Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

The Times of London

2010-04-21T09:20:41Z

RichardKerry: Undo revision 770634 by ColinK (Talk) undo edit by user spreading liberal views

'''''The Times''''' is a leading, and well respected, British daily newspaper founded in 1785 as ''The Daily Universal Register'', changing its name to ''The Times'' in 1788. Nicknamed "The Thunderer", it is regarded as the newspaper of the British Establishment and [[Tories]] and has traditionally followed a liberal political line, sometimes embarrassingly so, as with its editorial support of [[appeasement]] in the 1930s. The paper was closed down by an industrial dispute between December 1978 and November 1979.

Since 1981, ''The Times'' and associated titles have been owned by [[News Corporation]], a giant global mainstream media conglomerate owned by [[Rupert Murdoch]], who owns newspapers and television stations around the world, including ''The Sun'' (UK), Sky TV (UK), Fox TV (USA), Fox News (USA) and Fox Movie Studios (USA). In 1986 the newspaper editorial and production facilities were moved from central London (near [[Fleet Street]]) to a new site at [[Wapping]] in east London, where modernised plant and working methods were to be employed. This prompted a year-long strike by printworkers, accompanied by picket-line violence, but production of the newspaper was never completely interrupted.

[[Category:United Kingdom Newspapers]]
[[Category:Conservative Media]]
[[Category:Conservative news organizations]]

Talk:Liberal denial

2010-04-19T21:14:12Z

RichardKerry: /* Global Cooling */

Editing is disabled on this page. Why? I want to contribute content. That's the whole point of a wiki. If you don't want people contributing content without your permission then this is nothing more than a blog.

Hi there. I read this article and, while I don't deny every item on the list, I do deny the majority of them. I think this confirms my liberal bias. But, it doesn't tell me if a liberal bias is a good thing (i.e. is grounded in reality). However, there is one liberal denial that is clearly testable: English will cease to be the official language of America in 20 years unless it is protected. I do deny that and in 20 short years I will know if that denial is correct or erroneous. I am willing to bet any "conservative" that this statement is wrong. Any takers?

Some people have been wondering where all the citations are for these. Well one is easy enough to find. #8 a woman significantly reduces her risk of breast cancer by having children rather than abortions. You can easily go to the American Cancer Society and see the following "Induced abortion: Several studies have provided very strong data that neither induced abortions nor spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) have an overall effect on the risk of breast cancer." Oh wait, I guess that kinda disproves/blows that argument out of the water.

One might say there's a such thing as conservative denial as well. One just might. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:13, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
:Surely the collapse of the Soviet Bloc due to its utter inability to manage a moder economy had a bigger impact that Reagan's words? Come on, this is facile at best. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 18:59, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:: See? You help illustrate our point!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:05, 24 January 2008 (EST)

::: Uh? What he's saying sounds far more logical. With the Soviet Union in pieces, there was no reason for them to be controlling half of Germany. Thus, Germany was reunited,and the wall dismantled. Claiming it was simply Reagen's command that did it is... Well, bloody stupid at best. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:14, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:::: Um, Reagan called on Gorbachev to tear the Berlin Wall down in 1987. The Wall fell in November 1989. When George HW Bush was President. And when the Soviet Union had realised that its hold on Eastern Europe was no longer possible, due to its economic collapse. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:18, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::::: Really??? You mean that the Wall didn't fall the very next day after Reagan's speech??? Thanks for demonstrating how this point is an example of [[liberal denial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:::::: ... Either you never learned proper English, or you really need to crack open a textbook, man. I strongly advise rewriting that so it doesn't look like you're accusing him of denying the Berlin Wall (I assume that's what you meant, and not the Pink Floyd movie) fell the day after Reagan's speech, as if that was what happened. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:20, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::::::: Quite correct, the wall did not fall the next day - or the next week, or the next month. It fell almost two and a half years later. You might as well credit President Kennedy for its fall by objecting to it in 1963 with his "Ich Bin Ein Berliner" speech. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:45, 1 February 2008 (EST)

I know this seems a silly, liberal question to ask...but where is all the reference material for these points? I thought this was an informative encyclopedia, not a tabloid. The truth shall set you free, after all.[[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 07:56 13 February 2008 (CST)

:Yes, the second Conservapedia commandment says "Always cite and give credit to your sources" - yet in this article there is hardly any source given for any of the asssertions. I find the examples in the article very informative, but I'd sure like to see some sources. I'd be very interested, for example, to see evidence of a liberal denial of the foundation of democracy in Protestant Christianity. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 09:53, 13 February 2008 (EST)

:: Wow, this entry really gets under the skin of [[liberal]]s, doesn't it? Citations are easy to find for each point and will be filled in. Instead of complaining with talk, talk, talk, how about filling in some citations yourself?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:05, 13 February 2008 (EST)

:::OK - sorry - good point - will do! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 10:07, 13 February 2008 (EST)

== Not Fair! ==

Come on people, this is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a summary of an [[Ann Coulter]] book [[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

:Oh come on, we all know democracy had nothing to do with the Greeks or the Iroquois. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:24, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:Aside from that, the entire concept is a catch-22: Anyone who denies any of those things is automatically a liberal, and if they deny that, well, that's only further proof they're liberals. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:26, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:Barikada, how do the Greeks fit here?
[[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

::The first democractic system resembling current democracy was implemented by the Greeks, if evil public schooling hasn't lied to me. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:30, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Abortions and breast cancer ==

Is it ''plainly true'' that abortion increases the likelihood of breast cancer?

My understanding is that such a claim is not supported by the medical literature. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:02, 1 February 2008 (EST)

: Your understanding is from [[liberal denial]]s. Yes, it is "plainly true" and undeniable, just as no one denies that childbirth reduces the incidence of breast cancer. Don't be fooled by liberal denials - the truth shall set you free.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:17, 1 February 2008 (EST)

::See? Catch-22. Do you have a reputable medical source for this, Mr. Schlafly? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:19, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::I was thinking of this: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage for example (although I note that it is a few years old). It concludes that there is no increase in risk. It seems to me that if the National Cancer Institute says there is no increase in the risk then it is a bit of a stretch to say that it is ''plainly true'' that the risk increase exists. Surely you can't really call something plainly true when it goes against wht the experts are saying. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:29, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::So, should we remove the abortion/breast cancer comment from the article? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 20:20, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::: Folks, go somewhere else to engage in [[liberal denial]]s. Nobody honest denies that childbirth reduces the risk of breast cancer, and thus having an abortion must increase the relative risk of the mother for breast cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:24, 1 February 2008 (EST)

::::: "Nobody honest denies that childbirth reduces the risk of breast cancer, and thus having an abortion must increase the relative risk of the mother for breast cancer." This logic is plainly faulty. A woman has a certain percentage chance of having breast cancer. Having a child lowers that percentage. You are arguing that ''not'' having a child increases that risk. This is wrong. Not having a child leaves the risk unchanged. Its possible that having an abortion, in and of itself, increases the risk, but that is not what you've claimed, and is not, to my knowledge, supported by any evidence.

:::::"Nobody honest denies that childbirth reduces the risk of breast cancer, and thus having an abortion must increase the relative risk of the mother for breast cancer." --Aschlafly Andy, that's like saying that eating too much sodium is bad for you (Something no honest person disagrees with), so therefore, eating absolutely no sodium is good for you(Something which would prove fatal). [[User:Absentismens|Absentismens]] 21:53, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: You statement has no logic. Nothing in my statement had anything to do with quantity or frequency, and your analogy has no basis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::My statement has as much logic as your's. This is good, therefore, this is bad (Or vice-versa). [[User:Absentismens|Absentismens]] 22:08, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Your analogy is nonsensical, and I'm not going to allow [[last wordism]] for such nonsense. No one sincerely and knowingly denies that childbirth reduces the risk of breast cancer, and of course the inverse is also true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:12, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::Last wordism? Really? That's the best you can do? [[User:Absentismens|Absentismens]] 22:14, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::You refuse to allow last wordism? Doesn't that mean that you're demanding the last word? And isn't that a trait of liberals, according to you? Doesn't that make you a closet liberal, Andy? Don't you see how the accusation of last wordism is in and of itself last wordism? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 11:01, 3 February 2008 (EST)

If childbirth decreases the risk of [[breast cancer]], than conversely [[abstinence]] increases the risk of breast cancer. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:46, 2 February 2008 (EST)

: Curses! That's exactly what I was going to say. Aschlafly's argument is utterly misguided. The woman concerned has the same cancer risk as if she was never pregnant. Is that an increased risk??? Do we now go and edit the [[abstinence]] page to say that abstinence increases the risk of cancer? [[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 17:20, 2 February 2008 (EST)

:: Nice try folks, but you just continue to prove the point about [[liberal denial]]. Abortion does plainly increase the risk of breast cancer. The more abortions now, the more cases of breast cancer in the future. Continue to deny it and thereby continue to demonstrate liberal denial. As to abstinence, for the unmarried it is the best way to avoid cervical and breast cancer and far better than cancer-causing birth control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 2 February 2008 (EST)

:::I'm sorry Andy. That was rude of me, and I apologize. But I am genuinely confused at this point. How is abstinence the "best way to avoid cervival and breast cancer"??? With respect to [[breast cancer]] risk, what is the difference between [[abortion|aborting]] several babies or simply remaining [[abstinence|abstinent]] throughout the same time period? Actually I do think that there is a reason here and I've missed it, at least it certainly seems like that. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:25, 3 February 2008 (EST)

:::: Feebasfactor, thanks for your apology. The decision that a pregnant mother faces is whether to allow childbirth or have an abortion. Abstinence is irrelevant to that decision. Having the abortion increases her risk of breast cancer. There's no denying it, much as [[liberal]]s try. Study our [[abortion]] entry if you really want further explanation. There's no need for me to repeat that entry here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:54, 3 February 2008 (EST)

::::: I have been watching this discussion with increasing dismay. Perhaps it would be easier, Andy, if I put it in story form for you.

::::: Let’s contemplate a story of two young women. We shall call one Mary and the other Jezebel. Now Mary has evil atheist parents and has been brought up in the absence of the Ten Commandments and without clear moral guidelines. Jezebel, on the other hand, is the daughter of committed Christians and knows right from wrong. In particular she practices abstinence and, accordingly is saving herself for her future husband. Mary, however, is wanton and, with no moral guidance, becomes pregnant to her slacker boyfriend Cory. Upon learning the news Cory immediately decamps for Canada. Due to her total lack of knowledge of God’s wishes, Mary has an abortion.

::::: Which of the two young women has a greater risk of getting breast cancer?

::::: P.S. Could you please unlock the Conservative Denial page. I’ve just had an idea about what to put in it. .--[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 16:53, 3 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: Not able to respond? Doesn't surprise me. The answer is neither.

:::::: Which leads me to an observation. See in the article how you accuse liberals of concealing, denying or censoring the way in which their ideology is pushed on unsuspecting others, particularly youngsters?

:::::: In light of this discussion I guess that's what you might call ironic, isn't it? --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 00:04, 8 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: Your hypothetical has no bearing with respect to a woman choosing between having an abortion or carrying the pregnancy to birth. Factually, by the way, the woman who has the abortion has greater risk of breast cancer. As to "conservative denial," just suggest it here. No need for a special page for just one not-yet-made suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:10, 8 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: On the contrary, my hypothetical was exactly on point. All you have been saying is, in effect, that child birth protects you against breast cancer. It was pointed out to you that the logical result of that was that abstinence causes breast cancer in the same way that abortion causes breast cancer (i.e. both prevent one from having a child). You seem determined to just ignore the logic. Fine. No doubt those reading this page will have no difficulty seeing that for what it is.

:::::::: You now appear to be making a new claim to the effect that the woman having the abortion has a higher risk than the abstinent woman.

:::::::: Do you have a '''reputable''' medical citation for that claim? --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 18:17, 10 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::: Caroline, the woman who chooses abortion over childbirth thereby increases her risk of breast cancer. She should be told that before taking that risk. Yes, our entry on [[abortion]] has many citations for this. It is not even seriously disputed, except to advance the pro-abortion agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 10 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: OK then. Let's recap.

:::::::::: 1. You agree (although you seem utterly incapable of actually typing it) that in my example both Mary and Jezebel have the same breast cancer risk at the conclusion of the story.

:::::::::: 2. Any increased risk that you are claiming is related to whether or not a woman has a child rather than whether or not a woman has an abortion. A woman could, for example, have an abortion at the age of 20 and a child at the age of 21 and enjoy the very same risk level that she would have had if she had never had the abortion.

:::::::::: 3. Presumably you are of the view that any woman who is contemplating a life of abstinence should be warned of the breast cancer risk associated with that lifestyle.

:::::::::: I'm glad we seem to have sorted all of that out. --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 20:29, 10 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::::: The only thing you've "sorted" out is your clinging to [[liberal denial]]. [[Abortion]] increases the risk of breast cancer for more than one reason, and abstinence is irrelevant to that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:03, 13 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::: This is the second time recently that you have resorted to an ad hominem attack. I usually take it as a sign that my interlocutor has a weak argument. That certainly appears to be the case here.

:::::::::::: You have stated that, in your view, "abortion increases the risk of breast cancer ''for more than one reason''". Our discussion to date was largely premised on your somewhat bizzare interpretation of a connection between childbirth and breast cancer. You now seem to be changing that by referring to "more than one reason". What does that mean? Could you please identify those reasons. And, I ask again, do you have a '''reputable''' medical citation for your claims. I posted the URL of the National Cancer Institute on the subject. That page states, in part:

::::::::::::: ''"In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer".''

:::::::::::: Do you have some higher or better authority? --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 17:07, 13 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::: Wow, 100 [[liberals]] denied how abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Yes, there is better authority, like the vast majority of scientific studies on the topic. Read [[abortion]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 13 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::: I'm sure Caroline thanks you for that detailed response. Unfortunately she has been blocked for 5 years as a troll.

:::::::::::::: I must say, however, I am curious to know how you determined that "...over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk" actually meant "100 liberals".

:::::::::::::: Is that what they call ex post facto reasoning? Or do you know the politics of each individual involved? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 19:02, 13 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::::: Read [[abortion]] and its explanation of the breast cancer link. If you still deny the link, then take your denials elsewhere. We recognize that you have free will and that liberals will deny certain truths regardless of the evidence. We're not going to allow [[last wordism]] for chanting a [[liberal denial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 13 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::::: Thanks, that's what I thought. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 19:47, 13 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::::: It is a good article and it cites a [http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf solid study] in its references. However, there is something I've noticed about many controversial issues: for every study strongly asserting one thing, there'll be another asserting just the [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15051280 opposite]. Perhaps one is a legitimate study and the other is merely [[junk science]] [[propaganda]] - but if I assume as much, what am I to base that conclusion on? Other studies of the same nature? My personal [[ideology]]? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:58, 13 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::: Feebasfactor, you seem to be saying there is no such thing as truth. Well, there is truth and studies and logic can find it. In the case of abortion increasing breast cancer, both studies and logic support it. Only [[liberal denial]] stands in the way of everyone recognizing the truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:49, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::Hmm, I'm sorry, that's not quite what I wanted to say. I agree there's truth, I suppose I just think it's hard to find sometimes, like when some studies actually point the other way. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:10, 14 February 2008 (EST)

<---undent
It really is a question on the nature of scientific knowledge. Given that humans are imperfect, we must interpret our environment imperfectly. The tools of science, mathematics, and statistics help us describe that reality, and religion helps us give it meaning and purpose. What happens when our scientific knowledge collides with our moral understanding of the world? Do we change our morals? Of course not. Do we change scientific fact? No, certainly not. The only choice is to take those facts, and use our morals to understand them better. Let's say, for argument's sake, that the critic above is right, and that breast cancer and abortion are unrelated (hypothetically!) That doesn't make abortion morally right. It doesn't affect the morality of abortion in the least. Abortion is wrong either way. It seems silly to hang onto an idea in order to support a moral reality---we already know what is moral, we don't need to twist science to support it. Science has a different role. [[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 23:24, 13 February 2008 (EST)

: Nice try in expressing [[liberal denial]] in an attractive way. It's still [[liberal denial]]. Would you also deny that 2+2=4? The increase in breast cancer caused by abortion is no less logical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:36, 13 February 2008 (EST)
:: Doesn't 2+2=10? [[User:Eris|Eris]] 18:18, 14 February 2008 (EST)
::Sir, I never denied your assertion about breast cancer and abortion. I was making a more general point about the nature of knowledge and morality, and the fact that knowledge changes, while morality is timeless/permanent and cannot be altered by scientific fact, one way or the other. I must say, your ad hominem attack was quite unjustified.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 23:41, 13 February 2008 (EST)
::: Your general point is quite correct. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:54, 14 February 2008 (EST)

::: I reread your posting, RobertK, and it does implicitly deny that abortion causes breast cancer. I don't know why you deny that now. The clear theme of your posting is that abortion does not cause breast cancer, but can be immoral anyway. Abortion does increase the risk of breast cancer regardless of its immorality, and let's not pretend otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:03, 14 February 2008 (EST)
::::With all respect, Mr S, I think you misread my posting. PJR apparently read ''all'' the words. I set up a ''hypothetical'' situation in which the two things, abortion and breast cancer, are not linked. Hypothetical means, basically, let's pretend. I used a hypothetical to show that it can be dangerous to look for moral teachings in science, since morality is a permanent, unchanging quality of the Divine, whereas science is the imperfect human approach to understanding the natural world. To base moral decisions on science is a fool's errand. Abortion is either moral or immoral, and whether or not it is related to breast cancer is a matter of science, not of morality. If this issue is too complex as stated, I can try to make it simpler for you, but it is important...it goes to the heart of how to approach moral decision making.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 22:14, 14 February 2008 (EST)
:::::I think it was just a misunderstanding... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:27, 14 February 2008 (EST)
::::: A few comments: First, rereading your (RobertK's) post, whilst I am not changing my comment that your general point is quite correct, the second-last sentence ("It seems silly ...") does appear as though it was written from the perspective that the scientific argument in this case is wrong. Personally, and because this is not explicit and not clear and may not be so, I don't believe that it's grounds for criticism, but perhaps that's what Andy was referring to. Regarding your latest post, whilst I don't ''really'' disagree with anything you said, I would qualify/clarify it by saying that if something is immoral, it will have consequences, so one should expect to be able to find those consequences, and science might be very useful for this. There is therefore nothing wrong with citing scientific evidence, even though, as you say, the scientific evidence should not be the ''basis'' of the moral argument. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:35, 15 February 2008 (EST)

===Sources in the Abortion Article===

The sources got brought up earlier in this discussion, so I thought I'd quickly skim through them

* [http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf JPands] states that giving birth decreases the risk of breast cancer, not that an abortion will actually increase it relative to having not gotten pregnant
* [http://www.bcpinstitute.org/brochure.htm The BCP Institute] states that abortion will increase the risk of breast cancer relative to carrying out the pregnancy, however does not state that abortion will increase the risk relative to having not gotten pregnant
* [http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/032801.htm The Abortion Breast Cancer page] states that women who give birth will have a lower risk of breast cancer than those who abort, however does not state that abortion increases the risk relative to having not gotten pregnant.

My understanding from the reading of these is that although a person who got pregnant and had an abortion will be at a heightened risk of cancer compared to if they had gone ahead with the childbirth, a person who got pregnant and had an abortion will '''not''' be at any increased risk relative to a person who did not get pregnant in the first place. Therefore it is more correct to say that abortion fails to provide the decrease in risk that childbirth offers, rather than saying that it actually increase the risk of abortion.

Having said that, I haven't had time to review the sources not available on the internet, or properly read through all of the ones provided. That said, if they follow the general theme which permeates both the neutral and conservative views then the answer to CarolineMilton's original anecdote is that the person who got pregnant and had an abortion will be at the same risk of breast cancer as the abstinent virgin who never got pregnant in the first place.

Feel free to refute me if my reading was in error. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 05:50, 14 February 2008 (EST)

: Your summary of a sample of the articles is a distortion. Abortion does increase a pregnant woman's risk of breast cancer and she should be told that. The increase in risk is not merely due to a lack of childbirth, but even if it were, that is still an increase in risk and the woman should still be told that. Agreed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:39, 14 February 2008 (EST)

::I will neither agree nor disagree at this time, because I have not had sufficient time to properly read through the sources. Perhaps you could assist me by providing the specific section of a source which states that abortion increases the risk independently of child birth.

::That said I do believe that a medical patient should be given all available information, it forms the basis of consent in medicine. That said, the information needs to be delivered properly, if my original summary was correct then it would be wrong to say that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, rather it fails to provide the decrease in risk that childbirth brings. I'll have a closer look through the sources when I get home, expect an answer then, although if you point to the specific section which states that abortion increases the risk without considering childbirth that would be a great help. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 17:01, 14 February 2008 (EST)

::: TheGuy, you're still fighting the truth. A pregnant woman considering [[abortion]] makes a choice: increase her risk of breast cancer by having the abortion, or not. The doctor should tell her that the procedure increases her risk of having breast cancer. Agreed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::: TheGuy, here are a few sources asserting links between abortion and breast cancer independant of the cancer-risk reducing effect of childbirth.[http://www.jpands.org/vol10no4/brind.pdf] [http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf] There are others quoted in the [[abortion]] arcticle. Read them through and consider. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:20, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::::I apologise, I don't have time at the moment to conduct extensive research on the topics. Although I will concede that the articles do mention that abortion can increase risk independent of childbirth, the overwhelming number of studies seem to show that abortion fails to provide the decrease in risk that childbirth offers, rather than being an independent risk factor, a view echoed in both the sources provided. Again, I cannot properly comment until I have adequately reviewed the studies.

:::::Andy, I have already stated that I believe that medical patients should be informed of all the risks surrounding their electives. However, care must be taken in order to ensure that this information is accurate. If it is shown that the risk of breast cancer is increased independent of childbirth then by all means the woman should be informed that abortion will elevate her chances of getting breast cancer. However, if a majority of studies show that abortion only increases risk relative to a person who carries out the childbirth then the woman should be informed that abortion fails to provide the decrease in risk that giving birth provides, a correct statement which does not unduly incite fear or distort the facts. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 18:45, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: TheGuy, you would have made a good apologist for the tobacco industry. It denied increasing the risk of lung cancer for decades. Abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Your attempt at obfuscation by restating that as "abortion fails to provide the decrease in risk that giving birth provides" is as confusing as it is nonsensical. "Fails to provide the decrease" is a compound negative, and an example of [[liberal obfuscation]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 15 February 2008 (EST)

No I would not make a good apologist for the tobacco industry, because smoking does increase the risk of lung cancer independently of any other factors. The issue at hand is whether abortion increases the risk of breast cancer independently to the decease in risk offered by birth.

Assuming that my position is correct, then it would be wrongful to state that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Consider the following scenario:

''Person A gets pregnant and has an abortion''

''Person B does not get pregnant''

My understanding is that both of these would have the same risk of getting breast cancer, therefore it would be wrong to state that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Instead, if we add a third person:

''Person A gets pregnant and has an abortion''

''Person B does not get pregnant''

''Person C gets pregnant and gives birth''

In this case, person C would be at a lower risk of breast cancer to person A or B, therefore it is not that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, instead it fails to provide the decrease in risk that childbirth brings.

If we do insist on stating that abortion leads to an increase in the risk of breast cancer then we might as well say abstinance does the same thing, as it prevents a person getting pregnant, which in turn prevents them from giving birth which in turn prevents them from getting a decrease in risk of breast cancer.

And yes I am aware of the studies that abortion independently leads to breast cancer, however I have not had time to research them properly, and do not like commenting on things I know nothing about. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 19:42, 15 February 2008 (EST)

::Nice effort, but there's not much point in trying to educate those who either are incapable or unwilling to understand statistics. --[[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:46, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:::Exactly what is the purpose of this Wiki? It seems that one conservative here has been out-argued by many, many more conservatives; therefore, if the purpose of this Wiki is to broadcast the generally conservative viewpoint, then the page should be duly edited. Otherwise, we might have to accuse the wiki manager of fascism, which is a liberal philosophy.

::::The purpose of this wiki is to learn and explain. That requires an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open mind]]. Give it a try, and your only regret will be that you didn't open your mind sooner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:11, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

==Suggestion for Item 11==
That denying any above is intrinsic proof of this list's accuracy, unquestionability, and the need not to offer proof for anything. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 09:52, 4 February 2008 (EST)

==#9 Reversion?==
So, I'm wondering why my [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_denial&diff=385690&oldid=385544 change] to #9 was reverted. Seems to me that liberals don't deny that the media is biased, they just deny that it is biased in ''their'' favor. I don't have a huge problem with the difference, I'm just wondering as to the rationale.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:16, 9 February 2008 (EST)

: It's a close call, but I agree with the reversion though I didn't do it. Liberals generally do deny media bias, period. They only make arguments of conservative bias in response to observations of liberal bias.

: Moreover, "liberal media bias" is a bit redundant, as virtually all of the media has a liberal bias, It's intrinsic to that profession, with the media's reliance on deception (to exaggerate and sell the news), constant travel (which is the antithesis of family life), dependence on obscenity and allusions to obscenity, its political correctness, and its obsession with racial imagery.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 9 February 2008 (EST)
::Fair enough...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:27, 10 February 2008 (EST)

== 'Hollywood Values' ==

The part about Wikipedia 'not having an entry on Hollywood Values', should really be removed, for the very simple reason that this phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. As such, I would not be too surprised if the reason Wikipedia doesn't have an entry is simply because it is far too difficult to accurately define.
Oh, and, yes, I will also make this point on the talk page of the 'Hollywood Values' article. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:44, 13 February 2008 (EST)

: Wikipedia has entries about terms have more than one meaning all the time. In fact, that simply argues ''in favor of'' having an entry. But put up an entry on "Hollywood Values" on Wikipedia and watch how quickly a liberal insists that it be deleted (censored).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 13 February 2008 (EST)
::That is true, WP wouldn't have a page called '''Hollywood Values''' because in posting one it would be (quickly) recognized as "original research", something the WP guidelines consider ''verbotten.'' [[User:JoeManga|JoeManga]] 16:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)
:: Wikipedia has terms with more than one meaning, yes, but those have a relatively small number of known meanings. 'Hollywood Values', conversely, has been used to mean a very large number of things already, and seems to be changed to mean just about anything depending on who uses it and in what context. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 19:24, 13 February 2008 (EST)

On a related note - should this article perhaps contain a section on the [[Hollywood Blacklist]]? Or can that not really be considered a part of Hollywood Values...? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:16, 13 February 2008 (EST)

: Liberals denying there were communists in high-level government positions? Yes, that is old news but perhaps worth adding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:25, 13 February 2008 (EST)

::(Sorry if that seemed like a bit of a non-sequitur, I actually posted that in the wrong article talk page) [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:58, 23 February 2008 (EST)

== Fall of communism in Europe ==
Shouldn't some credit also be given to [[Margaret Thatcher]]? Our article on her partially addresses this, but it is because of her that free market capitalism's successes were demonstrated to Europe. While Reagan may have helped end communism in Europe, Thatcher definitely made the alternative more appealing. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 16:22, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== I thought this was supposed to be an encyclopaedia... ==
But this page reads more like a tabloid article than anything. "Top ten instances of liberal denial"? According to who, exactly? It's no wonder that this website is so widely regarded as a joke when you have pages like this one dedicated to ignorant generalisations about so called 'liberals'. Maybe if you dedicated more time toward writing articles on things like history, and less time making bigoted assumptions about everyone, people would start taking this website seriously. Unlikely, though.
--[[User:Gladstone|Gladstone]]

:You thought way wrong, as you have obviously discovered. Here you shall learn that denial is the hallmark of every liberal. In fact, liberals often shockingly deny that they are liberals! However, they are easily detected by their frequent use of mockery and sighs. Speaking of which, I suspect you are a liberal. I would ask you to explain your positions on a number of issues, including gun control, censorship of school prayer, abortion, and intelligent design, but I am already 95% certain of those positions. Gladstone, indeed. [[User:AodhMor|AodhMor]] 12:37, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

== Justifying statement 3 ==

On line 3, it states that "the intellectual justification for Hitler's attempt to build a master Aryan race was the theory of evolution". I see no proof in this. Can someone please provide a source for such information?

: Did you look yourself? It took me less than one minute to find a source: [http://www.christiantreasury.com/Apologetics/Apologetic_Atheism.htm] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

Your source, Aschlafly, clearly has an agenda. Can you find a neutral source?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:11, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
: So the strength of their argument doesn't count, only your opinion that they have an agenda? I don't know what makes you think that they have an agenda, but I reckon by the same logic that ''you'' have an agenda in asking, so should we dismiss your question just as readily? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:06, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

: Excellent point, Philip. AdenJ, ''everyone'' has an "agenda" and it is absurd to pretend otherwise. You're not fooling anyone, AdenJ, to the extent you may pretend not to have an agenda. This site exists in part because we reject the falsehoods of other sites (such as Wikipedia) that pretend to be neutral when, of course, they really aren't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:35, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

And I was so sure I had fooled you! Darn it!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 10:25, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

On the second list, item number 3: What belief? Just curious. And how is murder the logical conclusion of atheism? As far as I know, the atheist population has a lower crime rate and much lower murder rate than the rest of the population, in the US at least.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 18:14, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Evolution and Hitler ==

This article says Liberals deny that "the intellectual justification for Hitler's attempt to build a master Aryan race was the theory of evolution." That's actually inaccurate. Hitler applied the concept of "survival of the fittest," as proposed in ''The Descent of Man''. Survival of the fittest and evolution are different concepts. "Evolution" refers to the cumulative changes in a species over time. "Survival of the fittest" is a popular term that refers to the process of natural selection. More details here: [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html]
:More evidence on that note: [http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2009/02/beyond-darwin-eugenics-social-darwinism-and-the-social-theory-of-the-natural-selection-of-humans/ Kara Rogers's article], [http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/SocDarw.htm a few paragraphs from the College of DuPage] Cheers, —[[User talk:Trustworthiness|Trustworthiness]]

==Nobel Prize to just "Liberals" ==

At the top of the list, as number one, there is the statement: "liberals deny the Nobel Prize is an award given by liberals to other liberals, sometimes granted in an awkward manner designed to punish a critic of liberal falsehoods " Didn't Mother Teresa win the Nobel Peace prize in 1979? Lech Walesa won it in 1983? You consider them "liberals"? --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 10:21, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

== Bible ==
would it be ok to add ,"Liberals deny that the Biblical canon was fully revealed and complete a century after the Lord's death" as opposed to the general lie that the Bible is a mish mash of competing gnostic and late Roman pegan-theist beleifs..? - Glenn.

:I find this suggestion -- your only edit -- to be unusual. Matthew and John were probably writing parts of their Gospels before the Resurrection. And, by there was the Resurrection, not "the Lord's death" and nothing more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 2 January 2010 (EST)

: I'm sorry Mr.Schlafly, I think you mistook me, I meant , that it seems to me that liberals deny that the Bible was written soon after the life of Christ on earth. Liberals tend towards that Davinci code trollop about gnostic mystics and secret revisions. The foundation of any conservative is a strong belief in our scripture, wouldn't you agree?. - Glenn

== Global Cooling ==

Denial #5 appears to violate the 2nd Conservapedia commandment.
:And that statement violates the 5th commandment, giving a liberal opinion instead of actually questioning whether it is the liberal science institution spreading fear and lies. [[User:RichardKerry|RichardKerry]] 17:14, 19 April 2010 (EDT)

The Times of London

2010-04-19T17:30:15Z

RichardKerry: Undo revision 770614 by ColinK (Talk)British government is often liberal

Penny

2010-04-19T17:26:32Z

RichardKerry: /* United States */ update, presumably this has been done by now

A '''penny''' is a type of small [[coin]], and is usually the smallest denomination of a currency. [[Image:Penny.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Penny]]

==United States==
The penny is a coin worth one [[cent]]. It was made primarily of [[copper]] until 1982, and is now made primarily of [[zinc]]. In 1943, pennies were made of [[steel]], since copper was needed for [[World War II|the war]]. The US penny, as of 1960, features [[Abraham Lincoln]] on the obverse side, and the [[Lincoln Memorial]] on the reverse. From 1909 to 1959, the penny featured two stalks of wheat, thus it being dubbed a 'wheat penny'. The penny is copper-colored, and is one of the few coins that is not silver-colored. It is also smooth along the circumference of the coin, lacking the ridges that many other coins have.

To celebrate the bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln's birth in 2009, the U.S. Mint released four new pennies depicting the life of the nation's sixteenth president. The pennies "show Lincoln's Kentucky birthplace, his Indiana education, his career as an Illinois statesman and his work in Washington, D.C." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,425928,00.html U.S. Mint Releases New Penny Designs], Sara Bonisteel, ''Fox News'', September 22, 2008</ref>

==Great Britain==
The penny was originally made of silver, subsequently [[copper]] and later [[bronze]], but since 1992 made of copper-plated [[steel]]. The plural is [[pence]] when referring to an amount of money, or pennies when referring to the coins. Pre-[[decimalisation]] there were 12 pence (written as 12d) to the shilling (written as 1s) and 20s to the pound, giving 240 pence to the [[pound]]. Post-decimalisation this was changed to 100 [[new pence]] in the pound, making one new penny equal to two-and-a-half old pence, five new pence equal to the shilling and ten new pence equal to two shillings. Indeed, even in the eighties it was still possible to find five pence coins marked as being worth one shilling, and ten pence coins marked as being worth two shillings.

The penny was not the smallest unit of currency. Until 1960, this title was held by the farthing (one quarter of a penny). After 1960, the smallest unit was the halfpenny (known as the ha'penny, pronounced ''haip-nee''). After decimalisation, a half-penny coin was circulated until 1984.

== Australia ==
Before Australia adopted decimal currency in 1966, the penny was the second-smallest denomination (the smallest being the halfpenny).
When the [[cent]] replaced the penny in 1966, it was worth a bit more (ten cents were worth twelve pennies), and the term "penny" fell out of use.

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

<gallery>
Image:New penny.jpg|U.S. Mint A penny design showing the Kentucky cabin where Abraham Lincoln was born and spent his early childhood. It is one of four new penny designs that honor the bicentennial of the president's birth.
Image:New penny1.jpg|U.S. Mint A penny design showing a young Abraham Lincoln educating himself while working as a rail splitter in Indiana. It is one of four new penny designs that honor the bicentennial of the president's birth.
Image:New penny2.jpg|U.S. Mint A penny design showing the young professional Abraham Lincoln in front of the Illinois Capitol. It is one of four new penny designs that honor the bicentennial of the president's birth.
Image:New penny3.jpg|U.S. Mint A penny design showing the half-finished United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. It is one of four new penny designs that honor the bicentennial of President Abraham Lincoln's birth.
</gallery>

[[Category:Coins]]

David Cameron

2010-04-19T17:09:29Z

RichardKerry: /* Personal */ typo

[[Image:674uyyhju.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''David Cameron''', born 9 October 1966, is the current leader of the British [[Conservative Party]]. According to the opinion polls, he is likely to be the next British [[Prime Minister]] after the next general election, which will be held on May 6th, 2010.

==Personal==

Cameron was born in [[London]], but spent his early years near Wantage in [[Oxfordshire]], [[England]], though his family's roots lie in [[Inverness]], [[Scotland]], and "Cameron" is well known in Britain as a Scottish name.

Cameron was educated at [[Eton College | Eton]], Britain's most prestigious public school (a "public school" in the UK referring to a privately run institution, as opposed to a "state school"), and at [[Brasenose College]], [[Oxford University|Oxford]], Britain's most ancient and prestigious university.

Cameron is self-described as "upper middle class", though his bloodline is noble, and he is a direct descendent of William IV, and thus a distant cousin of HRH Queen Elizabeth II. His family has historically been involved in finance and banking, with his great great grandfather being head of HSBC in the late 19th century, and worked alongside the Rothchilds to finance the Russo-Japanese war. His leadership and indeed his own party are supported by businesses, as opposed to the liberal, socialist aligned Labour Party, led by the fellow Scotsman [[Gordon Brown]]; who are funded and largely controlled by the [[trade union]]s. Many intervening leaders have been middle-class ([[Edward Heath]], [[Margaret Thatcher]]) or even working-class ([[John Major]]).
His reluctance to discuss his past, citing the right to a private life before politics<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4340328.stm</ref> has led to class-based attacks on his education and ancestry from a small proportion of media sources and opposition MPs.

He has been married to Samantha since 1996, who is of direct noble bloodline, the daughter of 8th Baronet Sheffield, and descendent of Charles II. They have two sons and a daughter. Their eldest son, Ivan Cameron, died on February 25, 2009.<ref>[[BBC News]] - [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7909562.stm Cameron's 'beautiful boy' dies]</ref>

==Political career==

Cameron's pre-parliamentary career included spells as a staffer for controversial Conservative politician [[Norman Lamont]] and as a PR executive.

Cameron was elected to Parliament as MP for Witney in Oxfordshire at the 2001 general election.

Cameron was elected leader of the [[Conservative Party]] in December 2005, succeeding [[Michael Howard]].

In late June 2007, at the end of then-Prime Minister [[Tony Blair]]'s final Prime Minister's Questions session in the [[House of Commons]], David Cameron led his opposition party in giving the outgoing leader a standing ovation.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1555758/Tony-Blair-steps-down-to-a-standing-ovation.html Tony Blair steps down to standing ovation] - Daily Telegraph, June 27, 2007</ref>

==Policies==

Cameron has attempted to move the Conservative party towards what is perceived by some to be the centre ground of British politics. While the party under his leadership has expressed support for some traditional elements of Conservative policy, such as the importance of the [[family]], Cameron has also expressed a passionate concern about [[global warming]]. He has suggested a move towards [[privatization]] within the strongly-socialist [[National Health Service]], in an attempt to combat the economic failures resulting from the flawed socialist ideas upon which the organisation is based. Designed and originated by the leftist [[Labour Party]], the organisation is notorious for its bureaucracy and the failure of its left-wing values in an economic sense.

Some traditional Conservatives, particularly those on the [[Thatcherism|Thatcherite]] wing of the party, have criticized Cameron for moving the party too far to the left. They point to surveys showing that many voters feel they no longer know what the Conservative Party stands for.<ref>http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/TEL060101018_1.pdf</ref> However, he has stated that he is "certainly a big [[Margaret Thatcher|Thatcher]] fan, but I don't know whether that makes me a Thatcherite."<ref name="new identity">[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4446864.stm "Cameron: Tories need new identity"], ''BBC News Online'', 17 November 2005, accessed 6 November 2006</ref> He has also described himself as a "liberal Conservative" (though "liberal" in British English does not have the same meaning as in the United States, and instead has the meaning of "centrist" or "moderate").<ref name="Rawnsley">Andrew Rawnsley, [http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,1669957,00.html "'I'm not a deeply ideological person. I'm a practical one'"], ''Guardian Unlimited'', 18 December 2005, accessed 6 November 2006</ref> Some have gone so far as to claim that true conservatism is today represented in Britain not by the Conservative Party but by the [[UK Independence Party]]. On the other hand, the approval ratings of Cameron and his party continue to compare very favourably with those of the Labour Party and its leadership, which is undoubtedly unpopular.

Cameron has said: "My aim is to promote social justice, making sure that everyone has access to good schools, good healthcare and decent housing, take a lead in ending global poverty and do all we can to meet the great environmental threats of our age."<ref>http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=david.cameron.about.page</ref> Some conservative politicians and commentators, notably [[Norman Tebbit]], have criticised him for prioritising issues of the environment and social justice over more traditionally Conservative policy areas, such as tax, immigration and foreign relations. Tebbit said: "Is he the party's [[Chairman Mao]] or [[Pol Pot]], intent on purging even the memory and name of [[Margaret Thatcher|Thatcherism]] before building a new modern compassionate green globally aware party somewhere on the left side of the middle?"<ref name="g1">[http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,,1698576,00.html Tories must retake centre ground says Cameron], ''Guardian Unlimited'', 31 January 2006</ref> However, Cameron has responded extensively to such criticisms by pointing out that the economic and social problems faced by modern-day Britain are radically different from those faced in the past; he has argued that the Conservative Party needs to re-take the [[centrist|centre ground]] of politics from the [[Labour Party]].<ref name="bbc1">[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4661024.stm Cameron denies 'betraying' Tories], BBC News, 30 January 2006</ref> He argued: "The change is not a betrayal. It is a recognition that the challenges faced by Britain are not the challenges of the 1970s. Social justice and economic efficiency are the common ground of British politics. We have to find the means of succeeding where the government has failed."<ref name="g1"/>

On August 16, 2008, Cameron followed President [[George Bush]] in criticising [[Russia]]'s invasion of [[Georgia]] during a visit to the war-torn region.<ref>[http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jl825geip9c65_-FTHTC_3wzMy0Q Cameron in Georgia slams 'invading' Russia]</ref>

==References==

<References/>

==See also==

* [[British politics]]
* [[Conservative Party]]

==External Links==
[http://www.mydavidcameron.com/ Cameron Election Campaign 2010]

{{DEFAULTSORT: Cameron, David}}

[[category:British Politics]]

Homosexuality and life expectancy

2010-04-18T11:19:07Z

RichardKerry: create page, needs work- seems even liberals can't deny this one!

There have been multiple studies that have equated a homosexual lifestyle with a shorter life expectancy. This is undoubtedly due to the health risks associated, such as AIDS, Hepatitis, and a variety of other infections and STDs. In addition, homosexuals are more likely to be smokers, which takes the lifespan even lower.
A 2005 study from ''pro-gay researchers'' who were trying defend homosexuals, in fact found that the life expectancy for homosexual men was 8 to 20 years lower than heterosexuals. <ref> http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/jun/05060606.html </ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}

Liberal

2010-04-17T20:31:02Z

RichardKerry: Undo revision 770107 by Cheerleader (Talk)

[[Image:Liberal Brain.jpg|thumb|450px|top|<center>A satirical conception of the liberal brain.</center>]]

A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.<ref>As one liberal website candidly observes, "Obama is a shallow narcissist, not a believer in any cause higher than himself. Every American president has had a healthy ego, but none has ever been as purely motivated by vanity as the childishly self-loving [[Barack Obama]]."[http://www.opednews.com/articles/Barack-Obama-s-ego-driven-by-Christopher-Calder-091210-804.html]</ref> Liberalism began as a movement for individual liberties, but today is increasingly [[statist]], and like in Europe. [[socialist]]ic.

A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices:

* Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized [[abortion]]
* [[Censorship]] of teacher-lead [[prayer]] in classrooms and school sponsored events
* Support for [[gun control]]
* Support of obscenity and pornography as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* [[Income redistribution]], usually through progressive taxation
* Government-rationed medical care, such as [[Universal Health Care]]
* Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled [[public education]]
* The denial of inherent [[gender differences]]
* Insisting that men and women be placed in the same jobs in the [[military]]
* Legalized [[same-sex marriage]]
* Implementation of [[affirmative action]]
* [[Political correctness]]
* Support of [[labor union]]s
* Teaching acceptance of promiscuity through sexual "education" rather than teaching [[abstinence]] from sex.<ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* A "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended
* Government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* Abolition of the death penalty
* [[Environmentalism]]<ref>[[Greenpeace]], for example.</ref>
* [[Disarmament treaties]]
* [[Globalism]]
* Opposition of the [[Bible]].
* Opposition to an interventionalist American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF).</ref>
* Opposition to full private property rights<ref>For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref>
* Reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution]]. The theory of [[evolution]] is a key component of [[atheistic]] ideologies in the [[Western World]].
* Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the [[Patriot Act]]
* Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Barack Obama]]).
* Opposition of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]], a major part of the [[War on Terrorism]].
* "The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and political movements in history is a story not told often enough ...."<ref> [http://www.city-journal.org/2009/bc0605bt.html Dupes by Bruce S. Thornton], City Journal - 5 June 2009</ref>

==Liberals and Uncharitableness==
[[Image:228130875 35181424e3.jpg|thumb|right|175px|[[United States|American]] liberals give less to charity than American conservatives.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> In addition, [[per capita]] [[atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] in the United States [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2] ]]
''For more information please see'': [[Liberals and uncharitableness]]

In March of 2008, [[George Will]] wrote at [[RealClearPolitics]] concerning the [[United States]]:
{{cquote|Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at [[Syracuse University]], published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than [[conservative]]s....

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref>}}
[[Atheism|Atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] often reject [[Bible|biblical]] [[morality]] (and therefore [[conservative Christianity]] ) and hold to [[moral relativism]].<ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152</ref> Therefore, it is not surprising that [[per capita]] atheists and agnostics in [[United States|America]] [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2]

== Liberal politicians and uncharitableness ==
The political magazine the [[American Spectator]] featured an article which focused on [[liberal politicians and uncharitableness]] and the article exposed the hypocrisy of the liberal politicians it featured.<ref>http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c5_1238044128&c=1</ref>

In addition, [[Barack Obama]] has been criticized concerning [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|his charitable giving]].

