Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Meryl Streep

2012-02-27T06:15:28Z

SamRSC:

Actress '''Meryl Streep''' holds the [[record]] for the most [[Oscar]] nominated [[actress]], with a record of 13 nominations.

On February 26 2012 Streep won the Oscar for Best Actress for her portrayal of [[Margaret Thatcher]] in ''The Iron Lady''.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Streep, Meryl}}
[[Category:People]]

Talk:Ragnar Danneskjöld

2011-11-26T18:27:24Z

SamRSC: /* Aircraft Carrier? */

Privateer? No, he was a pirate. A privateer carries a Letter of Marque from a government. Ragnar didn't, making him a pirate. Arrrr, me hearties! Lay us aside them bastardly People's States and shiver their timbers wi' a bucket o' grapeshot! --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:54, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

== The ship... ==

===Cruiser or destroyer?===
Danneskjöld's ship is indeed fast and capable of heavy shore bombardment. So it isn't a destroyer or cruiser then; modern US destroyers are armed with a single 5" gun and they're not adequate for shore bombardment; the range is too short and the shells are too small. US cruisers have TWO 5" guns; they're not adequate either. This is not my opinion; it's the opinion of the United States Marine Corps and the US Naval Fire Support Association.

The only ships that exist, and the only ones that have existed for the last 50 YEARS - with that sort of bombardment capability are the four ''Iowa''-class battleships.

===Converted merchantman?===
Absolutely not. Merchant ships are not fast; they're at least 10, often 15 knots slower than a warship. They're also not strong enough to mount heavy guns and they have no protected magazine spaces, no damage control features, no spaces for combat information centers... just no. Forget this idea.

===Aircraft Carrier?===
"Danneskjold could also acquire a Boeing 727 or MD-80, or a 737... Of all the heavy aircraft built, those three are most likely to be able to take off from, or land on, the deck of a modern American aircraft carrier."

A 727, 737 or MD80 have exactly the same chance as any other airliner of landing on, and taking off from, a US Navy carrier: nil. All of these aircraft need at least a 5,000 foot runway. The runway on a ''Nimitz''-class carrier is less than 700 feet long. The catapults simply don't have the power to launch one, and they have no afterburners to attain critical speed before falling into the sea and being run down by the ship. There is no way at all it could be made to work.

"Perhaps John Galt could design a new quantum-assisted hydrogen-burning turbofan with which Ragnar could retrofit a squadron of F/A-18 jet fighter-attackers, thus giving them extra range or even a boost in speed"

No, he couldn't. Even if it was possible to get a military turbojet to run on hydrogen (it isn't) you'd end up with LESS range.

There is also no possibility whatsoever that Ragnar could use a carrier for shore bombardment; it carries no heavy guns, only a few 20mm Phalanx cannon for point defence. On the subject of defence, it barely has any: assuming that any other country has ANY navy left, all they have to do is send a destroyer close in to the carrier during a storm, when it can't launch aircraft, and pound it to bits with torpedos, missiles and finally short-range gunfire. No US carrier ever goes anywhere without an entire surface battle group and two submarine escorts, and there's a reason for that: carriers are defenceless unless they can fly off aircraft.

===The Alternatives?===
An ''Iowa''-class battleship. It's fast; at 33 knots rated (and over 35 knots actually achieved) it can easily outrun or overtake any merchantman and 95% of modern warships. It's almost invulnerable to conventional weapons. It can intimidate merchant ships into surrendering just by existing, then sink them with two or three of the thousands of shells it carries for its secondary 5" armament. Its primary armament of nine 16" guns could easily flatten a steelworks 15 miles inshore with a dozen or so shells; it carries well over 500 shells for the main guns, enough to last for years of piracy. The ship carries two medium transport/ASW helicopters capable of air to air refuelling; that would let Ragnar fly himself and a decent amount of gold ashore.

All four ships have been donated as museum ships. However ''USS Iowa'' and ''USS Wisconsin'' are preserved, by Congressional order, in a condition that allows them to be reactivated. Their armament is intact. Their engines are preserved. Supplies of ammunition are kept in store. They just need to be fuelled - and they run on heavy oil, easily obtained from captured freighters - and reactivated. Ragnar's ship could only have been one of these battleships.

And yes, it's piracy. Letters of Marque could only be issued by a government. Ragnar is - and admits to being - a pirate. --[[User:SamRSC|SamRSC]] 11:56, 26 November 2011 (EST)

Talk:Ragnar Danneskjöld

2011-11-26T18:27:07Z

SamRSC: /* Aircraft Carrier? */

Privateer? No, he was a pirate. A privateer carries a Letter of Marque from a government. Ragnar didn't, making him a pirate. Arrrr, me hearties! Lay us aside them bastardly People's States and shiver their timbers wi' a bucket o' grapeshot! --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:54, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

== The ship... ==

===Cruiser or destroyer?===
Danneskjöld's ship is indeed fast and capable of heavy shore bombardment. So it isn't a destroyer or cruiser then; modern US destroyers are armed with a single 5" gun and they're not adequate for shore bombardment; the range is too short and the shells are too small. US cruisers have TWO 5" guns; they're not adequate either. This is not my opinion; it's the opinion of the United States Marine Corps and the US Naval Fire Support Association.

The only ships that exist, and the only ones that have existed for the last 50 YEARS - with that sort of bombardment capability are the four ''Iowa''-class battleships.

===Converted merchantman?===
Absolutely not. Merchant ships are not fast; they're at least 10, often 15 knots slower than a warship. They're also not strong enough to mount heavy guns and they have no protected magazine spaces, no damage control features, no spaces for combat information centers... just no. Forget this idea.

===Aircraft Carrier?===
"Danneskjold could also acquire a Boeing 727 or MD-80, or a 737... Of all the heavy aircraft built, those three are most likely to be able to take off from, or land on, the deck of a modern American aircraft carrier."

A 727, 737 or MD80 have exactly the same chance as any other airliner of landing on, and taking off from, a US Navy carrier: nil. All of these aircraft need at least a 5,000 foot runway. The runway on a ''Nimitz''-class carrier is less than 700 feet long. The catapults simply don't have the power to launch one, and they have no afterburners to attain critical speed before falling into the sea and being run down by the ship. There is no way at all it could be made to work.

"Perhaps John Galt could design a new quantum-assisted hydrogen-burning turbofan with which Ragnar could retrofit a squadron of F/A-18 jet fighter-attackers, thus giving them extra range or even a boost in speed"

No, he couldn't. EVen if it was possible to get a military turbojet to run on hydrogen (it isn't) you'd end up with LESS range.

There is also no possibility whatsoever that Ragnar could use a carrier for shore bombardment; it carries no heavy guns, only a few 20mm Phalanx cannon for point defence. On the subject of defence, it barely has any: assuming that any other country has ANY navy left, all they have to do is send a destroyer close in to the carrier during a storm, when it can't launch aircraft, and pound it to bits with torpedos, missiles and finally short-range gunfire. No US carrier ever goes anywhere without an entire surface battle group and two submarine escorts, and there's a reason for that: carriers are defenceless unless they can fly off aircraft.

===The Alternatives?===
An ''Iowa''-class battleship. It's fast; at 33 knots rated (and over 35 knots actually achieved) it can easily outrun or overtake any merchantman and 95% of modern warships. It's almost invulnerable to conventional weapons. It can intimidate merchant ships into surrendering just by existing, then sink them with two or three of the thousands of shells it carries for its secondary 5" armament. Its primary armament of nine 16" guns could easily flatten a steelworks 15 miles inshore with a dozen or so shells; it carries well over 500 shells for the main guns, enough to last for years of piracy. The ship carries two medium transport/ASW helicopters capable of air to air refuelling; that would let Ragnar fly himself and a decent amount of gold ashore.

All four ships have been donated as museum ships. However ''USS Iowa'' and ''USS Wisconsin'' are preserved, by Congressional order, in a condition that allows them to be reactivated. Their armament is intact. Their engines are preserved. Supplies of ammunition are kept in store. They just need to be fuelled - and they run on heavy oil, easily obtained from captured freighters - and reactivated. Ragnar's ship could only have been one of these battleships.

And yes, it's piracy. Letters of Marque could only be issued by a government. Ragnar is - and admits to being - a pirate. --[[User:SamRSC|SamRSC]] 11:56, 26 November 2011 (EST)

Talk:Ragnar Danneskjöld

2011-11-26T17:14:24Z

SamRSC: /* Aircraft Carrier? */

Privateer? No, he was a pirate. A privateer carries a Letter of Marque from a government. Ragnar didn't, making him a pirate. Arrrr, me hearties! Lay us aside them bastardly People's States and shiver their timbers wi' a bucket o' grapeshot! --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:54, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

== The ship... ==

===Cruiser or destroyer?===
Danneskjöld's ship is indeed fast and capable of heavy shore bombardment. So it isn't a destroyer or cruiser then; modern US destroyers are armed with a single 5" gun and they're not adequate for shore bombardment; the range is too short and the shells are too small. US cruisers have TWO 5" guns; they're not adequate either. This is not my opinion; it's the opinion of the United States Marine Corps and the US Naval Fire Support Association.

The only ships that exist, and the only ones that have existed for the last 50 YEARS - with that sort of bombardment capability are the four ''Iowa''-class battleships.

===Converted merchantman?===
Absolutely not. Merchant ships are not fast; they're at least 10, often 15 knots slower than a warship. They're also not strong enough to mount heavy guns and they have no protected magazine spaces, no damage control features, no spaces for combat information centers... just no. Forget this idea.

===Aircraft Carrier?===
"Danneskjold could also acquire a Boeing 727 or MD-80, or a 737... Of all the heavy aircraft built, those three are most likely to be able to take off from, or land on, the deck of a modern American aircraft carrier."

A 727, 737 or MD80 have exactly the same chance as any other airliner of landing on, and taking off from, a US Navy carrier: nil. All of these aircraft need at least a 5,000 foot runway. The runway on a ''Nimitz''-class carrier is less than 700 feet long. The catapults simply don't have the power to launch one, and they have no afterburners to attain critical speed before falling into the sea and being run down by the ship. There is no way at all it could be made to work.

