Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:William Gladstone

2008-05-15T20:42:56Z

Gladstone:

I don't believe it's true that Gladstone never believed in universal suffrage. In 1864 he stated:

“every man who is not presumably incapacitated by some consideration of personal unfitness or of political danger is morally entitled to come within the pale of the constitution”.

Although it is thought that he became scared of his own thinking, this quote suggests at least a cautious stance toward male or household suffrage. Furthermore, by the time he had introduced the Ballot act there was already close to universal male suffrage - why would he pass an act specifically designed to protect working class voters and aid the democratic process if he wasn't, at least ostensibly, a believer in some form of democracy?
--[[User:Gladstone|Gladstone]] 20:57 BST, 15th May 2008

Disputed "principle":
* Gladstone never believed in [[democracy]], stating: ‘I am a firm believer in the [[aristocracy|aristocratic]] principle – the rule of the best.’ He campaigned against universal male suffrage, believing that only those who could be trusted with the vote should be allowed to.

I think a bill that favors or protects voting would have to be classed as inconsistent with "never believing in democracy". Also, "rule of the best" is not always anti-democratic. Don't we all want to elect the "best" rulers, judges, and legislators? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:16, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
:But in a C19 context, especially perhaps a British one, the word 'best' is laden with class connotations. To be 'best' for Gladstone was to have, among other things, a 'proper' (ie public (US:private) school, classics-based) education - something outside the grasp of the huge majority of the disenfranchised. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:26, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

::In 19th century British politics even Gladstone's stance on democracy was relatively positive. Very few politicians, if any, wanted full male suffrage. Even the 1867 Reform Act, which enfranchised urban working class males, was only introduced by Disraeli as a way of spiting Gladstone and winning votes. The actual idea of full male suffrage was still very radical, and for his time Gladstone's views were if anything fairly democratic. I've edited the article with what I believe to be a more accurate statement on his beliefs. --[[User:Gladstone|Gladstone]] 21:40 BST, 15th May 2008

Talk:William Gladstone

2008-05-15T20:42:43Z

Gladstone:

I don't believe it's true that Gladstone never believed in universal suffrage. In 1864 he stated:

“every man who is not presumably incapacitated by some consideration of personal unfitness or of political danger is morally entitled to come within the pale of the constitution”.

Although it is thought that he became scared of his own thinking, this quote suggests at least a cautious stance toward male or household suffrage. Furthermore, by the time he had introduced the Ballot act there was already close to universal male suffrage - why would he pass an act specifically designed to protect working class voters and aid the democratic process if he wasn't, at least ostensibly, a believer in some form of democracy?
--[[User:Gladstone|Gladstone]] 20:57 BST, 15th May 2008

Disputed "principle":
* Gladstone never believed in [[democracy]], stating: ‘I am a firm believer in the [[aristocracy|aristocratic]] principle – the rule of the best.’ He campaigned against universal male suffrage, believing that only those who could be trusted with the vote should be allowed to.

I think a bill that favors or protects voting would have to be classed as inconsistent with "never believing in democracy". Also, "rule of the best" is not always anti-democratic. Don't we all want to elect the "best" rulers, judges, and legislators? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:16, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
:But in a C19 context, especially perhaps a British one, the word 'best' is laden with class connotations. To be 'best' for Gladstone was to have, among other things, a 'proper' (ie public (US:private) school, classics-based) education - something outside the grasp of the huge majority of the disenfranchised. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:26, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

::In 19th century British politics even Gladstone's stance on democracy was relatively positive. Very few politicians, if any, wanted full male suffrage. Even the 1867 Reform Act, which enfranchised urban working class males, was only introduced by Disraeli as a way of spiting Gladstone and winning votes. The actual idea of full male suffrage was still very radical, and for his time Gladstone's views were if anything fairly democratic. I've edited the article with what I believe to be a more accurate statement on his beliefs.
--[[User:Gladstone|Gladstone]] 21:40 BST, 15th May 2008

William Gladstone

2008-05-15T20:42:03Z

Gladstone: /* Principles */

[[Image: Gladstone.jpg|thumb|right|220px|William Ewart Gladstone, four times [[Prime Minister]] of the [[United Kingdom]]]]
'''William Ewart Gladstone''' (1809–1898) was a British statesman and four-time [[Prime Minister]] (1868–1874, 1880–1885, 1886 and 1892–1894). He is best known for his extensive political reforms and skilled oratory. A scholar as well as a politician, he was the primary political rival of [[Benjamin Disraeli]]. Still considered to be one of Britain's greatest Prime Ministers, Gladstone was the inspiration for [[Winston Churchill]] and others.

==Early Life and Tory Minister==
Born in 1809 in [[Liverpool]] to a well-off merchant family, Gladstone was educated at [[Eton College]] and [[Oxford University]] before entering [[Parliament]] in 1832 as Conservative MP for [[Newark]]. In his early career, Gladstone was regarded as a 'stern and unbending Tory' and a High Anglican. In 1839, he married [[Catherine Glynne]], who remained together until Gladstone’s death 59 years later.