==Liberals and Superstition==
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|thumb|right|150px|The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. <ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>]]
In September of 2008, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:
{{cquote|The reality is that the [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] campaign, by discouraging [[religion]], won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith -- it's what the empirical data tell us.

"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians....

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in [[pseudoscience]], cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>}}

== Liberalism in North America today ==
[[Democrats]] and many media outlets in the [[U.S.]] are often [[liberal]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp|title=Media Bias basics|publisher=Media Research Center}}</ref>
*Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of [[fascism]]. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://fora.tv/2008/01/30/Liberal_Traits_of_Fascism|title=Video discussion about how modern liberalism is actually fascist by author Jonah Goldberg.}}</ref>

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on [[compassion]], [[decency]], and [[social justice]] (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of [[civic virtue]] against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_disgrace_of_liberalism.html]

<blockquote>
''There's another goal, from my point of view, which is to try to lay the groundwork for a radical political force which would conceive of itself as distinctly to the left of moderate, reformist American liberals. And that has two aspects. One is to try to change that liberalism, to transform it by analysis, critique, and activism; the second is to build a radical movement which would be an autonomous force in its own right, which would be distinct from the traditional American liberal consensus. This radical part of the program involves not simply supporting the liberal students against conservative students and conservative professors, but trying to act on them, to push them to the left. It also involves trying to find and support, even trying to help create, networks of radical students in law school and of radical professors around the country — students and teachers who see themselves as wanting to go a lot further than most people want to go.'' <ref> [http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=liberal+teachers&fr=yfp-t-501&fp_ip=MX&u=duncankennedy.net/documents/Liberal%2520Values%2520in%2520Legal%2520Education.pdf&w=liberal+liberals+teachers+teacher&d=BNZFhPReRjC1&icp=1&.intl=us Liberal Values in Legal Education] Duncan Kennedy (professor at Harvard Law School)</ref>
</blockquote>

===Liberal Rankings of Congress Members===

The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of the United States [[Congress]] is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.

==Liberalism in Europe today==

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is a party of the European Parliament that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world,<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref> such as the Liberal Party of Australia.<ref>[http://www.liberal.org.au/]</ref>

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians for promoting lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them "liberals" or [[neoliberal|neoliberals]]. Thus, just as in the US, "liberal" may occasionally be used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called "liberal" in Europe, it has an entirely different meaning than in the US. In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy|social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>

==Historical Liberalism ==
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref>

==Original meaning: Classical Liberalism==
Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and tradition.

See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].

==Alternative meanings of 'liberal'==

One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>
* Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...

==Liberal Organizations ==
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]]
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]
*[[Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism]]
*[[Democratic National Committee]]
*[[Greenpeace]]
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]
*[[National Education Association]]
*[[National Organization of Women]]
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]
*[[Progressives for Obama]]
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]
*[[MoveOn.org]]
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.]]
*[[U.S. Peace Council]]
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]

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

==See Also==

* [[Conservapedia:Articles about liberals|Articles about liberals]]
* [[Classical liberal]]
* [[Drinking Liberally]]
* [[Godless liberal]]
* [[Last wordism]]
* [[Essay:Liberal celebrity obsession|Liberal celebrity obsession]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia|Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]
* [[Liberal Christianity]]
* [[Liberal Democrats]]
* [[Liberal Elite]]
* [[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|Liberal Falsehoods]]
* [[Liberal Fascism]]
* [[Liberal friendship]]
* [[Liberal Gloss]]
* [[Liberal grading]]
* [[Essay:Liberal hysteria|Liberal hysteria]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Intellectualism|Liberal Intellectualism]]
* [[Liberalism and art]]
* [[Liberal labels]]
* [[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right|Liberal Lies About the American Right]]
* [[Liberal logic]]
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|Liberal Mind]]
* [[Liberal Party]]
* [[Liberal supremacist]]
* [[Massachusetts liberal]]
* [[Progressives]]

==Further Information==

* [[Conservative Links]]

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Political Ideologies]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category: Liberals]]

Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?

2010-04-17T20:01:11Z

RichardKerry: /* No */

{{debate-project}}

==With Unique Style, Conservative Cooperation and Majority Religion Rule==

I believe that Conservapedia has an important task. I am also convinced that if Conservapedia can get past its Wikitrauma (I too left Wikipedia)and develop its own intelligent identity and be FOR something unique and positive it will succeed. Let me go into detail. I would like to share an important vision as to what Conservapedia could be, what niche it could fill in today's world.

Firstly, in many modern societies today people are being divided into at least two camps- those who have some kind of strong ethic (be it religiously oriented or simply the strong voice of an internal "parent") and those without a strong ethic and often without any notable self-discipline. Those who tend to strive toward the honourable, the good, the respectful and the decent or ethical need to be able to find information which helps them to do this. And they need to find other like-minded people to share ideas with. In essence, the particular religion (or lack thereof) is not a major issue here. That those who are conservative and who support conservative ideals tend to have a strong sense of order, decency and self-discipline is more than just a curiosity; it is the very force or common denominator which will ultimately unite a Conservapedia community.

Secondly, like any country, Conservapedia must adopt a policy for freedom of religion. I have often posited that our current system of freedom of religion collapses in like a house of cards on its own absurdity. Attempting to accommodate all religions in absurdum does not work. There is another model which may be more realistic and still allow everyone the right to basic freedom to believe and worship as they choose. There must be a host religion or primary religion and guest religions or secondary religions. Here in Conservapedia, the host religion is Christianity. It is, from what I can tell, the majority religion. That religion sets the tone and has the final say about the general identity of Conservapedia. Where there is a rare conflict of interest between my secondary religion and the primary religion, the interests of my religion (excluding my right to practise my own religion personally) give way to the interests of the primary religion.

This has implications for articles on various religions here in Conservapedia. I propose that when we write an article about a religion, that any controversies or criticisms be included in a separate article, always outside of the main descriptive article about the religion in question. In the case of the ongoing LDS articles (I write this because there was a request for a polygamy article in connection with the LDS articles), there would be an LDS portal with the regular article about the religion and its founder and notable persons. Then any controversy about the religion would be put into a separate article entitled "Criticisms of the LDS faith". If there is a controvery with Joseph Smith (for instance) then it would either be a separate article or located toward the end of the main article in a section called "Controversy". The point of departure should be: "If a member of that religion were to seek information about his or her own religion from Conservapedia, what would their experience be?". The person could choose from the articles in the portal and would be able to readily identify articles in which their religion is criticized from the vantage point of mainstream Christianity which also has a right on Conservapedia to criticize.

Thirdly, we should have something physically unique to offer readers. This would include, in my opinion, an easy to read style or format that is different from Wikipedia, whether it be simpler structure for articles, fonts and colours that are easier on the eye, logical structure of articles which is psychologically proven to enhance the reading experience and learning. By developing logical and intelligent rules and styles and by providing a reading experience that is more organized and simple than Wikipedia, I believe we could create an important advantage.

Fourthly, conservative cooperation is the only factor that will keep Conservapedia afloat. I can presently identify the following major client groups which (if we can get along) would push Conservapedia into the future: educated mainstream Christians, LDS (mormons), politically conservative Jews, secular classical conservatives. If we can make the "qualified freedom of religion" I write of above work, I think we will have a firm base to build upon in this conservative cooperation. And the more cooperation there is, the better the content and the wider use of that content among the various communities who trust Conservapedia.

Let me throw in another idea, before I stop. Conservapedia is about learning and it is about the wholesome and trustworthy. Libraries, including the Library of Congress and media such as the Christian networks and BYU TV would be easily attracted by special projects presented now and then by Conservapedia. One such project could be a Veterans' Biographical Memory portal of articles on Conservapedia. Another would be a Head Start in Ethical Learning portal of articles about child rearing and teaching ethics as early as possible. This information in simple form would surely be invaluable to many parents in today's society. Each of these projects would increase both the publicity and relevance of Conservapedia.

Most of us have left the Wikipedia community, because we do not share the values of many Wikipedians. We are a people of strong ethics, a people who strive torward the decent, the noble, the wholesome and respectable. That is a remarkable strength, in my opinion. Let's turn our glance aware from Wikipedia and toward a future where we have something to offer which is uniquely ours and badly needed in today's world. --ExFin 17:51, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia is extremely biased. As a graduate of Bible college and now taking online courses through a state institution, bias is seen moreso in liberal communities towards religion than the other way around. I think Conservapedia can indeed succeed. However, more articles in science and history are needed. If you want students to come to your site, you must provide them with the charts and information that they need where they will come to you instead of Wikipedia. I like the fact that scholars are welcome to this site. Buff up Conservapedia and they will come.

== Possibly ==

I'm new to Conservapedia. From my perspective, too much time is spent at present debating the "controversial" articles (Creationism, Abortion, etc) and too little time is spent making a great number of the more mundane articles authoritative. I've flicked through 20-30 articles (free time can be a good thing!) using the Random Page function and it saddened me that many of them are one or two lines long with no proper references or citations. What use is any encyclopedia if it goes out of its way to offer a particular perspective at the expense of containing good factual articles about, well, everything that might be useful to the home schooled or the intellectually curious?

I'd like to see something like this succeed - from an educational perspective it would be a credit to all involved. But, in my opinion, unless time and effort are spent on ALL articles, not just the emotive ones, it will never be functional in the way it deserves to be.

I've made a few scattergun edits so far (mythology and random trivia are my strong points) but there are a whole host of topics that should be informative that clearly no real time has been spent on.

I'll judge Conservapedia to be a success when I see people linking to articles as a source of facts about, well, anything and everything. Whilst people are only interested in certain controversial topics, it will only ever be a limited viewpoint, not an encyclopedia.

Let's face it, people should be able to look at this site as having well written articles on, oh, I don't know (thinks of random things), hamsters, walnut trees and the production of rubber byproducts, not just a select few articles relating to purely Conservative interests. Otherwise, it's not an encyclopedia, it's purely propaganda. Of which the internet already has plenty...--[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 19:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'll accept your well-phrased challenge. I've noticed the stub problem myself.
:As far as I know, the only forbidden subjects on Conservapedia are those that might primarily appeal to a prurient interest--about which, I trust nothing further need be said.
:I agree with [[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]]; however, having started as a Wikipedia reader, then editing Wikipedia as a minor hobby, then getting frustrated and coming here, unfortunately I find myself just adding stubby material myself. [[User:Npov2|Npov2]] 17:35, 13 January 2008 (EST)
:What sort of mythology are you strong in? Classical? Nordic? Chinese?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:00, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd say my main strengths are in Classical mythology in addition to the myths and folklore of the British Isles. That's what you get growing up in what is historically known as "the witches county" - some fascinating history there. And yes, I'd like to start filling out more of the "stub" articles as I come across them. The Random Page function is a real bonus. --[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 20:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Conservapedia's main challenge is reaching critical mass. Pick a topic at random, and in nearly all cases, ''CP will not have any information about it.'' That just sends people elsewhere. Wikipedia certainly had the same problem at first, but had the advantage of attracting academics of all kinds with a devotion to its mission: ''open-source information''. They didn't care about this religion or that political philosophy, they just believed in an idea that inherently bred content (most of it factual... let's be honest: a WP article about, say, [[fruit bat]]s will in fact tell you what they look like, where they live, etc). CP's (nonexisting) article... doesn't. If I were setting out to create something like Wikipedia, but with a conservative agenda to it, I'd start by taking advantage of what all those Wikipedians hath wrought. I'd copy the whole thing (as allowed by the GFDL), ''fork'' it, and get rid of all the things that are anathema to what CP is trying accomplish. Delete the sex info, excise the liberal perspective, add the ministry that WP won't allow, etc. and present the result as an example of what WP would be if a conservative POV could be enforced. Yes, that would require keeping CP licensed under the GFDL, which would make the information in it available to others to copy... but what would be the harm in that? Wouldn't you like to see Answers.com mirroring CP articles instead of WP articles? Some might argue that the content in WP could never be redeemed... but that's what a certain Adversary once said to the Creator, the Messiah, and the Redeemeer about mankind. - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] 23:48, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::I have questioned in the past, and still question, the emphasis on "concise". The debates over "liberal" and "conservative" really hit a very small area of what an encyclopedia should cover. I question the political slant pushed on those areas, but I readily acknowledge my own bias in that area. Even if I was a YECist, and a fundamentalist Christian, plus a die-hard conservative, I would not be using Conservapedia to find actual information, I would be using Wikipedia. I use WP in a sensible way, i.e. I realize its flaws and take its entries with a degree of wariness, but I use the same techniques with the Britannica or any other encyclopedia.

:::What WP provides, and CP currently does not, is in-depth coverage of a broad range of topics. In the past couple of years I have used WP to find out more about: differences between Rugby League and Rugby Union; rules of Australian Rules Football; how to create a proxy.pac file; background on the Roman general Belisarius and the Swedish king Gustavus Adolphus; discography of Deep Purple; horror films of Universal and Hammer studios. These were all topics in which I had a surface knowledge, but wanted to know more.

:::If CP continues a focus on "concise", it will never be a place where I would look up information on the above topics, as I already have a level of knowledge of them that CP would provide. I want depth. Number of topics is very much related to the "critical mass" idea that JasonAQuest mentioned above, but depth of topic requires a change in focus. Until then, CP will remain a YEC/Homeschool/Christian Conservative blog, with a desk encyclopedia attached. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 09:54, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::::All of that is indeed the difference between WP, and CP. However, CP is targetting something other than "expansive knowledge" about things like Pop Culture, and such. For instance, never expect to see an article on "Insane Clown Possé" on this site... it just would not fit the requirement to stay and always remain family-friendly. This naturally limits the topics that could be covered by CP, but not a real concern, as CP isn't about covering them. CP, as I see it, is not really intended to supply ''deep'' knowledge, but rather simply surface knowledge, unless the issue is, for instance, about something of great importance to conservative teachers, or students. They will expound upon the information, and create more detail about the topics that conservatives support, rather than anything and just about everything that the anarchic mob at Wikipedia covers. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 14:11, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:::::What of the items that I mentioned looking up, with the possible exeption of Deep Purple, would be inappropriate topics for CP? I am not arguing the number of topics covered by CP, I am talking about the depth of information. So far, in bouncing around CP for a while, I have come across few articles that had more depth than I would have known on my own. Some, perhaps, in areas that I am less aware of, but even in those, the amount of information isn't enough to be satisfying. If I actually want to know something abouta subject, and am going to look it up, I am rarely going to be happy with one or two paragraphs. You talk of "surface knowledge", if that is the case, then who, outside of elementary or junior high age people are going to use it for information? [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 14:47, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::::::You seem to already have answered your own question. Conservapedia is oriented for young learners. I will however address each topic you intended to mention: ''differences between Rugby League and Rugby Union'' (Rugby is not widely played in the United States) ''rules of Australian Rules Football'' (It covering Australia, not American issues); ''how to create a proxy.pac file'' (this is very deep and technical computer science, it is really not important to many who use CP as a resource); ''background on the Roman general Belisarius'' (Roman history is a distinguished study due to Latin having been a sign of distinction. These articles however do not expand themselves, people need contribue) ''and the Swedish king Gustavus Adolphus'' (Sweden is not America); discography of Deep Purple (I have no idea who this is, but it is obviously pop culture); ''horror films of Universal and Hammer studios'' ("horror" you do understand that many Christians object to Halloween by its promotion of horror) --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 14:55, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::Perhaps Conservapedia needs to make its goal of remaining juvenile and isolationist more clear, so people can stop expecting it to be otherwise. - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] 23:32, 3 January 2008 (EST)

<undent>I have some ideas to help it succeed. The management may contact me if they want to find out more. However, we do have a great number of problems, including:
#Conservatives have families and are probably able to edit less than the libtards at wikipedia.
#Libtards at other wikis disrupting progress here
#Paranoia on vandalism or subtle vandalism driving good meaning editors away.
Anyway, just some of the problems, all surmountable if desired. [[User:FightPerniciousSwarm|FightPerniciousSwarm]] 23:36, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:Don't you think that the liberal tendency toward substance abuse and promiscuous sex detract from their ability to spend time on Wikipedia? - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] 15:49, 5 January 2008 (EST)

== No ==
No, considering that Wikipedia (considered by many to be very neutral) appeals to a greater audience than Conservapedia currently does, but they both serve the same function. [[User:THerlevi|THerlevi]]
:Wikipedia has heavy liberal bias, meaning that CP appeals to people who want a more open minded view [[User:RichardKerry|RichardKerry]] 16:01, 17 April 2010 (EDT)

Of course not! Anyone who thinks it will is either a paranoid naive liberal or one of the kooky creationists writeing the handful of articles posted in this project. -- [[User:Jirt|Jirt]] 10:03, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Because it is quite frankly turning out to be just as liberal as Wikipedia. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 14:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
: I will agree with this because it appears the editing process seems to be slanted towards removing anything that could be considered part of the conservative ideology. Perhaps this could be an effort by liberal subjugators to undermine the integrity of what is supposed to be a conservative knowledge base. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]]
: No it is not as liberal as Wiki yet. ALL Wiki articals are up for editing while Conservapedia has blocked some of the most highly debated ones --[[Ampasand|Ampasand]] 11:32 29 march 2007 (GMT+12)

::And as we all know, the best way to promote accuracy of information is to completely block all alternate thinking on any given subject. Conservapedia has already failed because in many cases it has allowed ideology to trump all other considerations. Apparantly to be a Conservapedia conservative you must be ethnocentric, Christian, and a [[YEC]]. Those of us who don't fit this mold are suspect. Wikipedia may have its own issues, but it has a far more effective dispute resolution system than Conservapedia, and the existence of many voices does tend to move towards an NPOV in many cases. [[User:Stile4aly|Stile4aly]] 14:10, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
---------------
No. Not until you reject NeoCon Republicanism and adopt the ideals of Pat Buchanan. He is the real Conservative. Not a group of men packaged and delivered by Carl Rove.

Hopefully not. Wouldn't it be better if there was a source of information that didn't have any bias? Instead of putting together conservative biased information, how about putting together FACTUAL information?{{Unsigned|Gasmonkey}}

No.

== ????? ==
What is Conservapedia's goal exactly? I think it will fail as a replacement to Wikipedia, but it is a nice place to hang out communicate to other people, and have debates like this one.

Double Edge

:I'm unsure of Conservapedia's mission. I don't think the person/people who govern it have actually focussed on one.

:*One way Conservapedia ''could'' succeed is by downplaying its identity as "Conservative alternative to Wikipedia" and by seriously trying to become a useful information resource for a teenaged audience and for Christian homeschoolers.

:*One way Conservapedia ''could'' succeed is by trying to become a serious, factual encyclopedia whose policies and governance are tweaked just enough to give it a somewhat different emphasis from Wikipedia. My model for this is the Christian Science Monitor in the days when it was a serious, first-rate daily newspaper. It was respected by everyone as serious journalism, was widely read by people who were not Christian Scientists, and was aligned with the Christian Science church without pushing in-your-face, over-the-top Christian Science spin in every article one every page. I think this ''might'' be what Aschlafly wants. I don't give it much chance of getting there. It took Wikipedia about three years to become credible, and I think it pretty much dominates the ecological niche for volunteer-created encyclopedias.

:*One way Conservapedia ''could'' succeed is by become a repository for articles that do not even pretend to be serious information resources, but self-celebratory exercises in anti-liberal rhetoric. Not the George WIll of encyclopedias, but the Ann Coulter of encyclopedias. Conservatives would come to it, not for information, but to experience the reassurance of being in among their own mob. It can probably exist indefinitely as a web forum billing itself an encyclopedia, but which nobody takes seriously as an encyclopedia. And there is of course endless fascination to be had trying to figure out of the edits presenting the most extreme points of view are mocking pranks, and which are sincere.

:I do ask Conservapedians to entertain the following question: would they allow teenaged children to use Conservapedia as a schoolwork resource? Now? Ever? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::To add to this, and I surely hope someone checks this page because I'm not getting a response elsewhere, I see this particular phrase or a variation of it repeated fairly often:

<blockquote>Ah, but there's a key flaw in your comparison, isn't there? '''We disclose our point-of-view, while Wikipedia denies it.''' We're not trying to fool anyone. We give the reader the information, and we let the reader decide. Wikipedia, while pretending to be neutral, is actually far more liberal than the American public and its bias results in censorship of vast amounts of information that readers would like to evaluate for themselves, such as biblical authorities.--Aschlafly 23:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)" [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Pro-Christian.3F] (emphasis added)</blockquote>

::But Conservapedia doesn't disclose its POV. It is called "Conservapedia" and it says on the main page that we "we give full credit to Christianity and America" but that surely does not adequately describe our POV. I see lots of logos on the main page with a cross as a significant focus... is this a Christian encyclopedia? Is this an American encyclopedia? What, exactly, is the POV of Conservapedia? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

"What is Conservapedia's goal exactly?" It's clearly and openly an attempt to supplant Wikipedia with an encyclopedia more palatable to American conservatives, and its bias reflects this. Wikipedia is more suitable for people who - irrespective of their personal politics - understand that the world does not end at the US border. Imitation is, of course, still the sincerest form of flattery. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 14:59, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

== Yes: ==
Yes, it can succeed, and it will. Ironically, the (ahem) user who fired the opening shot (see "No" below) suggested the obvious thing: Disable automatic registration and have people register by invitation and application.

[[CreationWiki]] does the same thing. They've set up a special "informational" e-mail account and published its address on their Main Page. Anyone wishing to register as an editor must ''apply'' for the job either to info@creationwiki.org or directly to its founder, Christopher W. Ashcraft of the Northwest Creation Network. The results have been very good, if I do say so myself (as an editor of CreationWiki as well as an editor here).

Much of BPearl's opening statement is a rant against conservatism generally, and also a contradiction: he maintains that conservatives argue with reality, and then proposes that reality is arrived at by consensus. Sorry, but that's a [[non sequitur]]. Of course, liberals always want to deny absolute truth (which is not a trademark, by the way) because their reality is only what feels like a good idea at any given time.

The rest of it is, frankly, a threat: that vandalism will continue unless we--what--shut down? Trust a liberal to write a claim-of-responsibility and an ultimatum that tries to pretend that it's neither. Your average front-liner in [[Al-Qa'ida]] would guffaw.

I make two recommendations to the Bureaucrats and the Sysops:
# Make registration by invitation and application. Disable automatic registration entirely, and publish contact e-mails on the Main Page, or a page that links directly to it, so that people can apply.
# Recruit in more home-school groups, Christian schools, and other private schools.

This place needs a lot of expansion--and also a firm editorial policy that recognizes that certain (ahem) people are never going to appreciate what we have to offer, because they can't even agree with us on what is real and what is unreal. Why, some of them wouldn't even agree that grass was green until they put it to a vote--and then they'd want a stipulation about whether the word ''grass'' properly referred only to fescue. St. Augustine, and other traditional lawn grasses, or whether it could refer also to ''Cannabis sativa''.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:CreationWiki isn't a serious source of information beyond case studies in logical fallacies and it's peculiar brand of paganism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Has CreationWiki "succeeded?" At what? In terms of press mentions and Alexa rank, it could be argued that Conservapedia is, at the moment, more successful than CreationWiki. (Incidentally, do people have any theories about the apparent spike in activity that Alexa shows for CreationWiki around the beginning of March?[http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=www.creationwiki.org&url=www.creationwiki.org]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:45, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think Conservapedia is already succeeding.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:27, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

== No: ==

Why Conservapedia is Doomed

Ok, first off, full disclosure: I'm a self-declared Liberal. And I have to say that this site manages to some of my worst stereotypes about Conservatives: A bunch of paranoid control-freaks desperately afraid of (in no particular order) Communists, Satan, Terrorists, Liberals, and their own genitals. And this site is exactly what I expected when I first heard about it: a poorly done effort to create an entire alternate reality out of HTML in an attempt to escape the utter hash you (and the clowns you've elected) have made of the REAL world.

Now, assuming any of you made it this far without hitting the 'delete' button, let me explain why.

The central problem with this site is that it wants to be Wikipedia without any of the things that make Wikipedia WORK: most notably, tolerance for dissenting opinions, allowing half-baked articles to sit around until someone comes along and elaborates on them, and a willingness to let people post on topics that may seem irrelevant to The Cause (because Wikipedia doesn't have a Cause--you do). The syspos here are far too trigger-happy, with the obvious chilling effect this has on posters--who wants to spend a half-hour writing an article if there's a good chance a sysop will revert it or delete it for not being sufficiently "Conservatively Correct"?

To me, this looks like a textbook example of the difference between the "Liberal" view, which tries to include as many conflicting viewpoints as possible, as opposed to your apparent desire to find the Truth(tm) ONCE, and then crush any False Opinions that might contaminate it.

As long as you keep thinking like that, this site can't possibly survive. You are going to be flooded by people:

* Bored teenagers, pranksters and other vandals
* Well-meaning Liberals (and Moderates, and Reality-Based Conservatives, and Off-the-Mappers) trying to clear a few spoonfuls of what looks to them like a vast ocean of misinformation
* Irritated Liberals intentionally making you look bad
* Scary beady-eyed fanatical True Believers unintentionally making you look bad

These problems are not going to go away, unless you give up on letting new people register altogether, which will make this site stagnate and rot.

The other big problem is that you perceive "Liberal Bias" where the problem is that as of late, the Conservative Movement in the USA seems to have a marked anti-Reality bias.
[http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2004/12/i-miss-republicans.html I miss Republicans]

Well, I hope whichever sysop deletes this at least reads through it, and gets SOMETHING out of it and gets something out of it besides "Blah blah blah I hate Jesus and America". If you can manage that much, I'll call it a win for both of us. (Forgive me for so drastically underestimating your intelligence, but I accidentally glanced at Ann Coulter's column recently.) --[[User:BPearl|BPearl]] 06:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Spot on, this could not have been said any more clearly. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 07:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Conservapedia is quite a strange concept. The truth is not something that can be saved by ruling out opinions that don't fit into ones concept of reality. It's rather the other way 'round: by ruling out other opinions you can be quite sure you rule out quite a lot of truth. History has shown that many concepts, such as the shape of the earth or the existence of wiches, promoted by religious leaders, had to be revised after being proven false. It took a lot of couragious men and women to challenge widely accepted delusions and replace them with theories based upon facts rather than belief. These challenges are the hart that pumps the blood of truth and wisdom. Ruling out such challenges will keep this project ignorant. It therefore can never be an instrument of exploiting free will, it will be - or at least appear to be - an instrument of intellectual repression. Now, apart from those who wish to remain ignorant, who wants to put his beliefs into such an institute? Mankind will never know the full truth about everything, we will only be able to find little pieces of the Big Puzzle and put them together into a forever changing concept of what truth really is. It's that proces that keep our brains from getting knumb. I don't believe in god, and it is amazing how many people fall from belief when they exploit their natural curiosity. I wish the world will one day be free of religion. Where god begins, thinking ends. An encyclopedia based on the contibutions of those who trade their mental skills for religious ignorance can never be of any value, other than to those who contribute themselves. So maybe Conservapedia cán succeed after all, but only as a database of delusions. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 00:07, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::[[Logical fallacy#Conflation|Conflation]], must we? Are you, in short, comparing [[creationism]] to the sad misapprehensions about [[witchcraft]] in [[Salem, Massachusetts]]? Or perhaps you are trying to suggest that [[John T. Scopes]] was a man of courage. He was not, sir. That trial was rigged. [[William Jennings Bryan]] simply did not know what kind of wily confidence trickster he faced in [[Clarence Darrow]]. Then again, I am not an attorney; I'll let [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] talk about lawyers, and what sort of lawyer Clarence Darrow was.

::::Likewise, I'll let Andrew speak for himself. For my part, I want to this project to be ''correct,'' and by that I do not mean [[political correctness|politically correct]]. Beyond a certain point, you have to accept the plain fact that two plus two make four--not five!--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I am not going to look up all the persons and events you mentioned. No need to since you don't reply to the argument that someone who creates his own truth can't be taken serious. I have made the equasion, and when you add it all up, there simply is no god. And the historical lies promoted on this project serve no other purpose than to hide logical fallacies of religion. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 20:06, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Behold! When I provide references, the determined, inveterate [[Atheism|atheist]] refuses to consider them. Furthermore, you exaggerate greatly my own importance, when you imply that I have somehow created the [[Bible]]. You force me to disclaim that honor, and to remind one and all that only One Person has ever created truth--and that is God, because God ''is'' Truth.

::::::If what you have written is how you believe, then may I ask exactly what, in the name of Clarence Darrow, are you doing here?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 23:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You don't provide references, you create a lot of smoke to conceal the fact that you don't (want to?) react on the thesis. I think you are the author of lies within this project and call them truth. I don't think you are the author of the Bible. That book itself was written by many contributors, it was not created by god. I am here to asses the importance of this project. I am satisfied. It is quite harmless. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 06:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Again you exaggerate my particular importance. I am merely one of many editors here. I am not an administrator. But while we're on the subject, I answer ''only'' to administrators. If you have a complaint against me, then I suggest that you address yourself to one of them. You can take it to [[User talk:Aschlafly|Mr. Schlafly]] himself, if you so desire. He will, of course, ask ''you'' to cite ''your'' references that say, or imply, that any contribution of mine has been a lie.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
=== The Annals of the World ===
You wrote: ''It (The Annals of the World). would make a valuable addition to any school or home-schooler's library, for its comprehensive treatment of ancient history alone''. Now this is clearly a lie, since it can't be of value as it's treatment of ancient history obviously is a fraud. But don't worry, I will not complain about you. This site doesn't need me and I don't need this site. Cheer up TerryH, I don't hold you personally responsible for accidentally ruining lives, just your kind. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 05:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:Nice to see that you keep up with the [[Special:Recent changes|recent changes]]. So you saw my article on [[The Annals of the World]]. Too bad no one invented an emoticon for taking a bow (and I don't think MediaWiki software has any emoticon routines, anyway).
:Now I have a few nits to pick with Ussher on the length of the Sojourn in [[Egypt]], and the birthday of [[Abraham]], and certainly his treatment of [[Egyptian chronology]] must fall to more recent research by someone who knows what to look for. But in all fairness to Ussher, if he were alive today, then he wouldn't make that mistake with Egyptian chronology.
:For his treatment of very ancient (pre-Olympiad) Greek history, he relies on others who have attempted the same thing.
:But where has he ''invented'' history that did not occur? Where is the "fraud" of which you accuse him?
:If you want to talk about fraud, then we can talk about [[Piltdown Man]], [[Peking Man]], [[Archaeoraptor]], and the [[Ernst Haeckel]] embryo drawings--all of which are frauds, and everybody except the authors of biology textbooks has always known this. Now why, you ask, is this relevant to a discussion of ''The Annals''? Simply because I know your real claim against ''The Annals'': that it posits a history of the earth that is not much longer than six thousand years, and [[Theory of evolution|evolution]] requires a time frame that is far greater.
:And if you want to talk about the ruination of lives, you have that backwards. [[Atheism]] and [[Theory of evolution|evolutionism]] have been the chief ruiners of lives here, not [[Christianity]] and [[creationism]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:34, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, let's talk about the Piltsown Man. Now that was a case of serious fraud. Mr. Dawson really tried to convince the world that the bones he found were 500 thousand years old. It was quite a shock when it came out they were only 50 thousand years old.
::I've never seen an emoticon for taking a bow. And I can't see why you would want to take a bow for me, all I did was looking up a relevant reference, just like I always do. How could I make a statement so pronounced without checking whether there is scientific evidence supporting it? I can't ask you to take notice of something I only believe.
::I fail to see how Atheism and evolutionism ruin lives whereas I only have to take a look in the newspaper to read how the first man of the catholic church helps spreading AIDS. How the first man of the United States of America continues a bloody war in the name of (his) god. Anyone, Anyone who puts his faith in a god fails to take proper responsability for his own live and acts at some point.
::On the other hand I know that many believers live a healthier live when it concerns their body. There are less smokers and heavy drinkers among believers, most likely they feel that their life is ''borrowed'' in a way, they take good care of what they believe is not theirs. (For arguments sake I don't consider the many soldiers who don't hesitate to take someone elses life in name of god).
::Haeckel was a crook too. A nice bunch of cons you have dug up. Though Haeckel was a crook only for exaggerating rather then forging.
::Well, time's up. Nice talking with you again. Cheerio. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 13:42, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

No. Conservapedia will not succeed. Why? Not only are the 'commandments' biased (which you might expect, given the name of the site), but the sysops sometimes bias that even more by breaking those commandments, or not enforcing them, to bias pages even more towards the conservative point of view. As such, I fail to see how this place can possibly succeed when it breaks even it's own rules, when not doing so doesn't fit into it's own little blinkered world view.
[[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 20:30, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:Are you serious? Wikipedia breaks its own rules all the time. Self-inconsistency is not damning, it's an inseparable part of humans. This site speaks to a very specific audience, and if you don't agree with the views here, then go, because you're not going to help anything by pushing an agenda. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 21:57, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::My 'agenda' that I am 'pushing' is that, if Conservapedia sees fit to make rules, and go so far as to call them 'commandments', then it should abide by those rules - even when doing so does not agree with the sysops' preconceived notions and ideas. If it fails do so, especally when this happens so flagrantly, it cannot call itself an 'encyclopedia', of any kind, far less 'The Trustworthy Encyclopedia'. If Wikipedia has also broken it's own rules (which it may have, but I would have to see this for myself), so what? Never heard the expression, 'two wrongs don't make a right'? [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 22:18, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::The statement was made not to state that "two wrongs make a right", but rather that no organization, no group of people, no ''anyone'' will ever not break their own rules. (Except God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, they're all infallable perfection.) The idea here is ''not'' to make up rules, and then hit people over the head with it. The idea is to make an encyclopedia with a conservative bias (Conservapedia's undeniably stated goal). Wikipedia breaks its own rules anytime it would make Wikipedia "better", see their article "WP:Ignore all rules" for an example of it being policy. In the same way, if rules need to be broken by the admins and sysops in order to keep Conservapedia conservative, then GOOD! Go do it! The goal is to make the encyclopedia conservative, not to pander to some liberal agenda that Conservapedia needs to be perfect (which it can't be because only God is perfect.) So, seriously. If you're not on the boat then go use Wikipedia, they'll allow you to advance your agenda there. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 22:30, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::Note how I put 'agenda' and 'pushing' in quotes? That's because I have no agenda to push. Only you seem to think I do. You seem to suggest they only break the rules to make this place 'more conservative'. Well, I'll take an example. The page on Jesus. At one point, the page began by stating that Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the only Son of God. It has been changed, more than once, to 'Jesus Christ is the only Son of God' by sysops. That is in clear breach of commandment 5 - 'do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry', as they are deleting the FACT that Christians believe this to be true and replacing it with the OPINION that it is definitely true. This has nothing whatsoever to do with making it more conservative, and everything to do with making it more Christian fundamentalist. Whilst many conservatives are Christian, not all are, and, indeed, most Christians can tell the difference between verifiable fact and something that is opinion - even if it happens to be an opinion they share, and have an unshakeable belief they're right to believe. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 22:57, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::::Dude, there's a book called "The Bible", and around these parts it's undeniably true. You don't have to say "Christians believe..." because this site has the Bible as an authoritative source. If you can't accept the Bible as a given truth, then you're not going to do well here at all. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:13, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::::Unless you can provide absolute, conclusive proof that the Bible is true, then stating anything as fact that only has the Bible as a source is opinion, not fact. The Bible MAY be true, it may not be, I don't know - and neither do you. You may fervently believe it's true, but, unless you have verifiable evidence of this, that is only your belief and opinion, not fact. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:27, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::::Also, you're pushing an agenda. That science trumps the truth in the Bible. And you're attempting to push that believe on the viewers and contributors of this site. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:20, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::::No, this site is pushing an agenda - that the Bible is true and unquestionable, and dressing that up as 'conservatism'. It's not. It's fundamentalist Christianity. I'm merely pointing out that this is the case. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:27, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::So what is conservativism? Most conservatives have a respect for God and religious traditions and acknowledge the role of church in the lives of our founding fathers and through the history of our nation. Remove that from conservativism and it is unclear what is remaining or how unifying it is. Cutting taxes? Generally speaking historically there is a bit more. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::Read the page on 'Conservative' on this very site, and you get your answer - 'a conservative is one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue.' Incidentally, I note that you say 'most conservatives', not 'all conservatives', so even you must agree that not all conservatives are Christian. Even if they were, not all Christians agree that the Bible is LITERALLY true, like this site seems to think it is - some think some of the things in the Bible are God speaking in simile or metaphor. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 09:21, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::Actually, come to think of it - it is also perfectly possible to have respect for religious traditions and acknowledge the role of the church in the lives of our founding fathers without necessarily following those same traditions for religious reasons or the same religion yourself. Therefore it is perfectly possible to even follow that part of this particular brand of 'conservatism' without being Christian. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 09:31, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::::I agree. Even for those conservatives who have a deep respect for the Bible and religious tradition, not all will have a personal knowledge of Christianity. But then that shouldn't exactly cause a conflict. I'm not Catholic, but I have helped to organize and put Catholic information into Conservapedia -- and I was pleased to do so. Perhaps you should concentrate on beginning to make useful entries yourself. As it stands now, you are coming across as someone arguing what a conservative is and trying to put a wedge when you yourself only know conservatism by looking at it from a distance as a foreign entity. True? If not, start contributing -- Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:25, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::::I have no problem putting Catholic information into sites like conservapedia, wikipedia, or anywhere else. However, if the site claims to be a 'neutral to the facts' encyclopedia, like this one does, then such information should be put in as exactly what it is - what Catholics believe to be true, in much a similar way as what Protestants believe should be put in as what Protestants believe to be true, what Muslims believe should be put in as what Muslims believe to be true, what Sikhs believe should be put in as what Sikhs believe to be true, etc, etc, etc. Here, Christian beliefs are being put in as fact, due to it being told in the Bible as fact, and any attempt to correct this is deleted or reverted. Well, sorry, that shows this site is NOT a conservative encyclopedia - it is a fundamentalist Christian one. I would have no problem with this if this site claimed to be a fundamentalist Christian site, but, in fact, it does not - it does not state ANYWHERE that this is the case, and you only actually realise it is when you dig into the histories of some of the pages or look at a few of the talk pages. As such, this site deceives anyone who so much as stumbles across it. As for contributing, well, I feel I could contribute quite a bit. Unfortunately, the pages where I could contribute effectively appear to be locked. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 15:23, 19 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::::::If you choose to fixate on the few articles that are blocked, then you are probably correct that this site is not for you. You may find in going beyond that starting standard that most of CP does not specifically discuss religion and there is ample room for contribution. Peace to you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:21, 19 December 2007 (EST)

The fact that you reject the Bible as truth, shows that you have no meaningful comment to give on this site... now, if only I could block. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:44, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:Well, unless this site changes to 'christianfundamentalopedia.com', then the fact I do not accept the Bible as absolute proof without evidence is completely irrelevant, quite frankly. Or should be, anyway. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:49, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::The name of the site is irrelevant. Unless wikipedia changes it's name to "ifyoudontlikesciencegoawayapedia" then Conservapedia would consider changing their name. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:54, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::Well, you equated my belief or lack of belief in the Bible to my ability to give meaningful comment on this site - which, by it's name, is a 'conservative wikipedia'. For your point to be relevant, this site would need to be a 'Christian fundamentalist wikipedia' instead, and thus should change it's name. So which is it - is it relevant, or not? [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 00:01, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:I can block, but we don't do it for debate discussions. It's expected not everyone is going to embrace the overall Conservapedia value structure, and we understand that. We just hope that people can respect our right to exist and present opinions that are generally shunned or not allowed on other sites and we welcome anyone who wants to make constructive contributions. Interestingly, if we were as bad as some claim, we wouldn't have these debate pages to begin with. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)

==When liberals spend time refuting an idea ... it's already a success==
I remember when FOX News was mocked because it wouldn't make it. I doubt anyone at CNN or MSNBC is laughing now. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

You are exactly right.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I've changed my mind. In it's present incarnation, this idea is doomed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

When there are twenty topics in the Scientific Debates section, and eight of them mention God or the Bible in the title, that is not a sign that this place will be any kind of success except for people who imagine the truth is whatever they want it to be. Truth is a double-edged sword for conservatives and liberals alike, and even scientists who are believers should know the difference between a laboratory and a church. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 20:35, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

:Religion is the most important thing in many people's lives. To some, it trumps everything else, even science. You're taking the wrong approach by trying to push your liberal agenda. Trying to prove your point by liberal "science" won't ever work here, because the audience does not want to hear it at all. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 21:51, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::I don't know if you intended it, but that actually sounded sort of sarcastic... Anyway, I agree with you in respect to your last point. I don't think this site will move beyond its target audience (American Conservative Christians, primarily YEC), but that audience is plenty large for it to gain a considerable following. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:05, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::Nope no sarcasm at all, honest and earnest belief. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 22:07, 18 December 2007 (EST)

The heading for this section can easily be turned around: "When conservatives spend time refuting an idea ... it's already a success." Which major ideas do conservatives then "make a success" by trying to refute? Evolution? Global Warming? Public education? Other religions? An entire branch of Christian theology, Apologetics, exists to refute other religions or false doctrines. So before throwing around such an assertion, it might be useful to see it as a double-edged sword. Sometimes, as in scientific discourse, refutations are simply that. They point out weaknesses of existing research, usually by offering more recent research that refutes. Positing and refuting comprise the core of debate, and BOTH (or all) sides should be expected to posit and refute.

== ''"There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."'' - Oscar Wilde ==

From a glance at (the admittedly-liberally-biased) GoogleNews, it would appear that for the past week, nobody has had anything whatsoever to say about Conservapedia. There is precisely '''one''' minor and sarcastic reference to Conservapedia in all of the last weeks news, ''worldwide''.

I can only deduce from this that Conservapedia has ''already'' failed. This site could hardly be more dead if God had struck it down himself. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 20:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Oh come on, it's at least a very active de-vandalization exercise. And a great place to practice technical writing, since WP is a bit, well, full of already-written articles. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:34, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Who cares what agenda the liberal news people are putting out there. Of course it's not covered by liberal news, because this place is what liberals fear. They will not talk about it, because they do not want to give it any credibility. The point you were trying to make it fundamentally flawed in that Conservapedia doesn't care what the liberally agendaed media say. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 21:54, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::Actually, I think you'll find, after a good look around this place, it actually does a fairly good job of 'not giving it any credibility' all by itself. There are quite a few parts that fit the worst stereotypes of conservatism. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 22:25, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::I have taken a good look around. And it gives itself credibility to the audience that it targets, conservatives. The wackiness that you're using "conservatism" as if it were immediately a bad thing is completely stupid. I though liberals were supposed to be smarter than conservatives? Apparently, you're not because you refuse to believe any evidence presented by this site. You start immediately with a bias that this place is bad, simply because it's "conservative". God give me strength... you need some help. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 22:33, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::Actually, I did not come here with a view that this place is bad because it's conservative. Having a look round this place gave me that view. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:02, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::You obviously cannot accept that Conservapedia considers the Bible as infallably true. If you cannot take accept that in any way, then leave, you're not welcome here. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:52, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::::I would have no problem accepting that Conservapedia accepted the Bible as infallibly true - if it stated, clearly, that it was a fundamentalist Christian encyclopedia, not a conservative one. Currently, it seems to be trying to dress up fundamentalist Christian ideals and beliefs as 'conservatism', and presenting them as facts in an encyclopedic form, which I have an objection to because of it's deceitfulness. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 00:08, 19 December 2007 (EST)

You have the most unusual way of showing that you didn't believe that this place is bad right off the start. You reject the conservative, christian ideals, and because of that, you reject the authorities, and sources used on this site. It is not my problem, nor is it anyone's problem here that you cannot accept it. Wikipedia doesn't accept the Bible as truth for anything but articles specifically about the Bible, and Christianity. They reject the truth presented by the Bible, and that's where they fail for the contributors of this site. By ignoring the Bible, they ignore truth. Just like you claim conservatives ignore science. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:18, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:Actually, I reject the sources used on this site because...well...they're not very good. From what I've seen, it's not uncommon for the 'source' to be a single quote taken from a larger passage that diametrically opposes the editor's claims, or a 'source' that is actually giving second or third-hand information, or a 'source' that successfully manages to actually prove itself wrong, or a 'source' that simply makes claims that are not true, and fairly easily proven as such. Wikipedia does not accept the Bible as truth for anything because, to date, there isn't verifiable evidence that the more fantastical things in it are true. Oh, and I do not claim conservatives ignore science - just some of them, including, it seems, many of the ones here. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:35, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::I don't need to debate this any longer. Obviously reject the Bible as truth, because you're so closed-minded that you can't accept that as an axiom, a Christian should believe that the Bible is true. That means, I don't have to prove that it's true, because it just is. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:42, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::Which is more closed-minded? That it is possible that the Bible is true, but there is no verifiable proof it is, or that it is utterly impossible for the Bible not to be true? [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:46, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Brendlin v. California

2010-04-17T19:11:31Z

RichardKerry: Undo revision 770068 by Pbafreincrqvnfhpxf (Talk)

In '''''Brendlin v. California''''', 127 S. Ct. 2400 (2007), a unanimous [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic check has a [[Fourth Amendment]] right against unlawful seizure. The passenger "was seized from the moment [the driver]'s car came to a halt on the side of the road, and it was error to deny his suppression motion on the ground that seizure occurred only at the formal arrest."

