Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Ehsan Sehgal

2020-05-13T04:56:06Z

RSchlafly: /* Copied article */ The Wikipedia article is being considered for deletion

{{template|Part of this article was copied from [[Wikipedia]] and the copied text contained contributions from Greenbörg, Drmies, Winged Blades of Godric, Bender the Bot, John of Reading, John, Justice007, Marjoroflaw, Moona Sehgal, ClueBot NG, Hockeysmit28, CommonsDelinker, Yobot, Aanapk, GrahamHardy, and MJ84. Versageek, Nolelover, Icarusgeek, TopGun, KasparBot, BD2412, Mar4d, Filpro, Omer123hussain, BD2412, Dl2000, KingssttLove, Anupam, Yobot, Bender235, Tony1, Lotje, LadyofShalott, Pauleee1, Titodutta, GorgeCustersSabre , Oakley77, Helpful Pixie Bot, SubContinentalAnalyst, Kudpung, AnomieBOT, Cyfraw, DumbBOT, PrincessofLlyr, Decoderz, FrescoBot, Tabassum Waarsi, Hindustanilanguage, Bri, Magioladitis, Roscelese, Biker Biker, Woohookitty, Glenfarclas, Singularity42. ||category=Copied Articles}}

== Copied article ==

This article is apparently a copy of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ehsan_Sehgal&oldid=759407516 the Wikipedia article]. It will either have to be ''completely'' revised or deleted. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:50, 12 January 2017 (EST)

You may help me, to re-wording that article, later I will try more, thanks.[[User:JusticeOfJustice|JusticeOfJustice]] ([[User talk:JusticeOfJustice|talk]]) 11:49, 12 January 2017 (EST)

: I have discussed this privately with the administrator [[User:Conservative]] who approved the article. I was the author of the article on Wikipedia and have definitively retired from there so I am bringing my talents here. I'm excited about collaborating here with you and other editors in the future.[[User:JusticeOfJustice|JusticeOfJustice]] ([[User talk:JusticeOfJustice|talk]]) 11:56, 12 January 2017 (EST)
::If you authored this article on Wikipedia, you are welcome to copy it over here. That is the one exception to the rule. However, it is good that you have this clear by posting a template ([[Template:Copied from]]) on this article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:14, 12 January 2017 (EST)

The Wikipedia article is being considered for deletion. Not sure what is going on here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] ([[User talk:RSchlafly|talk]]) 00:56, 13 May 2020 (EDT)

==Uploaded images==
I save here, to use. [[User:JusticeOfJustice|JusticeOfJustice]] ([[User talk:JusticeOfJustice|talk]]) 15:01, 20 January 2017 (EST)

:[[:File:Ehsan_Sehgal.jpg]]
:[[:File:Ehsan_Sehgal_2.jpg]]
:[[:File:Ehsan_Sehgal_3.jpg]]

:[[:File:The Writing That Fragrances.jpg]]
:[[:File:Breathing Words.jpg]]
:[[:File:The Prisoner Of The Hague.jpg]]
Saved here. [[User:JusticeOfJustice|JusticeOfJustice]] ([[User talk:JusticeOfJustice|talk]]) 23:52, 16 May 2019 (EDT)

Unplug the NFL

2015-09-07T14:57:25Z

RSchlafly: /* Exclusion of Herschel Walker */ add comm. Goodell

'''Unplug the NFL''' is a campaign initiated by ''Conservapedia'' in response to how the NFL has excluded [[Tim Tebow]], for no plausible reason other than his being outspokenly [[Christian]].<ref>The slogan "unplug the NFL" was first created by ''Conservapedia'', with this entry. Others are welcome to use this slogan with attribution.</ref> The NFL has done this to appease the [[liberal media]], which is increasingly hostile to people who quote the [[Bible]]. The NFL also advances the [[homosexual agenda]] with its halftime shows at the [[Super Bowl]].

If the NFL does not want [[Christians]] who quote the Bible, then Christians should not want the NFL. There many alternatives for sports fans, including college football and professional baseball. There is also the option of spending less time watching televised sports, and using that time more productively instead.

== Exclusion of Tim Tebow ==

Numerous experts have proven that Tim Tebow is fully qualified to play in the NFL. The widely followed ''Bleacher Report'' declared, after reviewing Tebow's record and strong preseason in 2015, that he "belongs in the NFL."<ref>http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2560964-after-solid-preseason-tim-tebow-finally-looks-like-he-belongs-in-the-nfl</ref> CBS in Philadelphia reported on September 4, 2015, that there was an open sport for Tebow, after a weaker player was traded to another team.<ref>http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2015/09/04/report-cardinals-working-on-trade-for-matt-barkley/</ref> Bleacher Report wrote that "it seemed as though Tebow would make the team. He certainly made a strong case for himself in the Eagles' preseason finale ...."<ref name="Bleacher Rpt">http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2436196-tim-tebow-released-by-eagles-latest-details-comments-and-reaction</ref> Yet Tebow was inexplicably cut by the Eagles, despite how the Eagles left themselves with only two quarterbacks on the roster, one who is injury-prone.

The Eagles then replaced Tebow on the roster with an undrafted QB named Stephen Morris, who had never played a single regular season NFL game, and who threw 30 interceptions in college. One sports analyst wrote about the Eagles' coach in making this decision: "what he sees in Morris -- that nobody else does -- is perplexing. An executive in personnel for another NFC team was texted, 'Tell me what you know about Stephen Morris.' His response was two words: 'He's bad.'"<ref>http://www.nj.com/eagles/index.ssf/2015/09/what_you_need_to_know_about_eagles_qb_stephen_morr.html</ref>

The Eagles arranged for a trade of another quarterback who did not play as well as Tebow, in exchange for a seventh-round draft pick, which implies that Tebow is more valuable than that.<ref name="Bleacher Rpt"/> But the Eagles cut Tebow outright without receiving anything. Apparently no other team in the NFL will play Tebow, and the only plausible explanation is that the NFL is appeasing the pro-homosexual media by refusing to allow the Bible-quoting Tebow to play.

== Keeping Commissioner Roger Goodell ==
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has repeatedly abused his authority, and invented unjust punishments by making up his own rules after the facts. He has been publicly reversed in several high-profile cases, including Tom Brady, Adrian Peterson, Ray Rice and the New Orleans Saints’ bounty scandal.<ref>http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/judge-offers-final-ruling-on-tom-brady-suspension-in-deflate-gate-221425352.html</ref> He has earned over $100M in five years, including $44M in 2012.<ref>http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/12/news/companies/goodell-pay/index.html</ref> His salary was disclosed because the NFL was claiming non-profit status on its tax return.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2015/04/28/nfl-tax-exempt-status-roger-goodell-drop-salary/26543647/</ref>

== Exclusion of Herschel Walker ==

The NFL has excluded another outspoken Christian, Herschel Walker, who said, "We have the DNA of our Lord [[Jesus Christ]]."<ref>http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/h/herschel_walker.html#udJFdQwHUCqBX1Ls.99</ref> The NFL keeps him out of its Hall of Fame to this day, and also refused to allow him to play in the NFL when he had one year of eligibility left in college, despite how he was obviously the finest running back anywhere. Then there was a rival league, the USFL, and Walker became its leading star.

== Pro-homosexual Super Bowl shows ==

In 2015, the Super Bowl halftime show featured in nearly every performance the pro-[[homosexual]] activist Katy Perry. Perry became became popular among liberals for her pro-lesbian song in 2008, and is an outspoken supporter of gay rights.

== Occult and gambling ==

The Super Bowl halftime show also features bizarre symbolism that has been associated with the occult and/or gambling.

== References ==

<references/>
[[category:politics]]
[[category:sports]]

Walter Lewin

2015-02-24T01:55:54Z

RSchlafly: insert "allegedly", put full paragraph in quote

Walter Hendrik Gustav Lewin (born January 29, 1936) is an astrophysicist, retired [[MIT]] professor, and producer of the most popular physics lectures on [[MIT OpenCourseWare]].

Two of Lewin's courses have been converted into edX courses, 8.01x and 8.02x. People who pass "x" courses will get a certificate from MIT. The resolution was increased and some small edits were made compared to the OpenCourseWare versions. Lewin's course on Electricity and Magnetism went online in February 2013, Newtonian Mechanics is online as of September 2013. As of May 2014, there were yet no plans to convert 8.03 "Vibrations and Waves" into an edX course.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/260xn4/i_am_walter_lewin_mit_astrophysicist_professor/chml0mi?context=1|title=Walter Lewin AMA on reddit|publisher=reddit.com|date=2014-05-20|accessdate=2015-02-22}}</ref>

The edX versions of 8.01x and 8.02x are available on YouTube:

* [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLyQSN7X0ro203puVhQsmCj9qhlFQ-As8e edX: 8.01x Physics I: Classical Mechanics]

* [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLyQSN7X0ro2314mKyUiOILaOC2hk6Pc3j edX: 8.02x Physics II: Electricity and Magnetism]

There is some controversy about these videos because a 32-year-old French married woman, Faïza Harbi, suffering from psychological disorders watched some of them and was allegedly pressured by Lewin to send him some naked selfies. <ref>"It would take almost a year before Harbi, with the help of MIT’s investigators, said she came to understand that Lewin’s interest in her was not motivated by empathy, and that their first conversations included inappropriate language. Shortly after contacting her, Harbi said, Lewin quickly moved their friendship into uncomfortable territory, and she was pushed to participate in online sexual role-playing and send naked pictures and videos of herself. After about 10 months, Harbi said, she resumed self-mutilating after seven years of not doing so. The harassment, however, “started day one,” Harbi said. Eventually, she said she discovered she was one of many women, which MIT confirmed. Harbi last October sent MIT a packet of more than 100 chat logs, emails, pictures, recordings and screenshots to document the harassment against her and other women." Straumsheim, Carl, "[https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/01/23/complainant-unprecedented-walter-lewin-sexual-harassment-case-comes-forward Unprecedented Walter Lewin Sexual Harassment Case Comes Forward 'We All Felt Trapped']. Inside Higher Ed.com, Published January 23, 2015. Accessed February 22, 2015.</ref> MIT apparently had some concerns that this caused a [[Title IX]] violation, and cut ties with Lewin and the videos.

==See Also==
* [[Professor values]]

== References ==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Lewin, Walter}}

[[Category : European Jews]]
[[Category : Professor Values]]
[[Category : Physicists]]

Walter Lewin

2015-02-23T02:52:31Z

RSchlafly: add Title IX

Walter Lewin

2015-02-23T00:32:28Z

RSchlafly: start, with links to lectures

Neil deGrasse Tyson

2014-10-24T00:15:26Z

RSchlafly: /* Fabrication of a newspaper headline */ it might well be sensible

'''Neil deGrasse Tyson''' is an astrophyicist and Director of the Hayden Planetarium. Like the [[agnosticism|agnostic]] and [[evolution]]ist [[Richard Dawkins]], he is a very public figure, having been featured on various popular media programs such as the [[History Channel]], where he has promoted his agnostic, [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific ]] and [[history|unhistorical]] [[worldview]].<ref>[http://bigthink.com/think-tank/neil-degrasse-tyson-atheist-or-agnostic Is Neil deGrasse Tyson an atheist or agnostic?]</ref> He is the director of the Hayden Planetarium <ref>[http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/about/message Hayden Planetarium - About]</ref> and a member of the Planetary Society, but is not a professor. In 2014, Tyson was the host of 'Cosmos: A Space-Time Odyssey' <ref>[http://www.cosmosontv.com/ Cosmos]</ref> which is an updated version of the agnostic [[Carl Sagan|Carl Sagan's]] 1980 documentary entitled Cosmos: A Personal Voyage.

==Quote Fabrication Controversies==
===Fabrication of a George W. Bush quote===
Tyson has been repeatedly accused of fabricating quotes that he uses in his presentations.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/16/another-day-another-quote-fabricated-by-neil-degrasse-tyson/|title=Another Day, Another Quote Fabricated By Neil deGrasse Tyson|last1=Davis|first1=Sean|date=September 16, 2014|website=thefederalist.com|publisher=The Federalist|accessdate=September 16, 2014}}</ref> The most damning accusation is that he fabricated a quote that he attributes to President George W. Bush. Tyson claims that Bush said, "Our God is the God who named the stars" in the week shortly after 9/11 as a way of separating Christians and Jews from radical Muslims.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_jG5kKfacY#t=33|title=Neil deGrasse Tyson: George Bush and Star Names|last1=Tyson|first1=Neil|date=Unknown|website=YouTube.com|publisher=YouTube|accessdate=September 16, 2014}}</ref> However, there is zero evidence that George W. Bush ever uttered that phrase. He had a similar line in a February 2003 speech given after the Columbia space shuttle disaster: "The same Creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghomwBSnM6w|title=George W. Bush: The American Presidency Project|last1=Bush|first1=George|date=February 1, 2003|website=YouTube.com|publisher=YouTube|accessdate=September 16, 2014}}</ref> The quote had nothing to do with Islam, nothing to do with 9/11 (it happened a year and a half after 9/11), and no reasonable observer could conclude that the line was meant to separate Jews or Christians from Muslims. Every aspect of Tyson's story about Bush and the quote about stars was found to be false.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/16/another-day-another-quote-fabricated-by-neil-degrasse-tyson/|title=Another Day, Another Quote Fabricated By Neil deGrasse Tyson|last1=Davis|first1=Sean|date=September 16, 2014|website=thefederalist.com|publisher=The Federalist|accessdate=September 16, 2014}}</ref>

===Fabrication of a newspaper headline===
Tyson was also accused of fabricating a newspaper headline that he regularly uses to question the numerical illiteracy of journalists. The quote he uses in his presentations is, "Half the schools in the district were below average."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6Y8tG6pJDY|title=Neil deGrasse Tyson - Fear of Numbers - 2012|last1=Tyson|first1=Neil|date=2012|website=YouTube.com|publisher=YouTube|accessdate=September 16, 2014}}</ref> He attributes that quote to "Newspaper Headline." However, extensive research using Google and Nexis records has revealed that such a headline does not exist.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/10/super-scientist-neil-degrasse-tyson-doesnt-understand-statistics/|title=Super Scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson Doesn’t Understand Statistics|last1=Davis|first1=Sean|date=September 10, 2014|website=thefederalist.com|publisher=The Federalist|accessdate=September 16, 2014}}</ref> Although a small handful of news articles contain similar phrases, none contains the verbatim phrase that is quoted extensively by Tyson.

Even if such a headline did occur, it might well be sensible if it were a shortened form of saying that half the schools int he district were below the state average. But without the story, it is impossible to say whether there was some mathematical stupidity.

===Fabrication of a Member of Congress quote===
In addition to using a newspaper headline that does not appear to exist, Tyson has also been accused of fabricating a quote which he says was uttered by a "Member of Congress."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/15/did-neil-degrasse-tyson-just-try-to-justify-blatant-quote-fabrication/|title=Did Neil deGrasse Tyson Just Try To Justify Blatant Quote Fabrication?|last1=Davis|first1=Sean|date=September 15, 2014|website=thefederalist.com|publisher=The Federalist|accessdate=September 16, 2014}}</ref> Tyson uses this quote in his presentations to illustrate the mathematical illiteracy of politicians. The quote cited by Tyson is, "I have changed my views 360 degrees on that issue."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://twitter.com/albertocairo/status/509742544616321026|title=And it's not just journalists who don't understand data...|last1=Cairo|first1=Alberto|date=September 10, 2014|website=twitter.com|publisher=Twitter|accessdate=September 16, 2014}}</ref> Tyson has also used this line in college commencement addresses.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm-8-8401WQ|title=Neil deGrasse Tyson, Doctor of Science|last1=Tyson|first1=Neil|date=May 21, 2012|website=YouTube.com|publisher=YouTube|accessdate=September 16, 2014}}</ref>

As with the other quotes which Tyson is accused of fabricating, there is also zero evidence that this particular quote has ever been uttered by a member of Congress. Extensive searches of Google, Nexis, and the Congressional Record found no instance of the quote spoken by a member of Congress.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/15/did-neil-degrasse-tyson-just-try-to-justify-blatant-quote-fabrication/|title=Did Neil deGrasse Tyson Just Try To Justify Blatant Quote Fabrication?|last1=Davis|first1=Sean|date=September 15, 2014|website=thefederalist.com|publisher=The Federalist|accessdate=September 16, 2014}}</ref> A similar quote was spoken by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) in 1998, but she was attacking a colleague, not referring to her own views.

“You have done a 360-degree turn," Waters said, according to the ''Los Angeles Times''. "I’m a little disappointed. Never in my wildest imagination did I think that you would have such a conflict in views about perjury and lying.”<ref>{{cite web |url=http://articles.latimes.com/1998/dec/09/news/mn-52296|title=Never Condoned Lying Under Oath, Hyde Says|last1=Writer|first1=Staff|date=December 9, 1998|website=latimes.com|publisher=The Los Angeles Times|accessdate=September 16, 2014}}</ref> If Tyson was referring to Waters' quote, it is unclear why he mangled it and then refused to cite her as the quote's source.

Nor it is clear why Tyson objects to the term "360-degree turn". A politician might well reverse his views on an issue twice, and that could be described as a 360-degree turn.

== See also ==

*[[Irreligion and superstition]]
*[[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]
*[[Age of the earth]]

== Notes ==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Tyson, Neil deGrasse}}
[[Category:Agnostics]]

Neil deGrasse Tyson

2014-10-24T00:11:54Z

RSchlafly: /* Fabrication of a Member of Congress quote */ Nor it is clear why Tyson objects to the term "360-degree turn"

'''Neil deGrasse Tyson''' is an astrophyicist and Director of the Hayden Planetarium. Like the [[agnosticism|agnostic]] and [[evolution]]ist [[Richard Dawkins]], he is a very public figure, having been featured on various popular media programs such as the [[History Channel]], where he has promoted his agnostic, [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific ]] and [[history|unhistorical]] [[worldview]].<ref>[http://bigthink.com/think-tank/neil-degrasse-tyson-atheist-or-agnostic Is Neil deGrasse Tyson an atheist or agnostic?]</ref> He is the director of the Hayden Planetarium <ref>[http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/about/message Hayden Planetarium - About]</ref> and a member of the Planetary Society, but is not a professor. In 2014, Tyson was the host of 'Cosmos: A Space-Time Odyssey' <ref>[http://www.cosmosontv.com/ Cosmos]</ref> which is an updated version of the agnostic [[Carl Sagan|Carl Sagan's]] 1980 documentary entitled Cosmos: A Personal Voyage.

==Quote Fabrication Controversies==
===Fabrication of a George W. Bush quote===
Tyson has been repeatedly accused of fabricating quotes that he uses in his presentations.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/16/another-day-another-quote-fabricated-by-neil-degrasse-tyson/|title=Another Day, Another Quote Fabricated By Neil deGrasse Tyson|last1=Davis|first1=Sean|date=September 16, 2014|website=thefederalist.com|publisher=The Federalist|accessdate=September 16, 2014}}</ref> The most damning accusation is that he fabricated a quote that he attributes to President George W. Bush. Tyson claims that Bush said, "Our God is the God who named the stars" in the week shortly after 9/11 as a way of separating Christians and Jews from radical Muslims.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_jG5kKfacY#t=33|title=Neil deGrasse Tyson: George Bush and Star Names|last1=Tyson|first1=Neil|date=Unknown|website=YouTube.com|publisher=YouTube|accessdate=September 16, 2014}}</ref> However, there is zero evidence that George W. Bush ever uttered that phrase. He had a similar line in a February 2003 speech given after the Columbia space shuttle disaster: "The same Creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghomwBSnM6w|title=George W. Bush: The American Presidency Project|last1=Bush|first1=George|date=February 1, 2003|website=YouTube.com|publisher=YouTube|accessdate=September 16, 2014}}</ref> The quote had nothing to do with Islam, nothing to do with 9/11 (it happened a year and a half after 9/11), and no reasonable observer could conclude that the line was meant to separate Jews or Christians from Muslims. Every aspect of Tyson's story about Bush and the quote about stars was found to be false.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/16/another-day-another-quote-fabricated-by-neil-degrasse-tyson/|title=Another Day, Another Quote Fabricated By Neil deGrasse Tyson|last1=Davis|first1=Sean|date=September 16, 2014|website=thefederalist.com|publisher=The Federalist|accessdate=September 16, 2014}}</ref>

===Fabrication of a newspaper headline===
Tyson was also accused of fabricating a newspaper headline that he regularly uses to question the numerical illiteracy of journalists. The quote he uses in his presentations is, "Half the schools in the district were below average."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6Y8tG6pJDY|title=Neil deGrasse Tyson - Fear of Numbers - 2012|last1=Tyson|first1=Neil|date=2012|website=YouTube.com|publisher=YouTube|accessdate=September 16, 2014}}</ref> He attributes that quote to "Newspaper Headline." However, extensive research using Google and Nexis records has revealed that such a headline does not exist.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/10/super-scientist-neil-degrasse-tyson-doesnt-understand-statistics/|title=Super Scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson Doesn’t Understand Statistics|last1=Davis|first1=Sean|date=September 10, 2014|website=thefederalist.com|publisher=The Federalist|accessdate=September 16, 2014}}</ref> Although a small handful of news articles contain similar phrases, none contains the verbatim phrase that is quoted extensively by Tyson.

===Fabrication of a Member of Congress quote===
In addition to using a newspaper headline that does not appear to exist, Tyson has also been accused of fabricating a quote which he says was uttered by a "Member of Congress."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/15/did-neil-degrasse-tyson-just-try-to-justify-blatant-quote-fabrication/|title=Did Neil deGrasse Tyson Just Try To Justify Blatant Quote Fabrication?|last1=Davis|first1=Sean|date=September 15, 2014|website=thefederalist.com|publisher=The Federalist|accessdate=September 16, 2014}}</ref> Tyson uses this quote in his presentations to illustrate the mathematical illiteracy of politicians. The quote cited by Tyson is, "I have changed my views 360 degrees on that issue."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://twitter.com/albertocairo/status/509742544616321026|title=And it's not just journalists who don't understand data...|last1=Cairo|first1=Alberto|date=September 10, 2014|website=twitter.com|publisher=Twitter|accessdate=September 16, 2014}}</ref> Tyson has also used this line in college commencement addresses.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm-8-8401WQ|title=Neil deGrasse Tyson, Doctor of Science|last1=Tyson|first1=Neil|date=May 21, 2012|website=YouTube.com|publisher=YouTube|accessdate=September 16, 2014}}</ref>

As with the other quotes which Tyson is accused of fabricating, there is also zero evidence that this particular quote has ever been uttered by a member of Congress. Extensive searches of Google, Nexis, and the Congressional Record found no instance of the quote spoken by a member of Congress.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/15/did-neil-degrasse-tyson-just-try-to-justify-blatant-quote-fabrication/|title=Did Neil deGrasse Tyson Just Try To Justify Blatant Quote Fabrication?|last1=Davis|first1=Sean|date=September 15, 2014|website=thefederalist.com|publisher=The Federalist|accessdate=September 16, 2014}}</ref> A similar quote was spoken by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) in 1998, but she was attacking a colleague, not referring to her own views.

“You have done a 360-degree turn," Waters said, according to the ''Los Angeles Times''. "I’m a little disappointed. Never in my wildest imagination did I think that you would have such a conflict in views about perjury and lying.”<ref>{{cite web |url=http://articles.latimes.com/1998/dec/09/news/mn-52296|title=Never Condoned Lying Under Oath, Hyde Says|last1=Writer|first1=Staff|date=December 9, 1998|website=latimes.com|publisher=The Los Angeles Times|accessdate=September 16, 2014}}</ref> If Tyson was referring to Waters' quote, it is unclear why he mangled it and then refused to cite her as the quote's source.

Nor it is clear why Tyson objects to the term "360-degree turn". A politician might well reverse his views on an issue twice, and that could be described as a 360-degree turn.

== See also ==

*[[Irreligion and superstition]]
*[[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]
*[[Age of the earth]]

== Notes ==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Tyson, Neil deGrasse}}
[[Category:Agnostics]]

Celestial Sphere

2014-10-24T00:05:42Z

RSchlafly: rm some nonsense

The '''Celestial Sphere''' is the view of the sky, from Earth. Because the human eye cannot perceive the distance away from Earth, the Sun, Moon, stars, and planets all appear as if they are on a giant sphere centered at the Earth.

==See Also:==
[[Frame of reference]]
[[Category:Meteorology]]
[[Category:Physics]]

Neil deGrasse Tyson

2014-10-22T20:31:28Z

RSchlafly: add misquotes

'''Neil deGrasse Tyson''' is an astrophyicist and Director of the Hayden Planetarium. Like the [[agnosticism|agnostic]] and [[evolution]]ist [[Richard Dawkins]], he is a very public figure, having been featured on various popular media programs such as the [[History Channel]], where he has promoted his agnostic, [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific ]] and [[history|unhistorical]] [[worldview]].<ref>[http://bigthink.com/think-tank/neil-degrasse-tyson-atheist-or-agnostic Is Neil deGrasse Tyson an atheist or agnostic?]</ref> He is the director of the Hayden Planetarium <ref>[http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/about/message Hayden Planetarium - About]</ref> and a member of the Planetary Society, but is not a professor. In 2014, Tyson was the host of 'Cosmos: A Space-Time Odyssey' <ref>[http://www.cosmosontv.com/ Cosmos]</ref> which is an updated version of the agnostic [[Carl Sagan|Carl Sagan's]] 1980 documentary entitled Cosmos: A Personal Voyage.

==Quote Fabrication Controversies==
===Fabrication of a George W. Bush quote===
Tyson has been repeatedly accused of fabricating quotes that he uses in his presentations.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/16/another-day-another-quote-fabricated-by-neil-degrasse-tyson/|title=Another Day, Another Quote Fabricated By Neil deGrasse Tyson|last1=Davis|first1=Sean|date=September 16, 2014|website=thefederalist.com|publisher=The Federalist|accessdate=September 16, 2014}}</ref> The most damning accusation is that he fabricated a quote that he attributes to President George W. Bush. Tyson claims that Bush said, "Our God is the God who named the stars" in the week shortly after 9/11 as a way of separating Christians and Jews from radical Muslims.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_jG5kKfacY#t=33|title=Neil deGrasse Tyson: George Bush and Star Names|last1=Tyson|first1=Neil|date=Unknown|website=YouTube.com|publisher=YouTube|accessdate=September 16, 2014}}</ref> However, there is zero evidence that George W. Bush never uttered that phrase. He had a similar line in a February 2003 speech given after the Columbia space shuttle disaster: "The same Creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghomwBSnM6w|title=George W. Bush: The American Presidency Project|last1=Bush|first1=George|date=February 1, 2003|website=YouTube.com|publisher=YouTube|accessdate=September 16, 2014}}</ref> The quote had nothing to do with Islam, nothing to do with 9/11 (it happened a year and a half after 9/11), and no reasonable observer could conclude that the line was meant to separate Jews or Christians from Muslims. Every aspect of Tyson's story about Bush and the quote about stars was found to be false.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/16/another-day-another-quote-fabricated-by-neil-degrasse-tyson/|title=Another Day, Another Quote Fabricated By Neil deGrasse Tyson|last1=Davis|first1=Sean|date=September 16, 2014|website=thefederalist.com|publisher=The Federalist|accessdate=September 16, 2014}}</ref>

===Fabrication of a newspaper headline===
Tyson was also accused of fabricating a newspaper headline that he regularly uses to question the numerical illiteracy of journalists. The quote he uses in his presentations is, "Half the schools in the district were below average."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6Y8tG6pJDY|title=Neil deGrasse Tyson - Fear of Numbers - 2012|last1=Tyson|first1=Neil|date=2012|website=YouTube.com|publisher=YouTube|accessdate=September 16, 2014}}</ref> He attributes that quote to "Newspaper Headline." However, extensive research using Google and Nexis records has revealed that such a headline does not exist.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/10/super-scientist-neil-degrasse-tyson-doesnt-understand-statistics/|title=Super Scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson Doesn’t Understand Statistics|last1=Davis|first1=Sean|date=September 10, 2014|website=thefederalist.com|publisher=The Federalist|accessdate=September 16, 2014}}</ref> Although a small handful of news articles contain similar phrases, none contains the verbatim phrase that is quoted extensively by Tyson.

===Fabrication of a Member of Congress quote===
In addition to using a newspaper headline that does not appear to exist, Tyson has also been accused of fabricating a quote which he says was uttered by a "Member of Congress."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/15/did-neil-degrasse-tyson-just-try-to-justify-blatant-quote-fabrication/|title=Did Neil deGrasse Tyson Just Try To Justify Blatant Quote Fabrication?|last1=Davis|first1=Sean|date=September 15, 2014|website=thefederalist.com|publisher=The Federalist|accessdate=September 16, 2014}}</ref> Tyson uses this quote in his presentations to illustrate the mathematical illiteracy of politicians. The quote cited by Tyson is, "I have changed my views 360 degrees on that issue."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://twitter.com/albertocairo/status/509742544616321026|title=And it's not just journalists who don't understand data...|last1=Cairo|first1=Alberto|date=September 10, 2014|website=twitter.com|publisher=Twitter|accessdate=September 16, 2014}}</ref> Tyson has also used this line in college commencement addresses.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm-8-8401WQ|title=Neil deGrasse Tyson, Doctor of Science|last1=Tyson|first1=Neil|date=May 21, 2012|website=YouTube.com|publisher=YouTube|accessdate=September 16, 2014}}</ref>

As with the other quotes which Tyson is accused of fabricating, there is also zero evidence that this particular quote has ever been uttered by a member of Congress. Extensive searches of Google, Nexis, and the Congressional Record found no instance of the quote spoken by a member of Congress.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/15/did-neil-degrasse-tyson-just-try-to-justify-blatant-quote-fabrication/|title=Did Neil deGrasse Tyson Just Try To Justify Blatant Quote Fabrication?|last1=Davis|first1=Sean|date=September 15, 2014|website=thefederalist.com|publisher=The Federalist|accessdate=September 16, 2014}}</ref> A similar quote was spoken by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) in 1998, but she was attacking a colleague, not referring to her own views.

“You have done a 360-degree turn," Waters said, according to the Los Angeles Times. "I’m a little disappointed. Never in my wildest imagination did I think that you would have such a conflict in views about perjury and lying.”<ref>{{cite web |url=http://articles.latimes.com/1998/dec/09/news/mn-52296|title=Never Condoned Lying Under Oath, Hyde Says|last1=Writer|first1=Staff|date=December 9, 1998|website=latimes.com|publisher=The Los Angeles Times|accessdate=September 16, 2014}}</ref> If Tyson was referring to Waters' quote, it is unclear why he mangled it and then refused to cite her as the quote's source.

== See also ==

*[[Irreligion and superstition]]
*[[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]
*[[Age of the earth]]

== Notes ==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Tyson, Neil deGrasse}}
[[Category:Agnostics]]

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (2009)

2014-04-08T16:20:52Z

RSchlafly: correct common misunderstanding about discovery

The '''Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009''' is a piece of legislation passed by the 111th [[United States Congress]] and signed into law on the 29th January, 2009 by the then President of the United States, [[Barack Obama]].

The Act supersedes the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] decision made in the 2007 case, ''Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'', 550 U.S. 618 (2007). The Supreme Court finding in that case ruled that the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an lawsuit in regards to a question of equal pay begins at the date the pay was agreed upon, not at the date of the most recent paycheck received by the plaintiff. The decision left open the possibility that a plaintiff could sue because she only recently learned about the discrimination, or sue under other discrimination laws with a longer statute of limitations. With the implementation of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 any plaintiff who wished to make a claim of pay discrimination had a 180 day statute of limitation timed from the date of the last paycheck that they had received.<ref>http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h2831pcs.txt.pdf</ref>

== Passage of the bill ==

The first attempt to pass the bill, [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:H.R.2831: H.R. 2831] and [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:S1843: S. 1843], failed when the bill was defeated in the Senate in April 2008 when Republicans voted against it. In response the bill was reintroduced to the 111th Congress in January 2009 as [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.11: H.R. 11] and [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S181: S. 181]. In the House of Representatives the bill passed on the 9th January, 2009 with a vote of 247-171, with 244 Democrats and 3 Republicans voting for and 5 Democrats and 166 Republicans voting against (and a combined party total of 15 members not voting).<ref>http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-9</ref>. On the 22nd January, 2009, the bill was voted on in the Senate and passed with a vote of 61-36. No Democrat voted against the bill, and all 4 female Republican Senators, as well as Republican Senator Arlen Specter, voted for it. The only Senator not voting was Democrat Senator Edward Kennedy who was unable to vote because of ill-health.<ref>http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-14</ref>

As the bill passed in the Senate was slightly different to the bill passed in the House, the House then voted on S.181 and passed the bill on the 27th January, 2009, by a vote of 250-177, with 247 Democrats and 3 Republicans voting for, 5 Democrats and 172 Republicans voting against and a combined party total of 6 members not voting.<ref>http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-37</ref>

The vote in both the Senate and the House regarding the passage of S.181 is interesting in regards to how the two genders voted in regards to the bill. The combined female vote in the Senate and House supporting S.181 was 74, whilst the total number of votes against was 17. In comparison the total male vote in the Senate and House supporting S.181 was 237, whilst the total number of votes against was 196. In percentage terms this means that the female vote split 81.32% for, 18.68% against, whilst the male vote split 54.73% for, 45.27% against. Those figures do not take into account those not voting.<ref>http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-14</ref><ref>http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-37</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Law]]

Southern Poverty Law Center

2014-03-26T18:17:51Z

RSchlafly: /* Cooperation with law enforcement */

[[File:SPLC_Logo.jpg|right]]

The '''Southern Poverty Law Center''' is a far left legal and activist [[organization]] created in 1971 in Montgomery, [[Alabama]]. It was founded by trial lawyers Morris Dees and Joe Levin, and its first president was civil rights leader Julian Bond, who would later take control of the [[NAACP]]. SPLC supports a wide variety of liberal positions; it is pro-[[immigration]] (both legal and [[illegal immigration|illegal]]), advocates [[multiculturalism]] and the [[homosexual agenda]], supports [[Muslim]]s and racial preferences and defendants' rights, and advocates against what it considers "hate groups". In 2012, Black pastors confronted the Southern Poverty Law Center for smearing as ‘hate groups’ pro-family organizations opposed to [[homosexual agenda]]. <ref>http://americansfortruth.com/2012/01/16/press-conf-black-pastors-confront-southern-poverty-law-center-for-smearing-pro-family-organizations-opposed-to-homosexual-agenda-as-hate-groups/</ref>
Reverend Dr. Patrick Wooden declared that it is wrong to compare “my beautiful blackness” with [[homosexuality|homosexual]] perversion.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/2012/01/16/press-conf-black-pastors-confront-southern-poverty-law-center-for-smearing-pro-family-organizations-opposed-to-homosexual-agenda-as-hate-groups/</ref>

The SPLC's op-ed writings have appeared in the [[Communist Party USA]]'s newspaper ''People's World''. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/22/splc-article-featured-in-communist-newspaper/ SPLC article featured in communist newspaper, The Daily Caller, January 22, 2011]</ref> This "controversial, liberal organization" <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/dec98/southern19.htm</ref> has been criticized in mainstream press for being extravagant in its spending, and using charges of racism to stifle conservatives. <ref>http://cofcc.org/?p=984</ref>

==Finances==
The last year that the [[Better Business Bureau]]'s Philanthropic Advisory Service reported on the SPLC, in 1994, Dees and then Executive Director Edward Ashworth took home over $150,000 each, and the organization then possessed over $62 million in assets <ref>http://www.zpub.com/notes/znote-splc.html</ref>. It now controls over $200 million, and Dees pulls $286,000 in salary.<ref>http://www.splcenter.org/donate/financialinfo/financial.jsp</ref> In 2000, SPLC fundraised $27 million and made an additional $17 million from investments, but spent only $13 million on its civil rights program. <ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a3e5cb925c4.htm</ref> It is no longer listed in the Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance<ref>http://us.bbb.org/WWWRoot/SitePage.aspx?site=113&id=1bce9b1f-74e9-4c94-96e8-1ee2b519b0c4</ref> because that would require that "at least 50 percent of total income from all sources, should be applied to programs and activities directly related to the purposes for which the organization exists." The SPLC spent 89 percent of its total income on fund-raising and administrative costs. <ref>http://www.theamericanresistance.com/thousand_words/pics_splc_expands.html</ref>

In addition to donations from liberal members, which are often elicited by sensationalizing hate crimes, the center raises a lot of revenue seizing assets of violent groups, and by extorting groups that do not want to be accused of racism. In 1987, the SPLC won a major case on behalf of Beulah Mae Donald, the mother of a Klan lynching victim. This was the invention of a clever new tactic-- suing domestic terrorist groups into bankruptcy-- but Ms. Donald benefitted very little. Of the $7 million verdict, only $50,000 went to her. This was because the Klan chapter had no assets other than a warehouse used as a headquarters, the warehouse itself was valued at about $50,000. <ref>http://www.americanpatrol.com/SPLC/ChurchofMorrisDees001100.html</ref>

The SPLC's fundraising tactics came under heavy criticism most recently by the Council of Conservative Citizens, <ref>http://cofcc.org/?p=5108</ref> as well as by articles in ''Harper's'' magazine in 2000<ref>Silverstein, Ken. "The Church of Morris Dees: How the Southern Poverty Law Center Profits from Intolerance". ''Harper's'', November, 2000. http://www.harpers.org/archive/2000/11/0068709</ref> and in the local ''Montgomery Advertiser'' newspaper in 1994.<ref>Morse, Dan and Greg Jaffe. "Critics Question $52 Million Reserve, Tactics of Wealthiest Civil Rights Group". ''Montgomery Advertiser'', February 13, 1994</ref>.

==Hate Groups==
SLPC lists over 1000 organizations as hate groups. Many of these are widely accepted but the list continues to grow with the controversial additions of conservative organizations. Conservative political stances that the SLPC disagrees with are now targeted, many of these additions are organizations for the general welfare of American citizens and are not associated with hate.

*Catholic organizations
*Baptist organizations
*Pentecostal organizations
*[[American Family Association]]
*[[Family Research Council]]
*Illinois Family Institute
*Parents Action League
*United Families International
*Christian Action Network
*American Defense League
*United States Justice Foundation
*Watchmen Bible Study Group
*Mission to Israel
*Jewish Defense League

These fine organizations and many others are lumped together with the [[KKK]] and White nationalists, skin-heads, Neo-Nazi's and Black separatists.

==Hate Map==
The Southern Poverty Law Center posted a 'Hate Map' on their website. <ref>[http://cnsnews.com/news/article/shooting-southern-poverty-law-center-put-family-research-council-hate-map Before Shooting: Southern Poverty Law Center Put Family Research Council on ‘Hate Map’ - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/shooting-southern-poverty-law-center-put-family-research-council-hate-map#sthash.WwD1HS7R.dpuf CNSNews, April 16, 2012]</ref> The organization lists various hate groups for their opposition to the [[LGBT]] agenda, [[abortion]] and [[social justice]] to name a few. Homosexual activist [[Floyd Corkins]] utilized the information with the intent on causing [[mass murder]] at the [[Family Research Council]] in D.C., the conservative organization is listed by them as a hate group. Corkins entered FRC's lobby allegedly shouted “I don’t like your politics” and shot an unarmed guard in the arm with a 9mm pistol before being wounded and arrested. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/perkins-shooting-family-research/2012/08/16/id/448862#ixzz2kTjbZHV5 FRC's Perkins: Southern Poverty Law Center Gave Gunman 'License to Shoot']</ref> The SLPC denied they were responsible but the gunman admitted as much. Though Corkins' actions perfectly fit the definition of a [[hate crime]], no such sentence was given likely due to his liberal sympathies. Corkins did receive a 25-year prison sentence.

==SPLC attacks on conservatives==
While SPLC organizes against obvious hate groups such as the KKK or Aryan Brotherhood, it also lumps in conservative organizations in an attempt to intimidate them. For instance, SPLC considers Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) a "hate group", because it opposes illegal immigration, and uses demonstrations as a method, which the SPLC deems intimidation.<ref>http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2007/12/11/fair-crossing-the-rubicon-of-hate&splcnewsletter=panewsgen-121107/</ref> Similarly, the center labels the immigration reductionist/reformist website VDARE as a "hate group", because it argues against illegal immigration <ref>http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008/10/07/freedom-folksblogs4borders-interview-with-peter-brimelow/</ref>.

The SPLC followed Laird Wilson in publishing a list of "hate groups" but after Wilson rejected the usefulness of that approach, the SPLC continued with it, becoming prominent for using it against groups standing for traditional values.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2011/0223/Annual-report-cites-rise-in-hate-groups-but-some-ask-What-is-hate</ref><ref>http://editioncnn.com/2012/08/16us/dc-shooting-blame/index.html</ref><ref>http://thehill.com/blogs?blog-briefing-room/news/243921-shooting-spurs-heated-battle-on-gay-rights-and-hate-group-label</ref> Laird Wilcox, claims to have provided SPLC with some of the information initially used to compile their list of "hate groups". He "concluded that a lot of [the SPLC's hate groups] were vanishingly small or didn’t exist, or could even be an invention of the SPLC." Some of the "hate groups" were creations of SPLC informants, rather than legitimate groups. And with the advent of the internet, some of them exist "nowhere except in cyberspace." Wilcox concludes, "The whole issue of “lists” is full of smoke and mirrors."<ref>"An Expert on Fringe Political Movements Reflects on the SPLC’s Political Agenda - An Exclusive Interview with Author and Researcher Laird Wilcox,"Volume 20, Number 3 (Spring 2010) http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_20_3/tsc_20_3_wilcox_interview.shtml</ref>

In the wake of an August 2012 shooting at the headquarters of the [[Family Research Council]], some columnists criticized the SPLC's listing of the Family Research Council as an anti-gay hate group. Dana Milbank, of the Washington Post, wrote that the SPLC was "reckless in labeling as a “hate group” a policy shop that advocates for a full range of conservative Christian positions." <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-hateful-speech-on-hate-groups/2012/08/16/70a60ac6-e7e8-11el-8487-64e4b2a79ba8_story.html</ref><ref>[http://huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22dana-milbank-washington-post-family-research-council-hate-group_n_1822805.html Dana Milbank, Washington Post Writer, Slams LGBT Activists, SPLC For FRC's 'Hate Group' Label]</ref> Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council,” said, after the attack, “I believe [the gunman Floyd Corkins] was given a license to do that by a group such as the Southern Poverty Law Center who labeled us a hate group because we defend the family and stand for traditional orthodox Christianity.”<ref>FRC's Perkins: Southern Poverty Law Center Gave Gunman 'License to Shoot', http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/perkins-shooting-family-research/2012/08/16/id/448862?s=al</ref> Capital Research Center states that the SPLC "deliberately mischaracterizes conservatives and tea partiers as “extremists”."<ref>Southern Poverty Law Center: Wellspring of Manufactured Hate, http://www.capitalresearch.org/2012/09/southern-poverty-law-center-wellspring-of-manufactured-hate/</ref>

Also smeared as "hate groups" by the SPLC include: the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, and The Social Contract Press (a liberal group publishing [[environmentalist]] works such as those of [[Garrett Hardin]], apparently solely because they republished French writer [[Jean Raspail]]'s 1973 novel ''The Camp of the Saints'' which foretells catasrophe befalling [[Europe]] from boatloads of illegal immigrants arriving from South Asia).

Another example is the Council of Conservative Citizens, a conservative activist organization that advocates on behalf of states' rights and against immigration, communism, racial quotas and gun control. SPLC labels all members as racist because a minority of members had decades-past connections to segregationist organizations. In fact, the CCC attracts such mainstream speakers such as former Sen. [[Trent Lott]] (R-Miss.), Gov. [[Kirk Fordice]] (R-MS) and Rep. [[Bob Barr]] (R-Ga.), and engages in charitable and cultural events.

The SPLC has also recently added new categories to its categories of "hate groups", including Traditionalist [[Catholic]]s (that is, those who advocate for a return to the [[Latin]] [[Mass]]), and an "anti-gay" category of groups who do not support the homosexual agenda and/or advocate for homosexuals to come out of that lifestyle.

During the 1990s, the SPLC maintained a separate list of "patriot groups", which although they did not include them as part of their "hate groups" list, carried the same intent: to [[guilt by association|smear those groups by association]], and create the public impression those groups were some sort of threat to society. Their "patriot groups" list included groups opposed to the [[income tax]], groups campaigning for jury and court reform, and the venerable conservative organization the [[John Birch Society]], among others.

In 2010, the SPLC created a list entitled "Meet the Patriots", which included such people such as [[Chuck Baldwin]], [[Orly Taitz]], and [[Alex Jones]] as supporters of this "patriot movement".<ref>http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/summer/meet-the-patriots?page=0,0</ref> A supplement entitled "The Enablers" was also released, which included [[Michele Bachmann]], [[Glenn Beck]], [[Ron Paul]], and [[Judge Napolitano]].<ref>http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/summer/meet-the-patriots/the-enablers</ref>

In 2012, the SPLC found four individuals to file a law suit against a group providing therapy to homosexual men in order to help them become [[ex-homosexuals]].<ref>http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/27/15486181-four-men-sue-new-jersey-organization-over-gay-conversion-therapy?lite</ref> The SPLC alleges the group violated New Jersey's Consumer Fraud law in advertising that conversion therapy will help people become [[ex-homosexuals]]. Instead of being a pro-consumer lawsuit, as the SLPC implies, the suit is a collateral attack on conversion therapy, and the free exercise of religion.

These incidents further prove the SPLC is a left-wing political organization rather than one focused on racism and civil rights.

==Infiltration into the classroom==
Additionally, the SPLC runs tolerance.org, a website that advocates multiculturalism, the homosexual agenda and "social justice". It is designed with teachers in mind so that these ideas can influence young children in the classroom <ref>http://www.tolerance.org/teach/activities/index.jsp</ref> For instance, teachers can click "classroom activities" then "early grades" and "Tolerance Issues: Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual issues:" or "tolerance issues: Gender Issues" and arrive at a pro-alternative family article, among others.<ref>http://www.tolerance.org/teach/current/event.jsp?cid=305</ref>. Its magazine is sent to over 400,000 eduators, and over 10,000 schools participate in its programs.

==Interference in the Sierra Club==
In early 2004, Morris Dees filed to run as a candidate for the board of directors of the [[Sierra Club]], an [[environmentalist]] organization. Dees', who has no background in environmental issues at all, ran only to use his ballot statement to smear three other candidates for the Sierra Club board, who advocated the Sierra Club address the environmental impact of excessive legal and illegal immigration into the United States. Dees and two other fake board candidates were part of a broader smear campaign by the radical left, which also included [[MoveOn.org]]. Dees, MoveOn, and others smeared these three candidates, all of whom were staunch liberals and environmentalists (one of them, former [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] governor of [[Colorado]], [[Richard Lamm]]) solely because they understood excessive immigration numbers to be an environmental issue.<ref>For much background and material on the takeover of the Sierra Club in 2004 by radical pro-immigration and [[political correctness]] advocates, including Dees' role as a fake board candidate, see http://sierrademocracy.org/</ref>

==Cooperation with law enforcement==
The SPLC has been criticized by civil rights writer Laird Wilcox for essentially functioning as a private intelligence gathering agency for the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]] and other [[law enforcement]] agencies, doing activities as a private organization that public law enforcement agencies are barred by law from doing (such as keeping dossiers on people solely because of their political or religious views) because for a government agency to do them would be a violation of [[civil rights]]. Wilcox points out the dangers of the FBI and other law enforcement working with ideologically-driven groups like the SPLC, which has its roots in 1960s radical liberal activism, because of the danger this poses that the SPLC's own ideological differences with another group can be treated as a law enforcement issue rather than as an ideological dispute between a left-wing group (the SPLC) and a group on the right. This can, and has, led to attacks on such groups' freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.<ref>Wilcox, Laird. ''The Watchdogs''. Olathe, Kansas: Editorial Research Service, 1999.</ref>

Indeed, the SPLC has a history of adding groups to its listing of purported "hate groups" in advance of a government law enforcement campaign against them. The SPLC inexplicably added the [[Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints]] (FLDS) to its "hate groups" list just before FLDS leader Warren Jeffs was indicted on charges of arranging [[polygamy|polygamous]] underage marriages. The timing of this listing by SPLC was suspicious, as is the accuracy of calling FLDS a "hate group" to begin with, any controversy over their polygamous practices notwithstanding.

The SPLC brags about being an informant for the FBI. Mark Potok, an SPLC spokesman, said, "Law enforcement agencies come to us every day with questions about particular groups." This was done to circumvent policies against domestic political spying. <ref>[http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/doc/405293377.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Aug%2013%2C%201999&author=Anne%20E.%20Kornblut%2C%20Globe%20Staff&pub=Boston%20Globe&edition=&startpage=&desc=FBI%20limited%20in%20battling%20hate%20groups]</ref> But the FBI has recently disavowed the SPLC by drropping it from being listed as a resource on the FBI web site.<ref>Feb. 2014 page [http://web.archive.org/web/20140209112737/http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/hate_crimes], current hate crime page [http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/hate_crimes]</ref>

==''Into the Mainstream'' controversy==
In the summer of 2003, the SPLC's ''Intelligence Journal'' carried a feature article entitled "Into the Mainstream", by [[Chip Berlet]]. The cover of the journal had an image of [[Adolf Hitler]] in front of the [[American flag]] and the caption, "Marching toward the Mainstream: the radical Right invades American culture". The implication was that such conservative activists as [[David Horowitz]] and his [[Center for the Study of Popular Culture]], as well as other groups including the [[libertarian]] Ludwig von Mises Institute, were "radical right" and Hitlerian.<ref>Kantor, Myles. "Morris Dees' Defamation". ''FrontPage magazine'', September 25, 2003. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=52878574-A7B7-4885-A6F9-58C15841D70C</ref> This smear was denounced by David Horowitz, who demanded an apology, although none was forthcoming.

For further details see [[Chip_Berlet#Hate_speech]].

==SPLC as film critic==
The SPLC has published criticisms of [[movie]]s they deem to be not [[politically correct]], often smearing the filmmakers in the process and portraying them to be part of a purported "radical right" conspiracy to influence the culture. Films the SPLC has criticized in this manner include [[Ronald Maxwell]]'s [[American Civil War]] epics ''Gettysburg'' (1993) and ''Gods and Generals'' (2003), and [[Mel Gibson]]'s 2004 film ''[[The Passion of the Christ]]''.

==See also==
* [[Center for Democratic Renewal]]
* [[Black church-burning hoax]]
* [[Essay:The Protocols of Ritual Defamation]]

==External Links==
* [http://splcwatch.org/ SPLC Watch]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Liberal Organizations]]
{{liberalism}}

Southern Poverty Law Center

2014-03-26T18:16:28Z

RSchlafly: /* Cooperation with law enforcement */ FBI informant, dropped from fbi.gov

[[File:SPLC_Logo.jpg|right]]

The '''Southern Poverty Law Center''' is a far left legal and activist [[organization]] created in 1971 in Montgomery, [[Alabama]]. It was founded by trial lawyers Morris Dees and Joe Levin, and its first president was civil rights leader Julian Bond, who would later take control of the [[NAACP]]. SPLC supports a wide variety of liberal positions; it is pro-[[immigration]] (both legal and [[illegal immigration|illegal]]), advocates [[multiculturalism]] and the [[homosexual agenda]], supports [[Muslim]]s and racial preferences and defendants' rights, and advocates against what it considers "hate groups". In 2012, Black pastors confronted the Southern Poverty Law Center for smearing as ‘hate groups’ pro-family organizations opposed to [[homosexual agenda]]. <ref>http://americansfortruth.com/2012/01/16/press-conf-black-pastors-confront-southern-poverty-law-center-for-smearing-pro-family-organizations-opposed-to-homosexual-agenda-as-hate-groups/</ref>
Reverend Dr. Patrick Wooden declared that it is wrong to compare “my beautiful blackness” with [[homosexuality|homosexual]] perversion.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/2012/01/16/press-conf-black-pastors-confront-southern-poverty-law-center-for-smearing-pro-family-organizations-opposed-to-homosexual-agenda-as-hate-groups/</ref>

The SPLC's op-ed writings have appeared in the [[Communist Party USA]]'s newspaper ''People's World''. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/22/splc-article-featured-in-communist-newspaper/ SPLC article featured in communist newspaper, The Daily Caller, January 22, 2011]</ref> This "controversial, liberal organization" <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/dec98/southern19.htm</ref> has been criticized in mainstream press for being extravagant in its spending, and using charges of racism to stifle conservatives. <ref>http://cofcc.org/?p=984</ref>

==Finances==
The last year that the [[Better Business Bureau]]'s Philanthropic Advisory Service reported on the SPLC, in 1994, Dees and then Executive Director Edward Ashworth took home over $150,000 each, and the organization then possessed over $62 million in assets <ref>http://www.zpub.com/notes/znote-splc.html</ref>. It now controls over $200 million, and Dees pulls $286,000 in salary.<ref>http://www.splcenter.org/donate/financialinfo/financial.jsp</ref> In 2000, SPLC fundraised $27 million and made an additional $17 million from investments, but spent only $13 million on its civil rights program. <ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a3e5cb925c4.htm</ref> It is no longer listed in the Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance<ref>http://us.bbb.org/WWWRoot/SitePage.aspx?site=113&id=1bce9b1f-74e9-4c94-96e8-1ee2b519b0c4</ref> because that would require that "at least 50 percent of total income from all sources, should be applied to programs and activities directly related to the purposes for which the organization exists." The SPLC spent 89 percent of its total income on fund-raising and administrative costs. <ref>http://www.theamericanresistance.com/thousand_words/pics_splc_expands.html</ref>

In addition to donations from liberal members, which are often elicited by sensationalizing hate crimes, the center raises a lot of revenue seizing assets of violent groups, and by extorting groups that do not want to be accused of racism. In 1987, the SPLC won a major case on behalf of Beulah Mae Donald, the mother of a Klan lynching victim. This was the invention of a clever new tactic-- suing domestic terrorist groups into bankruptcy-- but Ms. Donald benefitted very little. Of the $7 million verdict, only $50,000 went to her. This was because the Klan chapter had no assets other than a warehouse used as a headquarters, the warehouse itself was valued at about $50,000. <ref>http://www.americanpatrol.com/SPLC/ChurchofMorrisDees001100.html</ref>

The SPLC's fundraising tactics came under heavy criticism most recently by the Council of Conservative Citizens, <ref>http://cofcc.org/?p=5108</ref> as well as by articles in ''Harper's'' magazine in 2000<ref>Silverstein, Ken. "The Church of Morris Dees: How the Southern Poverty Law Center Profits from Intolerance". ''Harper's'', November, 2000. http://www.harpers.org/archive/2000/11/0068709</ref> and in the local ''Montgomery Advertiser'' newspaper in 1994.<ref>Morse, Dan and Greg Jaffe. "Critics Question $52 Million Reserve, Tactics of Wealthiest Civil Rights Group". ''Montgomery Advertiser'', February 13, 1994</ref>.

==Hate Groups==
SLPC lists over 1000 organizations as hate groups. Many of these are widely accepted but the list continues to grow with the controversial additions of conservative organizations. Conservative political stances that the SLPC disagrees with are now targeted, many of these additions are organizations for the general welfare of American citizens and are not associated with hate.

*Catholic organizations
*Baptist organizations
*Pentecostal organizations
*[[American Family Association]]
*[[Family Research Council]]
*Illinois Family Institute
*Parents Action League
*United Families International
*Christian Action Network
*American Defense League
*United States Justice Foundation
*Watchmen Bible Study Group
*Mission to Israel
*Jewish Defense League

These fine organizations and many others are lumped together with the [[KKK]] and White nationalists, skin-heads, Neo-Nazi's and Black separatists.

==Hate Map==
The Southern Poverty Law Center posted a 'Hate Map' on their website. <ref>[http://cnsnews.com/news/article/shooting-southern-poverty-law-center-put-family-research-council-hate-map Before Shooting: Southern Poverty Law Center Put Family Research Council on ‘Hate Map’ - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/shooting-southern-poverty-law-center-put-family-research-council-hate-map#sthash.WwD1HS7R.dpuf CNSNews, April 16, 2012]</ref> The organization lists various hate groups for their opposition to the [[LGBT]] agenda, [[abortion]] and [[social justice]] to name a few. Homosexual activist [[Floyd Corkins]] utilized the information with the intent on causing [[mass murder]] at the [[Family Research Council]] in D.C., the conservative organization is listed by them as a hate group. Corkins entered FRC's lobby allegedly shouted “I don’t like your politics” and shot an unarmed guard in the arm with a 9mm pistol before being wounded and arrested. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/perkins-shooting-family-research/2012/08/16/id/448862#ixzz2kTjbZHV5 FRC's Perkins: Southern Poverty Law Center Gave Gunman 'License to Shoot']</ref> The SLPC denied they were responsible but the gunman admitted as much. Though Corkins' actions perfectly fit the definition of a [[hate crime]], no such sentence was given likely due to his liberal sympathies. Corkins did receive a 25-year prison sentence.

==SPLC attacks on conservatives==
While SPLC organizes against obvious hate groups such as the KKK or Aryan Brotherhood, it also lumps in conservative organizations in an attempt to intimidate them. For instance, SPLC considers Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) a "hate group", because it opposes illegal immigration, and uses demonstrations as a method, which the SPLC deems intimidation.<ref>http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2007/12/11/fair-crossing-the-rubicon-of-hate&splcnewsletter=panewsgen-121107/</ref> Similarly, the center labels the immigration reductionist/reformist website VDARE as a "hate group", because it argues against illegal immigration <ref>http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008/10/07/freedom-folksblogs4borders-interview-with-peter-brimelow/</ref>.

The SPLC followed Laird Wilson in publishing a list of "hate groups" but after Wilson rejected the usefulness of that approach, the SPLC continued with it, becoming prominent for using it against groups standing for traditional values.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2011/0223/Annual-report-cites-rise-in-hate-groups-but-some-ask-What-is-hate</ref><ref>http://editioncnn.com/2012/08/16us/dc-shooting-blame/index.html</ref><ref>http://thehill.com/blogs?blog-briefing-room/news/243921-shooting-spurs-heated-battle-on-gay-rights-and-hate-group-label</ref> Laird Wilcox, claims to have provided SPLC with some of the information initially used to compile their list of "hate groups". He "concluded that a lot of [the SPLC's hate groups] were vanishingly small or didn’t exist, or could even be an invention of the SPLC." Some of the "hate groups" were creations of SPLC informants, rather than legitimate groups. And with the advent of the internet, some of them exist "nowhere except in cyberspace." Wilcox concludes, "The whole issue of “lists” is full of smoke and mirrors."<ref>"An Expert on Fringe Political Movements Reflects on the SPLC’s Political Agenda - An Exclusive Interview with Author and Researcher Laird Wilcox,"Volume 20, Number 3 (Spring 2010) http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_20_3/tsc_20_3_wilcox_interview.shtml</ref>

In the wake of an August 2012 shooting at the headquarters of the [[Family Research Council]], some columnists criticized the SPLC's listing of the Family Research Council as an anti-gay hate group. Dana Milbank, of the Washington Post, wrote that the SPLC was "reckless in labeling as a “hate group” a policy shop that advocates for a full range of conservative Christian positions." <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-hateful-speech-on-hate-groups/2012/08/16/70a60ac6-e7e8-11el-8487-64e4b2a79ba8_story.html</ref><ref>[http://huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22dana-milbank-washington-post-family-research-council-hate-group_n_1822805.html Dana Milbank, Washington Post Writer, Slams LGBT Activists, SPLC For FRC's 'Hate Group' Label]</ref> Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council,” said, after the attack, “I believe [the gunman Floyd Corkins] was given a license to do that by a group such as the Southern Poverty Law Center who labeled us a hate group because we defend the family and stand for traditional orthodox Christianity.”<ref>FRC's Perkins: Southern Poverty Law Center Gave Gunman 'License to Shoot', http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/perkins-shooting-family-research/2012/08/16/id/448862?s=al</ref> Capital Research Center states that the SPLC "deliberately mischaracterizes conservatives and tea partiers as “extremists”."<ref>Southern Poverty Law Center: Wellspring of Manufactured Hate, http://www.capitalresearch.org/2012/09/southern-poverty-law-center-wellspring-of-manufactured-hate/</ref>

Also smeared as "hate groups" by the SPLC include: the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, and The Social Contract Press (a liberal group publishing [[environmentalist]] works such as those of [[Garrett Hardin]], apparently solely because they republished French writer [[Jean Raspail]]'s 1973 novel ''The Camp of the Saints'' which foretells catasrophe befalling [[Europe]] from boatloads of illegal immigrants arriving from South Asia).

Another example is the Council of Conservative Citizens, a conservative activist organization that advocates on behalf of states' rights and against immigration, communism, racial quotas and gun control. SPLC labels all members as racist because a minority of members had decades-past connections to segregationist organizations. In fact, the CCC attracts such mainstream speakers such as former Sen. [[Trent Lott]] (R-Miss.), Gov. [[Kirk Fordice]] (R-MS) and Rep. [[Bob Barr]] (R-Ga.), and engages in charitable and cultural events.

The SPLC has also recently added new categories to its categories of "hate groups", including Traditionalist [[Catholic]]s (that is, those who advocate for a return to the [[Latin]] [[Mass]]), and an "anti-gay" category of groups who do not support the homosexual agenda and/or advocate for homosexuals to come out of that lifestyle.

During the 1990s, the SPLC maintained a separate list of "patriot groups", which although they did not include them as part of their "hate groups" list, carried the same intent: to [[guilt by association|smear those groups by association]], and create the public impression those groups were some sort of threat to society. Their "patriot groups" list included groups opposed to the [[income tax]], groups campaigning for jury and court reform, and the venerable conservative organization the [[John Birch Society]], among others.

In 2010, the SPLC created a list entitled "Meet the Patriots", which included such people such as [[Chuck Baldwin]], [[Orly Taitz]], and [[Alex Jones]] as supporters of this "patriot movement".<ref>http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/summer/meet-the-patriots?page=0,0</ref> A supplement entitled "The Enablers" was also released, which included [[Michele Bachmann]], [[Glenn Beck]], [[Ron Paul]], and [[Judge Napolitano]].<ref>http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/summer/meet-the-patriots/the-enablers</ref>

In 2012, the SPLC found four individuals to file a law suit against a group providing therapy to homosexual men in order to help them become [[ex-homosexuals]].<ref>http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/27/15486181-four-men-sue-new-jersey-organization-over-gay-conversion-therapy?lite</ref> The SPLC alleges the group violated New Jersey's Consumer Fraud law in advertising that conversion therapy will help people become [[ex-homosexuals]]. Instead of being a pro-consumer lawsuit, as the SLPC implies, the suit is a collateral attack on conversion therapy, and the free exercise of religion.

These incidents further prove the SPLC is a left-wing political organization rather than one focused on racism and civil rights.

==Infiltration into the classroom==
Additionally, the SPLC runs tolerance.org, a website that advocates multiculturalism, the homosexual agenda and "social justice". It is designed with teachers in mind so that these ideas can influence young children in the classroom <ref>http://www.tolerance.org/teach/activities/index.jsp</ref> For instance, teachers can click "classroom activities" then "early grades" and "Tolerance Issues: Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual issues:" or "tolerance issues: Gender Issues" and arrive at a pro-alternative family article, among others.<ref>http://www.tolerance.org/teach/current/event.jsp?cid=305</ref>. Its magazine is sent to over 400,000 eduators, and over 10,000 schools participate in its programs.

==Interference in the Sierra Club==
In early 2004, Morris Dees filed to run as a candidate for the board of directors of the [[Sierra Club]], an [[environmentalist]] organization. Dees', who has no background in environmental issues at all, ran only to use his ballot statement to smear three other candidates for the Sierra Club board, who advocated the Sierra Club address the environmental impact of excessive legal and illegal immigration into the United States. Dees and two other fake board candidates were part of a broader smear campaign by the radical left, which also included [[MoveOn.org]]. Dees, MoveOn, and others smeared these three candidates, all of whom were staunch liberals and environmentalists (one of them, former [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] governor of [[Colorado]], [[Richard Lamm]]) solely because they understood excessive immigration numbers to be an environmental issue.<ref>For much background and material on the takeover of the Sierra Club in 2004 by radical pro-immigration and [[political correctness]] advocates, including Dees' role as a fake board candidate, see http://sierrademocracy.org/</ref>

==Cooperation with law enforcement==
The SPLC has been criticized by civil rights writer Laird Wilcox for essentially functioning as a private intelligence gathering agency for the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]] and other [[law enforcement]] agencies, doing activities as a private organization that public law enforcement agencies are barred by law from doing (such as keeping dossiers on people solely because of their political or religious views) because for a government agency to do them would be a violation of [[civil rights]]. Wilcox points out the dangers of the FBI and other law enforcement working with ideologically-driven groups like the SPLC, which has its roots in 1960s radical liberal activism, because of the danger this poses that the SPLC's own ideological differences with another group can be treated as a law enforcement issue rather than as an ideological dispute between a left-wing group (the SPLC) and a group on the right. This can, and has, led to attacks on such groups' freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.<ref>Wilcox, Laird. ''The Watchdogs''. Olathe, Kansas: Editorial Research Service, 1999.</ref>

Indeed, the SPLC has a history of adding groups to its listing of purported "hate groups" in advance of a government law enforcement campaign against them. The SPLC inexplicably added the [[Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints]] (FLDS) to its "hate groups" list just before FLDS leader Warren Jeffs was indicted on charges of arranging [[polygamy|polygamous]] underage marriages. The timing of this listing by SPLC was suspicious, as is the accuracy of calling FLDS a "hate group" to begin with, any controversy over their polygamous practices notwithstanding.

The SPLC brags about being an informant for the FBI. Mark Potok, an SPLC spokesman, said, "Law enforcement agencies come to us every day with questions about particular groups." This was done to circumvent policies against domestic political spying. <ref<[http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/doc/405293377.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Aug%2013%2C%201999&author=Anne%20E.%20Kornblut%2C%20Globe%20Staff&pub=Boston%20Globe&edition=&startpage=&desc=FBI%20limited%20in%20battling%20hate%20groups]</ref> But the FBI has recently disavowed the SPLC by drropping it from being listed as a resource on the FBI web site.<ref>Feb. 2014 page [http://web.archive.org/web/20140209112737/http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/hate_crimes], current hate crime page [http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/hate_crimes]</ref>

==''Into the Mainstream'' controversy==
In the summer of 2003, the SPLC's ''Intelligence Journal'' carried a feature article entitled "Into the Mainstream", by [[Chip Berlet]]. The cover of the journal had an image of [[Adolf Hitler]] in front of the [[American flag]] and the caption, "Marching toward the Mainstream: the radical Right invades American culture". The implication was that such conservative activists as [[David Horowitz]] and his [[Center for the Study of Popular Culture]], as well as other groups including the [[libertarian]] Ludwig von Mises Institute, were "radical right" and Hitlerian.<ref>Kantor, Myles. "Morris Dees' Defamation". ''FrontPage magazine'', September 25, 2003. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=52878574-A7B7-4885-A6F9-58C15841D70C</ref> This smear was denounced by David Horowitz, who demanded an apology, although none was forthcoming.

For further details see [[Chip_Berlet#Hate_speech]].

==SPLC as film critic==
The SPLC has published criticisms of [[movie]]s they deem to be not [[politically correct]], often smearing the filmmakers in the process and portraying them to be part of a purported "radical right" conspiracy to influence the culture. Films the SPLC has criticized in this manner include [[Ronald Maxwell]]'s [[American Civil War]] epics ''Gettysburg'' (1993) and ''Gods and Generals'' (2003), and [[Mel Gibson]]'s 2004 film ''[[The Passion of the Christ]]''.

==See also==
* [[Center for Democratic Renewal]]
* [[Black church-burning hoax]]
* [[Essay:The Protocols of Ritual Defamation]]

==External Links==
* [http://splcwatch.org/ SPLC Watch]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Liberal Organizations]]
{{liberalism}}

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Homosexuality

2013-09-14T06:27:28Z

RSchlafly: update calif prop 8

This list includes many examples of [[Bias in Wikipedia]], related to [[homosexuality]] and the [[homosexual agenda]]:
# Wikipedia editors opposed to same-sex marriage created several user boxes for display on their user pages to express their views on the subject. These were deleted,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Discriminatory_userboxes|title=Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Discriminatory userboxes|date=January 21, 2009}}</ref> the deletion was overturned at deletion review, and then a new deletion debate ensued which ended with "no consensus."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman|title=Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman|date=February 2, 2009}}</ref> This illustrates how little tolerance Wikipedia has for free speech on user pages.
# The Wikipedia article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Craig_scandal&oldid=567446099 Larry Craig scandal] shows a bias against Senator Craig. It identifies him as "one of several prominent conservative politicians who had a record of anti-gay legislation and later caught in a gay sex scandal". Craig was convicted of disorderly conduct and no sexual act occurred. On Sept. 23, 2011, the article was vandalized by a single purpose editor signon named "Larry Craig" who also edited the main Larry Craig article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Craig_scandal&diff=prev&oldid=468005773</ref>
# The Wikipedia entry for [[homosexuality]] is adorned with a rainbow graphic but fails to mention the following: the [[Homosexuality and health|many diseases associated with homosexuality]], the [[Homosexuality_Statistics|high promiscuity rates of the male homosexual community]], the [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|higher incidences of domestic violence]] among homosexual couples compared to heterosexual couples, the [[Homosexuality_and_Murders|prevalence of murder in the homosexual community]], and the [[Homosexuality and health|substantially higher mental illness and drug usage rates of the homosexuality community]]. In addition, the Wikipedia article on homosexuality fails to mention that the American Psychiatric Association issued a fact sheet in May of 2000 stating that "..there are no replicated scientific studies supporting a specific biological etiology for homosexuality."<ref>http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf</ref>
#Wikipedia editors regularly and fiercely alter the use of the terms "he" or "she" in articles regarding [[cross-dressing]]/[[transsexual]] figures. Men attempting to pass as females are near-universally referred to as "she" while women attempting to pass as men are referred to as "he", despite this usage absolutely incorrect in both scientific and legal senses.
#When NBA Basketball player [[Jason Collins]] announced that he was a homosexual, his Wikipedia biography was altered to say that he was a "faggot." When an editor attempted to change the word to "gay" Wikipedia's anti-vandalism robot changed it back.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/06/jason-collins-faggot-washington-wizards-wikipedia_n_3223693.html?utm_hp_ref=sports&ir=Sports</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Collins&diff=prev&oldid=553353534</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Collins&diff=next&oldid=554154699</ref> An editor replaced his photo with a poster for "Gay N-word".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Collins&diff=prev&oldid=554154681</ref> After the page drew criticism on the Huffington Post, Wikipedia locked the page to editing and the changes have been hidden from public view. The article on the 2012-13 Washington Wizzards season had similar problems.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012–13_Washington_Wizards_season&diff=553709164&oldid=552936180</ref>
#After an edit war,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chelsea_Manning&diff=569753966&oldid=569753791</ref> Wikipedia changed the Bradley Manning article to Chelsea Manning and gave the article subject female attributes, even though Manning had yet to legal change his name or begin any sex reassignment treatments or therapies.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chelsea_Manning#Page_moved_to_Chelsea_Manning_without_sufficient_consensus|title=Chelsea Manning talk page|accessdate=Aug 24, 2013}}</ref> The article was moved between "Chelsea Manning" and "Bradley Manning" six times in one day as Wikipedia administrators fought amoung themselves.
# Wikipedia's entry on the [[conservative]] [[Oklahoma]] legislator Sally Kern is seething with bias, unjustified smears and outright distortions.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Kern</ref> Wikipedia understates that over 1500 supporters rallied in support of her criticisms of the [[homosexual agenda]],<ref>http://newsok.com/article/3224704/1207238655</ref> and instead, Wikipedia highlights predictable [[Hollywood Values|Hollywood]] criticisms of her stance. Wikipedia then smears her with false accusations about her family, and emphasizes charges that were never brought against her. The Wikipedia entry also misrepresents a bill that Kern introduced to protect "a student's voluntary expression of a religious viewpoint"; Wikipedia relies on an anti-[[Christian]] blog to distort Kern's bill.
#[[Wikipedia]] gives favored treatment to anyone who promotes the [[homosexual agenda]], and smears those who oppose it. For example, [[Robert Mapplethorpe]] glorified [[homosexuality]] in photographs before himself dying of [[AIDS]]. Patricia Morrisroe, who according to a review in ''Frieze'' Magazine wrote a highly-critical biography of him, identified him as a racist, providing quotes to prove it.<ref>[http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/mapplethorpe_a_biography_patricia_morrisroe/ ''Mapplethorpe: A Biography'' by Patricia Morrisroe] reviewed by Kobena Mercer in ''Frieze'' Magazine, Issue No. 25, November/December 1995</ref> Yet the [[Wikipedia]] entry about him conceals any reference to his racism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapplethorpe</ref> Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia]] smears the [[American Family Association]] and claims it is racist for reasons not supported by its citation.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association#Anti-Semitism (March 2005 issue reference)</ref>
# In a brief-lived example of pro-homosexuality bias, the category allowing users to self identify as Heterosexual was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/June_2007# Category:Heterosexual_Wikipedians was deleted] because it served no useful purpose, yet the exact same category for homosexuals [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/July_2007# Category:Gay_Wikipedians wasn't deleted until a month later,] along with all other categories focused on the sexuality of Wikipedians. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_Wikipedians Category:LGBT_Wikipedians] has revived itself after a delete and is still fighting to not be deleted. Of course, and editor can self-identify as "LGBT" whether it is applicable or not. One editor who was criticized for traveling with her significant other at WMF expense publicly self-identified as "LGBT" to deflect criticism.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:LauraHale&diff=4455712&oldid=4455711|title=User:LauraHale|date=June 13, 2013}}</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on the British Actor Sir Alec Guinness repeats a malicious story that has been proven false to suggest that he was a homosexual.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Guinness#Personal_life Wikipedia]</ref> It then suggests that the biography on Guinness by Piers Paul Read confirms that he was bi-sexual. This too is false, although Read examines the rumors and speculates as to Guinness' feelings, there is absolutely no proof that Guinness was homosexual or bi-sexual. Speculation is largely contrieved from his knowing several British actors and directors who were and a rumor started by a woman who mistook John Gielgud as Guinness.
# Wikipedia's article on Homosexual behavior in animals is hopelessly misleading. Even though [[animal]]s cannot be considered [[homosexual]], Wikipedia wants the public to believe that animals make a conscience decision for same-sex relations by affection/bonding, and parenting. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexual_behavior_in_animals&oldid=422575116] This [[Homosexuality in animals myth]] is debunked by Conservapedia.
#[[California]]'s Proposition 8 states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)</ref> does not mention that only those marriages have been recognized under federal law anyway, and editors have removed any mention of the federal [[Defense of Marriage Act]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:California_Proposition_8_(2008)#DOMA</ref> Now the article implies that Prop. 8 has been determined to be unconstitutional, even though the US Supreme Court refused to say that or permit the Ninth Circuit to say that.
#Although Wikipedia standards require discussion of gender, sexuality and homosexuality in straight-forward plain English terms, the article "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netball_in_the_Cook_Islands Netball in the Cook Islands]" (a subject that has nothing to do with sexuality) decided to comment on the fact that some men and boys on the Cook Islands play what was historically a women's sport: "Most of the men and boys who play in these gender subverting netball games are straight, though a few of the men are ''laelae''."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_in_the_Cook_Islands&diff=prev&oldid=417354541|author=Laura Hale|title=Netball in the Cook Islands|date=March 6, 2011}}</ref> Why use judgmental terms like "gender subverting"? How many readers understand the full connotations and implications of the word "laelae"? What research was used to determine the truth of this sentence -- did interviewers walk up to young boys playing netball on the Cook Islands and asked them how they felt about girls?
#The Wikipedia article "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover#Sexuality J. Edgar Hoover]" has an extensive section speculating on his sexuality. That discussion goes out of its way to describe [[Roy Cohn]] as a "closeted homosexual." Three photos are placed in this section of the article -- one showing Hoover sitting with his assistant Clyde Tolson and another showing Hooever sitting with [[Richard Nixon]] and [[Bebe Rebozo]]. The placement of these photos and their captions may have been intended to suggest more than they show.
# Wikpedia's site policy is to not mention negative information about family members of the subject unless it is relevant. Therefore, it does not mention information about drug charges against [[Al Gore]]'s son. However, it prominently mentions the fact that [[Dick Cheney]]'s daughter is a lesbian. It is unclear if this is a pro-homosexuality bias (i.e. homosexuality is not negative) or a bias in favor of [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Liberal Politicians|liberal politicians]] (cutting the info on Gore's son while including the info on Cheney's daughter.)
==References ==
{{reflist}}
{{Bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category: Wikipedia]]

Chelsea Manning

2013-08-22T19:27:55Z

RSchlafly: conviction

'''Bradley Manning''' is a United States Army soldier who was sentenced to 35 years in prison after being convicted in a [[court-martial]] for releasing vast amounts of classified documents to [[WikiLeaks]] Manning is being held at the Marine Corps Brig, Quantico, [[Virginia]], charged with "transferring classified data" and "delivering national defense information to an unauthorised source", and "aiding the enemy".<ref name="FoxNews">[http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/11/29/who-pfc-bradley-manning#ixzz19diL6EX5]</ref> Manning is [[homosexual|gay]], and there is speculation that his homosexuality motivated him to leak classified information.<ref name="FoxNews" />

The Australian hacker and founder of the controversial website [[WikiLeaks]], [[Julian Assange]], considers him an unparalleled hero.

