideas, unless we grant that the scientific method can be applied to matters beyond [[physical science]].

::The trick which liberals are playing with their anti-conservative words is to pretend that they are talking about one thing, while they are actually talking about another. This is literally the oldest trick in [[Bible|the book]]; recall that the serpent tempting Eve told her, "You will not die" yet Jesus explained later on many occasions that "life" and "death" correspond to being able or unable to love God. So eating the forbidden fruit did indeed cause Eve's death. (See verses like, "You have the name of being alive, but you are dead" in Revelations and, "Let the dead bury their own dead" in Luke 9)

::We need precise definitions of words, to prevent being tricked and fooled by deceivers with a hidden agenda. The so-called "[[peace movement]]", for example, never wanted [[peace]] but simply the victory of America's anti-[[democracy|democratic]] enemies. The "save the earth" movement is not at all concerned with preserving the environment for the well-being of human beings: it's an excuse to increase centralized control over resources, in a way which will destroy prosperity, hurting the world's poor more than any one else.

::Now it's a matter of personal belief for me that God has a feminine aspect; my church specifically teaches that the [[Holy Spirit]] is feminine, and that God is a being whose harmonized masculinity and femininity are reflected in men and women (see Gen. 1:27) but I won't preach here. The issue is the relationship between Nature and human beings.

::Liberals claim that science has proved [[Evolution]] without providing any evidence for it, let alone discussing a means by which the theory might be falsified (thus providing a highly prominent example of [[pseudoscience]]). Then they misuse this idea to hint that science has also discovered the source of the physical world ([[Big Bang]] theory) and the [[origin of life]]. Of course, when pressed, they must concede that the Theory of Evolution does not tell us how life came into being. But high school biology textbooks write about life as if it simply "evolved" from inorganic chemicals. This, by the way, is a great example of how New Liberal Words are misused to trick people. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:10, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

:::That's a fascinating analysis, Ed. Thank you for sharing it. I appreciate the suggestion that the [[Holy Spirit]] is feminine. Usually groups of people, like nations or large audiences, are considered to be more feminine than masculine in nature.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:13, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== "Bully pulpit" ==

How about "bully pulpit"? When Teddy Roosevelt coined this, "bully" meant something like "excellent" rather than overbearing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

I guess it's kind of like the word gay. At first gay meant happy and now it means something else.--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 19:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

==Definition==

I think this article needs a clear definition of what is meant by "conservative words." As I was reading it, I found it unclear as to whether it's about words invented by Conservatives or words representing Conservative values. I gather it's the latter, but I had to look in the talk page to find that. Either way, the introduction to the article isn't very clear and I'm reluctant to write a definition since I'm not sure I'm on the same page as the contributors. Would someone care to do that? [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:49, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

:As far as I can tell, it seems to be "words we like to use." I think it's pretty apparent that the claim that they "represent conservative values" is false... saying that, for example, the word "carpetbagger" represents conservative values is kind of insulting. Some of the words here are obviously included for their utility in showcasing liberal failings rather than their inherent "conservative value". I would argue that the using the term "conservative words" is actually kind of pejorative; while not quite as catchy, perhaps "words you may find useful" would be better? Calling them conservative words allows liberals to dismiss them more easily: "Those aren't ''real'' words, those are just conservative neologisms." [[User:Ptorquemada|Ptorquemada]] 17:00, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

== 33 million sites turn up in a Google search for "anti-Christian" - Wrong! ==

For the term "anti-Christian" the article claims "thirty-three million sites turn up in a Google search."

Where did this number come from? Go to Google and type in "anti-Christian" (in quotes) and you get 945,000 hits. Type in "anti-Christian" (NOT in quotes - which is totally sloppy Googling) and you get 7,590,000 hits. Where did the "thirty-three million" come from? [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 22:11, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

: That's an interesting observation, Paul. The number of Google links retrieved for the search "anti-Christian" has fallen substantially. That begs the question of why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:18, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

::Should we correct that number in the article? [[User:ChrisGT90|ChrisGT90]] 22:41, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

:::Please improve as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
::::The user who added that ([[User:DrewDice]]) was subsequently blocked for prevarication. The one-million figure Andy added seems about right in my searches. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 23:05, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::Before you round the number down, consider rounding it up. [http://www.google.com/search?q=anti+Christian&hl=en&lr=lang_en&as_qdr=all&prmd=inl&sa=X&ei=eQldTN2RGIWBlAeU8uCbCA&ved=0CBEQpwU&source=lnt&tbs=lr:lang_1en,cdr:1,cd_min:,cd_max:] The answer is 74.6 million. Google anti Christian with no quotes, no hyphens, English language only. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 03:24, 7 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::That is true, but such a Google search would include Christian sites about "[[pro-life|anti-abortion]]" stances or "[[homosexuality|anti-Biblical]]" lifestyles. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 21:43, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::::A good indication that my search results are accurate can be judged by the first 10 page results, nothing but anti-Christian in the title. Does it include anti-abortion and anti-American? Possibly, we are talking 78 million pages but I didn't see any through the top 10. I frown on the smaller number of 1 million.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:14, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::::I'm sorry you feel that way. A good indication that your search results are inaccurate can be judged by using the "Search within results" function. Half a million of your results pertain to the Christian "anti defamation" commission. Another half million are for "anti abortion". 184,000 deal with "anti immigration". And the list goes on and on...173,000 are about the punk rock band "Anti-flag". I'm sure hundreds of thousands more results are about things that people named Christian don't like. The only way to accurately gauge the use of the phrase "anti Christian" on Google is to search for that phrase, not its components. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 11:50, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::I did a search for anti-Christian both with and without the hyphen when Paul Burnett first brought the issue up, and both returned the same number of hits (about the 7.5 million he mentioned). I think that Jpatt may have misread the number and moved the decimal place over. Even now, I'm only getting 10.8 million hits, both by typing in what Jpatt described or by clicking his link. I'm changing the article now to say 10 million, but I think the number should ultimately be removed. It just changes to quickly for the article to stay up-to-date unless somebody is going to check every morning. Also, on the first page of ten results, on is a list of anti-Christian movies, one is lamenting the anti-Christian bias in America, and one is against anti-Christian defamation. If you want to only use the first 10 results as a sample of the 10 million (which anybody who's taken a statistics course would tell you is a horrible idea), about 30% of those results are nothing hostile towards Christianity. [[User:ChrisGT90|ChrisGT90]] 23:12, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::JPatt's search results extended further into the past than a normal google search. For the same reasons I explained to him, your 10 million number is inaccurate (you can verify by searching within your results). I'm changing it back to 1 million for the time being, but maybe you're right that it should be removed outright. No one doubts that it is a widely-used term. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 17:54, 20 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::::There are 10.8 million results when you search anti-Christian on Google. The claim being made was not that there were X million results hostile towards Christianity, just that there were X million results. No attempt was made at qualifying them, and the statement in the article does not indicate any attempt at qualifying them. It doesn't matter if only one in ten of those results is actually something anti-Christian; the claim is only about how many results there are. I'm changing it back to 10 million, because that's how many results there are (not good results, or relevant results, just results in any form). With that being said, it is a fairly pointless claim to make, because we don't know how many of those results actually '''are''' anti-Christian, we only know that they make some reference to "anti-Christian." [[User:ChrisGT90|ChrisGT90]] 20:17, 21 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::::I'm blanking the description on this term. The number of Google results is subject to wide variation, and the number of Google results is hardly an informative piece of information, as per discussion above. The term '''is''' included in the unabridged Merriam-Webster dictionary ([http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antichristian Link]). I don't know of a suitable replacement description, so I'm just going to leave it open to somebody else. [[User:ChrisGT90|ChrisGT90]] 13:52, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

== Adding Obama Portmanteaus ==

I've noticed the list does not have any of the Obama portmanteaus, like [[Obamanation]], [[Obamunism]], etc. Shouldn't these terms be added? They are great for described the unfortunate turn this country is taking. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 17:13, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

== Underdog ==

Conservative term imho. Seeker of greatness against the odds. Cinderella story. David (underdog) slays Goliath. The meek (underdog) shall inherit the Earth. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 03:09, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

: I agree that "underdog" is a conservative term, and I will promote it now. Thanks for mentioning this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:42, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

== Excellent scholarship ==

In the face of such well founded scholarship, Liberals will never manage to disprove the remarkable growth pattern illustrating the doubling per century of Conservative words. Nevertheless, perhaps the essay could be improved slightly by adding that Conservative words are words that express a Conservative concept or words that are used significantly more often by conservatives than Liberals. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:20, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

: Not sure what confusion you're trying to clear up here. Conservatives words express insights that are conservative. These words are freely available to liberals and conservatives alike, though liberals may indeed irrationally try (in a fool's errand) to avoid using them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:34, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

::The essay begins by mentioning Conservative terms, then a list of Conservative words and terms follows, nowhere in the essay is it made clear what Conservative words or terms actually are. That, I think, should occur at the beginning of the essay. Supplying a definition of what a Conservative term is, will underpin the observation that the data supplied irrefutably proves a "1-2-4-8" geometric increase for new conservative terms. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 14:51, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

:::Definition by example seems best here. Other proposed definitions are, of course, welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:35, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

::Other definitions are not required, your own excellent, clear and concise definition that Conservatives words express [[conservative insights]] is more than adequate. However, [[definition]] by [[example]] begs the question, are the words in the list because they are Conservative or are the words Conservative because they are in the list? [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 15:48, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

:::The terms are obviously Conservative independent of being in this list. You wouldn't request a definition for "List of Words beginning with G", so why are you demanding a definition for "Conservative term"? Are the component words of the phrase that obtuse for you? We're not using them in any aberrant way. --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 18:04, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

::::Nowhere did I demand a definition, I merely suggested that providing one would underpin the excellent scholarship presented in the essay. G is a well established concept amongst literate people. "List of Words beginning with G" is a definition, therefore it logically does not require a definition. The term 'Conservative words' is not as well established as G, therefore a definition helps those unfamiliar with the term understand it and benefit from Mr Schlafly's excellent insights. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 16:57, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::What you say cannot be true, because in the world I live in, people know and understand what "conservative" means, and they don't need it spelled out for them. Talking about the "excellent scholarship presented in this essay" smacks of sarcasm from the tone of the rest of your post. If you were a ''real'' conservative, you wouldn't have to be asking what a "conservative word" was. --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 21:29, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

::My suggestion to elaborate was in order to elucidate the term 'Conservative words' not the word 'Conservative'. The elucidation is intended for visitors unfamiliar with the term, not for myself. Many come to Conservapedia seeking an alternative to the atheistic anti-Christian misinformation, gossip and pornography prevalent elsewhere on the internet. Elucidation enables such people to better understand and appreciate what Conservapedia has to offer, and may facillitate bringing them into the fold, so that they may also profit from the many [[Essay:Conservative Benefits|Conservative benefits]]. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 18:01, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

:::If liberals are so devoid of intelligence or honesty to clearly understand the simple application of an adjective to a noun, then why should we dumb down our article just for their pea-sized brains? --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 21:57, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