Justice [[David Souter]], writing for the Court, reasoned that a reasonable passenger would not feel free to leave from such a stop. The Court held that:

:"When a police officer makes a traffic stop, the driver of the car is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The question in this case is whether the same is true of a passenger. We hold that a passenger is seized as well and so may challenge the constitutionality of the stop.

As a result, the seizure of methamphetamine paraphernalia may be suppressed from evidence if found to be lacking in adequate cause for the search under the [[Fourth Amendment]].
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]

Renaissance Terms U

2010-04-17T19:01:38Z

RichardKerry: Undo revision 770049 by Lolwut111 (Talk)

==U==

{{Renaissance Terms}}
{{History Terms}}

Public school culture

2010-04-17T18:59:25Z

RichardKerry: Undo revision 770023 by Lolwut111 (Talk)

[[File:800px-Warning signs at CHS.jpg|thumb|250px|right|One of the first things one sees when entering the visitor's parking lot at Charlotte High School, a public school in Punta Gorda, Florida, is a sign informing vistors of the on-campus surveillance cameras.]]
'''Public school culture''' is a [[culture]] fostered in [[public school]],<ref>Public schools are the government-controlled schools in the United States. In other countries different terms are used to describe the government schools.</ref> which is characterized by:

*complete [[censorship]] of any [[classroom prayer]]
*a lack of commitment to respect the [[Religion|religious]] [[Civil Rights Movement|civil rights]] of [[student]]s has resulted in "religion-free zones." <ref>[http://www.catholicleague.org/rer.php?topic=Education&id=88 Religious Liberty and the Public Schools], [[Robert P. George]], ''[[Catholic League]]'', October 1999</ref>
*[[sex education]], [[Homosexuality in Schools|homosexual curriculum]] and sexual abuse by school personnel has been referred to as a "red-light district" for students <ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59602 Public schools: The new red-light district?], [[Olivia St. John]], ''[[World Net Daily]]'', January 09, 2008</ref>
*a culture of incompetence <ref>[http://www.maa.org/features/083104pointcallforaction.html POINT: A Call for Action], [[Rick Norwood]], ''[[Mathematical Association of America|The Mathematical Association of America]]'', Accessed May 4, 2008</ref><ref name=%2526quot%253BMixed Results">John Merrow, [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/july-dec08/nolaupdate_07-24.html Mixed Results for School Reform Efforts in New Orleans]. ''The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer''. PBS: July 24, 2008</ref>
* fashion that includes black ([[Goth (subculture)|Goth]]) clothing
* facial piercings and rings, [[tattoo]]s, and male earrings
* [[depressed]] demeanors (a so-called "emo" culture amongst some teens)
* an absence of objective [[morality]]; instead, a principal will say someone "made the wrong choice"
* a sense of hopelessness
* a lack of [[critical thinking]] about [[liberal]] [[Indoctrinate|indoctrination]]
* [[compulsive profanity]]
* general inability to look someone in the eye
* lewd behavior euphemistically referred to as "PDA" or "Public Display of Affection" <ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0523/p03s01-ussc.html</ref>
* racial discrimination resulting from set cliques of racially homogeneous students <ref>http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/lifestyle/nearly-all-high-school-cliques-are-racially-divided-study_10025532.html</ref>
* tolerance of homosexuality due to school-supported and funded groups <ref>http://www.gsanetwork.org/</ref>
* extreme [[anxiety]]
* feeling that it is funny to be dumb
* being so accustomed to [[censorship]] of ideas that there is genuine surprise when someone actually says something unfamiliar or [[politically incorrect]]
* lack of awareness that [[prayer]] is censored in [[public schools]] and that teachers' [[Labor union|unions]] are very [[liberal]]
* [[alcohol]] and [[drug abuse]]
* disrespect for teachers
* [[bullying]]
* [[gang]] activity <ref>[http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20080427/NEWS01/899830802/0/biz Gangs recruiting at middle schools], [[Diana Hefley]] and [[Kaitlin Manry]], ''[[Daily Herald]]'', April 27, 2008</ref>
* lack of proper etiquette and manners
* glorification of certain groups such as athletic teams and outcast of others
* bitter hate for rival schools and their students
* corrupt and abusive teachers and school administrators<ref>[http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/21/23891.htm "School Says Official Embezzled Millions"]. ''Court House News''. January 21, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000003744.cfm "National Media Largely Ignore Public-School Sex Scandals"] ''Citizenlink''. 01.26.2007.</ref><ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dave-pierre/2008/05/19/not-catholic-church-national-media-mum-huge-l-school-sex-abuse-scandal "Not the Catholic Church? MSM Mum About Huge L.A. School Sex Abuse Scandal"]. Dave Pierre. ''NewsBusters''. May 19, 2008</ref>
* censorship of conservative sources of news and information
* violence and [[Columbine High School|school shootings]]
* excessive [[network abuse]]

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

[[Category:Culture]]

Germanicus trilogy

2010-04-17T18:58:06Z

RichardKerry: Undo revision 770022 by Lolwut111 (Talk)

The '''''Germanicus'' trilogy''' is an alternate history [[trilogy]] of books written by [[American]] author Kirk Mitchell, consisting of ''Procurator'', ''New Barbarians'' and ''Cry Republic''. It is set in an alternate world in which Rome never fell, after [[Pontius Pilate]] pardons Joshua bar-Joseph (Christ), and the Romans win a decisive victory at Teutoberg Forest and Latinize Greater Germania.
The books follow Germanicus Julius Agricola, an idealistic ex-solider. Germanicus can be seen as a reformist against the corrupt and stagnant situation of the Roman Empire.

==The World==
The world of the Germanicus trilogy is portrayed as being stagnant and technologically backwards compared to our timeline, a fact that Germanicus blames on the archaic imperial system of government. With a force of slave-labourers, Rome never industrialised, limiting the extent to which it can modernise. This means that technology advances only through neccesity. One of the themes of the novel is the extent to which Rome has stagnated; the imperial system and government has remained virtually untouched for two thousand years. This becomes prevalent in the war against the Aztecae, during which Roman galleys, still reliant on boarding an enemy boat are decisively defeated by the Aztec/Serican fleet who utilises true [[battleships]]. This conflict provokes a major naval rethink, and Roman battleships start to be developed.

===Major Powers===
====Roman Empire====
Although inefficent and lethargic, Rome is the foremost power across Europe, and its territories extend into Africa and across the Atlantis to the Novo Provinces in America. The [[Pax Romana]] maintains peace, although German and Hiberian rebel movements are a constant threat to the Empire. The Empire has stagnated however, and the senators have become completely powerless and are unwilling to change the system. Germanicus, however, dedicates his rule as Caesar to restoring the Senate and Republic, believing that only that will hold together Rome in the future.
*Leader: Emperor Fabius (''Procurator''), Emperor Germanicus Julius Aztecus Caesar (''New Barbarians''), Lord Regent Decimus Antonius Nepos (''Cry Republic'', acting as steward for Emperor Quintus Nero)

====Serican Empire====
Little is known about the Serican Empire, occupying much of Asia, including Nihonia (Japan). They have started to extend their influence onto the east coat of America, and wish to remove the Roman provinces there. Little is known about the Serican Empire, other than they prefer to act through proxies, such as the Aztecae, that they defeated and occupied Nihonia after a decisive naval battle and that Roman traders occasionally trade with them via the Silk Road.
*Leader: Emperor of the Xing

====Aztecan Empire====
The Aztecan Empire was formerly the dominant power in explored America, taking tribute from much of Central America and demanding thousands of sacrifices. They refer to themselves as the Aztecae, and note that they used to call themselves Mexicae. Ultimately, the bloodthirsty nature of the empire destroys it, as many of the oppressed tribes join the Roman legions in sacking [[Tenochtitlan]]. After the Empire was dismantled, in became the Roman province of Novo Brittania, under the rule of Procurator Khalid of [[Anatolia]].
*Leader: Nominally Emperor Maxtla, administrated by Lord Tizoc (''New Barbarians''), Procurator Khalid (''Cry Republic'')

==Books==
===Procurator===
Procurator introduces us to the main character of the series, Germanicus Julius Agricola (later Germanicus Julis Agricola Caesar, then finally Germanicus Julius Agricola Aztecus Caesar). He is a military veteran, near retirement, and is installed as the [[procurator]] of the province of Anatolia.
Germanicus seeks to prevent an uprising of the natives, supported by stories about the mental ability of "massing" by the ''zaims'' of Anatolia. Ultimately, a coup is revealed that kills Emperor Fabius, and most of the royal family. As the closest relative, Germanicus becomes Emperor and returns to Rome. Whether the power of "massing" exists or not is left vague by the novel.

===New Barbarians===
The Novo Provinces in Mexico and the Aztec Empire have been at an uneasy peace for some time, when, in preparation for a One-Reed Year, Emperor Maxtla launches war against the Roman colonies. As Emperor, Germanicus heads to the New World in order to command the Roman troops through the war.
After being defeated in the Aztec Sea by Serican (Chinese) supported Aztec vessels, he arrives in the Novo Provinces with Tora, a captured Nihonian. Despite urgings from Rome, and from a native woman, Alope, Germanicus decides to not attack the central Aztec Empire, instead to simply push them out of the Novo Provinces. In order to force his hand, Alope surrenders herself to the Aztecs, so that she would be sacrificed. Germanicus, realising that both Epizelus and Alope are in danger continues to push the Aztecs back, until only Tenochtitlan remains. With help from Tora, he fords [[Lake Texcoco]] with sand-galleys, and sacks Tenochtitlan, only to discover that Alope has already been killed.

===Cry Republic===
Having returned from the Siege of [[Tenochtitlan]], Germanicus starts trying to restore the power of the senate, in preparation for stepping down as Emperor and restoring the Roman Republic. However, Decimus Antonius Nepos decides to play on the fears of the senators and enacts of swift coup. Germanicus is rescued with the help of sewer-dwellers by Rolf and Tora, who then take him to safety. The three then go their separate ways; Germanicus looking for supporters or respite in Anatolia, Tora to the Serican (Chinese) Empire in the East, and Rolf returning to his native Germania.
Rolf, convinced that without Germanicus, the Roman Empire doesn't deserve to continue, leads the German Gothic tribes in a revival, attacking the outposts of new Emperor Nepos. Germanicus, in Anatolia, starts looking for supporters, and, spurred on by a vision of Fabius, declares [[manumission]], and gathers an army to fight Nepos.
As Nepos heads to [[Masada]] to confront him, his rail-gallery is destroyed in a German ambush lead by Rolf, and Nepos himself killed. As Nepos' army breaks apart, Germanicus decides to head back to Rome to restore the Republic.

==Characters==
===Germanicus===
Germanicus is a military veteran, and is planning to retire at the beginning of Procurator. However, when Emperor Fabius is killed, he is forced to become Emperor. Germanicus, although experienced, is somewhat of an idealist, dedicated to restoring the [[Roman Republic]]. Through ''New Barbarians'', he plans to restore some provinces to senatorial control, and realizes that he may need to abandon the New World colonies through the turbulence as Rome makes the transition.
When he is betrayed by Nepos, he becomes jaded and remarks that the name "Julius": "means nothing any more". However, supported by the Anatolian Mara, he gathes support and tries to take back the empire.

===Rolf===
A German soldier and legionary, Rolf is extremely loyal to Germanicus, fighting alongside him in Anatolia, against the Aztecs, and finally in his name against Nepos' empire. He finds himself torn between his German heritage and his Roman training. He admires Germanicus, and sees Roman soldiers as being courageous, unlike many other Goths but has contempt for the Roman patricians.

===Tora===
From Serican-occupied Nihonia, Tora is an engineer and a scientist. He refers to himself as a follower of ''Yinshaya'': a "total submission to reason". Tora is irritated by the fact that Rome has little understanding of technology: pretty much all modern technology was invented by former Emperor Fabius or the Greek Ptolemaeus. He develops a [[biplane]] between the Roman conquest of the Aztec Empire and Nepos' coup, called a ''cloud-galley'' by the Romans.

===Minor Characters===
====Decimus Antonius Nepos====
Formerly Germanicus' praetorian prefer, Nepos seizes the opportunity to take the empire, and shows no regret when this action leads him to face Rolf with little hope of surving. He says that Germanicus didn't "deserve" the empire, because he couldn't hold onto it, ironic considering that neither could Nepos. Nepos is similar in many ways to Gaius Nero from ''New Barbarians'' in being praetorian prefect and seeking to become emperor, although Nero's plan is foiled whilst Nepos' succeeds in taking control of the empire.

====Colonel Crispa====
A Scandian colonel whom Germanicus falls in love with briefly in ''Procurator''. She uses this to manipulate the native Anatolians into revolting against the empire as part of a plot to kill Fabius.

====Alope====
A Native American, Alope tries to use the Romans to destroy Maxtla's Empire and and the Aztec domination of her people, the Indee. Knowing Germanicus' infatuation, she lures him to Tenochtitlan, but is killed on the sacrifical altar before the city is taken.

====Mara====
An Anatolian whom Germanicus meets when he flees to Anatolia. She looks after him, and joins with him when he gathers support to take back Rome.

====Epizelus====
A [[Greeks|Greek]] physician, Epizelus is Germanicus' personal physician in ''Procurator'', becoming the chief scientific aide to him in ''New Barbarians''. However, he is replaced by Tora in ''Cry Republic'' after leaving to recover from his ordeal with the Aztecs.

====Joshua Bar Joseph====
Although never appearing in any of the three books, and now long dead, Jesus of Nazareth is mentioned by many of the characters. It is implies that with Christianity stillborn in the Roman Empire, he travelled east into the Serican Empire. Germanicus hears that his pardon given by [[Pontius Pilate]] was critical to the Roman Empire's survival from an oracle, Tora mentions that his pseudo-religion of Yinshaya was founded by a Galilean holy man in the Serican Empire who he names as "Star-Sorter".

====Fabius====
Emperor Fabius is often mentioned during ''Procurator'', as well as his numerous accomplishments; such as the sand-galley and the ''index'' (compass). Many soldiers announce themselves by saying "Hail Fabius" throughout ''Procurator''. Fabius is portrayed as being less idealistic and more politically skilled than Germanicus, pointing out that he "survived twenty years on the Palatine" before his wife murdered him, whilst Germanicus didn't manage two. When Germanicus is ready to give up all hope in Anatolia, he sees a vision of Fabius whom advises him to call for manumission to take back his empire.

==Technology==
Most modern technology was invented by the partnership of Emperor Fabius and Ptolemaeus or by Tora. Most technology is either named for old Roman equipment or, in the case of moving vehicles, the Roman seagoing galley.

===Niter Pieces===
Niter powder is this world's equivalent of gunpowder. It is used to fuel both handheld weapons and larger artillery.
====''Pilum''====
The ''pilum'' is a rifle, fueled by niter powder and the standard weapon for legionaries and praetorian guardsmen. ''Pilum'' is assumed to be the Roman term, since "Niter Piece", an obscure real world term, seems to be a more general name for such weapons. It is named for the Roman spear, the ''pilum''. In ''New Barbarians'' the Aztecs previously had air-powered versions, which become gunpowder-powered thanks to Serican influence.

====''Ballista''====
A large artillery gun powered by niter powder, ballista are named for the ancient Roman siege bolt thrower.

===Vehicles===
====Rail-Galley====
The equivalent of a [[train]], rail-galleys are used to transport men and equipment across the vast Roman Empire, since [[automobiles]] are in their infancy. The Great Artery is a long railway running through Rome and heading all the way to Anatolia.

====Sand-Galley====
A large tracked "ship" like vehicle that was designed as a siege weapon by Emperor Fabius. It is similar to a real-world tank, although it is a good deal larger. The idea of it being a "sand-galley" is similar to [[Winston Churchill]]'s description of tanks as "land-ships". Sand-Galleys are armed with a single ''ballista'', which is designed to fire only straight ahead, as it was designed primarilly as a siege weapon. When Germanicus has a vision of our timeline, he notices what seems to be an American tank, and at first mistakes it for a sand-galley.

====Cloud-Galley====
The prototype cloud-galley is invented by Tora between ''New Barbarians'' and ''Cry Republic''. It is a [[biplane]], powered by an internal combustion engine and (according to the cover illustrations), has a rear-facing propeller.

====Automobiles====
Lorries moving troops or laborers appear several times in fields. Tora notices their absence during his flight above Rome, noting that "by ancient decree", they are not permitted on Rome's streets early in the day.

====Ships====
[[Triremes]], [[biremes]] and [[quinqueremes]] are all mentioned during ''New Barbarians''. Rather than being defined by banks of oars, the names refer to the number of screw propellors on the boats. Despite being armed with near-modern equipment, the ships are still designed to be used as traditional Roman ships; boarding enemy galleys rather than attacking them directly. Contact with the Aztec/Serican fleet forces the Roman empire to develop battleships for the first time during ''New Barbarians''.

[[Category:Books]]

Injunction

2010-04-17T18:56:47Z

RichardKerry: Undo revision 770012 by Lolwut111 (Talk)

An '''injunction''' is an order of a [[court of law]] exercising [[equity|equitable jurisdiction]] which directs an individual to either do, or cease doing, a specific action.<ref>http://law.freeadvice.com/general_practice/legal_remedies/injunction_order.htm</ref> Cases where a court will order an individual to do an action are far rarer than cases where the court will prohibit an action and are referred to as mandatory injunctions.

Generally speaking an injunction will only issue if damages would be an inadequate remedy in the circumstances.

==References==
<references/>

[[category:law]]
[[Category:Legal Terms]]

Black-footed cat

2010-04-17T16:46:56Z

RichardKerry: create page- hope this is ok!

The black-footed cat, or ''Felis nigripes'' is a small [[African]] wild [[cat]]. It is regarded as one of the smallest species of cat, with the female of the [[species]] weighing as little as 1.5kg.

== Diet and habits ==
It is perfectly suited to it's environment, and can survive on little water, getting all it needs from food. This food mainly consists of [[rodents]], small [[mammals]] and [[birds]].
They are known for fiercly defending themselves when cornered, and as such are known locally as 'Anthill Tigers'. <ref> http://www.agarman.dial.pipex.com/blackfoo.htm </ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}

Anthropology

2010-04-16T22:13:31Z

RichardKerry: remove references to primates and apes

Anthropology is a social science that studies [[human]]s from the perspective of their [[culture]]. This is different from disciplines such as [[psychology]], which uses the perspective of personality and cognition; or [[biology]], which focuses on the body. Anthropology studies the whole of the human condition: past, present, and future; biology, society, language and culture.

American Anthropology is usually divided into four separate disciplines, which overlap each other to varying degrees. Most [[Europe]]an schools do not place [[archaeology]] in the anthropology field.

'''Cultural anthropology''' is the study of human society and culture. Methods of research take a wide variety of forms, ranging from living among cultural groups to digging through American trash cans. Cultural anthropologists are currently in great demand by international corporations and the American Armed Forces.
Recently, many ethnographers are working in their own societies, studying social interaction among [[immigration|immigrant]] workers, the societies of homeless people, and the lives of [[Wall Street]] investors.

'''Archaeology''' studies the material remains of cultures. There are many subfields within archaeology. Most archaeologists are involved in academia, studying a specific culture or cultural area's past. There are also many applied archaeologists who work for contractor companies or the government to preserve archaeological sites around the world.

'''Linguistic anthropology''' studies [[language]]s and their development. This is a relatively new field.

'''Physical anthropology''' studies human variation etc. In many ways it is more akin to [[biology]] than to traditional anthropology. Much of its focus is on the [[muscle|musculature]], [[skeleton|skeletal]] structure, and [[neurology]] of primates. Included in this field is forensic and medical anthropology. Forensic anthropology is using knowledge of [[bone]] structure, growth and [[taphonomy]] to aid in [[crime|criminal]] investigations. Medical anthropology is the study of health care systems and [[disease]] history.

== See also ==
* [[Biblical anthropology]]
[[Category:Anthropology| ]]

Bird

2010-04-16T21:13:11Z

RichardKerry: /* Evolutionary view */ reflect conservative view

{{taxonomy
|kingdom=Animalia
|image=Grey_Wagtail.jpg
|phylum=Chordata
|class=Aves
}}
A '''Bird''' is a warm-blooded [[egg]]-laying [[vertebrate]] with [[wing]]s and [[feather]]s. For the most part, they fly.
[[Ostrich]]es, [[penguin]]s, and [[emu]]s are birds that don't fly, although penguins have sometimes been said to "fly" underwater. [[Robin]]s, [[sparrow]]s, [[cardinal (bird)|cardinal]]s, and [[eagle]]s are more typical flying birds.

== Physical characteristics ==
All birds have two legs and two wings (although in some flightless species such as the [[kiwi]], the wings are very small and serve little purpose). Birds also have a beak, although its shape, size and use varies enormously between species. Uniquely among vertabrates, birds have hollow [[bone]]s; this makes them very light for their size, facilitating flight. Living birds do not have teeth, although some extinct species had teeth. Birds' feathers can be any color, and the colors and pattern often vary between males and females of the same species, with males typically having the more garish and elaborate plumage; in some species such as [[peacock]]s and [[birds of paradise]] this is taken to striking extremes.

== Birds as dinosaurs ==
Almost all{{fact}} evolutionary biologists believe that birds are the only extant group of dinosaurs, a branch of the [[theropod]]s, which included ''[[Velociraptor]]'' and ''[[Deinonychus]]''. This view is disputed by [[creationism|creationists]], and also by a few prominent evolutionary [[biology|biologists]]. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that dinosaur species such as the ''[[Velociraptor]]'' and others possessed primitive feathers<ref>Feather Quill Knobs in the Dinosaur Velociraptor Science 21 September 2007: Vol. 317. no. 5845, p. 1721 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5845/1721</ref>.

== Creationary view ==
[[Creationism|Creationists]] contend that birds being descendants of [[dinosaur]]s is unreasonable and is not scientifically supported with any evidence.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/ Bird Evolution], chapter 4 of Refuting Evolution.</ref><ref>McIntosh, Andy, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/540/ 100 years of airplanes—but these weren’t the first flying machines!], ''Creation'' 26(1):44–48, December 2003.</ref>

They also point out that God could have created some dinosaurs with feathers, and therefore that finding feathered dinosaurs does not prove that dinosaurs evolved into birds.<ref>Matthews, Michael, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2775 ''Scientific American'' admits creationists hit a sore spot] 13th March, 2003 (Creation Ministries International)</ref>

Creationary scientist Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding birds being descendants of dinosaurs:

{{QuoteBox|The same logic applies to the [[dinosaur]]-bird debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the [[dino-to-bird]] advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-[[crocodile]]s. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry: A point by point response to Scientific American], Creation Ministries International</ref>}}

Evolutionary biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] in 1942 wrote:
{{QuoteBox|It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations.<ref>Brown, Walt, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood]</ref>}}

[[Scientific American]] stated:
{{QuoteBox|Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most mysterious...The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties--structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers...<ref>Matthews, Michael, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp ''Scientific American'' admits creationists hit a sore spot], Answers in Genesis.</ref><ref>Prum, Richard O., and Brush, Alan H., [http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?], ''Scientific American'', March 2003.</ref>}}

Another evolutionist critical of the dinosaur/bird connection is Storrs L. Olson, Curator of Birds at the [[National Museum of Natural History]] at the [[Smithsonian Institution]], who said: {{QuoteBox|The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age—the paleontological equivalent of [[cold fusion]].<ref>Olson, Storrs L., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3385/ Open letter], 1st November, 1999.</ref>}}

Since Olsen's open letter was published in 1999, however, numerous theropod fossils with clear evidence of feathers have been discovered<ref>Göhlich, U.B., and Chiappe, L.M. (2006). "A new carnivorous dinosaur from the Late Jurassic Solnhofen archipelago." Nature, 440: 329-332</ref>.

Creationist also assert that the comparative anatomy analysis done by evolutionists comparing bird bones and dinosaur bones is flawed.<ref>Menton, David N., [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp "Ostrich-osaurus" discovery?], Answers in Genesis.</ref>

== Evolutionary view ==
A widespread evolutionist claim is that birds evolved from earlier theropod dinosaurs over 150 million years ago. The most-frequently claimed candidate for a [[transitional form]] is ''[[Archaeopteryx|Archaeopteryx lithographica]]'' which is from the late [[Jurassic]] (about 150 million years ago) of [[Germany]]. This is a flawed example, as creationists often point out that God could have just created a feathered dinosaur.
There are other claimed transitional fossils <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird</ref> also.

There are many papers in the peer-reviewed science literature, including leading journals such as ''Nature'' and ''Science'', that support the idea that birds are a sub-group of dinosaurs. For example:
{{QuoteBox|Several features, including a carinate sternum and reduced fibula, suggest that ''Mononychus olecranus'' is more closely related to modern birds than is ''Archaeopteryx lithographica''. The two skeletons are among the best preserved fossils known of a primitive bird, and emphasize the complexity of the morphological transformation from nonavialian theropods to modern birds. The occurrence of such a primitive bird in the Late Cretaceous reflects the paucity of Mesozoic bird fossils and suggests that the early radiation of avialians is only beginning to be sampled
<ref>''Nature'' 362, 623-626 ([[15 April]] [[1993]])</ref>}}

Since those words were written in 1993, however, many fossils of primitive birds and other theropods have been discovered, so it is no longer correct to consider the Late Mesozoic fossil evidence of this group as depauperate.

=== Taxonomy ===
The conventional [[Linnaean taxonomy]] places birds in the Class Aves within the Subphylum [[Vertebrate|Vertebrata]]. [[Reptilia]], the conventional Class of reptiles, includes [[crocodile]]s and relatives, [[lizard]]s and [[snake]]s, [[turtle]]s, and the [[tuatara]]. However, birds and other, extinct [[dinosaur]]s should be grouped as [[archosaur]]s, along with the extant crocodiles and the extinct [[pterosaur]]s. Hence the conventional classification does not reflect the current state of evolutionary biology.

[[Zoology|Zoologists]] continue to use Class Aves as the taxonomic group of birds but recognise that it is a sub-group of the Superorder Dinosauria, which in turn is a member of the group Archosauria, including crocodiles and pterosaurs. The higher classification of reptiles (including birds) is not fully resolved but a common view is that current evidence indicates that the archosaurs (including birds) are a sister group of the lepidosaurs, which include lizards, snakes, the tuatara, and the extinct [[mosasaur]]s and [[plesiosaur]]s.<ref>Benton, 2004. Vertebrate Paleontology</ref>

===Evolution of flight===

'''Cursorial Theory'''

Proposed in 1879 by [[fossil]] expert [[Samuel Williston]], the Cursorial Theory suggests that the ancestors of birds were ground-dwelling theropods that developed flight through leaping and jumping. Cursorial Theory is no longer popular among scientists, who generally favor the Arboreal "trees down" theory of flight, since taking off from the ground is energetically expensive, thus it is therefore considered unlikely that flapping flight evolved from the ground up.

However, proponents of the Cursorial theory point to the basilisk lizard, which possesses the ability to run on water for a short time to escape predators, yet also has the ability to climb with great agility. The ability to run bipedally is not evident from the basilisk anatomy alone, and this illustrates the plasticity of animal behavior. It is nearly impossible to determine an animal's behavior simply by looking at its anatomy, as animals are capable of behavior beyond what their anatomy would suggest.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Birds]]
[[Category:Vertebrates]]

Talk:Main Street One blog

2010-04-16T20:47:45Z

RichardKerry:

== Encyclopedic ==

How encyclopedic is this? No offence, but this seems to be slightly self-promoting. [[User:RichardKerry|RichardKerry]] 10:31, 16 April 2010 (EDT)

:I tend to agree. I will be asking Mr. Schlafly and other Admins to check this out. Thanks for asking about this! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:04, 16 April 2010 (EDT)
::My pleasure. Mr Welch, I meant no offense by my comment, I am sure your blog is very good, I was just concerned about its place on an encyclopedia. [[User:RichardKerry|RichardKerry]] 16:47, 16 April 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Main Street One blog

2010-04-16T14:31:57Z

RichardKerry: Created page with 'How encyclopedic is this? No offence, but this seems to be slightly self-promoting. ~~~~'

How encyclopedic is this? No offence, but this seems to be slightly self-promoting. [[User:RichardKerry|RichardKerry]] 10:31, 16 April 2010 (EDT)

Harry Potter

2010-04-16T12:20:54Z

RichardKerry: Undo revision 769552 by YeVeg (Talk)

[[Image:67486ruy.jpg|right|thumb|British edition of '''Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone'''.]]
The '''''Harry Potter''''' books are a hugely popular<ref> The author has sold 350 million books and counting, been translated into 65 languages and had her work made into highly successful movies. [http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=3811481&page=1 ABC News] </ref> series of seven fantasy novels by [[J.K. Rowling]] about three children at a British boarding school for 'witchcraft and wizardry': Harry, Ron and Hermione. The children grow from age 11 to 17 in the books, giving them appeal to a broad range of readers including children and teenagers, but also appealing to adults. Since their release, interest and acceptance of withcraft has increased, particularly among the goth subculture, and many rides and attractions centered around the books are causing children to accept and admire witchcraft and magic.

==Harry Potter==
'''Harry Potter''' is the [[protagonist]] and the plot of each book focuses on Harry's adolescence and fight against the [[antagonist]] wizard Lord Voldemort. The books combine elements of whimsy reminiscent of ''[[Alice in Wonderland]]'', the strange adult immaturity of ''[[Through the Looking Glass]]'', and the implacable good vs. evil fight of ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]''.

When Harry was a mere baby, his parents were murdered by the evil [[Voldemort]]. Harry didn't know that his parents were [[wizard (fiction)|wizard]]s until his 11th birthday; it came as a giant surprise. [[Hagrid]] took him to [[Diagon Alley]] for robes, books and wand; then on to [[Hogwarts]], a boarding school for wizards and witches. He had many adventures there learning [[magic]] and using it to fight the forces of the [[Voldemort|wizard]] who killed his [[parent]]s when he was an [[infant]]. Lord Voldemort seeks to become immortal by any means. Voldemort also leads forces of "Death Eaters" who follow Voldemort's ideology of a "pure-blood" (wizard who was born to wizard parents) society and persecute Muggles, non-magical folk. Along the way, Harry learns about life and [[death]] and grapples with questions of [[morality]] and [[friendship]].

The seven books in the series have been fabulously successful, selling 300 million copies, and ''[[Forbes]]'' estimates that they have made Rowling the first billion-dollar author in history.<ref>[http://www.forbes.com/maserati/billionaires2004/cx_jw_0226rowlingbill04.html J. K. Rowling And The Billion-Dollar Empire].</ref> To date, five of them have been made into movies, the sixth to begin filming September 2007.

The ''Harry Potter'' series of books are sizable volumes. The 870 pages of ''Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix'', even though printed in large type, contain 255,000 words—about twice as long as ''A Tale of Two Cities''. The "Lexile" measure of reading level puts the series between 880L and 950L,<ref>For comparison: ''Charlotte's Web'' 680L, ''Alice's Adventures in Wonderland'' 890L, ''Moby Dick'' 1200L</ref> comparable to sixth-grade texts<ref>[http://www.lexile.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?view=fa&tabindex=4&tabid=22 The Lexile framework for reading].</ref>

== Popularizing the Occult and Mockery of Christianity ==

{{spoiler}}
Many conservative Christians have attacked the books. Most mainline Protestant and Catholic leaders have taken a more favorable position. For example, the official organization of American Catholic bishops (the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) has rated each film "A-II", --that is, suitable for adults and adolescents and was not found to be morally offensive.The episcopal conference even named the film adaptation of "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" one of the ten best family films of 2004.

However conservative critics have charged that the books have the potential of driving children away from Christian knowledge of good and evil toward the occult more than anything else in western society: "a generation of children is becoming desensitized to the occult. But with Hollywood's help, Harry Potter will likely surpass all these influences, potentially reaping some grave spiritual consequences"<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/harrypotter.html</ref>

Witchcraft is expressly forbidden by the Old Testament.

Some Fundamentalists have praised the moral values of the books. For example, Scott Moore, philosophy professor at Baylor University, has found some remarkable Christian symbolism in the Potter series.

James L. Evans, pastor of Crosscreek Baptist Church, concludes, "Instead of condemning Harry, maybe we should learn courage from him to name as evil what apparently we are afraid to speak."<ref>Jim Evans, [http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=2737 "Harry Potter As Teacher Of Christian Values" ''EthicsDaily.com'' June 24, 2003]</ref>

Conservative Christians say the ''Harry Potter'' series is written in a way that embeds fantasy and wizardry into a real world setting. This could potentially lead to some children exploring witchcraft, Wicca, and paganism. Indeed, the Pagan Federation in Britain has received a flood of inquiries from young ''Harry Potter'' fans.<ref>About.com: Agnosticism/Atheism - [http://atheism.about.com/od/harrypotter/i/witchcraft_2.htm Does Harry Potter Promote Wicca or Witchcraft? Is Harry Potter a Pagan Book?] (page 2)</ref>

The children's fantasy genre and slick storytelling style may make the danger more severe, say conservatives: "This is a true representation of witchcraft, and the black arts, and black magic. And yet we have people that say this is merely fantasy and harmless reading for our children. Actually, what makes this more dangerous is that it is couched in fantasy language, and children's literature, and made to be humorous, and beautifully written and extremely provocative reading. and it just opens up children to want to have the next one. This is what is so harmful."<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/harrypotter.html</ref>

==Criticisms==

The ''Harry Potter'' series is written in a way that embeds fantasy and wizardry into a real world setting. This could potentially lead to some children potentially exploring witchcraft, Wicca, and paganism. Indeed, the Pagan Federation in Britain has received a flood of inquiries from young ''Harry Potter'' fans.<ref>About.com: Agnosticism/Atheism - [http://atheism.about.com/od/harrypotter/i/witchcraft_2.htm Does Harry Potter Promote Wicca or Witchcraft? Is Harry Potter a Pagan Book?] (page 2)</ref>

Some expect children's literature to present characters that are role models and teach simple truths that will help children grow and know the difference between right and wrong. However, the world of ''Harry Potter'' is one in which adult authority figures are complex, imperfect, and occasionally ludicrous. Some teachers in the series are boring, or outright incompetent, while others are supportive and protective (like [[Dumbledore]] and [[Lupin]]). In the first book Harry disobeys the teachers and is successful and later praised, a questionable message for younger minds.

The books also present witches and wizards as being both normal people and abundant. This deceit causes children to likewise accept magic and witchcraft as normal, and they identify with the children in the books, again furthering their acceptance and witchcraft. The reality about magic - that witches are evil and, thankfully, not common - is not presented.

==Notable Ban Attempts==

On the week of April 10, 2006, Georgia mother of four Laura Mallory filed an appeal with the Gwinnett Board of Education in an attempt to remove the ''Harry Potter'' series from Gwinnett schools. Ms. Mallory (who has only read excerpts of the books) stated on the appeal form that she wished the books removed due to their "evil themes, witchcraft, demonic activity, murder, evil blood sacrifice, spells and teaching children all of this."<ref>[http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=32&url_subchannel_id=&url_article_id=14074&change_well_id=2]</ref> The local board of education denied the request, as they felt the banning of ''Harry Potter'' would necessitate the banning of all books with reference to witches, including plays like ''[[Macbeth]]'' and even stories like [[Cinderella]].<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15127464/ Georgia mom seeks ban on Harry Potter]</ref> Ms. Mallory has since appealed the ruling twice to no avail.<ref>[http://www.wtvm.com/Global/story.asp?S=5022462&nav=8fap]</ref> <ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16204853/from/]</ref> <ref>[http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/education/stories/011807dnentpotterprotest.a89cec.html]</ref>

Similar concerns have been voiced by Christian cartoonist [[Jack Chick]], pastor and author [[Dave Hunt]], the British group [[Christian Voice]] and various others. None of these has resulted in any form of legal action.

==Series titles==
*''[[Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone]]'' (original title as published in England and all other English-speaking countries other than U.S.A: ''Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone'')
*''[[Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets]]''
*''[[Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban]]''
*''[[Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire]]''
*''[[Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix]]''
*''[[Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince]]''
*''[[Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows]]''

Also, three companion books have been made to go along with the series: ''The Tale of the Beedle the Bard'', ''Quidditch Through the Ages'', and ''Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them''. ''Quidditch Through the Ages'' and ''Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them'' are both written under pen names, but all three are written by J.K. Rowling. <ref>www.jkrowling.org</ref>
==Further reading==
* Brown, Nancy Carpentier. ''The Mystery of Harry Potter: A Catholic Family Guide'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Harry-Potter-Catholic-Family/dp/1592763987/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254259810&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]
* Cherrett, Lisa. "Harry Potter and the Bible" (2003) [http://www.harrypotterforseekers.com/articles/hpandthebible.php online version]
* Cockrell, Amanda. "Harry Potter and the Witch Hunters: a Social Context for the Attacks on 'Harry Potter'", ''Journal of American Culture'' 2006 29(1): 24-30, in [[EBSCO]]
* Colbert, David. ''The Magical Worlds of Harry Potter'' (2nd ed. 2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Magical-Worlds-Harry-Potter-revised/dp/0425223183/ref=sr_1_20?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263210737&sr=1-20 excerpt and text search]
* Granger, John. ''Unlocking Harry Potter: Five Keys for the Serious Reader'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Unlocking-Harry-Potter-Serious-Reader/dp/0972322124/ref=sr_1_27?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263211376&sr=1-27 excerpt and text search]
* Granger, John. ''Looking for God in Harry Potter'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/How-Harry-Cast-His-Spell/dp/1414321880/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254259810&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search, 2nd edition under ''How Harry Cast His Spell'']
* Heilman, Elizabeth E., ed. ''Critical Perspectives on Harry Potter'' (2nd. ed. 2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Perspectives-Potter-Elizabeth-Heilman/dp/0415964849/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263211512&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Neal, Connie W. ''The Gospel According to Harry Potter: The Spiritual Journey of the World's Greatest Seeker'' (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-According-Harry-Potter-Spiritual/dp/0664231233/ref=sr_1_33?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263211376&sr=1-33 excerpt and text search]
* Thomas, James W. ''Repotting Harry Potter: A Professor's Book-by-Book Guide for the Serious Re-Reader'' (2009)
* Whited, Lana A., ed. ''The Ivory Tower And Harry Potter: Perspectives On A Literary Phenomenon'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Ivory-Tower-Harry-Potter-Perspectives/dp/0826215491/ref=pd_sim_b_1 excerpt and text search]
==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Harry Potter Universe]]
[[Category:Novels]]
[[Category:Ghost Stories]]
[[Category:Anti-christian]]

George Orwell

2010-04-16T12:18:17Z

RichardKerry: Undo revision 769547 by YeVeg (Talk)

[[Image:Hgdctuy6.jpg|right|thumb|George Orwell (Eric Blair)]]
'''George Orwell''' is the pen name of '''Eric Arthur Blair''' (June 25, 1903 - January 21, 1950), an [[Open mind|open-minded]], leading English writer, essayist and journalist who became increasingly critical of his ideological allies on the left. He grew increasingly [[conservative]] while maintaining his good standing among democratic socialists, which allowed him to continue his columns and perhaps to introduce them to conservative insights. "There are nevertheless four aspects of Orwell's later work which are more closely linked to conservative than to left-wing styles of thinking."<ref>http://revel.unice.fr/cycnos/document.html?id=1391</ref> The tension between the conservative Orwell grew to become and the democratic socialist he still allowed others to view him as, may account for some of his interesting word inventions like "doublethink".

Unlike most writers, Orwell's greatest works came late in his life. He harshly criticized communism and totalitarianism in ''[[1984]]'', his finest novel. His short story named ''[[Animal Farm]]'' was an allegorical reference to the Russian Revolution and a frightening tale of how people can change the meaning of words and commandments over time to suit a totalitarian regime. These works were far more influential than his first novel, based on his experiences on the Imperial Police Force in Burma, ''[[Burmese Dаys]]'', which explored the evils of [[coloniаlism]]. His highly influential essay, "Politics in the English Language," attacked the [[liberal obfuscation]] which was already present in his day, and championed clear speech.

== Biography ==
Orwell's political views became to move away from the far left when he volunteered to fight the Spanish [[Fаscist]] forces to keep them from overturning the socialist government of Spain in the [[Spаnish Civil War]] (1936-1939). He enlisted in the POUM (In English, Workers Party for Marxist Unity) Militia, and saw action on the Aragon front, where he fought side by side with Anаrchists and Communists, as well as Republican regulars.

He became disillusioned with the Spanish government's policy of withholding arms from the POUM and the Anarchists, which he saw as an attempt by the Communists to water down the revolutionary nature of the Anti-Fascist resistance, and centralize power in the hands of the Moscow-backed Communist Party. Taking a bullet through his neck but surviving, Orwell was invalided to Barcelona, where he witnessed the [[Stalin]]ist repression of [[Trotsky]]ist and [[Anarchist]] parties. Orwell and his wife were forced to escape from Spain as fugitives, after the POUM was banned by the increasingly repressive regime.

Despite his persecution, Orwell initially continued to support the Republic upon his return to England, viewing a Communist dominated Spain as better than a Fascist Spain. He recounted his experiences in Spain in the book ''[[Homage to Catalonia]]''.<ref>[http://www.george-orwell.org/Homage_to_Catalonia/index.html]</ref> He remained a socialist, and was for a time in the late 1930s a member of the [[Independent Labour Party]], although he split from the ILP over its opposition to the [[Second World Wаr]]. Orwell served in the [[Home Guаrd]] during the war.

Orwell had only ten years left in his life when he returned. During that period he and his wife adopted a baby boy, but Orwell's wife died shortly thereafter.

In those ten years Orwell wrote his famous anti-communist fictional works, demonstrating how much his views had moved to the right from his youth. First he spent three years writing ''Animаl Farm'' (1944), and then perhaps five years on the longer novel ''1984'' (1949). Orwell continued to espouse forms of [[sociаlism]]<ref>[http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/eaip_03]</ref> right up to his death, but utilized his position as a regular columnist for the left-labor ''Tribune'' paper to strongly criticize the USSR. Such criticism was unusual for a [[left-wing]]er of the period, but Orwell was so well respected that his position was secure. "I belong to the left and must work with it," he declared in 1945.<ref>http://revel.unice.fr/cycnos/document.html?id=1391</ref> He died of [[tuberculosis]] in 1950.

==Quotes==

*"In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

*"All issues are political issues ...."<ref>http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm</ref>

*"It cannot be said too often - at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough - that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamt of."

*"One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist and feminist in England."

*"If only the sandals and pistachio-colored shirts could be put in a pile and burnt, and every vegetarian, teetotaler and creeping Jesus sent home to Welwyn Garden City to do his yoga exercises quietly. As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents."

*"The truth is that to many people calling themselves Socialists, revolution does not mean a movement of the masses with which they hope to associate themselves; it means a set of reforms which 'we,' the clever ones, are going to impose upon 'them,' the Lower Orders."

*"War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it."

*"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."

*"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against [[totаlitarianism]] and for [[democratic socialism]], as I know it."

*"I have no particular love for the idealized 'worker' as he appears in the bourgeois Communist's mind, but when I see an actual flesh-and-blood worker in conflict with his natural enemy, the policeman, I do not have to ask myself which side I am on."

*"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."

