Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Feminism

2012-01-27T23:27:17Z

Harveydent:

== Article filled with opinion, lacking factual information ==
The article actualy calls feminists lesbians in the third line. The article is lacking factual information and in its place provides only the opinion that feminism is evil. Please rewrite this article to be made up of facts and not opinion.

==article problems==
Second Wave did not "resurge"-the feminism that emerged out of the later 80's/early 90's is Third Wave.

Also, feminism, contrary to what many people think, does not revolve around abortion. Feminist work also involves issues such as affordable access to childcare and prevention of domestic violence, just to name a couple. Couldn't this article reflect that rather than lumping all of feminism into one category of ideology?

----
Removed opinion.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:10, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

This article contains a lot of irrelevant information. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

A big problem with feminism is its desire to erase sex distinctions. Masculinity and femininity are no longer seen as God-given traits, or even ideals. [[Women in the military]], the so-called [[equal pay for equal work]] law; the forced muzzling of that Harvard president who dared suggest that women and men might not be equally suited to academic careers in math and science.

The idea that there's nothing sacred about the male-female relationship obviously provides support for [[gay rights]] agitation and same-sex "marriage". If there's nothing special about a man, then what does a woman need one for? She can have a "wife" too (as Garry Trudeau once put it). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't think the addition of the Rush Limbaugh "femi-nazi" comment is particularly relevant, largely because it's based on the wholly erroneous assumption that all feminists are pro-abortion. To include anything based on that assumption mischaracterizes the late 20th c/early 21st c "post feminist" era, where women who self-identify as feminists are far more likely to fall within a broad spectrum of ideals than one cookie cutter. [[User:Fsm1975|Fsm1975]] 23:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I just found this. This gives a leading source for a definition.
:Hillary Clinton received the endorsement of the National Organization for Women, a group of a half-million members who support feminist candidates for elective office. Asked whether she saw herself as a feminist, Clinton said by the standard definition, yes. "If you look in the dictionary, the word feminist means someone who believes in equal rights for women in society, in the economy, the political process -- generally believes in the equality of women," she said. "And I certainly believe in the equality of women." [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:35, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::I’m curious why a person who would not accept a philosopher of science as a credible source for an entry on science would accept the definition of a politician/lawyer as definitive in terms of a philosophical/social/academic movement. Let alone why you would think she would be a “leading source for a definition”. Not that I object to the content of her definition, but the strongest claim I think you can support with it is “some politicians endorsed by [[NOW]] believe feminism means…” An interesting, but not especaly useful or informative claim.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:48, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Defining feminism==

Cut from intro:

:However there is no broad consensus among [[feminists]] (followers of feminism) about how gender equality ought to be understood. In recent years this has led many feminists to argue that, because there are so many different and mutually exclusive philosophies and philosophers that are called feminist, it is more appropriate to speak of feminisms (plural) than feminism (singular) <ref>Feminisms [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/]</ref>. For this reason it is difficult, if not impossible, to state any belief universally held by all feminists.

This sounds like a refusal to be categorized, defined or otherwise pinned down. But it's the job of an encyclopedia to define and categorize. How can we solve this problem? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:The way I would suggest handling it is to take seriously the distinctions feminists make among themselves. (For example there is a clear split between the pro- and anti- pornography feminists (I’m still working on a RD of the [[pornography]] article as per our previous discussion btw) ). If we are going to really flesh out this article we ought to have a number of feminisms represented here—just as we don’t lump all creationists together but observe the very real distinction between Young and Old Earth Creationists.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Abortion poll==

The page I linked to had a whole series of polls. The two most recent polls said that 16% of the American public favored retaining unlimited rights to abortion, and 39% favored abortion being 'legal in most cases'. Of the remainder, 31% favored it being illegal in 'most' cases and 12% illegal in all cases. In other words, 55% favor it being legal in all or most cases and 43% favor it being illegal in all or most cases, with 2% unsure either way. The other poll referred to the retention of the rights granted under Roe v Wade and 62% favored this. This should be reflected in the article because as it stands the article misrepresents the facts. Please tell me why you think we should misrepresent facts clearly laid out in a neutral opinion poll --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:38, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: Can you explain why abortion polling data is so relevant to this article? What is the point? It is an article about Feminism, not abortion politics.
: You put in a statement that the majority of Americans the current law on abortion rights, but in fact the most recent poll at the cited source says that only 16% support that right. So I corrected that. Now you want various other poll results. What is the point? People can follow the link to the polls if they wish. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:05, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::The statement about feminist support for abortion rights was in the original version of the article I saw. I linked to the poll to provide a citation on an issue that the original article said was of great importance to many feminists, and made it clear that these rights were opposed by many conservatives and some feminists. My original simple statement about 'majority' support for the right to a legal abortion in all or some cases was made convoluted by another editor and I attempted to clarify it. It has now been totally distorted by you. In addition to the 16% support you keep citing, you omit to say that an additional 39% support abortion rights 'in most cases'. Shall we say that only 12% of people - presumably conservatives - oppose abortion? This would be equally valid by your measure of validity. People can certainly follow the link, but it is dishonest to misrepresent its content in the way you are doing.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 18:16, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::: What is dishonest? It is an article about feminism, not about conservative abortion views. Maybe an article about abortion can explain the polls in detail, I don't know. The feminist organizations that support abortion rights want abortion to be legal in all cases. The 16% figure is the most relevant one. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:29, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::In that case, since there is no evidence that only feminists support abortion in all cases (we know that some are opposed) the relevant figure is the 62% who support the retention of rights under Roe v Wade, which I think we can agree was agreed by most feminists to be a landmark case on this issue. I suggest we cite that instead, which gives a clearer figure both of general feminist support for abortion rights and the degree to which that issue is supported by the population as a whole. The figure was quite unequivocal on the poll, and is probably less confusing than the other poll. I propose substituting that one. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 19:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Could you give me an example of a feminist organization that opposes abortion rights in some cases? I think that the Roe v Wade poll is more confusing because it reflect not just opinions on abortion, but also opinions about legal theories. I wonder how many people even know what the legal consequence of overturning Roe v Wade would be. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:32, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Sure - [ http://www.feministsforlife.org/] are probably the best-known group, but you can find other organisations listed on [http://www.gargaro.com/fem.html] and quotes from a variety of other sources on [http://www.geocities.com/livefreecritique/modernfeminists.html]. Personally, I don't think the Roe v Wade poll is confusing, because most people associate that case with abortion rights and would be unlikely to consider abstract legal theories in that context. Roe v Wade is cited as an event of significance in a timeline of women's rights on [http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womenstimeline1.html] and certainly supported by the majority of feminists - see [http://www.feminist.org/courts/roe.asp] and [http://www.now.org/press/01-04/01-22.html]. I feel that it is important to demonstrate the extent to which majority feminist thinking is supported by opinion among the country as a whole over this issue, hence my wish to cite either the full figures of the first poll or the limited figures over Roe v Wade of the second. The second set are probably clearer and easier.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 20:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: There are certainly lots of feminists who are very happy with abortion law. But if you want to argue that a majority of the people agree with a majority of the feminists, then the Roe v Wade poll doesn't do it. A lot of people are for or against Roe v Wade for a lot of reasons. If you want opinions on abortion, the best polls are the ones that ask abortion questions. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:37, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The language on the poll numbers, as it stands, is misleading. Currently the language is “As of April 2007, women in the US have the right to abortion in all cases, and according to a recent poll, 16% of the American public favor the retention of this right.” This is simply not the case, women have a right to abortions in most cases, but it is not unlimited. Parental notification laws, parental consent laws, laws banning third trimester abortions except when necessary to protect the health or life of the mother – all of these laws are (currently) constitutional (laws banning second trimester abortions except when necessary for the life or safety of the mother are also probably, but less clearly, allowable). That means that 16% of people favor an expansion of the right to an abortion, not keeping it the same. 39% seem to favor “keeping it the same” as there is currently a right to abortion in most, but not all cases.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 20:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I agree that the numbers as currently stated are misleading. In that case, given that RSchlafly opposes using the Roe v Wade poll I think the fairest and most representative thing to do is to cite the full figures of the first poll, which is the most recent one in any case, and let people make their own minds up about the extent to which majority feminist thinking on this issue has influenced thinking in the population in general. I will edit accordingly.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:00, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Interestingly enough, even Roe v. Wade didn’t go as far as to say that a woman had a right to an abortion in all cases. It said that a woman had a right to an abortion in the first trimester, in the second trimester a woman has a right to an abortion unless the state can show a really good reason why she should be allowed to have one, and a state could outlaw almost all third trimester abortions. (The Casey decision which is the leading case at the moment, relaxed constraints on what the state could ban). So under current law more abortions can be outlawed than could be under Roe v. Wade and even under Roe it was not the case that “women in the US have the right to abortion in all cases”.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Thank you, that's very helpful and I hope my editing of the paragraph has reflected that. Please clarify if it seems inaccurate. It sounds as if law in the US is, in practice, quite similar to law in the UK, where abortions are illegal after 24 weeks unless there are life-threatening reasons, although in practice only a minute percentage of abortions are performed after 20 weeks.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Your restatement in the article looks right to me. Just to be clear though, I am only talking about what women have a constitutionally protected right to (at the moment, I suspect that this will change in the near future). I’m not sure what the law is in any given state—the Supreme Court simply says “this is the most you can outlaw” in many states more abortions are allowed than the bare minimum. And I have no idea what the actual numbers look like here (actually I suspect that those numbers are not attainable here, given how tightly guarded medical records are).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: No, it is just not the case that abortion is limited by trimesters under USA law. Not under Roe, and not under Casey. USA law is not like UK law. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

==Why the deleted quotations?==

RobS - it is not very polite to delete another editor's work that is relevant to the article without discussing it first. I reverted your original edit so that it could be discussed. I should be grateful if you would be kind enough to do that here.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:36, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
:answers.com is a wikimirror site. It is an invalid citition. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:06, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

::Well that's no problem. It's an extremely famous quotation and I have plenty of other sources for it. The other quotation from Pat Robertson is not from answers.com so I presume that is OK. If that's your only problem with it, I will restore it with a different source. It would have been mannerly of you to have asked me if I had another source for it rather than just deleting it though. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 18:10, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

==South End Press==
My apologies, but we can't use bigotted and hate filled extremist publishers for references. A blockquote from the mainspace cites a book published by South End Press, which also published this proven and debunked piece of trash. [http://www.southendpress.org/2004/items/OldNazis] The reference will be removed, and the editor is hereby warned to refrain from making further insertions from such hatefilled extremist sources. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:07, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

==To much emphasis on abortion==
I think that this artical is focused mainly on abortion which is not it is for.

::Agreed. I suggest cutting out all abortion references except one: Give it a bullet point in the list of goals, and no more. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

== Misandry ==
This article has clearly mistaken the definition of femanism for misandry. There are more even-minded, considerate, and heterosexual feminists that can be counted, where as this article only lists those who qualify as man-haters. Honestly I think this kind of blatent bias is what's ruined Conservapedia, and really the entire country, but there's no reason to suggest that feminism goes against any of the values that we all share, and I suggest we completely overhall this entire article and include a section regarding feminist inspired misandry and the differences between the two practices. I also don't think there is any reason to suggest that feminism is a sin and in any way connected to homosexual behavior, which seems to be what this article implys. I'm not so quick to put females who wish to be heard in the same boat as abominations, and I wish I could say the same for all of the Conservapidia editors.
--[[User:YoungConservative|YoungConservative]] 15:43, 2 February 2008 (EST)YoungConservative

:What you say was true, back when the feminists really were seeking legal equality - before the radical feminists hijacked it for their attacks on family life, hate of tradition, and abortionist agenda. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

== "boys being cheerleaders for it" ==

Is it not the case that George W. Bush was a cheerleader at Yale back in the day? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 13:24, 2 March 2008 (EST)

: Could be. Many prominent men were once cheerleaders ... for ''boys'' playing football, not girls.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:27, 2 March 2008 (EST)

== Excessive quotes? ==

I'm not sure if I'm alone here in thinking that there are far too many quotes in this article? They make the layout rather bloated and do not seem to provide much in the way of information. Might I go ahead and perhaps remove some of the less relevant quotes? Thanks. --[[User:TJ|Crookles]] 15:32, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: No, please don't delete factual information, unless you see a clear [[rule]] violation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:27, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::There are no rule violations, but the quotations are not explained, not formatted, and are longer than the rest of the sections of the article put together. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:14, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::: The quotations illustrate what feminists really think, and that is informative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:34, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::::Have you looked at them though? Some of them don't make sense, some are (supposedly) by feminists and others are ''about'' feminists (with no clear distinction), a lot of them are redundant, there is no formatting, and some of them contain poorly-censored swear words. It might be informative, but it does not look good in an encyclopedia for 75% or so of the article to be made up of unclear, unreferenced quotations. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:54, 3 March 2008 (EST)

I just put bullet points on those quotes, and it really seems like a terribly excessive list. Does anyone else think that some editing could be done to this to make it seem a little less over-the-top? [[User:Reaganite|Reaganite]] 18:05, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