Gladstone served as President of the Board of Trade (1843-44) during the second ministry of [[Robert Peel]]. He resigned in 1845 over the Maynooth Grant issue, but returned in December as Colonial Secretary. Peel’s government fell in 1846, and Gladstone followed his leader in separation from the [[Conservative Party]]. After Peel’s death in 1850, Gladstone became leader of this ‘Peelite’ faction in the House of Commons.

In 1852, he became [[Chancellor of the Exchequer]] in a Whig-Peelite coalition government led by Lord Aberdeen. The government resigned in 1855 over the [[Crimean War]] and Gladstone spent the next four years in the political wilderness, refusing to join Derby’s Conservative Ministry on the grounds that he did not want to work with [[Benjamin Disraeli]].

==Conservative to Liberal==
In an historic move, Gladstone joined [[Lord Palmerston|Palmerston’s]] new [[Liberal]] government in 1859 as [[Chancellor of the Exchequer]]. In this post, Gladstone was steadily able to reduce income tax during his time in office. He had originally opposed further electoral reform, but by 1865, was in favour of extending the franchise to the working classes in the towns.

Palmerston died in 1865 and was replaced by [[John Russell]], who in turn retired in 1867, making Gladstone leader of the Liberal Party. The Liberals won the 1868 general election and Gladstone became [[Prime Minister]], in a government described as ‘the greatest of the 19th century’. A number of important reforms were passed, such as the disestablishment of the unpopular [[Church of Ireland]] in 1869, the [[Forster Education Act]] of 1870, which provided free primary education for all, and the 1872 [[Ballot Act]], which ensured a secret ballot in all future elections.

However, not all of the new legislation was popular with the voting public. Gladstone was defeated in the 1874 general election by his political rival [[Benjamin Disraeli|Disraeli]], and soon after resigned as Liberal leader. However, Disraeli’s aggressive foreign policy (particularly in the Near East) spurred Gladstone back into frontline politics as he launched an extensive campaign against the Conservative government, (known as the ‘Midlothian Campaign’) in 1879 and 1880.

==Later Years==
The [[Liberal Party]] won the 1880 [[general election]] and Gladstone resumed his position as Prime Minister. He set about disengaging Britain from a series of colonial wars and passed the 1884 Reform Act, which further extended the franchise. However, this government was to become known as the ‘Ministry of Troubles’, with problems both at home and abroad. He was forced to resign in 1885 after the death of [[General Gordon]] in Khartoum, for which Gladstone was held indirectly responsible.

In 1886, Gladstone was able to defeat [[Lord Salisbury|Lord Salisbury’s]] government through an alliance with Irish Nationalists and introduced his [[Home Rule]] Bill for Ireland. The issue split the Liberal Party and the Bill was defeated at the second reading. The government then lost the 1886 general election to be replaced by Lord Salisbury’s Conservative Ministry.

In 1892, Gladstone was re-elected Prime Minister for the fourth and final time. The following year he introduced his second Home Rule Bill. It passed by a small majority in the Commons, but then was defeated in the Lords.

Soon after, with his eyesight and hearing failing him, Gladstone resigned at the age of 84. He would make one more speech in 1896 to denounce the [[Armenian atrocities]], but died in 1898 at the age of 88. He was given a state funeral and buried in [[Westminster Abbey]].

==Principles==
* Gladstone believed in the ‘[[Laissez faire|laissez-faire]]’ philosophy that good government does not interfere much in the affairs of individuals. His thrifty personal habits were reflected in his role as [[Chancellor of the Exchequer]]. He saw excess government expenditure as ‘a great moral evil’.

* He was opposed to war and despised the cost of military activity, reminding parliament that he ‘uniformly opposed [[militarism]]’ throughout his career.

* Was a firm supporter of [[free trade]], believing that international peace and domestic prosperity could best be maintained by removing barriers to reciprocal trade between nations.

* Believed that success was the result of hard work and that failure showed a lack of moral spirit. He therefore believed that the poor should help themselves to alleviate their own condition.

* Gladstone was never a fervent supporter of [[democracy]], stating: ‘I am a firm believer in the [[aristocracy|aristocratic]] principle – the rule of the best.’ However, in 1864 he contended that ‘every man who is not presumably incapacitated by some consideration of personal unfitness or of political danger is morally entitled to come within the pale of the constitution’, implying at least a cautious support of household suffrage. For his time in British politics, this could even be interpreted as a relatively positive view on democratic principles.

* A strong supporter of the British [[monarchy]], despite [[Queen Victoria|Queen Victoria’s]] resentment of him. She never liked his serious demeanour, and complained: "He always addresses me as if I were a public meeting."