== Data Leak ==
Manning was assigned to an unit based near [[Baghdad]], Iraq. He had access to databases used by the United States government to store classified information. He was arrested after Adrian Lamo, a computer hacker, and journalist, informed the FBI that Manning had confided during online IRC chats that he had downloaded material from the confidential databases and passed it to WikiLeaks. The material leaked included videos of American airstrikes, and hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables. It was the largest set of restricted documents ever leaked to the public. Much of it was published subsequently by [[WikiLeaks]] or its media partners between April and November 2010.

== See also ==

*[[Chinese Cyberterrorism]]
*[[Edward Snowden]]

== References ==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Manning, Bradley}}
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Criminals]]
[[Category:Homosexuals]]

Postulate

2013-06-21T20:06:18Z

RSchlafly: /* Euclid's fifth postulate */ negate it to get non-E

A '''postulate''' is a statement that is assumed to be true without proof. [[Euclid]], the father of geometry, based ''The Elements'' on ten such statements, divided into five "[[axiom]]s" and five "postulates."

==Euclid's fifth postulate==

Most of Euclid's axioms and postulates do seem to be "true without needing proof;" for example, "Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another."

Euclid's fifth postulate, the ''parallel postulate,'' however, is a little different. It says:
:It is true that, if a straight line falling on two straight lines make the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, intersect on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles.
This is sometimes stated in an equivalent form, known as Playfair's axiom:
:Given a line and a point not on that line exactly one line can be drawn through that point which does not intersect the original line.

That has never seemed as "self-evident" as the others, and in fact for centuries mathematicians thought it could be proved and tried to produce proofs. Eventually, mathematicians realized that this was impossible. If you negated the parallel postulate, you ended up with a perfectly logical, consistent system, a ''non-Euclidean geometry'' that simply happened to describe a kind of geometry ''different'' from plane geometry.

===Equivalent statements of the fifth postulate===
Without the fifth postulate many familiar geometric ideas are no longer true, these include,
* The sum of the interior degrees of a triangle are two right angle (180 degrees)

[[Category:Mathematics]]
[[category:Geometry]]

Non-Euclidean geometry

2013-06-21T20:05:24Z

RSchlafly: fix some of the contradictions about parallel lines

'''Non-Euclidean geometry''' is a form of geometry that rejects [[Euclid's fifth postulate]] that [[parallel]] lines extend to infinity and never [[intersect]]. There are two main forms of non-Euclidean geometry, hyperbolic, and [[elliptic]]. The former allows all lines to intersect, and the latter has non-intersecting lines that diverge in both directions. In Euclidean geometry the sum of angles in triangles is always exactly 180 [[degree]]s, in hyperbolic geometry triangles always have less than 180 degrees, and in elliptic geometry triangles always have greater than 180 degrees. The roots of Non-Euclidean geometry were in works by [[Gauss]], and his pupil [[Riemann]]. Later nineteenth century mathematicians such as [[Janos Bolyai]] and [[Nikolai I. Lobachevsky]] developed this considerably.

A geometry is defined as the pure mathematics of [[point]]s and [[line]]s and [[curve]]s and [[surface]]s. It works by defining a set of [[axiom]]s which clarify how points and lines are constituted, for example: ''two distinct points define a unique straight line'', and deriving from these results. Some geometries such as the [[Fano Plane]] many have seven points or fewer. The simplest geometry is the [[empty set]].
==See Also==
*[[Euclidean geometry]]
*[[Riemannian geometry]]
[[category:geometry]]

Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2013-03-26T00:10:18Z

RSchlafly: /* Conservative words and terms */ add sugarcoat, totals not updated

[[File:Conservative words.jpg|thumb|480px|The growth in conservative words on an annual basis (red), compared with a geometric growth rate (Courtesy [[User:Jcw]])]]Each year the [[English language]] develops about a thousand new words. The [[King James Version]] of the [[Bible]] contains only about 8,000 different words;<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8013859.stm</ref> many good words have developed since then.

[[Conservative]] terms, expressing [[conservative insights]], originate at a faster rate, and with much higher quality, than [[liberal]] terms. Conservative triumph over liberalism is thus inevitable.

Powerful new conservative terms have grown at a [[geometric progression|geometric rate]], roughly doubling every century. For each new conservative term originating in the 1600s,<ref>The King James Version of the Bible was published in 1611, by then [[William Shakespeare]] had written nearly all his plays.</ref> 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 conservative future and a correlation between conservatism and truth.

This extraordinary growth illustrates that the conservative movement itself will likewise continue to grow at a rapid rate.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Century
!# New Conservative Terms
|-
|1600s
|32
|-
|1700s
|64
|-
|1800s
|127
|-
|1900s
|252
|-
|2000s
|26 (preliminary)
|-
|}

==Conservative words and terms==

{{clear}}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|a.m.
|1762
|"a.m." means "before noon" in [[Latin]] (ante meridiem); it became popular much as "[[A.D.]]" did. Also, a morning [[work ethic]] is a conservative concept.
|-
|[[abstract nonsense]]
|1940s
|a pejorative term for unnecessarily abstract mathematics of doubtful rigor; [[liberal denial]] insists that this term, which describes something as "nonsense", is somehow not negative!
|-
|[[accountability]]
|1794
|the willingness or obligation to be held responsible for one's actions- a fundamental conservative ideal, unlike liberals who believe that 'society,' and not individuals, are responsible for their wrongdoing.
|-
|accuracy
|1660
|conservatives strive for accuracy, while many liberals are masters of [[deceit]]
|-
|act of God
|1787<ref>From ''Pollard v. Shaaffer'', 1 U.S. 210, 213 (1 Dall. 210) (Pa. S.Ct. 1787): "In the case before the court, if the lessee had covenanted for himself and his assigns, to deliver up the tenements in good order and repair, notwithstanding they should be destroyed by act of God or of an Enemy, then this action would certainly lie, because of the special express words; but when there are no such words, but only generally to repair &c. would it be reasonable to construe these words so as to extend to the cases put?"</ref>
|an extraordinary, unforeseeable event, such as a massive flood or earthquake; term was probably inspired as a reference to the [[Great Flood]]
|-
|[[action-at-a-distance]]
|1693
|[[Newton]]'s acceptance of this concept -- which became fundamental to [[electrostatics]] and [[quantum mechanics]] and has a basis in Christianity<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Jesus]]'s cure of the centurion's slave.</ref> -- was central to the development of his theory of gravity.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-philosophy/#ActDis</ref> [[Materialists]] censor this concept, while Einstein criticized it as "spooky".
|-
|activism
|1915
|this differentiates conservatives from inactive people; this term might have originated in connection with [[Prohibition]] and efforts to pass the [[Eighteenth Amendment]]
|-
|addictive
|1939
|the intrinsic characteristic of certain things or activities to induce repetitious involvement, usually with a harmful effect on the participant, as in [[gambling]], or [[video games]].
|-
|aerobics
|1967
|invented by the [[Christian]] Dr. Kenneth H. Cooper<ref>http://www.christianadvice.net/famous_christians.htm</ref> to describe his self-help program to improve health; he gave the title "Aerobics" to his ground-breaking book in 1968, and eventually it revolutionized attitudes toward exercise.
|-
|agitprop
|1929
|propaganda designed to incite agitation, originally coined to describe communist propaganda
|-
|alarmism
|1867
|needless warnings, as in the politically motivated claims of [[global warming]]
|-
|{{#ifexist: alcoholism | [[alcoholism]] | alcoholism }}
|1860
|excessive or addictive drinking of alcohol
|-
|algorithm
|1849
|an efficient and consistent step-by-step methodology for achieving a goal, the opposite of [[liberal style]]
|-
|altruism
|1853
|selfless assistance of others; this also occurs in the animal kingdom, and is a [[counterexample to evolution]]
|-
|ambulance chaser
|1896
|a lawyer who searches for victims to persuade them to sue for his profit
|-
|[[American dream]]
|1911<ref>1911 is the date given by the "OED", which refers to the Oxford English Dictionary. The Merriam-Webster dictionary gives a date of 1931.</ref>
|the vision that, with hard work, anyone in American can attain happiness and prosperity
|-
|[[American exceptionalism]]
|1835
|the idea that the United States and the American people hold a special place in the world, by offering opportunity and hope for humanity
|-
|American Way
|1930s
|later conservative entrepreneurs used this to coin a new name for what became a highly successful and uniquely American business model: "Amway"
|-
|[[anti-Christian]]
|1900s
|opposing Christian ideals and institutions
|-
|anticompetitive
|1854
|interfering with open competition and the enormous benefits that flow from it
|-
|antilife
|1929
|term criticizing a tendency to oppose life and lifesaving care
|-
|antitrust
|1890
|the origin is the passage of the [[Republican]]-sponsored [[Sherman Act]] to prohibit restraints of trade, one of the greatest pieces of legislation in all of history
|-
|apathetic
|1744
|term critical of the those who are deliberately inactive and disengaged mentally
|-
|apparatchik
|1941
|an official who blindly does what he thinks his government superiors want, as in [[communism]]
|-
|apple pie
|1780
|honesty, simplicity, wholesomeness. Relating to, or characterized by traditionally American values. <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apple%20pie Merriam-webster- Apple pie]</ref>
|-
|assimilate
|1880s<ref>estimate only; this originated sometime in the late 1880s.</ref>
|the desired absorption of immigrant groups into the culture and mores of the resident population
|-
|atheistic
|1625-35
|An adjective pertaining to or characteristic of atheists or atheism; containing, suggesting, or disseminating atheism.
|-
|attention span
|1934
|correlated with intelligence, the attention span is how long someone can concentrate on something. It is rapidly shortening; the Lincoln-Douglas debates 150 years ago lasted for hours, but none do today.<ref>http://www.help4teachers.com/ras.htm</ref> The average length of sentences in speech is another indication of attention span, and it has been shortening significantly.
|-
|axiomatic
|1797
|self-evident (first usage), and later it developed the meaning of being based on a set of axioms
|-
|baby boom
|1920<ref>[http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/baby-boomer.html Baby boomer] phrases.org.uk, retrieved August 30, 2012</ref>
|an increase in birthrate, which is a good thing; note that what is known as post-World War II baby boom actually started before the war, contrary to what textbooks teach. Perpetuating the mistake, the U.S. Census Bureau counts the generation born between 1946 and 1964 as the baby boomers.<ref>[http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/cb06-ffse01-2.html Newsroom: Facts for Features - Special Edition - The Oldest Baby Boomers Turn 60!]</ref>
|-
|back burner
|1963
|inactive status away from attention, as in "RINOs try to put social issues on the back burner"
|-
|[[bailout]]
|1951
|wasting taxpayer money to rescue, temporarily, a failing company
|-
|balkanize
|1919
|to break a region or neighborhood into divisive components; the opposite of the American concept of assimilation or "[[E pluribus unum]]"
|-
|bedrock
|1840-1850
|an American term for unbroken solid rock underneath fragments or soil, which adopted the figurative meaning of strong values: "bedrock principles"<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bedrock</ref>
|-
|beltway mentality
|1986
|popularized by [[Paul Weyrich]] though possibly first used by then-Governor [[John Sununu]] ("captives of yourselves"), it refers to a governing style that sees only as far as the highway that surrounds its capital, especially the one around D.C.
|-
|[[Best of the Public]]
|2009
|A term coined by [[Andy Schlafly]] to express the idea that one does not need [[liberal]] credentials that so-called "experts" have. Indeed, many great historical figures would have failed the liberal "expert" test.
|-
|biased
|1649
|to show prejudice for or against something; American society is rapidly becoming ''biased'' against Christian and Conservative beliefs.
|-
|Bidenism
|1992
|an idiotic remark that would subject the politician to enormous ridicule if he were a [[conservative]], but when spoken by [[liberal]] [[Joe Biden]] the media are just fine with it
|-
|Big Brother
|1949
|government constantly watching its citizens; [[George Orwell]] first coined this term in his classic, ''[[1984]]''
|-
|biological clock
|1955
|how each woman begins to lose her ability to have children at age 27, no matter how much [[feminists]] try to conceal this scientific fact from women
|-
|Blame America Crowd<ref>Or "Blame-America-First Crowd"</ref>
|1984
|Michael Barone quoted [[Jeane Kirkpatrick]] as saying that the "San Francisco Democrats" (site of the Democratic National Convention in 1984) "always blame America first."<ref>http://www.creators.com/opinion/michael-barone/the-blame-america-first-crowd.html</ref>
|-
|blank check
|1884
|irresponsibly giving someone unlimited spending authority or power, as in "a Con Con would be a blank check to destroy the nation"
|-
|blather
|1719
|nonsensical or insignificant babble, as in "liberal blather is common in the [[lamestream media]]"
|-
|[[Blue Dog Democrat]]
|1995
|a person who adheres to conservative principles within the Democratic party, once called a Boll Weevil; as of 2009 there are 45-50 Blue Dog Democrats in the [[House of Representatives]], which is enough to form a majority with [[Republicans]]
|-
|boondoggle
|1935
|"popularized during the [[New Deal]] as a contemptuous word for make-work projects for the unemployed." <ref>http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=boondoggle&searchmode=none</ref> The term gained popularity in [[Canada]] following a corruption scandal tied to the [[Liberal]] government in 2000.
|-
|boomerang
|1825
|originally coined to describe a throwing device that returns to the thrower, the term became increasingly useful to describe how wrongful conduct returns to bite the perpetrator
|-
|bootstrap
|1913
|unaided effort, personal merit, hard work
|-
|bork
|1988
|coined by William Safire to refer to how Democrats savage a conservative nominee, such as their defeat of Supreme Court nominee [[Robert H. Bork]].
|-
|born-again
|1961
|it takes an open mind and heart
|-
|brainstorm
|1894
|a burst of productive thought
|-
|brainwashing
|1950
|derived from the Chinese term "xǐnǎo" soon after the [[communist]] takeover of China, "brainwashing" means forced abandonment of [[faith]] in favor of regimented [[atheism]]. In a more general sense, it refers to the manipulation and control of the human mind through torture and propaganda techniques.
|-
|bright-line rule
|1971<ref>First used by [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice [[John Harlan II]] in ''United States v. Jorn'', 400 U.S. 470, 486 (1971), where he rejected adopting a bright-line rule for that case.</ref>
|a clear, unwavering line dividing what is allowed from what is prohibited; increasingly favored to avoid confusion and requirements that arbitrarily change
|-
|brinkmanship
|1956
|the art of displaying a willingness to use military force in order to obtain a just resolution to a conflict between nations
|-
|[[bureaucracy]]
|1818
|
|-
|busywork
|1910
|meaningless activity under the pretense of accomplishing something
|-
|can-do
|1903 <ref> according to the Oxford English Dictionary. [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/can-do Miram-webster] gives the date of 1945 </ref>
|Phrase coined in a short story by [[Rudyard Kipling]] that has come to refer to an attitude that espouses individual ability and responsibility and not reliance on [[entitlements]]
|-
|[[capitalism]]
|1850-1855
|creating jobs and wealth based on a private invention, ownership and investments rather than state-controlled resources
|-
|career politician
|1974<ref>First use found by ''Conservapedia'' was in an article describing a controversy in communist [[Yugoslavia]] over their "career politicians," published in the ''New York Times'' and authored by Malcolm W. Browne, sect. 4, p. 3, col. 1.</ref>
|a term used for the entrenched communist government officials in Yugoslavia, with whom even President Tito was fed up
|-
|[[carpetbagger]]
|1868
|a politician who moves to a new area to be elected to a government position, as in [[Hillary Clinton]] moving to [[New York]] to become a U.S. Senator
|-
|carte blanche
|1645-1655
|unconditional authority or power, without any limits on misuse of that power
|-
|catharsis
|1775
|facilitating forgiveness and spiritual renewal by expression, as in writing or teaching or confession
|-
|caucus
|1763
|citizens or representatives gathering to meet and reach political decisions as a group while harnessing aspects of the [[best of the public]]; first coined by John Adams<ref>The future author of the Massachusetts Constitution who also played a role in developing the [[Declaration of Independence]].</ref> when he described a meeting of political Boston elders as a "caucus club"; the word may be from an Algonquian term for a group of advisers or elders.
|-
|cesspool
|1782
|an evil or corrupt place or state.
|-
|chaperone
|1720
|care and well-being of youths overseen by adults
|-
|charisma
|1930
|literally "a gift from God", charisma is a personal magic of leadership found in [[conservative]] public figures (but beware of the liberal tendency to put style before substance!)
|-
|Chicken Little
|1895
|one who falsely predicts disaster, especially for silly reasons: "global alarmists" are the Chicken Littles of our time<ref>In characteristically [[liberal]] style, the online Merriam-Webster spins the [[global warming]] example usage by saying the data showed he wasn't a Chicken Little.</ref>
|-
|Christmas card
|1883
|another conservative innovation that apparently did not exist earlier, even though mail did; cards that say "Seasons Greetings" are a cheap imitation now.
|-
|churchgoer
|1687
|a person who makes an effort, during the 168 hours in a week, to attend a church service
|-
|circle the wagons
|1800s
|regroup with family and friends, when under attack. usage from settlers in the old US west.
|-
|citizen's arrest
|1941
|private enforcement of the law without the need of a taxpayer-funded police officer
|-
|civil defense
|1939
|civilians protecting themselves and their community against attack or natural disasters
|-
|claptrap
|1799
|pretentious, verbose, and often liberal nonsense; example usage: "the professor wasted the rest of the class on his [[liberal claptrap]]"
|-
|class act
|1976
|exemplify conservative principles with values, integrity and a work ethic
|-
|class warfare
|1848
|this concept was initially coined by [[Karl Marx]] in ''[[The Communist Manifesto]]'', but it has become so discredited that it is now used mostly by conservatives to point out liberal demagoguery
|-
|closed shop
|1904
|a business that requires membership in a union as a condition of working there; 22 conservative states prohibit this
|-
|clueless
|1943
|hopelessly ignorant about something important, as liberals often are
|-
|[[Coase theorem|Coasean]]
|1980s
|an efficient result or bargain based on market forces without the distortions caused by [[transaction costs]]
|-
|cogent
|1659
|compelling with the powerful force of reason, the opposite of [[liberal]] claptrap
|-
|Columbian
|1757
|relating to Christopher Columbus ''or the United States''
|-
|Cold War
|1945
|coined by [[George Orwell]] shortly after he wrote ''Animal Farm'',<ref>http://www.worldwar2history.info/war/causes/Cold-War.html</ref> as recognition that communist nations were at war with American freedom even in the absence of actual military conflict
|-
|collectivism
|1880
|when decision-making by a group takes priority over the good ideas of an individual, often preventing progress
|-
|commie
|1940
|abbreviation for "communist" that captures their simple-minded totalitarianism
|-
|common sense
|1726
|sound judgment based on facts
|-
|competitive
|1829
|
|-
|Con Con
|1980s
|popularized by [[Phyllis Schlafly]] to highlight the deception and risks inherent in proposed national constitutional conventions
|-
|conniption
|1833
|hysteria or alarm, as in "having a conniption fit"; a typical response by [[liberals]] when confronted with their [[double standards]] and illogical positions
|-
|conservation of charge
|1949
|overall charge does not change in an isolated system; it is neither created nor destroyed; the concept was first suggested by [[Benjamin Franklin]] but the date of origin for this term is surprisingly recent
|-
|[[conservative]]
|1831
|someone who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral values<ref>http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=conservative</ref>
|-
|[[conservative field]]
|1870s?
|a type of physical force over a region such that items moving throughout the region can store energy ''without loss'', as in the planetary system and electrical products<ref>The mathematical definition of a conservative field -- which arises in [[multivariable calculus]] -- is that a scalar potential exists for the function and, alternatively, it is [[irrotational]].</ref>
|-
|[[consumer surplus]]
|1890<ref>First coined by Cambridge University Professor Alfred Marshall in his acclaimed text, ''Principles of Economics'' (1890).</ref>
|the extra benefit received by consumers above the price they paid for a good or service, illustrating the value of the [[free market]]; specifically, consumer surplus is the difference between what consumers would have paid for something, and the lower price they did pay.
|-
|constant
|1832
|(noun) something unchanging in value
|-
|constitutionality
|1787
|its date of origin is the year of the [[Constitutional Convention]] that proposed the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|contrarian
|1657
|someone who advocates views contrary to that of others; this type of person frustates [[liberal]] attempts to gain control
|-
|cooking the data
|1830
|[[Charles Babbage]] used it in his book, "Reflections on the Decline of Science in England."<ref>http://www.scientus.org/Church-Science-History.html</ref>
|-
|coolant
|1926
|a fluid, typically water, that facilitates efficient energy production, especially nuclear energy to cool a reactor and slow down the fission of neutrons
|-
|copacetic
|1890s<ref>Merriam-Webster officially lists its date of origin as 1919 and its source as unknown, but that is well after when Robinson says he developed it.</ref>
|Bill “Bojangles” Robinson, tap dancer extraordinaire, claimed the invention of this word; it was first popularized by African Americans
|-
|cop-out
|1942
|taking the easy way out, usually by shirking one's responsibilities
|-
|copyright
|1735
|extending private property to protect expressive works
|-
|corporate socialism
|1970s
|the tendency of large corporations to act in a socialistic manner, at the expense of meritocracy and productivity
|-
|correlate
|1742
|(verb) to show that one thing relates to another, such as [[atheism]] or [[homosexuality]] and selfishness or lack of charity; [[liberal]]s falsely rely on anecdotes to deny the general relationship
|-
|[[countability (Mathematics)|countability]]
|1874
|[[Georg Cantor]], loathed by the leading contemporary [[mathematicians]], developed this in proving that the real numbers are ''uncountable''
|-
|counterexample
|1957
|an example that is contrary to the proposition. A common point in logical, reasoned debate.
|-
|counterfactual
|1946
|especially assumptions that are contrary to fact; Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] wrote for the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], "petitioners' standing does not require precise proof of what the Board's policies might have been in that counterfactual world."<ref>''Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd.'', 130 S. Ct. 3138, 3163 (2010) (5-4 decision).</ref>
|-
|counterproductive
|1959
|interfering with a worthy goal. Example usage: "nearly everything a liberal supports is counterproductive."
|-
|counter-reformation
|1840
|a movement in response to another movement, as in a counter-reformation to the [[homosexual agenda]]
|-
|crackpot
|1884
|crazy talk, lunacy, a person on the fringe of reality
|-
|[[creation science]]
|1970s
|a term coined by the anti-[[evolution|evolutionist]] [[Henry Morris]].<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/28/AR2006022801716.html</ref>
|-
|cross-examination
|1824
|the most effective tool against [[liberal]] [[deceit]], better than even the requirement of an oath
|-
|crystal clear
|1815
|liberals are the opposite
|-
|[[culture war]]
|1991
|widespread use after the book ''Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America'' by James Davison Hunter
|-
|cyberbullying
|2000s
|a type of obnoxious and hurtful liberal behavior on the internet
|-
|[[deadweight loss]]
|1930s<ref>Confirmation of the first use is desired.</ref>
|the loss in overall wealth and efficiency imposed by monopolies and taxation, due to the loss in extra value that someone would have received beyond what he would have paid for a good at a free market price
|-
|death panel
|2009
|a provision of [[Obamacare]] that will enable a panel of government bureaucrats to decide who receives medical treatment
|-
|death tax
|1989
|interestingly, the term was coined by Canadians opposed to the high estate tax on their assets held in the United States; Frank Luntz is credited with later popularizing this term in the United States.<ref>''See'' Dr. Frank Luntz, ''Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear''</ref>
|-
|decentralization
|1846
|the dispersion of power, as in a shift from national to local control
|-
|decrypt
|1935
|military code-breaking, which played an instrumental role in World War II in deciphering enemy codes that many felt were unbreakable; illustrates the "can do" approach of conservatism in a patriotic way
|-
|[[defeatism]]
|1918
|a negative attitude that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy
|-
|defensive driving
|1964
|a style of driving a car that always focuses on avoiding accidents, even those potentially caused by others; nearly a half-century later, dictionaries still do not recognize this term
|-
|deflation
|1891
|an increase in the value of savings
|-
|defund
|1948
|refers especially to termination of government funding of a wasteful or hurtful program
|-
|deliberative assembly
|1774<ref>''Introduction to Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised'' (19th Ed. 2000), xxv.</ref>
|used by Edmund Burke in describing the British parliament during a speech to voters in Bristol; he meant a body of persons meeting to discuss and decide common action under parliamentary law
|-
|demagogue
|1648
|
|-
|Den mother
|1936
|leader of children's group
|-
|[[deregulation]]
|1963
|Reagan won in 1980 by campaigning on this.
|-
|design by committee
|before 1958
|pejorative term directed against collective production by a group
|-
|despotism
|1727
|a ruler with unlimited powers
|-
|[[deterrence]]
|1861
|Disincentive of committing a crime based on the amount of punishment
|-
|devalue
|1918
|describing an unwelcome attitude or act, as in "devaluing human life"
|-
|devil's advocate
|1760
|someone who espouses the position of the wrong side, in order to test, sharpen and strengthen the right side
|-
|devotee
|1645
|ardent follower, supporter, or loyalty to. 56 years separates devotee and devoted
|-
|disinformation
|1950s
|false information spread (and sometimes manufactured) by groups with a strong political agenda
|-
|division of labor
|1776
|increasing productivity through specialization of labor, as in a husband working in manufacturing while his wife cares for children
|-
|dog and pony show
|1970
|an overblown event, typically having more fanfare than substance; liberals like to run a "dog and pony show" in towns having a large public university, where students brainwashed by liberal professors are led like cattle to the events
|-
|domino effect
|1966
|how the fall of one nation to communism can result in its harmful spread to neighboring nations
|-
|double standard
|1894
|applying harsher criticism against one group, such as churchgoers or conservatives, than against another group, such as atheists or liberals; recognition of a double standard by the [[Prodigal Son]] led him to repent and convert
|-
|doublethink
|1949
|a term first coined by [[George Orwell]] in his dystopian novel ''[[1984]]''; it means simultaneously holding contradictory beliefs, which is a characteristic of [[status worship]]
|-
|doubting Thomas
|1848
|someone who believes only what he can see and touch, and doubts all else
|-
|duh science
|2000
|First coined by the ''LA Weekly'' to criticize the ''[[LA Times]]'' for failing to criticize a publicly funded study that concluded that pessimistic people are often in bad moods.<ref>Originally "duh!" science: "But couldn't we have been treated to just a soupcon of critical thinking, some irony even -- perhaps a glancing reference to the wisdom of public funding for 'duh!' science?"
"L.A. TIMES WHO KNEW? DEPARTMENT", ''LA Weekly'' p. 12 (Jan. 14, 2000).</ref>
|-
|dumb down
|1933
|
|-
|dumpster diving
|1982
|Searching through dumpsters for food or other material that can used rather than discarded; first known use: "Restaurant and store owners have complained about drunks panhandling during the day and 'dumpster diving' through trash at night."<ref>Phil Long, "Special Wing for Drunks Suggested at Future Jail," Miami Herald D1 (Nov. 24, 1982).</ref>
|-
|Eagle Scout
|1913
|the highest rank in the [[Boy Scouts]], the term also means "a straight-arrow and self-reliant man."<ref>Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (1994).</ref>
|-
|earmark
|2009
|"A provision in congressional legislation that allocates a specified amount of money for a specific project, program or organization."<ref>Merriam-Webster's Dictionary (2009).</ref>
|-
|editorialize
|1856
|"to introduce opinion into the reporting of facts"<ref>Merriam-Webster (1994).</ref>
|-
|[[efficiency]]
|1633
|ultimately from the Latin ''efficientem'', meaning ''"working out, or accomplishing"''<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=efficient Online Etymological Dictionary]</ref>
|-
|egotism
|1714
|the root of atheism, as explained by Paul in Romans 1:21-22; the root of depression and anxiety also
|-
|electioneering
|1780s
|to work for the success of a particular candidate, party, ticket, etc., in an election.
|-
|[[elementary proof]]
|1865
|a mathematical proof based on the minimum assumptions associated with real analysis; term probably does not predate [[complex analysis]] and its first use may have been the English mathematician James Joseph Sylvester's paper, "On an elementary proof and generalisation of Sir Isaac Newton's hitherto undenionstrated rule for the discovery of imaginary roots."<ref>http://www.archive.org/stream/circular129johnuoft/circular129johnuoft_djvu.txt</ref>
|-
|[[elitism]]
|1950
|
|-
|[[embryoscopy]]
|1967<ref>The first endoscopic image of the unborn child was in 1967, by Mandelbaum. The date of origin of the term "embryoscopy" may have been later, but likely before the 1990s.</ref>
|Search this term on the internet and see the spectacular photos of the unborn child ("embryo") that were "scoped" by tiny cameras.
|-
|empowerment
|1986
|facilitating power for the ordinary; see also [[best of the public]]
|-
|[[entitlement]]
|1944
|
|-
|entrepreneur
|1852
|
|-
|[[ethnic voting]]
|1900s
|widely recognized and even advocated by some,<ref>http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/5/2/3/4/p152345_index.html</ref> yet the dictionary doesn't yet recognize it
|-
|etiquette
|1740
|social standards of behavior that promote dignity and discourage inept communications (or lack thereof)
|-
|Eurabia
|1970s
|A satirical word based on the idea that Europe is rapidly becoming Islamized.
|-
|Eurosceptic
|1970s
|someone who opposes joining the super-socialist [[European Union]]; some prefer the term "Eurorealist" to express this opposition, and sometimes "Eurosceptic" is used to criticize opponents of the EU
|-
|everyman
|1906
|the typical person
|-
|exceptional
|1787
|same year of origin as the [[U.S. Constitution]]!
|-
|exculpatory
|1781
|often used in the phrase "exculpatory evidence," it took nearly 50 years to develop this term after origination of the legal term suggesting guilt: "incriminate"
|-
|expatriate
|1768
|to give up one's own citizenship, or be banished by one's own nation
|-
|expose
|1803
|(noun) a statement of the facts, typically to discredit wrongdoing by government
|-
|facade
|1845<ref>1845 is the date of origin for the figurative use. The literal use dates back to 1650s, meaning the front of a building.</ref>
|Example usage: "The facade of a liberal politician is often conservative."
|-
|fair shake
|1830
|approaching an idea or concept with an open mind
|-
|faith healing
|1885
|
|-
|[[falsifiability]]
|1934
|first emphasized by Karl Popper in 1934, this helps define science: if a proposition is false, then it can be shown to be false. If not, then the proposition is not scientific.
|-
|[[family values]]
|1916
|widespread use after a speech by Vice President [[Dan Quayle]], 1992
|-
|fat farm
|1969
|a place where obese people -- such as self-centered [[atheists]] -- might go to try to lose weight
|-
|father figure
|1934
|someone who fulfills the essential role of a father
|-
|faux conservative
|1990<ref>First coined by ''The Economist'', in "[[New England]]'s governors; All change" (September 22, 1990), in reference to [[Lowell Weicker]]'s "loss in 1988 to a Faux-conservative Democrat, Mr [[Joseph Lieberman]]."</ref>
|
|-
|federal government
|1787
|used by [[Alexander Hamilton]] in the first phrase of the ''[[Federalist Papers]]'' to signify a government that is not fully sovereign, as the States are
|-
|[[federalism]]
|1789
|the unique system of dual sovereigns, state and federal (national), established by the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|fear-mongering
|1938<ref>The ''[[New York Times]]'' attributed the first use -- ironically -- to President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]].</ref>
|stir up exaggerated fear by the public, typically to expand government
|-
|feedback
|1920
|an all-important element of accountability and improvement, and a key consideration in good engineering design
|-
|[[fellow traveller]]
|1925
|may have existed earlier, but popularized in 1924 by Leon Trotsky. Describes a sympathizer of a cause but who does not formally belong to the cause, such as a [[communist]] sympathizer who is not part of the communist party. The term was invented by the communists in its original, non-negative sense, but the conservatives were the first to use it as a pejorative term.
|-
|[[fiscal cliff]]
|2012
|first coined by Federal Reserve Chairman [[Ben Bernanke]], it refers to the effect on the economy of a sharp drop in spending and perhaps an increase in taxes scheduled to take effect at approximately the same time.<ref>http://www.benjaminfedwards.com/blog/?p=197</ref>
|-
|[[Flip flop (politics)|flip-flop]]
|1976
|''verb'', meaning to change political position, typically due to [[liberal]] pressure. First used by the Republican S.I. Hayakawa campaign to describe California Democratic incumbent U.S. Senator John Tunney, whom Hayakawa defeated in an upset.
|-
|force-feed
|1901
|what liberals do to students in [[public schools]] today in training them to be [[atheist]]ic socialists
|-
|forward-looking
|1800
|planning for the future rather than dwelling on the past
|-
|Founding Fathers
|1914
|the several dozen [[Christian]] men <ref>[http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html Religious Affiliation of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, Adherents.com]</ref> who helped draft the formative documents of the United States
|-
|[[free enterprise]]
|1820
|
|-
|free lunch
|1949
|something acquired ostensibly without paying for it, as in welfare; often used to remind people that "there's no such thing as a free lunch" in order to point out that it must cost someone something, now or later.
|-
|free market
|1907
|
|-
|free speech
|1873
|shorthand for "freedom of speech," but with a connotation that extends to non-citizens and listeners; first used in a U.S. Supreme Court opinion in dissent in the [[Slaughter-House Cases]] by Justice Bradley
|-
|free world
|1949
|areas of the world free of communism
|-
|freeloader
|1934
|someone who avoids paying or working for his share of a benefit
|-
|frontiersmen
|1814
|living and working in a self-sufficient manner and with courage in a new land.
|-
|fuzzy math
|1937
|non-computational math designed to obscure the differences between the correct answers and the incorrect -- but perhaps politically motivated -- answers
|-
|galvanize
|1802
|as in, "the liberal proposals ''galvanized'' the grassroots in opposition"
|-
|[[gambit]]
|1656
|a sacrifice that obtains an advantageous position, as in the game of [[chess]] ([[Bobby Fischer]]'s queen's gambit was a masterpiece) or in real life (the [[Passion of Christ]])
|-
|gang up
|1925
|group pressure
|-
|gateway drug
|1982
|abuse of alcohol/marijuana eventually leads to harder drugs cocaine/heroin
|-
|gerrymandering
|1812
|coined by a newspaper editor to criticize the manipulation of the lines of a new district into a salamander shape<ref>http://www.allbusiness.com/information/publishing-industries/251259-1.html</ref> that favored election of a liberal politician
|-
|gimmick
|1922
|originally meant a deceptive mechanical device for controlling a [[gambling]] machine, and then its meaning expanded to include all trickery to attract attention
|-
|globalism
|1997
|Merriam-Webster states it was first used in 1943<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/globalism</ref> and the OED gives a date of 1965 for the exact term "globalism";<ref>http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50095613/50095613se2?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=globalism&first=1&max_to_show=10&hilite=50095613se2</ref> the term "globalization" was first used in the mid-1980s in a different, complimentary sense.
|-
|God-fearing
|1835
|Living by the rules of God; living in a way that is considered morally right.
|-
|godsend
|1820
|
|-
|go-getter
|1921
|
|-
|gold standard
|1831
|the highest standard; in currency, when money could be exchanged for a fixed amount of gold
|-
|golden parachute
|1981
|a pejorative term for a pre-arranged handout to a corporate executive when fired, as when the company is taken over by new ownership
|-
|good book
|1860
|the [[Bible]]
|-
|Good Samaritan
|1640
|how genuine charity is the best approach
|-
|goon
|1926
|a dim-witted thug, espec. one who intimidates on behalf of a union
|-
|government school
|1955
|coined by [[economist]] [[Milton Friedman]] as a more accurate name for [[public schools]]
|-
|[[grade inflation]]
|1975
|the tendency by Liberal educationalists and public schools to increase marks, irrespective of merit or actual achievement.
|-
|[[grassroots]]
|1901
|
|-
|gravy train
|1927
|easy money for little or no work, in contrast with the work ethic; notice how the [[Great Depression]] hit two years later
|-
|greasy spoon
|1902
|a free enterprise term for a small, cheap restaurant - which in many places is just what the public wants; reflects Jesus' [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] about the digestive system
|-
|Great Awakening
|1730-1740
|Christian spiritualism recurs periodically. See [[Essay:The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America]].
|-
|Gresham's law
|1858
|the tendency in a free market for bad money (which loses its value) to drive out (be used more often in transactions) than good money (which retains its value), because people want to horde the good money while getting rid of the bad money; a similar effect can be seen when profanity drives out intelligent discussion
|-
|groupthink
|1952
|a style of thought consisting of conformity to a manufactured consensus and self-deception; coined by William H. Whyte in 1952.
|-
|half-baked
|1855
|an idea that can appear reasonable at first, but with just a little thought it is recognized to be absurd
|-
|hallmark
|1721
|purity, authentic, official seal, distinguishing feature
|-
|handout
|1882
|describes charity and government giveaways
|-
|happy talk
|1973
|sensless banter among broadcasters in the [[lamestream media]], as a substitute for real news; more generally, happy talk is unjustifiably feel-good rhetoric that implicitly denies the real existence of [[Hell]].
|-
|hardworking
|1774
|
|-
|harmless error
|1861
|an insignificant violation of a duty or procedural rule; first used in ''Western Ins. Co. v. The Goody Friends'', 29 F. Cas. 764 (S.D. Ohio 1861) (referring to a duty)
|-
|hatchet job
|1944
|still looking for the context of its first use; today it means an article, typically by a liberal, that misleadingly smears someone, typically a conservative
|-
|Hawthorne effect
|1962
|the increase in achievement resulting merely from being observed; this was demonstrated by experiment at the Hawthorne Works of Western Electric in Cicero, Illinois
|-
|heartland
|1904
|the central portion of the United States known for its [[conservative]] values and lack of control by the [[liberal media]] and [[Hollywood]]
|-
|heckler's veto
|1965
|coined by University of Chicago Law Professor Harvey Kalven, Jr., a strong supporter of free speech in politics, this term has been used in [[Supreme Court]] decisions by Justices [[Sam Alito]],<ref>''See'' ''Pleasant Grove City v. Summum'', 129 S. Ct. 1125 (2009); ''see also'' ''Child Evangelism Fellowship of N.J., Inc. v. Stafford Twp. Sch. Dist.'', 386 F.3d 514 (3rd Cir. 2004).</ref> [[Antonin Scalia]], and [[Clarence Thomas]].<ref>''Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch.'', 533 U.S. 98 (2001)</ref>
|-
|hippie
|1965
|someone who rejects traditional morality and does what he wants, often growing long hair and smoking [[marijuana]] rather than working hard; this term became increasingly pejorative over time
|-
|hissy fit
|1970
|an unjustified tantrum, typically female in nature, as in "[[feminist]]s had a hissy fit when [[Lawrence Summers]] suggested (but criticized) the possibility that women have weaker scientific aptitude than men, and Summers ultimately resigned."
|-
|hoax
|1796
|to deceive the public into believing something that is false, often to pull people away from the [[Bible]].
|-
|Hobson's choice
|1649<ref>this term has the entertaining history of originating with an English liveryman who required customers to "choose" the horse closest to the door.</ref>
|an ostensible choice that disguises a lack of freedom, because each alternative is completely unacceptable. This term is invoked to criticize an illusory freedom of choice. This term has been used in 48 cases by Supreme Court Justices, more often by conservatives than by liberals.
|-
|hokey
|1927
|phony, in an obvious or corny way
|-
|honor system
|1903
|an approach to discipline that emphasizes and encourages trust, honesty and personal responsibility rather than constant supervision
|-
|[[homeschool]]
|1980<ref>the OED assigns a date of origin of 1850 to "homeschool".</ref>
|
|-
|[[homemaker]]
|1876
|a wife and mother whose efforts are wisely spent running the household for the family
|-
|hometown
|1912
|the place where someone grew up and typically obtained some benefit
|-
|[[homosexual agenda]]
|1989
|used to promote the agenda in the book ''After the Ball'', but then used to criticize the movement by Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] in his dissent in''Lawrence v. Texas'' (2003)''
|-
|human rights
|1766
|rights of all peoples, such as to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as set forth in the [[Declaration of Independence]]
|-
|hype
|1931
|originally meant to deceive or "put on," and then its meaning shifted slightly to represent extravagant promotion of something as the liberal media often do
|-
|hyphenated American
|1889
|President Theodore Roosevelt said in 1915, "There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American."
|-
|hypothesis
|1656
|a suggestion, typically scientific in nature, which must be tested and proven before asserted as truth
|-
|hysteria
|1801
|From the Latin ''hystericus'', from Greek ''hystera '' meaning ''"womb"''<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hysteria Meriam Webster Dictionary]</ref> (an old notion that hysteria was caused by the [[womb]]).
|-
|idealist
|1701
|a person guided by ideals
|-
|illiteracy
|1660
|liberals seek to produce illiterate voters who lack independence, and many graduates of the [[public schools]] are illiterate today
|-
|inalienable
|1640s
|cannot be taken away, especially by government, as in "inalienable rights" in the [[Declaration of Independence]]
|-
|inattentive
|1741
|more than 150 years before the discovery in physics of the connection between attentiveness/observation and uncertainty/chaos, this conservative word cautioned against inattentiveness
|-
|incentivize
|1970
|create a reward to encourage good work
|-
|incidental inequality
|2009
|inequalities that result as side effects of an objectively just system
|-
|incoherent
|1626
|the term often applies to liberal [[double standard]]s
|-
|incompleteness
|1931
|a system of logic or mathematics that includes propositions that are impossible to prove or disprove; term coined as a result of [[Kurt Godel]]'s work in 1931
|-
|incrementalism
|1966
|imposing bad political or social change slowly
|-
|independence
|1640
|free will
|-
|individualism
|1827
|values, rights and duties arise from the individual
|-
|inerrancy
|1834
|free from error, as in "biblical inerrancy"
|-
|inflationary
|1920
|policies causing inflation of the monetary supply
|-
|informed consent
|1967
|consent to surgery is meaningful only if informed, a requirement that should apply to abortion
|-
|initiative
|1793
|self-starting first step toward improvement
|-
|inoculate
|1721
|to safeguard against future harm by developing immunity against it. Sample usage: "Conservapedia inoculates against [[liberal claptrap]]."
|-
|insightful
|1907
|what conservatism is about: gaining insights into the truth, and bettering individuals and society with them
|-
|intangible
|1914
|something valuable that cannot be seen or touched, such as goodwill
|-
|intellectual property
|1845
|"we [should] protect intellectual property, the labors of the mind, productions and interests as much a man's own, and as much the fruit of his honest industry, as the wheat he cultivates, or the flocks he rears." ''Davoll v. Brown'', 7 F. Cas. 197 (Cir. Ct. Mass. 1845) (Woodbury, federal judge).
|-
|intelligent design
|1991<ref>A few isolated references to this phrase, without its full current significance, can be found dating back to the mid-1800s</ref>
|coined in ''Darwin on Trial'', a book by Philip Johnson, who is considered the father of the intelligent design movement and who co-founded the [[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture in 1996<ref>http://biologos.org/resources/johnson-phillip-e</ref>
|-
|interventionism
|1923
|"governmental interference in economic affairs at home or in political affairs of another country"<ref>Merriam-Webster (1994).</ref>
|-
|invisible hand
|1776
|coined by Adam Smith in the ''Wealth of Nations'' and widely used today.
|-
|[[invisible hand of marriage]]
|2008
|discovered on Conservapedia, it is the unseen force of productivity that results from marriage (only between a man and woman).
|-
|Iron curtain
|1945
|coined by Winston Churchill in a speech in Missouri just after World War II, to describe the communist's figurative wall against freedom
|-
|[[irreducible complexity]]
|1935
|coined<ref>[[Alan Turing]] reportedly used the term for a completely different meaning that went nowhere. [http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/nasty-feelings-in-the-ool-community-toward-yockey/]</ref> and later adopted and developed by [[Michael Behe]] to describe structure or system that could not possibly have evolved, because removing any part makes it nonfunctional, thereby showing that [[God]] must have created it whole into biology; if the [[Nobel Prize]] were not dominated by [[atheism]], Behe could win one for this insight.
|-
|[[Islamofascism]]
|1990?
|A form of totalitarian Muslim fundamentalist rule, or extreme Islamism.
|-
|ivory tower
|1910
|a description of the pampered culture of liberal [[professor values|professors]], and how far out of touch with the truth it is
|-
|John Hancock
|1903
|a personal signature, especially in a bold style that stands up for principles as John Hancock did with his signing the Declaration of Independence
|-
|[[judicial activism]]
|1947
|first coined in an article in ''Fortune'' magazine by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.,<ref>http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/278089</ref> and repeatedly used in U.S. Supreme Court opinions since 1967,<ref>''United States v. Wade'',
388 U.S. 218 (1967).</ref> yet as of 2009 [[Merriam-Webster]] dictionary still fails to recognize this widely used term.
|-
|judicial prejudice
|2009
|the bias of a judge in favor of a political correct identity group intended to rig outcome equality in favor of that group based on subjective bias rather than objective justice.
|-
|judicial restraint
|1942
|"Assuming that this court has power to act, it does not necessarily follow that it should act. ... In a number of situations, and in a number of cases, it has been held that courts should voluntarily refrain from using or asserting power. Where the use or assertion of power might be destructive of a well defined purpose of law or of a declared public policy such voluntarily imposed '''judicial restraint''' may be commendable."<ref>Osage Tribe of Indians v. Ickes, 45 F. Supp. 179, 184-85 (D.D.C. 1942) (emphasis added).</ref>
|-
|judicial supremacist
|2004
|one who advocates that the courts should be supreme over the other branches of government for certain legal issues; first coined in a book by [[Phyllis Schlafly]]; first used by the judiciary by the Michigan Supreme Court in ''Paige v. City of Sterling Heights'', 476 Mich. 495 (2006).<ref>A similar yet different concept, "judicial supremacy," was coined by [[conservative]] Supreme Court Justice [[Robert H. Jackson]] as the title of his book,'' The Struggle for Judicial Supremacy: A Study of a Crisis in American Political Power'' (New York: Knopf, 1941).</ref>
|-
|[[judicial taking]]
|1982
|the deprivation of private property due to a court decision; this concept was introduced by conservative Justice [[Potter Stewart]] in 1967, and the term was used for the first time independently by the Michigan and Hawaii Supreme Courts in the same month (!) in December 1982, and then used often in law review articles and Circuit Court decisions in the 2000s, and then four Justices of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] endorsed the principle in a decision in 2010, with two others accepting the possibility.
|-
|[[junk science]]
|1962<ref>http://rated.com/dir/Society/Issues/Environment/Opposing_Views/Junk_Science</ref>
|the corruption of the scientific method to advance other, often political, goals (such as [[Global Warming]])
|-
|jury nullification
|1948
|the power of a jury to overrule the law and acquit an ostensibly guilty defendant; the power was established in the colonies in 1735 in the trial of [[John Peter Zenger]], but this term was first used in state court by Pfeuffer v. Haas, 55 S.W.2d 111 (Tex. Civ. App. 1932) and in federal court by ''Skidmore v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.'', 167 F.2d 54 (2nd Cir. 1948)
|-
|killjoy
|1776
|one who spoils the pleasure of others. <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/killjoy Killjoy 1776 Mer-Web]</ref> ''Example''-Vandals seek to disrupt conservative wikis, an education project. They are a killjoy to the learning process.
|-
|kiss of death
|1943
|from Judas's betrayal of Jesus with a kiss, Mark 14:44-4
|-
|kleptocrat
|1819
|A politician who seeks status and personal gain at the expense of the governed
|-
|kowtow
|1826
|obsequious, unthinking obedience to someone or something, used especially in the context of dictatorships and liberal belief systems
|-
|Kremlinology
|1958
|the study of the otherwise indecipherable behavior of the government of the [[communist]] [[Soviet Union]]. Refers to the Kremlin, the traditional seat of Russian government (Soviet or not).
|-
|kudos
|1831
|praise for real achievement
|-
|la-la land
|1979<ref>First known use was in an article by Tom Zito, "Mr. Mike's Mania; Sick Humor, Very Well Indulged," [[Washington Post]] F1 (Nov. 8, 1979): "But now, it's off to La-La land, and his movie deal. 'The thing about Southern Californians,' he says, 'is this: They wake up and say, 'Gee, what a wonderful morning. I think I'll make a salad.' And that takes them the whole day. ..."</ref>
|a term for the decadent, liberal culture of [[Hollywood]]-driven [[Los Angeles]], originally capitalized as "La-La land."; Merriam-Webster is in denial about this etymology and claims a later origin of 1983.
|-
|labor camp
|1900
|forced work prison
|-
|laissez-faire
|1825
|opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond what is minimally necessary
|-
|lame duck
|1761
|one falling being in achievement, especially a public official whose power is limited because his term in office is set to expire without possibility of reelection.
|-
|lamestream media
|2009
|coined by Bernie Goldberg to describe the clueless [[Mainstream media]] that repeat superficial, discredited liberal claptrap
|-
|landslide
|1838
|In the political sense, an overwhelming election victory. A clear, democratic expression of popular will.
|-
|leadership
|1821
|an ability and willingness to lead, often by example
|-
|leftism
|1920
|principles and doctrine of leftists
|-
|level-headed
|1876
|"balanced", "having common sense and sound judgment"
|-
|leverage
|1830
|
|-
|liberal creep
|2008
|liberal bias that gradually creeps or distorts an entry, definition, explanation, description, or historical account.
|-
|life vest
|1939
|a pro-life invention
|-
|lifelong
|1855
|something, usually a commitment, that lasts a lifetime, as in "a lifelong commitment to [[Christ]]"
|-
|limousine liberal
|1969
|a multi-millionaire who pretends to be compassionate about the poor, but supports liberal policies that increase burdens on working Americans
|-
|local
|1824<ref>This date refers to its first usage as a ''noun'', which is an estimate of its adoption as a concept.</ref>
|common usage: "all politics is local"
|-
|lockstep
|1802
|mindless conformity, often to liberal values
|-
|locomotive
|1829
|a great engine of economic growth during the [[Industrial Revolution]]
|-
|lone wolf
|1909
|a person who prefers to work, act, or live alone,<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lone%20wolf Lone wolf, Merriam-Webster]</ref> synonymous with self-sufficiency
|-
|loose cannon
|1973
|an undisciplined person or program that dangerously lacks forethought; used in mid-November 1976 to describe $11 billion in unspent appropriations by the Ford Administration: "'That money,' says Arnold Packer, a senior Senate Budget Committee economist who is helping Carter draw up his shadow budget, 'is like a loose cannon rolling around the deck' because a sudden reappearance of the funds could be inflationary." (''BusinessWeek'')
|-
|lowest common denominator
|1854
|the lowest in work ethic, morals, or knowledge among a group; typically used to criticize the liberal practice of dumbing down content
|-
|lunatic fringe
|1913
|coined by U.S. President [[Theodore Roosevelt]] to describe members of eccentric, radical or extremist groups<ref> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=lunatic</ref>
|-
|machismo
|1948
|a word never used favorably by feminists!
|-
|mainstay
|1787
|the primary support, typically for something good
|-
|man of [[God]]
|1748
|a clergyman
|-
|man-hater
|1970s<ref>This was during the epic struggle -- and defeat -- of the so-called [[Equal Rights Amendment]].</ref>
|William Safire wrote in the ''New York Times'' in 1983, "Misandry, from the Greek misandros for 'hating men,' is in the 1961 Merriam-Webster New International Dictionary, and the Oxford Dictionary Supplement traces it to 1946. The word is pronounced as 'Ms. Andry,' but I wonder why we need the Greek word for it. What's wrong with good, old-fashioned man-hater?"<ref>Sunday, Oct. 30, 1983, Section 6, Page 12, Column 3.</ref>
|-
|make-work
|1923
|inefficient or useless activity that has the false appearance of being productive; a favorite endeavor of liberals
|-
|[[market failure]]
|1958<ref>[Coined as the title of a scholarly article by Francis M. Bator, "The Anatomy of Market Failure," ''The Quarterly Journal of Economics'' (1958) [http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/Courses/econ335/out/bator_qje.pdf]</ref>
|instances where the free market does not provide a desirable result, as when information is withheld from an unsuspecting consumer
|-
|manifest destiny
|1845
|Providential design over future events, which originated in the context of expanding the United States to the Pacific Ocean
|-
|[[Mardi Gras]]
|1699
|The annual celebration on the eve of [[Ash Wednesday]] and [[Lent]], particularly in the historically [[Catholic]] city of [[New Orleans]].
|-
|materialism
|1748
|the view of life that physical matter is all that exists; as an "ism", the term criticizes such view
|-
|meat and potatoes
|1951
|the most interesting or fundamental part
|-
|[[Medal of Honor]]
|1898
|a special American honor for bravery on the battlefield
|-
|[[media bullying]]
|2008<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Media_bullying&oldid=430831 (Apr. 14, 2008)</ref>
|first coined by ''Conservapedia'', media bullying is aggressive bias by the media in the attempt to influence a politician or others, typically toward a [[liberal]] goal
|-
|melting pot
|1912
|requires "social and cultural assimilation" for successful immigration<ref>Merriam-Webster dictionary (1994)</ref>
|-
|[[meritocracy]]
|1958
|a system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement
|-
|[[microeconomics]]
|1947
|the study of the economics of the individual person or business
|-
|micromanage
|1985
|insistence on controlling details, typically by liberals to [[censorship|censor]] progress; [[Ronald Reagan]] was critical of this style by [[Democrat]] Presidents
|-
|mind control
|1944
|a pejorative term for how an atheistic government influences what people believe, especially through public education
|-
|mindset
|1909
|close-minded point-of-view, typically in adherence to a liberal falsehood and often to the exclusion of Christ
|-
|missile defense
|1980s
|popularized by President Ronald Reagan as part of [[SDI]]
|-
|missionary
|1625
|someone sent on a mission, typically a religious mission
|-
|mobocracy
|1754
|rule by a mob, as at Wikipedia
|-
|monogamy
|1612
|this has the same date of origin as "productive", and that may not be a coincidence!
|-
|moonlighting
|1957
|working more than a full-time job in order to be as productive as possible; the [[work ethic]] at its best
|-
|moral majority
|1979
|coined by Jerry Falwell to describe the movement of growing moral, Christian conservatives.
|-
|motivation
|1873
|can you believe the word did not exist before 1873?!
|-
|muckety–muck
|1912
|a pejorative term for an arrogant person who holds a title or position considered to be important by others
|-
|muckraker
|1910
|a person who searches out and publicly exposes [[deceit]]<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/muckraker Merriam-Webster - Muckraker]</ref>
|-
|Murphy's Law
|1958
|if something can go wrong, then it will go wrong: this was a conservative insight by an engineer Edward Murphy
|-
|muscle car
|1967
|placing a powerful engine in a classic two-door car for highly efficient performance; also celebrate masculine style against erosion by feminism
|-
|myopic
|1752
|originally a term in optometry, 1990's used to describe liberals' lack of foresight
|-
|name-dropping
|1950
|a term critical of the [[liberal]] practice of seeking to impress others by casually mentioning personal association with prominent people, despite its lack of relevance to the conversation
|-
|nanny state
|1978
|"Under the New Economic Policy, [the new French Prime Minister Raymond] Barre has made it clear that industrial lame ducks can no longer count on the generosity of Nanny i.e. the state - for bailing out."<ref>Leo Ryan, "Economy Shored up: France's new surge of liberalism," The Globe and Mail (Canada) (Aug. 1, 1978)</ref> Note how two powerful new conservative terms led to a third here!
|-
|negativism
|1824
|mental attitude that tends that is skeptical about almost everything, except one's own views
|-
|newspeak
|1949
|political or media expressions using circumlocution and euphemisms to disguise or distract from the truth; first coined by [[George Orwell]] in ''[[1984]]''
|-
|non-justiciable
|1922<ref>Used by the state attorneys for West Virginia (including Philip Steptoe, founder of Steptoe & Johnson) in ''Pennsylvania v. West Virginia'', 262 U.S. 553 (1923): "It is not the 'subject of judicial cognizance,' Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 15; Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S 1, 15; Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 233, or 'susceptible of judicial solution.' Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S. 1, 18, 22; Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 233, 234."</ref>
|a difficult issue that the courts should not attempt to resolve, often because it is too political in nature
|-
|non-locality
|1920s
|[[action at a distance]] at the atomic level; even though proven, it is still opposed by those who believe in [[relativity]] and still not recognized by Merriam-Webster
|-
|nullification
|1798
|assertion of authority by a State against encroachment by the federal government, in defense of liberty
|-
|obambulate
|1600
|From Latin ''obambulatus'', to walk to or before, akin to ''wander''. Word currently claimed to have been invented by Rush Limbaugh in 2011 and used in reference to [[Barack Obama]], yet it is found in Oxford and Webster's dictionaries prior to 1991.
|-
|obstructionism
|1879
|deliberate interference with free speech or legislative progress, as when liberal legislators (the "fleebaggers") fled Wisconsin to try to block a reform
|-
|Old Glory
|1862
|the ''United States of America'' flag, Stars & Stripes
|-
|one-size-fits-all
|1996<ref>Was there an earlier conservative use? Frank Zappa's album cover in the 1970s does not count!</ref>
|Lee Wishing, director of communications for conservative [[Grove City College]], in criticism of how the government administers student loans: "Unfortunately, with government programs, it's one size fits all."<ref>http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1996/dec96/er-dec96.html</ref> The 2008 Republican platform states, "We reject a one-size-fits-all approach and support parental options, including home schooling, and local innovations such as schools or classes for boys only or for girls only and alternative and innovative school schedules."<ref>http://platform.gop.com/2008Platform.pdf</ref>
|-
|one-trick pony
|1980
|a person or group that relies repeatedly on the same gimmick, as in "the media are a one-trick pony in their criticism of [[Rand Paul]]"
|-
|open-minded
|1828
|see [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]
|-
|[[opportunity cost]]
|1911
|
|-
|optimism
|1759
|
|-
|ordered pair
|1870s
|developed by the [[Christian]] [[Georg Cantor]], this [[conservative]] concept was part of the [[set theory]] that he invented and revolutionized mathematics with, despite opposition by the establishment
|-
|originalism
|1985
|taken from original intent, The belief that the United States Constitution should be interpreted in the way the authors originally intended it
|-
|Orwellian
|1960s
|terminology or style that advances the power of big government but is hurtful or nonsensical<ref>http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=604</ref>
|-
|ostensibly
|1765
|having an outward appearance that may not reflect the underlying truth; good potential use is Luke 3:23 in describing Jesus as the son of Joseph
|-
|outflank
|1765
|to move swiftly around an opponent, a military tactic mastered by [[conservative]] [[General]] [[George Patton]] to crush the [[Germans]] in [[World War II]]
|-
|pack heat
|1940s
|carry a concealed firearm, allowed by permit in nearly every state, yet liberal bias has made dictionaries slow to recognize this term
|-
|parenting
|1958
|children raising
|-
|Parkinson's Law
|1955
|how bureaucracies expand regardless of the productivity, and how inefficient work expands to fill the time available for its completion
|-
|[[Parthian shot]]
|1832
|a negative term for the tactic of expressing a criticism while one exits, just as the ancient Parthians would shoot arrows while retreating in battle. This tactic is common among those who reject [[conservative]] truths, as seen when left-leaning editors leave ''Conservapedia''.
|-
|[[patent troll]]
|2001
|a company that obtains or buys up patents for the sole purpose of asserting infringement claims, and without any intention of actually manufacturing the invention; the term was first coined by Peter Detkin, in-house counsel to Intel
|-
|patriotism
|1726
|
|-
|Pavlovian
|1926
|a conditioned, automatic and unthinking response to a signal; it has been used twice by [[conservative]] Supreme Court Justices. "It is well established that this Court does not, or at least should not, respond in Pavlovian fashion to confessions of error by the [[Solicitor General]]." ''De Marco v. United States'', 415 U.S. 449, 451 (1974) ([[Rehnquist]], J., dissenting); "'[[Incorporation doctrine|Incorporation]]' has become so Pavlovian that my Brother BLACK barely mentions the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] in the course of an 11-page opinion dealing with the procedural rule the State of [[Florida]] has adopted for cases tried in Florida courts under Florida's criminal laws." '' Williams v. Fla.'', 399 U.S. 78, 144 (1970) ([[Potter Stewart|Stewart]], J., dissenting and concurring).
|-
|perestroika
|1986
|increasing economic freedom and free speech under [[communism]], which led to the unraveling of the [[communist]] [[Soviet Union]]
|-
|perpetual war
|1947
|Coined by historian Charles A. Beard,<ref>Charles A. Beard is best known for interpreting the Constitution as being primarily motivated by economic interests.</ref> it has been used most recently by [[Ann Coulter]]
|-
|[[personhood]] <ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/personhood Personhood] Dictionary.com</ref>
|1955
|Inherent rights guaranteed to all human beings from the beginning of their biological development, including the pre-born, partially born. Also, the state or fact of being a person.
|-
|Philadelphia
|1682
|coined by [[William Penn]] and meaning "city of brotherly love," the concept captures the "[[best of the public]]" approach
|-
|[[phonics]]
|1684
|conservatives have long championed phonics to promote literacy, Bible-reading, and informed voters; liberals take the opposite position
|-
|phony
|1900<ref>This surprisingly recent origin appears to be derived from a British confidence game.</ref>
|needed to address [[liberal deceit]]
|-
|[[photo bias]]
|1992<ref>A letter to the editor by a reader of the [[liberal]] ''[[Chicago Tribune]]'' observed, "This is the third time in recent weeks that a weird or disfigured picture of Mr. Quayle has appeared in your Sunday paper."</ref>
|a common trick of the [[liberal media]] to push the reader to the political left on an issue, as in displaying a man without teeth as an opponent of a liberal bill or candidate.
|-
|plasticity
|1783
|having a plastic quality that conforms to molding or pressure; in pejorative usage, someone who easily conforms to [[peer pressure]] or [[liberal]] falsehoods
|-
|poetic justice
|1890
|when virtue is rewarded and/or wrongdoing is punished in an indirect or unexpected way
|-
|political machine
|1905
|a pejorative term for local and typically Democratic power structures that prevent outsiders from winning elections; first used by George Washington Plunkitt to criticize the Tammany Hall machine for which he served
|-
|[[politically correct]]
|1983
|This term originated among radicals at the [[University of Wisconsin-Madison]] to enforce radical orthodoxy, but immediately flipped in usage to become a term of mockery of radicals.<ref>For an early different usage of the word, see 1793 J. WILSON in U.S. Rep. (U.S. Supreme Court) 2 (1798) 462 Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our..language... ‘The United States’, instead of the ‘People of the United States’, is the toast given. This is not politically correct.</ref> The term may have come from Chairman Mao in 1936.
|-
|politicize
|1846
|seeking political gain at the expense of truth or quality<ref>The Merriam-Webster definition (1994 ed.) is incomplete and unclear: "to give a political tone or character to"</ref>
|-
|politics of envy
|2011
|used by Australian [[conservative]] Christopher Pine to describe the philosophy behind taking money from private schools and giving it to public ones.
|-
|pork barrel
|1909
|government as a source of handouts that redistribute money from hard-working people to those who avoid work
|-
|[[post-abortive]]
|1986
|the unexpected trauma and physical harm -- which can worsen over time -- that is experienced by a woman after having an [[abortion]]; coined by Dr. Kaye Cash in an editorial describing what she learned during a 365-mile walk in southeast Arkansas to speak with the public about abortion<ref>Editorial by Kaye Cash, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock, AR), October 23, 1986.</ref>
|-
|potential
|1817<ref>Usage here refers to "promise", not "possibility".</ref>
|
|-
|pothead
|1959
|someone who smokes marijuana and doesn't realize how it destroys people
|-
|powerhouse
|1881
|source of energy and strength - which is what the conservative movement is
|-
|[[price discrimination]]
|1920
|charging different prices for the exact same service or good; first coined by the British economist (and critic of [[John Maynard Keynes]]) Arthur Cecil Pigou in ''The Economics of Welfare''.
|-
|prioritize
|1961
|to recognize that some goals and activities are more important than others, and then focus accordingly
|-
|private sector
|1952
|non-governmental businesses and jobs functioning in free enterprise
|-
|privatize
|1940
|to return a business or enterprise from state to private control; to de-nationalize.
|-
|proactive
|1933
|
|-
|Procrustean
|1832
|a pejorative description of the one-size-fits-all mentality, which disregards individual differences
|-
|productive
|1612
|
|-
|productivity
|1810
|the gap of about 200 years between the creation of "productive" and "productivity" is astounding
|-
|[[pro-life]]
|1960
|
|-
|property right
|1853
|
|-
|provocateur
|1919
|someone who spends more time causing unproductive conflicts rather than advancing knowledge, accomplishing legitimate goals, or helping anyone
|-
|pseudoscience
|1844
|worthless claims written with the appearance of scientific rigor to gain an aura of credibility
|-
|publicity stunt
|1969<ref>Earlier usage in the 1900s may have occurred, but the term "stunt" was not coined until 1878.</ref>
|Used on April 10, 1969 by Republican Senators who withdrew from a tour and probe by Senator [[Ted Kennedy]], criticizing him for his "publicity stunt" in preparation for his expected run for the presidency; the [[Chappaquiddick incident]] sunk his chances three months later.
|-
|quantify
|1840
|
|-
|race card
|1995<ref>This is the date of its widespread familiarity.</ref>
|"Playing the race card" consists of relying on racial emotions or charges of racism in order to overcome the truth and logic in politics, legal proceedings, or otherwise; this term became familiar in the criticism of the defense and acquittal of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife and her friend.
|-
|rapture
|1629
|spiritual ecstasy[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rapture]
|-
|[[recidivism]]
|1886
|the tendency for people lacking in [[faith]] and determination to revert to prior patterns of harmful behavior, such as repeat criminal offenders
|-
|recuse
|1949
|self-removal by a decision-maker (especially a judge) because of possible bias with respect to the pending issue
|-
|red tape
|1736
|excessive bureaucracy and procedural complexity which frustrate meaningful activity and progress
|-
|refudiate
|2010
|combination of ''refute'' and ''repudiate'', as coined by [[Sarah Palin]]
|-
|[[relativism]]
|1865
|the view that ethical truths are not absolute, but depend on the person or group that holds them
|-
|[[responsibility]]
|1737
|HAMILTON Federalist No. 63 (1988) II. 193 Responsibility in order to be reasonable must be limited to objects within the power of the responsible party.
|-
|reverse discrimination
|1969
|the use of quotas or affirmative action to use race or gender to discriminate against a better qualified person
|-
|revisionism
|1903<ref>The first use of this term, now obscure, refers to a Marxist movement that preferred evolutionary rather than revolutionary change.</ref>
|distortions of history to promote liberal bias
|-
|revolving-door
|1973
|the liberal practice of repeatedly transferring into and out of government in a way that impedes progress and access by others, like the same people going round-and-round in a real revolving door
|-
|[[RINO Backer]]
|2012
|a more important term than "RINO", because what matters most is whether someone will stand up for a [[conservative]] position and candidate when the [[liberal media]] demand that everyone flock to the liberal side.
|-
|riot act
|1715<ref>Its colloquial use, as in "read them the riot act," began in 1819.</ref>
|the Riot Act was a law passed in England in 1715 to authorize officials to disperse riots
|-
|Rogue state
|1993
|(Originally used in 1993 then reintroduced in 2002.) A 'rogue state' displays no regard for international law. It attempts to acquire weapons of mass destruction and other military technology with which to threaten neighbouring countries and support terrorism. Rogue states often reject human values and brutalize their own people.
|-
|rubber-stamp
|1918
|unthinking repetition or endorsement of something, despite having the responsibility to make an independent decision, as in "Democrats rubber-stamp demands by the abortion industry."
|-
|run of the mill
|1930
|meaning "merely average, commonplace," the term is critical of a failure to strive for excellence
|-
|sacred cow
|1910
|a person or idea, typically liberal, that becomes immune from criticism because of its political usefulness rather than its truthfulness, as in the theories of [[evolution]] and [[relativity]]
|-
|scapegoating
|1943
|a term criticizing how people, particularly liberals, deflect accountability and blame from themselves to others; inspired by Leviticus 16:8.
|-
|salutary neglect
|1775
|coined by the [[conservative]] [[Edmund Burke]] in his 1775 speech to the British [[House of Commons]] entitled "On Moving His Resolutions for Conciliation with the Colonies"<ref>http://www.archive.org/stream/burkesspeechonco00burkuoft/burkesspeechonco00burkuoft_djvu.txt</ref>
|-
|school choice
|1980
|popularized by Milton Friedman in his book, ''Free to Choose''
|-
|[[scientific fascism]]
|2009
|a coordinated effort by a group of scientists to enforce a certain point of view upon others.
|-
|[[secularism]]
|1850-55
|attempts to educate, particularly through [[public school]], without including [[faith]] or even acknowledgment of [[God]]
|-
|Segway
|2001
|Dean Kamen's trademark spelling of "segue" for use of Yankee Ingenuity to improve efficiency, to refer to a form of battery-powered transportation.
|-
|[[self-defense]]
|1651
|
|-
|self-destruct
|1968
|often the tragic result of liberal falsehoods
|-
|[[Discipline|self-discipline]]
|1838
|
|-
|self-preservation
|1614
|preservation of oneself from destruction or harm
|-
|self-reliant
|1848
|
|-
|separation of powers
|1748
|the fundamental insight underlying the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|shotgun marriage
|1929
|pregnancy => get married. Think of someone besides yourself for a change.
|-
|show trial
|1937
|trials, especially in communist countries, which have preordained outcomes but are used for propaganda purposes
|-
|sidewalk counseling
|1975
|the practice of volunteers exercising their right of [[free speech]] to advise women against [[abortion]] as they walk on sidewalks toward abortion clinics; liberals have passed laws to restrict and [[censorship|censor]] this
|-
|silent majority
|1969
|coined by President [[Richard Nixon]] in his speech to the nation on Nov. 3, 1969<ref>http://watergate.info/nixon/silent-majority-speech-1969.shtml</ref>
|-
|skullduggery
|1867
|underhanded or unscrupulous behavior
|-
|slippery slope
|1900s
|term has been widely used for decades to expose the fallacy of "it doesn't hurt to try"
|-
|small town values
|1984
|term was first used by [[Democrat]] [[John Glenn]] in his failed presidential run in 1984, in a futile effort to appear more conservative than [[Ronald Reagan]]
|-
|smoke and mirrors
|1979
|something intended to disguise or draw attention away from an often embarrassing or unpleasant issue. <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/smoke%20and%20mirrors Smoke and Mirrors, Merriam-Webster]</ref> Widely used during the 1990s to describe [[Bill Clinton]]'s political strategy.
|-
|smoke-filled room
|1920
|a pejorative term describing how a few political insiders sometimes pick a candidate or make a decision in a secret room (in the old days, filled with cigar smoke)
|-
|smoking gun
|1974
|a law-and-order term, "smoking gun" was first used as figurative term in a reported judicial decision in ''Rodgers v. United States Steel Corp.'', 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12775 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 20, 1975), and many literal uses of the term in court decisions before that!
|-
|soapbox
|1907
|staging for a typically liberal, unproductive rant having little substance
|-
|soccer mom
|1987
|a mother who devotes herself to her children's activities; this is a significant voting bloc or demographic group
|-
|social engineering
|1925
|an increasingly pejorative term for liberal attempts to create a "nanny state"
|-
|[[socialist]]
|1827
|someone who advocates government control over the economy, and particularly state control of the means of production
|-
|social justice rhetoric
|2009
|Language and rhetorical ploys equating equality of outcome with justice.
|-
|soul-searching
|1924
|personal reflection about one's own values and morality
|-
|spend-and-tax
|2009<ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/02/morning-bell-the-obama-tax-and-spend-economy-is-here/</ref>
|a variation on "tax-and-spend" (see below), "spend-and-tax" consists of spending the money first and then trying to justify raising taxes based on the deficit created by the spending
|-
|spin doctor
|1984
|someone ensuring that others interpret an event from a particular point of view. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/world/asia/22policy.html?_r=2 General Petraeus describes Axelrod by Bob Woodward]</ref>
|-
|spot-on
|1949
|precisely correct, as in a prediction or in overcoming imprecision in a challenging task; its origin is from the military
|-
|squirrelly
|1928
|like a squirrel; jumpy and unpredictable; as in liberals get squirrelly when confronted with facts.
|-
|[[stagflation]]
|1965
|inflation ''and'' high [[unemployment]] ''and'' stagnant demand by consumers, typically due to [[liberal]] policies as in the late 1970s under President [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
|stalking horse
|1788
|a candidate or issue that serves to increase the chances that ''another'' will win, as in "antifederalists attempted to win elections by using 'the stalking horse of amendments.'"<ref>''Centinel'', 1788 (quoted in ''The Federalist party in Massachusetts to the year 1800'', By Anson Ely Morse).</ref>
|-
|[[statism]]
|1919
|advocates for centralized government and government ownership
|-
|[[Statue of Liberty]]
|1900
|a phrase used to describe it more than a decade after its completion
|-
|status quo
|1833
|a useful baseline for assessing and promoting conservative growth
|-
|stem-winder
|1875
|first-rate of its kind, especially a political speech; term inspired by the innovation for the watch to be wound by stem rather than by a key
|-
|straightforward
|1806
|something liberals are not
|-
|straw man
|1896
|an imaginary argument or example set up for the purpose of easily knocking down, while distracting from valid arguments
|-
|Stupaked
|2010
|hurt by someone who reassured everyone he would do the right thing, but then switched at the last minute to do the opposite (refers especially to [[abortion betrayal]]s)<ref>Columnist Kathleen Parker is credited with first coining this term.</ref>
|-
|[[subsidiarity]]
|1936
|the concept (opposed by liberals) that responsibilities performed by local or subordinate organizations should not be usurped by centralized government
|-
|sugarcoat
|1865
|popularized by [[Abraham Lincoln]] to say that secession is a sugarcoated word for rebellion
|-
|supply-side
|1976
|the economic theory that reducing taxes expands economic activity by encouraging greater earnings and investments; proven successful during the Reagan Administration in the 1980s
|-
|survivalist
|1970
|one who is determined and prepared to stay alive, and even thrive, if liberals cause a breakdown of society
|-
|take-charge
|1954
|proactive leadership for the greater good
|-
|takeover
|1917
|as in the takeover of government by the communist revolution in that year
|-
|tax-and-spend
|1937
|not yet recognized by Merriam-Webster, it is included in dictionary.com and it means the liberal policy of raising taxes and increasing government spending
|-
|taxpayer
|1816
|the word highlights who is really paying for things
|-
|tea party
|2007
|an amorphous group of ordinary citizens unified against a more expensive government
|-
|[[Tebowing]]
|2011
|bending on one knee in public to give glory to God (named after [[pro-life]] [[NFL]] [[QB]] [[Tim Tebow]])
|-
|[[term limits]]
|1861
|can you believe this is not in the dictionary yet? Merriam-Webster omits it, but dictionary.com has it<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/term+limit</ref>
|-
|terrorism
|1795
|this was during the French Revolution
|-
|[[textualism]]
|1952
|first used by Justice [[Robert Jackson]] in his influential concurrence in ''[[Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer]]'', 343 U.S. 579 (1952), it now describes the legal philosophy of Justice [[Antonin Scalia]]
|-
|[[think tank]]
|1940s
|first coined in [[Britain]] to describe intelligence organizations that helped the military, think tanks became part of the rise of conservatism in the 1970s and 1980s; is ''Conservapedia'' the think tank of the future?
|-
|time-tested
|1930
|an approach that has proven to be beneficial over time, like heterosexual marriage
|-
|top-notch
|1900
|the highest quality, which requires respect for merit to recognize
|-
|[[totalitarianism]]
|1926
|term which identifies the similarities of fascist and communist regimes and ideologies and urges resistance
|-
|tour de force
|1802
|a feat of skill
|-
|trademark
|1838
|extends the concept of private property to the marks used by business
|-
|traditionalist
|1856
|"adherence to the doctrines or practices of a tradition...the beliefs of those opposed to modernism, liberalism, or radicalism"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/traditionalist</ref>
|-
|[[transaction cost]]
|1961
|Economist [[Ronald Coase]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] for this.
|-
|[[transistor]]
|1948
|named by John R. Pierce and developed at the [[conservative]] [[Bell Labs]], this invention epitomized Yankee ingenuity; Pierce was a critic of claims of [[artificial intelligence]] and was the future developer of [[Telstar]], a precursor to the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]]
|-
|transparency
|1615
|allowing people who are affected by decisions to see how and why those decisions are really being made.
|-
|tree huggers
|1970s
|still not recognized by the dictionary, this term criticizes extreme environmentalists, but they proudly use the term also to describe what they literally do
|-
|trivia
|1920
|insignificant detail, which can sometimes obscure what is important and distract people from the Bible; liberal [[Wikipedia]] is filled with trivial junk
|-
|Trojan horse
|1837
|describes a type of liberal [[deceit]]: subversion from within
|-
|trust but verify
|1980s
|popularized by President Ronald Reagan as the approach to use towards communist [[deceit]]
|-
|ugly duckling
|1883
|an unpromising appearance but often with great unseen potential
|-
|ultra vires
|1793
|beyond the authority, especially of a government or corporate official
|-
|un-American
|1818
|contrary to American values
|-
|unborn child
|1791
|the rights of the unborn child have been recognized in English law since the 1600s, but the specific term "unborn child" itself may have been first used by an attorney arguing before the New Jersey Supreme Court in ''Den v. Sparks'', 1 N.J.L. 67 (Sup. Ct. 1791)
|-
|underachiever
|1952
|a typically liberal person who fails to accomplish what he could
|-
|underdog
|1887
|[[David]] v. [[Goliath]], [[Cinderella]], [[best of the public]], etc.
|-
|[[underemployed]]
|1908
|having less than full-time or suitable employment
|-
|underwater basket weaving
|1950s
|A pejorative that describes worthless college courses and a declining educational system; see [[Worst College Majors]].
|-
|unscripted
|1950
|speaking sincerely without parroting a script; "[[Rand Paul]] and [[Chris Christie]] are effective because, unlike [[Obama]], they are unscripted."
|-
|unsung hero
|1860
|someone who accomplishes good without receiving recognition for it
|-
|useful idiot
|1920<ref>[http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=135140 Attributed originally to Lenin], but since used by others like [[Nobel Prize]] winner (Literature) Doris Lessing to describe how she was manipulated by the [[communists]]: “I was taken around and shown things as a ‘useful idiot’... that’s what my role was. I can’t understand why I was so gullible.” [http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/2010/07/100624_doc_useful_idiots_lenin.shtml]</ref>
|Sample usage: "There are not as many useful idiots on college campuses for the Obama reelection campaign in 2012 as there were in 2008, and it's doubtful he can fill a stadium rally unless the campaign pays students to attend."
|-
|vandalism
|1798
|malicious destruction of someone else's property
|-
|vacuous
|1850s<ref>This word as a prior date of origin for its physical meaning.</ref>
|lacking any insight or depth of thought - common among [[liberal claptrap]]
|-
|veracity
|1623
|devotion to truthfulness
|-
|vet
|1904<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2199254/?from=rss</ref>
|a verb meaning to screen for flaws
|-
|[[victimization]]
|1840
|
|-
|volunteer
|1618
|someone who freely offers to help
|-
|wannabe
|1981
|a word that criticizes liberal [[status worship]]
|-
|War on Terror
|2001
|no listing at Merriam-Webster; on February 2, 2009 (less than two weeks after inauguration), Obama dropped use of this term. <ref>[http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=17455 Obama administration drops 'war on terror' phrase] Pew Forum, February 2, 2009</ref>
|-
|washed-up
|1928
|no longer productive, as in "the washed-up liberal professor has not contributed anything to his field in 30 years."
|-
|waterloo
|1816
|a final defeat or setback, coined merely one year after the [[English]] defeated [[Napoleon]] at the [[Battle of Waterloo]]; there has never been a "waterloo" for [[Christianity]] or [[conservatism]]
|-
|welfare queen
|1976
|a disparaging term for someone who collects excessive welfare payments through fraud, manipulation, or laziness. First used by [[Ronald Reagan]] during his 1976 Presidential campaign.
|-
|wildcatter
|1883
|a pro-energy term that describes someone who drills for oil in fields not known to have oil
|-
|wishy-washy
|1873<ref>An archaic meaning of poor quality dates to 1690.</ref>
|easily changing in opinion, usually due to peer pressure
|-
|woman's intuition
|1890<ref>Notice how this predates the modern [[feminists]], who would tend to consider this term [[politically incorrect]].</ref>
|a perception more common in women that something or someone is to be avoided without yet understanding why.
|-
|word poverty
|2001<ref>http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/summer2001/lang_gap_moats.html</ref>
|popularized by President [[George W. Bush]]
|-
|work (physical sense)
|1826
|a physical measure<ref>Work equals force times distance.</ref> of effort used to increase energy
|-
|work ethic
|1951
|a habit of working as a moral good
|-
|workaholic
|1968
|coined by a Southern Baptist pastor to describe the work habits of himself and other ministers<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2000/01/02/magazine/the-lives-they-lived-on-language-wordplayers.html</ref>
|-
|worldview
|1858
|a comprehensive way of looking at life and the world; sometimes used to criticize a liberal's irrational belief system
|-
|Yankee
|1758
|Inhabitants of New England, United States. Dutch slang in 1698- Americanized 50 years later.
|-
|Yankee Ingenuity
|1761
|America's inhabitants had a knack for clever design and capitalist success. The early Americans had applied their exceptional skills prior to the terms existence, see [[Eli Whitney]] and [[Benjamin Franklin]].
|-
|yellow journalism
|1898
|the practice, started by newspaper publishers Joseph Pulitzer and his rival William Randolph Hearst, of sensationalizing and biasing newspaper headlines and articles in order to influence public opinion
|-
|}