==Bibliography==
===Books===
*[http://orwell.ru/library/novels/Down_and_Out_in_Paris_and_London/english/ ''Down and Out in Paris and London''] (1933)
*[http://orwell.ru/library/novels/Burmese_Days/ ''Burmese Days''] (1934)
*[http://orwell.ru/library/novels/A_Clergymans_Daughter/ ''A Clergyman's Daughter''] (1935)
*[http://orwell.ru/library/novels/Keep_the_Aspidistra_Flying/ ''Keep the Aspidistra Flying''] (1936)
*[http://orwell.ru/library/novels/The_Road_to_Wigan_Pier/ ''The Road to Wigan Pier''] (1937)
*[http://orwell.ru/library/novels/Homage_to_Catalonia/ ''Homage to Catalonia''] (1938)
*[http://orwell.ru/library/novels/Coming_up_for_Air/ ''Coming Up for Air''] (1939)
*''[[Animal Farm]]'' (1945)
*''[[Nineteen Eighty-Four]]'' (1949)

===Essays===
*[http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/spike.htm ''The Spike''] (1931)
*[http://orwell.ru/library/articles/hanging/ '' A Hanging''] (1931)
*[http://orwell.ru/library/articles/elephant/ ''Shooting An Elephant''] (1936)
*[http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/dickens/ ''Charles Dickens''] (1939)
*[http://orwell.ru/library/essays/boys/ ''Boys' Weeklies''] (1940)
*[http://orwell.ru/library/essays/whale/ ''Inside The Whale''] (1940)
*[http://orwell.ru/library/essays/lion/english/ ''The Lion and The Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius''] (1941)
*[http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/wells/ ''Wells, Hitler and the World State''] (1941)
*[http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/McGill/ ''The art of donald McGill''] (1941)
*[http://orwell.ru/library/essays/Spanish_War/ ''Looking back on the Spanish War''] (1943)
*[http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/yeats/ ''W. B. Yeats''] (1943)
*[http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/dali/ ''Benefit of Clergy: Some notes on Salvador Dali''] (1944)
*[http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/koestler/ ''Arthur Koestler''] (1944)
*[http://orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/ ''Notes on Nationalism''] (1945)
*[http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/nicecupoftea.htm ''A Nice Cup of Tea''] (1946)
*[http://orwell.ru/library/articles/Poor_Die/ ''How The Poor Die''] (1946)
*[http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/swift/ ''Politics vs. Literature: An Examination of Gulliver's Travels''] (1946)
*[http://orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/ ''Politics and the English Language''] (1946)
*[http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/burnham/ ''Second Thoughts on James Burnham''] (1946)
*[http://orwell.ru/library/articles/decline/ ''Decline of the English Murder''] (1946)
*[http://orwell.ru/library/articles/Common_Toad/ ''Some Thoughts on the Common Toad''] (1946)
*[http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/vicar/ ''A Good Word for the Vicar of Bray''] (1946)
*[http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/plum/ ''In Defence of P. G. Wodehouse''] (1946)
*[http://orwell.ru/library/essays/wiw/ ''Why I Write''] (1946)
*[http://orwell.ru/library/essays/prevention/ ''The Prevention of Literature''] (1946)
*[http://orwell.ru/library/essays/joys/english/ ''Such, Such Were the Joys''] (1946)
*[http://orwell.ru/library/essays/lear/ ''Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool''] (1947)
*[http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/gandhi/ ''Reflections on Gandhi''] (1949)
*[http://www.george-orwell.org/Bookshop_Memories/0.html ''Bookshop Memories''] (1936)
*[http://www.whitebeertravels.co.uk/orwell ''The Moon Under Water''] (1946)

===Poetry===
*Romance
*A Little Poem
*Awake! Young Men of England
*Kitchener
*Our Minds are Married, But we are Too Young
*The Pagan
*The Lesser Evil
*Poem From Burma

[[Category:Authors|Orwell, George]]

{{Conservatism}}

==References==
<references/>
*[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,926380-6,00.html That Year Is Almost Here] by Paul Gray, Time Online.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Orwell, George}}

[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:British History]]
[[Category:Totalitarianism]]

Hammer and sickle

2010-04-16T12:17:04Z

RichardKerry: Undo revision 769546 by YeVeg (Talk)

[[Image:HammerAndSickle.png|thumb|The hammer and sickle of [[communism]].]]

The '''hammer and sickle''' is primary element of [[communism|communist]] symbolism, representing the tools of the industrial [[proletariat]] and the agricultural [[peasant|peasantry]], and the unity of the two factions.

[[Category:Communism]]

Communism

2010-04-16T12:16:36Z

RichardKerry: Undo revision 769544 by YeVeg (Talk)

[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|180px|right|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in [[Washington, D.C.]]]]
'''Communism''' is a materialistic and militantly atheistic ideology created to justify the overthrow of [[Capitalism]], replacing [[free market]] economics and [[democracy]] with a "[[dictatorship of the proletariat]]". Under Communism, the [[political]] system replaces the [[private property|private ownership]] of the [[means of production]] with "[[collective ownership]]" (actually [[nationalization]]).

Twentieth century Communism was based on [[Karl Marx]]'s manifesto which proposed to establishment of a "[[classless society]]." However, all Communist societies have had a [[class structure]], notably the [[USSR]], which was dominated by a self appointed ''[[Nomenklatura]]''.

In the belief that "people cannot change", governments under the banner of Communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.<ref>[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref><ref>[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]</ref><ref>[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365 Memory and Ideology]</ref><ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]</ref> Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term [[democide]] (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref>

President [[Ronald Reagan]] in an address before the British [[House of Commons]] said,
{{Cquote|What I am describing now is a plan and hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave [[Marxism-Leninism]] on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.<ref>President Ronald Reagan [http://www.iri.org/history_ReaganSpeech.asp Speech to the British Parliament], June 8, 1982. Retrieved from International Republican Institute 05/24/07. </ref>}}

Today, communism continues to rule over at least one-fifth of the world's people.<ref>[http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation], Documenting Communism's Crimes Against Humanity.</ref>
__TOC__
 

==Communist theory and practice==

[[File:50_star_flag.png|thumb|left|200px|The [[hammer and sickle]] is considered throughout much of the world to be offensive in the same manner as the [[swastika]] is.]]
Communism is based upon [[Marxism]], a philosophy which uses [[materialism]] to explain all physical and social phenomena.

Economically, communism advocates a [[socialist]] economy in which the government owns the [[means of production]]. In countries where communism has been imposed, the government has taken ownership of farms, factories, stores and so on in the name of the people; see "[[dictatorship of the proletariat]]". This drives all [[free market|market-based]] economic activity underground and leads to inefficiencies and shortages. In both the Soviet Union and Red China, the number of people who starved to death when the government confiscated their farm products (animals and grain) is estimated in the tens of millions.

Even more important, one party controls every organization from the local labor union to the the army to the national government. The party is not elected. Its top officials (the "Politburo") select replacements when there is a vacancy. usually a dictator (like Stalin, Mao or Castro) controls the Politburo, but sometimes power is shared among five or six people. No dissent is allowed--all news media are controlled, and the Internet is heavily censored.

Elites do not disappear. Members of the ruling party (see [[Nomenklatura]]) have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure.

Various communist doctrines have evolved or been adapted to the time and place they have been implemented. Marxism, developed by [[Karl Marx]], and its modifications under [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]], advocates the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is supposedly to create a classless society which would result in no longer the need for any [[government]] (Communism).

The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1918 to 1991. This government was officially [[atheist]] and attempted to suppress all religion until World War II, when it discovered religion was needed to rally the people against the Nazi invaders. Like all authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion.

Marxist theory is intended to appeal to its adherents with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which essentially states point blank a worker does not get paid according to his abilities, and there is no [[incentive]] within the economic theory. Another quote by Marx was, "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property," or as some have phrased it, legalized theft.

== Communism and militant atheism ==

[[Karl Marx]] established atheism as a key part of communism. He famously said, "Religion ... is the opium of the masses."<ref>Marx, K. [http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/31765.html Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right] (Classic Quotations) (Standard translation from the original German).</ref> He believed it was part of the "superstructure," a false culture built to maintain the status quo. Thus he denigrated Christianity as a fictional religion. Instead, Marx was an avowed atheist, as he wrote, "Communism begins from the outset with [[atheism]]; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."<ref>Marx, Karl, [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm Private Property and Communism], 1944.</ref>

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on ''in practice'' and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."<ref>Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich, ''Proletary'', No. 45, May 13 (26), 1909, translated by Andrew Rothstein and Bernard Issacs, quote from [http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm].</ref>

In 1955, [[China|Chinese]] communist leader Chou En-lai declared, "We Communists are atheists".<ref>Noebel, David, The Battle for Truth, Harvest House, 2001.</ref>

The [[atheism]] in communist regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref><ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

Marxists justification for its persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church was based upon the claim that the Church was a "willing tool of Tsarism."<ref>http://www.marxist.com/religion-soviet-union170406-6.htm</ref>

The clergy openly stated its support for the counter-revolution (White Revolution). Lenin proclaimed that a communist regime must show itself to be merciless toward the question of religion. There was no place for the church in Lenin's regime. This led to anti-religious decrees and propaganda. All church property was expropriated by the new Soviet government. <ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42047/Union-of-Soviet-Socialist-Republics#277888.hook</ref>

During the late 1930's and later 1940's the restrictions on church activity were loosened as Stalin needed all the support he could get for the war. This doctrine of co-operation between the church and state continued through out the existence of the Soviet republics and the other Warszawa pact nations. Though never going as far as a leader of the Soviet Union asking [http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_barrow/2007/03/hiding_behind_god.html god to bless the country] the clause in the Soviet Unions constitution addressing the separation of church and state was rendered useless.

Dr. [[Martin Luther King]] said, "for the Communist there is no divine government, no absolute moral order, there are no fixed, immutable principles; consequently almost anything - force, violence, murder, lying - is a justifiable means." <ref>''Stride Toward Freedom : The Montgomery Story'', Martin Luther King, Jr., Harper and Rowe, New York, 1958, p. 92.</ref>

== Atrocities and Repression ==
[[File:Stalin-kill.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Exhumed skeletons of [[class war]] victims murdered by communists.<ref>[http://www.mega.nu/ampp/rummel/rm1.stalin.kill.htm.</ref> Apologists maintain communism has never really been tried. ]]
Communist regimes have engaged in mass killings on a scale of millions of individuals.<ref>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part3</ref> A work entitled ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'' published by the [[Harvard]] Press focuses on the crimes, terror, and repression of modern communist regimes over a 70 year period.<ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html</ref> This book is fairly controversial partly due to the various estimates regarding the millions of people who died under communist regimes.<ref>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html</ref><ref>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365</ref><ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref>

Similarly, a influential book which concerns itself with Russian communist torture, repression and atrocities is [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]'s ''[[The Gulag Archipelago]]'' which won Solzhenitsyn a [[Nobel Prize]].<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/solz-gulag.html</ref> In 1983, Alexander Solzhenitsyn in which he gave his explanation of the cause of why millions of people died under Russian communism:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened. Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>
</blockquote>

In communist [[North Korea]], abuse and killing in prison camps is occurring today.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5596</ref><ref>http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nkdefec3.htm</ref> In addition, the North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref>

In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "China has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of Bibles in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today.<ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

==Communists cite scripture==

Some Communist ideology has made its way into the Church as a [[Social Gospel]], interpreting the Gospel as less redemptive of sin and more of a public works campaign and activism. They often cite Jesus feeding the masses and warnings to the wealthy who believed self-seeking is all this world has to offer. Communists often cite the Acts of the Apostles, as early Christians practicing some form of sharing for the common good:

:And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45, KJV)

:Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

:And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

:And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

:Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.(Acts 4:34-7, KJV)

But as Arnold Toynbee has pointed out, this Marxist view denies the most crucial points,

:The passage in the Acts represents the philanthropy of the primitive Christian Society as flowing from a God-given grace which was the fruit of a belief in the divinity of Jesus. In other words, the charity which is here depicted as moving the primitive Christians to go—in their mutual concern for one another's welfare—to the extreme length of sharing all their worldly goods is not a mere love of Man for Man (which is the limited literal meaning of the word ‘philanthropy’), but is a spiritual relation to which God is a party as well as His human creatures. In fact, this Christian Socialism is a practical application, on the economic surface of life, of the fundamental religious truth that the brotherhood of man is a consequence of the fatherhood of God - a truth which is driven home with special force by a religion which teaches that God is not only the Father and Creator of man, but also his Savior, Who has been incarnate in human shape and has suffered, and triumphed over, death.<ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585, ''Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity''.</ref>

==Cummunisms shared totalitarian ideals with facism and nazism==

[[Adolf Hitler]] noted that Communists made excellent converts to Nazism, because the same personality type was attracted to both. "[T]here is more that binds us to [[Bolshevik|Bolshevism]] than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois [[Social democracy|Social-Democrat]] and the trade-union boss will never make a [[National Socialist]], but the Communists always will."<ref>quoted in Hermann Rauschning, ''Hitler Speaks''</ref> [[Josef Stalin]] also recognized that ex-Nazis and ex-[[fascist]]s were natural recruits for post-war Communist regimes. As Stanley Payne notes in his ''A History of Fascism: 1914-1945'', "All over Soviet-occupied eastern Europe, most rank-and-file former fascist party members, together with many lower-level leaders, were welcomed to fill the ranks of the initially exiguous local Communist parties. The psychological transition seems to have been an easy one, for obvious reasons."<ref>http://www.lietuvos.org/istorija/communism/</ref>

==Cuban communism==
[[Cuba]] remains a communist state controlled by the Castro brothers since 1960 and under U.S economic sanctions.

==Asian communism==
The [[CCP]] in China retains an autocratic regime controlled by the Communist party, which allows no democracy or dissent. However it does allow capitalism, and has experienced a very rapid growth of the private sector and the middle class. Observers expect that the regime's efforts to control public opinion and forestall the will of the people will be more and more difficult.

[[North Korea]] remains a brutal dictatorship controlled by the same family. [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]] are also run by the old Communist cliques.

==Collapse of the Soviet bloc==

The shooting down by the Soviets on Sept. 1, 1983 of [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] may have been a contributing factor for the downfall of the Soviet Union as well as for the whole Soviet block. It being a catalyst for the collapse of the Soviet Union may be inferred from the fact that NATO had decided, under the impetus of the U.S. administration, to deploy Pershing II and cruise missiles in Europe, primarily West Germany. This deployment would have placed missiles just 6-10 minutes striking distance from Moscow. But support for the deployment was wavering and many doubted that the missile deployment would find enough support to effect it. When the Soviet Union shot down Flight 007 with 269 people aboard, including conservative Democratic Congressman [[Larry McDonald]] —an act which U.S. President Ronald Reagan characterized as a "massacre"—enough support was galvanized for the deployment. The deployment caused great resources of the Soviet Union to be diverted from inner economic use to military expenditures to counter the U.S. and NATO missile deployment.
Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments fell. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the West and communist states, was torn down largely in response to Ronald Reagan in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries - each which reformed to capitalism. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced democracy. With the collapse the remnants of Communist parties have dropped their old names and ideologies, but still operate on the left of the political spectrum.

==American communism==
:''Main article : [[Committees of Correspondence]]''
With the collapse of Soviet communism and the conversion of Chinese communism to "state run capitalism," the spiritual and ideological center of world of communism and the [[Marxist-Leninist]] tradition shifted to the [[United States]]. Several prominent American communists, rudderless without [[Moscow]] direction, formed a new organization in 1992 called the [[Committees of Correspondence for Democratic Socialism]].

The initial organizational conference was held in [[Berkeley]], [[California]], July 17-19, 1992. Charlene Mitchell, a former leader of the California Communist Party, speaking at the conference said, "the collapse of [[socialism]] in [[Eastern Europe]] left the [[United States]] in a near unchallenged position of world leadership." Mitchell continued,
{{Cquote|What began as a moment to take stock and ponder where to go from there has now become a very different entity. People from the Communist Party, from CrossRoads, from the [[Democratic Socialists of America]], from NCIPA [National Committee for Independent Political Action], from Solidarity, from the Socialist Organizing Network and many others, including independent leftists and independent socialists, have come together here in Berkeley.}}
Criticizing U.S. actions in the [[First Gulf War]], Mitchell stated,
{{Cquote|[[progressive]] forces were nearly powerless in the face of an onslaught of demagogic, [[patriotic]] [[jingoism]] and yellow ribbons. This war, fought for no legitimate reason, was the crowning height of [[George H.W. Bush|President [George H.W.] Bush]]'s [[New World Order]]. Previously, the Soviet Union helped to provide a certain balance to rein in the crazies in this country. Now, that balance is no longer there. It is now up to us, the American people, to rein in our own crazies. The [[left]] must take a major responsibility in organizing this task.}}

==Notorious communists==

Well known communists include:
*[[William Ayers]]
*[[Fidel Castro]]
*[[Hugo Chavez]]
*[[Carl Davidson]]
*[[Frank Marshall Davis]]
*[[Bernardine Dohrn]]
*[[Friedrich Engels]]
*[[Che Guevara]]
*[[Van Jones]]
*[[Lazar Kaganovich]]
*[[Vladimir Lenin]]
*[[Mao Zedong]]
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Paul Robeson]]
*[[Joseph Stalin]]
*[[Yakov Sverdlov]]
*[[Leon Trotsky]]
*[[Genrikh Yagoda]]
*[[Yakov Yurovsky]]

==Further reading==
* Pipes, Richard. ''Communism: A History'' (2003), by a leading conservative historian
** Pipes, Richard. ''History of Communism: A Brief History'' (2002)
* Priestland, David. ''The Red Flag: A History of Communism'' (2009)
*[http://www.archive.org/stream/100thingsyoushou1949unit#page/n3/mode/2up 100 Things You Should Know About Communism'']

==See also==
*[[Communist Party of the United States of America]]
*[[Cold War]]
*[[Capitalism]]
*[[Iron Curtain]]
*[[Progressives for Obama]]
*[[Socialism]]
*[[Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for the connection of the shootdown by the Soviets of KAL 007, with 269 people aboard, on Sept. 1, 1983 with the heightened U.S./Soviet confrontations of 1983-4.

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.memorialsighet.ro/en/colectie.asp?id=3 Memorial to the Victims of Communism and the Resistance]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/communism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Communism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Marxist terminology]]
[[Category:Forms of Government]]

Leftist

2010-04-16T12:10:01Z

RichardKerry: Undo revision 769541 by YeVeg (Talk) vandalism and obscenity

'''Leftist''' refers to someone on the far left side of the [[political spectrum]], not merely a [[liberal]], but more radical, such as a [[socialist]], [[communist]] or a particularly [[liberal]] member of the [[American]] [[Democratic Party]]. A leftist supports collectivism, more government control of the economy, direct government control over social policy, including Federal control over education at all levels, lower [[military]] spending, censorship of religion, a more unisex society, [[Transnationalism]] and state-funded [[abortion]].

Anarchist thinker Michael Bakunin critiqued prominent leftist theoritician [[Karl Marx]] in 1873 with these words,

:"..if the [[proletariat]] is to be the ruling class, over whom is it to rule? ...the peasant "rabble" who, as it is known, does not enjoy the sympathy of the Marxists who consider it to represent a [[Racism|lower level of culture]], will probably be ruled by the factory proletariat of the cities. Or, if this problem is to be approached [[Nationalism|nationalist]]ically, the [[Slavs]] will be placed in the same subordinate relationship to the victorious German proletariat in which the latter now stands to the German bourgeoisie." <ref>Michael Bakunin, ''Statism and Anarchy'', (1873), in Sam Dolgoff, ''Bakunin'' On Anarchy, (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1972), p. 330.</ref>

==State planning==

In the United States men such as [[Eugene Debs]], Maurice Hilquit and [[Norman Thomas]] believed they could, by a gradual series of alterations in the structure of society, create a truly democratic world in which all people would enjoy not merely freedom, but prosperity. They believed this could not be achieved under the system of [[private property]] and [[profit]]. They advocated a gradual acquisition by the State of all the great utilities, transportation, communication, and basic industries such as coal, oil, and steel.

The dream of a cooperative commonwealth in which all would share equally in the prosperity created by an economic system owned by the people was the vision of [[Socialist]]s. This in theory would end [[poverty]], [[ignorance]] and [[crises]]. The idea was to [[nationalize]] banks, railroads, all means of transport, mines, and a few basic industries, but leave some factories, stores, farms, entertainment industries, etc., in the hands of private owners. The government would assume responsibility for making the economy work, for the wellbeing of all the citizens, their protection from the hazards of life, poverty, sickness, and old age. To make the whole economy work continuously without occasional [[Great_Depression#Boom_or_Bust_Cycles|boom-bust]] cycles, the government would create [[economic planning]] boards which would continuously study and observe the functioning of the economic system and make plans covering production, prices, distribution, financing, profits, [[wages]], hours, etc. Thus there would be Planned Capitalism, with the State responsible for the planning and for ensuring the carrying out of its plans through great government bureaus armed with the necessary powers to enforce compliance.

In the 1920s [[Mussolini]] had adopted the Planned Capitalist State. And he gave it the name "[[fascism]]". [[Hitler]] adopted the same idea and called it [[National Socialism]]. Mussolini and Hitler both realized that a system which imposes a vast complex of decrees upon a people while subjecting them to confiscatory [[tax]]es to support the immense activities of the government cannot be operated except by an [[Absolutism|absolute]] government that has the power to enforce compliance. Prior to [[World War II]], this type of system had spread all over Europe. For nearly 70 years all the countries in Europe, with Germany in the lead, had been experimenting with the idea of the [[welfare state]], the State which attempts to provide its people with jobs and protection from all the hazards of life.

This system is the direct opposite of [[classical liberalism]]. It is the negation of the classical liberal philosophy which for decades has been fighting to emancipate the people from the tyranny of the all powerful State. During the [[New Deal]] this doctrine became known in America as "liberalism". Liberals did not admit that it implied the restoration to the State those very powers which had been stripped from the State as the means of giving people freedom. They called it the [[Planned Economy]]. But it was and is fascism by whatever name it is known. Incrementally the government must be made stronger, and the rights of the citizens reduced.

==Modern leftists==
Modern leftists in the United States have come under increasing criticism as advocates of thought control. <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com//article.php?id=20562 Leftist Thought Control], David Limbaugh, ''Human Events'', 05/04/2007. </ref> Author David Limbaugh cites, "Consider the subjects of [[evolution]], [[global warming]], [[gay agenda|special rights for homosexuals]] and [[abstinence]] education. Consider efforts of the left to [[Fairness Doctrine|silence conservative talk radio]]. Consider the mainstream media's arrogant denial of its transparent [[liberal bias]], pronouncing itself to be above politics and inherently objective and its critics somehow skewed....Consider the leftist refrain that [[red state]] conservatives do not merely possess a different world view, but are not part of the 'reality-based community.'"

== History ==

During the French [[Reign of Terror]] of the early [[Enlightenment]], the left attempted a dechristianization movement to replace the "reactionary" worship of God and replace it with the worship of national patriotism, or the ''Patrie''. Many churches were closed and converted into Temples of Reason. <ref>John Hall Stewart, ''A Documentary Survey of the French Revolution'' (Macmillan, New York, 1963). </ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
* [http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/LWC20.html V. I. Lenin, ''"Left-Wing" Communism, An Infantile Disorder''] (1920) V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, English edition, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2.
* [http://jonjayray.tripod.com/leftism2.html John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.), ''THE MOTIVATIONS OF POLITICAL LEFTISTS'']
{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:Liberalism]]

Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany

2010-04-16T12:04:25Z

RichardKerry: /* Vandal */ new section

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center></noinclude>
=General Messages=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany/Archive1|1]] [[Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany/Archive2|2]] [[Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany/Archive3|3]]

== <hiero> tag and WikiHiero ==

Is it possible to introduce support for WikiHiero on Conservapedia? On Wikipedia it is possible to insert hieroglyphs into an article using this tag along with the WikiHiero syntax to enter the signs correctly. It'd be useful to have this feature here too.
--[[User:Krysg|Krysg]] 07:54, 10 December 2008 (EST)

== Someone is trying to steal my password ==

I recently received this E-mail:

Someone (probably you, from IP address 92.16.2.122)
requested that we send you a new password for Conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php).
The password for user "Kuyper" is now "[removed]".
You should log in and change your password now.
If someone else made this request or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it,
you may ignore this message and continue using your old password.

You might want to consider looking into this as hacking is a serious problem. [[User:Kuyper|Kuyper]] 16:50, 28 December 2008 (EST)

*The operative phrase is below. There wasn't any "hacking" or even "cracking" here.

<blockquote>
'''If someone else made this request or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it,
''you may ignore this message and continue using your old password.'''''
</blockquote>

--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:57, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

== How to edit? ==

I read the article on Barak Obama. Basically, it is a train wreck. I am not an expert on him, but I thought I could at least take out all the snide innuendo's, and even if the artilce is much shorter, at least it will be more credible. He is, after all, the President of the United States, and deserves some minimal respect.

However, I have no idea how to edit articles on this thing, and there is just about no help or assistance. It certainly does not seem to be user friendly.

So, I am just about ready to give up.

I also read the article on Virgnia, since that is where I am from. Under the list of counties, it only had about half of them. It was a terribel article. I do not understand how this organizaiton works, but many of the articles are not vey good, and then when you invite people to edit them, how do we do it?

Sincerely

Daniel Sharp

: With all due respect, your misspellings are the worst I've seen. Please improve and then try to improve the Virginia article, with good spelling. Thanks much, and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:44, 18 January 2009 (EST)

:: As well as the links that I've just put on your user talk page, see [[Help:Contents]] for some more advice. However, that help is not designed for someone who has never edited a Wiki before. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:37, 18 January 2009 (EST)

:::Daniel Sharp is also user [[user talk:Lucyjordan|Lucy Jordan]]? I'm really confused here. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:52, 19 January 2009 (EST)

There are some very serious problems with the entries concerning topics related to Confucianism. Many of entries are not strictly incorrect but are sufficiently superficial to be grossly misleading. When it comes to topics as foreign as Confucianism, brevity is not your friend. I will try to help, but unfortunately I do not have the time or the resources to do everything that needs doing. You need a total overhaul.

==Noah's Ark Page Locked==
I would like to create responses to the criticisms on the [[Noah's Ark]] article but the page has been locked by an administrator. The problem is that the locking admin (MountainDew/DanH) is MIA.

Can I get a little help? [[User:CherylE|CherylE]] 12:54, 29 January 2009 (EST)
: I've unlocked it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 15:02, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Multiple Problems ==

I've made many edits this month, but most of them have disappeared from "my contributions" and from the pages I edited. Also, many of the math pages (e.g. [[Covariance]]) can't display formulas properly. Finally, another user made an edit to my user page a while ago. But that edit has also disappeared from the record. What's going on? [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 21:11, 30 January 2009 (EST)

*Conservapedia suffered a hard drive failure earlier this week. We restored up until the 19th, and are adding more current revisions manually, as we find them viable. Sorry for the loss, it has effected all of us. Look for bits and pieces to appear back slowly, bit by bit. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:17, 31 January 2009 (EST)

:*The hard drive failure explains the missing edits, but why isn't the math environment working? The following should appear as an equation, but doesn't:

::<math>
\mbox{E}\left[T\right]=
\begin{cases}
\mu\sqrt{\frac{\nu}{2}}\frac{\Gamma((\nu-1)/2)}{\Gamma(\nu/2)}
&\nu>1\\
\mbox{Does not exist}
&\nu\le1\\
\end{cases}
</math>

:*At the moment, this problem is present on every page I've looked at ([[Linear model]], [[Normal distribution]], etc...). [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 10:34, 31 January 2009 (EST)

:: The math problems are a problem related to moving to a new server. Other, more major issues are taking priority over the math. I'll get to is soon though. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 16:30, 3 February 2009 (EST)

== Messed up linking... ==

I created a new page for the Show hannity that took over Hannity and colmes. I'm not sure what I did, but linking to [[Hannity & Colmes]] directs to [[Hannity]]. If an admin could let me know what I did wrong so I can fix it, that would be great. Thanks.--[[User:TylerG|Tyler]] 23:58, 1 February 2009 (EST)
: Well I found the problem, [[Hannity & Colmes]] is for some reason linking to [[Hannity]] and not [[Hannity and Colmes]]...--[[User:TylerG|Tyler]] 00:04, 2 February 2009 (EST)
:: We've had problems in the past with ampersands in article names, although I thought that problem had disappeared. Perhaps it is back again. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:16, 3 February 2009 (EST)

== New outage? ==

The past few times I've checked the site all the pages were protected. One time was around 3PM. Was there an extension of the 1-6AM closing?
[[User:CMcFreeze|CMcFreeze]] 09:55, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:Conservapedia's editing is turned off over-night, for all but Administrators and specially righted editors. That would generally be between Midnight and 6:00AM, Eastern Standard Time, U.S. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:02, 8 February 2009 (EST)

==Wikipedia==
Article [[Wikipedia]] says "Wikipedia bills itself as a democracy." However, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy here], Wikipedia clearly does not bill itself as a democracy. Regards, [[User:J|J]] 19:57, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

== Requested move of [[Hull City F.C.]] ==

Not sure if this is the right place, but can the article [[Hull City F.C.]] please be moved to [[Hull City A.F.C]], as that is the correct name of the club. (see the badge and the club website [http://www.hullcityafc.net/page/World/ here]. Thanks, [[User:Ozoo|Ozoo]] 14:56, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

*Done. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:51, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

== How to start? ==

Just joined and want to edit an article.

If I know that part of the information is incorrect should I first describe the changes I'm going to make on the talk page or should I just go ahead and make the changes? {{Unsigned|ChrisMH -- 09:08, 1 December 2009 (EST)}}

:Glad you joined! In my totally unofficial opinion: If the article's been undergoing a lot of controversy recently, or if there's been controversy before about the issues you want to address, I'd describe the changes. If it's been undergoing a lot of editing recently, and the changes are major, I'd describe them. Otherwise, I'd go right ahead and edit; if someone objects, he can always (revert and) describe his objections. This's what I'd do; it's definitely not official policy. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 11:27, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::Chris, the important thing to remember is that encyclopedia's rely on ''facts''. '''That means having verifiable sources included with your edits.''' If you or I know something is a fact, and we add it to an article, that doesn't help other users without their ability to confirm it with a reliable source. Please check the links I placed on your talk page, including our Manual of Style for help. Our Guidelines will also be of help. Remember part of your online reputation includes not using anonymous proxies to mask your location. That said, welcome to you as well, and that is the ''official'' word on your question! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:43, 1 December 2009 (EST)

I noticed your main page states "wikiproject" - I recommend changing to "pediaproject" or something along those lines; don't want to reinforce or reference wikipedia, sticking to conservapedia. sw

== Technical problem creating AT&T article ==

I've recently attempted to create an article about telephone giant [[AT&T]], but having technical difficulties. The article is created, but attempting to view the article results in an error message stating that there is no article for "AT." Basically, attempting to view "AT&T" results in "AT" being displayed. Anyway we can fix this? AT&T is the largest telephone provider worldwide, certainly worthy of an article if [[Vodafone]] is. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 22:21, 27 December 2009 (EST)

== Keep Needing to Reset My Password ==

I apologize if I'm posting this in the wrong place; I'm still relatively new here. After I log out every time, the next time I log in, the form says that my password is incorrect. I e-mail myself a new password, then promptly change my password to something new. The website accepts it and I log in, but after I log out and try to log back in, the same situation happens. Could this because I'm trying to log in from a blocked IP? I'm at a university campus where account creation is blocked by IP, but I spoke with TK and was cleared to create an account from my home IP. Thank you for the help! [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] 14:50, 1 February 2010 (EST)

== My new article. ==

Hi there. I've added the article [[Nick Clegg]]. I've researched it, and tried to make it work. I'd really appreciate if somebody would take a look and let me know if it's the right kind of style. Thank you. --[[User:Newton|Newton]] 12:21, 11 March 2010 (EST)

:Good start. I made a few changes. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:37, 11 March 2010 (EST)

== Regarding the UK ==

Hello. I'd like to take a serious role in the UK side of Conservapedia, and try to get some serious articles done about the United Kingdom from a proper Christian conservative point of view. Peraonlly, I think that all of the political parties in the United Kingdom are liberal.. it's just a matter of being more or less liberal. But that's just my opinion. Anyway, sorry for rambling...

If any of the administrators would like to request an article about the UK, please let me know on my talk page. I'm more than happy to accept writing assignments. Who knows? Maybe if I write enough good articles, you'll come to think of me as your 'UK Politics & Religion Editor.'

I'm going to bed now, take care. --[[User:Newton|Newton]] 23:49, 25 March 2010 (EDT)

:Thanks, Newton! Dive right in, and I am certain any of us who see the need will do as you ask and post on your talk page. I am sure many of the U.K articles we have are in need, as some I have spotted misleading information and removed it. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:58, 26 March 2010 (EDT)

::Is there a way that I could possibly edit during your night-time period? Who would I speak to about this? At the moment, I can't edit before 10am. On days when I'm in class, I'm often up at 7am or 8am, and have a lot of free time to edit. --[[User:Newton|Newton]] 19:12, 26 March 2010 (EDT)

:::Sorry Newton, you have to earn that through contributions--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:16, 26 March 2010 (EDT)

::::Okay, that's reasonable. Thanks for your quick reply. --[[User:Newton|Newton]] 19:20, 26 March 2010 (EDT)

== Vandalism! ==

[[User:Pcook]] is on a vandalism spree, please block him!!! I can't edit the abuse reports section!
[[User:Newton|Newton]] 13:31, 29 March 2010 (EDT)

:::Wuhao1911 blocked him, thank you. I have removed all of his edits. At first I just removed the obvious vandalism, but then I noticed the blasphemous comments and that he has inserted parts into peoples' debate arguements, so it is all gone. [[User:Newton|Newton]] 13:34, 29 March 2010 (EDT)

== Vandal ==

[[User:YeVeg]] (is that how you type a username?) is engaging in excessive vandalism, some of it racist. [[User:RichardKerry|RichardKerry]] 08:04, 16 April 2010 (EDT)

Europe

2010-04-16T12:02:25Z

RichardKerry: Undo revision 769538 by YeVeg (Talk) vandal

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="300" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Europe pol 2004.jpg|300px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: maroon no-repeat scroll top left;"|Europe
|-
|-
| Area
| 4,066,281 square miles
|-
| Coastline
| 50,000 square miles
|-
| Highest point
| Mt. Elbrus, 18,481 feet
|-
| Lowest point
| Shoreline of Caspian Sea, 92 feet below sea level
|-
| Longest river
| Volga, 2,330 miles
|-
|Countries
|Approximately 50
|-
|}
'''Europe''' is the western part of the [[continent]]al landmass of Eurasia, consisting of the general area between the [[Ural Mountains]] and the [[Atlantic Ocean]]. With an area of 3,998,000 square miles it ranks as the second-smallest of the continents, but in terms of population (727,000,000 in 2007) it is the third-largest. Europe is made up of approximately 50 countries.

Long a center of culture, art, philosophy, warfare, invention and government, Europe was the birthplace of [[classical liberalism]]; the [[Renaissance]]; the springboard of the great age of exploration; and the beginnings of the industrial age. Several major empires inhabited the continent: [[Ancient Greece|Greece]], [[Roman Empire|Rome]], [[Byzantine Empire|Byzantium]], the [[Ottoman Empire|Ottomans]], the Austrian, the French, the German, and the British] each producing great achievements, as well as fighting huge wars which have shaped the world.

Politically, most countries in the region are part of the [[European Union]], with Switzerland and Norway being notable exceptions, (EU), and (separately), most are part of the [[NATO]] military alliance. The EU is slowly becoming a power in its own right, especially in economic affairs. NATO has been the world's dominant military force, in large part because it is basically controlled by the United States.

In recent years conservative parties have dominated in Europe, as typified by President [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] of France and chancellor [[Angela Merkel]] of Germany. Europe’s center-right parties have embraced many ideas associated with the left in the United States: generous welfare benefits, nationalized health care, sharp restrictions on carbon emissions, the ceding of some sovereignty to the European Union. But they have won elections by promising more efficiently than the left-wing parties, while working to lower taxes, improve financial regulation, and grapple with ageing populations. They have supported the United States in Afghanistan, participating heavily in the International Security Assistance Force. In general, labour unions are tied to the left in Europe and have the image of inefficiency and selfishness. "Green" parties, emphasizing environmentalism, have drained off much of the younger leftist.<ref>Steven Erlanger, "In Bad Times for Capitalism, Socialists in Europe Suffer," [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/world/europe/29socialism.html?ref=world ''New York Times'' Sept. 29, 2009]</ref> Europe is generally a highly secularized continent containing many of the most atheistic countries in the world.

==Land==
There is no overall consensus over the eastern boundary of Europe, given that it is not a continent in the same sense as the others, given that it is not a distinct tectonic plate. However, one of the most commonly suggested eastern borders is that of the Ural Mountains, a chain running north-south in present-day Russia. The Caucasus, another mountain chain between the Black and Caspian Seas, forms the southern land boundary. Its remaining boundaries are coastlines; the Arctic Ocean, the North and Norwegian Seas, the Atlantic Ocean, and Mediterranean Sea. The northernmost point on the mainland is Cape Nordkinn, Norway; the southernmost in Spain at Punta de Tarifa.

===Climate===
Cool winters and mild summers are typical of the climate in northern Europe, the result of the warm currents brought by the warm North Atlantic Drift as well as prevailing westerly winds. The climate of southern Europe is Mediterranean, usually hot in summer, with most rainfall taking place in winter. A colder climate begins in central Poland eastward, typified by drier conditions and, especially in Russia, severely-cold winters.

===Drainage===
The major rivers in western Europe originate in the mountain ranges of central Europe. The Rhine, Rhone, Elbe, Seine and Vistula flow from the Alps and the Balkans northward, emptying into the English Channel, North and Baltic seas; the Po and Rubicon rivers flow into the Mediterranean Sea, while the [[Danube]] flows into the Black Sea. Long a navigable river, the [[Danube]] is further connected via locks and canals to the Rhine, ensuring a centuries-long free flow of commerce from both sides of Europe into the interior. In eastern Europe the major rivers flow towards the south, emptying in the Black and Caspian seas; among them are the Dnepr, Donets, and Volga. With the exception of the Mediterranean rivers, all European rivers have an even rate of flow as a result of an even spread of yearly precipitation; the faster-flowing rivers, particularly in the mountain highlands and Scandinavia, also aid in the production of hydroelectric power for home and industry.

===Flora===
Forests covered a large part of Europe as late as the 19th century, but human activities have cleared many areas for farming. Still, a large amount of forested land remains, as well as those acres that have been re-planted or re-grown after human abandonment.

A mixed coniferous-deciduous belt dominates a vegetation zone across the central portion of the continent from east to west, characterized by oak, elm and maple mingled with fir and pine. Spruce and pine dominate inland northern Europe as a result of cool, but mild temperatures. Tundra is characteristic of the Arctic land regions, consisting of shrubs, wild flowers, lichens and mosses. To the east is the European Plain, an expanse of prairie grass which gives way to the Ukrainian steppe and its short grasses of a drier climate.

===Fauna===
[[Image:Three-happy-bears.jpg|thumb|280px|Russian bears]]
The lakes and rivers support an abundance of fish, including trout and salmon, while the coastal areas and inland seas support tuna, sardines, sturgeon, cod, haddock, halibut, and many others. Birds are widespread as well, including eagles, storks, ravens, and seabirds.

Although there are many mammal species on the continent (deer, lemmings, beaver, etc), they have been hard hit as a result of man's long occupation in Europe. The once common brown bear (''Ursus arctos'') is now restricted to isolated pockets of the Pyrenees and the far north of Scandinavia. The wisent (''Bison bonasus''), the largest mammal on the continent, has been over-hunted so extensively that only a few managed herds survive in central Poland, while a relative, the larger aurochs (''Bos primigenius'') was killed off by 1627.

===Mineral [[resources]]===

Coal is found extensively in Britain, Spain, France, the Ruhr of Germany, Belgium, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and the Ukraine. Oil and natural gas deposits lie throughout Europe, with the two most important regions within Russia and the North Sea. Nickel, tin, bauxite, copper, lead, gypsum, manganese, lead, and iron ore have been mined extensively and traded. Marble, such as that from Carrera, Italy, is used in monumental architecture and statuary.

===Arable land===
Countries in Europe with the largest percentage of arable land include the United Kingdom, France, Denmark, and the Netherlands, all of which have large areas of plains despite also having a large amount of highlands (in addition, the Netherlands has much land re-claimed from the sea). In addition, nearly half of western Europe has arable land. Norway, Sweden, Finland, and northern Russia have limited amounts of arable land by comparison, due to a restricted growing season at high latitudes as well as extreme cold.

==People==
It is conjectured that the first humans migrated into Europe in several waves, either from Asia Minor across the Bosporus and into the Balkan region, or from Asia by way of the steppes. River barriers, mountains, and forested lands help to divide early Europeans into distinct groups, and by about 4000 B.C. humans were well-established.

===Ethnic groups===
A large number of diverse ethnic groups live on the continent. Several of the European nations are composed of one predominant ethnic group, i.e. Greeks in Greece, Spanish in Spain. Several of these countries have a distinctive minority, such as the Laplanders of northern Norway and Finland.

===Languages===
The vast majority of the languages spoken on the European continent come from the [[Indo-European]] language family. Within this category, the three largest European branches are the [[Romance]] (Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian); [[Germanic]] (German, English, Danish, Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic); and [[Slavic]] (Russian, Bulgarian, Polish, Czech, Slovak, Slovenian, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian). Other languages include Celtic (Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Welsh, Breton), Baltic (Latvian, Lithuanian), Greek and Albanian, as well as languages within the Finno-Ugric group (Hungarian, Finnish, Estonian). Turkish is spoken in the European portion of Turkey.

Several of the European languages were spread world-wide over the past five hundred years as a result of trade, colonization, or political/military power; as a result, French, English, Spanish, and German are second languages for many people.

===Religion===
[[Image:Caravaggio Ecce Homo.JPG|thumb|Cece Homo by [[Caravaggio]].]]
The dominant religion in Europe is Christianity, with the Roman Catholic Church the largest single denomination, forming a major part of the lives of people in France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, and Poland. The Protestants are several churches which originally broke away from the Catholic Church at the beginning of the 16th century, the first being the Lutheran Church. Members of Protestant denominations form the majority in Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, and the United Kingdom. The third major Christian group is Eastern Orthodoxy, mainly in eastern Europe, of which the Greek and Russian denominations are well known.

Europe is a very secularized and socialized continent.<ref>[http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/05/02/europe-the-dark-continent/ Europe: The Dark Continent]</ref>
====Muslims====
About 15 million Muslims now live in Europe, 3% of the population. They are highly diverse in terms of ethnicity and language; about half practice religion. About half are citizens of the countries in which they live. Economic poverty and limited opportunity is striking for the Muslims of France; where riots have occurred periodically. Islam is the dominant religion in the Balkan countries of Albania and Kosovo as well as the slice of Turkey in Europe.

===Culture and Education===
[[File:Liszt-1870.jpg|thumb|[[Franz Liszt]] in 1870.]]
Europe has long and rich cultural history, which produced many outstanding works in painting, sculpture, architecture, dance, music, and literature; among the great masters are [[Leonardo da Vinci]], [[Michaelangelo]], [[Raphael]], [[Vincent Van Gogh]], Mozart, Brahms, Alexander Dumas, [[Charles Dickens]], and many others. [[Paris]], Vienna, [[London]], Rome, Madrid, [[Florence]], and other European capitals became havens where art flourished and expanded. Institutions of learning also grew, with several, such as Oxford and Cambridge, becoming well-known world-wide.

===Demography===
Migration and differential birth and death rates have resulted in a shifting in population distribution over periods of time. By 400 A.D. the bulk of the population was along the Mediterranean coastline; today the interior and north-central Europe has the majority of population density. The average life expectancy for Europeans is 75 years, despite a population decrease attributed to a low birth rate of 10.2 births per 1,000 people (2005).

==Economy and Commerce==
===Industry===
The Industrial Revolution began in Europe during the late 18th century, and since then Europe has become a leading exporter of manufactured goods. Textiles and clothing, ships, motor vehicles, aircraft, railroads, are among the items produced, and since World War II high-technology and electronic items were added. Manufacturing is particularly concentrated in central Europe, and in European Russia and Ukraine.

===Agriculture===
European farmers produce a mixed variety of crops yearly, with wheat producing the largest yield, especially within the Ukraine. Other crops include barley, oats, rye, corn, potatoes, beets, beans, peas, and sugar beets. Southern Europe is noted for the production of grapes for the wine industry, olives, pistachio nuts, and citrus fruits; the first two (grapes and olives) have become important to the identity as well as the economy of the countries which produce them. Animal production includes beef (especially in Spain), pigs, goats, and poultry.

===Forestry===
The main sources of wood for construction and other products come from the northern European forests of Scandinavia, Finland, and Russia; southern Europe, with less forested acreage, is known primarily as a producer of cork.

===Fishing===
Fishing is very important to northern European countries; access to the cold waters of the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans enable a large harvest of cod, char, herring and flatfish yearly. All coastal countries engage in commercial fishing to some degree, and two, Italy and Greece, have fishing traditions which date to ancient times.

===Transportation===
[[File:Tour Eiffel.jpg|thumb|220px|Tour Eiffel from underneath.]]
The Vikings have traded extensively via the waterways and river systems of northern Europe, while in the south the Danube and Mediterranean was used. Today, large fleets of ships are maintained by several countries which import and export a great deal of goods, and have transformed many coastal cities into major sea ports.

Highways and roads are well-established and maintained; Germany's famous Autobahns providing the example, and in addition to trade via trucks a large number of Europeans own automobiles. Railways carrying passengers and freight criss-cross the continent; France's TGV is among the fastest trains in the world, and the "Orient Express", made famous by an Agatha Christie novel, still makes its fabled run from Paris to [[Istanbul]].

All European countries have a national airline (KLM, Lufthansa, British Airways, etc) that maintain routes world-wide. The Airbus Corporation competes with Boeing in the manufacture of large-bodied passenger aircraft.