== The list of feminist views ==

Is it just me or goes the top list of feminist views come accross as humourous rather than factual , i laughed when i read it because it sounds funny and witty rather than serious and factual. I think the tone needs altering, i can imagine liberals having a field day over it. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 18:58, 3 March 2008 (EST)

It really smacks of parody, and of course, there were no references. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 19:57, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: Both you are clueless if you don't realize what modern feminists think. By the way, "Realist2", "across" has only on "c" and we spell "humorous" without the "our" in [[America]]. Maybe you don't have many feminists in your country. America does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 3 March 2008 (EST)
::Why did you remove my reference to feminists wanting tougher penalties for rapists? Surely they do (it was the only referenced point on the list). [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:06, 4 March 2008 (EST)

If your can only edit by insulting others spelling or the spelling for the country they come from it shows a distinct lack of tolerance. I am here to be constructive so please dont put others down its not very christain at all. Also how would i know what feminists think ... funny enough im not even a woman so it would be very hard to put myself in that thought of mind. However writing with sarcasm or does not improve the article. I never said whats written is incorrect , i said the tone needs changing, didnt you read or inderstand that Aschlafly? I can say it in spanish if it helps lol. :-)--[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 13:38, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Where in her book did Hillary Clinton say that children should be raised by a "village" RATHER THAN their parents? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 15:05, 5 March 2008 (EST)

I am removing the part about refusing to admit the wrongness of their ideology; it could be said about any ideology, but it is not listed on the Creationism or Christianity pages (or the Aethism one). [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 22:29, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly- why was my edit reverted? [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 21:51, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

: Because [[censorship]] of the truth is not allowed here. This is not Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:38, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::How is removing an unsourced statement censorship? I would not take seriously any encyclopedia in which that statement appeared without evidence. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 07:16, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm really not sure about this list: I think this focuses too much on the radical feminists - the bra-burning, men-hating feminists from the sixties and seventies. But hasn't feminism developed, become more mainstream? For example, I'd consider myself a (conservative) feminist, and almost all of my girlfriends are too. We'd reject all or almost all of the points listed in the article:
- Yes, of course men and women are different; physically and mentally. We certainly don't believe in falsely imposing equality of outcomes - only of opportunity.
- Oppose chivalry? Nope. It's charming that a few men still open doors, give up seats for us. I don't know anyone who would complain about that.
- View traditional marriage as unacceptably patriarchal? Nope.
- Belittle and mock other women who desire to have children or raise a family? No-one I know.
- shirk traditional gender activities, like baking? I really don't understand this one. You're a feminist if you don't bake biscuits? Or is this a synecdoche for wider home-making activities?
- support affirmative action for women? Again, no. Affirmative action does no good in the short, medium or long-term. That's more a liberal value than a feminist one, wouldn't you say?
- prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do - This is straying into the dungaree-wearing radical lesbian feminist stereotype. Most feminists don't care what other women wear, as long as they're not wearing the same outfit as you at a cocktail party.

Look, I could go on, but my point is that this article paints feminism as the ''bête noire'' of conservative values and, while this may be true of more radical / historical feminism, it's too simplistic to cover the very, very large number of women worldwide who identify as feminists and conservatives.[[User:Sophierabbitte|Sophierabbitte]] 07:34, 21 January 2011 (EST)

==Difficulty of defining feminism==

It's not easy to define [[feminism]]. Is it "organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests"? Must one support [[equal rights]] to be a feminist?

Are there feminists who want women to "get more" than men, just as their are minority advocates who are want their group to "get more" than people in other groups? (Is feminism thus a kind of "group selfishness"?)

Is "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" consistent with the Bible?

Is it possible to believe that men and women are "equally valuable" but made (in the image of God) to be inherently different? That is, are [[masculinity]] and [[femininity]] equally valuable qualities? Or what?

Are there currents in feminism which seek to advance women's interests but which '''do not''' assert that men and women are (or should be) "equal" in all respects?

What, then, is the proper relationship between men and women? Specifically, in the family, what are the proper roles? (How much leeway is there?)

Do all feminists oppose the "stay at home mom" phenomenon? (Or is that only [[Simone de Beauvoir]]?) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:55, 4 March 2008 (EST)

==Ridiculous Number of Quotes==

About three quarters of this article is made up of selected quotes from selected feminists, often those who do not represent mainstream feminism and are radicalised in their views. There are also a couple of unsubstantiated quotes from anti-feminists which appear to be used to represent fact rather than a person's opinion. Perhaps we could cut down on these or move them to another article ([[Quotes by Radical Feminists]] and [[Quotes by Anti-Feminists]]) in order to make this one a bit more encyclopedic. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 22:50, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

=="Ideological Edits"==

''believe that a "village" (i.e., others) should raise children rather than the child's father and mother[5]''

The supporting reference for this is the title of a book, however the book itself states that it states a village (ie a large number of people - teachers, doctors etc) '''in addition''' to parents to successfully raise a child. Not once does the book say that parents are to be denied the main role in raising their children.

''prefer for role-reversal, like girls playing football and boys being cheerleaders for it, or men baking cookies for women''

Unsupported, mainstream feminism believes in equal roles, that is women can play football and boys can be cheerleaders, they do not believe in role reversal (ie boys cannot play football and women cannot be cheerleaders).

''prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do''

Unsupported, this is a radical view at best.

''Quotes from fictional characters''

The quotes from a character within a fiction book do not provide any valid insight into the mindset of a feminist, even if that book was written by a feminist.

Hope this clears it up, ready for reversion of reversion. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 22:59, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

:Sorry, but conservatives believe that no one other than the parents should have the primary role in establishment of values, etc. Perhaps instead of pushing your liberal POV in editing a conservative encyclopedia, you could work as hard finding additional citations that you will approve of, illustrating the point. You cannot deny what is factual, that Feminism is a vehicle for liberal change of the social order, and the destruction of the traditional family. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:12, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

::This article is not about conservative beliefs, it is about the beliefs of feminists, and it appears that they are currently being misrepresented (the present revision states that feminists believe a village should raise children '''instead''' of parents, whereas the truth is that feminists believe a village should '''support''' parents in raising children). Could you please point out which of my points you believe to not be factually correct? [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 23:15, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

:::"Liberal POV" or not, I don't think fictional characters make very reliable as references. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:04, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::::I await a response. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 18:07, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

GySom, the changes you made, apparently to make the article more ideologically neutral, would be a fine thing on Wikipedia, where they like to keep the public sheltered from facts, but not on CP, where we actually offer a choice, not an echo to the so-called "wisdom" of the crowd. From my experience here, I would suggest you concern yourself less with seeking out articles to make neutral, and spend your time creating new articles, helpful content that is both Christian and conservative friendly, because that is the stated goals and perspective of this encyclopedia and its Founders. Leave it to Wikipedia, and the dishonest presentations there, to "cleanse" topics near and dear to the liberals hearts. If you wish to make the changes you have, please provide proof that Feminists don't think that way. Responsive enough? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:34, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:Hang on, are you asking me to prove a negative? Asking someone to prove that mainstream feminism does not accept something is akin to proving that there are no invisible unicorns on Mars. It is up to the person making the claim to support it, not my job to weed through every single quote that a feminist has made and then provide an analysis to show that mainstream feminism does not support a claim that is made, it is the job of the person making the claim to support it. Let me lay out the changes I think should be made:

:*Mainstream feminists do not believe a village should raise a child instead of his or her parents, they believe that parents should be supported in their role by others (this I can actually support, by my recollection the book in the reference specifically states that parents should play the main role in raising their children).
:*Mainstream feminists do not believe in role reversal, they believe in the destruction of roles (that is, instead of believing that boys should not be allowed to play football and girls should not believe in cheer leading, they believe that boys and girls should both be able to play football or cheer lead should they desire)
:*Mainstream feminists do not believe that women should not wear dresses and should wear pants
:*A series of quotes from a ''fictional character'' in a book does not provide any insight into modern feminism

:If you have an argument about one of those points please make it, I don't need to hear about how I'm an evil liberal who should run away to Wikipedia as this gets us nowhere. It is conservative ideology to tell the truth no matter what it is, therefore it is imperative to truthfully represent the views of mainstream feminism on this encyclopedia. I guess my edits were ideological after all, just not in the way you think. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 19:48, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::Indeed, I am asking you to prove your assertion, GySom. You made the changes, now back them with proof. ''What Feminists believe is well known''. Do you demand proof of God? That there is air? The Feminist agenda is the complete re-ordering of the nuclear family, its denigration. That has been proved countless times. Your own points above show that Feminists reject completely God's own creation, the differences between men and women. Please stop with these silly distracting arguments promoting liberal ideals! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:59, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::If it has been proven countless times then there should be no problems with finding supporting evidence for it. I am not asking for proof of God or proof of air because the existence of these two is not being debated, rather we are discussing whether or not mainstream feminism believes in the three points I removed, and whether the forth should be included. I notice that you have only taken objection to the first point (regarding families), it is therefore acceptable to alter the information relating to the last three? [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 20:05, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Well, I am not a sysop here, so I certainly cannot stop you from doing so. If you change it back, and the Administrators and/or Andy are fine with it, so be it. I am not going to engage you in some endless discussion about the falsities and naivety of your assumptions, GySom! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:17, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::I am very open to hearing about the "falsities and naivety of my assumptions" and changing my mind if sources are produced, however at the moment it appears that there are no sources supporting the claim that feminists believe parents should not raise their children (the current cite says the opposite) and it appears that nobody has taken objection to the rewording of the claim that feminists favour role reversal or the removal of the claim that feminists shun dresses or the quotes from the fictional character. I will change the last three points, and leave the first open for now for continued discussion with yourself or others.

:::::Please, I am not trying to invite conflict, I just feel that this claim is not supported and therefore needs to be changed. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 20:24, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

*Yes, to be sure, I am certain those are your intentions! I stand by what I said above, but I have taken the liberty of asking Andy, Conservative and some others to review this. I hope that helps you out. Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:26, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::I look forward to it, I was hoping that two users could have a civil discussion without going and calling in the big guns, but sadly this could not be the case. For those reviewing it here are my arguments:
::#The claim that feminists believe a village should raise a child '''instead''' of his/her parents is unsupported by the reference, those who read the book will find that it suggests that a village should '''support''' parents in raising their child, but that parents should play the main role
::#The claim that feminists believe in role reversal is wrong, feminists believe in the destruction of roles altogether
::#The claim that feminists believe that dresses should not be worn is a radical belief at best, and there are no cites supporting it
::#Quotes from a ''fictional character'' should never be used to make a point for or against feminism.
::Of these only number 1 was argued, and during this discussion there was no mention of why the source was correct, nor were any other sources raised. Numbers 2 and 3 were not argued, and number 4 was supported by HelpJazz. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 21:56, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::In response to your four points above:

:::#The thesis of the book is clear: "it takes a village to raise a child," and by its very terms that denies the exclusive role played by parents in raising children. The point in this entry is correct and you have not proposed alternative language that would be more accurate.
:::#No, feminists do crave role reversal, as in men baking cookies and women assuming traditionally male jobs. I'll add an example.
:::#I've added an example in response to your point about dresses.
:::#Your point here is not clear, and I'll look again at the entry.
:::Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Actually Andy, could we use your wording just there to clarify it?
*''believe that "it takes a village to raise a child" and deny the exclusive role played by [[parents]] in raising children.''
[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:16, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:Thankyou for your reply.
:#The thesis of the book is that it takes a village as well as the parents to raise a child, at the moment the entry reads that it takes a village rather than the parents, so yes the exclusivity of the role is denied, but not the role itself (by memory the book states that parents have a significant and unique role to play). I did have alternate language in my original edit: ''believe that a "village" (i.e., others) should assist parents in raising children'' or something along those lines that clarifies that the position taken by the book is not to replace the parents - edit conflict, not adjusted for Feebasfactor's comment
:#There may be some confusion between role reversal and the destruction of roles. Role reversal in your example would be men baking cookies and women being expected not to bake cookies, and women taking traditionally male jobs with men being expected not to take those jobs. By the destruction of roles it is expected that both men and women have an equal right to bake cookies, and that both men and women have an equal right to take whatever job they want to, I believe the latter is closer to the desire of mainstream feminists to have equal roles and to breakdown the concept of gender, rather than pushing for a matriarchal society.
:#I'm not entirely happy that a one line quote from a blog in response to another article can be used to represent mainstream feminism, but it's your encyclopedia
:#There are quotes from a fictional character, I don't see why these should be in the article (using the same logic someone could use quotes from a fictional American president in a book to criticise America).
:Hope this clears it up. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 23:19, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Aren't the fictional quotes a tiny percentage of the quotes, and aren't they by a feminist author?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:51, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Feminists ''"prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do"''? Though I have met many feminists, I have never met a woman, ever, who felt that women should only wear pants. I know women who do not wear pants, because they feel the Bible calls them to wear only skirts, though this is not true for all of the Christian women I know, or even a majority of them. Most women, feminist or not, dress according to what they will be doing. If they will be hiking in the woods giving a lesson on the forest habitat, they will probably wear jeans. If they are going to a wedding or a funeral, they will almost certainly wear a dress. Some women personally prefer to wear dresses more than pants, or vice versa, but most women, feminist or not, don't feel that everyone should dress as they do. If the article is going to state that feminists ''"prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do"'', then there should be a really good citation to show this. Certainly you can find many articles where women discuss the pros and cons of pants and/or dresses, but I've never seen anything that supported the claim made here. An example to the contrary would be the A Dress A Day blog<ref>A Dress A Day[http://www.dressaday.com/dressaday.html]</ref>, whose author writes regularly about the joys of wearing dresses; I'm quite certain she would consider herself a feminist.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:22, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: I've added another cite, and frankly am surprised that anyone would dispute this feminist preference to dress like men in order to make an ideological statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:51, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::The whole pants thing was a big deal at the time because there were people & institutions who felt that women should *never* wear pants - restaurants that wouldn't serve women wearing pants, schools that wouldn't allow girls to wear pants (even in freezing cold weather - and skirts in those days were *short*!), and so on. Feminists of the time believed that women should be allowed to wear pants if they wished. (Not that they *should* wear pants.) Nowadays, most American women, feminist or not, wear both pants and skirts, just because we like to, or for practical reasons, not for political reasons. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:17, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Cites about baking cookies and wearing pants are from 1970's, not modern feminism? [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 23:55, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::: The 1970s is "modern". Perhaps a time period should be added to the entry? By the 1960s "modern" feminism was in full bloom.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:01, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Is the goal of the entry to describe feminism as it is understood today by the majority of women who consider themselves feminists? (I'm assuming this would be the best approach, though of course the history is of interest as well.) The radical femimism of the '60's and '70's was, well, radical, but I think that the kind of extreme views described in this article would be foreign to most women today who consider themselves feminist.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:08, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