__TOC__ 

== Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary ==

A thousand new words are developed in English each year. Here is a growing list of conservative concepts, each of which is not yet defined by a single word or two.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Not Yet Recognized Terms
!Suggestions
!Comments
|-
|pre-9/11 thinking
|9/10 mindset
|terror is jurisdiction of the courts
|-
|anti-family
|tradition opposer, familiopathic
|
|-
|blame shift
|false accusations
|e.g., guns blamed for an increasing murder rate
|-
|buycott
|counter support
|An effort to cooperate and promote an organization or a process to nullify campaigns that are targeted by boycott protests.
|-
|causing harm by spreading falsehoods
|deceit
|e.g., denying or concealing disease and infertility caused by promiscuity
|-
|Constitutional values
|adherence to righteousness as set forth by the [[Founding Fathers]]
|principles set in the Declaration
|-
|Counterfeit Marriage
|uncivil union
|Manipulating Man's laws by usurping God's laws.
|-
|cradle to grave <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/spanish/from%20cradle%20to%20grave cradle to grave- no entry found] Merriam-Websters</ref>
|sanctity of life, conception to natural death
|pro-life stance, also can mean socialist entitlement programs
|-
|cut and run
|surrender advocates
|when the going gets tough, run away from the problem
|-
|debtucation
|tuition noose
|College student debt is now larger than credit card debt in the US
|-
|[[deliberate ignorance]]
|mind-locked, self-centered pride obscuring the truth
|the term exists; the dictionary does not yet include it
|-
|denial that [[Hell]] exists
|Hell-denier? Antinfernal? (Should be "antihadessic" so as not to mix Hellenate and Latinate roots)
|
|-
|[[abstinence denial|denier of the effectiveness of abstinence]]
|abstinence-denier?
|
|-
|drive-by media
|partisan slander
|liberal mainstream media assault on the GOP or conservative principles, deceitful attacks for opposing viewpoints
|-
|easily amused by [[deceit]]
|dolophile
|from Greek/Latin root ''dolo-'' meaning guile, deceit, deception [http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/664]
|-
|enemedia
|pressitutes, Democrat Media Complex
|a combination of domestic enemy and media, describing the biased media coordination between Democrats the legacy media
|-
|Faculty lounge liberal
|educrat
|Liberal professors with no real-world job experience, typically hired by Democrat administrations to implement their ideas, like [[Cass Sunstein]].
|-
|family-friendly
|wholesome
|describes TV programming, websites, social events that are not offensive
|-
|Fleebagger
|Oath breakers
|Describes [[liberal]] politicians who avoid their sworn duties as a way to advance their political agenda.
|-
|Hatred of one's country, refusal to recognize the good elements of it, or unreasonably critical of it
|misopatria, misopatrist
|From Greek ''misein'', to hate, and Latin ''patria'', nation or homeland
|-
|heavenly body
|celestial body
|natural objects visible in the sky
|-
|hellbound
|
|recognized by over 1.3 million sites in a Google search and no substitute term is available, yet dictionaries refuse to recognize it
|-
|Hoax and Chains
|[[Keynesian economics]]
|a phonetic play on the rhetoric slogan of Hope and Change. Hope replaced by unemployment and Change represents obsessive tax burdens.
|-
|hoax plant
|fake townhall, kkk teaparty
|a term to describe a deceitful method of placing an operative that appears to be part of a group in order to push an agenda or to make a competing agenda look ridiculous.
|-
|[[Hollywood values]]
|West Coast Hedonism
|Over 800,000 results on Google, not yet recognized by Merriam-Webster
|-
|homo-fascist <ref>[http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1318230 LaBarbera: Apple's action stems from 'homo-facism', OneNewsNow, March 25, 2011]</ref>
|LGBT Stormtrooper, Gay-vangelist
|Guardians of gender identity ideology
|-
|[[Illegal Alien|illegal alien]]
|
|widely used in court decisions and political discourse for years, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it is as a term.
|-
|Ineptocracy
|circle of failure
|a government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing.
|-
|infotainment
|tabloid news, dramacast
|mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Datelin
|-
|[[limited government]]
|we the people democracy
|first testament to this was the [[U.S. Constitution]], defining [[Reagan]]s presidency, can't be found in Merriam-Websters. <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/limited%20government Limited government - Not found] Merriam-Webster's</ref>
|-
|Low-information Voter
|Easily manipulated electorate
|Citizens who base their voting decisions on small issues; contraception, skin color, govt. handouts, etc. instead of character, economic policy, foreign policy.
|-
|manufactured outrage
|fake tears
|liberal politicians and the liberal media's method of stroking anger to pursue an agenda.
|-
|media vigilantism
|soviet-style censorship
|media's public campaign to demonize dissent against people or groups, such as [[Juan Williams]].
|-
|Mediscare
|fear card
|Democrats opposed to entitlement reform use fear to stop changes to Medicare
|-
|merit pay
|performance bonus
|Doing your job better with perks as a reward. The typical liberal union teacher avoids merit pay at all costs, self before students.
|-
|[[militant gays]]
|intimidating homosexual
|
|-
|modern idolatry
|"media idolatry"; "money idolatry"; "celebrity idolatry"
|idolatry conjures images of golden calves, and a modern version is needed
|-
|moral fabric
|domestic tranquility
|ethics and virtues united for the common good of all
|-
|morally bankrupt
|[[atheism]], self-void
|ethically and spiritually challenged souls
|-
|narrative hysteria
|delusional finger-pointing
|a frantic attempt to capitalize on calamity by casting their opponents as somehow responsible for an act of madness and evil
|-
|opposite of [[global warming]]
|regional warming
|the North pole shrinks as the South pole increases
|-
|opposite of [[materialism]]
|spiritualism and idealism have been its philosophical opposites, historically
|[[dualism]] has been suggested, but it is not the ''opposite'' of [[materialism]]; "spiritualism" is not a common term and is the "opposite" of materialism
|-
|[[peer pressure]]
|used in titles to professional journal articles as early as 1994
|can you believe that isn't recognized by Merriam-Webster?
|-
|proven wrong, a refusal to admit it
|mulism; heel-digger?
|cf. mulish. This refusal is what promoted the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]].
|-
|religious right
|Christian conservatives
|religion in America almost exclusively a conservative institution, no religious left term in existence.
|-
|reward failure
|TARP
|too big to fail, bailout bankrupt, mismanagement subsidized
|-
|rewrite history <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/rewrite%20history rewrite history not found, Merriam-Websters]</ref>
|[[deceit]], mislead
|Commonly used term describing liberal deceit to hide, defraud others about factual history.
|-
|rogue states
|rogue nations
|nations defying international law, only rogue is listed in Merriman-Websters
|-
|runaway jury
|The term has existed for decades, but Merriam-Webster has not recognized it yet.
|
|-
|Rule of Law
|
|
|-
|[[schlockumentary]]
|propaganda film
|documentary films based on falsehoods and half-truths
|-
|[[Second generation atheist|second-generation atheist]]
|cradle atheist
|
|-
|selective outrage
|partisan hypocrisy, bipolar
|to be against something to further a cause and reject, stay silent, ignore or discount something similar.
|-
|smear merchant
|serial slander
|to constantly hurl degrading or false accusations against others
|-
|strict constructionism
|
|an important term for over 200 years to describe adherence to the text of the Constitution, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it.
|-
|[[Conservative| Traditional Values]]
| principles of Conservatism
|much the same as family values but incorporating all aspects society; family, religion, self-sufficiency, the truth, hard work. Only listed in Merriam-Websters to describe what Nilihism is against.
|-
|true emergency
|life support
|meaning a high probability of serious injury or death to an individual or property. Emergency has been watered down, e.g. to be locked out of one's car.
|-
|Unaffected by, or impervious to, the media
|mediaproof
|cf. bulletproof. ''Once John became aware of the extent of [[liberal deceit]], he set about mediaproofing his mind''.
|-
|[[Wikipedia]]'s undue influence on people's thinking (eg the [[hearsay society]])
|wikiwashing
|comparable to brainwashing - Wikipedia's claims and procedures become more important than reality or [[logic]].
|-
|}

== Terms Difficult to Classify ==

These new terms are difficult to classify:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[affirmative action|affirmative action]]
|1961
|first used in [http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal6/eo10925.htm JFK's Executive Order 10925] in 1961 and subsequently promoted by [[LBJ]].
|-
|Americanism
|1781
|Originally, a phrase unique to American English, later, loyalty to America and its principles
|-
|bipartisan
|1909
|emphasized by liberals when they are in the minority in power, but ignored by liberals when they are the majority in power
|-
|colonist
|1701
|settlers of a new country
|-
|compartmentalize
|1925
|compartmentalizing the Bible away from knowledge and education leads to ignorance and despair
|-
|contrarian
|1657
|someone who delights in taking a position contrary to others
|-
|eclectic
|1683
|taking the best from among different styles or ideas; compare [[best of the public]]
|-
|evangelism
|1620-30
|"isms" are usually pejorative, though this acquired a positive meaning over time, and perhaps from the outset
|-
|genetics
|1905
|perhaps this should be on the conservative list?
|-
|identity politics
|1988
|exploiting racial, ethnic, gender alliances for political gain
|-
|inane
|1662
|refers to comments, often made by liberals, that are utterly devoid of substance
|-
|junk legislation
|1980s
|used initially by liberals to complain about the lack of meaningful legislation
|-
|missionary
|1635-1645
|conservative?
|-
|multitasking
|1966
|performing multiple tasks all at once
|-
|polar coordinates
|1694
|Newton may have used it earlier
|-
|republican
|1685
|
|-
|reverse engineer
|1973
|to deconstruct a product (or software) in order to understand how it works, often with the purpose of copying it
|-
|scrooge
|1843
|the main character in Charles Dickens' ''A Christmas Carol''; the story is based on materialism and is often used as a substitute for the Biblical account, but charity is a conservative value
|-
|smoke and mirrors
|1982
|describes the use of deceit, particularly in politics; probably a conservative term, but will await more etymology about it
|-
|soapbox
|1907
|now used pejoratively, but probably not initially when it was a way for the public to participate
|-
|states' rights
|1790
|liberals often invoke this too; Democrats were its biggest champions in the 1800s (in connection with slavery), and even today on issues like legalizing drugs and same-sex marriage
|-
|technocrat
|1932
|technical expert
|-
|telecommute
|1974<ref>The first use of this term was in the British magazine ''The Economist''.</ref>
|a combination of a Greek root ("tele", which means "far off") and a Latin root ("commutare", which means "to exchange")
|-
|toady
|1826
|a toady caves into peer pressure to seek acceptance by others: "the largest gathering of toadies is by college students herded into Obama campaign rallies"
|-
|tomfoolery
|1812
|playful or foolish behavior
|-
|traditionalism
|1856
|"beliefs of those opposed to [[modernism]], [[liberalism]], or [[radicalism]]"
|-
|[[twilight zone]]
|1949
|the realm of imagination that seems impossible but is difficult to disprove, and which challenges ordinary views of reality; also the terminator between night and day on a planetary body
|-
|Whip<ref>In its political usage.</ref>
|late 1800s
|An elected position in each political party for the legislator responsible for gathering and confirming support for the party position on particular bills. This term is derived from "whipper-in," which in fox-hunting refers to the man who prevents hunting dogs from straying amid a chase.<ref>http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/11/durbin_re-elected_number_two_s.html</ref>
|-
|wiki
|1995
|a website (or website software) that facilitates contributions and corrections by the public
|-
|working class
|1789
|those who work regular, 40-hour weeks in manual labor, such as factory jobs
|-
|}

== Downgraded Conservative Terms ==

These conservative terms are less significant:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|byzantine
|1794<ref>The usage here -- in sense of complex governmental rules -- probably developed later.</ref>
|
|-
|connive
|1601
|to pretend ignorance
|-
|eleemosynary
|1616
|relating to charity
|-
|[[entropy]]
|1868
|disorder
|-
|[[filibuster]]
|1851
|
|-
|incandescent
|1794
|bright and radiant, conquering darkness, precursor to the invention of the incandescent lamp (light bulb)
|-
|jabberwocky
|1902
|talking nonsense
|-
|level playing field
|1977
|A term originally used to describe fair, competitive [[free market]] conditions.<ref>http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/228650.html</ref> Liberal policies such as [[affirmative action]] and [[progressive taxation]] have been enacted in the name of leveling the playing field, but by favoring certain groups of people these policies do the opposite.
|-
|luddite
|1811
|one who opposes and even destroys technological advances
|-
|media
|1923
|
|-
|[[milquetoast]]
|1933
|timid and unassertive; easily persuaded or exploited; inspired by Caspar Milquetoast, the unassertive character in "The Timid Soul" cartoon strip by Harold T. Webster, which ran in the New York Herald Tribune on Sundays beginning in 1924.
|-
|normalcy
|1920
|related to the election of [[Warren G. Harding]] by the largest margin yet in history
|-
|ne'er-do-well
|1736
|"an idle worthless person" - Merriam-Webster
|-
|reticent
|1834
|restrained in expression, presentation, or appearance
|-
|self-indulgence
|1753
|
|-
|smart aleck
|1856
|an obnoxiously conceited and self-assertive person with pretensions to being superior to others. Etymology: Aleck, nickname for Alexander <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smart%20alec Smart Aleck Merriam-Websters]</ref>
|-
|welfare to work
|1978<ref>[http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=mUUuAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MlkEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7129,542675&dq=welfare-to-work&hl=en]</ref>
|refers to reforms curtailing welfare abuse and providing incentives to work rather than earn a government paycheck
|-
|}

== Sources ==

*[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ Merriam-Webster dictionary]
*[http://dictionary.reference.com/ Dictionary.com]

== See also ==

*[[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]]
*[[Essay:New Liberal Terms]]
*[[Essay:Surprising Dates of Origin for Terms]]
*[[Linguistic Analysis of Candidates]]
*[[Conservative Bible Project]]
*[[Secularized Language‎]]

{{Conservatism}}
{{Conservapedia}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Essays]]
[[Category:Conservative Bible]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:Best of Conservapedia]]

Banach-Tarski Paradox

2013-03-16T21:35:21Z

RSchlafly: /* Interpretation */ "real world" was ambiguous

The '''Banach-Tarski paradox''' is that statement that a sphere can be cut into 5 [[Non-measurable set|non-measurable sets of points]], which can then be reassembled into two spheres of equal volume. It is called a paradox because it violates our physical intuition that this is impossible; however, it should be noted that the "cuts" necessary are infinitely small and precise, and thus cannot be performed by man. It is very similar to the [[Vitali set]], which was developed to illustrate possible flaws in using the [[Axiom of Choice]] (an element of [[Zermelo-Fraenkel]] set theory) in order to prove mathematical claims. Since the Vitali set is less easily discussed with a layman, the Banach-Tarski paradox is often used to illustrate the "weirdness" of the Axiom of Choice.

This paradox -- or insight -- bears a striking resemblance to the multiplication of the loaves, which is the only miracle described in all four [[Gospels]].

==The Mathematics Behind It==
{{math-h}}

===Theorem===

All sets discussed here are point sets in three dimensional, flat (ie, normal, everyday) space. A point set is just that - a set of points.

A '''rigid motion''' of a set is a movement of the whole set one one direction, or a rotation, or a composition of those two kinds of motion. That is to say, the set doesn't bend or get broken up. A rigid motion of a set <math>A \ </math> is often written <math>g(A) \ </math>.

Let <math>A, B \ </math> be sets. We say there is a '''rigid body equivalence''' <math>A \cong B \ </math> if <math>A \ </math> can be partitioned into finitely many sets <math>A_1, ..., A_n \ </math> and there are <math>n \ </math> rigid motions <math>g_1, ..., g_n \ </math> such that <math>g_1(A_1) \cup ... \cup g_n(A_n) = B \ </math>.

We say there exists a '''paradoxical decomposition''' of a set <math>A \ </math> if <math>A = B \cup C \ </math>, and <math>A\cong B \ </math> and <math>A\cong C \ </math>.

The Banach-Tarski theorem (aka the Banach-Tarski paradox) states that the solid ball admits a paradoxical decomposition.

===Removing Points with Rigid Body Motions===

First, let's examine why a circle is rigid-body equivalent to a circle with a point removed. We'll work in the plane, for now.

Pick an irrational number <math>\alpha \ </math>, and let <math>R_\alpha \ </math> be the rigid motion which is rotation by <math>\alpha \ </math> degrees counterclockwise. Now we pick a point in the circle <math>P \ </math> and we form an infinite "necklace" <math>\left\{{P, R_\alpha(P), R_{2\alpha}(P), ... }\right\} \ </math>. It is clear that this necklace must be infinite, because if there was any <math>n \ </math> such that <math>R_{n\alpha}(P)=P \ </math>, then <math>\alpha \ </math> would not be irrational.

Since our necklace is a [[Countable Set|countable set]] and the circle is uncountable, there are points in the circle which are not in the necklace. So we partition the circle into two sets, the necklace, and everything left over. Observe that by performing the rigid motion <math>R_\alpha \ </math> on the necklace, we simply get <math>\left\{{R_\alpha(P), R_{2\alpha}(P), ... }\right\} \ </math>, that is, all the original points remain exactly where they were, except now the first point is gone. Re-combining the rotated necklace with those points not in the necklace gives us a circle with a point removed.

With this procedure, it becomes a simple matter to remove a point from the sphere or the interior of a ball - just pick a circle lying in the sphere or ball which contains the point you wish to remove, and partition the sphere or ball into three pieces - the necklace, the rest of the circle the necklace is on, and the everything in the sphere or ball which isn't in that circle.
----
Removing countably many points from a circle is a trickier matter. Let <math>A = \left\{{ a_1, a_2, ... }\right\} \ </math> be countable set of points in the circle, where it is understood that the <math>\alpha \ </math> measure the degree of the angle the point can be found at. We construct a set <math>W = \left\{{ \frac{a_m-a_k}{n}:(m,k,n)\in \mathbb{N}^3 }\right\} \ </math>, which is also a countable set, since it is in one-to-one correspondence with the three dimensional lattice.

Make sure you understand the content of <math>W \ </math>. If the first few values of <math>A = \left\{{6,2\sqrt{3},\frac{e}{\pi}, ... }\right\} \ </math>, then <math>W \ </math> contains, among other things, <math>6-2\sqrt{3}, (2\sqrt{3}-\frac{e}{\pi})/653, \ </math> etc. Now, since <math>W \ </math> is countable, and the angles of <math>\mathbb{S}^1 \ </math> are uncountable, there is an angle in <math>\mathbb{S}^1 \ </math> which is not in <math>W \ </math>. Pick one such angle, and call it <math>\theta \ </math>. This is our magic rotation angle.

Note that if we rotate <math>A \ </math> by an angle not in <math>W \ </math>, it is guaranteed to not carry any point in <math>A \ </math> to any other point in <math>A \ </math> because of our clever definition. Rotation by <math>\theta \ </math>, for example, cannot carry <math>a_7 \ </math> to <math>a_{11} \ </math>, because then <math>\theta = a_{11}-a_7 \in W \ </math>, but we specifically said <math>\theta \notin W \ </math>. Furthermore, 12 rotations of <math>\theta \ </math> could never carry <math>a_7 \ </math> to <math>a_{11} \ </math>, because then <math>\theta = \frac{a_{11}-a_7}{12} \ </math>, but that's in <math>W \ </math> too, since we constructed it to contain not just all the differences of angles in <math>A \ </math>, but all the fractions of those differences as well.

So we construct the infinite super-necklace <math>T = A \cup R_\theta(A) \cup R_{2\theta}(A) ... \ </math> and finally, observe that <math>R_\theta(T) = R_\theta(A) \cup R_{2\theta}(A) \cup ... = T-A \ </math>.

We form the partition <math>\mathbb{S}^1 = T \cup (\mathbb{S}^1-T) \ </math> and then note <math>R_\theta(T) \cup (\mathbb{S}^1 - T) = \mathbb{S}^1 - A \ </math> and we have shown that <math>\mathbb{S}^1 \cong \mathbb{S}^1 - A \ </math>
----
Let's now move back to three dimensional space. Removing countably many points from a sphere is similar, except now we are using the longitudes of the points, with respect to some axis that doesn't pass through any of the points of <math>A \ </math>. A tricky technical matter arises: how do we know such an axis exists?

This is simple! Since <math>A \ </math> is countable, so is the union of <math>A \ </math> and all the antipodes of <math>A \ </math>, which means there are points not in this union. By design, neither are the antipodes of such points.

===The Free Group===

Before attempting to understand the free group, it would be very beneficial to the reader to have and understanding of a [[Group (mathematics)|mathematical group]].

Let <math>a,a',b,b' \ </math> be "letters." We will form "words" by stringing finitely many of these letters together, subject to just a few simplification rules: <math>aa' = a'a = bb' = b'b= e \ </math>, where <math>e \ </math> is the identity, shorthand for the "word" of zero letters.

We state without proof that such words form a group under "concatenation," or stringing back to back, ie, <math>aab' * bab' = aab'bab' = aaab' \ </math>. By using exponents, ie, <math>aaa = a^3 \ </math>, each word has a unique spelling.

This is called <math>F_2 \ </math>, the free group on two generators. Any group structured like this, in which ''a'' and ''b'' have infinite order and are independent, (ie, no combination of ''a'' and ''b'' form ''e'') is this group. We can picture this group graphically, with ''a'' and ''b'' axes:
[[Image:free group.jpg|center|thumb|500px|This depiction demonstrates words of up to four letters; a graphical depiction is [[fractal]] in a fairly obvious fashion.]]

===Paradoxical Decomposition of the Free Group===
[[Image:Free group decomp.jpg|right|200px|thumb|U,L, and D are within the ovals. R is what is left over.]]
Why are we talking about the free group? It is important for two reasons, the first of which is that it admits a "paradoxical decomposition", if we allow such a notion to refer to the graphical representation of it above. We begin by partioning the group as <math>F_2 = U \cup D \cup L \cup R \ </math>, where the sets <math>U,D,L,R \ </math> are those described in the image to the right.

Consider <math>b'(U) = \left\{{b'u : u \in U }\right\} \ </math>. Since every element of ''U'' starts with <math>b^k \ </math>, followed by a letter <math>a, a' \ </math>, and then some other letters, every element of <math>b'(U) \ </math> starts with <math>b, a, \ </math> or <math>a' \ </math> - that is, three of the four trees of <math>F_2 \ </math>! The only thing missing is <math>D \ </math>. Thus, <math>b'(U) \cup D = F_2 \ </math>. Likewise, <math>a'(R) \cup L = F_2 \ </math>. Hence, we have something akin to a "paradoxical decomposition" of the free group.

===A Geometric Model of the Free Group===
You may be unimpressed by this, since the free group isn't really a geometric object. If you recall, we said earlier that the free group was important for two reasons, and one of them was that it had a paradoxical decomposition. We now discuss the second reason.

Consider the unit sphere in ''xyz'' space. Pick a point on the sphere ''P'', and let <math>a \ </math> mean rotation of this point counterclockwise around the ''x''-axis by <math>\theta \ </math>, and <math>b \ </math> mean rotation around the ''z''-axis counterclockwise by that same angle <math>\theta \ </math>. If we define <math>\theta \ </math> so that <math>\cos(\theta) = 1/3 \ </math>, it turns out that this is precisely the free group <math>F_2 \ </math> if we define <math>ab \ </math> to mean first doing one rotation, then the other, and <math>a',b' \ </math> to be clockwise rotations respectively.

The isomorphism between this group, with <math>\theta = \arccos(1/3) \ </math> and so on, is not easy, and requires some hard linear algebra. It will not be given here.

From now on, we will use <math>\mathbb{F} \ </math> to refer to this group of rotations on the sphere.

===The Axiom of Choice===
Before continuing to a complete proof, we must discuss the [[Axiom of Choice]]. The axiom states than given any collection of sets (possibly infinitely many sets - possibly uncountably many sets!), there exists a set which contains exactly one element of each.

===The Banach-Tarski Construction===

We begin by removing the center of the unit ball by choosing some circle in the ball which contains the center, and using the method by which we removed a point from the circle earlier. Now that we have done this, we can work on the surface of the ball, <math>\mathbb{S}^2 \ </math>, by understanding that everything we do on the surface can extend downward to the interior of the ball in a ray towards the center.

Now we define the '''orbit''' of a point ''x'' of the sphere under the operations of the free group to be <math>\mathbb{F}(x) \ </math>. For almost all the points on the surface, this will yield a copy of the free group, except a couple of bad points: for example, the "north pole" is fixed under the ''b'' operation. So define <math>B=\left\{{x\in\mathbb{S}^2: \exists r\in\mathbb{F}, (r\neq e) \and (r(x)=x) }\right\} \ </math>, that is, the set of all the points on the sphere which are held still by some rotation in <math>F_2 \ </math>.

Since B is countable, and we can remove any countable set of points from the sphere, remove this set: <math>\mathbb{S}^2 - B \ </math>.

Now we define an orbit equivalence relation: for two points <math>x,y \in \mathbb{S}^2-B \ </math>, define <math>x \sim y \ </math> whenever <math>x \ </math> and <math>y \ </math> are in the same orbit, ie, <math>\exists r \in \mathbb{F}:r(x)=y \ </math>. We state without proof that this ''is'' an equivalence relation and thus partitions <math>\mathbb{S}^2-B \ </math> into equivalence classes, which will be disjoint. Note there will be uncountably many orbits, since each only has countably many points and the union of all orbits covers the uncountable set <math>\mathbb{S}^2 - B \ </math>.

Using the axiom of choice, we pick a single point from each orbit and call this set <math>W \ </math>. Note that <math>\mathbb{F}(W) = \mathbb{S}^2 - B \ </math>.

Make sure you understand the notation: <math>\mathbb{F} \ </math> is a set of rotations, <math>W \ </math> is a set of points, and <math>\mathbb{F}(W) \ </math> is the set of points resulting from applying every rotation in <math>\mathbb{F} \ </math> to every point in <math>W \ </math>. Similarly we will be defining <math>U,D,L,R \ </math> as sets of rotations and <math>U(x),\ </math> etc. as the point <math>x \ </math> rotated by all the points in <math>U \ </math>.

Let's define <math>U_* = U(W), D_* = D(W), L_*(W), R_*(W) \ </math>. Obviously, <math>U_* \cup D_* \cup L_* \cup R_* = \mathbb{S}^2 - B \ </math>. But we remember <math>b'(U)\cup D = F \ </math>. This immediately yields:

<math>b'(U_*)\cup D_* = b'(U(W)) \cup D(W) = (b'(U) \cup D)(W) = \mathbb{F}(W) = \mathbb{S}^2-B \ </math>.

Since we also had <math>a'(U) \cup r = F_2 \ </math>, we have <math>b'(L_*)\cup R_* = \mathbb{S}^2 - B \ </math>.

Hence <math>U_* \cup D_* \cong \mathbb{S}^2 - B \ </math> and <math>L_* \cup D_* \cong \mathbb{S}^2 - B \ </math>, a paradoxical decomposition of <math>\mathbb{S}^2-B \ </math>. Since we've already shown that <math>\mathbb{S}^2-B \ </math> is rigid-body equivalent to <math>\mathbb{S}^2 \ </math>, this proves the Banach-Tarski paradox.

==Interpretation==
Some view the Banach-Tarski paradox as an absurd result, and evidence that the [[Axiom of Choice]] is false. This is the reaction of many non-mathematicians upon hearing this result. However, as one grows in mathematical understanding one finds it is impossible to avoid - mathematicians have learned to accept the existence of [[non-measurable set]]s, even though these do not match solid objects in the real world.

==External Links==
*[http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Banach-TarskiParadox.html Banach-Tarski Paradox] at MathWorld

[[Category:Set Theory]]
[[Category:geometry]]

Natural number

2013-02-23T18:35:48Z

RSchlafly: 0 is a natural number. there is no dispute.

In [[mathematics]], a '''"natural" number''' is a number from the set {0,1,2,3,...}.<ref>0 is usually included in the list of natural numbers in modern textbooks (Bourbaki 1968, Halmos 1974). Older books sometimes exclude [[zero]], as there is a long history of people thinking that zero is unnatural or not really a number. [[Bertrand Russell]] remarked on the trend to include zero in his 1919 book.[http://jeff560.tripod.com/n.html] Ribenboim (1996) states "Let P be a set of natural numbers; whenever convenient, it may be assumed that 0 in P." [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NaturalNumber.html (Wolfram)] </ref> Natural numbers were used initially for [[counting]] ("there are three cows in this field"), but they took on the purpose of ordering as well ("She is the 2nd fastest person alive). These are specific instances of the more general notions of [[cardinality]] and [[ordinality]] which slowly become more complicated as one treats [[infinite]] numbers as well.

==Axiomatization==
In the late 19th century, [[Giuseppe Peano]] (August 27, 1858 – April 20, 1932) elaborated ''the'' axiomatic system for the Natural Numbers, later named [[Peano's Axioms|Peano Axioms]] in his honor.

==Reference==
<references/>

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2013-02-03T00:54:17Z

RSchlafly: /* My problems with making any statistical conclusions */ revisit this at the end of the 21st century

'''[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]''' 
'''[[/archive2 | Archive 2 ]]''' 
'''[[/archive3 | Archive 3 ]]'''
----

== 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)"

== Page dividing ==

Due to the success of this essay, it's really slow, so can I split it into pages by century of origin? This would allow the page to load faster and be easier to navigate. Any thoughts on the idea? [[User:BenDylan|BenDylan]] 20:09, 14 April 2011 (EDT)
:I'd like to see it be broken up by century and automatically numbered. I'm not sure that breaking it up into many pages would facilitate more than inconvenience. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:55, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

==Audit==
I'm getting 25,48,100,201,17 as the counts. If so, this wouldn't be the first time I've seen them wrong. As I mentioned above, we should consider breaking the list up by century to help avoid counting errors. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 18:37, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

== Word for 1700's ==
Could belittle be the word we are looking for to perfect the list? It was coined in 1785 by Thomas Jefferson himself, and is certainly a way to describe an action often done by liberals to protect their ideas. [[User:JoshuaL|JoshuaL]] 19:34, 28 April 2011 (EDT)
:Joshua, I'm inclined to agree, as Jefferson likely coined the term in response to critics trying to deceptively minimize issues he raised. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 02:07, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

::Not sure "belittle" is conservative. But how about "axiomatic"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:20, 30 April 2011 (EDT)
If you're still looking for an 18th century word, 'nationalist' would fit well - it's a core conservative value, synonymous with 'patriot', the antithesis of 'internationalist', and one of the defining features of the 18th century. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:17, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

== Liberal creep ==

How do we reconcile this with liberal creep? If language is becoming more conservative, why is opinion and perception becoming more liberal? Do liberals or conservatives dictate the terms of the national conversation? If someone could take a look at the two phenomena and find out what makes one move in one direction and the other in the opposite, it would make a great essay. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 15:05, 8 May 2011 (EDT)
:I've also brought this up for discussion [[Talk:Essay:Conservapedia's_Law#Putting_Conservapedia.27s_Law_in_perspective|here]]. Conservapedia's Law, the observation that conservative insights double over time, is clearly incomplete, perhaps even flawed. I agree that there could be a complex relationship between liberal creep and Conservapedia's Law and it is worth investigating. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 15:15, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

== Graph of words over time ==

While I was drawing graphs, I wrote a quick script to generate a graph of the data in this page. [http://static.inky.ws/image/405/image.jpg This graph] shows the growth in conservative terms year-by-year, rather than just per-century. The red line is the data from this page, the green line is a quadratic curve. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:59, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:Wow, that's a spectacular graph! Can you give permission for me to include it in the entry page?

:The graph disproves the theory that there were bursts of new words during certain periods. I'll remove that from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
::Please do use the graph as you see fit. I can generate new graphs from the latest data with no trouble at all, so if you'd like it can be updated periodically. I'm currently trying to find a suitably analogous source of data for liberal words/ideas, which would allow comparative analysis. This kind of data is very interesting as it seems to avoid the short-term political cycles which characterize much of popular discourse, focusing on the really significant point of the growth of ideas. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:59, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

:::I posted the graph and your idea is marvelous. However, I don't think the graph is completely accurate: the curve for the actual data should intersect the predicted curve at each turning of the centuries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:45, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

:::*Is the green curve really a fit for the data according to Aschlafly's theory? I mean, Jcw says ''the green line is a quadratic curve'' - at best it's a second approximation for the geometric curve...
:::*Personally, I find quite hard to judge the existance of ''bursts'' from a [[cdf]]. Perhaps Jcw could create a histogram - perhaps for decades?
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:30, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
::::You both raise valid points, which hopefully will be answered soon. Andy and August both mention that the x^2 curve isn't a perfect fit - it certainly isn't, and I'm pretty sure a 2^x curve with appropriate constants will fit better; I'm planning to do that tonight. August mentions different ways of representing the data - I'll happily produce a histogram of the data if that'd be interesting, but the reason for plotting it as I have is to produce a curve that I can use for my more grandiose scheme, of which more later. My background is not so much in statistics - although I've done a fair bit of that - but in purer maths, so my thinking is mostly based around the relationships between smooth(-ish) functions. That may not be the best way to deal with these data qua data, but to extract patterns for further, more abstract work, it's ideal. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:43, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
::::[http://static.inky.ws/image/412/image.jpg Et voila], a better fit. This is an exponential curve fitted to the same data. Note that it fits much better in the region with the most words, but is a bit out for the earlier period where there are fewer words in the list. This is because we can more easily find suitable words from more recent periods, so naturally the pattern is most exact there. No doubt if we could go through a large, representative corpus and extract words uniformly, it would fit nicely all the way along. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:25, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::'''@Aschlafly: ''' Could you recount the words? My count gave me 26-51-103-210-18 (Sum: 408) instead of 26-52-103-208-18 (Sum: 407). Perhaps a fourth column for the century (or even better, the decade) could be added? That would make it much easier to keep track of the numbers!

:::::'''@Jcw: ''' I don't think that your ''better fit'' is the function which Aschlafly has in mind: it should be <math>F_{theo}(t) = \frac{\#words }{15}</math><math>(2^{\frac{t-1599}{100}}-1)</math>, where ''#words'' is the number of words created before 2000, i.e., 390. This function touches/intersects the empirical cdf at the turn of each century, a fact which betrays the biased method of looking for these words.

:::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:12, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::August, so you've constructed a function which you claim 'betrays the biased method of looking for these words'? I'd be interested to see a more thorough explanation of that point. Another editor has attempted a similar argument above, but without success. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:42, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::::August, I have an open mind about this. I don't see how we could so easily find [[conservative]] words that double by century if the underlying pattern were not there. But please explain if you think that is in error.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:27, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

I hope we can agree on the function ''Ftheo'' - it should be uncontroversial:

*one layer exists from 1 - 2 - 4 - 8 words, i.e., 20, 21,22 and 23
*the partial sums are 1 - 3 - 7 - 15, i.e., 21-1, 22-1, 23-1, and 24-1
*so, with the turn of the n-th century, there should be 2n+1-1 words
*for K layers, the number is K * (2n+1-1). Each layer has 15 words, thus, if there are '''N''' feasible words, the number of layers is '''N'''/15
*now adjust for years instead of centuries, and don't start with the first, but with the 17th, and you get the formula <math>F_{theo}(t) = \frac{\#words }{15}</math><math>(2^{\frac{t-1599}{100}}-1)</math>.

'''@jcw: ''' ''Another editor has attempted a similar argument above, but without success.'' I read the sections above, and I ''was'' convinced by the argument.

'''@Aschlafly:''' ''I don't see how we could so easily find [[conservative]] words that double by century if the underlying pattern were not there.'' The effects of the miscount ([[Talk:Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words#PERFECTION: 20-40-80-160 BY CENTURY]]) have shown that you are able to match any pattern you were looking for.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:11, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

August's contrary theory aside, here's an interesting consequence of this trend: [http://static.inky.ws/image/421/image.jpg this graph] shows the curve from above in green, an hypothetical linear growth of liberalism ([liberal creep], in blue) and the effect of the latter on the former (in red). Note how the red line - the net effect of liberal and conservative ideas - falls for a while, reaching a minimum in the twentieth century before shooting up. This is because the exponential growth of conservatism is slower at first that the linear growth of liberalism, but gets very much faster later on, easily overtaking the linear function and increasing to infinity. Obviously the liberalism line is hypothetical, but it's interesting nonetheless. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:41, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

:That's remarkably insightful. In other words, the combination of linear [[liberal creep]] and the geometric growth rate of [[Best New Conservative Words]] results in a liberal trend for a while (until the [[Great Depression]]), and then a rapidly increasing conservative trend thereafter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:16, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

::Exactly. The precise shape of the final curve depends on the values assumed for the [[liberal creep]] line, but any reasonable values give a final curve with much the same shape. It agrees rather remarkably with the observed facts, especially as nothing in the calculations refers to historical events at all. Purely linguistic inputs produce an undeniably historical result, demonstrating the power of language very clearly. As ever, feel free to use the graph however you please. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:48, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

::: I am skeptical that the complexities of human society and political philosophies can be summed up simply as an exponential function minus a linear function. What evidence is there that this [[liberal creep]] is linear? How is that even quantified? Does this hypothesis make any specific predictions, in order to make it [[falsifiable]] and thus scientific? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 02:09, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: Good questions. I'll consider them (as others probably will also) and reply after some thought.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:15, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: Good questions indeed. The immediate answer is 'no': of course all the complexities of human society can't be summed up as simply as this. Quantifying complex abstract phenomena is a very rough business, most especially on a short timescale. The goal of my graphs isn't to present concrete mathematical laws, or anything like them, but just to illustrate a conceptual relationship using mathematics.
:::: To answer your specific questions:
:::: * 'how is that even quantified?': Crudely and by guesswork, like many first attempts in all sciences, especially those relating to human activity. The crude guess is justified by the answer to:
:::: * 'Does this hypothesis make any specific predictions...': In one way, the hypothesis is supported by the same kind of evidence as is used to defend evolution - the hypothesis I've produced now gives results which agree with events in the past. As we all agree, that's not the best kind of evidence, but in this case it's rather compelling. Secondly, it does make concrete predictions - indeed, it makes an inescapable prediction which can't be fudged or avoided - the 'conservatism' curve increases very rapidly to infinity, rather than going up and down or settling into a steady state. This suggests a discontinuity in the future, where the level of conservatism rises to something quite outside our experience. I'm not sure what that would look like, but I think we'd recognize it if we saw it. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:49, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: In furtherance of Jcw's remarks, it is perhaps easier to study the development of language and politics, which are closely related to each other, than it is to study and predict ... the weather. Nobody had a problem with [[Al Gore]] trying to predict the weather, so why object when a simpler task is undertaken?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:01, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::: @Jcw How specifically does your graph "agree with events in the past"? Also, the claim that "the level of conservatism rises to something quite outside our experience" is not a specific prediction. I'm not even sure what that means. Finally, in [http://static.inky.ws/image/421/image.jpg your graph] what does the y-axis represent? Words? Aschlafly above links the exponential function to the growth of conservative terms. If so, why is [[liberal creep]] linear? Is there any empirical or theoretical reason to believe this? Looking at [[Essay:New_Liberal_Terms|liberal terms]] by century it seems like liberal terms are also growing exponentially, even though the article claims they don't grow "geometrically" and are "heavily influenced by culture". In any case, it doesn't look linear. Wouldn't the diminishing intelligence of humans mean liberal terms would be growing quickly?
:::::: @Aschlafly Weather and climate are distinct things. I don't think anyone believes Al Gore is a climate scientist qualified to make scientific predictions, only a spokesman. Many people do have a problem with him and the whole idea of climate change.
:::::: Also, human beings are extremely complicated and it isn't obvious to me that accurately predicting and quantifying the political philosophy of a complex society is much simpler than either meteorology or climatology. Even if the development of politics and language are closely related (I'm not sure they are), why would studying them be necessarily be a simpler task than studying climates?--[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:39, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

(unindent)Matthew: now you're asking questions that have already been answered or are clear from the context. I note that your edits on this site are almost exclusively to talk pages; may we assume that you are here simply to argue rather than to contribute? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:44, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

The interesting question is, what would an (effectively) infinite level of conservatism look like? I'm afraid I don't know enough about the US to answer that: over here 'conservatism' looks a great deal like US liberalism... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:32, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

: One characteristic of infinite conservatism might be when it is impossible to notice a difference in the level of service and attitude between government and a perfectly competitive industry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:18, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
:: In a perfectly conservative society, would there be any need for government as we now know it? I suppose there are limits to how conservative a society can be in a fallen world... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:52, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Conservatives aren't [[libertarian]]s or [[anarchist]]s, so a '''''limited''''' government would exist ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:48, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: I'm sorry, I still don't understand what 'infinite conservatism' means. Perhaps an article detailing how conservatism can be quantified and what happens in the limit as it approaches infinity would help. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 21:32, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: That's an interesting idea, Matthew. I think that in the US conservatism is closely correlated with Evangelical Christianity, which is not at all the case here in the UK, where our conservatives are more likely to belong to the Church of England - a decidedly liberal institution by US standards. Andy's suggestion above is concise, but if you think about it it's a very acute description of a hypothetical perfectly conservative government. I shudder to think what a perfectly liberal government would be like. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:33, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Jcw, your description of US conservatism compared with the UK is interesting, and I've thought about it. While certainly there are more evangelicals here than there, not all are conservative. Moreover, the cause-and-effect is less than clear: does the conservative nature of America allow evangelicalism to develop more fully than in a liberal nation? If so, there still remains an underlying mystery of why America is more conservative than the UK.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, a very interesting question. Our two nations have a great deal of shared history, but today are vastly different in fundamental ways. I think the Reformation is particularly important in this context - the UK experienced it directly, while the nascent US only experienced the aftereffects; the US was never a Catholic nation in the Mediaeval sense. Another - perhaps related - aspect is the persistence of monarchy in the UK compared to its outright rejection by the US. There's a lot to be said on this topic, so I'll begin an essay with some of my thoughts and see how it compares with a US view. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:39, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Please do start an essay on this, hopefully here so that I can contribute to it too! Religious differences between the US and the UK are surely part of the explanation for the political differences, but I think there is more to it than that. [[Federalism]], for example, prevents [[liberals]] from gaining control over the US, while that protection does not exist in the UK. I will say this: the UK media is much more free with respect to American politics than the American press is!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:13, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

'''@Jcw: ''' What are the parameters of your interpolating function? And how did you calculate them? Could you also display:

:<math>F_{theo}(t) = \frac{\#words }{15}</math><math>(2^{\frac{t-1599}{100}}-1)</math>

And why not use these paramaters - they are the direct result of applying Aschlafly's rule of doubling-by-century...

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:08, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

August, if you'd like to do those calculations, please feel free - the data isn't kept secret, it's right there on the page. If you'd like to see another presentation of it, go ahead. I'm very happy to explain things - and to justify my choices! - to well-meaning editors with genuine questions, but you seem to be on the wrong side of every argument around here, as if you're deliberately disagreeing for the sake of it. The amount of time and attention you're willing to give to criticizing other people's ideas is remarkable. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:35, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

: Well put, Jcw. Actually, the entries begin with the year 1612, after the publication of the [[KJV]] and the completion of nearly all of [[Shakespeare]]'s works. So August's date in his exponent appears wrong, but your graph is correct in show an intersection with the x-axis over a decade after 1600.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:45, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

'''@Jcw:''' ''August, if you'd like to do those calculations, please feel free - the data isn't kept secret, it's right there on the page.'' I can't reproduce your calculations as there is not enough data: You say that it is a fit, but you don't explain how you fitted it:
::#How did you treat words like ''atheistic'' (1625-1635), ''deadweight loss'' (1930s) and ''design by committee'' (before 1958)
::#Which kind of fit did you use? For me, Maximum-Likelihood would be an obvious choice.
::#Which family of functions did you look at? Obviously a*2^x. Why not a*2^x+b?
::#Did you use any weights? Which ones (or why not)?
All these choices result in different interpolating functions. So, which choices did you make and what was your result?

''If you'd like to see another presentation of it, go ahead. I'm very happy to explain things - and to justify my choices! - to well-meaning editors with genuine questions'' Obviously I won't promise ''not'' to criticize your choices. Does this make me a not-well-meaning editor?

''You seem to be on the wrong side of every argument around here'' I seem to be constantly on the other side than you are. Doesn't make my side always wrong!

'''@Aschlafly: ''' ''Well put, Jcw.'' Do you condone the policy to share data only with those who you expect not to criticize it? When reading [[Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog]] and its talk page, I got quite another impression!

''So August's date in his exponent appears wrong, but your graph is correct in show an intersection with the x-axis over a decade after 1600'' Jcw's graph (the green line!) doesn't intersect the x-axis at ~1610. I doubt that it intersects the x-axis at all! The red line shows the empirical data, so of course it begins at 1612 with the first word found - though ''obambulate'' (1600) is the oldest word in the table, and seems to be always counted in the ''perfect counts''. OTOH, the graph which I proposed intersects the x-axis at the turn of the 16th century, and crosses the empirical curve at the turn of each century (whether you shift the function by 1599 or 1600 is just a matter of taste...).

== Americanadians ==

How about 'Americanadians'? I've observed many good Americans being influenced by the blatant propaganda of our socialist neighbors, and starting to espouse their flawed line of thought. What do others think? Let me know.

== Claptrap ==

I suggest "claptrap." I'm surprised it's not on the list already. --[[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 00:20, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:Superb suggestion! I'll add it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:45, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

::It was already on the list. I added an 1800s term instead.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:10, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== free speech ==

Perhaps I simply fail to understand the context you provided, but is free speech really a "conservative word?" Terms like "political correctness" and "obamacare" are undeniably conservative (to the point where liberals won't use them), but free speech is at best non-partisan, and at worst (I am attempting to write from a conservative viewpoint- I may fail miserably at this) a term co-opted by liberals to justify their perversions and excesses. </attempt to write from conservative viewpoint>--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 01:20, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:You raise a valid point. But isn't it the conservatives who protect, for example, corporate and many other types of expenditures in elections as "free speech"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:28, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
::Indeed, you are correct. But I think it's fair to say now that it is a word used by conservatives as well as liberals to represent their agendas. I do not know how this factors into this particular list--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 02:13, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:::I'll continue to think about your valid criticism. Maybe I can search Supreme Court opinions and see who is using the term "free speech" most. I don't think [[liberals]] are using it as much as [[conservatives]] are today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== Decades ==

I added a column for the decades (rather than for the centuries). I hope this will help to keep the count of the words up-to-date.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:05, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

:I'm not sure how that will help - surely the decade is already contained in the 'year' column? If you'd like a more accurate count, I suggest doing what I do - use a perl script to parse the wikitext and print out whatever information you want. To me the decade column looks annoyingly redundant, but perhaps I've missed something... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:27, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::I wanted to facilitate the count: as some of the dates are not purely numeric (1950s, before 1958, 1625-1635), it's hard to sort the table by the column ''date''. If there is a purely numeric column, the table can be easily copied into a spreadsheet and recounted even by those who don't know anything about regular expressions.

::If you have a script, please use it to keep an eye on the count: I'm surprised that you didn't spot the miscount earlier on.

::I'll add the column for the decades again, this time at the last place. This should be more pleasing...

::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:07, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

I don't know how to upload a picture, so here is an ascii-graphic for the distribution by decades:

*1600: *
*1610: ****
*1620: *****
*1630: *
*1640: ******
*1650: ****
*1660: **
*1670:
*1680: **
*1690: *
*1700: *
*1710: ***
*1720: *****
*1730: ****
*1740: ****
*1750: *****
*1760: ******
*1770: ******
*1780: ********
*1790: *********
*1800: ********
*1810: *********
*1820: ***************
*1830: ***************
*1840: *********
*1850: **********
*1860: **********
*1870: *******
*1880: ************
*1890: **********
*1900: ***********************
*1910: ***********************
*1920: **********************
*1930: *******************
*1940: ***************************
*1950: **************************
*1960: *************************
*1970: ****************
*1980: **********************
*1990: ******
*2000: ***************
*2010: ***

1820/1830,1900/1910, and 1940/1950 seem to be decades in which significantly more conservative terms were created than one would have expected... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:15, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

== Suggested additions ==

Eurabia - what Europe will become if people don't stand up for themselves.

Islamofascism - repressive muslim shariah regimes/totalitarian islamism.

[[User:MeganH|MeganH]] 01:01, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

: Go ahead and add if you have some dates of origin, even if only approximate. I hadn't heard of the first one ("Eurabia") before.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

== Dumpster diving ==

Was 'dumping diving' added because food is not going to waste, or am I misunderstanding why it's conservative? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 09:54, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

:I'll take a stab at it. Conservative words can describe liberal actions. I am not saying dumpster divers are liberal, those poor folks maybe hungry. Dumpster Diving is not limited to food. It's also a method to get trade secrets from companies or dig up dirt against somebody. Most likely, Dumpster Diving is used for deceitful purposes for example gaining a social security number from discarded bills used for the creation of fraudulent IDs. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:06, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

::Great points. This is a list of [[conservative]] terms, often insightful, about activities that may be conservative or liberal, harmful or helpful, or none of the above. Evidently this term was developed by small businessmen to describe an unhelpful activity outside their restaurants and other stores. Dumpster diving may sometimes be the equivalent of recycling or getting a hungry person some food, but in any event '''the term''' is a perfect description of the activity. And once there is a good term for something, then the activity can be understood and addressed better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:39, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

::: Good analysis. But is dumpster diving a conservative act? --[[User:GeorgeZ|GeorgeZ]] 15:53, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Read Andy's post. He specifically says that that does not matter. It was created by conservatives. Therefore it is a conservative word. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:12, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Right that it does not matter whether it is a conservative act. In the case of dumpster diving, whether it is ever conservative depends on what the purpose and effect are. It also doesn't matter if a conservative coined it; a liberal can sing a [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs|conservative song]]. The point is whether the insight is conservative. In this case, small businessmen (a conservative line of work) coined the term to criticize how homeless people were digging through their trash.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:19, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::I see Andy. Thanks for explaining. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:22, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Indeed, one might suggest that liberals have indirectly contributed to the increase in conservative terms by constantly inventing new ways to avoid work and personal responsibility. Conservatives are then, naturally, obligated to develop terms for these behaviors. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:18, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

== 2000s ==
It's fascinating how the new Conservative words and insights do seem to grow geometrically by century, but I'm curious as to why the 2000s seem to be pretty far behind. We're 11 years in, so you'd expect there to be roughly 40 new words so far, but we've got less than half that many. With the rise of the TEA Party, I'd expect to be much closer. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:06, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

: Excellent point. Possible reasons could include that it is too soon to recognize new words in the most recent decade ... or maybe there has been a short-term decline in conservative intellectualism? At any rate, I've been meaning to add the term "Tea Party" itself with its etymology in the last decade!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:12, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

::I have to agree with you, Andy. Even though we're in 2011 now, it might be too early to be able to fully appreciate all the new conservative words created last decade. I think "Tea Party" might just be one of the most important words to add and I think the movement itself will produce a lot of new, conservative words in its own right! [[User:BobSherman|BobSherman]] 19:58, 20 July 2011 (EDT)

:::Very perceptive, Andy. It takes time for the gatekeepers of knowledge to acknowledge the validity of new terms; therefore, while the public production of new conservative insights and terms may be quite rapid, the assimilation of those insights and terms into formal reference works is likely to be much slower. This is, I would suggest, exacerbated by reliance on archaic forms of knowledge dissemination such as print dictionaries.

An interesting side project might be to evaluate dictionaries (both online and print) to see how rapidly they accept and incorporate new conservative words versus new liberal words. In this way, it might be possible to determine which dictionaries are reliable and which are liberally biased. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:19, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

== Help! ==

I tried to archive the page - at least the parts which were from last year, but I totally botched it: my browser can't handle long pages, I have difficulties with the captchas & I created the wrong page for an archive [[Archive 3]] instead of [[Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words/Archive 3]] ([[Archive 3]] should be moved there...)

So I give up... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:58, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:I archived 2010... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:44, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

::Thank you - I had problems with the captchas! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:26, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== Maybe these two ==
Here's two possibilities I found in [[Federal debt limit]], "leveraged loss" and "debt spiral", but I'm not sure how to fit them in. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:01, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== More possibilities... ==

Constructionist (1835-45)
Inalienable (1635-45)
Hubris (1880-1885)
Scientism (1875-1880)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:11, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== Trickle-down? ==

As a descriptor for the trickle-down theory of economics, it dates to 1950-1955. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:43, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

: I think "trickle-down" is pejorative, and thus more a [[liberal]] term than a [[conservative]] one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::If trickle-down is the pejorative would the standard, conservative, phrase be "supply-side"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:53, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Yes, it would - and "supply side" is already on the list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
::::ah, excellent. my work here is done! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:00, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

== Civil body politic ==

"Civil body politic" is an interesting bit of history but does not seem to have caught on as widely used term, and hence would not seem to warrant inclusion in this list. Does anyone disagree?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:43, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Medal of Honor (and other proper names) ==

I'm not sure that a proper name given to an award is inherently conservative-- the Medal itself reflects conservative values of course, but would do so even if had been called, say, the Award of Bravery or the Citation of Courage. "Coolant," "transistor" and "greasy spoon" are all truly conservative both in terms of content and syntax. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 19:50, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:Your point is valid. Perhaps it does not fit this particular list, but I'm reluctant to delete it. Isn't there something conservative about simply recognizing "honor", and calling the medal after the concept, rather than after, say, a liberal politician?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:15, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

==alcoholism ?==
Could you please explain how alcoholism is a conservative word ? Alcoholism is more of a liberal trait.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:24, 17 November 2011 (EST)

:"Alcoholism" is a criticism of excessive drinking, and thus is a conservative word. Words that end in "ism" are often pejoratives, as in "alarmism" and "collectivism" (which are also on the list).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:41, 17 November 2011 (EST)
:: And do you feel the same way about the word "liberalism"?--[[User:JeanB|JeanB]] 21:49, 17 November 2011 (EST)
::: Word that end in -ism are not always pejorative, capitalism is good. And when the words socialism or communism were invented, they were meant to be good.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:53, 17 November 2011 (EST)

==Handout==
1882, I wanted to add this to best new conservative words as it describes a liberal policy of government giveaways. But it also could be the conservative position of helping the poor through charity. Either way it is a conservative word but the proper way to describe alludes me. Op?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 09:28, 25 November 2011 (EST)

:That would a superb addition! It would also leave the list only two 20-century words shy of another perfect doubling by century.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:48, 25 November 2011 (EST)

== Level Playing Field ==

I added the term "level playing field" for two main reasons: 1) It is an intuitive metaphor used in its [http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/228650.html first recorded use] to describe how markets usually work best when they are fair for all participants and free of interference. 2) The term has since been used by liberals to describe policies such as affirmative action, progressive taxation, and government handouts, but it obvious to anyone who looks at these policies objectively that they actually distort the playing field.

I believe that is enough for the term to stand on its own merits, but it looks even more conservative if we compare it to other words on the list such as "motivation," "quantify," or "coolant."

Maybe I have overlooked something and the word does not belong on the list. Comments are welcome. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 21:03, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

:As you point out, the term is often used by liberals, so that makes it a doubtful candidate for "best" new conservative words. The term seems to imply that government is needed to level the playing field. Level playing fields rarely occur in nature, for example. The term almost sounds like the famous "life's not fair" expression ... which is not conservative either.

:"Motivation" is a far more conservative term - one can find motivation whether the playing field islevel or not. "Quantify" is logic, which is an essential difference between conservative and liberal approaches. "Coolant" is an essential part of nuclear energy -- which liberals loathe.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:51, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

== A.M. ==

This entry is an abbreviation for ''ante meridiem'', which originates from 1563 [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ante%20meridiem]. I'm not clear on whether the abbreviation is being claimed as a new conservative word or the phrase for which it stands. Additionally, it is unclear where the given date of origin in the article of 1762 comes from. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:43, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

:The online etymology dictionary gives a date of 1762. Perhaps it's referring to common usage.

:While you're right that the "A" in A.M. is from a Latin word that is different from the "A" in A.D., the popularity of "A.D." could have led to the popularity of "A.M."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:37, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
::Just seen this catch my attention on the mainpage. I highly doubt that the two could be related in any conservative sense. Of course "AD" refers to "In the year of our lord". But back in the 18th century, Latin was still being routinely taught in schools (especially in [[Britain]]), bring us many other Latin abbreviations, such as eg, etc, ie, RIP (from 'requiescat in pace', and later backronymed into 'rest in peace'). I highly doubt the link between any apparent 'popularity' of AD spurred the formation of AM, and personally I'd remove it. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 15:57, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

:::But what percentage of the overall British population learned Latin in school in the 1700s? Perhaps only 10%? Most Latin appreviations did not catch on with the general population the way that "A.M." did. The most plausible explanation is its proximity to "[[A.D.]]"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:19, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
::::Nonetheless etymological creation power lies not with those who use the language the most. One must remember that our records of language from the 1700s (both Britain and America) are not vernacular English of the working classes but written English of those who were educated. This was before widespread adoption of clocks and timepieces, which came later with the [[industrial revolution]] and the railways. Again, I highly disagree that likeness to AM would be a significant contributor. Those that would have used the world in our written records would have been educated in Latin, and would therefore be aware of the etymological roots of '''both''' AM and AD. Since the A stands for '''anno''' and '''ante''' respectively, there is no etymological proximity at all between the two. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 18:35, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::But "A.D." did gain widespread currency with the masses, and then "A.M." became popular in a similar manner. Many other Latin abbreviations, like "Q.E.D.", did not follow in their footsteps.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:54, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::You mean, the masses had a choice whether to use "A.M" or something else? It wasn't determined by the use of that convention by those few who created, say, railroad timetables or other documents? Incidentally, do we know what that date of "1762" refers to? Refering to some "online etymology dictionary" seems a bit like relying on hearsay. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 02:44, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::I still maintain that Mr Schlafly is assuming correlation from causation. While of course nowadays we might view AD in a more conservative light since the introduction (especially amongst the humanities communities) of [[CE]], then back in the case it certainly wasn't the case and due to the pervasiveness of the Christian terms I highly doubt that its religious connotations had any contributing factor over its use as a year marker. If it's another conservative word that's being looked for, I can have a think over the next few days for an alternative word that might not be as debatable. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 17:27, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

== It Really Is Amazing... ==

It really is amazing that the pattern of perfect doubling by century is so strong that almost every "layer" is complete before the next layer starts, even though words are added to the list pretty much randomly whenever a user thinks of one. --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 17:47, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

:Great discoveries are rarely random. In this case, it would not be possible to discover such a perfect geometric fit unless the underlying pattern existed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:12, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

::I don't actually believe in this theory, but I think it's interesting nonetheless to think about the etymologies of such words and why we might consider them conservative or not. Thus this essay has potential for insights, whether or not one believes in the underlying theory. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 17:33, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

== You know this list is contrived. ==

As you can see, [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] is actively trying to make it a perfect doubling by century. [[User:DavidCalman|David]][[User talk:DavidCalman|Calman]]

:It would be impossible to discover such a perfect doubling of conservative words by century unless it existed. If someone discovered oil, would anyone say, "well, that's no big deal, because you looked for it there!"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:00, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

== Intelligent design ==

I'm not sure where your date of 1991 is coming from. I know that the Kitzmiller trial uncovered a 1987 draft of ''Of Pandas and People'' that used intelligent design in the origins context:
<blockquote>
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.
</blockquote>
[[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:39, 16 June 2012 (EDT)

== Teamwork ==
In a liberal society, true team work is impossible because nothing bets done without an overarching authority to control and monitor and meddle in activity. The ideas of equals respecting each other and working for the good of the country is a conservative value, and I think that teamwork should be made a Conservative Word. What do you think? [[User:JeffBron|JeffBron]] 15:15, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

:In political usage, "teamwork" implies abandoning principles. It does not have a positive political connotation for [[conservatives]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:23, 30 August 2012 (EDT)

== anticompetitive ==

According to Merriam-Webster the first known use of this word is from 1854: [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anticompetitive]. [[User:Richman|Richman]] 15:49, 30 August 2012 (EDT)

And Doubting Thomas is at least from as early as 1848:
[http://books.google.be/books?id=DbY3AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA222&lpg=PA222&dq=doubting+thomas&source=bl&ots=cJvz-HgNDp&sig=xyM0lYOAZJG1qaMtOYj-PiZ2qmg&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=csY_ULzJJa_Z0QXzsIGQBQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=doubting%20thomas&f=false]. These are just two words I checked. Which begs the question how accurate the other origin dates are. [[User:Richman|Richman]] 16:06, 30 August 2012 (EDT)

:Merriam-Webster (10th Edition, hardbound) says that "anticompetitive" dates from only 1952. It also says that "Doubting Thomas" is from 1883. But I'll change the dates based on your citations.

:It's not surprising that there are some minor disputes about ''when'' the first use of a word occurred. But the disputes are not substantial enough to alter the overall trend of doubling by century. In fact, these changes may conform the data more closely to the geometric growth rate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:19, 30 August 2012 (EDT)
::Superb remark! In the meantime, I have had a closer look at the list. Most of the terms don't seem inherently conservative to me. For instance, do you really think ''illiteracy'' is a conservative word of the highest quality just because "liberals seek to produce illiterate voters who lack independence, and many graduates of the public schools are illiterate today"? With explanations like that, any word can be labeled conservative or liberal.
::As to the geometric growth rate, have you considered that the ''total'' number of words in the English language shows a similar growth rate? [[User:Richman|Richman]] 11:40, 2 September 2012 (EDT)

== Understanding the theory ==

Hi. I'm having some difficulty with this argument:

''Conservative terms, expressing conservative insights, originate at a faster rate, and with much higher quality, than liberal terms. Conservative triumph over liberalism is thus inevitable.''

If we're running this study from the start of the 17th century, then that's 400+ years in which conservatism has been growing steadily stronger due to outperforming liberalism in the generation of high quality terms and insights.

With that in mind, I can't find any good explanation why conservatism hasn't yet triumphed, unless we wish to argue that the world was an exceptionally liberal place prior to 1600.

Apologies if I've overlooked some other obvious implicit premise.

--[[User:JohanZ|JohanZ]] 18:16, 30 August 2012 (EDT)

:Conservatism '''''has''''' triumphed on many, many issues. But just as food production has triumphed and far surpassed the demand for food consumption, some pockets of starvation still exist, and thus the triumph of conservatism does not mean that all pockets of liberalism have vanished.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:31, 30 August 2012 (EDT)

::Is it possible to quantify (roughly) where we started c.1600 and where we're at now, then, in terms of conservatism v. liberalism? Taking a 10 point scale of 1 (untrammelled liberalism) to 10 (complete triumph of conservatism), what approximate values would you ascribe to 1600 and 2012?

::I don't suggest adding them to the essay as such; more as a guide for setting the theory in its proper historical context.

::Thanks,

::--[[User:JohanZ|JohanZ]] 19:03, 30 August 2012 (EDT)

:::Perhaps society's conservatism was only "2" in 1600, and today it is "7". Perhaps a logarithmic scale (as with earthquakes) would be better than a linear scale. In 1600, the wealthiest person lacked a standard of living that many poor Americans enjoy today. Moreover, today there is immense opportunity for upward mobility in America, which did not exist in 1600.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:36, 30 August 2012 (EDT)

I just have a question about the page that isn't clear to me- is this stating that these conservative words were created by conservatives on the origin date and then the meaning OR that these words were appropriated on those origin dates and the example of meaning is how it was adopted and used?

:Could be either. It's the meaning and term that are conservative, not necessarily the person who uses it. Conservative words and insights are available to help everyone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:34, 25 November 2012 (EST)

== didactic ==

I'm surprised you didn't approve of this word Andy, as it's a conservative-leaning way of describing learning in that it places importance on literature and other forms of classical art. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 21:34, 28 November 2012 (EST)

:Conservative is not synonymous with traditional. Conservative is more forward-looking, although it respects concepts that are time-tested (a word recently added to the list).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:22, 28 November 2012 (EST)

== sectarian ==

Andy, I added this one when I discovered that it was a word created by conservatives. Seems like a good reason for it being on the list, however please let me know if you think otherwise. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 23:24, 28 November 2012 (EST)

== zero ==

Not sure whether to add this one. I know there's been discussions about zero with respect to biblical scientific foreknowledge ... should it be included? [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 23:27, 28 November 2012 (EST)
PS. Sorry for all the edits - just getting into this list ;)

: I don't see why zero would be a particularly conservative word. This is not a list of any words.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:46, 28 November 2012 (EST)

== "pertinence" not a high enough standard? ==

Andy, could you please explain the characteristics which distinguish "addictive", "aerobics", "ambulance chaser", "axiomatic" and so on and so forth as less run-of-the-mill and of a higher standard than the word "pertinence"? In my opinion "pertinence" is a very '''good''' word, alluding to logic and insight - both of which appear as conservative values in the Conservatism template. Perhaps I can be a more constructive contributer if this is clear [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 23:41, 28 November 2012 (EST)

== Falsifiable vs. Falsifiability ==

Again I'm unclear as to how one is more or less conservative than the other, and also why the youngest word takes precedence in the list over the older one. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 20:55, 29 November 2012 (EST)

== A pertinent question ==

Andy, would it be safe to say that, in this entire list, there is only room for one more word and that word must be from the 1700s? I feel like I'm wasting my time making what I consider to be constructive contributions (which are arguably of higher quality than many, many other entries) to this "''Best'' Conservative Words" project. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 21:06, 29 November 2012 (EST)
:How can there be "room" for a particular number of words from a particular time? There are as many "best conservative words" in circulation at a given time as were in circulation--the model has to fit the data; the data can't fit the model. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 13:58, 30 November 2012 (EST)

::The words proposed for addition were "facilitator" and "Quaker", both of which are liberal concepts and certainly not conservative. Quakers did not even fight in the American Revolution, and tended to support [[abortion]]!

