Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Classroom prayer

2011-05-16T02:51:12Z

Aleksyevt: /* Students Benefit? */ new section

== Liberal bias? ==

Since when is ''describing'' the topic "liberal bias". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
:Phillip, it kinda stuns me that you would ask this question. This is Conservapedia, a wiki where you are a senior administrator, and it's been clear for over a year now that liberal bias is whatever ASchlafly says it is. I mean, what did you think? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:38, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
::Oh... Phillip. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 02:00, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Not sure what these comments refer to, but the substance of this topic needs to be clear and up-front, not relegated to an obscure link at the end that most people will not bother clicking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:55, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
:It refers to the fact that in your eagerness to spin, you seem to have eliminating any explanation of the actual topic of the article.
:I understand it wasn't as ideological as the current version, but what part of the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Classroom_prayer&oldid=464012 collaborative, previous version] was liberally biased, specifically?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 00:14, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:: It obscured the truth. Many people could read the version you reference and come away completely clueless about how ''classroom prayer does not exist due to censorship of it.''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:17, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, okay, but people can read your version and come away completely clueless about what classroom prayer is. Can you at least re-add the definition of the term and the description of its common manifestations, please?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 00:24, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Andy, could there be some kind of compromise? Where the current version is kept - detailing the truth about censorship, etc. - but the explanatory paragraphy defining the topic (from the previous version) is at least added at some point in the article. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 02:00, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:It's self-evident what "classroom prayer" is. If anyone feels otherwise, then feel free to add a footnote in the entry defining it as group prayer in a classroom.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:20, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:: There's two problems with this.
::* First, it's not self-evident, especially to people not intimately familiar with the situation in the United States. It could be any one ''or more'' of the following (and this list may not be exhaustive):
::** A time for students to pray silently in a classroom.
::** A student praying out loud in a classroom.
::** A teacher praying out loud in a classroom.
::** A chaplain or religious education teacher praying out loud in a classroom.
::** A group praying together in a classroom, led by a student.
::** A group praying together in a classroom, led by a teacher.
::** A group praying together in a classroom, led by a chaplain or religious education teacher.
:: * Second, being self-evident is not a reason for not explaining it, just like dictionaries don't skip words that everyone should know and American encyclopedias still list the capital of America even though everyone knows what it is.
::The description should be at the beginning, even if it's a brief one and there's a more detailed one later on. I've often criticised Wikipedia's ID article for not being an article ''about'' ID, but about ''what's wrong with'' ID (supposedly). We should not repeat the same mistake. Encyclopedia articles should start of explaining what something is first.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:03, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Philip, your multiple variations have insignificant differences. All your variations are prohibited in government schools, and censored by [[liberals]].

::: If you'd like to propose a concise definition for a footnote, as I have above, then I'd be in favor of that. But I'm against anything that obscures, displaces, or dilutes the more fundamental point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:46, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I have to say that it seems a bit strange to me to relegate a description of the actual subject of the article to a footnote, while the entirety of the body of the article is devoted to ideological argument. But I guess if you're willing to unilaterally overrule others and really don't see the problem, there's not much we can do. You own this site, after all.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 12:51, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::The primary job of an encyclopedia is to explain ''what'' something is, not the current political situation surrounding it. while all that information is necessary, it should come second to a clear explanation of the subject. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:00, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: No, they are not insignificant differences at all. Even some liberals here have expressed a willingness to allow the first one, for example, and is the first one ''really'' illegal (in the U.S.)? Also, I'm pretty sure that although a teacher leading prayer would not be allowed here in Oz (although possibly not actually illegal), a religious education teacher would be allowed to.
::::: Also, putting it in a footnote is not what any other encyclopaedia would do, and does not answer the point of my analogy with Wikipedia's ID article.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:15, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

In addition to inserting a typo, the edit that was reverted also included non-encyclopedic bias like saying this is "controversial".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:15, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:So, you could've fixed the typo. On to your second point, you could've removed that instead of removing the entire block. Furthermore, if there is controversy over it, as is shown by the article's mentions of court cases over the subject, it is controversial by definition. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 14:17, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
::If you have no further objections, I will reinsert the block with the changes you've... Without the things you're not a big fan of. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 14:19, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
::: I agree -it seems remarkable to deny that the issue has been controversial when that's the entire thesis of the article, no? Even for those who fully support classroom prayer, they are confronted with the concept of controversy four words into the article. It is clearly a controversial issue, so say so. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:20, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Saying something is "controversial" is a [[liberal]] way to attempt to legitimize opposition. Such claim has no place in a well-written encyclopedia devoted to presenting the truth.

:::: The reverted definition of "classroom prayer" was also inaccurate. Classroom prayer is exactly what its terms mean: prayer in the classroom.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:25, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Saying it's controversial is a way to legitimize ''your'' side? You might want to reword that.

:::::Alright. I assume hallways, gymnasiums, cafeterieas, and other areas of the school are therefore exempt from this definition? I'm only trying to help your side here, dude. No need to get defensive. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 14:26, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Why can't an encyclopedia that looks to present the truth acknowledge the controversy in some issues between different sides without endorsing any of them? If there was no controversy we'd either have prayer in public schools or not, with no complaints about the status quo from anyone. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:33, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "controversial" - it is a term used simply to describe an issue where there is controversy, and in itself carries no judgement either way. Controversy either exists, or it doesn't. Affirmative Action is controversial, gun control is controversial, abortion is controversial, displaying the Ten Commandments in a Courthouse is controversial, polygamy is controversial, teen sex education is controversial, versions of the Bible are controversial, the Latin Mass is controversial - almost anything can be said to be controversial if there are loud voices in opposition. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:37, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Saying something is "controversial" is meaningless and only designed to confuse or legitimize opposition. Some people think that it is "controversial" whether Jesus actually existed. Would any credible scholar begin an entry about Jesus by saying His existence is controversial? Of course not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:43, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::Would any credible scholar begin an entry about Jesus without first describing who and what Jesus is? [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 14:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::Well, since a search on the word "Controversy" within Conservapedia returns eight articles, I guess there's some work to be done cleaning up all that liberal bias. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:51, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Sorry but saying the word is"designed to confuse or legitimize opposition" is completely factually incorrect. Take an argument in which no [[liberals]] have an opinion - Young Earth Creationism vs. Old Earth Creationism - neither side is liberal, but is there controversy? Is there controversy over the location of the Ark? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 15:03, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: There's even controversy about who really wrote the book of Revelation, John of Patmos or another John. Maybe in your world the word "controversial" is a meaningless tool used by liberals to confuse, but everywhere else it has a pretty basic definition. -- Aaronp

:::::::::::: You've shown us liberal uses of the word to try to legitimize a liberal view, now let's see if you use the word to discredit a liberal view. How about a prominent liberal saying that the [[theory of evolution]] is "controversial"? Does liberal Wikipedia describe it as "controversial"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:20, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::To be blunt, Andy, you're not getting it: Controversial is not a word used to legtitimize either side. Now then, if you're so sorely unsatisfied with my attempt to put the horse before the cart, perhaps you have an introductory paragraph in mind that describes the issue? If you do, I'd like to see it. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 15:22, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: No, Danny, you're in denial. I answered your questions, now you answer mine: Does liberal Wikipedia call the theory of evolution "controversial" in its introductory paragraphs? I haven't even bothered to look, and I await your answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:27, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::Does the use of the word in Wikipedia for a specific article have anything to do with whether it has a legitimate purpose here? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:42, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: You continue to dodge and weave, but you won't answer the question I asked you - is there "controversy" between the YEC and OEC camps? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 15:47, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

(Attempt at unindenting again) Actually Andy, I've asked three questions and made a variety of statements. You've yet to answer a single one my of my questions. I suggest doing so before you demand I respond to your question. However, I will respond nonetheless: What do Wikipedia's word choices have to do with it? You've said time and time again that this is not Wikipedia and that WP policies do not apply here. Had you not, I could have pulled out WP:POINT on your reversion of my legitimate statements.

In conclusion, Andy, it would be best if you exit this tangent and return to the original issue: How in the seven layers of the Stygian wastes is Classroom Prayer not controversial if there are two sides battling valiantly for their view to rule? [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 15:57, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) In all seriousness, ASchlafly, is there a context in which it would be appropriate to tell a student that topic "X" is controversial? There are many examples where the term applies without it having to be about confusing or legitimizing the opposition. Two quick examples - "Should the Mets fire Willie Randolph?", and "Did the use of poor-quality steel make a difference in the sinking of the Titanic?". Also, what would be the proper word to describe many of the debate topics here on CP, like "which day is the Sabbath Day?", where reasonable people disagree? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:15, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:If saying an article is controversial is a liberal trick than how come at the top of the talk page of the Barack Obama article there is a note stating "Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism" [[User:ClydeMorris|ClydeMorris]]

== Reversion Explained ==

I don't think Britain mandates ''classroom'' prayer. I have an open mind about this but would be very surprised if there is any evidence to support the insertion. Hence the reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:55, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'classroom' prayer, but all schools in England & Wales have a legal obligation to provide "a daily act of collective worship" that is ""wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character" [http://www.humanism.org.uk/education/parents/worship-your-rights] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3646389.stm] [http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/management/atoz/c/collectiveworship/]

:"Classroom prayer" means, obviously, "prayer in the classroom." No, Britain does not have that or require it. The links you provide, even if adhered to, would be a general prayer-around-the-flagpole sort of thing. It doesn't mean classroom prayer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

::Well then, given your definition of Classroom prayer, then classroom prayer is mandatory in England & Wales, as the law requires that the service take place within the school which, given the numbers involved (the average secondary school in England & Wales has between 1000 and 2000 pupils), almost always means that the service takes place in the theatre (a classroom for Drama). The service consists of:

*a lesson drawn from the bible
*the singing of one or more hymns
*communal prayer

with such services lasting 20 mins or so. The service will be given by either the head of the school or the head of the respective years attending the service, depending on how many simultaneous services the school holds. I know this because like nearly every other person in England and Wales, when I attended school I had to attend these services twice a week, as required by law. The one thing these services aren't are 'prayer-around-the-flagpole' sorts of things, as there aren't that many schools in England & Wales that have accessible flagpoles, and nobody would want to stand around one for 20mins in inclement weather whilst the service is being carried out.--[[User:DanHutchin|DanHutchin]] 10:14, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

:Dan, you're far too literal. By "prayer-around-the-flagpole sort of thing" I obviously mean prayer that is separate and removed from classroom instruction. Your further posting confirms that fact. There is no praying at the beginning of a class, as [[Isaac Newton]] would do to inspire his scientific discoveries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:25, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

::No, you're right that there isn't prayer at the beginning of every lesson, it would be massively disruptive to the lessons and schooling if there were prayers 8-10 times a day (consider, before prayers could start those not involved because they had a different faith would have to be removed from the classroom, the prayer would have to be held, then those outside the classroom would have to take their places again. As a standard lesson in secondary school is 30 mins long you would lose at least 5 mins of that lesson time on each and every lesson). Instead there is prayer, sermon and hymns at the beginning of every schoolday, a far more sensible solution.--[[User:DanHutchin|DanHutchin]] 12:20, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

==Wondering about something==
The article says ''"Most private schools, even religious schools, imitate government and do not allow classroom prayer. Some Christian institutions, including many Catholic schools, do allow teacher-led prayers at special school events, such as school assemblies, school sporting events, and graduation exercises, but rarely allow it in the classroom."'' I wonder if this is a regional thing? I have had kids in Catholic school, and they prayed often. They prayed at the start of school, and at the start of each class (so 7-8 times a day), and they often held mass on holy days. Every assembly and meeting open with prayer. The students pray before lunch. This is true for many of the schools in my area, including a Protestant school I'm familiar with. Even the local religious preschools pray at mealtime. Are there areas where this is not the case? Do we have enough information to generalize one way or the other? I'd love to hear from others what the situation is in their area. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 13:00, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

:[[Classroom prayer]] is very rare in formal school, even in Christian or Catholic schools (both of which, by the way, are diminishing in market share). Often people opposed to it confuse a prayer outside of the classroom, as at an outdoor or assembly event, with classroom prayer. Classroom prayer is significant because it recognizes the connection between knowledge and faith, and liberals fight tooth and nail to censor it. Thank God for [[homeschooling]], which has it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:16, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

Its not the teachers place to lead classroom prayer, it amounts to indoctrination into the teachers faith. Would you accept an athiest sitting before your children and tellng them christianity is false? For those who wish to pray nothing should be done to stop them, but teachers should always keep their religiouse (and political) views private from their pupils.--[[User:Smottram101|Smottram101]] 19:12, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

: The content and spelling of your statement looks to me like that of an atheist. Suppose everyone in the class wants to pray. Atheists still object, because they're really motivated by a desire to censor expressions of [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:53, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

::Athiests are bad spellers? [[User:HectorJ|HectorJ]] 22:00, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:::Atheists tend to have slightly higher math/science skills -- the "scientific wannabes" -- but lower verbal skills. When someone misspells "religious", as Smottram101 did above, it's a telltale sign.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

So i added an e at the end of religious, i'm an athiest? That generalisation is stupider than me miss spelling religious in the first place, there are probably as many exeptions to that claim as there are people on the planet. My point was that it is the role of a teacher to make their students aware of different views, and allow them to decide. When a teacher is leading prayer, with the pupils having to take part or not, they put their view first. It would be just as bad for a teacher to prevent their puils from praying if they chose to do so. Allowing room for religion in schools, but not having any particular view be officially sanctioned, is the way it worked at my school, and everyone was perfectly happy with the policy.
--[[User:Smottram101|Smottram101]] 12:58, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

"It is the role of a teacher to make their students aware of different views, and allow them to decide."
Do you think schools should present to their students differing views on the origin of life, particularly intelligent design? --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:14, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

Yes, different views on the origin on life should be presented, how exactly i'm not sure, that'd be something for the school to decide, but they certainly should be covered.
--[[User:Smottram101|Smottram101]] 11:37, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

: You never answered my point: "Suppose everyone in the class wants to pray." Are you going to?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:25, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

No i wouldn't, but i wouldn't do anything to stop them from praying either, and would remain respectful and quiet while they did so. I don't want to censor anyones faith anymore than i want anyone to force a faith upon me.
--[[User:Smottram101|Smottram101]] 12:48, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

: Then you're fine with classroom prayer when everyone in the class wants to pray?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:29, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

I have no problem with students choosing to pray at any time they wish, so long as it doesn't disturb lessons. My objection is if someone is forced into prayer, or if a teacher is leading it, a teacher should keep their religious views private. There are obvious exceptions, like religious schools or church services, but for the most part a teacher should avoid showing their religious views.
--[[User:Smottram101|Smottram101]] 19:30, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

:You seem to be back-pedaling now. The reality is that atheists demand censorship of prayer in the classroom, even if everyone wants to do it. The reason is that atheists want to segregate faith from knowledge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:27, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

I have been pondering about something recently. At least three referances that I have seen on this article ( 4-6 to be specific) are blogs written by Conservatives and Christians. I was wondering if we could get someone with sociological credit or someone who works primarily in Socialogy, psychiatry, psychology, or any such area. Because if referances should be used, shouldn't they have factual proof to back it up?
-Genuine question from the user of the name of Tony411

:"Sociology", not "socialogy"; "references", not "referances". And please be substantive in your edits. If you dispute a statement, then please address it substantively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:48, 12 January 2011 (EST)

==The human rights aspect==

I deleted the [[:category:Human rights]] tag, because it implies that "Teacher-led, state-sanctioned prayer" was a human right - or a matter of [[human rights]]. I think this obscures the issue at best, and could even be a liberal caricature of conservative positions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:11, 21 January 2011 (EST)

:I'm not really sure what you are trying to say. But you're the expert, not me :)--[[User:AnthonyDW|AnthonyDW]] 13:13, 21 January 2011 (EST)

::Before applying the tag, I'd like to see the article clarify just what "[[classroom prayer]]" means. In general, it ought to mean ''any prayer in a classroom''. As such, it should be covered by 2 parts of America's [[First Amendment]]: [[freedom of speech]], as well as [[freedom of religion]].