* Described himself as a ‘man in politics’ rather than a politician. He only wanted to do useful work for the good of the country and could never understand his popularity.

==Religion==
Gladstone was a devout [[Christian]] throughout his life, which had a profound impact on his political beliefs. In his early career he was intent on maintaining relations between Church and State, although he later realised that this was too idealistic and advocated 'greater autonomy' for the [[Church of England|Anglican Church]] and toleration of other faiths and denominations. Gladstone maintained a high moral purpose in his politics, which greatly affected his decisions both in domestic and foreign affairs. This may explain his later conversion to more radical politics; campaigning for social justice and welfare for those less fortunate as a moral responsibility. It is also shown in his mission to 'pacify [[Ireland]]' in 1868, and his denunciation of the atrocities committed by the [[Turkey|Turks]] on [[Bulgaria|Bulgarian]] Christians in the late 1870s.
This [[Evangelical]] stance often attracted criticism from his opponents and alienated sections of his own party. Luckily for Gladstone however, his moral crusades were generally supported by an enthusiastic political public.

Another aspect of Gladstone’s religious mission was his work in rescuing [[prostitution|prostitutes]] from the [[London]] streets. He would aim to find them alternative employment and rehabilitate them back into mainstream society. His work was seen as controversial and criticised by many, but he continued this practice with the full support of his wife even when he was [[Prime Minister]].

==Gladstone on the American Constitution==

Originally, Gladstone had held a strong prejudice against Americans, calling them ‘a dishonest, unprincipled people’ in 1844. He was especially critical of the money-grabbing Northern Yankee tradesmen and farmers, and shared the prejudiced view of the English upper-class that the Southern planters, with their cultivated drawl, were the closest thing [[United States of America|America]] had to gentlemen.

However, he did not believe that a permanent division of the [[United States of America|American Union]] would be in Britain’s best interests, and the violence of the [[American Civil War|Civil War]] sickened him. He believed that the North would never be able to restore the Union by force, and was prepared to offer diplomatic recognition to the [[Confederate States of America|Southern Confederacy]] if they prevailed.

In October 1862, Gladstone caused controversy by uttering the words: ''“There is no doubt that [[Jefferson Davis]], and other leaders of the South have made an army. They are making, it appears, a Navy. And they have made – what is more than either – they have made a Nation.”''

Gladstone shocked his Liberal colleagues by appearing to support the [[Confederate States of America|Southern Confederacy]]. John Bright commented: 'He is for union and freedom in Italy, and for disunion and bondage in America!' Gladstone detested [[slavery]], but saw no point in denouncing it when he believed the anti-slavery cause was lost.

His unguarded comment caused some harm to Anglo-American relations for many years, but the unexpected victory of the Northern States had an important effect on Gladstone’s outlook. His prejudice slowly disappeared, and eventually came to regard American democracy as one of humanity’s supreme achievements. He later described the [[United States Constitution|American Constitution]] as: 'the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.'

==Biographies==
* John Morley, ''The Life of Gladstone'' (1903)
* D.W. Bebbington, ''William Ewart Gladstone''
* Eric Brad, ''William Gladstone''
* Osbert Burdett, ''W. E. Gladstone'' (1928)
* F. Birrell, ''Gladstone'' (1933)
* E. Eyck, ''Gladstone'' (1938)
* Philip Magnus, ''Gladstone: A Biography'' (1954)
* E.G. Collieu, ''Gladstone'' (1968)
* H.C. Matthew, ''Gladstone: 1809-98'' (1995)
* Roy Jenkins, ''Gladstone'' (1995) (ISBN 0-333-66209-1)

{{DEFAULTSORT: Gladstone, William}}
[[Category:Political People]]
[[category:United Kingdom Prime Ministers]]

Talk:William Gladstone

2008-05-15T20:41:09Z

Gladstone:

I don't believe it's true that Gladstone never believed in universal suffrage. In 1864 he stated:

“every man who is not presumably incapacitated by some consideration of personal unfitness or of political danger is morally entitled to come within the pale of the constitution”.

Although it is thought that he became scared of his own thinking, this quote suggests at least a cautious stance toward male or household suffrage. Furthermore, by the time he had introduced the Ballot act there was already close to universal male suffrage - why would he pass an act specifically designed to protect working class voters and aid the democratic process if he wasn't, at least ostensibly, a believer in some form of democracy?
--[[User:Gladstone|Gladstone]] 20:57 BST, 15th May 2008

Disputed "principle":
* Gladstone never believed in [[democracy]], stating: ‘I am a firm believer in the [[aristocracy|aristocratic]] principle – the rule of the best.’ He campaigned against universal male suffrage, believing that only those who could be trusted with the vote should be allowed to.