::Good additions from any of the centuries are welcome, but they need to fit the high quality standards of the list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:30, 30 November 2012 (EST)

:::Listener? Falsifiable? Fatherland? Pertinent? Oh well, at least words like "coolant" and "correlate" - which are ''clearly'' conservative - remain. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 17:48, 2 December 2012 (EST)
::::Don't forget "transistor." And "Philadelphia." [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 18:22, 2 December 2012 (EST)

:::::Philadelphia was founded on [[conservative]] principles -- as was the [[U.S. Constitution]] that was drafted there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:17, 2 December 2012 (EST)
::::::I have to agree with MattyD that "Philadelphia" is a particularly poor choice for this list. Nevertheless, I updated the entry to reflect that the name originates from the 2nd century BC and cities in the Near East at the time of Jesus. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:29, 2 December 2012 (EST)
::::::'''EDIT''' By the way, if you want to keep up your "pattern" of doubling by century, you are going to need to find a total 2,097,152 "new conservative words" from the 20th century. Better get to work :P. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:34, 2 December 2012 (EST)

:::::::That's witty about doubling from the 2nd century BC, but the reality is that the English city name "Philadelphia" is not nearly so old.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:17, 2 December 2012 (EST)
Seeing as Philadelphia was one of the principle slave ports of its time, and most of the slaves in the colony and state of Pennsylvania lived in or near the city, I guess your argument about its foundation on conservative principles is confirmed. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 12:41, 5 December 2012 (EST)

== Philadelphia ==

The explanation for the word "Philadelphia"'s (dated on the main page to 1682) being conservative is
{{cquote|coined by William Penn and meaning "city of brotherly love," the concept captures the "best of the public" approach}}
I'm confused by the 1682 date because the ancient city of Philadelphia in Asia minor was established in the 2nd century BC and it was named for the Greek for "brotherly love." So it's clear that the name "Philadelphia" is over 2000 years old. Moreover, the explanation for why "brotherly love" is conservative (that it "captures the 'best of the public' approach") appears to apply equally to any city named Philadelphia. I simply don't know why 1688 is listed as the origin date for a word that has existed for much longer--perhaps you can clarify so that there aren't any further misunderstandings. Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:04, 3 December 2012 (EST)
:Hmm... that's an interesting point you have there GregG. If Philidelphia is indeed a conservative word ''and'' it dates back to the second century BC... that means there should be over 4,194,304 conservative words by now. Obviously, the author of this article only intended to include words in the English language, in which case, Philly (along with other non-English entries) should be removed from he list. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 21:11, 5 December 2012 (EST)

== "welfare to work" ==

From [http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/12/09/19/preserving-work-requirements-for-welfare gop.gov]:
<blockquote>
House Republicans believe that Welfare to Work empowers mothers and helps to strengthen families. In the years following the passage of Welfare to Work, poverty among all single mothers fell by 30 percent and employment and earnings among single mothers increased significantly.
</blockquote>
Although I see that the term was used by Democrats, <strike>I've re-added the term to the list.</strike> The 1996 welfare reform was a major Republican victory, exemplified by the term. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:39, 29 January 2013 (EST)

== Proposed changes ==

1. Boomerang - the word was not used as a verb until the 1880s. I don't think that there is anything particularly conservative about the noun version of the word.

2. Cesspool - according to the OED this word is from the 1680s and in other examples on this page the Oxford etymology is chosen in preference over Merriam-Webster.

3. Quackery is a word often used by conservatives to describe unproven liberal nonsense in a similar way that claptrap is used to describe other liberal nonsense.

I'd also like clarification on how to know whether a stem word should be used in place of its root. For example, the entry "scapegoating" is based on the 1943 adjective version of the noun "scapegoat", which is from the 1500s - why?

:Disputes at the margin are to be expected in a list like this. You've identified two questionable entries, but their inclusion is adequately explained in the comment section. Your third word, "quackery", is namecalling that conservatives rarely use. It is a smear word that has no place in this quality list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:48, 31 January 2013 (EST)

:As to your second issue, when a word goes to a level higher than the root (as "scapegoating" does), then its new date and usage are more relevant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:50, 31 January 2013 (EST)

::Mightn't some consider "claptrap" to be just as much a smear/namecalling word as quackery?
::Also, my only dispute with boomerang is its date. It was used as a verb in the 1880s and since the explanation is for the word indicates it's the action of boomeranging (as opposed to a crooked stick) I think that date should be used. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 17:33, 31 January 2013 (EST)

== Conservative Words hypothesis is errant ==

I believe that once America and Europe start tasting the bitter fruits of - liberal economic policies (Eurocrisis and French economy will get worse, etc,), an overregulated private sector, big government, failing public schools with leftist ideology, a heavily aging population due to abortion (and other liberal ideology) and growing competition from an increasingly Christianized Eastern World and developing world - then they will sober up and become more conservative. In addition, strongly religious people are having more kids than secularists plus the liberal media is losing market share while conservative media is growing.

However, the two time election of Barack Obama, a ballooning U.S. federal deficit over the last 12 years, a liberal U.S. Supreme Court since the 1960s that continues to uphold Roe vs. Wade (and other liberal policies such as upholding ObamaCare) and a very liberal UK does not give me confidence that the Anglosphere has become more conservative over time in general - especially post 1960s. It has become more liberal.

In addition, words such as "galvanize" are not conservative. You are engaging in confirmation bias and trying to shoehorn words into your "Conservative Words hypothesis". I don't like the Anglosphere becoming more liberal since the 1960s and the failed policies will bear their bitter fruits in heapfuls on the horizon so things could reverse, but that doesn't give me a license to construct a false reality in the meantime. Plus, constructing a false reality is counterproductive. In order to effectively cure a problem, you have to recognize the full scope of the problem and not claim victory where there is no victory.

Bottom line: The [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|Conservative Words hypothesis]] fails. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:10, 31 January 2013 (EST)

: I would agree that galvanize isn't a conservative word, it isn't a liberal word either it is a science/engineering word. It is word derived from the name of Luigi Galvani who found the galvanic series. Of which bought about the discovery of galvanization. However it can be political in certain situations and us from the conservative side of politics tend to work better together than those on the liberal side of politics (ie labor tearing itself apart and us in the liberal party counting down the days till our win on the 14th of september !) [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 11:09, 31 January 2013 (EST)

::Though not strongly conservative, "galvanize" has usage with respect to the grassroots, as in "galvanize the grassroots." Also, liberals tend to be pessimistic about what man can achieve with God, denying progress, while "galvanize" suggests the progress advocated by conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:30, 31 January 2013 (EST)
:::Andy, you have some good articles in terms of their content and titles such as [[Essay:The Invisible Hand of Marriage]] and [[Professor values]], but also need to cut your losses for the clunkers like [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]]. For example, to say that "galvanize" is not a strongly conservative word is quite an understatement since it is not conservative word at all. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:55, 31 January 2013 (EST)

::::I don't doubt that certain groups of society use words with different, even characteristic frequencies. Have a lawyer and a nurse retell Grimm's ''[[Snow White]]'', and you can guess who told which version using only the word-count!
::::That said, I'm surprised tby claim that certain words indicate a conservative leaning for more than 300 years! Languages are always changing, and preferences for words, too! I cannot talk about the English language with confidence - unfortunately I'm not getting all the subtleties - but here are two examples in German:
::::#using the abbreviation "BRD" for "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" during 1960-1990 was a clear indicator of a left-wing weltanschauung, but it became politically neutral over the last years.
::::#nowadays, the term "Nachhaltigkeit" (sustainability) isn't missing from any speech of any economist or politician, whether from the right or from the left. In the 1980s, it was used by environmentalists exclusively.
::::So there may be conservative and liberal concepts, but the language describing them is always changing.
::::Another problem: Over the last year, I saw examples of "perfect doublings" announced a couple of times. That seems to be rather improbable, statistically speaking, and indicates a manipulation of the data (confirmation bias) - as User:Conservative stated above.
::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:01, 31 January 2013 (EST)

:::::The fact that a perfect doubling has occurred many times with different layers tends to support, rather than undermine, the hypothesis that a perfect doubling is inherent in the language. Otherwise it would be very difficult for each layer to display a perfect doubling too!

:::::Many stumble on the issue of whether the selection of terms is perfectly random. The selection of terms need not be random to conclude that a doubling by century intrinsically exists. Think about why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:51, 31 January 2013 (EST)

::::::''Think about why.'' Because you have invented a new kind of statistics?
::::::Using your method, we could show that there are as many Germans as there are Americans, just by alternately listing Germans and Americans! That could go on for quite a while, without proving anything about the real ratio. (Browsing through the archives, I see I'm not the first to point this out: see [[Talk:Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words/archive3#Research_method|here]] and [[Talk:Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words/archive3#Selection_Bias_and_Proposal_for_an_Unbiased_Test|here]])
::::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:57, 31 January 2013 (EST)
:::::::May I expect an answer to my comment above? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:30, 2 February 2013 (EST)

== My problems with making any statistical conclusions ==

I will provide my honest opinion.

If this essay is meant to be a personal project in learning new vocabulary, etymology, and use of language, then it's certainly worthwhile. However, if the intent of this essay was to draw statistical conclusions, the methodology is so egregiously flawed that there is really nothing one can take away from the data in the essay.

Several methodology problems are the following:
*There is no objective definition as to what constitutes a word, or a conservative word, for that matter. For some reason, abbreviations, proper names, and multiple-word terms appear on the list. Very similar terms are alternative counted as conservative or not (contrast "welfare queen" and "welfare to work", for example). The fact that there are several arguments on this very page as to whether or not words are conservative indicate that the notion of a "conservative word" is not well-defined.
*The arbiter of whether or not a term is conservative appears to a strong interest in ensuring that the data collected fit into a predetermined "doubling" pattern. (In fact, it seems to me that this approach to the subject demonstrates a lack of open-mindedness that the empirical data may suggest a different conclusion than the one anticipated.) It's not even single blind, much less double blind.
*There is no consistency as to the date assigned to a term. It appears to be the date a term became conservative. There is no objective calculation of the date assigned to a term (like, for example, consulting the OED for the oldest extant print reference to a word).
*No comparison is made to the growth in the number of English terms since 1600 nor the growth of liberal terms over time.
*The words are not randomly sampled. They appear to be inserted in order to fit a predetermined pattern. A better method to solve the problem would be to randomly select words from the dictionary.

In all, if you want to keep this as a side project just for the educational value, be my guest. However, if you want to draw mathematical or statistical conclusions from this essay, I would advise you not to, as it only serves to make us conservatives at Conservapedia appear sophomoric in mathematics, statistics, and logic. Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:22, 1 February 2013 (EST)

: Good points. Let's revisit this at the end of the 21st century when we have another data point. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:54, 2 February 2013 (EST)

Essay:New Liberal Terms

2013-01-19T20:31:20Z

RSchlafly: /* New Liberal Terms */ add Sputnick moment

== Rate of Generation of Liberal Terms ==

The rate of generation of liberal terms is increasing, but not with the enduring value of the conservative terms and not with their geometric rate of increase. A remarkably high percentage of new liberal terms originated in the 1960s, suggesting that new liberal terms arise in a sporadic manner heavily influenced by culture:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Century
!# New Liberal Terms
|-
|1600s
|4
|-
|1700s
|3
|-
|1800s
|13
|-
|1900s
|40 (10 in the 1960s)
|-
|2000s
|10
|-
|}

== New Liberal Terms ==

New liberal words often have deceptive, or nonsensical, meanings. Here are some new words created by liberals to combat [[conservatism]]:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[agnosticism|agnostic]]
|1860
|someone who claims to not know whether [[God]] exists but still lives like an [[atheist]]
|-
|astrobiology
|1935
|study of life in outer space<ref>[http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.1491]</ref>
|-
|[[atheism|atheist]]
|1571
|useful and often deceptive alternative name for an anti-Christian
|-
|[[Big Bang theory|big bang]]
|1948
|term invented by the leading [[British]] physicist Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] to ''mock'' this suggestion of how the universe was formed, but later accepted as a serious term rather than mockery;<ref>Compare this migration with that of "politically correct," which started out as a serious term but then adopted a sense of mockery</ref> it's liberal because it trivializes the beauty and the [[faith]] of the moment
|-
|bilingual education
|1972
|a euphemism describing a costly and hurtful program that hinders the learning of English by foreign-born children in American [[public school]]s, which hurts their future opportunities
|-
|bureaugamy
|1999
|Evolutionist Lionel Tiger coined the phrase to refer to the relationship between officially impoverished mothers of illegitimate children and the government.
|-
|[[carbon footprint]]
|1999<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carbon%20footprint</ref>
|this term indicates an individual human's effect on the environment by production of carbon dioxide
|-
|chairperson
|1971
|even Alice Sturgis, the leading parliamentarian of the 20th century, rejected this cumbersome form of political correctness.
|-
|check-off
|1911
|automatic deduction of union dues by the employer from the employee's paycheck, so he has no choice
|-
|[[class warfare]]
|
|first entered the political lexicon primarily as an attack by liberals against conservatives. <ref>[http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030115.html The art of "class warfare"], Ben Fritz, Spinsanity.org, January 15, 2003</ref>
|-
|[[climate change]]
|1992
|The UN defined “climate change” as man-made. In the process, creating a nonsensical meaning on par with climate-sameness.
|-
|[[communism]]
|1840
|
|-
|compassionate-care clinics
|2008
|a term describe pot-shops that dispense medical marijuana <ref>[http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/11/magazines/fortune/medical_marijuana_legalizing.fortune/?postversion=2009091116 How marijuana became legal, CNN, September 11, 2009]</ref>
|-
|compassion fatigue
|1968
|liberals, driven by materialistic self-interest, are likely to suffer from this.
|-
|[[condescension]]
|1647
|treating another person as though they are inferior
|-
|[[creationism]]
|1880
|like most "isms", creationism is a derogatory term coined preferred most by opponents of it.
|-
|[[Dark Ages]]
|1730
|a term coined in the so-called [[enlightenment]] to disparage the period between the fall of the [[Roman Empire]] and c.1000, when the Christian faith, and its learning and culture, spread across Europe.
|-
|[[Dead white males|dead white males]]
|
|a disparaging term used of significant figures from previous generations by those who wish to undermine [[Cultural Literacy|cultural literacy]]
|-
|deconstruction
|1973
|a style of interpretation of texts that looks beyond the plain meaning of the text in order to infer or accuse the writers of social bias
|-
|diva
|1883
|modern use to describe female Hollywood/media personalities
|-
|[[Détente|detente]]
|1970s
|a euphemism referring to pacifist policy re. the Soviet Union
|-
|displaced foreign traveler <ref>[http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/07/bureaucrats-now.html Bureaucrats Now Call Illegal Aliens "Displaced Foreign Travelers", Moonbattery.com, July 21, 2010]</ref>
|2010
|another politically correct term for [[illegal alien]].
|-
|distributive justice
|
|a term used to redefine socialist abridgment of rights as "just"
|-
|divided government
|1975
|a pejorative term used by liberals to insist on control of all of government, as when they used the term to urge the election of the Democrat [[Jimmy Carter]] to work with the Democratic-controlled Congress
|-
|[[enlightenment]]
|1669
|Used to describe the movement in the 18th-century which sought to replace God with atheism.
|-
|[[Environmentalist|environmentalism]]
|1922
|a mixture of [[pseudoscience]] and neo-[[paganism]] used to justify the imposition of [[socialist]]ic controls.
|-
|[[exclusionary rule]]
|1964
|an invented rule that requires censoring and withholding from the jury certain incriminating evidence about a criminal defendant, simply based on how the evidence was obtained.
|-
|[[family planning]]
|1939
|planning intended to determine the number and spacing of one's children through birth control <ref>[http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/family%20planning Family Planning, Merriam-Webster]</ref>
|-
|freeganism
|1995
|a euphemism for [[dumpster diving]].
|-
|freethinker
|1692
|the euphemism "free" hides the hostility towards faith, which is not free
|-
|[[fundamentalism]]
|1922
|"a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism</ref> From a series of pamphlets called "The Fundamentals" which outlined the movement. Perjorative usage started when the liberal [[Harry Emerson Fosdick]] began using the term in a straw man attack against [[Conservative Christianity]].
|-
|[[feminism]]
|1895
|notionally, "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes"; in reality, the attempt to destroy traditional family, societal and religious values by erasing or undermining natural gender differences.
|-
|[[gay rights]]
|1969
|the movement for civil rights for homosexuals
|-
|glass ceiling
|1984
|the notion that an invisible barrier prevents women and ethnic minorities from reaching high office; an excuse for [[feminist]]s and others to demand [[affirmative action]]
|-
|[[global warming]]
|1969
|the baseless [[environmentalist]] mantra that the earth's temperature is rising, and that human intervention is the cause.
|-
|[[goth]]
|?
|"a style of rock music, noted especially for somber or ethereal tones and lugubrious lyrics", or someone who performs or listens to this style of music.<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth]</ref> Goths often "dress in black with heavy jewelry".<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth rock'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth%20rock]</ref> The term is taken from the name of "a Germanic people who invaded the Roman Empire in the early centuries of the Christian era".<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth]</ref>
|-
|gun control
|1969
|a euphemism for restricting the right to keep and bear arms
|-
|[[homophobia]]
|1969
|used by Liberals to describe a failure to subscribe 100% to the [[homosexual agenda]].
|-
|[[humanism]]
|1808 <ref>http://newhumanist.org.uk/1740</ref>
|
|-
|[[human security]]
|1941
|A vague [[socialist]] concept of "freedom from want" and "freedom from fear' championed by FDR, latter by the UN.
|-
|[[illegal war]]
|1960's
|A war not authorized by the United Nations. Prior to the UN, America's involvement in WWI and the U.S. declaring war on Germany in WWII can be considered an illegal war by liberals. America was never attacked.
|-
|[[imperialism]]
|1851
|a clever term later used by liberals to interfere with Christian missionaries and stopping anti-Christian tyranny
|-
|[[isolationism]]
|1922
|a pejorative term that is critical of American politicians putting America first in priorities
|-
|Keynesianism
|1946
|advocacy of 'tax and spend' policies as elaborated by the economist [[John Maynard Keynes]]; a [[euphemism]] for back-door [[Socialism]].
|-
|landmark decision
|1950
|a major court decision, used to promote the idea that values are dictated by liberal elites
|-
|[[Living Constitution]]
|2000
|a continually evolving Constitution (first used by presidential candidate Al Gore, title of a 1936 book by Howard McBain)
|-
|main squeeze
|1968
|one's romantic partner, typically in an unmarried relationship
|-
|McCarthyism
|1950
|originally, investigations by Sen. Joe McCarthy of Communists working in sensitive USA government jobs. Later, it more broadly refers to holding radical leftists accountable for their beliefs and loyalties.
|-
|[[metrosexual]]
|1994
|fashion and glamour man
|-
|moderate
|late 1900s
|the original term dates from the French Revolution, but its meaning today is a euphemism for someone who favors abortion and/or supports censorship of Christianity in some ways.
|-
|[[moving the goalposts]]
|late 1980s
|a sports analogy designed to avoid answering a logical follow-up question; this is a favorite term of evolutionists to avoid addressing obvious deficiencies in their theory
|-
|nationalize
|1800
|a euphemism for the government taking over ownership and control of a large company or entire industry, as in socialism
|-
|natural selection
|1857
|a misleading and euphemistic term for the theory that genetic advantages and conflict dictate survival
|-
|[[Nihilism]]
|1817
|a rejection of the values system, independently anarchist from society norms.
|-
|[[population control]]
|1968
|the issue of population dates back to Confucius. Liberals promoted the term after the book The Population Bomb by Paul R. Ehrlich
|-
|[[pro-choice]]
|1975
|a euphemism for insisting on taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]; people who claim to be pro-choice typically oppose ''informed'' choice, which makes the "choice" meaningless
|-
|[[progressivism]]
|1892
|the progressive movement was not entirely liberal; it was started by a Republican and shared some goals with conservatives, and still does
|-
|[[psychoanalysis]]
|1906
|contributed to de-spiritualization of human beings
|-
|public option
|2009
|obfuscate rewording of government control
|-
|[[quote mining]]
|non-existent
|a term used by [[evolutionists]] to describe taking quotes out of context in order to damage the position of the quoted party.
|-
|reproductive health
|1994 <ref>defined by the United Nations (UN) in 1994 at the Cairo International Conference</ref>
|abortion supporters jargon for rights/justice for pregnant women, no rights/justice for the child.
|-
|sea level rise
|1980s
|suggests a global warming apocalypse
|-
|[[Sexual Discrimination|sexism]]
|1968
|That which is practiced by those who do not give total support to [[feminism]].
|-
|shovel-ready <ref>[http://skylineviews.typepad.com/skyline_views/2009/04/is-it-time-to-add-shovelready-to-the-dictionary.html Is it time to add shovel-ready to the dictionary? Skyline Views, April 24, 2009]</ref>
|2008
|jobs and people ready to work if funded
|-
|situation ethics
|1955
|a euphemism for denying fixed ethical standards
|-
|Sputnick moment
|2011
|using by [[Barack Obama]] to mean an excuse for the government to spend on industrial policies
|-
|stimulus packages
|2009
|used by government(s) to be perceived as taking unprecedented measures to stimulate aggregate economic demand; during a crisis on economic growth and private jobs, liberal government entities are known to deceptively take advantage of its subject in the form of "stimulus packages," as an opportunity to pursue policies that further social and environmental agendas.<ref>[http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/12/62/42555546.pdf For a stronger, cleaner, ''fairer'' world economy], ''Organisation For Economic Co-Operation and Development'' (OECD), 2010.</ref>
|-
|strict liability
|1869
|court-imposed liability even when there is no evidence of any fault by the defendant
|-
|sustainability
|1727
|[[environmentalism|environmentalist]] buzzword
|-
|Swift-Boating
|2004
|allegations of unfair campaign tactics.
|-
|transforming society
|2008
|Obama, Rahm and Axelrod use this term. It dates to [[Saul Alinsky]] and Chicago politics. <ref>[http://marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930# Mark Levin Show, July 7, 2009]</ref>
|-
|transnationalist
|2006
|popularized by Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh in a 2006 law review article: "The transnationalists view domestic courts as having a critical role to play in domesticating international law into U.S. law ...."<ref>Penn State Law Review (2006).</ref>
|-
|undocumented immigrant
|2000
|a [[politically correct]] replacement for illegal alien.
|-
|unfair
|1700
|
|-
|union shop
|1904
|
|-
|[[Unitarian]]
|1687
|
|-
|VIP
|1933
|Very Important Person, a person with special privileges, [[elitism]]. Unknown to liberals, everyone is very important to God.
|-
|will to power
|1907
|[[Nietzsche]]'s concept of the drive of a superman to perfect himself by exercising creative power; it didn't catch on
|-
|woman's rights
|1833
|women equal to men; the defining movement to justify aborting babies in the 20th century
|-
|}

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Essays]]

User talk:RSchlafly

2012-11-26T18:19:40Z

RSchlafly: /* A serious Biblical matter */ This is out of my expertise

<big>'''ARCHIVES:'''</big> '''[[User talk:RSchlafly/Archive1|1]]'''

== Clean ==

Enjoy your nice, clean talk page! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 19:15, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

== I would appreciate your support ==

Dear RSchlafly,

I am sending you a note about the [[Template:Uncited|uncited template]] and how it can substantially increase web traffic to Conservapedia.

The Conservapedia article on [[homosexuality]] is now ranked in the top 10 of http://www.google.com searches. I estimate that the Conservapedia article on homosexuality is giving 300-400 people new people a day to know about Conservapedia who wouldn't otherwise know about it. When the article is in the top 5 of the search engine rankings it will bring in SUBSTANTIALLY more as the top 5 entries get the lion's share of the internet traffic.

Now a main reason why the Conservapedia homosexuality article is ranked in the top 10 is that the search engines highly reward articles with footnotes that link to other interent websites. Accordingly, since our uncited template is successful in getting people to cite their material as Andy Schlafly stated, I made note of the uncited template in the following Conservapedia articles:

Conservapedia:Commandments: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments

Conservapedia Manual of Style: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style

Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Footnotes_-_technical_help

Currently about 50% of Conservapedia articles are completely uncited and a high percentage of articles that are cited are poorly cited. If this persist, not many people are going to know about Conservapedia as our articles will be poorly ranked by the search engines. However, I strongly believe that the uncited template will make a substantial difference.

Accordingly, I would appreciate your efforts in supporting the [[Template:Uncited|uncited template]].

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:40, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

'''*Conservative, around here, it is the practice of all Sysops, except you, to discuss changes before implementing them, and asking for support. The Commandments may only be changed upon direct approval from Andy. You did not receive this direct approval, no? Kindly try and act like a mannered person, post your proposals to the Sysops and Andy, then be prepared for discussion and support, not the other way around. I could support your idea, except for the encouragement of placing templates without limitiation. We have far too much clutter already, and your failing to limit template placement, by stating some guideline for what a minimum number of citations is, will lead to chaos and endless debate as to how many are too few and how many are "enough". Thanks. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 15:52, 29 July 2007 (EDT)'''

== 1992 Election ==

Nice revert. [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 18:51, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

*Since in the ''United States'', Ferret, we do not elect our President's with a direct popular vote, and never have, references to who won a majority percentage of the vote are misnomers. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:37, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

::Yep, realise that's not how it works. It's an interesting and quite deliberate part of the design on behalf of the founding fathers. It's not about winning a majority of the voters across the nation, it's about winning a majority of the voters in the right number of states, with smaller states deliberately getting more than their proportional weight of the electoral college. I think it's a beautiful system that works as well with 50 states in 2004 as it does with 13 (vote counting issues aside!). Whether a particular president won a plurality, or absolute majority, of the vote is of interest for that very reason - it illustrates the system working exactly the way it's designed to work. Bush got the votes he needed in the states he needed - Gore did not. Simple as that, isn't it? (OK, it wasn't THAT simple, but let's not go there!) [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 05:57, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for adding the percentage on that election. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 14:49, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

==Catch-22==

Which novel are you referring to 'published ten years earlier' on the Catch-22 page? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

: See [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_19980428/ai_n10413175] or [http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-20561858.html]. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:21, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

Hi! :)

Thanks for adding a new article, in this case [[kluge]]. Please, though, categorize your articles when you create them; while there are those of us who will go through and clean-up the uncategorized articles, you know your subject better than we do.

For a list of categories, go here: [[Special:Categories]]. To add a category to your article, type two open brackets, then "category:" followed by the category you want. Just add two closed brackets and you're done! You can add as many categories as you feel are appropriate. Thanks! [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 02:19, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

==Theory and Fact==
Please try and remain civil when it comes to altering other people's edits - there was no reason to refer to the information as "junk". If you thought it was verbose you could have just said so. Regardless, I am going to reinsert some information in a less confounding way. At the moment the flimsy terse mention of biological evolution in the article is insufficient for anyone to understand the what is considered fact and what is considered theory. It's a great example for the article. However, I don't want an edit war so my changes will only be minute at first. Regards. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 12:19, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

: I was civil. If I thought that verbosity were the problem, I would have said so. The reinserted text is wrong and confusing. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:54, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

: Absolutely not. There is nothing wrong with the information. If you have counter evidence regarding Modern synthesis or that evolutionists refer to the science as both a fact and theory, then that would be one thing. However, based on your actions, I can only presume that you simply don't want the information posted. Things aren't incorrect simply because you say so. If you require sources I'd be more than happy to supply them - but by dismissing the information, removing it without notification and referring to it as "junk" is slightly inflammatory. At least that's how I'm taking it. My edits are in good faith and meant to help the project of conservapedia. If you doubt this at all, just look at my edit history. Anyway, it would have been better had you and I discussed the changes first. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 14:04, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Your presumptions are incorrect. Evidence for and against the modern synthesis is irrelevant. The article is just about some simple definitions. I have posted on the Talk pages an example of how your own text contradicts your own sources. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:04, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

== [[Twin Primes]] question ==
Roger, do you think there are an [[infinite]] number of [[twin primes]]? Do you think it is provable (though obviously not proven yet)?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:53, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

: I would guess yes, but until someone solves the problem, no one knows for sure. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:53, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

*Roger....that is what they are still saying about being able to teach me Trig! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:16, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

== Shawshank Redemption ==
[http://www.shawshankredemption.net/books/the-shawshank-redemption-plot.html]"A new prisoner called Tommy comes to Shawshank prison. '''Tommy tells another prisoner, who tells Andy, that Tommy had had a cellmate at a different prison who bragged about killing a rich golfer and some hot-shot banker's wife, and the banker getting jailed for it. This is clearly the real killer of Andy's wife.''' Andy sees the possibility of a new trial since this evidence would prove his innocence. Warden Norton dismisses the story, telling Andy to ignore this made up story. When Andy argues with him warden Norton sends Andy to solitary confinement, to remind Andy of his place in the prison hierarchy." --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 05:22, 8 September 2007 (EDT)[

: That is just an argument for a court action. Nowhere does the movie say that Andy was innocent, or that he was wrongly convicted. If Andy is innocent, as you say, then for what is he being redeemed? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 06:08, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

::I will email Steven King and ask, Roger. I just remember it from the book and movie, is all....so it must have been important to the story, otherwise I would imagine King would have snipped it. Argument for a court action? Lawyers have enough business! The way he was given the news, not expecting it, nor thinking it was coming, seems to indicate he wasn't looking for a ploy. I will revert myself back in the movie list, if you haven't already, pending my hearing back from King. Fair enough? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:35, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Whether Andy was expecting the news, or looking for a ploy, is irrelevant. He is likely to jump on any opportunity to get out of prison. The beginning of the movie show overwhelming evidence against Andy in court. It avoids showing the murderer when the trigger is pulled. Apparently the movie wanted to create some ambiguity. My question for you: Under your interpretation, what is the "redemption" of the title? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:24, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

Redemption comes in many packages, I have found. Perhaps the humanity, the ability of some to maintain and even nurture the type of complex "friendship" (humanity) that the characters actually developed, in spite of their circumstances, is the "redemption". Writers speak constantly in metaphors, and not all of them built on sound ground, but in some loose manner, the characters were role-reversed, eh? The prison guard in his own prison, without walls, and the inmate in an actual one, yet actually more free? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:16, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

==Vandal==

I found a vandal named spoonboy. It seems that he deliberately changed information on the Post-Diluvian Diasporas article in order to make a mockery out of Conservapedia. He also messed up the link on the page. Please examine his edits and take action if necessary. [[User:Lukecorlando|Lukecorlando]] 22:06, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

==Don Imus Edits==
When you remove the specific insults that Imus used, you remove the whole point of caring about things like racism and sexism. I suppose what you're suggesting is that those two things (racism and sexism) are acceptable? Perhaps we should just overlook them? If we are to learn anything from what Mr. Imus said and what happened to him as a result, we need to know exactly WHY he was fired. Now that he's been rehired by conservative bastion 770 WABC in New York, has the conservative agenda been amended to include "protect Imus?"

Again, when you remove what he said from the article, you remove any idea about how WRONG what he said was. This seems to me to be an attempt to soft-soap a racist, sexist comment. I wonder why you wish to do this. Perhaps you, yourself, agree with Mr. Imus' statements? Do YOU believe that the Rutgers University Ladies Basketball Team is a bunch of "nappy-headed hoes?" This seems a gross and base mischaracterization of a group of ladies I'm sure you are not personally acquainted with.

Since Conservapedia makes the claim that it is non-biased, and that it is supposedly the alternative to the liberal-biased WikiPedia (and the accuracy of that assessment is something I leave to another debate at another time), WHY, sir, have you seemingly attempted to slant things to FAVOR a radio personality who made RACIST and SEXIST remarks and who is employed by a major conservative media outlet?

I await your response, sir, with something approaching eagerness.
[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 19:00, 27 January 2008 (EDT)

: I did not remove the quote. It was someone else. You are complaining to the wrong guy. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:30, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Since there was no contribution between mine and yours, sir, I feel that you are fibbing. Peruse the history of the Don Imus page and see. Perhaps someone else made the revision and used your name? Unlikely. My only conclusion is that you or someone using your name condones institutional racism and sexism in the mainstream media. If this is true of you, you ought to be ashamed. If it is someone else using your name, you ought to be outraged. Either way, at least ACT like you care.
[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 15:30, 29 January 2008 (EDT)

: I checked the history. You inserted the quote here [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Don_Imus&diff=378862&oldid=288654] and it was removed by [User:Iduan], not me. I merely shortened your mischaracterization of what Imus said. You wrote that Imus "classified a group of female athletes as women of decidedly ill repute". That was just not correct. Imus did not say that anyone had ill repute. Please do not make false accusations against either Don Imus or me. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:15, 29 January 2008 (EST)

How did I make false accusations against Don Imus? He called those women "nappy-headed hoes." Where I come from, "nappy-headed" is meant as an insult against the typically tightly-curled African-American hair type. "Ho," in common use, is slang for a "whore" or "prostitute," which, when you clean it up for the good old "family-friendly" Conservapedia, means "woman of ill repute."
So, to insult typically African-American hair type, and to call these women "prostitutes," hmmm, I dunno, seems like RACISM and SEXISM to me. One doesn't have to be a trust fund baby to deny the truth, but it helps, I suppose. Good day, sir. [[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 16:30, 31 January 2008 (EDT)

: You are welcome to your opinions, but your edit was inaccurate. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:51, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Thanks for the Unblock ==

I do enjoy especially the part of this project which concerns the history of sciences. It just a hobby of mine, and discussions like ours are a welcomed to delve into the literature. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 16:15, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:RS, check me if I'm wrong, but I'm finding BRichtigen a bit of a distraction. Is he really doing good work somewhere around here? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:54, 13 November 2008 (EST)
:: I can't tell if ''you'' are finding him a distraction, but how is that ''his'' fault? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:35, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::chuckle, you make a goood point there --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:38, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:: I had some disagreements with BRichtigen, but he is definitely doing good work. Please do not block him. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:23, 14 November 2008 (EST)

== question of lawyers responsibility as Officer of the court ==

Hi, is a lawyer who knows his client is guilty still permitted to provide a defense or is he meant as an officer of the court , to plead guilty and attempt to mitigate the sentancing ? I realize there may be a difference between what should happen and what does happen. I lived for a while in Australia and England so it may be an issue of US law vs English .. Thanks oh, this relates to the importance of good character in the appointment of white house counsel [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:40, 21 November 2008 (EST)

: Under US law, the lawyer is required to argue the case however the client wants to plead it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:12, 23 November 2008 (EST)
:: ok , thanks [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:22, 24 November 2008 (EST)

== Merry Christmas ==

and I hope the New Year will give us ample opportunity to discuss interesting topics, like we have done this year!
Yours [[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 18:20, 23 December 2008 (EST)

== Happy New Year, Roger! ==

{{cquote|'''Cheers to a new year and another chance for us to get it right!'''--Oprah Winfrey}}
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 23:33, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Continuum ==

Hi Roger. Foxtrot and I have been arguing over the Continuum article and we really need someone to step in and mediate. I have a problem with the entire second paragraph really: "The continuum is called so because it was the first (and most prominent) continuous set studied by mathematicians. No additional numbers may be added to the continuum (real line) without losing its dense linear order without endpoints. Since the complex numbers add the imaginary number, i, to the real line, this is one reason they have no natural linear order. Any linear order of the complex numbers needs the Axiom of Choice to be constructed."

First of all the reference to a continuous set is unneccessary. I had never heard of such a thing. When I googled it I saw that it is an obscure notion that has no place in such a short introductory article to the topic. I see no reason to believe that the continuum was called so because it is a continuous set. My best guess is that the use of the word continuum predates the use of the term continuous set.

The second sentence about not being able to add more numbers to the reals is essentially meaningless. What do we mean by number? We are discussing the real line as an order theoretic/topological object. It is easy to extend the reals as such an object with out losing the dense linear order. This ties into the last statement. I outline in http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Continuum&curid=81756&diff=621255&oldid=621024 how to construct the lexicographic order on the complex plane. This refutes the last sentence as such an ordering doesn't use AC. In addition the complex numbers ordered in such a way is, from an order theoretic point of view, <math> \mathfrak{c}</math> many copies of the reals laid out end-to-end (if you get my meaning). This shows that not only can we add a point to the reals we can add uncountably many copies of the reals to the reals without destroying the dense linear ordering.

Thanking you in advance for your time. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 08:38, 16 February 2009 (EST)

== Prime Number ==

You were the last editor to change the article on [[Prime Number]]s. Could you have a look at the section ''Sieve of Eratosthenes''? I tried to raise the interest in changing the - IMO poor - picture on [[Talk:Main Page]], [[Talk:Prime Number]] and [[File talk:Prime number.gif]], but no action took place. Could you have a look into it?
Thanks, [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 12:28, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

== [[Physics]] ==
Could you please take a look to the last edits? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 08:20, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

: Why did you revert? I don't necessarily agree with all the edits, but they appeared to be constructive edits. Did you disagree? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:38, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

: At first it seems to be wrong in Mechanics and Thermodynamics. The editor E-mail me and I was not sure; that is why I asked your opinion. Now I will fix the mistake. Thank you. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 17:45, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

:: He also made some other edits. Did you object to those also? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:04, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

== From PatrickD ==

There has been some discussion of the recent changes by RoyL to the [[divergence]] and [[curl]] articles. Your name came up. So you might want to look at those pages, and their histories, and their talk pages, and my [[User_talk:PatrickD]] page. [[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 21:36, 15 August 2009 (EDT)

==Small Thanks from WLink==
Wanted to thank you for the support you gave for my proposed changes on the relativity page. I am a bit saddened that some people won't see reason, but at least we gave it the old college try. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 07:19, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

== L.A. Official: 55 Jobs After $111B Stimulus ==

The story tease on their main page said 111B.....but it is indeed 111M. Thanks for spotting it! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 02:50, 17 September 2010 (EDT)

== Evidence ==

Should there not be evidence for this? References etc.?

== Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel ==

Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel. I invited someone to edit Conservapedia and they were blocked and they should not have been. I got the block overturned. So I think there is room for improvement in Conservapedia's blocking policy. You can sign up [[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. I invited active Syops/Admins plus people with blocking rights who might wish to be Sysops. If I left anyone out, please let them know about the panel. The people with blocking rights can sign up [[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. The panel will probably convene when Iduan is back from his summer vacation or fairly soon afterwards. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:47, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

== Request for Admin assistance ==

To all senior admins and sysops. I am being repeatedly abused by user:conservative who, among other things, accuses me continuously of being an atheist simply because I point out some of the holes in his articles. See [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=113357&diff=924642&oldid=924636 here for the latest accusation]. I have asked him numerous times to desist with his sneering name calling as I find it offensive to have my faith questioned and nothing is ever done. He state’s I am atheist because I don’t agree with some of his ridiculous contentions. In actual fact it isn’t even that I disagree with him it is that I point out his shoddy research, poor scholarship and his berating, insulting and sarcastic behaviour towards others. I am of the opinion now that he is purposely calling me names because he knows I don’t like it which is unchristian, impolite and, above all, insulting. Is anyone going to teach this man some manners? Has Conservapedia become a place where Conservative is allowed to behave this way without any warning or comeuppance but all other editors and warned and blocked for minor infractions. He is in continual violation of the commandments yet NOTHING is done whereas people like myself are always watching out to avoid being banned. Well, fine, ban me if you like. I probably will be after this posting and no doubt Conservative will cackle with glee at “winning” again. But laugh Conservative, you win nothing. I post this is full knowledge that I might be blocked banned and insulted by you in my absence and I have always remained polite and civil plus I can hold my head up high. Hopefully one of you will take a stand and insist on standards of civility. But I don’t hold out much hope. Thanks, many of you were kind, decent people whom I enjoyed working with and I pray for you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:22, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

== Out of curiousity ==

....what do you think about your brother's attempt to rewrite the Bible? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:01, 17 November 2011 (EST)

: As far as I know, he is trying to translate it, not rewrite it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:55, 19 November 2011 (EST)

==A serious Biblical matter==

Aschlafly wrote the essay [[Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?]]. This wouldn't have been to problematic, but now he puts his outlandish idea into an article in the main space ([[Epistle to the Hebrews]]). First he wrote:
{{cquote|"The [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] is the nineteenth book of the [[New Testament]], and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and '''the most plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it.'''"}}
[[User:Iduan]] toned this down somewhat, so that we read at the moment:
{{cquote|"The [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] is the nineteenth book of the [[New Testament]], and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and '''one plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it'''."}}

I couldn't find any Biblical scholar who shares this idea, I couldn't find any authorative figure who promotes this - and this isn't much of a surprise if you read the epistle for yourself! The only "scholar" who has proposed this "theory" in the last 2000 years is Andrew Schlafly.

I tried to delete this sentence, and then I tried to make it clear that this idea is a personal insight by Andrew Schlafly. My edits were reverted: any reader of this encyclopedia gets the impression that this theory is something commonly known or well discussed. That's utterly untrue.

I tend to be quite strict on Biblical matters - I'm often accused of being nitpicky. As one of the sysops of Conservapedia who was active in 2012 I ask you to weigh in on this problem: maybe it is just me and most of the of you and your fellow sysops think that it is acceptable to present an insight of a single person '''in a Biblical matter''' (an insight shared by virtually no one) as a plausible theory. But - as the title of this section indicates - for me this is a very serious matter.

: This is out of my expertise. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:19, 26 November 2012 (EST)
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:25, 25 November 2012 (EST)

Albert Einstein

2012-11-25T17:00:58Z

RSchlafly: Undo revision 1020137 by AllieB (talk) Lorentz and Poincare did have comprehensive theories

[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|right|250px]]
'''Albert Einstein''' (1879-1955) was the most famous [[physicist]] of the 20th century. He was born in Ulm, in Württemberg, [[Germany]] in a [[Judaism|Jewish]] family. During his stay at the [[Switzerland|Swiss]] [[Patent and Trademark Office|Patent Office]] Einstein produced much of his remarkable work. In 1905 he obtained his [[Doctor|doctor's degree]]. He won the [[Nobel Prize]] for his work on the Photoelectric Effect in 1921. <ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/</ref> Einstein [[Immigration|immigrated]] to the [[United States of America|United States]] in the late 1930s to take the position of Professor of Theoretical Physics at [[Princeton University|Princeton]]; upon the urging of a colleague in physics, recommended that [[President of the United States of America|President]] [[Franklin Roosevelt|Franklin D. Roosevelt]] develop an [[atomic bomb]] project. <ref>[http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html]</ref> He later regretted this and became a passionate [[Pacifism|pacifist]]. In 1952, he was offered the Presidency of [[Israel]], but he turned it down. Einstein collaborated with Dr. Chaim Weizmann in establishing the [[Hebrew]] [[University]] of [[Jerusalem]]. Albert Einstein died on April 18, 1955 at Princeton, [[New Jersey]] at the age of 76.

==Anecdotes==
*In 1898, young Albert Einstein applied for admission to the Munich Technical Institute and was turned down. The young man, the Institute declared, "showed no promise" as a student. By 1905, he published his explanation of the special [[theory of relativity]]. <ref>http://oaks.nvg.org/sa5ra17.html</ref>
*Einstein came to Princeton University in 1935 and was asked what he would require for his study. he replied: "A desk, some pads and a pencil, and a large wastebasket to hold all of my mistakes." <ref>http://oaks.nvg.org/sa5ra17.html</ref>
*The sculptor Jacob Epstein tells this story:
*:"When I was doing Professor Albert Einstein's bust he had many a jibe at the Nazi professors, one hundred of whom had condemned his theory of relativity in a book. 'Were I wrong,' he said, 'one professor would have been enough.' <ref>http://oaks.nvg.org/sa5ra17.html</ref>

== Works ==
Einstein contributed to the theory of a [[Special Relativity]] and the theory of [[General Relativity]]. He also contributed to the study of Photoelectric Effect, Brownian Motion and Bose-Einstein Statistics. He was critical of quantum mechanics and has proposed the EPR-Paradox in attempt to point out spooky aspects of the theory. The last fifteen years of his life were spent in unsuccessfully searching for a [[Unified Field Theory]].
Einstein's best-known scientific work is his 1905 papers on [[Special Relativity]]. Einstein did not cite any references and it was widely and falsely assumed that his work was original. The theory of relativity had already been published by [[Hendrik Lorentz]] and [[Henri Poincaré]]. Einstein's contribution was to give a description of the Lorentz-Poincare theory without reference to the luminiferous aether, and to clarify some of the physical consequences of the theory. He used the term "stationary system" instead of the term aether.

Einstein then wrote a series of papers applying relativity to gravity using the mathematics of Riemannian Geometry, contributing to [[General Relativity]]. Much of the actual mathematics of general relativity was worked out by Marcel Grossman, David Hilbert, and others. Einstein's main contribution was to give an alternate derivation of the field equations, and to apply them to explain an [[anomaly]] in the advance of the perihelion in Mercury's orbit.
Arthur Eddington popularized General Relativity by publishing an explanation of it and by attempting to prove the theory experimentally in a dramatic test. Eddington embarked on a highly publicized trip into the Atlantic Ocean off Africa in order to observe the bending of [[star]]light passing nearby the [[Sun]] during the total [[solar eclipse]] of May 29, 1919. Eddington returned with a declaration that he had proven Einstein's theory of [[General Relativity]], making Einstein extremely famous<ref>On November 8, 1919, for example, the ''London Times'' had an article headlined: "The Revolution In Science/Einstein Versus Newton." Two days later, ''The New York Times''' headlines read: "Lights All Askew In The Heavens/Men Of Science More Or Less Agog Over Results Of Eclipse Observations/Einstein Theory Triumphs." [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/relativity/]</ref>, when in fact he had selectively used data to attain this result. No Nobel Prize was given for relativity.

In April 2004, NASA launched the satellite Gravity Probe B to test general relativity. The main purpose was to test relativistic frame dragging, but the results have been inconclusive.

Einstein compared the effects of large objects on space and time to the way that a large ball placed on a sheet of rubber stretches the material and causes it to sag, and drew the analogy with the way stars and planets warp space-time. A smaller ball rolling along the sagging fabric will be drawn towards the larger ball, in the same way that the Earth is drawn towards the sun, but will not fall into it as long as it continues to move at sufficient speed. This was a change in thinking from the Newtonian cosmos, in which gravity was viewed purely as an attractive force between bodies.

Einstein's statistical explanation of Brownian motion (the random movement of microscopic particles mixed in with pollen) is sometimes credited with helping to confirm the atomic theory at a time when some scientists argued against it.<ref>[http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-brownian.htm Einstein on Brownian Motion]</ref> Most scientists had accepted atomic theory a century earlier.

Einstein also published a heuristic explanation of the photoelectric effect in which light has particle like properties as well as wave like properties. According to Maxwell's equations, light is a wave so one might expect that increasing the intensity of light should increase the number of electrons emitted from metal. The German physicist Lénard did an experiment proving that this was not true. Einstein argued that the experiment was consistent with Max Planck's hypothesis that light is quantized and different particles of light or photons have different frequencies. Therefore, increasing the intensity of low frequency photons has no effect, while using a higher (blue or ultra violet) frequency of light does cause more electrons to be emitted. The formula Einstein used to explain this was Planck's formula e = hf, where h is Planck's constant and f is the frequency.[http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae24.cfm?CFID=8792067&CFTOKEN=36662276]

Although Einstein won a Nobel Prize for explaining the photoelectric effect, Lénard was critical of his accomplishments.<ref>Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich in Power, pages 306-309</ref> Planck and Lénard had already received Nobel Prizes for related work explaining the photoelectric effect.

Einstein also recognized the value in work done by the physicist Bose when others did not, and helped Bose publish what is now referred to as Bose-Einstein statistics. A simplified explanation is that the statistics for bosons (including light) are different from the statistics for fermions which make up solid matter in that there is no way to tag or differentiate one boson from another for statistical comparisons.

===E=mc2===
Einstein’s famous formula E=mc2 says that mass and energy can turn into each other. It was first published by H. Poincare. Einstein published an alternate derivation that was corrected and improved by M. Planck. E stands for [[energy]], m is [[mass]], and c is the [[speed of light]]. So, if you increase the energy of a substance, for example by heating it, it gains a minute amount of mass. It was later realized that if you split an atom apart, as in a nuclear explosion, it loses a tiny amount of mass that is released in the form of [[energy]].

The connection E=mc2 to nuclear energy is not as direct as pop culture sometimes represents. Einstein did not discover the huge energy available from nuclear reactions. Early workers in radioactivity, such as Ernest Rutherford, understood clearly that the natural radioactive decay of radium released quantities of energy that could not be explained by chemistry, and were much larger than those of chemical reactions. Neither did Einstein originate the key idea that made nuclear energy a possible weapon or a practical energy source. That was Leo Szilard, who acknowledged having been inspired by a 1914 H. G. Wells novel. Szilard discovered or invented the chain reaction (and patented it). However, other people recognized the relation between Einstein's interpretation of the E=mc2 formula and chain reactions. Einstein explained that matter releasing energy is also losing mass.

Energy binds together the parts of an [[atom]], including the [[nucleus]]. The nucleus of an atom is tiny, but very little mass could release a huge amount of energy. When one nucleus splits apart, it splits other nuclei around it. This is called a [[chain reaction]].

===Cosmological Constant===
Einstein revised his work on [[General Relativity]] to include a 'fudge-factor' which he termed the [[Cosmological Constant]]. He was trying to account for the apparent steady-state nature of the universe.

[[Edwin Hubble]], in whose name [[NASA]]'s famous [[Hubble Space Telescope]] is named, later convinced him otherwise. At one point he had Einstein actually making direct observations alongside him, and Hubble's findings showed conclusively that the [[universe]] was indeed expanding, as predicted by certain solutions of GR's field equations in the absence of a cosmological constant. Einstein recanted his original [[philosophy]], and accepted as true the notion of a changing universe having a definite [[begin]]ning.

He later said of his Cosmological Constant, "It was the biggest blunder of my life."

An interesting end-note on this term: Principle investigators from [[Princeton University]] first published findings in 1998 apparently revealing an accelerating expansion for the universe<ref>http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html</ref>. Because this initially seemed like it might be a sort of 'anti-gravity' effect (similar in concept to Einstein's original notion), it briefly became quite popular for scientists to dub the phenomenon the 'Cosmological Constant' as well. For more information, see: [[Dark Energy]].

== Writings ==

*Special Theory of Relativity (1905)
*Relativity (English translations, 1920 and 1950)
*General Theory of Relativity (1916)
*Investigations on Theory of Brownian Movement (1926)
*The Evolution of Physics (1938)
*About Zionism (1930)
*Why War? (1933),
*My Philosophy (1934)
*(The World As I See It) (1934)
*Out of My Later Years (1950)

''...the daily effort comes from no deliberate intention or program, but straight from the heart.''

== Honors ==
Einstein received honorary doctorate degrees in science, medicine and philosophy from many American and European universities.

He won the Nobel Prize in 1921 for his work on the Photoelectric Effect.
*"It strikes me as unfair, and even in bad taste, to select a few individuals for boundless admiration, attributing superhuman powers of mind and character to them. This has been my fate, and the contrast between the popular assessment of my powers and achievements and the reality is simply grotesque." <ref>http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue38/einstein.html</ref>

Einstein told a friend in 1930, "To punish me for my contempt of authority, Fate has made me an authority myself." <ref>http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue38/einstein.html</ref>

He gained the Copley Medal of the Royal Society of London in 1925 and the Franklin Medal of the Franklin Institute in 1935.

Einstein was offered the presidency of Israel in 1952 <ref>[http://www.einstein-website.de/z_information/variousthings.html#president]</ref> but respectfully declined because he believed his life-long scientific attitude of objectivity made him an inappropriate candidate for such a high political position, he was also strongly opposed to nationalism.

In 1999, he was named "Person of the Century" by "Time" magazine.

==Einstein and the A-bomb==
In 1939 research done by several leading scientists including [[Enrico Fermi]] regarding chain reactions of nuclear fission prompted [[Leo Szilard]] to persuade Einstein to write a letter to President <ref>[[Roosevelt]] [http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml]</ref>, to warn the President about the possibility of nuclear weapons and that Nazi [[Germany]] had already taken an interest in this technology.

Einstein himself had never been involved in the [[Manhattan project]]. He was considered a security risk, as he was a member, sponsor, or affiliated with thirty-four communist fronts between 1937 and 1954.<ref>http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/einstein.htm</ref> Later he condemned the use of nuclear weapons.

==Controversy Surrounding His Death==
Dr. Thomas Stoltz Harvey, then a pathologist, performed the autopsy on Einstein in the [[Princeton Medical Center]] several hours after his death. Upon completion, Dr. Harvey removed the brain and eyes <ref>NPR, [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4602913]</ref>. There is controversy about whether or not Harvey had consent from the Einstein family to remove the brain and keep it, though letters from Otto Nathan, executor of the Einstein estate, suggest that Harvey did indeed have permission to keep the brain, as long as research performed on it was only described in scientific journals.

The brain was photographed and sliced into 240 pieces in order to be preserved and further studied. Harvey hoped some uniqueness would be discovered that distinguished Einstein's brain as "genius".

Although he sent pieces away for further study, the bulk of the brain remained with Harvey for over 40 years. His once-ambitious plans for doing research on Einstein's brain were never actualized, though there were at least two controversial studies performed which suggested a physical reason for Einstein's intelligence. In 1996 Harvey entrusted Elliot Krauss, chief [[pathologist]] at the Princeton Medical Center, with the brain. The brain now sits in a secret location, possibly only a few feet away from where it was first removed from Einstein's head. Krauss loans out pieces of the brain for scientific research, but he is very discriminating in deciding who shall receive a piece. <ref>Abraham, Carolyn. ''Possessing Genius''. Icon Books Ltd (2005)</ref>

==Religious views==
[[Image:Einstein inshul1930.jpg|right|thumb|Einstein wearing a kippah in a Berlin Synagogue, 1930.|300px]]
There is some controversy surrounding the religion of Albert Einstein.
He explained his religious views to [[Time Magazine]] in this manner: <blockquote>“I'm not an [[atheist]]. I don't think I can call myself a [[pantheist]]. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." <ref>http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1607298,00.html</ref></blockquote>

In the same interview, Einstein spoke of his feelings regarding Christianity:

<blockquote>
"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."
</blockquote>

And when asked if he accepted the historical existence of Jesus, Einstein replied:

<blockquote>
"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."
</blockquote>

Einstein also said
<blockquote>
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Life-Universe-Walter-Isaacson/dp/0743264738</ref>,
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
"The fanatical atheists, are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres."<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Life-Universe-Walter-Isaacson/dp/0743264738</ref>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>"God does not play dice with the universe."<ref>http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/878</ref></blockquote>
and
<blockquote>
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind" <ref>http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Life-Universe-Walter-Isaacson/dp/0743264738</ref>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."<ref>as quoted in "Albert Einstein - The Human Side", Selected and Edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press, 1979 from a letter on March 24th, 1954</ref></blockquote>

Taken as a whole, it appears Einstein rejected the literal stories of God's personal involvement with the Hebrews, but he did believe in the existence of a higher power as a metaphor for what we did not know about the universe.

==Views On Judaism and Zionism==
[[Image:Einst 22.jpg|right|thumb|Einstein with [[David Ben-Gurion]].|300px]]
In 1920, in a letter to the Central Association of German Citizens of the Jewish Faith, Einstein wrote
<blockquote>
"I am neither a German citizen, nor is there in me anything that can be described as ‘Jewish faith.’ But I am happy to belong to the Jewish people, even if I do not consider them in any way God's elect."
</blockquote>
Einstein did not view fellow Jews as co-religionists, but as tribal companions.
Einstein was made an honorary citizen of [[Tel Aviv]] during his visit in 1923.
In 1952, Einstein was offered the position of president of Israel by the 1st prime minster of [[Israel]] David Ben-Gurion, but declined the offer. Before his death in 1955, Einstein wrote to the Zionist leader Kurt Blumenfeld:
<blockquote>
"I thank you, even at this late hour, for having made me conscious of the Jewish soul."
</blockquote>
Einstein willed that all his scholarly work be archived in Israel's Hebrew University after his death.

Einstein always expressed his anti-war views and staunchly opposed nationalism:

"He who joyfully marches to rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism on command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so a base of action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."

==Einstein on Germany and the rise of Hitler==
In 1944, in a message to a bulletin run by Polish Jews in New York, Einstein wrote
<blockquote>
The Germans as an entire people are responsible for the mass murders and must be punished as a people if there is justice in the world and if the consciousness of collective responsibility in the nations is not to perish from the earth entirely. Behind the Nazi party stands the German people, who elected Hitler after he had in his book [Mein Kampf] and in his speeches made his shameful [genocidal] intentions clear beyond the possibility of misunderstanding.
</blockquote>

== Unsupported attributions ==
* Many ideas and quotes are falsely attributed to Einstein. He did not invent very much of we now call [[special relativity]]. The Principle of Relativity, that the law of physics should be the same in all inertial frames, had already been published before Einstein.<ref>[http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0408077]</ref> He did not discover the [[Lorentz transformation]], or the Lorentz invariance of [[Maxwell's equations]] for electromagnetism.<ref>[http://eprint.uq.edu.au/archive/00002307/]</ref> He was not the first to propose that the [[speed of light]] is constant for all observers, or that "[[the aether]]" is superfluous and not observable.<ref>Lost in Einstein's Shadow, American Scientist, 2006. [http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/49611/page/1]</ref> He was not the first to recognize and explain how special relativity causes an ambiguity in defining simultaneity.<ref>[http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/Poincare.htm]</ref> He did not combine space and time into a four-dimensional [[spacetime]] in his special relativity papers until others had been doing it for a couple of years.

* Einstein did not invent the term "relativity theory", and did not even like the term. He called it the "so-called relativity theory" until 1911. Einstein did not banish the ether from Physics. In a 1920 lecture, he said, "More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny æther."<ref>Quoted by Tulane astrophysicist Frank J. Tipler, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1271310</ref>

* Einstein was not the first to observe the equation E=mc2 as a consequence of special relativity,<ref>H. Poincare published it in 1900. [http://www.serve.com/herrmann/ein.htm]</ref>
or to foresee its application to [[nuclear binding]] energies or [[antimatter]] annihilation.
* Einstein only published faulty and incomplete proofs.<ref>Einstein's Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius, by Hans C. Ohanian, http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Mistakes-Human-Failings-Genius/dp/0393062937</ref><ref>http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/01-einstein.s-23-biggest-mistakes</ref>
* He did not foresee a nuclear [[chain reaction]] and had to be persuaded about the possibility of an [[atomic bomb]].
* However, Einstein's interpretation of the E=mc2 equation was fairly popular.
* According to Einstein, a body losing energy through heat or [[radiation]] was losing mass.<ref>Einstein, A., 1905, [http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/papers/1905_18_639-641.pdf Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von dessen Energieinhalt abhängig?], Annalen der Physik, volume 18, pages 639–643. See also [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www English translation].</ref>

* Einstein did not originate the idea of using non-Euclidean geometry<ref>His friend Paul Ehrenfest pointed out the need for curved space. [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/181349/Albert-Einstein]</ref> [[metric tensor]]s to reconcile gravity with special relativity.<ref>[http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/DepPhilo/walter/papers/b4.pdf]</ref> It was not his idea to describe gravity in [[covariant equations]], and he published papers supposedly showing that it was impossible.<ref>[http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/decades_re-set.pdf]</ref> He did not discover the Lagrangian formulation of [[general relativity]], and was not the first to publish the field equations. He did not foresee the [[expansion of the universe]] (although this expansion is consistent with the field equations), the possibility of black holes, or [[dark energy]].

* Einstein did not originate the idea that light is observable as particles. Max Planck published that a few years before Einstein, and received a Nobel prize for it.

* Einstein did not prove that matter was made of atoms. That had been known for a century when Einstein published his 1905 paper on Brownian motion.

* Einstein never developed a [[unified field theory]] of any significance. He published papers on [[quantum mechanics]], but always insisted on a deterministic interpretation.

* Many quotes are falsely attributed to Einstein. Here are a few. "If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left." "We use only 10% of our brains." "Evil is simply the absence of God." "Originality is the art of concealing your sources." 

== Quotes ==
Here are some quotes that have been attributed to Einstein, but which have not been verified.

* The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=H-GfO0jkBLsC&pg=PA146&dq=The+difference+between+stupidity+and+genius+is+that+genius+has+its+limits&ei=NtAaSsTZBZj2MJ2NyL8J And I Quote - Genius Page 146] by By Ashton Applewhite, William R. Evans, Tripp Evans, Andrew Frothingham </ref>

* Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=MbC45UX_4gMC&pg=PT19&dq=Learn+from+yesterday,+live+for+today,+hope+for+tomorrow.+The+important+thing+is+not+to+stop+questioning.&ei=Mdk-SormHozayQT1-uS-AQ A vision of transdisciplinarity : laying foundations for a world knowledge] by Frédéric Darbellay, Moira Cockell, Jerome Billotte</ref>

* "Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters." <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=CNuwE3NL1QgC&pg=PA388&dq=Whoever+is+careless+with+the+truth+in+small+matters+cannot+be+trusted+with+important+matters&ei=swRFSoSYM46yzASEy8Bc Albert Einstein: historical and cultural perspectives : the centennial - Page 388] by Gerald James Holton</ref>

==External Links==
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com/E=mc2.shtml Relativity Calculator - e=mc2 derivation]

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

*"The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921"[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/]
*"On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf]
*"Does The Inertia Of A Body Depend Upon Its Energy-Content?"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
*Michael Paterniti, Driving Mr. Albert: A Trip Across America With Einstein's Brain
*"Collected Quotes from Albert Einstein" [http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html]
*"Confusion regarding Einstein's Religion"[http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2004/04/confusion.html]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Einstein, Albert}}

[[Category:Nobel laureates in Physics]]
[[Category:Physicists]]
[[Category:German People]]
[[Category:Zionism]]
[[Category:Religion and Politics]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:Agnostics]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Anti-Christianity

2012-08-16T14:45:35Z

RSchlafly: calling pro-family organizations hate group

This article lists examples of [[Bias in Wikipedia]], related to Anti-[[Christianity]] and favoritism to other religions/atheism:
# Articles on the American Family Association[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association] and the Family Research Council[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council] call them hate groups based on opinions of the Southern Poverty Law Center on same-sex marriage, but the article on the Southern Poverty Law Center[http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center] does not have similar criticism of it.
# Wikipedia's article on Extremism specifically points out Christians are commonly called extreme, ''"It is also not uncommon to necessarily define distinctions regarding extremist Christians as opposed to moderate Christians, as in countries such as the United States"'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extremism&oldid=497191070]
# [[Wikipedia]] has a lengthy entry on "Jesus H. Christ,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_H._Christ</ref> a term that is an idiotic mockery of the [[Christian]] [[faith]]. [[Wikipedia]] calls the term "often humorous," "joking" and "comedic", and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-[[Christian]] mockery. Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia]] does not describe mockery of any other religion as "humorous".
# Arguments for atheism are prominently featured in Wikipedia's atheism article, but Wikipedia's Christianity article does not mention Christian apologetics.
# Wikipedia has millions of obscure entries, but deletes or omits entries about [[conservatives]] and/or [[Christians]]. For example, conservative congressional candidate [[Ruth McClung]] has no entry at all on Wikipedia, despite being far more notable than many of its entries; likewise, broadcaster Al Gross's entry<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gross_%28broadcaster%29</ref> has been tagged for deletion despite having a notable and continuing career in broadcasting.
# Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Theological_Seminary Westminster Theological Seminary] demonstrates its anti-Christian bias when it states "with the vision of continuing the theological tradition of Princeton Theological Seminary '''in a militant and explicitly polemical manner''', from which the Westminster founders felt Princeton was departing."
# It's apparently okay to cast doubt on well-known evangelical Christian's claims of being former atheists, as was recently done repeatedly to Kirk Cameron's Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=262633707&oldid=262591086</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=263109644&oldid=263063442</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=263670595&oldid=263666117</ref>, but similar edits regarding claims made by famous atheists of being former Christians would never be tolerated (e.g. PZ Myers' Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pz_myers</ref>).
# Wikipedia's article on the [[French Revolution]] censors the central role [[atheism]] played in causing the mass murders of the [[Reign of Terror]].<ref>See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution</ref>
# Wikipedia omits an entry on [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]], and instead ignores the foreknowledge with a pathetically abbreviated section entitled "History and advocacy" under "Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_foreknowledge_in_sacred_texts</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [[Thanksgiving]] is a clearcut attempt to mitigate the meaning of Thanksgiving; from giving thanks to God as the holiday is meant to be, and instead changing history by claiming the day has become a politically correct "secular holiday." Wikipedia's [[political correctness]] is an attempt to change truth in order to appeal more closely with [[atheists]].
#[[Isaac Newton]] ''translated'' parts of the [[Bible]], and considered this effort to be the source of his scientific insights, yet Wikipedia's 10,000-word entry completely omits this.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton . Newton also felt that everyone else who translated the Bible were also able to have insights.</ref>
#Wikipedia uses anti-religious examples for its entry on "argumentum ad populum" (Latin for claiming that something is true if it is popular). Conspicuously absent from Wikipedia's examples are atheistic arguments based on popular opinion, such as misleading people into thinking the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] must be true if others accept it.
#Wikipedia's article about [[Bernhard Riemann]], perhaps the greatest modern mathematician, contains little discussion of Riemann's [[faith]] and tries to downplay his fundamentalism as though it were merely a passing interest as a teenager.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann</ref><ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/bernhard-riemann</ref>
#In its entry on the heavily Christian Gothic architecture,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_architecture</ref> [[Wikipedia]] credits [[Islam]] before [[Christianity]], does not even mention Christianity until after more than 1500 words, and then does not mention Christianity again.
# Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] fails to mention that [[United States|American]] [[atheist]]s [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than American theists on a per capita basis even when church giving is not counted for theists]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref> In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention [[Atheism and deception|how key proponents of atheism have been deceptive]]. Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] also fails to mention that [[Christianity and Science|Christianity and not atheism was foundational in regards to the development of modern science]]. Wikipedia's article attempts to associate atheism with scientific progress.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref> In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that [[Atheism and suicide|atheism is a causal factor for suicide]].
#Wikipedia's entry about the [[Christian]] martyr at [[Columbine]] refuses to admit that she was murdered by an [[atheist]] as she was expressing her [[faith]] in [[God]], as confirmed by multiple witnesses.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassie_Bernall</ref><ref>http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/cassie.htm</ref> Wikipedia is dominated by atheistic [[public school]] students who would be particularly biased against this truth.
#*Version of May 12, 2009:
#*:Initial reports suggested that one of the assailants, either Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold, asked Bernall if she believed in God moments before fatally shooting her. She was reported to have answered "yes". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cassie_Bernall&oldid=289313205]
#Despite extensive evidence for the existence of God, Wikipedia lists theism as an example of the so-called [[Tinkerbell effect]]. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tinkerbell_effect&oldid=390319255</ref>
#Wikipedia contains no information on the link between [[atheism and obesity]] or the [[New Atheism leadership's problems with being overweight]].
# Arguments for atheism are prominently featured in Wikipedia's atheism article, but Wikipedia's Christianity article does not mention Christian apologetics.
# The Wikipedia entry on [[baraminology]] (a form of taxonomy) describes it as "pseudoscience" and "unrelated to science" simply because it is based on the Holy Bible.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/baraminology</ref>
# A user named [[Richard Dawkins]] apparently edited his own article on [[Wikipedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RichardDawkins</ref> and even linked to a DVD being sold from his personal website. Illustrating [[Wikipedia]]'s favoritism towards [[liberals]], it took a long time (well over a year after he first edited his own article)<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RichardDawkins</ref> for anybody to confront this well-known [[atheist]] for this conflict of interest, despite being against [[Wikipedia]]'s own rules.
# Wikipedia's entry for [[Johnny Appleseed]], a Christian folk hero, omits a discussion of his strong faith and instead features baseless speculation about his health, a year of death different from that of his obituary, and a silly story designed to make a Christian preacher look foolish.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Appleseed</ref>
# Wikipedia's entries about the 2007 Masters<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Masters_Tournament</ref> and its champion [[Zach Johnson]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zach_Johnson&oldid=154500732</ref> who won an upset come-from-behind victory against Tiger Woods, omitted any reference to Johnson's public statements crediting his [[faith]] in [[Jesus Christ]] for strengthening him as he overcame enormous odds to prevail. Months later, after criticism here, Johnson's attribution to [[Jesus Christ]] was included, but with the [[Wikipedia]] trick of placing it late in a wordy entry so that few are likely to see it, and even then with a silly "citation needed" to suggest that the quote may not be true.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Johnson</ref>
# Wikipedia recently moved further away from Judaeo-Christian beliefs by complaining that "[t]he average Wikipedian ... is from a predominantly Christian country" and that Wikipedia was built on Christian encyclopedias and "the Jewish Encyclopedia."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias (later "predominantly Christian" was changed to "nominally Christian")</ref> At the same time, Wikipedia complains about the "enormous significance" given by entries to "Al-Qaeda attacks on the U.S., UK and Spain, killing slightly over 3,000 people."<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>
# In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth.<ref>http://www.bede.org.uk/books,jmyth.htm</ref> Wikipedia's entry on [[Jesus]] has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus</ref> But no credible historian makes such a claim.
# Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of [[Jesus]], so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the [[CE]] deception.
# Wikipedia's article on Martin Luther King Jr. is extensive. There is little doubt that King was known for civil rights. However, Wikipedia fails to recognize King's main 'Influence', Jesus Christ. King's life was Jesus from day one, his entire life was Christ inspired. As Dr. King Jr said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.&oldid=338783450]
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Renaissance]] denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.<ref>Wikipedia has since updated its entry with a backhanded reference to Christianity, but even then not for inspiring the Renaissance but rather for providing subject matter for the works.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renaissance&oldid=138439803]</ref>
# Wikipedia editors who are agnostic or atheistic outnumber Christian editors 2:1.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_religion</ref> This make them nearly 8 times as atheistic as America (in a Newsweek poll in 2006, 92% of Americans said they believed in God and only 8% said they did not believe in God or didn't know). Also, a Wikimedia page surveying the religions of Wikipedia editors, showed a greater number of atheists using pages to ridicule Christianity.<ref>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion</ref>
#The articles on both [[Saul Alinsky]] and his book, ''Rules for Radicals'' make no mention of his dedication to "the original radical—Lucifer."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky</ref>
# About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the [[Bible]].<ref>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040216-113955-2061r.htm</ref> But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood</ref> Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}
{{Bias in wikipedia}}
[[category:wikipedia]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: General or uncategorized