::On the other hand, state-sanctioned prayer implies that students might have to say "Amen" to a prayer which violates the [[Establishment Clause]]. Suppose a Muslim teacher prays an Islamic prayer, and requires each student to kneel prostrate on a carpet facing Mecca? (An extreme case, admittedly, but what I'm trying to say is that I don't think it's commonly held by conservatives that '''all''' teachers have an unlimited right to "lead their classes" in prayer. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:19, 21 January 2011 (EST)

== A right? ==

Is classroom prayer a right? I believe that prayer, education, and free speech are rights, and Classroom prayer is merely the union of those three rights, so logically is it not a right (despite what the [[Liberal]]s want) as well? --[[User:AnthonyDW|AnthonyDW]] 13:12, 21 January 2011 (EST)

== Students Benefit? ==

Please provide references for the line "Christian homeschooling classes, in contrast, often begin with a classroom prayer and the students benefit enormously from it." or delete it. Stating something without proof is not appropriate for a site that claims to be trustworthy.

Talk:Agnosticism

2011-05-16T02:46:36Z

Aleksyevt: /* Agnostics and Obesity? */ new section

==Timothy McVeigh?==

Surely we can agree that having a murderer as the single only example of a famous agnostic is uneccessarily perjorative?

If I could add to the page I would add some decent people who were agnostics. [[User:DenaChem|DenaChem]] 16:39, 17 May 2010 (EDT)

''Agnostics differ from regular atheists in that they do not deny God's existence''

I hesitate to get involved in theological debate here; still less to make changes without agreement, but I should like to suggest that the word 'regular' be deleted from the above sentence. As written it suggests that Agnostics are not 'regular' atheists - ie, that they are some sort of (irregular) atheist. As an agnostic (type 2) myself I'd say that is not the case. The rest of the article makes it quite clear. Agnostics are not atheists, regular or otherwise. [[User:Alba|Alba]] 18:13, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Actually it is possible to be an agnostic atheist (or an agnostic theist). Agnostic atheism simply means that while you can't know for certain that there is a god (or gods), you choose not to believe in them. Agnostic theism is the opposite - you don't know if there are any deities out there, but you choose to believe in them.

== "God's" ==

''"Agnosticism is the belief that '''God's''' existence or non existence is unknowable."''

Isn't agnosticism the belief that '''a''' God's existence is unknowable? This article, in my opinion, sounds like it's saying agnosticism is the belief that solely the existence of the Christian God is unknowable.

Could the "God's" be changed to ''"the existence of a diety"'' or something like that?
--[[User:Funnny|Funnny]] 21:49, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:God, with a capital 'G', refers to the real God. Christians aren't the only ones who write the name of God that way. It differs from, say, a belief that the 'golden calf' (a god) isn't knowable. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:58, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

::That is the normal way for monotheistic religions, but there is no specific singular deity for polytheistic religions. God should be changed to "god or god's" because this would incorporate religion as a whole and not divide it into the one type. [[User:LearnJjjones|Jjjones]] 21:41, 29 January 2008(EDT)

I think they were referring to any higher power. {{unsigned|Mjac1103}}

Why is this page locked???
Would like to add:
"

I agree with Jjjones. Agnosticism says that the existence of ''any'' deity, whether it's Allah, the Christian god, or Zeus himself is not knowable. So please be more specific and say "god or gods".

==See Also==
*[[Religion]]
*[[Ignosticism]]
*[[God]]
Etcetera..."
[[User:Acronym|Acronym]]

== The charity subject ==

''Agnostics in the United States give significantly less to charity than theists.''

This can't be verified. There are lots of agnostics and atheists who donate to charity because its the right thing to do. I think this line is judgemental, presumptuous. and should be removed. [[user:JSJames|JSJames]] 7:23pm 22 September 2008
: It "can't" be verified? Why not? And did you look at the linked article to see that it ''is'' verified? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

== I should stop editing. ==

Because my edits will inevitably be reverted. Does nobody understand that an atheist is not an agnostic? It even says so in the article.I want to make constructive edits but I am thwarted every time.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 16:34, 22 November 2008 (EST)

:I am interested in the distinction between agnostic and atheist. And as a senior admin, I can protect you from being thwarted on this. Shall we work together? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:35, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::Actually he objects because the title of the linked article is atheism and whatever, however, I encourage everyone to read the first line of that article where clearly states it is about both atheists and agnostics. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:41, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::I would very much like that, Ed. The commonly accepted definition of atheist is "one who actively believes that there is no God". An agnostic is, in general, someone who is unsure of the existence of a God. To an atheist, God can never reveal himself because he does not exist. To an agnostic, God can reveal himself, but simply has not done so yet. Agnostics usually subscribe to agnosticism out of unwillingness to acknowledge the superiority of one religion over another. For example, an agnostic might find Christianity appealing, and express a desire to follow the Christian faith, but live among Sikhs and wonder if the Sikh faith is correct. Agnostics may well, and often do, follow the combined teachings of multiple religions and form a perhaps greater sense of morality than any single religion provides. This may also be associated with a greater tendency towards libertarianism, but depending on the circumstances it might also lead to strong conservatism, whereas an atheist is not very likely to subscribe to conservatism even when the circumstances are contradictory. More on this later, maybe, but I do await your reply.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 16:45, 22 November 2008 (EST)

I completely agree with JZim. --[[User:CC|CC]] 19:42, 03 December 2008 (Est)

== Agnostics and Obesity? ==

I'm not sure that this information is correct. You can type in "religious effects on obesity" on Google and get a number of articles that say the opposite of the Gallup poll cited in this article. Here is one: http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2011/03/religious-young-adults-obese.html

I'm not saying that the information in this article is wrong, but I think it would be more helpful to include some contradicting articles.

Talk:Agnosticism

2011-05-16T02:43:56Z

Aleksyevt: /* Timothy McVeigh? */

Talk:Agnosticism

2011-05-16T02:40:10Z

Aleksyevt: /* "God's" */

==Timothy McVeigh?==

Surely we can agree that having a murderer as the single only example of a famous agnostic is uneccessarily perjorative?

If I could add to the page I would add some decent people who were agnostics. [[User:DenaChem|DenaChem]] 16:39, 17 May 2010 (EDT)

''Agnostics differ from regular atheists in that they do not deny God's existence''

I hesitate to get involved in theological debate here; still less to make changes without agreement, but I should like to suggest that the word 'regular' be deleted from the above sentence. As written it suggests that Agnostics are not 'regular' atheists - ie, that they are some sort of (irregular) atheist. As an agnostic (type 2) myself I'd say that is not the case. The rest of the article makes it quite clear. Agnostics are not atheists, regular or otherwise. [[User:Alba|Alba]] 18:13, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== "God's" ==

''"Agnosticism is the belief that '''God's''' existence or non existence is unknowable."''

Isn't agnosticism the belief that '''a''' God's existence is unknowable? This article, in my opinion, sounds like it's saying agnosticism is the belief that solely the existence of the Christian God is unknowable.

Could the "God's" be changed to ''"the existence of a diety"'' or something like that?
--[[User:Funnny|Funnny]] 21:49, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:God, with a capital 'G', refers to the real God. Christians aren't the only ones who write the name of God that way. It differs from, say, a belief that the 'golden calf' (a god) isn't knowable. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:58, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

::That is the normal way for monotheistic religions, but there is no specific singular deity for polytheistic religions. God should be changed to "god or god's" because this would incorporate religion as a whole and not divide it into the one type. [[User:LearnJjjones|Jjjones]] 21:41, 29 January 2008(EDT)

I think they were referring to any higher power. {{unsigned|Mjac1103}}

Why is this page locked???
Would like to add:
"

I agree with Jjjones. Agnosticism says that the existence of ''any'' deity, whether it's Allah, the Christian god, or Zeus himself is not knowable. So please be more specific and say "god or gods".

==See Also==
*[[Religion]]
*[[Ignosticism]]
*[[God]]
Etcetera..."
[[User:Acronym|Acronym]]

== The charity subject ==

''Agnostics in the United States give significantly less to charity than theists.''

This can't be verified. There are lots of agnostics and atheists who donate to charity because its the right thing to do. I think this line is judgemental, presumptuous. and should be removed. [[user:JSJames|JSJames]] 7:23pm 22 September 2008
: It "can't" be verified? Why not? And did you look at the linked article to see that it ''is'' verified? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

== I should stop editing. ==

Because my edits will inevitably be reverted. Does nobody understand that an atheist is not an agnostic? It even says so in the article.I want to make constructive edits but I am thwarted every time.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 16:34, 22 November 2008 (EST)

:I am interested in the distinction between agnostic and atheist. And as a senior admin, I can protect you from being thwarted on this. Shall we work together? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:35, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::Actually he objects because the title of the linked article is atheism and whatever, however, I encourage everyone to read the first line of that article where clearly states it is about both atheists and agnostics. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:41, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::I would very much like that, Ed. The commonly accepted definition of atheist is "one who actively believes that there is no God". An agnostic is, in general, someone who is unsure of the existence of a God. To an atheist, God can never reveal himself because he does not exist. To an agnostic, God can reveal himself, but simply has not done so yet. Agnostics usually subscribe to agnosticism out of unwillingness to acknowledge the superiority of one religion over another. For example, an agnostic might find Christianity appealing, and express a desire to follow the Christian faith, but live among Sikhs and wonder if the Sikh faith is correct. Agnostics may well, and often do, follow the combined teachings of multiple religions and form a perhaps greater sense of morality than any single religion provides. This may also be associated with a greater tendency towards libertarianism, but depending on the circumstances it might also lead to strong conservatism, whereas an atheist is not very likely to subscribe to conservatism even when the circumstances are contradictory. More on this later, maybe, but I do await your reply.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 16:45, 22 November 2008 (EST)

I completely agree with JZim. --[[User:CC|CC]] 19:42, 03 December 2008 (Est)

Talk:Same-sex marriage

2011-05-16T02:35:21Z

Aleksyevt: /* It's not your business. */ new section

{{Talk:Same-sex marriage/pov }}

=="The rationale goes like this" is completly wrong==
"The rationale goes like this:

Marriage is good.
No one can criticize what is good.
A same-sex union, defined as marriage, is good.
Therefore, no one can criticize same-sex unions."

That is ''not'' the Liberal rationale for legalizing gay marriage, if that is going to remain there there should be at least a few sources as to which Leberal said that.

The ''actual'' liberal rational:

* Marriage, like '''all''' institutions of the law, should not be defined by ''one'' or ''any'' specefic religion, or religion all together.

* The fact that the legallity of Gay marriage is the debate proves its a matter of law, automatically disqualifing any given religions say on it. ''See also: [[seperation of church and state]]''

* Atheists can and do get married, further proof it isn't a religious establishment.

* A homosexuals person's life has nothing to do with ''yours'', and because homosexuallity does not violate any human rights, ''you'' should not have the right to tell them they cannot get married.

I realize this is conservapedia and you guys would rather have untruthful things that make you sound right, but reality is better than ''sounding'' right if you ask me.

==Bias==
I do not feel the article is from a neutral point of view. This article seems to be obviously against gay marriage. I also propose that the statistics for spousal abuse in heterosexual relationships are put up beside the homosexual statistics for a comparison. I personally believe not allowing homosexual marriage is not allowing equal freedoms for all people. Also I do not think the reason for not allowing gay marriage should be the bible, as not only should there be a complete separation between church and state, but Athiests and Agnostics are not stopped from getting married, neither should homosexuals.[[User:Strata|Strata]] 23:40, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree completely that there is bias here. It's one thing to be against same-sex marriage, but it's ridiculous to insinuate that same-sex marriage as an attack on heterosexual marriage. [[User:Forthewin827|Forthewin827]] 15:22, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. Are opinions like that really necessary? --[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 19:07, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

==Is page protected?==
B/c I wanted to edit it, but I can't.
[[User:Won4tide1|Won4tide1]] 17:41, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, it is. Please post your suggested changes here first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== Addition to Rationale ==

<big>There is another rationale used by proponents of same sex marriage.</big>

Essentially it is as follows: 

Marriage exists as both a religiously and legally defined entity in the United States. 

Marriage confers certain legal benefits upon those married. Additionaly marriage has social value in that it is used as a signifier of individuals' commitment to one another 

There is a legal tradition in this country which holds that sexual orientation is not a valid status upon which one may deny legal rights or protections. 