I think a bill that favors or protects voting would have to be classed as inconsistent with "never believing in democracy". Also, "rule of the best" is not always anti-democratic. Don't we all want to elect the "best" rulers, judges, and legislators? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:16, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
:But in a C19 context, especially perhaps a British one, the word 'best' is laden with class connotations. To be 'best' for Gladstone was to have, among other things, a 'proper' (ie public (US:private) school, classics-based) education - something outside the grasp of the huge majority of the disenfranchised. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:26, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

In 19th century British politics even Gladstone's stance on democracy was relatively positive. Very few politicians, if any, wanted full male suffrage. Even the 1867 Reform Act, which enfranchised urban working class males, was only introduced by Disraeli as a way of spiting Gladstone and winning votes. The actual idea of full male suffrage was still very radical, and for his time Gladstone's views were if anything fairly democratic.
--[[User:Gladstone|Gladstone]] 21:40 BST, 15th May 2008

William Gladstone

2008-05-15T20:30:29Z

Gladstone: /* Principles */

[[Image: Gladstone.jpg|thumb|right|220px|William Ewart Gladstone, four times [[Prime Minister]] of the [[United Kingdom]]]]
'''William Ewart Gladstone''' (1809–1898) was a British statesman and four-time [[Prime Minister]] (1868–1874, 1880–1885, 1886 and 1892–1894). He is best known for his extensive political reforms and skilled oratory. A scholar as well as a politician, he was the primary political rival of [[Benjamin Disraeli]]. Still considered to be one of Britain's greatest Prime Ministers, Gladstone was the inspiration for [[Winston Churchill]] and others.

==Early Life and Tory Minister==
Born in 1809 in [[Liverpool]] to a well-off merchant family, Gladstone was educated at [[Eton College]] and [[Oxford University]] before entering [[Parliament]] in 1832 as Conservative MP for [[Newark]]. In his early career, Gladstone was regarded as a 'stern and unbending Tory' and a High Anglican. In 1839, he married [[Catherine Glynne]], who remained together until Gladstone’s death 59 years later.

Gladstone served as President of the Board of Trade (1843-44) during the second ministry of [[Robert Peel]]. He resigned in 1845 over the Maynooth Grant issue, but returned in December as Colonial Secretary. Peel’s government fell in 1846, and Gladstone followed his leader in separation from the [[Conservative Party]]. After Peel’s death in 1850, Gladstone became leader of this ‘Peelite’ faction in the House of Commons.

In 1852, he became [[Chancellor of the Exchequer]] in a Whig-Peelite coalition government led by Lord Aberdeen. The government resigned in 1855 over the [[Crimean War]] and Gladstone spent the next four years in the political wilderness, refusing to join Derby’s Conservative Ministry on the grounds that he did not want to work with [[Benjamin Disraeli]].

==Conservative to Liberal==
In an historic move, Gladstone joined [[Lord Palmerston|Palmerston’s]] new [[Liberal]] government in 1859 as [[Chancellor of the Exchequer]]. In this post, Gladstone was steadily able to reduce income tax during his time in office. He had originally opposed further electoral reform, but by 1865, was in favour of extending the franchise to the working classes in the towns.

Palmerston died in 1865 and was replaced by [[John Russell]], who in turn retired in 1867, making Gladstone leader of the Liberal Party. The Liberals won the 1868 general election and Gladstone became [[Prime Minister]], in a government described as ‘the greatest of the 19th century’. A number of important reforms were passed, such as the disestablishment of the unpopular [[Church of Ireland]] in 1869, the [[Forster Education Act]] of 1870, which provided free primary education for all, and the 1872 [[Ballot Act]], which ensured a secret ballot in all future elections.

However, not all of the new legislation was popular with the voting public. Gladstone was defeated in the 1874 general election by his political rival [[Benjamin Disraeli|Disraeli]], and soon after resigned as Liberal leader. However, Disraeli’s aggressive foreign policy (particularly in the Near East) spurred Gladstone back into frontline politics as he launched an extensive campaign against the Conservative government, (known as the ‘Midlothian Campaign’) in 1879 and 1880.

==Later Years==
The [[Liberal Party]] won the 1880 [[general election]] and Gladstone resumed his position as Prime Minister. He set about disengaging Britain from a series of colonial wars and passed the 1884 Reform Act, which further extended the franchise. However, this government was to become known as the ‘Ministry of Troubles’, with problems both at home and abroad. He was forced to resign in 1885 after the death of [[General Gordon]] in Khartoum, for which Gladstone was held indirectly responsible.

In 1886, Gladstone was able to defeat [[Lord Salisbury|Lord Salisbury’s]] government through an alliance with Irish Nationalists and introduced his [[Home Rule]] Bill for Ireland. The issue split the Liberal Party and the Bill was defeated at the second reading. The government then lost the 1886 general election to be replaced by Lord Salisbury’s Conservative Ministry.