<- The section of the article in dispute is written in the present tense (''"Specifically, modern feminists tend to"'' as opposed to ''"Specifically, modern feminist tended to"'') after having described the era of the 1970's in the past tense, therefore the points should describe those beliefs held by mainstream feminists today. I'm not too sure many modern mainstream feminists favour wearing pants or role reversal, just as we don't see burning bras or (too many) claims that all sexual relationships in marriage are rape. In short, what was mainstream in the 1970's appears to now be classified as radical compared to the views of modern feminists, which appear to be more about breaking down gender inequality and the like. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 00:14, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:I agree - though I would add that many of the ideas discussed in the 70's were radical feminism (not mainstream feminism) even then.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:20, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], Thank you for your grammar edit! It really helps! While we're cleaning up this article, here's another item that might need to be changed. I don't think the statement that feminists ''"oppose single-sex schooling"'' is accurate. There are rather a lot of feminists at all-girl colleges like Smith and Bryn Mawr and Mount Holyoke. Also, I can't see your recent changes on the main article page, only the history page - I don't know if it's me or Conservapedia. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:27, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:It's stupid to argue about this sort of thing on an article discussion page. Just add a quote from a feminist who supports it. This goes for girls' schools, dresses, stay-at-home moms and all the other stuff above. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:18, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Can't. Article's locked, at least it is for me.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:00, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::Are we trying to use the view of one feminist to represent the views of all, or are we accurately trying to report on the collective views of mainstream feminism? If it's the latter then a single quote from one feminist won't do the job. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 06:21, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:I have unlocked the article so that the requested source can be added. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:07, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

==Feminism and choice==

Feminists say they '''only want choice''' while actually asserting various "shoulds" and "oughts".

Wearing dresses is strongly discouraged by feminists; dressing like men is strongly encouraged. Indeed, all sorts of feminine behavior in the workplace is discouraged, and we '''all''' know that [[Simone de Beauvoir]] condemned the [[choice]] of woman staying home to raise her and her husband's children.

What we object to here is the [[liberal deceit|pretense]] that feminism supports women choosing either traditional female roles or modern "liberated" ones. They use coercion quite openly. Pretending that they do not is something you can do on your own blog, using your [[freedom of press]] to tell lies. You can't do it here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:16, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:According to her article she made those views in 1949, we are trying to discuss the views of modern feminists, or more specifically those around in 2008. As has been stated above, these are different to the views held in the past. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 06:24, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Ed Poor explains this extremely well. I don't know what TheGySom is referencing about 1949, but that is surely "modern" also. [[Feminism]] plainly represents views about how women ''should'' act, and women who disagree with that ideology are ostracized and ridiculed by the more militant feminists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:39, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Simone de Beauvoir wrote her controversial book ''The Second Sex'' in 1949. It is relevant to the history of feminism, but in no way should be used as a source to describe the views of mainstream twenty-first century feminists, as it was written almost 60 years ago. We've come a long way since then - most of today's feminists weren't even born when the book came out. I'm a woman, I have friends who are feminist and friends who definitely aren't, none of them have ever tried to encourage or discourage me from wearing dresses. Some of my friends wear only dresses/skirts for religious reasons (Christian or Jewish), but I've never met a woman who would not wear dresses for political reasons. The idea just doesn't ring true to me. Certainly for some activities or professions pants are a more practical and/or more safe choice, and some women tend towards pants or tend towards dresses for themselves, but those are not political or ideological choices, they are a matter of personal style and/or practicality. Feminists in the '70's fought for the right to wear pants in places and situations where it had not previously been allowed, mostly for practical and personal style reasons. I'm not trying to be argumentative here - just to give a woman's perspective. So far, the only sources in support of the idea that feminists encourage dressing like men have been offhand comments in blogs. Can we find some more solid sources for this idea if it is to be included in the article?--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:18, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'm sure there are millionaire communists who say they have no desire to interfere with private property, and that they don't know any other communists who do either. And they would be right about themselves and their friends, but wrong about the ideology of communism.

:::: Likewise here. The ''[[sine qua non]]'' of modern feminism is for women to act like men. Why would clothes be excluded from that? They aren't. I've already provided two references and there are probably more, but I'm getting the sense that no amount of citations will persuade you because you know what you and your friends think about clothes. I suggest you spend some time researching this and ask women familiar with the feminist agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

==Name Changes==
The article says that feminists ''"refuse to take the husband's last name when marrying, despite the confusion and complexity that causes"''. However, the article used as a citation seems to be saying the opposite. It is an article about the complexity of such decisions for 21st century women, and how there are many different approaches to changing one's name, and how quite a few feminists are now changing their name to, one way or another, include their husband's name. (The author, who is marrying soon, begins the article with 8 of her own options, including hyphenation, etc.) The article goes on to give quite a few examples of feminist women who made various choices, for a wide variety of reasons. Based on the cited article, I think a more accurate statement for our article would be ''"feminists are likely to take a number of factors into consideration when deciding whether or not to change their last name to their husband's when they marry."'' Two relevant quotes from the article: ''"...they are doing what they can, making meaning of their own, focusing on what they do with their lives as much as what they do with their names. And by the way, isn't that the whole idea of feminism?"'' and ''"Hey, I'm a stay-at-home mom who took her husband's name and earns a fraction of our household income but none of that makes me any less of a feminist. Because for me, feminism is about respecting women and men and being able to make whatever lifestyle choices you want."'' <ref>"(Almost half the married women in the Harvard-Radcliffe class of 1990 kept or hyphenated their names.) If you read the New York Times wedding pages, and shut up, you do, the phrase 'the bride, who is keeping her name' seems like the norm, unless his name is Rockefeller. [http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2003/10/16/names/index.html]</ref> I did not make this change, even though the article is now unlocked, because I'd like input from others first - I think that, together, we can make this a better article.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:40, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

==Question for the Editor--==
I just found my way to your site via Google, and read "Feminism." I noticed that your editorial policy says that you're not allowing the use of material that isn't accurate. That site says that early feminists were "suffragettes." The suffragettes were English, in fact -- in the use, the folks who supported the right to vote for women were suffragists, from Woodrow Wilson to good ol' Theodore Roosevelt. Your writers also have no idea that the term "feminist" at times has been somewhat conservative (hey! surprise!), as when the National Women's Party supported an Equal Rights Amendment while most women opposed it. In the meantime, in the twentieth century, some Republican women would have been comfortable calling themselves "feminists," from Margaret Chase Smith to Oveta Culp Hobby. The term has had somewhat varied meanings over the course of the century, and any accurate description should reflect that. Interested readers could check out Catherine Rymph's Republican Women, published by the very reputable U.North Carolina Press. {{unsigned|Mm444}}

== Unsourced quotes ==

There are tons of unsourced quotes in this article, and I will go through the list to see how many I can actually source. I will remove those quotes I couldn't find any info on, and I'll post them here so others can re-add them if they do find reliable sources. The key words are: Where was it said, and when. Evidence should be supplied. Quote-sites that simply say "She said so." are off-limits.

*"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." - Robin Morgan
I couldn't find anything more than just anti-feminist comments and "Men Rights" sites. No mention of where or when she supposedly said so. (Update: Found a site that says it's from "Sisterhood is Powerful". --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 16:56, 16 April 2008 (EDT))

A somewhat special case is the next one:
*"I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero-sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary-vested-interest-power. But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the sh*twork that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do" - Robin Morgan
I found out that this quote comes from her introduction to the 1970 book "Sisterhood is Powerful". I also found this [http://www.feministcampus.org/network/chat/morgan04232003.asp snippet] about the quote:
{{cquote|Halimat: Following is a quote from you. Assuming that you weren't misquoted, do you still feel this way? How are women to get ahead without collaberation from those who currently hold the majority of legislative power? "I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero- sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary- vested-interest-power."

Robin Morgan: That quote is from the early 1970s and fortunately both the movement and I have matured in terms of developing a much more sophisticated range of tactics and strategies, due to our enormous numbers, than we ever could have imagined back in the late 60s and early 70s. While it is still true that "pale males" are at the top of the "food chain" - more men are changing every day. They're more involved with their children and families and on every level, from slowly learning to use Ms. through to adopting and adapting to anti-sexual harrassment workplace rules, men have been changing. It's not enough by far, but it is a start. And it's the power of the women's movement that has brought them even this far.}}
I'll leave the quote in the article, but I will also link to that interview so people can get a more modern reflection on the quote. --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 16:03, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

One more from Robin Morgan:
*"Women are not inherently passive or peaceful. We're not inherently anything but human."
It's a really nice quote, so I regret that I couldn't find any proper sourcing for it. :/ --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 16:42, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Took out two (for now) from Dworkin:
*"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig."<nowiki><ref></nowiki>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/LGB.asp From] her book "Ice and Fire"<nowiki></ref></nowiki>
"Ice and Fire" is a ''novel''. As in ''fiction''. As such, I won't treat this as her own quote, just like I don't claim that authors like King or Clancy endorse every sentence from their books as their own views.
*Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman."
This quote is [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/LGB.asp attributed] to "Liberty", but I couldn't find it in her Bibliography, so I'll cut it until somebody actually figures out whether it's a book (and whether it's fiction or non-fiction) or a paper or something. Citing made-up books sounds vaguely unlikely, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 17:27, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Dworkin again:
*"To be rapeable, a position that is social, not biological, defines what a woman is."
Couldn't find any proper sourcing, only quote pages that simply say she said it, but not where or when. --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 18:00, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

==Quotations and flowing prose==

There are way too many quotations here. Sure, we've proved the point. There's a lot of nasty things that were said by genuine, card-carrying feminists. But quotes don't make an article.

I want to know the roots of feminism, what it originally tried to do, what else it started to do, and how it did (and does) differ from simply "making sure women don't get mistreated". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:11, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
:Agree with the "way too many quotations" bit. A few quotes from several eras to illustrate how feminism developed and matured would be nice. If that's not possible, just crop it down. --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 16:17, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
::It probably wouldn't hurt to review this. I am also pleased Miles that you have chosen a constructive approach of finding and adding references instead of just complaining. There is a greater chance of seeing constructive changes occur under that format than merely confronting. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:40, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

==I think we have misrepresented Jilly Cooper==

I think Jilly Cooper, the veteran right-wing journo and toff, would be surprised to find herself identified as a feminist and downright astonished to be labelled a member of SCUM. Somebody has got a little confused here. (Or else they are being mischievious).

== Suggestion for separation ==

I personally feel it would be beneficial to make two articles on this subject. What's described here is what many call "radical feminism" whereas average everyday feminism is quite different. I'm not an expert in this field, but I can assure you that the generalizations made here are on the most extreme examples of feminists. -EternalCritic

I agree, much of what is addressed here under the heading of "feminism" would more properly be described as "radical feminism" (of the all women should be lesbians/all heterosexual intercourse is rape slant), and much of the substantive article seems to be un-cited impressions that appear to be sourced in popular culture (for example, if the ideological doctrine is too difficult to define, how can it be said that *all* feminists balk at chivalry or belittle family women?). Can the lengthy list of sound-bite quotations (from which the reader is apparently supposed to cobble together an idea of what feminism is) be removed to ultimately be replaced with an attempt to seriously engage with the tenants of feminism with a stronger focus on peer-reviewed academia reflecting a broader overview of the field rather than a relatively small group of extremists? -- [[User:BillyWest|BillyWest]] 11:28, August 28 2011

== Reversion explained ==

The edit summary to the last edit said, "I changed some awkward phrasing. I also think the bullets should be made into one coherent paragraph. Thoughts?" In fact, that edit introduced liberal bias and censored conservative truth. It was fully reverted even though it did also include some harmless stylistic changes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:20, 17 August 2009 (EDT)

== Citations? ==

I'm not clear on the policy. In the list of quotes, there are some that don't have real citations like:

"The nuclear family must be destroyed ... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process" - Linda Gordon

and

"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women ... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men ... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft" (from "The Declaration of Feminism" November, 1971)

I think these need real citations or they should be removed. Also, quotes about feminists should be in a separate section than quotes from feminists. Pat Robertson is mixed in with a bunch of feminists right now, under the "Other" heading.