"AmandaBunting" (if that really is your name), I've reviewed your contributions and you're not doing much more than talk, talk talk. We conservatives favor substantive contributions to this project, so if all you can do is complain on talk pages, Wikipedia might be a better place for you and your misguided ideology. It's obvious you're not here to help anyone learn. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 18:18, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

:I am neither complaining nor have I a misguided ideology. I am simply making substantive suggestions about how I think this excellent essay may be improved. As a Conservative I would have expected more [[Chivalry|chivalrous]] behaviour here, there is [[Essay:Rules of Chivalry for Students|much you can learn]] from Conservapedia. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 16:57, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

::But you didn't suggest a definition, even though one would have been (and still is) welcome from you. Wikis are not answer boxes; they are places where people contribute ideas and ''substantive'' edits, and then others improve them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:34, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

:::I had already mentioned that other definitions are not required because you had already supplied supplied an excellent, clear and concise definition that Conservatives words express Conservative insights. I have added that to the essay, furthermore the definition itself links to the insightful article [[Conservative insights]]. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:38, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

== Maggie Thatcher ==

Great article. How about some of Margaret Thatcher's great new conservative terms:
* U-turn: What liberal politicians do all the time
* There is no alternative: Liberals pretend that they have an alternative to conservative values
* Oxygen of publicity: What liberals want to give to terrorists
* Fight to win: What conservatives should do!
[[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:03, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
:Get this! Adding those four terms takes the total for the 20th century to 160 - we're getting very close to a perfect geometric progression. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:07, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the suggestions, but I'm not sure the above terms meet the high quality level of the entries. Perhaps because "Maggie" was actually not very conservative by American standards? She seemed fine with nationalized health care, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:29, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

== Possibility ==

''quack'', coined 1638, to refer to charlatans deceiving others with pseudoscience. Used extensively today to describe the favorite "medicines" of new-age liberals. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 20:40, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

: Interesting and informative suggestion. However, the term strikes me as name-calling rather than insightful. I'm not sure its use would be consistent with our rules!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:26, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

== Kiss of Death ==

The term "Kiss of Death" clearly originated earlier than 1943, as the article would suggest, as there was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiss_of_Death_%281916_film%29 a 1916 film by that name]. In fact, I'm not convinced this was the origin of the term, which has probably been in use since Judas' betrayal. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 22:01, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

: Your link to Wikipedia is broken, and the movie was probably a literal rather than figurative use of the word. Merriam-Webster gives a date of 1943.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:24, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

::Fixed the link; thanks for the heads-up. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 13:38, 16 July 2010 (EDT)
-

== Possibility for 1800's: Carpetbagger ==

While the term originally related specifically to northern politicians interjecting themselves into the politics of the Reconstruction-era south, it has since come to be used for political opportunists in a more general sense. Since this sort of behavior is common among Democrats (Hillary Clinton, anyone?) I'd argue that the term has value as a conservative word. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:52, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

: "Carpetbagger" is a fascinating suggestion. [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Robert F. Kennedy]] were modern senatorial examples. Perhaps there are other modern examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

:::Well...hmm. There's John Garamendi, the former lieutenant governor of California, who ran for election to the House in a district where he didn't live. His defense, as I recall, was "Well, I don't live there, but my front yard's in the district." (It wasn't.) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:26, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

== Research method ==

I just wanted to point out that actively looking for words to fit the geometric rate of growth, from a scientific point of view, is a biased method of research. You will ALWAYS find words in a 1-2-4-8 geometric growth rate, if that's what you actively look for. A more neutral research method would be to ***randomly*** (I can't stress it enough, it MUST be random) pick up, say, 1000 words created after 1600, and see if they match that growth rate.

This method CAN lead to a scientific result, mind you, but only after ALL words created after 1600 have been taken into account, whether they match the growth rate or not. Feel free to refute my reasoning if I made a logical flaw in it, and if you think that actively choosing words to fit a 1-2-4-8 growth rate has scientific validity, please explain me why I am wrong. Thank you! --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 11:35, 20 July 2010 (EDT)

== Suggestion? ==

What does everyone else think about ''militant atheist''? I had to listen to someone rail at me for being a Christian on the train this morning '''for an hour''' and it got me thinking. I've been hearing the term since I was a kid, but that would probably fall into the 20th century. William Ayers anyone? My argument in favor is that most of them try to pass themselves off as peaceful, tolerant, etc, when (only my opinion here) that isn't really the case. We should call it as we see it here. I can't provide a year, but maybe someone with more experience can? What do you think? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 13:23, 20 July 2010 (EDT)

== Selection Bias and Proposal for an Unbiased Test ==

===Selection bias===
The easiest way to see this is the history of your finds: You have repeatedly achieved what you call a perfect layer (1-2-4-8) of new conservative words, i.e. 1 word of the 17th century, 2 of the 18th century, 4 of the 19th century and 8 of the 20th century.

What's the probability to get a perfect layer? Here are the probabilities for the century of origin of a random conservative words, assuming that your insight is correct: 

<table><tr><th>Century</th><th>Probability</th></tr><tr><td>17th</td><td>1/15</td></tr><tr><td>18th</td><td>2/15</td></tr><tr><td>19th</td><td>4/15</td></tr><tr><td>20th</td><td>8/15</td></tr></table>

For a layer, we have to take 15 words. It's easy to calculate the probability that these 15 words form a perfect layer:

15!/(8!×4!×2!×1!) × (1/15)1 × (2/15)2 × (4/15)4 × (8/15)8 = 675675 × 234 / 1515 =0.0265

2.65% is the probability to chose 15 words and get a perfect layer instead of 2-1-4-8 or 1-2-5-7... And how often was this remarkable deed performed?

That you were able to repeat this process for a couple of times shows that you were actively (though not necessarily consciously) looking for words to match your pattern, i.e., you showed a selection bias - a kind of affirmative action for newer words...

: Selection bias exists in any study. The issue is not whether there is selection bias (there always is), but whether the selection bias is so great that it disqualifies the results. Unless there were a strong underlying pattern of increase by century, it would be almost impossible even with high selection bias to attain the resulting pattern of doubling by century.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:51, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

::*''Selection bias exists in any study. '' But most scientists try to avoid it (even in the social sciences), and try to monitor its effect. They most certainly should not embrace it as a way to make their point (that is, they are called on it when they do so...)
::*''Unless there were a strong underlying pattern of increase by century, it would be almost impossible even with high selection bias to attain the resulting pattern of doubling by century.'' But [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law|Conservapedia's Law]] doesn't claim that ''their is a increase by century''. No, it explicitly states that ''conservative insights increase over time at a geometric rate, as in 1-2-4-8-16-etc. For example, there is a doubling in effective new conservative terms per century.'' While their may an increase over the centuries, the rate of this increase (doubling, i.e. an increase by 100% by century) is an artefact of the way you perform your search: That is, even if the real rate is 70% , 130% - or 83% (the [[maximum likelihood estimator]] for your current set of words taken into account the year of their creation), you end up with a perfect fit of 100% - unless you have enumerated ''all'' conservative words at least for one century.
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:44, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

===An unbiased test===
Andy, f you are interested in testing your insight, I really would like to help you. The hidden table below contains 500 words which - according to the Merriam-Webster - originated between 1600 and 2000. The list was generated by taking words of the ubuntu-dictionary at random and checking their age automatically via the site of Merriam-Webster. This was repeated until 500 feasible words were found. 

If you mark each conservative word with an "r" (and perhaps each liberal word with an "l"), we'll get an estimate of the percentage of conservative words - and a fairly unbiased distribution over the time.

Please be aware that the distribution of this sample doesn't follow a geometric law. Here are the number of words by century of origin:
<table><tr><th>Century</th><th>Number of Words</th></tr><tr><td>17th</td><td>151</td></tr><tr><td>18th</td><td>84</td></tr><tr><td>19th</td><td>161</td></tr><tr><td>20th</td><td>104</td></tr></table>

: Your proposed test is an interesting one, and I do see far more conservative words from the 1700s than the 1600s. Indeed, I'm pleasantly surprised how many conservative words show up in your random selection, as I never claimed that conservative (or liberal) words were a substantial percentage of all new words generated.

:That said, the defect in your proposed test is the weakness in dictionaries publishing more recent new conservative words from, say, the 1900s. Dictionaries are good at defining old words, but not-so-good at recognizing and defining relatively new concepts. That's what we need Conservapedia for! :-).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:07, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

::*''That said, the defect in your proposed test is the weakness in dictionaries publishing more recent new conservative words from, say, the 1900s. '' That's hardly a fatal flaw which would render the test useless. But we can even circumvent it: Let's just concentrate on the period 1600-1899! As you acknowledge that ''dictionaries are good at defining old words'', in the next list you will find 500 words from these three centuries. I assume that [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law|Conservapedia's Law]] should hold not only for the 20th and the 21st century. (the list is a wikitable with two columns, just add a marker for a conservative word in the second column. I omitted the years of the creation of the words (all taken from the Merriam-Webster) and I would advice you against checking the age before marking a word - though of course the age of quite a few words is apparent)
::*A dictionary is the obvious choice when talking about the number of words. But you are absolutely right that dictionaries are biased towards older words. I assume that the percentage of words in general use which were created in the 20th century is much higher than those of the 17th century! When one is interested only in the distribution of conservative words , one could sample over Conservapedia's articles, and try various methods to get the age of the newest words used. But this is of course more cumbersome than just looking into a dictionary, so I'll postpone it for a while.
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:47, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