===Trade===
International and intercontinental trade on a large scale is conducted by nearly all European countries, with the Netherlands, Germany, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom among the largest trading nations in the world.

==History==
====Early humans====
[[Image:Europe ref04.jpg|thumb|300 px|Shaded relief map of Europe]]
It was during the late Paleolithic that humans arrived on the continent, and although of a hunter-gatherer stock they left behind examples of their art, most notably the cave paintings in Spain and France with their highly-decorated murals of extinct animals. As these hunters settled down by the Neolithic period, they had learned to farm, and by roughly 6000 B.C. farming had spread across most of the continent. With farming came a more settled life, and towns were created, with the Starčevo and Danubian cultures in the Balkans, and Sesklo and Dimini in Thessaly. Trade in metals (copper, tin) resulted in the creation of bronze by about 4000 B.C.; amber marked its appearence as a precious stone in trade from the Baltic. Elaborate burials were becoming common, especially of aristocrats or royalty; during this time as well humans were organized into societies that resulted in the construction of the megaliths, of which [[Stonehenge]] is the best known example.

No clear definition exists for the origin of the Indo-European languages. Some scholars theorize that it came across the plains north of the Black Sea with a kurgan culture around 2500 B.C. According to the theory, the first such kurgan invasion was successful in the Balkans, where it spread to central Europe.

====First Civilizations====
The island of Crete in the Aegean was the first to have a major civilization in Europe. Named after King Minos of Greek mythology, the Minoan Civilization had its capital at Knossos; the ruins excavated in the early 20th century by British archaeologist Arthur Evans indicate a well-developed society, capable of extensive trade by sea, which effectively controlled the Aegean by 1600 B.C. By then the first tellings of the Mycenaean Civilization appeared on mainland Greece. These ancient Greeks may have been Indo-Europeans from the Balkans, and have been in conflict with the Minoans, who simply vanish from the historical record by 1400 B.C. (this may be due to the eruption of Thera, a volcano to the north of Crete, about 1450 B.C., which may have caused a tsunami to strike Crete; physical evidence on Crete indicates a massive, catastrophic explosion). By 1200 B.C. the Mycenaeans themselves were almost destroyed, by warfare and earthquakes. In the years following, the Greeks began to fashion new tools and weapons from iron.

== See also ==
*[[Europa]]
*[[Architecture]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/europe.htm Europe]
==Further reading==
===Reference===
* DeWald, Jonathan, ed. ''Europe 1450 to 1789: Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World'' (6 vol. 2003), 3200pp; 1100 articles by experts.
* Merriman, John, and Jay Winter, eds. ''Europe 1789 to 1914: Encyclopedia of the Age of Industry and Empire'' (5 vol 2006).
* Merriman, John, and Jay Winter, eds. ''Europe - Since 1914 - Encyclopedia of the Age of War and Reconstruction'' (5 vol 2005), 3100 pp. 920 articles by experts
===Guides===
* ''Europe'' (Eyewitness Travel Guides) by Dan Colwell (2003)[http://www.amazon.com/Europe-Eyewitness-Travel-Guides-Colwell/dp/0789497301/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254226617&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* ''The Rough Guide to Europe on a Budget'' (2008)[http://www.amazon.com/Rough-Europe-Budget-Travel-Guides/dp/1843539942/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254226617&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* ''Frommer's Eastern Europe'' by Dr. Ryan James et al. (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Frommers-Eastern-Europe-Complete/dp/0470399082/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254226617&sr=1-10 excerpt and text search]
* ''MTV Europe'' by Lauren Berger et al. (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/MTV-Europe-Guides-Lauren-Berger/dp/0764584995/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254226824&sr=1-19 excerpt and text search]
* '' Central Europe'' by Lisa Dunford et al. (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Central-Europe-Multi-Country-Guide/dp/1741049997/ref=sr_1_20?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254226824&sr=1-20 excerpt and text search]
* ''Western Europe'' by Ryan ver Berkmoes (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Western-Europe-Multi-Country-Guide/dp/1741049172/ref=sr_1_23?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254226824&sr=1-23 excerpt and text search]
* ''Rick Steves' Best of Europe 2010'' by Rick Steves (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Rick-Steves-Best-Europe-2010/dp/1598802828/ref=sr_1_32?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254226975&sr=1-32 excerpt and text search]

===Surveys and textbooks===
* Beazley, Mitchell. ''From the Dark Ages to the Renaissance: 700 - 1599 AD'' (2003)
* Bispham, Edward. ''Roman Europe: 1000 BC - AD 400'' (Short Oxford History of Europe) (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Roman-Europe-Short-Oxford-History/dp/0199266018/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254220635&sr=1-10 excerpt and text search]
* Buchanan, Tom. ''Europe's Troubled Peace: 1945 - 2000'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Europes-Troubled-Peace-Blackwell-History/dp/0631221638/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254226547&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
* Davies, Norman. ''Europe - A History'' (1998). [http://www.amazon.com/Europe-History-Norman-Davies/dp/0060974680/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254227637&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Eichengreen, Barry. ''The European Economy since 1945: Coordinated Capitalism and Beyond'' (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/European-Economy-since-1945-Coordinated/dp/0691138486/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254226547&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search], advanced economics
* Hollister, C. Warren, and Judith Bennett. ''Medieval Europe: A Short History'' (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Europe-History-C-Warren-Hollister/dp/0071244239/ref=sr_1_23?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254220835&sr=1-23 excerpt and text search]
* Judt, Tony. '' Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945‎'' (2006) - 933 pages [http://books.google.com/books?id=10oPnprPjcgC&dq=intitle:history+intitle:of+intitle:europe&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=2002&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=2009&num=30&as_brr=3 excerpt and text search]
* Kerr, Gordon. ''A Short History of Europe: From Charlemagne to the Treaty of Lisbon'' (2009), 160pp
* Kishlansky, Mark, et al. ''A Brief History of Western Civilization: The Unfinished Legacy'' (2 vol. 2006) , widely used textbook; numerous editions
* McEvedy, Colin, and David Woodroffe. ''The New Penguin Atlas of Recent History: Europe Since 1815'' (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/New-Penguin-Atlas-Recent-History/dp/0140515046/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254220635&sr=1-7 excertp and text search]
* McKay, John P. et al. ''Western Society: A Brief History: (2 vol 2009), widely used textbook; numerous editions
* Mazower, Mark. ''Dark Continent: Europe's Twentieth Century'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Continent-Europes-Twentieth-Century/dp/067975704X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254226466&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Merriman, John. ''A History of Modern Europe, From the Renaissance to the Present'' (2nd ed. 2004) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Modern-Europe-Second-One/dp/0393979105/ref=sr_1_27?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254220931&sr=1-27 excerpt and text search]
* Milward, Alan S., and S. B. Saul. ''Development of the Economies of Continental Europe 1850-1914'' (1977)
* Sherman, Dennis. ''Western Civilization: Sources, Images, and Interpretations, from the Renaissance to the Present'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Western-Civilization-Sources-Interpretations-Renaissance/dp/0073513245/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254221546&sr=1-15 excerpt and text search]
* Spielvogel, Jackson J. ''Western Civilization'' (2008); widely used textbook; numerous editions
* Wiesner-Hanks, Merry E. ''Early Modern Europe, 1450-1789'' (2006), stress on [[social history]] [http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Europe-1450-1789-Cambridge-History/dp/0521005213/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254220635&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]
* Wasserstein, Bernard. ''Barbarism and civilization: a history of Europe in our time‎'' (2007) 901 pages [http://books.google.com/books?id=_utII6-EarIC&dq=intitle:history+intitle:of+intitle:europe&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=1990&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=2009&num=30&as_brr=3 excerpt and text search]

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Continents]]
[[Category:European History]]

George Orwell

2010-04-16T12:01:01Z

RichardKerry: Undo revision 769530 by YeVeg (Talk) racist vandalism

Europe

2010-04-16T12:00:27Z

RichardKerry: Undo revision 769531 by YeVeg (Talk) vandalism

World History Lectures

2010-04-16T11:59:54Z

RichardKerry: Undo revision 769532 by YeVeg (Talk) vandalism

[[Image:History Astronomy.jpg|thumb|History of Astronomy]]
[[World History Lecture One]] (about 8,800 words - finished) 
[[World History Lecture Two]] (about 10,100 words - finished) 
[[World History Lecture Three]] (about 9,700 words - finished) 
[[World History Lecture Four]] (about 10,600 words - finished) 
[[World History Lecture Five]] (about 9,200 words - finished) 
[[World History Lecture Six]] (about 9,000 words - finished) 
[[World History Lecture Seven]] (about 10,200 words - finished) 
[[World History Lecture Eight]] (about 8,600 words - finished) 
[[World History Lecture Nine]] (about 7,500 words - finished) 
[[World History Midterm Exam]] 
[[World History Lecture Ten]] (about 10,800 words - finished) 
[[World History Lecture Eleven]] (about 11,900 words - finished) 
[[World History Lecture Twelve]] (about 11,500 words - finished) 
[[World History Lecture Thirteen]] (about 10,700 words - finished) 
[[World History Lecture Fourteen]] (about 5,700 words - finished) 
[[World History Final Exam]]

== Miscellaneous ==
*[[Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History]] 
*[[Essay:Greatest Myths of World History]] 
*[[Essay:Liberal Denials about History]] 
*[[World History Lecture Improvements]]
[[Category:World History lectures]]
{{Conservapedia}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:World History Lecture}}

Christian apologetics

2010-04-16T11:59:21Z

RichardKerry: Undo revision 769528 by YeVeg (Talk) vandalism

'''Christian apologetics''' is the defense of the [[Christianity|Christian]] faith through logical arguments. The term comes from the [[Greek]] word ''apologia'', which means "defense". There are a
number of subfields within apologetics. Some apologists specialize in internal biblical consistency (such as JP Holding, owner of tektonics.org), others in scientific defenses of the Bible, and still others in historical or philosophical defenses of Christianity (such as [[Gary Habermas]] or [[Lee Strobel]]). Christian apologist [[JP Holding]] has recommended that prospective apologists choose one area of focus rather than trying to be a "jack of all trades". <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/qt/sowant.html</ref> Some feel that faith alone should need no justification, however, many feel that Christians should be prepared to defend and spread their faith by intellectual means, especially as many people will not accept Christianity without a "rational" reason to do so.
{{Christianity}}
==History of Christian Apologetics==
Christian apologetics has existed as long as Christianity itself. [[Jesus]] himself spent time in the temples and synagogues, debating and explaining the meaning of the scriptures. The [[Saint Peter|Apostle Peter]] exhorted early Christians to apologetics, writing,
:"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." 1 Peter 3:15-16.

The Apostle Paul also spent time in [[Athens]], debating [[Stoicism|Stoic]] and [[Epicurianism|Epicurian]] philosophers. Acts 17:16.

Great theologians such as [[Origen]], [[Athanasius]], [[Irenaeus]], [[Martyr]], [[Augustine]], and [[Acquinas]] continued the tradition of apologetics on a dramatic scale. At the same time, apologetics was practiced by countless individual Christians, explaining and defending their beliefs.

===Purposes===
Apologetics has generally been used for two purposes: Efforts to ''persuade'' others of the truth of Christianity, and efforts to ''defend'' the reasonableness of one's own beliefs, while not seeking to convince others of their truth.

==Types of Christian Apologetics==

===Evidentialist apologetics===

Evidential apologetics seeks to defend Christian belief through [[evidence]]. This can take the form of:
* Arguments based on the historical accounts of the Bible;
* Defense of the historical accuracy of the Bible;
* [[Christian Legal Apologetics]]
* [[Biblical Archaeology]], seeking to show that the Bible is consistent with the physical evidence;
* [[Creation science]] and [[Creationism]], seeking to show that the creation accounts of the Bible are the most reasonable explanation for life as we know it and that the [[evolution|evolutionary paradigm]] is untenable.

===Philosophical apologetics===
Philosophical apologetics seeks to defend Christian belief through philosophical argument: primarily [[arguments for the existence of God]]. This can take the form of:
* [[Teleological argument]]: When you find a watch in the sand, you infer that it is designed, even if you do not see the designer, because it is complex, has a definite purpose, and could not have come to be through any known non-intelligent causes. Therefore, when we observe a complex, purposeful universe which could not have come to be through any known non-intelligent cause, it is reasonable to infer the existence of a designer, aka God.

:This is related to the [[anthropic principle]], which is sometimes misused by [[atheist]]s such as [[Richard Dawkins]]. The fact that so many details had to be just so, including physical constants, to allow us to be here, argues for an intelligent designer.
* [[Cosmological argument]]: Every event in the universe is caused by something. It is impossible that everything should have a cause, going back to eternity. Therefore, there must be a [[first cause]], which itself is not caused, and that first cause must be capable of causing the universe, aka God.
In the 20th century, this argument has been strongly supported by [[science]], with the discovery that the universe had a beginning. Prior to the 1920s, it had been widely believed that the universe's existence had been eternal. <ref>http://www.harvardhouse.com/Science-Religion.htm</ref> This verifies the very first three words of the [[Bible]]: "In the beginning".
* [[Ontological argument]]: God is the being than which no greater can be conceived. It is greater to exist than to not exist. Therefore if you conceive God as not existing, you are not conceiving the being than which no greater can be conceived, and are therefore not conceiving God. Therefore it is impossible to conceive of God as not existing. Therefore God exists.
* [[Argument from morality]]: All humans are born with a natural, moral code. A moral code implies a moral code giver, aka God.

===Presuppositional apologetics===
[[Presuppositional Apologetics]] seek to defend Christian belief by showing that belief in Christian precepts is necessary to make sense of the human experience as a whole.

== Christian Apologetics and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ ==
The [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus Christ]] is critical to the Christian faith. The Apostle Paul wrote, "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (I Cor:15:14). Traditionally, Christianity has believed in a physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. <ref>http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/crj0056a.txt</ref>

In recent history, Dr. [[Gary Habermas]] is considered the foremost Christian apologist for defending the resurrection of Jesus.<ref>http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/dialog_rexperience/dialog_rexperiences.htm</ref><ref>http://www.tektonics.org/books/lichabrvw.html</ref><ref>http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/CTR-NT/Habermas-Resurrection2-CTR.pdf</ref> <ref>http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_explainingaway/crj_explainingaway.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html</ref> Dr. Habermas had a debate against the philosopher Antony Flew regarding the resurrection which was chronicled in the work ''Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate'' and the debate had a panel of debate judges. J. Hampton Keathley, III , Th.M. in his essay ''Evidences for the Resurrection'' wrote: "The decision of the judges were as follows. The panel of philosophers judging content cast four votes for Habermas who argued for the fact of the resurrection, none for Flew, and one draw. The panel of professional debate judges voted three to two, also in favor of Habermas, this time regarding the method of argumentation technique." <ref>http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=639</ref>

In recent history some notable defenders of the resurrection include: [[William Lane Craig]], [[Ben Witherington]], [[Lee Strobel]], [[Josh McDowell]], [[Edwin M. Yamauchi]], [[N.T. Wright]] and [[Michael Horner]]. <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html</ref><ref>http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm</ref><ref>http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/resurrection/index.html</ref>

Legal scholars, legal authorities, and eminent lawyers such as [[Simon Greenleaf]], [[John Warwick Montgomery]], [[Lord Darling]], [[John Singleton Copley]], [[Hugo Grotius]], [[Lord Caldecote]], [[J. N. D. Anderson]], [[Lionel Luckhoo]], and many others have asserted that western legal standards argue for the resurrection of Christ. <ref>http://www.bibleteacher.org/sgtestimony.htm</ref><ref>http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissart1.htm</ref><ref>http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/apologetics/AP0302W3.htm</ref><ref>http://lawreligionculturereview.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_lawreligionculturereview_archive.html</ref><ref>http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/philjohnsonpap.html</ref>

== Christian Apologetic Ministries ==
There are a number of [[internet]] based Christian apologetic Ministries or Christian apologetics ministries which have a internet presence. Some of the more notable Christian apologetic ministries are: [[Tekton Apologetics Ministries]], [[LeadershipU]], [[Probe Ministries]], [[Christian Answers Network]], [[Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry]], and [[A Christian Thinktank]].

==See Also==

*[[Israel Tourism]] for some biblical archaeological sites available to tourists
*[[Atheism]]
*[[Inspiration of Holy Scripture: An Eastern Christian and Jewish Perspective]]

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

== External Links ==
* [http://www.allaboutgod.com All About GOD] — Answers to many questions regarding Christianity
* [http://www.carm.org/apologetics.htm Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry]
* [http://www.windmillministries.org Windmill Ministries]
* [http://www.apologetics.com Apologetics.com]
* [http://www.apologeticsinfo.org/resource.html Apologetics Information Ministry]
* [http://www.tektonics.org Tekton Apologetics Ministries]
* [http://www.tektonics.org/classics/classics.html Classic Works of Apologetics] (Tektonics)
* [http://hisdefense.org/Links/Authors/tabid/297/Default.aspx Academy of Christian Apologetics]
* [http://www.leaderu.com/menus/theology.html Leadership U]
* [http://www.lifeway.com/apologetics LifeWay Apologetics]
* [http://www.probe.org/ Probe Ministries -Christian Apologetics]
* [http://www.rzim.org/ Ravi Zacharias, modern apologist]
* [http://www.ses.edu/Resources/ApologeticsJournal/tabid/104/Default.aspx Christian Apologetics Journal]
* [http://www.str.org/ Stand to Reason]
* [http://www.christian-thinktank.com Christian Thinktank]
* [http://www.worldview.org Worldview Academy]
* [http://www.arcapologetics.org/ Apologetics Resource Center]
* [http://www.ApologeticsWiki.com/ Christian Apologetics Wiki] — [[Wiki]]-based Christian apologetics
* [http://www.actministry.org Academy for Christian Thought]
* [http://www.rbc.org/rtb/ 10 Reasons to Believe]

[[Category: Christian Apologetics]]

Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog

2010-04-16T11:58:05Z

RichardKerry: /* Hsdebater comment */

[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog/archive1 Archive 1]

The discussion below concerns the letters and response set forth at [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]]. See also [[Flaws in Lenski Study]].

== Reply to comments in archive ==

: The comments above by defenders of withholding data have been unsatisfactory, to say the least.

: [[Lenski]] says in his published paper: "Z.D.B. and R.E.L. [Lenski] analyzed data"[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf]

: So where are all the data [[Lenski]] said he analyzed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:27, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

::As clearly stated in Professor [[Lenski]]'s second response:

::: ''"Finally, let me now turn to our data. As I said before, the relevant methods and data about the [[evolution]] of the citrate-using bacteria are in our paper. In three places in our paper, we did say 'data not shown', which is common in scientific papers owing to limitations in page length, especially for secondary or minor points. None of the places where we made such references concern the existence of the citrate-using bacteria; they concern only certain secondary properties of those bacteria. We will gladly post those additional data on my website." ''

::If the additional data is not on his website by now, I'm sure it will be soon. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 07:45, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

::: If "the relevant ... data ... are in our paper," as set forth in the above quote of Lenski, then he would not have much data. So don't pretend the data is too voluminous to turn over. The paper is only 8 pages long!

::: In fact, the graphs in the paper suggest to a reader that there is underlying data having greater resolution than a graph can provide, and yet those data have not been disclosed for public scrutiny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: The resolution of the graphs are more than sufficient to communicate the results. If the figures didn't provide sufficient clarity for their purpose the authors would have also provided tables. For example, in figure 1 it's clear the culture shifted its growth pattern. In figure 2, one can see that the Cit+ cultures reach a higher density in the media, as indicated by the higher ODs. To a microbiologist, those results indicate that the Cit+ cells can utilize more of the nutrients in the media (in this case, citrate). --[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:08, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'd like to chime in here and give some professional perspective. I am a molecular biologist -- if I asked him to, Prof. Lenski would send me a sample from his bacterial stocks (I have a -80 freezer and know how to work with E. coli). Let's assume for a minute that, like you, I strongly suspected the results of the paper (I do not, but that doesn't matter for this exercise). If this were the case, two of the routes I could take would be to re-analyze Prof. Lenski's data or replicate his experiments. In some cases, data and their analysis are complex, and re-analysis can yield different results than those the original author reached. This is the case for a large-scale association study, for example -- there are tons of data to analyze, and their analysis is not straightforward. In Prof. Lenski's case, however, the data are extremely simple, consisting primarily of 1) OD readings to measure fitness, and 2) colony counts.

:::: OD readings, or optical density readings, are obtained by pipetting a sample of cultured bacteria into a cuvette, sticking that cuvette into a machine, and writing down the number that pops up on a screen. Somewhere in a grad student's notebook (or in his/her computer) is a list of these numbers, and their average and range were presented in the PNAS paper at each generation in Figure 1 (similar data are presented in Figure 2 and Figure 5). So, in other words, the data you see in the paper *are all of the data* save for a second grade computation...which was probably performed by Excel. If you don't believe the data in the paper, then what do you expect to gain from seeing these "raw" data? There is so little to gain that I seriously doubt that PNAS would take such a request seriously.

:::: The meat of the paper, in Table 1, is a presentation of colony counts. These are obtained by another grad student picking up a bacterial culture plate, counting the number of colonies on it, and moving on to the next plate. Again, the raw data are what you see in the paper. What exactly are you expecting here, photographic images of all of the tens of thousands of plates they examined? That is just not done. Why would we go to that level of self-surveillance to please a small, vocal minority of people claiming fraud? The public's interest is not served by spending inordinate amounts of effort and money on this level of surveillance. If the science is correct, his experiment will be replicated.

:::: In sum, as others have tried to explain, there really isn't any more complex data for you to reasonably request. A slightly expanded list of numbers from what's in the paper won't get you anything if you already don't believe the data. And the scientific culture doesn't even come close to expecting photographic evidence of bacterial plates. Your best bet, if you really don't believe the results, is to get an outsider to try and replicate and/or confirm some portion of his results. The easy route would be to ask for a cit+ strain and its ancestor and see if they are indeed cit- and cit+. You could even sequence them to check if the cit+ strain is indeed an ancestor of the cit- strain, but while this would be a perfectly normal approach in a molecular biology lab with impressive resources, the entire concept of evolution is anathema to you, so I can't think of a reasonable criterion you would use to determine ancestry. If you wanted to go the hard route, you could obtain the ancestral strain and grow and measure them for years as Prof. Lenski's lab did.

:::: I hope this has been somewhat instructive for you in explaining why a request for "further data" will not bear fruit beyond the small amount of data that Prof. Lenski says he will make available. And why it is not reasonable to expect further data. I am more than happy to respond to questions or requests for clarification if you would like. -- [[User:Princetonian|Princetonian]] 23:50, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: For starters, most of the opposition to releasing the data has been the false claim that the data are too voluminous to release. You are making the opposite claim, one which is more consistent with Lenski's paper: there is very little important data beyond what is in the 8-page paper. But that doesn't withstand scrutiny either.

::::: The "meat" of the paper is this, and at a minimum the data should be released for it (pp. 2-3 from paper):

:::::: Evolution of Cit Function in Population Ara-3. The LTEE populations are transferred daily into fresh medium, and the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time. [DATA ON THESE OBSERVATIONS?] Owing to the low concentration of glucose in DM25 medium [DATA?], the cultures are only slightly turbid when transferred. Occasional contaminants that grow on citrate have been seen over the 20 years of this experiment. [DATA?] These contaminated cultures reach much higher turbidity owing to the high concentration of citrate in the medium, which allows the contaminants to reach high density. (When contamination occurs, the affected population is restarted from the latest frozen sample.) [DATA FOR WHEN THAT OCCURRED?] After 33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1).[HIGHER RESOLUTION DATA UNDERLYING FIGURE?] A number [DATA?] of Cit clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all [DATA?] were Ara, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2) [DATA ABOUT THESE AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS?]. DNA sequencing also showed [DATA?] that Cit clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, and each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all [DATA?] of the others (30). Therefore, the Cit variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant [THIS CONCLUSION NEEDS TO BE CHECKED BY INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE ACTUAL DATA, WHICH I DOUBT OCCURRED IN THE BRIEF PEER REVIEW OF THIS PAPER]

::::: Note, by the way, how the opponents of data disclosure seem to have no idea about what data Lenski actually has, which raises further questions about the merits of the conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:15, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I know some people here have claimed that the data are too voluminous to release...I didn't know what they were talking about, which is one reason I chimed in. Anyway, here are point by point responses to each of these cases. Turbidity checking: these data are either in a grad student's notebook somewhere, or were not recorded. I wouldn't at all be surprised if they weren't recorded due to the nature of the data (it's just a visual check of turbidity, and wouldn't be reported in a paper). Low concentration of glucose in DM25: this is a factual statement about DM25 media, not an observation. Contaminants: Same comment as the turbidity checking. Either there's a one-liner in a notebook somewhere ("Flask 25 contaminated, re-grew from stock") or nothing at all, since it's tangential to the experiment. Figure 1: As I already mentioned, the data in Figure 1 are actually comprehensive -- three data points went into each plotted point. They report the range (which give you a max and a min) and they also show you the average, which allows you to impute the third data point. Number of Cit clones, and the following comments except the last: these data are probably recorded in a lab notebook somewhere, since they're rather not tangential to the experiment. In addition, I'm sure they have a frozen stock of each cit+ bacterial clone that they checked, so this is something that could be easily independently verified. Cit+ is not a contaminant: no this would not be a part of the peer review...peer reviewers are not out to find fraud in general. Especially in the inaugural paper of somebody just nominated into the national academy. And the data underlying contamination checking are also extremely simple -- you plate the bacteria on an Ara+ plate and check sensitivity by eye, for example -- so there is no need to verify methodology as long as you trust the source.

:::::: You're basically asking for the lab notebooks of all of the grad students involved in the experiment over the 20 years. The data in these notebooks is going to be, in general, very simple (e.g., the statement "colony grew on Ara-, is a contaminant") since as I mentioned, there is no photographic evidence of this. Additionally, while biotech companies generally have document retention policies as required by law, no such policies exist at the academic level (although specific institutions may have them). A very few labs are run like well-oiled machines -- lab notebooks are kept up-to-date and thorough, and every observation is recorded. This is the ideal, but almost no labs actually achieve it, since most labs are working at 125% speed in an effort to get experiments finished and published.

:::::: If you're really interested in monitoring the quotidien details of these experiments, that falls outside of the scope of what PNAS and professional standards would require Lenski to release, I believe. You're not asking to re-analyze data so much as to oversee the entire experiment for fraud. This would require giving you all of Lenski's graduate students' lab notebooks for an indefinite period of time, which would be quite disruptive, and as I said probably wouldn't even yield the level of data you seem to want. In this case your best bet is to contact MSU and ask for a comprehensive review of Lenski's lab and his notes for this experiment. But without any evidence to point to said fraud, they will certainly deny your request for oversight. Your expectations here just aren't in line with professional standards in the field in the absence of any evidence of fraud. -- [[User:Princetonian|Princetonian]] 10:49, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: You've confirmed that the strident claims by Lenski defenders here that the data are too voluminous to release were nonsense. We'll see how many of them now admit they were wrong. Let's not hold our breaths!

::::::: But your opposite approach above, which essentially suggests there are no data that can be released, doesn't withstand scrutiny either. Figure 1 is plainly a low-resolution representation of underlying data that must exist. The greater resolution should be released. Similarly, there should be data underlying the essential assertion that a particular sample was not contaminated, while others had been. For example, the paper asserts that "[a] number of Cit clones were isolated." How many were isolated? If those data exist, then it should be released along with the other data. If those data do not exist, then that is even more telling.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:34, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Regarding the questions highlighted by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] to which [[User:Princetonian|Princetonian]] also responded: Many of the techniques questioned are standard procedures that a trained microbiologist would understand. Let's take this apart by question:
:::::'''''...the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time. [DATA ON THESE OBSERVATIONS?]'''''
:::::This is qualitative observation. Every microbiologist does this when they pull their cultures out of the incubator. The evaluation an experimenter asks: Can you see through the test tube or not? Is the culture denser or lighter than the last time you looked? The reported observations are the data.

:::::: Show us the data. Are you suggesting that no record was kept of these observations??? I hope that's not what you mean. But say so if that is your view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I described how the observation was performed. How the observations are recorded is up to the lab or technician culturing the cells.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...Owing to the low concentration of glucose in DM25 medium [DATA?]'''''
:::::A reference to the description of the media is provided in the paper and is included on Lenksi's web pages. I linked to that page recently in another comment. It is general knowledge among microbiologists that nutrient limited cultures will reach a peak density that depends on the concentration of the limiting nutrient.

:::::: Again, show us the data. What was the concentration of glucose and, more importantly, did it ever change?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Consider rereading the paper and pull out references provided. It's there.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...Occasional contaminants that grow on citrate have been seen over the 20 years of this experiment. [DATA?]'''''
:::::Observation. Either they saw contaminated cultures or not.

:::::: No kidding. The point, obviously, is to disclose the data of what they saw. How many is "occasional"? Show us the records supporting that claim, so we can assess the frequency of contamination compared to alleged evolution. At a minimum, it appears that contamination was significantly more frequent than the alleged evolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Contamination is a problem every microbiology lab understands and encounters. What matters and what is particularly relevant to this experiment is the means of detecting and controlling for it. They outline the steps for detecting contaminating and restarting the experiment from uncontaminated stocks in their papers and web pages.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...(When contamination occurs, the affected population is restarted from the latest frozen sample.) [DATA FOR WHEN THAT OCCURRED?]'''''
:::::Not relevant for the results. It's just the researchers describing how they restarted the experiment whenever they suspected a contamination. It does not alter the experimental outcome.

:::::: It is relevant, at a minimum for reasons stated in my above response. Also, did the restarting ever result in repeats of the observed contamination?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::They controlled for contamination. If their previous stock was contaminated they would likely return to ones before that last stock. Clearly, they would not want to work with contaminated stocks as it would damage the experiment.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1).[HIGHER RESOLUTION DATA UNDERLYING FIGURE?]'''''
:::::Higher resolution is not really necessary. The graph provides a ''qualitative'' visualization that starkly reveals that the cultures underwent a change that allowed them to grow to a significantly higher density than previously. They report in the text the actual generation were the change occurred and that seems to line up with the transition in the figure (take out a ruler, if necessary). Their subsequent experiments bracketed the strains from points before, during and after the obvious population transition.

:::::: Your answer here is absurd. Higher resolution in science is always helpful. The precise rate of change among the population would reveal much about what was really occurring. The data must exist to generate the graph. Disclose it rather than obscuring it with a low-resolution graph.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::If one reads the paper, one finds that weakly Cit+ clones arise earlier than the visible transition. Reading the paper one would see that they analyze the emergence times: ''Cit+ clones could be readily isolated from the frozen sample of population Ara-3 taken at generation 33,000. To estimate the time of origin of the Cit+ trait, we screened 1,280 clones randomly chosen from generations 30,000, 30,500, 31,000, 31,500, 32,000, 32,500, and 33,000 for the capacity to produce a positive reaction on Christensen’s citrate agar, which provides a sensitive means to detect even weakly citrate-using cells.'' As for the visible transition: ''After ~33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days''. Note also that they performed 'replay' experiments (which took up the rest of the paper) to specifically analyze the frequency and times when Cit+ strains could be generated. The last half of the paper contains the work that provides information about the possible nature of the mutations and addresses your question.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all [DATA?] were Ara, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2) [DATA ABOUT THESE AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS'''''
:::::Derived from observation. The phenotypic markers are described elsewhere and the means of testing them are well known by professional microbiologists. The origin of the strain and its markers can be determined by following the references provided. The strain is also referenced on Lenski's pages here: https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/strainsource.html Other information about how they tested markers can also be found starting from here (provided by Lenski): https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

:::::: Disclose the data so that independent reviewers can assess how reliable the claims are here. The methodology may be "well known" but only disclosure of the data will demonstrate whether the methodology was applied in a flawless manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Those are all based on visual observation. Reporting the observation *is* reporting data. Lenksi's group provides information how they performed the tests so that any professional microbiologist would be able to follow the work. The way for someone to test the methodology is to repeat the tests on the strains themselves. Recall that Lenski did say that the strains would be made available to labs. So, for anyone interested in seeing for themselves that "the methodology was applied in a flawless manner", I suggest they go find a friendly microbiologist to request and perform the tests for them.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...DNA sequencing also showed [DATA?] that Cit clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations'''''
:::::Report of observation. They sequenced the specified genes and found no difference in base-by-base comparisons. There is no need in this paper to print all sequences side by side as they're the same. The words, "no difference" transmits the same information in less space as showing all the identical sequences side-by-side with the original, previously released sequence. See also the next lines.

:::::: No one suggested that the DNA be published "in this paper," but rather that the data be made publicly available for independent review and verification.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Again, the sequences are available. If someone wants to confirm that the sequencing was done correctly they can request the strains from Lenski and repeat the sequencing. The protocols are published.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all [DATA?] of the others (30).'''''
:::::See reference (30) from Lenksi's paper. It describes how the genes in those populations were originally sequenced. The ancestral sequences were uploaded into GeneBank, a publically accessible sequence repository, and the identifying mutations were presented in the supplemental table published on the PNAS web site along with the original paper.

:::::: That's spelled "publicly", not "publically", and again disclosure of the data concerning the mutations is necessary to verify the claims made.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::If someone wants to confirm that the sequencing was done correctly they can request the strains from Lenski and repeat the sequencing. The protocols are published and Lenski has stated he would make the strains available.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...Therefore, the Cit variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant [THIS CONCLUSION NEEDS TO BE CHECKED BY INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE ACTUAL DATA, WHICH I DOUBT OCCURRED IN THE BRIEF PEER REVIEW OF THIS PAPER]'''''
:::::The authors reported the actual data in a manner that is readily understood and accepted by microbiologists. The data and analysis is not terribly complex or confusing for someone familiar with the field (and quite a few who aren't expert microbiologists). Andy, I've seen little requested that isn't standard practice & generally understood among microbiologists or not already available if one follows the references provided in the paper.

:::::: You're right that the "data and analysis" are "not terribly complex." Which is why the odd withholding the data merely serves to heighten skepticism towards the claims made.
:::::::YMMV. I've encountered no one on the web or elsewhere and trained in microbiology who thinks the data is being 'oddly' withheld. Most of us manage to locate the references and other sources provided.

:::::: The bottom line is that some think that Lenski's claims must be accepted on faith rather than independent verification of the data. That is not science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Just a word about reading the professional, scientific literature: Scientific papers are by the nature of their medium, mostly brief, to the point and highly condensed. Rather than repeat all the background information that others in the field may already know and encouraged to limit the length by journals with page limits, authors provide references to other papers that contain the previously published information. They also use terms that are well-defined within their profession to shorten the text further. One wouldn't expect a layman with no experience in biology to easily digest the paper. To point is not to obfuscate but to simmer the paper down to essentials that others in the field can readily understand. With some effort to become familiar with the underlying & established techniques & science, determined, non-experts can eventually pick up this information. I'd respectfully suggest to anyone *seriously* interested in the paper but not comfortable with the technical details, that they may want to find a knowledgeable biologist willing to explain. At least they should read the entire paper and the additional papers referenced within. Consider asking DI's research institute or Behe for help with understanding the techniques behind the work.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:11, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Your sermon is misplaced. Taxpayers paid for Lenski's study, and any real scientist should reject the inexplicable withholding the data underlying its conclusions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::YMMV but in my view, it's like going to a librarian and demanding they provide something made from paper: Books? Magazines? Newspapers? What type of books? What subjects? My opinion is that if someone: doesn't know what one wants, doesn't appear to understand the report, demands to see 'the data' without appearing to know what they're asking for in the first place or how to process the information, I'm not sure how any experimental scientist would comply with that request. Furthermore, I'd find it odd that the requests persist despite the fact that the paper was indeed published in compliance with establish profession standards and the strains were made available (in compliance with journal and university research policy). Again, if someone thinks the work was done incorrectly they can get a lab to request the strains and try to repeat many of the observations. That is why the materials and methods sections exist in papers: To allow others to repeat and confirm the work.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Unfortunately, there are essentially no real scientists left. Peer review is almost never done with the amount of scrutiny Aschlafly discusses. Reviewers, even for journals with long submission-to-publication times, do not request the original data. When original data are requested, it is by researchers who want to continue the work and write publications of their own on the subject. There just aren't incentives to do thorough reviews.

Aschlafly, I think you're right that review should have been more stringent. I think you're wrong, however, to conclude that an exception was made here. Its true that review time was very short in this case. The total number of man-hours devoted to '''any''' review, however, is seldom more than 40.

What does "real scientists" mean? If it means practicing academics today, it's sadly wrong. Most [[professor values|professors]] are self-centered, and would see true peer review as impinging on their personal freedom. "Who has time," they think, "to transcribe lab notebooks? I've got more papers to publish!" I bet the majority would even resist your request to Lenski. This liberal attitude towards truth is what leads to claptrap like [[Particle/wave duality theory]] and [[COBE|the theory of cosmic microwave background radiation]]. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 09:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

: With respect to your comments on peer review, note that there were merely 14 days between the time the Lenski manuscript was sent for review and the time it was confirmed for publication. I doubt even 10 good hours of real peer review were devoted to the Lenski manuscript, let alone the 40 you mention. The 14 days included administrative and communication delays, and business and weekend days. It looks like a "rubber stamp" process to me for evaluating this Lenski manuscript, in contrast to other papers published by the same journal. It seems possible to me that there was no meaningful peer review at all for the Lenski manuscript, and it may be worth making inquiries of the Journal on this point alone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:44, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

::The paper is straightforward and the data clear. Lenski's work is well known within the microbiology community and therefore much of the preceding information is already generally understood (i.e. reviewers don't need to dig through all the references). I can see it sailing through review.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

::: In other words, you seem to be saying the latest paper was not given a thorough, independent peer review. I agree with that analysis. In fact, it probably "sailed through" without any meaningful peer review at all, despite published journal procedures claiming to require meaningful peer review.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:08, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

::::On the contrary. I see it sailing through review because the experiment is straightforward, clearly reported and very interesting to the field. The techniques are uncontroversial and well understood among microbiologists. Easy reviews proceed faster, plain and simple. That reveals nothing about whether the paper received more, less or the same of scrutiny as the typical paper.

::::Are you familiar with PNAS review policy? I ask because in previous notes you've wondered whether authors submit original (raw?) data in addition to their paper's actual manuscripts. Have you perhaps discussed review policies with other Nation Academy of Sciences members or at least, publishing biologists? It might be more productive than polling anonymous sources on the internet.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 11:28, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly, the purpose of a Peer Review is not to make sure the entire experiment wasn't a massive fraud - it is to ensure that the work adhered to scientific principles and guidelines. In this case, the work was short and did adhere to principal. Lenski has, as required, laid out how the experiment can be repeated. Are you saying that he risked his entire reputation on results that can be checked and refuted by another lab? {{unsigned|Falsehood}}

::::Aschlafly, peer reviews are not suitable to detect all experiment flaws or outright fraud. Reviewers can't always know whether a lab assistent made a mistake or even if the experiment was done at all. The primary goal is to make sure that the experiment can be repeated so completely independent researchers can verify the results. This is the only good verification. A mistake in the experiment means that the data cannot be trusted. That is true for fraudulent data as well. There are several reasons to repeat an experiment. First of all, a groundbreaking result will nearly always be repeated. Scientists want to be sure they can trust the result and not waste years on related experiments. The second reason is to test yourself. A scientist may want to repeat an important experiment before starting their own related experiments. It may also be done to test a new lab or test setup. Thirdly, indications of fraud are an obvious reason. Fourthly, highly complicated experiments that can easily go wrong may be replicated. Fifthly, new scientists are less trusted and more likely to be checked. Now, this experiment is not particularly likely to be repeated. It is not particularly groundbreaking (evolutionary changes have been observed in many other experiments), complicated and there are no indications of fraud. Of course, you/Conservapedia may want to appeal to colleages of mr. Lenski for a repeat of (parts of) the experiment, but I doubt that they will be swayed by your arguments that seem to boil down to: 'I don't understand the science, but I don't like the result, so there must be a mistake'. It would be wiser to point to an actual lack of evidence or methodology flaw in the paper (if it exists), so an experiment can be drafted to test the significance of that mistake. --[[User:Aapje|Aapje]] 07:29, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

== More replies to archived comments ==

:"''Why do you say that it does not support evolution?''" ([[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog/archive1#Questions for Aschlafly , not Bugler]] (Asked by JPohl of me):
See my post (now in the archive) dated 23:05, 16 June 2008 (search for that text).

:"''The current living species of coelacanth are not the same as the ones in fossils''" ([[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog/archive1#E. coli in our bowels]]) (in a question by Wandering to me)
:"''Modern coelacanths are anything but unchanged. For example, they're roughly three times as large as their ancient predecessors. Of the two known living species, neither are in the same genus as ancient coelacanths. Your statement is ''blatantly'' false''" (Same section) (by Rspeed in a response to Jimxchue)
How do we know that they are not the same species or genus? "Species" is defined in terms of interfertility, something that cannot be determined for fossils. And size doesn't mean much. Great Danes and Chihuahuas are in the same ''sub''-species, but the ratio of size difference is greater than 1:3.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hi Philip, I read your post and I don't think it addresses anything other than semantics. The bacteria was standard E Coli, and then after tens of thousands of generations, it started to metabolise citrate, which normally ''distinguishes'' E Coli from other species. That's very clearly the process of changing inherited traits over generations - ie, evolution.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:45, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I can't help wondering if you skimmed it too quickly and didn't pick which bit I was referring to here. I'll explain it in a different way:
::* According to evolution, there must be millions of information-generating mutations to go from microbes to man.
::* According to creation, mutations do ''not'' produce new genetic information, although ''very rarely'', you might by chance get the odd one.
::Lenski has allegedly found ''one'' information-generating mutation. So which of those two competing predictions does this evidence match the best?
:: I also pointed out two weeks ago on Andy's talk page the following:
{{QuoteBox|It took 31,500 generations before the bacteria acquired a single new ability (even assuming they actually do have some new genetic information). 31,500 generations for humans is around 600,000 to 900,000 years (depending on the average time between generations). Yet humans have supposedly evolved ''hundreds'' if not ''thousands'' of new abilities from their supposed primate forbears in a time span only three to five times that long. So this research can be seen as evidence (not absolute proof, of course) that evolution simply does not occur fast enough for us humans to have evolved, which is therefore ''evidence'' that evolution can't explain our existence.}}
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:::There are some flaws in that logic though:
:::*Simple cells likely first appeared 4 billion years ago. Given how many existed simultaneously (an entire planet at some times v. a few petri dishes) and that simpler living beings have shorter lifespans, going from "microbes to man" (or something as genetically complex as man) is really a matter of time.
:::*31,500 generations is not a minimum number of generations for a rare, complex trait to manifest. That just happened to be the case here. Dumb luck could have had significant mutations develop at any earlier (or later) point.
:::*What definition of "ability" are you using here? All of the bacteria also evolved larger cells - would you count that as an "ability"? According to Lenski's work, "enough bacterial cells had lived and died that all simple mutations must already have occurred several times over"
:::*Bacteria are asexual. Animals and plants reproduce through sex, which causes significantly more genetic variation.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 12:18, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: No, going from microbe to man is ''not'' a matter of time. If you are travelling south from Sydney, how long will it take you to reach Brisbane? Answer: It's not a question of how long, because you are going in the wrong direction. The same applies here: you can't go from microbes to man when mutations destroy information rather than create it. See also [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/431/ here].
::::: We both know the Earth is round, so the trip is still possible, if not extended. [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html This] and [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html this] are good links on information theory.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 12:08, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: Yes, perhaps 31,500 generations just ''happened'' to be the case here. As you say, it ''might'' occur sooner, and it ''might'' take longer. But my argument was based on the ''evidence'' of this example, not on what speculation ''might'' allow for. The ''evidence'' is not ''proof'', but the ''evidence'' in this case is ''against'' evolution.
::::: I'm not following your claim here. The mutation happened, and it is proof against evolution?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 12:08, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: I'm talking about the ability claimed by the research, to metabolise citrate, that apparently requires new genetic information. Being bigger presumably does not require that, else they would have trumpeted that as well.
::::: They didn't trumpet the metabolisation of citrate as "new information", but rather as a complex mutation that dramatically distinguished it from earlier generations. It would be like coming back to Earth in 100,000 years and finding that humans suddenly have two-foot-long third legs.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 12:08, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: Genetic variation through sexual reproduction is a variation ''within'' the existing genetic information; sexual reproduction does not create ''new'' genetic information.
::::: It varies the gene pool, which allows for different types of mutation and more dramatic diversification.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 12:08, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:31, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::: "''We both know the Earth is round, so the trip is still possible, if not extended.''": So? Like all analogies, it's not perfect. Evolution doesn't go around in circles like travelling around the Earth, so that reply is invalid, and the objection remains: mutations go in the wrong direction.
:::::: "''[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html This] and [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html this] are good links on information theory.''": No, they are not good links at all. From memory of checking the first one out before, it has little of substance. The second is a disagreement over a particular case, not a general look at information, and has some errors in it that I can identify.
:::::: "''I'm not following your claim here. The mutation happened, and it is proof against evolution?''": I said "evidence", not "proof". If you don't understand the difference, read the relevant sections in my [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]]. Creationism ''also'' proposes mutations, so the fact that a mutation happened is not evidence favouring evolution.
:::::: "''They didn't trumpet the metabolisation of citrate as "new information", but rather as a complex mutation that dramatically distinguished it from earlier generations. It would be like coming back to Earth in 100,000 years and finding that humans suddenly have two-foot-long third legs.''": The New Scientist article quoted Jerry Coyne saying "it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events, ... That's just what creationists say can't happen.". What creationists say "can't happen" is an ''increase in information''. So if you are claiming that nobody is claiming this to be an increase in information, they you are claiming that Jerry Coyne doesn't know what he's talking about regarding what creationists claim (which could be the case, actually!). As for your example, a short third leg probably doesn't require new information anyway. We already have the information for legs, so failure (mutation) of a switch might result in a third one (it's happened with animals), and another fault (mutation) might cause that third leg to be stunted. So if Lenski's discovery is like this, then it really is the case that it doesn't support evolution, because microbes-to-microbiologist evolution requires ''new'' genetic information.
:::::: "''[Sexual reproduction] varies the gene pool, which allows for different types of mutation and more dramatic diversification.''": That sounds like hand-waving to me, rather than an argument of substance.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:40, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::Philip,
:::::With due respect, I see a fairly serious problem with the position you're taking. One of the central arguments against evolution is that mutations ''cannot'' produce new information. Now you're arguing that:

:::::''"According to creation, mutations do ''not'' produce new genetic information, although ''very rarely'', you might by chance get the odd one."''