2012-08-12T04:04:44Z

RSchlafly: add NPVIC

This article lists examples of [[Bias in Wikipedia]] that cannot be categorized in another area:
[[File:Gordon_Brown.jpg|thumb|right|150 px|Gordon Brown]]
# The Wikipedia article on the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact refuses to explain how it would have applied to presidential elections where a candidate receives a plurality of the popular vote, but not a majority. See this edit being reverted. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact&diff=505578790&oldid=503340424]
# Wikipedia includes the margin of victory for a [[liberal]] politician, but omits or downplays the margin of defeat for the same politician. For example, Alan Mollohan lost in his own primary by 56-44% after voting for [[Obamacare]], but Wikipedia's entry about him includes only his margins of victory in prior elections. The margin of defeat for liberal [[Gordon Brown]] is obscured in his Wikipedia entry also.
#Wikipedia appeals to a dumbed-down culture of users that appreciate obscenity instead of education. The vulgar swear word referring to sex, F---, is mentioned in nearly 7,000 articles. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search]
#Wikipedia does its best to cover-up crimes and lewd behavior coming from left leaning [[Occupy Wall Street]] crowd. Assault emphasized, rape is minimized by the terms omission. Rape is not used in the article and can only be found in a reference title at the end of the page. <ref>Occupy_Wall_Street&oldid=466639949 Cover-up at Wikipedia,lewd acts downplayed</ref>
# Wikipedia does not mention until after 600 words that [[Jared Loughner]], like many Wikipedia editors, is an [[atheist]], and its entry initially failed to admit that he is also a [[nihilist]], an extreme form of atheism.<ref>When Wikipedia eventually added mention of Loughner's nihilism, its edit summary omitted reference to the term. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jared_Lee_Loughner&action=historysubmit&diff=407362660&oldid=407358740].</ref>
# A Wikipedia editor going under the pseudonym ''Jagged85'' made 67,000 edits between 2007 and 2010 until it was demonstrated that he was systematically misrepresenting Islamic science, technology, and philosophy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85/Evidence]
# A Wikipedia editor named "Pensacolian" inserted false information about Judge Roger Vinson, claiming he was a bear hunter who mounted several of his trophy bear heads above his courtroom door. [[Rush Limbaugh]] repeated the claims on his radio show, compelling the Judge to issue a statement denying the falsehoods. [http://www.tampabay.com/incoming/limbaugh-taken-in-pensacola-judge-loves-to-grow-camellias-not-shoot-bears/1122074]
# When someone goes to Wikipedia's "Constitutional Convention" page, users are taken to a general page about Constitutional conventions, instead of being taken right to the United States Constitutional Convention page. From 2005 to 2010, they named the US page as the unheard of "Philadelphia Convention",[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philadelphia_Convention&diff=31214002&oldid=31213911] diluting its significance. They have not even renamed it "U.S. Constitutional Convention" and Google mostly matches "Philadelphia Convention ''Center''" as a building. The US Convention is over 100-200 years older than the other conventions listed, and an Internet search confirms that "Constitutional Convention" is used more than ten times as often as "Philadelphia Convention," but the liberal and anti-American Wikipedia editors have insisted on redirecting visitors to the obscure term, for over 5 years. As of August 2010, "Philadelphia Convention" redirects to "Constitutional Convention (United States)". "Constitutional Convention" still leads to a disambiguation page where one can access articles about several specific conventions or a general article about the term "Constitutional Convention".
#Wikipedia's article on engineering<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering</ref> features a photo of ... an offshore wind turbine, which is an inefficient [[liberal]] boondoggle and certainly not a representative example of engineering. None even exist off the shores of the [[United States]] because they are not competitive.
#In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'', [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] supports his observation that [[Wikipedia]] "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on [[Gardasil]], an [[HPV Vaccine]] promoted by [[liberals]] and Merck, is filled with falsehoods and omits key facts. As of Aug. 9, 2008, Wikipedia's entry claimed that cervical cancer was "the second leading cause of death from cancer in women world-wide"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil</ref> (which is nonsense), and that the "HPV types 16 and 18 '''cause''' about 70% of cervical cancer cases" (not even Merck claims that); the entry downplays how the vaccine loses its effectiveness in a few years, and only about 3% of teenage recipients are likely to be exposed to the strains of HPV that the vaccine targets - at a cost of about $13,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer that does not arise until 30 years in the future.<ref>See [[HPV Vaccine]]</ref>
# If anyone posts a profane quote on Wikipedia with the expletives censored (e.g. d--n), editors quickly restore the profanity. Wikipedia's guidelines, which its liberal editors selectively ignore, suggest to include the profanity "if and only if" such expressions will contribute to the meaning of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Profanity&oldid=227187296</reF>
# [[Liberals]] loathe self-defense, and [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the national self-defense system of the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] is seething with bias and outright falsehoods.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative</ref> Long passages are devoted to irrational criticisms of the programs, with inexplicable prominence given to criticisms by Hans Bethe, a European-raised scientist who later endorsed [[John Kerry]] for president. The entry even claims that SDI brought "the nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union to its most critical point!"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[censorship]] omits any reference to [[liberal]] censorship of [[classroom prayer]], [[pro-life]] advertisements, [[conservative]] newspapers on college campuses, or [[intelligent design]] in school.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship</ref>
#Given that one of Wikipedia's co-founders, [[Jimbo Wales]], is an [[atheism|atheist]], it is not particularly surprising that [[Wikipedia]] is particularly biased against prayer in school, as illustrated by its description of Coach [[Marcus Borden]]'s attempts merely to bow his head while his football players pray. [[Wikipedia]]'s biased description disparages community support of Borden by saying it is "regardless of federal law"; the entry says he returned to coaching as urged by the community "ostensibly" to assert a right to bow his head during prayer.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Brunswick_Public_Schools#Controversy</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has an entry on "Gun Politics in the United States" that falsely claims that "Gun politics as a political issue dates to the earliest days of the United States."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States</ref> It shows a statue of a Revolutionary Minuteman carrying a rifle as "proof" of its claim! Wikipedia's entry is astoundingly biased, concealing how guns deter crime and refusing to cite [[John Lott]], the leading expert whose studies support guns.
#''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' is listed under the category "Propaganda films", alongside other [[conservative]] documentary films.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Propaganda_films</ref> However, the lying, deceitful films of [[Michael Moore]] and other [[liberals]] are never described as "propaganda".
#Here's another example of why [[Wikipedia]] is declining: it locked its entry about [[Richard Dawkins]] to censor one of his quotes, despite being verified with a reference.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=next&oldid=162688862</ref> Perhaps the [[atheists]] on [[Wikipedia]] don't want people to learn what Dawkins really said! After criticism here, Wikipedia eventually unlocked the entry.
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Peter Singer]] downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and moral disdain for human life. Quotes such as "Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person" were ''removed'' as being "POV",<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=200849646&oldid=199494933</ref> despite appearing in the like-minded ''[[New York Times]]''.<ref>Paul Zielbauer, [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260 Princeton Bioethics Professor Debates Views on Disability and Euthanasia]. ''The New York Times'': Oct. 13, 1999</ref> A week after this criticism,<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=443352&oldid=443152</ref> an editor restored the former quote.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=209935940&oldid=209392718</reF>
# Predictably, [[Wikipedia]] insists on a completely biased, one-sided, negative entry about the movie ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', and then locked the page to prevent balance from being included.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed</ref> In characteristic fashion, [[Wikipedia]] misrepresents the views of those it dislikes, and uses smears (like "conspiracy-theory," a favorite Wikipedia epithet) to [[demonize]] them. Also in [[Wikipedia]]-style, it quotes [[liberal]] newspaper opinions as though they are fact, but ignores, downplays or censors opposite published opinions (e.g., by [[National Review]]).
# [[Wikipedia]] allows hundreds of thousands of obscure and offensive entries, such as unsuccessful punk rock groups and silly television shows.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'oh Such as the entry on D'oh]</ref> But within hours [[liberals]] on [[Wikipedia]] completely deleted an informative and well-referenced entry about [[Hollywood Values]], in order to censor examples of how the [[liberal]] ideology harms people. (This deletion occurred on Feb. 15, 2008; the deleting administrator considered the page to be "vandalism".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Hollywood+values&year=&month=-1</ref> After the first deletion, another Wikipedia user re-created the "Hollywood values" article as a joke with just this sentence: "Aw, whine, why can't Andrew Schlafly's perspective be told here??? After all, he runs the Trusworthy Encyclopedia!!!</snark> Sorry, please don't block me."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Huw_Powell&oldid=226552177#February_2008</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] entries contain [[liberal]] claims followed by citations that do not actually support the claims. For example, [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Michael Farris]] states that it "was speculated that Farris' close connection to [[conservative]] leaders ... alienated some voters" in his campaign for lieutenant governor,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Farris</ref> but its citation for that [[liberal]] claim actually attributes his loss to his opponent's [[television]] ads that (falsely) claimed Farris wanted "to ban children's books such as 'The Wizard of Oz', 'Rumpelstiltskin,' and 'Cinderella'."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2519/is_n1_v15/ai_14891141</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s pervasive anonymous editing vandalizes numerous [[conservative]] entries, such as that of [[pro-life]] scholar [[Mary Ann Glendon]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ann_Glendon</ref> For nearly two weeks her entry on [[Wikipedia]] has featured the disrespectful and unsupported statement that "She is a notable pro-life feminist, and ''a fan of the Dropkick Murphys," which is a punk rock group''. [[Liberal]] editors monitor anonymous editing, but often allow attempts to embarrass [[conservatives]] to remain for a long time.
# As far as [[Richard Dawkins]] title of professor while at [[Oxford]], [[Wikipedia]] fails to mention Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's contention that the special terms of the endowment for the position might have allowed Dawkins to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required before receiving the title of "professor".<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref> Rabbi Boteach stated a decree by Oxford seems to imply this.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the [[Prodigal Son]] devotes more words to obscure rock band and [[liberal media]] references to it (e.g., "'The Prodigal Son' is the Season 2 opener of the TV series Miami Vice, although it has virtually nothing to do with the parable itself.") than to the parable and its spiritual meaning.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s [[gossip]] and policy allowing edits by anonymous IP addresses struck again: for over two weeks the entry on former [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice [[Byron White]] stated he was the father of former Cowboy great Danny White.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Byron_White&diff=159734800&oldid=154431838</ref> The statement was utterly false, but misled everyone who read that.<ref>http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopics/Are-They-Related-213708.html</ref>
# Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], whose official website published attacks on a [[Wikipedia]] editor with an open invitation to vandalize [[Wikipedia]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence# Michael_Moore] and was proposed to be designated as an Attack site, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking. Writing this down in black and white is important, if that is what we do in practice. And, if it not clear, I support him too, although I am not enamored of anyone's [[propaganda]]. Even that which supports my own position." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", Bauder responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] [[Wikipedia]]'s Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view# _note-0] The editor Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]
# [[Wikipedia]] heavily promotes [[liberals]] in inappropriate places. Go to Wikipedia's entry on ''[[Boy Scouts v. Dale]]'', a [[conservative]] [[Supreme Court]] decision, and for months you'd see a top-screen promotion for "gay/lesbian rights advocate" Evan Wolfson with a claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885 (quoting a 2004 [[liberal]] list by Time magazine).</ref> [[Wikipedia]] eventually removed that [[liberal]] promotion, but kept its inappropriate emphasis on this attorney who, by the way, lost this case.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has once again deleted all content on the [[North American Union]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_american_union&redirect=no]. The old pages are inaccessible, and re-creation is blocked.
# The [[Wikipedia]] article on [[Eritrea]] refuses to concede that [[Eritrea]] is a one-party state.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea</ref> Another example of [[Wikipedia]] [[liberal bias]]: "Oh, they aren't really a dictatorship, their charter specifically denies it!"
# [[Wikipedia]] often inserts bias by downplaying a [[liberal]] outrage or fallacy amid thousands of words of nearly irrelevant information. For example, no one credibly disputes that [[liberals]] forced [[Larry Summers]] to resign as president of [[Harvard]] because he dared to suggest that the under-representation of women in math, science and engineering may be due to innate differences between women and men.<ref>http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2007/09/14/news/114new1.txt</ref><ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19181-2005Jan18.html</ref> But the verbose entry for Larry Summers on [[Wikipedia]] implies that his obscure other positions were more important in causing his ouster.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Summers</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] welcomes and allows edits by anonymous IP addresses, which results in rampant vandalism that is overwhelmingly [[liberal]]. Credible wikis, including [[Conservapedia]], do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses.
# Users who look up the term "[[liberal]]" are ''redirected'' to the Wikipedia entry on [[liberalism]] that conceals the [[liberal]] support of [[gun control]] and taxpayer funding of [[abortion]], and [[liberal]] censorship of [[prayer]] in [[public school]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]], its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and [[deceit]], features an entry on "deceit (album)" that gushes with a description of it as "austere, brilliant and indescribable" music that is "post-punk".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_(album)</ref> The word "deceit" has no entry on [[Wikipedia]]. It was ''redirected'' to a different term having a different meaning, and then this redirect was changed 7 times in two days in response to this criticism here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deceit&action=history</ref> Even now it lacks a clear definition and the numerous examples provided in the entry on [[deceit]] here.
# [[Wikipedia]] promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]]). For example, Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Friendly&oldid=151873451</ref> and Wikipedia's entry about [[Zerah Colburn]] ended with a claim that his distant ''nephew'' committed suicide.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_(math_prodigy)&oldid=147253074</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_%28locomotive_designer%29&oldid=500951356|title=Zerah Colburn (locomotive designer)|accessdate=July 7, 2012}}</ref> After this criticism appeared here, these two entries were fixed (and in the case of Friendly, reinstated before being fixed again); the Colburn suicide is still there as of July 7, 2012. There has been no system-wide removal of this bias on [[Wikipedia]]. In yet another example, [[Wikipedia]] has an entry for "suicide by cop"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop</ref> to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide.
# [[Wikipedia]]'s last sentence on [[Human Life International]] claimed that a killer "confessed that pamphets (sic) from the group led" him to kill. This is a complete lie designed to smear a [[conservative]] group. But this was approved by [[Wikipedia]] and remained for over a month.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_Life_International&oldid=138698827] Only in response to Conservapedia's criticism was the smear removed.</ref>
# A devastating critique of [[Wikipedia]] by [[Fox News]] describes the impact of [[Wikipedia]] smears on popular golfer Fuzzy Zoeller.<ref>In addition to the [[Fox News]] report, numerous stories on the Internet describe the smears, which we will not repeat here. "The Wikipedia entry has since been cleansed of the remarks, first posted last August, then again in December before being removed January 2nd. However, several sites like Answers.com have copies of Wikipedia entries, and as of press time still had the defamatory content in place."[http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/02/22/fuzzy-zoeller-incensed-over-wikipedia-edit]</ref>
# Smears in [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[United States of America|U.S.]] Congressman Steve LaTourette were totally false.<ref>http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1184402220217510.xml&coll=2</ref>
# "[[Larry Sanger]], who founded [[Wikipedia]] in 2001 with [[Jimmy Wales]] only to leave shortly afterwards, said that even as far back as 2001 the [[Wikipedia]] community 'had no respect for experts.'"<ref>http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8794</ref>
# The 5,400-word Wikipedia entry on The John Birch Society<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_John_Birch_Society</ref> attempts to smear unrelated [[conservatives]] who had nothing to do with the society, simply by calling them "allies". Under that reasoning [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Pope John Paul II]], and [[George W. Bush]] should also be in that entry! And this is by a resource that criticizes [[McCarthyism]]???<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism</ref>
# Wikipedia has a substantial anti-intellectual element, as reflected by silly administrator names and nonsensical entries. For a long time Wikipedia had an entry for "duh": "Duh is an American English slang exclamation that is used to express disdain for someone missing the obviousness of something. For example, if one read a headline saying 'Scientific study proves pain really does hurt' or 'New reports show death is bad for one's health', the response might be 'Well, duh!'"<ref>Wikipedia ultimately deleted its entry after it was critized here</ref> How about a new slogan: ''Wikipedia: well, duh!''
# Wikipedia has a banner to criticize an American treatment of a topic: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance</ref> "A worldwide view" is fictional [[liberal]] terminology for [[globalists]].
# Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the Wikia project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>
# April 24th was the anniversary of [[Operation Eagle Claw]], which was President [[Jimmy Carter]]'s failed attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran. The Conservapedia [[Operation Eagle Claw|entry]] explains Carter's political motivation for this. But the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw entry] omits Carter's political motivation and instead implies that this bad luck cost Carter the election.<ref>Wikipedia states, "The operation was a failure, and had a severe impact on U.S. President Jimmy Carter's re-election prospects ...."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw entry]</ref> In fact, Newsweek did not even mention this after July 14th, and Reagan beat Carter for reasons other than bad luck.
# Wikipedia's entry on James Monroe<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Monroe</ref> omits any mention of how he was a conservative and omits Monroe's veto of a key appropriation on the Cumberland Road Bill, when Monroe stated that "congress does not possess the power under the constitution to pass such a law."<ref>[[James Monroe]]</ref> After this criticism was posted here, an editor at Wikipedia added Monroe's Cumberland Road Bill opposition to the article,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Monroe&oldid=226448821#Presidency_1817.E2.80.931825:_The_Era_of_Good_Feelings</ref> but the article still has yet to mention that Monroe was politically conservative.
# Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444</ref> But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".<ref>Based on a comparison of how many users are under categories [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with those in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians]. Both categories were [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/August_2007#Category:All_Wikipedian_by_political_ideology_categories deleted] on Aug. 10, 2007 as editors have argued that "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOAP Wikipedia is not a soapbox]" among other reasons. However, the userboxes for users to declare themselves as "liberal" or "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" have been allowed to stay. Wikipedia's own records show, as of July 28, 2008, that far more users choose the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=User%3AUBX%2Fliberal&namespace= liberal]" userbox than the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" userbox.</ref> That suggests '''Wikipedia is six times more [[liberal]] than the American public'''.<ref>"Liberal bias" can be defined as the ratio of [[liberals]] to conservatives in a group, such that no [[liberals]] would equate to zero [[liberal bias]]. Wikipedia's ratio of 3:1 for liberals to conservatives is six times the ratio in the American public of 1:2 for [[liberals]] to conservatives.</ref> See also [[liberal quotient]].
# One can confirm that sex-related entries are attracting many to Wikipedia, including young viewers, by viewing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics Wikipedia statistics]. But Wikipedia gives no specific warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages, and Wikipedia would probably be disabled in many homes and schools if a proper warning were given.<ref>Wikipedia merely has a general disclaimer that avoids any reference to its sexual images, pornography, and adult content.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer]</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestinian People" omits any mention of terrorism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people (the entry also contained an unjustified picture of children for sympathy purposes, but that was removed after criticism here)</ref>
# Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racist_mathematics</ref>
# The Wikipedia entry for the [[Voting Rights Act]] contained (as of March 9-10) a call to participate in a political march to establish congressional representation for D.C.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voting_Rights_Act</ref> This is a longtime [[liberal]] cause prohibited by the [[U.S. Constitution]]. A conservative entry like that would be deleted by Wikipedia editors within minutes, but that entry remained until after it was criticized here.
# Wikipedia's entry for conservative physicist [[Edward Teller]] promotes the [[liberal]] attempt to blame him for the government taking away the security clearance of [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Teller testified, "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Wikipedia first called this statement "damning", and after criticism here replaced its term with "problematic".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller</ref> In light of how multiple spies leaked secrets under Oppenheimer's supervision in the [[Manhattan Project]] and spying even worsened afterwards, Wikipedia's spin on Teller's statement is unjustified bias.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons&oldid=107830399 The version] criticized above; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the note] left by dpbsmith on the article's discussion page; the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons current version].</ref> The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another [[liberal]] journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!
# There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalist bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war [[Bell Trade Act]] of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."<ref>This phrase was removed from Wikipedia only after this criticism was posted here. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Trade_Act</ref> The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.
# Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of [[deism]] by [[Benjamin Franklin]] by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the [[Constitutional Convention]] for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers</ref> an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of ''[[Pilgrim's Progress]]'' in his autobiography.
# Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the [[National Enquirer]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry, "Nina Totenberg", states, "She remarried in 2000 to Dr. H. David Reines, a trauma surgeon and vice chairman of surgery at Inova Fairfax Hospital. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Totenberg&oldid=171577028 Nina Totenberg - Wikipedia]</ref> That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.
# Wikipedia's entries about media sources are biased towards the liberal media. In its entry on [[Fox News]], Fox's conservatism is mentioned in the first paragraph<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_news</ref>, but its first paragraph on liberally slanted CNN offers no such information. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnn</ref>
# Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia].
# Wikipedia claims about 2.9 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".<ref>Simply search "Moby" and "song" together on Wikipedia.</ref> Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.
# Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail. Wikipedia's entry about [[Indentured Servitude]] is massive, but it omitted any reference to [[Bacon's Rebellion]], which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World! Finally, weeks after this glaring omission was noted here, Wikipedia added one line to its entry: "Indentured servants in Virginia supported Bacon's Rebellion in 1676."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indentured_servant&diff=115675763&oldid=113879992</ref>
# Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacked any entry on the basic concept of an [[elementary proof]] until this omission was pointed out here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_proof</ref> Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia.
# Wikipedia's article on [[Feudalism]] is limited to feudalism in Europe and did not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India until this defect was described here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act]] (NCVIA) reads like an advertisement for vaccine manufacturers, including unsupported and implausible claims about vaccination.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act</ref> Unsupported claims featured there include "Vaccine makers indicated they would cease production if their proposal for the NCVIA was not enacted" and "concern that the NCVIA may not provide an adequate legal shield." Wikipedia's entry omits references to leading pro-parent websites concerning vaccination,<ref>http://www.909shot.com/</ref> and instead Wikipedia's entry lists pro-government and pro-vaccine-manufacturer websites. Wikipedia's entry even includes this entire paragraph, which is unsupported and is little more than an advertisement for drug companies:
#: Public health safety, according to backers of the legislation, depends upon the financial viability of pharmaceutical companies, whose ability to produce sufficient supplies in a timely manner could be imperiled by civil litigation on behalf of vaccine injury victims that was mounting rapidly at the time of its passage. Vaccination against infectious illnesses provides protection against contagious diseases and afflictions which may cause permanent disability or even death. Vaccines have reduced morbidity caused by infectious disease; e.g., in the case of smallpox, mass vaccination programs have eradicated a once life-threatening illness.
# Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royalty, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on [[Henry Liddell]] illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell</ref> That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired [[Alice's Adventures in Wonderland]]. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopedia Britannica.<ref>http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html</ref>
# Robert McHenry, former Editor-in-Chief for the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', wrote about Wikipedia's bias and included this observation:
#: "One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined."<ref>http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-edemocracy/wikipedia_bias_3621.jsp</ref>
# Bob Schmidt observed on the ''Illinois Review'':<ref>http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/conservapedia_w.html</ref>
#: I just spent some time in Wikipedia checking if my recollections of its bias are correct. The bias is much worse than I had remembered.
#: I looked only at topics on business and information technology. Clearly there are enthusiasts for certain vendors who are spending a large portion of their time hyping technology in a way that makes their vendor look good in comparison to other vendors.
#: They will set up a set of criteria for the definition of a product that their product will meet. They conveniently omit from the criteria anything that would detract from their favorite.
#: In short, Wikipedia is not objective. It is accurate only within its selective use of facts that are convenient to promote a predetermined outcome.
#: Even for just one area of knowledge, it would take a major time consuming effort for a person or group to have an impact on reducing the bias and improving the accuracy of the entries.
# Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html</ref>
#: "I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=2</ref> Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]
# Many people know how a prominent Tennessee journalist [[John Lawrence Seigenthaler]] was defamed for four months on Wikipedia before it was corrected. He described and criticized this in ''USA Today'', concluding with the following:<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm</ref>
#: When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."
# What most people don't know is how many Wikipedia editors savaged [[Seigenthaler]] ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him:<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
#: "Mr. [[Seigenthaler]]'s attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one typical comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."
# The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, described "serious and endemic problems" in Wikipedia in a document entitled "Toward a Compendium of Knowledge" (Sept. 2006). Sanger observed that Wikipedia editors do not enforce their own rules consistently or effectively and that it has become an "arguably dysfunctional community" unattractive to traditional experts. Sanger declared the Wikipedia community's response to the Seigenthaler incident to be "completely unacceptable."<ref>http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars</ref>
# Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:
#: "You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys." — Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.
# Wikipedia has refused to have an article on [[Sudden Jihad Syndrome]] despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including [[neoconservative]] academic [[Daniel Pipes]] and a column in the [[Washington Times]].<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/29080</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sudden+Jihad+Syndrome</ref><ref>http://www.thecourier.com/opinion/editoral/ar_ED_021607.asp</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref> <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_jihad_syndrome</ref><ref>http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/NATION/203823370/1001</ref> and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:CltFn/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref>
#Wikipedia's entry for "Right to bear arms" mentions the discrepancies many have with the interpretation of the phrase. They begin by labeling the first section "Military service ''definition''" and go on to explain how the words "bear arms" had a different meaning a couple hundred years ago in European countries. After the 7 paragraph section that has little relation with the Second Amendment of the ''United States'', Wikipedia offers 2 paragraphs that talks about the "Insurrectionary ''Theory''". First thing, they call people that adhere to this concept "extremists" and attempt to prove why this viewpoint is false. The criticism was strangely missing from the military service section. So, in short, Wikipedia believes that the faultless, [[liberal]] "definition" is true and the sketchy, extremist, conservative "theory" is false.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms#Military_service_definition</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms#Insurrectionary_theory</ref>
#Wikipedia's article on [[Jeremiah Wright]] repeatedly has material referenced from the New York Post and the conservative news website, Newsmax, removed citing them as unreliable sources.
# Wikipedia's single article on American conservatism has only a vague definition in its one-sentence lead section.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States</ref> Wikipedia has two extensive articles on liberalism in the United States; they use a combined 800 words in their lead sections, which are comprised of quotes from liberal politicians and claims that the stances of today's liberals "may be viewed as the modern version of the classical liberalism upon which America was founded".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref>
# For a period of time (January 4, 2008<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobacco_and_health&oldid=182111544</ref> - April 5, 2008<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobacco_and_health&diff=203433685&oldid=202851436</ref>), Wikipedia's page on Tobacco and health had a disclaimer in the pipe smoking section that stated three references (The American Cancer Society, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and the National Cancer Institute) might not be reliable resources and should be reviewed.
# The Meta.Wikimedia.org site, that governs all modifications to databases maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, recently denied an application to place Conservapedia on its Interwiki Map—this although Wikimedia maintains an interwiki link for [http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page EvoWiki]. In their discussions, the administration accepted some frankly puer<nowiki></nowiki>ile and self-serving contentions that Conservapedia was a POV-pushing site, and ignored the testimony of multiple witnesses that EvoWiki did the same thing.<ref><http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interwiki_map&oldid=1032322> (permanent link)</ref>
# Wikipedia has an anti-American, "blame Bush" view of the USA under his administration.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush</ref> Liberals want it to appear that Bush acted alone in his decisions. On the George W. Bush page under the section 'Foreign policy', ''President Bush launched the War on Terrorism"'', ''"President Bush launched the invasion of Iraq"'' and ''"which President Bush viewed as..."''' No mention of the (111) Democrats who voted with George W. Bush.
#Wikipedia's purity ring page is hopelessly biased against the concept. 573 characters describing the purity ring. Criticisms of purity rings- 1475 characters with three references. How does Wikipedia educate their readers when they only discredit purity rings? <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff= http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff=] Wikipedia- Purity ring</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]] deleted [[9/12 Candidate]] page (twice) due to lack of notability<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/9/12_Candidate</ref>. Creator blocked because his real name does not meet username policy<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jacob_F._Roecker</ref> and editor (me) blocked<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WashingtonIsBroke#User:WashingtonIsBroke</ref> for spam/advertising and "conflict of interest, which is introducing a severe bias to your edits".
#[[VoteVets.org]] is a partisan political organization that seeks to elect Democrats and to replace Republicans in Congress. Wikipedia's erroneous entry labels the liberal group a "non-partisan" political action committee. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VoteVets.org&diff=293037611&oldid=293035975 VoteVets.org</ref>
#Just like the liberal-aligned [[MSM]], Wikipedia is consistent when hiding unflattering information about their fellow [[liberal]]s. Wikipedia purposely buried an important statement from Judge Sonia [[Sotomayor]], the now-infamous "Wise Latina" remark. One has to scroll through 49,600 characters of a 54,000 character page to find the statement. Also, Wikipedia does not mention her membership in La Raza, a group that has promoted the distribution of driver's licenses to illegal aliens, amnesty programs for illegal aliens, and the non-enforcement of immigration laws <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sonia_Sotomayor&diff=302177838&oldid=302177614</ref>
#Wikipedia's Template:Infobox and elsewhere still maintains the fiction that [[Barack Hussein Obama]] was a "Professor of Constitutional Law," whereas [[White House]] Press Secretary [[Robert Gibbs]] has flatly denied Obama ever taught constitutional law. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Briefing-by-White-House-Press-Secretary-Robert-Gibbs-4-14-09/]
#Wikipedia provides a large page of information regarding the Winter Soldiers story however they never mention that the people involved fabricated events, were caught lying, were doing it to push a [[liberal]] anti-war message. A section lists the fact that Congress investigated the matter. However it does not list the outcome- falsehoods, fabrications and outright lies to weaken the U.S. military as it was engaged with fighting the [[Communist]] North Vietnam. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&oldid=310708048] [http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=325]
#Wikipedia's Nidal Malik Hasan article fails to mention any connection to Obama's transition government. Hasan's associations are clearly exposed but Wikipedia can't label Hasan a terrorist. He is just a shooter, not a massacre. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nidal_Malik_Hasan&oldid=325179780]
# In relation to the Wikipedia article on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Wikipedia mentions terrorism, Al Qaeda, Islamic countries, imams and Taliban but nowhere will you find the word "Muslim terrorist" nor "Islamic terrorist". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253&oldid=334150190] That is a key point that [[liberal]]s want to hide from the public. [http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/Terror-Reviews-Avoid-Word/2010/02/12/id/349732] The very same can be said for Wikipedia's wikinews item ''Failed bomb aboard Delta flight'' article. [http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Failed_bomb_aboard_Delta_flight&oldid=928144]
# Wikipedia will zealously guard what is said about liberal politicians. But any smear or false accusation of conservative politicians is immediately promoted on their pages as guilty. As is the case with [[John Edwards]]. His scandal was known for over a year, since 2007, before the mainstream media decided to cover it. Wikipedia claims in their article ''"Mainstream media in the United States have chosen not to report this incident, or the allegations that led to it, which Edwards has previously denied."'' Yet, they did not mention that repeated attempts to add that information was removed by Wikipedia prior to July 28, 2008. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Edwards&oldid=228323043#2008_Presidential_campaign] In addition, many criticisms of Edwards have not made it into Wikipedia such as he used well-wishes to Elizabeth regarding her re-occurrence of cancer to solicit email donations to his Presidential campaign.
#Although against their own policy Wikipedia allows Liberals such as voiceover actor D. C. Douglas, who under the name of Lance Baxter, called Freedonworks and referred to their workers and supporters as "mentally retarded," and asked what happens after one of their "members does actually kill somebody." A sys-op "protected" the page deleting any mention of Douglas' controversial actions and statements. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D._C._Douglas&action=history</ref>
#Wikipedia has an unexplainable love for supporting Irish liberals and almost completely ignoring Northern Irish conservatives by calling [[Londonderry]] by it's unofficial slang name "derry"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londonderry</ref> and by marginalizing the use of the Flag of Northern Ireland by claiming it's "unofficial" and often calling it derogatory names such as "sectarian rag" which go unpunished<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_C_of_E&diff=354377823&oldid=352220232</ref>. Unlike Conservapedia which always use the correct names for things and does not tolorate any derogetary liberal hatred or cave into peer pressure.
# The liberal mobocracy fails to understand what the Tea Party Movement is all about. Wikipedia attempts to smear the [[Tea Party Nation]] by claiming the organization "actively censors political speech", without providing any references to backup the claim. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tea_Party_Nation&oldid=370977207]
#Wikipedia reveals in its article "''CIA activities in Iran''" that "Khomeini's coup was engineered by Britain to get a better oil contract renewal and by the senior ranks of the U.S. liberal establishment....these two resourceful parties were able to direct the CIA in this task while keeping President Carter largely ignorant of the policy and its ultimate objectives."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iran</ref> Although largely harmless in its embrace of similar pseudoscience and hysteria (Saddam, Khomeini, and Osama have all "allegedly" been CIA agents since their early twenties, according to Wikipedia's fringe articles--the really obscure ones apparently evade the notice of 90% of its editors); it is worth noting that in this particular instance, repeated attempts to remove the offending content have been made and rejected, on the grounds that the assertions are "well-sourced info."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CIA_activities_in_Iran</ref> Beware, ladies and gentlemen, of what you may uncover when plumbing the seemingly endless depths of Wikipedia's inanity.
#Wikipedia's "''Fall of Saigon''" article states that "according to the Hanoi government, more than 200,000 South Vietnamese government officials, military officers, and soldiers were sent to reeducation camps."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_saigon#Aftermath</ref> According to independent sources, the actual number was well in excess of one million.<ref>Orange County Register (29 April 2001)</ref>
#Wikipedia lies by omission: "In the North, thousands of landowners were murdered by the communists and famine broke out in the 1950s. In the South, Diem went about crushing all opposition and tens of thousands were jailed or killed; dissidents were routinely labelled as communists even if they were anti-communist." In fact, there were only 30,000 prisoners of all kinds in South Vietnam;<ref>Guenter Lewy, America in Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 1978), pp294-5.</ref> several hundred thousand were killed in North Vietnam in the fifties.<ref>Robert F. Turner, Vietnamese Communism: Its Origins and Development (Hoover Institution Press,
1975);Gerard Tongas, L'enfer communiste au Nord Viêt-Nam (Nouvelles Editions Debresse, 1960).</ref>
#Wikipedia's "''Communism in Vietnam''" contains the following sentence: "Unlike the Khmer Rouge, the Vietnamese Communists did not commit a "blood bath" [after 1975]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_in_Vietnam</ref> In fact, they killed 400,000 to 2.5 million South Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians after the fall of Saigon.<ref>Rummel, Rudolph, [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM Statistics of Vietnamese Democide], in his ''Statistics of Democide.''</ref>
#Wikipedia also makes the following claim: "in January 1980 the US started funding Pol Pot while he was in exile."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brzezinski,_Zbigniew#Cambodia</ref> The source is John Pilger, who had to pay "very serious" libel damages for promulgating the fantasy;<ref>The Guardian, UK, July 6, 1991.</ref> the US-backed rebels of Son Sann engaged in extensive fighting with the Khmer Rouge.<ref>The Far Eastern Economic Review, December 22, 1988.</ref>
#Wikipedia refers to the "freely elected" Arbenz regime in [[Guatemala]] being unjustly overthrown by the CIA;<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala#1944_to_present_day</ref> Guatemala's official 1999 truth commission confirms that Arbenz actually murdered hundreds of his opponents.<ref>“Antecedentes Inmediatos (1944-1961): El derrocamiento de Arbenz y la intervención militar de 1954,” in Comisión para el Esclaracimiento Histórico (CEH), Guatemala: Memoria Del Silencio (Guatemala, 1999), Capítulo primero.</ref>
#Wikipedia notes that: "the Contras form of warfare was "one of consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping.""<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions#Nicaragua_1981-1990</ref> However, attempts to mention Sandinista human rights violations were dismissed as "irrelevant allegations,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions&offset=20100903012333&action=history</ref> even though they killed exponentially more people.<ref>Roger Miranda and William Ratliff, The Civil War in Nicaragua (Transaction Publishers, 1993), pp253-4; West, W. Gordon. "The Sandinista Record on Human Rights in Nicaragua (1979-1990)" http://www.reds.msh-paris.fr/publications/revue/pdf/ds22/ds022-03.pdf (PDF). Réseau Européen Droit et Société. Retrieved 2009-03-30.</ref>
#Wikipedia's [[George W. Bush]] article says: "Those invasions led to the toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq as well as the deaths of many Iraqis, with surveys indicating between four hundred thousand to over one million dead, excluding the tens of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Foreign_policy</ref> In reality, based on the findings of Iraqi hospitals and morgues, the Iraqi government estimates that 150,000 Iraqis died in the war, with only 1-2% of those deaths being at the hands of US troops, and the rest by the insurgency they were combating.<ref>http://www.aina.org/news/2007110894701.jsp</ref> The American army in Iraq has taken ''three times'' as many casualties as it has inflicted on Iraqi civilians in collateral damage.<ref>http://www.aina.org/news/2007110894701.jsp</ref> Although Wikipedia may insist that these numbers are there only to help unbiased viewers consider the Bush legacy, there is no mention of the fact that the US invasion of Afghanistan saved millions of Afghans from starvation,<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42858-2001Dec30?language=printer</ref><ref>http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=24019</ref> or that the lives of 112,000 Afghan children and 7,500 pregnant Afghan women have been saved every year since due to improved healthcare resulting from the invasion (by UNICEF figures).<ref>New York Times, February 1, 2002.</ref>
#A Wikipedia administrator that obsessively edits all article pertaining to the Indochina wars--"YellowMonkey"--is a Vietnamese admirer of Ho Chi Minh who emblazons his user page with a hammer and sickle as well as Communist slogans in Vietnamese.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YellowMonkey</ref> He sends warnings such as "Kissinger supporter on the loose" to other editors whenever accurately sourced data is inserted into an article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fifelfoo#Kissinger_supporter_on_the_loose</ref>
#Take a look at the WP article for the John Birch Society and associated discussion page on Wikipedia, regarding the labeling of the JBS as being "radical right-wing". Any attempts to remove "radical" are quickly reverted by the liberal gatekeepers, and the editor warned or banned. Now take a look at the article for Code Pink--considered by many as "radical left-wing". Any attempts to label them as a "radical" group are quickly removed, and the editors again banned or chastised by liberal watchdogs. So the label "radical" is perfectly acceptable to describe a tame right-wing outfit, but is unacceptable to describe a left-wing group that has used radical tactics.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Pink</ref> The issue seems to be because there is an descriptive article where liberal gatekeepers are responsible for "defining" what "radical right-wing" means, but not a matching one that has been successfully created for "radical left-wing", where Code Pink would likely fall. There is only a more tame "far-left" to use, which stops short of radical left-wing tactics.
#For a time, a search for the [[Watergate]] informant [[Deep Throat]] would take a viewer directly to the article about the pornographic film of the same name. Included in this article were explicit images related to the film. A reader needed to click the link at the top of the article to be taken to the page about the whistleblower. However, this has since been changed and "Deep Throat" takes a reader to the historical figure's article with a link to the film.
#Wikipedia places the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism American Exceptionalism] article under the category of ethnocentrism, but does not do this to groups like La Raza and the New Black Panthers, who are actually ethnocentric.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:ethnocentrism</ref>
#Many Wikipedia editors regard it as just a big online game with very complicated rules. So much so that as a fundraising project, they are designing a card game where the players will win "centijimbos" points. The card game rules continue to be debated.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Trading_card_game/Rules|title=Rules|date=August 20, 2011|accessdate=July 23, 2012}}</ref>
== References ==
{{reflist}}
{{Bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category: Wikipedia]]

Essay:New Liberal Terms

2012-07-09T19:04:56Z

RSchlafly: /* New Liberal Terms */ add astrobiology

== Rate of Generation of Liberal Terms ==

The rate of generation of liberal terms is increasing, but not with the enduring value of the conservative terms and not with their geometric rate of increase. A remarkably high percentage of new liberal terms originated in the 1960s, suggesting that new liberal terms arise in a sporadic manner heavily influenced by culture:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Century
!# New Liberal Terms
|-
|1600s
|4
|-
|1700s
|3
|-
|1800s
|13
|-
|1900s
|40 (10 in the 1960s)
|-
|2000s
|10
|-
|}

== New Liberal Terms ==

New liberal words often have deceptive, or nonsensical, meanings. Here are some new words created by liberals to combat [[conservatism]]:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[agnosticism|agnostic]]
|1860
|someone who claims to not know whether [[God]] exists but still lives like an [[atheist]]
|-
|astrobiology
|1935
|study of life in outer space<ref>[http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.1491]</ref>
|-
|[[atheism|atheist]]
|1571
|useful and often deceptive alternative name for an anti-Christian
|-
|[[Big Bang theory|big bang]]
|1948
|term invented by the leading [[British]] physicist Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] to ''mock'' this suggestion of how the universe was formed, but later accepted as a serious term rather than mockery;<ref>Compare this migration with that of "politically correct," which started out as a serious term but then adopted a sense of mockery</ref> it's liberal because it trivializes the beauty and the [[faith]] of the moment
|-
|bilingual education
|1972
|a euphemism describing a costly and hurtful program that hinders the learning of English by foreign-born children in American [[public school]]s, which hurts their future opportunities
|-
|bureaugamy
|1999
|Evolutionist Lionel Tiger coined the phrase to refer to the relationship between officially impoverished mothers of illegitimate children and the government.
|-
|[[carbon footprint]]
|1999<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carbon%20footprint</ref>
|this term indicates an individual human's effect on the environment by production of carbon dioxide
|-
|chairperson
|1971
|even Alice Sturgis, the leading parliamentarian of the 20th century, rejected this cumbersome form of political correctness.
|-
|check-off
|1911
|automatic deduction of union dues by the employer from the employee's paycheck, so he has no choice
|-
|[[class warfare]]
|
|first entered the political lexicon primarily as an attack by liberals against conservatives. <ref>[http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030115.html The art of "class warfare"], Ben Fritz, Spinsanity.org, January 15, 2003</ref>
|-
|[[climate change]]
|1992
|The UN defined “climate change” as man-made. In the process, creating a nonsensical meaning on par with climate-sameness.
|-
|[[communism]]
|1840
|
|-
|compassionate-care clinics
|2008
|a term describe pot-shops that dispense medical marijuana <ref>[http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/11/magazines/fortune/medical_marijuana_legalizing.fortune/?postversion=2009091116 How marijuana became legal, CNN, September 11, 2009]</ref>
|-
|compassion fatigue
|1968
|liberals, driven by materialistic self-interest, are likely to suffer from this.
|-
|[[condescension]]
|1647
|treating another person as though they are inferior
|-
|[[creationism]]
|1880
|like most "isms", creationism is a derogatory term coined preferred most by opponents of it.
|-
|[[Dark Ages]]
|1730
|a term coined in the so-called [[enlightenment]] to disparage the period between the fall of the [[Roman Empire]] and c.1000, when the Christian faith, and its learning and culture, spread across Europe.
|-
|[[Dead white males|dead white males]]
|
|a disparaging term used of significant figures from previous generations by those who wish to undermine [[Cultural Literacy|cultural literacy]]
|-
|deconstruction
|1973
|a style of interpretation of texts that looks beyond the plain meaning of the text in order to infer or accuse the writers of social bias
|-
|diva
|1883
|modern use to describe female Hollywood/media personalities
|-
|[[Détente|detente]]
|1970s
|a euphemism referring to pacifist policy re. the Soviet Union
|-
|displaced foreign traveler <ref>[http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/07/bureaucrats-now.html Bureaucrats Now Call Illegal Aliens "Displaced Foreign Travelers", Moonbattery.com, July 21, 2010]</ref>
|2010
|another politically correct term for [[illegal alien]].
|-
|distributive justice
|
|a term used to redefine socialist abridgment of rights as "just"
|-
|divided government
|1975
|a pejorative term used by liberals to insist on control of all of government, as when they used the term to urge the election of the Democrat [[Jimmy Carter]] to work with the Democratic-controlled Congress
|-
|[[enlightenment]]
|1669
|Used to describe the movement in the 18th-century which sought to replace God with atheism.
|-
|[[Environmentalist|environmentalism]]
|1922
|a mixture of [[pseudoscience]] and neo-[[paganism]] used to justify the imposition of [[socialist]]ic controls.
|-
|[[exclusionary rule]]
|1964
|an invented rule that requires censoring and withholding from the jury certain incriminating evidence about a criminal defendant, simply based on how the evidence was obtained.
|-
|[[family planning]]
|1939
|planning intended to determine the number and spacing of one's children through birth control <ref>[http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/family%20planning Family Planning, Merriam-Webster]</ref>
|-
|freeganism
|1995
|a euphemism for [[dumpster diving]].
|-
|freethinker
|1692
|the euphemism "free" hides the hostility towards faith, which is not free
|-
|[[fundamentalism]]
|1922
|"a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism</ref> From a series of pamphlets called "The Fundamentals" which outlined the movement. Perjorative usage started when the liberal [[Harry Emerson Fosdick]] began using the term in a straw man attack against [[Conservative Christianity]].
|-
|[[feminism]]
|1895
|notionally, "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes"; in reality, the attempt to destroy traditional family, societal and religious values by erasing or undermining natural gender differences.
|-
|[[gay rights]]
|1969
|the movement for civil rights for homosexuals
|-
|glass ceiling
|1984
|the notion that an invisible barrier prevents women and ethnic minorities from reaching high office; an excuse for [[feminist]]s and others to demand [[affirmative action]]
|-
|[[global warming]]
|1969
|the baseless [[environmentalist]] mantra that the earth's temperature is rising, and that human intervention is the cause.
|-
|[[goth]]
|?
|"a style of rock music, noted especially for somber or ethereal tones and lugubrious lyrics", or someone who performs or listens to this style of music.<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth]</ref> Goths often "dress in black with heavy jewelry".<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth rock'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth%20rock]</ref> The term is taken from the name of "a Germanic people who invaded the Roman Empire in the early centuries of the Christian era".<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth]</ref>
|-
|gun control
|1969
|a euphemism for restricting the right to keep and bear arms
|-
|[[homophobia]]
|1969
|used by Liberals to describe a failure to subscribe 100% to the [[homosexual agenda]].
|-
|[[humanism]]
|1808 <ref>http://newhumanist.org.uk/1740</ref>
|
|-
|[[human security]]
|1941
|A vague [[socialist]] concept of "freedom from want" and "freedom from fear' championed by FDR, latter by the UN.
|-
|[[illegal war]]
|1960's
|A war not authorized by the United Nations. Prior to the UN, America's involvement in WWI and the U.S. declaring war on Germany in WWII can be considered an illegal war by liberals. America was never attacked.
|-
|[[imperialism]]
|1851
|a clever term later used by liberals to interfere with Christian missionaries and stopping anti-Christian tyranny
|-
|[[isolationism]]
|1922
|a pejorative term that is critical of American politicians putting America first in priorities
|-
|Keynesianism
|1946
|advocacy of 'tax and spend' policies as elaborated by the economist [[John Maynard Keynes]]; a [[euphemism]] for back-door [[Socialism]].
|-
|landmark decision
|1950
|a major court decision, used to promote the idea that values are dictated by liberal elites
|-
|[[Living Constitution]]
|2000
|a continually evolving Constitution (first used by presidential candidate Al Gore, title of a 1936 book by Howard McBain)
|-
|main squeeze
|1968
|one's romantic partner, typically in an unmarried relationship
|-
|McCarthyism
|1950
|originally, investigations by Sen. Joe McCarthy of Communists working in sensitive USA government jobs. Later, it more broadly refers to holding radical leftists accountable for their beliefs and loyalties.
|-
|[[metrosexual]]
|1994
|fashion and glamour man
|-
|moderate
|late 1900s
|the original term dates from the French Revolution, but its meaning today is a euphemism for someone who favors abortion and/or supports censorship of Christianity in some ways.
|-
|[[moving the goalposts]]
|late 1980s
|a sports analogy designed to avoid answering a logical follow-up question; this is a favorite term of evolutionists to avoid addressing obvious deficiencies in their theory
|-
|nationalize
|1800
|a euphemism for the government taking over ownership and control of a large company or entire industry, as in socialism
|-
|natural selection
|1857
|a misleading and euphemistic term for the theory that genetic advantages and conflict dictate survival
|-
|[[Nihilism]]
|1817
|a rejection of the values system, independently anarchist from society norms.
|-
|[[population control]]
|1968
|the issue of population dates back to Confucius. Liberals promoted the term after the book The Population Bomb by Paul R. Ehrlich
|-
|[[pro-choice]]
|1975
|a euphemism for insisting on taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]; people who claim to be pro-choice typically oppose ''informed'' choice, which makes the "choice" meaningless
|-
|[[progressivism]]
|1892
|the progressive movement was not entirely liberal; it was started by a Republican and shared some goals with conservatives, and still does
|-
|[[psychoanalysis]]
|1906
|contributed to de-spiritualization of human beings
|-
|public option
|2009
|obfuscate rewording of government control
|-
|[[quote mining]]
|non-existent
|a term used by [[evolutionists]] to describe taking quotes out of context in order to damage the position of the quoted party.
|-
|reproductive health
|1994 <ref>defined by the United Nations (UN) in 1994 at the Cairo International Conference</ref>
|abortion supporters jargon for rights/justice for pregnant women, no rights/justice for the child.
|-
|sea level rise
|1980s
|suggests a global warming apocalypse
|-
|[[Sexual Discrimination|sexism]]
|1968
|That which is practiced by those who do not give total support to [[feminism]].
|-
|shovel-ready <ref>[http://skylineviews.typepad.com/skyline_views/2009/04/is-it-time-to-add-shovelready-to-the-dictionary.html Is it time to add shovel-ready to the dictionary? Skyline Views, April 24, 2009]</ref>
|2008
|jobs and people ready to work if funded
|-
|situation ethics
|1955
|a euphemism for denying fixed ethical standards
|-
|stimulus packages
|2009
|used by government(s) to be perceived as taking unprecedented measures to stimulate aggregate economic demand; during a crisis on economic growth and private jobs, liberal government entities are known to deceptively take advantage of its subject in the form of "stimulus packages," as an opportunity to pursue policies that further social and environmental agendas.<ref>[http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/12/62/42555546.pdf For a stronger, cleaner, ''fairer'' world economy], ''Organisation For Economic Co-Operation and Development'' (OECD), 2010.</ref>
|-
|strict liability
|1869
|court-imposed liability even when there is no evidence of any fault by the defendant
|-
|sustainability
|1727
|[[environmentalism|environmentalist]] buzzword
|-
|Swift-Boating
|2004
|allegations of unfair campaign tactics.
|-
|transforming society
|2008
|Obama, Rahm and Axelrod use this term. It dates to [[Saul Alinsky]] and Chicago politics. <ref>[http://marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930# Mark Levin Show, July 7, 2009]</ref>
|-
|transnationalist
|2006
|popularized by Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh in a 2006 law review article: "The transnationalists view domestic courts as having a critical role to play in domesticating international law into U.S. law ...."<ref>Penn State Law Review (2006).</ref>
|-
|undocumented immigrant
|2000
|a [[politically correct]] replacement for illegal alien.
|-
|unfair
|1700
|
|-
|union shop
|1904
|
|-
|[[Unitarian]]
|1687
|
|-
|VIP
|1933
|Very Important Person, a person with special privileges, [[elitism]]. Unknown to liberals, everyone is very important to God.
|-
|will to power
|1907
|[[Nietzsche]]'s concept of the drive of a superman to perfect himself by exercising creative power; it didn't catch on
|-
|woman's rights
|1833
|women equal to men; the defining movement to justify aborting babies in the 20th century
|-
|}

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Essays]]

Standard Model

2012-07-09T19:00:43Z

RSchlafly: add Higgs discovery

[[Image:Mioss.jpg|thumb|400px|right|The Standard Model of Fundamental Particles and Interactions]]
The '''Standard Model''' of [[Particle|particle]] physics is a [[quantum field theory]] that relies heavily on [[materialism]] -- 12 fundamental particles and four forces -- in order to try to explain [[Electromagnetism|electromagnetism]], [[Strong nuclear force|strong]] and [[Weak interaction|weak]] [[Nuclear|nuclear]] interactions in a unified framework. It is a non-[[abelian]] gauge theory with the gauge [[Group (mathematics)|group]] [[Unitary group|SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1)]].

It was formulated in the 1970s and has withstood all experimental tests. It has only been modified by adding mass to the electron neutrino. Physicists have just announced the discovery of its most enigmatic prediction, the [[Higgs boson]].

[[category: physics]]

Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars

2012-07-08T23:52:14Z

RSchlafly: /* Stars Who Took a Conservative Position on a Specific Issue */ add Wagner

Most sports stars are probably [[conservative]]. Athletes at all levels of competition frequently praise [[God]] for giving them the strength to succeed at their sports. Here are some of the greatest:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Athlete
!Sport
![[Conservatism]]
|-
|Novak Djokovic
|tennis
|Number 1 player in the world, Novak gives glory to God with the sign of the [[Crucifixion|Cross]] after big tennis victories.
|-
|[[Tim Tebow]]
|football<ref>The first college sophomore to win the [[Heisman Trophy]], and the only quarterback to lead his team to two [[BCS]] college championships.</ref>
|[[pro-life]], outspoken Christian; an analyst for the [[lamestream media]] said about him, "You need to disappear, okay, [[Tim Tebow]]?"<ref>Tedy Bruschi continued to say about Tebow, "You're not the starting quarterback, it's Mark Sanchez's team. I want my voice to come from my head coach and my quarterback -- my starting quarterback. That message has to be consistent. I don't want all this competition brewing, and every time you speak and anytime you talk about competition or anything like that, you're twisting things," he went on. "I want one voice. One quarterback, not two." [http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d829b6a76/article/tedy-bruschi-thinks-tim-tebow-should-pipe-down Tedy Bruschi thinks Tim Tebow should pipe down] nfl.com, retrieved June 26, 2012. (Tedi Bruschi was a former New England Patriots linebacker.)</ref> Pressed for a response, Tebow simply smiled and said, "I can't help him with that. That would be pretty hard."<ref>http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2012/06/jets-tim-tebow-on-tedy-bruschis-advice-i-just-do-what-im-told/1?loc=interstitialskip</ref>
|-
|Josh Hamilton
|baseball
|Used to be a drug addict, then became a born-again Christian and plays major league baseball now. He has appeared on Glenn Beck's show to talk about his faith and addiction.
|-
|Matt Hasselbeck
|football
|Pro Bowl quarterback is a Christian who lends his name to "Tweet for Youcef" campaign organized by the [[ACLJ]], in support of the Iranian Christian pastor who has been sentenced to death.
|-
|Gabby Douglas
|Gymnastics
|Gave glory to God upon making the cut to represent the United States in the [[Olympics 2012|2012 Olympics]], and is a favorite to medal.
|-
|Bill Laimbeer
|basketball
|led the [[Detroit Pistons]] to two [[NBA]] titles by defeating [[Michael Jordan]], [[Larry Bird]] and [[Magic Johnson]]; for a center, Laimbeer had an amazing outside shot and free-throw percentage, showing the versatility of a [[conservative]]; liberals whined about Laimbeer's rough style of play, without complaining about [[Dennis Rodman]]
|-
|Tim Thomas
|hockey
|A [[conservative]], Thomas declined to attend a ceremony staged by the [[Obama]] [[White House]] after Thomas's team won the [[Stanley Cup]].<ref>http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/01/boston-bruins-goalie-snubs-president-obama-111928.html</ref> Thomas is a four-time [[NHL]] All-Star as a goalie - a great conservative position to play!<ref>http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=610011</ref>
|-
|Curt Schilling
|baseball
|led the hopeless [[Boston Red Sox]] to a stunning [[World Series]] championship in 2004 after defeating the [[liberal]] [[New York Yankees]]; for an encore he helped Scott Brown win "[[Ted Kennedy|Kennedy]]'s seat," an even greater upset.
|-
|[[Jim Bunning]]
|baseball
|former Republican Senator (KY); he pitched a perfect game with the fewest pitches ever in the National League (only 90) -- like a true conservative! Bunning is also one of only five players to pitch a no-hitter in both the National and American Leagues.
|-
|George Allen
|football coach
|The father of [[conservative]] Senator George Allen, the coach ran a trick play once for President [[Richard Nixon]].<ref>http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/politics/GOP_drafts_NFL_talent-53346877.html</ref>
|-
|Mike Ditka
|football player and coach
|outspoken pro-lifer when he was considering running for public office
|-
|Philip Rivers
|football
|endorsed [[Rick Santorum]] with a strong statement on religious values
|-
|Janet Lynn
|figure skating<ref name="Lynn">"Considered One of the Greatest Freeskaters of All Time." [http://figureskating.about.com/od/famousfemaleiceskater1/p/janetlynn.htm]</ref>
|"Before every performance she would close her eyes and give thanks and praise to God. She believed that God had given her the gift of skating and in each performance she worked to glorify God."<ref name="Lynn"/> Lynn, once the highest-paid female athlete, also has written in support of conservative values.
|-
|[[Ted Williams]]
|baseball
|campaigned for Republicans, served as a fighter pilot, and also criticized the media, which was unfair to him, even denying him the MVP when he hit over .400 in 1941. It could be argued that [[Joe DiMaggio]]'s 56-game hit streak was more impressive that year, but the media bias was clearly a factor in the vote. One sportswriter inexplicably left Williams off his ballot entirely.
|-
|[[Kurt Warner]]
|football
|pro-lifer who led two ''different'' underachieving teams to the [[Super Bowl]]
|-
|[[Zach Johnson]]
|golf
|won the [[Masters]] on [[Easter Sunday]] against the heavily favored Tiger Woods,<ref>http://www.fcagolf.org/masters-peace</ref> when Woods was at the peak of his career, and then gave credit to [[Jesus Christ]]
|-
|Richard Petty
|Nascar auto racing
|
|-
|Trevor Bayne
|auto racing
|Gave credit to God for being the youngest Daytona 500 winner
|-
|Pete Sampras
|tennis<ref>Winner of 14 Grand Slam singles titles.</ref>
|
|-
|[[Mary Lou Retton]]
|gymnastics
|Olympic gold medalist, delivered the Pledge of Allegiance at the 2004 Republican National Convention.
|-
|Karl Malone
|basketball
|NBA Most Valuable Player and All-Star selection. He overcame troubled youth years and became a role model. Donated to the George W. Bush campaign and visited our troops in Afghanistan.
|-
|[[Jon Runyan]]
|football
|Republican Congressman (NJ)
|-
|Steve Largent
|football
|former Republican Congressman (OK)
|-
|[[Jack Kemp]]
|football
|author of Kemp-Roth tax cuts as a Republican congressman from upstate [[New York]]; was also the vice presidential Republican candidate in 1996
|-
|Drew Brees
|football
|Led the [[New Orleans Saints]] to victory in the 2009 [[Super Bowl]]--professed his belief in Jesus Christ. <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=t0buCfbFuHw STV Interview with Drew Brees]</ref>
|-
|Chris Dudley
|basketball
|Republican nominee for Oregon governor
|-
|[[Jim Ryun]]
|track
|former Republican Congressman (KS)
|-
|[[J.C. Watts]]
|football
|former Republican Congressman (OK)
|-
|[[John Elway]]
|football
|supporter of Republican candidates
|-
|Lynn Swann
|football
|Republican candidate for governor (PA)
|-
|Jeff Suppan
|baseball
|did a pro-life ad while winning the World Series in 2006
|-
|Billy Sunday
|baseball
|Left professional baseball and became a famous evangelist
|-
|Rick Monday
|baseball
|In 1976 he saved an American Flag from burning at the hands of two protestors
|-
|Dan Hampton
|football
|helped lead the Chicago Bears to their 1985 Super Bowl title, but declined an invitation to a ceremony held decades later by the [[Obama]] White House.
|-
|Paul Azinger
|golf
|PGA champion who criticized Obama
|-
|Jack Lynch
|hurling
|One of the greatest ever dual players. As Taoiseach, reduced taxes and thereby increased employment in Ireland.
|-
|Lewis Hamilton
|auto racing
|outspoken Christian, describing his 2008 world championship win as "a blessing"
|-
|Doug Flutie
|football
|endorsed [[RINO]] [[Scott Brown]]
|-
|Michael Jones
|rugby
|His Christian beliefs caused him to abstain from playing or training on Sundays. Recently endorsed the conservative New Zealand National Party
|-
|David Icke
|soccer
|Currently best known for his outspoken opposition to attempts by [[liberal]]s to control government and people's lives.
|-
|Ewan Murray
|rugby
|Observes the Sabbath and does not play for his club (Newcastle) or country (Scotland) on Sundays.
|-
|Eric Liddell
|track
|Honoured in both Scotland and China as one of their great-ever athletes, Liddell refused to run in the 1924 Olympic 100m on a Sunday. Instead, he competed in the 400m and, though it was not his best event, he won the gold medal! Returned to China as a missionary and was devoted to helping the sick and poor.
|-
|Gavin Peacock
|soccer
|Attacking midfielder for Newcastle, Chelsea and QPR then a respected footballer commentator. From 2006, combined commentating with attending a seminary. Now training full-time for the ministry.
|-
|Jason Robinson
|rugby
|Becoming a born-again Christian enabled him to reform his troubled personal life
|-
|[[Annie Oakley]]
|Sharpshooter
|Came to fame in her teens as an exhibition shooter, later to international fame in Buffalo Bill's Wild West show.
|}

== Stars Who Took a Conservative Position on a Specific Issue ==

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Athlete
!Sport
![[Conservatism]]
|-
|A.C. Green
|basketball
|record-holder for the longest number of consecutive games in the rough, injury-prone [[NBA]], Green has long been an outspoken advocate of [[abstinence]]
|-
|Al Oerter
|track and field
|a self-confessed "old fashioned Olympian",<ref>http://www.sify.com/sports/olympics/Profile/Al_Oerter.html</ref> this four-time Olympics discus champion spoke out against the use of steroids and their harmful effects during a time when other athletes were relying on them
|-
|Bubba Smith
|football
|one of the greatest defensive lineman, Bubba Smith gave up a lucrative contract to do beer commercials because he was concerned about the effect that alcohol has on people
|-
|David Tyree
|football
|hero of the upset victory by the New York Giants in the 2008 [[Super Bowl]] with a phenomenal catch, Tyree spoke out against [[same-sex marriage]], and later tweeted: "People of faith ... direct some prayers my way. Got darts comin from every direction. Blessed are those persecuted for [[Jesus|His name]]'s sake."<ref>http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/news/story?id=6667583</ref>
|-
|Honus Wagner
|baseball
|great shortstop of the early 20th century. refused to be on baseball cards that promoted cigarettes.|}

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs]]
*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies]]
*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Television Shows]]
[[Category:Essays]]
[[Category:Sports]]

Higgs boson

2012-07-08T23:30:40Z

RSchlafly: remove some dubious and unsourced opinions

A '''Higgs boson''' is a theorized elementary particle whose existence is predicted by the [[Standard Model]] of particle physics. It serves a key role in explaining the origin of mass of other elementary particles of the Standard Model. It has recentely been observed in nature, confirmed to 4 standard deviations by the Large Hadron Collider, and 5 standard deviations (which is equivalent to a certainty of approximately 99.9999667%) by ATLAS - particle accelerators based at [[CERN]] in Switzerland. Physicist Leon Lederman coined the term "God Particle" to describe the Higgs boson.<ref>Lederman L., The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?, New York:Dell, 1993</ref>.

On July 4, 2012, Physicists at [[CERN]] announced the observation of a particle whose properties are consistent with mathematical predictions relating to the Higgs Boson. However, CERN has yet to definitively state that the particle they observed is, in fact, the Higgs.<ref>[http://io9.com/5923494/what-todays-higgs-boson-discovery-really-means?]</ref> The particle cannot, technically, be confirmed to exist with certainty - and therefore the best that can be said is a new particle has been discovered, the observed properties of the particle are consistent with those predicted of Higgs boson. The process now begins to determine the precise mechanism by which the Higgs boson confers mass, as its existence has been confirmed to the level of accuracy deemed necessary to constitute discovery. That level of accuracy is the "5 sigma test", that says that the probability that the discovery was a statistical fluke is less than one in a million.

== Overview ==
The Higgs Boson is a [[Boson]], whose group includes other fundamental building blocks of the universe, such as protons and photons. The higgs boson, however, is unique in that it allows mass, under the Higgs theory, in the Standard Model. It is believed to be around 126 GeV (Gigaelectronvolt) in mass.<ref>http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Higgs+particle+what+what+does/6881979/story.html</ref>

===2012 CERN discovery===
In July 2012 CERN announced evidence of discovery of a boson with an energy level and other properties consistent with those expected in a Higgs boson. The available data raised a high statistical likelihood that the Higgs boson had been detected. <ref>http://press.web.cern.ch/press/background/B01-Higgs_en.html</ref> This high statistical likelihood is due, in part, to the separate obtaining by two distinct teams of data within the realm of statistical error for the predicted properties of the Higgs.<ref>[http://io9.com/5923494/what-todays-higgs-boson-discovery-really-means?]</ref>

==Reaction in the popular press and blogosphere==
Perhaps spurred by the seeming religious significance of the phrase, some bloggers and authors have apparently gone out of their way to disparage the discovery.
*[http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/07/06/creation/higgs-boson-so-what/], written by a Conservapedia author.
*"It will certainly be amusing if it turns out that the scientific media is reading the tea leaves wrong and CERN is summoning famous particle physicists to Switzerland in order to announce the failure of the Standard Model. But that won't be half so hilarious as if their announcement of the proof of Higgs boson is eventually followed by a reluctant admission that it doesn't actually exist in spite of all their sigmas." written by Thomas Beale, a blogger for [[Vox Day]].<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/07/mailvox-by-george-theyve-got-it.html Mailvox: By George, they've got it]</ref>

Other bloggers quickly responded to the latter, with statistical evidence.
*"Ignorance is Blitz" from science writer Phil Plait.

Some people may believe that this particle proves or disproves the existence of God. That's rubbish, of course. No scientific discovery proves or disproves the existence of God. An extensive discussion of this may be found [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-clayton-phd/relationship-between-scie_b_1653976.html?utm_hp_ref=religion here].

Scientists at ATLAS have confirmed that there is a 99.99996% likelihood that the July 2012 particle is real. Whether it '''is''' the Higgs boson is largely a matter of semantics, and will have to wait until its properties are elucidated more.

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

==External Links==
*[http://press.web.cern.ch/press/background/B01-Higgs_en.html] A short, if jargon filled overview on the Higgs Boson.
*[http://www.carlgallups.com/godparticle.html "God particle"] by [[PPsimmons]]
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20041118.shtml ''BBC Radio 4: In Our Time " Higgs Boson - the search for the God particle"'']

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Quantum Mechanics]]

Talk:Israel

2012-07-03T20:57:23Z

RSchlafly: /* Non-illegal "occupation" */ commonly called illegal

I was trying to fine tune this entry but I think I ruined it

The entry on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict seems very one sided...

I see that you are guilty of doing exactly what you complain about on Wikipedia.

I edited this entry adding factual and easily verifiable information and someone came along and deleted the entire thing, claiming that my edits were not true.

I would like to know what was not true about the facts I listed. Every single thing I wrote is easily verified.

:The article is just a long list of war-related grievances. None of it has a source, and most of it is false. If you want to write an article on the conflict between Israel and its neighbors, then it would have to have verifiable info. This is an article on Israel, and should describe Israel.
: Almost everything is false. The deleted portion starts with "In 1948, it once again became a sovereign nation largely due to terrorist tactics". Not true. Israel became a sovereign nation as a result of a UN action. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:08, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: ... but would almost certainly not have been handed over to the UN if groups such as Haganah, the Stern gang, and Irgun had not carried out terrorist attacks against the British; the King David hotel bombing, which was the most obvious example, killed 91 people - I would call that terrorist tactics. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

::: Israelis say that the King David hotel was a military target in a war of independence. If so, it was not terrorist. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*Be mindful of your train of logic. If I blew up a children's hospital, then turned around and said "it was a military target," then by your reasoning no one should ever claim that I did a horrible and evil thing such as, well, blowing up a children's hospital... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:20, 22 June 2007 (EDT)*

:::: But almost all bombers say that they are attacking complicit targets in wars of independence. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

::::: No, terrorist bombers target civilians, such as random people on a public bus. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: But they say that the civilians are complicit. Anyway, of the 91 people killed, only 28 were British: 41 were Arabs, 17 were Jews, and 5 haven't been identified. They would seem like civilians. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

*There we go with another [[deceit]], written as if it is fact. The land was never, not ever, their home, so it cannot be a "war of independence", but more truthfully called a "war of theft", simply terrorism. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:29, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

== The map ==

The map is not accurate, since it shows the Jewish parts of East-Jerusalem and the West-Bank are not in Israel. It also shows not the Golan Heights. Some of the territory are disputed, but not Golan Heights or East-Jerusalem, these are annexed many years ago to Israel. I dont know should the map show Oslo "Area B" or "Area C" which are run now by "Palestinian" authority, but probably it should show Area "A", and aboslutely show East-Jerusalem and Golan in Israel.

Étienne Léger

== GDP ==

The GDP figures are confusing. The article discusses a GDP per capita of 17K+ in 2005, but yet it is 26K+ in 2006. This would appear to be inconsistent. For the record, the CIA factbook would seem to support the higher number. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:53, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

==Biblical Israel==
Do we need a page on the Biblical Israel and the Upper/Lower kingdom history? --[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 19:49, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

== Citation Needed? ==

I've noticed that there's a lot of text and only 3 sources on this article. I'm not doubting the truthfulness, but we should probably get some sources.
--[[User:Kody|Kody]] 11:35, 7 February 2011 (EST)
:If you'll look at the bottom of the article you'll see the "U.S. Govt" tag and the source for the material, which is the State Department. This material is temporary only; it serves as a guide as to the layout, detail, and structure of the article. But, should new information become available, you are welcome to change it and/or make corrections. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:26, 7 February 2011 (EST)
::Ah, thanks for clearing that up for me. --[[User:Kody|Kody]] 17:17, 8 February 2011 (EST)

==Non-illegal "occupation"==
Parzival wrote ''"The territories of the [[Gaza Strip]] and [[West Bank]] are claimed by organizations representing the [[State of Palestine]] and [[Palestinian National Authority]] - these territories are illegally occupied by Israel."''

First, these territories were conquered in an act of war - the Six Day War - and are a legitimate prize of war. Second, surrounding Arab countries and peoples have been openly hostile to the Jewish State ever since the Balfour Declaration of 1917, long before Israel was reestablished in 1948. Third and most important, the Jews have a right to their homeland, up to and including living within its original borders as set forth in the Bible. This website is not going to call it an "illegal occupation". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:32, 3 July 2012 (EDT)

: I agree, the occupation is not illegal. Neither are the settlements. However, they are both commonly called illegal, and perhaps the article should explain the issues. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:57, 3 July 2012 (EDT)

Essay:New Liberal Terms

2012-06-30T17:53:11Z

RSchlafly: /* New Liberal Terms */ add sea level rise

== Rate of Generation of Liberal Terms ==

The rate of generation of liberal terms is increasing, but not with the enduring value of the conservative terms and not with their geometric rate of increase. A remarkably high percentage of new liberal terms originated in the 1960s, suggesting that new liberal terms arise in a sporadic manner heavily influenced by culture:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Century
!# New Liberal Terms
|-
|1600s
|4
|-
|1700s
|3
|-
|1800s
|13
|-
|1900s
|40 (10 in the 1960s)
|-
|2000s
|10
|-
|}

== New Liberal Terms ==

New liberal words often have deceptive, or nonsensical, meanings. Here are some new words created by liberals to combat [[conservatism]]:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[agnosticism|agnostic]]
|1860
|someone who claims to not know whether [[God]] exists but still lives like an [[atheist]]
|-
|[[atheism|atheist]]
|1571
|useful and often deceptive alternative name for an anti-Christian
|-
|[[Big Bang theory|big bang]]
|1948
|term invented by the leading [[British]] physicist Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] to ''mock'' this suggestion of how the universe was formed, but later accepted as a serious term rather than mockery;<ref>Compare this migration with that of "politically correct," which started out as a serious term but then adopted a sense of mockery</ref> it's liberal because it trivializes the beauty and the [[faith]] of the moment
|-
|bilingual education
|1972
|a euphemism describing a costly and hurtful program that hinders the learning of English by foreign-born children in American [[public school]]s, which hurts their future opportunities
|-
|bureaugamy
|1999
|Evolutionist Lionel Tiger coined the phrase to refer to the relationship between officially impoverished mothers of illegitimate children and the government.
|-
|[[carbon footprint]]
|1999<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carbon%20footprint</ref>
|this term indicates an individual human's effect on the environment by production of carbon dioxide
|-
|chairperson
|1971
|even Alice Sturgis, the leading parliamentarian of the 20th century, rejected this cumbersome form of political correctness.
|-
|check-off
|1911
|automatic deduction of union dues by the employer from the employee's paycheck, so he has no choice
|-
|[[class warfare]]
|
|first entered the political lexicon primarily as an attack by liberals against conservatives. <ref>[http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030115.html The art of "class warfare"], Ben Fritz, Spinsanity.org, January 15, 2003</ref>
|-
|[[climate change]]
|1992
|The UN defined “climate change” as man-made. In the process, creating a nonsensical meaning on par with climate-sameness.
|-
|[[communism]]
|1840
|
|-
|compassionate-care clinics
|2008
|a term describe pot-shops that dispense medical marijuana <ref>[http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/11/magazines/fortune/medical_marijuana_legalizing.fortune/?postversion=2009091116 How marijuana became legal, CNN, September 11, 2009]</ref>
|-
|compassion fatigue
|1968
|liberals, driven by materialistic self-interest, are likely to suffer from this.
|-
|[[condescension]]
|1647
|treating another person as though they are inferior
|-
|[[creationism]]
|1880
|like most "isms", creationism is a derogatory term coined preferred most by opponents of it.
|-
|[[Dark Ages]]
|1730
|a term coined in the so-called [[enlightenment]] to disparage the period between the fall of the [[Roman Empire]] and c.1000, when the Christian faith, and its learning and culture, spread across Europe.
|-
|[[Dead white males|dead white males]]
|
|a disparaging term used of significant figures from previous generations by those who wish to undermine [[Cultural Literacy|cultural literacy]]
|-
|deconstruction
|1973
|a style of interpretation of texts that looks beyond the plain meaning of the text in order to infer or accuse the writers of social bias
|-
|diva
|1883
|modern use to describe female Hollywood/media personalities
|-
|[[Détente|detente]]
|1970s
|a euphemism referring to pacifist policy re. the Soviet Union
|-
|displaced foreign traveler <ref>[http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/07/bureaucrats-now.html Bureaucrats Now Call Illegal Aliens "Displaced Foreign Travelers", Moonbattery.com, July 21, 2010]</ref>
|2010
|another politically correct term for [[illegal alien]].
|-
|distributive justice
|
|a term used to redefine socialist abridgment of rights as "just"
|-
|divided government
|1975
|a pejorative term used by liberals to insist on control of all of government, as when they used the term to urge the election of the Democrat [[Jimmy Carter]] to work with the Democratic-controlled Congress
|-
|[[enlightenment]]
|1669
|Used to describe the movement in the 18th-century which sought to replace God with atheism.
|-
|[[Environmentalist|environmentalism]]
|1922
|a mixture of [[pseudoscience]] and neo-[[paganism]] used to justify the imposition of [[socialist]]ic controls.
|-
|[[exclusionary rule]]
|1964
|an invented rule that requires censoring and withholding from the jury certain incriminating evidence about a criminal defendant, simply based on how the evidence was obtained.
|-
|[[family planning]]
|1939
|planning intended to determine the number and spacing of one's children through birth control <ref>[http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/family%20planning Family Planning, Merriam-Webster]</ref>
|-
|freeganism
|1995
|a euphemism for [[dumpster diving]].
|-
|freethinker
|1692
|the euphemism "free" hides the hostility towards faith, which is not free
|-
|[[fundamentalism]]
|1922
|"a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism</ref> From a series of pamphlets called "The Fundamentals" which outlined the movement. Perjorative usage started when the liberal [[Harry Emerson Fosdick]] began using the term in a straw man attack against [[Conservative Christianity]].
|-
|[[feminism]]
|1895
|notionally, "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes"; in reality, the attempt to destroy traditional family, societal and religious values by erasing or undermining natural gender differences.
|-
|[[gay rights]]
|1969
|the movement for civil rights for homosexuals
|-
|glass ceiling
|1984
|the notion that an invisible barrier prevents women and ethnic minorities from reaching high office; an excuse for [[feminist]]s and others to demand [[affirmative action]]
|-
|[[global warming]]
|1969
|the baseless [[environmentalist]] mantra that the earth's temperature is rising, and that human intervention is the cause.
|-
|[[goth]]
|?
|"a style of rock music, noted especially for somber or ethereal tones and lugubrious lyrics", or someone who performs or listens to this style of music.<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth]</ref> Goths often "dress in black with heavy jewelry".<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth rock'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth%20rock]</ref> The term is taken from the name of "a Germanic people who invaded the Roman Empire in the early centuries of the Christian era".<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth]</ref>
|-
|gun control
|1969
|a euphemism for restricting the right to keep and bear arms
|-
|[[homophobia]]
|1969
|used by Liberals to describe a failure to subscribe 100% to the [[homosexual agenda]].
|-
|[[humanism]]
|1808 <ref>http://newhumanist.org.uk/1740</ref>
|
|-
|[[human security]]
|1941
|A vague [[socialist]] concept of "freedom from want" and "freedom from fear' championed by FDR, latter by the UN.
|-
|[[illegal war]]
|1960's
|A war not authorized by the United Nations. Prior to the UN, America's involvement in WWI and the U.S. declaring war on Germany in WWII can be considered an illegal war by liberals. America was never attacked.
|-
|[[imperialism]]
|1851
|a clever term later used by liberals to interfere with Christian missionaries and stopping anti-Christian tyranny
|-
|[[isolationism]]
|1922
|a pejorative term that is critical of American politicians putting America first in priorities
|-
|Keynesianism
|1946
|advocacy of 'tax and spend' policies as elaborated by the economist [[John Maynard Keynes]]; a [[euphemism]] for back-door [[Socialism]].
|-
|landmark decision
|1950
|a major court decision, used to promote the idea that values are dictated by liberal elites
|-
|[[Living Constitution]]
|2000
|a continually evolving Constitution (first used by presidential candidate Al Gore, title of a 1936 book by Howard McBain)
|-
|main squeeze
|1968
|one's romantic partner, typically in an unmarried relationship
|-
|McCarthyism
|1950
|originally, investigations by Sen. Joe McCarthy of Communists working in sensitive USA government jobs. Later, it more broadly refers to holding radical leftists accountable for their beliefs and loyalties.
|-
|[[metrosexual]]
|1994
|fashion and glamour man
|-
|moderate
|late 1900s
|the original term dates from the French Revolution, but its meaning today is a euphemism for someone who favors abortion and/or supports censorship of Christianity in some ways.
|-
|[[moving the goalposts]]
|late 1980s
|a sports analogy designed to avoid answering a logical follow-up question; this is a favorite term of evolutionists to avoid addressing obvious deficiencies in their theory
|-
|nationalize
|1800
|a euphemism for the government taking over ownership and control of a large company or entire industry, as in socialism
|-
|natural selection
|1857
|a misleading and euphemistic term for the theory that genetic advantages and conflict dictate survival
|-
|[[Nihilism]]
|1817
|a rejection of the values system, independently anarchist from society norms.
|-
|[[population control]]
|1968
|the issue of population dates back to Confucius. Liberals promoted the term after the book The Population Bomb by Paul R. Ehrlich
|-
|[[pro-choice]]
|1975
|a euphemism for insisting on taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]; people who claim to be pro-choice typically oppose ''informed'' choice, which makes the "choice" meaningless
|-
|[[progressivism]]
|1892
|the progressive movement was not entirely liberal; it was started by a Republican and shared some goals with conservatives, and still does
|-
|[[psychoanalysis]]
|1906
|contributed to de-spiritualization of human beings
|-
|public option
|2009
|obfuscate rewording of government control
|-
|[[quote mining]]
|non-existent
|a term used by [[evolutionists]] to describe taking quotes out of context in order to damage the position of the quoted party.
|-
|reproductive health
|1994 <ref>defined by the United Nations (UN) in 1994 at the Cairo International Conference</ref>
|abortion supporters jargon for rights/justice for pregnant women, no rights/justice for the child.
|-
|sea level rise
|1980s
|suggests a global warming apocalypse
|-
|[[Sexual Discrimination|sexism]]
|1968
|That which is practiced by those who do not give total support to [[feminism]].
|-
|shovel-ready <ref>[http://skylineviews.typepad.com/skyline_views/2009/04/is-it-time-to-add-shovelready-to-the-dictionary.html Is it time to add shovel-ready to the dictionary? Skyline Views, April 24, 2009]</ref>
|2008
|jobs and people ready to work if funded
|-
|situation ethics
|1955
|a euphemism for denying fixed ethical standards
|-
|stimulus packages
|2009
|used by government(s) to be perceived as taking unprecedented measures to stimulate aggregate economic demand; during a crisis on economic growth and private jobs, liberal government entities are known to deceptively take advantage of its subject in the form of "stimulus packages," as an opportunity to pursue policies that further social and environmental agendas.<ref>[http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/12/62/42555546.pdf For a stronger, cleaner, ''fairer'' world economy], ''Organisation For Economic Co-Operation and Development'' (OECD), 2010.</ref>
|-
|strict liability
|1869
|court-imposed liability even when there is no evidence of any fault by the defendant
|-
|sustainability
|1727
|[[environmentalism|environmentalist]] buzzword
|-
|Swift-Boating
|2004
|allegations of unfair campaign tactics.
|-
|transforming society
|2008
|Obama, Rahm and Axelrod use this term. It dates to [[Saul Alinsky]] and Chicago politics. <ref>[http://marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930# Mark Levin Show, July 7, 2009]</ref>
|-
|transnationalist
|2006
|popularized by Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh in a 2006 law review article: "The transnationalists view domestic courts as having a critical role to play in domesticating international law into U.S. law ...."<ref>Penn State Law Review (2006).</ref>
|-
|undocumented immigrant
|2000
|a [[politically correct]] replacement for illegal alien.
|-
|unfair
|1700
|
|-
|union shop
|1904
|
|-
|[[Unitarian]]
|1687
|
|-
|VIP
|1933
|Very Important Person, a person with special privileges, [[elitism]]. Unknown to liberals, everyone is very important to God.
|-
|will to power
|1907
|[[Nietzsche]]'s concept of the drive of a superman to perfect himself by exercising creative power; it didn't catch on
|-
|woman's rights
|1833
|women equal to men; the defining movement to justify aborting babies in the 20th century
|-
|}

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Essays]]

Liberal logic

2012-04-26T20:16:50Z

RSchlafly: Obama is not obviously a Muslim

'''Liberal logic''' is a term used to describe arguments made by some [[liberal]]s that may appear logical, but are actually nonsensical. Here are some examples:

# No matter what happens in the weather, [[global warming]] must have caused it
# Insist on "tolerance" for anything that is anti-[[Christian]], while promoting [[censorship]] for anything which is [[Christian]]
# If a crime is committed against a member of a predominantly [[Democrat]]ic group, then it's a [[hate crime]]; if committed against a member of a mostly [[Republican]] group, then it is not
# Claim something is true merely because a (nearly bankrupt) newspaper said so (see [[appeal to authority]])
# [[Obama]], who has a [[Muslim]] background and does not attend church, is somehow a Christian while [[Thomas Jefferson]], a regular churchgoer, was not
# Claim that liberals' viewpoints are being censored, while actually they are the ones censoring their opponents
# Claim that switching from heterosexual to [[homosexual]] is customary, but switching back is somehow impossible
# Insist that someone needs to experience something (e.g., drugs, pornography, gambling, etc.) before being able to criticize it<ref>[http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1808 Bryn Mawr report on marijuana]. Many commentators said the reporter had no justification for his views since he had never tried marijuana. Examples of such liberal logic included: "There are pros and cons to everything under the sun. That dosen't (sic) mean that you shouldn't try it all...Besides marijuana is so much more beneficial then everyone realizes." which was smartly replied to by another commenter with: "Following your logic, obviously there are PROS to:
*jumping off the Empire State Building
*anorexia
*drunk driving
*smoking crack or meth
*child molestation
*Shall I keep going?...
Sorry, but not only is your drug-induced logic utterly flawed, but you don't exactly exude intelligence. Forgive me if I don't join your crusade." </ref>
# Pretend to base their opinion on an unverifiable or unusual personal experience, when real [[logic]] would be a better guide
# Criticize [[Christians]] for literal interpretations of [[Genesis]], but then insist on even more literal interpretations when it suits the [[liberal]] ideology<ref>For example, [[liberals]] here insist that [[homeschooling]] can only mean being taught while in someone's own home.</ref>
# Belief that a [[correlation]] and/or [[causation]] (e.g., between [[atheism]] and [[suicide]]) can be disproved by a [[counterexample]] (e.g., one [[atheist]] who remained sane)
# Responding to a logical comment or question with an (illogical) expression of personal like or dislike, as in "but I like it!"
# Never admitting shame for [[liberal]] behavior, but often telling others they should be ashamed of themselves.
# [[Circular reasoning]] as in demanding censorship of [[creation science]] and [[intelligent design]] in schools and scientific journals, while simultaneously citing the resulting lack of those views in schools and journals as proof against it!<ref>See, e.g., [[Richard Sternberg]].</ref>
# [[Americans]] should "move on" past the misconduct of [[Bill Clinton]] and [[Ted Kennedy]], but should dig up as much old dirt as possible about Republican candidates
# Highly implausible assumptions in "if ... then" arguments, such as "if [[embryonic stem cell]] research will find the cure for paralysis, then would you support it?" (without any consideration of superior alternatives)
# [[Barack Obama]] on [[Afghanistan]]: with fewer soldiers, we didn't have enough ammo and humvees!<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21text-demdebate.html?sq=transcript&st=nyt&scp=2&pagewanted=print]</ref>
# [[Free speech]] for anything and everything ... except the [[conservative]] truth, and religion.
# Insisting that the [[Bible]] literally prohibits judging anything.
# [[Hollywood]] promotion of [[abortion]] is welcomed, but views of Hollywood actresses towards their own children are concealed
# The belief that, although carrying an unborn child to birth reduces risk of breast cancer, choosing [[abortion]] rather than childbirth somehow does not increase the relative risk.
# Requesting increased spending by [[government]] to reduce poverty, when actually poverty is increased by the dependency
# Claiming that an [[atheistic]] culture cannot harm anyone, but also insisting that classroom prayer can cause harm
# Claiming that teaching [[abstinence]] does not reduce premarital sex and associated disease.<ref>http://media.www.mustangdaily.net/media/storage/paper860/news/2007/04/10/LettersToTheEditor/Teaching.AbstinenceOnly.Unrealistic-2831363.shtml</ref>
# Claiming that premarital sex is acceptable and normal.
# Claiming that increasing taxes must increase government revenue,<ref>http://capwiz.com/acu/issues/alert/?alertid=11534766</ref> when often people just work less and revenues then decline.
# Denying that widespread ownership of guns, largely defensive weapons, can reduce crime.
# Claiming that [[Roe v. Wade]] ''cannot'' be overruled, or can only be overruled if it is a unanimous 9-0 vote (this argument tries to make irreversible law out of the dicta in a weak majority opinion in ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'', even though the very creation of that "secret opinion" was procured by [[liberal deceit]].)<ref>See Jeffrey Toobin's ''The Nine''.</ref>
# Doing away with traditional language (such as "he" to refer to men '''and''' women), despite centuries of previous use.
# Claiming that getting rid of a sadistic dictator by going into [[Iraq]] was wrong but stepping into [[Sudan]] is not.
# Believing/claiming that the [[United Nations]] is better suited to judge and direct a country's actions rather than the country itself.
# It is a right to dissent against [[American]] policy but never take a stand if that [[logic]] moves beyond dissent and becomes treason.
# Stating "God of the gaps" to justify atheism
# Claiming that the "wondrous, pristine national park of [[ANWR]] needs protection to keep its beauty!" (In reality, it is but a remote barren tundra that few visit.) <ref>[http://townhall.com/columnists/MaryFallin/2008/07/24/anwrs_place_in_our_energy_picture ANWR's Place In Our Energy Picture] Townhall.com, July 24, 2008</ref>
# Claiming that it's not fair to the world that [[America]] keeps the thermostat at 72 degrees at all times. <ref>[http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13459 Freedom and the View From Obamaland] American Spectator, July 1, 2008</ref>
# Using a double-standard for racism and sexism when the target person is conservative.
# Claiming that it is extremely offensive to call any culture primitive or barbaric, except when they are talking about the writers of the [[Bible]].
# Many liberals claim that even if Obama wasn't born in America then he should still be president.
# Claiming that divine creation is “illogical” but creation from a spontaneous explosion of absolutely nothing at all “makes perfect sense.”
# Failing to respect (and sometimes utterly disrespecting, such as in flag desecration) the United States of America in general while continuing their residency herein and actively demanding the benefits and liberties that come with being a citizen.
# Claiming that Christianity is not a form of diversity while praising Islam for this same reason. Later (whenever it benefits them), liberals will compare the two, claiming that few differences exist between them.
# Dodging statistics when doing so will favor the liberal agenda. A clear example of this is claiming that capital punishment is too expensive to taxpayers while they allow illegal immigrants to fly under the radar.
# [[Cherry picking]] [[democracy]]: Liberals will laud the wisdom of the people when democracy produces a liberal result, but when it produces a conservative result, liberals will complain about [[mobocracy]] and demand [[judicial activism]].
# Assuming that any book espousing a liberal position is automatically authoritative and unquestionable.
# Misplacing the [[burden of proof]]: Liberals insist that things like [[UFO|reports of extraterrestrial visitors]] have to be true until they have been conclusively disproved.
# Claiming that the [[First Amendment]] protects only expression that they like, whereas any expression that [[Logical_fallacy#Appeal_to_pity|offends]] them is subject to [[politically correct]] censorship.
# Arguing that an opponent is inconsistent because he does not take silly extreme views, such as complaining that people are pro-life without preserving life in all circumstances.
# Tacitly assuming that their preconceived notions must be true and then dismissing all other explanations as [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong|contradicting their preconceived notions]].
#That a nation can borrow its way out of debt and spend its way out of a recession.