===Table of random words===
{|class="collapsible collapsed"
!500 words
|-
|1 economics
2 storeroom
3 hunkers
4 sufficing
5 coffeehouses
6 stalagmites
7 therapy
8 sanitation
9 cheapskates
10 Caesareans
11 ringmaster
12 acclimate
13 penology
14 verandah
15 caregivers
16 fed
17 disengaged
18 whitecaps
19 dissertation
20 consignment
21 chainsaws
22 speeds
23 kinfolk
24 caribous
25 hobbyists
26 coefficients
27 protuberance
28 morphemes
29 Caroline
30 millionaires
31 recyclable
32 wilts
33 unreconstructed
34 chandeliers
35 palomino
36 joysticks
37 volleys
38 cajoling
39 bucksaws
40 spars
41 portaged
42 acoustically
43 humanize
44 hybridize
45 tipsters
46 overprices
47 marksmanship
48 fezes
49 depressant
50 auctioned
51 flamethrower
52 biking
53 artistic
54 agribusiness
55 jottings
56 pedicures
57 Cordilleras
58 slots
59 recording
60 unrealistic
61 rationalism
62 peacekeeping
63 aromatherapy
64 jackknife
65 champagne
66 horrendous
67 Quasimodo
68 excavator
69 chowders
70 arts
71 configure
72 civic
73 telegraphy
74 sweepstakes
75 euphoric
76 strategy
77 subgroup
78 shouting
79 gusher
80 telemarketing
81 glucose
82 booties
83 preponderated
84 manures
85 outspokenness
86 wiener
87 embeds
88 amped
89 sternums
90 empathy
91 cognomina
92 colitis
93 kimono
94 retched
95 singletons
96 megaphoned
97 respelled
98 Hindus
99 squiggle
100 irrigates
101 reconstructions
102 deceptiveness
103 colonialism
104 missioned
105 dyes
106 maladroit
107 tents
108 turfs
109 generalization
110 seamanship
111 duffers
112 scruffier
113 pollinate
114 bobcats
115 achieved
116 exerted
117 flapjack
118 Independence
119 lucidity
120 indenturing
121 enumerable
122 disenchanted
123 flashback
124 trilogies
125 colloquially
126 Colby
127 killjoys
128 lifelines
129 hydrotherapy
130 psychoanalysis
131 memorializing
132 bronchitis
133 rink
134 automobiles
135 dandy
136 schoolmarms
137 debriefing
138 glands
139 oceanography
140 jetted
141 hurdler
142 dependability
143 tactician
144 rotor
145 liturgies
146 quantified
147 wests
148 quitters
149 ocarinas
150 betting
151 apathetically
152 smoggier
153 Xenia
154 saris
155 dupe
156 voodooism
157 optimize
158 particularization
159 funereally
160 masterminding
161 capsizes
162 orchestrates
163 uncivilized
164 emphasized
165 skyrocket
166 plagiarist
167 politicoes
168 streptococci
169 pantsuits
170 waving
171 decontaminates
172 teensy
173 taxonomy
174 proselytizes
175 drollness
176 expectoration
177 legmen
178 modulations
179 diploma
180 Brandy
181 radar
182 pushiest
183 drill
184 lush
185 temperas
186 musicals
187 wheal
188 horticulture
189 cancan
190 jocularity
191 caramels
192 bipolar
193 sophisticated
194 injudicious
195 emulsion
196 ignore
197 cannonballed
198 swastika
199 overachievers
200 rubella
201 chuckhole
202 ersatz
203 breeziness
204 climaxes
205 explosiveness
206 empathizing
207 jumps
208 secularizing
209 sequoia
210 bibliography
211 prettying
212 bouldered
213 authorship
214 vocalizing
215 tarpons
216 camisoles
217 cowpox
218 tans
219 breathable
220 machines
221 tycoon
222 flicking
223 squishes
224 semiprofessional
225 feline
226 seedling
227 hankie
228 entitlement
229 abscissa
230 derisive
231 romance
232 overprice
233 beads
234 stipple
235 Kitty
236 jewelled
237 mascaraed
238 dissociation
239 moments
240 Spica
241 quaking
242 legislation
243 wobbly
244 scorches
245 books
246 gastrointestinal
247 finked
248 renegotiates
249 flautists
250 wrongheadedness
251 allergenic
252 squishiest
253 kickoffs
254 mecca
255 disses
256 woodwinds
257 discotheques
258 replacements
259 tomahawks
260 voluptuaries
261 salon
262 eliciting
263 resale
264 soporific
265 dosage
266 smokestacks
267 rationalists
268 subsumed
269 futzes
270 minutemen
271 stingrays
272 marathoner
273 vagina
274 propellers
275 rooftops
276 sensationalist
277 bluejackets
278 individualize
279 hyphenating
280 Xanthippe
281 federated
282 amortize
283 airfare
284 hyphenates
285 syncopates
286 sermonizing
287 biochemistry
288 babysat
289 yellows
290 riskier
291 cassocks
292 stated
293 Cordoba
294 Slinky
295 eventfully
296 nines
297 blabbermouths
298 fraternizes
299 bucked
300 Boolean
301 bivalve
302 ricochetted
303 toys
304 toted
305 commissars
306 cushioning
307 redeploy
308 poignancy
309 variegating
310 snuffbox
311 stoplight
312 biochemists
313 bicycling
314 disenfranchised
315 nosing
316 enlightenment
317 knockout
318 resurgent
319 pediments
320 skyscrapers
321 treatments
322 polio
323 flashbulbs
324 empower
325 rounding
326 pervasive
327 humped
328 oxymora
329 freebie
330 passageway
331 barfing
332 motorists
333 triglycerides
334 Mayans
335 stopped
336 kidnapper
337 pensioning
338 foreclosures
339 Yankees
340 manifestoing
341 predictor
342 Delawares
343 librettos
344 panoply
345 angstroms
346 jodhpurs
347 backpedal
348 sugars
349 preclude
350 unravelling
351 Lilliput
352 motivator
353 enslavement
354 pencilling
355 flukey
356 amoral
357 depository
358 unemotional
359 stumpy
360 cartons
361 gal
362 ignitions
363 malingered
364 spotlighted
365 photographic
366 abnegated
367 dashing
368 atrocious
369 inanities
370 derricks
371 mountaineer
372 inseminate
373 sacrosanct
374 modernize
375 specializations
376 obliging
377 heckles
378 baccalaureates
379 bluebirds
380 lengthiest
381 octets
382 physiotherapist
383 disorganizing
384 toffees
385 unfurling
386 abnegate
387 bathrobe
388 socked
389 crepe
390 polkas
391 overwriting
392 punned
393 platoons
394 infrared
395 ensuring
396 decimate
397 baggiest
398 plungers
399 trampolining
400 centigram
401 Topsy
402 epochal
403 boogies
404 showrooms
405 pianofortes
406 Orphic
407 logbooks
408 amphibious
409 rapprochements
410 terms
411 Kalmyk
412 petering
413 geocentric
414 stills
415 ethnologist
416 exec
417 flairs
418 likableness
419 rods
420 melange
421 graduated
422 ante
423 voluminously
424 impaled
425 cognacs
426 yups
427 comfiest
428 strychnine
429 subsoiled
430 conics
431 Salish
432 windsocks
433 rutabaga
434 vacuumed
435 maestri
436 podiatrist
437 restructured
438 metrically
439 motorcade
440 zipping
441 unmoral
442 electioneered
443 minibikes
444 trillion
445 sudsier
446 actuator
447 acing
448 masochism
449 softeners
450 cocksucker
451 brig
452 verbs
453 buccaneer
454 confessed
455 filibustered
456 rearmed
457 melodramatics
458 swivelled
459 veggies
460 monochrome
461 hellos
462 escalators
463 Seyfert
464 bushwhack
465 encapsulation
466 combining
467 realists
468 playgrounds
469 teenage
470 glandular
471 tot
472 cyclical
473 tinsmith
474 commitment
475 undersells
476 orthopaedics
477 yardstick
478 Vivian
479 peppy
480 swatted
481 earlobes
482 snapshots
483 nitpicker
484 unities
485 depressants
486 briefing
487 halo
488 watermarking
489 electronics
490 inadequates
491 ghosted
492 rapscallions
493 snorkeler
494 percentages
495 relapsing
496 facet
497 inconsistently
498 takeout
499 acidify
500 password
|}
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:15, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