Could Ragnar convert fast jests to run on hydrogen? No; not even remotely feasible.

There is also no possibility whatsoever that Ragnar could use a carrier for shore bombardment; it carries no heavy guns, only a few 20mm Phalanx cannon for point defence. On the subject of defence, it barely has any: assuming that any other country has ANY navy left, all they have to do is send a destroyer close in to the carrier during a storm, when it can't launch aircraft, and pound it to bits with torpedos, missiles and finally short-range gunfire. No US carrier ever goes anywhere without an entire surface battle group and two submarine escorts, and there's a reason for that: carriers are defenceless unless they can fly off aircraft.

===The Alternatives?===
An ''Iowa''-class battleship. It's fast; at 33 knots rated (and over 35 knots actually achieved) it can easily outrun or overtake any merchantman and 95% of modern warships. It's almost invulnerable to conventional weapons. It can intimidate merchant ships into surrendering just by existing, then sink them with two or three of the thousands of shells it carries for its secondary 5" armament. Its primary armament of nine 16" guns could easily flatten a steelworks 15 miles inshore with a dozen or so shells; it carries well over 500 shells for the main guns, enough to last for years of piracy. The ship carries two medium transport/ASW helicopters capable of air to air refuelling; that would let Ragnar fly himself and a decent amount of gold ashore.

All four ships have been donated as museum ships. However ''USS Iowa'' and ''USS Wisconsin'' are preserved, by Congressional order, in a condition that allows them to be reactivated. Their armament is intact. Their engines are preserved. Supplies of ammunition are kept in store. They just need to be fuelled - and they run on heavy oil, easily obtained from captured freighters - and reactivated. Ragnar's ship could only have been one of these battleships.

And yes, it's piracy. Letters of Marque could only be issued by a government. Ragnar is - and admits to being - a pirate. --[[User:SamRSC|SamRSC]] 11:56, 26 November 2011 (EST)

Talk:Ragnar Danneskjöld

2011-11-26T17:07:46Z

SamRSC: /* Aircraft Carrier? */

Privateer? No, he was a pirate. A privateer carries a Letter of Marque from a government. Ragnar didn't, making him a pirate. Arrrr, me hearties! Lay us aside them bastardly People's States and shiver their timbers wi' a bucket o' grapeshot! --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:54, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

== The ship... ==

===Cruiser or destroyer?===
Danneskjöld's ship is indeed fast and capable of heavy shore bombardment. So it isn't a destroyer or cruiser then; modern US destroyers are armed with a single 5" gun and they're not adequate for shore bombardment; the range is too short and the shells are too small. US cruisers have TWO 5" guns; they're not adequate either. This is not my opinion; it's the opinion of the United States Marine Corps and the US Naval Fire Support Association.

The only ships that exist, and the only ones that have existed for the last 50 YEARS - with that sort of bombardment capability are the four ''Iowa''-class battleships.

===Converted merchantman?===
Absolutely not. Merchant ships are not fast; they're at least 10, often 15 knots slower than a warship. They're also not strong enough to mount heavy guns and they have no protected magazine spaces, no damage control features, no spaces for combat information centers... just no. Forget this idea.

===Aircraft Carrier?===
"Danneskjold could also acquire a Boeing 727 or MD-80, or a 737... Of all the heavy aircraft built, those three are most likely to be able to take off from, or land on, the deck of a modern American aircraft carrier."

A 727, 737 or MD80 have exactly the same chance as any other airliner of landing on, and taking off from, a US Navy carrier: nil. All of these aircraft need at least a 5,000 foot runway. The runway on a ''Nimitz''-class carrier is less than 700 feet long. The catapults simply don't have the power to launch one, and they have no afterburners to attain critical speed before falling into the sea and being run down by the ship. There is no way at all it could be made to work.

Could Ragnar convert fast jests to run on hydrogen? No; not even remotely feasible.

There is also no possibility whatsoever that Ragnar could use a carrier for shore bombardment; it carries no heavy guns, only a few 20mm Phalanx cannon for point defence.

===The Alternatives?===
An ''Iowa''-class battleship. It's fast; at 33 knots rated (and over 35 knots actually achieved) it can easily outrun or overtake any merchantman and 95% of modern warships. It's almost invulnerable to conventional weapons. It can intimidate merchant ships into surrendering just by existing, then sink them with two or three of the thousands of shells it carries for its secondary 5" armament. Its primary armament of nine 16" guns could easily flatten a steelworks 15 miles inshore with a dozen or so shells; it carries well over 500 shells for the main guns, enough to last for years of piracy. The ship carries two medium transport/ASW helicopters capable of air to air refuelling; that would let Ragnar fly himself and a decent amount of gold ashore.

All four ships have been donated as museum ships. However ''USS Iowa'' and ''USS Wisconsin'' are preserved, by Congressional order, in a condition that allows them to be reactivated. Their armament is intact. Their engines are preserved. Supplies of ammunition are kept in store. They just need to be fuelled - and they run on heavy oil, easily obtained from captured freighters - and reactivated. Ragnar's ship could only have been one of these battleships.

And yes, it's piracy. Letters of Marque could only be issued by a government. Ragnar is - and admits to being - a pirate. --[[User:SamRSC|SamRSC]] 11:56, 26 November 2011 (EST)

Talk:Ragnar Danneskjöld

2011-11-26T16:56:20Z

SamRSC: /* The ship... */ new section

Privateer? No, he was a pirate. A privateer carries a Letter of Marque from a government. Ragnar didn't, making him a pirate. Arrrr, me hearties! Lay us aside them bastardly People's States and shiver their timbers wi' a bucket o' grapeshot! --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:54, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

== The ship... ==

===Cruiser or destroyer?===
Danneskjöld's ship is indeed fast and capable of heavy shore bombardment. So it isn't a destroyer or cruiser then; modern US destroyers are armed with a single 5" gun and they're not adequate for shore bombardment; the range is too short and the shells are too small. US cruisers have TWO 5" guns; they're not adequate either. This is not my opinion; it's the opinion of the United States Marine Corps and the US Naval Fire Support Association.

The only ships that exist, and the only ones that have existed for the last 50 YEARS - with that sort of bombardment capability are the four ''Iowa''-class battleships.

===Converted merchantman?===
Absolutely not. Merchant ships are not fast; they're at least 10, often 15 knots slower than a warship. They're also not strong enough to mount heavy guns and they have no protected magazine spaces, no damage control features, no spaces for combat information centers... just no. Forget this idea.

===Aircraft Carrier?===
"Danneskjold could also acquire a Boeing 727 or MD-80, or a 737... Of all the heavy aircraft built, those three are most likely to be able to take off from, or land on, the deck of a modern American aircraft carrier."

A 727, 737 or MD80 have exactly the same chance as any other airliner of landing on, and taking off from, a US Navy carrier: nil. All of these aircraft need at least a 5,000 foot runway. The runway on a ''Nimitz''-class carrier is less than 700 feet long. The catapults simply don't have the power to launch one, and they have no afterburners to attain critical speed before falling into the sea and being run down by the ship. There is no way at all it could be made to work.

Could Ragnar convert fast jests to run on hydrogen? No; not even remotely feasible.

===The Alternatives?===
An ''Iowa''-class battleship. It's fast; at 33 knots rated (and over 35 knots actually achieved) it can easily outrun or overtake any merchantman and 95% of modern warships. It's almost invulnerable to conventional weapons. It can intimidate merchant ships into surrendering just by existing, then sink them with two or three of the thousands of shells it carries for its secondary 5" armament. Its primary armament of nine 16" guns could easily flatten a steelworks 15 miles inshore with a dozen or so shells; it carries well over 500 shells for the main guns, enough to last for years of piracy. The ship carries two medium transport/ASW helicopters capable of air to air refuelling; that would let Ragnar fly himself and a decent amount of gold ashore.

All four ships have been donated as museum ships. However ''USS Iowa'' and ''USS Wisconsin'' are preserved, by Congressional order, in a condition that allows them to be reactivated. Their armament is intact. Their engines are preserved. Supplies of ammunition are kept in store. They just need to be fuelled - and they run on heavy oil, easily obtained from captured freighters - and reactivated. Ragnar's ship could only have been one of these battleships.

And yes, it's piracy. Letters of Marque could only be issued by a government. Ragnar is - and admits to being - a pirate. --[[User:SamRSC|SamRSC]] 11:56, 26 November 2011 (EST)

User talk:NickP

2011-11-26T13:32:54Z

SamRSC: Undo revision 940560 by ToddLankshiresBack (talk)

{{welcome}}

Hello, my friend!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 01:19, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

== Comments on RobS and Conservative ==

I urge you to reconsider making comments on the current debate between User:RobS and Conservative. let us find solutions instead of blaming one another. If you are a Christian you'll understand that politeness and consideration will go further than sneering and blaming. Thanks and I hope we can work together. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:50, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:Perhaps you are right. I think it is best we let Andy make his decision. Sysops are normally supposed to be the ones who settle disputes, but what happens when the sysops get into disputes? Mr. Schlafly is the only one who can truly settle this. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 23:54, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::Thanks you, this is getting out of hand already. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:56, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== re: your request for private communication ==

I put in a request for the private email to be restored and the owner of the website is weighing the pros and cons of restoring that function. I did offer some benefits of reinstating it, but the owner of the website had some good points about not restoring it. Secondly, I have a feeling you wanted to communicate with me privately concerning RobS and while I appreciate your concern, I am not going to be drawn into contention with RobS so I believe the matter is a moot point. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:27, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

==Sockpuppet==
He is a sockpuppet of a clown calling himself "Jensen", and with less brains than a dead fish. All he does is engage in harassment, because that's all he can do. So, he gets blocked on sight and a little more. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:11, 25 November 2011 (EST)
:OK I was just wondering. I'm tried of these liberals thinking that their responses are "clever". I'll be glad to help revert his vandalism. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 18:13, 25 November 2011 (EST)

Military Police

2011-11-26T13:17:26Z

SamRSC:

'''Military police''' are members of the armed services who are responsible for the enforcement of military law on military personnel. Their routine tasks include patrolling military bases and garrison towns to provide a police presence, investigating crimes on military property or where military personnel are suspected to be involved and carrying out crime-prevention training in the military community.