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Liberalism}}
[[category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:oxymoron]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

Talk:Theory of relativity

2012-04-13T19:19:34Z

RSchlafly: /* Why are adjustments needed to GPS? */ That is the story as I have heard it

{| style=" width:95%; text-align:left; background:{{{background}}}; color:{{{color|black}}}; border:3px solid black; clear:both " align="center"
|-
|width="2%" style="text-align:center" cellpadding="5"|'''!'''
|'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''

'''Raising arguments which have been discussed before wastes the time of valuable editors and repeatedly doing so violates [[90/10]].'''

For older discussions, see the archive [[Talk:Theory of relativity/index|index]]. 
|valign="top" style="text-align:right"|[[Image:Conservlogo.png|65px]]
|}


== Mass depending on direction ==

The article states:
:''There is a logical difficulty, however, to an increase in relativistic mass. Such increase would only exist in the direction of motion, and the rest mass would remain intact with respect to a force applied in a direction orthogonal to velocity. Neither mass nor energy is a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is illogical.''

As [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] on 8 July 2007 (EDT): ''This paragraph is nonsense [..] The relativistic mass applies no matter what the direction of the force is.''

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:45, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Neutrinos now obey speed limit ==

The observation sited in the first sentence of this article has been discredited. [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp] It appears that a loose fiber-optics cable is to blame for the misreadings. I suggest editing this first sentence, and any other mention of this in the article.--[[User:CarloP|CarloP]] 18:51, 2 March 2012 (EST)

:Issues concerning the neutrino experiment are not yet fully resolved. No problam: I replaced it with another counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:12, 2 March 2012 (EST)

== Why does Conservapedia seek to discredit Relativity ==

Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?

Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:''Conservapedia'' seeks the truth, not merely what the [[lamestream media]] claim is the truth. Moreover, once one accepts a logical fallacy, then anything false can be proven from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:: Ahh.... But the fact that the conclusion is false does not necessarily render the basis false. I could say "Andy Schlafly founded Conservapedia and therefore I am a pig monkey." I am not a pig monkey, and even if I were, that has nothing to do with you founding this website. But you still did. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:58, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:When looking around the internet, it is obvious that Conservapedia's classification of relativity as [[pseudoscience]] is a source of some amusement and contempt. Aschlafly, could you please answer the two questions I raised above? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:27, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, liberal peer pressure from "around the internet" does not illuminate the truth. If what liberals on the internet said made a dime's bit of difference, then the [[Bible]] would not be the best selling book (by far) and the percentage of people who are [[conservative]] would not be growing (as it does).

::"Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?" Because it's false, it confuses people, it misleads people into stop reading the Bible, and its orthodoxy interferes with the advancement of science for the benefit of all. Other than that, it's not a bad theory!

::"Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition?" The only bias is by liberals who shout down any criticism of the theory. If the theory were so clearly true, then there would be no need for some liberals to rely on [[censorship]] in propping it up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:10, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== GPS and Relativity ==

I note that anyone using a GPS is relying on the Theory of Relativity being true, since calculations derived from Relativity are used within a GPS. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:GPS does '''''not''''' rely on the [[Theory of Relativity]], and this has been thoroughly explained on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

::Hi Aschlafly, I've located at least some of the discussion re GPS in the archives of this talk page, and there a lot of references for me to examine before I can make any further serious comments; certainly there are some references which appear to state that GPS relies on relativity. Can you perhaps draw my attention to what you consider the most important (half-dozen or so) references which indicate that the GPS system does NOT rely on relativity so that I have somewhere to start from? In the meantime I'll continue editing and improving less controversial articles as I have been doing for the last two months (my talk page lists nearly 40 articles I can usefully contribute to). [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:17, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:::This note 7 is on [[Counterexamples to Relativity]]:

::::Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”

:::The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing: the small effects claimed by the special and general theories nearly cancel each other out for orbiting satellites. From an engineering perspective, it makes far more sense simply to adjust the clocks using synchronization rather than relying on (dubious) theoretical claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Another false claim because of sloppy reading: In the same source by The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, you can find how the authors Fliegel and DiEsposti describe what is happening to the clocks in the satellites:
''Since GPS receivers work in the time and not in the frequency domain, they handle the velocity, gravity, and acceleration shifts differently than described above. First, each GPS space vehicle (SV) clock is offset from its nominal rate by about -4.45 × 10-10 (= -38 microseconds per day) to allow for the relativistic offsets between the differences between the SV and the ground. Of this -38 microseconds per day, about -45 are due to the gravitational potential difference between the SV at its mean distance and the earth's surface, and +7 to the mean SV speed, which is about 3.87 km/sec. (p. 193).

The text is about the necessity of ''further'' corrections by the ''operational control system'' - there are corrections ''already'' installed in the clocks!

''The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing:'' This sentence is wrong. It has shown to be wrong a couple of times, so it starts to become a lie. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:12, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Theory of Relativity]] was not used to develop GPS, nor would it be sensible to waste time and money doing so. Synchronization is cheaper, simpler, and more reliable. The above quote does not contradict this obvious truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:32, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

::The fact that these offsets are implemented in the clocks '''in accord with the theory of relativity''' as you can read in the very source you quoted shows that the [[Theory of Relativity]] is used in the GPS - and this from the very beginning of the project! Please, start to read your sources - completely! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:37, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Please, before we get into any more debate, could someone supply some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:41, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly took his quote from [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] by Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond S. DiEsposti (though he probably isn't aware of this). The paper is about relativistic effects due to moving GPS-'''''receivers''''' (or GPS-receivers in high altitudes) and comes to the conclusion, that at the moment, they don't have to include additional relativistic corrections.

:Aschlafly interprets this as if ''no'' relativistic corrections are implemented in the GPS.
:However, in the paper itself, you will find the section I quoted above, where the authors describe such very corrections within the clocks of the satellites.
:I'm afraid that Aschlafly won't come up with ''some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS'' as there aren't any.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:53, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Folks, the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the [[Theory of Relativity]] was used to design GPS. That burden includes describing who, when, where, how, and why. It didn't happen. And if it did, the person who wasted time and money on such a frivolous approach should explain the mistake, because engineers can simply synchronize the clocks far more accurately than the theory ever could.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:It looks to me as if you are trying to put impossible conditions prior to any debate. To avoid a lengthy debate all you have to do is produce some actual references which support your point of view. Is this too much to ask?

:If it didn't happen then you should be able to produce some evidence of this, so '''some actual references please'''. The only 'evidence' you have produced so far is an out-of-context quote from a paper which is concerned primarily with GPS receivers (that same paper mentions the use of relativity-related adjustments to the clocks on the GPS satellite transmitters). Surely you must have more than this. Will you accept evidence from engineers and companies involved in designing and building the GPS system? If not, why not? Who would you accept evidence from? The US Department of Defense? Do you seriously expect a member of the public to be able to access internal design documents as your "who, when, where, how, and why" statement implies?

:If you care to check my contribution history you will see that I am actively contributing non-controversial information to articles. This discussion re GPS etc. is only a small part of my activities on Conservapedia. Since I've barely started on considering and consolidating what evidence there is re GPS I would rather have a week or so to look at the evidence before getting into a debate. This should give you ample time to come up with some references to support the separation of GPS and relativity. Simple searches via Google turn up numerous instances where relativity is claimed to be relevant to GPS, but I can't find anything to the contrary and '''I need your help to do so'''. I would really like to see evidence from '''both sides''' of the discussion before entering the debate, so '''some actual references please'''. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 19:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, you're requesting proof that something didn't happen. Moreover, someone with an engineering background (such as myself) would not expect it to have happened. It is like asking for a reference that no green cheese was found on the Moon. No such scientific reference is likely to exist, nor would anyone expect such a reference to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:28, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:: Every single article on GPS says that relativistic adjustments are made to the satellite clocks. Some give the formulas and some give quantitative data on the adjustments. Textbooks explain why the adjustments are necessary. I don't see any reason to doubt that GPS uses relativistic adjustments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:52, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::GPS does make synchronizing adjustments. Call them whatever you like, but those adjustments are not made based on predictions by the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Indeed, it would be a silly waste of time and money to synchronize in such a manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::: Unless you drive the flying Delorean from ''Back to the Future'', relativity would say that its effect on your car when you're driving at normal speeds is so small it need not be accounting for. The normal error for GPS (about 40 feet) is many magnitudes higher than the error relativity would cause. Now, the GPS in the Flying DeLorean would be another issue. But until that's invented, let's not worry about it, ok? Of course, if you were orienteering, your speed would be even slower than if you were driving. Indeed, if you were moving at any normal speed (even a supersonic jet), relativity would be incredibly small (assuming that it exists as scientists explain it). [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:14, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::''GPS does make synchronizing adjustments'' Not only simple synchronizing: read the specifications for the GPS, read the sources ''in full'' which you are quoting, and you will see that all these engineers and scientists don't give a damn that you think that they are wasting ''time and money''.
:::::Aschlafly, your position is only tenable as you are willing to ignore most of the data which is presented to you. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:12, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, please correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you believe very firmly that relativity has nothing to do with GPS, even though you are unwilling to present any evidence to support this belief, and wish to put severe restrictions on what 'proof' of the relationship other folks may present. I raised some five questions above as to what sort of evidence you might consider. Could you please answer these questions.

::I'd like to ask Mr. Schafly if he could explain what the clock adjustments on GPS satellites are for, the article is not clear, and neither is anything on this talk page.--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:44, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Cahnkj, herewith a summary of the clock-adjustment situation as I (RolandPlankton) see it. Newton's equations of motions say nothing about how clocks keep time. Einstein's equations of relativity imply that identical clocks will vary in their timekeeping (tick at different rates) if they are travelling at different speeds, or if they are at different heights in a gravitational field, or if they are subject to different accelerations; see [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview]. Now the satellites used in the GPS system require very accurate clocks which are in step with ground-based clocks. The paper just quoted provides the various relativistic equations which apply - the satellites are travelling faster than a ground-based receiver, and are at a different height in a gravitational field. Prior to launch the clocks in the GPS satellites are deliberately set to a different tick rate from ground-based clocks, so that when they are in orbit the clocks will appear to tick at the same rate; the difference in tick rates is about 38 nanoseconds per day, and this adjustment can be calculated from the relevant relativistic equations.

:::But the problem is that Aschlafly rejects the Theory of Relativity, and hence rejects any calculation based on that. The only serious argument he has put forth on this current talk page (see preceding section) is an appeal to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Truth the truth]; the quote he provides above is also demolished above. You may wish to consult [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], which is rebutted point by point in [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]].

:::Hope this doesn't add too much to the confusion. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 12:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::Mr. Schlafly states above that "the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the Theory of Relativity was used to design GPS." (This is a fair requirement, and it seems as this has been done when AugustO referred to the Fliegel and DiEsposti paper above.)

::::But really, isn't the burden of proof on anyone who claims ''anything'' on this site, since Conservapedia Commandment #1 states that "everything you post must be true and verifiable" and Commandment #2 states that users should "always cite and give credit to <nowiki>[their]</nowiki> sources?" --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 19:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Good point. Anyone who asserts ''on this site'' that GPS was designed based on the [[Theory of Relativity]] needs to prove the claim. Note that the claim is implausible because it is cheaper, easier, and more precise to synchronize GPS based on observations rather than theoretical speculation. Also note that no [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for verification of the [[Theory of Relativity]] with GPS.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:55, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

===A Separate Question for Mr. Schlafly About References===

::Aschlafly, as a separate issue, in view of of your apparent attitude to references, could I ask you to have a look at the articles I have been working on over the last two months: [[Pi]], [[Programming language]], [[Compiler]], and the work-in-progress [[Chomsky hierarchy]]. Obviously I'm only asking you to consider the changes I have made. In particular, can you check if the references are acceptable to you, and can you also check that the general style and level of writing is in accordance with Conservapedia's aims? The next article I intend to turn my intention to is [[Context-Free Grammar]], since it seems to me that this fails to satisfy [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Style]] "Articles on complex topics need an introduction which assumes little or no previous knowledge". [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:03, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Roland, your good edits are appreciated and I've seen no complaints about them. I agree that the [[Context-Free Grammar]] would benefit from a better introduction and look forward to reading what you add there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== Why are adjustments needed to GPS? ==

A good question was raised above: if synchronization to GPS is not due to the [[Theory of Relativity]], then what is it due to?

And the answer is simply this: [[quantum mechanics]]. There are fundamental uncertainties, and those uncertainties will lead to clock differences. Otherwise a [[perpetual motion machine]] would be possible. It isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:Well, this is progress indeed. Could you please provide references to support the contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects?

:Also, as an aside, how do you say that fundamental uncertainties described by quantum mechanics relate to the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine? Not sure I follow you there. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 23:36, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::It's basic logic. Unless someone denies [[quantum mechanics]] and the fundamental uncertainties it describes -- and many [[Relativists]] do deny it -- then synchronization will be required as a logical result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Do you have any references? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::I haven't looked ... nor is it necessary to. I wouldn't look for references to confirm any logical statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:14, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Really? Is it fair to say then that this contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects is not something that you have read about but rather something that you yourself concluded from your own knowledge of quantum mechanics and GPS systems? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::P.S. As a result of this discussion I found a couple of articles which appear to confirm that GPS satellites have their clocks adjusted by about 38,000 nanoseconds per day before launch in compliance with relitavistic predictions (both Special and General Relativity are taken into account). The articles are [http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp here] and [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html here]. Is there really any question that this is what is happening? I would think that if these sources are to be questioned that some sort of reference should be provided. A mere assertion that the adjustments are as a result of quantum mechanical effects and that it is a matter of logic would not usually be enough for any serious encyclopedia. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::The references are [[hearsay]]. Logic is far more compelling, more efficient, and more likely to lead to the correct result.

::::::To take the analogy mentioned above, if you agree that [[perpetual motion machines]] are impossible, what is the reason?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:45, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Quantum mechanics gives a probabilistic model of phenomena. Indeed, the page you linked for quantum mechanics states:
::"If we measure such an observable, generally the wave function does not predict exactly which value we will obtain. Instead, the wave function gives us the probability that a certain value will be obtained."
:If this is the case, that means that Quantum mechanical phenomena are ''unpredictable''. How is it that clock adjustments can be made based on unpredictable events, ie, probabilities?
:I'd also like to know how the GPS system is affected by these phenomena.
:--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 01:51, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Logic is a nice thing. But engineers like to calculate. So could you give us a Ballpark estimate for the quantum mechanic effects which come into play here? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:59, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:(Edit conflict x2) Andy, as a lawyer I can assure you that hearsay is a [[legal]] concept which is of little use in this sort of scientific discussion. Whilst I understand that non-legally trained people sometimes confuse the nature and applicability of the concept, I can confirm that it has no relevance here.

:The difficulty here arises from your wanting to assert the truth of a matter without providing either references or even the basis for you own logic. Just saying "quantum mechanics" is hardly enlightening. Do you deny that GPS satellite clocks are adjusted by approximately 38,000 nanoseconds as referred to in the references that I provided? If not, do you say that there is a quantum calculation that accounts for that adjustment? What is that quantum calculation and what is it based on? I am really having difficulty in understanding the basis for all of this. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 02:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, this reference [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] has been pointed out to you several times already. Since it is published by folks actually working on the GPS system, I hardly think that it qualifies as 'hearsay'. It contains all the relevant relativistic equations, which are not really that complicated, and derives the 38 nanosecond figure quoted above. An assertion on scientific matters without any evidence can't really be taken seriously. Can we please see the quantum mechanical equations and calculations which come up with the same or similar result? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 09:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, I'm inclined to suspect that your disbelief in relativity is so strong that you are unwilling to consider any evidence which might indicate that relativity could be correct, and are hence flailing around looking for some other explanation as to what actually happens (GPS clock adjustment by 38 ns). Would you care to comment on my suspicion? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 09:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Quote: "A logical statement is a declarative sentence that is either true or false." [http://www.ontotext.com/factforge/logical-statement].

So Aschlafly, why don't you need a reference to confirm a logical statement? Just because a statement is logical doesn't mean that it is true. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

: It would be helpful to have a more modern reference. GPS switched to a system of daily updates to the satellites. Maybe those relativistic formulas cause errors that require daily clock synchronizations to correct. Not likely. But to prove the point we ought to find a reference that says that the satellites still use the 38 ns/day relativistic adjustments, and that the daily corrections are much smaller than that. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:18, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::The best I've found so far is [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf] from Physics Today, May 2002. This confirms the initial adjustment and mentions further on page 7: "Additional small frequency offsets arise from clock drift, environmental changes, and other unavoidable effects such as the inability to launch the satellite into an orbit with precisely the desired semimajor axis. The satellite clock frequencies are adjusted so that they remain as close as possible to the frequency of the Naval Observatory's clock ensemble." Unfortunately it doesn't give the actual size of the adjustments, thought the word 'small' does indicate it as being much less than the initial adjustment. I rather like the last sentence of this paper: "Ordinary users of the GPS, though they may not need to be aware of it, have thus become dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time." [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:26, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::The lack of evidence, amid so much political pressure to prove it, is indicative that no proof can be found. Notice how no [[Nobel Prize]]s have been given for GPS confirming the [[Theory of Relativity]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:01, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::If you want to use the [[Nobel Prize]] as evidence against relativity, might I direct you to:
:::http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/relativity/
:::Where the official Nobel Prize website discusses various experiments related to relativity, and the relevant [[Nobel Prize]]s awarded for them.
:::--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:32, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::::GPS is not even on that overly broad list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, I've tried to confine my evidence to items which not even you can claim as 'hearsay'. A simple Google search turns up hundreds of references linking GPS and relativity, but in view of your earlier dismissal of such as hearsay, I thought I'd better stick to indisputable items. At least there is some fairly convincing evidence linking GPS with relativity (including all the relevant equations and the result of applying these equations), unlike your assertion linking GPS with quantum mechanics, where you have produced precisely zero evidence. You still haven't responded to my comments and question re 'logical statements' above. So, where is the evidence for your assertion? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 02:46, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:::There is no credible evidence that the [[Theory of Relativity]] had anything to do with the development of GPS. In addition, not even the pro-Relativity [[Nobel Prize]] [[liberals]] say that GPS proves the theory.

:::My comment about [[quantum mechanics]] was in response to a question about why synchronization is needed. Unless someone thinks that [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible (have you answered my question about that?), then synchronization will be needed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:00, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Could you please clarify what the connection between synchronisation, quantum mechanics and perpetual motion machines is? From what I've learned, clock synchronisation between the satellites is necessary because any signal between them travels at a finite speed, namely the speed of light. Do you deny that? The claim is that in order to compute the signal travel time and thus to synchronize the clocks correctly, the relative velocities and the differences in gravitational potential due to the different altitudes of the satellites (and Earth's surface) have to be taken into account. Do you think that is wrong? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:56, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

Lets stick to the subject (GPS and relativity); perpetual motion is a complete red herring, and I'm not sure how Nobel prizes come into the picture (we're debating science, not prizes).
On the basis of '''actual evidence produced''' in this discussion so far, I think that we can confidently state four facts:
#Prior to launch, the clock in a GPS satellite is set to run about 38 nanoseconds/day different from an otherwise identical clock on the earth's surface.
#When in orbit the GPS clock then appears to tick at the same rate as an identical clock on the earth's surface.
#Equations based on the theory of relativity accurately come up with this figure of around 38 nanoseconds.
#No evidence has been produced to show how quantum mechanics is involved.

If anyone disagrees with any of the above, they need to bear in mind ('''emphasis''' added):
:from Conservapedia:Commandments 1 Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''.
:from Conservapedia:Commandments 2 '''Always cite''' and give credit to your sources.
:from Conservapedia:Guidelines/Reliability 4 A major difference between Liberalism and Conservatism is how much each group is willing to have its pronouncements checked, its actions reviewed and evaluated.

Hope this summary helps. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:41, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

: That is the story as I have heard it. Except that I heard that the 38 ns/day adjustment was remotely switchable, because of relativity skeptics who did not believe that it would be necessary. I also don't agree that GPS is "dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time." The GPS system has the ability to measure the daily adjustments that it needs. So even with any relativity theory or Einstein conception, it could just make those 38 ns/day adjustments and GPS would have all the accuracy it has today. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:19, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

== Logic and the GPS ==

*Atomic watches work on the Earth quite fine
*[[Quantum mechanics]] describe the physics of ''very small length and energy scales''
*Satellites are macroscopic objects.
*Even a precision of 1cm on the surface of the Earth isn't a very small length.

So which kind of logic tells us that quantum mechanical effects influence the synchronization of the clocks? Why are not only the scientists involved lying, but also their calculations?

For me it seems to be a logical conclusion that you, Aschlafly, are even more knowledgeable of Greek than of Science! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:He's trying to apply the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle to satellites? Are you kidding me? That principle is used for things at the ATOMIC LEVEL! Using ANYTHING with regards to quantum mechanics in an argument about satellites is absurdism and/or ignorance of the subject matter! Seriously Andy, I know you hate the Theory of Relativity, but you should really leave science to those who understand it. [[User:JanSmuts|JanSmuts]] 16:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::For someone who thinks that Brownian motion is about motion at the sub-atomic level your suggestions of scientific superiority ring hollow.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 10:15, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Theory of relativity

2012-04-12T21:18:27Z

RSchlafly: /* Why are adjustments needed to GPS? */ It would be helpful to have a more modern reference

{| style=" width:95%; text-align:left; background:{{{background}}}; color:{{{color|black}}}; border:3px solid black; clear:both " align="center"
|-
|width="2%" style="text-align:center" cellpadding="5"|'''!'''
|'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''

'''Raising arguments which have been discussed before wastes the time of valuable editors and repeatedly doing so violates [[90/10]].'''

For older discussions, see the archive [[Talk:Theory of relativity/index|index]]. 
|valign="top" style="text-align:right"|[[Image:Conservlogo.png|65px]]
|}


== Mass depending on direction ==

The article states:
:''There is a logical difficulty, however, to an increase in relativistic mass. Such increase would only exist in the direction of motion, and the rest mass would remain intact with respect to a force applied in a direction orthogonal to velocity. Neither mass nor energy is a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is illogical.''

As [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] on 8 July 2007 (EDT): ''This paragraph is nonsense [..] The relativistic mass applies no matter what the direction of the force is.''

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:45, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Neutrinos now obey speed limit ==

The observation sited in the first sentence of this article has been discredited. [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp] It appears that a loose fiber-optics cable is to blame for the misreadings. I suggest editing this first sentence, and any other mention of this in the article.--[[User:CarloP|CarloP]] 18:51, 2 March 2012 (EST)

:Issues concerning the neutrino experiment are not yet fully resolved. No problam: I replaced it with another counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:12, 2 March 2012 (EST)

== Why does Conservapedia seek to discredit Relativity ==

Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?

Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:''Conservapedia'' seeks the truth, not merely what the [[lamestream media]] claim is the truth. Moreover, once one accepts a logical fallacy, then anything false can be proven from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:: Ahh.... But the fact that the conclusion is false does not necessarily render the basis false. I could say "Andy Schlafly founded Conservapedia and therefore I am a pig monkey." I am not a pig monkey, and even if I were, that has nothing to do with you founding this website. But you still did. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:58, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:When looking around the internet, it is obvious that Conservapedia's classification of relativity as [[pseudoscience]] is a source of some amusement and contempt. Aschlafly, could you please answer the two questions I raised above? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:27, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, liberal peer pressure from "around the internet" does not illuminate the truth. If what liberals on the internet said made a dime's bit of difference, then the [[Bible]] would not be the best selling book (by far) and the percentage of people who are [[conservative]] would not be growing (as it does).

::"Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?" Because it's false, it confuses people, it misleads people into stop reading the Bible, and its orthodoxy interferes with the advancement of science for the benefit of all. Other than that, it's not a bad theory!

::"Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition?" The only bias is by liberals who shout down any criticism of the theory. If the theory were so clearly true, then there would be no need for some liberals to rely on [[censorship]] in propping it up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:10, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== GPS and Relativity ==

I note that anyone using a GPS is relying on the Theory of Relativity being true, since calculations derived from Relativity are used within a GPS. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:GPS does '''''not''''' rely on the [[Theory of Relativity]], and this has been thoroughly explained on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

::Hi Aschlafly, I've located at least some of the discussion re GPS in the archives of this talk page, and there a lot of references for me to examine before I can make any further serious comments; certainly there are some references which appear to state that GPS relies on relativity. Can you perhaps draw my attention to what you consider the most important (half-dozen or so) references which indicate that the GPS system does NOT rely on relativity so that I have somewhere to start from? In the meantime I'll continue editing and improving less controversial articles as I have been doing for the last two months (my talk page lists nearly 40 articles I can usefully contribute to). [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:17, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:::This note 7 is on [[Counterexamples to Relativity]]:

::::Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”

:::The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing: the small effects claimed by the special and general theories nearly cancel each other out for orbiting satellites. From an engineering perspective, it makes far more sense simply to adjust the clocks using synchronization rather than relying on (dubious) theoretical claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Another false claim because of sloppy reading: In the same source by The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, you can find how the authors Fliegel and DiEsposti describe what is happening to the clocks in the satellites:
''Since GPS receivers work in the time and not in the frequency domain, they handle the velocity, gravity, and acceleration shifts differently than described above. First, each GPS space vehicle (SV) clock is offset from its nominal rate by about -4.45 × 10-10 (= -38 microseconds per day) to allow for the relativistic offsets between the differences between the SV and the ground. Of this -38 microseconds per day, about -45 are due to the gravitational potential difference between the SV at its mean distance and the earth's surface, and +7 to the mean SV speed, which is about 3.87 km/sec. (p. 193).

The text is about the necessity of ''further'' corrections by the ''operational control system'' - there are corrections ''already'' installed in the clocks!

''The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing:'' This sentence is wrong. It has shown to be wrong a couple of times, so it starts to become a lie. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:12, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Theory of Relativity]] was not used to develop GPS, nor would it be sensible to waste time and money doing so. Synchronization is cheaper, simpler, and more reliable. The above quote does not contradict this obvious truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:32, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

::The fact that these offsets are implemented in the clocks '''in accord with the theory of relativity''' as you can read in the very source you quoted shows that the [[Theory of Relativity]] is used in the GPS - and this from the very beginning of the project! Please, start to read your sources - completely! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:37, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Please, before we get into any more debate, could someone supply some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:41, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly took his quote from [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] by Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond S. DiEsposti (though he probably isn't aware of this). The paper is about relativistic effects due to moving GPS-'''''receivers''''' (or GPS-receivers in high altitudes) and comes to the conclusion, that at the moment, they don't have to include additional relativistic corrections.

:Aschlafly interprets this as if ''no'' relativistic corrections are implemented in the GPS.
:However, in the paper itself, you will find the section I quoted above, where the authors describe such very corrections within the clocks of the satellites.
:I'm afraid that Aschlafly won't come up with ''some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS'' as there aren't any.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:53, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Folks, the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the [[Theory of Relativity]] was used to design GPS. That burden includes describing who, when, where, how, and why. It didn't happen. And if it did, the person who wasted time and money on such a frivolous approach should explain the mistake, because engineers can simply synchronize the clocks far more accurately than the theory ever could.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:It looks to me as if you are trying to put impossible conditions prior to any debate. To avoid a lengthy debate all you have to do is produce some actual references which support your point of view. Is this too much to ask?

:If it didn't happen then you should be able to produce some evidence of this, so '''some actual references please'''. The only 'evidence' you have produced so far is an out-of-context quote from a paper which is concerned primarily with GPS receivers (that same paper mentions the use of relativity-related adjustments to the clocks on the GPS satellite transmitters). Surely you must have more than this. Will you accept evidence from engineers and companies involved in designing and building the GPS system? If not, why not? Who would you accept evidence from? The US Department of Defense? Do you seriously expect a member of the public to be able to access internal design documents as your "who, when, where, how, and why" statement implies?

:If you care to check my contribution history you will see that I am actively contributing non-controversial information to articles. This discussion re GPS etc. is only a small part of my activities on Conservapedia. Since I've barely started on considering and consolidating what evidence there is re GPS I would rather have a week or so to look at the evidence before getting into a debate. This should give you ample time to come up with some references to support the separation of GPS and relativity. Simple searches via Google turn up numerous instances where relativity is claimed to be relevant to GPS, but I can't find anything to the contrary and '''I need your help to do so'''. I would really like to see evidence from '''both sides''' of the discussion before entering the debate, so '''some actual references please'''. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 19:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, you're requesting proof that something didn't happen. Moreover, someone with an engineering background (such as myself) would not expect it to have happened. It is like asking for a reference that no green cheese was found on the Moon. No such scientific reference is likely to exist, nor would anyone expect such a reference to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:28, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:: Every single article on GPS says that relativistic adjustments are made to the satellite clocks. Some give the formulas and some give quantitative data on the adjustments. Textbooks explain why the adjustments are necessary. I don't see any reason to doubt that GPS uses relativistic adjustments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:52, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::GPS does make synchronizing adjustments. Call them whatever you like, but those adjustments are not made based on predictions by the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Indeed, it would be a silly waste of time and money to synchronize in such a manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::: Unless you drive the flying Delorean from ''Back to the Future'', relativity would say that its effect on your car when you're driving at normal speeds is so small it need not be accounting for. The normal error for GPS (about 40 feet) is many magnitudes higher than the error relativity would cause. Now, the GPS in the Flying DeLorean would be another issue. But until that's invented, let's not worry about it, ok? Of course, if you were orienteering, your speed would be even slower than if you were driving. Indeed, if you were moving at any normal speed (even a supersonic jet), relativity would be incredibly small (assuming that it exists as scientists explain it). [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:14, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::''GPS does make synchronizing adjustments'' Not only simple synchronizing: read the specifications for the GPS, read the sources ''in full'' which you are quoting, and you will see that all these engineers and scientists don't give a damn that you think that they are wasting ''time and money''.
:::::Aschlafly, your position is only tenable as you are willing to ignore most of the data which is presented to you. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:12, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, please correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you believe very firmly that relativity has nothing to do with GPS, even though you are unwilling to present any evidence to support this belief, and wish to put severe restrictions on what 'proof' of the relationship other folks may present. I raised some five questions above as to what sort of evidence you might consider. Could you please answer these questions.

::I'd like to ask Mr. Schafly if he could explain what the clock adjustments on GPS satellites are for, the article is not clear, and neither is anything on this talk page.--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:44, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Cahnkj, herewith a summary of the clock-adjustment situation as I (RolandPlankton) see it. Newton's equations of motions say nothing about how clocks keep time. Einstein's equations of relativity imply that identical clocks will vary in their timekeeping (tick at different rates) if they are travelling at different speeds, or if they are at different heights in a gravitational field, or if they are subject to different accelerations; see [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview]. Now the satellites used in the GPS system require very accurate clocks which are in step with ground-based clocks. The paper just quoted provides the various relativistic equations which apply - the satellites are travelling faster than a ground-based receiver, and are at a different height in a gravitational field. Prior to launch the clocks in the GPS satellites are deliberately set to a different tick rate from ground-based clocks, so that when they are in orbit the clocks will appear to tick at the same rate; the difference in tick rates is about 38 nanoseconds per day, and this adjustment can be calculated from the relevant relativistic equations.

:::But the problem is that Aschlafly rejects the Theory of Relativity, and hence rejects any calculation based on that. The only serious argument he has put forth on this current talk page (see preceding section) is an appeal to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Truth the truth]; the quote he provides above is also demolished above. You may wish to consult [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], which is rebutted point by point in [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]].

:::Hope this doesn't add too much to the confusion. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 12:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, as a separate issue, in view of of your apparent attitude to references, could I ask you to have a look at the articles I have been working on over the last two months: [[Pi]], [[Programming language]], [[Compiler]], and the work-in-progress [[Chomsky hierarchy]]. Obviously I'm only asking you to consider the changes I have made. In particular, can you check if the references are acceptable to you, and can you also check that the general style and level of writing is in accordance with Conservapedia's aims? The next article I intend to turn my intention to is [[Context-Free Grammar]], since it seems to me that this fails to satisfy [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Style]] "Articles on complex topics need an introduction which assumes little or no previous knowledge". [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:03, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Roland, your good edits are appreciated and I've seen no complaints about them. I agree that the [[Context-Free Grammar]] would benefit from a better introduction and look forward to reading what you add there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== Why are adjustments needed to GPS? ==

A good question was raised above: if synchronization to GPS is not due to the [[Theory of Relativity]], then what is it due to?

And the answer is simply this: [[quantum mechanics]]. There are fundamental uncertainties, and those uncertainties will lead to clock differences. Otherwise a [[perpetual motion machine]] would be possible. It isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:Well, this is progress indeed. Could you please provide references to support the contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects?

:Also, as an aside, how do you say that fundamental uncertainties described by quantum mechanics relate to the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine? Not sure I follow you there. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 23:36, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::It's basic logic. Unless someone denies [[quantum mechanics]] and the fundamental uncertainties it describes -- and many [[Relativists]] do deny it -- then synchronization will be required as a logical result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Do you have any references? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::I haven't looked ... nor is it necessary to. I wouldn't look for references to confirm any logical statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:14, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Really? Is it fair to say then that this contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects is not something that you have read about but rather something that you yourself concluded from your own knowledge of quantum mechanics and GPS systems? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::P.S. As a result of this discussion I found a couple of articles which appear to confirm that GPS satellites have their clocks adjusted by about 38,000 nanoseconds per day before launch in compliance with relitavistic predictions (both Special and General Relativity are taken into account). The articles are [http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp here] and [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html here]. Is there really any question that this is what is happening? I would think that if these sources are to be questioned that some sort of reference should be provided. A mere assertion that the adjustments are as a result of quantum mechanical effects and that it is a matter of logic would not usually be enough for any serious encyclopedia. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::The references are [[hearsay]]. Logic is far more compelling, more efficient, and more likely to lead to the correct result.

::::::To take the analogy mentioned above, if you agree that [[perpetual motion machines]] are impossible, what is the reason?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:45, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Quantum mechanics gives a probabilistic model of phenomena. Indeed, the page you linked for quantum mechanics states:
::"If we measure such an observable, generally the wave function does not predict exactly which value we will obtain. Instead, the wave function gives us the probability that a certain value will be obtained."
:If this is the case, that means that Quantum mechanical phenomena are ''unpredictable''. How is it that clock adjustments can be made based on unpredictable events, ie, probabilities?
:I'd also like to know how the GPS system is affected by these phenomena.
:--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 01:51, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Logic is a nice thing. But engineers like to calculate. So could you give us a Ballpark estimate for the quantum mechanic effects which come into play here? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:59, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:(Edit conflict x2) Andy, as a lawyer I can assure you that hearsay is a [[legal]] concept which is of little use in this sort of scientific discussion. Whilst I understand that non-legally trained people sometimes confuse the nature and applicability of the concept, I can confirm that it has no relevance here.

:The difficulty here arises from your wanting to assert the truth of a matter without providing either references or even the basis for you own logic. Just saying "quantum mechanics" is hardly enlightening. Do you deny that GPS satellite clocks are adjusted by approximately 38,000 nanoseconds as referred to in the references that I provided? If not, do you say that there is a quantum calculation that accounts for that adjustment? What is that quantum calculation and what is it based on? I am really having difficulty in understanding the basis for all of this. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 02:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, this reference [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] has been pointed out to you several times already. Since it is published by folks actually working on the GPS system, I hardly think that it qualifies as 'hearsay'. It contains all the relevant relativistic equations, which are not really that complicated, and derives the 38 nanosecond figure quoted above. An assertion on scientific matters without any evidence can't really be taken seriously. Can we please see the quantum mechanical equations and calculations which come up with the same or similar result? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 09:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, I'm inclined to suspect that your disbelief in relativity is so strong that you are unwilling to consider any evidence which might indicate that relativity could be correct, and are hence flailing around looking for some other explanation as to what actually happens (GPS clock adjustment by 38 ns). Would you care to comment on my suspicion? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 09:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Quote: "A logical statement is a declarative sentence that is either true or false." [http://www.ontotext.com/factforge/logical-statement].

So Aschlafly, why don't you need a reference to confirm a logical statement? Just because a statement is logical doesn't mean that it is true. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

: It would be helpful to have a more modern reference. GPS switched to a system of daily updates to the satellites. Maybe those relativistic formulas cause errors that require daily clock synchronizations to correct. Not likely. But to prove the point we ought to find a reference that says that the satellites still use the 38 ns/day relativistic adjustments, and that the daily corrections are much smaller than that. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:18, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

== Logic and the GPS ==

*Atomic watches work on the Earth quite fine
*[[Quantum mechanics]] describe the physics of ''very small length and energy scales''
*Satellites are macroscopic objects.
*Even a precision of 1cm on the surface of the Earth isn't a very small length.

So which kind of logic tells us that quantum mechanical effects influence the synchronization of the clocks? Why are not only the scientists involved lying, but also their calculations?

For me it seems to be a logical conclusion that you, Aschlafly, are even more knowledgeable of Greek than of Science! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:He's trying to apply the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle to satellites? Are you kidding me? That principle is used for things at the ATOMIC LEVEL! Using ANYTHING with regards to quantum mechanics in an argument about satellites is absurdism and/or ignorance of the subject matter! Seriously Andy, I know you hate the Theory of Relativity, but you should really leave science to those who understand it. [[User:JanSmuts|JanSmuts]] 16:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Elementary proof

2012-04-10T05:52:33Z

RSchlafly: /* Unique square root of -1 necessary for complex analysis */ A proof is either rigorous or it is not

== Who uses this concept? ==
I don't think that it is correct that anyone calls a proof "elementary" just because it does not use the square root of (-1). Nor is it true that an elementary proof is necessarily preferred.

It is not an assumption that (-1) can have a square root. It can be proved. Nor is the square root unique. (-1) has 2 square roots, if it has any.

I suggest killing this article. It just isn't useful. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:11, 5 February 2007 (EST)

If the test were what is "useful", then most math articles should be deleted!

I'd love to see a proof that the following exists and is unique (plus and minus roots):

:::<big><big><math>\sqrt{-1}</math></big></big>

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:12, 6 February 2007 (EST)

: Existence depends on what system you are operating in. Uniqueness is fairly easy if you are operating in a field. Proposition: in any field F, with c and element of F, the equation <math>x^2=c</math> has at most 2 solutions. Proof: Consider <math>x^2=c</math>. this implies that <math>x^2-c=0</math>. We may assume that c has at least one square root (call it <math>c^{1/2}</math>). So we have <math>(x+c^{1/2})(x-c^{1/2})</math>. Now, since fields have no zero divisors (easy excercise), we must have <math>x+c^{1/2}=0</math> or <math>x-c^{1/2}=0</math> which gives us only two choices. Q.E.D. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:44, 6 February 2007 (EST)

: I have never heard an "elementary proof" used to refer to a proof that "cannot be broken down into smaller proofs", whatever that is supposed to mean, and moreover, this doesn't clearly have anything to do with the other definition about avoiding complex analysis. Moreover, Selberg's Fields was primarily for his other work on the Riemann zeta function (complex analysis! the horror!) and Selberg formula, which indicated the direction of this proof. The proof itself was not the grounds for the medal, as this article indicates. Some editor here seems to have a bizarre fascination with "elementary proofs", but would surely be hard-pressed to find a serious mathematician who rejected residue calculus on the grounds that it is not an elementary method, as that article claims.

Re: "I'd love to see a proof that the following exists and is unique (plus and minus roots)", the questioner might try to learn a bit about fields and algebraic extensions thereof. By "sqrt(-1)" we mean some symbol which is "adjoined" to a field and which satisfies x^2+1=0. Such a thing exists in a field extension (and one can prove this quite rigorously), and is obviously unique there. Any basic algebra text (Artin, Dummit/Foote, etc) will cover the requisite material better than I could hope to do here.

- jlezzy
::The "some editor" you refer to is either [[User:Aschlafly |the owner]] or myself and neither of us have a bizarre fascination with this subject. Mockful sarcasm doesn't get you far on this site and neither does a woefully inappropriate choice of username. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 00:39, 4 January 2009 (EST)

This poster was indeed rude, but can we get citations for any of this? I can't find any evidence that there are mathematicians who reject the method of residues for being non-elementary.

== Definition of Elementary proof ==

I would like to remove the statement about elementary proofs being those that cannot be broken down into smaller proofs. This statement doesn't make much sense to me. What so we mean by a 'smaller' proof? What do we mean by breaking a proof down into other proofs? Typically the proof of a long theorem is broken down by proving many of the steps as a lemma. This is done to make the proof of the main theorem easier to comprehend. This can be done with any theorem whose proof has more than one step. Any non-trivial theorem is bound to have many steps so I don't think that this is what the author intends. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 12:05, 9 January 2009 (EST)
:AndyJM, I really don't understand what your are finding so baffling about the concept of elementary proofs. The line you removed was an important statement, and as you can see, Andy (the owner) reinstated it with some clearer wording. If you do not have experience with elementary proofs, then please do not remove content from the articles -- you've been banned for such actions before. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:00, 18 January 2009 (EST)
:: Hi Foxtrot. I thought that I had clearly laid out what I find so baffling about one particular statement in this article. Did you read my comment? While I am not delighted with the addition that Schlafly made it is a definite improvement over what had been there. The vast majority (perhaps all) all the proofs that I have published could be classified as elementary according to the first definition, i.e. not using complex analysis. However I have no idea whether or not they would elementary according to the second definition. This suggests to me that the second definition could be a bit suspect or 'loose', so to speak. I am not out to cause trouble here, and despite your beliefs to the contrary I have not made any edits for ideological reasons. In fact to my mind mathematics is refreshingly free of ideology. Dia dhuit (to which the polite response is 'Dia is muire dhuit'). [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 07:22, 19 January 2009 (EST)

I don't think that anyone uses the term "elementary proof" as it is defined here. Here is more typical usage:
:Keep in mind that the word ‘elementary’ is being used in many dif-ferent ways in this discussion. In informal mathematical usage, ‘elemen-tary’ is often used to mean ‘simple’ or ‘easy to understand’. In the Sel-berg/Nathanson sense it is used to mean ‘avoiding the use of inﬁnitary (or analytic) methods’. The fact that Selberg’s proof of Dirichlet’s theorem is harder to understand than the standard analytic one shows that these two senses can be at odds! I have already noted that the use of the word ‘elementary’ in the phrase ‘elementary arithmetic’ is due to the fact that the axiom system is closely related to the class of ‘elementary functions’ in the sense of Kalmar. To complicate matters even further, among logicians the word ‘elementary’ is often used to mean ‘ﬁrst-order’. [http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/avigad/Papers/elementary.pdf]

As you can see, none of this matches what is in the article. I suggest that the article be deleted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:07, 30 January 2009 (EST)

It certainly seems reasonable that not using AoC would be desirable for calling a proof elementary. However, in my experience, the notion of an elementary proof is closer to "not using mathematics from unrelated areas" than it is in avoiding specific techniques or axioms. In number theory, this usually entails avoiding the methods of complex analysis. But to me, it is perfectly natural to say "To avoid this, we next give an elementary proof, which uses Zorn's lemma in a typical way" in a paper on algebra, where the application is indeed typical. That excerpt is from "Some ring theoretic equivalents to the Axiom of Choice", easily googleable, and I find several other examples of authors citing AoC in "elementary" proofs. It's easy to ignore this as the work of sloppy authors and/or liberals, but clearly the usage defined in this CP is at the very least not universal, and indeed I have never encountered it. Might I modify the page to indicate that some authors use a different characterization of elementary proofs, and can we find a source that actually uses a definition resembling that here? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 01:23, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

: Your approach is the same as Wikipedia's, and unfortunately it does not withstand scrutiny. The objection to non-elementary proofs is not that they use math "from unrelated areas." There is no coherent objection to that.

: The real objection is that non-elementary proofs rely on additional assumptions. For complex analysis, that additional assumption is that there is a unique square root of negative 1, which can be manipulated algebraically. Maybe true, maybe false, and an elementary proof is desirable because it does not rely on that assumption. The Axiom of Choice also includes a questionable assumption.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

::I am not questioning that there is a valid objection to using proofs that require additional assumptions, for example choice. This is a very reasonable view. I do question whether such proofs are actually called "elementary" by mathematicians. The case of applying complex analysis to number theory is non-elementary by either proposed definition. I have given one example in the literature which clearly contradicts the characterization of choice as necessarily non-elementary, and can easily find more. Can you please cite someone who uses your definition of an elementary proof? I'm willing to believe that this usage is in circulation, but this is the first I've run into it. --11:00, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

:::A Fields Medal was given for an elementary proof a few decades ago. Enough said? Isolated sloppiness or denial since then is no reason to reject the underlying logic behind the value of elementary proofs.

:::Most academic scientists today claim that man-made global warming is settled science, and that government can stop it. Such consensus does not make that claim true or logical.

:::Your definition of an elementary proof does not withstand scrutiny for the reasons I stated, which you did not address.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:46, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

::::I don't wish to argue about what would be the best definition of an elementary proof, or the importance elementary methods, which I appreciate. I just want to point out that the definition of "elementary proof" given here is not actually how the term is used in the mathematical literature, and I have supported this with a citation. As such I think this page needs some adjustment -- it gives a definition of "elementary proof" which is used, as far as I can tell until you provide a citation, by no one except you. It's quite possible that this would be a superior usage of the term, and I have no problem with the ideas on the page as it stands. I would only ask to add a disclaimer that when mathematicians use the term "elementary proof", this is not always what they mean (as indicated by the AoC example above). --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 11:58, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

::::: Mark, the entry does describe the traditional and only meaningful definition of "elementary proof." Your definition, which is also used by Wikipedia, is non-substantive and cannot explain why the prestigious Fields Medal was given for it. Nor does your definition explain why Paul Erdos, perhaps the most prolific mathematician of the 20th century, was such a stickler in preferring elementary proofs.

::::: Perhaps there are some new mathematicians who are in denial about the importance of elementary proofs. There are also new physicists who deny the importance of [[falsifiability]]. But self-described experts do not get to be the only watchdogs for their fields. Some accountability can and should come from outside the fields of expertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:23, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

::::::If that is indeed the traditional definition (i.e., if the traditional definition would necessarily exclude proofs using AoC), you should have no difficulty providing a relevant citation, and I won't argue any more! It is true that proofs involving choice are generally dispreferred, but as far as I know they have never been called "non-elementary". I have given a citation which contradicts your characterization, and can produce more -- please provide just one in favor of it! If your definition were indeed in use at all, I would expect that searching for "Tychonoff theorem non-elementary" would find some page describing this result as "non-elementary" since it is one of the most famous proofs involving choice. However, it does not, but it does find an "elementary" proof of the theorem (employing choice, of course).

::::::Of course some accountability from non-mathematicians is important, but this discussion isn't about whether proofs using AoC should be recognized as such and pointed out (such oversight is of course welcome). The question is whether the term "elementary proof" excludes all proofs using choice, and it seems to me that it does not.

::::::Historically this term originated to describe proofs in number theory which did not use complex analysis, a usage which now falls under either umbrella. Selberg's Fields Medal was for a variety of contributions (like the Nobel prize, it is given not for a single result, but for overall contributions to mathematics), the primary of which (according to the official citation) was his extension of Brun's work on the zeta function (showing that a positive proportion of zeroes lie on the critical line), decidedly non-elementary work! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 12:55, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Mark, Conservapedia does not simply cut and paste quotes from others, many of whom has obvious self-serving biases. The logic underlying the concept of an "elementary proof" is clear and cannot seriously be disputed. You're not addressing the substance of the significance of an "elementary proof." Once you address that, it will become clear that proofs relying on the [[Axiom of Choice]] are not [[elementary proofs]]. It doesn't matter whether any math professors admit that or not. No math professor will publicly admit that the best mathematicians are men rather than women, but that denial does not alter the obvious truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:23, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

::::::::This article defines a common mathematical term in a way in which it is not used by anyone and seems never to have been used. I infer that your last post cedes that mathematicians don't use it, though I still welcome a citation on the historical point, which should be easy to come by if the usage is indeed "traditional" as you have claimed. I'm not disputing the logic of what you call an "elementary proof", which is clear. I agree with you about the significance of proofs such as you describe, and am not addressing "the substance of the significance of an elementary proof'" only because it's not relevant to the point at hand: what I'm disputing the use of that term, which has a well-established meaning distinct from what you intend and is therefore inappropriate. What use is an encyclopedia article that simply makes up new definitions for well-known terms, even if these new definitions have a clear and important philosophy? This serves no purpose but to confuse readers trying to understand how the term is used and hurt the credibility of CP math generally. Why not invent a new phrase to describe proofs such as those you discuss, whose philosophy I agree is valuable? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 13:51, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::: Mark, you're no longer being substantive in responding to my comments. This entry defines "elementary proof" in the only meaningful way, and then applies it in a straightforward manner that cannot be logically disputed.

:::::::::: Academic mathematicians, as in other academic fields, are in denial about many things: gender differences, religious truth, the value of self-criticism, and the bankruptcy of liberal politics. Wikipedia denied the concept of "elementary proof" entirely until I listed it as an example of its [[Bias in Wikipedia]], and now Wikipedians deny the significance of the concept. Feel free to continue to your discussion there, but I'm going to stick with logic and truth here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

I don't understand these significant advantages. No proof ever assumes that there is a unique, algebraically manipulable square root of negative one. There are two such roots, and there is no need to assume anything because the proofs are given in field theory textbooks. Elementary proofs are not necessarily any harder to simplify. A sophicated non-elementary proof might be only 2 lines long, and thus impossible to simplify except by removing reliance on other work. The axiom of choice is not any less rigorous than any other axiom. The whole article is nonsensical. You seem to want to suggest that some proofs are more rigorous than other proofs, but that is just not true at all. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:27, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

:You're denying the significance of [[elementary proofs]], for which a Fields Medal has been awarded and to which Paul Erdos and many number theorists have been dedicated. But your denial does not address the substance. An elementary proof does rely on fewer assumptions than a non-elementary proof. There's no way around that fact, and it is significant.

:The view that "all proofs are equivalent no matter what theories they use" may be appealing to some, but it does not withstand scrutiny. Proofs relying on fewer assumptions are obviously preferable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:44, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

:: Selberg did get a Fields Medal for an elementary proof of the prime number theorem, but I am not sure that anyone says that Selberg's proof is any better than any other. All of those proofs rest on the same set of assumptions. Can you give an example of an elementary proof that is better than a non-elementary proof because it relies on fewer assumptions? I agree that a proof not using the axiom of choice might be preferable, but can you give another example? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:43, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

The notion that complex analysis depends on a purported uniqueness of the square root of -1 needs to be put to rest. There is no assumption that the square root of -1 has to be unique. And a good thing, too, because it isn't unique. No one denies that -1, like all nonzero numbers, has two square roots, that are negatives of each other. All nonzero numbers also have three cube roots, related by de Moivre's formula, and so on. Complex analysis does not rely on any such uniqueness. The complex numbers (or complex plane, or Argand diagram) is constructed from a special formal element "i", which simply serves as the second basis element of the vector space being constructed. The "square root of -1" and "i" are not the same thing. There are two square roots of -1, but only one "i". The square root of -1 doesn't even exist until the complex plane has been constructed, so it couldn't have been used in the construction.

The complex numbers, so constructed, are every bit as rigorous as the rational numbers, the real numbers, Hilbert spaces, Frechet spaces, Lie groups, symplectic groups, etc.

If there were any ambiguity in the interpretation of the "imaginary part" of a complex number, many fields of mathematics, physics, and engineering would fall apart. To pick just a few examples, the field of linear circuits in electrical engineering depends on the Laplace transform, which would not be well-defined if the imaginary unit "i" were not well-defined. Also, there could be no agreement on what the Schordinger equation of quantum mechanics means, or how the various quantum mechanical operators work. The Fourier transform would not be well-defined.

There may well be reasons why one would prefer a theorem of number theory that does not involve complex analysis, but such a proof's lack of rigor is not one of them.

We need to work out a careful survey of the things that make some proofs more complicated than other proofs of the same theorem, and how the word "elementary" is used to describe this, and what the various ramifications of this usage are. I'm willing to work on this. [[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 23:06, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

:Beyond specific examples (and I haven't much to add to Patrick's exposition), Mr. Schlafly's general point that "Proofs relying on fewer assumptions are obviously preferable" is an important one, and I think that most mathematicians would agree with this. However, as Patrick explains, the use of complex analysis is not an additional assumption in any sense, and it is constructed and verified with complete rigor from nothing beyond ZF. So I'm mostly interested in AoC as it pertains to the notion of the elementary proof -- as RSchlafly had added, this seems to be by far the most important case where we find proofs with extra assumptions. More later on the issue of analytic number theory.

:Proofs avoiding choice are to be preferred for their weaker assumptions, as noted: for example, the Schroeder-Bernstein theorem is a theorem for which there are two proofs: a quick trick relying on choice, and a slightly more nuanced proof without it. In my experience (both in studying and teaching), the latter is generally taught despite its relative difficulty. My only encounter with the former was as a homework problem introducing the application of AoC. My issue with this page is that the term "elementary proof" is not actually used to describe such proofs. There are other ways to characterize such proofs formally, but I'm not sure of any commonly-used term for them. I'd suggest that discussion of related issues ought to be incorporated into the article on AoC, and that this article be changed to reflect what the term actually means.

:I'd also reiterate that Selberg's Fields was awarded largely on the grounds of his contributions to the study of the zeta function, so to imagine that it was awarded for minimizing the use of complex analysis is fantasy. His proof was important, however, for the new methods that it made available to number theorists. Erdos's dedication to "elementary proofs" arose not from doubts about the validity of complex analysis (in the case of PNT and other problems in number theory), but rather from the intrinsic aesthetic appeal of proofs which don't make use of unnecessarily powerful methods. A proof which does not crack a nut with a sledgehammer (as older proofs of PNT did) is more beautiful than one that does, and Erdos deeply valued "beautiful" proofs. It is these proofs, which expose the profound and elegant nature of the theorems they establish, that are to be found "in the book".

:An unrelated issue is that there seem to be two notions of elementary proof used in this article, and I'm not sure how to reconcile them. Selberg's proof of PNT is magnificently complicated, though it avoids the methods of analytic number theory. It's not a proof that I would say "cannot be improved by expressing it in simpler form" -- indeed the analytic proofs are far simpler. It's true that at heart these have a different method, but it's my understanding that a touch of complex analysis can simplify the Selberg argument while leaving its fundamental insights intact. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 00:24, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

::The talk-to-substance ratio is very high in the above replies, and that's not a good sign. Complex analysis does rely on an assumption that there is a unique, algebraically manipulable square root of negative one. It's a unique pair, obviously, and it's a sign of desperation that some above looked for a way to deny this.

::Proofs that rely on this assumption are obviously less favored than proofs that do not, and hence the important concept of an [[elementary proof]]. Deny its importance all you want, but the beauty of logic is that it doesn't matter who accepts or denies it. The logic remains as truthful regardless.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:26, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

== Errors ==

This page is frankly bizarre. I can't imagine a working mathematician agreeing with much of it in its current state.

: 1. The assertion that an elementary proof "uses only real numbers or real analysis rather than the use of complex analysis" agrees with the cited MathWorld stub, but that stub misrepresents its source, Hoffman's book on Erdos. The original source says, "In this context, elementary means that the proof of the formula relies on a restricted set of numbers, the so-called real numbers...", the context being Erdos avoiding the "heavy machinery" including complex analysis employed by Hardy and Ramanujan in an asymptotic estimate of the partition function. An elementary proof is not in general characterized by the avoidance of complex analysis but rather by the avoidance of any "heavy machinery" whatsoever (like, say, the Hahn-Banach theorem, which in its real formulation is very much a part of real analysis). A decent test for the elementary-ness of a proof is whether a bright high-schooler could follow it. The definition needs to be re-written and a better source found. It should also be noted that the definition is inherently vague and different people disagree on the finer points.

: 2. The assertion that non-elementary proofs rely "on less rigorous axioms, such as the Axiom of Choice" is misleading. The axiom of choice is not "less rigorous" than, say, the axiom of infinity--it simply asserts an assumption; rigor does not enter in. The axiom of choice is somewhat controversial, though; "less controversial axioms" in the above would be true.

: 3. "...but in 1949 and 1950 an elementary proof by Paul Erdos and Atle Selberg earned Selberg the highest prize in math" -- it's misleading to imply Selberg's elementary proof was the only thing that got him his Fields medal. "helped earn" would be correct and would avoid a digression into discussing Selberg's work.

: 4. "avoiding the assumption that there is a unique, algebraically manipulable square root of negative one" -- this highlights a fundamental misunderstanding which may underlie my second point. The existence of complex numbers is not an "assumption" in the sense mathematicians use. Typically, one assumes some basic facts about set theory (say the ZF axioms, which includes the axiom of infinity I mentioned before) and uses those to build up algebraic objects. The existence of complex numbers satisfying the usual properties is then a *consequence* of these background assumptions (which are also used in elementary proofs) rather than an assumption itself. The use of complex analysis does not entail the use of a new assumption [nitpick: the axiom of dependent choice is typically added to the usual ZF axioms to do complex analysis, though that's rather uncontroversial and is also used in real analysis, almost always implicitly because it's so intuitive]. Again, the point of an elementary proof is that it uses no "heavy machinery"; I've never actually seen an elementary proof that used fewer assumptions than a non-elementary counterpart even though this page mentions that phenomenon several times. An example (keeping in mind the proper mathematician's idea of an "assumption") would be helpful.

: 5. The article does not discuss this, but elementary proofs are not always preferred. Elementary proofs tend to be very long and rather messy--a famous solution to the Basel problem comes to mind as an example. If one uses non-elementary Fourier analysis, one can solve the problem in less than half a page by computing the Fourier coefficients of f(x) = x and applying Parseval's theorem. The elementary alternative I'm aware of fiddles around with trigonometric identities and polynomial arithmetic for quite a while, is tedious, and is actually much harder to follow. The formulation I'm aware of also uses complex numbers, though not complex analysis.

I'd also like to say that Aschlafly should probably avoid editing this page. The quote, "For complex analysis, that additional assumption is that there is a unique square root of negative 1, which can be manipulated algebraically. Maybe true, maybe false" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of assumptions in mathematics and also shows his ignorance about the subject. The construction of complex numbers from real numbers is quite simple: mod the ring of one-variable real polynomials by the ideal generated by (x^2 + 1); this is the standard splitting field construction in this special case. There is no additional assumption necessary, just more machinery (rings, ideals, quotients, etc.).

I haven't edited the article since (from this talk page) doing so seems rather controversial.

[[User:Elproof|Elproof]] 19:45, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

:These are nitpicky points, and I don't see why any of them would require any changes to the entry. I address each point:

::(1) Your comment complains about the definition, but does not offer a better one. Instead, your comment says the definition is "vague", but then uses even vaguer terminology like "heavy machinery" or whether "a bright high-schooler could follow it."

::(2) Your comment that "less rigorous" should be replaced by "less controversial" would, again, be a step in the wrong direction. "Controversy" does not delineate limits on truth. [[Jesus Christ]] was no less truthful simply because he was (and is) controversial.

::(3) This point is silly and does not merit a response.

::(4) It's obviously not the number of assumptions that matter, but the lack of rigor in the assumptions made. Assuming that there is a unique square root of -1 is a highly non-rigorous, even implausible, assumption underlying complex analysis.

::(5) "but elementary proofs are not always preferred ..." by whom? One doesn't allow a fox to guard a henhouse, and neither mathematicians nor politicians should be setting their own rules as they go, or else before long all sorts of nonsensical "proofs" might be asserted by some academics at [[liberal]] institutions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:46, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

== Unique square root of -1 necessary for complex analysis ==

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

Where are you getting your information that complex analysis requires there to be a unique square root of −1? I am currently taking a complex analysis course, and I understand that there are two square roots of −1, namely ''i'' and −''i''.1 I don't see how this undermines complex analysis. It may help to examine how complex numbers are derived in the first place. (The interested reader may consult ''Complex Function Theory'', 2nd ed., by Sarason, sections I.1 and I.2.)

#We define a set <math>\mathbb{C}</math> to consist of all ordered pairs of real numbers.
#We define addition of elements of <math>\mathbb{C}</math> as follows:
#:<center><math>(a, b) + (c, d) := (a + c, b + d)</math></center>
#We define multiplication of elements of <math>\mathbb{C}</math> as follows:
#:<center><math>(a, b) \cdot (c, d) := (ac - bd, ad + bc)</math></center>
#We verify the following about <math>+</math>:
##It is commutative
##It is assoiciatve
##There exists an element of <math>\mathbb{C}</math>, namely <math>0 := (0, 0)</math>, such that for all <math>a \in \mathbb{C}</math>, <math>a + 0 = a = 0 + a</math>
##For every element <math>a \in \mathbb{C}</math> there exists an additive inverse <math>-a</math> such that <math>a + (-a) = 0 = (-a) + a</math>
##Therefore, <math>\mathbb{C}</math> is an [[abelian group]] under addition.
#We verify the following about <math>\cdot</math>:
##It is commutative
##It is associative
##It has the distributive property over addition
##There exists an element of <math>\mathbb{C}</math>, namely <math>1 := (1, )</math>, such that for all <math>a \in \mathbb{C}</math>, <math>a \cdot 1 = a = 1 \cdot a</math>
##For every nonzero element <math>a \in \mathbb{C}</math> there exists a multiplicative inverse (reciprocal) <math>a^{-1}</math> such that <math>a \cdot a^{-1} = 1 = a^{-1} \cdot a</math>
##Therefore, <math>\mathbb{C}</math> is a [[field]].
#We consider the subset <math>S = \{(a, 0)|a \in \mathbb{R}\} \subseteq \mathbb{C}</math> We note that there is a natural [[isomorphism]] from <math>S</math> to <math>\mathbb{R}</math>. Thus, we can associate elements of <math>\mathbb{C}</math> with zero second coordinate with real numbers.
#As notation, we write the ordered pair <math>(a, b)</math> as <math>a + bi</math>. This is just notation. We note that it does not constitute an [[abuse of notation]] since <math>(a, b) = (a, 0) + (0, b)</math>, so the complex number notated by <math>a + bi</math> is really the sum of the complex numbers <math>a + 0i</math> and <math>0 + bi</math>.
#We can also use natural shorthand for the <math>a + bi</math> notation. In particular, we can write <math>i</math> to represent the element <math>(0, 1) \in \mathbb{C}</math>. Note that <math>i^2 = (0, 1)\cdot(0, 1) = (-1, 0) = -1</math>.

This is how complex numbers are typically derived. (One could of course, define them to be the cosets in the quotient field <math>\mathbb{R}[x]/(x^2 + 1)</math>; this is clearly equivalent to the derivation above.) Please let me know where you see a fault in this derivation.

1Incidentally, [[Galois theory]] tells us that there cannot be a unique nonreal solution to a polynomial with real coefficients. Considering <math>\mathbb{C}</math> as a field extension of <math>\mathbb{R}</math>, we note that the [[Galois group]] of <math>\mathbb{C}/\mathbb{R}</math>, which consists of all automorphisms of <math>\mathbb{C}</math> that fix elements of <math>\mathbb{R}</math>, has precisely two members: the identity function and the function taking complex numbers to their complex conjugate (which we will denote <math>\phi</math>. Suppose that
<math>f(x) = a_0 + a_1 x + \cdots + a_n x^n</math> is a polynomial with real coefficients that has a root <math>r</math>. Then,
<math>0 = a_0 + a_1 r + \cdots + a_n x^n</math>. We apply the aforementioned <math>\phi</math> to both sides; the application of this function leaves <math>0</math> and all the coefficients <math>a_0, \ldots, a_n</math> unchanged. What we get is
<math>0 = a_0 + a_1 \bar{r} + \cdots + a_n \bar{r}^n</math>. This means that <math>\bar{r}</math>, the complex conjugate of <math>r</math>,
is also a root of <math>f</math>. Thus, any polynomial in real coefficients with a nonreal root <math>r</math> also has
<math>\bar{r}</math> as a root. In particular, complex square roots of <math>-1</math> are roots of the polynomial
<math>x^2 + 1</math>, and since we know this polynomial has no real solutions, the two roots guaranteed by the [[fundamental theorem of algebra]] must be a complex conjugate pair. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:13, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

Please

:By "unique", it includes unique pair. Also, it looks like you double-posted above and please feel free to delete any duplicate. I look forward to reviewing your analysis further on [[Resurrection Sunday]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:19, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::Complex analysis assumes, for example, not only that the square root of -1 exists, but that the cube of the square root of -1 is always equal to the negative of itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:24, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::: Why do you say "assumes"? All of those properties are provable from either of the above two definitions of the complex numbers. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:20, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Really, that one is obvious: x²+1=0 ⇒ x³ = x(x²+1-1)=x(-1)=-x No further assumptions are needed, only basic algebra.... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:05, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::::If something could be "defined to exist," then we could simply define "God to exist, let's call Him '''''g'''''," and that would end any debate about the matter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::::: That is how all of mathematics is. Objects are defined to exist. Then they are proved to be well-defined. It is the same for all other numbers, functions, spaces, and other mathematical objects. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:08, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::: Defining the square root of -1 to exist is different from other mathematical definitions, because the square root of -1 is known not to exist. It is analogous to defining the square root of 2 to be rational without the immediate contradictions.