'''Second table: 500 random words 1600-1899'''
{|class="wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed"
!word
!date
!class
|-
|monsignor||align="right"|1607||C
|-
|productive||align="right"|1612||C
|-
|alertly||align="right"|1618||C
|-
|inconsistent||align="right"|1620||C
|-
|numerical||align="right"|1628||C
|-
|interlock||align="right"|1632||C
|-
|platoons||align="right"|1637||C
|-
|forevermore||align="right"|1641||C
|-
|identification||align="right"|1644||C
|-
|untenable||align="right"|1647||C
|-
|reversible||align="right"|1648||C
|-
|authentication||align="right"|1652||C
|-
|monotheistic||align="right"|1660||C
|-
|constructive||align="right"|1680||C
|-
|alphabetize||align="right"|1691||C
|-
|misconduct||align="right"|1705||C
|-
|propagandists||align="right"|1718||C
|-
|revelations||align="right"|1729||C
|-
|guaranteed||align="right"|1731||C
|-
|cohesiveness||align="right"|1731||C
|-
|systematizing||align="right"|1767||C
|-
|letdown||align="right"|1768||C
|-
|dissident||align="right"|1769||C
|-
|diagramming||align="right"|1785||C
|-
|backhanded||align="right"|1800||C
|-
|autocratically||align="right"|1823||C
|-
|socialistic||align="right"|1827||C
|-
|Mormonisms||align="right"|1830||C
|-
|westernize||align="right"|1837||C
|-
|trademarks||align="right"|1838||C
|-
|propagandized||align="right"|1844||C
|-
|graffito||align="right"|1851||C
|-
|Americans||align="right"|1855||C
|-
|optimize||align="right"|1857||C
|-
|outdistancing||align="right"|1857||C
|-
|rogues||align="right"|1859||C
|-
|birthrates||align="right"|1859||C
|-
|slob||align="right"|1861||C
|-
|quantifier||align="right"|1876||C
|-
|implode||align="right"|1881||C
|-
|housemother||align="right"|1882||C
|-
|scantier||align="right"|1600||
|-
|sierras||align="right"|1600||
|-
|arena||align="right"|1600||
|-
|toddled||align="right"|1600||
|-
|eventful||align="right"|1600||
|-
|catheter||align="right"|1601||
|-
|primarily||align="right"|1601||
|-
|labeling||align="right"|1601||
|-
|copings||align="right"|1601||
|-
|Pooh||align="right"|1602||
|-
|respectively||align="right"|1602||
|-
|embroiling||align="right"|1603||
|-
|haloes||align="right"|1603||
|-
|Iliad||align="right"|1603||
|-
|enthusiasm||align="right"|1603||
|-
|dragoons||align="right"|1604||
|-
|promised||align="right"|1604||
|-
|recollecting||align="right"|1604||
|-
|stentorian||align="right"|1605||
|-
|rivaling||align="right"|1605||
|-
|impregnates||align="right"|1605||
|-
|touchy||align="right"|1605||
|-
|impassive||align="right"|1605||
|-
|immediacy||align="right"|1605||
|-
|literary||align="right"|1605||
|-
|animosities||align="right"|1605||
|-
|volatile||align="right"|1605||
|-
|vegetates||align="right"|1605||
|-
|acclaiming||align="right"|1606||
|-
|onlooker||align="right"|1606||
|-
|sides||align="right"|1606||
|-
|wisher||align="right"|1607||
|-
|melancholia||align="right"|1607||
|-
|tab||align="right"|1607||
|-
|typical||align="right"|1609||
|-
|casuist||align="right"|1609||
|-
|bucolic||align="right"|1609||
|-
|footfalls||align="right"|1610||
|-
|bison||align="right"|1611||
|-
|lambing||align="right"|1611||
|-
|ticketed||align="right"|1611||
|-
|incompatibilities||align="right"|1611||
|-
|demonstrators||align="right"|1611||
|-
|reproduces||align="right"|1611||
|-
|longish||align="right"|1611||
|-
|amalgamations||align="right"|1612||
|-
|bailing||align="right"|1613||
|-
|caste||align="right"|1613||
|-
|convulses||align="right"|1614||
|-
|abscess||align="right"|1615||
|-
|valise||align="right"|1615||
|-
|cult||align="right"|1617||
|-
|hesitancy||align="right"|1617||
|-
|drill||align="right"|1619||
|-
|blotchy||align="right"|1619||
|-
|urban||align="right"|1619||
|-
|appositeness||align="right"|1621||
|-
|ingratiated||align="right"|1621||
|-
|ingrate||align="right"|1622||
|-
|diplomata||align="right"|1622||
|-
|exporters||align="right"|1623||
|-
|drolly||align="right"|1623||
|-
|adrift||align="right"|1624||
|-
|powwow||align="right"|1624||
|-
|oaf||align="right"|1625||
|-
|preconceptions||align="right"|1625||
|-
|ruse||align="right"|1625||
|-
|abominating||align="right"|1628||
|-
|dodo||align="right"|1628||
|-
|discriminated||align="right"|1628||
|-
|biassing||align="right"|1628||
|-
|enslaved||align="right"|1628||
|-
|backwaters||align="right"|1629||
|-
|palindromic||align="right"|1629||
|-
|palindromes||align="right"|1629||
|-
|tussles||align="right"|1629||
|-
|correspondents||align="right"|1630||
|-
|underrates||align="right"|1632||
|-
|underrate||align="right"|1632||
|-
|characterized||align="right"|1633||
|-
|etcher||align="right"|1634||
|-
|labium||align="right"|1634||
|-
|fluctuates||align="right"|1634||
|-
|morocco||align="right"|1634||
|-
|circumnavigated||align="right"|1634||
|-
|Anglican||align="right"|1635||
|-
|graphically||align="right"|1637||
|-
|millenniums||align="right"|1638||
|-
|domesticating||align="right"|1639||
|-
|pharmaceutical||align="right"|1640||
|-
|onus||align="right"|1640||
|-
|feints||align="right"|1644||
|-
|scavenge||align="right"|1644||
|-
|malls||align="right"|1644||
|-
|salaciously||align="right"|1645||
|-
|additional||align="right"|1646||
|-
|nonuser||align="right"|1646||
|-
|predisposing||align="right"|1646||
|-
|temperamentally||align="right"|1646||
|-
|invigorate||align="right"|1646||
|-
|protuberances||align="right"|1646||
|-
|disinclines||align="right"|1647||
|-
|castanet||align="right"|1647||
|-
|piloting||align="right"|1649||
|-
|leniently||align="right"|1652||
|-
|melange||align="right"|1653||
|-
|dialling||align="right"|1653||
|-
|naively||align="right"|1654||
|-
|siesta||align="right"|1655||
|-
|collectives||align="right"|1655||
|-
|quibbles||align="right"|1656||
|-
|dawdler||align="right"|1656||
|-
|cosmologies||align="right"|1656||
|-
|cosmology||align="right"|1656||
|-
|morbid||align="right"|1656||
|-
|inconvenienced||align="right"|1656||
|-
|numerating||align="right"|1657||
|-
|incapacitate||align="right"|1657||
|-
|overwrite||align="right"|1658||
|-
|horrendous||align="right"|1659||
|-
|tableau||align="right"|1660||
|-
|derisively||align="right"|1662||
|-
|disk||align="right"|1664||
|-
|diverging||align="right"|1665||
|-
|rotundity||align="right"|1665||
|-
|cultivators||align="right"|1665||
|-
|maroon||align="right"|1666||
|-
|stunning||align="right"|1667||
|-
|interleave||align="right"|1668||
|-
|globes||align="right"|1668||
|-
|hick||align="right"|1669||
|-
|realty||align="right"|1670||
|-
|belated||align="right"|1670||
|-
|punning||align="right"|1670||
|-
|haphazardly||align="right"|1671||
|-
|wader||align="right"|1673||
|-
|resilient||align="right"|1674||
|-
|auk||align="right"|1674||
|-
|priggish||align="right"|1676||
|-
|bungalow||align="right"|1676||
|-
|masqueraded||align="right"|1677||
|-
|configuring||align="right"|1677||
|-
|masterstroke||align="right"|1679||
|-
|yaws||align="right"|1679||
|-
|ganglions||align="right"|1681||
|-
|kidnaps||align="right"|1682||
|-
|shivery||align="right"|1683||
|-
|whaler||align="right"|1684||
|-
|bewilder||align="right"|1684||
|-
|roughshod||align="right"|1688||
|-
|bluebird||align="right"|1688||
|-
|toothbrushes||align="right"|1690||
|-
|romance||align="right"|1690||
|-
|adeptness||align="right"|1691||
|-
|dowsing||align="right"|1691||
|-
|processioned||align="right"|1691||
|-
|missioned||align="right"|1692||
|-
|vessels||align="right"|1694||
|-
|flabbiness||align="right"|1694||
|-
|penmanship||align="right"|1695||
|-
|Ojibwa||align="right"|1700||
|-
|actualized||align="right"|1701||
|-
|established||align="right"|1702||
|-
|copped||align="right"|1704||
|-
|liability||align="right"|1705||
|-
|sniggers||align="right"|1706||
|-
|dyspeptic||align="right"|1706||
|-
|crunch||align="right"|1706||
|-
|hibiscuses||align="right"|1706||
|-
|stencil||align="right"|1707||
|-
|quadruplet||align="right"|1709||
|-
|primness||align="right"|1709||
|-
|stocks||align="right"|1709||
|-
|leaseholds||align="right"|1710||
|-
|rheumatic||align="right"|1711||
|-
|papilla||align="right"|1713||
|-
|presentiments||align="right"|1714||
|-
|tantrum||align="right"|1714||
|-
|needling||align="right"|1715||
|-
|impersonating||align="right"|1715||
|-
|settees||align="right"|1716||
|-
|hustling||align="right"|1720||
|-
|unassuming||align="right"|1722||
|-
|Houyhnhnm||align="right"|1726||
|-
|knotholes||align="right"|1726||
|-
|Lilliput||align="right"|1726||
|-
|soporifics||align="right"|1727||
|-
|Shinto||align="right"|1727||
|-
|bludgeons||align="right"|1730||
|-
|pillboxes||align="right"|1730||
|-
|pantheistic||align="right"|1732||
|-
|vampires||align="right"|1732||
|-
|palaver||align="right"|1735||
|-
|Stilton||align="right"|1736||
|-
|incriminates||align="right"|1736||
|-
|philanders||align="right"|1737||
|-
|exiled||align="right"|1737||
|-
|coterie||align="right"|1738||
|-
|cantaloupe||align="right"|1739||
|-
|wham||align="right"|1739||
|-
|swipe||align="right"|1739||
|-
|icings||align="right"|1740||
|-
|segueing||align="right"|1740||
|-
|insulates||align="right"|1741||
|-
|flatiron||align="right"|1743||
|-
|uncharacteristic||align="right"|1748||
|-
|cornmeal||align="right"|1749||
|-
|develop||align="right"|1750||
|-
|spindling||align="right"|1750||
|-
|measurements||align="right"|1751||
|-
|pompon||align="right"|1751||
|-
|fanciers||align="right"|1751||
|-
|lumberyard||align="right"|1753||
|-
|riffles||align="right"|1754||
|-
|personification||align="right"|1755||
|-
|mesquites||align="right"|1759||
|-
|maniacs||align="right"|1763||
|-
|pronouncing||align="right"|1764||
|-
|frivolity||align="right"|1764||
|-
|aboriginals||align="right"|1767||
|-
|Afghans||align="right"|1767||
|-
|paws||align="right"|1769||
|-
|mynas||align="right"|1769||
|-
|modernization||align="right"|1770||
|-
|coagulants||align="right"|1770||
|-
|hairpin||align="right"|1771||
|-
|fagged||align="right"|1772||
|-
|Ta||align="right"|1772||
|-
|propertied||align="right"|1772||
|-
|fagging||align="right"|1772||
|-
|pups||align="right"|1773||
|-
|gibbon||align="right"|1774||
|-
|gecko||align="right"|1774||
|-
|passé||align="right"|1775||
|-
|clannish||align="right"|1776||
|-
|gnu||align="right"|1777||
|-
|gasses||align="right"|1779||
|-
|balalaika||align="right"|1780||
|-
|congressman||align="right"|1780||
|-
|fumigate||align="right"|1781||
|-
|varying||align="right"|1781||
|-
|minutiae||align="right"|1782||
|-
|effervesce||align="right"|1784||
|-
|bangle||align="right"|1787||
|-
|letups||align="right"|1787||
|-
|thyroids||align="right"|1787||
|-
|loots||align="right"|1788||
|-
|Hollands||align="right"|1788||
|-
|Dolly||align="right"|1790||
|-
|weakfish||align="right"|1791||
|-
|rutabagas||align="right"|1791||
|-
|equalizer||align="right"|1792||
|-
|steeplechase||align="right"|1793||
|-
|daredevils||align="right"|1794||
|-
|commentated||align="right"|1794||
|-
|embeds||align="right"|1794||
|-
|telegraphy||align="right"|1795||
|-
|soled||align="right"|1795||
|-
|allover||align="right"|1796||
|-
|titanium||align="right"|1796||
|-
|quizzically||align="right"|1797||
|-
|stashes||align="right"|1797||
|-
|kilogram||align="right"|1797||
|-
|belittled||align="right"|1797||
|-
|Mon||align="right"|1798||
|-
|bibliographies||align="right"|1802||
|-
|fezes||align="right"|1803||
|-
|dressmaking||align="right"|1803||
|-
|condoned||align="right"|1805||
|-
|coarsening||align="right"|1805||
|-
|gumbos||align="right"|1805||
|-
|peewee||align="right"|1806||
|-
|lassos||align="right"|1807||
|-
|Pueblos||align="right"|1808||
|-
|blinder||align="right"|1809||
|-
|eddied||align="right"|1810||
|-
|scurrying||align="right"|1810||
|-
|milliliter||align="right"|1810||
|-
|miffed||align="right"|1811||
|-
|quintet||align="right"|1811||
|-
|aluminum||align="right"|1812||
|-
|shawling||align="right"|1812||
|-
|tossup||align="right"|1812||
|-
|opalescent||align="right"|1813||
|-
|vocalic||align="right"|1814||
|-
|Swahili||align="right"|1814||
|-
|nocturnes||align="right"|1814||
|-
|underpaying||align="right"|1817||
|-
|diarist||align="right"|1818||
|-
|intellectualizes||align="right"|1819||
|-
|stethoscope||align="right"|1820||
|-
|bloodstain||align="right"|1820||
|-
|squawk||align="right"|1821||
|-
|suffragist||align="right"|1822||
|-
|caffeine||align="right"|1823||
|-
|flysheet||align="right"|1825||
|-
|augmented||align="right"|1825||
|-
|subway||align="right"|1825||
|-
|crotchety||align="right"|1825||
|-
|pullout||align="right"|1825||
|-
|beadier||align="right"|1826||
|-
|mammal||align="right"|1826||
|-
|chaffed||align="right"|1827||
|-
|clinics||align="right"|1827||
|-
|recruitment||align="right"|1828||
|-
|mas||align="right"|1829||
|-
|mesmerizing||align="right"|1829||
|-
|constitutionals||align="right"|1829||
|-
|cahoots||align="right"|1829||
|-
|homeopathic||align="right"|1830||
|-
|pterodactyl||align="right"|1830||
|-
|cadres||align="right"|1830||
|-
|hex||align="right"|1830||
|-
|chipmunks||align="right"|1832||
|-
|Horus||align="right"|1832||
|-
|toothpastes||align="right"|1832||
|-
|cottonmouths||align="right"|1832||
|-
|underplays||align="right"|1833||
|-
|dorsals||align="right"|1834||
|-
|cetaceans||align="right"|1835||
|-
|wholeheartedly||align="right"|1836||
|-
|creepily||align="right"|1836||
|-
|étude||align="right"|1837||
|-
|Confucianism||align="right"|1837||
|-
|scatting||align="right"|1838||
|-
|smokestacks||align="right"|1838||
|-
|pretzel||align="right"|1838||
|-
|upheaval||align="right"|1838||
|-
|Bunker||align="right"|1839||
|-
|mushier||align="right"|1839||
|-
|bushings||align="right"|1839||
|-
|OK||align="right"|1839||
|-
|mesa||align="right"|1840||
|-
|wastrel||align="right"|1841||
|-
|pyromaniac||align="right"|1842||
|-
|Assam||align="right"|1842||
|-
|Spitz||align="right"|1842||
|-
|wisteria||align="right"|1842||
|-
|cubbyhole||align="right"|1842||
|-
|kinkiest||align="right"|1844||
|-
|Limoges||align="right"|1844||
|-
|taillights||align="right"|1844||
|-
|subgroups||align="right"|1845||
|-
|garnisheeing||align="right"|1846||
|-
|Joe||align="right"|1846||
|-
|tobogganed||align="right"|1846||
|-
|snobby||align="right"|1846||
|-
|strapless||align="right"|1846||
|-
|cheekily||align="right"|1846||
|-
|orgiastic||align="right"|1846||
|-
|funnest||align="right"|1846||
|-
|tactlessness||align="right"|1847||
|-
|tailcoats||align="right"|1847||
|-
|gynecologists||align="right"|1847||
|-
|cartography||align="right"|1847||
|-
|tenderfeet||align="right"|1849||
|-
|laterals||align="right"|1851||
|-
|educations||align="right"|1851||
|-
|trunks||align="right"|1851||
|-
|hangars||align="right"|1852||
|-
|colloids||align="right"|1852||
|-
|delimits||align="right"|1852||
|-
|delimited||align="right"|1852||
|-
|davenport||align="right"|1853||
|-
|Russians||align="right"|1854||
|-
|abnormality||align="right"|1854||
|-
|rainfall||align="right"|1854||
|-
|Brewer||align="right"|1855||
|-
|hazings||align="right"|1855||
|-
|vendetta||align="right"|1855||
|-
|pullouts||align="right"|1855||
|-
|warlords||align="right"|1856||
|-
|seismographs||align="right"|1858||
|-
|interbreeding||align="right"|1859||
|-
|emulsification||align="right"|1859||
|-
|pub||align="right"|1859||
|-
|soulfulness||align="right"|1860||
|-
|Darwinian||align="right"|1860||
|-
|flautist||align="right"|1860||
|-
|pipelines||align="right"|1860||
|-
|ewe||align="right"|1861||
|-
|bellboy||align="right"|1861||
|-
|trapezes||align="right"|1861||
|-
|ewes||align="right"|1861||
|-
|railroading||align="right"|1862||
|-
|isomorphic||align="right"|1862||
|-
|canapé||align="right"|1863||
|-
|columns||align="right"|1863||
|-
|octets||align="right"|1864||
|-
|coffeecakes||align="right"|1865||
|-
|goulash||align="right"|1866||
|-
|sudsier||align="right"|1866||
|-
|maverick||align="right"|1867||
|-
|safaris||align="right"|1868||
|-
|rangier||align="right"|1868||
|-
|mailbox||align="right"|1868||
|-
|rotting||align="right"|1870||
|-
|saprophyte||align="right"|1870||
|-
|agenda||align="right"|1871||
|-
|roomers||align="right"|1871||
|-
|masterminds||align="right"|1872||
|-
|deforest||align="right"|1874||
|-
|spaghetti||align="right"|1874||
|-
|intercollegiate||align="right"|1874||
|-
|Helicon||align="right"|1875||
|-
|dermatitis||align="right"|1876||
|-
|semiprivate||align="right"|1876||
|-
|toniest||align="right"|1877||
|-
|supplies||align="right"|1878||
|-
|quirking||align="right"|1878||
|-
|wagged||align="right"|1879||
|-
|onionskin||align="right"|1879||
|-
|bacillus||align="right"|1879||
|-
|clobber||align="right"|1879||
|-
|steamrollered||align="right"|1879||
|-
|alumna||align="right"|1879||
|-
|locoweed||align="right"|1879||
|-
|toeholds||align="right"|1880||
|-
|paternalism||align="right"|1881||
|-
|adrenals||align="right"|1882||
|-
|syndicating||align="right"|1882||
|-
|winery||align="right"|1882||
|-
|interface||align="right"|1882||
|-
|infantryman||align="right"|1883||
|-
|worldlier||align="right"|1883||
|-
|shyest||align="right"|1884||
|-
|showdowns||align="right"|1884||
|-
|oilfield||align="right"|1884||
|-
|words||align="right"|1884||
|-
|fixating||align="right"|1885||
|-
|micron||align="right"|1885||
|-
|stagehand||align="right"|1885||
|-
|contraceptives||align="right"|1886||
|-
|sensitization||align="right"|1887||
|-
|parachutists||align="right"|1888||
|-
|sandblaster||align="right"|1888||
|-
|erogenous||align="right"|1889||
|-
|lactating||align="right"|1889||
|-
|psychopathics||align="right"|1890||
|-
|reactor||align="right"|1890||
|-
|unsnaps||align="right"|1892||
|-
|decolletes||align="right"|1894||
|-
|inbound||align="right"|1894||
|-
|marihuana||align="right"|1894||
|-
|encapsulated||align="right"|1894||
|-
|erythrocytes||align="right"|1894||
|-
|sequinned||align="right"|1894||
|-
|defrosted||align="right"|1895||
|-
|sacks||align="right"|1895||
|-
|phonemes||align="right"|1896||
|-
|mescaline||align="right"|1896||
|-
|ions||align="right"|1896||
|-
|midyear||align="right"|1896||
|-
|redwoods||align="right"|1897||
|-
|happenstances||align="right"|1897||
|-
|sandhog||align="right"|1897||
|-
|eggs||align="right"|1898||
|-
|taxicab||align="right"|1899||
|-
|concoction||align="right"|1675||
|}
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:49, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