:::::The problem is that, if it can "very rarely" happen "by chance," then the premise that mutations do not produce new genetic information is simply false. Instead, we're faced with a debate over ''how frequently'' mutations produce new genetic information. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:41, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Philip, I see your point about how the creation of new information through mutation does not necessarily contradict creationism at all. However, it hardly seems like evidence ''for'' it; and extrapolating as you did (trying to claim the timeframe for these bacteria applies equally to the supposed evolution of humans) honestly seems like mostly speculation... Which I admit is often overused by evolutionists as well, but it still isn't a good basis for deciding which theory the evidence favors. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 11:27, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

: BenP, it's possible to have both a rule and exceptions to that rule. For all practical purposes, mutations don't create new information. However, that doesn't rule out that, once in a blue moon (actually, far less often), you might actually get ''something'' simple that is new. And yes, I guess that there is then a debate about how frequently mutations produce new genetic information, which is sort of what I've been discussing here, in pointing out that ''in this case'' it took 31,500 generations, and even that assumes that this ''did'' happen, which I think is a long way from being accepted. But the question is not ''really'' how long it takes, but whether or not the extremely rare one is going to be swamped by all the deleterious ones. And especially with more complex creatures, it is easily going to get swamped, especially in creatures with sexual reproduction. That is, even if, once in 30,000 generations, there was the odd information-gaining mutation, then what's the chances that that mutation will get passed on to the next generation? Especially given that this won't be the only mutation being selected for (or against).
: Feebasfactor, why is not not evidence ''for'' creation? If that's the prediction that it best fits, then it ''is'' evidence for it! You're right about the timeframe not applying to humans. Because humans reproduce sexually, and therefore the next generation will not necessarily inherit the mutation, and because natural selection favours ''individuals'', not ''mutations'', then a less-fit ''individual'' will be selected ''against'' even with the odd "good" mutation. So really, it will occur a lot ''slower'' for humans than for bacteria.
: For more information on this, see [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4473 this] brief description of "Haldane's Dilemma".
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:27, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:: It's amusing to me that you cite Haldane's Dilemma, even though it was debunked at the same time it was given that name. As Leigh Van Valen pointed out on page in his paper [http://www.jstor.org/pss/2458906 Haldane's Dilemma, Evolutionary Rates, and Heterosis], significant evolutionary changes occur when the environmental changes cause unadapted organisms have less reproductive success. This holds with evolutionary theory, as there is abundant evidence of large changes occurring in organisms at times where their environment changes and their population is small. Mind you, this is the paper which originated the term "Haldane's Dilemma", so with the exception of J. B. S. Haldane's papers, this is the original source. --[[User:Rspeed|Rspeed]] 16:41, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

: Philip, the massive increase in size is just one (and the most readily visible) aspect of Coelacanthiforme's evolution since the end of the Cretaceous. If you want firm proof, there are significant differences in skeletal structure between the most closely-related ancient and modern species of coelacanth (Macropoma and Latimeria). It is an established fact that modern species of coelacanth are in a separate genus. --[[User:Rspeed|Rspeed]] 15:01, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:: There have apparently been various ''attempts'' to debunk Haldane's Dilemma, but those attempts have themselves been debunked. In 1992 (well after Van Valen's paper), George C. Williams wrote of Haldane's Dilemma, "In my opinion the problem was never solved, by Wallace or anyone else."[http://saintpaulscience.com/Haldane.htm]
:: "''It is an established fact that modern species of coelacanth are in a separate genus''": Oh? Because you say so? Yet you didn't explain how this can be determined without interfertility tests. No, this "established fact" is by decree, not scientific tests of interfertility.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:22, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
::: "Oh? Because you say so?" No, because the scientists who know how to determine taxonomy said so. Your argument is unbelievably weak, by that logic humans could be genetically compatible with T-Rex. Rather than simply dismissing everything that disagrees with the Bible, you should probably do some research from reliable sources. The scientific method exists for a reason.
::: That's fine about someone disagreeing with Van Valen's conclusions, but can you share his reasoning? I found Van Valen's debunking of Haldane's Dilemma to be quite logical and it fits with the data (such as Prof. Lenski's experiment).
::: --[[User:Rspeed|Rspeed]] 20:35, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

==Lead author won't answer simple, basic questions==

IMO the paper has no credibility because the lead author of the paper, Zachary Blount, has refused to give straight consistent answers to the following simple, basic questions about the experiment:

(1) -- whether evolution of citrate-eating (Cit+) E. coli bacteria was a goal of the experiment (I noted that a "goal" does not have to be a sure result), and

(2) -- whether the purpose or one of the purposes of the glucose-cycling (giving insufficient glucose supplies in order to cause alternating glucose feeding and glucose starvation) was to favor the evolution of citrate-eating E. coli bacteria.

Blount's refusal to properly answer these questions is discussed in the following article on my blog --

[http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2008/06/co-author-of-e-coli-paper-dodges.html Co-author of E. coli paper dodges questions]

More details concerning Blount's refusal to properly answer these questions are in the comment thread under the following post on Carl Zimmer's "The Loom" blog (note particularly my most recent comments in that thread) --
[http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php A new step in evolution]

Also, I think Andy Schlafly is wrong to request all of the raw data, because (1) copying all of the raw data to send to him would be a huge job and (2) the raw data might not even be in a form that could be readily understood by someone who did not participate in the research. IMO the citrate-eating bacteria are the best evidence supporting the paper (such as it is).[[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 18:59, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
: a reading of the blog reveals that Zachary Blount did indeed address the questions that the above poster named and did so clearly. Please read more carefully next time and don't post falsehoods[[User:DeanWinter|DeanWinter]] 19:10, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:: LarryFarma raises an excellent question about whether a goal of Lenski and Blount's project was to generate citrate-eating E. Coli bacteria. (I did not find the answer in the paper.) Did the researchers figure out, after many years of fruitless attempts, how best to promote the percentage of citrate-eating E. Coli bacteria in a population? The details of the data might shed light on how that goal was achieved, if in fact that was the goal. They should turn over the data for public scrutiny so that questions can be resolved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Blount's comments on "LarryFarma's" blog make it clear that the evolution of citric eaters was not a goal, but not completely unexpected. The paper, though it was pretty technical for me, seems to indicate that as well. [[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 20:15, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: If you're serious, then please provide some quotes and links to back up your statements. Also contribute to entries rather than violating the [[90/10 rule]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:Reply to Aschlafly's comment of 19:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT) --
:''"LarryFarma raises an excellent question about whether a goal of Lenski and Blount's project was to generate citrate-eating E. Coli bacteria. ('''I did not find the answer in the paper.''')"'' (emphasis added) I asked Zachary Blount to clarify his statements about whether evolution of Cit+ (citrate-eating) E. coli bacteria was a goal of the experiment. He answered by asking me to go on a wild goose chase by reading the whole paper, which has 8 pages of fine print -- this is called "bibliography bluffing." And when people balk at going on these wild goose chases, they are accused of not wanting to learn.

:''"Did the researchers figure out, after many years of fruitless attempts, how best to promote the percentage of citrate-eating E. Coli bacteria in a population?"'' As I said, I asked Blount whether favoring Cit+ evolution was the purpose or one of the purposes of the glucose-cycling (giving the bacteria insufficient supplies of glucose so as to create alternating glucose feeding and glucose starvation), and he did not answer.

:''"They should turn over the data for public scrutiny so that questions can be resolved."'' I disagree with you here, for the reasons stated at the end of my first comment in this talk page.[[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 05:25, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Thanks for your insightful comments and continued efforts to obtain the truth.

:: It has been conceded, finally, by Lenski defenders that the data are not too voluminous to turn over. The underlying data for Figure 1 in the paper for the population expansion during the alleged evolution of the Cit-plus phenotype, for example, could shed light on whether contamination played a role. There is no legitimate reason to withhold the greater resolution from the public, which funded the study.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:15, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

::::People need to stop asking to "turn over the data for public scrutiny" before they've fully read and comprehended the papers and information released to date. E. Coli don't live off of citrate - it's a characteristic of the species - so there was no "goal to promote the percentage that could do it". The fact that a certain population were able to after after thousands of generations of reproduction in a controlled, monitored setting was the key observation, and Lenski's team is still investigating the specifics of when and how that characteristic was enabled. It reflects poorly on an online encyclopedia that the leadership is still questioning whether sufficient data to understand the experiment has been released. The most relevant data from the experiment is the actual bacteria itself, and Lenski has publicly offered to share samples of them with any scientist qualified to handle them, who follows the proper, professional protocols. The Consevapedia community has yet to see a specific, professional response to Professor Lenski's second letter other than a flippant remark about attitude and a continued insistence that data has not been revealed when it clearly has.

::::I'll probably earn another 90/10 block for this, but when you continue to question Lenski's work while admitting that you've only skimmed the related paper, you accomplish nothing but setting a poor example of intellectual honesty for the students who use CP as a trustworthy resource. With all respect, I would ask that instead, you retain the services of a qualified scientist who can engage in a proper review of Lenski's work, whose could then post an ongoing journal of the review process and its findings here on CP. ''That'' would be an appropriate lesson for the students in the proper application of scientific scrutiny to findings that some find questionable. Godspeed. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:20, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::::The development of citrate metabolizers wasn't the main intent (see Lenski's early papers) and it's actually tangential in the overall context of the long-term experiment. Zachary Blount describes the purpose of citrate in the media in his responses at Carl Zimmer's blog, The Loom. http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php (see replies #115 & #270). Citrate was not added to be a carbon nutrient in the media but as a non-metabolizable chelator (the three carboxyl groups of citrate can bind certain cations in solution). The recipe for the medium was taken from other microbiologists who developed the recipe as a general culture medium back in 1949. Lenski's description of the DM25 media is here: https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/dm25liquid.html. Glucose was the intended carbon source. If you read the Lenski article cited by Blount (Phenotypic and genomic evolution during a 20,000-generation experiment with the bacterium Escherichia coli. -- available here: https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/, you'll see the setup and reasons for performing the experiments (An earlier article at generation 2000 is here: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/1991,%20AmNat,%20Lenski%20et%20al.pdf). Basically, Lenksi wanted to see how mutations arise and move through populations over time. Even if the media and growth conditions remain pretty consistent over time, the populations continuously shift and change. That is because for a bacterium in the experiment the 'environment' is not just made up of the flask and media but also the *other cells in the flask* with which it must compete. This results in a continuously shifting competitive environment as mutations arise in lineages. Citrate utilization was just one of the many interesting variations acquired over the course of the experiment. Read his other papers for more details and a fuller understanding of the open-ended experiment's scope.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:16, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: I looked at the blog and found it to be remarkably uninformative. I saw nothing about Blount and Lenski's purpose, nothing that persuasively ruled out non-evolutionary reasons for the citrate-eating bacteria, and nothing to justify the withholding of the data to reveal greater resolution than provided by the figures in the paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:00, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Blogging has limits, which is why I also provided references to Lenski's other papers, including some of those Blount mentioned would be worth reading.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::::With regard to 'competent scientists' consider that Behe, in his discussions on this topic has not argued about the 'mechanics' and data presented in Lenski's paper. In his review that can be found on the amazon.com website, he calls Lenksi's work 'fascinating' (and means it in a good way).--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:29, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

That was strange -- for several hours I was not able to post here, but now I can. Here is my response to Argon's comment of 21:16, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Argon said, "The development of citrate metabolizers wasn't the main intent"

I didn't ask if Cit+ (citrate-eating E. coli bacteria) evolution was the "main intent" of the experiment -- I only asked if Cit+ evolution was one of the original "goals." There is a misunderstanding about what the word "goal" means -- a goal does not have to be a sure result. In searches for the Lost Dutchman Mine and the ivory-billed woodpecker, finding them are "goals." A "goal" can be one of many goals, a secondary goal, a longshot goal, or whatever. And "intent" is not part of the definition of "goal" -- "intent" generally means what one plans to do, but one cannot plan to achieve an uncertain result. BTW, the term "citrate metabolizers" is misleading because the bacteria already had the ability to metabolize citrate but did not have the ability to pass it through the cell walls.

Zachary Blount's following statement in comment #115 under the [http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php New step in evolution] post on Zimmer's blog indicates that Cit+ evolution was one of the original goals of the experiment:

''"When Dr. Lenski started, he figured the citrate would provide an opportunity that the populations might or might not figure out a way to exploit, thereby presenting a potential point of divergence between the populations (this is my understanding - I will need to check with him to make certain I understand this properly)."''

Blount then essentially contradicted his above statement by saying that "the intent of the experiment was never to evolve a Cit+ E. coli variant" (comment #115) and that Cit+ evolution was "not a goal" (comment #122).

Also, the following factors suggest that Cit+ evolution was an original goal of the experiment:

(1) Cit+ evolution had been observed once before. Blount reported in comment #115 under the [http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php New step in evolution] post on Zimmer's blog, ''"there has been only one report of a spontaneous Cit+ mutant of E. coli in the past century (Hall, B. 1982. Chromosomal mutation for citrate utilization by Escherichia coli K-12. Journal of Bacteriology, 151: 269 ï¿½ 273.)"). ''

(2) I and others assumed that a purpose of the glucose-cycling (giving the bacteria an insufficient glucose supply so as to create alternating glucose feeding and glucose starvation) was to favor Cit+ evolution. I asked Blount if this was in fact a purpose of the glucose-cycling and he did not answer. I asked what the purpose of the glucose-cycling was if favoring Cit+ evolution was not the purpose, and he did not answer.

Was there a research proposal for this whole experiment that started in 1988, and if so, what does that proposal say, if anything, about my questions? [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 10:24, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:I may be missing something here, but why is the supposed "goal" of the experiment important? It's the important thing the result?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:29, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::British_cons''':''' Suppose a committee is considering this research for an award or a prize and asks the researchers the same questions I asked''':''' (1) Was Cit+ evolution a goal of the experiment? and (2) was favoring Cit+ evolution a purpose of the glucose-cycling? Are the researchers going to answer, “No, it was not a goal — it was just an unforeseen accident. We don’t deserve any credit for it.”

::Also, IMO knowing the goals of the experiment and the purposes of the experimental methodologies are important parts of understanding the experiment. Also, the candor of the researchers is in question here -- as shown above, I did not get straight consistent answers to simple, basic questions.[[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 12:27, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::There are two possibilities. It was the goal. It was not the goal. The result is that they have produced Cit+. If it was the goal then they have demonstrated what they set out to demonstrate. Well done. If it was not the goal then serendipity has favored them. It is no means unusual in science for unexpected results to further the cause of science. Nobody would reject or question them because they were unexpected. Indeed they are even more welcome if they're unexpected because something new has been learned. So again - well done. I don't see the problem.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 12:45, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::::British_cons''':''' As I said, suppose that a committee is considering this research for an award -- wouldn't this research be much less deserving of an award if Cit+ evolution were just an unforeseen accident? Also, the candor of the researchers is in question here -- as I showed above, I did not get straight consistent answers to simple, basic questions. As I noted above, Cit+ evolution had been observed before, so it seems that repeating it was a likely goal of the experiment. Also, I asked about the purpose(s) of the glucose-cycling and I got no answer to that question. Knowing the goals of the research and the purposes of the experimental methodologies are important parts of understanding the research.[[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 14:07, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Thudden''':''' ''As I said, suppose that a committee is considering this research for an award -- wouldn't this research be much less deserving of an award if Cit+ evolution were just an unforeseen accident?'' This betrays a unequivocal lack of understanding of scientific process and acclaim. Hundreds of world-altering scientific discoveries have been serendipitous: Pauling and Penicillin, Galvani and neuroelectricity, Nagano's discovery of interferon, Becquerel and Röntgen's discovery of radioactivity and X-rays respectively. If you stumble on something marvellous by accident, you receive identical academic acclaim, perhaps only with added envy.
:::::'''Fleming''' and Penicillin (just for the sake of accuracy). [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 17:56, 8 January 2009 (EST)
::''"If you stumble on something marvellous by accident, you receive identical academic acclaim,"'' I disagree -- IMO things discovered by intelligent searching are more highly regarded. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 06:17, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::''Thudden: Your disagreement would be more convincing if it was backed up by evidence, or engaged with the contrary evidence provided.
:::"Identical academic acclaim": Fleming won the Nobel Prize, Becquerel won the Nobel Prize, Rontgen won the first ever Nobel Prize for Physics, Nobel Prizes were awarded for the serendipitous discoveries of restriction endonucleases and RNA interference... Not to mention "Eureka!" The list of people who've won the highest acclaim for accidental discoveries is very, very long. [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 17:56, 8 January 2009 (EST)

::::''"Your disagreement would be more convincing if it was backed up by evidence, or engaged with the contrary evidence provided."''
::::It is just my own personal opinion -- I have no opinion poll results on the question. Do you have any opinion poll results to back up your statement?
::::I was especially impressed by the way Neptune was discovered in 1846 -- a mathematician predicted its location on the basis of perturbations of the motion of Uranus, and Neptune was found in one night very close to the predicted spot. Also, Pluto was found on the basis of perturbations in Neptune's motion but the search took much longer.
::::You should sign your comments at the end, not the beginning -- when you sign them at the beginning, it looks like you are addressing someone (that is what I originally thought about your preceding comment). [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 15:06, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) Rather than dispute this with you YET AGAIN, can we wait until you respond to criticisms of your position on other websites first? You keep repeating this "no straight answers" argument, and people keep pointing out your error, and you've yet to see this argument through to the end anywhere. Conservapedia is already struggling to maintain its current signal-to-noise ratio, please stop forum-shopping here. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 14:17, 27 June 2008 (EDT) ''<-knows where all the good sales are...''

:: Aziraphale said, ''"Rather than dispute this with you YET AGAIN, can we wait until you respond to criticisms of your position on other websites first? "'' I have already spent a helluva lot of time responding to those criticisms on Carl Zimmer's blog and my own blog! (see links in my first comment on this talk page) But I have been kicked off of Carl Zimmer's blog, and my own blog gets only about 50 visits per day. In contrast, this talk page is getting thousands of visits per day, so it is obviously a much better forum for publicizing my views.

::''"You keep repeating this 'no straight answers' argument, and people keep pointing out your error."'' And I keep pointing out the errors in arguments that attempt to point out my alleged error.[[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 16:18, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Ok, fair enough. Enjoy your time here. :) [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:05, 27 June 2008 (EDT) ''<-o/~know when to hold 'em... o/~''

::::''"Enjoy your time here."'' I intend to. I never before had such a good opportunity to publicize my views. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 02:21, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::It has been brought to my attention that there may be a problem with your question. You wish to know about the "goal" of the experiment. Is that a reasonable way to ask a question of a scientific experiment? Shouldn't the question be "What hypothesis was being tested?"?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 10:03, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::How could a random event, Cit+ evolution, be a "hypothesis"? Even Zachary Blount used the term "goal." What is wrong with saying that an experiment has a "goal" (or "goals")? [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 15:53, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Because according to the [[Scientific method]] the objective of an experiment is to test an hypothesis. Remember that things are not proved in science - only disproved. The objective of an experiment is never to "prove" anything - only to test an hypothesis. If the hypothesis is confirmed then it is strengthened, if it not confirmed it is weakened or discarded. Consequently the fundamental question to ask of an experiment is, "What hypothesis was being tested?" --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:07, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::How would you describe Cit+ evolution as a hypothesis, even assuming that Cit+ evolution had not been observed before (Cit+ evolution was observed prior to Lenski's experiment) ?[[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 21:54, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::I'm afraid that's for you to figure out. As I've said, the only sensible way for you to ask the question you want answered is to form it as a question about the hypothesis. How you manage that is down to you. :-)--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 02:27, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::''"I'm afraid that's for you to figure out."'' It's your idea that it must be stated as a hypothesis, so showing how it can be stated as a hypothesis is your responsibility. Anyway, Lenski could not hypothesize about whether Cit+ evolution could occur, because it had been observed prior to the start of his experiment. All he could do was consider Cit+ evolution to be a "goal" of his experiment. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 05:43, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::I'm sorry, I thought you were asking for help. Anyway, the article on [[Scientific method]] ''on this wiki'' states that the reason for an experiment is to test an hypothesis - so it's not my opinion but what this Wiki states. I suppose you could edit the article so this it reflects your view of how science works. --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:24, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Reading Lenski's recent paper for comprehension reveals that the hypothesis being tested is that development of the Cit+ strain is a historically contingent process (that is, arising by multiple steps separated over time). The null hypothesis (not supported by the results of the experiments) is that the Cit+ strain arises by a single, exceptionally rare event.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 10:52, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: ''"Reading Lenski's recent paper for comprehension reveals that the hypothesis being tested is that development of the Cit+ strain is a historically contingent process (that is, arising by multiple steps separated over time)."''
:::::I was aware that one of the original goals of the experiment was to test for historical contingency -- that was the reason for freezing the populations at each 500th generation. My questions were about other things: (1) was Cit+ evolution an original goal of the experiment (remember that this whole experiment started in 1988, long before the study in the present paper), (2) was favoring Cit+ evolution a purpose or one of the purposes of the glucose-cycling (giving the bacteria insufficient glucose supplies so as to cause alternating glucose feeding and starvation), and (3) what were other purposes -- if any -- of the glucose-cycling. Zachary Blount did not give a straight answer to the first question and gave no answers at all to the latter two questions. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 13:12, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::You continue to dwell on the semantics of 'goal' as though it has some particular relevance to the validity of the research presented in Lenski's latest paper. The experiment was started in '88 to track the evolution of a population of E. coli. The purpose of the 'glucose cycling' is to provide the bacteria with an environment that will favor those mutants that are better able to exploit a limited critical resource. The glucose cycling does not inherently favor the development of a Cit+ strain any more than it favors other potential solutions to the problem - like secreting a toxin to kill your competitors, or faster reproduction to outbreed them, or photosynthesis, or cannibalism, or what have you. There is no other purpose to providing the bacteria with a limited supply of glucose. Citrate is present in the growth medium as a chelating agent and buffer - it was not added solely to serve as a potential carbon source, although it is one. 
:::::::You seem to believe that the reason that Lenski is getting acclaim for this research is just that has isolated a strain of E. coli that can metabolize citrate under unusual conditions - and your response seems to be that he does not deserve praise for this, since he didn't set out with this particular outcome in mind - it's just an accident, if in fact the Cit+ bacteria exist at all. Or maybe you object because you think Lenski somehow 'stacked the deck' in favor of his bacteria becoming Cit+, so the results aren't 'fair' somehow. Or perhaps you think that after 20 years of failing to develop a Cit+ strain of E. coli through selection, Lenski just gave up, genetically engineered such a strain, and then faked his data. If you could clearly state what your suspicions are, rather than simply repeating that Blount won't answer your questions, it would be simpler to address your concerns. 
:::::::This is utterly beside the point, however, because the importance of this recent paper does not depend on the detail of the strain being Cit+ - it could have been the development of a toxin, or some other event that led the new strain to be markedly, phenotypically different from its ancestors in some way. The importance lies in the work that was done to sketch out the outline of how the new trait developed, and in the re-development of the same trait during a re-running of the experiment from ancestral stock. 
:::::::Is it interesting that the trait seen in Lenski's E. coli is the metabolism of citrate under aerobic conditions? Yes. Is it remarkable? Yes, since you can count the number of E. coli strains that can do this on one hand. It's so wild and crazy that it might lead one to question whether the bacteria involved should even be called E. coli anymore - it's that striking a difference from 'normal' E. coli behavior. Was the development of the Cit+ strain an accident? Entirely. Would another Cit+ strain arise if the experiment was completely restarted from 1988? Almost certainly not - Lenski's data suggests that this is a staggeringly unlikely event, dependent on a series of merely overwhelmingly unlikely events. Did Lenski wish to develop a Cit+ strain from the beginning? No man can know the inner mind of another, but I would bet the farm that he didn't see this coming. If I were designing an E. coli breeding scheme with the stated purpose of selecting for a Cit+ mutant, I can think of much, much, much better ways to do it than this experimental protocol. The Cit+ trait is a novelty - an interesting one, one that is remarkable because of its rarity, one that resonates - but the value of the research does not depend upon it. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:33, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::::''"You continue to dwell on the semantics of 'goal' as though it has some particular relevance to the validity of the research presented in Lenski's latest paper. The experiment was started in '88 to track the evolution of a population of E. coli."''
::::I am trying to get answers to some simple, basic questions about the experiment. Is there something wrong with that?
::::Also, the "semantics" -- as you call them -- of "goal" are very important. A lot of people have the mistaken idea that a goal is necessarily an expected result or is necessarily an intended result. Just going around telling people that the Cit+ evolution was not a goal can be very misleading.
:::::If you want to expand the term 'goal' to the point that you include unexpected, unintended results then you rob it of all meaning. By your reasoning, my getting into a fatal car accident is the 'goal' of my driving to the grocery store. If you think that 'goal' is a term of art that describes the entire universe of possible outcomes of an action, you are mistaken. If you want Blount et al to admit that the emergence of a Cit+ mutant was '''possible''', given the experimental protocol, then I think that you already have your answer: yes. Was it expected? No. Was the experiment designed from the beginning to favor Cit+ mutation over some other pathway? No.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:22, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::::''"The purpose of the 'glucose cycling' is to provide the bacteria with an environment that will favor those mutants that are better able to exploit a limited critical resource."''
::::That statement is too vague.
:::::What part is too vague? The alternatives to glucose cycling are: provide so much glucose that cell growth remains exponential up through the time of the next sampling; provide so little glucose that there is no cell division at all; or use a chemostat setup in which the glucose concentration can be maintained at a constant, arbitrary level indefinitely at the cost of vastly increased material and labor costs to the experimenter.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 12:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
::::''"The glucose cycling does not inherently favor the development of a Cit+ strain any more than it favors other potential solutions to the problem - like secreting a toxin to kill your competitors, or faster reproduction to outbreed them, or photosynthesis, or cannibalism, or what have you."''
::::The glucose cycling gives an especially big advantage to Cit+ bacteria because they have something to eat after the glucose supply is exhausted whereas their Cit- neighbors do not.
:::::It gives them '''an''' advantage. It's impossible to predict ahead of time how '''big''' an advantage it is, because instead of being unable to metabolize citrate they may merely be terrible at it. If the Cit- cells are better at glucose metabolism than the Cit+ ones are, they may completely swamp out the Cit+ in the early, glucose-dependent phase. Even if the Cit+ cells continue to grow after the glucose is exhausted, they may never completely outcompete the Cit- cells by the time the next population sample is taken. In fact, this appears to be what has happened, as the experiment has shown that two populations of cells originating from the Ara-3 line have reached a temporary equilibrium: a grows-very-fast-on-glucose Cit- population (10%) and a grows-more-slowly-on-glucose-but-keeps-growing-on-citrate Cit+ population (90%). --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 12:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
::::''"Citrate is present in the growth medium as a chelating agent and buffer -- it was not added solely to serve as a potential carbon source, although it is one."''
::::Yes, I know it is there as a chelating agent -- but I also want to know if Cit+ evolution was a goal (again, a goal does not have to be an expected result and can even be an unlikely result) and if favoring Cit+ evolution was a purpose or one of the purposes of the glucose-cycling (I also would like to know if there were other purposes of the glucose-cycling and exactly how any other purposes work). The fact that Cit+ evolution was observed once previously adds to my hunch that it was a goal. Also, the bacteria already had the ability to metabolize citrate and just needed to evolve a way to pass citrate through the cell wall.
::::''"You seem to believe that the reason that Lenski is getting acclaim for this research is just that has isolated a strain of E. coli that can metabolize citrate under unusual conditions"''
::::Well, he is getting a lot of acclaim for it, isn't he? The paper has been widely ballyhooed all over the Internet. The Internet has several articles and hundreds of comments about it.
:::::He does not deserve acclaim because he is a farmer who has a goose that lays golden eggs, but because he can demonstrate in rough form how the goose came to lay golden eggs when it's grandparents could not. In fact, he has gone back and re-bred the grandparents and gotten golden-egg laying geese again and again, even though none of his other geese, or even the great-grandparents of the golden goose, can breed golden-egg-layers. The real achievement is not having the goose, it's reproducing it against all the odds, and showing that there's something special about the grandparents compared to the greatgrandparents, even though the grandparents appear to be normal. The fact that many folks, including those in the media, can't get past the 'ohmygoshgoldeneggs!!!' phase is not Lenski's fault.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:29, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::::''"If you could clearly state what your suspicions are"''
::::Right now I am just trying to understand the experiment. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 20:46, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::''"I'm sorry, I thought you were asking for help."'' You call that "help"? All you did was clutter up this talk page with your irrelevant "hypothesis" idea. With friends like you, who needs enemies? [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 10:34, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::When did I call it help? I said that I thought you were asking for it. In any event Brossa seems to have clarified the situation.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:38, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::''"When did I call it help? I said that I thought you were asking for it."''
:::::::And you thought -- or seemed to think -- that you were giving it. I am beginning to suspect that you are just a troll.
:::::::''"In any event Brossa seems to have clarified the situation."''
:::::::No, he has not clarified the situation -- see my above response to him. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 13:29, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::I will not stoop to name calling. Goodbye and good luck with your enquiries.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:07, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Well, what did you expect? First you introduced an irrelevant topic, "hypothesis." Then you contradicted yourself by first saying ''"I'm sorry, I thought you were asking for help"'' and then saying ''"When did I call it help?"'' [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 15:42, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Mods, can we get a ruling on this? LarryFarma is harassing other users, talking far more than he is making valid contributions, and generally being a troll. If he was defending Lenski instead of attacking the paper, he would have been blocked a long time ago. Can someone please comment on this? I believe we can all make our points without name-calling. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
:::::::In fact, the only contributions that Larry has made have been to this talk page. Can we get a 90/10 block please? [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
::::::::Aaronp: Is somebody hassling you? People who don't want to read my comments don't have to read them.
::::::::Also, the 90/10 rule doesn't apply here because I cannot make any contributions to the project page, which is reserved for the exchange of letters between Schlafly and Lenski.
::::::::BTW, I am not attacking the paper -- I am only attacking the lead author's failure to give straight answers to simple, basic questions about it. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 21:17, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: Okay, here's my two-bob's worth.
::::::::: LarryFarma, this page was started to question the ''validity'' of Lenski's work and claims. Although I can see how questions about his ''goals'' would be relevant to awarding him a prize, I can't see that they are relevant to the validity of his work. I think that this might be the cause of some of the angst, as some editors are assuming that you are trying to question the work's ''validity'' with an argument that has no bearing on that point.
::::::::: Secondly, Aaronp has a point about the so-called 90/10 rule. It's point is to ensure that editors contribute to the site and don't just argue. That you are unable to contribute to this project page doesn't mean that you can't contribute elsewhere on the site. The rule is not page-specific in that sense. So as Aaronp has called for that rule to be invoked, and as you have only contributed on this talk page, I think that his request is fair. However, I will allow you to make another post or two to wind up your arguments before doing so. Beyond that, I will feel obliged to enforce it.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:35, 29 June 2008 (EDT) (Administrator)

::::::''"LarryFarma, this page was started to question the validity of Lenski's work and claims."''

::::::The opening sentence of my first comment questions the validity of Lenski's work:
::::::''"IMO the paper has no credibility because the lead author of the paper, Zachary Blount, has refused to give straight consistent answers to the following simple, basic questions about the experiment:"''

::::::You say,
::::::''"Although I can see how questions about his goals would be relevant to awarding him a prize"''

::::::That is not the issue here -- the issue here is that the lead author of the paper, Zachary Blount, has not given straight answers to my simple, basic questions about the experiment. If I were a peer-reviewer of the paper or in the audience at a presentation of the paper at a scientific conference, would he be dodging my questions? And my questions are not just about goals -- for example, I also would like to know the purposes of the glucose-cycling (alternating glucose feeding and glucose starvation). These things are all part of understanding the experiment. Also, what does the original research proposal -- if there is one -- say about the goals and methodologies of the experiment? Is Lenski willing to release that proposal?

:::::: ''"That you are unable to contribute to this project page doesn't mean that you can't contribute elsewhere on the site."''

::::::I am new to the site and therefore have not had an opportunity to contribute elsewhere on the site. Would you like me to write an article about co-evolution? All I would have to do would just copy-and-paste from my blog's several articles about co-evolution. I have found the issues of co-evolution to be a very effective challenge to evolution theory.

::::::''" I will allow you to make another post or two to wind up your arguments before doing so. Beyond that, I will feel obliged to enforce it."''

::::::Are you willing, then, to censor all future comments that attack my positions? If comments attacking my positions are posted in the future here, then why shouldn't I be allowed to defend myself? In fact, while I was writing this comment, Brossa posted three comments attacking my positions.

::::::Also, how do you intend to "enforce" the 90/10 rule -- by IP address blocking? That is often ineffective and also often unintentionally blocks other Internet users who share the same ISP proxy.

::::::BTW, I am very annoyed that Aaronp hypocritically called me a "troll" while criticizing me for using that name to insult another commenter. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 01:14, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear in some of my comments. The first part of my message was not as an administrator, but just to try and clarify the issues. I didn't mean to suggest that you hadn't addressed the validity of his claims. It was meant simply to point out that some may be misunderstanding the point of your comments. And I'm not saying that the questions you are raising are not legitimate questions to raise.
::::::: It's not true to say that you "have not had an opportunity to contribute elsewhere on the site". You've had opportunity every time you've edited.
::::::: We do allow copying of your own work. There is a template available to note that it is your own work. And of course it can be edited by others, as is the case with all articles.
::::::: If you stop making arguments, your critics will stop disagreeing with you. Yes, it will likely mean that they will get the last word, and that might be unfortunate, but that's not going to be reason to ignore the so-called 90/10 rule.
::::::: I'm not suggesting that you are the only one in the wrong here. Uncivil language happens a fair bit. But that's peripheral to the issue I'm discussing here.
::::::: I've unblocked you, because it wasn't fair for you to be blocked for 90/10 when I'd given you a warning and permission to make one or two more posts, but you used one on responding to me, so that gives you one left to respond to your critics. And fair warning: I've referred to the 90/10 rule as the "so-called" 90/10 rule, because it's not a rule against precisely 90% talk vs. 10% contributions, but a rule against "unproductive activity", with 90/10 being an ''example'' of that. So simply making the odd article edit or posting the odd copied article will not necessarily avoid that rule. It's something that we administrators make a judgement on, and others will make it more readily that I will.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:51, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::''"I've unblocked you, because it wasn't fair for you to be blocked for 90/10 when I'd given you a warning and permission to make one or two more posts, but you used one on responding to me, so that gives you one left to respond to your critics."''

:::::That reminds me of the following lawyer joke:
:::::Customer: What are your rates?
:::::Lawyer: $100 for three questions.
:::::Customer: Isn't that kind of steep?
:::::Lawyer: Yes. What is your third question?

:::::''"If you stop making arguments, your critics will stop disagreeing with you. Yes, it will likely mean that they will get the last word"''

:::::Almost all of my arguments here have been answers to my critics. What is at stake here is my right to answer critics. And the reason why I have been making more comments here than other commenters is that other commenters have been using tag-team tactics against me. Giving me just one more opportunity to answer attacks is unacceptable because those attacks are continuing and will continue. And how do I know that other commenters here are not violating the 90/10 rule? Am I being singled out because of Aaronp's rude complaint?

:::::''"It's not true to say that you "have not had an opportunity to contribute elsewhere on the site". You've had opportunity every time you've edited."''

:::::I would have liked to make some contributions to Conservapedia articles, but I now have mixed feelings about Conservapedia because of the 90/10 rule, an arbitrary and unfair rule which is being used to prevent me from defending myself here. I gave up on Wikipedia a long time ago because of its arbitrary and unfair rules and practices, and I am now seeing that Conservapedia is no better.

:::::Anyway, we can debate my questions here until doomsday, but nothing can excuse Zachary Blount's failure to give straight answers to those questions. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 15:26, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::While I completely agree with you that the 90/10 rule is somewhat intimidating (I even refrained from removing wikilinks to salted articles from talk pages because I feared that a casual inspection would make those edits look like "talk, talk, talk"!), it should be said that so far, 20 of your 20 edits were on this page. In other words, your contributions outside of this discussion amount to ZERO. This is an encyclopedia project (or at least it says so) and not a discussion forum. Making encyclopedia edits should be your first priority, not an afterthought. If I remember correctly (I have only paid little attention to this trainwreck), people with far better ratios also received 90/10 blocks for making just a few posts here. You on the other hand were given ''edit rights'' just so you could debate here. Look at me, I got more than a 100 edits (according to My Preferences), most of them non-talk, and I still can't edit at night. You have been treated ''extremely'' well, all things considered. It's time that you actually contribute to the site's primary purpose: Building an encyclopedia. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 15:42, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== removal of content from this page removes context of Lenski's second reply ==
I'm sure it's an oversight but Lenski, in his second letter, made several direct references to the discussion that has been removed from this page. Some of his comments thus appear inappropriately to lack context. I'm sure you did not intend to remove significant parts of this debate, especially when the result seems so one-sided.[[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 20:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
: Yes, it was an oversight. It was archived, but the archive was not linked to on this page. It has since been linked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

==Archive Link?==

Can a link be provided to the archive for this page? Thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:48, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Oops. Did my edits delete the earlier sections? If so, I'm sorry. Could someone restore the original? --[[User:Argon|Argon]]
:No, your edits were not a problem. It was the edits of those individuals who decided to use this talk page as an attack forum. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:02, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

I read this page a while ago - Lensky and ASchaffly's two-and-fro, and have since returned. Why is it that ASchaffly's second letter this time seems to have been edited to be a lot more polite than when I first read it? It makes Lenski's second reply seem unnecessarily rude. When I first read this I felt his tone was justified, now it seems out of place.
:I don't think the letter has been changed at all. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:54, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

== Whence Lenski? ==

Lenski's article was published in the PNAS, which is from the National Academy of Sciences. Just [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22national+academy+of+sciences%22+god Google their name and "god"] and see why they care so much about "proving" evolution: 93% are atheists! Maybe PNAS isn't a professional organization at all, but a fraternity designed to influence American public policy away from Christian principles. [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html] [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3506.asp] {{unsigned|Drochld}}

:I'm a little confused about the terminology of the survey. According to the 1998 figures, 7% had "personal belief", 72% had "personal disbelief", and 21% had "doubt (presumably equivalent to atheism) or agnosticism". I know what atheism and agnosticism are, but what does personal disbelief mean in this case? It sounds like agnosticism, but agnosticism is in a separate category. So what is it? Anyone know?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 13:31, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::If they're not believers, and they're not agnostics/doubters, then they're atheists. Atheism = disbelief. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:10, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I find it doubtful that are more atheists than agnostics. Atheists are 100% certain that God doesn't exist. A good scientist is not 100% certain of anything. I think a survey with more clearly defined choices is called for.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 23:34, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Actually it is not true to say, ''Atheists are 100% certain that God doesn't exist'' as Conservapedia's article says; [[Weak Atheism]]. Many more scientifically-minded atheists would follow this point of view for the very reasons you state - ''A good scientist is not 100% certain of anything.''--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 12:37, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::I think the distinction to be made here is between personal belief and what can be proven. It is possible to put forward a definition of God that cannot be tested and is therefore neither provable nor falsifiable, however that wouldn't mean an individual couldn't have a personal belief (or disbelief) in God. If I can be forgiven a pop culture reference, I can't prove I don't live in [[The Matrix]] but I have a personal belief that I don't.--[[User:Boreas|Boreas]] [[User_Talk:Boreas|'''talk''']] 13:34, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm guessing that 100% of creationist are theists...so? Does this invalidate THEM in any way? No, it does not. I don't see how this line of discussion is pertinent or constructive in any way. --[[User:RobinGoodfellow|RobinGoodfellow]] 14:58, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

I assume that Bugler's ignoring of Gnostics such as myself was not an attempt to polarise the community into more easily distinguishable sects. {{unsigned|Scholl}}

== Qualification ==

It is quite clear why Lenski is annoyed at requests for data and questions about the validity of his work. It is that none of those who are asking have any background in biology (please correct me if I'm wrong) and are as such not qualified to evaluate his work.

If you have questions or doubts about the research, then the *only* way you are going to get any useful result is by finding a biologist who perhaps shares your concerns and asking them to evaluate the research. Do you think, as a historian, that you wouldn't be annoyed by someone with no background in your field questioning your research, having apparently not even thoroughly read it? [[User:Boatie|Boatie]] 08:24, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

: No, Boatie, I'm confident your suggested reason has nothing to do with it. I requested making the data available for review by the public, including experts: "I'd like to review the data myself and ensure availability for others, including experts and my students."[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog] You can reread Lenski's negative response yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:31, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:: But surely if there are any experts with specific requests then Lenski would provide any additional information that they require, as he has indicated. The fact that he is clearly offended by the initial requests and their implications means that he is now unlikely to cooperate with you, or anyone affiliated with this website, I suspect. [[User:Boatie|Boatie]] 09:28, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Boatie, you're awfully naive if think the withholding of the underlying data from public scrutiny has anything to do with anyone being "offended".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:40, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: I hope you noticed that I didn't resort to petty name-calling. It's not helpful. I didn't suggest that data was being withheld to prevent public scrutiny. Merely I suggested that Lenski is probably not inclined to comply with the demands of a non-expert whose repeated requests may not even be sensible. Note that the report was submitted for peer review, and the paper involved will have since been read by many qualified biologists. [[User:Boatie|Boatie]] 09:46, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

::::: Boatie, you're clueless. People withhold data from public scrutiny for one obvious reason: to prevent the public (including experts) from scrutinizing their work. Feigning offense has nothing to do with it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::: That's simply not true, and has been raised plenty of times, Lenski is not necessarily with holding data from any experts, he's only failing to supply to *you*. Find an *actual biologist* with concerns about his work and maybe things will be different. Further name-calling does nothing to help your argument. [[User:Boatie|Boatie]] 10:00, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Scientists prefer specifc questions over general ones. In the initial email exchange you had a couple of specific questions that were answered specifically. Asking a general question will only result in "Do you have a question?" Saying "I want to see the data" is not a question. Saying "I want to see the data because I have a question about this specific issue I have" is more likely to get an answer. Prof Lenski has stated multiple times that he would provide samples etc to qualified people if they have questions on his research. Since no one here has demonstrated the required credentials and filed the proper paperwork to obtain a sample of prof lenski's work, this hand waving is all for naught. [[User:Toaster1|Toaster1]] 23:50, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Aschlafly, I think you're rather clueless in this matter yourself. I've read the e-mail correspondence and I don't think Lenski is being evasive or deliberately withholding data from you or making claims he cannot back with evidence. When you think he's holding stuff back, you should be specific about what you feel is missing and why you think that is important for the claim and specifically ask for that data. You can run around screaming about something not being true, but that won't help much in the matter at hand. But then again I get the feeling you really don't want the data to be there at all, but rather make sure everyone follows you in believing the data doesn't exist to begin with. You put too much emphasis on the fact Lenski ''must'' be withholding something, without actually stating what it is and why it would disprove his claims. -- (unsigned by User:DeLight) 09:26, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::: We've been extremely specific about which data are being withheld. See [[Richard Lenski]]. And I found Lenski to be quite clear that he's not going to release his underlying data for public review, even though it was publicly funded. Perhaps you think Lenski is perfect and there is no chance of flaws in his work that the public might discover when the underlying data are released, but such a position is obviously absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:35, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Sorry for the late reply, but [[User:DeanS|one of your sysops]] found it necessary to block me following my previous critique. To answer your statement, I don't think Lenski is perfect, I hardly know the man, but I do know what I have read in the correspondence between him and you. I don't agree he's not willing to share his work for public review, because he is willing, yet he has some well-founded conditions that should be met first. This is a lack of willingness to share with ''just anyone'', and rather sensible in science. Do you really think it's wise for all scientists to send samples of their work (especially in biology) to any Tom, Dick and Harry who asks for it, without knowing if they can actually handle the materials safely?
:::::::::Three things about your comment: First, it is a sensible question to ask a scientist for proof of his research when that scientist is getting government funding for his research; second, it is wise for them to send samples of their work; they do send them to other scientists, so why not the general public (unless they have something to hide); and third, you were blocked for a reason, the least of which is a German proxy address to hide your own, which you are not permitted to do so...so bye again! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 04:25, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: Just to answer a question you posed Karajou "second, it is wise for them to send samples of their work; they do send them to other scientists, so why not the general public (unless they have something to hide)" scientists are liable for the samples they provide. Thus the reason for MTAs and other inquiries to purpose of use for the samples. Most work and materials discovered or used by a scientist are not owned by the scientist, the institution normally has control over distribution beyond the scope of the grant or funding source. It would be foolish for a scientist to hand out potentially infectious material to anyone who asked for it, thus the reason why a qualified institution must used to receive the samples. I work part time for a company that does biorepository services, LN2 -80 and other long term cold storage. We have to maintain a license with the FDA and CDC for the bacteria and viruses that we hold. So to sum up, if the requestor does not have proper credentials for exploring the sample the scientist is legally obligated to withhold said samples till the requester meets qualification.
::::::::::To keep using the tax funded research claim is misleading. The military is tax funded and most of its operations are not open for public, most work by the CDC and HHS is funded by tax dollars and once again is not available for the general public.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:33, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

==MTA==
Did anyone ask Lenski if a MTA is required by MSU to provide his data? Most MTAs are used for specific materials like cultures and such but a few are now requiring them for actual analysis results. Most universities now require specific permissions to be granted for scientific research due to the fear that such information could be used in inappropriate ways. Perhaps Lenski is bound by the university until a MTA is filed or feels that it is a waste of time to supply data that would only be understood by a few people here, which to my knowledge, care not to spend the time to analyze it. I could be wrong but I know I would not supply my test results to anyone who asked for it without understanding what they intended to do with it. I could be held liable for what they did with the information.