In 1892, Gladstone was re-elected Prime Minister for the fourth and final time. The following year he introduced his second Home Rule Bill. It passed by a small majority in the Commons, but then was defeated in the Lords.

Soon after, with his eyesight and hearing failing him, Gladstone resigned at the age of 84. He would make one more speech in 1896 to denounce the [[Armenian atrocities]], but died in 1898 at the age of 88. He was given a state funeral and buried in [[Westminster Abbey]].

==Principles==
* Gladstone believed in the ‘[[Laissez faire|laissez-faire]]’ philosophy that good government does not interfere much in the affairs of individuals. His thrifty personal habits were reflected in his role as [[Chancellor of the Exchequer]]. He saw excess government expenditure as ‘a great moral evil’.

* He was opposed to war and despised the cost of military activity, reminding parliament that he ‘uniformly opposed [[militarism]]’ throughout his career.

* Was a firm supporter of [[free trade]], believing that international peace and domestic prosperity could best be maintained by removing barriers to reciprocal trade between nations.

* Believed that success was the result of hard work and that failure showed a lack of moral spirit. He therefore believed that the poor should help themselves to alleviate their own condition.

* Gladstone was never a fervent supporter of [[democracy]], stating: ‘I am a firm believer in the [[aristocracy|aristocratic]] principle – the rule of the best.’ However, in 1864 he contended that ‘every man who is not presumably incapacitated by some consideration of personal unfitness or of political danger is morally entitled to come within the pale of the constitution’, implying at least a cautious support of male or household suffrage. For his time in British politics, this could even be interpreted as a relatively positive view on democratic principles.

* A strong supporter of the British [[monarchy]], despite [[Queen Victoria|Queen Victoria’s]] resentment of him. She never liked his serious demeanour, and complained: "He always addresses me as if I were a public meeting."

* Described himself as a ‘man in politics’ rather than a politician. He only wanted to do useful work for the good of the country and could never understand his popularity.

==Religion==
Gladstone was a devout [[Christian]] throughout his life, which had a profound impact on his political beliefs. In his early career he was intent on maintaining relations between Church and State, although he later realised that this was too idealistic and advocated 'greater autonomy' for the [[Church of England|Anglican Church]] and toleration of other faiths and denominations. Gladstone maintained a high moral purpose in his politics, which greatly affected his decisions both in domestic and foreign affairs. This may explain his later conversion to more radical politics; campaigning for social justice and welfare for those less fortunate as a moral responsibility. It is also shown in his mission to 'pacify [[Ireland]]' in 1868, and his denunciation of the atrocities committed by the [[Turkey|Turks]] on [[Bulgaria|Bulgarian]] Christians in the late 1870s.
This [[Evangelical]] stance often attracted criticism from his opponents and alienated sections of his own party. Luckily for Gladstone however, his moral crusades were generally supported by an enthusiastic political public.

Another aspect of Gladstone’s religious mission was his work in rescuing [[prostitution|prostitutes]] from the [[London]] streets. He would aim to find them alternative employment and rehabilitate them back into mainstream society. His work was seen as controversial and criticised by many, but he continued this practice with the full support of his wife even when he was [[Prime Minister]].

==Gladstone on the American Constitution==

Originally, Gladstone had held a strong prejudice against Americans, calling them ‘a dishonest, unprincipled people’ in 1844. He was especially critical of the money-grabbing Northern Yankee tradesmen and farmers, and shared the prejudiced view of the English upper-class that the Southern planters, with their cultivated drawl, were the closest thing [[United States of America|America]] had to gentlemen.

However, he did not believe that a permanent division of the [[United States of America|American Union]] would be in Britain’s best interests, and the violence of the [[American Civil War|Civil War]] sickened him. He believed that the North would never be able to restore the Union by force, and was prepared to offer diplomatic recognition to the [[Confederate States of America|Southern Confederacy]] if they prevailed.

In October 1862, Gladstone caused controversy by uttering the words: ''“There is no doubt that [[Jefferson Davis]], and other leaders of the South have made an army. They are making, it appears, a Navy. And they have made – what is more than either – they have made a Nation.”''

Gladstone shocked his Liberal colleagues by appearing to support the [[Confederate States of America|Southern Confederacy]]. John Bright commented: 'He is for union and freedom in Italy, and for disunion and bondage in America!' Gladstone detested [[slavery]], but saw no point in denouncing it when he believed the anti-slavery cause was lost.

His unguarded comment caused some harm to Anglo-American relations for many years, but the unexpected victory of the Northern States had an important effect on Gladstone’s outlook. His prejudice slowly disappeared, and eventually came to regard American democracy as one of humanity’s supreme achievements. He later described the [[United States Constitution|American Constitution]] as: 'the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.'