: I identified several dozen words as possibly conservative. But the problem here is that a general sample does not catch enough real conservative words. Still, you might assess the centuries of my selections (I didn't look at any dates before making these selections) and we can go from there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

::Thank you for your work! I now added the dates of the words, as found automatically at the Merriam-Webster. Here a first table:
{|class="wikitable"
!
!16s
!17s
!18s
!Σ
|-
!conservative words
|15||9||17||41
|-
!all words
|176||114||210||500
|-
!percentage of conservative words
|8.52%||7.89%||8.1%||8.2%
|}

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:29, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

::: That's a fascinating analysis, but its meaning is simply this: roughly 8% of all new words are conservative in nature. That is greater than the number of words I would have identified as liberal in nature.

::: But very few of these words qualified for our list, which expressly consists of the "''best''" new conservative words. Those words are being generated at a geometric rate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

== Destruction of words ==

Andy, your model takes into account only the ''creation'' of new words. But in any living language, words fall out of use, too.

Imagine a country where a constant number of ''conservative words'' is created each year, but where these words have a half-time of 100 years, that is, e.g, only half of the words used in 1600 were still in use in 1700.

Such a country would have the same distribution of conservative words as [[Conservapedia's Law]] implies - but the overall number of conservative words becomes constant after a while...

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 10:02, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

: The conservative words are remarkably durable and long-lasting, while the liberal terms (like "population control") fall out of favor quite quickly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:17, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

== PERFECTION: 20-40-80-160 BY CENTURY ==

For my statistical analysis, I recounted the words in the table: in fact, the
numbers in the small table of the words per century doesn't match the list of
the conservative words:

{|class="wikitable"
!century
!17th
!18th
!19th
!20th
!21st
|-
!claimed
|20||40||80||160||13
|-
!recount
|20||40||81||150||14
|}

An examination of the page's history showed that on Oct 31, 2009 this error was
introduced (with ''Segway'') - and preserved ever since.

{|class="wikitable"
!century
!17th
!18th
!19th
!20th
!21st
|-
!pre Segway
|14||28||56||112||6
|-
!post Segway
|15||28||56||124||6
|-
!my count
|15||29||57||114||6
|}

How does this confirm that ''selection bias'' is the driving force behind the [[Conservapedia's law]]? Well (ignoring the 21st century for a while), if this law holds then ~53% of the words you find should be from the 20th century, ~47% from the three earlier centuries.

But in the time from Oct 31, 2009 until Apr , 2010 when you claimed ''17-34-70-141 by century - spectacular, near-perfect geometric growth continues'', you found only 17 words from the last century, and 22 older words, that is, instead of 53% / 47% the odds of 44% / 56% !

After reaching this mile stone, your ratio rebounded...

So, you always reached your goal, though this was an arbitrary one, set by a typo. This implies that you are actively targeting a ratio, and that this ratio is independent of a actual distribution of the conservative words.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:16, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

: Typos and counting errors are, of course, inevitable; your own comment above has an error in its last seven words. Errors can be found in the greatest of works, such as [[Bernard Riemann]]'s famous mathematical lecture. None of this undermines the value of Riemann's work ... or ours. The best new conservative words do double by century, and it would be nearly impossible to identify such a large number closely fitting that pattern unless the underlying pattern existed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:06, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

You are right: It´s not about typos - it's about the phenomenon I'll explain in the following section
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 10:46, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

== Too Good to be True ==

Imagine the hypothesis: There are as many male writers as there are female
ones.

To proof this hypothesis, round for round, a player '''A''' names a male author,
then a player '''B''' a female one. The round one player runs out of names - and
the other doesn't- the hypothesis is falsified. If both stop in the same round,
the hypothesis is true.

But what can be said about the validity of the hypothesis before this last
round? There are thousands and thousands of authors, what do we know when we
reach round 300?

Nothing. At least nothing about the ratio of female and male authors! In fact,
imagine the game with player '''A''' naming ''two'' male authors for each of
player '''B''''s female writer. After 300 rounds, this game is far from being
finished, but we can't conclude anything!

Unless this game is played to its end, it's just an exercise in futility.

Statistics try to find methods which allow to draw conclusions without exhausting the whole population1

So, what's another way to create data for validating or falsifying the
hypothesis? Let's think of player '''S''' who says that he will gather authors
at random - and that this list will beautifully exemplify the hypothesis.

And so it does: he gives a couple of hundred names and - lo and behold - exactly
half of them are males! He even goes a step further and says that each two
consecutive name would mirror the hypothesis.

When would you start to suspect that he is not an honest player? The probability
that a pair of authors consists from a man and a woman is 1/2. And in a random
list of names, you'll find many such pairs. But if '''S''' announces: the next
pair is gender-mixed, the one thereafter, too, and the next one, again - that's
like predicting three ''heads'' when tossing a coin three times. If he does it
ten times, you would be a fool not to think that something fishy is happening,
i.e., that the names are not taken from a random list of authors, but in fact
are chosen deliberately. His data is just ''too good to be true''!

Such a list has no more significance than the first couple of hundred names
generated by our players '''A''' and '''B'''.

Andy, I hope you see how this scenario applies to your method of generating
''best conservative new words''.