Other tasks, especially in operational areas, may include the protection of high-ranking officers (such as the Royal Military Police's CP teams,) traffic control and establishing a police presence in occupied territory.

[[category:military]]

Christianophobia

2011-11-26T03:55:26Z

SamRSC: Deleting nonsense. NO European country supports the islamisation of Europe and no European country favors muslim over Christian immigrants. Bat Ye'or is insane.

'''Christianophobia''' refers to hysterical and irrational fear or [[hatred]] of [[Christians]], [[Christianity]], the [[Bible]] and even [[prayer]] which is present in many [[Muslim]] countries, [[Hindu]] majority nation like [[India]], and often in the Western world among [[liberals]] and [[leftists]]. The term "Christanophobia" is considered an analogy of "[[Anti-Semitism]]" or another neologism "[[Islamophobia]]". "Anti-Christian sentiment" is generally used for describing [[discrimination]] against Christians, but this term has been used by various organizations including the [[United Nations]] (UN) and by several academics.<ref name="ICW">{{cite book
|author= Asghar Ali Engineer
|title= Islam in Contemporary World
|publisher= Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd
|location=
|year= 2007
|pages= p172
|isbn= 1932705694
|oclc=
|doi=
}}</ref><ref name="IDWCC">{{cite book
|author= Bat Yeʼor, Miriam Kochan, David Littman
|title= Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide
|publisher= Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press
|location=
|year= 2002
|pages= p267
|isbn= 0838639429
|oclc=
|doi=
}}</ref><ref name="CES">{{cite book
|author= Krzysztof Michalski
|title= Conditions of European Solidarity
|publisher= Central European University Press
|location=
|year=
|pages= p161
|isbn= 9637326472
|oclc=
|doi=
}}</ref><ref name="YUN">{{cite book
|author=
|title= Yearbook of the United Nations 2003
|publisher= United Nations Publications
|location=
|year=
|pages= p702
|isbn= 9211009057
|oclc=
|doi=
}}</ref>

The United Nations used the term and "recognizes with deep concern the increase in anti-Semitism, Christianophobia and Islamophobia in various parts of the world".<ref name="YUN"/> Vatican official Dominique Mamberti explains Christianophobia as "a set of behaviors arising from a lack of education, or from misinformation, intolerance and persecution."<ref name=ZENIT>[http://www.zenit.org/article-21470?l=english Vatican Aide Speaks Out on Phobias: Fear of Christianity Arises From Misinformation, Says Prelate] ''Zenit.org''</ref> Christianophobia results in discrimination against Christians, and often violence against Christian community by other religious groups.<ref name="ICW"/> In addition, violations of Christians' rights, insults of their feelings and public distortion of the Christian teaching. <ref>[http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15762 Russian Orthodox Church asks anti-discrimination conference to consider ‘Christianophobia’] Catholic News Agency</ref>

Approximately 52% of the population in [[Turkey]] and 73% of the population in [[Morocco]] expressed an antipathy towards Christianity.<ref name="CES"/> In India, the ''Hindutva'' ideology, the goal of which is turning India into a Hindu nation, is partially based on Christianophobia.<ref name="RFCW">{{cite book
|author= Santosh C. Saha
|title= Religious Fundamentalism in the Contemporary World: Critical Social and Political Issues
|publisher= Lexington Books
|location=
|year= 2003
|pages= p3
|isbn= 0739107607
|oclc=
|doi=
}}</ref> Hindu fundamentalists in the country pose a threat for Christians and Christian institutions.<ref name="RFCW"/>
:''Some of the political [[neologism]]s which end with "-[[phobia]]" may not be directly associated with medical science, but have political and social significance.''

==See also==
* [[Christian persecution]]
* [[Conservaphobia]]

{{Liberalism}}
==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://www.christianophobia.eu/ Christianophobia.eu] An website describing Christianophobia in Europe

[[Category:Phobias]]

The Twilight Saga

2011-11-26T03:35:43Z

SamRSC:

The '''Twilight Saga''' is a series of books and films about a young lady who falls in love with a [[vampire]] from the 19th century. The series has seen mixed reactions from critics and the public, and over 100 million copies have been sold worldwide of both the books and the films. The author of the series, Stephanie Meyer, attended [[Brigham Young University]] and is a member of [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]. The series has been criticised by some [[liberals]], possibly because it contains pro-marriage and pro-life elements. It has also been criticised by some conservatives due to its positive depictions of vampires.<ref>http://spesunica.wordpress.com/is-twilight-anti-christian-yes/</ref>

==Politics==
Impressively, the series seems to make certain elements of conservatism "cool" to young school girls whereas other series targeting the demographic encourage immorality. Despite not referencing Christianity, the series seems to support traditional marriage and Chrisitian morals; for example, Edward, being from the 19th century when immorality seen as normal in modern times was considered taboo, refused to engage in sexual intercourse with Bella prior to marriage, and Bella was pro-life even when having the baby put herself at great risk (this in particular upsets [[liberal]]s). However, the series features vampires and werewolves, which are part of non-Christian mythology, and it does not depict any of the characters as Christians.

==References==

<references/>
[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Juvenile Fiction]]

The Twilight Saga

2011-11-26T03:32:32Z

SamRSC:

The '''Twilight Saga''' is a series of books and films about a young lady who falls in love with a [[vampire]] from the 19th century. The series has seen mixed reactions from critics and the public, and over 100 million copies have been sold worldwide of both the books and the films. The author of the series, Stephanie Meyer, attended [[Brigham Young University]] and is a member of [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]. The pro-marriage and pro-life elements bore [[liberal]]s, inspiring several of them to mock the series.

==Politics==
Impressively, the series seems to make certain elements of conservatism "cool" to young school girls whereas other series targeting the demographic encourage immorality. Despite not referencing Christianity, the series seems to support traditional marriage and Chrisitian morals; for example, Edward, being from the 19th century when immorality seen as normal in modern times was considered taboo, refused to engage in sexual intercourse with Bella prior to marriage, and Bella was pro-life even when having the baby put herself at great risk (this in particular upsets [[liberal]]s). However, the series features vampires and werewolves, which are part of non-Christian mythology, and it does not depict any of the characters as Christians.
[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Juvenile Fiction]]

Talk:Simple eye

2011-11-26T00:40:27Z

SamRSC: /* Nominate for deletion */ new section

This really doesn't warrant its own page, and would be much better off as a subsection of [[eye]]. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 15:21, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

:I agree. If you add it as a subsection to the eye article, I will delete these pages. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 15:37, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

::Deal. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 15:48, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

== Nominate for deletion ==

This "article" is just rubbish. Never mind merging it; it should be deleted, because it's simply wrong. A simple eye is NOT an eye which has just one lens; vertebrate eyes have one lens, and are far from simple. --[[User:SamRSC|SamRSC]] 19:40, 25 November 2011 (EST)

Second Law of Thermodynamics

2011-11-26T00:25:40Z

SamRSC:

The '''Second Law of Thermodynamics''' states that heat can never flow from a cold body to a warmer one. An equivalent definition is that the [[entropy]] of an isolated system cannot decrease. <ref> “Another way of stating the second [[law]] then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to [[work]] hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself -- and that is what the second law is all about.” Isaac Asimov, Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 6 </ref>

According to this law, it is impossible to build a [[perpetual motion machine]], and [[entropy]] in a completely closed system must either increase or remain constant.

==The three forms of the Second Law of Thermodynamics==
There are three different types of systems that the Second Law of Thermodynamics can apply to:

* Isolated system - Does not exchange matter or energy with its surroundings
* Closed system - Exchanges energy, but not matter, with its surroundings
* Open system - Exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings

==Interpretation==
A simplification caused by misinterpretation says: disorder will increase within a closed system.

Actually entropy is a little more abstract and the second law of thermodynamics means something like this: the universe will always become increasingly uniform, that is: heat will spread until the entire universe has the temperature and energy level (in a closed system heat will always spread from a place where there is a lot of heat to a place where there is less until balance is achieved), forces will continue to work until a universal balance has been achieved.

In this final state the universe is one uniform space where nothing happens and no work (moving something) can be done since there are no above average concentrations of energy left.
This state is called maximum entropy and is said to be in perfect disorder (although intuitively its uniformity would seem to be a state of perfect order) because it has become impossible to determine what happened in the past. ''i.e.'' There are an infinite number of ways (histories of the universe) maximum entropy could have been reached.

==Entropy and disorder for dummies==

In this context "increasing disorder" means "that which happens if you let nature take its course".
Imagine your old room at your parent's house. Remember how easy it was to let the room turn into a uniform mess (disorder) and remember how hard it was to clean it up until it fit a specific, non-uniform design (order). Not cleaning up would always result in an increase of entropy in your room!

Now, in nature there is no one to clean up the universe, only chances. The chance of something becoming orderly is a lot smaller than the chance of something becoming disorderly (since there are far more possible disorderly states to choose from).

Alternatively one could think of how difficult it is to construct a house of cards, while almost everything that happens in nature will result in its collapse.

On a universal scale a tidy room would be a universe which has pockets of above average concentrations of energy (remember that E=mc^2 so this includes matter as well.)
A messy room would be a universe in which all energy is equally spread out.

The flow of energy (by heat exchange) to places with lower concentrations is called the "heat flow".

The often heard argument that this law disproves an eternal universe is true, since in that case maximum entropy would have been reached already. A counter-argument to this would be to suggest that the universe is still in the process of approaching maximum entropy.