The refusal to recognize same sex marriage constitutes such a denial of legal rights and protections. Since those in a same sex marriage are, by definition, homosexual- this constitutes a denial of legal rights and protections based upon sexual orientation. 

Refusing to recognize same sex marriages essentially violates long standing legal traditions. 

The most logical remedy to this situation is to allow the recognition of same sex marriages. 

<big>There is also a philosophical justification that same sex marriage does not destroy the institution of marriage in society.</big>

In most religious traditions, marriage exclusively recognizes the sacred bond of love between a man and woman. 

However society has a more general definition of marriage as an institution that recognizes the profound (and one could still say sacred) bond of love existing between two individuals- traditionally a man and woman. 

Recognizing same sex marriage recognizes the legitimacy of the bond of love between same sex partners. 

However the religious definition of marriage is still unique in that it specifically focuses upon the devine blessing of the union between a man and a woman. Thus this traditional sense of marriage retains its unique character. 

I think that it is important to add these rationales because these are the ones that you are most likely to encounter in the discourse on gay marriage. Those looking for information on the subject would be best served by being able to read the most commonly used rationales.

== Adding mores links ==

The article seems fine at this point, but it could use some more links to other Conservapedia articles after the introduction. I thought it was a little odd that editing was disabled in this article, or else I would have added the links myself. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 16:52, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

== What? ==

Why is this marriage in inverted commas (quotes)? And why does it say that the purpose of same-sex marriage is to "destroy the sanctity of marriage"? In what doctrine supporting same sex marriage is that said?
:I think they are saying that that is liberals' true purpose (intention), even if the people supporting same-sex marriage don't actually say it and openly admit it. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 16:50, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

==Supporting Gay Marriage==

By and large proponents of Gay Marriage only support removing the states role in prohibiting marriage; they still cannot force religious institutions to marry homosexuals. In other words, even if the Government deemed gay marriage to be ok, the religious institutions would still have all the power. After all, marriage is a union between a man and a woman under God - Why should the State have its neck involved in that? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:49, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*I agree with you here, Graham. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:27, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*From what I know the proponents of gay Marriage do ''not'' seek to force religion to do ''anything'', and while religious practices may change in the long run just as society changes... In my mind an alternative to gay marriage, a ''better'' alternative (Also since the United States separates church from state and marriage is religious)

Would be civil unions for ANY arrangement, i.e. MM,FF,MF, and make marriage a religious ceremony. Thus any two people could have the legal benefits of marriage, but under legal (state) terminology while if two people want to get married. The local Pastor, Rabbi, or Imam can do that and discriminate in who they partner up.

All these people want is to be happy, part of that is mutual trust and security, and that comes from Civil Unions, Marriage, whatever you want to call it. But seriously, this would work to keep marriage 'sacred' while Homosexuals could unionize with their partner. [[User:Nateland|Nateland]] 19:05, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

The Unitarian church, among others, performs same sex weddings.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:05, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

:I don't get it. People can be friends, with mutual trust and all that. I can even give my unmarried fried a [[power of attorney]] to handle things like me being in a coma and needing decisions about medical care. What does marriage have to do with "legal privileges for adults"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

== This sentence is gramatically wrong... ==

"It is also referred to as "[[homosexuality|gay]] marriage" or "[[homosexuality|homosexual]] marriage", is the official certification in jurisdictions that allow a union between two people of the same sex."

and since I just got yelled at, maybe someone else can fix it. [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 00:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)

==Tremendous pressure... needs revision==
<blockquote>Combined with hate speech rules and hate crime laws, a government certification of "same-sex marriage" will place tremendous pressure on people who criticize homosexuality, oppose the gay agenda, or believe in the sanctity of marriage.[Citation Needed] "How do you know we're not married?" would be the simplest of rejoinders. Or, "How dare you criticize my spouse!" (see fighting words).</blockquote>

Same-sex marriage is already legal in Massachusetts and in several other countries, so if this assertion of "tremendous pressure" is true, it should be easy to find cite-able examples of it. I've had no luck thus far, so perhaps someone else should try... if not, we'll have to remove this section, because the article is seriously weakened by assertions we can't justify. Also, we need a working definition of the sanctity of marriage -- I'm sure that many people, churches, groups, etc. consider same-sex marriage perfectly sanctified, so we need to be more specific. I'm removing the language for now, and please, if you put it back in, clarify what is meant by 'sanctity.' Also, the 'fighting words' link appears to be dead, so I'm removing it.

Cheers!
[[User:Mermaid|Gabe]] 14:58, 13 January 2008 (EST)

==Sauce for you.==
For the homosexual violence statement in the box beneath the spiffy graphic on the upper-right corner of the page: [http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=5a6dc0ec-3807-4f5c-a5ad-c50855986682&k=55181&p=2] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:04, 16 January 2008 (EST)

That article also says that common law relationships (IE live-in but not formally married) are 5 times more likely to experience violence and is the only category seeing growth in violence. Thus, allowing gay marriage would, statistically speaking, reduce domestic violence among homosexual couples. This article actually supports gay marriage from a statistical standpoint....[[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 19:28 16, January 2008 (EST)

:Yeah... But let's ignore the facts. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::What facts? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::What the study shows. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:45, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:Non sequitur. It isn't saying that abusive people who get married will suddenly stop being abusive, which seems to be your argument. A more logical conclusion is that abusive people are less likely to get married in the first place. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)

==Move?==
Seriously, that would be a good idea. It's called same sex marriage throughout the article, why isn't it titled correctly? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:13, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:Yes, no? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== A counterfeit counterfeit ==

The following is unintentionally amusing:

Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family refers to the phrase same-sex 'marriage,' with quotation
marks around the word marriage, to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as
well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that he therefore
believes that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."

Why did the author put quotation marks around the word counterfeits? Is it to call attention to his belief that "Dr." Dobson's views on counterfeits are themselves counterfeit? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:23, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:I see what you're saying, but I think that's just there to show that it's his words, not Conservapedia's. That's something you do with all quotes, agqain, just to show that it's his word(s). --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 13:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Graphic ==

Even if the claim beneath the graphic is true: 1) violence is not a defining characteristic of homosexual marriage--therefore the graphic shouldn't be so prominently displayed here; and 2) the purported cycle of violence is not specific to homosexual relationships--therefore it is inappropriate in an article specifically dedicated to homosexual marriage. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:09, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:I was unaware that "homosexual marriage" had '''any''' defining characteristics. It's only a counterfeit, a sham aimed at destroying real marriage. This article is not "dedicated" to homosexual marriage; rather, it exposed the counterfeiting of marriage which [[gay rights]] activists are using to destroy marriage.

:We have no obligation here to respect sin - don't even try that line of argument. Homosexuality is sinful - and it makes people miserable. Why should we respect it? Do your "respect" the "choice" of adults to have sex with children? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:13, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:: If homosexual marriage is legal somewhere, does it not therefore exist? I fail to see how the argument of respect (which somewhat disingenuously equates homosexuality and pedophilia) has anything to do with whether it exists or not. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:36, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Laws permitting this sham are on the books in various places. But giving one thing the same name as another thing doesn't validate it. Once again, the article is not about homosexuals "marrying" - or should not be.

:::It should be about the laws and their purpose. It should illuminate the goals of the [[gay rights movement]] and compare their reasoning with the reality of their purpose, as well as the effect those laws are having.

:::The pathetic attempt to gain love from a sexual partner of the some gender is at the root of this. As [[Richard Cohen]] pointed out - drawing of course on the work of better-educated scientists like Socarides - it's a [[same-sex attachment disorder]]. And by the way, voting [[homosexuality]] out of the manual of psychiatric disorders doesn't change the fact that it's a disorder and a perversion.

:::Legalizing sin and craziness doesn't make it good, any more than calling spoiled food wholesome. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:11, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

It's really sad to see people like Ed be so bigoted. I take comfort in the fact that by the end of my lifetime, gays will have equal rights.

== move page ==

Can this page be moved to [[Homosexual marriage]], which is a better term for this -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 22:53, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
:Same-sex marriage seems more precise. Bisexual people can marry a person of the same gender, so "Homosexual marriage" is a bit of a misnomer. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 14:21, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

== Out of Date. ==

This article is out of date. Norway allows gay "people" to have equal marriage rights as well. -- Dollfuss.

== I have a question ==

I'm only 16, and maybe there is some sort of generational gap on this issue, but I'm curious to know why people care so much about the homosexual marriage issue? I just haven't ever found the arguments for or against it compelling or relevant. Any thoughts? Questions, maybe? {{Unsigned|Hedgy}} -- 21:23, 13 May 2009

*Welcome, Hedgy. [[Marriage]] isn't a generational issue, nor one between Conservative's and Liberals. Conservapedia's own article on [[Marriage]] states it plainly:

<blockquote>
The unity between a man and a woman in marriage is an expression of the relationship that [[God]] desires to have with his creation. The first marriage occurred nearly 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden, in the area of the world that we now know as the Middle East. The first couple was Adam and Eve.
</blockquote>

:[[Barack Obama]], [[Hillary Clinton]], [[John McCain]], [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[Dinesh D'Souza]] all agree on the matter, that Marriage should be exclusively defined as a union between a man and a woman. Check out the link I have made here to "Marriage" to read more about this. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:43, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
But why do people care so much? Why don't people live and let live on this issue? Why don't we create a separate institution specifically for gay people who want to be married. I don't know what we could call it, I'll think of that later. I've never understood why people care so much on this issue. Personally, I couldn't care less if gay people are allowed to be married, I just hate it when gay people try to flaunt their sexuality and act all offended when you get angry at them. It's a private thing.

Well to respond to your earlier statement, to create a separate institution specifically for gay unions and nothing else would violate the strikedown of "separate but equal" established in Brown V. Board in the 1960s. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:50, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Same-sex marriage is just a way to confuse and mislead [[public school]] students as young as kindergarteners and first graders about marriage. In Massachusetts, the public schools immediately began teaching propaganda to young students once same-sex marriage was adopted there, and courts rejected a legal challenge to it. Same-sex marriage is also a way to censor the Bible and call it "hate speech."

: Smoking reduces lifespan by several years. The [[homosexual]] lifestyle reduces average lifespan by even more than smoking does, yet this information is withheld from students.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:49, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: But doesn't denying the rights of homosexuals just undermine the choice we have as humans? I mean, if we don't have moral choice, then we aren't people, are we?--[[User:Hedgy|Hedgy]] 22:45, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

==Outing==
''One type of emotional abuse--threatening to "out" a partner to family, friends, or employers--is unique to homosexual and bi-sexual relationships. Legalization of so-called "gay marriage" still would not end this type of abuse. Although communication between married partners would be classified as privileged and any given partner would be legally obligated to refuse to disclose information without the consent of his/his mate [16], anonymous leaking to the media has been known to happen and the prospect of suffering a "Haggardesque" [17] fate is sufficient to allow manipulative tactics such as blackmail.'' 
Maybe it's just because I've had a long day, but I'm not seeing what outing has to do with same-sex marriage. Civil marriage is a matter of public record, isn't it? So anyone entering into a gay marriage would do so with the understanding that it might lead to others being aware that the members of the couple are gay, right? So how does outing fit in? And blackmail seems very much a stretch - who would pay to prevent someone talking about a matter of public record? Why would anyone wanting to keep a homosexual relationship a secret decide to get married? Is there something I'm missing? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:48, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

*Tired or not, your point is well taken. I removed that part. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:54, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

Thanks [[User:TK|'''₮K''']]! One more statement jumped out at me: ''Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners. (2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005)'' How would getting married make someone seek more partners? Isn't it just the opposite, at least ideally? (It certainly is for my marriage!) I was hoping the reference would enlighten me, but it didn't include a link. I searched and came up with [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/051124/dq051124b-eng.htm two] [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/050714/dq050714a-eng.htm sites], neither of which said anything at all about gay marriage. After more looking, I found [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-570-x/85-570-x2006001-eng.pdf this], which noted that "spousal violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples: 15% and 7% respectively. It was not possible to calculate
rates of spousal violence for male and female couples separately due to low sample sizes." That's something to be concerned about, but it doesn't relate to the statement that ''Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners.'' (As an aside, Canada legalized gay marriage in 2005, and the reference was to a 2004 study, so the couples in question were not married couples.) --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:11, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

==Issues==
I've got a lot of concerns about the information in this paragraph. Most of these claims either have no relevance to same-sex marriage, are heavily biased or poorly documented. I'd like to give some examples:

1. The Dobson/Kurtz quote constitutes a baseless accusation against proponents of same-sex marriage. According to the author, their motive is not to seek equal rights, but to destroy the institution of marriage per se. Where is there any evidence of this? If homosexual couples didn't really want to marry, why did they turn out in huge numbers to do so in every state that gave them the opportunity to do so? In my opinion, this is nothing more than an unfounded conspiracy theory.

2. How does the fact that adopted children are being raised by homosexual couples constitute an "issue"? Care to elaborate?

3. Even if it were a fact that incidences of partner abuse are more common among homosexual couples, how would allowing them to marry have any effect on this? And according to the posting in the "outing" section, the claim about "allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners" is both undocumented and counterintuitive.

I hope you won't mind addressing these concerns. In my opinion, this whole paragraph lacks any merit and should be deleted and rewritten from scratch. -- Hubertus

: Yes, the Dobson/Kurtz quote is an opinion, but it is a commonly held belief on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. It is clearly labeled as opinion. Even if it is a conspiracy view, it is a relevant view. Adoption is relevant because adoption by homosexual couples is frequent cited by both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. Some say that marriage provides stability for those adopted kids. Others say that the homosexual couple should not be adopting kids anyway. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:29, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

OK then, would anybody mind if I edit the article to flag this quote as a completely unfounded conspiracy view, which seems to be something that we agree on? And while I'm at it, I would amend the paragraph about adoptions to allow listing of pro- and contra-opinions. Finally, I'd remove the line about "allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners", because apparently, nobody has been able to back it up with any evidence since Hsmom inquired about it almost a month ago. -- Hubertus

*You have a lot of nerve, coming here as a troll to try and cast doubt/throw dirt on our conservative POV, "Hubertus". You have made no other edits to this encyclopedia, and only posted to this one topic, to dispute a narrow item. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:51, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

:: I do not agree that the quote is a "completely unfounded conspiracy view". Much of it is clearly true. I do agree with removing the statement: "Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners." There is a source for it, but it seems unlikely to me and requires explanation at the least. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:26, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

== I just want to know. ==

I really do not understand this.