:::::: But if mathematicians insist on the rigor of this approach, then why not simply define God to exist? There is no contradiction that results from that definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:24, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Now you're just being silly. Maths is not religion and maths is not a physical science. In mathematics one can define any structure one likes, logical consistency is all that is required. In that sense, complex numbers are perfectly well defined. Mathematical structures may or may not be useful for describing reality, but that has to be checked by comparing predictions from mathematical theories to experimental results or observations. Even then, mathematical structures are not (physical) reality, they are tools to describe reality. Complex numbers have proved to be extremely useful in many fields of science and engineering. Aren't you an electrical engineer or something like that? Did you not find complex numbers useful? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 19:20, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::: There are people who define God to be the universe, or physical law, or the first cause, or the essence of goodness, or something similar. To a mathematician, such a definition could indeed serve to define God and to prove that he exists. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:38, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::::: Responding to Frederick, I would never doubt that complex numbers can be useful. So are approximations, estimates, predictions about the future, intuition, and prayer. The issue is whether a mathematical proof that resorts to use of complex numbers is as rigorous as an [[elementary proof]]. The answer is obviously "no".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:17, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::: Obvious? On the contrary, no mathematical proof is more rigorous than any other mathematical proof. A proof is either rigorous or it is not, whether it uses complex numbers or any other mathematical construct. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:52, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

Slightly off-topic, but you might be interested in physical evidence for complex numbers. According to this new paper [http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.1858], imaginary numbers are the most crucial difference between classical and quantum mechanics. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:50, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Elementary proof

2012-04-10T00:50:55Z

RSchlafly: /* Unique square root of -1 necessary for complex analysis */ imaginary numbers are the most crucial difference between classical and quantum mechanics

== Who uses this concept? ==
I don't think that it is correct that anyone calls a proof "elementary" just because it does not use the square root of (-1). Nor is it true that an elementary proof is necessarily preferred.

It is not an assumption that (-1) can have a square root. It can be proved. Nor is the square root unique. (-1) has 2 square roots, if it has any.

I suggest killing this article. It just isn't useful. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:11, 5 February 2007 (EST)

If the test were what is "useful", then most math articles should be deleted!

I'd love to see a proof that the following exists and is unique (plus and minus roots):

:::<big><big><math>\sqrt{-1}</math></big></big>

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:12, 6 February 2007 (EST)

: Existence depends on what system you are operating in. Uniqueness is fairly easy if you are operating in a field. Proposition: in any field F, with c and element of F, the equation <math>x^2=c</math> has at most 2 solutions. Proof: Consider <math>x^2=c</math>. this implies that <math>x^2-c=0</math>. We may assume that c has at least one square root (call it <math>c^{1/2}</math>). So we have <math>(x+c^{1/2})(x-c^{1/2})</math>. Now, since fields have no zero divisors (easy excercise), we must have <math>x+c^{1/2}=0</math> or <math>x-c^{1/2}=0</math> which gives us only two choices. Q.E.D. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:44, 6 February 2007 (EST)

: I have never heard an "elementary proof" used to refer to a proof that "cannot be broken down into smaller proofs", whatever that is supposed to mean, and moreover, this doesn't clearly have anything to do with the other definition about avoiding complex analysis. Moreover, Selberg's Fields was primarily for his other work on the Riemann zeta function (complex analysis! the horror!) and Selberg formula, which indicated the direction of this proof. The proof itself was not the grounds for the medal, as this article indicates. Some editor here seems to have a bizarre fascination with "elementary proofs", but would surely be hard-pressed to find a serious mathematician who rejected residue calculus on the grounds that it is not an elementary method, as that article claims.

Re: "I'd love to see a proof that the following exists and is unique (plus and minus roots)", the questioner might try to learn a bit about fields and algebraic extensions thereof. By "sqrt(-1)" we mean some symbol which is "adjoined" to a field and which satisfies x^2+1=0. Such a thing exists in a field extension (and one can prove this quite rigorously), and is obviously unique there. Any basic algebra text (Artin, Dummit/Foote, etc) will cover the requisite material better than I could hope to do here.

- jlezzy
::The "some editor" you refer to is either [[User:Aschlafly |the owner]] or myself and neither of us have a bizarre fascination with this subject. Mockful sarcasm doesn't get you far on this site and neither does a woefully inappropriate choice of username. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 00:39, 4 January 2009 (EST)

This poster was indeed rude, but can we get citations for any of this? I can't find any evidence that there are mathematicians who reject the method of residues for being non-elementary.

== Definition of Elementary proof ==

I would like to remove the statement about elementary proofs being those that cannot be broken down into smaller proofs. This statement doesn't make much sense to me. What so we mean by a 'smaller' proof? What do we mean by breaking a proof down into other proofs? Typically the proof of a long theorem is broken down by proving many of the steps as a lemma. This is done to make the proof of the main theorem easier to comprehend. This can be done with any theorem whose proof has more than one step. Any non-trivial theorem is bound to have many steps so I don't think that this is what the author intends. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 12:05, 9 January 2009 (EST)
:AndyJM, I really don't understand what your are finding so baffling about the concept of elementary proofs. The line you removed was an important statement, and as you can see, Andy (the owner) reinstated it with some clearer wording. If you do not have experience with elementary proofs, then please do not remove content from the articles -- you've been banned for such actions before. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:00, 18 January 2009 (EST)
:: Hi Foxtrot. I thought that I had clearly laid out what I find so baffling about one particular statement in this article. Did you read my comment? While I am not delighted with the addition that Schlafly made it is a definite improvement over what had been there. The vast majority (perhaps all) all the proofs that I have published could be classified as elementary according to the first definition, i.e. not using complex analysis. However I have no idea whether or not they would elementary according to the second definition. This suggests to me that the second definition could be a bit suspect or 'loose', so to speak. I am not out to cause trouble here, and despite your beliefs to the contrary I have not made any edits for ideological reasons. In fact to my mind mathematics is refreshingly free of ideology. Dia dhuit (to which the polite response is 'Dia is muire dhuit'). [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 07:22, 19 January 2009 (EST)

I don't think that anyone uses the term "elementary proof" as it is defined here. Here is more typical usage:
:Keep in mind that the word ‘elementary’ is being used in many dif-ferent ways in this discussion. In informal mathematical usage, ‘elemen-tary’ is often used to mean ‘simple’ or ‘easy to understand’. In the Sel-berg/Nathanson sense it is used to mean ‘avoiding the use of inﬁnitary (or analytic) methods’. The fact that Selberg’s proof of Dirichlet’s theorem is harder to understand than the standard analytic one shows that these two senses can be at odds! I have already noted that the use of the word ‘elementary’ in the phrase ‘elementary arithmetic’ is due to the fact that the axiom system is closely related to the class of ‘elementary functions’ in the sense of Kalmar. To complicate matters even further, among logicians the word ‘elementary’ is often used to mean ‘ﬁrst-order’. [http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/avigad/Papers/elementary.pdf]

As you can see, none of this matches what is in the article. I suggest that the article be deleted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:07, 30 January 2009 (EST)

It certainly seems reasonable that not using AoC would be desirable for calling a proof elementary. However, in my experience, the notion of an elementary proof is closer to "not using mathematics from unrelated areas" than it is in avoiding specific techniques or axioms. In number theory, this usually entails avoiding the methods of complex analysis. But to me, it is perfectly natural to say "To avoid this, we next give an elementary proof, which uses Zorn's lemma in a typical way" in a paper on algebra, where the application is indeed typical. That excerpt is from "Some ring theoretic equivalents to the Axiom of Choice", easily googleable, and I find several other examples of authors citing AoC in "elementary" proofs. It's easy to ignore this as the work of sloppy authors and/or liberals, but clearly the usage defined in this CP is at the very least not universal, and indeed I have never encountered it. Might I modify the page to indicate that some authors use a different characterization of elementary proofs, and can we find a source that actually uses a definition resembling that here? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 01:23, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

: Your approach is the same as Wikipedia's, and unfortunately it does not withstand scrutiny. The objection to non-elementary proofs is not that they use math "from unrelated areas." There is no coherent objection to that.

: The real objection is that non-elementary proofs rely on additional assumptions. For complex analysis, that additional assumption is that there is a unique square root of negative 1, which can be manipulated algebraically. Maybe true, maybe false, and an elementary proof is desirable because it does not rely on that assumption. The Axiom of Choice also includes a questionable assumption.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

::I am not questioning that there is a valid objection to using proofs that require additional assumptions, for example choice. This is a very reasonable view. I do question whether such proofs are actually called "elementary" by mathematicians. The case of applying complex analysis to number theory is non-elementary by either proposed definition. I have given one example in the literature which clearly contradicts the characterization of choice as necessarily non-elementary, and can easily find more. Can you please cite someone who uses your definition of an elementary proof? I'm willing to believe that this usage is in circulation, but this is the first I've run into it. --11:00, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

:::A Fields Medal was given for an elementary proof a few decades ago. Enough said? Isolated sloppiness or denial since then is no reason to reject the underlying logic behind the value of elementary proofs.

:::Most academic scientists today claim that man-made global warming is settled science, and that government can stop it. Such consensus does not make that claim true or logical.

:::Your definition of an elementary proof does not withstand scrutiny for the reasons I stated, which you did not address.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:46, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

::::I don't wish to argue about what would be the best definition of an elementary proof, or the importance elementary methods, which I appreciate. I just want to point out that the definition of "elementary proof" given here is not actually how the term is used in the mathematical literature, and I have supported this with a citation. As such I think this page needs some adjustment -- it gives a definition of "elementary proof" which is used, as far as I can tell until you provide a citation, by no one except you. It's quite possible that this would be a superior usage of the term, and I have no problem with the ideas on the page as it stands. I would only ask to add a disclaimer that when mathematicians use the term "elementary proof", this is not always what they mean (as indicated by the AoC example above). --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 11:58, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

::::: Mark, the entry does describe the traditional and only meaningful definition of "elementary proof." Your definition, which is also used by Wikipedia, is non-substantive and cannot explain why the prestigious Fields Medal was given for it. Nor does your definition explain why Paul Erdos, perhaps the most prolific mathematician of the 20th century, was such a stickler in preferring elementary proofs.

::::: Perhaps there are some new mathematicians who are in denial about the importance of elementary proofs. There are also new physicists who deny the importance of [[falsifiability]]. But self-described experts do not get to be the only watchdogs for their fields. Some accountability can and should come from outside the fields of expertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:23, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

::::::If that is indeed the traditional definition (i.e., if the traditional definition would necessarily exclude proofs using AoC), you should have no difficulty providing a relevant citation, and I won't argue any more! It is true that proofs involving choice are generally dispreferred, but as far as I know they have never been called "non-elementary". I have given a citation which contradicts your characterization, and can produce more -- please provide just one in favor of it! If your definition were indeed in use at all, I would expect that searching for "Tychonoff theorem non-elementary" would find some page describing this result as "non-elementary" since it is one of the most famous proofs involving choice. However, it does not, but it does find an "elementary" proof of the theorem (employing choice, of course).

::::::Of course some accountability from non-mathematicians is important, but this discussion isn't about whether proofs using AoC should be recognized as such and pointed out (such oversight is of course welcome). The question is whether the term "elementary proof" excludes all proofs using choice, and it seems to me that it does not.

::::::Historically this term originated to describe proofs in number theory which did not use complex analysis, a usage which now falls under either umbrella. Selberg's Fields Medal was for a variety of contributions (like the Nobel prize, it is given not for a single result, but for overall contributions to mathematics), the primary of which (according to the official citation) was his extension of Brun's work on the zeta function (showing that a positive proportion of zeroes lie on the critical line), decidedly non-elementary work! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 12:55, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Mark, Conservapedia does not simply cut and paste quotes from others, many of whom has obvious self-serving biases. The logic underlying the concept of an "elementary proof" is clear and cannot seriously be disputed. You're not addressing the substance of the significance of an "elementary proof." Once you address that, it will become clear that proofs relying on the [[Axiom of Choice]] are not [[elementary proofs]]. It doesn't matter whether any math professors admit that or not. No math professor will publicly admit that the best mathematicians are men rather than women, but that denial does not alter the obvious truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:23, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

::::::::This article defines a common mathematical term in a way in which it is not used by anyone and seems never to have been used. I infer that your last post cedes that mathematicians don't use it, though I still welcome a citation on the historical point, which should be easy to come by if the usage is indeed "traditional" as you have claimed. I'm not disputing the logic of what you call an "elementary proof", which is clear. I agree with you about the significance of proofs such as you describe, and am not addressing "the substance of the significance of an elementary proof'" only because it's not relevant to the point at hand: what I'm disputing the use of that term, which has a well-established meaning distinct from what you intend and is therefore inappropriate. What use is an encyclopedia article that simply makes up new definitions for well-known terms, even if these new definitions have a clear and important philosophy? This serves no purpose but to confuse readers trying to understand how the term is used and hurt the credibility of CP math generally. Why not invent a new phrase to describe proofs such as those you discuss, whose philosophy I agree is valuable? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 13:51, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::: Mark, you're no longer being substantive in responding to my comments. This entry defines "elementary proof" in the only meaningful way, and then applies it in a straightforward manner that cannot be logically disputed.

:::::::::: Academic mathematicians, as in other academic fields, are in denial about many things: gender differences, religious truth, the value of self-criticism, and the bankruptcy of liberal politics. Wikipedia denied the concept of "elementary proof" entirely until I listed it as an example of its [[Bias in Wikipedia]], and now Wikipedians deny the significance of the concept. Feel free to continue to your discussion there, but I'm going to stick with logic and truth here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

I don't understand these significant advantages. No proof ever assumes that there is a unique, algebraically manipulable square root of negative one. There are two such roots, and there is no need to assume anything because the proofs are given in field theory textbooks. Elementary proofs are not necessarily any harder to simplify. A sophicated non-elementary proof might be only 2 lines long, and thus impossible to simplify except by removing reliance on other work. The axiom of choice is not any less rigorous than any other axiom. The whole article is nonsensical. You seem to want to suggest that some proofs are more rigorous than other proofs, but that is just not true at all. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:27, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

:You're denying the significance of [[elementary proofs]], for which a Fields Medal has been awarded and to which Paul Erdos and many number theorists have been dedicated. But your denial does not address the substance. An elementary proof does rely on fewer assumptions than a non-elementary proof. There's no way around that fact, and it is significant.

:The view that "all proofs are equivalent no matter what theories they use" may be appealing to some, but it does not withstand scrutiny. Proofs relying on fewer assumptions are obviously preferable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:44, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

:: Selberg did get a Fields Medal for an elementary proof of the prime number theorem, but I am not sure that anyone says that Selberg's proof is any better than any other. All of those proofs rest on the same set of assumptions. Can you give an example of an elementary proof that is better than a non-elementary proof because it relies on fewer assumptions? I agree that a proof not using the axiom of choice might be preferable, but can you give another example? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:43, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

The notion that complex analysis depends on a purported uniqueness of the square root of -1 needs to be put to rest. There is no assumption that the square root of -1 has to be unique. And a good thing, too, because it isn't unique. No one denies that -1, like all nonzero numbers, has two square roots, that are negatives of each other. All nonzero numbers also have three cube roots, related by de Moivre's formula, and so on. Complex analysis does not rely on any such uniqueness. The complex numbers (or complex plane, or Argand diagram) is constructed from a special formal element "i", which simply serves as the second basis element of the vector space being constructed. The "square root of -1" and "i" are not the same thing. There are two square roots of -1, but only one "i". The square root of -1 doesn't even exist until the complex plane has been constructed, so it couldn't have been used in the construction.

The complex numbers, so constructed, are every bit as rigorous as the rational numbers, the real numbers, Hilbert spaces, Frechet spaces, Lie groups, symplectic groups, etc.

If there were any ambiguity in the interpretation of the "imaginary part" of a complex number, many fields of mathematics, physics, and engineering would fall apart. To pick just a few examples, the field of linear circuits in electrical engineering depends on the Laplace transform, which would not be well-defined if the imaginary unit "i" were not well-defined. Also, there could be no agreement on what the Schordinger equation of quantum mechanics means, or how the various quantum mechanical operators work. The Fourier transform would not be well-defined.

There may well be reasons why one would prefer a theorem of number theory that does not involve complex analysis, but such a proof's lack of rigor is not one of them.

We need to work out a careful survey of the things that make some proofs more complicated than other proofs of the same theorem, and how the word "elementary" is used to describe this, and what the various ramifications of this usage are. I'm willing to work on this. [[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 23:06, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

:Beyond specific examples (and I haven't much to add to Patrick's exposition), Mr. Schlafly's general point that "Proofs relying on fewer assumptions are obviously preferable" is an important one, and I think that most mathematicians would agree with this. However, as Patrick explains, the use of complex analysis is not an additional assumption in any sense, and it is constructed and verified with complete rigor from nothing beyond ZF. So I'm mostly interested in AoC as it pertains to the notion of the elementary proof -- as RSchlafly had added, this seems to be by far the most important case where we find proofs with extra assumptions. More later on the issue of analytic number theory.

:Proofs avoiding choice are to be preferred for their weaker assumptions, as noted: for example, the Schroeder-Bernstein theorem is a theorem for which there are two proofs: a quick trick relying on choice, and a slightly more nuanced proof without it. In my experience (both in studying and teaching), the latter is generally taught despite its relative difficulty. My only encounter with the former was as a homework problem introducing the application of AoC. My issue with this page is that the term "elementary proof" is not actually used to describe such proofs. There are other ways to characterize such proofs formally, but I'm not sure of any commonly-used term for them. I'd suggest that discussion of related issues ought to be incorporated into the article on AoC, and that this article be changed to reflect what the term actually means.

:I'd also reiterate that Selberg's Fields was awarded largely on the grounds of his contributions to the study of the zeta function, so to imagine that it was awarded for minimizing the use of complex analysis is fantasy. His proof was important, however, for the new methods that it made available to number theorists. Erdos's dedication to "elementary proofs" arose not from doubts about the validity of complex analysis (in the case of PNT and other problems in number theory), but rather from the intrinsic aesthetic appeal of proofs which don't make use of unnecessarily powerful methods. A proof which does not crack a nut with a sledgehammer (as older proofs of PNT did) is more beautiful than one that does, and Erdos deeply valued "beautiful" proofs. It is these proofs, which expose the profound and elegant nature of the theorems they establish, that are to be found "in the book".

:An unrelated issue is that there seem to be two notions of elementary proof used in this article, and I'm not sure how to reconcile them. Selberg's proof of PNT is magnificently complicated, though it avoids the methods of analytic number theory. It's not a proof that I would say "cannot be improved by expressing it in simpler form" -- indeed the analytic proofs are far simpler. It's true that at heart these have a different method, but it's my understanding that a touch of complex analysis can simplify the Selberg argument while leaving its fundamental insights intact. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 00:24, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

::The talk-to-substance ratio is very high in the above replies, and that's not a good sign. Complex analysis does rely on an assumption that there is a unique, algebraically manipulable square root of negative one. It's a unique pair, obviously, and it's a sign of desperation that some above looked for a way to deny this.

::Proofs that rely on this assumption are obviously less favored than proofs that do not, and hence the important concept of an [[elementary proof]]. Deny its importance all you want, but the beauty of logic is that it doesn't matter who accepts or denies it. The logic remains as truthful regardless.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:26, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

== Errors ==

This page is frankly bizarre. I can't imagine a working mathematician agreeing with much of it in its current state.

: 1. The assertion that an elementary proof "uses only real numbers or real analysis rather than the use of complex analysis" agrees with the cited MathWorld stub, but that stub misrepresents its source, Hoffman's book on Erdos. The original source says, "In this context, elementary means that the proof of the formula relies on a restricted set of numbers, the so-called real numbers...", the context being Erdos avoiding the "heavy machinery" including complex analysis employed by Hardy and Ramanujan in an asymptotic estimate of the partition function. An elementary proof is not in general characterized by the avoidance of complex analysis but rather by the avoidance of any "heavy machinery" whatsoever (like, say, the Hahn-Banach theorem, which in its real formulation is very much a part of real analysis). A decent test for the elementary-ness of a proof is whether a bright high-schooler could follow it. The definition needs to be re-written and a better source found. It should also be noted that the definition is inherently vague and different people disagree on the finer points.

: 2. The assertion that non-elementary proofs rely "on less rigorous axioms, such as the Axiom of Choice" is misleading. The axiom of choice is not "less rigorous" than, say, the axiom of infinity--it simply asserts an assumption; rigor does not enter in. The axiom of choice is somewhat controversial, though; "less controversial axioms" in the above would be true.

: 3. "...but in 1949 and 1950 an elementary proof by Paul Erdos and Atle Selberg earned Selberg the highest prize in math" -- it's misleading to imply Selberg's elementary proof was the only thing that got him his Fields medal. "helped earn" would be correct and would avoid a digression into discussing Selberg's work.

: 4. "avoiding the assumption that there is a unique, algebraically manipulable square root of negative one" -- this highlights a fundamental misunderstanding which may underlie my second point. The existence of complex numbers is not an "assumption" in the sense mathematicians use. Typically, one assumes some basic facts about set theory (say the ZF axioms, which includes the axiom of infinity I mentioned before) and uses those to build up algebraic objects. The existence of complex numbers satisfying the usual properties is then a *consequence* of these background assumptions (which are also used in elementary proofs) rather than an assumption itself. The use of complex analysis does not entail the use of a new assumption [nitpick: the axiom of dependent choice is typically added to the usual ZF axioms to do complex analysis, though that's rather uncontroversial and is also used in real analysis, almost always implicitly because it's so intuitive]. Again, the point of an elementary proof is that it uses no "heavy machinery"; I've never actually seen an elementary proof that used fewer assumptions than a non-elementary counterpart even though this page mentions that phenomenon several times. An example (keeping in mind the proper mathematician's idea of an "assumption") would be helpful.

: 5. The article does not discuss this, but elementary proofs are not always preferred. Elementary proofs tend to be very long and rather messy--a famous solution to the Basel problem comes to mind as an example. If one uses non-elementary Fourier analysis, one can solve the problem in less than half a page by computing the Fourier coefficients of f(x) = x and applying Parseval's theorem. The elementary alternative I'm aware of fiddles around with trigonometric identities and polynomial arithmetic for quite a while, is tedious, and is actually much harder to follow. The formulation I'm aware of also uses complex numbers, though not complex analysis.

I'd also like to say that Aschlafly should probably avoid editing this page. The quote, "For complex analysis, that additional assumption is that there is a unique square root of negative 1, which can be manipulated algebraically. Maybe true, maybe false" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of assumptions in mathematics and also shows his ignorance about the subject. The construction of complex numbers from real numbers is quite simple: mod the ring of one-variable real polynomials by the ideal generated by (x^2 + 1); this is the standard splitting field construction in this special case. There is no additional assumption necessary, just more machinery (rings, ideals, quotients, etc.).

I haven't edited the article since (from this talk page) doing so seems rather controversial.

[[User:Elproof|Elproof]] 19:45, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

:These are nitpicky points, and I don't see why any of them would require any changes to the entry. I address each point:

::(1) Your comment complains about the definition, but does not offer a better one. Instead, your comment says the definition is "vague", but then uses even vaguer terminology like "heavy machinery" or whether "a bright high-schooler could follow it."

::(2) Your comment that "less rigorous" should be replaced by "less controversial" would, again, be a step in the wrong direction. "Controversy" does not delineate limits on truth. [[Jesus Christ]] was no less truthful simply because he was (and is) controversial.

::(3) This point is silly and does not merit a response.

::(4) It's obviously not the number of assumptions that matter, but the lack of rigor in the assumptions made. Assuming that there is a unique square root of -1 is a highly non-rigorous, even implausible, assumption underlying complex analysis.

::(5) "but elementary proofs are not always preferred ..." by whom? One doesn't allow a fox to guard a henhouse, and neither mathematicians nor politicians should be setting their own rules as they go, or else before long all sorts of nonsensical "proofs" might be asserted by some academics at [[liberal]] institutions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:46, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

== Unique square root of -1 necessary for complex analysis ==

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

Where are you getting your information that complex analysis requires there to be a unique square root of −1? I am currently taking a complex analysis course, and I understand that there are two square roots of −1, namely ''i'' and −''i''.1 I don't see how this undermines complex analysis. It may help to examine how complex numbers are derived in the first place. (The interested reader may consult ''Complex Function Theory'', 2nd ed., by Sarason, sections I.1 and I.2.)

#We define a set <math>\mathbb{C}</math> to consist of all ordered pairs of real numbers.
#We define addition of elements of <math>\mathbb{C}</math> as follows:
#:<center><math>(a, b) + (c, d) := (a + c, b + d)</math></center>
#We define multiplication of elements of <math>\mathbb{C}</math> as follows:
#:<center><math>(a, b) \cdot (c, d) := (ac - bd, ad + bc)</math></center>
#We verify the following about <math>+</math>:
##It is commutative
##It is assoiciatve
##There exists an element of <math>\mathbb{C}</math>, namely <math>0 := (0, 0)</math>, such that for all <math>a \in \mathbb{C}</math>, <math>a + 0 = a = 0 + a</math>
##For every element <math>a \in \mathbb{C}</math> there exists an additive inverse <math>-a</math> such that <math>a + (-a) = 0 = (-a) + a</math>
##Therefore, <math>\mathbb{C}</math> is an [[abelian group]] under addition.
#We verify the following about <math>\cdot</math>:
##It is commutative
##It is associative
##It has the distributive property over addition
##There exists an element of <math>\mathbb{C}</math>, namely <math>1 := (1, )</math>, such that for all <math>a \in \mathbb{C}</math>, <math>a \cdot 1 = a = 1 \cdot a</math>
##For every nonzero element <math>a \in \mathbb{C}</math> there exists a multiplicative inverse (reciprocal) <math>a^{-1}</math> such that <math>a \cdot a^{-1} = 1 = a^{-1} \cdot a</math>
##Therefore, <math>\mathbb{C}</math> is a [[field]].
#We consider the subset <math>S = \{(a, 0)|a \in \mathbb{R}\} \subseteq \mathbb{C}</math> We note that there is a natural [[isomorphism]] from <math>S</math> to <math>\mathbb{R}</math>. Thus, we can associate elements of <math>\mathbb{C}</math> with zero second coordinate with real numbers.
#As notation, we write the ordered pair <math>(a, b)</math> as <math>a + bi</math>. This is just notation. We note that it does not constitute an [[abuse of notation]] since <math>(a, b) = (a, 0) + (0, b)</math>, so the complex number notated by <math>a + bi</math> is really the sum of the complex numbers <math>a + 0i</math> and <math>0 + bi</math>.
#We can also use natural shorthand for the <math>a + bi</math> notation. In particular, we can write <math>i</math> to represent the element <math>(0, 1) \in \mathbb{C}</math>. Note that <math>i^2 = (0, 1)\cdot(0, 1) = (-1, 0) = -1</math>.

This is how complex numbers are typically derived. (One could of course, define them to be the cosets in the quotient field <math>\mathbb{R}[x]/(x^2 + 1)</math>; this is clearly equivalent to the derivation above.) Please let me know where you see a fault in this derivation.

1Incidentally, [[Galois theory]] tells us that there cannot be a unique nonreal solution to a polynomial with real coefficients. Considering <math>\mathbb{C}</math> as a field extension of <math>\mathbb{R}</math>, we note that the [[Galois group]] of <math>\mathbb{C}/\mathbb{R}</math>, which consists of all automorphisms of <math>\mathbb{C}</math> that fix elements of <math>\mathbb{R}</math>, has precisely two members: the identity function and the function taking complex numbers to their complex conjugate (which we will denote <math>\phi</math>. Suppose that
<math>f(x) = a_0 + a_1 x + \cdots + a_n x^n</math> is a polynomial with real coefficients that has a root <math>r</math>. Then,
<math>0 = a_0 + a_1 r + \cdots + a_n x^n</math>. We apply the aforementioned <math>\phi</math> to both sides; the application of this function leaves <math>0</math> and all the coefficients <math>a_0, \ldots, a_n</math> unchanged. What we get is
<math>0 = a_0 + a_1 \bar{r} + \cdots + a_n \bar{r}^n</math>. This means that <math>\bar{r}</math>, the complex conjugate of <math>r</math>,
is also a root of <math>f</math>. Thus, any polynomial in real coefficients with a nonreal root <math>r</math> also has
<math>\bar{r}</math> as a root. In particular, complex square roots of <math>-1</math> are roots of the polynomial
<math>x^2 + 1</math>, and since we know this polynomial has no real solutions, the two roots guaranteed by the [[fundamental theorem of algebra]] must be a complex conjugate pair. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:13, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

Please

:By "unique", it includes unique pair. Also, it looks like you double-posted above and please feel free to delete any duplicate. I look forward to reviewing your analysis further on [[Resurrection Sunday]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:19, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::Complex analysis assumes, for example, not only that the square root of -1 exists, but that the cube of the square root of -1 is always equal to the negative of itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:24, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::: Why do you say "assumes"? All of those properties are provable from either of the above two definitions of the complex numbers. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:20, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Really, that one is obvious: x²+1=0 ⇒ x³ = x(x²+1-1)=x(-1)=-x No further assumptions are needed, only basic algebra.... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:05, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::::If something could be "defined to exist," then we could simply define "God to exist, let's call Him '''''g'''''," and that would end any debate about the matter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::::: That is how all of mathematics is. Objects are defined to exist. Then they are proved to be well-defined. It is the same for all other numbers, functions, spaces, and other mathematical objects. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:08, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::: Defining the square root of -1 to exist is different from other mathematical definitions, because the square root of -1 is known not to exist. It is analogous to defining the square root of 2 to be rational without the immediate contradictions.

:::::: But if mathematicians insist on the rigor of this approach, then why not simply define God to exist? There is no contradiction that results from that definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:24, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Now you're just being silly. Maths is not religion and maths is not a physical science. In mathematics one can define any structure one likes, logical consistency is all that is required. In that sense, complex numbers are perfectly well defined. Mathematical structures may or may not be useful for describing reality, but that has to be checked by comparing predictions from mathematical theories to experimental results or observations. Even then, mathematical structures are not (physical) reality, they are tools to describe reality. Complex numbers have proved to be extremely useful in many fields of science and engineering. Aren't you an electrical engineer or something like that? Did you not find complex numbers useful? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 19:20, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::: There are people who define God to be the universe, or physical law, or the first cause, or the essence of goodness, or something similar. To a mathematician, such a definition could indeed serve to define God and to prove that he exists. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:38, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

Slightly off-topic, but you might be interested in physical evidence for complex numbers. According to this new paper [http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.1858], imaginary numbers are the most crucial difference between classical and quantum mechanics. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:50, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Theory of relativity

2012-04-09T00:52:52Z

RSchlafly: /* GPS and Relativity */ I don't see any reason to doubt that GPS uses relativistic adjustments

'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''

'''Raising arguments which have been discussed before wastes the time of valuable editors and repeatedly doing so violates [[90/10]].'''

For older discussions, see the archive [[Talk:Theory of relativity/index|index]].


== Mass depending on direction ==

The article states:
:''There is a logical difficulty, however, to an increase in relativistic mass. Such increase would only exist in the direction of motion, and the rest mass would remain intact with respect to a force applied in a direction orthogonal to velocity. Neither mass nor energy is a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is illogical.''

As [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] on 8 July 2007 (EDT): ''This paragraph is nonsense [..] The relativistic mass applies no matter what the direction of the force is.''

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:45, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Neutrinos now obey speed limit ==

The observation sited in the first sentence of this article has been discredited. [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp] It appears that a loose fiber-optics cable is to blame for the misreadings. I suggest editing this first sentence, and any other mention of this in the article.--[[User:CarloP|CarloP]] 18:51, 2 March 2012 (EST)

:Issues concerning the neutrino experiment are not yet fully resolved. No problam: I replaced it with another counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:12, 2 March 2012 (EST)

== Why does Conservapedia seek to discredit Relativity ==

Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?

Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:''Conservapedia'' seeks the truth, not merely what the [[lamestream media]] claim is the truth. Moreover, once one accepts a logical fallacy, then anything false can be proven from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

== GPS and Relativity ==

I note that anyone using a GPS is relying on the Theory of Relativity being true, since calculations derived from Relativity are used within a GPS. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:GPS does '''''not''''' rely on the [[Theory of Relativity]], and this has been thoroughly explained on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

::Hi Aschlafly, I've located at least some of the discussion re GPS in the archives of this talk page, and there a lot of references for me to examine before I can make any further serious comments; certainly there are some references which appear to state that GPS relies on relativity. Can you perhaps draw my attention to what you consider the most important (half-dozen or so) references which indicate that the GPS system does NOT rely on relativity so that I have somewhere to start from? In the meantime I'll continue editing and improving less controversial articles as I have been doing for the last two months (my talk page lists nearly 40 articles I can usefully contribute to). [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:17, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:::This note 7 is on [[Counterexamples to Relativity]]:

::::Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”

:::The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing: the small effects claimed by the special and general theories nearly cancel each other out for orbiting satellites. From an engineering perspective, it makes far more sense simply to adjust the clocks using synchronization rather than relying on (dubious) theoretical claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Another false claim because of sloppy reading: In the same source by The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, you can find how the authors Fliegel and DiEsposti describe what is happening to the clocks in the satellites:
''Since GPS receivers work in the time and not in the frequency domain, they handle the velocity, gravity, and acceleration shifts differently than described above. First, each GPS space vehicle (SV) clock is offset from its nominal rate by about -4.45 × 10-10 (= -38 microseconds per day) to allow for the relativistic offsets between the differences between the SV and the ground. Of this -38 microseconds per day, about -45 are due to the gravitational potential difference between the SV at its mean distance and the earth's surface, and +7 to the mean SV speed, which is about 3.87 km/sec. (p. 193).

The text is about the necessity of ''further'' corrections by the ''operational control system'' - there are corrections ''already'' installed in the clocks!

''The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing:'' This sentence is wrong. It has shown to be wrong a couple of times, so it starts to become a lie. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:12, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Theory of Relativity]] was not used to develop GPS, nor would it be sensible to waste time and money doing so. Synchronization is cheaper, simpler, and more reliable. The above quote does not contradict this obvious truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:32, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

::The fact that these offsets are implemented in the clocks '''in accord with the theory of relativity''' as you can read in the very source you quoted shows that the [[Theory of Relativity]] is used in the GPS - and this from the very beginning of the project! Please, start to read your sources - completely! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:37, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Please, before we get into any more debate, could someone supply some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:41, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly took his quote from [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] by Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond S. DiEsposti (though he probably isn't aware of this). The paper is about relativistic effects due to moving GPS-'''''receivers''''' (or GPS-receivers in high altitudes) and comes to the conclusion, that at the moment, they don't have to include additional relativistic corrections.

:Aschlafly interprets this as if ''no'' relativistic corrections are implemented in the GPS.
:However, in the paper itself, you will find the section I quoted above, where the authors describe such very corrections within the clocks of the satellites.
:I'm afraid that Aschlafly won't come up with ''some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS'' as there aren't any.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:53, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Folks, the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the [[Theory of Relativity]] was used to design GPS. That burden includes describing who, when, where, how, and why. It didn't happen. And if it did, the person who wasted time and money on such a frivolous approach should explain the mistake, because engineers can simply synchronize the clocks far more accurately than the theory ever could.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:It looks to me as if you are trying to put impossible conditions prior to any debate. To avoid a lengthy debate all you have to do is produce some actual references which support your point of view. Is this too much to ask?

:If it didn't happen then you should be able to produce some evidence of this, so '''some actual references please'''. The only 'evidence' you have produced so far is an out-of-context quote from a paper which is concerned primarily with GPS receivers (that same paper mentions the use of relativity-related adjustments to the clocks on the GPS satellite transmitters). Surely you must have more than this. Will you accept evidence from engineers and companies involved in designing and building the GPS system? If not, why not? Who would you accept evidence from? The US Department of Defense? Do you seriously expect a member of the public to be able to access internal design documents as your "who, when, where, how, and why" statement implies?

:If you care to check my contribution history you will see that I am actively contributing non-controversial information to articles. This discussion re GPS etc. is only a small part of my activities on Conservapedia. Since I've barely started on considering and consolidating what evidence there is re GPS I would rather have a week or so to look at the evidence before getting into a debate. This should give you ample time to come up with some references to support the separation of GPS and relativity. Simple searches via Google turn up numerous instances where relativity is claimed to be relevant to GPS, but I can't find anything to the contrary and '''I need your help to do so'''. I would really like to see evidence from '''both sides''' of the discussion before entering the debate, so '''some actual references please'''. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 19:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, you're requesting proof that something didn't happen. Moreover, someone with an engineering background (such as myself) would not expect it to have happened. It is like asking for a reference that no green cheese was found on the Moon. No such scientific reference is likely to exist, nor would anyone expect such a reference to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:28, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:: Every single article on GPS says that relativistic adjustments are made to the satellite clocks. Some give the formulas and some give quantitative data on the adjustments. Textbooks explain why the adjustments are necessary. I don't see any reason to doubt that GPS uses relativistic adjustments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:52, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Elementary proof

2012-04-09T00:38:04Z

RSchlafly: /* Unique square root of -1 necessary for complex analysis */ There are people who define God to be the universe

Talk:Elementary proof

2012-04-08T22:08:23Z

RSchlafly: /* Unique square root of -1 necessary for complex analysis */ That is how all of mathematics is. Objects are defined to exist.

Talk:Elementary proof

2012-04-08T16:20:11Z

RSchlafly: /* Unique square root of -1 necessary for complex analysis */ Why do you say "assumes"?

== Who uses this concept? ==
I don't think that it is correct that anyone calls a proof "elementary" just because it does not use the square root of (-1). Nor is it true that an elementary proof is necessarily preferred.

It is not an assumption that (-1) can have a square root. It can be proved. Nor is the square root unique. (-1) has 2 square roots, if it has any.

I suggest killing this article. It just isn't useful. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:11, 5 February 2007 (EST)

If the test were what is "useful", then most math articles should be deleted!

I'd love to see a proof that the following exists and is unique (plus and minus roots):

:::<big><big><math>\sqrt{-1}</math></big></big>

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:12, 6 February 2007 (EST)

: Existence depends on what system you are operating in. Uniqueness is fairly easy if you are operating in a field. Proposition: in any field F, with c and element of F, the equation <math>x^2=c</math> has at most 2 solutions. Proof: Consider <math>x^2=c</math>. this implies that <math>x^2-c=0</math>. We may assume that c has at least one square root (call it <math>c^{1/2}</math>). So we have <math>(x+c^{1/2})(x-c^{1/2})</math>. Now, since fields have no zero divisors (easy excercise), we must have <math>x+c^{1/2}=0</math> or <math>x-c^{1/2}=0</math> which gives us only two choices. Q.E.D. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:44, 6 February 2007 (EST)

: I have never heard an "elementary proof" used to refer to a proof that "cannot be broken down into smaller proofs", whatever that is supposed to mean, and moreover, this doesn't clearly have anything to do with the other definition about avoiding complex analysis. Moreover, Selberg's Fields was primarily for his other work on the Riemann zeta function (complex analysis! the horror!) and Selberg formula, which indicated the direction of this proof. The proof itself was not the grounds for the medal, as this article indicates. Some editor here seems to have a bizarre fascination with "elementary proofs", but would surely be hard-pressed to find a serious mathematician who rejected residue calculus on the grounds that it is not an elementary method, as that article claims.

Re: "I'd love to see a proof that the following exists and is unique (plus and minus roots)", the questioner might try to learn a bit about fields and algebraic extensions thereof. By "sqrt(-1)" we mean some symbol which is "adjoined" to a field and which satisfies x^2+1=0. Such a thing exists in a field extension (and one can prove this quite rigorously), and is obviously unique there. Any basic algebra text (Artin, Dummit/Foote, etc) will cover the requisite material better than I could hope to do here.

- jlezzy
::The "some editor" you refer to is either [[User:Aschlafly |the owner]] or myself and neither of us have a bizarre fascination with this subject. Mockful sarcasm doesn't get you far on this site and neither does a woefully inappropriate choice of username. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 00:39, 4 January 2009 (EST)

This poster was indeed rude, but can we get citations for any of this? I can't find any evidence that there are mathematicians who reject the method of residues for being non-elementary.

== Definition of Elementary proof ==

I would like to remove the statement about elementary proofs being those that cannot be broken down into smaller proofs. This statement doesn't make much sense to me. What so we mean by a 'smaller' proof? What do we mean by breaking a proof down into other proofs? Typically the proof of a long theorem is broken down by proving many of the steps as a lemma. This is done to make the proof of the main theorem easier to comprehend. This can be done with any theorem whose proof has more than one step. Any non-trivial theorem is bound to have many steps so I don't think that this is what the author intends. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 12:05, 9 January 2009 (EST)
:AndyJM, I really don't understand what your are finding so baffling about the concept of elementary proofs. The line you removed was an important statement, and as you can see, Andy (the owner) reinstated it with some clearer wording. If you do not have experience with elementary proofs, then please do not remove content from the articles -- you've been banned for such actions before. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:00, 18 January 2009 (EST)
:: Hi Foxtrot. I thought that I had clearly laid out what I find so baffling about one particular statement in this article. Did you read my comment? While I am not delighted with the addition that Schlafly made it is a definite improvement over what had been there. The vast majority (perhaps all) all the proofs that I have published could be classified as elementary according to the first definition, i.e. not using complex analysis. However I have no idea whether or not they would elementary according to the second definition. This suggests to me that the second definition could be a bit suspect or 'loose', so to speak. I am not out to cause trouble here, and despite your beliefs to the contrary I have not made any edits for ideological reasons. In fact to my mind mathematics is refreshingly free of ideology. Dia dhuit (to which the polite response is 'Dia is muire dhuit'). [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 07:22, 19 January 2009 (EST)

I don't think that anyone uses the term "elementary proof" as it is defined here. Here is more typical usage:
:Keep in mind that the word ‘elementary’ is being used in many dif-ferent ways in this discussion. In informal mathematical usage, ‘elemen-tary’ is often used to mean ‘simple’ or ‘easy to understand’. In the Sel-berg/Nathanson sense it is used to mean ‘avoiding the use of inﬁnitary (or analytic) methods’. The fact that Selberg’s proof of Dirichlet’s theorem is harder to understand than the standard analytic one shows that these two senses can be at odds! I have already noted that the use of the word ‘elementary’ in the phrase ‘elementary arithmetic’ is due to the fact that the axiom system is closely related to the class of ‘elementary functions’ in the sense of Kalmar. To complicate matters even further, among logicians the word ‘elementary’ is often used to mean ‘ﬁrst-order’. [http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/avigad/Papers/elementary.pdf]

As you can see, none of this matches what is in the article. I suggest that the article be deleted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:07, 30 January 2009 (EST)

It certainly seems reasonable that not using AoC would be desirable for calling a proof elementary. However, in my experience, the notion of an elementary proof is closer to "not using mathematics from unrelated areas" than it is in avoiding specific techniques or axioms. In number theory, this usually entails avoiding the methods of complex analysis. But to me, it is perfectly natural to say "To avoid this, we next give an elementary proof, which uses Zorn's lemma in a typical way" in a paper on algebra, where the application is indeed typical. That excerpt is from "Some ring theoretic equivalents to the Axiom of Choice", easily googleable, and I find several other examples of authors citing AoC in "elementary" proofs. It's easy to ignore this as the work of sloppy authors and/or liberals, but clearly the usage defined in this CP is at the very least not universal, and indeed I have never encountered it. Might I modify the page to indicate that some authors use a different characterization of elementary proofs, and can we find a source that actually uses a definition resembling that here? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 01:23, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

: Your approach is the same as Wikipedia's, and unfortunately it does not withstand scrutiny. The objection to non-elementary proofs is not that they use math "from unrelated areas." There is no coherent objection to that.

: The real objection is that non-elementary proofs rely on additional assumptions. For complex analysis, that additional assumption is that there is a unique square root of negative 1, which can be manipulated algebraically. Maybe true, maybe false, and an elementary proof is desirable because it does not rely on that assumption. The Axiom of Choice also includes a questionable assumption.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

::I am not questioning that there is a valid objection to using proofs that require additional assumptions, for example choice. This is a very reasonable view. I do question whether such proofs are actually called "elementary" by mathematicians. The case of applying complex analysis to number theory is non-elementary by either proposed definition. I have given one example in the literature which clearly contradicts the characterization of choice as necessarily non-elementary, and can easily find more. Can you please cite someone who uses your definition of an elementary proof? I'm willing to believe that this usage is in circulation, but this is the first I've run into it. --11:00, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

:::A Fields Medal was given for an elementary proof a few decades ago. Enough said? Isolated sloppiness or denial since then is no reason to reject the underlying logic behind the value of elementary proofs.

:::Most academic scientists today claim that man-made global warming is settled science, and that government can stop it. Such consensus does not make that claim true or logical.

:::Your definition of an elementary proof does not withstand scrutiny for the reasons I stated, which you did not address.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:46, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

::::I don't wish to argue about what would be the best definition of an elementary proof, or the importance elementary methods, which I appreciate. I just want to point out that the definition of "elementary proof" given here is not actually how the term is used in the mathematical literature, and I have supported this with a citation. As such I think this page needs some adjustment -- it gives a definition of "elementary proof" which is used, as far as I can tell until you provide a citation, by no one except you. It's quite possible that this would be a superior usage of the term, and I have no problem with the ideas on the page as it stands. I would only ask to add a disclaimer that when mathematicians use the term "elementary proof", this is not always what they mean (as indicated by the AoC example above). --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 11:58, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

::::: Mark, the entry does describe the traditional and only meaningful definition of "elementary proof." Your definition, which is also used by Wikipedia, is non-substantive and cannot explain why the prestigious Fields Medal was given for it. Nor does your definition explain why Paul Erdos, perhaps the most prolific mathematician of the 20th century, was such a stickler in preferring elementary proofs.

::::: Perhaps there are some new mathematicians who are in denial about the importance of elementary proofs. There are also new physicists who deny the importance of [[falsifiability]]. But self-described experts do not get to be the only watchdogs for their fields. Some accountability can and should come from outside the fields of expertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:23, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

::::::If that is indeed the traditional definition (i.e., if the traditional definition would necessarily exclude proofs using AoC), you should have no difficulty providing a relevant citation, and I won't argue any more! It is true that proofs involving choice are generally dispreferred, but as far as I know they have never been called "non-elementary". I have given a citation which contradicts your characterization, and can produce more -- please provide just one in favor of it! If your definition were indeed in use at all, I would expect that searching for "Tychonoff theorem non-elementary" would find some page describing this result as "non-elementary" since it is one of the most famous proofs involving choice. However, it does not, but it does find an "elementary" proof of the theorem (employing choice, of course).

::::::Of course some accountability from non-mathematicians is important, but this discussion isn't about whether proofs using AoC should be recognized as such and pointed out (such oversight is of course welcome). The question is whether the term "elementary proof" excludes all proofs using choice, and it seems to me that it does not.

::::::Historically this term originated to describe proofs in number theory which did not use complex analysis, a usage which now falls under either umbrella. Selberg's Fields Medal was for a variety of contributions (like the Nobel prize, it is given not for a single result, but for overall contributions to mathematics), the primary of which (according to the official citation) was his extension of Brun's work on the zeta function (showing that a positive proportion of zeroes lie on the critical line), decidedly non-elementary work! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 12:55, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Mark, Conservapedia does not simply cut and paste quotes from others, many of whom has obvious self-serving biases. The logic underlying the concept of an "elementary proof" is clear and cannot seriously be disputed. You're not addressing the substance of the significance of an "elementary proof." Once you address that, it will become clear that proofs relying on the [[Axiom of Choice]] are not [[elementary proofs]]. It doesn't matter whether any math professors admit that or not. No math professor will publicly admit that the best mathematicians are men rather than women, but that denial does not alter the obvious truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:23, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

::::::::This article defines a common mathematical term in a way in which it is not used by anyone and seems never to have been used. I infer that your last post cedes that mathematicians don't use it, though I still welcome a citation on the historical point, which should be easy to come by if the usage is indeed "traditional" as you have claimed. I'm not disputing the logic of what you call an "elementary proof", which is clear. I agree with you about the significance of proofs such as you describe, and am not addressing "the substance of the significance of an elementary proof'" only because it's not relevant to the point at hand: what I'm disputing the use of that term, which has a well-established meaning distinct from what you intend and is therefore inappropriate. What use is an encyclopedia article that simply makes up new definitions for well-known terms, even if these new definitions have a clear and important philosophy? This serves no purpose but to confuse readers trying to understand how the term is used and hurt the credibility of CP math generally. Why not invent a new phrase to describe proofs such as those you discuss, whose philosophy I agree is valuable? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 13:51, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::: Mark, you're no longer being substantive in responding to my comments. This entry defines "elementary proof" in the only meaningful way, and then applies it in a straightforward manner that cannot be logically disputed.

:::::::::: Academic mathematicians, as in other academic fields, are in denial about many things: gender differences, religious truth, the value of self-criticism, and the bankruptcy of liberal politics. Wikipedia denied the concept of "elementary proof" entirely until I listed it as an example of its [[Bias in Wikipedia]], and now Wikipedians deny the significance of the concept. Feel free to continue to your discussion there, but I'm going to stick with logic and truth here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

I don't understand these significant advantages. No proof ever assumes that there is a unique, algebraically manipulable square root of negative one. There are two such roots, and there is no need to assume anything because the proofs are given in field theory textbooks. Elementary proofs are not necessarily any harder to simplify. A sophicated non-elementary proof might be only 2 lines long, and thus impossible to simplify except by removing reliance on other work. The axiom of choice is not any less rigorous than any other axiom. The whole article is nonsensical. You seem to want to suggest that some proofs are more rigorous than other proofs, but that is just not true at all. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:27, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

:You're denying the significance of [[elementary proofs]], for which a Fields Medal has been awarded and to which Paul Erdos and many number theorists have been dedicated. But your denial does not address the substance. An elementary proof does rely on fewer assumptions than a non-elementary proof. There's no way around that fact, and it is significant.

:The view that "all proofs are equivalent no matter what theories they use" may be appealing to some, but it does not withstand scrutiny. Proofs relying on fewer assumptions are obviously preferable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:44, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

:: Selberg did get a Fields Medal for an elementary proof of the prime number theorem, but I am not sure that anyone says that Selberg's proof is any better than any other. All of those proofs rest on the same set of assumptions. Can you give an example of an elementary proof that is better than a non-elementary proof because it relies on fewer assumptions? I agree that a proof not using the axiom of choice might be preferable, but can you give another example? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:43, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

The notion that complex analysis depends on a purported uniqueness of the square root of -1 needs to be put to rest. There is no assumption that the square root of -1 has to be unique. And a good thing, too, because it isn't unique. No one denies that -1, like all nonzero numbers, has two square roots, that are negatives of each other. All nonzero numbers also have three cube roots, related by de Moivre's formula, and so on. Complex analysis does not rely on any such uniqueness. The complex numbers (or complex plane, or Argand diagram) is constructed from a special formal element "i", which simply serves as the second basis element of the vector space being constructed. The "square root of -1" and "i" are not the same thing. There are two square roots of -1, but only one "i". The square root of -1 doesn't even exist until the complex plane has been constructed, so it couldn't have been used in the construction.

The complex numbers, so constructed, are every bit as rigorous as the rational numbers, the real numbers, Hilbert spaces, Frechet spaces, Lie groups, symplectic groups, etc.

If there were any ambiguity in the interpretation of the "imaginary part" of a complex number, many fields of mathematics, physics, and engineering would fall apart. To pick just a few examples, the field of linear circuits in electrical engineering depends on the Laplace transform, which would not be well-defined if the imaginary unit "i" were not well-defined. Also, there could be no agreement on what the Schordinger equation of quantum mechanics means, or how the various quantum mechanical operators work. The Fourier transform would not be well-defined.

There may well be reasons why one would prefer a theorem of number theory that does not involve complex analysis, but such a proof's lack of rigor is not one of them.

We need to work out a careful survey of the things that make some proofs more complicated than other proofs of the same theorem, and how the word "elementary" is used to describe this, and what the various ramifications of this usage are. I'm willing to work on this. [[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 23:06, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

:Beyond specific examples (and I haven't much to add to Patrick's exposition), Mr. Schlafly's general point that "Proofs relying on fewer assumptions are obviously preferable" is an important one, and I think that most mathematicians would agree with this. However, as Patrick explains, the use of complex analysis is not an additional assumption in any sense, and it is constructed and verified with complete rigor from nothing beyond ZF. So I'm mostly interested in AoC as it pertains to the notion of the elementary proof -- as RSchlafly had added, this seems to be by far the most important case where we find proofs with extra assumptions. More later on the issue of analytic number theory.

:Proofs avoiding choice are to be preferred for their weaker assumptions, as noted: for example, the Schroeder-Bernstein theorem is a theorem for which there are two proofs: a quick trick relying on choice, and a slightly more nuanced proof without it. In my experience (both in studying and teaching), the latter is generally taught despite its relative difficulty. My only encounter with the former was as a homework problem introducing the application of AoC. My issue with this page is that the term "elementary proof" is not actually used to describe such proofs. There are other ways to characterize such proofs formally, but I'm not sure of any commonly-used term for them. I'd suggest that discussion of related issues ought to be incorporated into the article on AoC, and that this article be changed to reflect what the term actually means.

:I'd also reiterate that Selberg's Fields was awarded largely on the grounds of his contributions to the study of the zeta function, so to imagine that it was awarded for minimizing the use of complex analysis is fantasy. His proof was important, however, for the new methods that it made available to number theorists. Erdos's dedication to "elementary proofs" arose not from doubts about the validity of complex analysis (in the case of PNT and other problems in number theory), but rather from the intrinsic aesthetic appeal of proofs which don't make use of unnecessarily powerful methods. A proof which does not crack a nut with a sledgehammer (as older proofs of PNT did) is more beautiful than one that does, and Erdos deeply valued "beautiful" proofs. It is these proofs, which expose the profound and elegant nature of the theorems they establish, that are to be found "in the book".

:An unrelated issue is that there seem to be two notions of elementary proof used in this article, and I'm not sure how to reconcile them. Selberg's proof of PNT is magnificently complicated, though it avoids the methods of analytic number theory. It's not a proof that I would say "cannot be improved by expressing it in simpler form" -- indeed the analytic proofs are far simpler. It's true that at heart these have a different method, but it's my understanding that a touch of complex analysis can simplify the Selberg argument while leaving its fundamental insights intact. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 00:24, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

::The talk-to-substance ratio is very high in the above replies, and that's not a good sign. Complex analysis does rely on an assumption that there is a unique, algebraically manipulable square root of negative one. It's a unique pair, obviously, and it's a sign of desperation that some above looked for a way to deny this.

::Proofs that rely on this assumption are obviously less favored than proofs that do not, and hence the important concept of an [[elementary proof]]. Deny its importance all you want, but the beauty of logic is that it doesn't matter who accepts or denies it. The logic remains as truthful regardless.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:26, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

== Errors ==

This page is frankly bizarre. I can't imagine a working mathematician agreeing with much of it in its current state.

: 1. The assertion that an elementary proof "uses only real numbers or real analysis rather than the use of complex analysis" agrees with the cited MathWorld stub, but that stub misrepresents its source, Hoffman's book on Erdos. The original source says, "In this context, elementary means that the proof of the formula relies on a restricted set of numbers, the so-called real numbers...", the context being Erdos avoiding the "heavy machinery" including complex analysis employed by Hardy and Ramanujan in an asymptotic estimate of the partition function. An elementary proof is not in general characterized by the avoidance of complex analysis but rather by the avoidance of any "heavy machinery" whatsoever (like, say, the Hahn-Banach theorem, which in its real formulation is very much a part of real analysis). A decent test for the elementary-ness of a proof is whether a bright high-schooler could follow it. The definition needs to be re-written and a better source found. It should also be noted that the definition is inherently vague and different people disagree on the finer points.

: 2. The assertion that non-elementary proofs rely "on less rigorous axioms, such as the Axiom of Choice" is misleading. The axiom of choice is not "less rigorous" than, say, the axiom of infinity--it simply asserts an assumption; rigor does not enter in. The axiom of choice is somewhat controversial, though; "less controversial axioms" in the above would be true.

: 3. "...but in 1949 and 1950 an elementary proof by Paul Erdos and Atle Selberg earned Selberg the highest prize in math" -- it's misleading to imply Selberg's elementary proof was the only thing that got him his Fields medal. "helped earn" would be correct and would avoid a digression into discussing Selberg's work.

: 4. "avoiding the assumption that there is a unique, algebraically manipulable square root of negative one" -- this highlights a fundamental misunderstanding which may underlie my second point. The existence of complex numbers is not an "assumption" in the sense mathematicians use. Typically, one assumes some basic facts about set theory (say the ZF axioms, which includes the axiom of infinity I mentioned before) and uses those to build up algebraic objects. The existence of complex numbers satisfying the usual properties is then a *consequence* of these background assumptions (which are also used in elementary proofs) rather than an assumption itself. The use of complex analysis does not entail the use of a new assumption [nitpick: the axiom of dependent choice is typically added to the usual ZF axioms to do complex analysis, though that's rather uncontroversial and is also used in real analysis, almost always implicitly because it's so intuitive]. Again, the point of an elementary proof is that it uses no "heavy machinery"; I've never actually seen an elementary proof that used fewer assumptions than a non-elementary counterpart even though this page mentions that phenomenon several times. An example (keeping in mind the proper mathematician's idea of an "assumption") would be helpful.

: 5. The article does not discuss this, but elementary proofs are not always preferred. Elementary proofs tend to be very long and rather messy--a famous solution to the Basel problem comes to mind as an example. If one uses non-elementary Fourier analysis, one can solve the problem in less than half a page by computing the Fourier coefficients of f(x) = x and applying Parseval's theorem. The elementary alternative I'm aware of fiddles around with trigonometric identities and polynomial arithmetic for quite a while, is tedious, and is actually much harder to follow. The formulation I'm aware of also uses complex numbers, though not complex analysis.

I'd also like to say that Aschlafly should probably avoid editing this page. The quote, "For complex analysis, that additional assumption is that there is a unique square root of negative 1, which can be manipulated algebraically. Maybe true, maybe false" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of assumptions in mathematics and also shows his ignorance about the subject. The construction of complex numbers from real numbers is quite simple: mod the ring of one-variable real polynomials by the ideal generated by (x^2 + 1); this is the standard splitting field construction in this special case. There is no additional assumption necessary, just more machinery (rings, ideals, quotients, etc.).

I haven't edited the article since (from this talk page) doing so seems rather controversial.

[[User:Elproof|Elproof]] 19:45, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

:These are nitpicky points, and I don't see why any of them would require any changes to the entry. I address each point:

::(1) Your comment complains about the definition, but does not offer a better one. Instead, your comment says the definition is "vague", but then uses even vaguer terminology like "heavy machinery" or whether "a bright high-schooler could follow it."

::(2) Your comment that "less rigorous" should be replaced by "less controversial" would, again, be a step in the wrong direction. "Controversy" does not delineate limits on truth. [[Jesus Christ]] was no less truthful simply because he was (and is) controversial.

::(3) This point is silly and does not merit a response.

::(4) It's obviously not the number of assumptions that matter, but the lack of rigor in the assumptions made. Assuming that there is a unique square root of -1 is a highly non-rigorous, even implausible, assumption underlying complex analysis.

::(5) "but elementary proofs are not always preferred ..." by whom? One doesn't allow a fox to guard a henhouse, and neither mathematicians nor politicians should be setting their own rules as they go, or else before long all sorts of nonsensical "proofs" might be asserted by some academics at [[liberal]] institutions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:46, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

== Unique square root of -1 necessary for complex analysis ==

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

Where are you getting your information that complex analysis requires there to be a unique square root of −1? I am currently taking a complex analysis course, and I understand that there are two square roots of −1, namely ''i'' and −''i''.1 I don't see how this undermines complex analysis. It may help to examine how complex numbers are derived in the first place. (The interested reader may consult ''Complex Function Theory'', 2nd ed., by Sarason, sections I.1 and I.2.)

#We define a set <math>\mathbb{C}</math> to consist of all ordered pairs of real numbers.
#We define addition of elements of <math>\mathbb{C}</math> as follows:
#:<center><math>(a, b) + (c, d) := (a + c, b + d)</math></center>
#We define multiplication of elements of <math>\mathbb{C}</math> as follows:
#:<center><math>(a, b) \cdot (c, d) := (ac - bd, ad + bc)</math></center>
#We verify the following about <math>+</math>:
##It is commutative
##It is assoiciatve
##There exists an element of <math>\mathbb{C}</math>, namely <math>0 := (0, 0)</math>, such that for all <math>a \in \mathbb{C}</math>,
<math>a + 0 = a = 0 + a</math>
##For every element <math>a \in \mathbb{C}</math> there exists an additive inverse <math>-a</math> such that
<math>a + (-a) = 0 = (-a) + a</math>
##Therefore, <math>\mathbb{C}</math> is an [[abelian group]] under addition.
#We verify the following about <math>\cdot</math>:
##It is commutative
##It is associative
##It has the distributive property over addition
##There exists an element of <math>\mathbb{C}</math>, namely <math>1 := (1, )</math>, such that for all <math>a \in \mathbb{C}</math>,
<math>a \cdot 1 = a = 1 \cdot a</math>
##For every nonzero element <math>a \in \mathbb{C}</math> there exists a multiplicative inverse (reciprocal) <math>a^{-1}</math> such
that <math>a \cdot a^{-1} = 1 = a^{-1} \cdot a</math>
##Therefore, <math>\mathbb{C}</math> is a [[field]].
#We consider the subset <math>S = \{(a, 0)|a \in \mathbb{R}\} \subseteq \mathbb{C}</math> We note that there is a natural [[isomorphism]]
from <math>S</math> to <math>\mathbb{R}</math>. Thus, we can associate elements of <math>\mathbb{C}</math> with zero second coordinate with real numbers.
#As notation, we write the ordered pair <math>(a, b)</math> as <math>a + bi</math>. This is just notation. We note that it does not constitute an [[abuse of notation]] since <math>(a, b) = (a, 0) + (0, b)</math>, so the complex number notated by <math>a + bi</math> is really the sum
of the complex numbers <math>a + 0i</math> and <math>0 + bi</math>.
#We can also use natural shorthand for the <math>a + bi</math> notation. In particular, we can write <math>i</math> to represent the element
<math>(0, 1) \in \mathbb{C}</math>. Note that <math>i^2 = (0, 1)\cdot(0, 1) = (-1, 0) = -1</math>.

This is how complex numbers are typically derived. (One could of course, define them to be the cosets in the quotient field <math>\mathbb{R}[x]/(x^2 + 1)</math>; this is clearly equivalent to the derivation above.) Please let me know where you see a fault in this derivation.

1Incidentally, [[Galois theory]] tells us that there cannot be a unique nonreal solution to a polynomial with real coefficients. Considering <math>\mathbb{C}</math> as a field extension of <math>\mathbb{R}</math>, we note that the [[Galois group]] of <math>\mathbb{C}/\mathbb{R}</math>, which consists of all automorphisms of <math>\mathbb{C}</math> that fix elements of <math>\mathbb{R}</math>, has precisely two members: the identity function and the function taking complex numbers to their complex conjugate (which we will denote <math>\phi</math>. Suppose that
<math>f(x) = a_0 + a_1 x + \cdots + a_n x^n</math> is a polynomial with real coefficients that has a root <math>r</math>. Then,
<math>0 = a_0 + a_1 r + \cdots + a_n x^n</math>. We apply the aforementioned <math>\phi</math> to both sides; the application of this function leaves <math>0</math> and all the coefficients <math>a_0, \ldots, a_n</math> unchanged. What we get is
<math>0 = a_0 + a_1 \bar{r} + \cdots + a_n \bar{r}^n</math>. This means that <math>\bar{r}</math>, the complex conjugate of <math>r</math>,
is also a root of <math>f</math>. Thus, any polynomial in real coefficients with a nonreal root <math>r</math> also has
<math>\bar{r}</math> as a root. In particular, complex square roots of <math>-1</math> are roots of the polynomial
<math>x^2 + 1</math>, and since we know this polynomial has no real solutions, the two roots guaranteed by the [[fundamental theorem of algebra]] must be a complex conjugate pair. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:13, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

Please

:By "unique", it includes unique pair. Also, it looks like you double-posted above and please feel free to delete any duplicate. I look forward to reviewing your analysis further on [[Resurrection Sunday]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:19, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::Complex analysis assumes, for example, not only that the square root of -1 exists, but that the cube of the square root of -1 is always equal to the negative of itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:24, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::: Why do you say "assumes"? All of those properties are provable from either of the above two definitions of the complex numbers. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:20, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

Noam Chomsky

2012-04-07T00:12:55Z

RSchlafly: /* Anti-Semitism */ rm some unnecessary name-calling

[[Image:Chomsky3.gif|right|130px]]
'''Noam Chomsky''' (born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist who was a pioneer in [[generative grammar]]. Later he became extreme left-wing propagandist and genocide denier<ref>http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/cambodiacomments.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.jim.com/chomsdis.htm</ref><ref>http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/labedz.pdf</ref>. He advocates holding America to an absolute standard of ethics in foreign relations, but has not held such a standard elsewhere. He tends to ignore such violations by other countries, even when they have been far worse. Fellow liberal academic, [[Arthur Schlesinger]], once referred to Chomsky as "an intellectual crook." <ref>"He begins as a preacher to the world and ends as an intellectual crook." -- [[Arthur Schlesinger]] - ''Commentary'' magazine, December 1969</ref>

He is an institute professor & professor of [[linguistics]] (Emeritus) at the [[MIT|Massachusetts Institute of Technology]] (MIT) <ref>http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/chomsky/index.html</ref>.
Chomsky is very critical of [[America]]n and [[Israel]]i foreign policy, sympathizes with [[Palestine|Palestinians]] and has shown support for the terrorist organization [[Hezbollah]]<ref>http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=11&x_article=1151</ref>. He has also been criticized for [[anti-Semitism]], despite having come from a Jewish family and having once spoken and written Hebrew.<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=RKUbyYPG4mcC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=noam+chomsky+%22jewish+heritage%22&source=bl&ots=_DSi5cwxKc&sig=xHoUkX3zV4_dFwO2Gb-xrIxMJbw&hl=en&ei=Bf8iS7-DB5CXlAeXx8zzCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBoQ6AEwBQ#v=snippet&q=chomsky%20jewish%20family&f=false</ref>

== Background ==
Chomsky was born '''Avram Noam Chomsky''' in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the son of William Chomsky, a [[Russia]]n immigrant, and Elsie Simonofsky Chomsky. His parents both practiced Judaism. His father taught [[Hebrew]], and published a scholarly edition of a medieval Hebrew grammar.<ref>http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/abcde/chomsky_noam.html</ref>. He received his education at the [[University of Pennsylvania]] where he studied linguistics, mathematics, and philosophy, and eventually earned his [[Ph. D.]] in 1955. Since then, he has taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He previously held the Ferrari P. Ward Chair of Modern Language and Linguistics, and is now an Institute Professor.

==Linguistic Works==
Chomsky's work is considered to be the spark of modern linguistic thought. His research deals with questions including the critical analysis of language and grammar, the role of biology in language and language acquisition, and the importance (or lack there of) of structural grammar and formal grammar in language function and development.

Chomsky has argued that the primary role the linguist should play is to decipher a language's grammatical structure. Chomsky has provided the field of linguistics path and policy in describing language as a concept and particular languages, as well as core functions of any particular language.

===Generative Grammar===
Noam Chomsky advocates the view that the human mind has innate ability to generate grammatical sentences, thus, all utterances deemed sensible to the speaker are necessarily grammatical. All humans, he argues, share a core of grammar that explodes into the thousands and thousands of distinct languages spoken by humans over time and place. Generative grammar ultimately suggests that the brain is like an unlabeled map, and a child's role is to assign different "paths" with particular labels.

===Universal Grammar===
Noam Chomsky also proposed the theory that a kind of universal grammar, a grammar that underlies all human languages, is hard-wired in the human brain. Thus all human languages are fundamentally the same, with only superficial differences.
===Criticism===
Both the theory of universal grammar as well as generative grammar have been criticized over time. A primary argument is that the majority of Chomsky's studies are based in English, and do not represent "human language" as a whole. Linguist Geoffrey Sampson suggests that the core of his arguments are not scientifically falsifiable, and therefore hold no more weight than mere opinion or conjecture. Sampson follows that Chomsky does not seem to be able to make predictions of what is possible in a language.
Finally, many of his critics claim that Chomsky's books are riddled with factual inaccuracies <ref>http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf</ref>.

==Political Views==
Chomsky has stated that his "personal visions are fairly traditional anarchist ones, with origins in The Enlightenment and classical liberalism" and he has praised libertarian socialism.

His opponents accuse him of expressing admiration for governmental systems such as the Soviet Union, Chinese and Cambodian governments which are characterized by central control, xenophobia, and rejection of free expression, though he has openly expressed opposition to the Soviet Union and other regimes characterized by authoritarianism, arguing that they are not legitimate forms of socialism.<ref>http://chomsky.info/articles/1986----.htm</ref> He also counters that he is merely pointing out the West's own crimes and not condoning authoritarian governments that the West opposes. His stated justification for this is that criticism of other authoritarian governments will do nothing except give the United States ammunition against other countries, while being able to freely ignore their own crimes, whereas criticism of his own country may bring about what he considers to be positive reform. Chomsky identifies himself as a libertarian socialist who is opposed to both neoliberalism and authoritarianism. <ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19446</ref>
=== Anti-Semitism ===
Chomsky has been accused for [[anti-Semitism]].<ref>http://www.jbooks.com/interviews/index/IP_Dershowitz.htm</ref><ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15381</ref>. In addition to his support for Hezbollah, He has stated that Jews are "the most privileged and influential part of the population", and that "Anti-Semitism is no longer a problem. It's raised, but it's raised because privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control"<ref>http://www.variant.randomstate.org/16texts/Chomsky.html</ref>.

Chomsky has supported controversial author [[Norman Finkelstein]], author of ''The Holocaust Industry'', who has argued that claims of anti-Semitism are used to silence critics of Israel and that the Holocaust is exploited by some Jewish institutions for their own gain.<ref>[http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=311000&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news University denies tenure to Holocaust academic], ''Mail & Guardian'', 12 June 2007.</ref> Noam Chomsky has also supported the right of Holocaust deniers, among them the notorious Robert Faurisson, to express their views. Chomsky has claimed he sees this as a free-speech issue and does not himself support Holocaust deniers.<ref>[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/02/15/chomsky-calls-elie-wiesel-%E2%80%9Cone-of-the-major-frauds-of-our-time%E2%80%9D/ Chomsky Calls Elie Wiesel “One of The Major Frauds of Our Time”] - [[FrontPage Magazine]]</ref>

It should be noted that both Finkelstein and Chomsky are from Jewish-American backgrounds <ref>[http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=150]</ref><ref>http://www.tikkun.org/rabbi_lerner/noamchomsky2005</ref>, and that both Chomsky's parents were devout and involved in Jewish scholarship. It is unclear whether Chomsky still practices Judaism.