==Liberal abuse of the second law of thermodynamics==

It has become common in recent years for [[Environmentalism|environmentalists]] to claim that the second law of thermodynamics implies limits to [[economic growth]]. Their reasoning is that because [[free energy]] in resources such as [[petroleum|oil]] decreases with time, then economic growth can only be finite. However, this simplistic [[liberal]] reasoning ignores the [[non-zero sum]] nature of [[free market economics]], whereby improvements in technology deliver gains for all at no further cost. Indeed one of the most vital economic goods, knowledge, can be said to be free from thermodynamic limitations entirely.<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/a/2053] Discover Institute cofounder and futurist George F. Gilder put it eloquently as follows: ''Gone is the view of a thermodynamic world economy, dominated by "natural resources" being turned to entropy and waste by human extraction and use. Once seen as a physical system tending toward exhaustion and decline, the world economy has clearly emerged as an intellectual system driven by knowledge.''</ref> Liberals also vastly exaggerate the limitations that [[natural resources]] impose on human economies. Some estimate that the [[Earth]] can harbor 100 billion people. God Himself gives His explicit assurance that the Earth will be generous as long as the human race exists in [[Genesis]]: "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." (Gen. 1:28, KJV)

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]

Don't Stand So Close To Me

2011-11-25T22:36:52Z

SamRSC:

Don't Stand So Close To Me is a 1980 song by [[The Police]] about a teacher struggling not to reciprocate a crush on him by a girl "half his age". [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS1t6wHfalY] It reached Number 1 in the UK singles charts and stayed there for 4 weeks. The track was also included on the album ''Zenyatta Mondatta''. Many of the lyrics are poignant and hard-hitting, including the reference to ''[[Lolita]]'', by [[Vladimir Nabokov]].

User talk:JonG/Archive

2011-11-25T22:26:52Z

SamRSC: /* You ignorant child molester */

== Great work! ==

Thanks so much for helping us revert vandalism![[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:11, 3 May 2010 (EDT)
:Thank you. I've been here before, so I know annoying those little flies can be. [[User:JonG|JonG]] 19:12, 3 May 2010 (EDT)

== References/Links ==

Check other articles for the proper formatting that you asked about, Jon.

Generally its the link formatted with [xxxxx] with any comments added at the end, one space between the end of the link, and then all of that enclosed by the ref tag. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:18, 3 May 2010 (EDT)
:Ahh.. It has changed a little since I've been around. I was used to people putting the <title> content as the ref-link names. ~ [[User_talk:JonG|JonG]] ~ 19:31, 3 May 2010 (EDT)

::Here is the example I forgot to paste in for you:
::<nowiki><ref>[http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/04/newark_ex_mayor_sharpe_james_convicted.html Mayor James convicted]</ref></nowiki> {{unsigned|TK}}
:::Yeah. That's exactly how I remember it. I was just in a rush earlier. Sorry. [[User:JonG|~]] [[User_talk:JonG|JonG]] [[User:JonG|~]] 23:13, 3 May 2010 (EDT)

== Referencias ==

Thank you! Mistakes like this one happens. Only those who write nothing don't make mistakes. Sorry. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 10:36, 4 May 2010 (EDT)
:They would have to be mute and paralyzed and a zombie as well, because those who do not write can still make mistakes. [[User:JonG|~]] [[User_talk:JonG|JonG]] [[User:JonG|~]] 19:36, 4 May 2010 (EDT)

== Once again, great work! ==

Once again, we're grateful for your work reverting vandals! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:03, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

== Sorry.... ==

But being blunt, without being mean, is exactly what we do here, Jon. Sorry if you were embarrassed (I didn't check to see if the unsigned post was you), but being direct, without weasel words, is what conservatives do. Did you check and see that Phyllis is an admin? Anyway, case closed! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:18, 9 July 2010 (EDT)
:Are you referring to the place where I pointed out someone's misspelling on a talk page? [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 22:52, 9 July 2010 (EDT)
::Yes, yes. TK, I know she's an admin (I'm good friends with her). The question is, what does being an admin have to do with following rules? Ed Poor told me a while back not to point out misspellings on Debate, Talk, and User pages. [[User:JonG|~]] [[User_talk:JonG|JonG]] [[Special:Contributions/JonG|~]] 07:15, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
----
Thanks for letting me know about the apparent parodist. I will let Ashlafly police his talk page for the foreseeable future. As far as RobS, should have let ASchlafly intervene earlier as far as RobS as it would have been a better use of my time. I am moving on and attending to more important matters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:45, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

== I was.... ==

grammatically correct. But never mind.--[[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 01:23, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== Debate:Should Conservapedia develop a clear policy on standards for encyclopaedic and family-friendly content?‎ ==

You may be interested in the debate here: [[Debate:Should Conservapedia develop a clear policy on standards for encyclopaedic and family-friendly content?‎]] --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:23, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

== Accounts ==

Did you read what I said on SeanS's talk page? I was blocked for being "sock of Human,", which I am NOT, and given that there is absolutely no way to appeal blocks here using multiple accounts is the only way to regain access. Sorry, but if you want people to stop creating new accounts you need to sort out the blocking system so people can have some hope of redress for unjustified blocks. It's not my fault; it's CP's. --[[User:BernhardtC|BernhardtC]] 10:08, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
:Yes, I read what you said. If they say you're a sock, then they're basing it off of your IP address being shared with a previous user. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 10:17, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
::Then they need to have a serious think about their policy, because guess what? Thanks to the wholesale blocking of IP ranges, many people can only access CP through a proxy. Blocks should only be done on the basis of a user's behaviour, not the fact that someone else might have used the same IP address. It almost seems like CP doesn't WANT new editors... --[[User:BernhardtC|BernhardtC]] 10:22, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

== Material from User:Carlrogers ==

He wrote it on WP. I verified via email. Please see the talk page of that article. Thanks.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 22:15, 17 November 2011 (EST)

==Vandalism==
=== Suspicious pedo ===

You've been convicted of child abuse. {{unsigned|HendronI}}

=== You ignorant child molester ===

Bollix is english for bollocks you fiken pedo!! {{unsigned|GeneHnt121}}
:Actually "bollocks" is English for bollocks. "Bollox" and "bollix" are bowdlerised American versions. If you were REALLY Gene Hunt you'd be able to swear properly. --[[User:SamRSC|SamRSC]] 17:26, 25 November 2011 (EST)

Don't Stand So Close To Me

2011-11-25T22:16:38Z

SamRSC: typo

Don't Stand So Close To Me is a 1980 song by [[The Police]] about a teacher struggling not to reciprocate a crush on him by a girl "half his age". [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS1t6wHfalY] It reached Number 1 in the UK sngles charts and stayed there for 4 weeks. The track was also included on the album ''Zenyatta Mondatta''. Many of the lyrics are poignant and hard-hitting, including the reference to ''[[Lolita]]'', by [[Vladimir Nabokov]].

Don't Stand So Close To Me

2011-11-25T22:16:03Z

SamRSC: Improving useless stub.

Don't Stand So Close To Me is a 1980 song by [[The Police]] about a teacher struggling not to reciprocate a crush on him by a girl "half his age". [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS1t6wHfalY] It reached Number 1 in the UK sngles charts and stayed tehre for 4 weeks. The track was also included on the album ''Zenyatta Mondatta''. Many of the lyrics are poignant and hard-hitting, including the reference to [[Lolita|that book by Nabokov]].

Visible light

2011-11-25T21:55:22Z

SamRSC:

The visible portion of light is that portion of the [[electromagnetic spectrum]] which is detectable by the human eye. Light from the sun appears to be white to the human eye because it contains all visible colors. The Visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum is only a small part of the entire electromagnetic spectrum emitted by the sun.

The wavelengths of '''visible light''' is in the range of approximately 3900 to 7800 [[Angstrom]]s, where one Angstrom is 0.0000000001 meters (1×10−10 m). These wavelengths correspond to frequencies of between 400-790 GHz. The visible spectrum<ref>http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/help/glossfig1.htm</ref> is most obvious in a rainbow, where the sun's different colors of light are bent (refracted) by the earth's atmosphere during a rainstorm and separated into the wavelengths of which white light is composed.

Visible light lies between [[infrared]] and [[ultraviolet]] on the electromagnetic spectrum.

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[category:physics]]

Kyrgyzstan

2011-11-25T21:50:51Z

SamRSC:

{{Country
|name =''Кыргызская Республика Kyrgyzskaya Respublika''
|map =Kyrgyzstan rel96.jpg
|map2 =Kyrgyzstan location.png
|flag =Flag of Kyrgyzstan.png
|arms =Arms of Kyrgyzstan.png
|capital =Bishkek
|capital-raw =
|government =Presidential republic
|government-raw =
|language =Kyrgyz, Russian
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =Roza Otunbayeva
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =vacant
|pm-raw =
|area =77,181 sq mi
|pop =5,356,869
|pop-basis =2008
|gdp =$4.6 billion
|gdp-year =2008
|gdp-pc =$870
|currency =Som
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Kyrgyzstan''' or the '''Kyrgyz Republic''' is a country in Central [[Asia]]. Its capital is Bishkek. Kyrgyzstan is a former member of the [[USSR]]. Owing to its mountainous landscape and powerful banking sector, Kyrgyzstan is known as the Switzerland of Central Asia. The US Air Force has an important base at Manas, near the capital Bishkek.

==People==
According to recent findings of Kyrgyz and Chinese historians, Kyrgyz history dates back to 201 B.C. The earliest descendants of the Kyrgyz people, who are believed to be of Turkic descent, lived in the northeastern part of what is currently Mongolia. Later, some of their tribes migrated to the region that is currently southern Siberia and settled along the Yenisey River, where they lived from the 6th until the 8th centuries. They spread across what is now the Tuva region of the Russian Federation, remaining in that area until the rise of the Mongol Empire in the 13th century, when the Kyrgyz began migrating south. In the 12th century, Islam became the predominant religion in the region. Most Kyrgyz are Sunni Muslims of the Hanafi school.
*Population (July 2008): 5,356,869.
*Annual growth rate (2008): 1.38%.
*Ethnic groups (Jan. 2003): Kyrgyz 67%; Russian 11%; Uzbek 14%; Dungan (ethnic Chinese Muslims) 1%; Uighurs 1%; Tatars 0.9%; *German 0.3%; other 4.8%.
*Main religions: Islam; Russian Orthodox.
*Language: State--Kyrgyz; official (2001)--Russian.
*Education: Nine years compulsory. Literacy--98.7%.
*Health (2003): Infant mortality rate--21.2 deaths/1,000 live births. Life expectancy--68.2 years.
*Population distribution (2003): Urban 64.6%; rural 35.4%.

==Government and Political Conditions==
The 1993 constitution defines the form of government as a democratic republic. The executive branch includes a president and prime minister. The judicial branch comprises a Supreme Court, a Constitutional Court, local courts, and a Procurator-General.