The reasons that conservatives object to same-sex marriages don't make sense. Over the years I've heard:

*It is a sin against God according to the Bible.
**Same-sex marriage is currently a governmental issue. According to the separation of church and state, biblical texts have no weight in legal matters.

*It hurts the institution of marriage.
**If your marriage were to feel less meaningful to you if gays were to marry, then that is an problem with the confidence of you and your partner's relationship, not the institution of marriage.

*It is unhealthy.
**There are the same health risks as with heterosexual marriage. STDs can be passed between heterosexual couple too.

I am not angry, I just want to know why conservatives feel the way they do. (unsigned by Dacheatbot)

::Point 1, same-sex marriage is an attempt to discredit the Bible. The homosexual lifestyle is anti-marriage. The attempt by the homosexual movement to co-opt marriage is an attempt to marginalize the Bible, which flatly prohibits and warns against endorsement of the lifestyle. Also, there is "separation of church and state," which is an example of liberal [[deceit]].

::Point 2, same-sex marriage hurts the institution just as polygamy would. Are you saying you'd support polygamy too? Both devalue marriage in culture.

::Point 3, the homosexual lifestyle is less healthy, much less healthy, than the heterosexual lifestyle. The homosexual lifestyle shortens lifespan significantly. Why should society encourage that? It shouldn't.

::Open your mind and look at this objectively. The logic is hard to dispute.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:10, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::1. How is homosexual marriage "anti-marriage"? It IS marriage. Marriage is not all about having kids. It is the union of two people who love each other. If you think differently, then you don't understand marriage well enough to block people from engaging in the institution.
:::2. I made absolutely no comments on polygamy. I do however have no qualms with polygamy as long as:
::::1. All members of the marriage are of sound mind and agree whole-heartedly
::::2. All members of the marriage do feel love for each other and that is the sole reason for marriage.
:::Those statements are why people get married.
:::3. How does homosexuality shorten lifespan? True, gays are more likely to contract STDs if they go without protection, but so are heterosexuals.
:::--[[User:Dacheatbot|Dacheatbot]] 19:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::Thanks for asking, Dacheatbot. On the first point, because it's a sin against God, we want to discourage people from sinning in this manner. What's more, with the current anti-discrimination laws, Christians will be prevented from treating homosexual couples differently from opposite-sex married couples. (Example: Catholic Charities was forced to stop its adoption services in Massachusetts after they refused to place children with homosexual "married" couples.)
:::I agree with Andy: homosexual "marriage" hurts traditional marriage just like calling any other non-marriage "marriage" would. When you've heard a name three thousand times to describe something not that good, it seems less worthwhile to you. Example: After Scandinavia legalized homosexual "marriage", all marriage rates plummeted.
:::Again, though I don't have any good sources at the moment, Andy's described the health risks exactly right.
:::If you have any more questions, please don't hesitate to ask politely like you've done.--[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 19:23, 15 December 2009 (EST)
::::Evan, as I said before, biblical texts do not have any basis for law. Strictly following the rules of one religion makes a government that does not separate itself from the church, as a government needs to be in order to be fair. I'm not against the freedom of religion, as everyone has the right to believe what he or she chooses. However, imposing your religious values upon others violates their religious freedom.
DaCheatBot, besides ignoring our naming conventions, you've also made a number of illogical points here. First, you're assuming what you are attempting to prove: that homosexual "marriage" is marriage. You can't use that claim to support your argument, because that's what you want to prove, not a fact accepted by all sides. Gay "marriage" isn't marriage anymore than a pet rock is a real pet. Second, you endorse polygamy, which frankly leaves me astounded. Why not allow people to marry animals? Why not allow people to kill and steal? Are you against the entire Bible, or just most of it? Which brings me to your third point - that the Bible has no place in law. Believe what you want, but the Bible is the origin of all law. I suggest you read it sometime. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 15 December 2009 (EST)
I apologize for the name, I was not aware that it was a violation.

The idea that gay marriage is marriage is not an illogical idea. It is the union of people who love each other. That is what marriage is. And just to respond to your analogy, a pet rock is not the same as a real pet because it does not fit the qualifications. Gay marriage does because it fits the idea that I said before on that it is based on love. A person marrying an animal is not love (Not romantic love anyway) because the animal is not able to give consent of sound mind. Killing and stealing also cause great harm to others, unlike gay marriage, which does absolutely nothing to others. Lastly, the bible may have been the foundation of law, but we have made many, many changes. While certain may have been right all along, such as murder and stealing, others are not because they follow a culture that is thousands of years old. The same way that the original American Constitution is not used in a court of law, but the amended version, the one that defines men and women as equals as well as whites and blacks as equals.(unsigned by Dacheatbot)

:Dacheatbot, please sign your comments by clicking the signature bar (10th one in from the left) at the end, or simply write your name, so we can see who said what.

:Polygamy is based on love also. Marrying a family member could be also. And, yes, people love animals too. The homosexual movement is essentially anti-marriage, and it is only in the past 15 years that it made "marriage" a priority. Why? Because it enables them to legitimize a lifestyle that is essentially anti-marriage. It is also an anti-Bible movement, part of a desire to marginalize and demonize the Bible. If you support same-sex marriage, then I bet you don't read the Bible anymore. The concept is effective at alienating people from the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:35, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::The rhetoric above, critiquing traditional marriage and promoting same-sex unions, are rich fields of ideas. Let's mine them for their actual content.

::The [[Gay rights movement]] is well-financed and eminently clever. I suggest we analyze, digest and describe their arguments. Here's an example.

::#If people love each other, it's okay for them to marry.
::#Therefore, a parent and his child may marry. Or a brother and sister may marry.

::However, this violates the [[incest]] rule which has traditionally forbade sexual relations between persons who are too closely related to be married.

::[[Gay rights]] advocates want the old rules to be discarded, but they are too clever to come right and say, "We don't care what the Bible says; we're simply going to fornicate, right or wrong." Rather their strategy has been to convince Christians that the Bible "doesn't really forbid" homosexual relations. It is our job here to expose and critique this campaign. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:33, 17 December 2009 (EST)

==[[Homosexual denial]]==

Here's an example of propaganda:

* Proponents of same-sex marriage do not have any one single view of their efforts that would unify them as a "movement."

It is common for homosexuality advocates to deny the existence of the [[gay rights movement]] and/or to pretend that they are not part of it. Let's confront this denial by exposing it and telling the truth.

Better to say that there are various views on same-sex marriage amongst its proponents. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:24, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:And can you indisputably prove, in general, what you just stated? --[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 19:13, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

== "One man, one woman" God-given? ==

Our own article on polygamy states that while the Bible forbids polyandry (several men marrying the same woman), polygyny (several women marrying the same man) is explicitly allowed and was practiced throughout much of Biblical history. I don't think that we can draw the conclusion that the "one woman" part is God-given. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 10:34, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:Sorry, I was generalizing from [[Unificationism|my own religion]] to Christianity as a whole. Let's research what various Christians and/or churches say about "one man, one woman".

:The Old Testament has a number of cases where a man of God - seen as an outstanding example of goodness and a role model (of sorts) - has multiple wives or concubines.
:*Abraham, when childless, used [[Hagar]] to pass on the lineage
:*Jacob had two wives; the second gave birth to [[Joseph]]

:When did the idea that marriage should be only two people (one male, one female) come about? Who says it's of God, and who says otherwise? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:07, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::I think if you check your Bible, you'll find that each man should have his own '''wife''', and each woman her own husband. That's 1 Corinth. 7:2. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 17:29, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:::That's not a commandment (1 Corinth. 7:6), and Paul would actually prefer people not to marry at all (that's where the Roman Catholics get priesthood celibacy from). On the other hand, bishops are explicitly required to be married to just one wife in both 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6, indicating that non-bishops may have had several wives. In fact the source our polygamy article cites for the biblical prohibition of polyandry strongly argues that polygyny is not forbidden by God. I'd assume the change in sentiment was probably due to greco-roman ideas of family and marriage. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 19:02, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Adam and Eve pretty much set the standard, wouldn't you say? There have been only very rare exceptions in the Bible since that beginning. A very rare exception does not change the rule.

::::Same-sex marriage as a political movement, by the way, is anti-Bible in its agenda, because same-sex marriage has been used (e.g., in Massaschusetts) to teach an anti-biblical lifestyle to children.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:39, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::I think it's also important to note the context of the exceptions. Jacob had two wives because Laban engaged in [[deception,]] substituting his older daughter for the younger. The multiple marriages were the result of two factors: Rachel's desire not to shame and disgrace her older sister, and Jacob's unfaltering love for Rachel.
:::::Furthermore, the multiple marriages were always focused on fulfilling the commandment "be fruitful and multiply." Time and time again, the reason was the same: the continued birth of children in order to ensure that the family would remain strong. This is not something same-sex marriage can achieve. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:00, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::::Ben, you're a genius. Thanks for your insights here!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:19, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::::Ditto. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:08, 18 December 2009 (EST)

=="Interesting" law against Polygamy==

I would like to point out that defining marriage as being between two people and two people only is not "an interesting consequence" that outlaws polygamy, as the introduction states. Marriage was defined that way specifically to outlaw polygamy, which has been practiced by several religious sects in the United States. I would like to delete this sentence, as it makes it sound like outlawing polygamy was just a happy coincidence due to the framing of the law, which is a completely erroneous conclusion. [[User:JEMBenton|JEMBenton]] 11:58, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:You may be thinking of another law, but the article explicitly mentions the [[Defense of Marriage Act]], which was enacted in 1996. At that point, polygamy already was illegal throughout the United States (for about a hundred and fifty years, I believe), so outlawing it probably wasn't the DOMA's purpose. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 14:36, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::This is exactly my point. That the DOMA is worded to exclude polygamy is not an "interesting coincidence", it is a reflection of the established law of the land since before Utah joined the Union. (Specifically, *because* Utah wanted to join the Union.) [[User:JEMBenton|JEMBenton]] 15:26, 17 December 2009 (EST)

== It's not your business. ==

Just because a majority of Americans are Christians, doesn't mean that every citizen has to be subjected to their opinions and values. The Constitution very specifically states that Congress shall make no law respecting any institution of religion, and a majority of gay marriage (notice the lack of quotation marks!) opposition comes from the Religious Right. Buddhism (early Buddhism) makes no complaint about gay marriage, so why should American Buddhists have their right to get married to whoever they want to denied? The denomination of Judaism I belong to (Reform) doesn't have a problem with it either.

Basically, if I want to get married to a girl, it's not the government's business. At all. Amendment 9 of the Constitution has been used before to protect privacy rights of US citizens and I believe it needs to be used again. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one. If you don't like homosexual behavior, don't participate in it. But ''do not'' tell me that I can't.

Some girls want to marry girls. Some guys want to marry guys. Suck it up.

(The last line is attributed to FCKH8.com)

Talk:Hollywood values

2011-05-16T01:29:15Z

Aleksyevt: /* Religion */

==Possible Inclusions==

A few suggestions for the list, off the top of my head: Marilyn Monroe would be a prime (and notorious) example. Chris Farley, who's stated goal was to live and die like Belushi. Janis Joplin. Anna Nicole Smith. Freddie Prinze. Rock Hudson. And depending on how comprehensive you want the list to be, there's an almost endless parade of people who were more famous as part of a group than as individuals, such as Keith Moon or Dennis Wilson.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:16, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:I did a search for Hollywood liberals and came up with [http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ this] website. On the front page I see that the cops are invertviewing Mary Kate Olsen about the suspicious circumstances in Ledger's death, David Copperfield has had two childred out of wedlock, Britney Spears is finally making it to her custody hearing to see if she can stay off drugs long enough to take care of her own kids, and Kiefer Sutherland is being let out of jail after a DUI charge. Hollywood values at their best! (Or should I say worst?) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)

If an MTV reference is frowned upon, I can hardly see a credible argument for references to The National Enquirer? It's not exactly known for its adherence to fact-based logic, is it? [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:Why not? I bet they had articles on every one of the people we have in the article right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:21, 26 January 2008 (EST)

::There's a reason that tabloids are also known as "Gossip rags." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)

The people putting these lists together do not seem to realize that in making a case linking "Hollywood values"--not coherently defined in the article, by the way--to early death or criminality it is not enough simply to cite examples; it needs to be demonstrated that these alleged consequences are ''more likely'' to occur to those who adopt these values than to the general population. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==Heath Ledger==

How did Hollywood values contribute to his death? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 04:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:It is clear upon reviewing [[User_talk:Fox#Heath_Ledger|this]] and [[Talk:Main_Page#Milking_deaths_for_political_gain|this]] that nobody has justified how Hollywood values contributed to Ledger's death. We all acknowledge that during his life he probably did take drugs and was a selfish individual, however there is no evidence that his overdose on legal prescription drugs was a suicide attempt or reasonably affected by his drug habit. Given that the example is used in the context of death ("Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:") then I think it would be prudent to remove Ledger's entry until sufficient evidence connecting Hollywood to his death has been found, otherwise we are just sponsoring gossip. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 07:22, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Of what significance is it that he was found naked in his bed? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:20, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==So?==

So? What does this article intend to prove? What is its thesis? Is this article intended to somehow connect the unfortunate deaths of some people who got too involved in drugs or alcohol as an indicator that hollywood films are a bad influence?
Is this article supposed to somehow connect these so-called "Hollywood Values" with liberal politics?
Last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh had had an embarrassing addiction to opiate painkillers, George W. Bush had admitted to a cocaine problem, and Mel Gibson had such a drinking problem that he was accusing "the Jews" of all the evils that had ever plagued him. These three men, for example, are CONSERVATIVES. Mel Gibson even functions as part of the industry centered in HOLLYWOOD. Why is good ol' Mel not mentioned in this article?
Is the anti-liberal bias in this article too overwhelming to include even one conservative who's had problems?
Or, as I suspect, is Conservapedia wearing the type of blinders that see any conservative's troubles with drugs or alcohol as a momentary temptation by the liberal side?