==Biographies==
* John Morley, ''The Life of Gladstone'' (1903)
* D.W. Bebbington, ''William Ewart Gladstone''
* Eric Brad, ''William Gladstone''
* Osbert Burdett, ''W. E. Gladstone'' (1928)
* F. Birrell, ''Gladstone'' (1933)
* E. Eyck, ''Gladstone'' (1938)
* Philip Magnus, ''Gladstone: A Biography'' (1954)
* E.G. Collieu, ''Gladstone'' (1968)
* H.C. Matthew, ''Gladstone: 1809-98'' (1995)
* Roy Jenkins, ''Gladstone'' (1995) (ISBN 0-333-66209-1)

{{DEFAULTSORT: Gladstone, William}}
[[Category:Political People]]
[[category:United Kingdom Prime Ministers]]

William Gladstone

2008-05-15T20:29:38Z

Gladstone: /* Principles */

[[Image: Gladstone.jpg|thumb|right|220px|William Ewart Gladstone, four times [[Prime Minister]] of the [[United Kingdom]]]]
'''William Ewart Gladstone''' (1809–1898) was a British statesman and four-time [[Prime Minister]] (1868–1874, 1880–1885, 1886 and 1892–1894). He is best known for his extensive political reforms and skilled oratory. A scholar as well as a politician, he was the primary political rival of [[Benjamin Disraeli]]. Still considered to be one of Britain's greatest Prime Ministers, Gladstone was the inspiration for [[Winston Churchill]] and others.

==Early Life and Tory Minister==
Born in 1809 in [[Liverpool]] to a well-off merchant family, Gladstone was educated at [[Eton College]] and [[Oxford University]] before entering [[Parliament]] in 1832 as Conservative MP for [[Newark]]. In his early career, Gladstone was regarded as a 'stern and unbending Tory' and a High Anglican. In 1839, he married [[Catherine Glynne]], who remained together until Gladstone’s death 59 years later.

Gladstone served as President of the Board of Trade (1843-44) during the second ministry of [[Robert Peel]]. He resigned in 1845 over the Maynooth Grant issue, but returned in December as Colonial Secretary. Peel’s government fell in 1846, and Gladstone followed his leader in separation from the [[Conservative Party]]. After Peel’s death in 1850, Gladstone became leader of this ‘Peelite’ faction in the House of Commons.

In 1852, he became [[Chancellor of the Exchequer]] in a Whig-Peelite coalition government led by Lord Aberdeen. The government resigned in 1855 over the [[Crimean War]] and Gladstone spent the next four years in the political wilderness, refusing to join Derby’s Conservative Ministry on the grounds that he did not want to work with [[Benjamin Disraeli]].

==Conservative to Liberal==
In an historic move, Gladstone joined [[Lord Palmerston|Palmerston’s]] new [[Liberal]] government in 1859 as [[Chancellor of the Exchequer]]. In this post, Gladstone was steadily able to reduce income tax during his time in office. He had originally opposed further electoral reform, but by 1865, was in favour of extending the franchise to the working classes in the towns.

Palmerston died in 1865 and was replaced by [[John Russell]], who in turn retired in 1867, making Gladstone leader of the Liberal Party. The Liberals won the 1868 general election and Gladstone became [[Prime Minister]], in a government described as ‘the greatest of the 19th century’. A number of important reforms were passed, such as the disestablishment of the unpopular [[Church of Ireland]] in 1869, the [[Forster Education Act]] of 1870, which provided free primary education for all, and the 1872 [[Ballot Act]], which ensured a secret ballot in all future elections.

However, not all of the new legislation was popular with the voting public. Gladstone was defeated in the 1874 general election by his political rival [[Benjamin Disraeli|Disraeli]], and soon after resigned as Liberal leader. However, Disraeli’s aggressive foreign policy (particularly in the Near East) spurred Gladstone back into frontline politics as he launched an extensive campaign against the Conservative government, (known as the ‘Midlothian Campaign’) in 1879 and 1880.

==Later Years==
The [[Liberal Party]] won the 1880 [[general election]] and Gladstone resumed his position as Prime Minister. He set about disengaging Britain from a series of colonial wars and passed the 1884 Reform Act, which further extended the franchise. However, this government was to become known as the ‘Ministry of Troubles’, with problems both at home and abroad. He was forced to resign in 1885 after the death of [[General Gordon]] in Khartoum, for which Gladstone was held indirectly responsible.

In 1886, Gladstone was able to defeat [[Lord Salisbury|Lord Salisbury’s]] government through an alliance with Irish Nationalists and introduced his [[Home Rule]] Bill for Ireland. The issue split the Liberal Party and the Bill was defeated at the second reading. The government then lost the 1886 general election to be replaced by Lord Salisbury’s Conservative Ministry.

In 1892, Gladstone was re-elected Prime Minister for the fourth and final time. The following year he introduced his second Home Rule Bill. It passed by a small majority in the Commons, but then was defeated in the Lords.