President Bakiyev made constitutional reform a key element of his campaign in 2005, and the November 2006 protests stemmed in part from members of parliament’s demands for action on that reform. It is unclear if President Bakiyev and parliament consider the December 30, 2006 constitution the final step in that process.

===Principal Government Officials===
*President--Roza Otunbayeva
*Prime Minister--vacant
*Minister of Foreign Affairs--Ednan Karabayev
*Ambassador to the U.S.--Zamira Sydykova

===Foreign Relations===
The Kyrgyz Republic maintains close relations with other former Soviet countries, particularly with Kazakhstan and Russia. Recognizing Russia's concerns about the Russian-speaking minority in the Kyrgyz Republic, President Akayev was sensitive to potential perceptions of discrimination. For example, although the 1993 constitution designates Kyrgyz as the state language, an amendment to the constitution in 2001 granted official status to the Russian language. The amended December 30, 2006 constitution reaffirmed the status of the two languages.

While the Kyrgyz Republic initially remained in the ruble zone, stringent conditions set by the Russian Government prompted the Kyrgyz Republic to introduce its own currency, the som, in May 1993. Withdrawal from the ruble zone was done with little prior notification and initially caused tensions in the region. Both Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan temporarily suspended trade, and Uzbekistan even introduced restrictions tantamount to economic sanctions. Both nations feared an influx of rubles and an increase in inflation. Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan's hostility toward the Kyrgyz Republic was short-lived, and the three nations signed an agreement in January 1994 creating an economic union. Economic cooperation within the region, though, is still hampered by unilateral barriers created by the Kyrgyz Republic's neighbors. The Kyrgyz Republic has been active in furthering regional cooperation, such as joint military exercises with Uzbek and Kazakh troops.

Turkey has sought to capitalize on its cultural and ethnic links to the region and has found the Kyrgyz Republic receptive to cultivating bilateral relations. The Kyrgyz Republic is a member of the OSCE, the CIS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the WTO, and the United Nations.

==Economy==
Despite the backing of major Western donors, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Kyrgyz Republic has had economic difficulties following independence. Initially, these were a result of the breakup of the Soviet trading bloc and resulting loss of markets, which impeded the republic's transition to a free market economy. The government has reduced expenditures, ended most price subsidies, and introduced a value-added tax. Overall, the government appears committed to the transition to a market economy. Through economic stabilization and reform, the government seeks to establish a pattern of long-term consistent growth. Reforms led to the Kyrgyz Republic's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) on December 20, 1998.

The Kyrgyz Republic's economy was severely affected by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the resulting loss of its vast market. In 1990, some 98% of Kyrgyz exports went to other parts of the Soviet Union. Thus, the nation's economic performance in the early 1990s was worse than any other former Soviet republic except war-torn Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Tajikistan. While economic performance has improved in the last few years, difficulties remain in securing adequate fiscal revenues and providing a sufficient social safety net.

Agriculture is an important sector of the economy in the Kyrgyz Republic. By the early 1990s, the private agricultural sector provided between one-third and one-half of some harvests. In 2002 agriculture accounted for 35.6% of GDP and about half of employment. The Kyrgyz Republic's terrain is mountainous, which accommodates livestock raising, the largest agricultural activity. Main crops include wheat, sugar beets, cotton, tobacco, vegetables, and fruit. Wool, meat, and dairy products also are major commodities.

Agricultural processing is a key component of the industrial economy, as well as one of the most attractive sectors for foreign investment. The Kyrgyz Republic is rich in mineral resources but has negligible petroleum and natural gas reserves; it imports petroleum and gas. Among its mineral reserves are substantial deposits of coal, gold, uranium, antimony, and other rare-earth metals. Metallurgy is an important industry, and the government hopes to attract foreign investment in this field. The government has actively encouraged foreign involvement in extracting and processing gold. The Kyrgyz Republic's plentiful water resources and mountainous terrain enable it to produce and export large quantities of hydroelectric energy.

The Kyrgyz Republic's principal exports are nonferrous metals and minerals, woolen goods and other agricultural products, electric energy, and certain engineering goods. Its imports include petroleum and natural gas, ferrous metals, chemicals, most machinery, wood and paper products, some foods, and some construction materials. Its leading trade partners include Germany, Russia, China, and neighboring Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

The Kyrgyz Republic exports antimony, mercury, rare-earth metals, and chemical products to the United States. It imports grain, medicine and medical equipment, vegetable oil, paper products, rice, machinery, agricultural equipment, and meat from the United States. In 2005 Kyrgyz exports to the U.S. totaled $5 million; 2005 Kyrgyz imports from the U.S. totaled $31 million, much of which was equipment, food products, and commodities provided by assistance programs.
*GDP: 2008, $4.6 billion; 2006, $2.8 billion; 2003, $1.9 billion; 2002, $1.6 billion; 2001, $1.5 billion.
*GDP growth rate in 2006: 2.7%.
*Inflation rate in 2006: 5.6%.
*GDP per capita (2008 est.): $870.
*Unemployment rate (as of the end of 2006): 17.7%.
*Natural resources: Abundant hydropower; significant deposits of gold and rare earth metals; locally exploitable coal, oil, and natural gas; other deposits of iron, bauxite, copper, tin, molybdenum, mercury, and antimony.
*Agriculture: Products--tobacco, cotton, wheat, vegetables (potatoes, sugar beets, beans), fruits (apples, apricots, peaches, grapes), berries; sheep, goats, cattle; wool.
*Industry: Types--small machinery (electric motors, transformers), light industry (cotton and wool processing, textiles, food processing), construction materials (cement, glass, slate), shoes, furniture, mining, energy.
*Trade: Exports (2006)--$719 million: cotton, wool, meat, tobacco, gold, mercury, uranium, hydropower, machinery, shoes. Partners--Switzerland 25.8%, Kazakhstan 19.3%, Russia 18.4%, Afghanistan 9.2%, China 4.6%, Uzbekistan 3.2%, Turkey 3.2%, U.S. 0.7%. Imports--$1,685.6 million: oil and gas, machinery and equipment, foodstuffs. Partners--Russia 31%, U.S. 17.1%, China 11.3%, Kazakhstan 9.1%, Uzbekistan 3.9%.
*Total external debt in 2003 was $1.8 billion, of which the share of the public sector was $1.6 billion.

==History==
During the 15th-16th centuries, the Kyrgyz people settled in the territory currently known as the Kyrgyz Republic. In the early 19th century, the southern territory of the Kyrgyz Republic came under the control of the Khanate of Kokand, and the territory was formally incorporated into the Russian Empire in 1876. The Russian takeover instigated numerous revolts against tsarist authority, and many Kyrgyz opted to move into the Pamir mountains or to Afghanistan. The suppression of the 1916 rebellion in Central Asia caused many Kyrgyz to migrate to China.

Soviet power was initially established in the region in 1918, and in 1924, the Kara-Kyrgyz Autonomous Oblast was created within the Russian Federal Socialist Republic. (The term Kara-Kyrgyz was used until the mid-1920s by the Russians to distinguish them from the Kazakhs, who were also referred to as Kyrgyz.) In 1926, it became the Kyrgyz Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. On December 5, 1936, the Kyrgyz Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) was established as a full Union Republic of the U.S.S.R.

During the 1920s, the Kyrgyz Republic saw considerable cultural, educational, and social change. Economic and social development also was notable. Literacy increased, and a standard literary language was introduced. The Kyrgyz language belongs to the Southern Turkic group of languages. In 1924, an Arabic-based Kyrgyz alphabet was introduced, which was replaced by Latin script in 1928. In 1941 Cyrillic script was adopted. Many aspects of the Kyrgyz national culture were retained despite suppression of nationalist activity under Joseph Stalin, who controlled the Soviet Union from the late 1920's until 1953.

The early years of glasnost in the late 1980s had little effect on the political climate in the Kyrgyz Republic. However, the republic's press was permitted to adopt a more liberal stance and to establish a new publication, Literaturny Kirghizstan, by the Union of Writers. Unofficial political groups were forbidden, but several groups that emerged in 1989 to deal with an acute housing crisis were permitted to function.

In June 1990, ethnic tensions between Uzbeks and Kyrgyz surfaced in an area of the Osh Oblast, where Uzbeks form a majority of the population. Violent confrontations ensued, and a state of emergency and curfew were introduced. Order was not restored until August 1990.

The early 1990s brought measurable change to the Kyrgyz Republic. The Kyrgyzstan Democratic Movement (KDM) had developed into a significant political force with support in parliament. In an upset victory, Askar Akayev, the president of the Kyrgyz Academy of Sciences, was elected to the presidency in October 1990. The following January, Akayev introduced new government structures and appointed a new government comprised mainly of younger, reform-oriented politicians. In December 1990, the Supreme Soviet voted to change the republic's name to the Republic of Kyrgyzstan. (In 1993, it became the Kyrgyz Republic.) In February 1991, the name of the capital, Frunze, was changed back to its pre-revolutionary name--Bishkek.

Despite these moves toward independence, economic realities seemed to work against secession from the U.S.S.R. In a referendum on the preservation of the U.S.S.R. in March 1991, 88.7% of the voters approved a proposal to retain the U.S.S.R. as a "renewed federation."

On August 19, 1991, when the State Committee for the State of Emergency (SCSE) assumed power in Moscow, there was an attempt to depose Akayev in Kyrgyzstan. After the coup collapsed the following week, Akayev and Vice President German Kuznetsov announced their resignations from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), and the entire politburo and secretariat resigned. This was followed by the Supreme Soviet vote declaring independence from the U.S.S.R. on August 31, 1991. Kyrgyz was announced as the state language in September 1991. (In December 2001, through a constitutional amendment, the Russian language was given official status.)

In October 1991, Akayev ran unopposed and was elected President of the new independent republic by direct ballot, receiving 95% of the votes cast. Together with the representatives of seven other republics, he signed the Treaty of the New Economic Community that same month. On December 21, 1991, the Kyrgyz Republic formally entered the new Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

In 1993, allegations of corruption against Akayev's closest political associates blossomed into a major scandal. One of those accused of improprieties was Prime Minister Chyngyshev, who was dismissed for ethical reasons in December. Following Chyngyshev's dismissal, Akayev dismissed the government and called upon the last communist premier, Apas Djumagulov, to form a new one. In January 1994, Akayev initiated a referendum asking for a renewed mandate to complete his term of office. He received 96.2% of the vote.