If you simply blame everything on your opponents, all the time, then you never have to think it through or acknowledge reality. Seems to be the basic M.O. here.

I, for one, fail to see how Heath Ledger's accidental death from combining the wrong medications (all of which seem to have been prescribed for him) as indicative of a "Hollywood Value" system. Well, I'm sure the response will go like this: "He was NAKED! Surely, nakedness is indicative of SOME evil-doing. After all, LIBERALS SLEEP NAKED! No God-fearing person should sleep sans pajamas!"

I'm disgusted.

[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 14:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)

== What about Britney Spears? ==

Britney is a very famous person, and hasn't she been to rehab?
Shouldn't she be mentioned in connection with "Hollywood Values"?
Just a suggestion. [[User:MikeSchwartz|MikeSchwartz]] 20:07, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Not entirely accurate ==

This article doesn't really give an accurate definition of the phrase, 'Hollywood Values'. I don't really blame you, as it is very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately define it. I also made this point on the 'Liberal Denial' Talk Page, so I'll just copy the relevant part of what I said here:

This phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:48, 13 February 2008 (EST)

It should also be noted that the meaning of 'Hollywood Values', according to some, is directly contradicted by what others mean by 'Hollywood Values'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)

== Wikilinks ==

Why are all these actors, singers, etc. wikilinked? Do we plan to have articles on them all? I removed most of them at some point, but I see they were added back. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 16 February 2008 (EST)

: I think it's valid for two reasons: it draws attention to the fact that CP doesn't yet have articles on them, and may make someone write one. Also, when an article is eventually written, the links are already there, so nobody has to go back and add them retroactively. If they're already there, you may as well leave them. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 15:25, 15 February 2010 (EST)
== Crime ==
For the crime section, please stick to actual crimes. Maybe there could be another section for offensive comments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:48, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:TBH Roger, I think the linked [[Mel Gibson]] article covers it sufficiently, so - in Gibson's case at least - there's probably no need to mention it in the article at all. But perhaps you're right that there should be a section for those celebs who have demonstrated consistent/repeated immoral behaviour/outbursts but have stopped short of actually breaking the law. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

==Hollywood==

Why are musicians and athletes included in an article about [[Hollywood]]? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:34, 18 February 2008 (EST)

I share Maestro's confusion. Can a sysop address this issue, please? I don't think I should just edit the article.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 12:29, 2 November 2008 (EST)
:It doesn't do to be too literal. Hollywood obviousdly doesn't apply just to the motion picture studios in Hollywood, CA. The term is used in its broader sense of applying to the entertainment 'industry'. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:35, 2 November 2008 (EST)
::I suppose...but I wouldn't call that obvious.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 18:06, 2 November 2008 (EST)

== What do we do? ==

Even if Hollywood values are in fact a problem, what can we possibly do about it? Make extramarital and premarital sex illegal? Or just force everyone to convert to Christianity? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Bix Biederbecke ==

Not really a "Hollywood" star - Jazz musicians at the time were more liable to spend their lives in NY (as he did), Chicago, or New Orleans. Lots of jazz musicians, of course, had serious addiction problems, but it's not really intellectually honest to lump in struggling musicians - many of America's greatest jazz artists never made much money - in with wealthy movie stars. Remove? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:56, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:I just removed him from the list. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 20:05, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

== Who compiled this silly list? ==

Bix Biederbecke is hardly the only problem here. What about Brian Epstein? What did he have to do with Hollywood? What about Sid Viscious? Hollywood? I hardly think so. Richard Jeni suffered from clinical depression. Do you think that might have had something to do with his suicide? Clara Blandick was in pain and facing blindness. What has her suicide got to do with Hollywodd values? Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family. Why is she in the article? The circumstances of Virginia Rappe's death remain unknown and controversial. What has Heath Ledger's accidental overdose got to do with Hollywood or any other values? What has John Bonham got to do with Hollywood? The inquest into the death of Kenneth Williams returned an open verdict as it was not posibble to determine whether his overdose was accidental. In any case he was suffering from declining health and depression at the time.

This is extremely sloppy work. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:33, 5 March 2008 (EST)

''Forrest Gump'' was not "a clumsy attempt to imply that conservatives have learning disabilities." I'm taking it out. {{unsigned|Grapes}}
:On what grounds? o.O [[User:NathanG|Nate]] [[User_talk:NathanG|my opinion matters?]] 19:56, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
::On the grounds that it isn't a clumsy attempt to imply that conservatives are conservative because of a mental disability. [[User:Grapes|Grapes]]

== Tate ==

Tate was murdered. How is that her fault? Maybe that part should just mention the Manson Family--a depraved group, indeed. [[User:Cisnon|Cisnon]] 22:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)

reply to the above criticisms (prior to Tate): [[liberals]] become so literal when it becomes a basis for censoring things they don't like. [[Hollywood values]] are not literally confined to Hollywood, California, and, by the way, things like depression and overdosing on prescription drugs are a symptom of [[Hollywood values]] and occur in that group in far higher percentages than the general public. Please, no [[liberal denial]] on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

As to Tate, I welcome more information before censoring it from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:Again, I think [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor censor] has a different meaning than [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delete delete.] Now, I'm no big city lawyer. Wait, yes I am.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:44, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:: Riiight... So, any time any entertainer somewhere in the (English speaking?) world suffers depression or overdoses on drugs, whether legal or prescription, whether accidentally or on purpose, that goes to show that "Hollywood values" (whatever they are) are evil. Did I say sloppy work? I withdraw that. I meant stupid, religiously driven nonsense. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:::Listing a pregnant murder victim as somehow indicative of "Hollywood values" is a disgrace. Sharon Tate did nothing to encourage Charles Manson to murder her; no aspect of her behavior or beliefs can excuse that, or played any role in it. Perhaps we should list her fetus as another sinner who deserved to be murdered? -- [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 23:08, 5 March 2008 (EST)

==You're bloody kidding me==
Death is a value? Sexually-transmitted disease is a value? I have no clue what you're trying to say here-- That Hollywood is responsible for death and STDs? Or that actors somehow worship these two things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)

: You are clueless. Drug use and promiscuity are [[Hollywood values]], and they cause death.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::The paranoia in that comment aside, that still doesn't make death a value... Or disease, for that matter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:18, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::You're misreading (or misunderstanding) the entry, Bari. It doesn't say that disease and death ''are'' Hollywood values, it says that Hollywood values breed a culture that ''leads to'' disease and death.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::My apologies, it appears that you are correct... or at least you were, before the last grammar fix. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:53, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Hypocrisy ==

Why was the new section Hypocrisy deleted? It was a fair point as explained eloquently at [[Liberal Hypocrisy]] I would have asked the reverting Sysop but the talk page is locked. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
:The context of Clooney portraying a US military officer was not explained. Please cease trying to attract my attention, and go back to your own website where I'm sure you will be much happier. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
::Context has now been added. I don't have a website. But thank you for your concern about my happiness. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:51, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

This article is full of finger-pointing. I realize that Hollywood stars live lives full of questionable behavior, and I agree that they do not set good role models for all of the young fans that watch their movies and follow their lives, but we should look at our own lives, and not be so quick to point fingers like this. Shouldn't we be promoting forgiveness, as the Lord intends us?

: This isn't "finger-pointing", and of course forgiveness remains available to anyone who requests it. But we're not going to stand by quietly as certain values destroy people. Would you also object if we identified how smoking has killed many people who smoke?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:46, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, perhaps finger-pointing was the wrong word. I'm just saying, we shouldn't piously observe Hollywood stars and forget our own behavior. I would not object to identifying the wrongs of smoking, but what I find a little silly is the big list of stars and their own individual crimes. I think a more general article would be better, and we should avoid a "more words is better" approach, like Wikipedia does.

: There is nothing "pious" about this. Values and lifestyles can cause harm just as surely as smoking can. Do we criticize anti-smoking statements as "pious"? Of course not. Highlighting the harm caused by [[Hollywood Values]] is not pious either. In fact, it can be scientifically studied.

: The individual examples, just like individual examples of prominent smokers who died young, are powerful and just as compelling as more-difficult-to-find statistics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

To quote Aschlafly (look at the talk page for the Mathematics page) "Conservapedia does not take the childish approach of "more words is better." We strive to be concise as a good encyclopedia should. Godspeed." Perhaps this principle should be applied to this page. I think everyone understands that Hollywood values are corrupted. I don't see the need for a long list of people who have done wrong things.

I have slightly edited the example of Helen Mirren to take out the part of her date-rape. The reason for this is twofold: first, it is not referred to in the Fox News article. Secondly, saying that Mirren was date-raped "as a result of her poor life choices" makes her sound like she was to blame for being raped.[[User:Sophierabbitte|Sophierabbitte]] 06:25, 21 January 2011 (EST)

== removal ==

How can you justify Tate being a victim of hollywood values? Please point to it? I dont want to get into an edit but you cant just add with the tag "because I say so"
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:05, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: It's self-evident from the explanation given. Tate was not a perpetrator of the crime, but became a victim of the culture in which she joined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

No it is not self evident. What culture did she join? married a film director? Associated with hippies? If that so then she was a victim of hippies values. Her 'culture' lead her to be murdered? many people get murdered and she was targeted because she was famous. That has nothing to do with so called holloywood values.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:57, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Right removing the Tate stuff again. At the time of the murder Sharon Tate has not been using drugs or alcohol, she was pregnant and the Mason family was actually interested in killing a man who refused to sign his band up. Tate was unlucky but it is clearly at odds with other deaths listed with hers as she was murdered!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:55, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: Wow: Tate's murder was just the product of chance, like getting hit by a car! No, AdenJ, Tate's murder was the result of [[Hollywood values]]. Maybe the initial intended victim was someone else, but that reinforces how [[Hollywood values]] work that they killed her instead. The entry is staying in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I give up, its totally ridiculous. Sharon Tate was murdered, It was nothing, repeat, NOTHING to do with values. Unless its the values of Manson.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, Tate's murder had ''everything'' to do with values. And, duh, that does include the [[Hollywood values]] of Manson and his followers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

So its 'duh' now is it? How did Mason have hollywood values? He was in no movies and was a poor musician. How was he affected by hollywood values? Because he was obessed with The Beatles? Who wasnt at that time. He was a drug crazed hippie with a severe mental problem.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:31, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I thought the parents of Jamie Lynn Spears statement was accurate but it was removed in its entirety, just curious as to the decision.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:35, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
:Apologies - I may have inadvertantly removed this while dealing with vandalism. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:38, 19 July 2008 (EDT)

==Ridiculous==

This article just cherry-picks famous people (or...not, in the case of "1920s cornettists" and similar cases), and stretches a granule, albeit a malleable one, miles and miles away from the true root causes of their deaths to make some point that these people's deaths are connected to some Spectre of Glittery Death looming up over Mulholland. How many famous people are there? There must be...untold millions of YouTube phenoms, game show contestants, sandwich shop spokesman, and to highlight a few flare-ups is entirely counter to any kind of legitimacy an encyclopedic volume should have. When I look at that list, I see Sid Vicious, who, as far as I know, lived in the UK for 98% of his life. I see Elvis Presley (maybe there should be a "Memphis values" page). And Sharon Tate...Sharon Tate? Wasn't Manson actually trying to kill somebody else, someone who wasn't there (supposedly a record honcho or someother such person who denied him a chance to be on a Beach Boys record). If that's how we're gonna be about it, and say innocent pregnant sober bystanders are perpetrators of Hollywood values, then let's say those whores that Jack the Ripper killed were victims of "West End values". [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 18:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: Linus has given us the fundamental [[liberal denial]]: denying that [[liberal]] values have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly has given us the fundamental conservative denial.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:24, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

::'''I don't see anywhere in my graph where I denied that liberal values have consequences'''. I think that this whole liberal/conservative jive is basically a distraction, an abstract that exists only theoretically, and even then, as a theory lend creedence by consensus. If these people's death is going to be attributed to a set of industries in a geographic location, then it's already got the integrity of arguing about air temperature. Who cares? I'm not some objectivist/nihilist (probably mutually exclusive philosophies, but often combined nonetheless by people who don't understand them), so I'm not going to deforest the issue by going on some bleat about how we're all just "computers made out of meat" or whatnot, but I think this issue is...not an issue. I'm not arguing at it from any perspective other than one which states all perspectives are already invalid if it comes from a person who cares about things like this. So to say that anybody's neurons are any better than anyone else's simply because of the choices which all the electric 1's and 0's in our brains combine to create, is stupid. Even the whole idea of "liberal denial", which is supposed to be some kind of searing label which supercedes all the fray of bickering and mudslinging, has been trampled on by reductive childishness that's rampant here. Liberal denial. That's all your arguement is here. You'll say, I'm using liberal denial because what I'm saying is a denial coming from a liberal viewpoint. You define my point of view, incorrectly, sure, but you're still just defining it. Not '''re'''fining it, not clarifying or showing how it's wrong and maybe trying to excise the benign liberal tumors you probably surmise exist within my brain stem, you're just defining it. I should have taken a hint from the logo and realized that "applying logos" and "slapping labels" is basically the fundamental economy of Conservapedia. All apologies.
[[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 21:22, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
==Miley Cyrus==
see http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0
"They include shots of the teen wrapped in what appears to be a satin bedsheet, looking over her shoulder with her back exposed."

she was not topless-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:34, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:That's your opinion and you are not an accepted reference for material. I provided not one, not two but THREE references that described the photo as "topless." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:42, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::She was topless unless you are prepared to call a sheet a "top".

::Do we want to put our cards on the table people? Clearly the reason that some here do not want this addition to the Hollywood values page is that Ms Cyrus appeared on the Main Page here not long ago as an exemplar of Christian virtue when she spoke of her ambition to abstain from sex until marriage (if memory serves).