--[[User:AdamBurns|AdamBurns]] 18:47, 16 December 2009 (EST)

== Enough quotations? ==

This article could make a more mature examination of feminism than putting up a bunch of quotations. --[[User:Marxian21|Marxian21]] 22:53, 22 January 2010 (EST)

== "No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do" ==

I cannot find the phrase in either of the two references given. [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 21:12, 30 January 2010 (EST)

:Please feel free to delete that phrase, then.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:18, 30 January 2010 (EST)
::I would, but TK has already reverted someone who edited it out--and I don't want to anger him. [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 21:22, 30 January 2010 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

Modern feminists are overwhelmingly pro-abortion, and even those who are not pro-abortion are still anti-motherhood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:54, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

==Full rewrite==

I like the quotes, and we certainly need a conservative critique of modern "radical" feminism, but the movement has also had its good points. There are even places/issues where currents in contemporary feminism match up with conservative ideas.

The idea that men shouldn't use their power to abuse women is a longstanding conservative idea (see [[Chivalry]]), although this is nothing more than the general idea that no one, male or female, should abuse his power; it doesn't matter if it's man to woman, white to black, rich to poor, educated to ignorant, etc. However, many feminists bristle at the idea of accepting '''any''' help from men (such help seen as condescending at best). Most conservative Christians oppose [[pornography]] and [[sexual slavery]], and so on. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:23, 8 September 2010 (EDT)

== feminism and obesity ==

feminism and obesity: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/02/feminism-is-good-for-children.html I will leave it up to others decide what constitutes feminism as I am taking a break from Conservapedia barring any news events. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:03, 5 February 2011 (EST)

== Create a feminism and obesity article ==

Consider creating a [[Feminism and obesity]] article at Conservapedia and cite this material: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/02/feminism-is-good-for-children.html [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:08, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:The blog you want cited makes a ''huge'' leap in its conclusions. Being a working mother does not automatically translate into being a feminist. I would guess the majority of working women are in the job market because there is a need for a second income to support a family, given the cost of basic necessities such as rent, food, gasoline, electricity, medical costs, clothing, etc. I know that is the case in my situation. We can't pay for the basics on my husband's salary alone. We haven't had a vacation in years. Most of my friends are in the same situation. And the blog completely ignores the single working mother - what is she supposed to do? Not work? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:01, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Age of the Earth

2012-01-27T23:22:08Z

Harveydent:

== Several facts missing in this article ==
There are several facts missing in the article, in its place are a lot of religious ideas that have no place in a scientific article. Please fix a.s.a.p. and provide the truth.
The '''age of the Earth''' is [[1 E17 s|4.54 billion years]] {{nowrap|(4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).}}<ref name="USGS1997">{{cite web
| year=1997 | title=Age of the Earth
| url=http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
| publisher=U.S. Geological Survey
| accessdate=2006-01-10
}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal
| last=Dalrymple | first=G. Brent
| title=The age of the Earth in the twentieth century: a problem (mostly) solved | journal=Special Publications, Geological Society of London
| year=2001 | volume=190
| issue=1 | pages=205–221
| doi=10.1144/GSL.SP.2001.190.01.14 }}
</ref><ref>{{cite journal
| author= Manhesa, Gérard; Allègre, Claude J.; Dupréa, Bernard; and Hamelin, Bruno
| title=Lead isotope study of basic-ultrabasic layered complexes: Speculations about the age of the earth and primitive mantle characteristics
| journal=Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Elsevier B.V.
| year=1980 | volume=47
| issue= 3 | pages=370–382
| doi=10.1016/0012-821X(80)90024-2
| bibcode=1980E&PSL..47..370M
}}</ref> This age is based on evidence from [[Radiometric dating|radiometric age dating]] of [[meteorite]] material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and [[Earth's moon|lunar]] [[Moon rock|samples]]. Following the [[scientific revolution]] and the development of radiometric age dating, measurements of lead in uranium-rich [[mineral]]s showed that some were in excess of a billion years old.<ref name="Boltwood">{{cite journal
| last=Boltwood | first=B. B.
| authorlink=Bertram Boltwood | title=On the ultimate disintegration products of the radio-active elements. Part II. The disintegration products of uranium | journal=American Journal of Science
| year=1907 | volume=23 | pages=77–88
}} For the abstract, see: {{cite book
| year=1907 | title=Chemical Abstracts | pages=817
| publisher=American Chemical Society
| url=http://books.google.com/?id=1su2AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA817 | accessdate=2008-12-19
| location=New York, London
| author1=Chemical Abstracts Service, American Chemical Society }}</ref>

The statement that "Charles Lyell supported Hutton's idea in 1830, in Principles of Geology" seems inadequate. Did Lyell set forth a scientific theory about an Old Earth in 1830? I'm skeptical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:38, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
:Lyell was a geologist who created several theories related to the geologic age of the earth, including I believe uniformitarianism, and contained in his book ''Principles of Geology''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:50, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
::Here's a copy of "Principles of Geology". The table of Contents is in HTML, but the text in PDF. [http://www.esp.org/books/lyell/principles/facsimile/contents.htm] The first few chapters are about the development of ideas of the age of the earth.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 13:45, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

==Helium diffusion, polonium halos, C14 dating==

All of these methods give ample evidence for a young earth(C14 works best for more recent things). I was wondering if anyone wanted to write about these(If not, I can do some independent research for this article, but I'm in school right now so I can't promise anything).

-- [[User:RichardT|RichardT]][[user talk:RichardT|Talk]] 23:26, 4 September 2007 (EDT)
:We already briefly discuss these in [[Young Earth Creationism]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:53, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion explanation ==

The article doesn't say that individual scientists haven't been around for billions of years, it says that the scientific ''community'' hasn't been around that long. The people of God ''have'' been around for six thousand or so years, so have direct, first-hand records of the earliest days of creation. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:41, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

:The age of the scientific community and what the term "scientific community" means can be debated, and that's the point - this debate and the current debate over which group has the more accurate age of the Earth shouldn't be in the overview section of the article but instead represented in the sections dealing with the controversy over the age of the Earth. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 17:41, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

==Atheism and Old Earth Theories==

The opening section of this article currently states that “atheists ... insist that Earth is somehow 4.5 billion years old” but it implies that all atheists (or only atheists) believe the Earth is billions of years old. This is incorrect and the section should be clarified: it is the majority scientific community that assert the Earth is billions of years old, regardless of religious orientations of individuals in this community. Simply put, not all atheists believe the Earth is billions of years old and not all Christians or others with religion believe the Earth is only thousands of years old. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 22:40, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

: Would you likewise object to a statement that "Republicans oppose Obama's policies"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

:: Yes, it's to general of a statement – ''conservatives'' oppose the ''liberal policies'' of the Obama administration, or it can be said that the Republican Party (leadership) opposes the Obama administration. Not all Republicans are conservative on all issues (e.g. the Log Cabin Republicans) and not all of Obama's polices are liberal (e.g. keeping Guantanamo Bay's prison open). The statement would be similar to asserting that Republicans agree on all issues (otherwise why would Republicans bother to have a presidential primary) and that the Obama administration is consistently liberal (they've done plenty of flip flopping to try and gain votes in the upcoming election). So bringing this back to the current article, the overview section (or opening section, whatever one would like to call it) should be more explicit on which groups are putting forward the Young-Earth vs. Old-Earth theories. When it comes to Old-Earth theories - "atheists" is to general of a term and insinuates that those of the scientific community that support Old-Earth theories are without religion. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 23:55, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

::: Your objection would silence many useful observations. Under your view, is it wrong to say that obesity is unhealthy? There may be one case out of a million where the person is actually better off getting fatter. If that case exists, would you object to commenting about the majority?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:53, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: Unfortunately, you've missed my point. What I was referring to is the need to avoid over generalizing and casting all old Earth supporters into the ranks of atheists; there is a need to rework the opening section of this article for greater clarity. To say that supporters of an old Earth are atheists is making too big of an assumption, especially if one's religion espouses an old Earth.
:::: And I hardly think your analogy of obesity and health applies to your original loaded question regarding the political persuasions of Americans: I'm sure far more than 1 in a million Democrats oppose Obama and far more than 1 in a million Republicans support Obama's more conservative polices - America's not that black & white, nor is the issue of who are the supporters of old Earth vs. young Earth. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 22:44, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

=6 thousand years old=

I was wondering, is there a reason why this number is written in this way? personally I would either say "6,000 years old" or "six thousand years old", but I wanted to ask for your opinions before changing it. --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 19:42, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

:No particular reason. Either of your suggested edits would be fine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:48, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks, change implemented. Personally I think that little, apparently meaningless details like this improve the perceived quality of an encyclopedia. I chose 6,000 years because it's more "visually immediate" than "six thousand". --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 19:53, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

::You're right. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:54, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

=Exact age=

I have not been able to find out an exact age. It is always referred to as "about 6,000 y.o".
Has anyone found a study calculating the exact age of the Earth ? --[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 20:02, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

: No, I haven't, and wouldn't expect to find one. Dates of events far more recent than creation are in dispute.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
::Tends to be anywhere from 5-10k years. Depends on if you follow ushers example and dont think there mght be some names missing from the lists of names in genesis and the gospels.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:24, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

== Why the removal? ==

Why was the mention of Old Earth removed? The fact of the matter is, the majority of the scientific community has accepted radiometric dating as true, and that the Earth is in fact 4 billion years old. Also, why does it matter what historic figures felt the age of the Earth to be. Isn't this an appeal to tradition? Our ancestors also believed that, prior to Christianity, the Sun and Moon were Gods. Should their opinions be held to be correct as well? [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 08:32, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::First, must? Second, secularist/deistic fashions among scientists don't carry a lot of weight. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:54, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::::So if they disagree with you they are automatically inferior and their opinion matters less? That's dancing awfully close to censorship isn't it? [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 09:39, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::I don't see in his reply anywhere that he stated he disagreed with those ideas, and whether or not anyone does is irrelevant. Passing scientific fads never carry much weight, regardless of our personal views on the matter. (Conservative, please correct me if I misstate your views). Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 12:40, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::Passing scientific fads? The basis of scientific thought today, outside of creation science, is that the Earth is older than 4 billion years. So dismissing them is either a willful dismissal for several of the key theories that make up our understanding of the universe, how it works, and how it came into being out of hand; or simply a dismissal of these as contrary to what the author wishes to believe. It seems Conservative is saying it is the latter, as they are wrong simply because they are secular. [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 12:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::So you're saying the author should not believe in God at all? We have to believe in these scientific theories without question or criticism? We have to accept them as fact, regardless of conflicting evidence? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:49, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::No, but you need to state where the majority of the scientific community lies and what evidence they place stock in. Most of those who are not members of the YEC (which is a minority) do not hold to the idea that the Earth is less than 4 billion years old. [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 19:37, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
JohnPaul, you wrote: "The basis of scientific thought today, outside of creation science, is that the Earth is older than 4 billion years." You are either not being truthful or you are seriously deceived. Any cursory review of the history of science shows the scientific opinion about the age of the earth has changed multiple times and all the while this was occurring there was plenty of scientific progress which was going on. Plus, there is plenty of science that occurs where the age of the earth is irrelevant to the investigation at hand. In addition, you seriously need a better understanding between mere opinion and fact. For example, it is fact that scientific opinion has changed multiple times about the age of the earth. Now you may say that now it is "near fact" about the age of the earth being whatever age is fashionable now among some errant scientific circle, but given your previously illogical pronouncement please don't expect people to kowtow to your pronouncement. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:05, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:As I said, since the advent of radiometric dating, the consistent concensus has been that the tests of radiometric dating have all stated that the Earth is at least 4 billion years old. If you wish to question radiometric dating then fine, but you should at least mention it as a major stubmling block towards YEC. [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 19:37, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Decay rates ==

I don't think this article should say that the assumption that decay rates have stayed constant is "implausible," for the simple reason that it isn't. I don't for a minute think it's a CORRECT assumption, but for it to be an IMPLAUSIBLE one there would have to be a reason why they COULDN'T have remained constant; there is no more reason why they couldn't have remained constant than there is one why they couldn't have changed. Unless someone can give a reason why decay rates MUST change the word "implausible" is not appropriate. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 22:01, 30 December 2011 (EST)

:It is obviously "implausible" because the universe is cooling over time, which would cause decay rates to change. It's no more possible for decay rates to remain constant than it would be for a sun to remain constant in energy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 30 December 2011 (EST)