A new constitution was passed by the parliament in May 1993. In 1994, however, the parliament failed to produce a quorum for its last scheduled session prior to the expiration of its term in February 1995. President Akayev was widely accused of having manipulated a boycott by a majority of the parliamentarians. Akayev, in turn, asserted that the communists had caused a political crisis by preventing the legislature from fulfilling its role. Akayev scheduled an October 1994 referendum, overwhelmingly approved by voters, which proposed two amendments to the constitution--one that would allow the constitution to be amended by means of a referendum, and the other creating a new bicameral parliament called the Jogorku Kenesh.

Elections for the two legislative chambers--a 35-seat full-time assembly and a 70-seat part-time assembly--were held in February 1995 after campaigns considered remarkably free and open by most international observers, although the election-day proceedings were marred by widespread irregularities. Independent candidates won most of the seats, suggesting that personalities prevailed over ideologies. The new parliament convened its initial session in March 1995. One of its first orders of business was the approval of the precise constitutional language on the role of the legislature.

On December 24, 1995, President Akayev was reelected for another 5-year term with wide support (75% of vote) over two opposing candidates. President Akayev used government resources and state-owned media to carry out his campaign. Three (out of six) candidates were de-registered shortly before the election.

A February 1996 referendum--in violation of the constitution and the law on referendums--amended the constitution to give President Akayev more power. Although the changes gave the president the power to dissolve parliament, it also more clearly defined the parliament's powers. Since that time, the parliament has demonstrated real independence from the executive branch.

An October 1998 referendum approved constitutional changes, including increasing the number of deputies in the lower house, reducing the number of deputies in the upper house, providing for 25% of lower house deputies to be elected by party lists, rolling back parliamentary immunity, introducing private property, prohibiting adoption of laws restricting freedom of speech and mass media, and reforming the state budget.

Two rounds of parliamentary elections were held on February 20, 2000 and March 12, 2000. With the full backing of the United States, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) reported that the elections failed to comply with commitments to free and fair elections and hence were invalid. Questionable judicial proceedings against opposition candidates and parties limited the choice of candidates available to Kyrgyz voters, while state-controlled media only reported favorably on official candidates. Government officials put pressure on independent media outlets that favored the opposition. The presidential election that followed later in 2000 also was marred by irregularities and was not declared free and fair by international observers.

March 2002 events in the southern district of Aksy, where six people protesting the arbitrary arrest of an opposition politician were shot dead by police, engendered nationwide protests. President Akayev initiated a constitutional reform process, which initially included the participation of a broad range of government, civil, and social representatives in an open dialogue. The reform process resulted in a February 2003 referendum, which was marred by voting irregularities. The amendments to the constitution approved by the referendum resulted in further control by the president and weakened the parliament and the Constitutional Court. Under the new constitution, the previously bicameral parliament became a 75-seat unicameral legislature following the 2005 parliamentary elections.

Parliamentary elections were held February 27 and March 13, 2005. The United States agreed with the findings of the OSCE that while the elections failed to comply with commitments to free and fair elections, there were improvements over the 2000 elections, notably the use of indelible ink, transparent ballot boxes, and generally good access by election observers.

Sporadic protests against widespread fraud during the parliamentary runoff elections in March 2005 erupted into calls for the government to resign. By March 24, 15,000 pro-opposition demonstrators called for the resignation of the president and his regime in Bishkek. Some injuries were reported when opposition demonstrators were attacked by police and pro-government thugs. Protestors seized the presidential administration building, after which President Akayev left the country for Kazakhstan, and then Russia. Looting broke out in parts of Bishkek on the evening of March 24, causing an estimated $100 million in damage.

Opposition leaders, caught by surprise by developments, moved to form a broadly inclusive “Committee of National Unity.” Opposition leader Kurmanbek Bakiyev was named acting President and Prime Minister. Bakiyev formed an alliance with primary rival Feliks Kulov whereby Kulov agreed to drop out of the presidential race if Bakiyev appointed him Prime Minister upon winning the elections.

Bakiyev easily won the July 10, 2005 presidential elections with over 88% of the vote. An unprecedented number of domestic and international observers monitored the elections and noted significant improvements in the electoral process over the parliamentary elections, although there were some reports of irregularities.

Opposition groups held a series of demonstrations in 2006, including the entire first week of November, to protest the lack of progress on reform, in particular of the constitution, promised by President Bakiyev in 2005. The Kyrgyz parliament adopted amendments to the constitution and President Bakiyev signed the amended constitution on November 9, 2006, which limited the powers of the president and increased the role of parliament. After the government resigned on December 19, the Kyrgyz parliament voted on December 30 to adopt new amendments restoring some of the presidential powers lost in November. President Bakiyev signed the changes into law January 15, 2007.

{{Copyright Details (US Government)}}

Source = [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5755.htm]

[[Category:Asian Countries]]
[[Category:Former Soviet Countries]]
[[Category:Landlocked Countries]]

Wickham Steed

2011-11-25T21:44:08Z

SamRSC:

'''H. Wickham Steed''' full name '''Henry Wickham Steed''' (October 10, 1871 - January 13, 1956) was a British journalist and historian.<ref>[http://www.bookyards.com/biography.html?author_id=3124&author_name=Steed%2C+H.+Wickham ''Bookyards.com'' Biography]</ref>
Steed was [[anti-semitic]] and a Germanophobe; in a editoral he wrote in the London Times in 1914, he labeled efforts to stop the impending war as "German-Jewish trick".

== Books by H. Wickham Steed ==

* [http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/vegyes/steedjews.html ''The Hapsburg Monarchy''] (1913)
* [http://www.historicaltextarchive.com/books.php?op=viewbook&bookid=2&pre=1 ''A Short History of Austria-Hungary and Poland''] (1914).

== References ==
{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Steed, Wickham}}
[[Category:historians]]

Hubble constant

2011-11-25T21:39:45Z

SamRSC:

After astronomers realised that the universe is expanding they introduced the '''Hubble constant''' as the measure of speed of this expansion as a ratio of assumed recession velocity of galaxies to their distance. The '''Hubble constant''' equals approximately, for <math>v<<c</math>

:<math>H_o=v/c/r</math>,

where <math>v</math> is assumed speed of recession of a galaxy, <math>c</math>, speed of light in vacuum, combined with <math>v</math> producing ''"redshift"'' <math>Z=v/c</math>, and <math>r</math> is distance from the observer to the observed galaxy, and its exact value turned out to be

:<math>H_o=c/R_E</math>,

where <math>R_E</math> is [[Einstein's radius of universe]]. Present observations indicate that the Hubble constant is about 70km/s/Mpc.

The recessional velocity turned out not to be proportional to the distance though and so the '''Hubble constant''' is refered to the the nearest galaxies for which it may be considered to be relatively constant.

The [[Essay:Problems in Cosmology]] explains the possibility of the '''Hubble constant''' being a feature of universe that is stationary (neither expanding nor contracting) and the recessional velocity of galaxies being an illusion caused by the time runing slower at the deep space galaxies than in our Galaxy which mimics the accelerating expansion.

The observations of [[cosmological redshift]]s are consistent with the universe being stationary and [[quasar]]s being local rather than remote objects as already suggested by [[Halton Arp]] <ref>

Halton Arp, ''"Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies"'', 1987.

</ref>.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: Astronomy]]
[[category: Cosmology]]
[[category: Physics]]

Talk:World History Lecture Twelve

2011-11-18T17:25:50Z

SamRSC: /* Pearl Harbor */ new section

The paragraph "Victory" reads like the USA won the 2.WW all on theire own.
The US armed forces only lost about 170.000 men in europe. If you compare that to the 13.000.000 soldiers, who died fighting for the soviet union, this is hardly anything.
The USA might have done a big chunk of the work, when it comes to financial help for the the allies, but claiming that American soldiers defeated Germany without mentioning all the other nations lossing millions of lives in the struggle against the third reich, is just wrong! - [[User:MolotoK|MolotoK]] 14:27, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Italy ==
'' In October 1922, the Fascists or “Black Shirts” protested in Rome, demanding that King Victor Emmanuel abdicate in favor of Mussolini. The king did step down and Mussolini became Il Duce, the leader of Italy.''

This is incorrect. The March on Rome did not seek the abdication of Victor Emmanuel, nor did he abdicate; but he did makle Mussolini head of government. VEII was still on the throne and dismissed Mussolini in 1943. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 09:55, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== China ==

''In 1937, Japan invaded China, and Japan invaded northern and central China. It sacked the Chinese capital of Nanjing, killing thousands of soldiers and civilians. Jiang Jieshi fled to the west while Mao Zedong’s guerilla fighters stayed to combat the Japanese.''

Tut, tut, tut. I'm surprised at you of all people peddling this line. That the CCP stood and fought the Japanese while the Nationalists either fled or held back waiting for the post-war conflict is a staplke of Communist historiography. Objective assessments have found that both Communist and Nationalist forces fought bravely against the Japanese (there were Nationalist guerillas as well as 'conventional' forces), with successes and failures, but that the Nationalists were more successful and more active than the 'conventional wisdom' has it and the Communists less so. The Communists were just better at getting their message across. There was also an element of both sides holding back forces to face each other rather than the Japanese - ''vide'' the New Fourth Army incident of 1941. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 10:03, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

==Britain not England==
We live in the United Kingdom. Occasionally, it is called Britain. "England" however, is merely one part of the union, and is incorrect. I don't refer to the US as Texas, although sometimes it seems like it. [[User:KarlJaeger|KarlJaeger]] 06:39, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

==George Orwell==
While George Orwell WAS fighting on the side of the republican government, he wasn't fighting for them. He was a member of the socialist POUM (Workers' Party for Marxist unification) militia. the Communists who had power in the Republican government were Stalinists and were therefore against the POUM who was more aligned with Trotsky. the fighting referred to here was between the Republican government and the communists on one side, and the anarchists and anti-stalin POUM on the other. so while Orwell did fight against the Communists, it was not on the side of the government.