::Well, now she's been photographed topless. I'll bet if it were Hillary Clinton you would all be loudly insisting that the description "topless" was absolutely accurate. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:44, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Er, no. What *is* clear is that her parents and Disney decided to let her be posed in as risque a fashion as possible - thus largely '''negating''' her value as a role model. My only objection is to the word ''topless'' which implies visible headlights rather than shrouded ones. Perhaps you'd like to right about teen [[role model]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:48, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::::As I said, three references described the photo as "topless." However, I've now clarified the extend of the toplessness in the article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:50, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

topless requires that the breasts be exposed since they were not she was not topless -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:49, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:*sigh* Jinx, you can say that some sources said the girl was topless. That would come under the heading of "exaggeration", I'd say. Unless the editor in chief overturns my decision, I intend to have us all avoid that word. Let's not embarrass the girl any more than she already has been. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:52, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::That's pretty rich having regard to a number of the other accustaions and comments in the article. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:No, it actually doesn't require that the breasts be exposed. Neither does "nude" require that genitals be exposed. Demi Moore was nude when she posed for Vanity Fair's cover when pregnant even though neither her breasts or genitals were exposed. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:08, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm an easily lead, ignorant Christian. Tell me what change you'd like to see in the article - or make it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:56, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Let's dial down the fuss a bit, folks. I was the one who originally posted the Cyrus line, and I didn't intend to start a war. I used the term "topless" because, a) that's the way I've heard it reported today, and b) it's accurate, strictly speaking. However, while I recognize that in common vernacular, "topless" implies a more explicit condition than exists in this case, I expected someone to come up with a better term rather than a complete (and unwarranted) reversion. So, maybe we can keep the item, but change the descriptive word? "Suggestive"? "Racy"? "Controversial"? "Provocative"? "Naughty"? Suggestions welcome...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 21:58, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:I'm letting Deborah decide this one. (If you must apply an adjective, try "risqué".) Anyway, the emphasis should be on the parents, as she is a minor and not responsible for photo shoot decisions.

:We can write an article on how parents of teen stars, such as Britney Spears, Hillary Duff & Lindsay Lohan, have managed their daughters' careers. But do we have a decent article on [[Modesty]] yet? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:05, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::All good suggestions. And don't forget Brooke Shields and her mother--They were a notorious pair a quarter-century ago (not that I'm old enough to remember such things [cough]).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::As a former Disney employee, I must say the company needs to pay more attention to its [[role model]]s for tweens. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:32, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Call me cynical but I think it's just like any mega multi-national corporation, all that matters is the bottom line. And let's face it, sex (and abstinence) sells. You know back in the studio days women had to behave very nicely otherwise they'd be fired from their contract, then the supreme court broke them up and there went the Golden (or was it Silver?) age of Hollywood.
::::And anyway, shouldn't their '''parents''' be more concerned then a board of directors? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:38, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Lenny Bruce/Sharon Tate/Blaming the victim ==

While Lenny did die because of a heroin OD, he was a standup comic (Comedian Values?), not an actor he only appeared on TV six times on variety/talk shows, definitely not Hollywood. I'd like to believe the government's horrible persecution of him led to his downward spiral.

As far as the Tate case. Andy, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't familiar with the story, here is a [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonaccount.html link to it,] '''if you still think that she did herself in because of Hollywood values, then ''by all means'' put it back in.

As for me, it makes me sick to my stomach to somehow imply that she was anyway responsible for her own death, that's worse then saying "well if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that low-cut dress".'''

And just to make sure you don't go off subject and say that I'm a typical liberal, I'll admit that I '''agree''' with the premise of the article.
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:02, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:Goodness, no, we would never insult you like that. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:06, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

A little disgusted by the bit on Sharon Tate, I must say. Hollywood values may be partially to blame for her death, but it wasn't her HV or her husband's HV, it was the Family's HV. It reads like a cheap shot at a woman who was brutally murdered, or one at her bereaved husband (or both).--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 18:58, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

==Bruce Lee==

ATang, please stop removing this item. Edit wars are frowned on at CP, so I suggest that if you want it deleted you seek the advice of a sysop. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Bruce Lee died of cerebral edema. Traces of a painkiller and cannabis were found postmortem. However, the cause of death was not cannabis; ergo, the link between Hollywood values and his death was not established.

:Otherwise you should list every cannabis user who died, regardless of cause of death. For example - if a lone hunter was attacked by a black bear and died as a result, and they found traces of THC in his body, would you say that's the cause of death? That he died of drug use? Or that he died because of Hollywood values? (Now... if he got high and provoked the bear, that's an entirely different story...)

:[[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:33, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:PS. Heh, I just saw what you typed. Merging the topics. (And I'm trying to avoid an edit war by pointing to the talk page)

::He was a cannabis user, and the health risks of cannabis are well known; even today (literally) the leftist British government has reclassified cannabis as a class B drug (from being class C, the lowest class of illegal substance, A being the highest). It is scarcely surprising that cannabis use - an HV practice in itself - may well have contributed to Lee's early death. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:32, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Yeah, it 'may' have - but by the same argument, UV exposure or asbestos inhalation may have contributed to his death too. My point is - when the cause of death is not conclusive, you cannot point to one single factor. Cannabis is not known to cause swelling of the brain; until there is an established link between the cerebral edema and cannabis use, I don't see how HV caused his death. Like I stated before, you cannot list every death of persons who have Hollywood Values. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 09:37, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

==Rob Knox==
He died protecting his little brother from two armed assailants. If those are Hollywood Values, sign me up.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:38, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I have to agree with Tom Moore on this one... There has been some mistake, just a misunderstanding.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2026826/Harry-Potter-actor's-father-Colin-Knox-visits-murder-scene.html "The father of a teenage actor who appears in the next Harry Potter film today visited the scene where the 18-year-old was stabbed to death trying to protect his younger brother from a knifeman."] [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, we need more than a few minutes to discuss something before deleting it like that. Some good new information is provided above, but some of it missed the point. No one is trying to blame the victim here. [[Hollywood values]] include carousing amid drunken people, and can often include underage drinking. Trouble breaks out and victims get killed. This doesn't happen as often to people who are, for example, sleeping by midnight. More comments welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::Hey, like I said, if Hollywood values include defending your little brother from being one of the many stabbed by a stranger with two knives, sign me up as a proponent.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, that's not saying much, because I would expect you to have been a proponent before. By the way, before you jump to conclusions, do you know who brought Rob Knox's under-aged 16-year-old brother to that drunken, late-night mayhem? Or is that question considered inappropriate when the controlling standards are [[Hollywood values]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:28, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I have no notion who brought him there. I am not sure it matters, since the problem there would be a young man bringing his under-age brother out on the town drinking, something that is relatively minor and which doesn't seem worthy of condemnation. But since you bring it up, do you know? If not, why did you put this up in the article before you found out?
::::Eh, who cares... it's your site.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:36, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I looked, and can't find that information. I'll check the CNN report of the story.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:37, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Nope, doesn't seem to have been reported. Although incidentally, while you're reading this, you might want to add to the News section that Bob Barr was nominated as the Libertarian candidate for this year. [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/25/barr.election/index.html Story is here], and conservatives are probably interested.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:40, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: The account the fight which killed Rob Knox is described differently from your accounts above here: [http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1204418.ece]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::I was going by the link above, wherein a stranger with two kitchen knives approached them and began stabbing people. This is a much more detailed account, but no less tragic. His friend thought a stranger had stolen his phone and accused the guy of it, and later the guy comes back with some friends, one of whom starts stabbing people.
::::::At the very least, this change to the article is in very bad taste so soon. But again, you own this place, so I guess you get to make that final call. I obviously disagree with the whole premise of the article, so I don't expect you to take my views much to account on the matter.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 20:14, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::At best, it's a weak example that doesn't serve the broad thrust of your argument particularly well. As charity decreases, it looks variously: inappropriate -> ridiculous -> mean-spirited. If you insist on keeping it, I'd suggest making a new section and leading in with the kind of qualifications you made above. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 20:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm seeking the truth just as others should be here, and there is obviously more to the Rob Knox tragedy than the simple story that you insisted upon above. According to the more detailed account, the fight was expected. Note also that the victim's under-aged brother is an Olympic-level expert in karate, and that the fight was in or around a bar after midnight. This is still a terrible tragedy, to be sure, but values undeniably played a role in it, as in deaths from drunken driving. We'll say prayers for the victims '''and''' speak out against the causes. Liberals do neither.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

A young man who has played a minor role in a movie is stabbed to death in London, and within hours of his death you add him to this page as an example of "Hollywood values". That is '''vile'''. I do not know the details of the case, but nor do you, and nor does anyone. Someone has just been arrested, and the facts are simply not known. Jumping to conclusions like this, and acting with unseemly haste to use the Knox family's tragedy as fuel for your anti-Hollywood/anti-liberal campaign is disgusting. Please delete this appalling addition to the article. It does not do the Conservapedia image any good at all. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:29, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
:There's probably a name for those who make capital out of the suffering of others. Oh yes - SCUM! [[User:WarrenG|WarrenG]] 08:31, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

I would like to reopen the dabate to remove Knox's name from this list, whilst I have issue with the page as a whole and other entries, I feel that this in particular is a totally unwarranted addition. If for no other reason than it detracts from the article's thrust as there is no evidence that Knox ever exibited any 'Hollywood values'. All you seem to be basing this assertion on is the facts that a) he was an actor and b) he was at a pub when he was murdered. He was not under-age drinking (as he was 18, and there is no evidence both cited or that I can uncover that he was drinking alcohol at all). Although not outside the realms of possibility, there is no evidence either to suggest he was encouraging others to under-age drink (added to the fact that his brother, despite being 17 at the time, could legally drink alcohol at that age provided an 18+ year old bought the drink).

For goodness sake this kid was tragically murdered, and I for one have no doubt that he now resides peacrfully in Heaven. [[User:j00ni|j00ni]] 19:05, 30 Jun 2008 (GMT)

==Chaplin==
I saw the addition for Chaplin under divorce and I wonder if it's not worth mentioning some of the large age gaps between married Hollywood types? Chaplin met his last wife (Oona?) when she was dating one of his sons. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']] 10:35, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

: Wow, that's shocking. Yes, please add that with a citation. (I should have added a citation for mine also.) Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:45, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

::Thank you, will do so. I have it mentioned in a book at home, so I'll put it up later tonight, with a few other examples I know are in there. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']] 10:51, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

== Hypocrisy - all specious ==

Would someone please tell me what is ''hypocritical'' an actor "act[ing] in movies contrary to their public opinions"? Isn't that simply what actors do - '''act'''? This section of the article seems to be based on a very naive confusion of an actor's role-playing with his or her real-life views and actions. In its present form, I don't think it adds anything of value. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

: To a degree, you're right, but when an actor profits enormously by exploiting a sentiment which he simultaneously harshly criticizes (in appeasement of [[liberals]]), it begs the question: dude, if you think it's so wrong, then why do you profit so much from it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

::Not convinced. You seem to be saying that no actor should accept an offer to play roles like Shylock, Iago, or Hannibal Lecter. That would make for some pretty thin plot-lines... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 10:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

::: No, you overstate it. A better example would be if a [[conservative]] starred in a movie featuring sex and nudity. The howls of protest by [[liberals]] would be deafening!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

::::But, [[Hollywood values]] embrassed by all [[Liberals]] would mean they were desensortised to this.

::::Actually could you explain this why would "liberals" be out raged, you have spent all this time saying they like that in their movies. People only seem to care about movies featuring sex and nudity when some former child star appears in them and news reporting go along the line "she (it is always she they care about) is sheading her innocent image". This might comes as a shock to you but most of the world doesn't think of actors as liberal/conservative and judge their movies on that basis. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:30, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

== At a certain point, it would probably pay to be selective ==

At some point I would advise to only use examples that best show the point trying to be made. For instance there are certainly many Hollywood divorces, but we have chosen to only point to a few that give the greatest examples of particular excess. Other areas of the article may wish to do the same. Drew Barrymore's stint in rehab as a young girl would be a good one. Ryan O'Neal thinking that Lee Majors telling him to look out for his wife while he was away on a trip meant to have sex with her would be another. Woody Allen's picture taking, the death of Dorothy Stratten, Morrison's burnout death and his girlfriend being beaten to death by a baseball bat by her next boyfriend, all would be notable examples. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:20, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Crime: Innocent until proven guilty ==

I think that there may be a certain level of contradiction here. Although we ''can'' use arrests as a way to suggest hedonistic activity of Hollywood stars, we're mentioning an accusation without proof they were convicted of the actual crime.

Perhaps we can delete and find other conviction examples. If not we can provide a reminder that we recognize that they are innocent until proven guilty. BTW: I'm not suggesting it's wrong in essence, but it could potentially confuse readers who are trying to understand things.
--[[User:Borneo|Borneo]] 05:34, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

== Is it just me, or is this a bit one-sided? ==

I think that this entire article, from the first line, is very condescending and even slanderous. This isn't an article about "Hollywood Values" (which I am convinced is a made up word), it's simply a list of drug deaths and crimes committed by people who happen to be / have been in Hollywood.

While the sources for the statistics are cited, perhaps it would be more appropriate to include interviews and quotes from Hollywood stars on their values. One could also delve into the history of Hollywood, and how it has molded the culture and values that are present there now.

If this is really an article on Hollywood Values, someone needs to gather up primary sources relevant to this topic. Otherwise, this article should be renamed "List of Bad Things about Hollywood People."

==Charity work==
I notice that a section on charity work has been removed. If entertainers are in fact sincerely raising money to help the needy isn't that part of their values and should be included in "Hollywood values"? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 10:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:No, because Hollywood Values are not the across-the-board-values of all who have worked in Hollywood. Do not be fooled into over-literalism, a crutch of [[Liberals]] who are unable to make logical pointsin debate. [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[Charlton Heston]] worked in Hollywood, and did a huge amount for good causes, but were a world away from 'Hollywood Values'. Try reading the article properly! Best wishes, [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
So, let me get this straight...

Only some liberals follow liberal style and every other article beginning with the word "Liberal"

Only some people in Hollywood follow Hollywood values.

So really, nothing substantiative is in these articles, and it's little more than a shoddy smearjob against the rich (Hollywood) and the Left.