As for the length of time for the peer review, it is obvious that many here do not understand the process nor do they understand the difference of peer review of a publication verses replication of an experiment. Most experiments are not replicated for several years due to the need for funding. Peer review of publications is based on application of sound analysis techniques and clear summery of data analyzed. Not an actual analysis of the data. While I do not review papers, my wife does and it is not at all what has been implied here. I have published in a few journals, each with different standards and different times for the publication to go to press. Lenski's experiment is not complicated and only required minimal tests, therefore it would be expected to be a quick peer review of the publication due to the simplicity. If he performed tests using animals, or followed metabolisms then the peer review should have taken much longer. However, due to the few tests that he performed, all of which are accepted standardized protocol for research microbiologists, the need to dig deeper was not required. So to sum up, few experiments, easy study, and simple conclusion equals fast turn around for publication. If you read the paper, Lenski did not make any claims about anything other than the development of the bacteria's ability to metabolize citrate, pretty simple.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:43, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

== Bad motive redux ==

I was blocked for two weeks for this post:

Let's face the truth, there is no real desire here for Andrew Schlafly or anyone on Conservapedia to get the raw data. The reason that this is even an issue is because placing this demand and getting no response somehow makes Lenski look bad and therefore automatically discredits him and his research and therefore the theory of evolution. The position of Mr. Schlafly is that the Bible is inerrant and the Genesis creation story is true. No amount of scientific data is going to change that. So why argue with him? MAnderson 10:05, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly has since posted these comments:
“At some point, StatsMsn, an open mind requires admitting the possibility that the data have not been made available because there is concern about what an independent reviewer may conclude from it. Are you open-minded enough to admit that possibility? It's a waste of time arguing with a closed mind, and if you won't admit at least that possibility then this discussion is unproductive”.--Aschlafly 09:00, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
"If I'm reading the dates on the front of this particular paper correctly, I think peer review was a mere 15 days or so. Looks to me like a rubber-stamp process for this subject matter despite making claims that were reported as being newsworthy." --Aschlafly 16:47, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
"Don't pretend that Lenski welcomes independent review of the data." --Aschlafly 15:15, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

He has said these things even though the data and even the E. Coli samples are available to qualified researchers. Really my original post was dead on correct! He doesn’t want the data and merely wants to create the appearance of impropriety on the part of Lenski to discredit him. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 11:16, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

''Don't pretend that Lenski welcomes independent review of the data.'' I don't think MAnderson is claiming that Lenski ''welcomes'' independent review of "the data", nor does he need to ''welcome'' it in order to act properly. He needs to make it available where it will "allow others to replicate and build on work published in PNAS". It is evident that you do not wish to either replicate the experiment (which, if Lenski made it up, would fairly conclusively prove him a fraud) nor do you wish to review it in any meaningful way (which may build on the work by revealing its faults). That is the PNAS requirement. It appears that Dr. Georgia Purdom of "Answers in Genesis" has plenty of data to perform her intended review[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/06/14/news-to-note-06142008] (no doubt very negative) of Lenski's research.

''"At some point, StatsMsn, an open mind requires admitting the possibility that the data have not been made available because there is concern about what an independent reviewer may conclude from it"'' Agreed. Can we test that hypothesis? It hasn't been tested so far (unless Dr. Purdom asked for data, in which case its been falsified) because we have not seen any prospective independent reviewer ask for data. You are not a reviewer (independent or otherwise) unless you review and you are not a ''prospective'' reviewer unless you ''seek to review''. Why not develop a plan (with AiG or the Discovery Institute) of just what you are going to do with the data, beyond that already published of course, and ask for the data that lets you do that? Until you have that plan it is abundantly clear that you are not a "reviewer" and have no entitlement to extra (unspecified by you) data. --[[User:Billd|Bill Dean]] 08:50, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

== Why does it matter? ==
Hello Conservapedians-
It seems like you are making a huge fuss about Leski's experiment, as if you do not want it to be true.I mean, of course it should be subject to peer review, but it JUST came to the general public. Give it time. However, why exactly does it matter, anyway?
There are several dozen OTHER recorded examples of the following:
--Speciation
--Beneficial Mutation
--Mutations adding information
So, while important, it is not like Lenski's data shows us anything new.
If you would like examples of such, just ask. I assume, however, that you are already aware of the observations, and
there is something important
{{unsigned|KevinF}}
: It's mainly Aschlafly that pursued this. Many others, including me, disagreed with that course. That was simply the first of several mistakes you made, and the others relate to you having almost no idea of what creationists believe. Do you support the concept of criticising an idea without knowing much about it? Because that is what you are doing. Creationists ''accept'' speciation. They also ''accept'' beneficial mutations. The one that they ''don't'' accept is mutations adding information, because it is ''not'' observed (apart from some questionable claims, such as this one of Lenski's). I won't ask for examples simply because I've been down this road before, of having supposed examples provided, only to have them not stack up when investigated. When Richard Dawkins was asked for examples, ''he was unable to supply any''. And why do you think Lenski's research was cited as answering creationist criticisms? If creationist criticism has been answered so much before, so that this is nothing new, then why make a deal about it as though it ''is'' something new? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:44, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

::While Lenski is certainly being quite snarky in his responses, Mr. Aschlafly does not seem to understand that in an experiment like this, the "raw data" isn't something that can be printed out and mailed. The raw data is ''the actual bacterial colonies with the mutation''. Thus, the raw data is completely useless to anyone who does not have a properly equipped biological lab, and indeed is illegal to provide to anyone without a properly equipped biological lab since E. coli bacteria are a potential disease vector. --[[User:JacieCady|JacieCady]] 19:42, 4 December 2008 (EST)
:::No the bacterial colonies are the samples. The raw data are the uninterpreted measurements and observations. This claim is little more than misdirection to justify not providing the data. If I tell you my car can stop on a dime & I know this because I have tested it, my car and a dime are NOT the raw data. The raw data would be the records of the attempts to stop on a dime including records of where the car stopped in relation to the dime. If I was asked for this data and said that I cannot send you my car because you don't have a lock up garage, I am merely dodging the question.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 08:06, 5 December 2008 (EST)

:::: Well put, LowKey. FYI, a chart summarizing how the data were undisclosed is [[Lenski|here]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 5 December 2008 (EST)

:"When Richard Dawkins was asked for examples, ''he was unable to supply any''"—Oh, give me a break. Do you honestly expect someone to be able to come up with such information on the spot? --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 23:09, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
::Good point, AutoFire.--[[User:JackH|JackH]] 17:15, 4 December 2008 (EST)
:::He shouldn't have to "come up" with anything "on the spot". He had claimed the existance of examples many times, he should have already known of ''at least one'', but he couldn't. This is like the editor of a car magazine claiming that the new BMW has many improvements over the previous model, but when asked for one can’t supply any. Nobody would claim it was unfair to expect him to come up with one on the spot.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 17:56, 4 December 2008 (EST)

::::http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uz1CiDDIq4 According to Dawkins he stopped to confront the interviewers. {{Unsigned|Vuiasl}}---22:21, 7 December 2008

*That link goes to a video that supplies no information about the topic. It merely says questions to Dawkins are hoaxes by Creationists, yet doesn't provide one example or proof. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 00:56, 8 December 2008 (EST)

:The interview made Dawkins look a fool. Of course he has attempted to explain it away. The CMI website provides plenty of info about this, it even has a timeline showing how much time Dawkins had to come up with something, so even ignoring all of the above "on the spot" is still wildly inaccurate. It was more a case of Dawkins "realising" he might be talking to creationists because evolutionists would have accepted the elephant-hurling without challenge. Also, the interview was ''11 years'' ago and he ''still'' hasn't provided the examples as asked {With the possible exception of Lenski's experiment, which he ''may'' have mentioned. But the [in]validity of that is the subject at hand here in the first place. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:35, 8 December 2008 (EST)}, so the "on the spot" objection is invalid on that account alone.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:28, 8 December 2008 (EST)

::*I'm confused here. Everyone should know by now Dawkins is a fraud. As they should all know my opinion of him. That video didn't seem a bit different from the two times I have observed lectures by him, and he wondered off his prepared remarks. Results were the same as for Obama. Poor. (not Ed) --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 18:39, 8 December 2008 (EST)
:::Ah but everyone should also know that evolution is an invalid conclusion, but millions believe it to be a "fact". Scripture clearly tells us that people are blinded.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:48, 8 December 2008 (EST)
::::What Dawkins does or doesn't do is hardly of any importance. Evolution doesn't rely on him, or what he does and doesn't do in interviews. It falls flat on [[Counterexamples to Evolution|its own]]. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:54, 8 December 2008 (EST)

==Hsdebater comment==
I think Schlaffy misses the point of why Lenski didn't give him the experiments. He might think it's a conspiracy to silence him, but I (no offense schlaffy) beleive, like many others it seems on this site, it to be the simple explanation that you're not a scientist, and probably never taken a collegecourse on microbiology, evolutionary biology,and just plain biology.--[[User:Hsdebater|Hsdebater]] 10:55, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

: Please learn how to spell basic words like "believe" (it's not "beleive"), and then realize that I don't think Lenski made all his taxpayer-funded data available for ''any'' public scrutiny, which of course would have included many knowledgeable people.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:00, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

::What do you mean i just read his paper in my science class just yesterday, and i have also read it outside of class.--[[User:Hsdebater|Hsdebater]] 13:02, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

::: So you apparently read his ''claims'' ... but where's the data underlying the claims? Despite my repeated requests, and despite the taxpayer funding of the project, I don't think he ever made all his data available for public scrutiny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:08, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

::::So I went ahead and formatted, hope thats alright. [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899/suppl/DCSupplemental Is this] the extra information you were looking for? --[[User:EmersonWhitecp|EmersonWhitecp]] 17:09, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::I don't see real data in your link or answers to the data requests that have been outstanding for nearly two years at [[Richard Lenski]]. Do you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:23, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

::::::There is a very small link you must click on to get to the 2 page PDF (1.25 more like it) with the data. --[[User:EmersonWhitecp|EmersonWhitecp]] 17:27, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

::::::: (edit conflict) Which specific data requested nearly two years ago in [[Richard Lenski]] do you claim is contained in the mere 1.25-page of text in the pdf?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:34, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

You can link directly to the PDF.....--<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:30, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

:[http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2008/06/02/0803151105.DCSupplemental/0803151105SI.pdf PDF in question] To be honest I can't figure out what more information you would want than what was in the original paper, your point by point rundown doesn't make sense to me. I was just trying to be helpful, not trying to make a point or anything. --[[User:EmersonWhitecp|EmersonWhitecp]] 17:46, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

::If you want to believe whatever a professor says without verifying it, then you don't need to look at any underlying data. But do you give the Bible at least equal time and trust?

::It took me only a minute or so to look at the first request for data in [[Richard Lenski]] (concerning turbidity), and then search the pdf for "turbid" for me to observe that the actual data are not there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:08, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

:::Sorry I thought you were talking about a different data set. Fig. 1 Is the recreation that they measured. However if you read the paper he said that the turbidity was measured visually, that means that someone looked at it every day to make sure it looked alright, not that someone did a disk test for turbidity which would be impractical in such a small volume. This is standard procedure for liquid culture in a laboratory, something even college sophomores have to learn to do. --[[User:EmersonWhitecp|EmersonWhitecp]] 19:30, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

::::Andy, by "raw data," do you mean the bacterial cultures? If that is the case, the main reason Lenski isn't providing you with the raw data is because he thinks that you do not have the proper infrastructure to analyse and maintain them.--[[User:PRichards|PRichards]] 07:45, 16 April 2010 (EDT)

::::: There's a different between raw data and the actual bacteria PRichards. I doubt anyone would ask for the bacterial samples, suggesting otherwise is just an excuse to not supply the data by playing the "expert" card [[User:RichardKerry|RichardKerry]] 07:57, 16 April 2010 (EDT)

Schlafly Brewery

2010-04-16T11:36:22Z

RichardKerry: /* Related Works */ tweak so it sounds better

Schlafly Brewery is a [[beer]] manufacturer based out of [[Saint Louis]], [[Missouri]]. The company touts itself as a local brand, and its drinks are available for purchase within a limited area of St. Louis<ref>http://www.schlafly.com/faq.shtml Under 'Why can't I get Schlafly Beer in my area?'</ref>. The brand has found popularity with bars within its delivery range, and currently has two corporate-owned bars, the [http://www.schlafly.com/brewpubs.shtml Taproom and Bottleworks.]

==History==

In 1989 Dan Kopman and Thomas Schlafly, with the goal of producing a locally brewed beer that could compete in the nationwide marker, began to look for a building to house their operations in. The duo found the old Swift Printing Building, which belonged to a company that had moved from the building in 1969.

The two men began to set up their brewing company, and hired Dave Miller, a man who was known in the area for writing several books on the subject of microbrewing and for helping change state law to allow microbreweries to exist. In 1991, the company first opened it's doors to the public.

Since it's inception, Schlafly beer has found rapid success, placing it on a competitive level with many national breweries and expanding it's sales area. The current sales area extends to a 3-4 hour drive distance from St. Louis, which the company refers to as 'local'<ref>http://www.schlafly.com/faq.shtml Under 'Why can't I get Schlafly Beer in my area?'</ref>.

Today, Schlafly beer is sold in seven different states, and has become a local favorite, including sales inside Busch Stadium [owned by a competitor, Anheuser-Busch] and widespread support in bars and taverns within their sales area<ref>http://www.schlafly.com/history.timeline.shtml</ref>.

==Related Works==

During the [http://www.conservapedia.com/United_States_Presidential_Election%2C_2008 2008 Election], Schlafly Beers produced two tee-shirts to support both the Democratic and Republican candidates. The shirts, done in Blue and Red respectively, advertised ''Baracktoberfest Beer'' and ''Palin Ale''. Underneath each shirt was a small quote from Thomas Schlafly, and on the back of the shirt a message reminded voters to 'Please Vote Responsibly'<ref>http://www.schlafly.com/HTML/estore.vote2008tee.php</ref>.

In 2006, Thomas Schlafly published ''A New Religion in Mecca: Memoir of a Renegade Brewery in St. Louis'', about the founding of the St. Louis Brewery and its journey from a small local brewery to today. The book has received many positive reviews<ref>http://www.schlafly.com/history.timeline.shtml</ref>.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Alcoholic Beverages]]
[[Category:Companies]]

Democratic Party

2010-04-15T15:54:41Z

RichardKerry: Undo revision 769364 by 37a (Talk)true, unfortunately unencyclopedic

The '''Democratic Party''' is one of the two major political [[parties]] in the [[United States of America]]. It is the center-left party. President [[Barack Obama]] and its other leaders are generally [[liberal]], but there are powerful moderate and conservative factions, especially the [[Blue Dogs]] in Congress. The party contrasts with rival [[Republican Party]], which is generally more [[conservative]] and pro-business.

Members of the Democratic Party are known as Democrats. In the 19th century the party was sometimes called "The Democracy." Today Republicans sometimes call it the "[[Democrat Party]]" as a term of ridicule.

In the doldrums after 2000, the party roared back with major gains in 2006, which it expanded in 2008 to sweep control of the national government, and leave the GOP in a state of confusion and decline. The GOP bounced back in 2009, with near-unanimous opposition to contentions Democratic policies, especially as stimulus spending and health care reform. Polls show Obama's popularity began to sink in the summer of 2009.[[File:Obama_approval_index_december_22_2009.jpg‎|thumb|250px]]

The Democrats currently control the White House and have decisive majorities in the [[111th United States Congress]], together with the majority of state governorships and legislatures and control most large cities as well, while suburbs and rural areas are more likely to be in republican hands.<ref>[http://www.multistate.com/Site.nsf/Elections2006PostMaps?OpenPage Multistate.com] Post-Election 2006 Maps</ref> Polls show 50% of voters identify themselves with the Democratic Party as opposed to 35% for the Republican Party.<ref>[http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=312 Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007] Pew Research Center, 22 March 2007</ref> The Democratic-majority Congress currently has a 55% negative approval rating, with only 31% expressing approval.<ref> [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html]</ref>

{{AmericanPoliticalParty
| party_name=Democratic Party
| party_articletitle = Democratic Party (United States)
| party_logo = [[Image:democraticpartyusalogo.png|200px]]
| website = [http://www.democrats.org www.democrats.org]
| headquarters = 430 South Capitol Street SE [[Washington, D.C.]] 20003
| chairman = [[Tim Kaine]]
| houseleader = [[Nancy Pelosi]]
| senateleader = [[Harry Reid]]
| foundation = 1832
| ideology = range from liberal to moderate
| socialpolicy = center-liberal
| colors = Blue (unofficial)
| footnotes =
}}

==Policies and criticism==
The views of individual Democrats sometimes diverge from the party's official stance as expressed in its national platform, however unlike the Republican party, the Democratic National Committee has not allowed dissenting opinions to share the podium on matters such as abortion at National Conventions. <ref>[http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005787.php] , http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005787.php, March 6, 2005</ref>

===Economic policy===
[[Image:Unemployment.jpg|thumb|241px|right|''Source: Bureau of Labor Statisitcs'' [http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2009/07/anti-stimulus-in-pictures-any-questions.html]]]
In the field of economic policy, Democrats tend to favor high progressive taxes, more regulation, and higher government spending.

The Democratic Party has historically had ties to [[labor union|organized labor]].<ref> http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/913wopoz.asp Paying Dues - The Democrats settle up with their union bosses, [[Weekly Standard]], July 25, 2007 </ref>

The [[National Education Association]],<ref>[http://www.nea.org/index.html National Education Association homepage]</ref> the largest union of public school teachers, is a backbone of the party, supplying the largest number of delegates to its national conventions.

Democrats typically state that they want to help low-income Americans, however they usually seek to accomplish this by increasing the tax burden on the wealthiest Americans.

Since passage of the Economic Recovery Act of 2009, [[unemployment]] has increased from below 7% to slightly under 10%.

===Foreign and military policy===
According to its platform, the Democratic Party has the objective of strengthening America. Democratic national leadership has been accused of being ambivalent about terrorism<ref>[http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=22045 "Democrats, ACLU Outraged Over Traveler Terrorism Screening Program"] C. Johnson, Associated Press</ref> and insufficiently patriotic.<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/01/smn.19.html CNN Saturday Morning News]Transcript: December 1, 2001 </ref> A poll conducted by [[Fox News]] released in October 2007 found that 1 in 5 Democrats – nearly 10 million voters – think the world will be better off if the [[United States]] were to lose the [[War in Iraq]].<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299374,00.html Nearly 1 in 5 Democrats Say World Will Be Better Off if U.S. Loses War], FOX News Poll, October 04, 2007.</ref> The poll found this sentiment 3 to 4 times higher among Democrats than among moderate, centrist, and Republican voters.

===Education===
An organization affiliated with the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] called the [[Progressive Policy Institute]] claims a long-standing opposition to school vouchers.<ref>21st Century Schools Project Bulletin: Special Edition [http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=900001&contentID=250630 ''Putting Vouchers in Perspective''], PPI E-newsletter 2 July 2002</ref> Jonathan Alter of ''Newsweek'' warned that opposition to vouchers might alienate some traditional Democratic voting blocs:
:"Can wealthy white liberals - many of whom send their kids to private school - really say to poor parents: 'We can have choices, but you must not?'...This is a glaring hypocrisy sitting at the heart of the liberal opposition to targeted vouchers… Right now, Democrats are in a highly compromised position on education."<ref>[http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=newsLetter&sectionID=29&NLissueID=4&articleID=11&altCol=2 Center For Education Reform, Monthly Letter to Friends No. 75], Back to School 2002.</ref>

===Environment vs Labor===
Two other important coalition groups also find themselves in direct conflict with each other within the Democratic party coalition--[[Environmentalist]]s and Labor Unions. While environmentalists support efforts like clean air and alternative fuels, for example, this creates tension with the workers of American automobile manufactures whose jobs are threatened by environmental policies such as increasing regulations and high costs. Such policies can lead to cutbacks and layoffs. Balancing these issues is difficult because some sacrifices of interests must be made by both sides.

===Healthcare===
Democratic leaders have endorsed various [[Democratic Health Care Plans]]; the question in 2009 is whether a new trillion dollar plan can pass in a time of economic crisis.

Therefore, many argue that there may be some advantages to a universal health care system. Democrats generally regard [[universal health care]] to be a priority because of the appeal to poorer voters without any kind of [[health insurance]].

===Gay Rights===
White Democratic leaders --but not blacks or Latinos--consistently favor measures such as the establishment of [[same-sex civil union]]s. They mostly reject [[gay marriage]].

===Other Policies===
Democrats frequently support the minimum wage, workplace protections, the right of women to choose to have an [[abortion]], [[gun control]], gay marriage, and the separation of church and state.

==Religion==
In the United States, there is some correlation between religious and political affiliation, though people of all faiths and denominations can be found among the supporters of each of the main parties.

Historically [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] voters have had a tendency to identify with the Democratic Party; in recent decades there has been little difference. However Catholic politicians are mostly Democrats, including Speaker of the House [[Nancy Pelosi]] and Massachusetts Senator [[Ted Kennedy]]. However, several general ideals of the Democratic Party's platform - most notably, the party's overall support for the legality of [[abortion]] - are contrary to the position of the [[Catholic Church]].

With regard to Protestants, members of [[Evangelical]] churches in recent years have voted about 70-80% Republican. However, the large majority of Democratic Party members are Protestants. One unusual feature of the Democratic Party, however, is that it draws substantial support both from committed African-American Protestants (most of whom are Baptists) and from secular and atheist voters. The strong opposition to [[homosexuality]] found among many Black Protestants contrasts strikingly with the support frequently shown by other Democrats for the [[homosexual agenda]]. One reason for this contrast could be the Democrats' strong support for minority rights.

Democrats also generally believe that religion should be separate from public life, and as such are typically supported by the ACLU. For example, in 1999 the Congress took up a bill to protect the display of the [[Ten Commandments]]. In the House of Representatives, over 3/4ths of the Democratic party members voted to remove the display.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/18/gun.rollcall/ten.commandments.html</ref>. The measure did not pass the Legislature, and as a result when Justice [[Roy Moore]] posted a [[Ten Commandments]] display in his courthouse, the ACLU was able to have the display removed.

==History==
[[File:Dem-leaders.jpg|thumb|300px|Clockwise from far left: presidents Carter, Kennedy, Clinton, Wilson, Johnson, Truman, Jackson, Roosevelt]]
===First Party System===
Democrats claim the [[Thomas Jefferson]] founded their party in 1793 at the start of the [[First Party System]]. The [[Democratic-Republican Party]] was a political party established during the 1790's under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson and [[James Madison]]. It was generally called the Republican Party, but it had no relation to today's Republican Party, founded in 1854. By about 1816, the Federalist Party had broken up as a national organization. With its decline, the Democratic-Republican Party split into several groups. [[Andrew Jackson]] emerged as the candidate of one of these groups and was elected President in 1828.

===Origins===
Most historians regard Jackson's 1832 campaign organization as the beginning of today's Democratic Party. The Democratic Party itself traces its origin to Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party.<ref>[[World Book]]</ref> A few Democratic-Republicans, such as [[John Quincy Adams]] and [[Henry Clay]], created the [[National Republican Party]]. Adams supporters called themselves National Republicans, antecedents of the Whig and later the Republican parties.<ref>William DeGregorio, ''The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents'', Gramercy 1997</ref>

The modern Democratic party was formed during 1828-34, under the national leadership of Jackson and Van Buren, with organizations in all the states comprised of local political leaders. This became the era of [[Jacksonian Democracy]]. The Jacksonians resembled the [[Jeffersonian Democracy|Jeffersonians]] especially in terms of anti-elite rhetoric of opposition to "aristocracy" (that is, wealthy old families), distrust of banks (and paper money), and faith in "the people." By his extensive use of federal [[Spoils system|patronage]], President Jackson removed old office-holders to make way for party loyalists. With the emergence of the Whig Party, the nation now had a new party system, the [[Second Party System]], which lasted until 1854.

The party held its first national convention in 1832 to choose a new running mate for Jackson; it nominated Martin Van Buren for vice president and endorsed the reelection of Jackson. Jackson easily defeated Clay in 1832. In the political realignment of 1828-32, some of Jackson's supporters from the election of 1828, especially businessmen and bankers, switched to the opposition Whig Party as Jackson crusaded against the [[Second Bank of the United States]]. The name "Democratic Party" became common by the mid-1830s.

== Jacksonian Democracy: 1832-1854 ==
[[image:donk1837.jpg|thumb|300px|1837 cartoon shows Democratic Party as donkey ]]
The new party dominated the [[Second Party System]] (as political scientists call it; historians call it "Jacksonian Democracy", 1832-54. After 1832, the Democratic Party drew support from a cross section of the country; every group was represented. However the vast majority of rich merchants, bankers and plantation owners were Whigs, as were most evangelical Protestants. The party was strongest among traditionalistic farmers, frontiersmen, unskilled workers, Irish Catholics, and local or state political leaders. It was weakest in [[New England]], where industrialization turned most factory workers and white collar workers into Whigs, but was dominant in all other regions. The key issues it promoted were opposition to elites and aristocrats, popular democracy (in terms of voting rights and access to government patronage jobs) and opposition to the [[Bank of the United States]] (Jackson vetoed its charter renewal in 1832). The policies were known as [[Jacksonian Democracy]]. [[Image:Jackson1832.jpg|thumb|300px|left]]

Banking and tariffs were the central domestic policy issues from 1828 to 1852. The Democrats favored the [[Mexican-American War]]; Whigs opposed it. Democrats attracted Catholic Irish and German immigrants and denounced anti-immigrant nativism. Both the Democrats and Whigs were divided on the issue of slavery.

In the 1830s the [[Loco-Focos]] in New York City were radically democratic, anti-monopoly, and proponents of [[laissez-faire]]. Their chief spokesman was writer [[William Leggett]]. At this time labor unions were few; some were loosely affiliated with the party.

The economy went sour in the late 1830s with Van Buren getting the blame; he lost reelection as president in 1840 to the Whig [[William Henry Harrison]]. The Democrats gained the White House back in 1844 with [[James K. Polk]]. He had a successful term, then retired. The Democratic National Committee was created in 1848 at the convention that nominated General [[Lewis Cass]], who lost to General [[Zachary Taylor]] of the Whigs. In state after state the Democrats gained small but permanent advantages over the Whigs, until by 1852 the Whig Party was fatally weakened by divisions regarding the issue of slavery and they soon vanished.

The Democratic party dominated the North from the 1840s to 1854. Northern Democrats opposed banks, criticized corporate practices, and preached the ideals of a free society. They called for rapid territorial expansion of the United States, saying that in territorial expansion lay a means for thwarting the pretensions of the [[Slave Power]].

[[Franklin Pierce]] of New Hampshire was elected president in 1852, followed by [[James Buchanan]] of Pennsylvania in 1856. They proved poor presidents who lost control of the slavery issue, and the party, as the nation broke apart and fought the [[American Civil War]].

==Third Party System: Civil War, Gilded Age: 1854-1896==
During the [[Third Party System]] (1854-1896) the Democrats became the minority in the face of the newly formed Republican Party, which controlled nearly all northern states by 1860, bringing a solid majority in the Electoral College. A powerful Republican issue was the allegation that northern Democrats, including "Doughfaces" like Pierce and Buchanan, and advocates of popular sovereignty like [[Stephen A. Douglas]] and [[Lewis Cass]], were accomplices to the [[Slave Power]]. The Republicans meant by Slave Power the conspiracy of slaveholders to seize control of the federal government and block the progress of liberty.

[[Image:DEM1860.JPG|200px|thumb|left|To vote for Douglas in Virginia, a man had to deposit the ticket in the official ballot box.]]
In 1860 the Democrats were unable to stop the election of Republican [[Abraham Lincoln]], even as they feared his election would lead to civil war. The party split in two. The northern wing nominated Douglas, and the southern wing nominated Vice President [[John C. Breckinridge]]. Douglas campaigned across the country and came in second in the popular vote, but carried only Missouri. Breckinridge carried 11 slave states.

The Republican Party was beginning a 50-year era of dominance (1858-1910). During the war, Northern Democrats divided into two factions, [[War Democrats]], who supported the military policies of President Lincoln, and [[Copperheads]], who strongly opposed them. Historian Kenneth Stampp has captured the Copperhead spirit in his depiction of Democratic Congressman [[Daniel W. Voorhees]] of Indiana:
<blockquote>There was an earthy quality in Voorhees, "the tall sycamore of the Wabash." On the stump his hot temper, passionate partisanship, and stirring eloquence made an irresistible appeal to the western Democracy. His bitter cries against protective tariffs and national banks, his intense race prejudice, his suspicion of the eastern Yankee, his devotion to personal liberty, his defense of the Constitution and state rights faithfully reflected the views of his constituents. Like other Jacksonian agrarians he resented the political and economic revolution then in progress. Voorhees idealized a way of life which he thought was being destroyed by the current rulers of his country. His bold protests against these dangerous trends made him the idol of the Democracy of the Wabash Valley.<ref>Stampp, 211.</ref></blockquote>

The Democrats lost consecutive presidential elections from 1860 through 1880 (but 1876 was in dispute); 1884 was their next victory. The Democrats were weakened by their record of opposition to the Civil War but nevertheless benefited from white Southerners' resentment of Reconstruction and consequent hostility to the Republican Party. The [[Redeemers]] gave the Democrats control of every Southern state; the disenfranchisement of black voters in most of the South took place 1890-1900. From 1880 to 1960 the "[[Solid South]]" voted Democratic in all presidential elections (except 1928). After 1900 the key election in southern states was the Democratic primary; victory in the that primary was "tantamount to election" because the GOP was so weak.

Though Republicans continued to control the White House until 1912 (except 1884 and 1892), the Democrats remained competitive in the states, especially in the mid-Atlantic and lower Midwest, and controlled the House of Representatives for most of that period. In the election of 1884, [[Grover Cleveland]], the conservative Democratic Governor of New York, won the presidency, a feat he repeated in 1892, having lost in the election of 1888.

[[Image:1893cleveland-typewriter.jpg|thumb|350px|Typewriters were new in 1893 and this Gillam cartoon from ''Puck'' shows that Cleveland can't get the Democratic "machine" to work as the keys (key politicians) won't respond to his efforts.]]

Cleveland was the leader of the [[Bourbon Democrats]], the conservative wing of the party. They represented business interests, supported banking and railroad goals, promoted capitalism, opposed imperialism and U.S. verseas expansion, opposed the annexation of [[Hawaii]], fought for the [[gold standard]], and opposed [[Bimetallism]]. They strongly supported reform movements such as [[Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act|Civil Service Reform]] and opposed corruption of city bosses, leading the fight against the [[Tweed Ring]]. The leading Bourbons included [[Samuel J. Tilden]], [[David Bennett Hill]] and [[William C. Whitney]] of New York, [[Arthur Pue Gorman]] of Maryland, [[Thomas F. Bayard]] of Delaware, [[William L. Wilson]] of West Virginia, [[John Griffin Carlisle]] of Kentucky, [[William F. Vilas]] of Wisconsin, [[J. Sterling Morton]] of Nebraska, [[John M. Palmer]] of Illinois, [[Horace Boies]] of Iowa, [[L.Q.C. Lamar]] of Mississippi, and railroad builder [[James J. Hill]] of Minnesota. A prominent intellectual was [[Woodrow Wilson]]. The Bourbons were in power when the [[Panic of 1893]] hit; it was a deep depression and they took the blame. A fierce struggle inside the party ensued, with catastrophic losses for both the Bourbon and agrarian factions in 1894, leading to the showdown in 1896.
[[Image:Dead-dem1880.jpg|thumb|550px|In 1880 when General Hancock (right) became the presidential nominee of the Democrats, Republican cartoonists showed the Democratic party history as a horror chamber featuring atrocities in the Civil War era; the donkey" shows the party as a coalition of the rear end of the South joned to the rear end of the North]]

===Ethnocultural voting: pietistic Republicans versus liturgical Democrats===
Religious lines were sharply drawn.<ref>Kleppner (1979).</ref> Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Scandinavian Lutherans and other pietists and evangelicals in the North were tightly linked to the Republican Party. In sharp contrast, liturgical groups, especially the Catholics, Episcopalians, and German Lutherans, looked to the Democratic Party for protection from pietistic moralism, especially prohibition. Both parties cut across the class structure, with the Democrats more bottom-heavy.

Cultural issues, especially prohibition and foreign language schools became important because of the sharp religious divisions in the electorate. In the North, about 50% of the voters were pietistic or evangelical Protestants who believed the government should be used to reduce social sins, such as drinking. Liturgical churches (Roman Catholics, German Lutherans, Episcopalians) comprised over a quarter of the vote and wanted the government to stay out of the morality business. Prohibition debates and referenda heated up politics in most states over a period of decade, as national prohibition was finally passed in 1918 (and repealed in 1933), serving as a major issue in the North between the wet Democracy and the dry GOP.<ref>In the South the Democrats were mostly on the dry side. Kleppner (1979).</ref>

==The Bryan Movement==
[[Image:Mark Hanna 1896 election.jpg|thumb|290px|right|Democratic attack ad in 1896 against GOP National Chairman [[Mark Hanna]]; cartoon by Davenport depicts Hanna as a slave driver; from Hearst's ''New York Journal'']]
[[Grover Cleveland]] led the conservative, pro-business [[Bourbon Democrat]]s but as the [[Panic of 1893|depression of 1893]] deepened his enemies multiplied. The Panic of 1893 started in February 1893, a full month before Cleveland became president. Convinced that the [[Sherman Silver Purchase Act]], passed under the administration of [[Benjamin Harrison]], was largely responsible for the alarming drain on federal gold, President Cleveland called Congress into special session to urge its repeal. Congress consented, but only after bitter debate that divided the Democratic party into two hostile camps-the eastern "goldbugs" and the silver wing of the West and South that was to propel young [[William Jennings Bryan]] to the fore in 1896.<ref>William DeGregorio, ''The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents'', Gramercy 1997</ref> At the 1896 convention the silverite-agrarian faction repudiated the president, and nominated the crusading orator [[William Jennings Bryan]] on a platform of inflation through "free" silver. The idea was that minting huge numbers of silver dollars would flood the economy with cash and end the depression. Eastern Democrats, unable to accept the party's free-silver platform and unwilling to support McKinley for his tariff views, nominated their own candidate, John M. Palmer of Illinois and called themselves the National, or Gold, Democrats.<ref>William DeGregorio, ''The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents'', Gramercy 1997</ref> The [[Gold Democrats]] attracted politicians and intellectuals (including [[Woodrow Wilson]] and [[Frederick Jackson Turner]]) who refused to vote Republican.

Bryan, an overnight sensation because of his phenomenal "Cross of Gold" speech, crusaded against the gold standard. Crisscrossing the Midwest and East by special train, he gave over 500 speeches to audiences in the millions. In St. Louis he gave 36 speeches to workingmen's audiences all over the city, all in one day. Most Democratic newspapers were hostile (except [[William Randolph Hearst]]'s ''New York Journal'') but Bryan seized control of the media by making the news every day, as he hurled thunderbolts against Eastern monied interests. The rural folk in South and Midwest were ecstatic, showing an enthusiasm never before seen. Ethnic Democrats, especially Germans, however, were alarmed and frightened by Bryan. The middle classes, businessmen, newspaper editors, factory workers, railroad workers, and prosperous farmers generally rejected Bryan's crusade. Bryan was overwhelmed by [[William McKinley]] in the most exciting race in national history.<ref> Refuting Bryan's charges, historians have discovered there was little coercion of workers.</ref> McKinley promised a return to prosperity based on the gold standard, support for industry, railroads and banks, and pluralism that would enable every group to move ahead. Bryan did however, win the hearts and minds of a majority of Democrats. The election of 1896 was a political realignment. The victory of the Republican Party marked the start of the "Progressive Era," from 1896 to 1932, in which the GOP usually was dominant.

==Fourth Party System: Bryan, Wilson, Progressivism: 1896-1932 ==
The [[Fourth Party System]] began with the 1896 election, a realignment during which the GOP controlled the presidency for 28 of 36 years. The GOP dominated most of the Northeast and Midwest, and half the West. Bryan, with a base in the South and Plains states, was strong enough to get the nomination in 1900 (losing to McKinley) and 1908 (losing to Taft). [[Theodore Roosevelt]] dominated the first decade of the century—and to the annoyance of Democrats "stole" the trust issue by crusading against trusts.

[[Image:Steal~trust.JPG|thumb|250px|[[Theodore Roosevelt]] steals the anti-trust issue from the Democrats, 1904]]

Anti-Bryan conservatives controlled the convention in 1904, but they faced a [[Theodore Roosevelt]] landslide. Bryan dropped his free silver and anti-imperialism rhetoric and supported mainstream progressive issues, such as the income tax, anti-trust, and direct election of Senators. He backed [[Woodrow Wilson]] in 1912, was rewarded with the State Department, then resigned in protest against Wilson's non-pacifistic policies in 1916. Northern Democrats were progressive on most issues, but generally opposed prohibition, were lukewarm regarding woman's suffrage, and were reluctant to undercut the "boss system" in the big cities.

Taking advantage of a deep split in the GOP, the Democrats took control of the House in 1910, and elected the intellectual reformer [[Woodrow Wilson]] in 1912 and 1916. Wilson successfully led Congress to a series of Progressive laws, including a reduced tariff, stronger antitrust laws, the [[Federal Reserve System]], hours-and-pay benefits for railroad workers, and outlawing of child labor (which was reversed by the Supreme Court). Furthermore, constitutional amendments for prohibition and woman suffrage were passed in his second term. In effect, Wilson laid to rest the issues of tariffs, money and antitrust that had dominated politics for 40 years. Wilson led the U.S. to victory in the World War, and turned his attention to foreign affairs. He wrote parts of the [[Versailles Treaty]], especially the new [[League of Nations]]. But in 1919 Wilson's political skills faltered, and suddenly everything turned sour. The Senate rejected Versailles and the League, a nationwide wave of strikes and violence caused unrest, and Wilson's health collapsed. The GOP came roaring back in a landslide in 1920, as [[Warren G. Harding]] defeated a Democratic ticket memorable for having [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] as the vice presidential nominee.

[[Image:D-Edge-Congress.JPG|thumb|300px|Before 1932 Republicans usually controlled Congress; after 1932 the Democrats usually were in control]]

At the 1924 Democratic National Convention, the big fight was over a resolution denouncing by name the [[Ku Klux Klan]]; it was pushed by New York governor [[Al Smith]] and Alabama Senator [[Oscar W. Underwood]] in order to embarrass the front-runner, [[William McAdoo]] of California. After furious debate, the resolution failed by just a single vote. The KKK faded away soon after, but the deep split in the party over cultural issues, especially Prohibition, facilitated Republican landslides in 1920, 1924 and 1928. However [[Al Smith]] did build a strong Catholic base in the big cities in 1928, and [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]'s election as Governor of New York that year brought a new leader to center stage.

== Fifth Party System: The New Deal ==
[[Image:FDR_in_1933.jpg|thumb|left|180px|President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] (1933-1945)]]
The [[Wall Street Crash 1929|stock market crash of 1929]] and the ensuing [[Great Depression]] set the stage for a more progressive government and [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] won a [[landslide victory]] in the [[U.S. presidential election, 1932|election of 1932]], campaigning on a platform of "Relief, Recovery, and Reform." This came to be termed "[[New Deal|The New Deal]]" after a phrase in his acceptance speech. The Democrats also swept to large majorities in both houses of Congress, and among state Governors. Roosevelt altered the nature of the Party, away from laissez-faire capitalism, and towards an ideology of economic regulation and insurance against hardship. Conservative Democrats were outraged; led by [[Al Smith]] they formed the [[American Liberty League]] in 1934 and counterattacked. They failed and either retired from politics or joined the GOP. A few of them, such as [[Dean Acheson]] found their way back to the Democratic Party.

After making gains in Congress in 1934 Roosevelt moved left and embarked on an ambitious legislative program called "The Second New Deal." It was characterized by building up labor unions, nationalizing welfare by the [[WPA]] (which 2 million employed unemployed men), setting up [[Social Security]] and raising taxes on business profits.<ref> In general the New Deal, 1933-40, did not raise taxes, except for the Social Security tax that went into effect in 1937.</ref>

Roosevelt's [[New Deal]] programs focused on job creation through public works projects as well as Social Security. In the name of "reform" it imposed strong regulations on the banking and financial system, transportation, communications, stock markets and labor-management relations.

Roosevelt successfully built up the "[[New Deal Coalition]]", a powerful coalition of voters and interest groups that supported liberalism. Key components included big city machines and labor unions. Key voter groups included traditional Democrats, white Southerners, Catholics, Jews, and liberals, as well as many blacks. This united voter base allowed Democrats to be elected to Congress and the presidency for much of the next 30 years.

After a sweeping landslide reelection in 1936--losing only Maine and Vermont--Roosevelt stunned the nation, and his party, by calling for legislation to enlarge the Supreme Court by five new members. A firestorm of opposition erupted, led by his own vice president [[John Nance Garner]]. Roosevelt was defeated by an alliance of Republicans and conservative Democrats, who formed a [[Conservative coalition]] that managed to block nearly all liberal legislation. (Only a minimum wage law got through.) Angry with the conservative wing of his own party, Roosevelt tried to destroy it. In 1938, he actively campaigned against five incumbent conservative Democratic senators; all five senators won re-election.

Under FDR, the Democratic Party became identified closely with modern liberalism, which included the promotion of social welfare, unions and regulation of the economy. Civil rights were not on the party agenda at this time.