--[[User:DaveClark|Dave Clark]]

== WWII and Korean War ==
Germany declared war on the U.S., not the other way around.

I agree with MolotoK - you say "just as the American soldiers had defeated Germany in World War I, the Americans did it again," but hardly mention the four straight years of fighting on the Eastern front, where most of the German army was. You make it seem as if George Patton single-handedly won World War II.

"General MacArthur wanted to defeat them also, but President Truman refused and fired MacArthur." This should probably be clarified to point out that MacArthur wanted to expand the war into a general nuclear confrontation, and then was publicly insubordinate, it's a bit misleading.

--[[User:CWaddell|CWaddell]] 22:32, 23 February 2009 (EST)

== Mistakes ==

*You seem to suggest that the Soviet Union conquered Finland, in fact they annexed just a few border regions.
*The British did not fortify the Maginot Line, that was solely the job of the French.
*You should specify that the Vichy regime controlled only part of France that was not directly occupied by Germany.
*The Free French continued to fight beyond the liberation of Paris, your wording implies they simply stopped at this point.
*Operation Sea lion was the name of the proposed invasion of Britain, not the bombing beforehand, and it was of course never put into action.
*I think you oversimplify the invasions of the Balkans and Greece when you say that Germany ‘simply invaded them and conquered them’
*You call the Soviet Army the ‘most vicious’ without anything to support such an assertion.
*You say ‘Russians never surrender’, whilst of course in the Leningrad case in particular they showed extreme resilience, masses of Russian POWs were taken during the war.
*Mengele’s Ph.D was not based on Darwinian Evolution.
*You fail to mention some of the key events in the intelligence war, the capture of Enigma machines and codes of which there are several examples.
*Your claims about Peral Harbour being known about have only some truth to them. Certainly there were many signs that should have been picked up on, but they were not. This was largely due to mistakes lower down the chain of command. If I remember rightly the raid was picked up on radar but was wrongly assumed by some/someone to have been a group of US planes.
*I think your claim about the Coral Sea is slightly wrong. It was the first naval battle when the opposing ships never sighted each other, but carrier planes had been used in earlier months.
*You also fail to mention a key intelligence trick the US used in order to determine that an attack on Midway was about to take place.
*You seem to imply that the US forces were involved in the Battle of El Alamein, which is incorrect.
*You seem to have some rather dubious criticisms of Truman, the fact that he enjoyed playing cards is completely irrelevant to anything else in the lecture, and to say he ws out of his depth seems to be more your personal opinion than the general consensus amongst historians.
*Your statement “Just as the American soldiers had defeated Germany in World War I, the Americans did it again” seems to omit any reference to the huge sacrifices made by the other Allies, especially the Soviet Union.
*Operation Overlord was the name for the invasion of Normandy and the establishment of a foothold, not a catch-all term for liberating the whole of continental Europe.
*D-Day was the largest amphibious invasion of all time, but not the largest ever invasion.
*”There were so many ships and people in the ocean that it obscured the water below” is more a poetic description than a fact, as should be clarified.
*You also clearly state that the Americans overpowerd the D-day defenders, without mentioning that of the 5 landing beaches 2 were taken by the British and 1 by the Canadians.
*You fail to mention the distinctive tactics used by Patton which played the greatest role in his success.
*You very much oversimplify the German resistance by saying they were simply routed everywhere.
*Patton did not simply ‘roll through France, Belgium, Luxembourg etc’, especially since his line of advance was south of that. It was only with the Battle of the Bulge that he moved north.
*You completely fail to mention any other commanders, and omit massive operations such as Marketgarden.
*It was the Free French forces who originally entered the city, not the Americans.
*You vastly oversimplify the implications of allowing Patton to continue, which would have essentially led to war with the Soviet Union.
*The Enola Gay was the name of one specific plane that dropped the 1st atomic bomb, not the name of all the planes involved.
*Josef Mengele did not simply flee to Brazil, in fact he did not do so until 1949.
*You fail to mention the US opposition to Soviet help against Japan, and imply Roosevelt was completely for it.
*The Berlin airlift began in June 1948 and ran into 1949, not 1949 – 1950 as you claim.
*You seem to imply that Kennedy was somehow lazy or negligent regarding the building of the wall. Although nothing practical was done, it was not really feasible for the US to actively oppose the wall’s construction, with actual intervention surely leading to war.
*You seem to suggest the development of ICBMs somehow helped the development of spying, which makes little sense.
*The U2 spy plane was shot down and did not simply ‘fall to earth’.
*You fail to mention that the pilot was released as part of a prisoner swap.
*You seem to imply that Truman stopped MacArthur from achieving victory in the Korean War. MacArthur was fired because he wanted to use nuclear weapons against China!
*Your statement that China is completely communist is not true, China is actually quite open to the free market these days and becoming more so. It is almost certainly true that there is no such thing as a ‘true communist’ country since none have ever lived up to Marx’s actual aims.

*I would also add that 'England' should read 'UK', through normally Britain will suffice. To simply refer to England downplays the contribution of the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish.

These are just the ones where I could actually identify factual errors, and there may be others. In general you seem to oversimplify non-American activities, particularly in WWII. Although I respect the fact that this is predominantly a US resource it is a World History course. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 17:23, 24 February 2009 (EST)

I particularly agree with the statement regarding the Soviet Union. Consider the number of troops that the Soviet Union lost, something along the lines of 13 million! From the perspective of a World History course, yes, the United States' role in World War II was very significant in bolstering Western European nations' morale, but in terms of actual combat World War II as a whole was primarily a battle between Germany and the Soviet Union. This idea of a World History course could be very helpful to many people, but not if it distorts history through a pro-America lens. I love this country, too, but I love it enough that I can consider it great without overstating its influence. [[User:Alphanumeric1|Alphanumeric1]] 00:23, 30 December 2010 (EST)

== Specific Factual Errors ==

Specific Factual Errors with no room for interpretation:

-The Italian Conquest of Ethiopia took until 1936 (war began in 35, continued through beginning of next year).

-The discussion of the formation of the Axis Powers is a bit off. Germany/Italy signed a treaty in Oct. 1936 and Germany/Japan in November 1936, but the three were not joined as one until Nov. 1937.

-The Russians only took some border territory from Finland, not the entire country.

-The Germans took control of northern France, and ''Southern France'' became the Vichy government.

-Operation Sea Lion was the plan to invade England. Operation Eagle was the aerial campaign.

-Operation Overlord refers merely to the invasion of Europe, not the entire retaking.

-Hitler killed himself on April 30, 1945. May 7 was the signing of the Surrender, and May 8 was the end of operations, or what is celebrated as V-E day.

-Yugoslavia was thrown out of the Comintern by Stalin in 1948; it was not "controlled by the Soviet Union"

-The Berlin Airlift was from June 25, 1948 to September 30, 1949.

--[[User:CWaddell|CWaddell]] 18:54, 24 February 2009 (EST)

== D-Day ==

The US 1st Army landed 73,000 men on D-Day. The British 2nd Army landed over 83,000. In terms of achieving the D-Day goals the best results were achieved at Juno Beach (Canadian/British) and Gold Beach (British.) The worst progress was at Omaha Beach (US,) where the D-Day objectives were not achieved until D+3. To describe the landings as "the Americans overpowered them and started moving through France" is frankly nonsense. --[[User:SamRSC|SamRSC]] 11:51, 18 November 2011 (EST)

== Patton... ==

"...was the only Allied leader feared by the Germans." I can answer that absurd claim with a single word: Zhukov. --[[User:SamRSC|SamRSC]] 11:54, 18 November 2011 (EST)

== Allied advance/Patton again ==

..."The best the German army could do was turn and run" So that's why it took Patton six months to advance as far as Rommel did in three weeks of 1940? Patton was a good general, but he wasn't a superman and he met PLENTY of resistance from the Germans. --[[User:SamRSC|SamRSC]] 11:57, 18 November 2011 (EST)

== Eastern Europe/Patton AGAIN ==

"General Patton could have taken all of Eastern Europe from the Germans" With one army? Do you have ANY idea how much Wehrmacht strength remained operational in Germany, never mind the Soviet Army? Zhukov used three times Patton's strength to break through the Seelow Heights alone, and that was just one of the three Fronts in the Berlin area, never mind the rest of eastern Europe. To say that Patton could have defeated them alone is verging on delusional. --[[User:SamRSC|SamRSC]] 12:08, 18 November 2011 (EST)

== el Alamein ==

"in May 1943 General Dwight Eisenhower led the Allies to a victory against the feared Afrika Korps"

The Afrika Korps was already retreating when Eisenhower arrived in Africa. The majority of Allied troops in North Africa were British and Commonwealth. --[[User:SamRSC|SamRSC]] 12:19, 18 November 2011 (EST)

== Pearl Harbor ==

"the United States had a good radar system that should have been able to predict the attack an hour before it happened"

The United States had a single radar station in Hawaii and it wasn't operational; the crew were still being trained. They DID detect the attack (minutes before it happened - the radar range was only 50 miles or so) but badly trained officers thought it was a returning flight of B-17s.

As a history lesson on WW2 this just doesn't cut it. It is riddled with errors and omissions. --[[User:SamRSC|SamRSC]] 12:25, 18 November 2011 (EST)

Talk:World History Lecture Twelve

2011-11-18T17:19:52Z

SamRSC: /* el Alamein */ new section

Talk:World History Lecture Twelve

2011-11-18T17:08:53Z

SamRSC: /* Eastern Europe/Patton AGAIN */ new section

Talk:World History Lecture Twelve

2011-11-18T16:57:57Z

SamRSC: /* Allied advance/Patton again */ new section

Talk:World History Lecture Twelve

2011-11-18T16:55:10Z

SamRSC: /* Patton... */

Talk:World History Lecture Twelve

2011-11-18T16:54:53Z

SamRSC: /* Patton... */ new section

The paragraph "Victory" reads like the USA won the 2.WW all on theire own.
The US armed forces only lost about 170.000 men in europe. If you compare that to the 13.000.000 soldiers, who died fighting for the soviet union, this is hardly anything.
The USA might have done a big chunk of the work, when it comes to financial help for the the allies, but claiming that American soldiers defeated Germany without mentioning all the other nations lossing millions of lives in the struggle against the third reich, is just wrong! - [[User:MolotoK|MolotoK]] 14:27, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Italy ==
'' In October 1922, the Fascists or “Black Shirts” protested in Rome, demanding that King Victor Emmanuel abdicate in favor of Mussolini. The king did step down and Mussolini became Il Duce, the leader of Italy.''