At least four times you announced the start of a new ''layer'', and each time,
you were able to complete it perfectly. Though the probability to find the
combination 1-2-4-8 for 15 words may be bigger than for each other combination,
it's at best 2.6508% . Doing this four times in a row yields odds of
1:2,000,000.

Again, your findings are just ''too good to be true'', therefore, they are not
believable, and don't support your claims made in [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]].

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 10:46, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

: Disbelief of something because it is "too good to be true" is not a strong argument against it. Perhaps it is not precisely true as stated, but is a rough approximation, for example. Your specific arguments against the proposition above don't withstand scrutiny.

: Finding the best new conservative words is like drilling for oil. Of course it is not a random process. That would be silly. But the lack of randomness does not mean that no intelligent conclusions can be drawn. We can properly conclude that there is more oil in the Arabian Peninsula than in Pennsylvania, where oil was first discovered, despite the lack of randomness in drilling oil wells. Our conclusion would be based on the difference in output, and the implausibility that ''any'' reasonable selection technique would produce such a differential if there were not also an underlying difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

== A summary with graphs... ==

On June 9, 2009, Andrew Schlafly proclaimed his [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]]: <blockquote>'''Conservapedia's Law''' ''is the observation that conservative insights increase over time at a geometric rate, as in 1-2-4-8-16-etc. 
''For example, there is a doubling in effective new conservative terms per century. </blockquote> This remarkable precise observation was bolstered over the time by a list of 300 ''conservative words''
<blockquote>''Powerful, insightful new conservative terms have grown at a geometric rate, roughly doubling every century. For every insightful new conservative term originating in the 1600s, there are two new terms originating in the 1700s, four new terms in the 1800s, and eight new terms in the 1900s, for a pattern of "1-2-4-8". This implies a more conservative future and a correlation between conservatism and truth. The year 1612 is our starting point: the King James Version of the Bible was published in 1611, and William Shakespeare had written nearly all his plays. ''</blockquote>

{|
|The pic on the right shows the percentage of terms per century in which they were first mentioned.
|[[File:Bcw-001.png|thumb|Best Conservative New Words]]
|-
|The distribution of these ''conservative words'' is even more remarkable as it doesn't reflect the general trends of creating new words. To exemplify this, I took a sample of ≈ 42,000 words from the word-book of my ubuntu-distribution and checked their creation date with the Merriam-Webster (the gray areas of the two diagrams overlap)
|[[File:Bcw-002.png|thumb|distribution of 42,000 words]]
|-
|To convince Andy Schlafly's that the distribution of the words in his list is just an artifact generated by [[sample bias]], I at first showed that it doesn't hold for shorter periods of time than centuries. But Andy Schlafly told me that he didn't see ''any merit'' in my challenge: ''The entry observes that new terms are generated at higher rates during productive periods within decades, for example just after or during religious awakenings.''
|[[File:Bcw-003.png|thumb|Cons. Words per Decade]]
|-
|Interestingly, I couldn't observe any effect of the ''Great Religious Awakenings'', neither in the number of ''conservative words'' nor in the number of all words.
|[[Image:Bcw-004.png|thumb|All Words per Decade]]
|}
No methodology is given how the ''conservative words'' are detected and gathered. To put the whole thing on a sounder ground, I asked Andrew Schlafly to take an unbiased text: I gave him a list of 500 words, which were - according to the [[Merriam Webster]] - first mentioned between 1600 and 1999. Andrew Schlafly objected to this sample as newer words are not well represented in word-books. When I propelled a second sample, consisting of 500 words all originated between 1600 and 1899 (300 years should be enough to prove his law), he was willing to mark the words he things to be conservative.

I'm very grateful that Andrew Schlafly took part in my little experiment: Thank you!

{|
|The five hundred words were taken at random from the suitable subset of the 42,000 words which I had dated, and so the sample distribution matches the overall distribution
|[[File:Bcw-005.png|thumb|500 Words per Centuries]]
|-
|Andrew Schlafly identified 41 words (8.2%) as conservative. The distribution of these 41 words over the centuries does not show a geometric progression.
|[[Image:Bcw-006.png|thumb|Identified as Conservative]]
|-
|In fact, their distribution mirrors the distribution of the whole sample, as each century ≈ 8% of the words are identified as ''conservative''
|[[File:Bcw-007.png|thumb|Percentages]]
|-
|This linearly dependence can be found for shorter periods of time (here for steps of 20 years) - and is found to be statistically significant.
|[[File:Bcw-008.png|thumb|Periods of 20 years]]
|-
|A striking contrast to this is the absence of any connection between Andrew Schlafly's list of over 300 conservative words, and a general distribution of the creation of words.
|[[File:Bcw-009.png|thumb|Periods of 20 years]]
|-
|However, if one maps the percentage of words in - e.g. - a 20 years' period in the corresponding century (24% of all 20th-century word are from the 1900s, 18% from the 1920s, 26% from the 1940s, and so forth...), one finds again a positive correlation.
|[[File:Bcw-010.png|thumb|percentages over 20 years]]
|}

Andrew Schlafly explains the discrepancies as follows:<blockquote>That's a
fascinating analysis, but its meaning is simply this: roughly 8% of all new
words are conservative in nature. That is greater than the number of words I
would have identified as liberal in nature. But very few of these words
qualified for our list, which expressly consists of the "best" new conservative
words. Those words are being generated at a geometric rate.--Andy Schlafly
11:55, 28 July 2010 (EDT) </blockquote>

I've to take exception to this: Andrew Schlafly has shown that he is able to
generate candidates for his list for any time period as it is needed to fit his
prediction. He could as easily make a list following a 1-3-9-27 (or 2-3-5-7-11)
pattern.

Even a claim like: ''the number of Best New Conservative Words'' is not corroborated in any way by the list of the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]], and the geometric progressions seems to be just the approximation of a phantasy.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:23, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

:Ron, your quantity of commentary is impressive and your graphs (the ones that show up) are informative. But quantity is no substitute or quality. You never addressed my point above about how finding the ''best'' conservative words is like drilling for oil. Even if the same percentage of drills in Pennsylvania struck oil as in the Arabian Peninsula, that would not mean that both regions are equal for drilling for oil. Much better wells can be found in the Arabian Peninsula, and that's what this analysis is all about. Those good Arabian wells cannot be found in Pennsylvania, even though oil was first discovered there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

::*''Ron, your quantity of commentary is impressive and your graphs (the ones that show up) are informative.'' Thanks. BTW, all the graphs are in Conservapedia's database - you can get directly to the missing two [http://conservapedia.com/images/d/d1/Bcw-003.png bcw-003.png] and [http://conservapedia.com/images/a/a0/Bcw-004.png bcw-004.png]. It seems that the thumbs and the previews weren't produced correctly - maybe a glitch in your software to which you want attend?
::*''But quantity is no substitute or quality.'' You mad a couple of quantifiable claims (''1-2-4-8 pattern''), so a quantitative analysis is what you get. You may rest assured that the quality of my information is good, too, and the math behind the analysis is sound: It's just basic statistics done with R.
::*''You never addressed my point above about how finding the best conservative words is like drilling for oil. '' As far as metaphors go, this isn't such a bad one: Imagine four oil fields. If you put one, two, four and eight wells on them, you get oil out of them according to your geometric progression. This works as long as there is enough oils in the fields, but you can say something about the amount of oil in the fields at first when they start getting dry. The English language is very rich, it seems that 8% of its words are conservative, so there should be an abundance even of ''best conservative words''. Until you have sucked a century dry, you cannot say anything about the distribution of the ''best conservative words''.

::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:14, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

One way of marrying the two ideas above (that there is no increase of conservative terms over time and that there is an increase in the "best" conservative terms over time) is simply to suggest that conservative terms are getting better in quality and not quantity, which is the point that Mr. Schlafly makes, I believe. An explanation that might want to be considered is that after a new term is coined, it may slowly lose its relevence over time. I would suggest that if you look at the vocabulary from the 17th century, many words have lost their relevence greatly. This presumably applies to conservative terms as well. So, a partial explanation for conservative terms increasing in "quality" over time may be the decrease in time-lag and thus an increase in relevence.--[[User:GrahamB|GrahamB]] 12:15, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

== Decrypt ==

Can I challenge 'decrypt' as a conservative word? Take the greatest decryption exercise in history, the breaking of the German Enigma code in World War 2 by British and Polish cryptographers. Alan Turing, who made the crucial breakthrough, was homosexual. Several others involved may have been communist sympathisers. The great majority were recruited from either the civil service (= Big Government) or universities (= Professor Values) and returned to those professions when WW2 was over. Bottom line: not a very conservative bunch. (Check [http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk the Bletchley Park website].) [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 18:05, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

: Beware of [[liberal]] revisionism, where historians try to give credit to liberals for achievements no matter how unjustified. It was Polish mathematicians who decrypted the enigma, not an Englishman. The British are notoriously weak in mathematics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

:: Andy, you don't seem to know so much about the decoding of Enigma. I gave you the reference to the Bletchley Park website so you can read about it there. The main contributions from the Poles were (1) stealing a German Enigma machine, (2) working out how Enigma encoded messages, (3) getting the Enigma machine to the Brits and (4) proposing a method for automated decoding of ciphers (the "Bombe"). The bombes that were eventually built were constructed by British engineers and used some principles but not the details of the Polish mathematicians' idea. Pretty much everything else was done by the British, including the first decipherment of Enigma, the second decipherment when the German Navy introduced a more sophisticated code, and the building of Colussus, the world's first programmable electronic computer, which played an essential role in decoding the later, more complex Enigma codes used by the U-boat fleet. Turing's role was crucial (that ain't liberal revisionism - go on, read about it). Some Poles who'd escaped to England did indeed work with the British but it just ain't true that they decoded Enigma.
:: As for "the British are notoriously weak in math": you're having a laugh, as my British colleagues would say. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:47, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

::: Benjy, British liberals famously support and credit each other, often undeservedly so. If you find a great British mathematician who ranks with the best in the world, please do tell us who he is!