Trustworthy indeed. [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 10:49, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

So are you saying that "Hollywood values" refers only to the ''negative'' values of people who work in Hollywood, and that any positive values that might be held by people in Hollywood are ''not'' considered part of Hollywood values? Isn't that a bit biased? How would we feel if people started talking about "Republican values" but meant only the negative aspects? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 11:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:Daphnea and EBrown, you are hopeless cases. HV refers to the pernicious effects of the cult of celebrity, which leads sufferers to feel that they are above all legal, moral or societal rules. It is, perhaps, significant that you are quibbling with the title and definitions through the medium of an absurd literalism. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:I assumed that "Hollywood values" would be about the values espoused by Hollywood; while that is largely negative in contrast with conservative values I feel it is only honest to mention the positive aspects when they occur; unless the article ''by definition'' is only about the negative aspects, which is the question I asked. I'm assuming from your reply that it ''is'' only about the negative values. Now I can edit it accordingly. When did asking for clarification become an "absurd literalism"? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:32, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Daphnea; it does appear that you are saying that Hollywood Values really are the "across the board" values held by many celebrities. And when you say "lack of morals and values in Hollywood culture", doesn't that suggest that Hollywood entertainers hold few of these, which of course isn't true. They may well not hold all values that you and I hold dear, but they hold many.

Also a few other criticisms:
¬Patriotism is listed as a value disrespected in Hollywood; however, the tone of this article suggest that these values are deemed desirable. Whilst you may argue that patriotism is a virtue (I will note that I don't agree), there are certainly Christian arguments against patriotism, and I think it is a bit shaky to use it as an example of something "good".
¬Is Narnia really conservative? I'm an evangelical, charismatic Christian from the UK, and I am convinced that Christianity is neither conservative nor liberal, but rather a mixture of both, slightly veering to liberalism. Yes, liberalism is associated with atheism (in the States, anyway); however, this says nothing about the essence of Christianity and the essences of liberalism and conservatism.
[[User:Trinity123|Trinity123]]

==Productions==
I put back a deleted edit after revising it on the advice of [[User:Bugler]]. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Please don't revert edits that '''you told me to do'''! To be a little more conversational, I was following an edit which was approved by another editor pointing out that not everybody in Hollywood goes along with "Hollywood values". Likewise it is sensible to point out that not all Hollywood productions go along with "Hollywood values". If we don't do this then in the first case someone reading this (especially a child) might go away with the impression that ''everyone'' involved in Hollywood is evil, and thus grow up hating Ronald Reagan and Charlton Heston. I the second case they might avoid seeing The Chronicle of Narnia because it's a "Hollywood" production. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:18, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
:I didn't tell you to do it here, Daphnea. I said that the correct place for such a statement was on a page bout Hollywood, or about the entertainment industry. HV is not the same as Hollywood. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:20, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
:So what do you think of what I said above? Do you want people to start thinking Ronald Reagan went along with Hollywood Values? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
::Add it to [[Hollywood]] [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:28, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
::I asked you a question. Are you intending to answer it? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:31, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
::I will certainly not answer if addressed in so aggressive a fashion. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:32, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
::OK, let's be polite. Are you going to answer my question, please? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
Yes. Naturally RR is not an example of HV, nor is James Stuart, or Charlton Heston, or Audie Murphy. Perhaps a line at the start to differentiate the industry as a whole from HV might be appropriate. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:35, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
: ... and in fact already exists. ''Not all people who currently work or have worked in Hollywood espouse Hollywood values. [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Charlton Heston]], [[Walt Disney]] and many others practiced conservative values while working in Hollywood''. That would seem to cover matters. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:37, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::Good, good, now we're getting somewhere. You've just found out that there already is a line at the top pointing this out. I knew that already because I helped put it there. All I'm doing is saying the same thing about productions: just as not all people in Hollywood go along with "Hollywood values", not all productions do either. That's all I'm saying. If you like I can move the statement about the production up to the top of the article too. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:40, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
::See, that wasn't so hard. Now all I'm going to do is add some production examples, because productions aren't always about who is in them; Chronicles of Narnia doesn't have an outstanding "non-Hollywood values" person at the helm, yet it reflects conservative values. Again, we don't want to give the idea that people should judge a production entirely on the basis of what stars are associated with it. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:45, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
:::The phrase 'their productions' refers (in my interpretation) to the 'many others' as well as to Ronny, Jimmy, Chuck and Walt, so I would argue that the sentences could be merged, but otherwise that is OK and in an appropriate part of the page. Thank you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:49, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

==Divorce==
A story on Yahoo news backs up this articles assertions about Hollywood divorces. It is called "Want a successful marriage? Don't marry a celebrity!"[http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=8576056&ch=4226715&src=news]--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 13:25, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== "Paedophile" movie producer Roman Polanski ==

The article describes Roman Polanski as a paedophile, referring to his charges of violating a teenage girl. Yet the article [[Roman Catholicism]] reads, and I quote, "''in truth 90% of the cases involved priests making overtures towards teenage boys, and not pedophilia.''" So do we claim that Polanski isn't a paedophile, or that the priests are? It's inconsistent. I've removed the paedophile claim from this article before, but it got re-inserted. [[User:MrGrieves|MrGrieves]] 23:02, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
:From a technical standpoint you are correct, although he certainly did seek out a very young girl when he could have chosen a woman of any age. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:54, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
::Creepy, but by CP's definition, not paedophilia. I see the inconsistency is still there.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 19:43, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

==Bruce lee==

I had removed his name from the list because the people there were included because of the assertion that "Hollywood Values" had something to do with their deaths. Lee's cerebral edema was completely unrelated to his lifestyle, and the presence of cannabis in his bloodstream had nothing to do with his death. If you want to add his name to a list of people who use cannabis that's fine, but he should ''not'' be on this "cause of death" list. I'd suggest that anyone who thinks Bruce Lee represents the stereotype of "Hollywood Values" on this page should read ''Striking Thoughts: Bruce Lee's Wisdom for Daily Living'' first, and then reconsider. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:19, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

: There's a whole industry of people who have a financial interest in denying that illegal drugs played a role in an unexpected death of a healthy, young person like Bruce Lee. They're right that the link may not be proved. They're wrong to try to censor the possibility. We provide the information and let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:37, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not taking issue with the other names on the list, but in this specific case like this I have to disagree. The coroner confirmed the cause of death, and unless there is verifiable medical evidence to prove that his death was cannabis-related, implying that this was the case is misleading. Conservapedia is supposed to be a trustworthy encyclopedia, and articles like this need to be based on facts like medical autopsies, and not innuendo. There are enough valid entries on the list to not have to add those based on unfounded speculation as well. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:20, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

==Sexually Transmitted Diseases==

We note that one characteristic of hollywood values are rampant sexually transmitted diseases. we need a section on this to support the claim. For example: Rock Hudson and AIDS, Paris Hilton and herpes (herpes medication was found in storage that she defaulted payment on) --[[User:Ank|Ank]] 14:41, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

''Freddie Mercury also contracted AIDS through his homosexual lifestyle and flamboyant onstage presence.''
One cannot contract AIDS through a flamboyant onstage presence. I'll leave it to someone else to straighten this one out.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:44, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

== Proposed new section: "Shunning actors who disagree with Hollywood's values" ==

The recent hubbub over John Voight's comments about Obama is just the latest in a long line of Hollywood attacks on anyone who dares use their freedom of speech to disagree with Hollywood's far-left ''status quo''. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:12, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:This would appear to be a valid subsection. The treatment of Charlton Heston comes to mind. As President of an organization that has the support of most Americans (although it obviously has its detractors) you would think by the way he was attacked that he was head of the KKK. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:51, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

==How to write an article==

Never imply that a sweeping condemnation of liberal evils is "wrong" or "exaggerated". The intro to this article, until I corrected it just now, had implied that Reagan, Disney, et al., were counterexamples which disproved the thesis.

I rewrote it to show that these men were trying to push back the tide.

(If you disagree with a critique of liberal values or actions, discuss it on the talk page - do not distort the truth. And in the rare case where a conservative writer appears to make an error, contact him for a clarification FIRST. Keep in mind the purpose of the project whenever you edit an article or comment on it. Debates and declarations of personal values are confined to debate pages and user pages.)

== Renaming suggestion ==

The title is somewhat inaccurate and potentially misleading since it seems to be applied to all sorts of celebrities (not just people in the movie industry) all around the globe (most recent case being the current main page headline accusing two English singers and an English model of ''Hollywood'' Values). So maybe [[Celebrity values]] would be a more fitting location for this term. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 08:21, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:You've got the cart before the horse, Dirk; if celebrities outside the movie industry have Hollywood values, that shows how pervasive they are.

:Please write about the influence Hollywood has had on the world at large. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:18, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

::If they don't apply to all the people within Hollywood but do apply to a truckload of people with absolutely no connection to Hollywood, then I think we might as well call them '''American Values''' because "decadence, narcissism, rampant drug use, extramarital sex, sexually-transmitted disease, lawlessness and death" can be found pretty much in every corner of the country. And the fact that non-Americans are influenced by it only shows how pervasive they are. See, that's the "reasoning" I see here.
::I really don't want to be difficult, but I think this is a case of a poorly named "[[discovery]]" (which, btw, doesn't link to what you'd expect - could you move it?).
::I think these symptoms had been around before Hollywood existed (actually, I'd be quite willing to bet that they were around before America had been discovered), and some of the cases shown here have zero connection to Hollywood or even the movie industry (which is what "Hollywood" is usually a synonym of). They are, however, all ''celebrities'', and I can readily agree that ''celebrities'' are somehow more prone to strange and questionable behavior.
::And while I'm by God no fan of liberals, I'd guess that the explanation here is not that they're being influenced by some sort of "liberal evil", but rather that they don't have the [[willpower]] to cope with the fame and media attention. I'm not happy with how Wikipedia is slightly tilted in favor of liberals (especially during the election times), but this sort of demonization of liberals and glorification of conservatives is at least equally troubling.
::About that "writing assignment" (as you called it on my talk page), I think I'll decline. When I'm not working on Dean's Wanted List (for the News Project), I'm trying to fix existing articles. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 14:12, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

==don't know where to put this==
This should probably go on this page, but I'm not sure what subsection to put it under, because it includes booze, drugs, divorce, child endangerment, rehab, ''and'' mental illness: http://www.ktla.com/landing_news/?Heather-Locklear-Arrested-on-Possible-DU=1&blockID=71448&feedID=171
--[[User:AngelaK|AngelaK]] 22:38, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

==OJ Simpson==

The part about OJ being "widely believed to have murdered his wife and her friend" should be deleted. We shouldn't try to appease little crybabies who long ago stuffed their ears with cotton to avoid hearing the truth. Just come out and say "he brutally murdered his wife and Ron Goldman" because '''he did'''. Nuff said. He's written a book outlining the "hypothetical" situation, there's overwhelming evidence, and he was found guilty in civil court. It's not fair to act like public opinion is the only thing that matters here, especially when his acquittal was only the result of exploiting anti-police bias and what basically passes judicial affirmative action. [[User:Mcliff|Mcliff]] 09:34, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:It's not our place to accuse people. Only God and OJ himself know whether OJ did it, and neither of them edit this wiki. An encyclopedia states the facts, and the facts are that he was acquitted, even though popular opinion holds that he was guilty. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:19, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:: And it's not just popular opinion that says OJ Simpson murdered his wife and her friend. Scientific tests proved it with overwhelming odds.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:44, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:::I hadn't heard that. I guess I din't really pay close enough attention to OJ news. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:52, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

== Actors, Actresses... What about the older shows ==

When I heard that TVLAND was going to air reruns of M*A*S*H*, I was heartbroken. I cannot find a single reference to how shows like M*A*S*H* encouraged bad behavior. In a moment, I will find a good website or book--[[User:CindyP|CindyP]] 17:01, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

==Independence Day==

Precisely what conservative or 'non-Hollywod' values are being conveyed in ''Independence Day''? It's OK to punch aliens if they want to raise your taxes? Sneaking diseases on board alien spaceships will prevent them from making us abort our children? Conspiracy theories about government cover-ups are actually all true? It really is a tremendously stupid film, and it makes no sense whatsoever as an example of a film without Hollywood Values. You might as well pick Pineapple Express, for all the sense it makes. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 15:55, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

== Another example? ==

I'm not sure if [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,478607,00.html?sPage=fnc/us/crime this] example is suitable for this article or not but i thought i'd suggest it. I'm not sure because i think the person in question worked mainly in New York. [[User:JamesDW|JamesDW]] 22:15, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Michael Jackson ==

This is yet another conspicuous example and I have readded the entry for it. I do not understand why the entry was blanked when someone else had added it earlier (or was it because the claim about the drugs was not entirely accurate and came about due to media hysteria?). [[User:BillyD|BillyD]] 08:57, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

: This is an encyclopedia. Don't insert rants, or [[gossip]], or claims that lack proper substantiation. Clear enough?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:14, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

== James Dean ==

Could someone explain to me how James Dean's tragic death in an automobile accident was the result of 'Hollywood values'? [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 17:07, 5 July 2009 (CDT)

:Dean was a reckless driver who had been ticketed for speeding two hours earlier, and was going at a high speed to cause the fatal accident. He ran into a car turning in front of him, injuring not only himself but others also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:25, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

I understand that his driving record was far from acceptable and that he played a clear role in his demise, but I don't see this as directly attributable to Hollywood values. I belong to a staunchly conservative family, but I freely admit that relatives of mine have been reckless in their driving. Some have been lucky enough to escape deserved punishment, others have been ticketed. It saddens me to suggest that such behavior is rife in our society regardless of political affiliation. Thoughts? [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 18:12, 5 July 2009 (CDT)

== "For years, fans of Hollywood get to watch the celebrities" ==

JPatt, there's some serious verb-tense disagreement going on in your reversion of me. What tense do you want the sentence in? 01:06, 24 January 2010 (EST)
:I didn't revert you and feel free to rearrange the grammar properly. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 01:08, 24 January 2010 (EST)

::Also feel free to sign your posts! It's the box above when you compose, next to the circle with the slash through it. ;-) --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 02:37, 24 January 2010 (EST)

== Brittany Murphy ==

I've just removed Brittany Murphy's name from the list. A coroner's report found pneumonia was the cause of her death and while prescription drugs were found in her system, they were prescribed for specific illnesses she had at the time of her death.[http://www.cbc.ca/arts/film/story/2010/02/04/brittany-murphy.html] [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 15:23, 15 February 2010 (EST)