This is incorrect. The March on Rome did not seek the abdication of Victor Emmanuel, nor did he abdicate; but he did makle Mussolini head of government. VEII was still on the throne and dismissed Mussolini in 1943. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 09:55, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== China ==

''In 1937, Japan invaded China, and Japan invaded northern and central China. It sacked the Chinese capital of Nanjing, killing thousands of soldiers and civilians. Jiang Jieshi fled to the west while Mao Zedong’s guerilla fighters stayed to combat the Japanese.''

Tut, tut, tut. I'm surprised at you of all people peddling this line. That the CCP stood and fought the Japanese while the Nationalists either fled or held back waiting for the post-war conflict is a staplke of Communist historiography. Objective assessments have found that both Communist and Nationalist forces fought bravely against the Japanese (there were Nationalist guerillas as well as 'conventional' forces), with successes and failures, but that the Nationalists were more successful and more active than the 'conventional wisdom' has it and the Communists less so. The Communists were just better at getting their message across. There was also an element of both sides holding back forces to face each other rather than the Japanese - ''vide'' the New Fourth Army incident of 1941. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 10:03, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

==Britain not England==
We live in the United Kingdom. Occasionally, it is called Britain. "England" however, is merely one part of the union, and is incorrect. I don't refer to the US as Texas, although sometimes it seems like it. [[User:KarlJaeger|KarlJaeger]] 06:39, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

==George Orwell==
While George Orwell WAS fighting on the side of the republican government, he wasn't fighting for them. He was a member of the socialist POUM (Workers' Party for Marxist unification) militia. the Communists who had power in the Republican government were Stalinists and were therefore against the POUM who was more aligned with Trotsky. the fighting referred to here was between the Republican government and the communists on one side, and the anarchists and anti-stalin POUM on the other. so while Orwell did fight against the Communists, it was not on the side of the government.

--[[User:DaveClark|Dave Clark]]

== WWII and Korean War ==
Germany declared war on the U.S., not the other way around.

I agree with MolotoK - you say "just as the American soldiers had defeated Germany in World War I, the Americans did it again," but hardly mention the four straight years of fighting on the Eastern front, where most of the German army was. You make it seem as if George Patton single-handedly won World War II.

"General MacArthur wanted to defeat them also, but President Truman refused and fired MacArthur." This should probably be clarified to point out that MacArthur wanted to expand the war into a general nuclear confrontation, and then was publicly insubordinate, it's a bit misleading.

--[[User:CWaddell|CWaddell]] 22:32, 23 February 2009 (EST)

== Mistakes ==

*You seem to suggest that the Soviet Union conquered Finland, in fact they annexed just a few border regions.
*The British did not fortify the Maginot Line, that was solely the job of the French.
*You should specify that the Vichy regime controlled only part of France that was not directly occupied by Germany.
*The Free French continued to fight beyond the liberation of Paris, your wording implies they simply stopped at this point.
*Operation Sea lion was the name of the proposed invasion of Britain, not the bombing beforehand, and it was of course never put into action.
*I think you oversimplify the invasions of the Balkans and Greece when you say that Germany ‘simply invaded them and conquered them’
*You call the Soviet Army the ‘most vicious’ without anything to support such an assertion.
*You say ‘Russians never surrender’, whilst of course in the Leningrad case in particular they showed extreme resilience, masses of Russian POWs were taken during the war.
*Mengele’s Ph.D was not based on Darwinian Evolution.
*You fail to mention some of the key events in the intelligence war, the capture of Enigma machines and codes of which there are several examples.
*Your claims about Peral Harbour being known about have only some truth to them. Certainly there were many signs that should have been picked up on, but they were not. This was largely due to mistakes lower down the chain of command. If I remember rightly the raid was picked up on radar but was wrongly assumed by some/someone to have been a group of US planes.
*I think your claim about the Coral Sea is slightly wrong. It was the first naval battle when the opposing ships never sighted each other, but carrier planes had been used in earlier months.
*You also fail to mention a key intelligence trick the US used in order to determine that an attack on Midway was about to take place.
*You seem to imply that the US forces were involved in the Battle of El Alamein, which is incorrect.
*You seem to have some rather dubious criticisms of Truman, the fact that he enjoyed playing cards is completely irrelevant to anything else in the lecture, and to say he ws out of his depth seems to be more your personal opinion than the general consensus amongst historians.
*Your statement “Just as the American soldiers had defeated Germany in World War I, the Americans did it again” seems to omit any reference to the huge sacrifices made by the other Allies, especially the Soviet Union.
*Operation Overlord was the name for the invasion of Normandy and the establishment of a foothold, not a catch-all term for liberating the whole of continental Europe.
*D-Day was the largest amphibious invasion of all time, but not the largest ever invasion.
*”There were so many ships and people in the ocean that it obscured the water below” is more a poetic description than a fact, as should be clarified.
*You also clearly state that the Americans overpowerd the D-day defenders, without mentioning that of the 5 landing beaches 2 were taken by the British and 1 by the Canadians.
*You fail to mention the distinctive tactics used by Patton which played the greatest role in his success.
*You very much oversimplify the German resistance by saying they were simply routed everywhere.
*Patton did not simply ‘roll through France, Belgium, Luxembourg etc’, especially since his line of advance was south of that. It was only with the Battle of the Bulge that he moved north.
*You completely fail to mention any other commanders, and omit massive operations such as Marketgarden.
*It was the Free French forces who originally entered the city, not the Americans.
*You vastly oversimplify the implications of allowing Patton to continue, which would have essentially led to war with the Soviet Union.
*The Enola Gay was the name of one specific plane that dropped the 1st atomic bomb, not the name of all the planes involved.
*Josef Mengele did not simply flee to Brazil, in fact he did not do so until 1949.
*You fail to mention the US opposition to Soviet help against Japan, and imply Roosevelt was completely for it.
*The Berlin airlift began in June 1948 and ran into 1949, not 1949 – 1950 as you claim.
*You seem to imply that Kennedy was somehow lazy or negligent regarding the building of the wall. Although nothing practical was done, it was not really feasible for the US to actively oppose the wall’s construction, with actual intervention surely leading to war.
*You seem to suggest the development of ICBMs somehow helped the development of spying, which makes little sense.
*The U2 spy plane was shot down and did not simply ‘fall to earth’.
*You fail to mention that the pilot was released as part of a prisoner swap.
*You seem to imply that Truman stopped MacArthur from achieving victory in the Korean War. MacArthur was fired because he wanted to use nuclear weapons against China!
*Your statement that China is completely communist is not true, China is actually quite open to the free market these days and becoming more so. It is almost certainly true that there is no such thing as a ‘true communist’ country since none have ever lived up to Marx’s actual aims.

*I would also add that 'England' should read 'UK', through normally Britain will suffice. To simply refer to England downplays the contribution of the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish.

These are just the ones where I could actually identify factual errors, and there may be others. In general you seem to oversimplify non-American activities, particularly in WWII. Although I respect the fact that this is predominantly a US resource it is a World History course. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 17:23, 24 February 2009 (EST)

I particularly agree with the statement regarding the Soviet Union. Consider the number of troops that the Soviet Union lost, something along the lines of 13 million! From the perspective of a World History course, yes, the United States' role in World War II was very significant in bolstering Western European nations' morale, but in terms of actual combat World War II as a whole was primarily a battle between Germany and the Soviet Union. This idea of a World History course could be very helpful to many people, but not if it distorts history through a pro-America lens. I love this country, too, but I love it enough that I can consider it great without overstating its influence. [[User:Alphanumeric1|Alphanumeric1]] 00:23, 30 December 2010 (EST)

== Specific Factual Errors ==

Specific Factual Errors with no room for interpretation:

-The Italian Conquest of Ethiopia took until 1936 (war began in 35, continued through beginning of next year).

-The discussion of the formation of the Axis Powers is a bit off. Germany/Italy signed a treaty in Oct. 1936 and Germany/Japan in November 1936, but the three were not joined as one until Nov. 1937.

-The Russians only took some border territory from Finland, not the entire country.

-The Germans took control of northern France, and ''Southern France'' became the Vichy government.

-Operation Sea Lion was the plan to invade England. Operation Eagle was the aerial campaign.

-Operation Overlord refers merely to the invasion of Europe, not the entire retaking.

-Hitler killed himself on April 30, 1945. May 7 was the signing of the Surrender, and May 8 was the end of operations, or what is celebrated as V-E day.

-Yugoslavia was thrown out of the Comintern by Stalin in 1948; it was not "controlled by the Soviet Union"

-The Berlin Airlift was from June 25, 1948 to September 30, 1949.

--[[User:CWaddell|CWaddell]] 18:54, 24 February 2009 (EST)

== D-Day ==

The US 1st Army landed 73,000 men on D-Day. The British 2nd Army landed over 83,000. In terms of achieving the D-Day goals the best results were achieved at Juno Beach (Canadian/British) and Gold Beach (British.) The worst progress was at Omaha Beach (US,) where the D-Day objectives were not achieved until D+3. To describe the landings as "the Americans overpowered them and started moving through France" is frankly nonsense. --[[User:SamRSC|SamRSC]] 11:51, 18 November 2011 (EST)

== Patton... ==

"...was the only Allied leader feared by the Germans." I can answer that absurd claim with a single word: Zhukov. --[[User:SamRSC|SamRSC]] 11:54, 18 November 2011 (EST)

== Patton... ==

"...was the only Allied leader feared by the Germans." I can answer that absurd claim with a single word: Zhukov. --[[User:SamRSC|SamRSC]] 11:54, 18 November 2011 (EST)

Talk:World History Lecture Twelve

2011-11-18T16:54:44Z

SamRSC: /* Patton... */ new section

Talk:World History Lecture Twelve

2011-11-18T16:51:45Z

SamRSC: /* D-Day */ new section