::: As to decoding the Enigma, perhaps the Brits did some machinery to help, but the mathematicians who provided the brainpower were Poles.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: Sir Isaac Newton was a British liberal (he was a non-standard Christian that wrote extensively on the occult) who was the first to scientifically describe gravity and his 1687 publication ''Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica'' is considered the seminal work in classical mechanics. The top physicists in the world consider Newton one of the two greatest physicists in history, and his name is still used in science today, for example, "a non-Newtonian fluid". He may also have been homosexual, conisdering he was largely sexless in an age where homosexuality could get you burned at the stake. [[User:JohnQP|JohnQP]] 21:44, 5 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::Brilliant logic. 17th century tabloids tell us little of the women in Newton's life, therefore, there must not have been any. As for his writings on the occult, perhaps your referring to his beliefs that some tales in Ovid's Metamorpheses were inspired by physical fact? If I recall, he was proved right in this regard, when he demonstrated that the chemicals which corresponding to classical elements ascribed to certain mythological figures actually, in one case, produced a cracking purple "web-like" effect when combined - just as in Ovid's story. I'd hardly call this un-Christian, especially since he also used translating the Bible as inspiration for much of his work. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 21:50, 5 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::I must agree with you, JacobB. This is nothing other than rank liberal revisionism of the highest order. Slandering the good name of such a noble Christian is just plainly offensive. --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 21:54, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

''" If you find a great British mathematician who ranks with the best in the world, please do tell us who he is!"'' - Here is a small list of some whom I would consider to rank with the world's best (in no particular order):
* Sir Isaac Newton
* Charles Babbage
* Alan Turing
* G.H. Hardy
* Bertrand Russell
* Roger Penrose
* Andrew Wiles
* Arthur Cayley
* William Rowan Hamilton
* George Boole
* Augustus De Morgan
Whilst I agree that Polish mathematicians played an important role in cracking the Enigma code, but to jump from that to saying that not only are there no great British mathematicians, but that also Brits are 'notoriously weak' at maths - is clearly unfair and incorrect. [[User:FionaN|FionaN]] 07:40, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

: While I am respectful of the contributions of those on your list, as a group they are a far cry from the greatest mathematicians and many would not be considered "British". Hamilton was Irish, for example, and Newton was pre-modern and pre-Britain. Wiles did his work in the U.S. Russell's work was deflated by Godel, and others on the list don't even come close to being great mathematicians.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:21, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

:: Fiona seems to miss the varying degrees of "mathematician", "great mathematician", and "one of the greatest mathematicians" as if they're all the same thing. We saw the same thing when another contributor was unable to grasp the difference between "conservative words" and "best conservative words". It's as if liberals can see everything in the world only in black and white terms, as if everything falls perfectly into one of two categories, e.g. "mathematician" and "not-mathematician". I think this is another example of [[Liberal Inability To Abstract]]. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 14:42, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

Andy, you stated: "It was Polish mathematicians who decrypted the enigma, not an Englishman" and "The British are notoriously weak in mathematics". Both these statements are not only untrue but ridiculous. I've tried to contribute to this encyclopedia but I'm not going to waste my time messing around if you fill it up with your own uninformed prejudices, refuse to do some easy reading to check your facts, and get absurdly defensive when your statements are corrected by people who are more knowledgeable on the subject in question. ''Laziness is not a conservative character trait, least of all intellectual laziness.'' Please tell me if you're going to check your facts before shooting your mouth off in future, in which case I'd be pleased to continue contributing to CP. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 15:40, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

: Benjy, please rant somewhere else instead. We tell the truth here, whether [[Anglophile]]s accept it or not. The relative weakness of [[Britain]] in mathematics is an objective fact.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:44, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

::Have you any proof for your assertion? [[User:SamI|SamI]] 16:37, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

::(EC) Hi Andy. Are you talking about mathematical ability in the general UK population, or about the number of major contributions to the field by British mathematicians? Thanks, --[[User:JoanZ|JoanZ]] 16:48, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

:::(EC) Look at any list of the greatest mathematicians of the past 200 and count how many were from Britain. Or list the greatest modern mathematical achievements and count how many came out of Britain. I'm sorry liberals don't teach this, and that's why there is a need for Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:50, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

::::According to [http://fabpedigree.com/james/mathmen.htm this blog], 9 of 99 were British - and that's an all time, Ancient Greece to present list. Now you; would you care to support your position with sources? [[User:SamI|SamI]] 17:05, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::And ''your source'' comes from a ''blog?'' How about you, SamI, come up with non-blog, official sources yourself to support ''your'' position. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:16, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::Rather a blog than my own imagination. Would Andy care to provide his sources? The burden of proof, and all that. [[User:SamI|SamI]] 17:21, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::(EC)[http://www.sci.hkbu.edu.hk/scilab/math/math.html This list gives 3 British and 1 Irish out of 14.] And why do I keep having to fill out captcha boxes? [[User:SamI|SamI]] 17:25, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::::Andy said "Look at '''any''' list" (my emphasis). This is a list already on the Internet so SamI is just following Andy's advice. Please note that there are '''no''' people on that list who were born in the U.S.A. [[User:GeoffA|GeoffA]] 17:23, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::::Guess what...you, SamI, just accused Andy of using his own imagination, and since you, GeoffA, is supportive of Sam's statement, both of you are going to get official sources to support your side, otherwise I'm going to assume you are using your own imaginations just to troll here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:31, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::I would say that the second source I posted above is fairly official. And why do we need to support our side, but Andy doesn't have to support his beyond saying 'oh, it's an objective fact'? [[User:SamI|SamI]] 17:39, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
::::How about the [[Fields Medal]] as a rough proxy? I count six awarded to UK mathematicians out of a total of 48 (12.5%), compared to thirteen awarded to Americans (~27%). Not bad for a small island. --[[User:JoanZ|JoanZ]] 17:27, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

::::: Well there you go "Karajou". Since the USA has a population ~5 times larger than the UK, it looks like the UK is doing pretty well. And don't you think Andy can talk for himself without you leaping to his side? What are '''your''' sources to support his statement? [[User:GeoffA|GeoffA]] 17:36, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::There are better ways to prove us wrong then by coming here and making demands; one of those ways is to provide a reasonable explanation which supports your position, backed up by valid sources, and being polite about the whole thing. See ya in a couple hours. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:44, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

(outdent) Well I used the two "ours" you gave me to find some sources.

How about this [http://www.virtualimage.co.uk/html/great_mathematicians.html commercial source]? Of the 20 mathematiciams, John Napier, Ada Lovelace, Lewis Carroll, Alan Turing and William Oughtred are British. That's 25%. No Americans.

Or how about [http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/apr/11/the-10-best-mathematicians this] article listing a top 10? 1 Brit - no Americans.

The Scientific Computing Laboratory at Hong Kong Baptist University [http://www.sci.hkbu.edu.hk/scilab/math/math.html lists] four Brits out of 14. Yes - Christains disagree with you too.

Another blog (I know you don't like them, but surely the "Best of the Public" is always right? Your boss thinks so) [http://kaushal42.blogspot.com/2008/01/twenty-five-greatest-mathematicians-of.html here] has two Brits out of 25. No Americans.

Centre College [http://web.centre.edu/mat/century.html lists] 24 for last century alone. Four Brits and Five Yanks. That's still not bad for such a poor, small, atheistic island.

Lastly, in the magazine Mathematics Teacher (I.7. Vol.55, 1962), W.C. Eells [http://afrodita.rcub.bg.ac.rs/~flora/100.html published] a list of the 100 greatest mathematicians of all time. I'm not going to go through all 100, but Newton, Napier, Wallis, Hamilton, Barrow, Taylor, Briggs, Babbage, Smith, H.J.S., Cotes, Boole, Halley and Lord Kelvin were all Brits. That's 13/100.

So. There are your sources. I note that SamI can't respond because TK blocked him/her. Since I fully expect the same fate to befall me after this post for having proved you wrong, I'll say goodbye now. I suppose it's unrealistic to expect you or Andy to provide sources to back up ''your'' point of view. [[User:GeoffA|GeoffA]] 19:43, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
:Granted, GeoffA, I would agree with your point that we should provide sources to back up our point of view. But we're not going to do it for someone on demand. And there lies the end of the lesson. Hope you learned something about tact. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:05, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

*Is there something in the water over there in the U.K., or is it your atheism? Perhaps its the generally gloomy economic picture and remnants of the class system that make you as you are! Godspeed to all of you. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:38, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

Brits, we're talking about '''''mathematicians''''' in this thread. Do you know what a mathematician is? That's not a physicist (Penrose), a computer geek (Lovelace, Babbage, Turing), or a political hack (Russell). One more tip: the Irish (Hamilton) do not consider themselves to be British.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

*''Newton was pre-modern and pre-Britain'': The [[Oxford calculators]] were pre-modern, but English. [[John Napier]] or [[Richard Recorde]] where Scottish or Welsh - though they weren't English, they were inhabitants of the British Isles, and therefore British in the same sense as most Haitians are Hispaniolians as well. Both are modern mathematicians - in the usual sense of the word ''"modern"'' when talking about periods of history. You may describe them as ''early modern''. Sir Isaac Newton - who lived even later - was e a modern mathematician, too. And as a subject of Queen Anne of Great Britain, he was most certainly British.
*''Do you know what a mathematician is? '' A mathematician is someone who contributes to the field of mathematics. Mathematicians are not squeamish: you could be covered with green fur and be a baker - if you solve an open Hilbert problem, they will you love you, and count you as a mathematician. Penrose, Lovelace, Babbage, Turing and Russell were great mathematicians, even if they were part-time physicists, geeks or hacks. {{unsigned|RonLar}}

:: Additionally, the overlap between mathematics and physics is huge - especially applied mathematics. Sophie Germain, a ''woman'' mathematician who appears on several of those lists, contributed a huge amount of work to the subject of elastics, and her work was used extensively, for instance in the construction of the Eiffel Tower. She is universally considered to be a mathematician, but you would apparently describe her as a physicist or even an architect. Russell was deeply involved in the Hilbert Program, which though ultimately unsuccessful provided modern mathematics with a solid framework. His work ''Principia Mathematica'' is one of the most important works on the subject.

:: I cannot understand why you have such a closed mind on this subject. You have plenty of evidence that contradicts your opinion, so it's now only fair that you present evidence to support your hypothesis or at least consider revising it.

:: Please note, that I am not claiming that Britain is the pre-eminent country for producing mathematicians. Germany would probably win that prize across modern history, and if you take the last 50 years or so, it's probably the U.S.A. (although I have no hard evidence for that statement). I merely take issue with your statement that "The British are notoriously weak in mathematics". [[User:GeoffA|GeoffA]] 08:43, 7 August 2010 (EDT)

== General reply to Brits, if any, who commented above ==

The [[Brits]] who protest so stridently illustrate to me the problem of [[Anglophilia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:22, 7 August 2010 (EDT)

:"curiouser and curiouser" - for me, it looks as the [[Anglophobe]]s are justignoring the evidence:

:{|class="wikitable"
!colspan="3"|Field Medalists by Country
|-
!country
!#
!medalist
|-
!USA
|align="right"|13 ||Jesse Douglas, John Milnor, Paul Joseph Cohen, Stephen Smale, John G. Thompson, Charles Fefferman, Daniel Quillen, William Thurston, Shing-Tung Yau, Michael Freedman, Edward Witten, Curtis T. McMullen, David Mumford
|-
!France
|align="right"|9||Laurent Schwartz, Jean-Pierre Serre, René Thom, Alexander Grothendieck, Alain Connes, Pierre-Louis Lions, Jean-Christophe Yoccoz, Laurent Lafforgue, Wendelin Werner
|-
!Soviet Union/Russia
|align="right"|8||Sergei Novikov, Grigory Margulis, Vladimir Drinfel'd, Efim Zelmanov, Maxim Kontsevich, Vladimir Voevodsky, Andrei Okounkov, (Grigori Perelman)
|-
!UK
|align="right"|6||Klaus Roth, Michael Atiyah, Alan Baker, Simon Donaldson, Richard Borcherds, Timothy Gowers
|-
!Japan
|align="right"|3||Kunihiko Kodaira, Heisuke Hironaka, Shigefumi Mori
|-
!Belgium
|align="right"|2||Pierre Deligne, Jean Bourgain
|-
!Finland
|align="right"|1||Lars Ahlfors
|-
!Norway
|align="right"|1||Atle Selberg
|-
!Sweden
|align="right"|1||Lars Hörmander
|-
!Italy
|align="right"|1||Enrico Bombieri
|-
!Germany
|align="right"|1||Gerd Faltings
|-
!New Zealand
|align="right"|1||Vaughan F. R. Jones
|-
!Australia
|align="right"|1||Terence Tao
|}