==Truman to Kennedy: 1945-1963==
Harry Truman took over unexpectedly in 1945, and the rifts inside the party that Roosevelt had papered over began to emerge. Former Vice President [[Henry A. Wallace]] denounced Truman as a war-monger for his anti-Soviet programs, the [[Truman Doctrine]], [[Marshall Plan]], and [[NATO]]. By cooperating with internationalist Republicans, Truman succeeded in defeating isolationists on the right and pro-Soviets on the left to establish a [[Cold War]] program that lasted until the fall of Communism in 1991. Wallace supporters and fellow travelers of the far left were pushed out of the party and the CIO in 1946-48 by young anti-Communists like [[Hubert Humphrey]], [[Walter Reuther]], and [[Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.]]. [[Hollywood]] emerged in the 1940s as an importance new base in the party, led by movie-star politicians such as [[Ronald Reagan]], who at this point in time strongly supported Roosevelt and Truman.<ref> Reagan became a conservative around 1960, saying the Democratic party had left him.</ref>

On the right the Republicans blasted Truman’s domestic policies. "Had Enough?" was the winning slogan as Republicans recaptured Congress in 1946. Many party leaders were ready to dump Truman, but they lacked an alternative. Truman counterattacked, pushing [[J. Strom Thurmond]] and his [[Dixiecrats]] out, and taking advantage of the splits inside the GOP. He was reelected in a stunning surprise. However all of Truman’s Fair Deal proposals, such as universal health care were defeated by the [[Conservative Coalition]] in Congress. His seizure of the steel industry was reversed by the Supreme Court.
In foreign policy, Europe was safe but troubles mounted in Asia. China fell to the Communists in 1949. Truman entered the [[Korean War]] without formal Congressional approval—the last time a president would ever do so. When the war turned to a stalemate in 1951 he fired General [[Douglas MacArthur]], a hero to conservatives. Republicans blasted Truman's failure to stop Communist gains in Asia. A series of petty scandals among friends and buddies of Truman further tarnished his image, allowing [[Dwight Eisenhower]] and the Republicans in 1952 to crusade against "Korea, Communism and Corruption." Truman dropped out of the presidential race early in 1952, leaving no obvious successor. The convention nominated [[Adlai Stevenson]] in 1952 and 1956, only to see him overwhelmed by two Eisenhower landslides.

[[Image:1952-32.jpg|thumb|480px|right|Stevenson and labor unions warn against a return of the Republican policies of Herbert Hoover in 1952 campaign poster]]

In Congress the powerful duo of House Speaker [[Sam Rayburn]] and Senate Majority leader [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] held the party together, often by compromising with Eisenhower. In 1958 the party made dramatic gains in the midterms and seemed to have a permanent lock on Congress. Indeed, Democrats had majorities in the House every election from 1930 to 1992 (except 1946 and 1952). Most southern Congressmen were conservative Democrats, however, and they usually worked with conservative Republicans. The result was a [[Conservative Coalition]] that blocked practically all liberal domestic legislation from 1937 to the 1970s, except for a brief spell 1964-65, when Johnson neutralized its power.

The nomination of [[John F. Kennedy]] in 1960 energized the Catholic population, which jammed motorcades and turned out in heavy numbers (over 80% voted for Kennedy), while also causing a backlash among white Protestants (over 70% of whom voted for Republican candidate [[Richard Nixon]]. Reaching beyond the traditional Irish, German, Italian and Polish Catholic ethnics, Viva Kennedy set out to mobilize the previously passive Latino vote, and it perhaps provided the margin of victory for Kennedy in Texas and New Mexico. Kennedy's victory reinvigorated the party. His youth, vigor and intelligence caught the popular imagination. In foreign policy he was strongly anti-Communist, and promptly launched an invasion of casto's Cuba; it failed badly. A few new programs like the Peace Corps harnessed idealism. In terms of legislation, Kennedy was stalemated by the [[Conservative Coalition]], and anyway his proposals were all cautious and incremental. In three years he was unable to pass any significant new legislation.

Kennedy's election did mark the coming of age of the Catholic component of the New Deal Coalition. After 1964 middle class Catholics started voting Republicans in the same proportion as their Protestant neighbors. Except for the Chicago of [[Richard J. Daley]], the last of the Democratic machines faded away. His involvement in Vietnam proved momentous, for his successor Lyndon Johnson decided to stay, and double the investment, and double the bet again and again until over 500,000 American soldiers were fighting in that small country.

==Civil Rights, Riots, War and collapse of the New Deal Coalition==
[[Image:LBJ-64.jpg|280px|left|thumb|President Lyndon Johnson ran for reelection in the shadow of Kennedy]]

The New Deal Coalition began to fracture as union and religious leaders demanded support for [[civil rights]], upsetting the party's traditional base of conservative Southern Democrats. After Harry Truman's platform showed support for civil rights and anti-segregation policies during the 1948 Democratic National Convention, many Southern Democratic delegates decided to split from the Party and formed the "[[Dixiecrats]]," led by [[South Carolina]] governor [[Strom Thurmond]] (who, as a Senator, would later join the Republican Party). Over the next few years, many conservative Democrats in the "[[Solid South]]" drifted away from the party. By 1940 most northern Blacks had shifted to the Democratic Party due to its New Deal relief programs and support for civil rights.

The party's dramatic reversal on civil rights issues culminated when Democratic President [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] signed into law the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]]. The new laws ended segregation and also ended the main argument Democrats had used to block Republican gains in the South (that is, only the Democrats could protect segregation). The South became competitive in presidential politics in the 1970s and 1980s, giving strong support to Republican Ronald Reagan and rejecting the liberal northern candidates. The Democrats responded by nominating Southerners (Carter in 1976 and 1980, Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Gore in 2000). Few southern states were won by Democratic presidential candidates from the North (Humphrey in 1968, McGovern in 1972, Mondale in 1984, Dukakis in 1988, Kerry in 2004). At the state and local level the Republicans made slow, steady gains, especially among upscale middle class whites and migrants from the North. By the 1990s the GOP was competitive at the state and local level throughout the South. The Democrats made gains in the west, converting California to a Democratic stronghold and gaining in fast-growing Arizona and Nevada. The Northeast became more and more a Democratic enclave, especially after 2006 when numerous Republican moderates were defeated for reelection. the Midwest remained a battleground. The Democrats made strong gains in Illinois, but slipped a little in Minnesota.
[[Image:Demfight1968.jpg|thumb|290px|By 1968 Democrats were bitterly fighting over Vietnam and the failures of the Great Society]]

==1968 to 1999==
The Democratic party split five ways in 1968 and became the minority party in presidential elections for decades; after 1964 they won a majority of the presidential vote only in 2008.

[[Image:Jimmy Carter.jpg|thumb|right|180px|Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976 and defeated in 1980.]]
In 1972, the Democrats nominated Sen. [[George McGovern]] (SD) as the presidential candidate on a platform which advocated, among other things, U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam and a guaranteed minimum income for all Americans. McGovern's forces at the national convention ousted Mayor [[Richard J. Daley]] and the entire Chicago delegation, replacing them with insurgents led by [[Jesse Jackson]]. After it became know that McGovern's running mate, [[Thomas Eagleton]], had received electric shock therapy, McGovern said he supported Eagleton "1000%" but he was soon forced to drop him and find a new running mate. With his campaign stalled for several weeks McGovern finally selected [[Sargent Shriver]], a Kennedy-in-law who was close to Mayor Daley. On July 14, 1972, McGovern appointed his campaign manager, Jean Westwood as the first woman chair of the Democratic National Committee. McGovern was defeated in a landslide by incumbent [[Richard Nixon]], winning only Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. The [[Watergate affair]] of 1973-74 made corruption a central issue, especially after [[Gerald Ford]] pardoned Nixon in September 1974. The Democrats made major gains in the 1974 off-year elections.

In 1976, mistrust of the administration, complicated by a combination of economic recession and inflation, sometimes called ''[[stagflation]]'', led to Ford's narrow defeat in 1976 by [[Jimmy Carter]], a former governor of Georgia.

Carter represented the total outsider, who promised honesty in government. He had served as a naval officer, a farmer, a state senator, and a one-term governor. His only experience with federal politics was when he chaired the Democratic National Committee's congressional and gubernatorial elections in 1974. Some of Carter's major accomplishments consisted of the creation of a national energy policy and the consolidation of governmental agencies, resulting in two new cabinet departments, the [[United States Department of Energy]] and the [[United States Department of Education]]. Carter also successfully deregulated the trucking, airline, rail, finance, communications, and oil industries, bolstered the [[social security]] system, and appointed record numbers of women and minorities to significant government and judicial posts. He also enacted strong legislation on environmental protection, through the expansion of the [[National Park Service]] in [[Alaska]], creating 103 million new acres of land. In foreign affairs, Carter's accomplishments consisted of the [[Camp David Accords]], the [[Panama Canal Treaties]], the creation of full diplomatic relations with the [[People's Republic of China]], and the negotiation of the [[SALT II]] Treaty. In addition, he championed human rights throughout the world and used human rights as the center of his administration's foreign policy.

Even with all of these successes, Carter failed to implement a national health plan or to reform the tax system, as he had promised in his campaign. Inflation was also on the rise. Abroad, the Iranians held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days, and Carter's diplomatic and military rescue attempts failed. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan later that year weakened the perception Americans had of Carter. Even though he had already been defeated for re-election, Carter fortunately was able to negotiate the release of every American hostage. They were lifted out of Iran minutes after Reagan was inaugurated and Carter served as Reagan's emissary to greet them when they arrived in Germany. In 1980, Carter defeated liberal champion [[Edward Kennedy]] to gain renomination, but lost to conservative [[Ronald Reagan]] by a landslide. The Democrats lost 12 Senate seats, and for the first time since 1954, the Republicans controlled the Senate. The House, however, remained in Democratic hands.

===1980s: Battling Reaganism===
Instrumental in the election of Republican [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1980, were Democrats who supported many conservative policies. Among legislators, one of the most prominent of these consevative Democrats was Georgia congressman and second chairman of the [[John Birch Society]], [[Larry McDonald]], who was a passenger on [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] shot down by the Soviets on Sept. 1, 1983. The "Reagan Democrats" were Democrats before the Reagan years, and afterward, but they voted for [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1980 and 1984 (and for [[George H. W. Bush]] in 1988), producing their landslide victories. They were mostly white ethnics in the Northeast who were attracted to Reagan's social conservatism on issues such as abortion, and to his strong foreign policy. They did not continue to vote Republican in 1992 or 1996, so the term fell into disuse except as a reference to the 1980s. The term is not used to describe southern whites who became permanent Republicans in presidential elections. Stanley Greenberg, a Democratic pollster analyzed white ethnic voters, largely unionized auto workers, in suburban Macomb County, Michigan, just north of Detroit. The county voted 63 percent for Kennedy in 1960 and 66 percent for Reagan in 1984. He concluded that Reagan Democrats no longer saw Democrats as champions of their middle class aspirations, but instead saw it as being a party working primarily for the benefit of others, especially African Americans and the very poor. Bill Clinton targeted the Reagan Democrats with considerable success in 1992 and 1996.

[[Image:Liberal1984.jpg|thumb|350px]] The failure to hold the Reagan Democrats and the white South led to the final collapse of the [[New Deal coalition]]. Reagan carried 49 states against former Vice President and Minnesota Senator [[Walter Mondale]], a New Deal stalwart, in 1984. Massachusetts Governor [[Michael Dukakis]], running not as a New Dealer but as an efficiency expert in public administration, lost by a landslide in 1988 to Vice President [[George H. W. Bush]].

In response to these landslide defeats, the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] was created. It worked to move the Party rightwards to the ideological center in order to recover some of the fundraising that had been lost to the Republicans due to corporate donors supporting Reagan. With the Party retaining left-of-center supporters as well as supporters holding moderate or conservative views on some issues, the Democrats became generally a "big tent" or "catch all party" with widespread appeal to most opponents of the Republicans.

===The South Becomes Republican===
In the century after the end of [[Reconstruction]] in 1877, the white South identified with Democratic Party. The Democrats' lock on power was so strong, the region was called the [[Solid South]]. The Republicans only controlled parts of the Appalachian mountains, but they sometimes did compete for statewide office in the border states. Before 1964, the southern Democrats saw their party as the defender of the southern way of life, which included a respect for states' rights and an appreciation for traditional southern values. They repeatedly warned against the aggressive designs of Northern liberals and Republicans, as well as civil rights activists whom they denounced as "outside agitators."

However, between 1964 and 2004, the Democratic Party's lock on the South was broken. The long-term cause had to do with the South becoming more like the rest of the nation. It could not long stand apart in terms of racial segregation. Modernization had brought factories, national businesses, and larger, more cosmopolitan cities to the South, as well as millions of migrants from the North and more opportunities for higher education. Meanwhile, the cotton and tobacco economy of the traditional rural South faded away, as former farmers commuted to factory jobs.

Integration and the civil rights movement caused enormous controversy in the white South, with many attacking it as a violation of states' rights. When segregation was outlawed by court order and by the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1965, a die-hard element resisted integration, led by Democratic governors [[Orval Faubus]] of Arkansas, [[Lester Maddox]] of Georgia, and, especially [[George Wallace]] of Alabama. These populist governors appealed to a less-educated, blue-collar electorate that on economic grounds favored the Democratic Party, but opposed desegregation. After 1965 most Southerners accepted integration (with the exception of public schools). Believing themselves betrayed by the Democratic Party, traditional white southerners joined the new middle-class and the Northern transplants in moving toward the Republican Party. Meanwhile, newly enfranchised Black voters began supporting Democratic candidates at the 80-90-percent levels, producing Democratic leaders such as [[Julian Bond]] and [[John Lewis]] of Georgia, and [[Barbara Jordan]] of Texas. Just as Martin Luther King had promised, integration had brought about a new day in Southern politics, freeing both blacks and whites from old hatreds and fears.

Using issues of cultural conservatism, especially opposition to abortion and homosexuality and support for school prayer, Republicans attracted strong majorities among evangelical Christians. They were nationwide, but strongest in the South; before to the 1980s they were largely apolitical. Exit polls in 2004 showed that Bush led Kerry by 70-30% among Southern whites, who comprised 71% of the voters. Kerry had a 90-9 lead among the 18% of Southern voters who were black. One third of the Southern voters said they were white evangelicals; they voted for Bush by 80-20.<ref> See the exit polls at [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.3.html |date=[[2004-11-02]]|accessdate=2006-11-18]</ref>

===1990s===

In the 1990s the Democratic Party revived itself, in part by moving to the right on economic and social policy. President [[Bill Clinton]], who defeated the incumbent [[George H. W. Bush]] in 1992, implemented a balanced federal budget and [[welfare reform]] (cutting benefits and requiring many recipients to take jobs), traditionally conservative causes. Labor unions, which had been steadily losing membership since the 1960s, found they had also lost political clout inside the Democratic Party: Clinton enacted the [[NAFTA]] free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico over the strong objection of these labor unions, much to the disappointment of those on the left of the party. The [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] took control of both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate after the 1994 election. Clinton was impeached in 1998 and subsequently acquitted in 1999.

When the [[DLC]] attempted to move the Democratic agenda in favor of more centrist positions, prominent Democrats from both the centrist and conservative factions assumed leadership of the party and its direction. Some liberals and progressives felt alienated by the Democratic Party, which they felt had become unconcerned with the interests of the common people and left-wing issues in general. Some Democrats challenged the validity of such critiques, citing the Democratic role in pushing for progressive reforms.

==21st century==
===Election of 2000===
During the presidential election of 2000, the Democrats chose Vice President [[Al Gore]] to be the party's candidate for the presidency. Gore and [[George W. Bush]], the Republican candidate and son of former President George H.W. Bush, disagreed on a number of issues, including abortion, gun control, environmentalism, gay rights, tax cuts, foreign policy, public education, global warming, judicial appointments, and affirmative action. Nevertheless, Gore's affiliation with Clinton and the DLC caused critics—Green Party presidential candidate [[Ralph Nader]] in particular—to assert that Bush and Gore were too similar, especially on free trade, reductions in social welfare, and the death penalty. "We want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them," Nader's closest advisor said.<ref>Harry G. Levinem "Ralph Nader, Suicide Bomber." ''The Village Voice'' May 3, 2004 at [http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0418,levine,53179,1.html] </ref>

Gore won a popular plurality of over 500,000 votes over Bush, but lost in the electoral vote by four votes. In a close election anything can be decisive, but many angry Democrats blamed Nader's third-party spoiler role for Gore's defeat. Controversy plagued the election, and Gore largely dropped from politics for years; by 2005 however he was making speeches critical of Bush's foreign and environmental policies.

Despite Gore's close defeat, the Democrats gained five seats in the Senate (including the election of [[Hillary Clinton]] in New York), to turn a 55-45 Republican edge into a 50-50 split (with a Republican Vice President breaking a tie). However, when Republican Senator [[Jim Jeffords]] of Vermont decided in 2001 to become an independent and vote with the Democratic Caucus, the majority status shifted along with the seat, including control of the floor (by the Majority Leader) and control of all committee chairmanships. However, the Republicans regained their Senate majority with gains in 2002 and 2004, leaving the Democrats with only 44 seats, the fewest since the 1920s.

===2001-2003===
In the aftermath of the [[9-11 Attacks]], the nation's focus was changed to issues of national security. All but one Democrat<ref> Representative [[Barbara Lee]] of Texas</ref> joined the Republicans to authorize President Bush to invade invasion of Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban. House leader [[Richard Gephardt]] and Senate leader [[Thomas Daschle]] pushed Democrats to vote for the [[USA PATRIOT Act]] and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The Democrats were split over entering Iraq in 2003 and increasingly expressed concerns about both the justification and progress of the [[War on Terrorism]], as well as the domestic effects, including supposed threats to civil rights and civil liberties from the PATRIOT Act. Senator [[Russ Feingold]] was the only Senator to vote against the act; it received more resistance when it came up for renewal, but was renewed in 2006.

In the wake of the financial fraud scandal of the [[Enron Corporation]] and other corporations, Congressional Democrats pushed for a legal overhaul of business accounting with the intention of preventing further accounting fraud. This led to the bipartisan [[Sarbanes-Oxley Act]] in 2002. Economic issues did not work well in 2002, as the Democrats lost a few seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. They lost three seats in the Senate. While Democrats gained governorships in New Mexico (where [[Bill Richardson]] was elected), Arizona ([[Janet Napolitano]]) and Wyoming ([[Dave Freudenthal]]), other Democrats lost governorships in South Carolina ([[Jim Hodges]]), Alabama ([[Don Siegelman]]) and, for the first time in more than a century, Georgia ([[Roy Barnes]]). The election led to another round of soul searching about the party's narrowing base. The party's miseries mounted in 2003, when a voter recall unseated their unpopular governor of California, [[Gray Davis]], and replaced him which a charismatic liberal Republican [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]. By the end of 2003 the four largest states had Republican governors: California, Texas, New York and Florida.

===Election of 2004===
The 2004 campaign began in late 2002, when Gore said he would not run again. [[Howard Dean]], former Governor of Vermont, an opponent of the war and a critic of the Democratic establishment, was the front-runner leading into the Democratic primaries. Dean had immense grassroots support, especially from the left wing of the party. Massachusetts Senator [[John Kerry]], a more centrist figure with heavy support from the [[Democratic Leadership Council]], was nominated because he was seen as more "electable" than Dean. Democrats moved to populist anti-business positions that denounced free trade and the [[NAFTA]] agreement. The party rhetoric attacked the Bush administration rather than propose alternative programs.

In the end, Kerry lost both the popular vote (by 3 million out of over 120 million votes cast) and the [[Electoral College]]. Republicans also gained four seats in the Senate and three seats in the House of Representatives, and for the first time since 1952, the Democratic leader of the Senate lost re-election. In the end, there were 3,660 Democratic state legislators across the nation to the Republicans' 3,557. Democrats gained governorships in Louisiana, New Hampshire and Montana. However, they lost the governorship of Missouri and a legislative majority in Georgia, which had long been a Democratic stronghold.

There were many reasons for the defeat. After the election most analysts concluded that Kerry was a poor campaigner.<ref>Evan Thomas and Staff of Newsweek,''Election 2004: How Bush Won and What You Can Expect in the Future''(2005)</ref> A group of Vietnam veterans opposed to Kerry called the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" undercut Kerry's use of his military past as a campaign strategy. Kerry was unable to reconcile his initial support of the [[Iraq War]] with his opposition to the war in 2004, or manage the deep split in the Democratic Party between those who favored and opposed the war. Republicans ran thousands of television commercials to argue that Kerry had flip-flopped on Iraq. When Kerry's home state of Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage, the issue split liberal and conservative Democrats and independents (Kerry publicly stated throughout his campaign that he opposed same sex marriage, but favored civil unions). Republicans exploited the same-sex marriage issue by promoting ballot initiatives in 11 states that brought conservatives to the polls in large numbers; all 11 initiatives passed. Some Democrats argued that flaws in vote-counting systems may also have played a role in Kerry's defeat in Ohio. Other factors include a healthy job market, a rising stock market, strong home sales, and low unemployment.

After the 2004 election, prominent Democrats began to rethink the party's direction, and a variety of strategies for moving forward were voiced. Some Democrats proposed moving towards the right; others demanded that the party move more to the left and become a stronger opposition party. . Rethinking the party's position on gun control became a matter of discussion, brought up by [[Howard Dean]], [[Bill Richardson]], [[Brian Schweitzer]] and other Democrats who had won governorships in states where Second Amendment rights were important to many voters.

===2005 - 2007===
These debates were reflected in the 2005 campaign for Chairman of the [[Democratic National Committee]], which [[Howard Dean]] won. He sought to move the Democratic strategy away from the establishment, and bolster support for the party's state organizations, even in Red states.

When the 109th Congress convened in 2005, [[Harry Reid]], the new Senate Minority Leader, tried to convince the Democratic Senators to vote more as a bloc on important issues; he forced the Republicans to abandon their push for privatization of Social Security. In 2005, the Democrats retained their governorships in Virginia and New Jersey, electing [[Tim Kaine]] and [[Jon Corzine]], respectively. However, the party lost the mayoral race in New York City, a Democratic stronghold, for the fourth straight time.

In 2006, with scandals involving Republican lobbyist [[Jack Abramoff]], as well as GOP House leader [[Tom DeLay]], Ohio GOP governor [[Bob Taft]] and others, the Democrats used the slogan "Culture of corruption." Negative public opinion on the war in Iraq, along with widespread dissatisfaction among conservatives over government spending, dragged President Bush's job approval ratings down to the lowest levels of his presidency. To win control the Democrats had to add 15 seats in the House (they added 30), and 6 in the Senate (they added 6).

The Democratic Party's electoral success has been attributed to running relatively conservative Democrats in close seats, such as the Senate races in Virginia, Pennsylvania and Montana. <ref> Dewan Shaila and Anne E. Kornblut, "In Key House Races, Democrats Run to the Right," ''New York Times,'' 2006-10-30; but compare Rick Perlstein, "Who deserves credit for the Democratic comeback?" ''The New Republic'' 2006-11-08]] at [https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=w061106&s=perlstein110806] </ref> Exit polling suggested that corruption was a key issue for many voters.<ref>CNN, "Corruption named as key issue by voters in exit polls," 2006-11-08 at [http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/07/election.exitpolls/] </ref>

In 2006 Democrats gained a majority of governorships and made gains in many state legislatures. No Democratic incumbent was defeated in any major race.
===2007-2010===
House Democrats chose Rep. [[Nancy Pelosi]] of California for Speaker, the first woman ever, but rejected her choice for Majority Leader. Senate Democrats promoted Harry Reid to Majority Leader. Neither have been very effective.

The presidential campaign of 2008 featured a remarkable duel between Obama--the first major black candidate, and [[Hillary Clinton]], the first major woman contender. Obama won with his charismatic oratory and his highly efficient fund-raising and strong organization in the caucus states, while Clinton went downscale to pick up big majorities among poor whites and Hispanics. The contest between Obama and GOP nominee [[John McCain]] was very close until September, when the collapse of the financial system soured the voters on the GOP.

The [[Obama Administration]] got off to a fast start in 2009, especially in vigorous efforts to combat the [[Recession of 2008]] with heavy new stimulus spending, massive loans to banks, increased regulation, and deep intervention in the automobile industry. All those policies were begun by Bush, and had failed to reverse the decline of the economy in late 2008. Whether they will now succeed remains an open question, with the GOP now voting solidly against them and some conservatives like [[Rush Limbaugh]] hoping that the Democrats will fail badly and that the people will again turn to the Republican party. The Democratic Party is feeling the sting from the opposition and many Democrats are beginning to question their own leadership. Liberals are disenchanted with Obama's hawkish position on the [[Afghanistan War]]. The health care reform that consumed most of 2009 remains unsettled, as public opinion has turned against it. Environmentalists now seem resigned to the failure of a [[cap and trade]] program to reduce CO2 emissions. Most of all the recession drags on. The stimulus bill was passed quickly in Feb. 2009 over almost unanimous GOP opposition, but despite promises of "shovel ready" projects, most of the money has not been spent a year later and the economy remains in the doldrums.

The elections in Nov. 2009 in New Jersey and Virginia went badly for the Democrats, as the GOP gained both governorships and many local races, not to mention the Democrats' fifth straight loss for the mayoralty of New York City.

see [[2010 Midterm Elections]]

==Symbols==
[[Image:Democraticjackass.jpg|thumb|250px|"A Live Jackass Kicking a Dead Lion" by Thomas Nast]]
The most common symbol for the party is the donkey, although the party itself never officially adopted this symbol.<ref>[http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/06/history_of_the.php History of the Democratic Donkey]. </ref> Some historians suggest the jackass was born 1828 when Jackson was sometimes called a jackass by his opponents as a play on his name. A political cartoon depicting Jackson riding and directing a donkey (representing the Democratic Party) was published in 1837. A political cartoon by [[Thomas Nast]] in an 1870 revived the donkey as a symbol for the Democratic Party. Cartoonists ever since have followed Nast and used the donkey to represent the Democrats, and the elephant to represent the Republicans.

In the early 20th century, the traditional symbol of the Democratic Party in many states was the rooster, as opposed to the Republican eagle.

There is no official color, but since election night 2000 blue has become the identification color of the Democratic Party for maps, while the red has become the color of the Republicans. Increasingly blue is used by Democrats for promotions (e.g BuyBlue, BlueFund) and by the party itself, which in 2006 unveiled the "Red to Blue Program" to support Democratic candidates running against Republican incumbents in the 2006 midterm election.

[[Jefferson-Jackson Day]] annual fundraising celebrations are held by local chapters of the Democratic Party.

The song "[[Happy Days Are Here Again]]" is the unofficial song of the Democratic Party. It was used prominently when Roosevelt was nominated for president at the 1932 Democratic National Convention and remains a sentimental favorite for Democrats today. During the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] era, the [[Fleetwood Mac]] song "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" became a popular song at Democratic events, reflecting the growing prominence of Baby Boomers in the party.

==Democratic Presidents==
* [[Andrew Jackson]] (1829-1837)
* [[Martin Van Buren]] (1837-1841)
* [[James K. Polk]] (1845-1849)
* [[Franklin Pierce]] (1853-1857)
* [[James Buchanan]] (1857-1861)
* [[Grover Cleveland]] (1885-1889) (1893-1897)
* [[Woodrow Wilson]] (1913-1921)
* [[Franklin Roosevelt]] (1933-1945)
* [[Harry S Truman]] (1945-1953)
* [[John F. Kennedy]] (1961-1963)
* [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] (1963-1969)
* [[Jimmy Carter]] (1977-1981)
* [[Bill Clinton]] (1993-2001)
* [[Barack Obama]] (2009 - Present)

==See also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Democrats|Articles about '''Democrats''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Gestapo care]]

==Bibliography==
===Current===
*Barone, Michael, and Grant Ujifusa, ''The Almanac of American Politics 2008: The Senators, the Representatives and the Governors: Their Records and Election Results, Their States and Districts'' (2007) covers all the live politicians with amazing detail. New edition every two years since 1975.
* Brownstein, Ronald. ''The Second Civil War: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America''(2007)
* Crane, Michael. ''The Political Junkie Handbook: The Definitive Reference Books on Politics'' (2004) covers all the major issues explaining the parties' positions
*Sabato, Larry J. ''Divided States of America: The Slash and Burn Politics of the 2004 Presidential Election'' (2005).
*Sabato, Larry J. ed. ''The Sixth Year Itch: The Rise and Fall of the George W. Bush Presidency'' (1907), in-depth essays by scholars on key states in 2006
* Sabato, Larry J., and Howard R. Ernst eds. ''Political Parties and Elections'' (2007), 540pp; an encyclopedia with 450 entries by scholars; focus is 1945 to present
* Sabato, Larry J. and Bruce Larson. ''The Party's Just Begun: Shaping Political Parties for America's Future'' (2001) textbook.
* Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), long essays by specialists on each time period
* Shafer, Byron and Richard Johnston. ''The End of Southern Exceptionalism'' (2006), uses statistical election data & polls to argue GOP growth was primarily a response to economic change
===Historical===
* ''American National Biography'' (20 volumes, 1999) covers all politicians no longer alive; online and paper copies at many academic libraries.
* Jensen, Richard. ''Grass Roots Politics: Parties, Issues, and Voters, 1854-1983'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/grass-roots-politics-parties-issues-and-voters-1854-1983-by-christopher-c-gibbs-richard-j-jensen-steven-l-piott.jsp online edition]; survey by conservative scholar, with primary sources
* Kennedy, David M. ''Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945'' (2001), synthesis by leading scholar; Pulitzer prize [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=52284041 online edition]
* Kleppner, Paul et al. ''The Evolution of American Electoral Systems'' (1983), essays by scholars (some of them conservatives), 1790s to 1980s.
* Kleppner, Paul. ''The Third Electoral System 1853-1892: Parties, Voters, and Political Cultures'' (1979), analysis of voting behavior, with emphasis on region, ethnicity, religion and class. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24451028 online edition]
* Ling, Peter J. ''The Democratic Party: A Photographic History'' (2003).
* Patterson, James T. ''Grand Expectations: The United States, 1945-1974'' (1997) synthesis by leading scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Expectations-United-1945-1974-History/dp/0195117972/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211911625&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore'' (2005) synthesis by leading scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Restless-Giant-United-Watergate-History/dp/0195305221/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211911625&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Ritchie, Donald A. ''Electing FDR: The New Deal Campaign of 1932'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Electing-FDR-Campaign-Presidential-Elections/dp/0700615504/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195784762&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Rutland, Robert Allen. ''The Democrats: From Jefferson to Clinton'' (1995).
* Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), most recent collection of new essays by specialists on each time period:
**includes: "State Development in the Early Republic: 1775–1840" by Ronald P. Formisano; "The Nationalization and Racialization of American Politics: 1790–1840" by David Waldstreicher; "'To One or Another of These Parties Every Man Belongs;": 1820–1865 by Joel H. Silbey; "Change and Continuity in the Party Period: 1835–1885" by Michael F. Holt; "The Transformation of American Politics: 1865–1910" by Peter H. Argersinger; "Democracy, Republicanism, and Efficiency: 1885–1930" by Richard Jensen; "The Limits of Federal Power and Social Policy: 1910–1955" by Anthony J. Badger; "The Rise of Rights and Rights Consciousness: 1930–1980" by James T. Patterson, Brown University; and "Economic Growth, Issue Evolution, and Divided Government: 1955–2000" by Byron E. Shafer
* Schlisinger, Galbraith. ''Of the People: The 200 Year History of the Democratic Party'' (1992)
* Sundquist, James L. ''Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States'', (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29223022 online edition
* Wilentz, Sean. ''The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln'' (2005), detailed synthesis by a leading liberal scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Rise-American-Democracy-Jefferson-Lincoln/dp/0393058204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195784940&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Witcover, Jules. ''Party of the People: A History of the Democrats'' (2003)
* Schlesinger, Arthur Meier, Jr. ed. ''History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2000'' (various multivolume editions, latest is 2001). For each election includes a short history by a leading scholar and a selection of primary documents.

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

==External links==
*[http://www.democrats.org/ Democratic Party Official Site]
*[http://www.demconvention.com/assets/downloads/2008-Democratic-Platform-final.pdf 2008 Democratic Platform (pdf download)]

[[Category:United States Political Organizations]]
[[Category:United States Political Parties]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Progressive Era]]
[[Category:Gilded Age]]
[[Category:New Deal]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[category:Jacksonian Democracy]]

American Psychiatric Association

2010-04-15T14:52:34Z

RichardKerry: Undo revision 769351 by Hsdebater (Talk)liberal bias

The '''American Psychiatric Association''' is the national body representing [[psychiatrist]]s. Its stated aims are to ensure the highest standards of clinical conduct, ethics and professional care, and represents its members on the political stage.

The APA was formed in 1844 and soon spread across the country. At present it has 35,000 members in 75 charters lead by a president and a board of trustees. The current president is Pedro Ruiz.

==External Links==

* [http://www.psych.org/index.cfm APA Website]

[[Category:Medical Associations]]

Archaeopteryx

2010-04-15T14:19:19Z

RichardKerry: /* not a transitional */ caps

{{Taxonomy
|name=Archaeopteryx (extinct)
|image=Archaeopteryx1.jpg
|caption=
|superkingdom=
|kingdom= Animalia
|subkingdom=
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=Vertebrata
|infraphylum=
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=
|class=Aves
|subclass=
|infraclass=
|superorder=
|order=Archaeopterygiformes
|suborder=
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|family=Archaeopterygidae
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=
|genus=Archaeopteryx
|subgenus=
|species=A. siemensii
|binomialname=
|sub=
|alt=
}}
'''''Archaeopteryx''''', an extinct [[bird]] known from a small number of [[fossil | fossils]], is considered by [[evolution|evolutionary]] biologists to be the first species of [[bird]] to appear on Earth.<ref>"Archaeopteryx is the oldest bird in the fossil record." - John Wells [http://www.discovery.org/a/1106] </ref>

''Archaeopteryx'' is sometimes presented as evidence of evolution because the bones have some characteristics reminiscent of [[reptile]]s, making it appear to be a so-called "[[transitional form]]" between reptiles and birds.

There are two criticisms of the ''Archaeopteryx''. The preeminent British physicist, Sir Fred Hoyle, determined it to be fraudulent. Another criticism is even if ''Archaeopteryx'' existed, it was a true bird and not a transitional form suggesting evolution.

== Specimens ==
There are currently ten known specimens of ''Archaeopteryx''<ref>Wikipedia claims an eleventh specimen, but only lists ten.</ref>.
All were allegedly found in the limestone of the Solnhofen area in Germany and have not been substantiated by any discovery anywhere else in the world.<ref name="CFM">Magovern</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
! Speciman || When found || Location found || People involved || Current location || Comments
|-
| Feather<ref name="CN">Nedlin, 1999 (The TalkOrigins Archive)</ref> || 1860 || Near Solnhofen || Described by H. von Meyer || Humboldt Museum für Naturkunde in [[Berlin]] || Single feather only.
|-
| London specimen<ref name="CN" /><ref name="CFM" /> || 1861 || Near Langenaltheim || Announced by H. v Meyer || [[British Museum of Natural History]], [[London]] || Missing the head and neck
|-
| Berlin specimen<ref name="CN" /><ref name="CFM" /> || 1877 || Near Blumenberg || Described by W. Dames || Humboldt Museum für Naturkunde || The most complete specimen
|-
| Maxberg specimen<ref name="CN" /><ref name="CFM" /> || 1958 || Near Langenaltheim || Found and owned by Eduard Opitsch || Was in Maxberg Museum but now missing || Torso
|-
| Haarlem Specimen<ref name="CN" /><ref name="CFM" /> || 1855 || Near Riedenburg || Described by H. von Meyer || Teylers Museum, [[Haarlem]] || Not classified as ''Archaeopteryx'' until 1970. Not very complete
|-
| Eichstätt Specimen<ref name="CN" /><ref name="CFM" /> || 1951 || Near Workerszell || Described by Peter Wellnhofer || Jura Museum, [[Eichstätt]] || Smallest specimen
|-
| Solnhofen Specimen<ref name="CN" /><ref name="CFM" /> || 1960s || Near Eichstätt || Described by Wellnhofer || Bürgermeister-Müller-Museum in Solnhofen || Missing some pieces, but fairly complete
|-
| Munich specimen or Solnhofen-Aktien-Verein specimen<ref name="CN" /><ref name="CFM" /> || 1991 || Near Langenaltheim || Described by Wellnhofer || Paläontologisches Museum München, [[Munich]] || First specimen to be found with an intact sternum, proving ''Archaeopteryx'' was capable of powered flight like modern birds
|-
| Thermopolis specimen<ref>The Wyoming Dinosaur Center]</ref><ref>Hartman, 2005</ref> || || || || Wyoming Dinosaur Center in Thermopolis, [[Wyoming]] || Had been privately owned in Switzerland
|}

== Criticism ==

===Evidence of fraud===

In 1983, a half-dozen leading [[British]] scientists led by noted British [[Fred Hoyle|Radio-astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle]] carefully studied the plates and counter-plates from the two best ''Archaeopteryx'' specimens, and found evidence of forgery.<ref>Sarfati, 2000</ref> They discovered that the front and back slabs of each specimen do not match.<ref name="four">British Journal of Photography (March-June 1985). W.J. Broad, "Authenticity of Bird Fossil is Challenged," N.Y. Times C1, C14 (May 7, 1985). T. Nield, "Feathers Fly Over Fossil 'Fraud'," New Scientist 1467:49-50. G. Vines, "Strange Case of Archaeopteryx 'Fraud'," New Scientist 1447:3.</ref>
They found that an alteration had been made to the left wing as depicted in an 1863 drawing.<ref name="four" />
They concluded that the feather markings had been imprinted by hand.<ref name="four" />
They also found that etching process had used cement blobs.<ref name="four" />
When the scientists requested the ability to use an electronic microscope and carbon-14 dating, the museum refused and withdrew the specimens from the scientists.<ref name="four" />
The same [[British]] Museum had been responsible for the [[Piltdown Man]] fraud.

The [[Nobel Prize]] committee punished Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] for exposing this fraud by passing him over and giving its award to his underling for work that Hoyle was the undisputed leader on.

===Not a transitional===
The second criticism of the ''Archaeopteryx'', that it is not a transitional form, has been strengthened by the work of anatomist Dr. David Menton<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_menton.asp</ref> suggesting that ''Archaeopteryx'' is a true bird with flight feathers, not a transitional form at all. In 1994, an article explained that the ''Archaeopteryx'' was essentially a flying bird, with a large [[cerebellum]] and [[visual cortex]]. The fact that it had teeth is irrelevant to its alleged transitional status -- a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not (the South American hoatzin, ''Opisthocomus hoazin'', also shares with ''Archaeopteryx'' clawed digits in its wings, albeit as juveniles). Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved. In most vertebrates, including reptiles, only the mandible moves.<ref name=%26quot%3Bcw94%26quot%3B />

== Evidence for evolution? ==
In 1993, an article was published in ''Science'' magazine arguing that the ''Archaeopteryx'' had fully-formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds), the classical elliptical wings of modem woodland birds, and a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the downstroke of the wings<ref>Feduccia, 1993</ref>

While most evolutionary scientists agree that the flight feathers of ''Archaeopteryx'' were essentially modern, several papers since have argued against Feduccia's claims about the anatomy of ''Archaeopteryx''<ref>"The tenth skeletal specimen of Archaeopteryx," ''Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society,'' 149:97-116, 2007.</ref> Specimens such as the Thermoplis Specimen <ref>Wyoming Dinosaur Center.</ref> are thought to clearly show that the arms, wishbone, tail, feet, hips, and palate of ''Archaeopteryx'' were more like meat-eating theropod dinosaurs than modern birds.

The brain of ''Archaeopteryx'' was essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex.<ref name="cw94">Wieland, 1994</ref>
Critics point out that its teeth are irrelevant to its alleged transitional status, as a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not.<ref name="cw94" />
Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved.
In most vertebrates, including many reptiles, only the mandible moves.<ref name="cw94" />

== Bibliography ==

* Anon., [http://www.wyodino.org/research/?item=archaeopteryx ''Archaeopteryx'': The Thermopolis Specimen] The Wyoming Dinosaur Center
* Bakalar, Nicholas, [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1201_051201_archaeopteryx.html Earliest Bird Had Feet Like Dinosaur, Fossil Shows], National Geographic News, 1 December, 2005
* Feduccia, A., "Evidence from Claw Geometry Indicating Arboreal Habits of Archaeopteryx," ''Science'', 259(5096):790-793, February 5, 1993 ([http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0036-8075%2819930205%293%3A259%3A5096%3C790%3AEFCGIA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1 abstract])
* [[Duane Gish|Gish, Duane]], [http://www.icr.org/article/321/ As a Transitional Form Archaeopteryx Won't Fly] ''Impact'', September 1, 1989
* Hartman, Scott, [http://skeletaldrawing.com/Archaeopteryx/archaeo.htm Clarification statement on Thermopolis specimen] 1st December 2005 (The Wyoming Dinosaur Center).
* Magovern, Charlie and Florence, [http://www.stonecompany.com/fossils/casts/archaeopteryx/data.html Archaeopteryx]
* Nedlin, Chris, [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#specimens All About Archaeopteryx], 1999 (The TalkOrigins Archive)
* [[Jonathan Sarfati|Sarfati, Jonathan]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3653 Archaeopteryx (unlike Archaeoraptor) is NOT a hoax—it is a true bird, not a “missing link”], Creation Ministries International, March 24, 2000
* Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/ Bird evolution?], Chapter 4 of ''Refuting Evolution''.
* [[Carl Wieland|Wieland, Carl]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v1/i1/archaeopteryx.asp Archaeopteryx], ''Creation'' 1(1):12–16, June 1978.
* Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/909/ Bird evolution flies out the window], ''Creation'' 16(4):16–19, September 1994

==See also==
*[[Feathered dinosaurs]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Extinct Animals]]
[[Category:Birds]]

Dog

2010-04-15T13:54:34Z

RichardKerry: /* Scientific details */ obviously untrue- the universe didn't even exist 120 000 years ago!

{{Taxonomy|image = akitadog.jpg|kingdom = Animalia|phylum = Chordata|subphylum = Vertebrata|class = Mammalia|order = Carnivora|suborder = Caniformia |family = Canidae|genus = Canis|species = lupus|sub = C. l. familiaris (Domesticated dog)}}

'''Dogs''' are one of the most well-known domesticated species, with archaeological and historical records showing that they have lived in a mutually beneficial relationship with humans for thousands of years.

Offspring are called ''pups'' (or ''puppies'') until around a year old. The collective noun for a group of offspring is a ''litter''.
Breeders refer to male dogs as a ''dog'', while a female is called a ''bitch''.

Research has shown that it is probable that the first settlers respectively of the [[America]]s and [[Australia]] brought dogs of some sort with them.

== Scientific details ==
Dogs (scientific name ''Canis lupus familiaris'') are a subspecies of [[wolf|wolves]], divided into a multitude of different breeds all in principle capable of interbreeding (though in some cases, physical relations between representatives of two breeds are unlikely or problematic - Chihuahuas and Great Danes, for example).

Dogs are also viewed as being the single most genetically diverse species on Earth - largely thanks to human-imposed selective breeding, the vast array of dog breeds surpasses any other creature on the planet. Due to selective breeding by man, however, many breeds of dog have significant [[gene|genetic]] disorders. These include hip dysplasia (common with German Shepherds), and respiratory problems caused by shortening of the face, as seen with Boxer dogs and the Bulldog's lip. To overcome the prevalence of genetic disorders rendered common by inbreeding, many breeders regularly practice outcrossing, or introducing new material into a breed line via mating with other kinds of dog. This restores vigor to a breed and can decrease the likelihood of genetic disorders manifesting.

== Bites ==
Despite being colloquially known as "man's best friend", every 40 seconds, someone in the [[United States of America|United States]] seeks medical help for a dog bite, with approximately 800,000 such bites per year requiring medical attention.<ref>http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html</ref>
Due to the high cost of dog bite liability claims, some [[insurance]] companies have blacklisted certain breeds and refuse to provide homeowners insurance to those who own these dog breeds. <ref>http://www.dogbitelegalcenter.com/resources/common-dogs.html</ref>

== Uses ==

Dogs are used for many purposes:

*Guarding property and livestock.
*Herding [[sheep]] and [[cow|cattle]].
*Tracking by scent, carrying messages, and mountain and water rescue.
*Pursuing, flushing and retrieving game, and killing [[vermin]].
*Providing assistance to people who are deaf and blind.
*Military and police duties including guarding, tracking, interrogation, and attacking. In [[World War II]], the [[Soviet Union]] attempted to train dogs to place explosive charges under German [[tank]]s.
*To detect cadavers, explosives, or illegal drugs (German Shepherds are commonly trained to do so by police)
*As a beast of burden, or for drawing sledges, sleighs, and dogcarts.
* As a performing animal. [[Circus]] dogs have been trained to dance, ride bicycles, speak, and walk the tightrope.
* For fighting, now illegal in most places, e.g. everywhere in USA.
*As food. Dog is still considered a delicacy in [[China]], [[Korea]] and parts of [[Africa]] today.

Today most dogs in western countries are kept for [[pet|companionship]] only. Stray and feral dogs cause many problems, spreading diseases such as [[rabies]], and attacking people and [[livestock]].

==Further reading==
* [http://www.mastiffexperts.com Mastiff Experts]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{Nb_zl_canines}}
{{Working dogs}}
{{Hounds}}
{{Sporting dogs}}
{{Non-sporting dogs}}
{{Toy dogs}}
{{Terriers}}
[[Category:Canines]]
[[Category:Biblical Animals]]
[[Category:Domestic Animals]]
[[Category:Animals]]