== Reversion needed? ==

I'm inclined to revert Lorddragyn's edits, which repeatedly downplay the culpability here by the Hollywood "stars". For example, James Dean was a notoriously irresponsible driver who died by running into someone else, and could have killed him too. It doesn't matter that the investigation could not conclude that speeding was the cause of the fatal wreck. Often such investigations are inconclusive.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:52, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

==[[User:Lorddragyn]]==
I dislike the username in addition to his edits. Hollywood values done to Wikipedia style of editing does not impress me. You can minimize that it was just an overdose, not a suicide, list all the fancy drug names, but it's still a suicide. He knew what he was doing was illegal and harmful. To reflect more on Wikipedia style you need look no further than The December 25th Bomber [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253&oldid=334150190] as an example. What is more important, knowing the plane model and color or that it was an Islamic Terrorist trained to kill Americans?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:55, 7 April 2010 (EDT)
:I have to second/third this. His entire objective is watering down hollywood behavior. And note that this is his behavior immediately upon receiving a second chance. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:58, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

::My objective is not to water down Hollywood behavior. My objective is to clarify that some of the people on the list died accidentally, while fully knowing the consequences of their actions, some died because they were trying to. Knowing that someone died because they ingested multiple different types of pills, or had a history of reckless driving before dying in a car accident, proves Hollywood values more than just saying suicide. And providing more details surrounding the deaths of these people shows the inherent corruption in Hollywood as a whole, not just the people on this page, which is what I thought we were trying to show with this article in the first place. If I'm wrong let me know, but I think my argument makes sense.[[User:Lorddragyn|Lorddragyn]] 18:52, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

:::Cleared up some dead links in the references. Working on a substantial rewrite on the article, adding subcategories and trying to cover more of the entertainment industry as a whole. There is definitely room for improvement in this article, hence why I am devoting to much attention to the subject.[[User:Lorddragyn|Lorddragyn]] 23:04, 8 April 2010 (EDT)

:::: ''"some of the people on the list died accidentally, while fully knowing the consequences of their actions"''- That statement is not proper. It's not an accident if fully knowing. You can argue that the person thought they could cheat the devil, didn't want to die, but did. That is like saying they wanted to live but drugs ruined it for them. Drugs were the consequences of their decisions, suicide was the consequences of their actions. I'm for making the page better but I agree with Douglas, you have watered-down the meaning of suicide. Just make sure you add to- while making better, and a little less rewording.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:48, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

:::::I admit my choice of words there was a bit faulty, but what I'm really trying to say is that we aren't trying to demonize the individuals on this page, we are trying to show that Hollywood itself is the causation of these problems. Drawing a distinction between those who meant to kill themselves by ingesting too much of a prescription, or illegal drug, and someone who accidentally dies from the same shows the inherent risk in the action and that both carry a heavy cost. The intent of suicide may not have been there, but the end result is the same in both cases. And if we can have details that have nothing to do with a persons death , like that Bruce Lee had trace amounts of weed in his system when he died of hypersensitivity to aspirin, then details surrounding the death of these people belong in the article too. Unless you believe that putting these details in would somehow discredit the argument we are trying to prove.[[User:Lorddragyn|Lorddragyn]] 14:44, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

"Hollywood" isn't an entity of and by itself. It is comprised of individuals, and like all communities the bigger players, have more influence and dictate the social mores that the others follow. It isn't arguable that the Hollywood community is anything other than liberal...and that liberal bias influences how they wish to spin drug abuse and infanticide by abortion as well. I have to agree with Jpatt and Douglas that if one chooses to do illegal drugs, or abuse legal ones, they know, unless they are literally mentally incapacitated, there is always a possibility of death. Hollywood can spin it anyway they choose (and does), but even subconsciously, they like that risk...its part of the "high". --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:54, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

: Yes Hollywood is comprised of individuals, as you point out. But so is the rest of the country. Could it not be argued that Hollywood is a cross-section of the United States, and that problems in the whole country look larger in Hollywood because of the smaller amount of people and the media coverage concerning said people? People travel from all across the globe to make it big in Hollywood, can it not be said that the problems of the people in Hollywood started where they were raised, or is it that Hollywood itself is the corrupting influence? And to say that it isn't arguable that Hollywood isn't anything other that liberal is silly when the article you are defending states "Ronald Reagan, James Stewart, Charlton Heston, Walt Disney and many others practiced conservative values while working in Hollywood".[[User:Lorddragyn|Lorddragyn]] 19:41, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

::There are exceptions to any general rule I have found. However the "artsy" culture has always been Bohemian in nature, and they protect their own. Yes, it is magnified out of all measure simply because of the value liberal culture places on celebrity. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:56, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

'''Reply to Lorddragyn''': I looked at many of your edits before reverting them and found a common thread: you would downplay culpability by the Hollywood "star" for something that was due to his culturally bankrupt values. For example, James Dean was a notoriously reckless driver. His fatal accident consisted of ramming head-on into a car that was turning left in front of him. James Dean even received a speeding ticket a few hours earlier, and his Porsche sported the offensive name on the back, "Little Bastard." Yet you tried to downplay his fault by saying that officials could not prove he was speeding when he collided with the other car (thereby endangering that driver's life also).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:21, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

:What I was implying when I wrote that was that just because James Dean wasn't speeding when he died, it doesn't mean that his reckless behavior behind the wheel wasn't dangerous. When he died the other car veered into his lane, but he was lucky that his years of reckless driving hadn't gotten him killed sooner. His death among many others are what I would consider "toying with fate" because, like others on this list, he was doing something he knew to be dangerous (and most likely lethal) with complete disregard of the consequences. Maybe what I wrote could be rewritten to make that thought more clear.[[User:Lorddragyn|Lorddragyn]] 20:00, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

::I just improved the item about James Dean. Feel free to improve further. And while investigators may determine the speed at impact, I don't see how we'd know his speed leading up the impact. The circumstances of the head-on accident strongly suggest speeding, as was Dean's habit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:02, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

==Religion==
Should there be a 'religion' section? I have done a quick check, and among the 5 most successful actors, only two are Christians (one is a Buddhist, one a Scientolgist, and Harrison Ford refers to himself as "Democrat" when asked about his religion! ). Some factual figures could show a direct link between lack of belief in Christ and depraved moral values. Regards, --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 11:19, 16 April 2010 (EDT)
:Go to it! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:46, 16 April 2010 (EDT)
:: Very good. I am away all week-end, when I come back I will try with a bigger sample and see what comes out. Regards, --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 12:22, 16 April 2010 (EDT)

So, just because someone isn't a Christian makes them depraved and "predisposed" to being lazy, vain, shallow, anti-American, and just all around indecent human beings (among other things)? I'm fairly certain that a number of non-Christian Hollywood residents are a great deal more moral than many religious groups (see Westboro Baptist Church).

==Trainspotting==

The graphic nature of this film (and the novel that inspired it) are not for comedic value, so it doesn't belong in the humor section. Trainspotting is about addiction, and though it's graphic and not at all pretty, it doesn't belong lumped with things like Family Guy or the American Pie movies. [[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 16:09, 22 October 2010 (EDT)

: Hi Jane

:Thanks for catching my typo (Faily Guy - must be a Freudian slip). However, I'm going to disagree with you on this one. I've read the book and seen the movie and I know that the overall point of both is to convey the burden of addiction, but it's undeniable that parts of both are played up for comedic value. Like when Spud's feces ends up on on the kitchen wall, Renton takes (and loses, and finds) the suppositories (in the worst toilet in Scotland), Tommy loses the sex tape or Spud's speed-freak job interview. Would you seriously argue that those are not meant to be funny? [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 16:20, 22 October 2010 (EDT)

::I must admit, I got a nice chuckle out of Faily Guy. I'll have to start calling it that from now on. I really don't like that show. I do see what you're saying, maybe I just didn't want it to be included with things like Family Guy or American Pie because of the issue of intent. The overall intent of Trainspotting is not humor or a lighthearted romp through filth, whereas things like American Pie and Family Guy (and the other examples on the list) seem to only serve the purpose of grossing people out, or just generally annoying people, with no other purpose. [[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 16:37, 22 October 2010 (EDT)

==Phil Hartman==

Not sure he should be included, seeing as he was murdered...maybe including Brynn Hartman would be more appropriate for the tone of this article. [[User:AdamH41|AdamH41]]

: Don't you think Phil knew about and accepted, or even facilitated, his third wife's drug use?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 18 January 2011 (EST)

::Article doesn't say anything about Phil Hartman facilitating/acknowledging/accepting her drug use. While he certainly did know about it, it is commonly known that he was unhappy in the marriage and wanted a divorce. In light of that, one cannot reasonably conclude that he was facilitating her drug use.[[User:AdamH41|AdamH41]]

:::Marrying a crazy former model and buying her a gun directly led to his death. A shortened life can be attibuted to being a celebrity.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:36, 18 January 2011 (EST)

::::He actually kept the gun in a safe in his home...not exactly buying it for his wife. It was for family protection.[[User:AdamH41|AdamH41]]

:::::Giving his crazy wife access to their safe led to his death.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:02, 18 January 2011 (EST)

::::::You're just adjusting your argument as I point out flaws in it.--[[User:AdamH41|AdamH41]

:::::::Adam, drug addiction is expensive, and it's likely Phil facilitated his third wife/model's habit, which then boomeranged. This isn't rocket science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:14, 18 January 2011 (EST)

::::::::There's no proof that he facilitated her drug addiction; the conservative thing to do here would be to find a source on that. If you want I can find sources for all of the claims I've made in this debate.[[User:AdamH41|AdamH41]] 22:19, 18 January 2011 (EST)

::::::::The poor choices you make in life can lead to an untimely death. The poor choices you make as a celebrity will lead you to be listed under Hollywood values.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:33, 18 January 2011 (EST)

::::::::Then maybe articles for the values of every possible segment of society should be made to highlight the fact that all are capable of bad choices, not just those you oppose. For example, there is a serious obesity problem in the South, but I do not see this highlighted; only the obesity problems of liberals and atheists are highlighted. There is a large problem with the illicit use of drugs such as crystal meth in the Midwest and rural areas, but only drug issues related to liberals are given mention. Believe it or not, conservatives make bad choices too. There should be an article on it. [[User:AdamH41|AdamH41]] 22:39, 18 January 2011 (EST)

:::::::::We already have the poor choices of Republican celebrities listed. If you can contribute to the project, then you are welcome to debate via talk pages. If you are here to just debate, then we may escort you out. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:50, 18 January 2011 (EST)

:::::::::In that case, feel free to escort me out. I know that any edit I make that reflects my viewpoint will either cause my banning will be heavily edited, so I see no point in engaging further with you. Besides, even if you do block my IP address it doesn't take a "rocket scientist", to quote A. Schlafly from earlier in this discussion, to figure it out. Even a liberal like I can do it! Cheers and have a fantastic day. [[User:AdamH41|AdamH41]] 22:58, 18 January 2011 (EST)

::::::::::I don't agree with your point nor your ideology. I happened to think Phil was hilarious and wish he were still with us. So you know how to access the web from a different IP address, many blocked liberals such as yourself often comeback that same way. We will eventually flush you out, if you haven't figured that yet. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:15, 18 January 2011 (EST)

::::::::: Adam, there's no denying that Phil's fate was the result of his choosing a drug addict as a third wife, and almost certainly facilitating her habit. You act like Phil was the victim of a random crime that was completely unforeseeable. It wasn't random and it was not much of a surprise. It was the result of a warped value system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:21, 18 January 2011 (EST)

== Helen Mirren ==

I just noticed this article and wish to modify this line:
* Helen Mirren played Queen Elizabeth II in a movie 'The Queen', but admits she used to use cocaine as a result of her poor life choices as a younger woman.
It's troubling, but I do not see it as being hypocritical. I think it should be filed under drug use. What do we think? Otherwise, this article is truly shocking at just how corrupt liberal Hollywood is. --[[User:LindaP|LindaP]] 16:24, 16 February 2011 (EST)

== Clara Blandick/Ellen DeGeneres ==

Not sure she belongs here...she had no history of substance abuse and in fact committed suicide due to the pain of arthritis and failing vision. Seems a bit different than overdosing on drugs. I propose that she be removed from the article. [[User:TedCarter75|TedCarter75]] 11:36, 30 April 2011 (EDT)
:Also, under the Ellen DeGeneres entry, I'm not sure why "married" is in quotes...all gay marriages conducted in California after legalization and before the Prop 8 vote are recognized as valid under California law. I'm removing the quotes. [[User:TedCarter75|TedCarter75]] 10:19, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Walt Disney

2011-05-16T01:21:16Z

Aleksyevt: /* I feel like this should be added... */ new section

*The stuff about Eisner, et.al. and the strife, there is about a 10 year gap between Walt's death and all of that...so it isn't very accurate. Roy O. Disney ran it for years after Walt died. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 12:28, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

::I worked at ABC for 8 years, and I also read some books about Walt Disney and The Walt Disney Company. There was strife and factionalism, Terry. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:32, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
*Bows to Ed Poor's greater knowledge and personal experience. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:47, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

"Gay Days" are not a Disney-sponsored event. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 14:43, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
:True. That really shouldn't be on there. A better example would be their extension of medical benefits to "domestic partners" of their employees. --[[User:BirdieA|Birdie]] 13:07, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

:I just removed the "strife" paragraph. On the one hand, it's long after Walt Disney's death and doesn't belong here, but into the [[The Walt Disney Company]] article, if at all. Furthermore, ''Mulan'' was released and Gay Days began while Roy Disney still was "chairman of Feature Animation", not as a consequence of any "era of bottom-line corporate thinking" ushered in by Roy Disney's departure. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 19:34, 20 December 2009 (EST)

== I feel like this should be added... ==

Yes, Walt Disney was a conservative. Yes his marriage lasted considerably longer than many other Hollywood residents'.

But please, don't get your panties in a bunch Conservapedia. Walt Disney was a flagrant anti-semite and as a Jew, I take great offense to that.

So next time, please include all the facts, not just the ones that are nice and pretty.