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:04, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

:Klaus Roth was Prussian. Michael Atiyah is Sudanese/Egyptian. Simon Donaldson does his work in ''four-dimensions'' when this world obviously only has ''three''. I imagine if I made up the math as I went, I could get a Fields medal as well? And Richard Borcherds is from South Africa.
:So spectacularly, you provide ''maybe'' two candidates for British mathematicians. Hardly impressive, considering ''Finland'' managed to get one. And who cares about this "Field's Medal" anyways? It's just some award experts give to each other to make each other feel better, and exclude the best of the public. --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 20:07, 9 August 2010 (EDT)
::For the record, "Cathy," the cobordism work of Donaldson was not only essential to the classification theorems which have revolutionized modern topology, but also have important applications in quantum mechanics and other fields that deal with "this world." For somebody who apparently has such extensive knowledge in the history of 20th century mathematics, you are certainly lacking in understanding if you believe Donaldson "made up the math as he went." As for the Fields medal (no apostrophe) being something that the best of the public are excluded from, you should be aware that best of the public exemplar Gregori Perelman was OFFERED a Fields medal and turned it down.
::Before you continue your pattern of jumping into talk page arguments with on-the-spot research, I suggest you make significant and substantive edits to our mainspace articles.[[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 20:38, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

== Connive is too early ==

With an origin date of 1601, "connive" is too early, I think. We start at 1612, after publication of the [[KJV]] and completion of nearly all of [[Shakespeare]]'s works. But "connive" is a fascination suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:42, 24 August 2010 (EDT)
:I was debating to put it in the Conservative Downgraded terms.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:56, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

::That would work! It's always good to preserve information for everyone's benefit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:57, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

== New Layer Suggestions ==

These would take it to a 21-42-84-168 progression.

Cogent (1650-1660): to the point; relevant; pertinent.
Yankee (1750-1760): a native or inhabitant of the United States.
Minuteman (1765-1775): (sometimes lowercase) a member of a group of American militiamen just before and during the Revolutionary War who held themselves in readiness for instant military service.
Secularism (1850-1855): the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.
Theonomy (1885-1890): the state of an individual or society that regards its own nature and norms as being in accord with the divine nature.
Populism (1890-1895): grass-roots democracy; working-class activism; egalitarianism.
Secular Humanism (1980-1985): any set of beliefs that promotes human values without specific allusion to religious doctrines.
Ecoterrorism (1980-1985): violence carried out to further the political or social objectives of the environmentalists .

Any thoughts? "Secularism" and "secular humanism" might provoke some objections, and I know that "isms" raise some red flags, but I would argue that they're important terms. They clearly identify these types of thought as organized and agenda-driven movements, and identify that agenda.

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:00, 15 September 2010 (EDT)

: Ben, your suggestions are fabulous. My only reservations are with "Yankee", which today means a Northeasterner and is often derogatory in the singular, and "Populism", which is increasingly conservative today but probably not so when it originated. Your thoughts?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:44, 16 September 2010 (EDT)

::Well, Yankee has certainly had a varied history--it wasn't a term of endearment when spoken by a Southerner during the Civil War or Reconstruction! On the other hand, it also gives us Yankee ingenuity and "Yankee Doodle." The soldiers of the Greatest Generation were "Yanks." I think it would be a shame to let the fact that it's sometimes used in derogatory fashion undercut the rich heritage of the term. (After all, "Red Stater" is a term of derision to liberals, but a badge of honor to those who live there!) Populism...well, it's harder to argue that one; some highly leftist movements have been identified as "populist" in the pass. I cheerfully concede your point! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:58, 16 September 2010 (EDT)

:::This is a fascinating issue and discussion. I'm wondering if a word can be more derogatory as a singular noun ("Yankee") than as an adjective or when used in the plural. Southerners, who tend to be conservative, would have no trouble with "Yankee Doodle" but I suspect when they call someone a "Yankee", it's meant to be an insult. Interestingly, the dictionary (Merriam-Webster) lists the first (original) meaning of "Yankee" to mean a New Englander rather than an American.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 16 September 2010 (EDT)

== Suggested Way To Format Page ==

I would like to suggest that the formatting on the page might be easier to follow if it were organised into centuries, instead of purely alphabetically. I suggest this because, when I first looked at this page, I could not follow the progression clearly. If it was organised firstly into centuries, and then alphabetically, people just passing could see the progression quickly, thus making them more likely to read it thoroughly.

As I do not consider myself very good at editting pages, I do not trust myself to make this change.

I will understand and accept any critiscm of this idea, as it was a spur of the moment thought. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 16:15, 12 October 2010 (EDT)

== Additional liberal terms? ==

What about "ethnocentrism" (1905-1910) and "multiculturalism" (1960-1965)? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 09:34, 16 January 2011 (EST)

: Superb suggestions. Please add as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:37, 16 January 2011 (EST)
==Refudiate==
Even though liberal dictionaries added this word, Palin admitted it was an error on her part. If it stays then we must add Corpse men for lib terms.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:01, 23 January 2011 (EST)
:Not necessarily--no dictionaries made "corpse man" a [http://www.execdigital.com/business/leader/who-s-laughing-now-sarah-palin-s-refudiate-oxford-s-top-word-2010 word of the year]. Moreover, the word seems to be getting some leverage and use on its own terms. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 14:43, 23 January 2011 (EST)

::Perhaps time will tell. The term "Big Bang" was born of mockery also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:15, 23 January 2011 (EST)
:::Andy, could that explain the perceived scarcity of conservative words dating from the 21st century? Because I think the notion that a word can "mature" to be conservative is a fascinating and powerful insight. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:10, 4 February 2011 (EST)

== Charisma? ==

I have doubts that charisma, despite its etymology, is a conservative term. It seems to elevate style over substance -- a definite [[liberal]] trait. Nowhere does the Bible refer to Jesus as having charisma.

I suspect the original meaning of charisma was for religious charisma.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 4 February 2011 (EST)
:I would suggest, (if we do ''indeed,'' keep it), to change the phrasing to something more on the order of:
::'''literally "a gift from God", charisma is the quality of a person imbued by God to leadership, often found in [[conservative]] public figures.'''
:This nixes the "magic" from the sentence since as wonderful as a gift from God is, it isn't "magic". [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 20:20, 4 February 2011 (EST)
::Andy, that's a good point. I prefer to think of charisma as ''the style of substance'', but that's definitely not the case for everyone (especially liberals). While the etymology is undoubtedly conservative, perhaps "difficult to classify" may be a better resting place for charisma. Devon, either way, definitely an improvement on your part, thanks. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 22:21, 4 February 2011 (EST)
==New words added==

Hi, I have added 4 new words: deference (1660), idealist (1701), god-fearing (1835) & Rogue state (1993). If everyone accepts these, they will fill out the doubling pattern for those centuries. Shall I change the numbers in the summary at the top of the page?

I have also added 'liberal creep' (2008). [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 01:08, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

:All your additions look superb except "deference," which I'm not sure is [[conservative]]. Please do update the counts the top (I already did increment the 1800s count for "God-fearing").--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:05, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

::I added 'deference' because CP has 'giving those in authority due respect' listed as a [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_values Conservative Value]. I will tweak the definition a bit to emphasis the necessary legitimacy of the superior. Thanks for the positive feedback. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 02:21, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

:::But look at the remainder of the chat quote: "giving those in authority due respect, but not to the point of accepting orders or assertions that are contrary to logic or morality."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:34, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

:::: Let's continue this discussion later Monday morning. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:40, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

Hi again. Firstly, let me tell you that I am an Aussie and my timezone is GMT+10. This makes me 12-15 hours ahead of you. Our conversations may be a bit disjointed because of this. Right now it is my bedtime, so I will post this comment & then go, leaving it for your consideration. (Editing has been switched off for a while, is that correct? I realise that you do this most nights. I didn't expect it to be on again tonight.)

To return to 'deference': to me the word embodies respect and consideration which I would regard as being conservative values, but not necessarily 'giving in'. However, I do not have the right American nuances to interpret this as you do and will not push this strongly and am happy to remove it from the list.

I have a couple of alternatives for consideration:

atheistic (1625-35) An adjective pertaining to or characteristic of atheists or atheism; containing, suggesting, or disseminating atheism.

secularize (1611) To make secular; to transfer from ecclesiastical to civil or lay use, possession, or control

To me, these are useful words for conservatives. They do not describe conservatives. My reading of the list suggests that useful words are acceptable eg alarmist. Anyway, goodnight for now, catch up with you tomorrow. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 08:32, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

: "atheistic" is good. Let's go with that. I didn't see why "patriarchy" was conservative, so I removed that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 18 March 2011 (EDT)
::No worries. I'll add 'atheistic'. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 22:36, 18 March 2011 (EDT)

== "Copacetic" ==

I'm not sure how conservative this word is. There's no reasoning given for its inclusion, apart from the fact that Bojangles Robinson supposedly created it (and even that is extremely weak evidence and I'm not sure what it adds. I'm going to remove it from the list if no one raises any opposition. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:37, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

: "Copacetic" is the very satisfactory result of conservative values. It is associated with good and honest living. I do object to removal of this conservative term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

== Moral Majority - A suggestion ==

Andy, I saw your addition "silent majority" and it made me immediately think of "Moral Majority". [http://www.answers.com/topic/moral-majority This page credits it to Jerry Falwell in 1979]. Although in it's strictest sense it describes a movement it is still has greater symbolism. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:30, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

:Great suggestion. Please included it ... and increment the total near the beginning for the 1900s.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
::Done! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:22, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

== Obambulate ==

Maybe it's just my public school education at work, but I fail to see how obambulate is conservative. Apart from its obvious similarities with "Obama", it simply means "to walk around". I know that Obama has been bumbling and whatnot, but it's an innocuous word that is being assigned a special significance due to coincidence. I'm not sure it belongs on this list. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:05, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:It is probably as a result of it being mentioned on Rush Limbaugh's show and the liberal reactions to it during the past week. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:08, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::What was the reaction? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:14, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

:::Denny, your comment is a valid one, but the modern usage of the term "obambulate" is to criticize the directionless wandering characteristic of liberal leadership. None of the terms in the list should be viewed in a vacuum independent of their usage.

::: Hey, my response used another candidate: "directionless". ''Trying to find its date of origin next ....''--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:35, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

== Agitprop ==
Sorry if I get the etiquette wrong, first time commenting. I was just wondering if there was a source for Agitprop? I always understood it to be derived from Soviet Russian institutions, so would be quite keen to see the conservative routes of it. Everything I have tried so far has turned up the term as being derived from Russian e.g. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=agitprop&searchmode=none , and I would be surprised if the internal machinations of the USSR would come up with something conservative, so would be keen to find out the alternative you uncovered"[[User:JTpldl|JTlpdl]] 09:18, 28 March 2011 (EDT)"