Soon after, with his eyesight and hearing failing him, Gladstone resigned at the age of 84. He would make one more speech in 1896 to denounce the [[Armenian atrocities]], but died in 1898 at the age of 88. He was given a state funeral and buried in [[Westminster Abbey]].

==Principles==
* Gladstone believed in the ‘[[Laissez faire|laissez-faire]]’ philosophy that good government does not interfere much in the affairs of individuals. His thrifty personal habits were reflected in his role as [[Chancellor of the Exchequer]]. He saw excess government expenditure as ‘a great moral evil’.

* He was opposed to war and despised the cost of military activity, reminding parliament that he ‘uniformly opposed [[militarism]]’ throughout his career.

* Was a firm supporter of [[free trade]], believing that international peace and domestic prosperity could best be maintained by removing barriers to reciprocal trade between nations.

* Believed that success was the result of hard work and that failure showed a lack of moral spirit. He therefore believed that the poor should help themselves to alleviate their own condition.

* Gladstone was never a fervent supporter of [[democracy]], stating: ‘I am a firm believer in the [[aristocracy|aristocratic]] principle – the rule of the best.’ However, in 1864 he contended that ‘every man who is not presumably incapacitated by some consideration of personal unfitness or of political danger is morally entitled to come within the pale of the constitution’, implying at least a cautious support of male or household suffrage. For his time in British politics, this could even be interpreted as a relatively positive view toward democratic principles.

* A strong supporter of the British [[monarchy]], despite [[Queen Victoria|Queen Victoria’s]] resentment of him. She never liked his serious demeanour, and complained: "He always addresses me as if I were a public meeting."

* Described himself as a ‘man in politics’ rather than a politician. He only wanted to do useful work for the good of the country and could never understand his popularity.

==Religion==
Gladstone was a devout [[Christian]] throughout his life, which had a profound impact on his political beliefs. In his early career he was intent on maintaining relations between Church and State, although he later realised that this was too idealistic and advocated 'greater autonomy' for the [[Church of England|Anglican Church]] and toleration of other faiths and denominations. Gladstone maintained a high moral purpose in his politics, which greatly affected his decisions both in domestic and foreign affairs. This may explain his later conversion to more radical politics; campaigning for social justice and welfare for those less fortunate as a moral responsibility. It is also shown in his mission to 'pacify [[Ireland]]' in 1868, and his denunciation of the atrocities committed by the [[Turkey|Turks]] on [[Bulgaria|Bulgarian]] Christians in the late 1870s.
This [[Evangelical]] stance often attracted criticism from his opponents and alienated sections of his own party. Luckily for Gladstone however, his moral crusades were generally supported by an enthusiastic political public.

Another aspect of Gladstone’s religious mission was his work in rescuing [[prostitution|prostitutes]] from the [[London]] streets. He would aim to find them alternative employment and rehabilitate them back into mainstream society. His work was seen as controversial and criticised by many, but he continued this practice with the full support of his wife even when he was [[Prime Minister]].

==Gladstone on the American Constitution==

Originally, Gladstone had held a strong prejudice against Americans, calling them ‘a dishonest, unprincipled people’ in 1844. He was especially critical of the money-grabbing Northern Yankee tradesmen and farmers, and shared the prejudiced view of the English upper-class that the Southern planters, with their cultivated drawl, were the closest thing [[United States of America|America]] had to gentlemen.

However, he did not believe that a permanent division of the [[United States of America|American Union]] would be in Britain’s best interests, and the violence of the [[American Civil War|Civil War]] sickened him. He believed that the North would never be able to restore the Union by force, and was prepared to offer diplomatic recognition to the [[Confederate States of America|Southern Confederacy]] if they prevailed.

In October 1862, Gladstone caused controversy by uttering the words: ''“There is no doubt that [[Jefferson Davis]], and other leaders of the South have made an army. They are making, it appears, a Navy. And they have made – what is more than either – they have made a Nation.”''

Gladstone shocked his Liberal colleagues by appearing to support the [[Confederate States of America|Southern Confederacy]]. John Bright commented: 'He is for union and freedom in Italy, and for disunion and bondage in America!' Gladstone detested [[slavery]], but saw no point in denouncing it when he believed the anti-slavery cause was lost.

His unguarded comment caused some harm to Anglo-American relations for many years, but the unexpected victory of the Northern States had an important effect on Gladstone’s outlook. His prejudice slowly disappeared, and eventually came to regard American democracy as one of humanity’s supreme achievements. He later described the [[United States Constitution|American Constitution]] as: 'the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.'