===Controversies===
#Chomsky denied the Cambodian Genocide, claiming that the killing had been inflated "by a factor of 100."<ref>http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/encounter.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/labedz.pdf</ref> He further asserted that the (in reality) 2 to 3 million Cambodians slaughtered by the [[Khmer Rouge]] from 1975 to 1978 were morally comparable to Nazi collaborators during WW2, and that [[Pol Pot]]'s Cambodia was "comparable to France after liberation [from the Nazis]."<ref>http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm</ref>
#Chomsky recently (1995) claimed, in the wake of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that the death toll in Cambodia may have been inflated "by a factor of a ''thousand''."<ref>http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm#fn61</ref> Since he was responding to an estimate of two million dead, his words would imply that the real toll was on the order of two thousand. (Note: Investigators have uncovered and examined the remains of 1,386,734 Cambodians found in mass graves near Khmer Rouge execution centers whose cause of death has been determined by the investigators to have been virtually exclusively execution by the former Khmer Rouge regime.<ref>http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/deaths.htm</ref><ref>http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/toll.htm</ref><ref>http://welcome.to/dccam</ref> Because no ''more'' than roughly ''half'' of those who died during the Khmer Rouge years were executed (the rest having died from other causes like state-created famine, the deliberate withholding of basic necessities by the state, the refusal by the state to allow foreign aid, the abolishing of medicine and hospitals by the state, systematic overwork and slave labor by the state, and normal mortality), the Documentation Center of Cambodia estimates that the former regime killed or otherwise caused the unnecessary deaths of, between 2 and 2.5 million Cambodians (with 2.5 to 3 million dying and half a million of these representing normal mortality for the period).<ref>http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/deaths.htm</ref> A UN investigation reported 2-3 million dead, while UNICEF estimated 3 million dead.<ref>William Shawcross, The Quality of Mercy: Cambodia, Holocaust, and Modern Conscience (Touchstone, 1985), p115-6</ref> Even the Khmer Rouge acknowledged that 2 million had been killed—though they attributed those deaths to a subsequent Vietnamese invasion.<ref>Khieu Samphan, Interview, Time, March 10, 1980</ref>
#Chomsky has claimed that [[Pearl Harbor]] saved millions of lives and that America and Britain used Nazi armies to attack the [[Soviet Union]] and prolong the [[Holocaust]].<ref>http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/newyorker1.html</ref>
#Chomsky has stated: “Of course, no one supposed that Mao literally murdered tens of millions of people, or that he ‘intended’ that any die at all.”<ref>“Second Reply to Casey,” ZNet, September 2001: http://www.zmag.org/chomreply2.htm</ref> In fact, a comprehensive analysis by Professor R.J. Rummel concluded that Mao was responsible for the deaths of 76 million Chinese.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM</ref>
#Chomsky regularly compares the "alleged" genocide in Cambodia to the 24-year occupation of [[East Timor]] by [[Indonesia]]. He wrote: “The harshest critics claim that perhaps 100,000 people have been slaughtered [in Cambodia]… Comparing East Timor with Cambodia, we see that the time frame of alleged atrocities is the same, the numbers allegedly slaughtered are roughly comparable in absolute terms, and five to ten times as high in East Timor relative to population… my own conclusion is that the sources in the [case of] East Timor are more credible…”<ref>Radical Priorities (rev. ed., AK Press, 2003), p80.</ref> Based on the findings of genocide investigators, as mentioned above; about 2.2 million people were killed by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia in less than 4 years. A Truth Commission found that 89-214,000 Timorese out of more than 700,000 were killed during the 24-year occupation, about 3/4 of them by Indonesia.<ref>Final Report of the Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor (CAVR), January 30, 2006, part 6, paras. 47, 56-7: http://www.ictj.org/en/news/features/846.html</ref> [[Suharto]] killed far less people in absolute terms over decades in one of the world's most populous countries than Pol Pot killed in three years in a country with 8 million people, and exponentially less relative to the size of the population.
#Chomsky denied any genocide or mass reprisals in [[Laos]] after the Communist victory, stating that the Pathet Lao "have made some efforts to achieve a reconciliation with the mountain tribesmen who had been organized in the CIA clandestine army."<ref>After the Cataclysm (South End Press, 1979), p122.</ref> Some 100,000 tribespeople had been exterminated in a campaign of genocide at the time.<ref>Forced Back and Forgotten (Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights, 1989), p8 (estimate); Jane Hamilton-Merritt, Tragic Mountains: The Hmong, the Americans, and the Secret Wars for Laos, 1942-1992 (Indiana Uniersity Press, 1999), pp337-460 (atrocities).</ref>
#Chomsky once wrote: “At the end of 1978 Cambodia [under the Khmer Rouge] was the only country in Indochina that had succeeded at all in overcoming the agricultural crisis that was left by the American destruction.”<ref>Language and Politics (AK Press, 2004), pp245-6. Cf.: “it was a condition of survival to turn (or return) the populations to productive work. The victors in Cambodia undertook drastic and often brutal measures to accomplish this task… At a heavy cost, these measures appear to have overcome the dire and destructive consequences of the US war by 1978,” After the Cataclysm (South End Press, 1979), pviii.</ref> By late 1979, UN and Red Cross officials were warning that another 2.25 million Cambodians faced death by starvation due to “the near destruction of Cambodian society under the regime of ousted Prime Minister Pol Pot,”<ref>New York Times, August 8, 1979.</ref><ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,912511,00.html</ref> who were saved by American and international aid. The Cambodian communists' economic plans were, at times, utterly surreal. Scholar David Chandler notes that, in a Democratic Kampuchea report on General Political Tasks of 1976, there are three lines devoted to education, and six devoted to urine. The document states that, regarding human urine, "We collect thirty per cent. That leaves a surplus of 70%." These were indicative of the types of policies that Chomsky and his co-writer, Edward Herman, claimed had lifted Cambodia out of the ashes of war.
#Chomsky openly claimed in 1977 that Pol Pot had saved more than one million lives.<ref>http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/cambodiacomments.pdf</ref> He did so by citing a Nixon administration statement that US aid to Cambodia should continue because the Khmer Rouge would likely kill more than one million people if they took over, and then falsely restating it to imply that more than one million Cambodians would starve to death if aid was cut off. At the time of this essay, the Khmer Rouge had probably already killed more than one million people, but Chomsky was still claiming that "executions numbered at most in the thousands," that Khmer Rouge atrocities had been "inflated by a factor of 100" and that those the Khmer Rouge had allegedly refrained from killing were actually ''saved'' by the Khmer Rouge. One million people had not died since aid was terminated, he said, therefore one million lives had been saved from starvation by the Khmer Rouge's ingenious economic policies. Thus did Chomsky praise Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge for "saving" the lives of dead people ''who they had murdered''. (Chomsky is also implying that the US cut off aid to Cambodia, when it actually had an unconditional offer to supply aid to it. Aid was terminated ''by the Khmer Rouge'').
#Chomsky has praised Imperial Japan for allegedly "saving maybe tens of millions of lives."<ref>Interview, International Socialist Review, September-October 2002.</ref>
#Chomsky has expressed support for the former Communist dictatorship of [[Angola]]: “The defense of Angola was one of Cuba’s most significant contributions to the liberation of Africa.”<ref>Hegemony or Survival (Penguin, 2004), p94.</ref> Cuban military intervention in support of the communist MPLA dictatorship in Angola led to decades of civil war that cost 1 million lives. Other Cuban “contributions to the liberation of Africa” include fighting for the communist dictatorship in Ethiopia, which killed 1.25 million people by massacre and forced starvation.<ref>Médecins Sans Frontières, “Angola: An Alarming Nutritional Situation,” August 1999 (Angola death toll); Washington Post, March 18, 1978 (Ethiopia intervention); New York Times, December 14, 1994(Ethiopia death toll).</ref>
#Chomsky has repeatedly denied that the former Sandinista regime in [[Nicaragua]] committed any human rights violations at all.<ref>The Culture of Terrorism (South End Press, 1988), p137.</ref> According to the Nicaraguan Commission of Jurists, the regime carried out some 8,000 political murders within its first three years in power.
#Chomsky also strongly approved of the Sandinista's economic policies, writing that “the crime of the Sandinistas was to carry out successful development… they immediately began to divert resources to the poor part of the population.”<ref>Latin America: From Colonization to Globalization (Ocean Press, 1999), p57.</ref> Within a few years of Sandinista rule, wages had been fixed below poverty level and there was mass unemployment. There were shortages of nearly all basic goods, with inflation at 30,000%. Government studies found that three-quarters of schoolchildren suffered from malnutrition, while living standards were lower than Haiti. The World Bank found that Nicaragua was on the economic level of Somalia.<ref>Roger Miranda and William Ratliff, The Civil War in Nicaragua (Transaction, 1993), pp183-4.</ref>
#Chomsky referred to 22 Israeli schoolchildren murdered by Palestinian terrorists as "members of a paramilitary youth group."<ref>Pirates and Emperors, Old and New (rev. ed., Pluto Press, 2002), p65.</ref> He falsely claimed there had been "an exchange of fire" between the schoolchildren and the terrorists.
#Chomsky claimed after the [[9/11]] attacks that “Western civilization is anticipating the slaughter of, well do the arithmetic, 3-4 million people or something like that [in Afghanistan]… Looks like what’s happening is some sort of silent genocide… we are in the midst of apparently trying to murder 3 or 4 million people…”<ref>“The New War Against Terror,” Lecture, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, October 18, 2001.</ref> Far from killing millions, the American intervention saved lives. UNICEF figures indicate that the deaths of 112,000 children and 7,500 pregnant women have been prevented every year since as a result.<ref>New York Times, February 1, 2002.</ref> The US invasion ''saved'' millions of Afghans from starvation.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42858-2001Dec30?language=printer</ref><ref>http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=24019</ref> Chomsky responded by claiming in 2002 that it was still possible that millions might starve to death, but that the Americans and the media could cover it up: "What the effects will be, we will never know. Starvation is not something that kills people instantly. People eat roots and leaves and they drag on for a while. And the effects of starvation may be the death of children born from malnourished mothers a year or two from now, and all sorts of consequences. Furthermore, nobody’s going to look because the West is not interested in such things and others don’t have the resources."<ref>http://www.leftwatch.com/articles/2004/chomsky-backpedals-on-silent-genocide-in-afghanistan/</ref>
#Chomsky believes that there are “no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the Holocaust.”<ref>Quoted in W.D. Rubinstein, “Chomsky and the Neo-Nazis,” Quadrant, October 1981.</ref>
#Chomsky has repeatedly claimed that there has never been so much as a misplaced comma in any of his writings and that no valid criticism of any of his statements or ideas has ever been published by anyone.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKPtwYzehYM</ref>
#Chomsky has lied about the views of Holocaust deniers (Faurisson, Serge Thion) by praising them as "libertarian Socialists with a long-standing record of opposition to all forms of totalitarianism."<ref>“His Right to Say It,” The Nation, February 28, 1981.</ref> He also published one of his books (The Political Economy of Human Rights, a book filled with more noble efforts to disprove the bloodbath in Cambodia) in a series directed by a Holocaust denier (Pierre Guillaume). He has praised Holocaust deniers, endorsed their political and academic credentials, collaborated in their propaganda campaigns, and whitewashed their antisemitic and neo-Nazi agenda.<ref>http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf</ref> He signed a petition in support of Faurisson's denials of the Holocaust; although he claimed that he was only expressing solidarity with his right to free speech, the petition that Chomsky signed dignified Faurisson’s writings by affirming his scholarly credentials (“a respected professor” of “document criticism”); describing his lies as “extensive historical research”; placing the term “Holocaust” in derisory quotation marks; and portraying his lies as "findings" (a very typical Chomsky propaganda technique).<ref>The text of the petition is reproduced in Werner Cohn, Partners in Hate: Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers (Avukah Press, 1995), pp53-4.</ref> More obscenely, Chomsky added that "I sign innumerable petitions of this nature, and do not recall ever having refused to sign one."<ref>Language and Politics (AK Press, 2004), p290.</ref> At the time of this controversy, Chomsky had just finished publicly bragging about his outspoken refusual to sign petitions calling for human rights in Communist Vietnam--even as it massacred many hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese men, women, and children en masse and drowned at sea hundreds of thousands more. On that occasion, he had explained that “public protest is a political act, to be judged in terms of its likely human consequences,” which included the likelihood that the American media “would distort and exploit it for their propagandistic purposes.”<ref>Unpublished interview, March 28, 1977; Language and Politics (AK Press, 2004), p176.</ref>

===Chomsky's Criticisms of the West===
Chomsky is one of the most vocal critics of the [[United States]] foreign policy. Some of his criticisms are:
#The overthrow of democratic and secular leader [[Mohammed Mossadegh]] in Iran and replacement with the Shah, a brutal dictator in 1953 (Done by the US and the UK)
#The overthrow of social democrat Jacobo Arbenz in [[Guatemala]] in 1954
#The overthrow of democratic socialist Salvador Allende in Chile on 9/11 in 1973
#The Dirty War against the Sandinista government in [[Nicaragua]] in the 1980s
#The backing of a brutal military dictatorship in [[El Salvador]] during the same time period
#Selling weapons to a terror-state ([[Iran]]) to fund another terrorist group (The Contras). (See [[Iran-Contra Affair]])
#Supporting [[Saddam Hussein]] during the Iran-Iraq war.
#Supporting the mujahideen which later became al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan in the 1980s
#Invading [[Iraq]] in 2003 despite lack of support from the [[UN]]
#Blatant Support of [[Israel]] which Chomsky believes is a terror state despite his [[Jew]]ish ethnicity
(Source: Hegemony or Survival)

== External links ==
*[http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/chomsky/publications.html List of Chomsky's Publications]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk8pxyAWTBk Chomsky Speaks about American Politics] Chomsky believes the Democrats and Republicans are a single entity
*[http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1136# Video of Noam Chomsky with Hezbollah Leaders in Lebanon]
*[http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomskyhoax.html The Chomsky Hoax] by Paul Bogdanor
*[http://www.grsampson.net/AGwg.html Grammar Without Grammaticality] by Geoffrey Sampson
*[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23543 Chomsky's New Blood Libel] by Alan Dershowitz
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXMZZCvFtlw Chomsky on Middle East Television] Chomsky speaks about American "imperialism."

==References==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Chomsky, Noam}}
[[category:Scientists]]
[[Category:Linguists]]
[[category:Authors]]
[[Category:Socialists]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-03-17T09:02:06Z

RSchlafly: /* Neutrinos do not travel faster than light */ neutrinos going at the speed of light would still contradict relativity

<big>'''For a point-by-point summary of this page, see [[Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points]].'''</big>
 
 
See also the page [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]
 
 
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

== Notice of Pending Revision ==

It's been over a week now since the reversion (on 9th December) of several edits I made. Despite my request, now explanation has been posted, in contrast to the explanations I gave for each of my changes. I therefore see it only fit to return the article to the state I left it in.

However, to avoid 'edit wars' I think it only fair to give notification of this, to allow a final chance for justification of the reversion.

The specific changes are:

*Removal of the item: ''''27. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.'''' since it is a duplicate of ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass -- does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''''

*Removal of ''''26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.'''' After much discussion on this page, it seems generally agreed that there useful devices in existence. (I appreciate that some mention of GPS may be necessary, but a footnote, however valid, cannot justify the presence of the invalid section in the main article to which it is attached. GPS can have it's own separate entry on this page as a counterexample, if need be.)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:35, 31 December 2011 (EST)
*Removal of ''''30. The Ehrenfest Paradox ...'''', ''''31. The Twin Paradox ...'''' and ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle...'''' since these are paradoxes and (as discussed above) are not appropriate to a page of counterexamples. These entries have already been moved to and expanded upon in the main [[Relativity]] page.

--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:26, 17 December 2011 (EST)

::I've now implemented these changes since no objection has been forthcoming to my explaination above, posted in accordance with [[Conservapedia:Editing_etiquette#Etiquette_Rule:|editting etiquette]]. If there are any objections please discuss them here rather than engaging in revert wars. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:36, 30 December 2011 (EST)

:::Sorry, just noticing these comments now. Let's discuss before removing insights from entries.

:::Items 27 and 10 are similar, but not identical. 27 highlights a conflict between Relativity and basic principles of physics; item 10 emphasizes an internal contradiction in the theory that remains unanswered.

:::Item 26 remains unrebutted. Relativity has produced nothing of value.

:::Item 30 and 31 are logical problems which are valid counterexamples, given that Relativity claims to be based on logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 30 December 2011 (EST)

Items 10, 27, and 31 should be taken out because they are just wrong, and make Conservapedia look lazy. Anyone who has learned about relativity from any college-level textbook less than about 40 or 50 years old knows how to do the calculations involving relativistic velocity, momentum, force, and acceleration. Our readers know this, and items 10 and 27 will just leave them scratching their heads about the diligence of Conservapedia. Item 31, the "twin paradox", is also very well known. The fact that something has the word "paradox" in its name doesn't mean that the subject is flawed. Otherwise, we would have to take the Russel paradox too seriously, and perhaps conclude that this: "The next sentence is false. The preceding sentence is true" means that the universe will blow up. The phrase "twin paradox" is simply a name. Everyone knows what is going on. Even Einstein. If it were actually a counterexample, this fact would be well known by now.[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 10:11, 31 December 2011 (EST)

*10: ''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass? '' It applies to the relativistic mass: that is observable in a [[cyclotron]]. So, it is one of those question you may speculate or philosophy all day long, but do the experiment (and the mass), and it is answered.
*27: ''Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions. '' In light of the above, this seems to be wrong.
*30: ''The Ehrenfest Paradox'' interesting paradox, solvable and no counterexample
*31: ''The Twin Paradox'' no counterexample to relativity, it's solved in any physic's course on this subject
*26: ''The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory'' please re-read the archives, they include plenty material on the GPS (though you seem to ignore it)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:36, 31 December 2011 (EST)

On the points 10 and 27 issue, whilst they may or may not be duplicates, may or may not be counterexamples, they're still just plain wrong, reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics of relativity. According to Special Relativity, the inertial mass of a body appears the same to all observers who are in the same inertial frame of reference (i.e. who are moving at the same velocity as each other, which may be different from that of the body being observed). If a force is applied to the body it will produce an acceleration of the same magnitude (though obviously in a different direction) regardless of the direction of the force. The force itself can in no sense be an 'observer' since it has no velocity. For observers in a different non-inertial frame, they will observe a different magnitude of acceleration, but it will still be the same regardless of the direction of the force. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 12:27, 31 December 2011 (EST)

I deleted #10 and #27. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:06, 1 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], you've reverted an edit that everyone involved in the discussion other than yourself seems to be agreed upon. Can you please at least attempt to justify your position? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:20, 1 January 2012 (EST)

:''deletion of educational information is disfavored on this site; deletions restored'' How can the perpetuation of false information be educational? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:37, 1 January 2012 (EST)

This entire page is ludicrous. If you don't believe in Einstein's relativity, then do you believe in Galilean relativity? If Einstein's relativity is correct up to small corrections, does it invalidate cultural relativism? Ironically, this page signifies to me that Conservapedia itself is an exercise in relative truth; the idea that individuals are entitled to make up whatever facts are consistent with their preconceptions. [[User:Aram|Aram]] 16:26, 1 January 2012 (EST)

== Relativity breaks down if a [[solenoid]] is traveling at or near the speed of light. ==

As a source for the statement [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3244279 this discussion] on physicsforum.org is given. Here are all the contributions to this discussion:

{|
!A Dhingra
|The moment the magnetic field is generated, it should take some time to reach some distance. It cannot reach infinity instantly, it should have some speed, and that speed cannot be more than that of light. So let’s say that the newly generated magnetic field, through a current carrying wire, travels with the speed of light. Now for the application of the faraday’s law, let’s bring a magnet near a solenoid, through which initially no current flows, and make the magnet move with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case?

Take another case, when instead of a magnet we have a different circuit containing a solenoid through which current flows when the switch is made on, and this circuit is held stationary moving the other one with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case? What I think is that, as the system without current is moving as fast as the magnetic field … it never gets the chance to cut the magnetic field and cause induction to occur in the solenoid. So there should be no induction. But there is relative motion between the two systems and (also there is NO time varying magnetic field through the moving solenoid,)AND no induced current will be produced ...
so will the induction take place or not...??
if induction does not take place then the principle or relativity goes wrong......
|-
!DaleSpam
|You cannot make a magnet move with the speed of light. It is a physically impossible premise, so you shouldn't be surprised that assuming it leads to contradictions.
|-
!A Dhingra
|... can't it be just a thought experiment like many other paradoxes available....

with that assumption, think about the result.......
|-
!DaleSpam
|Obviously, if you violate the principle of relativity in your question then the answer must be that the principle of relativity is violated. It is just the most basic logic. Non-physical assumptions lead to non-physical conclusions. This says nothing whatsoever about physics, only about your question.
|-
!A Dhingra
|ok........
i agree that the situation is not realistic........
but still i didn't like the fact that one should not think beyond the laws made by humans himself.......
|-
!DaleSpam
|This is elementary logic. If you have any set of axioms (A) which logically imply some result (B) then if your premise is not(B) then you must logically conclude not(A). This is called transposition and is one of the fundamental rules of logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition_(logic)

SR logically implies that a solenoid must move slower than light (STL), therefore if you assume that a solenoid can move with the speed of light you must logically conclude that special relativity (SR) is violated. Written in the usual format for logic:
(SR → STL) ↔ (~STL → ~SR)

Whether or not the situation is realistic and whether or not SR is a "law made by humans himself" is actually only a secondary concern. This is primarily an exercise in basic logic. Note that I am agreeing with your OP. Under the stated premise (~STL) you must indeed logically conclude that "the principle of relativity goes wrong" (~SR).
|-
!vector22
|to make the experiment fair you would have to calculate what would happen to the solenoid at half light speed and then go from there.
|-
!netheril96
|If you want to think beyond relativity, invent your own laws of physics. If you want to explain in terms of relativity, then think within relativity.
|-
!A Dhingra
|can you help me go about finding this result......
(considering the magnetic field to be varying with time ...... as it is getting produced ...
|}

How does this discussion support the claim? This source seems to be unsuitable and therefore it should be deleted, and the statement marked again to be unsourced.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:00, 2 January 2012 (EST)

== Previous arguments ==

I'm creating a page [[Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points]], the purpose of this is to ensure that arguments are not repeated by people who find the article, not realising that their objections have already been discussed, and removed as part of a cleanup of the talkpage. The page is NOT a place to make points, but a place to see if your objection has already been made, and save everybody time by reading the responses yourself, and then bringing up the objection only if you have a new point to make. Because the numbers for counterexamples change, the page will not include the number of the counterexample, only the text of it. Although I will try to put them in order. I know that to begin with, many old arguments will not be included, but hopefully it will eventually become a very useful resource for those wishing to make contributions to the page. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:29, 4 January 2012 (EST)

: While I appreciate the positive intent behind this idea, I do fear that it risks making Conservapedia look even sillier in this area than it already does. The problem is the implicit suggestion that this new page is in any way 'definitive'. Given that the issues surrounding Einsteinian Relativity have been discussed across the planet for over a century, and that the results of those discussions are available on-line, in textbooks and elsewhere, then it is unlikely that anyone will give a page on Conservapedia very much credence, particularly if it is seen to support this page, which puts forth views that very few with an understanding of the field share.

: The real problem is that the counterexamples page itself is not a genuine encyclopaedia entry, but the personal fiefdom of one contributor with little understanding of the subject matter and a bee in his bonnet about a spurious connection between Einsteinian Relativity and Moral Relativism. Unfortunately that contributor has administrator privileges, which he finds more effective in making his case than resorting to rational argument. Perhaps it would be better if the counterexamples page itself became an essay page, to make absoultely clear that it presents a personal point of view. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:06, 5 January 2012 (EST)

:: Anyone who finds Conservapedia silly because of this page will not think it is any sillier because of the new page. For many who see this page, it is a joke, and won't think any less of it because of the new page. The problem with turning this page into an essay is that those who support this page believe that it is not merely a page of personal opinion, but factually accurate. Perhaps I should put a disclaimer at the top of the page then? Something like 'this should not be seen as approving of the counterexamples, but as approval of productive discussion concerning the points'. Also, it should be noted that at the moment, every counterexample listed on the new page have outstanding objections to them, which have not been answered. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:05, 5 January 2012 (EST)

::::I hate to go raining on the parade again here, but science is argued by evidence--it is not enough to produce a counter example and highlight the "god of the gaps". There are paradoxical observations under any established paradigm in any field. This does not mean that the entire paradigm is incorrect, simply that there are gaps in the evidence that must be addressed in order to improve extant models. This is the primary reason that trained scientists find this page silly. There are tons of holes in relativity, just as there were massive holes in Darwin's original theory of natural selection (as a biologist, I am far more familiar with how the latter example has been, quite successfully, addressed), the notion that "there are some discrepancies with theory X, therefore goddidit" is an obvious logical fallacy. Rather than poking holes in an outdated model, it is far more scientific to argue in favor of an alternate model using evidence. The central caveat here, and one that must be carefully beaten out of every experiment, is that evidence cannot be approached with the intention of supporting a particular hypothesis--a model must be built around the evidence, not the other way around. That's why scientists laugh at the term "creation science", science is not about hunting for evidence in support of a pre-formed theory, it is about impartially collecting evidence and then letting said evidence speak for itself.

::::Having said that. I must acknowledge that this article is not explicitly (although, it is implied) about advancing one viewpoint over another--it is simply about highlighting perceived inconsistencies in the theory of relativity. By itself, that is not a ridiculous premise at all. However, because this page is more of an editorial than an academic encyclopedia article, this page itself probably should have been classified as an "essay" to begin with. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 14:13, 6 January 2012 (EST)

::::: In my opinion, the article is really a list of anomalies and paradoxes, not counterexamples. The anomalies are observations that need some additional explanation, and that may or may not require an adjustment to relativity. The paradoxes seem like contradictions or contrary to common sense, but have explanations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:58, 7 January 2012 (EST)

:::::: If someone thinks that Relativity '''''must''''' be true as a matter of logic, then any and all evidence to the contrary is not going to change that view. "Paradox" might be an appropriate term for ostensible contradictions in logic. But the terms "paradox" and "anomaly" are not suitable for observable science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 7 January 2012 (EST)

::::::: No, it is the term "true as a matter of logic" that is not suitable for observable science. Perhaps your real complaint is with those who push scientific statements as being true as a matter of logic. If so, I suggest renaming the article to "Counterexamples to Einsteinian thinking". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:09, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::: I think at least one major college teaches Relativity as a course in the math department rather than being listed primarily in the physics department.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::: If the terms "paradox" and "anomaly" are not suitable for observable science, what are they doing on this page? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 17:26, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::::::::Strictly speaking, all sciences are "observational" sciences; the semantic distinction between observational science and experimental science is arbitrary at best. Even in a tightly-controlled experiment, the goal is still to ''observe'' the outcome of the experiment in order to make some inference about the processes involved. In other words, an experiment is intended as nothing more than an indirect observation of natural phenomena that are not readily directly observable.

::::::::A "paradox", by the most reductive definition, is when the available evidence suggests two contradictory hypotheses. Whereas an "anomaly" is an observation that does not conform to the hypothesis suggested by the previously available evidence. Both of these terms are quite appropriate to use in any scientific or logical context. When a scientist encounters a paradox or an anomaly, it implies that there is a fundamental gap in the theoretical understanding of his or her field. Seeking out evidence to address these gaps allows for scientists to adjust their theoretical models in order to more precisely explain the observed phenomena. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)

RudrickBoucher, since we already established that you are not a biologist, shouldn't you say "as someone who likes to pretend to be a biologist". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:59, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::Conservative, I have a BS in cell and molecular biology (CMB) from the top undergraduate CMB program in the country, several years of laboratory experience doing developmental biology research, just as many publications (a couple of which, I first-authored), I also have teaching experience in introductory biology (AP biology and college-level intro bio), graduate level course-work in developmental biology, and, as of this coming fall, I will either be a first-year medical student or a developmental biology PhD candidate (I've been accepted into programs for both, but not a combined MD/PhD program just yet). In short, I am allowed to call myself a "biologist" because it is my profession--it may sound pretentious, but it saves on typing. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)
RudrichBoucher, a profession is something one does to earn money and have a net positive cash flow, while students often invest money in education and often have low earnings or debt accumulation. Perhaps you should consider taking an introductory course in finance so you better understand the concepts of cash flow and investment! :) I would also suggest taking a course in ethics at a Christian university so you no longer claim to be a biologist and then retract that claim like you did at this wiki. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:48, 8 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::I was paid for my research and for the teaching. Although, admittedly, not very well for either (as neither science nor teaching pays particularly well). I retracted the claim on the "15 questions" essay only after you had already edited it--in the name of diplomatically avoiding a pointless edit war. Similarly, I referenced my biological inclination above as a gesture of humility, to admit that my background in physics is relatively limited. On that note, what are your credentials? Have you spent seven years meticulously learning a specific field like I have? Have you published any papers? Are you a member of any professional research societies? Admittedly, I have at least another six years of education to go, but I can legitimately claim some level of expertise in my field. I don't say these things to brag, say them to lend credibility to my arguments. Finally, as I've mentioned before, I was raised Catholic and I spent my first two years of college at a Methodist school--where I did have the privilege of taking an ethics class (and I very much enjoyed it). So please, let's cut the ad hominem attacks and focus on the discussion at hand. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 23:44, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::::::: Of those who credit Einstein for relativity, they often argue that Einstein's approach was superior because he ignored observations and presented relativity as being something that must be true as a matter of logic. The Einstein scholars acknowledge that Lorentz and Poincare had all the relativity formulas before Einstein, but Lorentz and Poincare were not true believers because they conceded that the theory could be disproved by experiment.
::::::: So the case could be made that there is an Einsteinian-relativity-philosophy that is a is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions, that is based on postulates taken on faith, and that ignores experimental evidence. If so, then maybe the page should be explicit about what is being attacked. All real science is based on experimental evidence. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::RSchlafly, please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that even Einstein considered relativity to be a mathematical approximation. One that precisely, but still somewhat inaccurately, explained the then-available evidence; in a manner similar to the proverbial physicist who, for ease of calculation, treats a horse as a circle. Anybody who has taken more than a year of calculus-based physics (or, even introductory college astronomy), knows the very real limitations of relativity. If anything, these limitations are just as dogmatic as relativity itself. Therefore, the notion that questioning relativity is taboo in intellectual circles (an underlying premise of this page) is patently ridiculous. Poking holes in relativity, and then seeking to explain them, has been one of the great ongoing projects in physics for the past seventy years. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::: I agree that questioning relativity is not taboo. The 2011 Nobel Prize in physics was for observations that caused a modification of general relativity. The biggest physics story of the year was the Italian claim that neutrinos go faster than light, contrary to relativity. Physicists often talk about replacing relativity with some unified field theory or quantum theory. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:51, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::::: That makes me wonder why there isn't a "Counterexamples to Quantum Mechanics" page here as well. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 09:11, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::::: There are a lot of anomalies and paradoxes in quantum mechanics also. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:05, 9 January 2012 (EST)

== A few more things ==

All right, more problems with this article:

<blockquote>
15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
 18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
 24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics
</blockquote>
15: General relativity ''does not predict gravitons!'' Gravitons are massless spin-two particles predicted by QFT that lead to linear GR. (Though the spirit is different; in QFT, the h's--the metric perturbations--are a tensor representing field strength on a background Minkowski spacetime. In GR these represent curvature in spacetime.)
 18: Untrue--Consider the Dirac equation. It predicted spin, which was not predicted by Schrodinger theory. It also predicted negative energy states (antiparticles), and QFT has been fundamental to particle physics.
 24: Yet another horrible misunderstanding. Consider an ideal gas with N particles. Assume the total number of particles is conserved (it obviously doesn't have to be, but this is an idealized case). First of all, Newtonian gravity also predicts that a star will contract to a point without hydrostatic pressure--due to their mutual gravitational attraction. Should we start a "counterexamples to gravity" page? You've forgotten one thing: ''there's a term in the expression for the entropy that involves thermal energy!!!'' In other words (roughly speaking) the gas "warms up" so that the second law of thermodynamics is not violated. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:43, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::Very well said! While I'm in a commenting-frenzy, I'd like to add to your points.

::'''Re: #15.''' It's not a waste of time or money to reject a hypothesis. To quote Enrico Fermi, "If the result confirms the hypothesis, then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery."

::'''Re: #18.''' Relativity HAS led to other [http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/relativity/discoveries-relativity-made-possible.htm|insights].

::'''Re: #24.''' The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. In the case of stellar black hole formation, gravitational pressure must exceed the sum of the thermal pressure, supplied by ongoing fusion in the stellar core, and the core degeneracy pressure, provided courtesy of the Pauli exclusion principle. Achieving this condition is, necessarily, a very violent event, complete with giant explosions, gamma ray bursts, and spewing jets of super-heated gas. When considering the entirety of the system giving rise to a black hole, and not just the resulting black hole itself, entropy certainly ''does'' increase. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 23:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::Hello! Thanks for the comments. And sorry about #24, like I said, the model I gave is slightly idealized b/c I haven't studied the subject in detail. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 07:58, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::No problem, I was in a bit of a commenting frenzy anyway. I'm guessing, because you referred to the ideal gas law, that you have some chemistry background?

:::::Also, I've had students throw the second law of thermodynamics at me when I'm trying to explain evolution. The Earth's surface isn't a closed system either because it's constantly receiving energy from the sun--so the second law of thermodynamics is inapplicable there as well. The only truly closed system that I can think of is in Washington...and, yes, entropy there is ''always'' increasing! --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 09:05, 9 January 2012 (EST)

::::::Actually, I'm terrible at chemistry! My background is in physics and math. You talk about ideal gasses in any physics class where you discuss thermodynamics. But yeah, that's one of the classical misunderstandings among creationists. One thing I saw suggested that next time someone brings it up, ask them about the other laws of thermodynamics. What I also like about the second law of thermodynamics argument is that they don't seem to understand what entropy ''is'' and ''why'' it increases. So yeah, next time someone brings it up ask them about those things. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:18, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::Can I please delete these "counterexamples"? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:32, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::::::I say go for it. You've justified why they should be deleted and your justification has met with no objection. If somebody wishes to restore them, they are welcome to object here.

::::::::As an aside, there does seem to be a disproportionate number of math and physics types on here. It is interesting how the life sciences tend to be predominantly liberal, whereas there's a more even distribution of political ideology in the physical sciences. There are conservative biologists (my old PI, for example), but they are very few and very far between. Knowledge of evolution does not seem to be a factor here, because understanding / acceptance of evolution is nearly universal in all of the sciences. In biology, there is a (seemingly true, in my experience) stereotypical "personality" in each of the sub-disciplines; to reference other fields, the age-old dichotomy between chemists and chemical engineers seems to mostly hold true. I have always wondered if the "personality" of the fields would lead to the observed political differences, or if maybe there is something deeper.

::::::::Because I am afraid that my above observation may be taken grossly out of context, I must add to it the disclaimer that I am not in any way suggesting "indoctrination" of students in one field versus another (or making some other similarly fatuous insinuation). I am simply making an observation, and speculating on its possible cause. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:25, 12 January 2012 (EST)

These counterexamples are not adequately rebutted above:

15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.

:If Relativists are not even going to accept the results of experiments that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, then they '''''are''''' a waste of money.

18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.

:If you can give examples in your own words, then please do.

24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

:This statement is true also. The dramatic decrease in entropy predicted by Relativity is contrary to the Second Law. No known mechanism offsets that decrease.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::'''re: 15.''' The existence of gravitons was hypothesized in an attempt to reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics. General relativity, by itself, does not predict the existence of gravitons. Furthermore, money spent testing a hypothesis that is ultimately not supported is not "wasted" (otherwise, I'd be out of a job)--the knowledge gained in testing the hypothesis allows a better hypothesis to be formulated.

:::'''re: 18.''' General relativity correctly predicted gravitational lensing, the existence of black holes, and the accelerating expansion of the universe. Additionally (and this is the first example that I can come up with off of the top of my head, RSchlafly probably knows a few better ones), relativistic effects must be compensated for to maximize the accuracy of satellite-based GPS systems.

:::'''re: 24.''' Black hole formation results in a net increase in entropy when considering the system as a whole. If you were to consider just the mass of the resultant black hole as a closed system, the degeneracy forces outweigh the net gravitational force significantly enough to prevent collapse into a schwarzschild radius. In just overcoming this by itself (as theoretically happens in super-massive black holes), there would be a massive output of emitted particles (radiation), which would still result in a net increase in the entropy of the system.

:::These counterexamples are not valid. Plain and simple. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 01:10, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:::: General relativity did not predict the accelerating expansion of the universe. It predicted that the expansion would be slowing. Most physicists say that the GR equations must be modified to accommodate the accelerating expansion.
:::: I don't get the entropy argument. I always assumed that a black hole would have all the entropy of the collapsing star and matter falling in. Is there a source for saying that black holes have low entropy? As the footnote says, Hawking has an explanation. Is there something wrong with that explanation? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:29, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:::::Um...I ''did'' address all your concerns, Andy....

<blockquote>
These counterexamples are not adequately rebutted above:

15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.

:If Relativists are not even going to accept the results of experiments that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, then they '''''are''''' a waste of money. '''Wait, gravitons are predicted by GR?! Please send me a link to the derivation!!!'''

18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.

:If you can give examples in your own words, then please do. '''I did!!!! Not to be rude, but did you see what I wrote above? Dirac equation! Spin! Antiparticles! Quantum Field theory! Particle physics! The Standard Model!'''

24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

:This statement is true also. The dramatic decrease in entropy predicted by Relativity is contrary to the Second Law. No known mechanism offsets that decrease '''Yes, yes, yes, temperature increase is unknown to physics!'''
</blockquote>

:::::(Again I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm just wondering if there was a glitch or something b/c, as I said, these were all addressed above.) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:48, 13 January 2012 (EST)

The footnote for #8 says that the calculations are "complicated or contrived", and that the fundamental formula was "conformed" to match the observed perihelion precession. No one doubts that the derivation is complicated. But "conformed" seems to say that something was "tweaked" to match the precession. The formula is complicated to solve but simple to write: <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>. There's nothing in it that can be "tweaked"--not 8, not pi, and not K (Newton's constant of gravitation.)[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 17:08, 21 January 2012 (EST)
:Yep, this is also confusing to me. Does Andy Schlafly know relativity? As you said, nothing can be tweaked in that equation (to "conform" to whatever events). The tensor that represents curvature has to have divergence 0, so that energy-momentum is locally conserved, and the 8*pi*G is determined from the fact that it has to reduce to Newtonian gravity in the weak-field limit. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:47, 23 January 2012 (EST)

== Recent reversion ==

[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], while your recent change did keep the link to the rebuttal page, don't you think it would only be fair to also keep the note that the page is controversial? Regardless who is actually right or wrong, I don't think it would be fair to anyone reading 'The Trustworthy Encyclopaedia' for them to pick up the impression that the ideas on this page are not very widely disputed. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 16:05, 29 January 2012 (EST)

: The whole article is a list of relativity controversies. It says at the top that it is contrary to what liberals promote. Isn't that clear? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:04, 29 January 2012 (EST)
:: The point is, I think, that the very idea that there is a liberal/conservative division on this is itself controversial. Personally, I have not seen the issue raised anywhere except on Conservapedia, and even then only by a very small subset of contributors.
:: On a broader point, if opposing liberal points of view is, by definition, controversial, and given that such opposition is the ''raison d'être'' of Conservapedia, wouldn't a better tagline be "The Controversial Encyclopaedia"?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:09, 30 January 2012 (EST)

: It's a common tactic for the media to label someone they don't like as "controversial". But does anyone ever hear a liberal theory or politician called "controversial"? Was [[Ted Kennedy]] ever called "controversial" by the media?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:43, 29 January 2012 (EST)

::Does this make [[string theory]] conservative, as it is often labeled ''controversial''? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:::No, I didn't suggest that ''everything'' the media disparages as "controversial" is conservative. String theory is a challenge to liberal orthodoxy from the Left.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:18, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::Just to nail this down [[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], do you or do you not think that this page is controversial?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:09, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::Also, your question about Ted Kennedy looks rhetorical with the implied answer of 'no', and yet the answer is very clearly 'yes'. Googling "Ted Kennedy" and "controversial" gives 6.4 million hits. Obviously that doesn't mean the term is being applied to him in all cases, but in many of them (e.g. http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/us/2009/08/26/ted-kennedy-controversy#slide=1) it clearly is. Can you clarify the point you were making about him?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:27, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::: The term "controversial" is not a good term for [[string theory]]. The major aspects are not disputed. A subject is not conservative just because some journalist mislabels it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:14, 31 January 2012 (EST)

::::::That's the problem with science journalism these days. It overstates the implications of a lot of findings, oversimplifies key concepts, and often fails to accurately convey consensus opinions in a particular field. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 17:35, 31 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::Just wanted to add to this: I have never seen GR disputed anywhere but here. (Save for quantum gravity, of course). [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:28, 2 February 2012 (EST)

== Neutrinos do not travel faster than light ==
The same lab that originally broke the story has confirmed a flaw in their experiment. Dr. Sandro Centro stated, ''"In fact I was a little sceptical since the beginning, now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos.[...]I think they were a little bit in a hurry to publish something that was astonishing, and at the end of the day it was a wrong measurement."[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17364682]

: I hope he did not mean to say that, because neutrinos going at the speed of light would still contradict relativity (or other experiments). Neutrinos have mass, and must go slower than the speed of light. The article has a better statement: "they find that the neutrinos do travel at the same speed as light, within a small error range." [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:02, 17 March 2012 (EDT)

Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-02-23T02:54:07Z

RSchlafly: add link to new neutrino announcement

The [[theory of relativity]] is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by [[liberals]] who like its encouragement of [[moral relativism|relativism]] and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.<ref>See, e.g., historian Paul Johnson's book about the 20th century, and the article written by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe as allegedly assisted by [[Barack Obama]]. Virtually no one who is taught and believes Relativity continues to read the [[Bible]], a book that outsells ''New York Times'' bestsellers by a hundred-fold.</ref> Here is a list of 39 counterexamples: any one of them shows that the theory is incorrect.

#Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravitational waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3781</ref> ''Sound like [[global warming]]?''
#The orbital radius of the [[Moon]]'s orbit is increasing, contrary to what Relativity predicts.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0212</ref><ref>creation.com/moon&search=123233422queery=10101001.php</ref>
#Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of Relativity.<ref>http://www.hindustantimes.com/Roll-over-Einstein-Law-of-physics-challenged/Article1-749189.aspx - note that a similar observation of faster-than-light speeds was also made in 2007 (with a larger margin of error).</ref> The Italian lab that "shocked the scientific world" has announced more precise results, confirming their previous announcement.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/18/us-science-neutrinos-light-idUSTRE7AH0T720111118</ref> (The researchers have now found a flaw in their measurements, so this may not be a counterexample.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/european-researchers-find-flaw-in-experiment-that-measured-faster-than-light-particles/2012/02/22/gIQApmdoTR_print.html</ref>)
#The [[Pioneer anomaly]].
#Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by [[Earth]] ("flybys").<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23410705/</ref>
#Spiral galaxies confound Relativity, and unseen "[[dark matter]]" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1873</ref>
#The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds Relativity, and unseen "[[dark energy]]" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.
#Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.<ref>In a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them, the theory of general relativity's fundamental formula, <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>, was conformed to match Mercury's then-observed precession of 5600.0 arc-seconds per century. Subsequently, however, more sophisticated technology has measured a different value of this precession (5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01), and leading promoters of Relativity (such as Professor Clifford Will) have omitted this in listing tests confirming Relativity.</ref>
#The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.
#The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?
#The observed lack of curvature in overall space.<ref>If space were curved, one would never expect the universe as a whole to be almost precisely flat. Yet it is.</ref>
#The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] of [[quantum entanglement]].<ref>Quantum entanglement has not yet communicated information faster than the speed of light, but has already exhibited action faster than the speed of light.</ref>
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] by [[Jesus]], described in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]], [[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)|Matthew 15:28]], and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)|Matthew 27:51]].
#The failure to discover [[gravitons]], despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
#Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do '''not''' experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity.<ref>For a report on the data, see a paper submitted in 2010 by John Webb and Julian King of the University of new South Wales, Australia, to the ''Physical Review Letters''.</ref>
#The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a [[black hole]]. So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."<ref>http://www.economist.com/node/17035953</ref>
#The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
#The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.<ref>[[Mystery:Why Is the Kilogram Losing Weight?]]</ref>
#The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.<ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html ("A varying speed of light contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity, and would undermine much of traditional physics. But some physicists believe it would elegantly explain puzzling cosmological phenomena such as the nearly uniform temperature of the universe.")</ref>
#"According to Einstein’s view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous" but observations instead show "inexplicable static" greater than "all artificial sources of" possible background noise.<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out. Hunt for gravitational waves discovers unexpected data instead].</ref>
#"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don’t gel."<ref>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space</ref>
#The theory predicts [[wormholes]] just as it predicts [[black holes]], but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.<ref>http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v61/i13/p1446_1 . The popular science press promotes black holes to a far greater extent than wormholes.</ref>
#The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in [[entropy]] required by the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]].<ref>Contrived explanations have been suggested for this dilemma, such as Stephen Hawking proposing that the entropy of matter in a black hole is somehow stored in the surface area of its event horizon to be released back into its surroundings as the black hole decays by radiation, known as "Hawking radiation."</ref>
#Data from the [[PSR B1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] increasingly diverge from predictions of the [[General Theory of Relativity]] such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.
#The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.<ref>Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”</ref> This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.
#Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.
#Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.
#Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.<ref>In defense of the theory, it is noted that it mandates conservation of the matter-stress-energy tensor (the only way to get ''real'' conservation, since matter and energy are interchangeable.) This follows from the "contracted Bianchi identity." [http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/omei/gr/chap6/node14.html] Also, the curl of the "gravitational field vector" is exactly zero in the absence of moving sources, due to symmetries of [[Riemann]]'s tensor. It follows, from [[Stokes' Theorem]], that the gravitational field is conservative and has a potential function. Energy is conserved.</ref>
#The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (<math>2 \pi R</math>) is length-contracted. However, since <math>R</math> is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal <math>R</math>, or is it less than <math>R</math>?
#Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v227/n5255/abs/227270a0.html</ref>
#The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because ''both'' twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.<ref>Einstein attempted to explain the paradox based on the acceleration that one twin uniquely undergoes, but the length of travel can simply be extended such that any effect from acceleration would be ''de minimis''.</ref>
#Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the [[aether (science)|aether]] does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right, theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.
#[[Minkowski space]] is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is [[time]]. However, one of the properties of a [[vector space]] is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.<ref>Time isn't a vector. It is a component of the vector space known as "spacetime".</ref>
#In [[Genesis (ch.1)|Genesis 1:6-8]], we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous [[aether]].
#It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of [[faith]].
#Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding."<ref>[http://www.mathunion.org/o/General/Prizes/2006/TaoENG.pdf Statement in awarding the coveted Fields Medal] [Dead link]</ref>
#Experiments in electromagnetic induction contradict Relativity: "Einstein’s Relativity ... can not explain the experiment in graph 2, in which moving magnetic field has not produced electric field."<ref>http://www.wbabin.net/weuro/qingping1.pdf</ref><ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504223</ref>
#Relativity breaks down if a [[solenoid]] is traveling at or near the speed of light.<ref>http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3244279</ref>

(add to list)

''For a discussion of attempts to rebut some of these counterarguments, see [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]].''

{{Relativity}}

== See also ==
*[[Counterexamples to Evolution]]
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:physics]]
[[Category:relativity]]
[[Category:science]]

Heliocentrism

2012-02-23T02:50:38Z

RSchlafly: add link to relativity

'''Heliocentrism''' is the view that the sun is at the center of the universe. It was proposed by some ancient Greeks,<ref>Aristarchus of Samos (ca. 310-230 BC) proposed it, Archimedes discussed it, and the idea was well-known in Europe when [[Copernicus]] proposed a heliocentric model. [http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/theories/copernican_system.html]</ref>, but it never gained wide support because its proponents could not explain why the relative positions of the stars seemed to remain the same despite the Earth’s changing angles of perspective as it revolved about the Sun.<ref>http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/260027/heliocentric-system</ref> It became the dominant view in the 1700s and 1800s. The idea that the sun is at the center of the ''universe'', was abandoned by the mid 20th century.

Since the advent of [[theory of relativity|relativity theory]] in the early 1900s, the laws of physics have been written in covariant equations, meaning that they are equally valid in any frame. Heliocentric and [[Geocentric theory|geocentric]] plotting systems are both used today, depending on which allows more convenient calculations. Heliocentric coordinates have the advantage of being closer to an [[inertial reference frame]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Heliocentrism

2012-02-23T02:48:36Z

RSchlafly: rm sentence that contradicts next paragraph

'''Heliocentrism''' is the view that the sun is at the center of the universe. It was proposed by some ancient Greeks,<ref>Aristarchus of Samos (ca. 310-230 BC) proposed it, Archimedes discussed it, and the idea was well-known in Europe when [[Copernicus]] proposed a heliocentric model. [http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/theories/copernican_system.html]</ref>, but it never gained wide support because its proponents could not explain why the relative positions of the stars seemed to remain the same despite the Earth’s changing angles of perspective as it revolved about the Sun.<ref>http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/260027/heliocentric-system</ref> It became the dominant view in the 1700s and 1800s. The idea that the sun is at the center of the ''universe'', was abandoned by the mid 20th century.

Since the advent of relativity theory in the early 1900s, the laws of physics have been written in covariant equations, meaning that they are equally valid in any frame. Heliocentric and [[Geocentric theory|geocentric]] plotting systems are both used today, depending on which allows more convenient calculations. Heliocentric coordinates have the advantage of being closer to an [[inertial reference frame]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-01-31T17:14:10Z

RSchlafly: /* Recent reversion */ The term "controversial" is not a good term for string theory

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-01-30T02:04:41Z

RSchlafly: /* Recent reversion */ The whole article is a list of relativity controversies

Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-01-22T05:28:15Z

RSchlafly: Undo revision 955690 by JudyJ (talk) - undo incoherent comments about aether theory

The [[theory of relativity]] is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by [[liberals]] who like its encouragement of [[moral relativism|relativism]] and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.<ref>See, e.g., historian Paul Johnson's book about the 20th century, and the article written by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe as allegedly assisted by [[Barack Obama]]. Virtually no one who is taught and believes Relativity continues to read the [[Bible]], a book that outsells ''New York Times'' bestsellers by a hundred-fold.</ref> Here is a list of 39 counterexamples: any one of them shows that the theory is incorrect.

#Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3781</ref> ''Sound like [[global warming]]?''
#The eccentricity of the [[Moon]]'s orbit is increasing contrary to the theory of relativity.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0212</ref>
#Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of Relativity.<ref>http://www.hindustantimes.com/Roll-over-Einstein-Law-of-physics-challenged/Article1-749189.aspx - note that a similar observation of faster-than-light speeds was also made in 2007 (with a larger margin of error).</ref> The Italian lab that "shocked the scientific world" has announced more precise results, confirming their previous announcement.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/18/us-science-neutrinos-light-idUSTRE7AH0T720111118</ref>
#The [[Pioneer anomaly]].
#Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by [[Earth]] ("flybys").<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23410705/</ref>
#Spiral galaxies confound Relativity, and unseen "[[dark matter]]" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1873</ref>
#The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds Relativity, and unseen "[[dark energy]]" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.
#Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.<ref>In a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them, the theory of general relativity's fundamental formula, <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>, was conformed to match Mercury's then-observed precession of 5600.0 arc-seconds per century. Subsequently, however, more sophisticated technology has measured a different value of this precession (5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01), and leading promoters of Relativity (such as Professor Clifford Will) have omitted this in listing tests confirming Relativity.</ref>
#The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.
#The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?<ref>The distinction between "rest mass" and "relativistic mass" is archaic. Modern textbooks use just "mass", which is the same as the old "rest mass". Problems of force applied at various angles to a particle's motion are solved (reasonably) straightforwardly in a formulation involving 4-momentum in spacetime.</ref>
#The observed lack of curvature in overall space.<ref>If space were curved, one would never expect the universe as a whole to be almost precisely flat. Yet it is.</ref>
#The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] of [[quantum entanglement]].<ref>Quantum entanglement has not yet communicated information faster than the speed of light, but has already exhibited action faster than the speed of light.</ref>
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] by [[Jesus]], described in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]], [[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)|Matthew 15:28]], and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)|Matthew 27:51]].
#The failure to discover [[gravitons]], despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
#Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do '''not''' experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity.<ref>For a report on the data, see a paper submitted in 2010 by John Webb and Julian King of the University of new South Wales, Australia, to the ''Physical Review Letters''.</ref>
#The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a [[black hole]]. So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."<ref>http://www.economist.com/node/17035953</ref>
#The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
#The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.<ref>[[Mystery:Why Is the Kilogram Losing Weight?]]</ref>
#The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.<ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html ("A varying speed of light contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity, and would undermine much of traditional physics. But some physicists believe it would elegantly explain puzzling cosmological phenomena such as the nearly uniform temperature of the universe.")</ref>
#"According to Einstein’s view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous" but observations instead show "inexplicable static" greater than "all artificial sources of" possible background noise.<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out. Hunt for gravitational waves discovers unexpected data instead].</ref>
#"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don’t gel."<ref>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space</ref>
#The theory predicts [[wormholes]] just as it predicts [[black holes]], but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.<ref>http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v61/i13/p1446_1 . The popular science press promotes black holes to a far greater extent than wormholes.</ref>
#The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in [[entropy]] required by the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]].<ref>Contrived explanations have been suggested for this dilemma, such as Stephen Hawking proposing that the entropy of matter in a black hole is somehow stored in the surface area of its event horizon to be released back into its surroundings as the black hole decays by radiation, known as "Hawking radiation."</ref>
#Data from the [[PSR B1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] increasingly diverge from predictions of the [[General Theory of Relativity]] such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.
#The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.<ref>Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”</ref> This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.
#Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.
#Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.
#Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.<ref>In defense of the theory, it is noted that it mandates conservation of the matter-stress-energy tensor (the only way to get ''real'' conservation, since matter and energy are interchangeable.) This follows from the "contracted Bianchi identity." [http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/omei/gr/chap6/node14.html] Also, the curl of the "gravitational field vector" is exactly zero in the absence of moving sources, due to symmetries of [[Riemann]]'s tensor. It follows, from [[Stokes' Theorem]], that the gravitational field is conservative and has a potential function. Energy is conserved.</ref>
#The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (<math>2 \pi R</math>) is length-contracted. However, since <math>R</math> is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal <math>R</math>, or is it less than <math>R</math>?
#The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because ''both'' twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.<ref>Einstein attempted to explain the paradox based on the acceleration that one twin uniquely undergoes, but the length of travel can simply be extended such that any effect from acceleration would be ''de minimis''.</ref>
#Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v227/n5255/abs/227270a0.html</ref>
#Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the [[aether (science)|aether]] does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right, theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.
#In [[Genesis (ch.1)|Genesis 1:6-8]], we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous [[aether]].
#[[Minkowski space]] is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is [[time]]. However, one of the properties of a [[vector space]] is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.<ref>Time isn't a vector. It is a component of the vector space known as "spacetime".</ref>
#It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of [[faith]].
#Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding."<ref>[http://www.mathunion.org/o/General/Prizes/2006/TaoENG.pdf Statement in awarding the coveted Fields Medal] [Dead link]</ref>
#Experiments in electromagnetic induction contradict Relativity: "Einstein’s Relativity ... can not explain the experiment in graph 2, in which moving magnetic field has not produced electric field."<ref>http://www.wbabin.net/weuro/qingping1.pdf</ref><ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504223</ref>
#Relativity breaks down if a [[solenoid]] is traveling at or near the speed of light.<ref>http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3244279</ref>

(add to list)

{{Relativity}}

== See also ==
*[[Counterexamples to Evolution]]
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:physics]]

Heliocentrism

2012-01-14T18:05:03Z

RSchlafly: Undo revision 953762 by DynaboyJ (talk) - no, the view today is that there is no center

'''Heliocentrism''' is the view that the sun is at the center of the universe. It was proposed by some ancient Greeks,<ref>Aristarchus of Samos (ca. 310-230 BC) proposed it, Archimedes discussed it, and the idea was well-known in Europe when [[Copernicus]] proposed a heliocentric model. [http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/theories/copernican_system.html]</ref>, but it never gained wide support because its proponents could not explain why the relative positions of the stars seemed to remain the same despite the Earth’s changing angles of perspective as it revolved about the Sun.<ref>http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/260027/heliocentric-system</ref> It became the dominant view in the 1700s and 1800s. It was abandoned in the 20th century.

Since the advent of relativity theory in the early 1900s, the laws of physics have been written in covariant equations, meaning that they are equally valid in any frame. Heliocentric and [[Geocentric theory|geocentric]] theories are both used today, depending on which allows more convenient calculations. Heliocentric coordinates have the advantage of being closer to an [[inertial reference frame]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-01-13T09:29:27Z

RSchlafly: /* A few more things */ did not predict the accelerating expansion of the universe

<big>'''For a point-by-point summary of this page, see [[Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points]].'''</big>
 
 
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

== Notice of Pending Revision ==

It's been over a week now since the reversion (on 9th December) of several edits I made. Despite my request, now explanation has been posted, in contrast to the explanations I gave for each of my changes. I therefore see it only fit to return the article to the state I left it in.

However, to avoid 'edit wars' I think it only fair to give notification of this, to allow a final chance for justification of the reversion.

The specific changes are:

*Removal of the item: ''''27. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.'''' since it is a duplicate of ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass -- does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''''

*Removal of ''''26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.'''' After much discussion on this page, it seems generally agreed that there useful devices in existence. (I appreciate that some mention of GPS may be necessary, but a footnote, however valid, cannot justify the presence of the invalid section in the main article to which it is attached. GPS can have it's own separate entry on this page as a counterexample, if need be.)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:35, 31 December 2011 (EST)
*Removal of ''''30. The Ehrenfest Paradox ...'''', ''''31. The Twin Paradox ...'''' and ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle...'''' since these are paradoxes and (as discussed above) are not appropriate to a page of counterexamples. These entries have already been moved to and expanded upon in the main [[Relativity]] page.

--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:26, 17 December 2011 (EST)

::I've now implemented these changes since no objection has been forthcoming to my explaination above, posted in accordance with [[Conservapedia:Editing_etiquette#Etiquette_Rule:|editting etiquette]]. If there are any objections please discuss them here rather than engaging in revert wars. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:36, 30 December 2011 (EST)

:::Sorry, just noticing these comments now. Let's discuss before removing insights from entries.

:::Items 27 and 10 are similar, but not identical. 27 highlights a conflict between Relativity and basic principles of physics; item 10 emphasizes an internal contradiction in the theory that remains unanswered.

:::Item 26 remains unrebutted. Relativity has produced nothing of value.

:::Item 30 and 31 are logical problems which are valid counterexamples, given that Relativity claims to be based on logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 30 December 2011 (EST)

Items 10, 27, and 31 should be taken out because they are just wrong, and make Conservapedia look lazy. Anyone who has learned about relativity from any college-level textbook less than about 40 or 50 years old knows how to do the calculations involving relativistic velocity, momentum, force, and acceleration. Our readers know this, and items 10 and 27 will just leave them scratching their heads about the diligence of Conservapedia. Item 31, the "twin paradox", is also very well known. The fact that something has the word "paradox" in its name doesn't mean that the subject is flawed. Otherwise, we would have to take the Russel paradox too seriously, and perhaps conclude that this: "The next sentence is false. The preceding sentence is true" means that the universe will blow up. The phrase "twin paradox" is simply a name. Everyone knows what is going on. Even Einstein. If it were actually a counterexample, this fact would be well known by now.[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 10:11, 31 December 2011 (EST)

*10: ''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass? '' It applies to the relativistic mass: that is observable in a [[cyclotron]]. So, it is one of those question you may speculate or philosophy all day long, but do the experiment (and the mass), and it is answered.
*27: ''Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions. '' In light of the above, this seems to be wrong.
*30: ''The Ehrenfest Paradox'' interesting paradox, solvable and no counterexample
*31: ''The Twin Paradox'' no counterexample to relativity, it's solved in any physic's course on this subject
*26: ''The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory'' please re-read the archives, they include plenty material on the GPS (though you seem to ignore it)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:36, 31 December 2011 (EST)

On the points 10 and 27 issue, whilst they may or may not be duplicates, may or may not be counterexamples, they're still just plain wrong, reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics of relativity. According to Special Relativity, the inertial mass of a body appears the same to all observers who are in the same inertial frame of reference (i.e. who are moving at the same velocity as each other, which may be different from that of the body being observed). If a force is applied to the body it will produce an acceleration of the same magnitude (though obviously in a different direction) regardless of the direction of the force. The force itself can in no sense be an 'observer' since it has no velocity. For observers in a different non-inertial frame, they will observe a different magnitude of acceleration, but it will still be the same regardless of the direction of the force. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 12:27, 31 December 2011 (EST)

I deleted #10 and #27. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:06, 1 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], you've reverted an edit that everyone involved in the discussion other than yourself seems to be agreed upon. Can you please at least attempt to justify your position? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:20, 1 January 2012 (EST)

:''deletion of educational information is disfavored on this site; deletions restored'' How can the perpetuation of false information be educational? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:37, 1 January 2012 (EST)

This entire page is ludicrous. If you don't believe in Einstein's relativity, then do you believe in Galilean relativity? If Einstein's relativity is correct up to small corrections, does it invalidate cultural relativism? Ironically, this page signifies to me that Conservapedia itself is an exercise in relative truth; the idea that individuals are entitled to make up whatever facts are consistent with their preconceptions. [[User:Aram|Aram]] 16:26, 1 January 2012 (EST)

== Relativity breaks down if a [[solenoid]] is traveling at or near the speed of light. ==

As a source for the statement [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3244279 this discussion] on physicsforum.org is given. Here are all the contributions to this discussion:

{|
!A Dhingra
|The moment the magnetic field is generated, it should take some time to reach some distance. It cannot reach infinity instantly, it should have some speed, and that speed cannot be more than that of light. So let’s say that the newly generated magnetic field, through a current carrying wire, travels with the speed of light. Now for the application of the faraday’s law, let’s bring a magnet near a solenoid, through which initially no current flows, and make the magnet move with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case?

Take another case, when instead of a magnet we have a different circuit containing a solenoid through which current flows when the switch is made on, and this circuit is held stationary moving the other one with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case? What I think is that, as the system without current is moving as fast as the magnetic field … it never gets the chance to cut the magnetic field and cause induction to occur in the solenoid. So there should be no induction. But there is relative motion between the two systems and (also there is NO time varying magnetic field through the moving solenoid,)AND no induced current will be produced ...
so will the induction take place or not...??
if induction does not take place then the principle or relativity goes wrong......
|-
!DaleSpam
|You cannot make a magnet move with the speed of light. It is a physically impossible premise, so you shouldn't be surprised that assuming it leads to contradictions.
|-
!A Dhingra
|... can't it be just a thought experiment like many other paradoxes available....

with that assumption, think about the result.......
|-
!DaleSpam
|Obviously, if you violate the principle of relativity in your question then the answer must be that the principle of relativity is violated. It is just the most basic logic. Non-physical assumptions lead to non-physical conclusions. This says nothing whatsoever about physics, only about your question.
|-
!A Dhingra
|ok........
i agree that the situation is not realistic........
but still i didn't like the fact that one should not think beyond the laws made by humans himself.......
|-
!DaleSpam
|This is elementary logic. If you have any set of axioms (A) which logically imply some result (B) then if your premise is not(B) then you must logically conclude not(A). This is called transposition and is one of the fundamental rules of logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition_(logic)

SR logically implies that a solenoid must move slower than light (STL), therefore if you assume that a solenoid can move with the speed of light you must logically conclude that special relativity (SR) is violated. Written in the usual format for logic:
(SR → STL) ↔ (~STL → ~SR)

Whether or not the situation is realistic and whether or not SR is a "law made by humans himself" is actually only a secondary concern. This is primarily an exercise in basic logic. Note that I am agreeing with your OP. Under the stated premise (~STL) you must indeed logically conclude that "the principle of relativity goes wrong" (~SR).
|-
!vector22
|to make the experiment fair you would have to calculate what would happen to the solenoid at half light speed and then go from there.
|-
!netheril96
|If you want to think beyond relativity, invent your own laws of physics. If you want to explain in terms of relativity, then think within relativity.
|-
!A Dhingra
|can you help me go about finding this result......
(considering the magnetic field to be varying with time ...... as it is getting produced ...
|}

How does this discussion support the claim? This source seems to be unsuitable and therefore it should be deleted, and the statement marked again to be unsourced.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:00, 2 January 2012 (EST)

== Previous arguments ==

I'm creating a page [[Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points]], the purpose of this is to ensure that arguments are not repeated by people who find the article, not realising that their objections have already been discussed, and removed as part of a cleanup of the talkpage. The page is NOT a place to make points, but a place to see if your objection has already been made, and save everybody time by reading the responses yourself, and then bringing up the objection only if you have a new point to make. Because the numbers for counterexamples change, the page will not include the number of the counterexample, only the text of it. Although I will try to put them in order. I know that to begin with, many old arguments will not be included, but hopefully it will eventually become a very useful resource for those wishing to make contributions to the page. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:29, 4 January 2012 (EST)

: While I appreciate the positive intent behind this idea, I do fear that it risks making Conservapedia look even sillier in this area than it already does. The problem is the implicit suggestion that this new page is in any way 'definitive'. Given that the issues surrounding Einsteinian Relativity have been discussed across the planet for over a century, and that the results of those discussions are available on-line, in textbooks and elsewhere, then it is unlikely that anyone will give a page on Conservapedia very much credence, particularly if it is seen to support this page, which puts forth views that very few with an understanding of the field share.

: The real problem is that the counterexamples page itself is not a genuine encyclopaedia entry, but the personal fiefdom of one contributor with little understanding of the subject matter and a bee in his bonnet about a spurious connection between Einsteinian Relativity and Moral Relativism. Unfortunately that contributor has administrator privileges, which he finds more effective in making his case than resorting to rational argument. Perhaps it would be better if the counterexamples page itself became an essay page, to make absoultely clear that it presents a personal point of view. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:06, 5 January 2012 (EST)

:: Anyone who finds Conservapedia silly because of this page will not think it is any sillier because of the new page. For many who see this page, it is a joke, and won't think any less of it because of the new page. The problem with turning this page into an essay is that those who support this page believe that it is not merely a page of personal opinion, but factually accurate. Perhaps I should put a disclaimer at the top of the page then? Something like 'this should not be seen as approving of the counterexamples, but as approval of productive discussion concerning the points'. Also, it should be noted that at the moment, every counterexample listed on the new page have outstanding objections to them, which have not been answered. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:05, 5 January 2012 (EST)

::::I hate to go raining on the parade again here, but science is argued by evidence--it is not enough to produce a counter example and highlight the "god of the gaps". There are paradoxical observations under any established paradigm in any field. This does not mean that the entire paradigm is incorrect, simply that there are gaps in the evidence that must be addressed in order to improve extant models. This is the primary reason that trained scientists find this page silly. There are tons of holes in relativity, just as there were massive holes in Darwin's original theory of natural selection (as a biologist, I am far more familiar with how the latter example has been, quite successfully, addressed), the notion that "there are some discrepancies with theory X, therefore goddidit" is an obvious logical fallacy. Rather than poking holes in an outdated model, it is far more scientific to argue in favor of an alternate model using evidence. The central caveat here, and one that must be carefully beaten out of every experiment, is that evidence cannot be approached with the intention of supporting a particular hypothesis--a model must be built around the evidence, not the other way around. That's why scientists laugh at the term "creation science", science is not about hunting for evidence in support of a pre-formed theory, it is about impartially collecting evidence and then letting said evidence speak for itself.

::::Having said that. I must acknowledge that this article is not explicitly (although, it is implied) about advancing one viewpoint over another--it is simply about highlighting perceived inconsistencies in the theory of relativity. By itself, that is not a ridiculous premise at all. However, because this page is more of an editorial than an academic encyclopedia article, this page itself probably should have been classified as an "essay" to begin with. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 14:13, 6 January 2012 (EST)

::::: In my opinion, the article is really a list of anomalies and paradoxes, not counterexamples. The anomalies are observations that need some additional explanation, and that may or may not require an adjustment to relativity. The paradoxes seem like contradictions or contrary to common sense, but have explanations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:58, 7 January 2012 (EST)

:::::: If someone thinks that Relativity '''''must''''' be true as a matter of logic, then any and all evidence to the contrary is not going to change that view. "Paradox" might be an appropriate term for ostensible contradictions in logic. But the terms "paradox" and "anomaly" are not suitable for observable science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 7 January 2012 (EST)

::::::: No, it is the term "true as a matter of logic" that is not suitable for observable science. Perhaps your real complaint is with those who push scientific statements as being true as a matter of logic. If so, I suggest renaming the article to "Counterexamples to Einsteinian thinking". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:09, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::: I think at least one major college teaches Relativity as a course in the math department rather than being listed primarily in the physics department.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::: If the terms "paradox" and "anomaly" are not suitable for observable science, what are they doing on this page? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 17:26, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::::::::Strictly speaking, all sciences are "observational" sciences; the semantic distinction between observational science and experimental science is arbitrary at best. Even in a tightly-controlled experiment, the goal is still to ''observe'' the outcome of the experiment in order to make some inference about the processes involved. In other words, an experiment is intended as nothing more than an indirect observation of natural phenomena that are not readily directly observable.

::::::::A "paradox", by the most reductive definition, is when the available evidence suggests two contradictory hypotheses. Whereas an "anomaly" is an observation that does not conform to the hypothesis suggested by the previously available evidence. Both of these terms are quite appropriate to use in any scientific or logical context. When a scientist encounters a paradox or an anomaly, it implies that there is a fundamental gap in the theoretical understanding of his or her field. Seeking out evidence to address these gaps allows for scientists to adjust their theoretical models in order to more precisely explain the observed phenomena. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)

RudrickBoucher, since we already established that you are not a biologist, shouldn't you say "as someone who likes to pretend to be a biologist". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:59, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::Conservative, I have a BS in cell and molecular biology (CMB) from the top undergraduate CMB program in the country, several years of laboratory experience doing developmental biology research, just as many publications (a couple of which, I first-authored), I also have teaching experience in introductory biology (AP biology and college-level intro bio), graduate level course-work in developmental biology, and, as of this coming fall, I will either be a first-year medical student or a developmental biology PhD candidate (I've been accepted into programs for both, but not a combined MD/PhD program just yet). In short, I am allowed to call myself a "biologist" because it is my profession--it may sound pretentious, but it saves on typing. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)
RudrichBoucher, a profession is something one does to earn money and have a net positive cash flow, while students often invest money in education and often have low earnings or debt accumulation. Perhaps you should consider taking an introductory course in finance so you better understand the concepts of cash flow and investment! :) I would also suggest taking a course in ethics at a Christian university so you no longer claim to be a biologist and then retract that claim like you did at this wiki. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:48, 8 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::I was paid for my research and for the teaching. Although, admittedly, not very well for either (as neither science nor teaching pays particularly well). I retracted the claim on the "15 questions" essay only after you had already edited it--in the name of diplomatically avoiding a pointless edit war. Similarly, I referenced my biological inclination above as a gesture of humility, to admit that my background in physics is relatively limited. On that note, what are your credentials? Have you spent seven years meticulously learning a specific field like I have? Have you published any papers? Are you a member of any professional research societies? Admittedly, I have at least another six years of education to go, but I can legitimately claim some level of expertise in my field. I don't say these things to brag, say them to lend credibility to my arguments. Finally, as I've mentioned before, I was raised Catholic and I spent my first two years of college at a Methodist school--where I did have the privilege of taking an ethics class (and I very much enjoyed it). So please, let's cut the ad hominem attacks and focus on the discussion at hand. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 23:44, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::::::: Of those who credit Einstein for relativity, they often argue that Einstein's approach was superior because he ignored observations and presented relativity as being something that must be true as a matter of logic. The Einstein scholars acknowledge that Lorentz and Poincare had all the relativity formulas before Einstein, but Lorentz and Poincare were not true believers because they conceded that the theory could be disproved by experiment.
::::::: So the case could be made that there is an Einsteinian-relativity-philosophy that is a is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions, that is based on postulates taken on faith, and that ignores experimental evidence. If so, then maybe the page should be explicit about what is being attacked. All real science is based on experimental evidence. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::RSchlafly, please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that even Einstein considered relativity to be a mathematical approximation. One that precisely, but still somewhat inaccurately, explained the then-available evidence; in a manner similar to the proverbial physicist who, for ease of calculation, treats a horse as a circle. Anybody who has taken more than a year of calculus-based physics (or, even introductory college astronomy), knows the very real limitations of relativity. If anything, these limitations are just as dogmatic as relativity itself. Therefore, the notion that questioning relativity is taboo in intellectual circles (an underlying premise of this page) is patently ridiculous. Poking holes in relativity, and then seeking to explain them, has been one of the great ongoing projects in physics for the past seventy years. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::: I agree that questioning relativity is not taboo. The 2011 Nobel Prize in physics was for observations that caused a modification of general relativity. The biggest physics story of the year was the Italian claim that neutrinos go faster than light, contrary to relativity. Physicists often talk about replacing relativity with some unified field theory or quantum theory. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:51, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::::: That makes me wonder why there isn't a "Counterexamples to Quantum Mechanics" page here as well. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 09:11, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::::: There are a lot of anomalies and paradoxes in quantum mechanics also. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:05, 9 January 2012 (EST)

== A few more things ==

All right, more problems with this article:

<blockquote>
15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
 18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
 24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics
</blockquote>
15: General relativity ''does not predict gravitons!'' Gravitons are massless spin-two particles predicted by QFT that lead to linear GR. (Though the spirit is different; in QFT, the h's--the metric perturbations--are a tensor representing field strength on a background Minkowski spacetime. In GR these represent curvature in spacetime.)
 18: Untrue--Consider the Dirac equation. It predicted spin, which was not predicted by Schrodinger theory. It also predicted negative energy states (antiparticles), and QFT has been fundamental to particle physics.
 24: Yet another horrible misunderstanding. Consider an ideal gas with N particles. Assume the total number of particles is conserved (it obviously doesn't have to be, but this is an idealized case). First of all, Newtonian gravity also predicts that a star will contract to a point without hydrostatic pressure--due to their mutual gravitational attraction. Should we start a "counterexamples to gravity" page? You've forgotten one thing: ''there's a term in the expression for the entropy that involves thermal energy!!!'' In other words (roughly speaking) the gas "warms up" so that the second law of thermodynamics is not violated. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:43, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::Very well said! While I'm in a commenting-frenzy, I'd like to add to your points.

::'''Re: #15.''' It's not a waste of time or money to reject a hypothesis. To quote Enrico Fermi, "If the result confirms the hypothesis, then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery."

::'''Re: #18.''' Relativity HAS led to other [http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/relativity/discoveries-relativity-made-possible.htm|insights].

::'''Re: #24.''' The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. In the case of stellar black hole formation, gravitational pressure must exceed the sum of the thermal pressure, supplied by ongoing fusion in the stellar core, and the core degeneracy pressure, provided courtesy of the Pauli exclusion principle. Achieving this condition is, necessarily, a very violent event, complete with giant explosions, gamma ray bursts, and spewing jets of super-heated gas. When considering the entirety of the system giving rise to a black hole, and not just the resulting black hole itself, entropy certainly ''does'' increase. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 23:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::Hello! Thanks for the comments. And sorry about #24, like I said, the model I gave is slightly idealized b/c I haven't studied the subject in detail. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 07:58, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::No problem, I was in a bit of a commenting frenzy anyway. I'm guessing, because you referred to the ideal gas law, that you have some chemistry background?

:::::Also, I've had students throw the second law of thermodynamics at me when I'm trying to explain evolution. The Earth's surface isn't a closed system either because it's constantly receiving energy from the sun--so the second law of thermodynamics is inapplicable there as well. The only truly closed system that I can think of is in Washington...and, yes, entropy there is ''always'' increasing! --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 09:05, 9 January 2012 (EST)

::::::Actually, I'm terrible at chemistry! My background is in physics and math. You talk about ideal gasses in any physics class where you discuss thermodynamics. But yeah, that's one of the classical misunderstandings among creationists. One thing I saw suggested that next time someone brings it up, ask them about the other laws of thermodynamics. What I also like about the second law of thermodynamics argument is that they don't seem to understand what entropy ''is'' and ''why'' it increases. So yeah, next time someone brings it up ask them about those things. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:18, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::Can I please delete these "counterexamples"? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:32, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::::::I say go for it. You've justified why they should be deleted and your justification has met with no objection. If somebody wishes to restore them, they are welcome to object here.

::::::::As an aside, there does seem to be a disproportionate number of math and physics types on here. It is interesting how the life sciences tend to be predominantly liberal, whereas there's a more even distribution of political ideology in the physical sciences. There are conservative biologists (my old PI, for example), but they are very few and very far between. Knowledge of evolution does not seem to be a factor here, because understanding / acceptance of evolution is nearly universal in all of the sciences. In biology, there is a (seemingly true, in my experience) stereotypical "personality" in each of the sub-disciplines; to reference other fields, the age-old dichotomy between chemists and chemical engineers seems to mostly hold true. I have always wondered if the "personality" of the fields would lead to the observed political differences, or if maybe there is something deeper.

::::::::Because I am afraid that my above observation may be taken grossly out of context, I must add to it the disclaimer that I am not in any way suggesting "indoctrination" of students in one field versus another (or making some other similarly fatuous insinuation). I am simply making an observation, and speculating on its possible cause. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:25, 12 January 2012 (EST)

These counterexamples are not adequately rebutted above:

15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.

:If Relativists are not even going to accept the results of experiments that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, then they '''''are''''' a waste of money.

18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.

:If you can give examples in your own words, then please do.

24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

:This statement is true also. The dramatic decrease in entropy predicted by Relativity is contrary to the Second Law. No known mechanism offsets that decrease.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::'''re: 15.''' The existence of gravitons was hypothesized in an attempt to reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics. General relativity, by itself, does not predict the existence of gravitons. Furthermore, money spent testing a hypothesis that is ultimately not supported is not "wasted" (otherwise, I'd be out of a job)--the knowledge gained in testing the hypothesis allows a better hypothesis to be formulated.

:::'''re: 18.''' General relativity correctly predicted gravitational lensing, the existence of black holes, and the accelerating expansion of the universe. Additionally (and this is the first example that I can come up with off of the top of my head, RSchlafly probably knows a few better ones), relativistic effects must be compensated for to maximize the accuracy of satellite-based GPS systems.

:::'''re: 24.''' Black hole formation results in a net increase in entropy when considering the system as a whole. If you were to consider just the mass of the resultant black hole as a closed system, the degeneracy forces outweigh the net gravitational force significantly enough to prevent collapse into a schwarzschild radius. In just overcoming this by itself (as theoretically happens in super-massive black holes), there would be a massive output of emitted particles (radiation), which would still result in a net increase in the entropy of the system.

:::These counterexamples are not valid. Plain and simple. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 01:10, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:::: General relativity did not predict the accelerating expansion of the universe. It predicted that the expansion would be slowing. Most physicists say that the GR equations must be modified to accommodate the accelerating expansion.
:::: I don't get the entropy argument. I always assumed that a black hole would have all the entropy of the collapsing star and matter falling in. Is there a source for saying that black holes have low entropy? As the footnote says, Hawking has an explanation. Is there something wrong with that explanation? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:29, 13 January 2012 (EST)