== Decay rates, again ==

Do we discuss anything here or is everything too scared of the 90/10 rule to bother? In changing "unreliable" to "imprecise", I took the time to try to explain in the edit summary why I was doing so yet it seems others can't actually be bothered to explain why they disagree with the change. Once it's simply "Unnecessary Edit" and now you can apparently just indicate you agree with someone else by stating "Consensus". It would be nice to at least have the opportunity of trying to understand the objections to the change. I do wonder if I'd be wasting my time expanding on my reasoning. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 18:32, 10 January 2012 (EST)

:Since your reasoning is flawed, yes, it would be a waste of your time to expand on it. By the way, nitpicking individual words in a post doesn't count towards your 90/10 count, so focus on creating content, instead of pushing some nonsensical agenda against certain words. Does the word unreliable offend you, or is it that we don't treat evolutionists with kid gloves and euphemisms?
[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 18:43, 10 January 2012 (EST)

::I wouldn't accept that it is nitpicking. When I looked up info on some of the variations in decay rate that have been identified, none of them would make a significant difference to the magnitude of the time periods involved. None of them would explain the gap between 6,000-10,000 years old and the billions of years at the other end of the scale. They impact on the precision, not the reliability. That isn't to say there aren't other problems in assuming decay rate is a good way of determining the age of the earth but the possibility of variation in decay rate identified don't support the suggestion that what is known about decay is so wrong that the the figures calculated from it could be millions of times out. The facts as to the known variation of radioactive decay just don't support that. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 18:58, 10 January 2012 (EST)

So you admit that radioactive dating is wrong, but you won't admit that the results are wrong. I find your arguments to be non-sensical. TypicL liberal claptrap. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 19:36, 10 January 2012 (EST)

:No, I don't accept that radiometric dating is wrong or that the results are wrong, at least not to the degree you are alluding. I accept that some variations in decay rate have been identified which can affect the precision to which the method can date samples but what I cannot accept is that those undermine the fundamental principles behind radiometric dating. It seems you're trying to use these variations to suggest that the method must be so wrong that there could be scope for samples thought to be billions of years old actually being 6,000-10,000 years old but I just don't see how the facts as to what is known about those variations supports that. What we have here is a criticism of an assumption that the rate of radioactive decay is a constant followed by what is effectively simply an opposite assumption, that the rate of radioactive decay is completely not a constant. That despite the fact that there is no evidence to back up that assumption. If it is unwise to assume the rate is constant then surely it is just as unwise to assume the rate isn't constant. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 08:16, 11 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Socialism

2012-01-27T23:15:30Z

Harveydent:

"This correlates with a rise in atheism," I think it should be noted that correlation does not show causation. What is the correlation coefficient? Is there a positive or a negative correlation?
-Gasmonkey

"Socialism has caused more deaths…" What, really? A reference would go great with that opinion. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== National Socialism has nothing to do with socialism ==

National Socialism (like the German nazi party) has its roots in fascism, biological racism and antisemitism, not Socialism. It was in fact meant to oppose Socialism and Communism. Please remove every and all references to Hitler, Nazi's and National Socialism and provide actual facts.

== Laughable bias ==

"Leading European Socialists are very critical of America."

Of America? Of the american government? Some of the american governments? Some of the american goverments policies? American corporations? American food? American anti-americans? American republicans, democrats, liberals, jews, muslims, african americans, hispanics? I assume you mean all those things since you just say America? Do you have a valid point somewhere buried under that mountain of prejudice and generalisation? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 15:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::: It is self-evident socialists of any kind are critical of The American Dream, including leftists who by nature wish the destruction of the current administration so they can set up their own. Socialists do not like anything about what America means, though they more and more like what America is becoming. [[User:JBristol|JBristol]] 22:05, 3 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Also, the source that backs it up mentions America ''once''.

' One thing is clear: the unilateral military style approach of the Bush-administration has failed'

I'm removing it with the ridiculous 'vastly superior' remark. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

[[User:AmeriCan]] keeps reverting my edits saying that it stresses the rights of the many over the priveliges of the few, as opposed to vice versa. I'm tired of edit warring and don't want to get blocked for something that is not worth it. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 01:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, this article is just [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=next&oldid=135051 ridiculous]. I give up. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:49, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
== Incentives ==

I couldn't find anywhere in this article where socialism lacks incentives. Should I add it in? The lack of incentives is a crucial reason to why socialism doesn't work in societies. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 01:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

This article's lack of knowledge is laughable and as an evil limey toothéd bastard who can spell things right (color=LOL) who is also a European Socilaist who is critical of America (the whole world is socialist by that standard) I must correct this issue.
LOL at the moron who re-edited my work, they do not know history well enough to try and battle me over Atlee.

== "Socialist" Britain ==

Rob, re your revision to Socialism. First, you make a large assumption about how socialist New Labour is (they aren't), second, the Conservatives would be far less likely to change the rules than any Socialist party, partly because thirdly, it would require disestablisment of the Church of England, which in any case could almost certainly not be achieved in the ten years New Labour have been in power, even if it was something they intended to do. Based on this I think the phrase "Socialist Britain" is inappropriate and removing it would not be liberal bias. In fact, retaining it is conservative bias. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:So the Socialists do not oppose religious discriminition then? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:30, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Which socialists? New Labour do - they have in fact introduced legislation outlawing discrimination based on religious belief. But as I said - they're not Socialists in the sense that you would use. And as the article says - Catholics are not barred from being Prime Minister. They are barred from holding one of the ceremonial offices associated with the post - an office which could be renounced without having any impact on the powers intrinsic to the post of Prime Minister.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::This article gives a glowing description of what Socialism has done for Britian since 1945; it does not differentiate between Brand X Socialism and Brand Z; together, whatever stripe, along with all those great things they've done, you'd think eliminating bigotry would be high on the list. Must be a case where they are willing to compromise their principles in exchange for real political power. Nonetheless, they never stop talking about things like oppression, etc. Oh, I forgot, people who beleive in God are fair game for discrimination -- that's one of the basic tenets of Socialism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Socialism in Britain has done more to eliminate bigotry in Britain than any other movement. In fact so much that it is accused of political correctness. That this singular example remains is not an indictment of socialism - in fact that such a small example seems to raise your ire so much shows just how far bigotry has been eliminated.

::::People who believe in God are not discriminated against in this case. Adherants to '''any faith or denomination''' except Catholic are eligible; and the restriction to Catholics applies only to one essentially irrelevant ceremonial office associated with the post. Can you please address the points I make in the way I have yours?--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::So Britian, under various Socialist governments since 1945, has continued to discriminate against Roman Catholics. Why should this be surprising? It is very much in keeping with Socialist doctrine. And we can certainly conclude, Socialism ''does not'' respect equality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Everything you say can be repeated for Conservatism in this case, and you continue to ignore all of my points. Forget it.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 16:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Ignore which points? Are arguing discrimination against Catholics is not discrimination? Why? Because they're Catholic? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: I have to reiterate Olly's point here. I live in Britain, and I know that the Labour Party, since the [[Third Way]] (the third way, see? Not socialism, not conservatism, but a middle), is not a socialist party. ergo, blaming discrimination on socialists is false. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::::::::: I rarely comment on politics but I have to agree with the British users here (being one myself). The Labour Party ceased to be a socialist party with the move to becoming New Labour (their proper title) and the implementation of the [[Third Way]]. New Labour seem to be in the strange position of trying to appeal to both the left and the right at the same time with neither Conservative nor Liberal values other than those required to win the popular vote. What is more worrying to the British conservative is that the Conservative Tory party seem to be following the same path required to win the mass vote leaving Britain in the strange position that both our main left and right parties have moved to the centre leaving nothing that would reflect either conservative or liberal views other than some rather, errr, I'll be polite here and say odd, fringe political groups such as the detestable BNP (no policies other than those of racism) and the pointless UKIP (too insular by far). Socialism has been dead since Labour morphed into New Labour (best described as a "Labour scented party") and traditional conservatism seems to be following the same path --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 17:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: new labour is certainly not socialist in nature! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have to confess, I get lost in leftist ideological fever swamps. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I have no idea what that means but nothing about modern britain or it's govt fits anything that resembles "socialism" in any significant manner - fees and loans for students, PFI, Invasion of iraq etc etc. The current govt is actually further to the right in many ways that Mrs. T government! was Thatch a socialist! I think not! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Similarly, our Conservative party is no longer traditional conservatism. Think two parties both using the same elastic ideologies to chase the same fickle voters and appeal to conservative and liberal alike and there you have recent British politics. No left or right, just two sets of "middle". --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Yep. I was just reading how Socialist leaders in Britian send their kids to private schools. Very similiar to American liberals -- who then give us the Cain vs Abel speil about getting even with the rich! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Which socialist leaders? You mean the leader of the socialist workers party? I doubt it. I'm really struggling to understand what's going on here - Britain does not have a socialist government and if the catholic thing is meant to be an indication of socialist discrimination then Mrs. Thatcher was a socialist because she did nothing about it either! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Here. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1970902,00.html] At least now we know why Blair's popularity has shrunk; it's not the War in Iraq, it's all those compassionate liberals and socialists who found out he was thinking of converting to Catholicism. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/15/ncath15.xml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

eh? Do you think this is a big issue in the UK? That someone is a catholic? Can I suggest in a friendly manner that maybe your understanding of the UK is slightly lacking and you are looking at it via the lens of the US? I'll leave it at that stage because you want the article to say that Britain is a socialist nation and as a sysop - well you win straight out of the box. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:38, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:It was somebody elses idea to trumpet the glories of British Socialism, whatever for. What is obvious from this is, Socialist do not care at all about equality and human rights. It's simply fraud to pretend that they do. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Thing is, we have no true socialist leaders or true conservatives anymore. Ideology is dead, long live chasing after anyone that will vote for you. And I come from a very long line of Catholics who were also passionate supporters of the NHS, minimum wages and other socialist ideals. I happen to be Christian and Conservative but there are many good Christians who hold to what are considered socialist values. Many many many shades of grey here. Very hard to pin down to a few neat paragraphs. One thing holds true though, New Labour are not and never were Socialist. This is why most of my extended family stopped voting Labour as they felt it was a betrayal of their values. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::The only limitation that Blair would face if he became a Catholic would be that he would be unable to suggest the appointment of Bishops in the Church of England to the Crown. This restriction came about from the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, which repealed earlier laws outlawing Catholic participation in voting and government. There is also a law prohibiting the King or Queen from being a Catholic or married to a Catholic, the Act of Settlement of 1701. British anti-Catholic laws have nothing to do with Socialism or the Labour party, but instead are due to the English Civil War, the Restoration, and resistance by Protestant Britain to Catholic rule. The Act of Settlement and that provision of the Catholic Relief Act aren't still in force due to strong anti-Catholic sentiment in Britain, but just due to inertia and the fact that the law doesn't really come up. I don't think it's true to say that these restrictions have anything at all to do with socialism in Britain, either currently or historically.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 18:50, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::This BBC article quotes Blair, "changing the law would be hugely complicated involving changes to nine different pieces of legislation." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/529227.stm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:13, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

We still have a great number of old laws that technically still apply (policemen in certain counties are still supposed to walk in the gutter for example) that no one adheres to, very few remember and no one cares to repeal due to the fact that they are archaic and pretty much forgotten. Hardly tantamount to discrimination, more a quirk of history. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Right...that's my point. I'm agreeing with you. It's an old law that has never been changed because it's never been an issue.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 19:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Would it be more correct to rephrase the final sentence in this article thus. "''In Britain, Catholics are discriminated against by being barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister. These offices can be renounced without any practical inhibition to the powers of the post, but no government, socialist or otherwise has done so since 1829."'' Or better yet, remove it. Or am I just tired from a long day down t'pit? --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Sounds good, but we should add, "a reform measure was voted down as recently as 1999." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Well, the 1999 reform measure you're citing doesn't have anything to do with religious restrictions of the Prime Minister...just religious restrictions for the monarch. But, still, I don't really see what this has to do with socialism.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 23:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It evidently isn't that easy. Blair says it affects nine pieces of legislation, some it appears affecting his office. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then please do. No shame in the truth providing all governments since 1829 share the blame equally. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:20, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Go ahead and do it. That is indeed how a democracy works, even when socialists are dominant. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:47, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

My only issue with making these amendments to an article on Socialism is that, as all governments since 1829 are complicit in this lack of reform, it is no longer purely a Socialist issue and, as such, should have no place here. I'd like other people's views on this but, as it is not soley a Socialist failing, I think the entire reference to this Catholic discrimination should be removed. Other people, the floor is yours ; ) --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I think this section illustrates the folly of applying a US conservative-liberal axis to the political culture of other countries. There's an interesting article to be written about socialism in Britain but it doesn't belong in an article that puts anyone who supports universal health care in the same camp as Stalin and Hitler.--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 01:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes and no. It all depends on the conduct of the British Socialists. Name calling, and outrageous assertions can be a two way street. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Hang on a minute. The information about the Act of Settlement is correct, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. What on earth is it doing here? If nobody else removes it I will.

how are catholics discriminate against by labour? there are catholic schools funded by the state, the only part of the UK that discriminates against catholics is Northern Ireland and if you called men like paisley a socialist he'd knock your teeth out.[[User:Foxley|Foxley]] 15:18, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:How many decades over the past century has the labour/left coalition dominated British politics? Why haven't they acted on this? Being the self-appointed defenders of the oppressed and against injustice, how come no one speaks up?

:We don't have to look far to see how deeply rooted and respectable anti-Catholicism is in British culture. Why, one of the ''Beatles'' greatest hits, ''Lady Madonna'' is a celebration of despicable anti-Catholic attitudes & stereotypes. And several Beatles have been, if recollection serves me correct, Knighted for their achievements and service. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:47, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Right. Just one Beatle -- Paul -- has been knighted and both he and John Lennon were themselves raised as Catholics. I really don't think Lady Madonna can be seriously regarded as a criticism of ANYTHING.
:Read the lyrics. [http://www.lyrics007.com/The%20Beatles%20Lyrics/Lady%20Madonna%20Lyrics.html] George Harrison, too. John Lenin didn't live long enough, and everybody knows Ringo's a bit slow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:Facts are, for all criticism of the US, the treatment of Catholics, by law, in Great Britain, as second class citizens, or the open, naked prejudice and ridicule they suffer, would never ever be tolerated in the United States. And truth be told, there is anti-Catholic prejudice in the US, but nothing like the respectability it has gained over the centuries in Great Britain. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean "George Harrison too"? Are you under some delusion that he, too, was knighted. You are wrong. All of them did, of course, get MBEs, though Lennon -- "Lenin"? Oh, you are SO witty -- returned his in protest at the Vietnam War. As for Lady Madonna, speaking as an Irish Catholic myself, I am flabbergasted that you could regard this as a recognisable criticism of that community.
:Read the lyrics. I was raised Catholic but left the Church many years ago. But I ''still'' get deeply offended by the blatant intent, and ridicule of the message in that song. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:15, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::Paul McCartney, a lapsed Catholic, said he wrote ''Lady Madonna'' in response to seeing a photograph of a woman and child entitled ''Mountain Madonna''.[http://www.iamthebeatles.com/article1208.html] It's bizarre to read an anti-Catholic sentiment into that song -- it's an expression of sympathy for a struggling mother. In answer to an earlier question you posed Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years and has traditionally enjoyed strong support from Catholics[http://www.ipsos-mori.com/publications/rmw/the-catholic-vote.shtml]; The greatest opposition to changing the constitution to allow a Catholic monarch comes from traditionalist Conservatives who want to retain the privileges of the Church of England. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 13:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Sympathy? On what planet? ''Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years'' And we are really discussing Socialists here, and their record of being defenders of the "oppressed", and rectifying injustice. Even if it's only 30 years, what is the record of rectifying this injustice? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:01, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Sigh.[http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/pm.htm] Catholics in Britain have traditionally favoured Labour for a number of reasons, not least of which is that Labour has been more sympathetic towards Nationalism and the Conservatives more sympathetic to Unionism -- it's more to do with green vs. orange than red vs. blue. Perhaps we could have a cite for the "oppression" that has somehow escaped the attention of those living in Britain who have contributed to this thread? --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 15:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Cough. Sneeze. [http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA992.htm][http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] Thank God she's not a Catholic. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== DAB's version ==

DAB's version on 'succesful socialism' has already resisted 9 minutes. How long before a SysOp comes? I guess someone will be blocked for a long long time... (and no, I have no affiliation with DAB)[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 13:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Let's not get carried away here, please ==
The picture at the very top of the page right away makes a direct visual attachment of communism and socialism as if they are one in the same. As the vast majority of editors and sysops here are quite cleary well educated people, I am shocked that the picture in question remains. Communism is not the equal of socialism, nor is the reverse true either. Communism is socialism taken to the far extreme. For example, Finland is socialist, but try labeling them communists and see what happens, lol... I'm all for removing that picture, and perhaps replacing it with something more indicative of socialism in general rather than Marxism/Leninism/Communism in specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:35, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, umhh, I see. Care to explain how [[Hitler]] was misunderstood, too? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:39, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::Rob, he never said anything about "misunderstanding" the ideology. He made the valid point that socialism and communism are ''not'' the same thing. Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. They are socialist, but ''not'' communist. Do you wish to dispute that? This conversation had nothing to do with Hitler. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:50, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Pardon me for not wading into a [[leftist]] ideological fever swamp, but I really don't care to decipher the degrees of complicity in [[democide]] based upon an avowed [[atheistic]] philosophy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::::So then don't contribute to the article. Your responses do not address the complaints, but rather your refusal to accept anything other than what you think you already know. Your defense for completely screwing up the distinction between two ideologies is a refusal to even ''attempt'' to understand the distinction. That makes ''perfect'' sense. I'd be glad to wade into that "leftist ideological fever swamp" for you, Rob, seeing how scared you are of it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:13, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
We are not in the position of advocating, defending, or apologizing for [[democidal]] ideologies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:18, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:No, we are in the position to write an '''encyclopedia article''' about them. And saying that communism and socialism are identical ideologies is completely false. Once again, you change your reasons for wanting to include the misleading picture. How is being factual "apologetic", "advocating for", or "defending" socialism? Are you suggesting we deliberatly mislead readers? And the ideology is not democidal. Last I heard, Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. don't commit democide. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Quite so Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ. If I seek to distinguish between a shark and a barracuda I am not taking sides with either. Rob seems pathologically incapable of listening to reason and seems to view any considered response of this subject to be an act of Marxist-Leninist subversion. Ignore him.

RobS it appears you misunderstood what I was saying and clearly the fault is on me as I should have explained my position better.My apologies on giving the impression that I was apologizing for communism. Was not my intention. I think however you should really think about what Hojimachong is saying though, since he has explained it perfectly =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:: I went ahead and removed the picture in question. I do apologize to you RobS however, in truth it was misleading and out of place. It would PERFECT for the article on Communism, or articles about the old Soviet Union and presently existing communist regimes. But this is the socialism page. Let me put it this way: Having that picture represent socilism in general is like making an article about the primary colors and only showing blue. It is misleading. But this is in no way a reflection of any supposed sympathy for communism in specific or even socialism in general. And as for democide, well, isn't that getting a bit off track? I know one of the key principles of communism is an athiestic society, but that's all part of the package, I don't see how making your major argument revolve around democide makes sense. Also, again, that's communist specific. There are SOCIALIST countries that are Christian by LAW, as a STATE RELIGION (something that America has avoided as we all know), regardless of the denomination. So applying democide to socialism is another exercise in ignorance. But I digress; I simply removed a misleading graphic. I would like to add something more illustrative of socialism in general, however while I could find such a thing, I sadly am not well versed in editing yet, specificaly when it comes to posting images. Yes, that IS a call for help by the way, =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:::That's odd, I thought the name of the state Stalin & Lenin presided over was, "The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics, not "the Union of Soviet Communist Republics". I must have been sleeping in class again the day they set that straight, I guess. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
00:23, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::::"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell just as sweet," or in this case "would be just as red." hahaha, sorry, bad joke. But here is my response: That was simply a name. If I call a ka-bar a fluffy teddy bear, does that make it any less lethal a weapon? No. Granted, the USSR itself may not have been total communism, however it was far closer to communism than it was to the "ordinary" socialist idealology that spawned it. As I stated earlier, "socialism" is a generalism, while "communism," "USSR," etc. are specifics. If you're talking about a broad issue like socialism, it's not academically responsible to, whether accidently or otherwise, make the specific general broad issue appear to others as nothing more than one single specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:38, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

If you have two children, and the children are quite different from one another in most respcts, but naturally they are both YOUR children, do you take any more pride in the one, than you do the other? Is socialism nothing more than communism that spawns from it? Of your two hypothetical children, does only one of them represent you? [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:43, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::As a side note, I truly do believe in at least replacing that image, and I do notice it is back up, though I'd rather not take it back down again unless some sort of consensus is reached or I get solid support for my argument. I do not wish to be accused of starting an edit war or seem like I have a vendetta against RobS now :) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:52, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Also I am pleased to see the "different strands of socialism" section. I completely support that. The existence of that section lends even more to my argument that that graphic on the socialism article in general ought to be removed. The section listing different strands of socialism clearly indicates the author knows communism is not the entirety of socialism. So why the communist specific graphic? =)

Just to go back to socialism and atheism for a minute, while it's true that Marxist Communism certainly is atheistic, socialism isn't neccesarily. In fact, there was a strong Christian Socialist movement in Britain in the 19th century that helped lead to the British Labour party, and there was certainly a Jewish Socialist movement that contributed to the Zionist movement.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 01:22, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:Very good points Steve! [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 01:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

==Compromise?==
RobS, I would greatly apreciate it if you would take a look at my most recent edit. I didnot remove the graphic. I did however edit the text in the caption slightly, in that I added a bitmore detail which makes it less misleading, in my opinion, and I would greatly value your thoughts on this =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 04:53, 25 June 2007 (EDT) (anyone else reading also lol)

::Well scratch that. It seems Fox has provided a graphic that suits the article. Cheers to Fox, good find and good edit. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:54, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::RobS if you gave up debating I do not see the virtue in reverting Fox's edit. His picture makes much more sense than the previous. I reverted it back to HIS. You seem to want to cram your opinion down peoples's throats. On the other hand, Fox and I and many others would rather have this be accurate and academic. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm no supporter of Socialism by any means, but I genuinely feel this image is more illustrative for the article's subject, particularly as the main body sems to concentrate on British socialism. I know how easy it can be to choose an image to make a general point rather than to illustrate the point of the article - you should see the dozens of pics I'm itching to use to illustrate Israel's fight for survival - but I resist the temptation to use them because: we all accept that articles here are going to be representative of a broadly, if only small "c", conservatism, so using a soviet commie poster to illustrate the article is somewhat like cracking hazelnuts with a sledgehammer. Welded to an anvil. :D [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:17, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Agreed. That's how I felt on it. I'm not a supporter of socialism either, but I do support sticking to the point, rather than the point of view. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

==Inaccurate==
The article currently lists Tony B.liar as the Prime Minister. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

*No points given for something that only happened earlier today, Fox! ROFL! We can change it when you know who the new man is, eh? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:10, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::LoL - I would have changed it, but it was protected. The new <strike>village idiot</strike> PM is [[Gordon Brown]]. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:47, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Check your offline Yahoo's. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:13, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Poor Move ==
I am saddened to see the page is locked for editing after being reverted back to misleading picture. This is quite unfortunate and I am afraid it will refelect poorly for CP. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 19:02, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== This article lacks a basic understanding of what socialism is ==

This article begins by stating.

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

There are a number of things wrong with this. It seems like the author has failed to actually read socialist tracts. I will try to list most of the fallacies I see offhand.

1. "are seized and monopolized by the government" this phrase betrays a lack of knowledge about how socialism views the state. For example, "means of production" aren't seized, and cannot be seized. The worker is a human being not a commodity or "capital". As a human being he is a part of the state. Finally, Marxism actually is anti-state and in the culmination of the dialectical processes would lead to its removal. (Also, no mention of Hegelian dialectics are present in the article. This is a key point concerning socialism. To abandon the dialectic is similar to discussing Christianity without the crucifixion.)
:So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
2. The authors seem to fail to realize that there are vast differences within socialism just as there are within Christianity e.g. Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism...etc each differing vastly but similar in appearance to an outsider.
:True; Jesse Jackson for example, may be described as a God-fearing Socialist. Problem is, we need more sources. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::In Wikipedia one may find: ''Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state... A diverse array of doctrines and movements have been referred to as "socialist." '' --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 01:53, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, Wikipedia is never an acceptable source or citation at CP, so perhaps another definition can be found, Joaquín. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:31, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

3. The statement that "religion is the opium of the masses" is taken out of context. It wasn't meant to be a pejorative statement. The common misunderstanding of this quote is that religion is a tool used by the state to force an otherwise unruly population into line through fear, propaganda, religious mysticism, and thus religion is ultimately evil.
:So under this theory, the state gets people hooked on narcotics in order to control them. Thanks for clarifying that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
The actual meaning is that religion is created by the people for the people as an expression of their desire for some form of justice in an evil world. This may be viewed through a Christian perspective of mankind longing for God and thereby creating rituals and religion etc.. to reach Him.
:Ok, so then Marxism or Socialism (or whatever code word you wish to use), Socialists seek to restrict the fundemental, God-given, [[human right]] of [[worship]]. Further, this an excellent example of [[leftist]]s seeking to impose ''their'' [[morality]] on the rest of us, is it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Really, the major lack of information concerning Hegel's influence and the respective influence of the French, Germans, and British on Marx as he lived throughout Europe in his formulation of his ideas (French utopianism etc...) suggest an overly simplified method of viewing socialism.
:Yes, I understand. It truelly is a more intellectual exercise than we give it credit for. [[Charles Manson]] wasn't much of an intellectual, but his recruiting talents and demonstrated abilities to persuade young minds would have made a valuable member of the [[nomenklatura]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
It is a multifaceted philosophy and this article does it great injustice by explaining it in terms you would have expected from a farmboy filled with American propaganda from the 1950s.
:Multifacted. Yes. Some advocate murder and lawlessness, others only certain degrees of it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Socialism does not necessarily attempt to create a manmade utopia atheistically (some forms have however). Instead, the historical process is viewed as evolving. Just as the Roman system of government worked better than the Greeks, and feudalism evolved from that. In turn industrialized capitalistic colonial government worked better than feudalism. None of these forms of government were perfect but in every case they were better (arguably worse depending on whose perspective you take.) Similarly, socialism is ultimately a democratic movement wherein the workers (i.e. the means of production) cease to be exploited by the privelaged classes.
:Marxist mumbo-jumbo. Feudalism was at one time the solution to mankinds problems of homelessness and unemployment, and other social problems. Conservapedia is not interested in spewing more Marxist trash to another generation. We need some straight forward reporting on human history. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Also, one last misconception is that socialism is against private property or the earning of wages. It is quite the opposite small business men were sympathetically viewed by Marx as ultimately destroyed by the industry (Analogy: mom and pop stores being eaten by Walmart). Socialism is often viewed as a welfare state, but Marx's view was contrary to this. He viewed the owners of corporations etc... as those who benefited from the welfare of the production made by those who worked. Thus, the worker (means of production) produced and the owner (businessman) consumed.
:So we are back to the issue of [[Economic planning]]; yes, we are working on that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
This article expresses a really uneducated opinion. I'm not claiming socialism is the greatest thing ever. I'm not denying communism and thus mass murders and authoritarian government came from it. But its a logical fallacy to claim that socialism is therefore wrong. Take the French Revolution. Maximillian Robespierre was a democrat and the revolution was a democratic one and yet it is known as the Reign of Terror. Is democracy evil? Also, consider Christianity and the crusades, the inquisition, the wars fought between the reformationists and the Catholics. Is Christianity therefore wrong?
:The revolution was democratic? Yes, and as our sources show, violating price controls set by economic planning boards was a capital offense warranting the guillotine. Glad to see democracy works. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You do yourself and the reader great injustice. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 15:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:Good luck, son. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::I don't understand. Are you saying the French radicals in charge of the Reign of Terror were not liberals (in the international sense) who were in favor of a democracy as opposed to the monarchy? How novel and how very uninformed. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:21, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::Please don't debate me within my own text it's hard to respond. Concerning the opium statement if you actually read my sentence I said that's the common misconception.
:::There's little evidence the French Revolution was "democratic;" it was a lynch mob that turned on each other. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
"So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct?"

No that's incorrect Marx actually wrote of the end of the concept of statehood. I get the notion that you believe Communism is socialism and you have a limited understanding of what Marx wrote. Concepts such as government, statehood, etc.. are absent from socialism as a philosophy. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:26, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Bukharin read Marx correct; he saw through the fraud. While I do not advocate or agree with Bukharin's philosophy, as an eyewitness, his historical reporting on Marx is accurate. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You say I'm using code words. That would be similar to me denying Christianity on the grounds that I find the Pope offensive. When you claim that not all Christians are Catholics I accuse you of using propaganda and code words.

Please be a bit more rational. I am not a Marxist propagandist. I am a Christian. I feel like this article could use a little more truth in it and little less of the common American anti-communism uninformed dialogue in it. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:28, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::What's so uninformed? Americans have stood on the sidelines and watched how Socialism has ravaged other contintents with [[democide]], and have clearly articlated a [[foreign policy]] to oppose it. Yes, Socialism has made vast inroads in the [[public school]]s, [[media]], entertainment, and [[law]]. But American foreign policy for decades has been fairly consistent in opposing it, despite opposition and subversion along the way. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

:::What are you talking about? Which continent was ravaged by SOCIALISM? SOCIALISM NOT COMMUNISM. THEY ARE DIFFERENT. READ A BOOK, PLEASE, AND LEARN A LITTLE. Are you talking about Europe and Canada? Two very SOCIALIST places, or are you talking about Russia and China two very COMMUNIST places.

:::The Reign of Terror was a DEMOCRATIC revolution. Communism came from socialism but it is NOT socialism. The Reign of Terror was founded on liberal ideas like anti-monarchy, freedom of speech, democracy, BUT IT WAS NOT DEMOCRACY. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 17:02, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

==British socialism==
The second paragraph of the British socialism section should be removed. It really has nothing to do with socialism (though some of it might be useful in a different article). Additionally the sentence describing how Catholics are barred from certain offices appears to be untrue, or at least misleading. The "offices" in question are the mostly ceremonial positions of Monarch and spouse. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:42, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:oh, so you don't deny the existence of discriminatory laws? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:50, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::Other than barring a Catholic from becoming king or queen? I don't know of any. If there are point them out. In any case it has nothing to do with socialism. Put it in the [[United Kingdom]] article; I didn't notice it there. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:55, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Dodi Fayed's kid could become king, but not Tony Blair's. In the US, this is not only unconstitutional, most living American's would be outraged at the even the suggestion of such a law. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:08, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Again, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH SOCIALISM? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:25, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::What did the Socialist do to repeal this law when it was last taken up? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:30, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::"The Socialist"? Who might he be? In any case, the law has been on the books for 300 years, and in that time no party has repealed it (it's mostly a non-issue; neither Fayed's nor Blair's kids are going to become king, the Queen's kid will. He's an Anglican), should it be mentioned in the articles on Tories, Whigs, and the Britsh Liberal Party? How about every in the article on every Prime Minister ("Benjamin Disraeli did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Earl Grey did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Ramsay MacDonald did not repeal the Act of Settlement"...). According the the cited article "Mr Blair said altering the law would be a hugely complicated process involving changes to nine separate pieces of legislation. The government has already embarked on a heavy legislative programme with 28 bills to see through." If Prince William gets engaged to a Catholic I'll bet we'll see the issue taken up, but in the meantime it's a lot of work for a something that is not going to be an issue. And ''it has nothing to do with socialism''. It might be relevant in another article, but not this one. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:43, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Blair's wife is Roman Catholic, and the kids are too as I understand. Fayed was a Muslim, and the child Princess Di was carrying at the time of her death would have a had a rightful claim to the throne under certain circumstnces.
:::::::The logic of your argument above appears quite anti-progressive, and [[reactionary]], does it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:14, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Hmmm. Perhaps it would help if you actually read what I wrote. But that might be too much to ask. Fayed and his offspring would have zero claim to the throne, nor does Blair's kids. None of that matters, in any case, as we're discussing the article, and the connection between the Act of Settlement and socialism, which is zero. I'm not sure what's "reactionary" about pointing that out. I'm not here to defend the Act of Settlement, or any other remnant of Britian's bygone era. Just explain its significance to this article. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 18:18, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::We saw the same thing when Chuck remarried; the wedding was delayed because Parker-Bowles had at onetime been married to a Catholic. "Thank God she's not a Catholic" [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] How these Enlightened Socialists can look us straight in the eye, fail to condemn this hypocracy, shrug their shoulders and say there's nothing that can be done about it, I'll never understand. It all proves the point: Socialism stands for nothing but political opportunism. And if it something doesn't serve Socialists immediate politcal opportunism, like standing up for religious freedom and against religious bigotry, they fall back on reactionary arguments. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:23, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::'''Bottom line''': Don't tell me Socialism stands for social progess, change, opposition to the exiting order, levelling the playing field, and against discriminition until British Socialists take on this issue. Absent that, Socialism is just a complete [[fraud]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:32, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

*See [[deceit]], Rob. You don't really expect to get a straight answer, do you? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:19, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

== Just Plain Wrong ==

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

This is the definition of COMMUNISM, not SOCIALISM. The writer of this article is laughably politicaly incoherent. (and the bias is thick enough to cut with a bundle of sticks tied to an axe)
:If you think you can do better, Silvanus, by all means do so...but don't make it hard on yourself by demeaning others. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:35, 14 November 2007 (EST)

::I think we have to distinguish between the various types of socialism, but this is not easy to do. Many partisans write about socialism as if their pet variety is the only (or main) kind.

::The kind which conservatives oppose is the totalitarian [[Communist]] type. But not every form of socialism is as bad as that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:26, 4 January 2008 (EST)

:::Well, in the European tradition at least, communism has always been extremely distinct from socialism - perhaps this is not clear in the USA. For instance, the Labour Party has always been committed to democratic socialism, and was strongly critical of the USSR. It is self-evident that democratic socialism is hugely more widespread as a faith than communism in the present day, and has never implied totalitarianism - the Labour Party has traditionally been far more committed to freedom than the Conservatives here in the UK.

::::If there countries having a "socialist" system with less than totalitarian control, we can describe them also. I just thought it would be good to start by describing the Communist approach, since that is the model or ideal that most people look to when comparing [[capitalism and socialism]]. The Nazi variant permitted individual ownership, but [[von Mises]] says the results were similar because the state maintained price controls and so on.

::::We also need to distinguish between the economic aspects of socialism and the political aspects of "socialist" countries. For example, in Sweden people are allowed to emigrate, but in Cuba they are not. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:28, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

== Would like to add a paragraph about my country (Norway) ==

If its all the same to you I'd like to write about our system wich is currently socialist-democratic. Then again most of our parties are socialist to some degree. Any objections?

Also, the article seems to have mixed up communism with socialism. I assure you, socialism in this day and age bears a much stronger resemblance to the US govermental system than the dictatorship that was soviet russia.

LOL this again. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:35, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you be more specific? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:42, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Also Add Ethiopia ==

Someone needs to add Ethiopia to this article as Ethipia used to be socialist. Also, include the Ethio-Somalia War.

==Liberal propaganda about Chile==

Removed from article:

:In the first year of Allende's, the economic policy showed decidedly positive results, including a 12% industrial growth an 8.6% increase in GDP, as well as major declines in inflation (down from 34.9% to 22.1%) and unemployment (down to 3.8%). However, these gains were only temporary due to American intervention. American copper interests in Chile, which controlled 80% of Chile's copper production, reacted violently to Allende's nationalization. The United States set about placing an economic stranglehold on Chile designed to, in a famous quote by Richard Nixon, "make the (Chilean) economy scream". Classified documents have also revealed the extent of the United States' involvement in the 1973 coup d'etat that overthrew Allende, installing and supporting dictator [[Augusto Pinochet]] in power. Pinochet is known to have detained and tortured thousands of domestic dissidents by its secret police.[http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm]

This is a typical kind of one-sided argument. The point being made is that Chile was doing fine under Allende until the US helped Pinochet thwart his "reforms". Actually, Allende was trying to make Chile like Cuba, and Pinochet stopped Allende's attack on Chile's economic and political freedom.

We need to cover all this in [[History of Chile]]. Perhaps, like Wikipedia, we should also create a [[1973 Chile coup]] article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:20, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

*Pinochet loyalists ... still revered him for implementing the macroeconomic reforms, which eventually raised the standards of living nationwide.
*Pinochet lost power in a renewal of democratic elections. [http://nylatinojournal.com/home/eagles_in_fall,_lions_in_spring/analysis/a_divided_chile_contemplates_pinochet_s_passing.html]

There's a [[Chile: Two Visions|book]] which covers the mess Allende made of the economy:
:This book is a study of Chile's turbulent recent history. It covers Salvador Allende's socialist revolution and explains how it sank Chile into chaos, economic deprivation, political turmoil, and illegality. It covers Chileans' repudiation of the Allende government three years later and their call to the military to intervene after the August 1973 congressional censure of Allende failed to stop Allende or convince him to resign.
:By winter 1973, Chileans were desperate, as famine loomed in Chile and disorder reigned in the streets. Allende's government had so destroyed the productive apparatus that on Sept. 6, 1973, President Allende announced: "We do not have the most minimal supply of flour, at most for three or four days." [http://www.policyofliberty.net/HPdA/RobertsAraujo.html]

Even the ultra-Liberal [[NPR]] agrees that Allende was botching things up:
*Allende was implementing socialist economic policies in Chile, with disastrous results. Gen. Pinochet finally agreed with other military officers that they had to stop Allende . . . [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6606013]

Liberals never fail to label Allende "democratically-elected", but he got less than a majority of the vote and:

:the Chilean parliament denounced Allende for abrogating the Chilean constitution. [http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050607_guilty.htm]
::Remind me, who was it sent the tanks onto the streets and the planes into the air to overthow a democratically elected Government? Pinochet or Allende? And which major superpower supported that overthrow? [[User:BrianTS|BrianTS]] 10:12, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::If you're not going to read the references or respond to what I actually wrote, then you should limit your comments to our [[debate pages]]. This page is for improving the article. Try [[Debate:When is revolution justified?]] or something like that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:19, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

==Grammatical Edit and Rebuttal==
I made a small grammatical edit and included a brief rebuttal of pro-socialist sentiments expressed in "Controversy" section. [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 23:38, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:You thought the article was pro-socialist? Please don't revert the edits of Administrators, that is against our policy, JeffC. There were paragraphs removed, so it captured my attention. Please explain further. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:47, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

::I didn't remove any content. The 'controversy' section offers some brief pro-socialist nonsense that I thought could use a short rebuttal to support the overall message of the article. I apologize for reverting your edit. If you have time, please review the content I added and re-revert if appropriate. Thanks! [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 23:57, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Since the piece is mainly Richard's now, I have asked him look into this. Thanks for explaining, JeffC! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:08, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

== Need section on Socialistic Democracy ==
Democratic socialism and socialistic democracy is not the same, you should also represent the economic system which is used in Scandenavia, you know, that region in Europa which wasn't so heavily beaten by the global financial crisis.--[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 15:05, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:If there is a difference between the two systems, as you indicated, could you add a brief definition here, and then do a more detailed separate article on the subject? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:01, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== So close to communism? ==

I fail to see why this article consistently equates socialism with communism when communism was simply an offshoot of socialist ideals.
Is it really necessary to make them sound as though they are the same? They ''are'' different ideoligies. {{unsined|Guardian}}

:Keep denying they are the same ideology, when in fact they are not opposing. The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics would promote what system?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::To be fair to the first post I have to admit he is right the Soviet Union was a communist system. Though it was based off socialism. The idea that it ineviatably leads to communism is slightly absurd considering countries like Canada and Portugal have socialist systems in place such as their healthcare and education systems. {{unsigned|Era3344}} --14:05, 10 June 2009

:::You are making a false flag argument, and you know it. The Soviet Union sprang full-born as a Communist nation. All experience has shown, as is the case here in the U.S., and Canada where you purportedly live, once entitlements are foisted on the citizenry, the demand for them never slacks, and deceitful politicians soon realize offering them is key to being re-elected. It is a downward spiral that can lead nowhere other than a Communist or totalitarian state. Because once the pockets of the citizens are emptied, the state must somehow provide more and more, and that can only be sustained for so long, as we saw in the case of the Soviet Union, and more recently in China, which has been forced to allow quasi-capitalism to generate the huge sums of money needed for entitlements. That process with the Soviet Union took over 75 years until it collapsed. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:31, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

::::As offensive as I find your attack on my nationality I'll let it slide. You are once again leaving the socialist theory out of the equation and instead rushing into full blown communism. Your argument is fundamentally wrong on so many levels. In Canada the theory of collectivisation(not the Soviet model but simply a manner of spreading the wealth one of the many ideas in Socialism) in our NDP party is put forward as their election platform. They have never once won an election. Our Conservative party and Liberal party borrows from those ideals however, and they have each managed to win a fairly even number of elections based on some socialist propositions, which I must add are very usefull to my life. Your assumption that this loose set of ideals unfailingly leads to communism is not only factually wrong but a misrepresentation of the facts. {{unsigned|Era3344}}

''Attack on your nationality?'' Really? Where was that? Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:09, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==Sliding toward Socialism==
As we see America increasingly moving toward secular socialism, i was surprised not to see a section addressing such here, or an internal link to the page that does. I would like to add a word and link to a possible recent development on that front, that of the ability to regulate even gardnens. http://wholefoodusa.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/feds-to-license-home-breadmaking-and-garden-sales/ Also, while it is good to distinguish between the form of what is often termed socialism in the Bible (which, while not being a which static form, was an effect and manifestation of liberated, secure souls surrendered to Christ) versus its secular counterpart (which is driven by insecurity), the cause of the latter kind of socialism might be addressed. Finally, under Leninism, the sentence, "Conservatives have been very hostile", which looks lie an interpolation, ought to be qualified. I might be considered a liberal in Red China.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 16:33, 4 August 2009 (EDT)[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 16:33, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
*''...what is often termed socialism in the Bible...
:Got my [[Concordance]] here, can't find the word "socialism" anywhere in Greek or Hebrew. Are you sure you are not quoting some commie rot from somewhere, rahter than the [[Bible]]? TY [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

::Note my words, "what is often termed socialism". As the article manifests, socialism is not strictly defined, nor do we need a precise term in the Bible for concepts it describes, from a Theocracy to the Trinity, and the concept of "equal distribution of goods among the people" and related aspects the article notes, is seen in Acts 2:44-47; 4:32-37, though that was critically different from socialism in its classic manifestations. The article (which was not any of my work) also basically notes the reason why what we see in Acts could NOT take place under Communists, nor will it under our present (US) President, or any such. However, while the spirit of the surrender and benevolence seen in the primitive church is to be a constant, that form of it was not, as believers are evidenced to have their own houses, and goods, and to practice capitalism, out of which they voluntarily and sacrificially gave. (1Cor. 11:22; 10:6; 16:14,15,40; 17:5; 21:8; 1Tim. 6:17-19; Acts 18:3)

::The key was that they in giving, "first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God", (2 Cor 8:5) with their submission to leaders not being that of implicit trust in men, but to brethren who manifested they were bound by the Word of God, and required no more of others than what their sacrificial submission to Christ required, in accordance with sound doctrine by the Spirit of Christ. Lenin, etc. do no fit in such holy ranks, and i come too short myself.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 17:48, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
:::What does "equal distribution of goods" have to do with [[mass murder]]? Oh, I see; after the [[national socialists]] exterminated people, they allowed the prisoners who burned the corpses to loot thier luggage and belongings. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:17, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

::::You got it.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 19:14, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

== Main Image ==

Im just wondering why this picture is on a page about socialism when the caption reads Leninism. If no one minds I would like to remove it in order to find a better image.
::I fixed it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:17, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
Thank you kindly.

Could we perhaps use a different picture? This one seems to have no bearing on the article itself. Perhaps if we used the Red Flag as is common we could have a better base for people to understand the article. If we move the Main image down in the article it would have much more meaning. I'm going to try it out. Tell me what you think. --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 22:48, 8 December 2009 (EST)
::good move--looks better there. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:15, 8 December 2009 (EST)
::: Thank you :) However I'm having trouble inserting the photo I want for the main image. Its being very uncooperative. I have it saved but it just won't convert to how I want it too. Any suggestions? --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 18:24, 9 December 2009 (EST)

A new image would probably be best. Possibly Karl Marx or Lenin or even a picture of the book the Communist Manifesto.

==Weasel words==

* but all of them are built on the premise that social control of the means of production ensures that a community's resources are used in a positive and uplifting manner.

I don't know what "social control" and "community" mean in this context, but it sounds like an assertion that under socialism ordinary members of society would run the economy, rather than (A) big, wealthy, unapproachable self-centered capitalists or (B) big, powerful, unapproachable, corrupt politicians. However, the 2 next examples specify government control, not some small "community". There is a mention (but not an example) of small communities.

Note that the Shakers succeeded, because they had a religious motive, while the leftist experiments failed. This might be significant. Perhaps there are limits on the size of a socialist community, or maybe socialism cannot succeed on a longterm basis without a religious reason for people to want to own all things in common. (My own opinion is that any unit larger than a family will have trouble; a [[family business]] is sustainable.) A monastery or convent can be self-supporting, but it requires new members from outside if all are sworn to celibacy.

A lot of these weasel-word stuff seems designed to hide the fact that socialism is unsuccessful.

Note: We need to see if Sweden is an exception, or if (like NZ and USA) socialist ideas are gradually ruining free economies. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:12, 5 February 2010 (EST)

==Promise and practice==

We need to compare the socialist promise of an economy that run for the benefit of the vast majority of the people rather than for a small [[ruling class]] with the actual results of putting [[socialist]] ideas into practice, in various places.

I don't think socialists will cooperate with this. They do not want to compare their theory to reality, because they would then have to admit their mistakes. Conservatives, at least in the USA, are willing to admit their mistakes, learn from them, and adjust their policies.

Socialists have used tricky words, often with imprecise or shifting definitions, to conceal the contradictions between promise and practice. Let's expose this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:06, 5 February 2010 (EST)

== India is not in the list? ==

Hey people! India is a socialist country. How can you ignore india?

(The preamble of the Indian constitution defines India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic.)

== You seem confused - perhaps I have not understood you... ==

It seems that the article maintains that Socialism is a bad thing - however the current economic conditions whereby the banks and big business (i.e. GM) is maintained by a nationalized system of state ownership. This means that the article maintains socialism is a bad thing only insofar as it does not benefit the 'meek' but only the wealthy and greedy. The previous Conservative Government even set in motion policies to protect inefficient companies such as General Motors on the principle that the markets were best served by the long-term initiatives of the state - wholly outside of the free market capitalist economics, which this site professes to support.

Most of the Conservative right seems to advocate that Wall Street is negative however the whole body of the economic system is based on the speculative risk taking economic practice, which supposedly is wholly different and not dependent on the 'real economy’ that is symbiotic with it. In essence the article contradicts itself - on one hand advocating minimal government involvement and absolute faith in the free market whilst slamming down the 'socialist' economic practice it ultimately has to turn to at some level when this fails. The fallacy exists not in socialist dogma, but in the belief that capitalism works despite clear signs that it does not and repeatedly so in the past.

We can simply look today that despite superpower status, the notable decline in US power next to China - a planned economy with limited market freedom, and this is being felt worldwide. The colossal national debts suggest that capitalism is anything but efficient and very far from a utopian ideal which much of the conservative line paints.

I'm curious to know what your opinions are, or are it possible I have been mislead, or vice versa?--[[User:Sycamore|Sycamore]] 12:26, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
:Socialism is a bad thing. When you have a political philosophy that strips away the human dignity; when you have conduct by others who say what you create belongs to the state and not yourself; when you have substandard medical care paid for by heavy taxation; when you have a majority of Americans being forced to pay for those who refuse to fend for themselves, that's socialism. And all that's needed is guns in their hands, and we have either communism or nazism, depending on the dictator that liberals these days seem to love. You have nothing, Sycamore, which can tell any of us that socialism is a good thing. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:07, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
::Some of the reply makes sense, but I'm still confused as you haven't said much on my comment - if I want to love my neighbor surely it is wrong to tell them to 'fend for themselves' - also if I pay high taxation, is it not better that this money tries to help vulnerable people as opposed to the state paying for those that 'fend for themselves' as we have today. I'm not trying to be difficult or to upset you, but you you seem to have two opinions which don't fit together:)--[[User:Sycamore|Sycamore]] 13:14, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

:::I see a good debate starting here, but too much of it is S and K talking past each other. I want both of you to reply to each other's points before making any additional points of your own. "Seek first to understand, than to be understood" (see [[Stephen Covey]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:01, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
::::Perhaps "S & K" could create a debate page and save the rest of us "S's" liberal ranting? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:44, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
:::::Come on, TK look on the bright side. We could throw a little party for the 1,000,000th time a lib has regaled us with the "glorious benefits" of socialism! [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 18:53, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
LOL! Somehow, Kyle, I doubt that many of the 100,000+ distinct users coming to CP daily care..... ;-) --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:04, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

'''Socialism'''
This article needs some serious work. First off anything to do with the NAZI party needs to be removed as it has nothing to do with Socialism.

Key Points of socialism to consider:

Removal of class systems.
Removal of Private ownership, everything is owned by everyone.
Removal of Government after a period of stability.

Basically read the communist manifesto as that is what socialism is.

Talk:Homosexuality

2012-01-27T23:05:55Z

Harveydent: /* length of article */

[[Talk:homosexuality/archive_Set1|Archives]]

== length of article ==

This article is very long, making it inconvenient to read. Most of the sections here seem to have their own pages. Editing is locked for regular users, so I can't do it, but has there been any discussion condensing the article to make it more reader-friendly? --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 16:25, 26 January 2012 (EST)
:I was actually thinking of adding some material: '''Black pastors confront [[Southern Poverty Law Center]] for smearing as ‘hate groups’''' pro-family organizations opposed to [[homosexual agenda]]. [http://americansfortruth.com/2012/01/16/press-conf-black-pastors-confront-southern-poverty-law-center-for-smearing-pro-family-organizations-opposed-to-homosexual-agenda-as-hate-groups/] Reverend Dr. Patrick Wooden declared that it is wrong to compare “my beautiful blackness” with [[homosexuality|homosexual]] perversion.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:41, 26 January 2012 (EST)

::I fail to see how that, or much of this article for that matter, is pertinent to an explanation of the general concept of homosexuality. Reading through an article with 29 sections of text is just laborious. Especially when most of the sections appear to already have their own articles. This is one of the flagship articles here, making it so over the top that newcomers are discouraged from reading it might be counterproductive to the cause. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 23:23, 26 January 2012 (EST)
:::Why don't you write an alternative article and see if the owner of the site likes it better? Show Conservapedia how it's done. I wish you the best should you decide to pursue this endeavor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:51, 26 January 2012 (EST)
:::::I'll take that bet. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 00:06, 27 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Can you show us outstanding well researched works you have composed already? If so, where are they? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:41, 27 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::In journals you've never heard of and books you'll never read. More seriously, you have offered a friendly competition. It is audacious, but I accept your challenge. Out of sportsmanship, we should let the articles speak for themselves instead of starting an argument on the talk page. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 01:44, 27 January 2012 (EST)

== Validity of the article's content ==

Almost every line of this article is either false or libel. Even for a conservative this is demeaning and hateful.