==Biographies==
* John Morley, ''The Life of Gladstone'' (1903)
* D.W. Bebbington, ''William Ewart Gladstone''
* Eric Brad, ''William Gladstone''
* Osbert Burdett, ''W. E. Gladstone'' (1928)
* F. Birrell, ''Gladstone'' (1933)
* E. Eyck, ''Gladstone'' (1938)
* Philip Magnus, ''Gladstone: A Biography'' (1954)
* E.G. Collieu, ''Gladstone'' (1968)
* H.C. Matthew, ''Gladstone: 1809-98'' (1995)
* Roy Jenkins, ''Gladstone'' (1995) (ISBN 0-333-66209-1)

{{DEFAULTSORT: Gladstone, William}}
[[Category:Political People]]
[[category:United Kingdom Prime Ministers]]

Talk:William Gladstone

2008-05-15T20:22:10Z

Gladstone:

Talk:William Gladstone

2008-05-15T20:19:49Z

Gladstone:

Talk:William Gladstone

2008-05-15T20:06:00Z

Gladstone:

Talk:William Gladstone

2008-05-15T20:05:43Z

Gladstone:

Talk:William Gladstone

2008-05-15T19:58:14Z

Gladstone:

Talk:William Gladstone

2008-05-15T19:57:43Z

Gladstone: New page: I don't believe it's true that Gladstone never believed in universal suffrage. In 1864 he stated: “every man who is not presumably incapacitated by some consideration of personal unfitn...

England

2008-05-15T19:07:48Z

Gladstone: England isn't a country.

[[Image:England.gif|right|thumb|300px|England]]
'''England''' is a constituent country of the [[United Kingdom]] located on the island of [[Great Britain]] in the north-west of [[Europe]].
It is home of the [[English]] language currently spoken by perhaps a billion people, and was the seat of an empire that spanned the globe.
It is the location of the parliament of the United Kingdom, and holds a majority of the population, making it politically and economically significant to the UK as a whole.

== History ==

From AD 43, the [[Romans]] invaded [[Britain]] and took control over the southern half of the islands, where they founded the fort of "Londinium", which later became [[London]]. As the [[Roman Empire]] abandoned its frontier territories, [[Germanic]] tribes, specifically the [[Angles]], [[Saxons]] and [[Jutes]], began to settle over the majority of the island. Kingdoms formed, such as Northumbria (Anglian) in the north, Wessex (named after the West Saxons) in the south west and Kent (probably founded by Jutes, and now the name of a county) in the south east. Parts of the regions now known as [[Wales]], [[Scotland]], and the county of Cornwall continued to be independent Celtic nations for some time after this. The Germanic invaders were still [[pagan]]s when they conquered part of Britain (e.g. [[Penda]] of Mercia was (allegedly) the last pagan King). The English peoples were converted to [[Christianity]], however, in the 7th Century AD. This happened from two directions: the mission of [[St. Augustine]], emissary of Gregory the Great came initially to Kent, while the (successful) mission to the Northumbrian Angles (and from there to peoples further south) was from the [[Celtic]] church based in northern British monasteries such as [[Iona]] and [[Lindisfarne]]. The entire [[British Isles]] later came under the sway of [[Roman Catholicism]] as the powerful Northumbrian King, Oswy, chose in favour of Roman practice in AD 664 ('Synod of Whitby').
[[Image:London England.jpg|right|300px]]
Later, in 1066 AD, the Norman French Duke [[William the Conqueror]] defeated the last [[Anglo-Saxon]] King, [[Harold Godwinson]], and amongst the privileged elite [[French]] language and customs became a part of English culture, however for the most part the common population continued to use their own language and customs.

== Religion ==

England is a country of diverse religions. In 1533 AD King [[Henry VIII]] formed the [[Protestantism|Protestant]] [[Church of England]] after the pope refused to allow a divorce between the king and his wife. Since then, the country has remained primarily Anglican with the notable exception of the Catholic reign of [[Mary I]]. More recently, the number of [[Roman Catholics]] is poised to overtake the number of [[Anglicans]] in the country, a trend that is likely to continue with an influx of migrants from Catholic countries such as [[Ireland]] and recent [[EU]] accession countries such as [[Poland]][http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article1386939.ece]. As with the UK as a whole, the significant minority religions include [[Hinduism]], [[Judaism]] and [[Islam]].

== Influence ==

England is the home of the English language, which was later spread to all parts of the world by the [[British Empire]], along with traditional English concepts such as universal suffrage, parliamentary government, the jury system, and freedom of speech.

== See also ==
*[[English Bill of Rights]]
*[[English Civil War]]
*[[English Painting]]

[[Category:United Kingdom]]
[[Category:England| ]]
[[Category:European Countries]]

Talk:Liberal denial

2008-05-15T16:28:19Z

Gladstone: /* I thought this was supposed to be an encyclopaedia... */

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Not Fair! ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Abortions and breast cancer ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

===Sources in the Abortion Article===

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

''Person B does not get pregnant''

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

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

''Person B does not get pregnant''

''Person C gets pregnant and gives birth''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== 'Hollywood Values' ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Liberal denial

2008-05-15T16:26:27Z

Gladstone: